Wil Wirtanen

As usual Stephen makes a strong case.

http://www.investors.com/politics/columnists/stephen-moore-why-the-greens-hate-nuclear-power/

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:51 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 17 words, total size 1 kb.

Dana Mathewson

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:35 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 57 words, total size 1 kb.

Wil Wirtanen

Don’t know who is going to destroy Seattle first the libs or Kim Jung Un

http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/tax-the-rich-seattles-new-income-tax-on-the-wealthy-sparks-social-media-firestorm/

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:22 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 23 words, total size 1 kb.

Dana Mathewso

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:19 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 31 words, total size 1 kb.

J. David Dickinson

On July 10, 2017, the White House announces that President Trump has discovered a cure for cancer.

Within hours, this:

Chuck Todd, NBC News: "There’s news tonight that a cure for cancer has been discovered by someone in what is arguably the worst administration in American history, however, we have been unable to verify it since no anonymous sources told us about this. Since the president lies about virtually everything, we have the right to remain skeptical. In other news, the Russians, who hacked the election last year…”

CBS Evening News: "There are unsubstantiated rumors floating around the Capital tonight that the president, who most people think is illegitimate, has found a cure for the common cold. Or cancer, we’re not sure. We spoke tonight with America’s foremost medical expert who has told us unequivocally that there is no cure for cancer because years and years of research has shown it would be impossible. In other news, according to CBS News’ foremost climate expert, global warming has tragically taken yet another four million lives…”

ABC Evening News: "Allegedly, the president has discovered a cure for cancer, we’re not sure if it’s skin cancer, tumors, or what. But millions of families are likely to be devastated that he waited this long and their family members who have passed away from this horrible disease could not be saved. An ABC News Poll has found that those people will not be casting their vote for Trump in 2020 should he run for re-election. In other news, Hillary Clinton this afternoon has offered new insight into why she had her rightful election as president stolen from her, providing detailed data that proves beyond a doubt that…”

NPR’s "All Things Considered”: "Tonight we will talk about cancer and how cancer, while sometimes devastating, can bring families and loved ones together in harmony; mending hearts, renewing relationships, creating bonds that will last forever; teaching us about love and caring and sharing and nurturing and…”

NY Times Headline: "American Cancer Society To Be Disbanded Because of Trump, Thousands To Lose Their Jobs"

Washington Post Headline: "Sloane Kettering and Hundreds of Medical Centers Must Close Vital Facilities Due to President Trump's Actions; Many Livelihoods Ruined, Lives In Tatters"

Wall Street Journal Headline: ”Pharmaceutical Stocks Collapse. Will Trump’s Untimely Medical Breakthrough Be Responsible For Coming Worldwide Economic Crash?”

The Economist Headline: "'Jobs President' In Danger of Becoming 'Jobless President'”

The Guardian Headline: "American President Cures Cancer, World To Die Anyway Because He Withdrew From Paris Climate Accord"

Black Lives Matter Press Release: "Racist President Cures Cancer, Does Nothing Whatsoever About Cops Killing Thousands of People of Color”

LGBT Press Release: "President Trump Wants Gay People To Die, Doesn’t Cure AIDS”

CNN's Chris Cuomo: "An anonymous source has told us that there is no cure for cancer, it was actually a new diet pill. Another anonymous source has confirmed that the President is once again lying, the Surgeon General was fired because he asked for more money to find a cure for cancer. This is a heinous attack on American democracy and the brave, hardworking, devoted members of the media...”

MSNBC, Joy Reid and Rachel Maddow together:
Joy: "What have you discovered, Rachel, what are those papers you're holding?”
Rachel: "I have here proof, detailed Proof, that this entire lie about a cure for cancer, which will never happen anyway, was merely a plot hatched by the Russians, Romanians, and Macedonians to make Trump look good and steal the election in 2020. We are not fooled and the American people shouldn’t be either. This is yet another smoke screen to deflect attention away from the fact that Steve Bannon and Donald Trump colluded with the Russians and stole the election last November.”
Joy: "Resist. Persist. Women’s Rights are Human Rights...”

Lena Dunham's Instagram post: "I am devastated that I never got to experience breast cancer or cervical cancer or uterine cancer like so many of my sisters have. Planned Parenthood rocks!"

Maxine Waters Press Conference: "There are decent, hardworking people all across the land who have been victimized by the Fake News that there is some supposed cure for cancer. This is nothing but a vicious Russian lie spread by Fox News and Breitbart and that Dudge Reporter or whatever it’s called. We must get rid of this president, IMPEACH 45, IMPEACH 45, IMPEACH 45.”

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:17 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 734 words, total size 5 kb.

Wil Wirtanen forwards this:

http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/good-news-for-veterans-trump-tells-hundreds-of-va-workers-youre-fired/

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:16 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 11 words, total size 1 kb.

Helen Dyer sends this. It is a web chat between Jim Simpson and Dr. Tim Ball about his legal fight with Michael Mann in Canada, you know, the one I wrote about at American Thinker a couple of days ago.

Hi Tim

Trust you’re well & bearing up under the strain of what I notice on PSI’s web site are a number of Blogs (initially by John O’Sullivan) regarding your ongoing legal issues with Michael Mann, though nothing mentioned on your web site.

