Tuesday, April 4, 2017

When climate change warriors can’t keep their stories straight

American Thinker.com ^ | April 3, 2017 | Brian C. Joondeph 

Mark Twain, author of the now politically incorrect Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, once said, “If you tell the truth, you don't have to remember anything.” Good advice, especially for those who play fast and loose with facts and truth. And relevant in the internet age when articles, headlines, words and photos are preserved in perpetuity.
Lies, built upon lies, eventually become so tangled that the truth may be forever lost down the rabbit hole. Rather than starting with the truth, to avoid having to remember the labyrinthine path taken by each additional falsehood.
CNN, the network famously referred to by President Trump as “fake news”, should heed the advice of Mark Twain. Otherwise they are likely to be tripped up over their own contradictory stories, in this case only a few years apart.
In 2015, CNN ran a story with the headline, “Did climate change cause California drought?” Less than two years later, CNN ran this headline, “California’s drought is almost over.” Is the irony of these two headlines lost on the journalistic mavens of CNN? Probably. But the internet remembers, happy to take CNN to task over their contradictions.
After all, CNN totally missed the humor in a Sean Spicer quip during a recent White House press briefing. In response to reporters pestering him about mythical Trump-Russian collusion, Spicer responded, "If the President puts Russian salad dressing on his salad tonight, somehow that's a Russia connection." CNN, missing Spicer’s joke just as they missed the irony of climate change causing then somehow stopping a drought, ran a fact checking story to tell us that Russian dressing isn’t really Russian. Thanks, intrepid journalists. Did CNN ever fact check Barack Obama’s claim to have campaigned in 57 states with a news report telling us that there aren’t really 57 states?
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...

How Democrats are about to give Trump his groove back!

CNBC ^ | April 3, 2017 | Jake Novak 

It's been a rough few weeks for President Donald Trump. His efforts to get a GOP Obamacare replacement bill failed. He's been attacked from almost all sides for publicly accusing President Obama of ordering wiretaps of Trump Tower. And these and other problems have sent his approval rating to historic lows for a president in his first 100 days.

But President Trump doesn't need to worry. He's about to get his political groove back courtesy of a surprising source: the Democrats. That's because the Democrats are about to hand him a crucial triple-faceted victory when they make the mistake of filibustering or otherwise obstructing the confirmation vote for Judge Neil Gorsuch's nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The first reason why this will help the Trump team is because it will make them look better in comparison to a overly partisan, tit-for-tat push back on the highly respected Gorsuch.

You don't have to take the word of the White House or conservatives to believe just how respected and deserving Gorsuch is. Just look at the names of the current Democrats in the Senate who were part of the 95-0 vote to confirm him to the U.S. Court of Appeals....
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...

Some Democrats begin to get the message that Trump isn’t going anywhere!

Hot Air ^ | April 3, 2017 | Jazz Shaw 

While the majority of the mainstream media focuses all of their energy on reporting every item they can find which looks like “bad news” for the Trump administration, they’re clearly generating something of a sense of false optimism among Democrats. There still seems to be some sort of (primarily delusional) hope that if these investigations into Russian meddling bear fruit, then last November’s elections can be swept under the rug and Hillary Clinton can be carried on the shoulders of the adoring crowds and installed at the White House. (Or at least Trump could be swapped out for someone else.) This phenomenon shows up yet again in a recent WaPo column by Jonathan Capehart.

