Research Team Slams Global Warming Data In New Report: “Not Reality… Totally Inconsistent With Credible Temperature Data” | Zero Hedge

Authored by Mac Slavo via SHTFplan.com,

As world leaders, namely in the European Union, attack President Trump for pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement which would have saddled Americans with billions upon billions of dollars in debt and economic losses, a new bombshell report that analyzed Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data produced by NASA, the NOAA and HADLEY proves the President was right on target with his refusal to be a part of the new initiative.

According to the report, which has been peer reviewed by administrators, scientists and researchers from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (M.I.T.), and several of America’s leading universities, the data is completely bunk:

 
 

In this research report, the most important surface data adjustment issues are identified and past changes in the previously reported historical data are quantified. It was found that each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history. And, it was nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern. This was true for all three entities providing GAST data measurement, NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU.

 

As a result, this research sought to validate the current estimates of GAST using the best available relevant data. This included the best documented and understood data sets from the U.S. and elsewhere as well as global data from satellites that provide far more extensive global coverage and are not contaminated by bad siting and urbanization impacts. Satellite data integrity also benefits from having cross checks with Balloon data.

 

The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming.

 

Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings. (Full Abstract Report)

Of course, this won’t stop global climate normalcy deniers from saying it’s all one big conspiracy to destroy the earth. They’ll naturally argue that data adjustments to the temperatures need to be made for a variety of reasons, which is something the report doesn’t dispute. What it does show, however, is that these “adjustments” always prove to be to the upside. Always warmer, never cooler:

 
 

While the notion that some “adjustments” to historical data might need to be made is not challenged, logically it would be expected that such historical temperature data adjustments would sometimes raise these temperatures, and sometimes lower them. This situation would mean that the impact of such adjustments on the temperature trend line slope is uncertain. However, each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history.

In short: The evidence has been falsified.

Karl Denninger sums it up succinctly:

 
 

It is therefore quite-clear that the data has been intentionally tampered with.

 

Since this has formed the basis for plans to steal literal trillions of dollars and has already resulted in the forced extraction of hundreds of billions in aggregate for motorists and industry this quite-clearly constitutes the largest economic fraud ever perpetrated in the world.

 

I call for the indictment and prosecution of every person and organization involved, asset-stripping all of them to their literal underwear.

The real data looks something like this:

global-warming-data1

(Via ZeroHedge.com)

And the establishment, along with their fanatical global warming myrmidons, continue to push the need for massive, costly initiatives to reduce green house gases and global temperatures to “normal” levels.

The problem, of course, is that there is no global warming according to the above referenced report.

Moreover, none of those supporting the Paris Climate Agreement and other initiatives have any idea what these behemoth regulations will actually do to curb climate change, as evidenced by the following video of Miami Beach Mayor Philip Levine, who despite his best efforts, can’t seem to figure out exactly how these agreements actually lower temperatures and help Americans:

A LIST OF OBAMA’S ACCOMPLISHMENTS AS THE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT OF THE USA

AP

 

***SHARE SHARE SHARE!!!***

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

ED-AO203C_boski_G_20110907184052.jpg
  • 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?

 

 

www.extremelypissedoffrightwingers2

LIKE OUR GOOD FRIENDS AT EXTREMELY PISSED OFF RIGHT WINGERS ON FACEBOOK! CLICK HERE!

The Strata-Sphere » Obama Administration Looks To Be In Very Serious Legal Trouble

Source: The Strata-Sphere » Obama Administration Looks To Be In Very Serious Legal Trouble

 

There is a lot of breaking news this weekend as the nation learns that a sitting President (Obama) looks to have used the nation’s national security apparatus – which is empowered to protect this nation from foreign enemies and threats – for crass political gain (read “personal gain”).  If this is even partially true, this would be Watergate on steroids and irreparably tarnish the Obama administration for all history.

These high stakes may also explain the irrational fear and hate by the democrat leadership we have seen in their scorched-Earth actions since the election.  Events may be unraveling on them big time, events that started last summer in a very different world.

Let’s begin by setting down a hard and fast rule to blunt the coming weasel words from team Obama. The President runs his administration. The President’s cabinet has some individual authority, but they confirm with the Commander-in-Chief anything that could erupt back on them either legally or politically. No cabinet member – especially the Attorney General – would run near or across legal or ethical lines without concurrence (i.e., cover from) the top person.

To say Obama did not “order” the “wire tap” against the Trump campaign is as ridiculous as it sounds. Note: Trump used figurative parentheses when he tweeted “wire tap”, so read that as meaning “surveillance” legally.

It is not like the Captain of a ship actually “weigh’s the anchor” themselves! Captains order it be done. Or more accurately, it is one step of a process that has been established by the command chain so that when the Captain orders the ship to prepare to “get under way” this action is taken. However executed, the Captain is legally responsible for the people under him, and any mistakes they make. This would include any issues or damage done “weighing” the anchors.

So when someone tries to split hairs about who ordered the surveillance on Team Trump, remember this:

First, as Obama officials well know, under the FISA process, it is technically the FISA court that “orders” surveillance. And by statute, it is the Justice Department, not the White House, that represents the government in proceedings before the FISA court.

The fact is no one would be dumb enough to run afoul of the laws protecting the American People from our intelligence apparatus without top cover – because these represent very, very serious crimes. So let’s stop pretending AG Lynch did this on her own. If this happened, it was all coordinated.

We also need to start with specifying which laws were broken, and then get to the all critical timeline – because that is where we will discover how thin the ice is under Team Obama.

The best overview of the laws broken is here, and the following excerpts summarize the issues our nation faces. To understand the issues one must understand the very narrow and special role the FISA Court and our Intelligence Apparatus plays in our nation. Because of its special powers, it is very restricted on what it can do.

Rather shockingly, no law currently forbids misusing the power of the presidency to spy on one’s adversaries. What the law does forbid is lying to any judicial officer to obtain any means of surveillance. What the law does forbid, under criminal penalty, is the misuse of FISA. Both derive from the protections of the Fourth Amendment itself. Under section 1809, FISA makes it a crime for anyone to either “engage in” electronic surveillance under “color of law” under FISA without following the law’s restrictions, or “disclose” or “use” information gathered from it in contravention of the statute’s sharp constrictions.

Emphasis mine. As we deal with this explosive situation, remember the core issue. It is not run-of-the-mill political skulduggery (is there any other kind?). It is the criminal misuse of a critical national defensive capability. Liken it to using a military weapon against your political opponent, because that is the nearest and best analogy. If Obama ordered the military to intervene with Team Trump during the election, that would not be much different from using the intelligence powers to intervene. This is not on the same level as using the IRS to target political opponents – not by a long shot.

Why is this the case? Because the FISA court operates outside the US Constitution, and therefore any misuse is much more serious:

FISA, 50 USC 1801, et seq., is a very limited method of obtaining surveillance authority. The reason for its strict limits is that FISA evades the regular federal court process, by not allowing regularly, Constitutionally appointed federal judges and their magistrates to authorize surveillance the Fourth Amendment would otherwise forbid. Instead, the Chief Justice handpicks the FISA court members, who have shown an exceptional deference to the executive branch. This is because FISA court members trust the government is only bringing them surveillance about pending terror attacks or “grave hostile” war-like attacks, as the FISA statute limits itself to. Thus, a FISA application can only be used in very limited circumstances.

Again, emphasis mine.  The capability to use our intelligence resources against any entity is restricted to critical national security. These resources are NOT to be applied for other legal matters, such as questionable business interests, hacking computers, etc. This is important because the evidence seems to show Team Obama tried to abuse these resources – and were rebuffed!