As concerned ‘Climate Realists’ both myself & others within our Group in Sydney would dearly love to see the Canadian Court come out with a ruling in your favour. The more recent Blogs on PSI suggest something might be afoot.

If you’re able to provide more detail, we would be most interested on where things stand?


Rgds, Jim Simpson

Convenor

Climate Realists of Five Dock

"De Omnibus Dubitandum” – Question Everything!

Further insight, per John O’Sullivan at PSI into the ongoing legal tangle re Michael Mann V’s Tim Ball soon to come to a head in Canada.

http://principia-scientific.org/breaking-michael-mann-doubles-down-over-contempt-issue/

Jim

Hi Jim:

Basically what Mann did was bring a lawsuit against me then deny me the documents I need to defend myself. Here is the balance of the details.

O’Sullivan is mostly correct. We agreed to an adjournment because Canadian courts always grant them before a trial in the hope of an out-of-court trial. In return we made certain demands that Mann agreed to that included producing computer codes and all documents and data used to create the ‘hockey stick.’ He had to produce these by February 20th, the original date of the trial. He did not produce them. This is where O’Sullivan went a little too far. Technically this puts Mann in contempt because he is denying me documents I need to prove my innocence. However, that judgment must be made by the court and we are in the process of seeking a ruling.

My lawyer and I understand that Mann is claiming that he does not have to turn over the material because a US court ruled it is his intellectual property (Cuccinelli State of Virginia against Mann). His problem is that Canadian courts that he cannot bring a charge against me then refuse access to material necessary for my defense. It is almost certain they will rule in my favour but it is not fait accompli.

In Canada, contempt sanctions mean the judge must grant Ball whatever reasonable remedy he requests to rectify the contempt. This means, upon Ball’s application, the court can make a finding that Ball’s statement that Mann "belongs in the state pen, not Penn. State” is a "precise and true statement of fact.” That’s because Canada has the distinctive "Truth Defense”, which mandates that the court must rule, upon Ball’s written application, that Mann’s failure to produce the documents means Mann hid them out of motivation to conceal his crime. Thereafter, because it is ruled Mann did commit a crime, the court can do no other (under the legal doctrine of "unclean hands”) than dismiss the entire suit and order Mann to pay costs and legal fees to Dr. Ball.

I chose the "Truth Defense” precisely because it allowed me to demand discovery. I could have chosen the Fair Comment” defence which would result in considerably less damages if I lost but did not allow for discovery.

Incidentally, I continue to prepare for my third lawsuit (all brought by members of the IPCC) brought by Andrew Weaver. He was a lead author on the computer model chapter for four of the IPCC Reports (1995,2001, 2007, 2013). His problem is that since he filed the lawsuit he ran for political office in British Columbia and was elected to the legislature as the leader of the Green Party.

One court journalist wrote, Weaver is in a difficult position because the history of Canadian courts is to dismiss scientists who become politicians as biased by the "noble cause” syndrome. My lawyers think he will evade the trial like Mann and this raises another problem.

The other distressing bias of my lawsuits is that they can simply do nothing, that is, effectively, let them drop. Yes, I could appeal for damages but this would take years and thousands more dollars. As it is I am looking at legal bills of well over 1 million dollars.

There are larger issues because the lawsuits are what they classify as SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation). The legal people are so concerned that this allows the law to silence and punish people rather than protect them that many jurisdictions are passing anti-SLAPP legislation. It is important to note that 8 of 10 Canadian Provinces have such legislation. All three of my lawsuits were filed in British Columbia, one of two without such legislation (The other is Ontario).

I will not stop because I am preparing a very large public campaign to help the people understand the science corruption that occurred as well as the misuse of the legal system.

As the Yiddish proverb says, "The truth never dies, but lives a wretched life.”



Hope that helps? Let me know if you have any further questions

Tim

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:03 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 875 words, total size 6 kb.

This courtesy of Helen Dyer

From the Heartland Institute:

Climate Change Weekly #255:
Climate Disaster Paper a
Disaster of Bad Science


There’s a saying in computer science—"garbage in, garbage out” (GIGO)—referring to the fact computers, operating solely on logical processes, will unquestioningly process flawed, even nonsensical, input data (garbage in) and produce often nonsensical output (garbage out). GIGO in fact applies not just to computers but to all types of analyses and logical arguments.

A recent paper in Science, "Estimating economic damage from climate change in the United States,” brings GIGO to mind. The paper, much heralded by the press, claims the damages from human-caused climate change have been woefully underestimated by previous analyses. The mainstream media displayed its usual fawning deference to the authors’ conclusions, displaying nary an iota of skepticism.

The paper concludes, "The combined value of market and nonmarket damage across analyzed sectors—agriculture, crime, coastal storms, energy, human mortality, and labor—increases quadratically in global mean temperature, costing roughly 1.2 percent of gross domestic product per +1°C on average … [with the result being] By the late 21st century, the poorest third of counties are projected to experience damages between 2 and 20 percent of county income (90 percent chance) under business-as-usual emissions.”

Alarming if true, but there are good reasons to believe it is a gross instance of GIGO. As Larry Kummer of website Fabius Maximus points out, the study acknowledges significant uncertainties concerning such critical factors as the amount of future warming, regional weather patterns, policy responses, and economic and technological development. Still the study itself, and the scientists quoted in the press coverage surrounding it, follow a narrative developed and strictly enforced by climate alarmists (including those who fashion themselves environmental "journalists”): the effects of climate change can only be bad (ignore any possible beneficial affects); where there are uncertainties or factors that can’t be adequately accounted for, the effects can only be worse than previously expected or projected, never better; and finally, as Kummer writes, "the only true experts are those writing about extreme adverse effects of warming. No matter how eminent, anyone speaking otherwise is bogus.”

