Flashback: It’s Hillary Clinton & Democrats that deploy tanks that kill Americans | BUNKERVILLE | God, Guns and Guts Comrades!

Hillary Clinton and her fellow Democrats are offended at the sight of a tank? It was she it was reported that ordered tanks and poisonous gas turned onto her fellow citizens in a little town called Waco, Texas.

 

Her latest twitter:
@HillaryClinton

 

We need a strong national defense, but a president shouldn’t need it next to him in a parade to show his patriotism.

 

On April 19, 1993, the F.B.I. finished off its siege of the Branch Davidians’ home just outside Waco, Texas, by pumping poisonous and flammable C.S. gas into a room filled with women and children, driving a tank through the wall, throwing incendiary devices at the survivors.

 

 

Thank the Democrats and Bill and Hillary Clinton.

 

 

Kids murdered in the Waco slaughter

 

Surely there was a better way than to slaughter men, women and children- more than 80. And the Clinton’s managed to get by without any MSM condemnation, blaming it all on his Attorney General who got by without a nick and later ran for Governor of Florida.

Waco and Ruby Ridge are what were the sentinel moments in our nation’s conscience. A Government could turn on its people. The story of the shadowy figure called Hillary Clinton and her role in all of this is included.

 

 

 

The Waco siege was a siege of a compound belonging to the religious group Branch Davidians by American federal and Texas state law enforcement and military between February 28 and April 19, 1993.

The group was suspected of weapons violations and a search and arrest warrant was obtained by the ATF. The incident began when the ATF attempted to raid the ranch. An intense gun battle erupted, resulting in the deaths of four agents and six Branch Davidians.

Upon the ATF’s failure to raid the compound, a siege was initiated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the standoff lasting 51 days. Eventually, the FBI launched an assault and initiated a tear gas attack in an attempt to force the Branch Davidians out. During the attack, a fire engulfed Mount Carmel Center and 76 people.

According to Linda Tripp, it was Hillary and not Bill Clinton who directed the final assault on Waco.

Mrs. Clinton grew more and more impatient as the Waco stand-off came to dominate the headlines during the early months of the Clinton administration, said Bell. It was she, according to Bell’s sources, who pressured a reluctant Janet Reno to act.

“Give me a reason not to do this,” Reno is said to have begged aides shortly before orders were issued for the final assault.

During an interview in early February 2001 the former White House aide alleged that Hillary Clinton pressured the late Vincent Foster to resolve the Waco standoff. As a result more than eighty men, women and children were killed. Appearing on CNN’s “Larry King Live” Tripp suggested that Foster, at Mrs Clinton’s direction, transmitted the order to move on the Branch Davidian’s Waco compound, which culminated in a military style attack on the wooden building.

Her accusations lend weight to charges made previously by Special Forces expert and Waco investigator, Steve Barry. According to the former Special Forces member, Hillary set up a special “crises center” in the White House to deal with Waco.

Serving with her in the center was Vincent Foster who, according to his widow was subsequently: “fueled by horror at the carnage at Waco for which the White House had ultimately been responsible.”

Foster himself was found dead, from a gun-shot wound to the head, in a Virginia park three months later. Could he have known too much about Waco?

Journalist Ambrose Evans-Pritchard maintains that Foster had been “drafting a letter involving Waco” on the very day of his death. Moreover Evans-Pritchard says that Foster kept a Waco file in a locked cabinet that was off limits to everyone, including his secretary.

Prior to Waco, Foster was “dignified, decent, caring, smart” says Linda Tripp; in its aftermath though, she said: “…Vince was falling apart.”

She was with the former White House deputy counsel when the news about Waco broke on television. “A special bulletin came on showing the atrocity at Waco and the children. And his face, his whole body slumped, and his face turned white, and he was absolutely crushed – knowing the part he had played.”

“And he had played the part at Mrs Clinton direction,” said Tripp.

Moreover there was a marked contrast between Foster’s heartfelt emotion at the Waco tragedy and Hillary Clinton’s, Tripp insists: “Her reaction was heartless”.

Her accusations give further weight to allegations first levelled in the 1999 documentary on the deadly confrontation, “Waco: A New Revelation.” The film featured the account of former House Waco investigator T. March Bell.

“One of the interesting things that happens in an investigation is that you get anonymous phone calls,” Bell explained in the film. “And we in fact received anonymous phone calls from Justice Department managers and attorneys who believe that pressure was placed on Janet Reno by Webb Hubbel, pressure that came from the first lady of the United States.”

Mrs Clinton grew more and more impatient as the Waco stand-off came to dominate the headlines during the early months of the Clinton administration, said Bell. It was she, according to Bell’s sources, who pressured a reluctant Janet Reno to act.

“Give me a reason not to do this,” Reno is said to have begged aides shortly before orders were issued for the final assault.

A good History and the meaning and aftermath of this can be found at: Little Alex in Wonderland

Advertisements

Brutal List Of Obama’s “Accomplishments” As First Black Pres Is Released And Libs Are LIVID [Video]

The massive liberal community that thrives off of the paint-by-numbers record of their almighty Obama is currently up in a fuss because their arguing points about all of the so-called Obama accomplishments keep getting proven wrong. Well, when we saw this article we figured we could maybe cut them a small break for once and help them out a little bit. So, here you go liberals, this one’s for you!

According to AFF :

Quit trashing Obama’s accomplishments. He has done more than any other President before him. Here is a list of his impressive accomplishments:

-First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner.