FISA can only be used for “foreign intelligence information.” … The only “foreign intelligence information” allowed as a basis for surveillance is information necessary to protect the United States against actual or potential “grave” “hostile” attack, war-like sabotage or international terror. Second, it can only be used to eavesdrop on conversations where the parties to the conversation are a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power. An agent of a foreign power cannot be a United States person unless they are knowingly involved in criminal espionage. No warrant is allowed on that person unless a FISA court finds probable cause the United States person is knowingly engaged in criminal espionage. Even then, if it involves a United States person, special steps must be taken to “minimize the acquisition and retention, and prohibit the dissemination, of non publicly available information concerning un-consenting United States persons.”

This is the crux of Obama’s legal trouble. In order to legally capture information about members of the Trump Campaign (one of which was a sitting Senator), then retain it and distribute it, the reason would have to border on high crimes and treason – not “discussions” or “hacking” or “business transactions”. Even coordinating national policies and treaties with foreign leaders would not rise to the level of urgency required to invoke these intelligence resources.

To summarize, it is Team Obama’s collection, retention and distribution of  information protected by the US Constitution that constitute the high crimes here, specifically when it pertains to members of Trump’s campaign, emphasized here:

This includes procedures that require they never identify the person, or the conversation, being surveilled, to the public where that information is not evidence of a particular crime.

Since the Fake News media has been reporting these very same details to the public, and citing current and former Obama administration sources, it is not debatable on whether laws were broken. They were.

Bottom line: this should never have happened:

At the outset, the NSA should have never been involved in a domestic US election. Investigating the election, or any hacking of the DNC or the phishing of Podesta’s emails, would not be a FISA matter. It does not fit the definition of war sabotage or a “grave” “hostile” war-like attack on the United States, as constrictively covered by FISA. It is your run-of-the-mill hacking case covered by existing United States laws that require use of the regular departments of the FBI, Department of Justice, and Constitutionally Senate-appointed federal district court judges, and their appointed magistrates, not secretive, deferential FISA courts.

So how did this happen? How did our extensive intelligence apparatus come to be misused against members of the Trump campaign?

Well, the simplest answer seems to be Team Obama misled the courts:

This raises the second problem: Obama’s team submission of an affidavit to to the FISA court. An application for a warrant of any kind requires an affidavit, and that affidavit may not omit material factors. A fact is “material” if it could have the possible impact of impacting the judicial officer deciding whether to authorize the warrant. Such affidavits are the most carefully drawn up, reviewed, and approved affidavits of law enforcement in our system precisely because they must be fully-disclosing, forthcoming, and include any information a judge must know to decide whether to allow our government to spy on its own. My assumption would be that intelligence officials were trying to investigate hacking of DNC which is not even a FISA covered crime, so therefore serious questions arise about what Obama administration attorneys said to the FISA court to even consider the application. If the claim was “financial ties” to Russia, then Obama knew he had no basis to use FISA at all.

Since Trump was the obvious target, the alleged failure to disclose his name in the second application could be a serious and severe violation of the obligation to disclose all material facts.

President Trump now owns the records of the United States of America. One thing he and his Attorney General (former Senator Sessions) can get their hands on are these affidavits to the FISA Court. If they are as damning as some believe they must be, then Team Obama is going to be in serious trouble.

Remember, back when this all started no one believed Trump would win and be given the keys to all the evidence lockers. Which is why one has to ask why did Team Obama double down in January and push the laws even further?

Team Obama has a responsibility to the FISA Court to not disclose any information on US Citizens accidentally caught up in a surveillance activity, but this is what they began doing in January 2017.  This may be the second smoking gun – diligently reported by the Fake News media.

That raises the third problem: it seems the FISA-compelled protocols for precluding the dissemination of the information were violated, and that Obama’s team issued orders to achieve precisely what the law forbids, if published reports are true about the administration sharing the surveilled information far-and-wide to promote unlawful leaks to the press.This, too, would be its own crime, as it brings back the ghost of Hillary’s emails — by definition, FISA information is strictly confidential or it’s information that never should have been gathered. FISA strictly segregates its surveilled information into two categories: highly confidential information of the most serious of crimes involving foreign acts of war; or, if not that, then information that should never have been gathered, should be immediately deleted, and never sourced nor disseminated. It cannot be both.

Recognizing this information did not fit FISA meant having to delete it and destroy it. According to published reports, Obama’s team did the opposite: order it preserved, ordered the NSA to search it, keep it, and share it; and then Obama’s Attorney General issued an order to allow broader sharing of information and, according to the New York Times, Obama aides acted to label the Trump information at a lower level of classification for massive-level sharing of the information. The problem for Obama is simple — if it could fit a lower level of classification, then it had to be deleted and destroyed, not disseminated and distributed, under crystal clear FISA law.

There is much more in the article, so please take the time to read the whole thing.

This is about as open-and-shut as you can get in my humble opinion. All this has been faithfully reported (i.e., corroborated) by the Fake News media – citing sources. Along with the internal trail of documents the government is required to keep, it would seem Team Obama has a real problem on their hands.

So let’s visit the timeline of events (best one can be found here), and recall that when all this started Hillary was a shoe-in as the next POTUS. Therefore she would be able to keep a lid on all the critical internal government documents Team Trump now has unfettered access to.

  1. June 2016: FISA request. The Obama administration files a request with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA) to monitor communications involving Donald Trump and several advisers. The request, uncharacteristically, is denied.

Note that the article above identifies a prior attempt to gain surveillance through the normal criminal courts process, before this event. This is one month prior to the RNC and DNC conventions. At this time Trump as POTUS seems to be pure fantasy.

This prior attempt is confirmed (supposedly independently) by Andrew McCarthy:

To summarize, reporting indicates that, prior to June 2016, the Obama Justice Department and FBI considered a criminal investigation of Trump associates, and perhaps Trump himself, based on concerns about connections to Russian financial institutions. Preliminary poking around indicated that there was nothing criminal involved. Rather than shut the case down, though, the Obama Justice Department converted it into a national-security investigation under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

….

In June, the Obama Justice Department submitted an application that apparently “named” Trump in addition to some of his associates.  …  In any event, the FISA court reportedly turned down the Obama Justice Department’s request.

Both the normal courts and the FISA court reject the administrations requests. These requests should be made public ASAP.

Very few people expected Hillary to lose the election at this stage. Bernie was clearly on his way to being vanquished from the Democrat ticket. The effort in June 2016 is clumsy and quickly abandoned. Hillary has her email problems, but she also looks invincible.

I would note one other event on this timeline, when former President Bill Clinton tried to secretly meet with Obama’s AG, Loretta Lynch:

Attorney General Loretta Lynch said she regrets her controversial meeting over the summer with former President Bill Clinton, saying she should have recognized ahead of time how it would be perceived by the public.

Mrs. Lynch had met with Mr. Clinton privately after the two wound up on the same airport tarmac in Phoenix on June 27, just days before FBI Director James Comey would announce that he would not press charges against Hillary Clinton over her private email server.

AG Lynch is the only person authorized to make FISA court requests. Coincidence?

Anyway, nothing happens for months, until …

3. October: Podesta emails. In October, Wikileaks releases the emails of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, rolling out batches every day until the election, creating new mini-scandals. The Clinton campaign blames Trump and the Russians.

4. October: FISA request. The Obama administration submits a new, narrow request to the FISA court, now focused on a computer server in Trump Tower suspected of links to Russian banks. No evidence is found — but the wiretaps continue, ostensibly for national security reasons, Andrew McCarthy at National Review later notes. The Obama administration is now monitoring an opposing presidential campaign using the high-tech surveillance powers of the federal intelligence services.

By October 2016 things are looking really serious for Hillary, but not desperate yet. The Democrats are trying to find a way to neutralize the Podesta emails, which expose serious collusion with the Fake New media. They also remind everyone of Hillary’s own email issues.

But more importantly, the Clinton Foundation was being exposed as a pay-for-power enrichment scheme (rivaling anything thrown at Team Trump in the last few weeks). Did all these events panic the White House and the Democrat power structure? Did they attempt a Hail Mary and try and resurrect their plan to use our nation’s Intelligence Apparatus against Trump?