For instance, PennsylvaniaStateUniversity’s Michael "Hockey Stick” Mann said the study "can at best only provide a very lower limit on the extent of damages likely to result from projected climate changes.” And Gernot Wagner, an economist at HarvardUniversity and the Environmental Defense Fund, praised the study saying, "For a quarter century, economists have made (lame) assumptions on climate damages. The adults have entered the room.”

The multiple problems with the study build upon one another. First, the study takes as gospel the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5), the climate model framework used in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fifth Assessment report (AR5). Yet numerous recent papers show CMIP5 and AR5 grossly overestimate the warming Earth experiences from additional units of carbon dioxide. For instance, a recent paper in Climate Dynamics examining 38 CMIP climate models finds each of the models’ simulations projected multi-decadal warming in the Pacific over the past half-century exceeding the actual measured temperatures. "Models which simulate the greatest global warming over the past half-century also project warming that is among the highest of all models by the end of the twenty-first century, .... Given that the same models are poorest in representing observed multidecadal temperature change, confidence in the highest projections is reduced.” Garbage In No. 1.

In addition, the Science study uses for its projections RCP8.5, the most extreme of the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs), the estimate of the rate of radiative forcings from future greenhouse gas concentrations. Yet it labels this scenario "business as usual.” Even AR5 does not consider RCP8.5 the business as usual scenario; rather, it is the worst-case scenario, assuming an extremely high fertility rate; static or even a reversal in energy technology; increasing, rather than demonstrated decreasing, carbon dioxide intensity as economic growth occurs; a massive resurgence in coal use in old, not state-of-the-art, power plants; limited growth in non-carbon, or low-carbon, emitting energy sources; and stagnant fuel economy gains and electric vehicle penetration. The Science study basically predicts a future based upon the technology of the past, ignoring technological advancements over the past 20 years that continue. Garbage In No. 2.

The end result: "Our market estimates are for a 1.0 to 3.0 percent loss of annual national average GDP under RCP8.5 at the end of the century,” says the paper. Garbage out!

Even if this paper’s doom and gloom predictions were true, the result, as Roger Pielke, Jr. points out, is, "US GDP in 2015 was ~$18 trillion. In 2100 at 2% annual GDP growth it will be ~$97 trillion. Under the scenario presented in this paper it will be $94 trillion. … On the one hand, 3% of 2100 GDP is a big number, on the other hand under this same scenario, GDP is still expected to increase by >500 percent.”

Basing policies on assumptions rife with uncertainties and scenarios that don’t reflect the reality of present demographic, climatic, or economic trends would be foolish for any government.

— H. Sterling Burnett

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:01 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 850 words, total size 6 kb.

Paul Driessen

From Duke University to EPA to the New England Journal of Medicine to multiple climate scientists, the ongoing epidemic of agenda-driven science by press release and falsification has reached crisis proportions. Now we have an even more outrageous case – involving the once American Academy for the Advancement of Science.

Its journal Science recently published an article that violated multiple guidelines for scientific integrity. In claiming that field studies in three countries show exposure to neonicotinoid pesticides adversely impacts bees, the article’s authors selected nine statistical data analyses that backed up their claims – but could have been experimental errors or purely random results. That’s because those nine negatives came out of a database of 258 statistical data analyses, of which a solid 238 found no effects on bees from neonics and seven found beneficial effects!

My article this week examines this sorry state of falsified, fraudulent science that is being used to drive and justify expensive policies, laws and regulations

The crisis of integrity-deficient science

Falsifying or ignoring data that don’t support conclusions or agendas is worse than junk science

Paul Driessen

The epidemic of agenda-driven science by press release and falsification has reached crisis proportions.

In just the past week: Duke University admitted that its researchers had falsified or fabricated data that were used to get $113 million in EPA grants – and advance the agency’s air pollution and "environmental justice” programs. http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/03/epa-funded-research-lab-accused-of-fabricating-data-on-respiratory-illnesses/A New England Journal of Medicine (NJEM) article and editorial claimed the same pollutants kill people – but blatantly ignored multiple studies demonstrating that there is no significant, evidence-based relationship between fine particulates and human illness or mortality. http://www.cfact.org/2016/09/04/epas-dangerous-regulatory-pollution/

In an even more outrageous case, the American Academy for the Advancement of Science’s journal Science published an article whose authors violated multiple guidelines for scientific integrity. The article claimed two years of field studies https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2017/02/06/gold-standard-assessing-neonicotinoids-field-bee-hive-studies-find-pesticides-not-major-source-of-health-issues/in three countries show exposure to neonicotinoid pesticides reduces the ability of honeybees and wild bees to survive winters and establish new populations and hives the following year. Not only did the authors’ own data contradict that assertion – they kept extensive data out of their analysis and incorporated only what supported their (pre-determined?) conclusions.

