Govr. "Moonbeam" Brown Suing Feds : Clean Power Plan, Paris Accord, etc. Yikes!

Okay here we go again. The progressive socialist ''Moon Beam'' governor again has explained why he is thought to be mentally unbalance given his stand on climate change, the global warming issue. The fact that man-made climate change has been shown to be a fraud on all fronts is of no concern, facts are not relevant to this debate or any other debate in California that requires native intelligence, let alone common sense.

Jerry Brown's California is in massive debt, and the actual findings of the Clean Power Plan of Barack's religious jihad for transformation has the potential to cause that great state to become a basket case in the very near future as California, as all other states have an ever increasing need of electrical power to bring prosperity.

And just where will he get that power? Solar, wind and bio-fuel will only bring less the 13% of the national need over the next 10 years, The rest of the every increasing need for power, at more then 8% per year for economic expansion will come from fossil energy. Where else.

The good governor is lost in a socialist fantasy that infests every aspect of his leadership as is the  entire state legislature.

As I have ranted in past posts on the criminal idiocy by leftist liberals of the man made climate change fraud, I will again bring out the big guns explaining how immoral and unethical this outrageous and contemptuous debauchery of thought actually is.

Man made climate change is delusional, implausible, unpromising, ill-conceived, diabolical, improbable, degenerate, contentious and of course just plan wrong. There are other descriptive adjectives but I think you get the point.

Jerry Brown infested with a delusion of reality.

California Governor Vows to Sue Trump Over Climate Change
Chris White / October 24, 2017

California Gov. Jerry Brown plans to use what he calls a Republican tactic and sue the Trump administration over President Donald Trump’s climate change policies.

Brown, a virulent Trump opponent, told reporters Tuesday that he will sue the president for nixing the Clean Power Plan, an Obama-era regulation Republicans believe hurt the coal industry. He claims the tactic is akin to Republican efforts to hold up climate policies during the Obama-era.

“First of all, we can go to court and block his efforts and we are doing that. Just like the Republicans tried to block [President Barack] Obama’s efforts,” Brown said. Republican attorneys general sued to hold up the Clean Power Plan, but the lawsuit was suspended after Trump rolled back the plan earlier this year.

Democratic attorneys general are now where Republicans were during the Obama administration: working to derail their political opponent’s agenda. New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, for instance, is preparing a lawsuit to protect Obama’s environmental policies. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has also repeatedly sued the government over the environment, and told reporters earlier this year that he will do “everything in my power to defend the Clean Power Plan.”

Brown has made the rounds to generate support for a state coalition supporting the Paris climate deal, which obligated the U.S. to pledge to reduce the country’s greenhouse gas emissions nearly 30 percent by 2025. He browbeat his state’s legislature in April to push for extending the state’s already massive cap-and-trade program.

Brown also met with Chinese President Xi Jinping earlier this year to discuss aspects of the non-binding climate deal. They both hashed out ways to push their respective entities away from fossil fuel production and closer to renewable energy to meet Paris’ ambitious aims.

BBC reporters asked Brown Tuesday whether he believed that Trump thought climate change was “an illusion.” “No, I don’t believe that,” he said. “But he, like politicians, work their constituency. And I think he sees this as a galvanizing rhetoric for his base.”

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 for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Progressive Socialist Left Attacking History : Transforming Civil Society

I believe the author here is just hitting the high point in this article about the total corruption of our educational system. That our military academy could allow an avoid communist to exist among it student ranks is stounding to say the least, but what about all of the teachers among the preschools, secondary and high schools that propagate the progressive socialist ideology to millions of students on a daily basis?

America does have a history and it has produced for the entire world 'a shinning city on a hill' where everyone that understand tyranny, fleeing that corruption and pestilence to live in that city.

But one has to wonder what the outcome will be when our next generation of leaders will have no idea what this country actually stands for or care for that matter about individual freedom, liberty and responsibility. Their entire existence has been about what's fair, that others have too much while others don't have enough and fighting to correct those wrongs.

It's called a progressive socialist liberal education, a centralized authority to level the playing field. Taking from the productive and giving it to the unproductive. "From each according to ones abilities, and to each according to ones needs". 

What the Left Hopes to Achieve by Attacking the Founders
Walter E. Williams / October 25, 2017   

Our nation’s leftist progressives have long sought to undermine the American values expressed in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Though typical Democrats and Republicans do not have this leftist hate for our nation, they have been willing accomplices in undermining the most basic value the Founding Fathers sought to promote—limited government.

Leftists have had their greatest successes in undermining American values on the nation’s college campuses. Derelict and dishonest college administrators, professors, and boards of trustees have given them carte blanche. Let’s look at some of it.