In it, the Post editorial board member discusses some desperate questions sent his way by Cheryl Pelicano, a Democrat friend of his from South Carolina. Since she’s asking about fantastic scenarios best left to the Constitution (specifically removing Trump from office over these Russia stories), Capehart tosses the questions over to Laurence Tribe, who he describes as a “legendary constitutional law professor at Harvard University.” (Some of our regular readers may also know him as a legendary advocate for the Democratic National Committee and all things liberal.) What follows is part of that exchange.
Pelicano: If it turns out that the election was heavily impacted, and Trump colluded with Russia, is the presidency illegitimate? If so, what happens?
Tribe: There is no mechanism in the Constitution and laws as they stand today for redoing a presidential election, however many people believe it was rendered illegitimate by treasonous or otherwise unlawful manipulation; and no institutional mechanism exists even for reaching an authoritative determination that a presidential election was illegitimate. Those who have imagined the Supreme Court might entertain a claim of that sort and order a new election are deluding themselves.
In contrast, the question whether Congress might conceivably have authority, under the Constitution as written, to enact a special law for making such a determination and holding a new national election is one that some people have been contemplating, but the odds that any such law could be passed over Trump’s inevitable veto seem much too remote to warrant taking that option seriously.
That’s a refreshing bit of realism to inject into the conversation, even if it’s perceived as generally peeing in the Democrats’ swimming pool. But one element of Tribe’s comments repeats a theme which we keep seeing over and over again. Jonathan describes Tribe as someone who believes that, “to say Trump is illegitimately in the White House would be an understatement.” Tribe also makes reference to, “the apparent existence of evidence … pointing to collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.” He puts the cherry on that dessert dish by describing Trump as having been sworn in “wrongfully.”
This has become something of an article of faith among despondent Democrats, and while we’ve briefly touched on it before, this presents an opportunity to ask the pertinent question which is being widely ignored. Illegitimately how? Tribe half-heartedly slips the word “apparent” into his claim of supposed evidence proving collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russians, not one shred of which has been offered up for public scrutiny as yet. But let’s take a stroll into Fantasyland here and entertain the worst possibility we’ve heard thus far. Nobody has credibly suggested that anyone hacked into the voting machines and altered the results, or that Hillary Clinton actually had more electoral college votes. So what we’re left with is the intentional release of information through Wikileaks. Let’s just say that either Donald Trump himself or one of his flunkies acting under his direction “coordinated” with the Russians regarding the timing of the Wikileaks document dumps for maximum political effect. Now what?
The actual act of hacking into the DNC emails, along with those of Podesta, is a crime. (Or at least it certainly should be.) But nobody has even suggested that anyone on Trump’s team did the hacking, nor even any of Assange’s people. Also, the content of those emails, as problematic as they were for Clinton, was never in question in terms of their authenticity. So in this dark, dramatic fantasy scenario, what crime do liberals feel Trump could be convicted of which would bring us into impeachment territory?
The original hacking may have been a crime, but the contents of the emails were news. (Not even fake news.) No matter how dubious the methods of obtaining it, the emails were real. How the timing of their release was handled may have been dirty pool, but obviously nothing which is against the law. What if the origin of the leaked emails had been someone from inside the DNC with an ax to grind leaking it to a journalist? (As has been suggested by Assange’s people repeatedly.) Would that have made the election “illegitimate?” In a similar line of reasoning, we still don’t know who gave that tape of Trump and Billy Bush on the bus to the media. If Clinton had won the race, would that leak have made her presidency illegitimate? If releasing actual information to the public which may impact their voting decisions is “meddling” then every election we’ve ever held has been meddled with.
I think we all know the answers to these questions. It’s good that at least some progressives are coming around to the idea that there won’t be a do-over of the election simply because they didn’t like the results. But they should take the next step on the path through grieving and begin to accept the fact that the smoking gun they are searching for has most likely turned out to be a replica with no firing pin.

New Yorkers shocked to find that people are fleeing their city in droves!