Some 90% of these innovative neonic pesticides are applied as seed coatings, so that crops absorb the chemicals into their tissue and farmers can target only pests that feed on the crops. Neonics largely eliminate the need to spray with old-line chemicals like pyrethroids that clearly do harm bees. But neonics have nevertheless been at the center of debate over their possible effects on bees, as well as ideological opposition in some quarters to agricultural use of neonics – or any manmade pesticides. https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2016/07/28/beepocalypse-myth-handbook-dissecting-claims-of-pollinator-collapse/

Laboratory studies had mixed results and were criticized for overdosing bees with far more neonics than they would ever encounter in the real world, predictably affecting their behavior and often killing them. Multiple field studies – in actual farmers’ fields – have consistently shown no adverse effects on honeybees at the colony level from realistic exposures to neonics. In fact, bees thrive in and around neonic-treated corn and canola crops in the United States, Canada, Europe, Australia and elsewhere.

So how did the Dr. Ben Woodcock, et al. Center for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH) field studies reach such radically different conclusions? After all, the researchers set up 33 sites in fields in Germany, Hungary and England, each one with groups of honeybee or wild bee colonies in or next to oilseed rape (canola) crops. Each group involved one test field treated with fungicides, a neonic and a pyrethroid; one field treated with a different neonic and fungicides; and one "control” group by a field treated only with fungicides. They then conducted multiple data analyses throughout the two-year trial period.

Their report and Science article supposedly presented all the results of their exhaustive research. They did not. The authors fudged the data, and the "peer reviewers” and AAAS journal editors failed to spot the massive flaws. Other reviewers (here, here and here) quickly found the gross errors, lack of transparency and misrepresentations – but not before the article and press releases had gone out far and wide.

Thankfully, and ironically, the Woodcock-CEH study was funded by Syngenta and Bayer, two companies that make neonics. That meant the companies received the complete study and all 1,000 pages of data – not just the portions carefully selected by the article authors. Otherwise, all that inconvenient research information would probably still be hidden from view – and the truth would never have come out.

Most glaring, as dramatically presented in a chart that’s included in each of the reviews just cited, there were far more data sets than suggested by the Science article. In fact, there were 258 separate honeybee statistical data analyses. Of the 258, a solid 238 found no effects on bees from neonics! Seven found beneficial effects from neonics! Just nine found harmful impacts, and four had insufficient data.

Not one group of test colonies in Germany displayed harmful effects, but five benefitted from neonics. Five in Hungary showed harm, but the nosema gut fungus was prevalent in Hungarian beehives during the study period; it could have affected bee foraging behavior and caused colony losses. But Woodcock and CEH failed to mention the problem or reflect it in their analyses. Instead, they blamed neonics.

In England, four test colony groups were negatively affected by neonics, while two benefitted, and the rest showed no effects. But numerous English hives were infested with Varroa mites, which suck on bee blood and carry numerous pathogens that they transmit to bees and colonies. Along with poor beekeeping and mite control practices, Varroa could have been the reason a number of UK test colonies died out during the study – but CEH blamed neonics.

(Incredibly, even though CEH’s control hives in England were far from any possible neonic exposure, they had horrendous overwinter bee losses: 58%, compared to the UK national average of 14.5% that year, while overwinter colony losses for CEH hives were 67-79% near their neonic-treated fields.)

In sum, fully 95% of all the hives studied by CEH demonstrated no effects or benefitted from neonic exposure – but the Science magazine authors chose to ignore them, and focus on nine hives (3% of the total) which displayed harmful impacts that they attributed to neonicotinoids.

Almost as amazing, CEH analyses found that nearly 95% of the time pollen and nectar in hives showed no measurable neonic residues. Even samples taken directly from neonic-treated crops did not have residues – demonstrating that bees in the CEH trials were likely never even exposed to neonics.

How then could CEH researchers and authors come to the conclusions they did? How could they ignore the 245 out of 258 honeybee statistical data analyses that demonstrated no effects or beneficial effects from neonics? How could they focus on the nine analyses (3.4%) that showed negative effects – a number that could just as easily have been due to random consequences or their margin of error?

The sheer number of "no effect” results (92%) is consistent with what a dozen other field studies have found: that foraging on neonicotinoid-treated crops has no effect on honeybees. Why was this ignored?

Also relevant is the fact that CEH honeybee colonies near neonic-treated fields recovered from any adverse effects of their exposure to neonics before going into their winter clusters. As "super organisms,” honeybee colonies are able to metabolize many pesticides and detoxify themselves. This raises doubts about whether any different overwintering results between test colonies and controls can properly be ascribed to neonics. Woodcock, et al. should have discussed this, but failed to do so.

Finally, as The Mad Virologist pointed out, if neonics have negative impacts on bees, the effects should have been consistent across multiple locations and seed treatments. They were not. In fact, the number of bee larval cells during crop flowering periods for one neonic increased in response to seed treatments in Germany, but declined in Hungary and had no change in England. For another neonic, the response was neutral (no change) in all three countries. Something other than neonics clearly seems to be involved.

The honest, accurate conclusion would have been that exposure to neonics probably had little or no effect on the honeybees or wild bees that CEH studied. The Washington Post got that right; Science did not.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/06/29/controversial-pesticides-may-threaten-queen-bees-alternatives-could-be-worse/?utm_term=.d551d0657c47

US law defines "falsification” as (among other things) "changing or omitting data or results, such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.” Woodcock and CEH clearly did that. Then the AAAS and Science failed to do basic fact-checking before publishing the article; the media parroted the press releases; and anti-pesticide factions rushed to say "the science is settled” against neonics.

