6 things to know about the new Democrat House

1. By reviewing the Ocasio-Cortez initial announcement on the “Green New Deal,” we can see her blind spots and her focus

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Suggests Super Wealthy be Taxed Up to 70% to Fund ‘Green New Deal’

In a 4 January 2019 Mediaite article, the basic information on the Anderson Cooper interview of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in which she first unveils the Green New Deal appears in print.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez sat with Anderson Cooper for an upcoming 60 Minutes interview set to air this Sunday, a portion of which has been released as a promotion. In the released segment, Ocasio-Cortez reveals how exactly she suggests paying for the environmental agenda known as the “Green New Deal” — with remarkably higher tax rates for the super wealthy.

Ocasio-Cortez suggests in the clip that in her esteem, people should be doing more to pay their “fair share.” When Cooper pressed on how she could possibly pay for the deal, she pointed to the progressive tax rate system in the 1960s, explaining that if you earn 0 to $75,000 a year, you would only pay 10% or 15% in income tax.

She continued:

“But once you get to the tippie tops, on your $10 millionth, sometimes you see tax rates as high as 60% or 70%. That doesn’t mean all $10 million are taxed at an extremely high rate. But it means that as you climb up this ladder, you should be contributing more.”

(Read more at Mediaite)

From reading this, we can glean:

  • Regarding her view of salaries and rich people
    1. Ocasio-Cortez doesn’t seem to understand that if income (or another reward) is removed, people will likely not produce at the same level
    2. The people earning $10 million are company owners that — when they scale back — may cause many people to lose their jobs. It seems she didn’t learn anything from Obama’s “The Great Recession” or Solyndra.
    3. She objectifies rich people as miniature banks for funding her pie-in-the-sky programs (not as people capable of compassion, mercy, or other laudable traits).
    4. She wants to divide us (the noble “green” voters) from the “rich” (who, according to her, do not pay their “fair share”).
  • Regarding her elevated view of “green” projects
    1. She assumes that “green” projects are so noble that they will escape strong questions by the press
    2. When she does get the muted criticism that this is “radical,” she glosses over the undercurrent of association with the failed states of the USSR, Cuba, Venezuela, and many other broken states by glorying in the title.

Democrats are dangerous to business

2. By reviewing the details of her “Green New Deal,” we can see how it will explode costs and kill jobs

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s ‘Green New Deal’ is more dangerous than you think

The 3 January 2019 Washington Examiner opinion piece that describes Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez proposed “Green New Deal” should be reviewed by all (along with the linked draft resolution).

Rep.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., hasn’t officially started her first term in office, but she’s already pushing a massive, far-left proposal that would fundamentally transform much of the economy and push the country closer than ever to socialism.

For several weeks, you might have heard Ocasio-Cortez reference the creation of a “Green New Deal,” but until recently, few people knew what would be included in the plan. In a draft resolution to form a select committee in the House that would help develop legislation to put her plan in action, Ocasio-Cortez finally outlined numerous proposals that she says should be part of future Green New Deal legislation. Taken together, the many ideas included in Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal would be the most radical policy shift in modern U.S. history, dramatically increasing the size and power of government and running up the national debt by trillions of dollars.

According to Ocasio-Cortez, the Green New Deal, which has been endorsed by Sens. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., Cory Booker, D-N.J., Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and at least 40 House Democrats, would eliminate nearly all fossil fuels from the electric grid and force everyone in the country to buy from power companies selling only renewable energy.

This policy alone would create widespread economic chaos. Without government subsidies, renewable energy costs significantly more than many forms of traditional energy generation. My colleagues at the Heartland Institute found that electricity prices are, on average, increasing by 50 percent faster in those states that have created renewable power mandates compared to those that have rejected these economically destructive policies. This is especially troubling news for working-class and lower-income Americans, who spend much larger shares of their income on energy than wealthier families.

Not only is Ocasio-Cortez proposing to eliminate the hundreds of thousands of jobs in the fossil fuel industry in the United States, even though America recently became a net-energy exporter, she’s demanding this transition occur in just 10 years, from 2020 to 2030. This mandate would be virtually impossible to achieve because wind and solar energy sources still rely on back-up generation from fossil-fuel-powered energy when the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining.