Hotair ^ | 04/03/2017 | Jazz Shaw 

New York, New York. So nice they say it twice. But it’s apparently not nice enough anymore for people to want to stick around. The NY Post highlights some recent population figures which indicate that a growing number of Gotham residents (that would be rapidly growing) either don’t want to live there anymore or simply can’t afford to. In either case, there’s a bit of an exodus going on and the Big Apple is losing residents faster than any other major metropolitan area in the country.
More people are leaving the New York region than any other major metropolitan area in the country.
More than 1 million people moved out of the New York area to other parts of the country since 2010, a rate of 4.4 percent — the highest negative net migration rate among the nation’s large population centers, US Census records show.
The number of people leaving the region — which includes parts of New Jersey, Connecticut, the lower Hudson Valley and Long Island — in one year swelled from 187,034 in 2015 to 223,423 in 2016, while the number of international immigrants settling in the tristate area dwindled from 181,551 to 160,324 over the same period, records show.
More than a million people in six years is not normal ebb and flow. To be fair, we should emphasize the fact that this isn’t just New York City… it includes the outlying areas of New Jersey and the inner reach of Long Island. It also doesn’t include the rest of New York State. (You know… the unfashionable, more rural upstate region where I live.)
Part of it is certainly the cost of living and that’s what the Post article focuses on primarily. When the economy improves, rent and mortgage costs skyrocket faster in that town than almost anywhere else and it’s already one of the most expensive places in the country to live. According to Fortune Magazine last December, the average price of an apartment in the Big Apple is now over two million dollars. Yes, you read that correctly… that’s for an apartment. By contrast, a bit more than five hours away to the northwest, a three bedroom colonial with a fenced in yard a couple of blocks down the hill from me sold for $85K this winter. If you could plunk that property down in the middle of Manhattan it would probably cost at least $25M.
But that’s not the only factor. Another cost of continuing to elect Democrats for generations is that New York State is one of the most heavily taxed states in the nation and the city is even worse. Progressive policies have led to some of the most invasive regulations and childish rules imaginable. (Though that’s something the true, diehard liberal progressives shouldn’t be complaining about.) All in all, if you want to live in New York City you’d better like a lot of government in your life and be prepared to fund it out of your paycheck every week at a steep clip.
In any event, you can add all of those factors up and it’s no wonder that people are fleeing. At this point we can only hope that the trend continues until the upstate population outnumbers them and we can get the state government back under control. Well… we can dream, anyway.

Who Asked Susan Rice to Unmask Those Names?

Frontpagemag ^ | April 4, 2017 | Matthew Vadum 

Obama’s national security advisor is a liar -- and possibly a felon.

Former President Obama’s National Security Advisor Susan Rice asked for the names of Trump transition officials to be unmasked and made public in raw intelligence files, according to media reports, a move apparently carried out to harm the incoming Trump administration.