Not an unreasonable assumption to be honest. And somehow Team Obama actually get the authority for surveillance (maybe by withholding key information about Trump?). Anyway, no one is challenging the fact surveillance began.

But after losing the election to the GOP, team Obama does something stupendously stupid: they issue a memo that attempts to overturn very clear laws about dissemination so they can try and “leak” damning innuendo about Trump through their surrogates in the Fake New media:

6. January: Obama expands NSA sharing. As Michael Walsh later notes, and as the New York Times reports, the outgoing Obama administration “expanded the power of the National Security Agency to share globally intercepted personal communications with the government’s 16 other intelligence agencies before applying privacy protections.” The new powers, and reduced protections, could make it easier for intelligence on private citizens to be circulated improperly or leaked.

The new rules, which were issued in an unclassified document, entitled Procedures for the Availability or Dissemination of Raw Signals Intelligence Information by the National Security Agency (NSA), significantly relaxed longstanding limits on what the NSA may do with the information gathered by its most powerful surveillance operations.

  • Jan 3rd 2017 – Loretta Lynch signs off on rule changes for phone taps.
  • Jan 12th 2017 –  WaPo reports On Phone Calls Anonymous Intel Sources

Obama’s administration had become so addicted to circumventing laws by executive orders, procedures, rules, etc they apparently went to that well one time too many.

There is no legal cover behind an illegal rule. This is not going to protect these people from legal jeopardy (may reduce their sentences somewhat). And the more players involved (Lynch, her successor Yates, etc) the more this runs into the RICO statutes.

Team Trump looks to have a great case here. Plus they have access to the government “smoking gun” documents spread throughout. I do not understand why Obama’s administration would dig their legal hole deeper in disseminating the classified information the law required them to delete and not leak. But they did.

So what does that indicate about team Obama? Either colossal stupidity, uncontrolled panic, or a combination of both. Maybe by they time they realized Trump would find the FISA court records their only avenues was to try and turn public opinion using their robots in the Fake News media.

All Trump has to do is let out the smoking gun documents one at a time. Let the left deny and parse words, then drop his counterveiling bombshells.

Rinse and repeat.

If this is as bad as some say, Trump will milk this all the way – as he should.

 

 

 

 

The Weather Channel gets Climate Change Wrong ⋆ The Constitution

The Weather Channel gets Climate Change Wrong, Again!

By Adrian Vance

The Weather Channel, founded by John Campbell, but now under new owners, attacked a Breitbart News piece on climate change “…of cherry-picking facts to mislead the public about climate change.” They were responding to a Breitbart article declaring global land temperatures made their “steepest fall on record last year” and were met with “…an eerie silence by scientists.”

This is not surprising to anyone who follows “man-caused global warming.” It has been the greatest cash-cow, full employment program for Ph.D.s in Physics, Chemistry, Political Science, International Relations and lastly Meteorology, the only field that should be affected as the data is clear, but academic leeches are stuck hard and fast on the carcass of “anthropogenic global warming” and they will not relent until they have bled it white.

Every physical scientist knows it is a false issue only justified by, “…more money for science…” and they are not kidding. It has netted  $1 trillion and that does not include many millions for new textbooks in areas that will have to be replaced when the fraud is exposed.  The publishers know:  They all have physical scientist consultants who have told them the truth if they wanted to hear it.  According to Breitbart, “The last three years may eventually come to be seen as the final death rattle of the global warming scare” and we second that with a demo-experiment you can do in your home for less than $10 and we could teach this at a high school. You can do it at home. See: http://adrianvancearchive.blogspot.com/2016/12/co2-is-innocent.html

endthelieIn response to Breitbart, The Weather Channel said climate change was real and Breitbart was lying which is interesting as they fired Dr. Heidi Cullen when she was caught in a “global warmng” lie saying, “Methane is a greenhouse gas 500 times more potent than CO2,” when it does not absorb IR much more than nitrogen which is classified as “transparent” to infrared radiation, IR, heat energy and there are actually no “greenhouse gases.”

”Science doesn’t care about your opinion,” Weather Channel Meteorologist Kait Parker said of Breitbart” adding,  “It will not change the future nor the fact that the Earth is warming.”  The Weather Channel then launched a scathing attack on Breitbart, accusing them of  “…cherry-picking facts to mislead the public about climate change,” when this is clearly what NASA, NOAA and now the Weather Channel have been caught doing.

The Brietbart piece was entitled “Global Temperatures Plunge. Icy Silence from Climate Alarmists.”  It noted global land temperatures had dropped one Celsius degree in the last year but the news “…had been ignored by the alarmist community.”

This is a monumental change given the size and mass of gases in the atmosphere as it represents a huge change in the energy we receive from the sun.  It should not be surprising as the sun has been quiet for the last decade showing few sunspots.  They are like bubbles in boiling water showing more energy is entering the pot that normal evaporation can abibe so bubbles form explosively.  Black sunspots are solar bubbles.

Evidence of solar cooling includes earlier fall migrations of ducks and geese from Canada.  In northern California where ten years ago they were not seen until late October and early November some are flying over in late August with the greatest number now coming south in September.

While the Weather Channel does not typically offer opinion beyond weather and climate science, “…in this case we felt it important to add our two cents,” wrote they in a post on its’ website Tuesday.

Meteorologist Kait Parker denied the Breitbart, and other climate change skeptics, claims global temperatures are decreasing, and proceeded to pick apart the article piece by piece.

Addressing the claim global land temperatures had their “biggest and steepest fall on record,” the meteorologist pointed out, “this trend was based on just one satellite estimate,” when the Earth is 71% covered water is misleading.

The weather experts also disputed Breitbart’s claim that any recent warming was simply the result of El Niño which is now thought to be driven by very deep water volcanoes in the Indian Ocean, the deepest of all Earth’s seas.

El Niño clearly added to the strength of the record global warmth observed since late 2015,’ Parker said. “However, if the El Niño spike is removed, 2016 is still the warmest year on record and 2015 the second warmest.”  This statement is in error as the warmest year on record was 1934.

The Weather Channel said thousands of researchers and scientific societies are in agreement that “greenhouse gases” produced by human activity are warming the planet’s climate and “will keep doing so,” when there are no “greenhouse gases” as they would have to form a solid, transparent, glass-like shield to make Earth a “greenhouse” and no gas can form a solid, transparent or opaque.icyalgore

Climate change “experts” for the channel, Bob Henson and Jeff Masters, warn that “artificial debates” over climate change were “a distraction from the important discussions which should be taking place.”  What could be more important then whether or not the issue is false?  Nonetheless they contend:

“Scientific debate in this area is real and perfectly legitimate. Likewise, how we respond to climate change is a matter of public policy, one that demands healthy debate and engagement from citizens and political leaders.”  “Engagement from?”  Is this an error in grammar or an outing of intention?

“It’s something else entirely to foster suspicion about the very bedrock of climate change science, which is based on thousands of peer-reviewed studies and accepted by every major scientific organization on Earth.”  Those “peer reviewed” journals are all garage and basement printed, low circulation pamphlets with “peers” who are associates often on the same faculties as the authors who take turns being “peer reviewers.”

“Human-produced greenhouse gases are causing the Earth system to warm, and this trend will continue, along with shorter-term ups and downs. There are too many important debates and decisions ahead of us to waste time on artificial ones.”  Again the error expands as the primary “greenhouse gas,” CO2 actually causes a decline in atmospheric temperature as you can see in the demo-experiment at: http://adrianvancearchive.blogspot.com/2016/12/co2-is-innocent.html

The Weather Channel ended its piece, by offering to help Breitbart next time they needed to fact check an article noting, “I’m sure we both agree this topic is too important to get wrong. A third of the world’s polar bears ‘will disappear in the next 40 years because of melting sea ice.”