Students at the University of Virginia desecrated the statue of Thomas Jefferson, the university’s founder. Students at the University of Missouri want Jefferson’s statue gone. Why? He was a slave owner. Many in the college community supported Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ presidential bid. They welcomed Sanders’ belief that the United States was founded on “racist principles.”

There have also been calls for the removal of President George Washington’s and President Abraham Lincoln’s statues. Some have called for the renaming of schools that honor Washington, Jefferson, and 11 other slave-owning presidents.

Leftists have called for the renaming of streets named after slave-owning presidents. There have been many leftist calls for the elimination of Columbus Day. Their success at getting Confederate statues taken down has emboldened them.

What goes unappreciated is just why America’s leftists’ movement attacks the Founders. If they can delegitimize the Founders themselves, it goes a long way toward their agenda of delegitimizing the founding principles of our nation.

If the leftists can convince the nation that men such as Washington, Jefferson, and James Madison were good-for-nothing, slave-owning racists, then their ideas can be more easily trashed. We find the greatest assaults on our founding documents on the nation’s college campuses. The average parent, taxpayer, and donor has absolutely no idea of the bizarre lessons that college professors are teaching students.

Professor Adam Kotsko of Shimer College teaches, “Whether or not your individual ancestors owned slaves, you as a white person have benefitted from slavery and are complicit in it.”

Micah Johnson, a research assistant and graduate student instructor in the University of Florida’s Department of Sociology and Criminology and Law, teaches that the American notion of patriotism is “drenched in whiteness” and that patriotism implies that black people are “un-American.”

These types of attacks on American values have reached one of our most prestigious institutions of higher learning—the U.S. Military Academy. The administration at West Point knew of 2nd Lt. Spenser Rapone’s disqualifying insubordination at the academy, extremist political views, and regulation-breaking online activity.

Proof has surfaced that West Point leadership knew as early as 2015 that Rapone was an avowed communist and held Marxist anti-American beliefs. One of his Facebook posts read, “F— this country and its false freedom.” Despite Rapone’s conduct and demonstrated hatred of our nation, the U.S. Military Academy’s administration saw fit to allow Rapone to graduate in 2016.

But the rot at our premier military academy goes beyond the traitorous ideas of Rapone’s. That was revealed in an open letter written by retired Army Lt. Col. Robert Heffington, once a professor of history at West Point.

Heffington’s letter exposed widespread corruption, cheating, and falling standards at the academy to which the administration has turned a blind, politically correct eye. In response to Heffington’s widely circulated letter, the superintendent of the U.S. Military Academy, Lt. Gen. Robert L. Caslen Jr., released a standard bureaucratic letter saying the administration will address the concerns raised in Heffington’s letter about falling standards. It will also investigate the revelations that it not only managed to graduate Rapone but also sent him on to Army battlefield units, thus enabling him to spread his anti-American ideas.

The American people need to stop being sheeple and put a halt to the undermining of our nation taking place in our institutions of higher learning.

Public Educaton Fights Innovation : Parents Given Cash For Choices

As with so many things now in our culture, Hollywood actors are experts on just about everything. All they need to have expertise in a subject is to have had a role in a movie which featured the subject. Exactly how is it the Matt Damon is an expert on education?

And for the purveyors of this nonsense, that all that is required is more money to solve public school educational problem of not educating students. Unions and others complain about monies that to Charter schools falls short given Charter Schools and the Voucher System, let along Home Schooling showing systems that actually work. Public education has to fix it's self or be dissolved.

Sadly, with the amount of money that is poured into public education every year, and the officials that control that money, the unions and other progressives in local, state and federal government officials, public education will remain corrupted.

Again, it is about the money, it is about the control of outcomes related to progressive ideology, but not about actual and factual education.

The Answer to Failing Schools? Give Students ‘Backpacks Full of Cash’
Bill Walton / @WmBillWalton / October 24, 2017

Imagine you are Jeanne Allen—who joined me recently on “Common Ground”—and you’re a longtime educational reformer, and you’ve coined this phrase, “backpacks full of cash.”
And the phrase is catching on because it truly captures an exciting idea in American education—the notion that, instead of appropriating giant sums to school systems, we, in effect, give each child a backpack full of cash to spend on education as their parents see fit.

The money in the backpack goes to the school the parents choose. If public schools performed well, parents could send their students—and the accompanying backpacks full of cash—to them.
If private or public charter or specialized or virtual or home school environments best suited students’ interests, the money would go to them.

Imagine how excited she must have been when producers putting together an education documentary five years ago contacted her about the phrase and its meaning.


Finally, imagine what it must feel like to be Allen now. That film is now being released, and rather than a balanced treatment of a variety of approaches, it is a hatchet job on her idea.

The trailer makes this clear, opening with a succession of speakers from the film.
“This ‘backpack full of cash’ is about privatizing, not improving, public education,” says one. “It’s an opportunity on islands of privilege amidst a sea of inequity,” says another. “There is no high-quality research that shows that this is a good method of teaching and learning,” says a third. Better, they say, to spend more on public schools.

