It's called 'Polar Bear love' and it is defiantly that - if you have a problem to solve, watching this will make it easier.
https://youtu.be/CbILj_CYqno
https://youtu.be/CbILj_CYqno
Wednesday, February 28, 2018
Scott Pruitt Establishes Rule In EPA : No Longer An Enemy of The People
If you ever wondered why the progressive socialist liberal democrats loved the Environmental Protection Agency(EPA), and hate Scott Pruitt, the new administrator selected by Donald
Trump, wonder no longer.
Trump, wonder no longer.
The EPA was the single worst and most corrupted agency in the entire government, even perhaps worse then the IRS or the DOJ. Worse then The State Department? The FBI?
The EPA's authoritarian rule was dismantling our Constitution before our very eyes. A true national security risk if not a Constitutional crisis.
The EPA's authoritarian rule was dismantling our Constitution before our very eyes. A true national security risk if not a Constitutional crisis.
The EPA during the Ogbjma administration was a stand alone ''government'' in it's own 'right', believing they have the power to do the bidding of the president. They made decisions and then made them law without the consent of congress. They were given a mandate to rule as they saw fit which they did with an iron fist.
Now it's apparent the criminals have been turned out and common sense has come to turn this monster away from the precipice of total authoritarian rule by progressive liberal ideological sycophant socialist democrats. They want to do us harm.
The Weaponization of the EPA Is Over: An Exclusive Interview With Scott Pruitt
Rob Bluey
/
@RobertBluey
/
In his first year as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt has already transformed the agency in many ways. He spoke exclusively to The Daily Signal before addressing attendees at the Conservative Political Action Conference’s annual Reagan Dinner. An edited transcript of the interview is below.
Rob Bluey: You gave a speech at CPAC last year where you were just at the beginning of your tenure at the Environmental Protection Agency, and you outlined some of the things that you wanted to do. Here we are a year later, you’ve repealed, taken back, 22 regulations at a savings at $1 billion, a significant contribution to the U.S. economy, as President Donald Trump talked about in his speech. What does that mean?
Scott Pruitt: Busy year. And it was great to be at CPAC about two weeks after having been sworn in last year. And I talked last year about the future ain’t what it used to be, that Yogi Berra quote that I cited about the change that was gonna take place at the agency and I think we’ve been about that change the last year. Focusing on rule of law, restoring process and order, making sure that we engage in cooperative federalism as we engage in regulation.
But the key to me is that weaponization of the agency that took place in the Obama administration, where the agency was used to pick winners and losers. Those days are over.
You know, to be in Pennsylvania as I was early in my term, shortly after the CPAC speech last year, and to spend time with miners in Pennsylvania and be able to share with them underground. I was a thousand feet underground and 3 miles in. First time that an administrator in history had done that, and I talked to those long wall miners in Pennsylvania, and delivered the message from the president that the war on coal is over. That was a tremendous message for them, emotion that I saw on their faces.
Can you imagine, in the first instance, an agency of the federal government, a department of the U.S. government, declaring war on a sector of your economy? Where is that in the statute? Where does that authority exist? It doesn’t. And so to restore process and restore commitment to doing things the right way, I think we’ve seen tremendous success this past year.
Watch the video : https://youtu.be/U7nDuHmm0LE
Bluey: President Trump cited a number of examples that have come out of EPA in his speech to the CPAC attendees, and one of them was coal, another one was the Paris climate treaty. Talk about those two issues and your work with the president in terms of why you decided to take those actions in conjunction with him?
Pruitt: The president’s decision to exit the Paris accord—tremendously courageous. When you look at that decision, it put America first, which is what the president said in the Rose Garden in June.
What was decided in Paris under the past administration was not about carbon reduction. It was about penalties to our own economy because China and India, under that accord, didn’t have to take any steps to reduce CO2 until the year 2030. So, if it’s really about CO2 reduction, why do you let that happen?
When you look at who’s led the world in CO2 reduction, it’s us. From the year 2000 to 2014, we reduced our CO2 footprint almost 20 percent through innovation and technology. So, we have nothing to be apologetic about as a country, and yet, the past administration went to Paris, hat in hand, and said, “Penalize our economy”, which is what happened with the Clean Power Plan.
The president saying no to that and putting America first was the tremendously courageous and right thing to do. I’m very excited about that decision. I know he talked about that in his speech and it was a wonderful decision he made, and I think great for the American people.
Overall, this regulatory reform agenda—this regulatory certainty that we’re about—is achieving good things for the environment, but it’s also achieving, as you say, good things for our economy. We can do both. And I think that’s what’s key.
Bluey: President Trump certainly cited deregulation as just as significant, I believe he said, as the tax cuts. We’ve seen some of the benefits for many American businesses, and certainly American workers as a result of that.
Pruitt: When you think about an EPA—armed, weaponized, if you will—like a rule like WOTUS, the Waters of the United States rule, that would take a puddle and turn into a lake. To take land use decisions away from farmers and ranchers and landowners across this country, and people think it was just farming and ranching. It was the building of subdivisions. It was really all land use decisions.
I was in Utah last year meeting with some folks there that were building a subdivision, and there was an Army Corps of Engineers representative that was standing outside the subdivision with me, and he pointed to an ephemeral drainage ditch and he said, “Scott, that’s a water of the United States.” And I said, “Well, it’s not gonna be anymore.”
That’s exactly the kind of attitude that drove the past administration. It was all about power. It wasn’t about outcomes necessarily. It was about power and picking winners and losers, and we’re getting that corrected.
Bluey: That’s one thing I want to talk to you about because right now your agency is going across the country. You’re having hearings on the Clean Power Plan. You’re trying to get input from Americans, and not just Americans in Washington, D.C., and the Beltway, but places like Wyoming and Missouri and West Virginia. Why is that important to get out and hear from Americans about how government affects their lives?
Pruitt: Couple things: One, we’ve been to 30-plus states. And as we’ve met with stakeholders, farmers and ranchers, and those in the utility sector and the energy sector, landowners, representatives from the state’s governors, and DEQs from across the country, I think what we didn’t recognize over the last several years with the past administration is that those folks are partners. They care about outcomes.
Think about those farmers and those ranchers. They’re our first conservationists. They’re our first environmentalists. I think of the young man, David, in Florida that I meant about a month ago, 12 years old. I was speaking to a group of individuals in Florida. David was there with his dad and his granddad was there. Now, think about what their greatest asset is? Their land. And they’re teaching David how to cultivate and harvest and care for that land and act as a steward.
That’s the message we’re sending across the country. We shouldn’t start from the premise that those folks are adversaries or don’t care about clean air or clean water. We should start from the premise that they do, and work with them to achieve good outcomes. That’s the difference in how we approach it versus the past administration.
Bluey: That leads to my next question. When we last spoke in October, we talked about what true environmentalism really means, and I’d like you to share again how you’re approaching that.
Pruitt: It’s a very important question because I think when you look at what is true environmentalism, the past administration said prohibition.
Though we have natural gas and oil and coal and all these natural resources that we’re blessed with as a country, they approached it by saying, “Put up fences. Do not touch.” And that’s just simply wrong-headed in my view.
What we should be about is stewardship. Recognizing that God has blessed us with those resources, that we have an obligation to use them responsibly and environmentally stewardship focused with respect to future generations, and we can do that.
This notion that we cannot be about jobs and stewardship of the environment is just simply not right. We’ve always done that well as a country. We haven’t had to choose. The past administration had to choose. Jobs or environmental protection? We’re saying environmental stewardship and jobs in the economy. We can do both together.
Bluey: One of the things I know you’ve been focused on is making the EPA, as an agency, run more efficiently. And you talked to me before about how you brought in a staff that is really committed to doing that. How has that progressed?
Pruitt: It’s exciting. Exciting. I mean permitting is one of those areas that I think is a great representation of that, a great measurement better put.
When you have a permitting processes that take 10, 12, 15 years, that’s not permitting. That’s obstruction. That isn’t an answer. That’s just simply a delay tactic in my view.
We are going through a process right now that, by the end of this year, every decision we make on a permit at the agency will be done within six months, up or down. Now, states do it all the time. States have processes in place where they’re making decisions between six months and a year, and we don’t.
We’re getting accountability across the country in regions and in headquarters, and it’s gonna be done by the end of the year.
That’s something that is very exciting to me, but when you think about the core mission of our agency, we’ve done something else that’s very important. We’re setting goals.
We’re saying, “Where do we wanna be air attainment?” Those air quality standards that we have, where do we need to be five years from now? What about Superfund sites? What about water infrastructure? How do we avoid a Flint, Michigan, and a Gold King, Colorado? How do we take the backlog of chemicals? How do we address the state of limitation plans that states have submitted to improve air quality, and work through that backlog?