-First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.

-First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States. First President to violate the War Powers Act.

-First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. –

-First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.

-First President to spend a trillion dollars on “shovel-ready” jobs when there was no such thing as “shovel-ready” jobs.

-First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.

-First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.

-First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S., including those with criminal convictions.

-First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.

-First President to tell a CEO of a major corporation (Chrysler) to resign. First President to terminate America’s ability to put a man in space.

-First President to cancel the National Day of Prayer and to say that America is no longer a Christian nation.

-First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.

-First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.

-First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke out on the reasons for their rate increases.

-First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is allowed to locate a factory.

-First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN).

-First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.

-First President to actively try to bankrupt an American industry (coal).

-First President to fire an inspector general of AmeriCorps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.

-First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office.

-First President to surround himself with radical left wing anarchists.

-First President to golf more than 150 separate times in his five years in office.

-First President to hide his birth, medical, educational and travel records.

-First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.

-First President to go on multiple “global apology tours” and concurrent “insult our friends” tours. First President to go on over 17 lavish vacations, in addition to date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends paid for by the taxpayers.

-First President to have personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.

-First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.

-First President to fly in a personal trainer from Chicago at least once a week at taxpayer expense.

-First President to repeat the Holy Quran and tell us the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth First President to side with a foreign nation over one of the American 50 states (Mexico vs Arizona).

-First President to tell the military men and women that they should pay for their own private insurance because they “volunteered to go to war and knew the consequences.”

-Then he was the First President to tell the members of the military that THEY were UNPATRIOTIC for balking at the last suggestion. (Thank God he didn’t get away with THIS one.)

First president to allow Iran to inspect their own facilities. First president to have blood on his hands from Benghazi to the assassinations of several police officers.

-First president to trade 5 terrorist for a traitor

-First president to facilitate the Iranians to acquire nuclear weapons.

-First president to light up the White House in rainbow colors to honor men that lust after other men’s rear ends.

-First president to put young children in danger by forcing states to allow men in women’s restroom and showers.

-First president to marry a man.

-First president to smoke crack cocaine in the White House.

I could go on for days but you get the point. How is this hope and change’ working out for you?

Wait, that didn’t work out to well for them, now did it?

Oh my goodness! Maybe we should have done an article on Obama’s ACTUAL accomplishments; it would have been A LOT shorter!  Seriously though, the man is a disgrace to America and only makes those who deify him look ignorant beyond belief.

Sorry, Alarmists, Climate Change Chaos Is Not Here

Despite Democrats’ cataclysmal framing of every weather event, Americans are safer than ever.

Climate isn’t the same as weather—unless, of course, weather happens to be politically useful. In that case, weather portends climate apocalypse.

So warns Elizabeth Warren as she surveyed Iowan rainstorms, which she claims, like tornadoes and floods, are more frequent and severe. “Different parts of the country deal with different climate issues,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–Malthusia) cautioned as she too warned of extreme tornadoes. “But ALL of these threats will be increasing in intensity as climate crisis grows and we fail to act appropriately.”

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D–Ore.) recently sent a fundraising email warning Democrats that climate change was causing “growing mega-fires, extremely destructive hurricanes, and horrific flooding” in which “American lives are at stake.”

Even if we pretend that passing a bazillion-dollar authoritarian Green New Deal would do anything to change the climate, there is no real-world evidence that today’s weather is increasingly threatening to human lives. By every quantifiable measure, in fact, we’re much safer despite the cataclysmal framing of every weather-related event.

How many of those taken in by alarmism realize that deaths from extreme weather have dropped somewhere around 99.9 percent since the 1920s? Heat and cold can still be killers, but thanks to increasingly reliable and affordable heating and cooling systems, and other luxuries of the age, the vast majority of Americans will never have to fear the climate in any genuine way.

Since 1980, death caused by all natural disasters and heat and cold is somewhere under 0.5 percent.

It’s true that 2019 has seen a spike in tornadoes, but mostly because 2018 was the first year recorded without a single violent tornado in the United States. Tornadoes killed 10 Americans in 2018, the fewest since we started keeping track of these things in 1875, only four years after the nefarious combustion engine was invented.

There has also been a long-term decline in the cost of tornado damage. In 2018, we experienced near-lows in this regard. The only better years were 2017, 2016, and 2015.

After a few devastating hurricanes around a decade ago, we were similarly warned that it was a prelude to endless storms and ecological disaster. This was followed by nine years without a single major hurricane in the United States. Or, in other words, six fewer hurricanes than we experienced in 1908 alone.

According to the U.S. Natural Hazard Statistics, in fact, 2018 saw below the 30-year average in deaths not only by tornadoes and hurricanes (way under average) but also from heat, flooding, and lighting. We did experience a slight rise in deaths due to cold.

Pointing out these sort of things usually elicits the same reaction: Why do you knuckle-dragging troglodytes hate science? Well, because science’s predictive abilities on most things, but especially climate, have been atrocious. But mostly because science is being used as a cudgel to push leftist policy prescriptions without considering economic tradeoffs, societal reality, or morality.

There are two things in this debate that we can predict with near certitude: First, that modern technology will continue to allow human beings to adapt to organic and anthropogenic changes in the environment. Second, that human beings will never surrender the wealth and safety that technology has afforded and continues to afford them.

People who deny these realities are as clueless as any “denier” of science. That brings me back to Democrats.