Not only that, but Matt Damon, whom she used to really like, is the narrator. Damon isn’t telling us his story of his public school experience—a high-income public school in Cambridge, Massachusetts, a favorite with people from Harvard. Not surprisingly, he can’t seem to find this experience today in California and sends his own kids to private schools. It sounds like he thinks that the rest of us just need to work a little harder and spend much more on our public schools as they stand.
 Subscribe to “Common Ground with Bill Walton”

That’s the part that gets to Johnny Taylor, CEO of the Thurgood Marshall College Fund, who joined Allen and me on the show. He should know, his fund helps 300,000 African-American students go to college every year.

The National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP, test—widely regarded as the nation’s report card—found last year that two-thirds of American kids are not grade-level proficient in any subject. Not math. Not civics. Not reading, history, or geography.

Among immigrants and minorities, the numbers are even worse. In the D.C. school system, which has the second-highest per-student expenditure in the country, only 17 percent of black, brown, and Latino eighth-graders were doing math or English on grade level. That’s 1 in 6, which is about the rate nationwide for minority student achievement.

Taylor draws on his experience working for media innovator Barry Diller. Taylor explains, “Education is an industry that refuses to innovate. And that’s my rub. Let’s not pretend that all of our public schools are working wonderfully. Why can’t we want to be better?”

But we have an educational establishment—with Damon as its spokesman—that seems more concerned with preserving teachers unions’ prerogatives than improving schools. Allen says she believes Damon is educable on this.

So let’s try a thought experiment that might persuade him. What if Hollywood were run like schools? Wouldn’t that mean a monopoly with a central studio that controlled all movie making? Would Damon be OK with making the same amount of money per picture as the worst actors in Hollywood, the way the worst and best teachers are paid the same? Would there be color or even sound in movies? Both were expensive gambles taken by smaller studios to give them a competitive edge over larger rivals.

It’s not that everything is broken in public schools. It’s that, if two-thirds of America’s kids are not proficient in any subject, we can’t be closed to attempts at innovation. And we can’t let Damon or Hollywood or teachers unions stand in the way.

After One Year of Donald Trump : A Look Back At Progressives(Video)

Okay - here is a short video montage of how Hillary couldn't lose the election and explains why the progressive socialist liberal democrats when the lost have become insane, babbling lunatics! Medically dangerous to themselves and others. Incapable of rational thought processes. Some have been committed to institutions just to help them through the day.

And now after eleven months of Donald Trump being president, they have been seen as being unable to determine whether it's night or day time and worse, they seem to have become different people entirely, unrecognizable even to family and friends. And it's said there is no cure.

It seems Barak's religious jihad for ''change and transformation'' has take a nasty turn for the worse.

Watch the video : https://facebook.com/colddeadhands/videos/1174042452644630/

Wisconsin Students Attack Abraham Lincoln Slave Owner? : Ignorance Run-A-Muck

It seems there are new protests everyday concerning everything and everybody, that are demanding what they know about the subject is the truth, and the only truth that is acceptable. If you disagree, you will be destroyed.

As history can attest, if one looks closely at most protests, there actual meaning is lost the din of combatants shouting slogans and sign weaving while marching down a street demanding all others must comply. Asked if the participant understands what they are dong is factual, many have no idea but they are there for other then just the thrill of being part of a movement and of the crowd liking the new wave he mentality.

Asked who is organizing the march, many have no idea as well but here they are. That students are seemly easily duped, and they are, into doing the stupid and incomprehensible things isn't lost on me as I was part of a protest back in the day.

It started out side of our dorm of more then 600 students on a Thursday night to protest the fraternities on the same block. Why we were protesting I don't remember but as the crowed grew to more then several hundred someone shouted we have to take the protest to the frat houses down the block.

I knew instinctively this was a bad thing even though I was only nineteen, but I found myself moving with he crowd and unable to stop. I understood what was happening but my legs refused to turn around. I remember I was aware of this and amazed, but still I moved forward, mindlessly unable to correct my movement with the crowd.

Luckily, the police showed up to block our movement and explained to us this was a bad idea which will have consequences that will impact our education. We dispersed. 

University of Wisconsin-Madison Students Protest Abraham Lincoln Statue Because ‘He Owned Slaves’
Jarrett Stepman / @JarrettStepman / October 24, 2017   

There’s a common quote, frequently attributed to G.K. Chesterton: “Don’t ever take a fence down until you know the reason why it was put up.” In our modern context, this should be rephrased a bit: “Don’t try to pull down a statue if you have no idea who or what the statue was really about.”