Ocasio-Cortez’s proposal doesn’t merely advocate for a gigantic shift in the U.S. energy industry. Her draft resolution says one of the proposed House committee’s priorities would be “upgrading every residential and industrial building for state-of-the-art energy efficiency, comfort and safety.” Taken literally, this mandate would cost trillions of dollars. There were about 136 million housing units in the United States in 2017, not including any businesses. Even if it would cost just $10,000 to “upgrade” every home and apartment, an extremely low estimate, this one relatively small part of her plan would cost more than $1.3 trillion.

(Read more at the Washington Examiner)

As much as people have enjoyed the sudden renaissance of jobs caused by Trump’s deregulation, Ocasio-Cortez’s turn towards the bureaucracy of socialism must be resisted. Not only does it abandon our resources of oil, gas, and coal — it cannot do anything to regulate the biggest polluters (China, India, and third world countries).

Additionally, Ocasio-Cortez’s proposed bill plays loosely with tax dollars being collected and handed out. In fact, it is wrong on so many levels, because:

  1. The quickest way to raise the price of a commodity (like electrical power) is to mandate that the public buy that commodity from a monopoly (the green power producers)
  2. The best way to ensure a service (like the installation of green power conduits) is inordinately high-priced involves requiring everyone install them under penalty of law
  3. Ocasio-Cortez’s proposed bill eliminates the use of natural resources (that — through gasoline formulation technology and scrubbing technology — have become increasingly cleaner)
  4. Ocasio-Cortez’s proposed bill eliminates currently good-paying jobs in a time window too short to allow a workable transition

3. If the above issues are not enough, Ocasio-Cortez doubles down on forcing entrepreneurs from New York

Ocasio-Cortez Tax Plan Creates 82.7% Top Income Tax Rate for New Yorkers

If we go to a 4 January 2019 article by Americans for Tax Reform, we find a bleaker picture painted for the job creators of New York.

In an upcoming 60 Minutes interview, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) will call for federal income tax rates of up to 70 percent as part of a proposal to create vast new government spending programs.

The current top federal income tax rate is 37 percent, so the Ocasio-Cortez plan will nearly double the tax rate for the top bracket.

New York State has a top income tax rate of 8.82 percent while New York City has a top rate of 3.876 percent. So under this proposal, her constituents would pay a top combined income tax rate of 82.7 percent:

Federal income tax rate: 70.0%
NY state income tax rate: 8.82%
NYC income tax rate: 3.876%
TOTAL: 82.696%

New Yorkers would not be the only ones suffering under the Ocasio-Cortez plan. California taxpayers would pay a top rate of 83.3 percent (70 percent plus the California rate of 13.30 percent).

(Read more at Americans for Tax Reform)

If this is not a formula for speeding the exodus of businesses from New York, I don’t know what is.

Pelosi gives it away to foriegn nations

4. For those concerned with border security, the new House Democrats have nothing. But they do have a nice gift for the dictators of Central America.

Democrat Spending Bill Offers $12 Billion More for Foreign Aid, $0 for Border Wall

A 3 January 2019 Breitbart article outlines the excesses the Democrats have taken to advance socialism and abortion internationally.

The spending bills proposed by House Democrats to end the partial government shutdown offer no funding for a U.S.-Mexico border wall, but provide over $12 billion more in foreign aid than the Trump administration requested, according to a statement on Thursday from the White House Office of Management and Budget.

The statement warned the new House Democrat majority of President Trump’s intention to veto the bills, noting that the administration “cannot accept legislation that provides unnecessary funding for wasteful programs while ignoring the Nation’s urgent border security needs.”

The statement reiterated President Trump’s request for “at least $5 billion for border security” and asserted that the Democrats’ proposal “does not come close to providing these necessary investments and authorities.”
The White House then highlighted the billions in funding the Democrats are offering for “unnecessary programs at excessive levels” beyond what the Trump administration requested, including:

  • $12 billion more for “international affairs programs,” including $2.9 billion more “for economic and development assistance, including funding for the West Bank/Gaza, Syria, and Pakistan, where our foreign aid is either frozen or under review.”
  • $700 million more than requested for the United Nations, including restored funding for the United Nation’s Population Fund, which would undermine the administration’s Mexico City Policy that bars the use of taxpayer dollars for foreign organizations that “promote or perform abortions.”
  • Approximately $2 billion more than requested for the Environmental Protection Agency
  • $7.1 billion more than the administration requested for Housing and Urban Development programs

(Read more at Breitbart)

Of course, these Democrats have to know that these measures will not pass the Republican Senate and will not be signed into law by President Trump.