There have been a number of stories predicting that 2020 will finally be the year politicians start making climate change an important issue. One can only imagine these reporters started their jobs last week.

It’s true that a number of Democrat presidential hopefuls have taken “no fossil fuel money” pledges—as if they were going to get any of that cash anyway—as they spew carbon into the atmosphere searching for another bad-weather photo-op. Kevin Curtis, the executive director of NRDC Action Fund, told BuzzFeed News that all of this was “really wicked cool.”

The 2018 midterm elections, adds Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, are when “climate change was beginning, for the first time, to play a significant role in a few races across the country.”

A poll conducted by that very same Yale Program on Climate Change Communication found that even for the most left-wing voters, climate change—an imminent planetary tragedy that threatens the existence of all humanity and most animal species—ranked third on the list of most important issues. It ranked 17th among all voters, behind things like border security, tax reform, and terrorism.

Maybe one day the electorate will finally buy in. Climate change, though, didn’t even make a blip on exit polls of 2018. That is why Democrats keep ratcheting up the hysteria over every environmental tragedy.

“Climate chaos is here,” declares Merkley, “but it’s not too late to act.” Remember: When disaster is perpetually ten years away, it’s never too late to send Democrats some of your money.

David Harsanyi is a Senior Editor at The Federalist. He is the author of the book, First Freedom: A Ride Through America’s Enduring History with the Gun, From the Revolution to Today. Follow him on Twitter.

WalMart vs. The Morons

Don’t know if the numbers are correct but pretty sure the analogy is spot on! Please READ TO THE END.

WalMart vs. The Morons
1. Americans spend $36,000,000 at WalMart Every hour of every day.
2. This works out to $20,928 profit every minute!
3. WalMart will sell more from January 1 to St. Patrick’s Day (March 17th) than Target sells all year.
4. WalMart is bigger than Home Depot + Kroger + Target +Sears + Costco+ K-Mart combined.
5. WalMart employs 1.6 million people, is the world’s largest private employer,and most speak English.
6. WalMart is the largest company in the history of the world.
7. WalMart now sells more food than Kroger and Safeway combined, and keep in mind they did this in only fifteen years
8. During this same period, 31 big supermarket chains sought bankruptcy
9 WalMart now sells more food than any other store in the world.
10. WalMart has approx 3,900 stores in the USA of which 1,906 are Super Centers; this is 1,000 more than it had five years ago.
11. This year 7.2 billion different purchasing experiences will occur at WalMart stores. (Earth’s population is approximately 6.5 Billion.)
12. 90% of all Americans live within fifteen miles of a WalMart.
You may think that I am complaining, but I am really laying the groundwork or suggesting that MAYBE we should hire the guys who run WalMart to fix the economy.
This should be read and understood by all Americans… Democrats, Republicans, EVERYONE!!
To the 535 voting members of the Legislature :
It is now official that the majority of you are corrupt morons:
a. The U.S. Postal Service was established in 1775. You have had 234 years to get it right and it is broke.
b. Social Security was established in 1935. You have had 74 years to get it right and it is broke.
c. Fannie Mae was established in 1938. You have had 71 years to get it right and it is broke.
d. War on Poverty started in 1964. You have had 45 years to get it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and transferred to “the poor”
and they only want more.
e. Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. You have had 44 years to get it right and they are broke.
f. Freddie Mac was established in 1970. You have had 39 years to get it right and it is broke.
You have FAILED in every “government service” you have shoved down our throats while overspending our tax dollars !!!

AND YOU WANT AMERICANS TO BELIEVE YOU CAN BE TRUSTED WITH A GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM??

Folks, keep this circulating. It is very well stated. Maybe it will end up in the e-mails of some of our “duly elected’ (they never read anything) and their
staff will clue them in on how Americans feel.
AND :
I know what’s wrong. We have lost our minds to “Political Correctness” !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Someone, please tell me what the HELL’s wrong with all the people that run this country!!!!!!
We’re “broke” & can’t help our own Seniors, Veterans, Orphans, Homeless, etc.,???????????
In the last few months, we have provided aid to Haiti, Chili , and Turkey..And now Pakistan ……..previous home of bin Laden. Literally, BILLIONS of DOLLARS!!!

Our retired seniors living on a ‘fixed income’ receive no aid nor do they get any breaks…
AMERICA: a country where we have homeless without shelter, children going to bed hungry, elderly going without ‘needed’ meds, and mentally ill without
treatment -etc, etc.

Imagine if the *GOVERNMENT* gave ‘US’ the same support they give to other countries. Sad isn’t it?

Mueller Chose To Slime Trump On Obstruction Rather Than Indict

After two years and spending an estimated $35 million, Robert Mueller issued a 448-page report that ignored the governing special counsel regulations.
Margot Cleveland

By

After two years and spending an estimated $35 million, Robert Mueller issued a 448-page report that ignored the governing special counsel regulations. Those regulations required Mueller, at the conclusion of the special counsel’s work, to “provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions reached by the Special Counsel.”

Yet, instead of issuing the mandated closing documentation, Mueller explained that his team “determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment” of whether “to initiate or decline a prosecution.”