Let’s set objective measurements and measure them every single day, and challenge everyone to meet those goals. And it’s exciting. And people are really, I think, getting vested and invested in it.
Bluey: Last fall, you took action on sue and settle. You decided to end that practice. What has that meant in the months since you’ve taken that action?
Pruitt: Well, Rob, you get this, but how damaging was that to rulemaking when the sue and settle practice—a third-party group comes in and sues the agency, goes into a courtroom somewhere in the country, agrees to a substantive rule in the course of that settlement, puts it into consent decree, and then goes all over the country and says, “This is what you have to do across the country.”
Now, that’s abusive. That’s not how the process should work. You should not have a sue and settle process to bypass rulemaking. So, I ended it.
I sent a memo out to the entire agency that said gone are the days of us going into a backroom at a courtroom, and make a decision with one party that affects the entire country.
We’re going to do rulemaking the right way. We’re going to publish our rules. We’re going to take comment on those rules. We’re going to respond to those comments. We’re going to finalize the rules. That’s what Congress has required of us. That’s what we’re going to do. It’s going to make a substantial difference.
One other area that we’ve addressed that I think is equally important is this area of our advisory committees. These scientists that serve on advisory committees that help us do rulemaking because, as you know, when we make a decision, we don’t just snap our finger. We have to build a record. There’s scientific inquiry. There’s evaluation, data, methodology. All of those things take place with water, air, whatever the rulemaking is.
As that record is built, you have advisory committees, you have scientists that advise me as the administrator and the agency as a whole on the efficacy, the merits of that rule. Well, those scientists, we have many scientists that serve on those advisory committees that were also getting grants from the agency that were supposed to be given as independent counsel. In fact, we had several scientists receive almost $77 million over the last three years.
I said to those individuals, “Look, you can receive the grant, but you can’t serve on the advisory committee. Or you can serve on the advisory committee but not receive the grant. Choose this day what you’re going to do.”
We got accountability there to ensure the independence of the scientific basis by which we were doing rulemaking. That’s the process changes we’re engaged in that I think lead to good results at the end, and it’s what the American people deserve.
Bluey: Follow up to that last point you made. I know that when you announced that change, obviously there was a big uproar in the media and among those people who didn’t like the fact that you were trying to make this change. What have the results been in the months that followed?
Pruitt: Common sense is not too common, and so, I think when we make those kind of commonsense changes it’s disruptive to the status quo, but frankly, the status quo needs to be disrupted in these areas.
We’re getting good accountability, good transparent outcomes. The other thing that’s just amazing to me is that the agency historically, as it’s done rulemaking, it contracts studies to third parties. It doesn’t do the science itself in some instances, it goes to a third party and says, “You do the science for us, give us the findings.” But then when the findings come back to the agency, they don’t provide the methodology, nor do they provide the data. And so there’s no transparency in that process. We’re going to get accountability there as well.
These matters, at the end of the day, I think are what we should be focused upon. As we do our work, do it with a commitment to transparency and objectivity, making sure that we have a record that is solid, and in making informed decisions about the rules that we’re passing so that the American people have a voice, and that we know how it’s going to impact positively the environment, but also the cost-benefit aspect.
Bluey: Speaking at the Reagan Dinner at CPAC is a real honor. There have been many who’ve come before you and had this opportunity to address the audience. What message do you want to leave the CPAC attendees this year?
Pruitt: This first year as I’ve served, and as the president has served this country, he’s a person of results.
You think about the State of the Union. His message that night was powerful. I think it was very powerful. But it was powerful because he said look what we’ve accomplished this past year. Look what we promised, look what we’ve done, look at the impact it’s having on the economy. And look what’s going to happen as we go into 2018.
I love how the president leads with a commitment to getting results. And I think the American people, as I serve in this capacity, we’ve got to focus on what. Key objectives that we want to achieve for the environment. Air, land, water, removing solid waste and hazardous wastes.
What are our objectives? Let’s focus on those to address all those very good things for the environment. But let’s also recognize that we have to have an attitude that says we can be about natural resource management and environmental stewardship, that we don’t have to choose. That’s one of the greatest challenges we have as a country. We need to get that question right and that answer right because we have so much opportunity.
It’s an exciting time to be serving. There’s wonderful things happening. And this country, I’m telling you, the growth that we’re seeing, it’s only the beginning. As we get together next year, which I pray we do, we’re going to celebrate another year of progress.
You talk about those 22 actions of $1 billion [at the EPA], $8 billion as a total for the administration. That’s really quite amazing. We’re going to see that continue through courageous leadership, and focus on getting results.
In his first year as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt has already transformed the agency in many ways. He spoke exclusively to The Daily Signal before addressing attendees at the Conservative Political Action Conference’s annual Reagan Dinner. An edited transcript of the interview is below.
Rob Bluey: You gave a speech at CPAC last year where you were just at the beginning of your tenure at the Environmental Protection Agency, and you outlined some of the things that you wanted to do. Here we are a year later, you’ve repealed, taken back, 22 regulations at a savings at $1 billion, a significant contribution to the U.S. economy, as President Donald Trump talked about in his speech. What does that mean?
Scott Pruitt: Busy year. And it was great to be at CPAC about two weeks after having been sworn in last year. And I talked last year about the future ain’t what it used to be, that Yogi Berra quote that I cited about the change that was gonna take place at the agency and I think we’ve been about that change the last year. Focusing on rule of law, restoring process and order, making sure that we engage in cooperative federalism as we engage in regulation.
But the key to me is that weaponization of the agency that took place in the Obama administration, where the agency was used to pick winners and losers. Those days are over.
You know, to be in Pennsylvania as I was early in my term, shortly after the CPAC speech last year, and to spend time with miners in Pennsylvania and be able to share with them underground. I was a thousand feet underground and 3 miles in. First time that an administrator in history had done that, and I talked to those long wall miners in Pennsylvania, and delivered the message from the president that the war on coal is over. That was a tremendous message for them, emotion that I saw on their faces.
Can you imagine, in the first instance, an agency of the federal government, a department of the U.S. government, declaring war on a sector of your economy? Where is that in the statute? Where does that authority exist? It doesn’t. And so to restore process and restore commitment to doing things the right way, I think we’ve seen tremendous success this past year.
Watch the video : https://youtu.be/U7nDuHmm0LE
Bluey: President Trump cited a number of examples that have come out of EPA in his speech to the CPAC attendees, and one of them was coal, another one was the Paris climate treaty. Talk about those two issues and your work with the president in terms of why you decided to take those actions in conjunction with him?
Pruitt: The president’s decision to exit the Paris accord—tremendously courageous. When you look at that decision, it put America first, which is what the president said in the Rose Garden in June.
What was decided in Paris under the past administration was not about carbon reduction. It was about penalties to our own economy because China and India, under that accord, didn’t have to take any steps to reduce CO2 until the year 2030. So, if it’s really about CO2 reduction, why do you let that happen?
When you look at who’s led the world in CO2 reduction, it’s us. From the year 2000 to 2014, we reduced our CO2 footprint almost 20 percent through innovation and technology. So, we have nothing to be apologetic about as a country, and yet, the past administration went to Paris, hat in hand, and said, “Penalize our economy”, which is what happened with the Clean Power Plan.
The president saying no to that and putting America first was the tremendously courageous and right thing to do. I’m very excited about that decision. I know he talked about that in his speech and it was a wonderful decision he made, and I think great for the American people.
Overall, this regulatory reform agenda—this regulatory certainty that we’re about—is achieving good things for the environment, but it’s also achieving, as you say, good things for our economy. We can do both. And I think that’s what’s key.
Bluey: President Trump certainly cited deregulation as just as significant, I believe he said, as the tax cuts. We’ve seen some of the benefits for many American businesses, and certainly American workers as a result of that.
Pruitt: When you think about an EPA—armed, weaponized, if you will—like a rule like WOTUS, the Waters of the United States rule, that would take a puddle and turn into a lake. To take land use decisions away from farmers and ranchers and landowners across this country, and people think it was just farming and ranching. It was the building of subdivisions. It was really all land use decisions.
I was in Utah last year meeting with some folks there that were building a subdivision, and there was an Army Corps of Engineers representative that was standing outside the subdivision with me, and he pointed to an ephemeral drainage ditch and he said, “Scott, that’s a water of the United States.” And I said, “Well, it’s not gonna be anymore.”
That’s exactly the kind of attitude that drove the past administration. It was all about power. It wasn’t about outcomes necessarily. It was about power and picking winners and losers, and we’re getting that corrected.
Bluey: That’s one thing I want to talk to you about because right now your agency is going across the country. You’re having hearings on the Clean Power Plan. You’re trying to get input from Americans, and not just Americans in Washington, D.C., and the Beltway, but places like Wyoming and Missouri and West Virginia. Why is that important to get out and hear from Americans about how government affects their lives?