Still, forget reality. These are the Democrats.

5. Democrats know from commercial sources that America wants Border Security

Americans want border security, and the numbers show it

A 5 January 2019 Fox News article on a recent Gallup poll shows that most Americans value border security.

President Trump is far from alone in his determination to secure our borders — according to a recent Gallup poll, Americans view immigration as the second-biggest problem facing the country today.

That’s bad news for the Democrat Party, which is hellbent on opposing the president’s efforts to fix our broken immigration system, especially the border wall he needs in order to get illegal immigration under control.

The Democrats have a very simple, two-part strategy on immigration: first and foremost, they want to keep President Trump from fulfilling his promises to the American people; second, they want to make it even easier for foreigners to enter this country illegally.

With Democrats now in control of the House of Representatives, it’s no surprise that Americans are deeply troubled by the immigration crisis.

Over the past several decades, millions of illegal immigrants have successfully evaded our efforts to enforce immigration laws, putting local economies and welfare programs under tremendous pressure to cope with the massive influx of undocumented workers and their families, most of whom receive at least one form of government welfare.

In fact, illegal immigration costs taxpayers a staggering $134.9 billion a year while contributing only $19 billion in state, federal, and local taxes. At the federal level, medical costs make up the lion’s share of government expenditures on illegal immigrants, while education is the largest single expense that illegal immigration imposes on state and local governments.

(Read more at Fox News)

Although it is the Democrats who seem hellbent on denying border security to America, I have to admit that the Republicans have had ample chances to fix the problem over the past two years.

6. If you don’t live in a major population center, the Democrats do not care about you.

Nolte: Tyrannical Democrats Introduce Bill to Kill Electoral College

According to a 4 January 2019 Breitbart article, the Democrats would like to silence the fly-over states between New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles.

Desperate to bring the Tyranny of the Majority to our representative democracy, on the first day Democrats assumed control of the House of Representatives, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) submitted a bill to kill the electoral college.

“In two presidential elections since 2000, including the most recent one in which Hillary Clinton won 2.8 million more votes than her opponent, the winner of the popular vote did not win the election because of the distorting effect of the outdated Electoral College,” Cohen said in a press release. “Americans expect and deserve the winner of the popular vote to win office. More than a century ago, we amended our Constitution to provide for the direct election of U.S. Senators. It is past time to directly elect our President and Vice President.”

Democrat frustration over losing the presidency when they won the most votes is certainly justified. But it is also their own fault. If these triggered snowflakes would get over their Red State prejudices and dare to live amongst us, that influence might flip enough states. But they refuse to. These snobby bigots find Middle America icky, so they cower together in coastal and big city bubbles.

If you will pardon a small digression… never forget that those who claim to believe in Global Warming also choose to stubbornly live on the very same coasts that are supposed to be underwater already.

Anyway, eliminating the electoral college is the road to tyranny — which is why Democrats and the media desperately want it eliminated.

Trust me, the last place any free person wants to live is in a country where 51 percent of the population can strip the rights away from the 49 percent.

Imagine a country where the only way to get elected president is to appeal to the left-wing extremists who live in large population centers, which is exactly what would happen. In fact this would be the only way to win the presidency because it would be the easiest — the cheapest as far as ad buys, getting out the vote, and that most precious commodity of all: time. Campaigns are going to go to where the most votes are.

(Read more at Breitbart)

While the Democrats know that getting rid of the electoral college would require an amendment to the constitution, I have read elsewhere that Democrats are doing an end-run on the electoral college by getting individual fly-over states to voluntarily give their delegates to the popular winner of the overall presidential election.