Attorney General William Barr spoke during today’s press conference of Mueller’s failure to perform this regulatorily required duty. When asked why he and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein felt it necessary “to take it to the next step to conclude there was no crime,” Barr retorted:

The very prosecutorial function and all our powers as prosecutors, including the power to convene grand juries and compulsory process that’s involved there, is for one purpose and one purpose only. It’s to determine yes or no, was alleged conduct criminal or not criminal. That is our responsibility and that’s why we have the tools we have. And we don’t go through this process just to collect information and throw it out to the public. We collect this information. We use that compulsory process for the purpose of making that decision. And because the special counsel did not make that decision, we felt the department had to. That was a decision by me and the deputy attorney general. Yes.

Notwithstanding Mueller’s professed refusal to render judgment on whether to initiate or decline prosecution, Part 2 of the special counsel’s report served solely to indict President Trump in the court of public opinion by providing detailed factual conclusions that seemingly support obstruction of justice charges—at least based on the special counsel’s view of the law.

But Mueller’s view is decidedly wrong. Prior to his appointment, Barr decimated the obstruction of justice theory of criminal liability Mueller relies upon in the special counsel report.

Further, while Democrats and the media will put Barr’s view down to bias, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein agreed with those conclusions. Rosenstein, who supposedly floated the 25th Amendment as a basis to out the president, is anything but biased in favor of the president. Rosenstein appointed Mueller, and Rosenstein, who flanked Barr during the press conference, agreed with Barr’s conclusion that no crime had occurred.

Many believe lead special counsel prosecutor Andrew Weissmann instigated the non-indictment indictment of Trump in Mueller’s report. The modus operandi is just too perfect.

Recall that Weissmann led the Enron task force and served as the lead prosecutor in the Department of Justice’s case against Arthur Anderson. Weissmann secured a conviction against the former accounting giant, shuttered the firm, and left tens of thousands of innocent employees without jobs. Then, “three years later, the Supreme Court reversed the Andersen conviction in a unanimous decision, holding that Andersen’s conduct was not criminal, and it ‘was shocking how little criminal culpability the jury instructions required.’”

Weissmann’s attempts to convict Merrill Lynch executives of non-crimes were likewise swatted down in court. And then there was Weissmann’s questionable conduct during those trials, which emails indicate included threatening witnesses.

Even if Weissmann holds responsibility for pushing to include the obstruction of justice analysis, Mueller approved the final report that pontificated on Trump’s potential criminal conduct, while refusing to make a decision to initiate or decline charges. Ironically, in justifying his non-decision, Mueller claimed any other outcome would be unfair to the president. From the special counsel’s report:

We determined not to apply an approach that could potentially result in a judgment that the President committed crimes. Fairness concerns counseled against potentially reaching that judgment when no charges can be brought. The ordinary means for an individual to respond to an accusations is through a speedy and public trial, with all the procedural protections that surround a criminal case. An individual who believes he was wrongfully accused can use that process to seek to clear his name. In contrast, a prosecutor’s judgment that crimes were committed, but that no charges will be brought, affords no such adversarial opportunity for public name-clearing before an impartial adjudicator. The concerns about the fairness of such a determination would be heightened in the case of a sitting President, where a federal prosecutor’s accusations of a crime, even in an internal report, could carry consequence that extend beyond the realm of criminal justice.

But Trump has no process now to clear his name from the taint of obstruction of justice created by Mueller’s report. So, after two years of battling unjust and untrue charges of collusion with Russia, Mueller has destined President Trump to spend the second half of his first term combating claims of obstruction of justice—claims which, even if they had a basis in fact, have no basis in law.

Margot Cleveland is a senior contributor to The Federalist. Cleveland served nearly 25 years as a permanent law clerk to a federal appellate judge and is a former full-time faculty member and current adjunct instructor at the college of business at the University of Notre Dame. The views expressed here are those of Cleveland in her private capacity.

 

To whom it may concern ! | Jim Campbell’s

To whom it may concern !

Information Worth Sharing

Comments by Jim Campbell

April 11, 2019

If so-called “Man Caused Climate Change,” was real, why don’t the proponents answer the very simple question below.

Why has there been two ice ages and smaller ice ages when the industrial revolution had not begun?

Also, to be sure, Climate change, as in “Real climate change,” does not exist in a vacuum.

The words to biggest polluters are China and India and they have refused to sign on to any world wide climate change agreement. (Source)

The reality?

It’s just another socialist scam put forth by the likes of Al Gore to enrich themselves while we The People are forced into paying higher taxes!

John Eidson

April 11, 2019.

Intentional brainwashing teaches the kids about global warming.

Get them while they are young, it worked for Adolph Hitler, this dogma is being taught in most U.S. schools which are run by teachers unions which require disbanding!

No prospective science no truth.

Lesson 1: Are polar bears dying out?

For those who worry about global warming is killing them off, QUIT WORRYING!

Dr. Taylor is a polar bear biologist at Lakehead University in Canada.

He’s studied polar bears for more than three decades and has published on the high side of 50 scientific papers on polar bear sub-populations.

The picture above shows him taking a blood sample from a BIG tranquilized bear.

Brave man! A bit crazy, but brave.

Dr. Taylor is as close as it gets to being an expert on polar bears.

Here’s his take on the Polar Bear population scenario.

There are more polar bears in Canada today than 30 years ago.

He said that of the 13 polar bear sub-populations in Canada, 11 are stable, one is increasing and only one is in decline.

Can you imagine she just said what she said to theses students?

What up with “My way or the highway on the 2nd Amendment Mrs. senile old dowager?

In his expert opinion, polar bears are not being wiped out by climate change or anything else.

His research shows they’re flourishing!