Pruitt: Couple things: One, we’ve been to 30-plus states. And as we’ve met with stakeholders, farmers and ranchers, and those in the utility sector and the energy sector, landowners, representatives from the state’s governors, and DEQs from across the country, I think what we didn’t recognize over the last several years with the past administration is that those folks are partners. They care about outcomes.
Think about those farmers and those ranchers. They’re our first conservationists. They’re our first environmentalists. I think of the young man, David, in Florida that I meant about a month ago, 12 years old. I was speaking to a group of individuals in Florida. David was there with his dad and his granddad was there. Now, think about what their greatest asset is? Their land. And they’re teaching David how to cultivate and harvest and care for that land and act as a steward.
That’s the message we’re sending across the country. We shouldn’t start from the premise that those folks are adversaries or don’t care about clean air or clean water. We should start from the premise that they do, and work with them to achieve good outcomes. That’s the difference in how we approach it versus the past administration.
Bluey: That leads to my next question. When we last spoke in October, we talked about what true environmentalism really means, and I’d like you to share again how you’re approaching that.
Pruitt: It’s a very important question because I think when you look at what is true environmentalism, the past administration said prohibition.
Though we have natural gas and oil and coal and all these natural resources that we’re blessed with as a country, they approached it by saying, “Put up fences. Do not touch.” And that’s just simply wrong-headed in my view.
What we should be about is stewardship. Recognizing that God has blessed us with those resources, that we have an obligation to use them responsibly and environmentally stewardship focused with respect to future generations, and we can do that.
This notion that we cannot be about jobs and stewardship of the environment is just simply not right. We’ve always done that well as a country. We haven’t had to choose. The past administration had to choose. Jobs or environmental protection? We’re saying environmental stewardship and jobs in the economy. We can do both together.
Bluey: One of the things I know you’ve been focused on is making the EPA, as an agency, run more efficiently. And you talked to me before about how you brought in a staff that is really committed to doing that. How has that progressed?
Pruitt: It’s exciting. Exciting. I mean permitting is one of those areas that I think is a great representation of that, a great measurement better put.
When you have a permitting processes that take 10, 12, 15 years, that’s not permitting. That’s obstruction. That isn’t an answer. That’s just simply a delay tactic in my view.
We are going through a process right now that, by the end of this year, every decision we make on a permit at the agency will be done within six months, up or down. Now, states do it all the time. States have processes in place where they’re making decisions between six months and a year, and we don’t.
We’re getting accountability across the country in regions and in headquarters, and it’s gonna be done by the end of the year.
That’s something that is very exciting to me, but when you think about the core mission of our agency, we’ve done something else that’s very important. We’re setting goals.
We’re saying, “Where do we wanna be air attainment?” Those air quality standards that we have, where do we need to be five years from now? What about Superfund sites? What about water infrastructure? How do we avoid a Flint, Michigan, and a Gold King, Colorado? How do we take the backlog of chemicals? How do we address the state of limitation plans that states have submitted to improve air quality, and work through that backlog?
Let’s set objective measurements and measure them every single day, and challenge everyone to meet those goals. And it’s exciting. And people are really, I think, getting vested and invested in it.
Bluey: Last fall, you took action on sue and settle. You decided to end that practice. What has that meant in the months since you’ve taken that action?
Pruitt: Well, Rob, you get this, but how damaging was that to rulemaking when the sue and settle practice—a third-party group comes in and sues the agency, goes into a courtroom somewhere in the country, agrees to a substantive rule in the course of that settlement, puts it into consent decree, and then goes all over the country and says, “This is what you have to do across the country.”
Now, that’s abusive. That’s not how the process should work. You should not have a sue and settle process to bypass rulemaking. So, I ended it.
I sent a memo out to the entire agency that said gone are the days of us going into a backroom at a courtroom, and make a decision with one party that affects the entire country.
We’re going to do rulemaking the right way. We’re going to publish our rules. We’re going to take comment on those rules. We’re going to respond to those comments. We’re going to finalize the rules. That’s what Congress has required of us. That’s what we’re going to do. It’s going to make a substantial difference.
One other area that we’ve addressed that I think is equally important is this area of our advisory committees. These scientists that serve on advisory committees that help us do rulemaking because, as you know, when we make a decision, we don’t just snap our finger. We have to build a record. There’s scientific inquiry. There’s evaluation, data, methodology. All of those things take place with water, air, whatever the rulemaking is.
As that record is built, you have advisory committees, you have scientists that advise me as the administrator and the agency as a whole on the efficacy, the merits of that rule. Well, those scientists, we have many scientists that serve on those advisory committees that were also getting grants from the agency that were supposed to be given as independent counsel. In fact, we had several scientists receive almost $77 million over the last three years.
I said to those individuals, “Look, you can receive the grant, but you can’t serve on the advisory committee. Or you can serve on the advisory committee but not receive the grant. Choose this day what you’re going to do.”
We got accountability there to ensure the independence of the scientific basis by which we were doing rulemaking. That’s the process changes we’re engaged in that I think lead to good results at the end, and it’s what the American people deserve.
Bluey: Follow up to that last point you made. I know that when you announced that change, obviously there was a big uproar in the media and among those people who didn’t like the fact that you were trying to make this change. What have the results been in the months that followed?
Pruitt: Common sense is not too common, and so, I think when we make those kind of commonsense changes it’s disruptive to the status quo, but frankly, the status quo needs to be disrupted in these areas.
We’re getting good accountability, good transparent outcomes. The other thing that’s just amazing to me is that the agency historically, as it’s done rulemaking, it contracts studies to third parties. It doesn’t do the science itself in some instances, it goes to a third party and says, “You do the science for us, give us the findings.” But then when the findings come back to the agency, they don’t provide the methodology, nor do they provide the data. And so there’s no transparency in that process. We’re going to get accountability there as well.
These matters, at the end of the day, I think are what we should be focused upon. As we do our work, do it with a commitment to transparency and objectivity, making sure that we have a record that is solid, and in making informed decisions about the rules that we’re passing so that the American people have a voice, and that we know how it’s going to impact positively the environment, but also the cost-benefit aspect.
Bluey: Speaking at the Reagan Dinner at CPAC is a real honor. There have been many who’ve come before you and had this opportunity to address the audience. What message do you want to leave the CPAC attendees this year?
Pruitt: This first year as I’ve served, and as the president has served this country, he’s a person of results.
You think about the State of the Union. His message that night was powerful. I think it was very powerful. But it was powerful because he said look what we’ve accomplished this past year. Look what we promised, look what we’ve done, look at the impact it’s having on the economy. And look what’s going to happen as we go into 2018.
I love how the president leads with a commitment to getting results. And I think the American people, as I serve in this capacity, we’ve got to focus on what. Key objectives that we want to achieve for the environment. Air, land, water, removing solid waste and hazardous wastes.
What are our objectives? Let’s focus on those to address all those very good things for the environment. But let’s also recognize that we have to have an attitude that says we can be about natural resource management and environmental stewardship, that we don’t have to choose. That’s one of the greatest challenges we have as a country. We need to get that question right and that answer right because we have so much opportunity.
It’s an exciting time to be serving. There’s wonderful things happening. And this country, I’m telling you, the growth that we’re seeing, it’s only the beginning. As we get together next year, which I pray we do, we’re going to celebrate another year of progress.
You talk about those 22 actions of $1 billion [at the EPA], $8 billion as a total for the administration. That’s really quite amazing. We’re going to see that continue through courageous leadership, and focus on getting results.
Chariman Nunes Explains democrat Cover-Up : democrat Deceit and Treachery?
As the chairman Nunes stated, the progressive democrats having nothing to offer as evidence Nunes and the Republican's memo is wrong. What the screaming and wailing does say is the democrats are empty suits, flailing their collective arms in protest showing some kind of madness boarding on the medial definition of insanity.
What explains this neurological failing is a real fear of the democrats having the general public actually believing Nunes is right and his memo legitimate, and not the progress socialists that cannot refute it.
The progressive socialist liberal democrats have nothing to offer the population as issues or programs that the Republicans haven't already instigated. Oh, and they are working to the benefit of the larger population.
In truth, don't vote for a democrat at any level of government. If you do you risk your family's well being and threaten the nations security. Understand, democrats are not nice people. They mean to do us all harm just as a matter of accomplishing their agenda to recover power.
House Intelligence Chairman Says Democrats Are Guilty of Government Cover-Up
The chairman of the House intelligence committee is accusing his Democrat colleagues of trying to cover up wrongdoing in the government’s surveillance of a former campaign aide to then-candidate Donald Trump.
Speaking to The Daily Signal moments after a Democrat memo was released Saturday, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., said the long-awaited document is so shocking because of what it reveals about the Obama administration, Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, and Democrat operatives.