Obama Fires Honest Climate Scientist

Noelle Metting

Scientist who testified against “global warming” is fired

In a 20 December 2016 Daily Caller article, Ethan Barton points out:

“Department of Energy (DOE) officials withheld information from Congress to advance President Barack Obama’s Climate Action Plan and fired an employee who honestly and thoroughly answered legislative staff’s questions, a congressional committee investigation found.

DOE officials, including Noelle Metting, met with staff from the House Science, Space and Technology and Senate Energy and Natural Resources committees in October 2014 to discuss pending legislation the agency opposed. DOE wanted to suppress information to kill support for the bill, science committee Republicans revealed in a report Tuesday.

Metting was later fired because she “refused to conform to [DOE management’s] predetermined remarks” and provided “candid and complete information” in response to the committees’ questions, the report said.

‘Instead of providing the type of scientific information needed by Congress to legislate effectively, senior departmental officials sought to hide information, lobbied against legislation, and retaliated against a scientist for being forthcoming,’ Science, Space and Technology committee Chairman Lamar Smith, a Texas Republican, said in a statement.

The report added: ‘The DOE’s actions constitute a reckless and calculated attack on the legislative process itself, which undermines the power of Congress to legislate,’ the report continued. ‘DOE’s disregard for separation of powers is … an institutional problem that must be corrected …’

Additionally, retaliating against Metting created a potential ‘chilling effect,’ preventing other scientists from providing forthcoming information to Congress, the report said.”

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

A few weeks ago, Trump asked the Energy Department employees several questions surrounding support for man-made climate change.  Although no employees answered those questions, Trump was roundly criticized by the liberal-leaning press for just asking those questions.

Considering the level of attention paid by the media in support of the liberal climate change agenda, would you like to guess how many articles were written in the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Chicago Times on either 20 or 21 December 2016 regarding the firing of Noelle Metting? None of those papers published one article on Noelle Metting on either of those days.

Considering Obama’s history of bullying on climate change and the media’s habit of ignoring that bullying, what do you expect?

A 20 December 2016 article in the Washington Free Beacon speaks on a Congressional report that found Obama has been slanting the conversation on global warming:

“A new congressional investigation has determined that the Obama administration fired a top scientist and intimidated staff at the Department of Energy in order to further its climate change agenda, according to a new report that alleges the administration ordered top officials to obstruct Congress in order to forward this agenda.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R., Texas), chair of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, released a wide-ranging report on Tuesday that shows how senior Obama administration officials retaliated against a leading scientist and plotted ways to block a congressional inquiry surrounding key research into the impact of radiation.

A top DoE scientist who liaised with Congress on the matter was fired by the Obama administration for being too forthright with lawmakers, according to the report, which provides an in-depth look at the White House’s efforts to ensure senior staffers toe the administration’s line.

The report also provides evidence that the Obama administration worked to kill legislation in order to ensure that it could receive full funding for its own hotly contested climate change agenda. The report additionally discovered efforts by the Obama administration to censor the information given to Congress, interfering with the body’s ability to perform critical oversight work. ‘Instead of providing the type of scientific information needed by Congress to legislate effectively, senior departmental officials sought to hide information, lobbied against legislation, and retaliated against a scientist for being forthcoming,’ Smith said in a statement. ‘In this staff report based on lengthy record before the committee, much has been revealed about how senior level agency officials under the Obama administration retaliated against a scientist who did not follow the party line.’ ‘Moving forward, the department needs to overhaul its management practices to ensure that Congress is provided the information it requires to legislate and that federal employees and scientists who provide that information do so without fear of retribution,’ Smith said.”

(Read more at the Washington Free Beacon)


A Colorado College Offers a Course that Requires Blind Faith in Climate Change

Liberal Dogma Cannot Be Questioned in this Online Course

In a 31 August 2016 article on The College Fix, Kate Hardiman of the University of Notre Dame explains an untenable situation created by three purported humanities professors. That is, in a course where students should be challenged with new ways of processing and documenting the human experience, the professors have dogmatically stated that no debate on the course’s central idea will be tolerated:

“Three professors co-teaching an online course called ‘Medical Humanities in the Digital Age’ at the University of Colorado-Colorado Springs recently told their students via email that man-made climate change is not open for debate, and those who think otherwise have no place in their course.