During a 2016 Columbus Day protest conducted by Wunk Sheek, a Native American student organization, activists at the University of Wisconsin-Madison campus hosted a “die-in” at Bascom Hall, near a statue of President Abraham Lincoln.  According to The Daily Cardinal, a campus newspaper, the protest ended with the group hanging a sign on the Lincoln monument that said “#DecolonizeOurCampus.” 

The activist group is now demanding a disclaimer be put up saying Lincoln was complicit in the murder of Native Americans. Why would they be so angry about Lincoln? “Everyone thinks of Lincoln as the great, you know, freer of slaves, but let’s be real: He owned slaves, and as natives, we want people to know that he ordered the execution of native men,” said one of the protesters.
“Just to have him here at the top of Bascom is just really belittling.” This claim from the protester is patently false. The Great Emancipator grew up in poverty and never owned slaves. Not only that, but his debates with fellow Illinois statesman Stephen A. Douglas offer some of the clearest reasons for why the institution of slavery violated the American creed.

Why Cities Shouldn’t Take Down Confederate Statues
Lincoln saved the union and brought about the end of slavery. Period. In fairness to the activists, Wisconsin Supreme Court candidate JoAnne Kloppenburg also made the mistake of saying Lincoln owned slaves last year.

Wisconsin educators, it appears you have some work to do. This is a basic fact that most Americans should learn before graduating high school, let alone while attending an institution of higher learning.
But beyond that basic ignorance, simply stating the fact that U.S. soldiers executed Sioux Indians while Lincoln was president doesn’t begin to do justice to what was a very complex situation in the middle of the Civil War.

During the war, Minnesota was in a state of chaos due to soldiers abandoning their posts and armies moving east to join the main war effort. On top of that, the Office of Indian Affairs was mired in corruption that was exacerbated by wartime negligence.  As a result, money promised to the Sioux tribe in Minnesota in exchange for its land wasn’t coming through, and many of its people starved.
This led to a bloody uprising called the “Dakota War,” which the U.S. government eventually put down.

Over 300 Sioux were sentenced to death for connection to the rebellion. Lincoln saw this as extreme, however, and pardoned all but 38 of the alleged perpetrators, whom he believed were guilty of the worst crimes such as rape and murder.

It was the largest mass hanging in American history, but it could have been much worse if not for Lincoln’s compassion. He believed that the Sioux were getting a raw deal, but needed to ensure peace on America’s borders in a time when the future of the United States was seriously in question.
It’s amazing that Lincoln acted at all in this matter, given that the nation was gripped by a bloody civil war more deadly than all of our other wars combined.

As Matt Vespa wrote in Townhall, “It’s not one of our nation’s best moments, but Lincoln was also fighting a much more existential threat to the country[:] an army from the southern states that at the time … was winning the American Civil War.”

It’s silly to judge Lincoln’s actions without some understanding of the circumstances of the time. But this is generally what has sustained the iconoclast statue movement. Figures of our past are dehumanized, their actions put in a vacuum, only to be narrowly judged by the increasingly absurd, ever-evolving standards of our time.

This is why it was such a short jump from attacking statues of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee to Lincoln, even though these men stood on opposite sides of the conflict that shook our nation and decided what we would become in the centuries that followed.

The anti-statue crusade thrives on shallow 21st-century moralizing—the privilege of the prosperous and comfortable, far removed from the suffering and difficulties of earlier times—coupled with the sheer ignorance of a generation that has little understanding of the basic facts of our history.

But the iconoclasts do not just see Confederates or Christopher Columbus or Lincoln as problematic. The movement is about more than these individuals. It’s an attempt to delegitimize and erase the very foundation of our civilization, which to them, is irreparably flawed.
This article has been updated to note when the University of Wisconsin-Madison protest took place.

"Me To" Hashtag Has Meaning : A Victim Speaks Out

Everyone has a story to tell and in this case a horrific tale of human abuse by unknowingly being drugged. Life is too short to make snap decision about someone's fight for survival, but at the same time it is worthwhile to be ready to understand someone's need to be accepted in the crowd.

As this author explains so well, it is everyone's story to tell, but leave the disposition of the story to the teller. It's personal to that person whether it's physical true of just a mental need to be true. The problem is when society decides this abuse is systemic and moves to correct society.

This never ends well as we witness the NFL players taking a knee on police abuse and other issues they protest every Sunday, or the supposed rape culture on college campuses that has spawned lawless administrators making students run for cover. 

What is true and what is fiction remains to be brought to light, and then participants coming to grips the facts. Truly we all hope this happens sooner rather then later. The survival civil society is at risk.

I’m a Conservative Who Was Roofied by a Stranger. Here’s What I Think of the ‘Me Too’ Hashtag.
Amy Swearer / October 20, 2017   

Me, too. That phrase has floated around social media all week, a trend started in response to the recent sexual assault allegations against Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein. The premise is simple, if not oversimplified: Shift the focus away from predators and onto the victims.
Tens of thousands of women—and men—have shared their stories of rape, sexual assault, or harassment under the hashtag.