“We really wanted it out because it’s clear evidence that the Democrats are trying to actually not only collude, but they’re colluding with a cover-up. And they’re trying to cover up the fact that the Democrats and the Hillary campaign paid for dirt and it was used by the FBI,” Nunes told The Daily Signal after speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference.
“It’s amazing they’re actually willing to write a memo that actually says that—as if it’s OK for that to happen. Because it’s simply not OK,” he added.
Watch the video : https://youtu.be/KzzpCv_i2MQ
In his remarks to CPAC attendees, Nunes addressed why it took so long for Democrats to release their memo. “The FBI and [Department of Justice] right away had told the Democrats what was wrong with their response to our memo. And they waited for two weeks before they actually did the redactions that were necessary to get this out,” Nunes said at CPAC.
“We think it is clear evidence that the Democrats are not only trying to cover this up, but they are also colluding with parts of the government to help cover this up,” he added.
On Feb. 2, the House intelligence committee released a memo that showed opposition research was conducted against Trump, funded by Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee, and was part of the Obama administration’s application to conduct surveillance on Trump campaign aide Carter Page, as The Daily Signal previously reported.
The investigation of Trump’s supposed collusion with Russia and possible coordination during the election campaign is now the subject of a widening probe by special counsel Robert Mueller. Nunes told CPAC attendees the Democrat memo, despite its hype, doesn’t rebut the earlier claims made by Republicans.
“I think as you read it, you will see personal attacks on myself, personal attacks on Chairman [Trey] Gowdy, with a lot of really interesting things that sound really bad—like a lot that has been happening in this Russia investigation over the course of the last year,” Nunes said. “But what you are not going to see is anything that actually rejects what was in our memo.”
“The point of our memo was for one purpose only,” Nunes added, “and that was to show that FISA abuse had occurred. To have a secret court that gets abused like this is totally unacceptable.”
CPAC, the largest annual national gathering of conservative activists, ran from Thursday to Saturday at the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center in National Harbor, Maryland, just outside Washington.
This story was updated to include quotes from The Daily Signal’s interview with Nunes.
What explains this neurological failing is a real fear of the democrats having the general public actually believing Nunes is right and his memo legitimate, and not the progress socialists that cannot refute it.
The progressive socialist liberal democrats have nothing to offer the population as issues or programs that the Republicans haven't already instigated. Oh, and they are working to the benefit of the larger population.
In truth, don't vote for a democrat at any level of government. If you do you risk your family's well being and threaten the nations security. Understand, democrats are not nice people. They mean to do us all harm just as a matter of accomplishing their agenda to recover power.
 |
| Chairman Nunes explaining democrat cover-up deceit and treachery. |
House Intelligence Chairman Says Democrats Are Guilty of Government Cover-Up
The chairman of the House intelligence committee is accusing his Democrat colleagues of trying to cover up wrongdoing in the government’s surveillance of a former campaign aide to then-candidate Donald Trump.
Speaking to The Daily Signal moments after a Democrat memo was released Saturday, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., said the long-awaited document is so shocking because of what it reveals about the Obama administration, Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, and Democrat operatives.
“We really wanted it out because it’s clear evidence that the Democrats are trying to actually not only collude, but they’re colluding with a cover-up. And they’re trying to cover up the fact that the Democrats and the Hillary campaign paid for dirt and it was used by the FBI,” Nunes told The Daily Signal after speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference.
“It’s amazing they’re actually willing to write a memo that actually says that—as if it’s OK for that to happen. Because it’s simply not OK,” he added.
Watch the video : https://youtu.be/KzzpCv_i2MQ
In his remarks to CPAC attendees, Nunes addressed why it took so long for Democrats to release their memo. “The FBI and [Department of Justice] right away had told the Democrats what was wrong with their response to our memo. And they waited for two weeks before they actually did the redactions that were necessary to get this out,” Nunes said at CPAC.
“We think it is clear evidence that the Democrats are not only trying to cover this up, but they are also colluding with parts of the government to help cover this up,” he added.
On Feb. 2, the House intelligence committee released a memo that showed opposition research was conducted against Trump, funded by Clinton’s presidential campaign and the Democratic National Committee, and was part of the Obama administration’s application to conduct surveillance on Trump campaign aide Carter Page, as The Daily Signal previously reported.
The investigation of Trump’s supposed collusion with Russia and possible coordination during the election campaign is now the subject of a widening probe by special counsel Robert Mueller. Nunes told CPAC attendees the Democrat memo, despite its hype, doesn’t rebut the earlier claims made by Republicans.
“I think as you read it, you will see personal attacks on myself, personal attacks on Chairman [Trey] Gowdy, with a lot of really interesting things that sound really bad—like a lot that has been happening in this Russia investigation over the course of the last year,” Nunes said. “But what you are not going to see is anything that actually rejects what was in our memo.”
“The point of our memo was for one purpose only,” Nunes added, “and that was to show that FISA abuse had occurred. To have a secret court that gets abused like this is totally unacceptable.”
CPAC, the largest annual national gathering of conservative activists, ran from Thursday to Saturday at the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center in National Harbor, Maryland, just outside Washington.
This story was updated to include quotes from The Daily Signal’s interview with Nunes.
Feminism On The March : Many Feminist Are Excluded
 |
| Is delusion or ignorance of who they really are? |
What exactly does it mean to be a modern feminist? I'm still confused. It appears that the movement is designed to gain power for a select few at the expense of the many, that is all women.
The leading feminist proclaim the movement is all inclusive, but after reading the fine print it is really all about the politics of getting the power to control outcomes.
Modern feminism is all about the politics of having an advantage over others. Modern feminism is about the exclusion of those opposing the ideology.
Those that believe modern feminism should be a women's right to live a safe and productive life as a legitimate member of the community are left out of the conversation. But in reality are excluded as they don't accept the modern agenda and ideology of feminism as a means to divide women from men and at the same time use all women as stepping stones to gain national power.
#UsToo: How Liberal Feminism Excludes Millions of Women
The leading feminist proclaim the movement is all inclusive, but after reading the fine print it is really all about the politics of getting the power to control outcomes.
Modern feminism is all about the politics of having an advantage over others. Modern feminism is about the exclusion of those opposing the ideology.
Those that believe modern feminism should be a women's right to live a safe and productive life as a legitimate member of the community are left out of the conversation. But in reality are excluded as they don't accept the modern agenda and ideology of feminism as a means to divide women from men and at the same time use all women as stepping stones to gain national power.
#UsToo: How Liberal Feminism Excludes Millions of Women
Kelsey Harkness
/
@kelseyjharkness
/
As Americans, it’s rare we engage in a national conversation while putting our political beliefs aside. Mass murders like the Columbine school shooting and 9/11 once united us. But in the era of Donald Trump, they’ve deepened our divisions.
That’s why the conversation surrounding the #MeToo movement is so unique. Democrats, Republicans, liberals, and conservatives have—for the most part—put their political beliefs aside to speak out against sexual violence.
But just because people from diverse perspectives are engaged in the movement doesn’t mean #MeToo is devoid of political inspirations or end goals. Already, Democrats have used it to pressure President Donald Trump to resign.
Whether motivated by moral judgment or a distaste for his presidency, these calls are dangerous and threaten to hurt an already fragile conversation. Yes, the president has faced some serious allegations, and those deserve to be addressed. But in 2016, Americans were well aware of his behavior and chose to vote for him anyway. Using #MeToo as a political weapon against the president runs the risk of driving Republicans away.
So should conservative women embrace the #MeToo movement or stay away? Already, some have established a safe distance. Others have gone all-in, while a few appear to resent it. Why? Because the #MeToo movement isn’t perfect, and conservative women are used to being ignored.
#MeToo Isn’t Perfect
#MeToo has more problems than one. Lazy journalism has conflated sexual harassment with sexual assault. Accused men don’t always get due process. And in every direction, the media would have you believe the movement is all thanks to liberal Hollywood and the far-left Women’s March, despite conservative women such as Gretchen Carlson who have paved the way.
Even with its flaws, I would argue #MeToo has done far more good than harm. Others may disagree, but when 51 percent of American women report experiencing unwelcome sexual touching and 30 percent report being flashed or shown male genitalia against their will, it’s clear that a conversation surrounding sexual assault and harassment was overdue.
Conservative women know this, but some, including myself, are still skeptical. Instead of reacting to our skepticism with resentment, consider taking a moment to understand why conservative women respond with caution to a movement that’s become so closely associated with modern feminism as defined by the left.