‘The point of departure for this course is based on the scientific premise that human induced climate change is valid and occurring. We will not, at any time, debate the science of climate change, nor will the ‘other side’ of the climate change debate be taught or discussed in this course,’ states the email, a copy of which was provided to The College Fix by a student in the course.

Signed by the course’s professors Rebecca Laroche, Wendy Haggren and Eileen Skahill, it was sent after several students expressed concern for their success in the course after watching the first online lecture about the impacts of climate change.

‘Opening up a debate that 98% of climate scientists unequivocally agree to be a non-debate would detract from the central concerns of environment and health addressed in this course,’ the professors’ email continued.

‘… If you believe this premise to be an issue for you, we respectfully ask that you do not take this course, as there are options within the Humanities program for face to face this semester and online next.’ “

This situation brings up several questions:

  • If the course holds the title “Medical Humanities in the Digital Age,” then why doesn’t it encourage discussion on the medical aspects of philosophies, literature, religion, art, music, history or languages as used in our digital world?
  • Since these professors state that “98% of climate scientists unequivocally agree,” where did they get this figure?  Did the professors complete a full review of the literature on climate science in order to verify this claim?
  • If, as suggested by these three dogmatists, “98% of climate scientists unequivocally agree,” then is climate science a real science?  Unequivocal agreement seems to be more in the realm of an unsubstantiated religion. Real science involves making observations, formulating a question, constructing a hypothesis, testing it with an experiment, and gathering data for confirmation and sharing.
  • Does the reticence of the professors to debate signal the weakness of their stance or are they just lazy?

The Far-Reaching Implications of the Climate-Change Inquisition

 The New Inquisition

Democrat Attorneys General band together to Sue Those Who Question Global Warming

In a 4 April 2016 Daily Signal article, the actions of the AGs United for Clean (Political) Power came to light:

“Beginning in 1478, the Spanish Inquisition systematically silenced any citizen who held views that did not align with the king’s. Using the powerful arm of the government, the grand inquisitor, Tomas de Torquemada, and his henchmen sought out all those who held religious, scientific, or moral views that conflicted with the monarch’s, punishing the ‘heretics’ with jail sentences; property confiscation; fines; and in severe cases, torture and execution.

One of the lasting results of the Spanish Inquisition was a stifling of speech, thought, and scientific debate throughout Spain. By treating one set of scientific views as absolute, infallible, and above critique, Spain silenced many brilliant individuals and stopped the development of new ideas and technological innovations. Spain became a scientific backwater.

As an old adage says, those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. So we now have a new inquisition underway in America in the 21st century—something that would have seemed unimaginable not too long ago.

Treating climate change as an absolute, unassailable fact, instead of what it is—an unproven, controversial scientific theory—a group of state attorneys general have announced that they will be targeting any companies that challenge the catastrophic climate change religion.

Speaking at a press conference on March 29, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman said, ‘The bottom line is simple: Climate change is real.’ He went on to say that if companies are committing fraud by “lying” about the dangers of climate change, they will “pursue them to the fullest extent of the law.’

The coalition of 17 inquisitors are calling themselves ‘AGs United for Clean Power.’ The coalition consists of 15 state attorneys general (California, Connecticut, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Washington State), as well as the attorneys general of the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands. Sixteen of the seventeen members are Democrats, while the attorney general for the Virgin Islands, Claude Walker, is an independent.

The inquisitors are threatening legal action and huge fines against anyone who declines to believe in an unproven scientific theory.

Schneiderman and Kamala Harris, representing New York and California, respectively, have already launched investigations into ExxonMobil for allegedly funding research that questioned climate change. Exxon emphatically denounced the accusations as false, pointing out that the investigation that “uncovered” this research was funded by advocacy foundations that publicly support climate change activism.


“Independent” Virgin Islands AG Withdraws Subpeona Action

As reported by a 30 May 2016 NewsMax article, the AG from the Virgin Islands as withdrawn his subpeona which he originally filed in DC:


Last week, the case against the Washington-based Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) took a new direction when Attorney General Claude Walker of the U.S. Virgin Islands suddenly announced he was withdrawing the subpoena action he filed in the District of Columbia.