We note that a recent Polar Bear census has noted there are more then ever, but this may be due to better counting than we have had in the past noting natural history, mistakenly called “science,” is open to question and notorious for rubber “facts.”

Source: The Weather Channel gets Climate Change Wrong ⋆ The Constitution

global_warming_hoax

Pew Research: Americans Don’t Believe There’s A ‘97% Consensus of Climate Scientists

The study which concluded there’s 97% consensus of climate scientists believing the man-made global warming hypothesis is simply bogus. It’s laden with faulty research.Thankfully the American Public isn’t buying the 97% nonsense, according to a Pew study released earlier this week .

Any objective examination of the methodology of the study will conclude that the 97% consensus figure has no basis in fact. But sadly the present federal government, as well as liberals all across this nation believe the study and do not allow any discussion despite the fact that global temperatures have been virtually flat for about 18 years, according to satellite data, and peer-reviewed literature is now scaling back predictions of future warming.

Just 27% of Americans say that almost all climate scientists agree human behavior is mostly responsible for climate change. This perception is at odds with a 2013 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which accessed more than 9,000 scientific publications and concluded: ‘The science now shows with 95% certainty that human activity is the dominant cause of observed warming since the mid-20th century.

Apparently Americans aren’t as stupid as climate scare-mongers, progressives, and Democratic Party politicians think we are.

The study reporting the 97% consensus, “Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature,”  by John Cook and friends, published in 2013 by the University of Queensland was .

According to Watts Up With That, when the source data for the study was published online, the University of Queensland got so worried the study would be exposed they threatened a lawsuit over any use of Cook’s “97% consensus” data for a scientific rebuttal. That threat is antithetical to the scientific method, which says that, for a study to be valid, it must be possible to repeat it and achieve the same results as the initial study. But, the University of Queensland was hiding that Cook’s study was a qualitative study which relied on opinion and produced biased results.

Cook and his buddies looked at peer-reviewed studies and subjectively classified them as either agreeing or disagreeing with the climate change hypothesis. Based on the methodology the 97% figure was really 97% of the hand-picked studies they reviewed and they decided supported the hypothesis.

When investigative journalists at Popular Technology  looked into the 97% study, they found it falsely classified some of the scientists’ papers as supporting the global warming hypothesis. Instead of arriving at their own opinions the Popular Technology report relied on the opinions of scientists conducted the research and wrote the papers.

Popular Technology looked into precisely which papers were classified within Cook’s asserted 97 percent. The investigative journalists found Cook and his colleagues strikingly classified papers by such prominent, aggressive climate change skeptics as Willie Soon, Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir Shaviv, Nils-Axel Morner and Alan Carlin as supporting the 97 percent consensus.

Cook and his colleagues, for example, classified a peer-reviewed paper by scientist Craig Idso as explicitly supporting the “consensus” position on global warming “without minimizing” the asserted severity of global warming. When Popular Technology asked Idso whether this was an accurate characterization of his paper, Idso responded:

“That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion’s share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.”

A more extensive examination of the Cook study by the New American reported that, out of the nearly 12,000 scientific papers Cook’s team evaluated, only 65 endorsed Cook’s alarmist position. That is not only less than 97% but it is less than 0.97%.

The crucial point here is the qualifying clause, “of those who have an opinion.” In other words, even the highly questionable Cook study doesn’t actually claim, as President Obama does, that “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree.” In fact, when examined closely, one finds that the study says only one-third of the authors of the published research papers they examined expressed an opinion that the Cook team interpreted as either an implicit or explicit endorsement of AGW. So now its 97 percent of one-third of selected scientists in a sampling of research papers. That’s a far cry from the 97 percent of all scientists claimed by President Obama and many of the media stories. And, as we will show below, even this admitted dramatically lower consensus claimed by the study is fraught with problems and falls apart further under examination.

Another criticism of the Cook’s paper is it didn’t define the “consensus” they were looking for. Is the 97% for people who believe the global warming is real, or people who believe it’s real and caused by mankind?

There are scientists, for example, who believe the Earth just went through a warming period caused by high sunspot activity. Many of those scientists blaming sunspots either work or consult for the U.S. or British Governments. Those scientists believe that we have entered a period of low sunspot activity and that might cause a mini-ice age.

Princeton physicist William Happer in explained in Climate Depot, “if global warming were any other branch of science it would have been abandoned a long time ago.” Climate scientists are, of course, obsessed with man’s carbon dioxide emissions. But Happer says this is essentially nonsense. “All of the geological evidence indicates that CO2 is a minor player” in previous eras of warming, he said last week in a Climate Depot podcast. “We’ve had ice ages with 10 times more CO2 than we have today. That’s not supposed to happen, according to current computer models, but it did happen.”

The bottom line is that any objective examination of the methodology used by Cook and the University of Queensland will conclude that the 97% consensus figure has no basis in fact. And despite the fact that politicians and liberals are trying to shove the consensus down our throats, according to Pew Research, Americans aren’t buying it either.

Killing the Truth in Academia

General Robert E Lee
rlee@suthenboy.com
 
Preamble: The purpose of this blog is to discuss the principal curricula being taught in academia today as well as its impact on students and consequences to America. 
I was appalled by the disgusting reaction to Trump’s victory throughout academia, particularly by college students and instructors. Their behavior was reprehensible, embarrassing to America, and sadly, expected in today’s once hallowed bastions of higher learning. Something is drastically wrong in academia when instructors and students require coloring books, animals to hug, safe spaces to mourn, crying rooms, psychological help, relief from exams, and time off to assuage their despair, despondency, and anger. Far worse however, is their blatant rejection and defiance of America’s traditional election process because it did not provide the result they sought.
 
In my opinion the root cause of this abhorrent behavior is the culture of academia into which students are being indoctrinated by far left wing instructors propagating Marxism subtly disguised as progressivism. Sound ridiculous, please read on before commenting on my sanity. I also encourage you to read my 8/26/15 blog ‘Academic Shock’ to more fully appreciate the breadth and dangers of what is being instilled in students throughout academia today.
The following statements exemplify modern day fundamental building blocks of education: 
  • There are no facts, only interpretations – Friedrich Nietzsche
  • Morals, values, truths, standards, and human nature itself are products of different historical epochs and socially constructed – Marxism’s Worldview
Academia’s Standard Curricula: The curricula throughout politically correct academia today includes radical left wing self-proclaimed elite professors/instructors teaching students to reject objective truths and replace them with relative truths: i.e., perspectives or points of view to which each person is entitled regardless of how inconsistent with the truth they are. Notwithstanding how outrageous a relative truth may be, e.g., the Holocaust is a myth, at best it is taught to be a more unfortunate perspective on the matter instead of being repudiated as a lie. This self-serving cavalier attitude within the arrogant professorial domain adversely affects students in ways that include the following:
  • Disregards and renders truth meaningless
  • Erodes the legitimacy of serious opinion
  • Deprives students of a much needed solid education founded on traditionally accepted disciplines of study  
Another result of rejecting objective truths is that facts are considered as matters of opinion relative to and dependent upon the interests, prejudices, sexual orientation, or ethnic origin of the speaker rather than the truth or falsity of what the speaker says. The premise being that truth is somehow invented rather than discovered, and ergo, relative to the speaker.
 
Harvard historian Simon Schama perfectly exemplifies this arrogant attitude toward truth in the prologue to his fatuous book “Dead Certainties” (1991). Schama assures his readers “the claims for historical knowledge must always be fatally circumscribed by the character and prejudices of its narrator.” In other words, the historian’s supposed limitations make stating historical truth impossible, which is utter nonsense.
 