Lessons From the Women’s March
Watch the video : https://youtu.be/7v5fyEJJU_E
In November 2016, after Trump was elected president, a grandmother in Hawaii had the novel idea to launch a “Million Women March,” which later became known as the Women’s March. Although inspired by rhetoric on the 2016 campaign trail, the organizers promised the march wasn’t about protesting Trump—it was about how “women’s rights are human rights,” a message we could all support. This message was broad enough to attract some Never Trumpers, pro-life feminists, and rape survivors who support the Second Amendment.
But quickly, we learned, these views were far too problematic.
A few months after casting a wide and blind net for support, with women protesting to achieve reforms they didn’t yet know about, the Women’s March organizers released their policy positions, revealing how radical their feminist agenda really is:
Government-funded abortion without any restrictions.
Government-mandated paid family leave.
Rights for illegal immigrants and refugees regardless of status or country of origin.
It’s safe to say more than a few of us felt left out or, worse, misrepresented by a movement that claimed to represent us. But it wasn’t just the liberal platform that left a bad taste in the mouths of many conservative women, or the march organizers’ decision to exclude a diversity of thought. It was also their inaction when it came to addressing actual human rights violations around the world that led conservative women to say, “Enough.”
Watch the video : https://youtu.be/jgJ6AP0orr8
Is This What Feminism Looks Like?
Time and time again, the Women’s March has failed to live up to one of its most important themes: “Women’s rights are human rights, and human rights are women’s rights.” One early example of this dates back to its decision to hijack attention from International Women’s Day and turn it into yet another anti-Trump protest. “A Day Without a Woman” was a massive failure, and overlooked what International Women’s Day should have been all about.
Then, the Women’s March said nothing when Saudi women were granted the right to drive. Why? Likely because one of its leaders, Palestinian-American political activist Linda Sarsour, a Muslim, is a defender of Sharia law.
Most recently, the Women’s March ignored protests in Iran, where women have taken their hijabs off in public at the risk of facing arrest. Instead of voicing support for a movement protesting real inequalities, the Women’s March tweeted about Macy’s deciding to sell hijabs in its department stores.
The Women’s March is a self-serving entity that excludes not just women who disagree with the organizers politically, but women who are really in need of our help. And yet, most of the media has enabled the Women’s March to define feminism in the era of Trump, leaving conservative women in an awkward spot.
Does #MeToo include #UsToo? That was the question that Marji Ross of Regnery Publishing posed Saturday to Ashley McGuire of the Catholic Association, Mona Charen of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and myself during the Conservative Political Action Conference in National Harbor, Maryland.
Watch the video : https://www.facebook.com/TheDailySignalNews/videos/1013565475476071/
#UsToo: Left Out by the Left
If you ask conservative women whether they identify as feminists, you’ll likely received mixed responses. Some, such as White House senior adviser Kellyanne Conway, resist the term because it’s too closely associated with “anti-male” and “pro-abortion.”
“It’s difficult for me to call myself a feminist in a classic sense because it seems to be very anti-male, and it certainly is very pro-abortion, and I’m neither anti-male or pro-abortion,” Conway said last year at CPAC. “I look at myself as a product of my choices, not a victim of my circumstances.”
(If you don’t believe Conway about the left’s viewing abortion as a litmus test for feminism, then take it from abortion activist Erin Matson. “There is no such thing as a feminism that tolerates opposition to abortion,” Matson announced to applause at the Detroit Women’s March convention. “It is simply impossible to be a feminist and oppose a woman’s right to her own body.”)
The term “feminism” has undoubtedly been hijacked by anti-male, pro-abortion extremists. But among conservative women, you’ll find a diversity of thought as to whether they reject it. (This diversity of thought would never be allowed on the feminist left.)
First-wave feminists such as Susan B. Anthony made important strides for women that we should never take for granted. Full-throatedly rejecting the term “feminism” does a disservice to their work.
But how do we square our debt to them when second- and third-wave feminists have gone so far in watering down the term to mean you’re oppressed because you were mocked for wearing a dress in the cold? That, in my opinion, is equally a disservice to their work.
True feminism requires diversity of thought. It requires an agreement to disagree while still supporting women, and an ability to look beyond ourselves and survey how all women are faring in our world. When we see injustices in the United States, we must call them out. But feminists should never equate injustices with inequalities.
That is insulting to the 200 million girls and women in the Middle East and Africa who are subjected to female genital mutilation, in which part or all of their genitalia is removed. That is insulting to the 39,000 little girls who are forced into an arranged marriage every day. That is insulting to the millions of women in the Middle East who still don’t have equality before the law, and are stifled by oppressive regimes.
First-wave feminism is still needed in many countries. It’s easy to forget how privileged we are in the U.S. to be in a place where we can have the #MeToo conversation. In other parts of the world, sexual assault and physical abuse is still a fact of life for far too many women.
Feminists such as those who subscribe to the Women’s March would be wise to open their eyes to these realities and join hands with conservative women to say not just #MeToo, but #UsToo.
Instead of narrowing the definition of feminism to include only the most radical of views, let’s broaden it. With all those women, I can only imagine what we could do.
As Americans, it’s rare we engage in a national conversation while putting our political beliefs aside. Mass murders like the Columbine school shooting and 9/11 once united us. But in the era of Donald Trump, they’ve deepened our divisions.
That’s why the conversation surrounding the #MeToo movement is so unique. Democrats, Republicans, liberals, and conservatives have—for the most part—put their political beliefs aside to speak out against sexual violence.
But just because people from diverse perspectives are engaged in the movement doesn’t mean #MeToo is devoid of political inspirations or end goals. Already, Democrats have used it to pressure President Donald Trump to resign.
Whether motivated by moral judgment or a distaste for his presidency, these calls are dangerous and threaten to hurt an already fragile conversation. Yes, the president has faced some serious allegations, and those deserve to be addressed. But in 2016, Americans were well aware of his behavior and chose to vote for him anyway. Using #MeToo as a political weapon against the president runs the risk of driving Republicans away.
So should conservative women embrace the #MeToo movement or stay away? Already, some have established a safe distance. Others have gone all-in, while a few appear to resent it. Why? Because the #MeToo movement isn’t perfect, and conservative women are used to being ignored.
#MeToo Isn’t Perfect
#MeToo has more problems than one. Lazy journalism has conflated sexual harassment with sexual assault. Accused men don’t always get due process. And in every direction, the media would have you believe the movement is all thanks to liberal Hollywood and the far-left Women’s March, despite conservative women such as Gretchen Carlson who have paved the way.
Even with its flaws, I would argue #MeToo has done far more good than harm. Others may disagree, but when 51 percent of American women report experiencing unwelcome sexual touching and 30 percent report being flashed or shown male genitalia against their will, it’s clear that a conversation surrounding sexual assault and harassment was overdue.
Conservative women know this, but some, including myself, are still skeptical. Instead of reacting to our skepticism with resentment, consider taking a moment to understand why conservative women respond with caution to a movement that’s become so closely associated with modern feminism as defined by the left.
Lessons From the Women’s March
Watch the video : https://youtu.be/7v5fyEJJU_E
In November 2016, after Trump was elected president, a grandmother in Hawaii had the novel idea to launch a “Million Women March,” which later became known as the Women’s March. Although inspired by rhetoric on the 2016 campaign trail, the organizers promised the march wasn’t about protesting Trump—it was about how “women’s rights are human rights,” a message we could all support. This message was broad enough to attract some Never Trumpers, pro-life feminists, and rape survivors who support the Second Amendment.
But quickly, we learned, these views were far too problematic.
A few months after casting a wide and blind net for support, with women protesting to achieve reforms they didn’t yet know about, the Women’s March organizers released their policy positions, revealing how radical their feminist agenda really is:
Government-funded abortion without any restrictions.
Government-mandated paid family leave.
Rights for illegal immigrants and refugees regardless of status or country of origin.
It’s safe to say more than a few of us felt left out or, worse, misrepresented by a movement that claimed to represent us. But it wasn’t just the liberal platform that left a bad taste in the mouths of many conservative women, or the march organizers’ decision to exclude a diversity of thought. It was also their inaction when it came to addressing actual human rights violations around the world that led conservative women to say, “Enough.”
Watch the video : https://youtu.be/jgJ6AP0orr8
Is This What Feminism Looks Like?
Time and time again, the Women’s March has failed to live up to one of its most important themes: “Women’s rights are human rights, and human rights are women’s rights.” One early example of this dates back to its decision to hijack attention from International Women’s Day and turn it into yet another anti-Trump protest. “A Day Without a Woman” was a massive failure, and overlooked what International Women’s Day should have been all about.
Then, the Women’s March said nothing when Saudi women were granted the right to drive. Why? Likely because one of its leaders, Palestinian-American political activist Linda Sarsour, a Muslim, is a defender of Sharia law.
Most recently, the Women’s March ignored protests in Iran, where women have taken their hijabs off in public at the risk of facing arrest. Instead of voicing support for a movement protesting real inequalities, the Women’s March tweeted about Macy’s deciding to sell hijabs in its department stores.