Dr. Taylor is not the only polar bear scientist who feels that way. Ditto Dr. Susan Crockford.

Dr. Crockford is an evolutionary biologist at the University of Victoria in Canada.

With 35 years experience, she’s a certified expert on the evolution of polar bears.

She says that in the 1960s there were an estimated 10,000 polar bears in the world.

I found out from doing some poking around on the web that by 2015,  the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service estimated the number had risen to as high as 31,000.

To help celebrate International Polar Bear Day, Dr. Crockford recently wrote a paper reporting that polar bear numbers have continued to steadily rise, with 2018 data estimating there are more polar bears today than when they were first protected by an international treaty in 1973.

Dr. Crockford also told me that polar bears are resourceful creatures that have survived many periods in Earth’s past where the warming was much greater than the warming we’ve had since the Industrial Revolution.

I didn’t know that. Did you?

If you want to not worry as much about the fate of polar bears, you might want to read her new book, The Polar Bear Catastrophe That Never Happened.

Because their good faith scientific opinions upset the people who try to scare kids by saying that polar bears are being killed off by global warming, Dr. Crockford and Dr. Taylor are demonized as “climate deniers.”

That’s not a very nice thing to say, and it’s not true.

They’re not denying that climate change is real—the climate is always changing. Always has, always will. What they dispute is that polar bears are dying out.

The best available population estimates support their view.

Music Please !

Anyway, that’s today’s global warming report l. Stay tuned, more to come!

About JCscuba

I am firmly devoted to bringing you the truth and the stories that the mainstream media ignores. Together we can restore our constitutional republic to what the founding fathers envisioned and fight back against the progressive movement. Obama nearly destroyed our country economically, militarily coupled with his racism he set us further on the march to becoming a Socialist State. Now it’s up to President Trump to restore America to prominence. Republicans who refuse to go along with most of his agenda RINOs must be forced to walk the plank, they are RINOs and little else.

Can’t Win: Now That Vital Glacier Is Growing Again, Scientist Says That’s Bad News

Can’t Win: Now That Vital Glacier Is Growing Again, Scientist Says That’s Bad News

You’ve probably heard the alarmed scientists and politicians before: Global warming is causing glaciers to melt, serving as the proverbial canary in the mine shaft of a planet on the brink of disaster — and the world could end in just over a decade as a result.

But many of those same scientists are now scratching their heads and scrambling to come up with an explanation after an important glacier in Greenland was found to be growing again.

The Jakobshavn glacier is a massive ice sheet that’s about a mile thick. This frozen wonder has influenced history in the past, with many experts believing that the iceberg that famously sunk the Titanic broke off from this ice sheet before drifting into the North Atlantic.

Over the last few years, climate experts pointed to retreating ice on the Jakobshavn glacier as Exhibit A in the global warming debate.

“The Jakobshavn glacier around 2012 was retreating about 1.8 miles and thinning nearly 130 feet annually,” The Associated Press reported.

TRENDING: James Woods Celebrates Trump’s ‘Slam Dunk Victory’ with Video Roasting ‘the Liberal Press’

That is, until now. Despite climate experts and politicians alike insisting that massive, economy-changing regulations were needed to stop glaciers from melting, it seems the Earth had other plans.

Over the last two years, the Jakobshavn glacier has been growing again at the same rate it was previously shrinking.

“Ocean temperatures in the bay’s upper 250 m have cooled to levels not seen since the mid-1980s,” the glacier study found.

Yes, despite human population growth and fossil fuel use bemoaned by figures like Al Gore over the last few decades, ocean temps in that region have been going down.

Has the media exaggerated climate change fears?

Yes No
Completing this poll entitles you to Conservative Tribune news updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

“That was kind of a surprise. We kind of got used to a runaway system,” said Jason Box, a scientist who works with the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland.

Other scientists admitted that the new ice being added to the glacier was likely part of a natural process largely outside of human control.

“A natural cyclical cooling of North Atlantic waters likely caused the glacier to reverse course, said study lead author Ala Khazendar, a NASA glaciologist on the Oceans Melting Greenland project,” the AP reported. “The water in Disko Bay, where Jakobshavn hits the ocean, is about 3.6 degrees cooler than a few years ago.”

It’s worth pointing out the Greenland-sized elephant in the room here: If “natural cyclical cooling” is a major factor in glacier density, wouldn’t that imply that the inverse — natural cyclical warming — also sometimes occurs?

This seems a bit like a shell game. When there appears to be a cooling pattern, it’s cyclical and natural; when there’s a warming pattern, it’s all the fault of humans and we need massive government takeovers to stop it.

RELATED: Flashback to 1989: UN Predicted ‘Disaster’ If Global Warming Not Checked by 2000

Scientists seem to be talking out of both sides of their mouths when it comes to explaining the unexpected shift in the Jakobshavn glacier. Experts were quick to breathe a sigh of relief that ice was expanding, but went on to still call the glacier expansion “bad news.”

“(T)his is bad news on the long term because it tells scientists that ocean temperature is a bigger player in glacier retreats and advances than previously thought,” the AP said.

A University of Washington ice scientist named Ian Joughin called it “a temporary blip” and predicted that the glacier would continue to melt even after the last few years of data showed the opposite.

“In the long run we’ll probably have to raise our predictions of sea level rise again,” NASA climate scientist Josh Willis said.

Again, those same climate scientists failed to predict that the glacier was going to grow over the last two years and called it a “surprise.”