The Genesis of Relative Truths: This repugnant affront to traditional education, its truths and inherent values, is rooted in Cultural Marxism. This ideology was conceived, circa 1921, at the Frankfurt School in Frankfurt Germany by a group of radical Marxist intellectuals who rejected traditional Economic Marxism because they realized it was incapable of destroying and dominating the West. Cultural Marxism was based on behavioral psychology to achieve mass compliance with a desired goal(s), and ultimately replaced Economic Marxism. It is modern day Marxism euphemistically referred to as progressivism to hide the true ideology but Marxism nonetheless. The great majority of progressives are ignorant of the ideology they are propagating and just happy following the heard of sheep.
 
Unlike Karl Marx, the founding Cultural Marxists envisioned catalyzing the complete destruction of Western traditions, values, and culture by a lengthy, indefensible, peaceful cultural revolution wherein traditional morals and authority would be rejected. Once achieved Western culture would be supplanted by Cultural Marxist ideology.
 
In 1933 as National Socialism was gaining momentum in Germany the founders fled to America and set up shop at Columbia University in NYC. They began sowing the seeds of their cultural revolution by diffusing Cultural Marxist ideology through key spheres of influence, initially focusing on academia, politics, the MSM and film industry. The founders knew that progress would be slow but remained patient and steadfast while assiduously propagating their ideology.
 
The ’60s Boomer Rebellion: The founders’ fortunes dramatically changed for the better in the middle 1960s with the student “Boomer” rebellion wherein morality and authority were rejected and individual freedom to do as one pleased was exalted. The father and ultimate leader of this rebellion throughout academia was Herbert Marcuse, a founding member of the Frankfurt School and elite, well-respected university professor. Marcuse coined the chant, “make love not war” that became poplar throughout academia.
 
Deconstructing Truth: Marcuse’s methodology for rebellion included deconstructing the language, e.g., he coined the infamous “what does ‘is’ mean?” which fostered the destruction of American culture. Deconstruction destabilizes and reconstructs clear definitions, the content and text of language, traditions, being, institutions, objective knowledge, reason, truth, legitimate hierarchies, authority, nature, and all that is considered universal. 
 
Marcuse was esteemed by the masses rebelling against the establishment. He catalyzed the confusion and obliteration of traditionally accepted culture through deconstruction which was primarily responsible for a major breakdown in the nation’s social conformity, particularly among impressionable young people.
 
The Intent of Deconstruction: Deconstruction is used by Cultural Marxists as the method of analysis that will show the correctness of their ideology in every situation and provide the answers they seek. This is done by taking any text, removing all meaning from it and re-inserting the meaning sought. For instance, Cultural Marxists uniquely use deconstruction to prove that any text illustrates the oppression of minorities, e.g., blacks, women, homosexuals, etc., by reading that meaning into the text’s words regardless of its actual meaning. The overused ‘race card’ routine should come to mind.
Outrageous examples include Shakespeare writing about suppressing women, and the Bible being about race and gender. Furthermore, morals, values, truths, standards, and human nature itself are considered products of different historical epochs and socially constructed. Ergo, the truth is relative, dynamic, and meaningless in the hands of a deconstructionist academician poisoning young minds to suit her or his agenda.
 
The Impact on Academia: The consequences of intentionally obfuscating and skewing the truth to fit a desired end have been particularly devastating in academia. Dissident ‘Boomers’ of the ’60s and their acolytes have dominated academia’s professorial domain for years. They were spoon fed and indoctrinated into Cultural Marxism as students, and as instructors are likewise actively propagating and spoon feeding that same ideology to their students. Among other things, they have intentionally undermined the integrity and very ideas of many academic disciplines in fields of study with generally agreed upon subject matters.
 
Study Groups: Instead of academic emphasis being placed on traditional disciplines, e.g., history, math, science, and literature, it is placed on race, ethnicity, and gender taught through study groups. There is an endless proliferation of such groups throughout academia which are typically comprised of the so-called “historically disadvantaged” minorities considered as ‘sacred cows’ by today’s politically correct progressives. This situation clearly evinces a breakdown of long accepted academic disciplines and is strongly encouraged by the respective educational administrations, also highly concentrated with progressives. 
 
Superficially the common mantra and favorite code words of study groups are inclusion, tolerance, diversity, sensitivity, social justice, sex education, and other such terminology connoting kindness. Notwithstanding the seemingly innocuous terms however, they are critical components of Cultural Marxism being cleverly disguised as progressivism as mentioned aforesaid. Ironically, to force compliance with their position on a matter, these inclusive, tolerant groups spew vile hatred towards and demonize everyone in disagreement with them, particularly straight White males.
 
Radical Left Wing Professors: Ultra-radical radical left wing instructors with personal anti-American agendas teach the pseudo study groups that include the following: women’s studies; gay studies; transgender studies; Asian studies; Afro-American studies; African studies; Indian studies; and the list goes on ad nauseam. While these groups are hyped as being cross- disciplinary they are anti-disciplinary because their sole purpose is to diffuse Cultural Marxist ideology in lieu of America’s culture, values and traditions. Among other Marxist concepts instructors use relative truth and deconstruction to achieve their desired anti-American goals. Carefully note, there are no male, White, or Western European studies. The only reference to Whites in any of these study groups is in demonizing and blaming them for the perceived ‘ills’ of the world’s ‘historically disadvantaged minorities’.
 
Cultural Studies: Cultural studies is the group most repugnant to traditional education because content is entirely discretionary with the instructor and accordingly, characterized by attitudes and agendas instead of empirical facts. There are two mandatory requisites for cultural studies: (1) political animus: (2) hostility to factual truth. Generally, students are strongly encouraged and often mandated to take this ridiculous course that is underpinned by ‘White Guilt’. 
Below are examples of relative truths students are taught by politically correct radical left wing Marxist ideologues with an aversion to empirical evidence and everything American.  
  • Columbus was an evil, bloodthirsty marauder who committed the American Holocaust, while the Indians were peaceful, environmentally sensitive creatures who lived in blissful harmony with each other and the earth. 
  • Cortez, who conquered Mexico on behalf of Spain, was a mass murderer and the Aztec conquest evinced European Imperialism perpetrating the greatest genocide in all human history.
  • Early pilgrims slaughtered their Indian guests at a Thanksgiving feast
It should be abundantly clear that present day curricula taught by Marxist instructors precipitated the behavior of academia that resulted from Trump’s win. More ominous, however, is the poisonous Marxist ideology into which students are being indoctrinated by instructors that loathe and want to destroy traditional American culture and values.

The Deaths of the Clinton Family’s Enemies is Reminiscent of Hitler’s Night of the Long Knives ⋆ The Constitution

By Dr. Paul Revere

The Deaths of the Clinton Family’s Enemies is Reminiscent of Hitler’s Night of the Long Knives

“Demoralize the enemy from within by surprise, terror, sabotage, assassination.”  —Adolf Hitler

The Prophet [Muhammad] said, “Who will rid me of Ibn al-Ashraf?”  Muhammad b[in] Maslamah . . . said, “I will rid you of him, O Messenger of God, I will kill him.”  “Do it then,” [the Prophet] said, “if you can.”  . . . “O Messenger of God,” [Muhammad bin Maslamah] said, “we shall have to tell lies.”  “Say what you like,” [the Prophet] replied, “You are absolved in the matter.”  Tabari, The History of al-Tabari, Vol. VII, trans. W. Montgomery Watt (SUNY Press, 1987), p. 95

 

The Night of the Long Knives

The Night of the Long Knives (in German, “die Nacht der langen Messer”), was a period of political revenge that took place in Germany from June 30 to July 2, 1934 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives).  It was during this time that Hitler sponsored a series of politically-motivated executions to consolidate his hold on power.  Many of those assassinated were leaders in Hitler’s own Nazi Party.  Most of the killings were carried out by the Schutzstaffel (German for “Protection Squadron” and otherwise known as the “SS”) and the Gestapo (short for “Geheime Staatspolizei” or Secret State Police), Hitler’s apparatus for carrying out secret operations and assassinations, much akin to Obama’s Muslim-led CIA (John Brennan, the CIA chief, converted to Islam in Riyadh, while station chief there https://cofda.wordpress.com/2015/08/26/cia-director-john-brennan-is-a-muslim-convert/).  Of course, Hitler, an admirer of Muhammad, cannot help but prove similar in psychological make-up and murderous behavior to the Great Jihadist and King of Assassins himself.