But no one at CEI thinks that the assault on them and their arguments against man-made global warming is over — not by a long shot.

Noting that the original subpoena against his group that was filed in the Virgin Islands remains, CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman told reporters that Walker and his fellow attorneys general ‘apparently think they can continue their unconstitutional intimidation campaign against anyone that challenges their view of climate change.’

Portland Democrats ban any curriculum that argues against global warming

According to a 19 May 2016 Portland Tribune article, the leadership of the Portland government schools have voted to limit the educational options of students in their charge by ensuring only one side of the global warming debate is taught:

“In a move spearheaded by environmentalists, the Portland Public Schools board unanimously approved a resolution aimed at eliminating doubt of climate change and its causes in schools.

‘It is unacceptable that we have textbooks in our schools that spread doubt about the human causes and urgency of the crisis,’ said Lincoln High School student Gaby Lemieux in board testimony. ‘Climate education is not a niche or a specialization, it is the minimum requirement for my generation to be successful in our changing world.’

The resolution passed Tuesday evening calls for the school district to get rid of textbooks or other materials that cast doubt on whether climate change is occurring and that the activity of human beings is responsible. The resolution also directs the superintendent and staff to develop an implementation plan for ‘curriculum and educational opportunities that address climate change and climate justice in all Portland Public Schools.’ ”

Naturally, this comes from the liberal side (who like to characterize the right as uneducated and clinging to antiquated concepts and who like to think of themselves as erudite).

California Lawmakers Considered Outlawing Free Speech on Climate Change

The Washington Times reports in a 2 June 2016 article that the California legislature killed a bill in the state Senate which would have outlawed dissent against global warming:

The measure was introduced amid a national push by Democrats and activist groups to use the legal system to prosecute climate change ‘fraud,’ prompting a backlash from skeptics who have denounced the campaign as an assault on free speech.

A coalition of 17 state attorneys general, including California Attorney General Kamala Harris, have joined forces to pursue climate change skeptics. At least four prosecutors reportedly have launched investigations into Exxon Mobil for climate change ‘fraud.’

Introduced by state Sen. Ben Allen, Santa Monica Democrat, S.B. 1161 had strong support from environmental groups, led by the Union of Concerned Scientists.

The group, which had no immediate comment on the bill’s failure, had argued that the measure was needed to challenge efforts to ‘confuse consumers and fend off competition from lower-carbon energy sources.’

‘To be clear, S.B. 1161 does not presume that any fossil fuel company has violated the law. But should the evidence support legal action, S.B. 1161 will give public prosecutors a more powerful tool to pursue it,‘ Jason Barbose, Western states policy manager of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a May 16 post.”

Even when the science is far from settled, the Democrats want to outlaw any discussion supporting the stance of anyone who disagrees with the global warming orthodoxy.

Twenty Professors Who Promote Criminalizing Thought They Despise

Liberal professors across the country came together to write a letter to President Obama and discussed by Hans von Spakovsky in a Daily Signal opinion piece:

“Are you skeptical of human-caused global warming or climate change like many respected scientists and climate experts? Then you should be prosecuted like a Mafia mob boss, according to 20 academics at ivory towers like Columbia, Rutgers, and the University of Washington.

Apparently, these professors either don’t believe in the First Amendment or are profoundly ignorant of the basic rights it protects. They recently wrote an open letter to President Barack Obama and Attorney General Loretta Lynch asking for anyone who questions the climate-change dogma to be criminally prosecuted under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act because they have ‘knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change.’

RICO is a federal law passed in 1970 as part of the Organized Crime Control Act that was intended to be used as a tool to go after organized crime, including dangerous drug cartels and Mafia operations.

The letter writers believe that any individuals and organizations involved in questioning the ‘science’ behind global warming are the equivalent of the racketeers the RICO law was supposed to stop—racketeers like the kind Marlon Brando portrayed as Vito Corleone in ‘The Godfather’ (1972) or Edward G. Robinson played as Enrico ‘Rico’ Bandello in ‘Little Caesar’ (1931). In fact, the acronym for the federal law, RICO, comes from that Edward G. Robinson character.