For some, the only words that came were “Me, too.” I process through writing. This week, I have written something incredibly personal, for a trend no one—including myself—expected me to participate in. I believe I owe myself a voice, and for that reason, I share my story with you.

Me, too. This wound is still fresh. Not long ago, shortly after moving halfway across the country to Washington, D.C., I was roofied in a bar. I recall telling myself I would just have one drink, since the friends I was supposed to meet canceled on me. The next 12 hours are black. Not figuratively black, but literally black. They do not exist in my mind except for a handful of hazy, dreamlike snapshots of context-less moments toward the beginning and end of that period.

What I know from hospital staff is that someone called an ambulance after finding me screaming for help in a Metro station, a strange and as-yet unidentified man at my side. I was covered in vomit and incoherent, but even drugged-up Amy still put up a fight—apparently, I was kicking at the EMTs.
I came to the next morning on an emergency room gurney, bruised in various places and my wrist so badly damaged it would likely need surgery. There was no alcohol in my system: I had not been drunk. No, some piece of human garbage chemically incapacitated me because he did not feel capable of simply overpowering me. In many other contexts I might take it as a compliment.

There is an ongoing criminal investigation on which I won’t comment. I don’t envy the job of police in this regard—as someone with a background in criminal law, I know how difficult these cases are to prosecute.

After I initially shared this story, several friends asked for explanations as to why I chose now to speak out. Why would I, as an ardent and principled conservative, appear to align myself with a “movement” so closely related in the public eye to the very militant feminism I often criticize? While I don’t owe anyone an explanation for why and when I share my story, I will nonetheless provide one. Why do I unapologetically proclaim, “Me, too?”

Because this is my voice. There are many like it, but this one is mine.  And today, my voice will speak. It will speak on behalf of a moderation that neither ignores victims nor demonizes all men. It will speak to a pain that transcends political rhetoric. It will speak for those who are too often silenced by the sheer weight and emotional complexity of a burden they never asked to bear.
It will speak because this week I have seen too many ignorant comments, authored by too many people with too many opinions and too little compassion. People who, if they will listen at all, will only listen to a gun-owning, beer-drinking, God-fearing conservative woman whose disdain for modern militant feminism is well-known and unwavering. Sometimes, we need to hear it from our own. Today, hear it from me.

There are a disconcerting number of people who, while ferociously and rightfully tearing apart the likes of Harvey Weinstein and his enablers, simultaneously denigrate the experiences of victims in the name of “confronting the lies of leftist feminism.” I’m not referring to commentators like Michael Knowles and Ben Shapiro, both of whom have offered honest and thoughtful concerns about the #MeToo hashtag. By no means do I think Mayim Bialik was out of line for advocating the exercise of wisdom and modesty as means of self-protection.

I’m referring to those who, without an ounce of empathy, callously dismiss stories shared under the #MeToo hashtag. The ones whose arguments can be fairly characterized as: “If you were really assaulted, you would have gone to the police. You would drop names and raise hell until you got justice. But you either weren’t victimized or you are complicit in all the other assaults that came after you. Most of these women posting ‘me, too’ are exaggerating for attention or because they want to demonize men. There is no rape epidemic, and women sometimes lie, so most of these women are lying, too.”

Stop. No, really. Just stop. Yes, there is a difference between sexual assault and sexual harassment (although both are unacceptable) and sometimes the #MeToo hashtag has blurred that distinction. But that shouldn’t overshadow the larger picture of how many women are still affected by these issues.
And yes, it is difficult to bring the hammer of justice down on perpetrators when victims do not feel comfortable coming forward with names. (And I would urge women if they can to report incidents of sexual assault.) But a cold-hearted presumption of culpability or exaggeration only makes it harder for them to break their silence.

When someone confides in you that they were roofied, assaulted, molested, raped, or harassed, they have rendered themselves the most vulnerable they will likely ever be to you. Do not presume to sit in judgment of a person’s reaction to a horror you can never understand until you have lived it.
And no, I promise you, you do not understand. I did not understand, either.

I have sat in quiet judgment of so many women who did not respond to victimization in the precise way I imagined “angry, no-holds-barred, take-names-but-not-prisoners” Amy would respond. I have sworn to anyone who would listen that many victims are partially to blame, that my handguns and I could take care of myself, and that I would always be vigilant enough and smart enough and prepared enough.

And then there I was, waking up on a gurney at 4 in the morning. In an emergency room. By myself. Surrounded by strangers, asked the most intimate of questions by people who did not know my name five minutes ago, still hazy from a drug-induced stupor, bruised and hurting and afraid and wanting desperately to disappear into a hole until it all went away … and I promise you, you do not understand.