 

Clinton’s Totalitarian Role Models

Clinton’s loss this summer of so many key enemies is reminiscent of Hitler’s similar loss of political opponents during the Night of the Long Knives.  Clinton’s intimate relationship with Muslim-Brotherhood-member Huma Abedin (http://eaglerising.com/8011/hillary-huma-muslim-brotherhood/) can only serve to suggest a level of comfort with the use of assassination as a tool for eliminating enemies.  Historically speaking, assassination was a tool that totalitarians Hitler and Muhammad both utilized (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4AafcDhOvw).  Hitler felt he had much in common with Muhammad (http://eaglerising.com/25130/hitlers-last-laugh-angela-merkels-birthing-of-an-islamo-fascist-fourth-reich/): “The Muhammadan religion . . . would have been much more compatible to us [Germans] than Christianity,” according to Hitler, who also said that “ultimately not Arabs but Islamized Germans could have stood at the head of [the] Mohammedan Empire.”

Whether it be Hitler or Muhammad that Clinton mirrors more closely, what is significant is that so many people on Hillary’s enemies-list have died so mysteriously during the course of the 2016 campaign, leaving little doubt that the Hitleresque long knives and jihadist sympathies of Hillary Clinton are no conspiracy theory but are quite real.

 

The Death of Vincent Fleck

The Sluzhba Vneshney Razvedki (SVR)—the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service for external civilian affairs—reports (http://www.americanpoliticnews.com/uncategorized/uh-oh-look-happened-physician-leaked-hillarys-secret-medical-records/) that Vincent Fleck, the father of the physician treating Hillary for dementia, has suddenly expired.  According to SVR, the prime suspect in the slaying is a Central-Intelligence-Agency “hit team” that “traveled about 70 kilometers [44 miles] from their New York City ‘base/headquarters’ to a small village named Mount Kisco, both being located in New York State.”  The report accuses these CIA assassins of breaking into a computer company, Right Click Solutions, at 322 East Main Street, and fleeing upon being surprised by an employee, managing to take with them a single laptop computer—and probably, as it turns out, the wrong one.

An SVR hacking expedition into the files of Right Click Solutions demonstrated that Vincent Fleck had had a “Snowden-like dead-man’s switch” installed on his personal computer by Right Click.  (A “dead-man’s switch” is software that automatically publishes predesignated information, if the owner of the computer fails to log on at his regularly scheduled time.)  While SVR was still investigating Fleck, he suddenly died in a mysterious swimming accident.  Within 24 hours of Fleck’s death, Clinton’s damning medical information was released via a Twitter account called @HillsMedlRecords; this was hastily shut down, but not before the account leaked the following message: “I hate to do this, but people need to need to know.  Dr. Bardack was not honest about Hillary Clinton’s health and I have proof.”  Damaging medical documents were to follow, the most damaging of which diagnosed Hillary (http://politicianreviews.com/review/hillary-medical-records-revealed-dementia-seizures-black-outs-we-have-the-report/) as having “Complex Partial Seizures” and “Subcortical Vascular Dementia.”

 

It All Started with Shariar Zolfaghari

What would appear to be a Hillary Clinton summer spree of serial assassinations started on June 1, 2016, when Georgia State Prosecutor Camila Wright’s husband was murdered just ahead of Wright’s prosecution of Bill Clinton and his sex-offender friend, Jeffrey Epstein, for child-sex and child-slavery charges.  According to CBS (http://www.cbs46.com/story/32132841/ga-assistant-ag-speaks-publicly-on-death-of-husband), Camila Wright said, “We are broken,” and he SVR reported (http://www.blacklistednews.com/Husband_Of_Prosecutor_Investigating_Bill_Clinton_For_Child_Sex_Charges_Gunned_Down/51713/0/38/38/Y/M.html) that President Obama’s own squad of CIA assassins killed Wright’s husband for the express purpose of breaking her, thereby preventing a timely prosecution of Bill Clinton for having had sex with an underage sex-slave who was kept by Clinton-friend Jeffrey Epstein.  The SVR decided it was Obama’s CIA “hit squad,” because, on May 31, 2016, that squad was dispatched to the Atlanta, Georgia, area, where they remained until the morning of June 1, 2016.  The SVR reports that “shortly after [the ‘hit squad’] departure from the Atlanta region, local police officers were called and discovered the body of Shahriar Zolfaghari who was the husband of Georgia’s statewide prosecutor for human trafficking Camila Wright—and whom Atlanta Police Major Adam Lee III reported had been shot twice in the chest at close range and said: ‘It’s a mystery as to why someone would harm him.’”

 

John Ashe

On June 22, 2016, Clinton associate John Ashe, who was preparing testimony against the Clinton Foundation, was killed, his throat crushed by a barbell in a weird weightlifting incident.  Ashe was scheduled to provide courtroom testimony in the days following his death, since prosecutors had linked Ashe to Ng Lap Seng, a bagman for the Clintons who smuggled $4.5 into the country.  Ashe’s death was quite convenient for the Clintons.

Kosar, in World News Daily (http://www.wnd.com/2016/06/death-by-barbell-sparks-questions-about-hillary-silencing-people/) comments: “‘Could this be Hillary Clinton silencing people who “know too much?”  We know there are at least 46 people from Clinton World who have died under mysterious circumstances.  While some are certainly a coincidence, it is very clear that being deeply connected into the Clinton political world can be hazardous to your health.’”

 

Seth Rich

On July 7, Democrat operative Seth Rich, who was about to testify against Clinton and the FBI, was murdered while jogging.  SVR Director Mikhail Fradkov—in an unusual move just prior to the assassination—authorized an emergency contact (http://www.fury.news/2016/08/breaking-new-intel-reveals-hillary-clintons-hit-team-assassinated-dnc-staffer/) with the US State Department, out of fear that the assassination of Seth Rich was imminent.  But when Russian diplomats presented SVR’s analysis to State, on July 7, 2016, they were summarily expelled from the country.  Seventy-two hours later, Seth Rich lay dead of gunshot wounds, at 4:19 AM, on July 10, 2016.  The SVR report suggested that Rich had been lured to his death by a “hit team” acting the parts of FBI agents wanting to interview him.  Also according to the SVR, the assassins were captured on July 12, 2016, after a firefight with US authorities, blocks from the White House.  SVR analysts (http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2016/07/clintons-order-yet-another-asassination-top-dem-party-member-seth-rich-3384642.html) speculate that the assassination of Rich so inflamed FBI Director James Comey that he ordered the assassins be taken into custody.  The same analysts claim that Comey let Hillary Clinton escape indictment, because he is a former director of HSBC bank, which has funneled hundreds of millions of illicit dollars to the Clintons through the Clinton Foundation.

 

Victor Thorn

Victor Thorn, author of four books about the Clintons, died from a gunshot wound to his head on August 1st, his 54th birthday.  Thorn’s latest book about the Clintons was a huge success, so suicide is doubtful.  Also, Russell Scott (http://endingthefed.com/man-who-researched-clinton-found-dead-but-his-last-words-are-the-scary-part-video.html), a talk-show host who had featured Thorn twice on his show, quotes Thorn as having said that “if I’m ever found dead, it was murder.  I would never kill myself.”

 

Shawn Lucas

Thirty-eight-year-old Shawn Lucas was serving the Democrat National Committee with legal notice that they were being sued, at their Washington, DC, headquarters on July 1, 2016; and he was found dead on his bathroom floor, on August 2, 2016 (https://genesiscnc.com/is-the-clintons-hit-squad-at-it-again/).  Lucas has since become famous from a viral Internet video of his serving legal papers on the DNC.  In the video, Lucas revels in his having served the Democrats with the now-famous lawsuit charging fraud in the way the primary system was rigged to ensure a Clinton victory over Sanders.