The AAAS and Science need to retract the Woodcock article, apologize for misleading the nation, and publish an article that fully, fairly and accurately represents what the CEH research and other field studies actually documented. They should ban Woodcock and his coauthors from publishing future articles in Science and issue press releases explaining all these actions. The NJEM should take similar actions.

Meanwhile, Duke should be prosecuted, fined and compelled to return the fraudulently obtained funds.

Failure to do so would mean falsification and fraud have replaced integrity at the highest levels of once-respected American institutions of scientific investigation, learning and advancement.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1595 words, total size 11 kb.

My brother Brian continues his war with the media.:

Dear Mr. Pitts,
In your syndicated column in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch of today, July 7, 2017 you issue a facetious "warning" to your colleagues stating, "Remember last year's campaign how dogged and relentless we were in covering Hillary Clinton's sloppy handling of her emails?" Granted, it is possible that this was meant in jest, and that I blinked and missed the "laugh" sign. I remember the email issue last year and remember the mainstream media doing everything possible to ignore, then to downplay, and finally to sweep the issue under the rug. I also remember that you ignored, downplayed, and tried to sweep the whole thing under the rug...and boy were you hot when you couldn't kill the story.

Later in the piece you blame every problem in this country on Republican extremism. You stated, "...We are not, after all divided because Americans pulled back from the center and retreated into extremism> No we are divided because one party di. And it wasn't the Democrats." I remind you, sir, that an avowed socialist who claims to admire Marxism-Leninism won nearly 40% of the Democratic primary vote, and would have had a fighting chance at your Party's nomination, if the Debbie Wasserman Schultz's of the world hadn't rigged things in favor of Queen Hillary of Little Rock. Your party has made the fateful turn to open socialism, yet you accuse the other party of being extremist. You have taken a page out of the Saul Alinsky playbook here: Accuse the opposition of doing what you are doing, and obfuscate the truth. Is it working yet?

Brian E. Birdnow
St. Louis, Mo.

NOTES FROM TIM:

Here are a few of the laughable highlights from Mr. Pitt:

"Remember last year's campaign? Remember how dogged and relentless we were in covering Hillary Clinton's sloppy handling of her emails?

Remember the comparatively free ride we gave Donald Trump despite his repeated demonstrations that he was unserious, unsound and unfit? Remember all the hand wringing afterward about how we had embraced a false equivalence?"

????

The only free ride Trump received was an easier path when he was a spoiler. Once it became obvious he was a serious contender they went after him viciously. Anyone remember the October Surprise tape where Trump is making some dirty remarks with Billy Bush?

No mention of Hillary's dirty tricks, of her slimey financial deals. No mention of her uranium deal with the Russians; she was the one who colluded with them, not Trump. The media rarely if ever quoted the actual Hillary e-mails. Nothing was said when Hillary received the debate questions in advance from Donna Brazil; the MSM hoped it would just blow over. Little was aaid about hte questionable donations to the Clinton Foundation and the interesting fact that Hillary seemed to make policy based on personal enrichment. You ignore the fact she violated Federal Law in her handling of classified and confidential government information.

Coverage of Hillary was dragged out of the media by Breitbart and other new media outlets.

"No, we are divided because one party did. And it wasn't the Democrats."

Excuse modern parlance, but WTF! During the Obama era health insurance was nationalized and made compulsory over the objections of half the country. Federal courts imposed homosexual marriage in violation of duly enacted laws at both the state and federal levels and over the objections of most Americans. The National Security Agency and other spy organizations began a systematic program to keep a close watch on Americans. Washington attempted to impose Common Core, a power grab by washington to take control of public education. Obama tried to colonize upper class communities with section 8 housing to dilute the power of wealthy whites and overturn the results of redistricting. The Environmental Protection Agency delcared mud puddles as part of the nation's "navigatable waters" and took away people's property rights. They opened the floodgates to illegal immigrants. They refused to enforce the most basic protections of the vote. They attempted to nationalize local police departments. The list goes on.

And what was the Republican response? Even now they are frightened to repeal Obamacare, something they promised. No Mr. Pitts; it is the Democrats who are the polarizers. The Republicans problem is they wouldn't stop your buddies when they had the chance. The Democrats didn't just divide us, they hacked us in pieces with a dull letter opener.

"In other words, they are pretty much what they were 30 years ago. The same cannot be said of the GOP."

Oh? Thirty years ago you could find pro-life Democcrats. No more. Thirty years ago you could find Democrats who favored strong national security. No more. Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and most other Democrats opposed gay marriage before they supported it. There used to be Democrats who opposed gun control. No more. On almost any issue one examines the Democrats moved from reasonable to, well, not much different than the CPUSA. But They even kicked GOD off their platform! it's the Republicans who are the problem, yessirreee!

How? Because Trump tweets, and kicks nasty journalists out of press briefings.

And why shouldn't he? They have created truly fake news such as the "Russian Collusion" story which they simply refuse to let go of despite it being totally illogical. (Note they have not even defined what the Russians suppposedly did. All that can be said is they maybe hacked the DNC server and exposed what the Democrats were actually doing and saying. And that is IF they did it; no national security agency actually looked at the servers, but rather were told what was there by Crowdstrike, a private company hired by the Democrats. And John Podesta was no hacked but rather fell for a phishing expedition.) Yet the media keeps the meme up, hoping by repetition to make it the accepted story and thus deligitimize the Trump Presidency.