The professors seem totally oblivious to the fundamental infringement of free speech they are urging. Not only that, but they seem completely insensible to the basic mission of academic institutions, which is to foster, as the University of Washington (where two of the academics who signed this letter teach) mission statement says: ‘an environment for objectivity and imaginative inquiry and for the original scholarship and research that ensure the production of new knowledge in the free exchange of facts, theories, and ideas.’

These academics are trying to foster the exact opposite of a ‘free exchange of facts, theories, and ideas.’ They want to end all scientific debate.

… “

Oddly, the group who produced both politicians and educators who blithely accuse those on the right of being “nazis” have produced this group of political educators who would strip all of us of our free speech rights.

However, Facts Get in the Way of This New Inquisition

Judicial Watch Unearths a New Climate-Change-Data Scandal

According to a 22 December 2015 Daily Caller article, a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act lawsuit has hit paydirt in the form of a new climate-change-data scandal:

“A non-profit watchdog group’s lawsuit against the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration may have spurred the agency to release documents to a congressional committee that reveal a ‘new climate data scandal.’

Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit Dec. 2, 2015, against NOAA ‘regarding methodology for collecting and interpreting data used in climate models,’ the group said Tuesday.

The House Committee on Science, Space and Technology subpoenaed the same documents earlier this year, but NOAA refused to hand the records over until a few days after Judicial Watch filed its lawsuit.

‘We have little doubt that our lawsuit helped to pry these scandalous climate change report documents from the Obama administration,’ Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. ‘Given the lawless refusal to comply with our FOIA request and a congressional subpoena, we have little doubt that the documents will show the Obama administration put politics before science in advance of global warming alarmism.’

The documents revealed a ‘new climate data scandal,’ Judicial Watch said in announcing the suit.

Information provided to the committee by whistleblowers appears to show that the study was rushed to publication despite the concerns and objections of a number of NOAA employees,’ according to the committee.

Committee Chairman Lamar Smith wrote recently that ‘NOAA often fails to consider all available data in its determinations and climate change reports to the public.’
The Texas Republican also noted that a recent NOAA study made adjustments to historical temperature records, which led the findings to refute a nearly two-decade pause to global warming.”

It seems that if liberals cannot collect data to support their global warming claims, they will unethically piece together unrelated information to create their case from whole cloth.

Study Finds Exaggerations in Global Warming Tenets

A study produced by the University of Reading and reported in an 8 June 2016 Daily Caller article indicates that previous estimations of the effect of aerosols on global temperatures seem to be overblown:

“A major scientific study conducted at the University of Reading on the interactions between aerosols and clouds is much weaker than most climate models assume, meaning the planet could warm way less than predicted.

‘Currently, details are few, but apparently the results of a major scientific study on the effects of anthropogenic aerosols on clouds are going to have large implications for climate change projections—substantially lowering future temperature rise expectations,’ Cato Institute climate scientists Patrick Michaels and Chip Knappenberger wrote in a recent blog post.

Michaels and Knappenberger, both self-described ‘lukewarmers,’ cited a blog post by Reading scientist Dr. Nicolas Bellouin on the preliminary results of his extensive research into this rather vague area of climate science.

Bellouin wrote ‘there are reasons to expect that aerosol-cloud interactions are weaker than simulated by climate models – and perhaps even weaker than the preliminary… estimate.’

If Bellouin’s preliminary results hold (or are revised downward), that would mean there’s less of a cooling effect from human-created aerosols interacting with clouds, which morph clouds so they bounce incoming solar energy back into space.

Despite Obama’s claims, this debate still gathers data, still requires close analysis, and still has yet to be proven.  Therefore, why don’t we just allow free speech to do what it was meant to do?

Global Smarming Report

Thanks Legal Insurrection and ChicksOnTheRight

According to Google’s dictionary, to “smarm” is to behave in an ingratiating way in order to gain favor.  Because the President and other Democrats are smarming the most liberal in their party, this post might more accurately be called “Obama Smarms the Left, Conservatives Conservatives Provide the Truth.”  Nonetheless, I am not changing the title of this post.