The Women’s March is a self-serving entity that excludes not just women who disagree with the organizers politically, but women who are really in need of our help. And yet, most of the media has enabled the Women’s March to define feminism in the era of Trump, leaving conservative women in an awkward spot.
Does #MeToo include #UsToo? That was the question that Marji Ross of Regnery Publishing posed Saturday to Ashley McGuire of the Catholic Association, Mona Charen of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and myself during the Conservative Political Action Conference in National Harbor, Maryland.
Watch the video : https://www.facebook.com/TheDailySignalNews/videos/1013565475476071/
#UsToo: Left Out by the Left
If you ask conservative women whether they identify as feminists, you’ll likely received mixed responses. Some, such as White House senior adviser Kellyanne Conway, resist the term because it’s too closely associated with “anti-male” and “pro-abortion.”
“It’s difficult for me to call myself a feminist in a classic sense because it seems to be very anti-male, and it certainly is very pro-abortion, and I’m neither anti-male or pro-abortion,” Conway said last year at CPAC. “I look at myself as a product of my choices, not a victim of my circumstances.”
(If you don’t believe Conway about the left’s viewing abortion as a litmus test for feminism, then take it from abortion activist Erin Matson. “There is no such thing as a feminism that tolerates opposition to abortion,” Matson announced to applause at the Detroit Women’s March convention. “It is simply impossible to be a feminist and oppose a woman’s right to her own body.”)
The term “feminism” has undoubtedly been hijacked by anti-male, pro-abortion extremists. But among conservative women, you’ll find a diversity of thought as to whether they reject it. (This diversity of thought would never be allowed on the feminist left.)
First-wave feminists such as Susan B. Anthony made important strides for women that we should never take for granted. Full-throatedly rejecting the term “feminism” does a disservice to their work.
But how do we square our debt to them when second- and third-wave feminists have gone so far in watering down the term to mean you’re oppressed because you were mocked for wearing a dress in the cold? That, in my opinion, is equally a disservice to their work.
True feminism requires diversity of thought. It requires an agreement to disagree while still supporting women, and an ability to look beyond ourselves and survey how all women are faring in our world. When we see injustices in the United States, we must call them out. But feminists should never equate injustices with inequalities.
That is insulting to the 200 million girls and women in the Middle East and Africa who are subjected to female genital mutilation, in which part or all of their genitalia is removed. That is insulting to the 39,000 little girls who are forced into an arranged marriage every day. That is insulting to the millions of women in the Middle East who still don’t have equality before the law, and are stifled by oppressive regimes.
First-wave feminism is still needed in many countries. It’s easy to forget how privileged we are in the U.S. to be in a place where we can have the #MeToo conversation. In other parts of the world, sexual assault and physical abuse is still a fact of life for far too many women.
Feminists such as those who subscribe to the Women’s March would be wise to open their eyes to these realities and join hands with conservative women to say not just #MeToo, but #UsToo.
Instead of narrowing the definition of feminism to include only the most radical of views, let’s broaden it. With all those women, I can only imagine what we could do.
Transgender Policy : Harmful and Wrong
What flies in the face of commons sense is that the transgender community comprises of about .03% of the population, but demands, and for the most part successful in having the entire rest of the population bow down to their personal agenda and ideology of sexual orientation as an ''identity'' and not a biological realty even before birth.
For those of us in the trenches, living a life based on accepted logical psychological and biological realities where a man and a woman are different and for a reason. That cannot be changed by proclamation or government edict from weak and sycophant leaders.
For the entire population of this county to fall to the demands from such a tiny groups of people would be to alter our civil society as it founded from the beginning of time, is immoral and criminal.
For those of us in the trenches, living a life based on accepted logical psychological and biological realities where a man and a woman are different and for a reason. That cannot be changed by proclamation or government edict from weak and sycophant leaders.
For the entire population of this county to fall to the demands from such a tiny groups of people would be to alter our civil society as it founded from the beginning of time, is immoral and criminal.
Here Are 5 Reasons Transgender Policies Are Harmful
Ryan T. Anderson
/
@RyanTAnd
/
Who knew that removing the federal government from debates over school bathroom policies would be considered an assault on LGBT rights?
That’s the argument activists made last week when the Department of Education announced that it would be enforcing Title IX the way the federal government always had—up until the second term of the Obama administration. That’s when the Obama Department of Education announced that the word “sex” now meant “gender identity”—and ordered schools to open up their bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, and dorms accordingly.
It’s understandable why many ordinary Americans recoiled at this transgender mandate. Most Americans—including those who identify as transgender—aren’t activists and want to find ways to peacefully coexist. Most can understand why a man who identifies as a woman doesn’t want to be forced into the men’s room, but also understand why women don’t want a man in the ladies’ room. These concerns are even more heightened when dealing with students.
As I explain in my book, “When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment,” new transgender policies raise five distinct areas of concern—privacy, safety, equality, liberty, and ideology—and the Trump administration is right to reject the radical Obama policies in favor of letting local officials work to find reasonable compromises.
It shouldn’t be hard to see the privacy concerns when men who identify as women can enter female-only spaces. When changing for gym class, most high school girls don’t want to see or be seen by boys who identify as girls.
The reason we have separate facilities in the first place is not because of “gender identity” but because of the bodily differences between males and females. This privacy concern is particularly acute for victims of sexual assault, who testify that seeing naked male bodies can function as a trigger.
Preventing sexual assault comprises another major area of concern. Public safety experts explain that predators abuse gender identity policies to gain access to victims. The concern is not that people who identify as transgender will victimize women, but that perverts will use such policies to do so. Indeed, after Target changed its policies, men disguised as women were caught doing just that.
Activists promote gender identity policies in the name of equality, but isn’t it a violation of equality when biological males compete against females in sports and other arenas where sex differences are relevant? Already a high school girl has lost a state track championship to a boy who was allowed to compete against girls.
Activists also promote gender identity policies in the name of liberty, but isn’t it a violation of liberty to force people to speak or act in ways contrary to their best judgment and deeply held beliefs?
In New York City you can be fined up to a quarter-million dollars for “misgendering” someone. Catholic hospitals are being sued for declining to perform sex-reassignment surgeries. And in its last year, the Obama administration issued a mandate forcing health care plans to cover sex-reassignment procedures and forcing qualified physicians to perform them.
While the mandate doesn’t require that all physicians perform transitions, a surgeon who performs hysterectomies for cancer, for example, would be required to also perform them for sex-reassignment purposes; an endocrinologist who administers testosterone for men with low testosterone would have to do so for women who want to identify as men.
This mandate included no exemptions for religious liberty, no protections for conscience, and no considerations at all about best medical judgment: Many doctors, after all, think hormonal and surgical “transition” procedures to be bad medicine. They consider the appropriate medical response to gender dysphoria to be one directed at the mind and the emotions, not at the body.
Which, of course, leads to the final concern: ideology. Transgender ideology is promoted not only in schools, where children are taught that gender is fluid, falls along a spectrum, and is detached from bodily sex, but increasingly in all walks of life, where no one may dare dissent from transgender-affirming protocols.
Activists go after anyone who expresses any reservation at social transition for 5-year-olds, puberty blockers for 9-year-olds, and testosterone for 14-year-old girls. Just last week a family lost custody of their teenage daughter because a judge ruled that it was in her best interest to receive transition therapy, against her parents’ wishes.
But contrary to the claims of activists, sex isn’t “assigned” at birth—and that’s why it can’t be “reassigned.” Sex is a bodily reality that can be recognized well before birth with ultrasound imaging. Cosmetic surgery and cross-sex hormones don’t change the deeper biological reality. People who undergo sex-reassignment procedures do not become the opposite sex, they merely masculinize or feminize their outward appearance.
The medical evidence suggests that sex reassignment does not adequately address the psychosocial problems suffered by people who identify as transgender. Even when the procedures are successful technically and cosmetically, and even in cultures that are relatively “trans-friendly,” transitioners still face poor outcomes.
In truth, very little is understood about the causes of discordant gender identities. Starting a child on an experimental process of “social transitioning” followed by puberty-blocking drugs and cross-sex hormones was unthinkable not long ago.
As I show in “When Harry Became Sally,” a more cautious therapeutic approach begins by acknowledging that 80 to 95 percent of children with gender dysphoria will grow out of it naturally. Many experts think of gender dysphoria as being much like other kinds of dysphoria, or serious discomfort with one’s body, such as anorexia.
The most helpful therapies do not try to remake the body to conform with thoughts and feelings—which is impossible—but rather to help people to move toward accepting the reality of their bodily selves.
Children are especially vulnerable, and while we need to respect the dignity of people who identify as transgender, we must do everything possible to protect young people and foster their healthy development. That will require acknowledging that it is not discriminatory for public policy to take our sexual embodiment seriously.