 

A Long, Dark Night

So, do these killings indicate that an ongoing Night of the Long Knives, Clinton-style, is being carried out?  What do YOU think?

 

Who Is Dr. Paul Revere?

 

Dr. Paul Revere is a patriot who believes in the ethic of Equal Protection afforded to all Americans under the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  According to Dr. Revere, the job of our democratic republic is to safeguard our natural rights against tyranny, so that all people might live in freedom and safety, and anyone who stands in direct opposition to this ethic is an enemy of the American people who must be fought and defeated.

Dr. Paul Revere is author of Teach Your Children the Truth About Islam: Parents & Teachers: Safeguard Your Families Against Miseducated Media & Apologist Educators, which is available in trade paper for $5.99 or as a Kindle download for $0.99 (https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=dr+paul+revere&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Adr+paul+revere).

https://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/hillary-for-prison-2016.jpg

Obama and the U.N. Collude to “Beef Up” and Nationalize America’s Police Departments – Minutemen News

 logo

This won’t come as a surprise.  Obama and the United Nations are on another quest to “beef up” and nationalize America’s police departments.  This is just another of the numerous initiatives by the U.N. to attack our Constitution and our rights as citizens.

The New American reports – After recently demanding everything from “robust gun control” and reparations for slavery to constitutional amendments altering the supreme law of the land, the United Nations has now publicly endorsed the Obama administration’s illegal efforts to federalize America’s local police departments. A UN official also offered to provide “technical assistance” to the U.S. government in implementing its radical demands.   

Specifically, a UN official from Kenya touted one of the many schemes used by the White House to impose unconstitutional federal regulations on local law enforcement. Dubbed “consent decrees,” the plot involves extremist bureaucrats at the Obama Justice Department threatening, bullying, and suing city governments into submission to Obama’s demands. The UN “lawyer” called for the administration’s commandeering of cops to be “beefed up” and “increased” to help nationalize as many of America’s police departments as possible.

Citing “international law,” the UN figure also attacked gun rights and the concealed carry of firearms. The latest UN assault on the God-given rights to keep and bear arms, protected by state and U.S. constitutions, came after a deluge of similar attacks coming from the global body, and its widely ridiculed “Human Rights Council” in particular. While the U.S. government is not currently represented, some of the most ruthless communist and Islamist dictatorships on the planet enjoy seats on the outfit

The UN bureaucrat boasted of the Obama administration’s “cooperation” in the supposed investigation. However, the reaction to the UN’s attacks was swift, with criticism of the UN, often ridiculed by critics as the “dictators club,” making headlines across America after being posted on the Drudge Report, the world’s top news and information site.  

Read More:  http://www.thenewamerican.com/

March, 2015 (more than a year ago), Rep. Mike Rogers introduced a bill (H.R. 1205: American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2015) The bill had seven co-sponsors and was assigned to the House Foreign Affairs committee (Chariman: Ed Royce). There were no roll call votes, so it basically died in committee.

Here are the names of the original co-sponsors: John “Jimmy” Duncan (R-TN2), Tim Huelskamp (R-KS1), Maggie Thomas (R-KY4), Lynn Westmoreland (R-GA3), Ted Yoho (R-FL3), Jeff Duncan (R-SC3), and Walter Jones (R-NC3)

Start contacting your representatives, and even these who supported the bill, to see if we can get this bill reintroduced, or a similar one pushed through.

We must get out of the U.N.!

Betrayal in Benghazi: A Dereliction of Duty

Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi
June 29, 2016

Betrayal in Benghazi: A Dereliction of Duty
Key Findings:


 The Obama administration actively supported the replacement of quasi-secular North African rulers in Tunisia, Libya and Egypt with Muslim Brotherhood rule.

 In Libya, the Obama administration turned against Muammar Qaddafi, who had become an ally in the fight against the Global Jihad Movement, and instead worked with the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood and materially aided known AL-Qa’eda linked militias to topple his regime.

 The Obama administration throughout 2012 deliberately withheld urgently-requested security for the U.S. mission in Benghazi, at least in part to buttress the false narrative that al-Qa’eda had been defeated for the benefit of the president’s re-election campaign in 2012—despite the fact that Benghazi was one of the most vulnerable U.S. posts anywhere in the world in the volatile post-Qaddafi environment.

 For reasons not entirely clear, multiple advance warnings about an impending attack
against the U.S. mission in Benghazi were ignored by the Obama administration as a
whole, the Department of Defense specifically, and also especially Secretary of State
Hillary Clinton, who bore ultimate responsibility for diplomatic mission security.

 Despite an egregious failure by the Pentagon to pre-position forces in advance, various U.S. assets were available to deploy immediately when the Benghazi attack began the night of 11 September 2012, but were held back from even attempting a rescue effort.

 The President, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former Secretary of Defense
Panetta, and Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, must be required to answer for their dereliction of duty (‘willfully refusing to perform ones duties,’ a criminal offense under the United States Code) in failing to provide appropriate protection in advance and to commit forces immediately to a rescue attempt the night of 11-12 September 2012.

 The Obama White House and Clinton State Department led a concerted two-week coverup regarding the facts of the Benghazi attack for crass political purposes and to
collaborate with the international campaign led by the Organization of Islamic
Cooperation that seeks criminalization of all criticism of Islam.

Executive Summary
The Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi (CCB) released its first Benghazi report, “How America Switched Sides in the War on Terror,” in April 2014. It detailed how the Obama administration rejected Muammar Qaddafi’s efforts to discuss a ceasefire and possible abdication, and facilitated the provision of arms to al-Qaeda linked rebels in Libya. It also covered the administration’s dereliction of duty in not sending military assets to help save the Americans in Benghazi and its shameful cover-up of the truth afterward. Now, two years later, our findings have been confirmed and amplified by additional evidence. We also know much more about the Benghazi terror attack, thanks to courageous individuals who have come forward, brave sources willing to speak up, the work of investigative journalists, and the incredible tenacity of the team at Judicial Watch.
We understand more about the reasoning behind why President Barack Obama involved the United States (U.S.) with Libya’s Islamic uprising (aka, ‘Arab Spring’) in the first place. It is evident that President Obama had an ideological commitment to support the extension of Muslim Brotherhood power across the Middle Eastern and North Africa (MENA) region, even if that meant knowingly supporting identifiable jihadis with the funding, training, and weapons to do it.1 On the other hand, evidence suggests that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the Clinton Foundation, and unscrupulous individuals surrounding them decided to back the ouster of Libya’s leader Muammar Qaddafi at least in part for financial reasons, including an expectation of lucrative deals to follow. Nevertheless, the fact that Secretary of State Clinton knew that the leadership of the Libyan revolt against Muammar Qaddafi was dominated by the Libyan Muslim Brotherhood and militia forces connected to al-Qa’eda is demonstrated by a number of now public Clinton emails.
The Obama administration and Clinton Department of State refusal to provide adequate security measures for the U.S. mission in Benghazi flowed at least in part from political imperatives of 1 See references to Presidential Study Directive 11, the 2010 Obama White House document that solicited proposals and instructed key government agencies to collaborate on formation and execution of a plan for enabling Muslim Brotherhood rule by way of regime change in Bahrain, Egypt, Jordan, Yemen and likely other Middle East countries. The 18-page report remains classified in spite of all efforts to obtain its release. Landler, Mark, “Secret Report Ordered by Obama Identified Potential Uprisings,” The New York Times, 16 February 2011.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/world/middleeast/17diplomacy.html