You don’t understand the sickening internal debate over whether and how and when and to what extent you should tell your parents. You don’t understand the utter humiliation of being unable to recall any interactions you’ve had in the past 12 hours. You don’t know how incredibly small you feel when your first real memory is of a doctor you’ve never seen before accusing you of smoking crystal meth because your ADD medication showed up as amphetamine on a toxicology screen, and you can barely find words to ask where you are, much less to explain you’ve never done drugs.

And the flood of questions. You cannot comprehend the flood of questions. What if the detective thinks I was just drunk? What if I WAS just drunk? What if the urine analysis can’t detect any substances because the four IVs and 13 hours of delay diluted the sample? Will anyone believe me then, if there’s no proof? What if there are pictures or video I don’t remember? Do I even want to see any evidence that could point to a suspect? Would I rather just never know if it protects me from knowing something awful? How I am going to pay these medical bills? Why can’t I move my wrist? Where is my wallet? Has anyone fed my cats? Was I raped? What if I’m pregnant? How I am going to get home?

You. Don’t. Understand. You can’t.

It’s not your fault. Honestly, I envy your lack of understanding, and hope you never, ever have to understand. But until then, stop demeaning the actions of those who do. The #MeToo hashtag may be a cop out for some, but others—myself included—it is a way to tell other women they are not alone. It is a way to process our own stories and salve our very real pain. It is a way to reclaim the voices we lost.

I’m not asking anyone to refrain from having honest conversations on the subjects of victimization and assault. I’m simply asking you to refrain from categorically judging the stories behind the hashtag as nothing more than slacktivism or attention-seeking hogwash. We are still struggling to comprehend our own responses and emotions, to come to terms with our own confusion and fear, to fight our own personal demons before we can turn to face the many devils that still exist in this world. If we who have lived it barely understand our own healing process, do not condescend to understand for us.

There is a time and place to address genuine concerns about the left’s war on manhood, the horrible lack of due process for college students accused of sexual misconduct, and the unfortunate but very true fact that sometimes lives are ruined over false allegations.

Whatever that time is, and wherever that place may be, it is not when a person is telling you she was a victim of assault. That will never be the right time or place to raise those concerns. When someone confides in you about an event so life-altering and full of heart-rending pain, you do one thing. Only one thing. You listen.

When Ignorance Is Bliss : Why Bother to Be Wise?

It's called selective ignorance and ideology. As the saying goes and explains so much about the 'new wave' mentality of progressive socialist liberalism that are living the lie, "When ignorance is bliss, it's folly to be wise".

Making decisions about how things in life work or don't is difficult, especially when you are required to do so when it means your own survival in a civil society. Those that fall short rage in the streets demining answers. The misinformed, the ill-informed and the ignorant.

The good Lord told us the poor will always be with us, but he some how failed to mention the stupid will always be with us as well. And as we well know, or we should know, Jesus struggle in his day to, trying to convince his closest disciples of who was even when they witnessed Jesus raise even the dead back to life. It wasn't enough for many until his last days.

Go figure.

At what point does reality break through?

EPA Chief On Biased Science Panels : Liberal Activists Are Out.

New EPA chief brings a breath of fresh air to this formerly criminal agency that has been dominated by progressive socialist liberal democrats which explains why the agency is criminal in actions and in intent.

What this agency couldn't do by legislation, they did by regulation, and then fed their ideology supporters with tax dollars to bring the desired results that supported the progressive agenda based on centralized power to dictate outcomes.

Shedding light on the lunatics of climate change alone is enough to bring some life and logic back to this monster of civil corruption and malfeasance.

EPA Chief Set to Bar Government-Funded Experts From Agency’s Science Panels

Kevin Mooney / @KevinMooneyDC / October 22, 2017  

Pruitt pulls back the curtain exposing criminals at the levers.

Try asking the nation’s top environmental protection official to “describe the shortcomings of the scientific evidence for climate change,” and what type of data he might find persuasive on the subject.

You might shake loose news of major policy changes designed to end what President Donald Trump’s team sees as potential conflicts of interest that undermine the value of scientific advice to the government agency.

That opportunity came Tuesday for an audience member during The Heritage Foundation’s annual President’s Club meeting in Washington, where Scott Pruitt, the former Oklahoma attorney general who now heads up the Environmental Protection Agency, took on that question.

Watch the Video : https://www.facebook.com/heritagefoundation/videos/10155780088559481/

Pruitt revealed that he will issue a directive aimed at ensuring the “independence, transparency, and objectivity” of experts who serve on the agency’s scientific advisory boards. He suggested he may rule out science advisers with a history of taking EPA grants, sometimes “to the tune of literally tens of millions of dollars.”