Remember when the media lied about Trump, claiming he called all Mexicans rapists? No; he called rapists rapists and said there were some coming here illegally. Remember when they said Trump sexually assaulted women because of the Billy Bush tape? No; he said women WOULD LET YOU DO THAT if you are rich. They tried to call Trump a draft dodger. They accused him of urinating on Russian hookers. They lied and said Trump was under investigation by Comey when in fact nothing was further from the truth. The media lied when it accused Trump of making up false statistics when he said the murder rate was at it's highest in 47 years, something a simple Google search would have shown them. They promote psychatrists who claim Trump is mad (which would justify his removal from office) or that he treats his wife like chattel. No scurrilous accusation is beneath them.

Pitts states:

"To the contrary, it becomes more obvious every day that we are where we are because something is very wrong with the GOP. To not acknowledge and report that, apparently out of some misguided notion that doing so wouldn't be "fair and balanced" is, in itself, deeply unfair and unbalanced. In our terror of being called biased, we in media have neutered ourselves, abandoned our watchdog function."

Yet he ignores the blistering attack on conservatives by Democrats on a regular basis, and by his own beloved media. He forgets the Journolist scandal, for instance.

"We end up having mannered debates over whether to call the president's dozens of lies lies. Meantime, America's international prestige is eroding, its government is paralyzed, its friends are worried, its enemies emboldened."

Where was the media when Hillary was saying she landed in Bosnia under sniper fire? Or when she blamed Benghazi on a youtube video? Or that she was named after Edmund Hillary? Where were they when Obama lied repeatedly? Where were they when she said her e-mails were abotu Yoga and wedding plans and contained no government secrets?

And what of Obama lies? Where were they when he said:

"If you like your healthcare plan you can keep it"

"More young black men languish in prison than attend colleges and universities across America”

"The day after Benghazi happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism”

"Republicans have filibustered 500 pieces of legislation”

"I didn’t call the Islamic State a ‘JV’ team”

"We have fired a whole bunch of people who are in charge of these [VA] facilities”

"The Keystone pipeline is for oil that bypasses the United States”

They never investigated many of the shadier aspects of Mr. Obama. They his his membership in the New Party in Chicago, for instance. They never investigated allegations of drug use. They never asked him WHERE he was when Benghazi was happening. He lied to the public about Fast and Furious. He lied about the costs of Obamacare. They never were interested in HIS lies.

In the end, one must question the veracity of even the conjunctions Mr. Pitts uses in his sentences. I would not believe him if he said and, but, or the.

The whole point of this is to establish a meme that the Left and their media cohorts have been pushing for a long time, that the GOP has drifted into right wing insanity. They can't really give us any examples. By any metric, the Democrats are the ones who have wandered out into Left field and are staring into the abyss. The Republicans are more liberal now than they wre just ten years ago. I suspect Pitts knows that, but they cannot keep America turning Left without lying about where we are.

The media is the biggest liar of all.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:17 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1620 words, total size 10 kb.

Jack Kemp

http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/07/07/drag-queen-story-time-hits-boston-childrens-library-to-end-pride-month-outrage-joy-erupts/
‘Drag Queen Story Time’ hits Boston Children’s Library to end Pride month. Outrage, joy erupts.

Perhaps you recall New York’s Brooklyn Public Library recently began sponsoring a Drag Queen Story Hour for toddlers, which adults in the crowd exclaimed that it was "fantastic” and "great.”

Well, it looks like the Boston Public Library is doing the same thing.

Its Children’s Library was the locale for a Drag Queen Story Time on June 29, library spokesperson Rosemarie Lavery on Friday confirmed to TheBlaze.

The event was slated to mark the end of Pride month, the main library’s Facebook noted, and would feature the Boston Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.

The group’s website says "we are a modern Order of Nuns, comprising of people of all gender associations, all spiritual affiliations, and all proclivities to do good works” and the "five aspects of our Practice include Service, Education, Activism, Entertainment, and Ministry. We believe that people should be encouraged to live their lives in any way that brings them the most amount of satisfaction and joy, without guilt or shame, so long as they do harm to no one. This underlying philosophical tradition of pure non-judgmentalism informs every aspect of our Practice.”

The caption of a photo advertising the event on the Children’s Library Facebook page reads: "Let’s end Pride Month with a drag… drag queen storytime, that is!” The caption also appears to indicate it would be a return visit for the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:33 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 256 words, total size 2 kb.

Dana Mathewson

At least it isn't being blamed on Global Warming / Climate Change.

The sun is getting quiet, and that could be bad news for Earth. Hey, it's in the NY Post, so it's not from a bunch of crackpots.

http://nypost.com/2017/07/06/the-sun-is-getting-quiet-and-that-could-be-bad-news-for-earth/amp/

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:32 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 44 words, total size 1 kb.

Jack Kemp

This is, for now, only in Malaysia. Starbucks is owned by a Jew who is the son of a U.S. military veteran. And Starbucks has pledged to give 10,000 jobs to U.S. military veterans. To me, this looks like three reasons why Muslims would boycott Starbucks. Three bad reasons. Oh, yes. And Starbucks might not cater beheadings.