And that’s the big point here: Scientists have a pretty poor track record at making large-scale predictions years into the future. Climate models are useful, but as this unexpected glacier growth just showed, they’re also deeply flawed.

“We conclude that projections of Jakobshavn’s future contribution to sea-level rise that are based on glacier geometry are insufficient,” the glacier study said.

That is exactly why caution and conservatism should be the watchwords when experts preach doom and gloom. We simply don’t know enough about the climate and the planet to gamble entire economies on predictions, and we should be wary when only one side of the facts are used to push big-government expansion.

Good science will acknowledge that there are far more unknowns than knowns — which is exactly why there’s far less of a consensus on global warming than the political left wants to admit.

It is time that we stop bashing Obama for his perceived lack of accomplishments

https://vermontloonwatch.wordpress.com/2019/02/25/political-speak-24/

 

It is time that we stop bashing Obama for his perceived lack of accomplishments. That he has none is a fallacy.

Here is a list of his impressive accomplishments:

All have been fact checked

1. First President to be photographed smoking a joint.

2. First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner.

3. First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.

4. First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States.

5. First President to violate the War Powers Act.

6. First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

7. First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.

8. First President to spend a trillion dollars on “shovel-ready” jobs when there was no such thing as “shovel-ready” jobs.

9. First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.

10. First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.

11. First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S., including those with criminal convictions.

12. First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.

13. First President to tell a CEO of a major corporation (Rick Wagoner of GM) to resign.

14. First President to terminate America’s ability to put a man in space.

15. First President to cancel the National Day of Prayer and to say that America is no longer a Christian nation.

16. First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.

17. First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.

18. First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke out on the reasons for their rate increases.

19. First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is allowed to locate a factory.

20. First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN).

21. First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.

22. First President to actively try to bankrupt an American industry (coal).

23. First President to fire an inspector general of AmeriCorps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.

24. First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office.

25. First President to surround himself with radical left wing anarchists.

26. First President to go golfing more than 150 times in his eight years in office.

27. First President to hide his birth, medical, educational and travel records.

28. First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.

29. First President to go on multiple “global apology tours” and concurrent “insult our friends” tours.

30. First President to go on over 17 lavish vacations, in addition to date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends paid for by the taxpayers.

31. First President to have personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.

32. First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.

33. First President to fly in a personal trainer from Chicago at least once a week at taxpayer expense.

34. First President to repeat the Quran and tell us the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.

35. First President to side with a foreign nation over one of the American 50 states (Mexico vs Arizona).

36. First President to tell the military men and women that they should pay for their own private insurance because they “volunteered to go to war and knew the consequences.”

37. Then he was the First President to tell the members of the military that THEY were UNPATRIOTIC for balking at the last suggestion.

Quite impressive a list, is it not?

 

The Difference in How Socialism and Free Markets Work in the Real World

How is it possible that, according to one recent poll, a stunning 52 percent of millennials would like to live in a socialist or communist America?

Source: The Difference in How Socialism and Free Markets Work in the Real World

The Rutherford Institute :: Uncle Sam Wants Your DNA: The FBI’s Diabolical Plan to Create a Nation of Suspects |

Uncle Sam Wants Your DNA: The FBI’s Diabolical Plan to Create a Nation of Suspects

John Whitehead

“As more and more data flows from your body and brain to the smart machines via the biometric sensors, it will become easy for corporations and government agencies to know you, manipulate you, and make decisions on your behalf. Even more importantly, they could decipher the deep mechanisms of all bodies and brains, and thereby gain the power to engineer life. If we want to prevent a small elite from monopolising such godlike powers, and if we want to prevent humankind from splitting into biological castes, the key question is: who owns the data? Does the data about my DNA, my brain and my life belong to me, to the government, to a corporation, or to the human collective?”―Professor Yuval Noah Harari

Uncle Sam wants you.

Correction: Uncle Sam wants your DNA.

Actually, if the government gets its hands on your DNA, they as good as have you in their clutches.

Get ready, folks, because the government— helped along by Congress (which adopted legislation allowing police to collect and test DNA immediately following arrests), President Trump (who signed the Rapid DNA Act into law), the courts (which have ruled that police can routinely take DNA samples from people who are arrested but not yet convicted of a crime), and local police agencies (which are chomping at the bit to acquire this new crime-fighting gadget)—is embarking on a diabolical campaign to create a nation of suspects predicated on a massive national DNA database.

As the New York Times reports:

“The science-fiction future, in which police can swiftly identify robbers and murderers from discarded soda cans and cigarette butts, has arrived. In 2017, President Trump signed into law the Rapid DNA Act, which, starting this year, will enable approved police booking stations in several states to connect their Rapid DNA machines to Codis, the national DNA database. Genetic fingerprinting is set to become as routine as the old-fashioned kind.

Referred to as “magic boxes,” these Rapid DNA machines—portable, about the size of a desktop printer, highly unregulated, far from fool-proof, and so fast that they can produce DNA profiles in less than two hours—allow police to go on fishing expeditions for any hint of possible misconduct using DNA samples.

Journalist Heather Murphy explains: “As police agencies build out their local DNA databases, they are collecting DNA not only from people who have been charged with major crimes but also, increasingly, from people who are merely deemed suspicious, permanently linking their genetic identities to criminal databases.”

Suspect Society, meet the American police state.

Every dystopian sci-fi film we’ve ever seen is suddenly converging into this present moment in a dangerous trifecta between science, technology and a government that wants to be all-seeing, all-knowing and all-powerful.