“I think what’s most important at the agencies is to have scientific advisers who are objective, independent-minded, providing transparent recommendations to me as the administrator and to our office on the decisions that we’re making on the efficacy of rules that we’re passing to address environmental issues,” Pruitt said, adding:

If we have individuals that are on those [scientific advisory] boards that are receiving money from the agency, sometimes going back years and years to the tune of literally tens of millions of dollars over time, that to me causes questions on the independence and the veracity of the transparency of the recommendations that are coming our way.

Pruitt specified the Science Advisory Board, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee, and the Board of Scientific Counselors as concerns during his interview at the Heritage event.  The EPA administrator did not spell out what would be in his directive, but he drew a parallel with the steps he already has taken to end the practice known as sue and settle.

Speaking at length on the topic, he said that sue and settle enabled federal agencies to “engage in rulemaking through the litigation process.” Critics have faulted the practice for permitting environmental advocacy groups to set regulatory policy without input from the public or Congress.
Pruitt’s expected directive could immediately affect the 47-member Science Advisory Board, which is charged with reviewing the quality of scientific information that underpins EPA regulations. The board also reviews EPA research programs and directly advises the administrator.

Terms for 15 members of the Science Advisory Board are set to expire, and the agency has published a list of 132 possible candidates for the open seats. Some on the list have expressed skepticism in one form or another toward the idea that human activity is the primary driver of climate change, much to the consternation of certain environmental advocacy groups.

These candidates include Kevin Dayaratna, senior statistician at Heritage’s Center for Data Analysis; Craig Idso, senior fellow at Heartland Institute, a free-market think tank; and Paul Driessen, senior policy adviser at the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a libertarian environmental organization.

A report in The Washington Post on Pruitt’s interview at the Heritage event with Rob Bluey, editor-in-chief of The Daily Signal, quoted officials with the Natural Resources Defense Council and Union of Concerned Scientists who said the EPA administrator should apply the same standard concerning potential conflicts of interest to science advisers who receive funding from private corporate sources connected with the oil and gas industry.

But Steve Milloy, publisher of JunkScience.com, told The Daily Signal in an email that Pruitt’s pending directive is right on target. “For too long, EPA has been able to purchase the ‘science’ it wants from grants-hungry researchers and their universities,” Milloy said, adding:

The EPA would then employ these same scientists to review their own work under the guise of peer review. This system is entirely corrupt if not illegal, as the applicable laws require the boards to be independent and unbiased. Congress has tried to fix this problem, but has been unable. It’s terrific that Scott Pruitt has recognized the seriousness of this problem and is now taking steps to fix it.
Contrary to the howling of the left, this is not a purge of any viewpoints. This is a first step in restoring the purpose of the science review boards—to provide EPA with the various views of experts vs. the rubber-stamping of the agency agenda by cronies. There are many more steps that need to be taken to right the science advisory panel ship at EPA, but this is an important first one.

William Yeatman, a senior fellow with the Washington-based Competitive Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, said he credits Pruitt for compelling the EPA to live up to its own standards. Yeatman cites reports from the agency’s own Office of Inspector General and from Congress, including:  
—EPA has taken the position that receipt of government grants doesn’t constitute a financial conflict of interest. However, the agency’s own Peer Review Handbook states that grants can be a conflict of interest if the advisory board plans to address work performed under the research grant.
—Six of the seven members of the 2015 Clean Air Science Advisory Committee, appointed by President Barack Obama, received a total of  $119.2 million in EPA research grants, according to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. The panel, the most important of the science advisory boards, recommends national ambient air quality standards.
—The Obama administration’s prior clean air panel cited its own work more than 700 times, according to the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee.

“The data suggest that these grants do indeed raise a conflict of interest as EPA defines it,” Yeatman said in an email to The Daily Signal. “So I welcome this reform effort to bring integrity to the advice EPA receives from outside advisers. For better or for worse, there are other federal sources of funding for science (e.g., NSF or NIH). It just makes sense to have EPA comport with its own rules.”
His references were to the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.
During his interview with Bluey, Pruitt also offered up his own definition of environmentalism, in contrast to how he said it has been defined by contemporary advocacy groups:

True environmentalism from my perspective is using natural resources that God has blessed us with to feed the world, to power the world with the sensitivity that future generations cultivate, to harvest, to be respectful good stewards, good managers of our natural resources, to bequeath those natural resources for the next generation.

Mission In Niger Explained : Progressive liberals Rage On

What a great insight into 'special missions' and how they actually work. But wait, how do we keep the politicians that a chance to go before the willing press cameras to demand action about how and why  4 of our military died in action in a far away country. Even if they knew what happened or even understand how it could happen is totally unimportant.

It's always the 'seriousness of the charge' that matters. The facts be dammed.

What is important is to show how concerned you are to the general public and that your 'mission' is to make sure this doesn't happen again. They rage on how they promise action on all fronts. A sure vote getter.