As recently as March 22, Rice denied knowing anything about the intelligence reports. In an appearance on “PBS Newshour,” she said pretty definitely, “I know nothing about this.” The new news reports paint Rice as a liar.
The evidence we know about in the Trump-Russia saga so far seems to be pointing at Obama.
Adam Housley of Fox News reports:
The unmasked names, of people associated with Donald Trump, were then sent to all those at the National Security Council, some at the Defense Department, then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and then-CIA Director John Brennan – essentially, the officials at the top, including former Rice deputy Ben Rhodes.
The names were part of incidental electronic surveillance of candidate and President-elect Trump and people close to him, including family members, for up to a year before he took office.
The spreading of the unmasked names was carried out for “political purposes that have nothing to do with national security” or foreign intelligence, Housley said. "It had everything to do with hurting and embarrassing Trump and his team," he said, citing his sources.
What is incidental collection, by the way?
Incidental collection “happens when an individual is in contact with the target of surveillance,” or is communicating “about” the target, according to Robyn Greene. “So if Bob were being targeted for surveillance and Alice called or emailed Bob, Alice’s communications with him would be collected incidentally.”
In this example, “if Bob is targeted for surveillance and Alice contacts him during that surveillance, resulting in the incidental collection of her communications with him, her name should be redacted or ‘masked’ unless leaving it unredacted provides foreign intelligence value.” Masking is done to protect U.S. persons (i.e. U.S. citizens, lawful permanent residents, etc.) who get inadvertently caught up in the electronic dragnet from being falsely accused of crimes or otherwise improper behavior.
If a National Security Agency analyst “believes Alice’s communications may contain evidence of any crime, the NSA can share those communications with law enforcement or other relevant agencies … even if the crimes are completely unrelated to the purpose for surveilling Bob’s communications, or to foreign intelligence or national security investigations.”
According to former Obama State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf, “if the intelligence community professionals decide that there’s some value, national security, foreign policy or otherwise in unmasking someone, they will grant those requests,”
Assuming these news reports about data that supposedly was incidentally collected are accurate, they raise a multitude of new questions about the ongoing scandal concerning alleged collaboration between the Trump team and Russia.
We still don’t know who asked then-National Security Advisor Susan Rice to unmask those names – or if she acted on her own initiative. But the most likely culprit has to be President Obama himself, along with those in his inner circle such as his Islamist CIA director John Brennan and his slimy national-security aide Ben Rhodes.
But whoever did the deed, it appears someone used America’s taxpayer-funded national security apparatus to engage in likely unlawful espionage against an opposition presidential campaign, an incoming administration, and that administration’s transition team. It’s the stuff of banana republics, which makes sense, because Obama spent eight long, lawless years trying to turn the United States into precisely that.
Those persons may have participated in a virtual fishing expedition to dig up dirt on Team Trump and cripple his administration with scandals like the still-unproven collusion between Trump’s people and Russia and the seemingly wild claim that Russia somehow “hacked” the November election.
Susan Rice has no shortage of chutzpah.
In a Washington Post op-ed two weeks ago, she scolded President Trump over supposedly making false statements:
The foundation of the United States’ unrivaled global leadership rests only in part on our military might, the strength of our economy and the power of our ideals. It is also grounded in the perception that the United States is steady, rational and fact-based. To lead effectively, the United States must maintain respect and trust. So, when a White House deliberately dissembles and serially contorts the facts, its actions pose a serious risk to America’s global leadership, among friends and adversaries alike.
In her defense, Rice knows a lot about dissembling and contorting facts, things that are her stock-in-trade. Her statements are difficult to take seriously because she is a prolific liar.
Rice’s serial dishonesty and astonishingly bad judgment calls are well-documented.
Rice embraced the 2014 deal wherein President Obama freed five senior Taliban commanders and high-value terrorists from Guantanamo Bay, in exchange for U.S. Army soldier Bowe Bergdahl who deserted in 2009 and collaborated with the Taliban for the next five years. Eight U.S. soldiers were killed in the effort to find and recover Bergdahl who emailed his father just before deserting, claiming he was “ashamed” to be American. In June 2014 Rice went on ABC TV to justify the prisoner swap, falsely stating that Bergdahl “served the United States with honor and distinction.” The next year the Army charged Bergdahl with desertion.
Rice mischaracterized the deadly terrorist assault on the U.S. facility in Benghazi, Libya, on Sept. 11, 2012, as a “spontaneous reaction” to “a hateful and offensive video that was widely disseminated throughout the Arab and Muslim world.” Five days later she went on five separate Sunday TV news programs and falsely claimed the Benghazi attack was a “spontaneous reaction” to “a hateful and offensive video that was widely disseminated throughout the Arab and Muslim world.”
Rice has long believed the leftist myth that poverty creates Muslim terrorists. She inspired the Obama administration’s “de-emphasizing [of] military action against terrorists, while looking for ways to address the ‘root causes’ of the violence.” She co-wrote a 2005 academic article that claimed terrorism was “a threat borne of both oppression and deprivation." Of course, Rice endorsed President Obama’s illegal war in Libya which was justified on bogus humanitarian concerns.
After deadly Muslim terrorist-orchestrated bombings in 1998, President Clinton wheeled Rice out to lie to television viewers about inadequate security provided at U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Then-U.S. Ambassador to Kenya Prudence Bushnell had begged then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright for extra security to guard against terrorist threats, including her own possible assassination. After the bombings Rice showed up on PBS to speak for the Clinton administration. She claimed the administration had "maintain[ed] a high degree of security at all of our embassies at all times" and that there was "no telephone warning or call of any sort like that, that might have alerted either embassy just prior to the blast."
In 1996 Rice helped to persuade President Clinton to reject Sudan’s offer to deliver Osama bin Laden to the U.S.
During the 1994 Rwandan genocide that claimed the lives of 800,000 people in a 100-day period, Rice worked in Bill Clinton’s White House. She “was a key player in the Clinton administration's decision not to intervene in a peacekeeping role, so as to avoid becoming embroiled in a politically risky endeavor where no strategic U.S. interests were in play.” The Clinton people lied afterward, claiming they didn’t know the extent of the carnage in Rwanda. Rice played a role in the cover-up, convincing the administration to strike terms such as “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” from CIA and State Department memos related to Rwanda. “If we use the word 'genocide' and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect on the November [congressional] election?" Rice said, according to Obama’s UN Ambassador Samantha Power.
Like many inept, intellectually-deficient left-wingers, Rice was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship. She earned a doctoral degree from Oxford University in 1990. In her dissertation she hailed the genocidal Zimbabwean dictator Robert Mugabe as a “pragmatic, intelligent, sensible, gentle, balanced man” in possession of much “patience and restraint.”
Among other famous Rhodes Scholars, who tend to be highly influential in their professional lives, are MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, former President Bill Clinton, Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), feminist Naomi Wolf, Wesley Clark, former Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.), and New York Times columnist Nick Kristof.
Which may help to explain why America is in such rough shape today.