By tapping into your phone lines and cell phone communications, the government knows what you say.

By uploading all of your emails, opening your mail, and reading your Facebook posts and text messages, the government knows what you write.

By monitoring your movements with the use of license plate readers, surveillance cameras and other tracking devices, the government knows where you go.

By churning through all of the detritus of your life—what you read, where you go, what you say—the government can predict what you will do.

By mapping the synapses in your brain, scientists—and in turn, the government—will soon know what you remember.

And by accessing your DNA, the government will soon know everything else about you that they don’t already know: your family chart, your ancestry, what you look like, your health history, your inclination to follow orders or chart your own course, etc.

Of course, none of these technologies are foolproof.

Nor are they immune from tampering, hacking or user bias.

Nevertheless, they have become a convenient tool in the hands of government agents to render null and void the Constitution’s requirements of privacy and its prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Consequently, no longer are we “innocent until proven guilty” in the face of DNA evidence that places us at the scene of a crime, behavior sensing technology that interprets our body temperature and facial tics as suspicious, and government surveillance devices that cross-check our biometrics, license plates and DNA against a growing database of unsolved crimes and potential criminals.

The government’s questionable acquisition and use of DNA to identify individuals and “solve” crimes has come under particular scrutiny in recent years.

Until recently, the government was required to at least observe some basic restrictions on when, where and how it could access someone’s DNA. That has all been turned on its head by various U.S. Supreme Court rulings that pave the way for suspicionless searches and herald the loss of privacy on a cellular level.

Certainly, it was difficult enough trying to protect our privacy in the wake of a 2013 Supreme Court ruling in Maryland v. King that likened DNA collection to photographing and fingerprinting suspects when they are booked, thereby allowing the government to take DNA samples from people merely “arrested” in connection with “serious” crimes.

Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent in Maryland v. King is worth reading not only for the history lesson on the Fourth Amendment but for its clear-sighted rebuke of the police state’s tendency to justify every encroachment on our freedoms as necessary for security.

As Scalia noted:

“Solving unsolved crimes is a noble objective, but it occupies a lower place in the American pantheon of noble objectives than the protection of our people from suspicionless law-enforcement searches… Make no mistake about it: As an entirely predictable consequence of today’s decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national DNA database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason. Today’s judgment will, to be sure, have the beneficial effect of solving more crimes; then again, so would the taking of DNA samples from anyone who flies on an airplane (surely the Transportation Security Administration needs to know the “identity” of the flying public), applies for a driver’s license, or attends a public school. Perhaps the construction of such a genetic panopticon is wise. But I doubt that the proud men who wrote the charter of our liberties would have been so eager to open their mouths for royal inspection.”

The Court’s decision to let stand the Maryland Court of Appeals’ ruling in Raynor v. Maryland, which essentially determined that individuals do not have a right to privacy when it comes to their DNA, made Americans even more vulnerable to the government accessing, analyzing and storing their DNA without their knowledge or permission.

Although Glenn Raynor, a suspected rapist, willingly agreed to be questioned by police, he refused to provide them with a DNA sample.

No problem. Police simply swabbed the chair in which Raynor had been sitting and took what he refused to voluntarily provide.

Raynor’s DNA was a match, and the suspect became a convict.

As the dissenting opinion in Raynor for the Maryland Court of Appeals rightly warned, “a person desiring to keep her DNA profile private, must conduct her public affairs in a hermetically sealed hazmat suit…. The Majority’s holding means that a person can no longer vote, participate in a jury, or obtain a driver’s license, without opening up his genetic material for state collection and codification.”

Yet in refusing to hear the case, the U.S. Supreme Court gave its tacit approval for government agents to collect shed DNA, likening it to a person’s fingerprints or the color of their hair, eyes or skin.

Whereas fingerprint technology created a watershed moment for police in their ability to “crack” a case, DNA technology is now being hailed by law enforcement agencies as the magic bullet in crime solving.

It’s what police like to refer to a “modern fingerprint.”

However, unlike a fingerprint, a DNA print reveals everything about “who we are, where we come from, and who we will be.”

With such a powerful tool at their disposal, it was inevitable that the government’s collection of DNA would become a slippery slope toward government intrusion.

All 50 states now maintain their own DNA databases, although the protocols for collection differ from state to state. Increasingly, many of the data from local databanks are being uploaded to CODIS (Combined DNA Index System), the FBI’s massive DNA database, which has become a de facto way to identify and track the American people from birth to death.

Even hospitals have gotten in on the game by taking and storing newborn babies’ DNA, often without their parents’ knowledge or consent. It’s part of the government’s mandatory genetic screening of newborns. However, in many states, the DNA is stored indefinitely.

What this means for those being born today is inclusion in a government database that contains intimate information about who they are, their ancestry, and what awaits them in the future, including their inclinations to be followers, leaders or troublemakers.

For the rest of us, it’s just a matter of time before the government gets hold of our DNA, either through mandatory programs carried out in connection with law enforcement and corporate America, by warrantlessly accessing our familial DNA shared with geneological services such as Ancestry and 23andMe, or through the collection of our “shed” or “touch” DNA.

All of those fascinating, geneological ancestral searches that allow you to trace your family tree can also be used against you and those you love. As law professor Elizabeth Joh explains, “When you upload your DNA, you’re potentially becoming a genetic informant on the rest of your family.”