the 2012 presidential election year, when campaign slogans pushed the narrative that Usama bin Laden was dead and al-Qa’eda was on the run. It would have seriously challenged that narrative to admit that U.S. policy in Libya had been an unmitigated disaster. Al-Qa’eda militias, which received recognition and assistance from our own officials, were now running amok, armed not only with the weapons the U.S. helped provide to them but with massive quantities of arms looted from Qaddafi’s former stockpiles. Denying repeated requests for additional security in Benghazi was the Obama administration’s way of pretending that nothing was amiss there and hoping the place wouldn’t blow up completely—at least until after the November 2012 elections were behind them. This explanation alone is not entirely satisfactory, however, and other factors (including gross incompetence), should be considered. Bottom line, though, there is no possible excuse for this policy and those responsible for it must be held accountable before the American people.
Thanks in large measure to the willingness of several courageous members of the Benghazi CIA Annex’s Global Response Staff (GRS) to speak out, we also know now that there were multiple advance warnings before the attack of 11 September 2012 that should have alerted the Departments of Defense and State, the Intelligence Community (IC), and the White House to impending disaster. The warnings were all ignored, with catastrophic results. The most egregious dereliction of duty came during the night of 11-12 September 2012, when brave Americans battled alone for hours against overwhelming odds while the government that sent them in harm’s way did not even attempt a rescue mission. We know now that U.S. forces were available in multiple locations, including Aviano Air Base and Naval Air Station Sigonella in Italy, at the Rota Naval Base in Spain, and the Commander’s In-Extremis Force in Croatia, in addition to Foreign Emergency Support Teams (FEST). Someone in the U.S. chain of command decided not to send any of these forces into Libya to help. Further, the interagency task force called the Counterterrorism Security Group (CSG), established by presidential directive precisely for such terror attacks as this one, was not convened.

Secretary of State Clinton must be held responsible for her failure to provide adequate protection to the SMC in Benghazi in the months leading up to the attack, as well as for her failure to immediately request permission from the Libyan government for cross-border authority, and then to convey that authority to available U.S. military forces. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, as well as USCINCEUR Adm. James G. Stavridis and USAFRICOM Commander General Carter F. Ham, all share responsibility for their failure to pre-position U.S. military forces in the face of so much advance warning about the situation in Benghazi. They also failed to insist on the timely dispatch of forces to at least attempt a rescue the night of the attack. But the ultimate responsibility for the Benghazi disaster lies with the commander-in-chief, President Barack Obama. To date, no one has been willing even to say where he was that night or what specific orders he may have issued (if any) before disappearing from the scene. That information needs to be subpoenaed under oath forthwith.

Lastly, the Obama administration cover-up that followed the Benghazi debacle served only to add insult to injury by denying the truth about what happened to the American people and suppressing with a heavy hand those who had been personally involved and who wanted to speak out. Instead, a hastily-concocted false narrative about a YouTube video was fed to the media and public alike in a campaign quickly, but efficiently, coordinated with the administration’s domestic and international Muslim Brotherhood networks. The objective was to conceal the fact that al-Qa’eda-linked jihadis attacked our mission and killed four Americans that night. From their perspective, blaming a video that violated the Islamic Law on slander also bolstered the global campaign to criminalize criticism of Islam led by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), a close working partner of the Clinton State Department.
The following report is not intended to cover every single aspect of the Benghazi debacle, but will add new details to the CCB’s earlier reporting on each of these phases of the Benghazi attack: before, during, and after. The thrust of our investigation has been not merely to document the sequence of events, but, more importantly, to reveal the reasons why the Obama administration and the Clinton State Department so radically changed U.S. policy in the war against the Global Jihad Movement (GJM) in ways that benefited this country’s worst enemies.
In so doing, these leaders also allowed a terror assault against our Benghazi mission that took the lives of four Americans, and then sought mendaciously to cover it all up for weeks afterward.

Our Citizens’ Commission was formed in 2013 with the unsettling sense that neither the Congressional Committees, the State Department’s Accountability Review Board (ARB), the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI), nor even Representative Trey Gowdy’s (R-SC) Select Committee on Benghazi would report these events in a way that was fully accurate and complete. It is therefore hoped that this report will provide much-needed information to the American people. The families of the fallen have a right to know and so we join our efforts with theirs to press rightful demands for accountability from our top officials who so badly failed in their Constitutional duties, not only on that fateful night in Benghazi, but before and after the events that unfolded there as well.
To read this report in it’s entirety go to : http://www.aim.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/AIM-Citizens-Commission-on-Benghazi-FINAL-REPORT-June-2016.pdf

Nonsensical Climate Change: Animal Farm Is Here! » Politichicks.com

In late June, an agreement was reached between the United States, Mexico, and Canada aimed at addressing the issue of climate change. The pledge calls for cutting greenhouse gas emissions from oil and related industries, along with the implementation of cross-border energy transmission systems and development of clean energy sources. Ironically, part of the inspiration for the deal was a desire to strengthen cooperation between the North American nations after an important US-Canadian energy project, the Keystone XL oil pipeline, was rejected by American President Barack Obama – a move that weakened American energy independence and had an as-yet unforeseen impact on domestic jobs.

This agreement is the latest in a series of environmentalist paranoia regarding climate change and human industrial activity in general. The people behind it labor under the delusion that cutting emissions of carbon dioxide is clearly more important than addressing the national security threat posed by Islamic terror, growing our economy, and other crucial concerns. They also suffer from the curious shared hallucination that North America is a planet, rather than one among six inhabited continents.

Now California has introduced the first bill of its kind, allowing for the prosecution of climate change opposition–basically making it illegal to engage in climate-change dissent. The bill 1161, California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016, is essentially, another assault on businesses and organizations that possibly could directly or indirectly engage in “unfair competition with respect to scientific evidence regarding the existence, extent, or current or future impacts of anthropogenic induced climate change,” the State Senate Rules Committee’s. This gobbledygook clears the way for litigations against fossil-fuel companies, think-tanks and others that have “deceived or misled” the public on the risks of climate change.  I see this as a prophecy for a California “Animal Farm”  the State has degenerated into totalitarian government.

Even if the US, Canada, and Mexico cut their greenhouse gas emissions drastically overnight – which no one is even proposing, in favor of more gradual reductions – its net effect on global human emissions would be negligible. There might even be negative reduction – emissions growth. That’s because developing economies with many times the population of North America, such as India and China, are aggressively industrializing and have shown no interest in hobbling their own growth in service to Western environmental concerns. Effectively, we can’t do anything to cut the amount of carbon dioxide that humanity pumps into the air.

global_warming_hoax

What we can do, unfortunately, is cripple the American economy at precisely the time it needs to be picking up steam. We have real international trade pressures coming from the aforementioned foreign powers – India and China – and we need to focus on being competitive with them. We also need to focus on maintaining the capacity for a strong, impregnable national defense. In a world of Islamic terrorism, to do any less is downright suicidal.

If these people really are so worried about the environment – a noble concern, so long as it is not placed above national security – then what they should really be pushing for is intelligent implementation of clean energy. Then it has to be done right, and it can’t come at the cost of throwing away our oil and gas industries overnight. The correct way to approach this challenge is to allow the free market to lead us into the future. We accomplish this by incentivizing clean energy development and deployment, offering tax credits to companies that do this work. As money flows into energy sources like wind and solar – naturally, not because the government mandates it – the market for dirtier sources will gradually diminish, giving businesses and workers in those industries needed time to retool and adjust to a changing energy economy. We can do this, but we must do it the right way – the capitalist way.

The most important effect of this strategy is that it preserves and even adds jobs in important industries, rather than sacrificing them on the altar of environmental awareness as punitive emissions caps against oil and gas do. We need to be looking at ways to strengthen and grow out economy while simultaneously addressing environmental issues, not throw one concern away in our need to worship the other. This is why the actions of the environmentalist left are irresponsible – not because it isn’t important to preserve and improve our environment, but because they’re going about it wrongly – and very dangerously.