Originally published by National Review Online.
Who knew that removing the federal government from debates over school bathroom policies would be considered an assault on LGBT rights?
That’s the argument activists made last week when the Department of Education announced that it would be enforcing Title IX the way the federal government always had—up until the second term of the Obama administration. That’s when the Obama Department of Education announced that the word “sex” now meant “gender identity”—and ordered schools to open up their bathrooms, locker rooms, showers, and dorms accordingly.
It’s understandable why many ordinary Americans recoiled at this transgender mandate. Most Americans—including those who identify as transgender—aren’t activists and want to find ways to peacefully coexist. Most can understand why a man who identifies as a woman doesn’t want to be forced into the men’s room, but also understand why women don’t want a man in the ladies’ room. These concerns are even more heightened when dealing with students.
As I explain in my book, “When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Moment,” new transgender policies raise five distinct areas of concern—privacy, safety, equality, liberty, and ideology—and the Trump administration is right to reject the radical Obama policies in favor of letting local officials work to find reasonable compromises.
It shouldn’t be hard to see the privacy concerns when men who identify as women can enter female-only spaces. When changing for gym class, most high school girls don’t want to see or be seen by boys who identify as girls.
The reason we have separate facilities in the first place is not because of “gender identity” but because of the bodily differences between males and females. This privacy concern is particularly acute for victims of sexual assault, who testify that seeing naked male bodies can function as a trigger.
Preventing sexual assault comprises another major area of concern. Public safety experts explain that predators abuse gender identity policies to gain access to victims. The concern is not that people who identify as transgender will victimize women, but that perverts will use such policies to do so. Indeed, after Target changed its policies, men disguised as women were caught doing just that.
Activists promote gender identity policies in the name of equality, but isn’t it a violation of equality when biological males compete against females in sports and other arenas where sex differences are relevant? Already a high school girl has lost a state track championship to a boy who was allowed to compete against girls.
Activists also promote gender identity policies in the name of liberty, but isn’t it a violation of liberty to force people to speak or act in ways contrary to their best judgment and deeply held beliefs?
In New York City you can be fined up to a quarter-million dollars for “misgendering” someone. Catholic hospitals are being sued for declining to perform sex-reassignment surgeries. And in its last year, the Obama administration issued a mandate forcing health care plans to cover sex-reassignment procedures and forcing qualified physicians to perform them.
While the mandate doesn’t require that all physicians perform transitions, a surgeon who performs hysterectomies for cancer, for example, would be required to also perform them for sex-reassignment purposes; an endocrinologist who administers testosterone for men with low testosterone would have to do so for women who want to identify as men.
This mandate included no exemptions for religious liberty, no protections for conscience, and no considerations at all about best medical judgment: Many doctors, after all, think hormonal and surgical “transition” procedures to be bad medicine. They consider the appropriate medical response to gender dysphoria to be one directed at the mind and the emotions, not at the body.
Which, of course, leads to the final concern: ideology. Transgender ideology is promoted not only in schools, where children are taught that gender is fluid, falls along a spectrum, and is detached from bodily sex, but increasingly in all walks of life, where no one may dare dissent from transgender-affirming protocols.
Activists go after anyone who expresses any reservation at social transition for 5-year-olds, puberty blockers for 9-year-olds, and testosterone for 14-year-old girls. Just last week a family lost custody of their teenage daughter because a judge ruled that it was in her best interest to receive transition therapy, against her parents’ wishes.
But contrary to the claims of activists, sex isn’t “assigned” at birth—and that’s why it can’t be “reassigned.” Sex is a bodily reality that can be recognized well before birth with ultrasound imaging. Cosmetic surgery and cross-sex hormones don’t change the deeper biological reality. People who undergo sex-reassignment procedures do not become the opposite sex, they merely masculinize or feminize their outward appearance.
The medical evidence suggests that sex reassignment does not adequately address the psychosocial problems suffered by people who identify as transgender. Even when the procedures are successful technically and cosmetically, and even in cultures that are relatively “trans-friendly,” transitioners still face poor outcomes.
In truth, very little is understood about the causes of discordant gender identities. Starting a child on an experimental process of “social transitioning” followed by puberty-blocking drugs and cross-sex hormones was unthinkable not long ago.
As I show in “When Harry Became Sally,” a more cautious therapeutic approach begins by acknowledging that 80 to 95 percent of children with gender dysphoria will grow out of it naturally. Many experts think of gender dysphoria as being much like other kinds of dysphoria, or serious discomfort with one’s body, such as anorexia.
The most helpful therapies do not try to remake the body to conform with thoughts and feelings—which is impossible—but rather to help people to move toward accepting the reality of their bodily selves.
Children are especially vulnerable, and while we need to respect the dignity of people who identify as transgender, we must do everything possible to protect young people and foster their healthy development. That will require acknowledging that it is not discriminatory for public policy to take our sexual embodiment seriously.
Originally published by National Review Online.
Tuesday, February 27, 2018
What Is Life Without Golf and Beer? : It's Not A Question!
Life without deer and golf. There is no life.
It's always a matter of priorities.
A man was walking down the street when he was accosted by a particularly dirty and shabby-looking homeless man who asked him for a couple of dollars for dinner.
The man took out his wallet, extracted ten dollars and asked, "If I give you this money, will you buy some beer with it instead of dinner?" "No, I had to stop drinking years ago," the homeless man replied.
"Will you spend this on green fees at a golf course instead of food?" the man asked. "Are you NUTS!" replied the homeless man. "I haven't played golf in 20 years!"
"Well," said the man, "I'm not going to give you money. Instead, I'm going to take you home for a hot shower and a terrific dinner cooked by my wife."
The homeless man was astounded. "Won't your wife be furious with you for doing that?
The man replied, "That's okay. It's important for her to see what a man looks like after he has given up drinking and golf."
The man took out his wallet, extracted ten dollars and asked, "If I give you this money, will you buy some beer with it instead of dinner?" "No, I had to stop drinking years ago," the homeless man replied.
"Will you spend this on green fees at a golf course instead of food?" the man asked. "Are you NUTS!" replied the homeless man. "I haven't played golf in 20 years!"
"Well," said the man, "I'm not going to give you money. Instead, I'm going to take you home for a hot shower and a terrific dinner cooked by my wife."
The homeless man was astounded. "Won't your wife be furious with you for doing that?
The man replied, "That's okay. It's important for her to see what a man looks like after he has given up drinking and golf."
Social Media Under Attack by Progressives : Our Way or The Highway.
Again, is it really always up to government to solve these problems? If you know something has gone bad, harmful to yourself and others, then one should make the concerted effort and conscious decision to avoid the problem. Use another service should be the answerer and then tell everyone one you know to use other engines.
Social media put to good use. Isn't that what Google should be use for?Change?
And that this monster is a progressive socialist liberal enterprise should not come as a surprise. All progressive socialist liberals are about taking total power from the individual to control all outcomes. It's what they do to further the ideology to ''fundamentally'' change civil society.
The progressives make no excuses for what they are doing. They are believers. It's who they are.
Ignore this intrusion into your individual freedom to chose at your own risk.
Social media put to good use. Isn't that what Google should be use for?Change?
And that this monster is a progressive socialist liberal enterprise should not come as a surprise. All progressive socialist liberals are about taking total power from the individual to control all outcomes. It's what they do to further the ideology to ''fundamentally'' change civil society.
 |
| The individual freedom to chose is under attack. |
Ignore this intrusion into your individual freedom to chose at your own risk.
Fired Googler Warns Social Media Users About Censored Speech
Jarrett Stepman
/
@JarrettStepman
/
Bias and mass censorship from extraordinarily powerful tech companies create an enormous problem that Americans have to come to terms with, says a former Google employee who was fired for his politically incorrect views.
While tech companies in Silicon Valley and elsewhere are incentivized to create a “safe and civil” environment for their customers, problems emerge when “they get to define what offensive is,” James Damore said during a breakout session at the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC.
Damore lost his job as an engineer in August over an internal memo he wrote questioning Google’s gender diversity policies, which went public. He initially filed a complaint about his firing with the National Labor Relations Board, but withdrew it and filed a class-action lawsuit against the company.
Most of those who work in the tech industry have had little contact with conservative ideas and have “lived in liberal bubbles their entire lives,” Damore said during a CPAC session Friday titled “Suppression of Conservative Views on Social Media.” Unfortunately, this often means that people with another viewpoint can’t be open about it, he said, “because they will be ostracized.”
This culture naturally makes its way into how tech companies do business, Damore said.
While many in the tech industry are well-meaning, he said, bias seeps into their algorithms. This presents a unique challenge for conservatives who have a reason to worry about bias, but are unlikely to look for government intervention to solve the problem.