While much of the public debate, legislative efforts and legal challenges in recent years have focused on the protocols surrounding when police can legally collect a suspect’s DNA (with or without a search warrant and whether upon arrest or conviction), the question of how to handle “shed” or “touch” DNA has largely slipped through without much debate or opposition.

Yet as scientist Leslie A. Pray notes:

We all shed DNA, leaving traces of our identity practically everywhere we go. Forensic scientists use DNA left behind on cigarette butts, phones, handles, keyboards, cups, and numerous other objects, not to mention the genetic content found in drops of bodily fluid, like blood and semen. In fact, the garbage you leave for curbside pickup is a potential gold mine of this sort of material. All of this shed or so-called abandoned DNA is free for the taking by local police investigators hoping to crack unsolvable cases. Or, if the future scenario depicted at the beginning of this article is any indication, shed DNA is also free for inclusion in a secret universal DNA databank.

What this means is that if you have the misfortune to leave your DNA traces anywhere a crime has been committed, you’ve already got a file somewhere in some state or federal database—albeit it may be a file without a name.

As Forensic magazine reports, “As officers have become more aware of touch DNA’s potential, they are using it more and more. Unfortunately, some [police] have not been selective enough when they process crime scenes. Instead, they have processed anything and everything at the scene, submitting 150 or more samples for analysis.”

Even old samples taken from crime scenes and “cold” cases are being unearthed and mined for their DNA profiles.

Today, helped along by robotics and automation, DNA processing, analysis and reporting takes far less time and can bring forth all manner of information, right down to a person’s eye color and relatives. Incredibly, one company specializes in creating “mug shots” for police based on DNA samples from unknown “suspects” which are then compared to individuals with similar genetic profiles.

If you haven’t yet connected the dots, let me point the way.

Having already used surveillance technology to render the entire American populace potential suspects, DNA technology in the hands of government will complete our transition to a suspect society in which we are all merely waiting to be matched up with a crime.

No longer can we consider ourselves innocent until proven guilty.

Now we are all suspects in a DNA lineup until circumstances and science say otherwise.

Of course, there will be those who point to DNA’s positive uses in criminal justice, such as in those instances where it is used to absolve someone on death row of a crime he didn’t commit, and there is no denying its beneficial purposes at times.

However, as is the case with body camera footage and every other so-called technology that is hailed as a “check” on government abuses, in order for the average person—especially one convicted of a crime—to request and get access to DNA testing, they first have to embark on a costly, uphill legal battle through red tape and, even then, they are opposed at every turn by a government bureaucracy run by prosecutors, legislatures and law enforcement.

What this amounts to is a scenario in which we have little to no defense of against charges of wrongdoing, especially when “convicted” by technology, and even less protection against the government sweeping up our DNA in much the same way it sweeps up our phone calls, emails and text messages.

Yet if there are no limits to government officials being able to access your DNA and all that it says about you, then where do you draw the line?

As technology makes it ever easier for the government to tap into our thoughts, our memories, our dreams, suddenly the landscape becomes that much more dystopian.

With the entire governmental system shifting into a pre-crime mode aimed at detecting and pursuing those who “might” commit a crime before they have an inkling, let alone an opportunity, to do so, it’s not so far-fetched to imagine a scenario in which government agents (FBI, local police, etc.) target potential criminals based on their genetic disposition to be a “troublemaker” or their relationship to past dissenters.

Equally disconcerting: if scientists can, using DNA, track salmon across hundreds of square miles of streams and rivers, how easy will it be for government agents to not only know everywhere we’ve been and how long we were at each place but collect our easily shed DNA and add it to the government’s already burgeoning database?

As always there will be those voices—well-meaning, certainly—insisting that if you want to save the next girl from being raped, abducted or killed, then we need to give the government all the tools necessary to catch these criminals before they can commit their heinous crimes.

If you care for someone, you’re particularly vulnerable to this line of reasoning. Of course we don’t want our wives butchered, our girlfriends raped, our daughters abducted and subjected to all manner of atrocities.

But what about those cases in which the technology proved to be wrong, either through human error or tampering? It happens more often than we are told.

For example, David Butler spent eight months in prison for a murder he didn’t commit after his DNA was allegedly found on the murder victim and surveillance camera footage placed him in the general area the murder took place. Conveniently, Butler’s DNA was on file after he had voluntarily submitted it during an investigation years earlier into a robbery at his mother’s home. The case seemed cut and dried to everyone but Butler who proclaimed his innocence. Except that the DNA evidence and surveillance footage was wrong: Butler was innocent.

Moreover, despite the insistence by government agents that DNA is infallible, New York Times reporter Andrew Pollack makes a clear and convincing case that DNA evidence can, in fact, be fabricated. Israeli scientists “fabricated blood and saliva samples containing DNA from a person other than the donor of the blood and saliva,” stated Pollack. “They also showed that if they had access to a DNA profile in a database, they could construct a sample of DNA to match that profile without obtaining any tissue from that person.”

The danger, warns scientist Dan Frumkin, is that crime scenes can be engineered with fabricated DNA.

Now if you happen to be the kind of person who trusts the government implicitly and refuses to believe it would ever do anything illegal or immoral, then the prospect of government officials—police, especially—using fake DNA samples to influence the outcome of a case might seem outlandish.

Yet as history shows—and as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People—the probability of our government acting in a way that is not only illegal but immoral becomes less a question of “if” and more a question of “when.”