And it looks like a crack in the hard left-Muslim alliance.

http://theresurgent.com/muslims-are-boycotting-starbucks-over-the-companys-pro-lgbt-stance/
Muslims Are Boycotting Starbucks Over The Company’s Pro-LGBT Stance
By Jason Hopkins | July 7, 2017, 11:15pm | @thejasonhopkins


Let’s laugh a little.
Parkasa, a hard-line Muslim group in Malaysia that touts around 700,000 members, is joining another Muslim group in Indonesia, Muhammadiyah, in calling for the boycott of Starbucks.

Almost 30 million people belong to Muhammadiyah, the second-largest mainstream Muslim organization in Indonesia. They have denounced the popular coffee chain over the company’s former chief executive’s past praise for the gay community. Both organizations want Starbucks’ operating license to be revoked because the stance goes against Islamic teachings.

"Our objection is because they are promoting something that is against the human instinct, against human behavior and against religion. That’s why we are against it,” Amini Amir Abdullah, head of Perkasa’s Islamic affairs bureau, stated to Reuters in an interview earlier this week. Homosexuality goes against the country’s constitution.

Sodomy (including homosexual sex) is illegal in Malaysia, and committing gay acts can land you up to 20 years in prison. While homosexuality is still legal in Indonesia, a case moving forward in the Constitutional Court is looking to criminalize gay sex.
Oddly enough, calls for a boycott come in response to an old video of Howard Schultz defending LGBT causes in a shareholders meeting. The video, released in 2013, shows Schultz responding to a shareholder who was complaining over lost business because of the company’s support for gay marriage. The recording has been re-circulating online and has caused the ire of conservative Muslims in Indonesia and Malaysia. Shares of the company that operates Starbucks in Indonesia fell drastically this week.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:31 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 347 words, total size 3 kb.

Dana Mathewson

But this guy was successful. Running was his only option, so he took it.

Professional runner outruns two black bears, saves himself from attack while training the the woods.

https://sports.yahoo.com/professional-runner-outruns-2-bears-while-training-woods-182956682--spt.html

A NOTE FROM TIM:

I encountered a brown bear in the woods in New Mexico when I was a Boy Scout. Ran for my life (and was amazed I was doing it; my body just acted without my volition.) The Bear didn't chase me; he was a good natured fellow and happy with our food, which he figured we layed out for him as a sort of dinner party. (It was in the trees in a "bear bag" but he figured out how to get it down.)  I never knew I could run so fast, or that it was possible to run THROUGH a barbed-wire fence, but those mothers are HUGE!

I knew running was wrong, but couldn't stop my body.  Glad I didn't wind up bear chow.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 08:29 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 167 words, total size 1 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

The Democrats are losing the Jewish vote.

According to Don Surber,

"Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio is the latest to learn that feuding with Donald Trump always backfires.

Brown spoke to Zionist Organization of America last week, and trashed Trump.

The group blasted Brown afterward.

Brown likely faces Republican Joshua Mandel next year in a rematch of their 2012 battle, which Brown won 51% to 45%. Mandel is Jewish, so it made sense for Brown to speak to a Jewish group.

Unless of course you insult the group.

Formed as the Federation of American Zionists in 1897, the Zionist Organization of America was pro-Israeli 51 years before the United Nations recognized the state of Israel.

In a speech to the group, Brown decided to attack President Trump and his White House.

"There are a whole lot of members in the Senate, in both parties, that are very concerned about the bigotry and the anti-Semitism in the White House," Brown told the group.

Evidently, Brown thought he was talking to idiots.

Trump is the first president who has a daughter and grandchildren who are Jewish. He is very pro-Israel as well.

End excerpt.

It gets worse for the Democrats; despite efforts to smear Steve Bannon as "alt-right", a bigot, and yet bannon came from Breitbart, whose founde3r was a proud Jew.

Now, the Jewish vote - and plenty of Jewish money - has traditionally gone to the Democrats, but the Donkeys have done much to anger the Jewish vote in recent years. They support returning Israel to the pre-1967 border. They supported the Palestinians over the Jews. They support the anti-Semitic Black Lives Matter.

According to the Jewish paper Algemeiner:

"According to exit polls, 71% of American Jews voted for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton, while only 24% backed her Republican opponent Donald Trump. Though Haaretz described the outcome as a reflection of overwhelming Jewish support for Clinton, the truth is the opposite. Jews rejected her in extraordinary numbers and may have contributed to her defeat in battleground states with large Jewish populations.

Just as the press misjudged the general population before Tuesday, so too did it miscalculate the Jewish vote. Take some of the headlines prior to Election Day, such as the Jewish Telegraphic Agency’s "Anti-Semitism unleashed by Trump followers chills Jewish voters,” or The Atlantic’s, "Has Trump Driven Jews Away From the Republican Party?”"

[...]

Still, Jews deserted Clinton in droves. Yes, she won a substantial majority, but all the previous Democratic candidates, going back to her husband, did much better, with Bill’s 80% share of the Jewish vote in 1992 significantly higher. After 1992, Clinton followed that up with a 78% in his second campaign. Gore and Kerry lost despite getting 79% and 76% of the vote, respectively. Jews saw great promise in Obama and rewarded him with 78% of their vote, but the perception that he was perhaps the most anti-Israel president in history drove that total down dramatically to 69% in 2012. Thus, the pro-Israel Clinton didn’t do much better than the Democrat viewed as hostile to Israel.