Is Susan Rice The Missing Piece In Obama Spy Scandal?

Investor's Business Daily ^ | 4/3/2017 | Staff 

Political Spying: While the Democrats continue to flail wildly, accusing House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes of all kinds of hypothetical misdeeds, evidence is growing that the Obama administration had an actual spying program on its domestic political opponents, namely the Donald Trump campaign. If so, it was more than just wrong — it was a crime.

Bloomberg national security correspondent Eli Lake reports that White House lawyers discovered last month that Obama's National Security Advisor Susan Rice sought the identities of "U.S. persons in raw intelligence reports on dozens of occasions that connect to the Donald Trump transition and campaign." Lake based his reporting on talks with sources that requested anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it publicly.
The sources told Lake that the discovery of Rice's possible involvement was made by Ezra Cohen-Watnick, the director of intelligence on the National Security Council, who was reviewing the accusation. Rice made repeated requests to "unmask" people in raw intelligence reports tied to the Trump transition, the sources said. Most of the reports involved conversations between foreign officials and the Trump transition team.
Democrats have tried to brush off the seriousness of these actions by noting that the intelligence was "incidental" — that is, picked up as a byproduct of an intelligence-gathering operation against foreign officials. But, as we noted in a piece last month linked below, "incidental" is meaningless, since an intelligence operation can be mounted against a foreigner with high expectations that he or she would be in contact with someone here in the U.S., especially if the person was known to have had ties or contacts previously.
(Excerpt) Read more at investors.com ...

Susan Rice Requested Unmasking of Incoming Trump Administration Officials

Mike Cernovich is a journalist, documentary filmmaker and best-selling author of Gorilla Mindset. ^ | Mike Cernovic 

Susan Rice, who served as the National Security Adviser under President Obama, has been identified as the official who requested unmasking of incoming Trump officials, Cernovich Media can exclusively report. The White House Counsel’s office identified Rice as the person responsible for the unmasking after examining Rice’s document log requests. The reports Rice requested to see are kept under tightly-controlled conditions. Each person must log her name before being granted access to them. Upon learning of Rice’s actions, H. R. McMaster dispatched his close aide Derek Harvey to Capitol Hill to brief Chairman Nunes.
(Excerpt) Read more at medium.com ...