Although many are calling for government involvement to fix the situation, Damore said, “it is vital we protect the norms of free speech.
Watch the video : https://twitter.com/JamesADamore/status/967414971910033409
Harmeet Dhillon: "Google has an army of lawyers who are actively lobbying the NLRB to cut back worker rights, not just in James's case, but in cases of discussing their working conditions with each other." From https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=384XLaqrSrw … 9:04 AM - Feb 24, 2018
Keeping the tech industry accountable will require a strict focus on transparency and accountability, he said. Damore praised The Daily Caller News Foundation for its reporting on the bias of Google’s fact-checking feature, which almost exclusively targeted conservative websites. “Not only is Google’s fact-checking highly partisan—perhaps reflecting the sentiments of its leaders—it is also blatantly wrong, asserting sites made ‘claims’ they demonstrably never made,” the news organization reported in January, when the fact-check feature was first released.
Google discontinued the feature shortly after accusations of bias against conservatives were the subjects of such reports.
Ultimately, Damore said, transparency is essential and Americans should understand the practices of social media companies such as Facebook, Twitter, and Google.
CPAC, the largest annual national gathering of conservative activists, ran Thursday to Saturday at the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center in National Harbor, Maryland, just outside Washington.
Bias and mass censorship from extraordinarily powerful tech companies create an enormous problem that Americans have to come to terms with, says a former Google employee who was fired for his politically incorrect views.
While tech companies in Silicon Valley and elsewhere are incentivized to create a “safe and civil” environment for their customers, problems emerge when “they get to define what offensive is,” James Damore said during a breakout session at the Conservative Political Action Conference, or CPAC.
Damore lost his job as an engineer in August over an internal memo he wrote questioning Google’s gender diversity policies, which went public. He initially filed a complaint about his firing with the National Labor Relations Board, but withdrew it and filed a class-action lawsuit against the company.
Most of those who work in the tech industry have had little contact with conservative ideas and have “lived in liberal bubbles their entire lives,” Damore said during a CPAC session Friday titled “Suppression of Conservative Views on Social Media.” Unfortunately, this often means that people with another viewpoint can’t be open about it, he said, “because they will be ostracized.”
This culture naturally makes its way into how tech companies do business, Damore said.
While many in the tech industry are well-meaning, he said, bias seeps into their algorithms. This presents a unique challenge for conservatives who have a reason to worry about bias, but are unlikely to look for government intervention to solve the problem.
Although many are calling for government involvement to fix the situation, Damore said, “it is vital we protect the norms of free speech.
Watch the video : https://twitter.com/JamesADamore/status/967414971910033409
Harmeet Dhillon: "Google has an army of lawyers who are actively lobbying the NLRB to cut back worker rights, not just in James's case, but in cases of discussing their working conditions with each other." From https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=384XLaqrSrw … 9:04 AM - Feb 24, 2018
Keeping the tech industry accountable will require a strict focus on transparency and accountability, he said. Damore praised The Daily Caller News Foundation for its reporting on the bias of Google’s fact-checking feature, which almost exclusively targeted conservative websites. “Not only is Google’s fact-checking highly partisan—perhaps reflecting the sentiments of its leaders—it is also blatantly wrong, asserting sites made ‘claims’ they demonstrably never made,” the news organization reported in January, when the fact-check feature was first released.
Google discontinued the feature shortly after accusations of bias against conservatives were the subjects of such reports.
Ultimately, Damore said, transparency is essential and Americans should understand the practices of social media companies such as Facebook, Twitter, and Google.
CPAC, the largest annual national gathering of conservative activists, ran Thursday to Saturday at the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center in National Harbor, Maryland, just outside Washington.
North Korea Is Still North Korea : Olympic Flags Won't Change That!
I fear that too many of our citizens that watched the opening ceremonies in South Korean and their grand and glorious entrance into the stadium of the North and South Korean Olympic teams, waving their national flags and smiling broadly, leaves me with a few questions that I need answered.
Has two generation of Kim's tyranny of murder and torture been completely wiped out in a matter of minutes? Is the North Korean's total history of torturing and murdering it's citizens suddenly forgotten and now it's time to move on?
Sadly, the political left press and progressive socialist liberals in our country would have us believe all if well and all is forgiven. The magnificent leader of North Korea has become just another player on the world wide stage. He sees the error of his ways.
The truth is the Kims have always been mass killing tyrants and they always will be. Wishful think and flowery headlines in Western press can't change two generations of history.
Olivia Enos
/
@OliviaEnos
/
Dan Lee
/
Millions around the globe gathered around their TVs beginning Feb. 8 to watch the 2018 Winter Olympics, which are taking place in Pyeongchang, South Korea, a mountainous rural village, 110 miles east of Seoul.
As the world turned its gaze to the Korean Peninsula, it witnessed North Korea and South Korea unified, together under one flag, during the opening ceremony. The symbolic display of unity by the two Koreas has already generated feelings of peace and goodwill on the peninsula. However, the ironic reality is that just 160 miles north of Pyeongchang is Sariwon City Prison, one of the 30 known political prisons in North Korea.
In 2017, the crisis in North Korea was the most underreported humanitarian issue globally. With an estimated 80,000 to 120,000 North Koreans imprisoned as political criminals, the crisis in North Korea demands the world’s attention.
Prisoners are subject to inhumane living conditions and are subject daily to torture, starvation, rape, and execution. The labeling of these “political camps” as such is woefully inaccurate. They are essentially death camps, where North Koreans are sent for violations such as being critical of the Kim Jong Un regime or for practicing Christianity.
In his State of the Union address on Jan. 30, President Donald Trump condemned North Korea’s recent threats of nuclear attack, but he also focused on the humanitarian atrocities of the regime as well. Trump cited North Korea’s depraved character as a threat to the U.S. and its allies, and said that he would not repeat the mistakes of previous administrations’ approaches of complacency toward North Korea. The president ended his remarks on North Korea by revealing the regime’s greatest fear; namely, the truth.
It’s time for Congress and the media to follow the president’s lead.
With recent satellite images detailing infrastructure upgrades in North Korea’s prison camps, the reality is that this humanitarian crisis is not going away. Passing legislation, such as S. 1118, the North Korean Human Rights Reauthorization Act of 2017, which provides grants to distribute materials necessary for North Koreans to access outside information, is a step in the right direction.
The U.S. can also raise awareness by reporting on the political camps of North Korea as a consistent and horrific reality.
The millions of people globally watching the Winter Olympics have witnessed a unified Korea. But the games will end Feb. 25, and they must look beyond the guise of good will that they present and realize the truth. North Korea is responsible for one of the most hideous humanitarian crimes to date.
Millions around the globe gathered around their TVs beginning Feb. 8 to watch the 2018 Winter Olympics, which are taking place in Pyeongchang, South Korea, a mountainous rural village, 110 miles east of Seoul.
As the world turned its gaze to the Korean Peninsula, it witnessed North Korea and South Korea unified, together under one flag, during the opening ceremony. The symbolic display of unity by the two Koreas has already generated feelings of peace and goodwill on the peninsula. However, the ironic reality is that just 160 miles north of Pyeongchang is Sariwon City Prison, one of the 30 known political prisons in North Korea.
In 2017, the crisis in North Korea was the most underreported humanitarian issue globally. With an estimated 80,000 to 120,000 North Koreans imprisoned as political criminals, the crisis in North Korea demands the world’s attention.
Prisoners are subject to inhumane living conditions and are subject daily to torture, starvation, rape, and execution. The labeling of these “political camps” as such is woefully inaccurate. They are essentially death camps, where North Koreans are sent for violations such as being critical of the Kim Jong Un regime or for practicing Christianity.
In his State of the Union address on Jan. 30, President Donald Trump condemned North Korea’s recent threats of nuclear attack, but he also focused on the humanitarian atrocities of the regime as well. Trump cited North Korea’s depraved character as a threat to the U.S. and its allies, and said that he would not repeat the mistakes of previous administrations’ approaches of complacency toward North Korea. The president ended his remarks on North Korea by revealing the regime’s greatest fear; namely, the truth.
It’s time for Congress and the media to follow the president’s lead.
With recent satellite images detailing infrastructure upgrades in North Korea’s prison camps, the reality is that this humanitarian crisis is not going away. Passing legislation, such as S. 1118, the North Korean Human Rights Reauthorization Act of 2017, which provides grants to distribute materials necessary for North Koreans to access outside information, is a step in the right direction.
The U.S. can also raise awareness by reporting on the political camps of North Korea as a consistent and horrific reality.
The millions of people globally watching the Winter Olympics have witnessed a unified Korea. But the games will end Feb. 25, and they must look beyond the guise of good will that they present and realize the truth. North Korea is responsible for one of the most hideous humanitarian crimes to date.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