Of course ,there's always the progressive socialist liberal democrats that hate the military, why no one actually knows except the military is effective in stopping mass killers that progressive generally like and support, Cuba and Iran for example.

So little wonder there are multiple talking heads all across the spectrum of cable news attacking the Republicans and Conservatives for their support for such missions, allowing these soldiers to be in foreign lands stealing their well being and promoting violence and warfare.

The attacks on our military and America is truly about hate for America and what she stands for. But this is nothing new as this has been the very foundation of progressive liberalism decades.

The Special Ops Mission in Niger Was Routine and Common. Stop Politicizing It.
Steven Bucci / @SBucci / October 23, 2017   

The loss of four special operations soldiers in Niger is a tragedy. We grieve as a nation, rightly, whenever we lose any of the brave young men and women who serve in uniform. That said, politicians and news media are turning the event into a farce.

Having served as an Army Green Beret for 28 years, I cannot let the mischaracterizations—many by leaders who clearly know better—continue without a comment. The mission in Niger, which began in 2013, was a classic special operations operation. The type of operation is called foreign internal defense.

That’s an old school term for the most fundamental task we give our Green Berets. A small team of them goes into a foreign country to work with that nation’s military to better prepare it to deal with its own problems. This is done during the period the military calls “phase zero,” which is prior to when a bigger conflict emerges. It is done in coordination with the host nation civilian government, and the entire country team at the U.S. Embassy, which is led by the U.S. ambassador and supported by the intelligence community station chief.

This is not a clandestine Hollywood commando mission, or a suicide raid. It is overt and open. Its purpose is to build rapport with the host nation military, to improve its capabilities, to gather open source intelligence, and to get to know both the lay of the land and the local players.

The U.S. has conducted these kinds of missions around the world since the 1950s. At times we have had as few as a dozen of these operations, and at others several hundred in as many as 80-plus countries simultaneously. These missions are routine and have short-circuited conflicts on nearly every continent in the world at one time or another. They are also inherently dangerous. The teams are small, ranging from a pair of operators up to a few dozen. There are seldom more than 100 U.S. troops.

Some might ask, why do we put such small teams at risk? The answer is simply that the return is worth it. Often, the use of a small, mature, and low-profile group of quiet professionals can have greater success than a large, high-profile deployment on a massive scale. Particularly today as terror groups like the Islamic State and Al-Qaeda move to numerous small or underdeveloped countries, these phase zero special operations missions allow the U.S. to mitigate the threat before it grows—and they do so without making the U.S. the “world’s policeman.”

Instead of fighting the terrorists everywhere ourselves, these missions help our friends to better police their own backyards.

These missions have been extremely common since 9/11, so it is ludicrous that legislators now claim ignorance of both their existence and purpose. Were these legislators asleep during the last 10 years that they were briefed by the commander of U.S. Special Operations Command and the combatant commanders of U.S. Africa, Central, Pacific, or Southern Commands? Nothing about these missions is new, little is “hidden,” and none of it should surprise anyone who has spent more than a week on Capitol Hill.

To repeat, these missions are dangerous. The teams that execute them lack the huge support mechanisms Americans have come to associate with military operations. Our troops know this, and regularly volunteer for the opportunity to participate in the missions simply because they know they work. They also know these are the kinds of missions they have trained for, and which they execute with greater skill than anyone in the world.

They know that if trouble occurs, support is further away than in conventional operations. Intelligence is superb, often better than in regular military activities, but the logistical and response functions are thin and distant. That’s why we only send professionals on such missions. These are not “kids” who just joined the military six months ago. They are hardened professionals who, yes, “know what the risks are,” and go without hesitation.

Yes, we need to know what happened in Niger. Any time military members die in action, a full investigation occurs. The Department of Defense does not need Congress or the media to “provoke” that.  The military is always working to make our troops as safe as accomplishing the mission will allow. A full post-mortem of the deadly ambush in Niger needs to take place so that we can do better on the next mission. That would have happened if no one in Washington had said a word.

The media and politicians should stop the showmanship and game-playing. Let Defense Secretary James Mattis do his job, and let the brave men and women of the U.S. military do theirs.
Grandstanding senators and talking heads don’t help make America safe, but missions just like the one in Niger do.

The Clintons Sells National Security to The Russians : It's About the Money!

Hillary will sell her soul for the right price, Oh wait she found the right price.

It seems like this will finally bring some justice to the Clintons and the progressives liberal democrats that are totally involved in a national criminal behavior for selling Uranium assets to the Russians.

What? And why would anyone believe this? Haven't media experts told us that the Clintons are being attacked by 'Right wing conspirators'?

So for all the history of the Clintons in public serves over the decades that is available, why should be even question these allegations of misconduct and out right criminal activates that have placed our nation at risk just for money?