Put bluntly, Clinton’s share of the Jewish vote was not good. Did it cost her the election? Probably not, since she underperformed with so many other constituencies and, in many respects, ran a terrible campaign, but losing Jews certainly didn’t help her in states such as Florida, Pennsylvania or Ohio."

End excerpt.

Why?

Well, Hillary was center stage in the U.S. foreign policy where America switched sides. Known for having a very close Muslim aid (a bit too close, in fact) Hillary has also supported the Muslim Brotherhood. So did her party.

Clearly, something must be done to shore up the Jewish vote.

So they started the "alt-right" campaign. Now, it is pretty obvious that few on the Right are anti-Semitic and the Democrats know that. On the contrary, the Right Wing is far more supportive of Israel and Jews than are Democrats.

That is why, in my opinion, we have this tempest over the selfie made by a GOP Congressman in front of Auschwitz; they need to make the Jews angry at the GOP. I think it is behind this attack by liberals on the staffer of a Missouri State Senator who compared abortion to the Holocaust. I suspect we are going to such much more of this in the near term.

The reality is we are witnessing the return of the swastika in this world, and I would be very nervous if I were a Jew. And the rising tide of anti-Semitism is tied directly and indirectly to the policies that were advocated under Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton - and by the Democratic Party today.

The Democrats have demanded Israel not make Jerusalem her capital, and that a Palestinian state be allowed to make East Jerusalem hers. Obama funded Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. The Democrats pushed for the overthrow of the Syrian government, creating the ISIS crisis. Hillary was at the heart of this.

American Jews are perhaps starting to realize that the people who really are their friends - Evangelical Christians, Republicans, conservatives - support them while their erstwhile Progressive buddies actually do not and that the rising tide of hatred toward Jews is coming from the Progressive side.

So watch for more attacks on Republicans in days to come as the Democrats, desperate to shore up their support among their base, try to fool the Jews into believing Republicans are Klansmen in gray flannel suits.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:13 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 919 words, total size 6 kb.

Dana Mathewson

But you'll never see this correction in the MSM!

http://americanactionnews.com/articles/scientific-study-reveals-disturbing-fact-about-liberalism

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:58 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 14 words, total size 1 kb.

Jack Kemp


Talk about low lifes. Selling a seat while its still occupied. United adds to its reputation as being sociopaths.

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/07/06/united-airlines-forces-mother-to-hold-toddler-during-flight/23019402/

United Airlines has apologized after it sold a two-year-old boy's seat during a layover on Flight 2047 from Hawaii to Boston, forcing his mother to hold him in her lap for the rest of the journey.

Shirley Yamauchi, 42, and her son, Taizo, were ready to begin the last leg of an 18-hour trip after a layover in Houston, Texas, when a male standby passenger boarded the aircraft with a ticket showing 24A, the same seat number as the toddler.
"It was very shocking. I was confused. I told him, I bought both of these seats. The flight attendant came by, shrugs and says 'flights full,'" Yamauchi told KITV.

Yamauchi says she was too afraid to cause a scene over the seat, remembering how Dr. David Dao was dragged off a United Airlines flight in April for disagreeing with a flight attendant's orders.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:34 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 180 words, total size 1 kb.

Wil Wirtanen

Unfortunately this does not happen enough

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/07/video-cnn-reporter-harasses-meme-makers-father-gets-busted-chops/

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:31 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 13 words, total size 1 kb.

Dana Mathewson

This is neat. Celebrities think they are above everybody else, sometimes learn it ain't so. This is kind of an example of when the, er, fertilizer hits the impeller. I like Emma Thompson well enough, but. .

https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=ZIjO0Kp_lXU.

This farmer comes up with quite a potent weapon for his
uninvited guests.-------

Despite courts telling her that she couldn't come onto private property to host her fracking protest, Oscar-winning actress Emma Thompson obviously thought she was above the law given her celebrity status.

Defiantly entering a local farm along with her sister Sophie and a small group of other protesters, the two spoiled brats then set up their bake sale where they displayed energy-themed cakes as part of a Greenpeace-backed protest stunt.But the farmer who owned the land wasn't having it. And shortly after witnessing the trespassers, he cranked up his tractor, firing up the manure sprayer that was hooked to the back of it.

Read more at Breitbart:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2016/04/29/emma-thompson-stages-eco-protest-sprayed-with-manure-by-irate-farmer/

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:25 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 174 words, total size 1 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

It looks like the State of Missouri is going to set a standardized minimum wage and force St. Louis - which just implemented a ten buck an hour wage - to reduce the minimum to the standard $7.75.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/07/st_louis_minimum_wage_to_drop_from_10_to_770_an_hour.html

When the city imposed the new wage the people at my company joked with our boss (who is a good sport) that we wanted minimum wage so we could have a raise. He kindly offered to give it to us. Now I KHOW he's going to wish we had taken him up on it.

The imposition of such a high minimum wage is evidence St. Louis is falling apart; they've already run off the lower paying market. In typical Democrat fashion the city Mothers (since the Mayor is a limousine liberal) are trying to make a statement with people's livelihoods. They figure it won't impact too many people. Many of the younger generation has to go to St. Louis county for work anyway.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:21 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 171 words, total size 1 kb.