It's Time for Conservatives to Celebrate This President (Great Op-ed)

Townhall.com ^ | April 4, 2017 | Dennis Prager 

Do conservatives -- or non-leftists, for that matter -- appreciate just how terrific Donald Trump has been as president? And how lucky we are that he won the presidency?
I don't know the answer.
What I do know is that they ought to be deeply appreciative of him, and deeply grateful for luck or providence, and certainly for Trump himself, that he was elected president. First, it is unlikely that any other Republican would have defeated Hillary Clinton. Second, he has not only surpassed many of our expectations but also thus far governed in a manner more consistent with conservative principles than any president since Ronald Reagan, and arguably Calvin Coolidge.
I say this as one who vigorously opposed him during the Republican contest for the nomination. I said from the beginning, in print and on my radio show, that I would support Trump if he became the nominee, but I dreaded his becoming the nominee. His comments about the size of his hands, Sen. John McCain as a prisoner of war and former President George W. Bush lying about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; his lack of any history as a conservative; and the seeming absence of a filter between his brain and his Twitter app made it difficult for me to imagine him as a serious president of the United States.
Nevertheless, once he was nominated, I just as vigorously supported him on the simple and -- I still believe -- unanswerable grounds that while no one could be certain how Trump would govern, we were all certain about how Hillary Clinton would govern -- as a leftist. And I truly believed that another four years of left-wing rule would mean the end of America as it was founded to be.
That is why I found the arguments of the conservatives who were Never-Trumpers, many of whom I work with, admire and count as friends, not just unpersuasive but incomprehensible. That a conservative could prefer Clinton -- which was the only upshot of a Never Trump position -- to any Republican could only mean that we have an entirely different understanding of the damage the left has done and would have done to America and the Western world if Clinton had won.
I remember Never-Trumpers calling my radio show and asking me how I could possibly believe that, if elected president, Trump would honor his commitment to nominate to the Supreme Court one of the conservatives on the list of judges from which he promised to choose.
He has honored that promise.
And given the supreme importance of the Supreme Court, isn't that reason enough for conservatives to celebrate his presidency?
He has repealed many of President Obama's energy regulations that would have strangled the American economy. He doesn't believe that carbon-induced warming of the planet will destroy the human race -- the greatest of the innumerable hysterias the left manufactures and then believes in.
Isn't that reason enough for conservatives to celebrate his presidency?
He has appointed a woman who, as a billionaire, could have easily devoted her life to enjoying her wealth but instead has fought for American students and their parents to be able choose their schools just as the wealthy do. And he has taken on the teachers unions, the only group that has ever given American teachers a bad name.
Isn't that reason enough for conservatives to celebrate his presidency?
He has appointed as ambassador to the United Nations a woman who is calling the U.N. the naked emperor that it is. And now, America is backing, rather than subverting, Israel in that benighted institution.
Isn't that reason enough for conservatives to celebrate his presidency?
By building a wall along our southern border, he is reasserting the belief that America actually has borders.
Isn't that reason enough for conservatives to celebrate his presidency?
And then there is tax reduction and simplification so that private citizens can keep more of their money and corporations can be far more productive.
Isn't that reason enough for conservatives to celebrate his presidency?
And now, he has vowed, after decades of American obsequiousness, to confront the sociopathic North Korean regime.
The American media -- most particularly, its elite -- no longer even feigns objective reporting. It is solely an arm of the left and the Democratic Party, its task being the delegitimization of the Trump presidency.
If you live among liberals, it is not chic to express support for President Trump. But it is time more of us did. If people abandon you because you support this president, they weren't serious friends to begin with. And, sorry to say, they aren't worthy of you. Somehow, you have been able to look beyond their support for the America- and West-destroying left. But they can't look beyond your support for the first conservative president in a generation -- and the gutsiest perhaps ever.
If the president's approval rating really is in the 30s, this makes overt support for him all the more imperative. Whether you like his tweets or not, his fate is our fate.



Let's See








A Picture!




At this point!


Looking for ties?




Train Wreck








NY Criminals