 The President Doesn’t Think We are Losing Against IS

Although the Islamic State has taken Ramadi and Palmyra, the President says that we are winning the struggle against the Islamic State.  As he explained for a 21 May 2015 article in The Atlantic, he thinks:

“No, I don’t think we’re losing,” he said. He went on to explain, “There’s no doubt there was a tactical setback, although Ramadi had been vulnerable for a very long time, primarily because these are not Iraqi security forces that we have trained or reinforced. … [T]he training of Iraqi security forces, the fortifications, the command-and-control systems are not happening fast enough in Anbar, in the Sunni parts of the country.”

 He says this despite the fact that every time we see video of the Islamic State, they are commanding more American-made equipment.

The President Makes (Disputable) “Indisputable” Facts

According to a speech made to the U.S. Coast Guard Academy on 20 May 2015, for global warming:

The science is indisputable.  The fossil fuels we burn release carbon dioxide, which traps heat.  And the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are now higher than they have been in 800,000 years.  The planet is getting warmer.  Fourteen of the 15 hottest years on record have been in the past 15 years. Last year was the planet’s warmest year ever recorded.

Our scientists at NASA just reported that some of the sea ice around Antarctica is breaking up even faster than expected.  The world’s glaciers are melting, pouring new water into the ocean.  Over the past century, the world sea level rose by about eight inches.  That was in the last century; by the end of this century, it’s projected to rise another one to four feet.

Obama links Syria to Global Climate Dithering

The President went on to make the following comments:

Understand, climate change did not cause the conflicts we see around the world.  Yet what we also know is that severe drought helped to create the instability in Nigeria that was exploited by the terrorist group Boko Haram.  It’s now believed that drought and crop failures and high food prices helped fuel the early unrest in Syria, which descended into civil war in the heart of the Middle East.  So, increasingly, our military and our combatant commands, our services — including the Coast Guard — will need to factor climate change into plans and operations, because you need to be ready.

Around the world, climate change will mean more extreme storms.  No single weather event can be blamed solely on climate change.  But Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines gave us a possible glimpse of things to come — one of the worst cyclones ever recorded; thousands killed, many more displaced, billions of dollars in damage, and a massive international relief effort that included the United States military and its Coast Guard.  So more extreme storms will mean more humanitarian missions to deliver lifesaving help.  Our forces will have to be ready.

Applicable Bible verse

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions.  (Proverbs 18:2 NIV)

 Despite President Obama’s Preaching for His Leftist Choir

NASA report shows Polar Ice Not Retreating

According to a 19 May 2015 article in Forbes, NASA now reports that the polar ice caps are not shrinking.  Specifically:

“Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.”

Although President Obama has had just a tad more time to gather the right information before standing before the world and making statements like his Coast Guard remarks, obviously he has hit on another “If you like your plan” inconvenient truth.

Data shows that Global Warming has been on a 18+ Year Pause

According to a 24 April 2015 article in the Daily Caller, satellite data indicates that global warming has been on hold for over 18 years.  Specifically:

Satellite temperature readings show there has been no warming trend for nearly 18 and one-half years, meaning there has been no statistically significant warming since the late 1990s.

Two satellite datasets show that warming has been more moderate than predicted by the United Nations and most climate scientists. The Remote Sensing Systems satellite dataset shows there has been a warming trend of only 0.01 degrees Celsius per century since December 1996.

Despite Obama’s Rosy Picture, Military Experts Paint Another Picture

Various military experts, from Col. Ralph Peters to General Jack Keane, point to the continual losses by Iraqi forces as proof that Obama’s “lead from behind” tactics are not working.

Trust Us, We’re From the Government

After years of using the IRS to deny tax exempt status to conservative groups, the government is planning to run military exercises among the citizens of seven areas where Obama did not carry in 2012 and 2014.  Naturally, we are supposed to just trust the government.

Global Warming Update: Eight Inches of Snow Fall in Colorado on Mother’s Day

This photo is linked from thedenverchannel.com

According to the Denver ABC affiliate (Channel 7 News), eight inches of snow fell on 10 May 2015.  If this keeps up another forty days, this is really going to screw up the global warming narrative.

http://v9.anv.bz/scripts/anv_mcp_9.jsvar p = new anv_pl_def(); p.config = {}; p.config.width = 640; p.config.height = 360; p.loadVideoExpressV3(‘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|1000011|SPS’);