How Robert Mueller Sabotaged Counterterror Training in 2012 – Freedom Outpost

 We knew Robert Mueller was selling out America to our enemies in 2009 when Hillary Clinton told him to deliver uranium to the Russians at a secret tarmac meeting.

We also know that Mueller obstructed Congress’ investigation into the 9/11 attacks.

However, were you aware that Robert Mueller, the very man who is investigating the Trump administration for alleged collusion with the Russians was behind scrubbing any and all references of Islamic jihad from counter terror training manuals?  You didn’t?  Well, take a listen to the following video by Robert Spencer for the details and if you don’t have time for the video, I’ve transcribed it below.

It has now come to light that as Director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, who is currently the special counsel looking for any dirt he can find on President Trump, presided over the 2012 removal of all counter terror training materials that made any mention of Islam and jihad in connection with terrorism.

Since then, our law enforcement and intelligence officials have been blundering along in self-imposed darkness about the motivating ideology behind the jihad threat

Now, this turns out to be Robert Mueller’s doing.

In February 2012, the Obama administration purged more than a thousand documents and presentations from counter terror training material for the FBI and other agencies.

This material was discarded at the demand of Muslim groups, which had deemed it inaccurate or offensive to Muslims.

Now, this purge was several years in the making, and I, myself, was inadvertently the one who touched it off in August 2010.

I gave a talk on Islam in Jihad to the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, one of many such talks I gave to government agencies and military groups in those years.

Now, while some had counseled me to keep these talks quiet so as to avoid attracting the ire of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, the possibility of that pressure seemed to me to make it all the more important to announce that I had been there so as to show that the US government was not going to take dictation from a group linked to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

As it turned out, however, those who had urged silence were correct, for the Obama administration was indeed disposed to take dictation from CAIR.

CAIR sent a series of letters to Mueller and others demanding that I be dropped as a counter-terror trainer and the organization even started a coalition echoing the demand, and Jesse Jackson and other leftist luminaries joined it.

At the FBI, Mueller made no public comment on CAIR’s demand and so it initially appeared that CAIR’s effort had failed, but I was never again invited to provide counter-terror training for any government agency after having done so fairly regularly for the previous five years.

CAIR’s campaign to keep me from taking part in counter-terror training was, of course, not personal.  They targeted me simply because I told the truth, just as they would target anyone else who dared to do so.

Although Muller was publicly silent, now we know that he was not unresponsive and the Islamic supremacists and their leftist allies did not give up.

In the summer and fall of 2011, the online tech journal Wired published several exposes by the far-left journalist Spencer Ackerman, who took the FBI to task for training material that spoke forthrightly and truthfully about the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat.

In a typical Sally from one of these exposes, Ackerman condemned the training material for intimating that mainstream American Muslims were quote, “likely to be terrorist sympathizers.”

Now, certainly all the mainstream Muslim organizations condemn al Qaeda and 9/11.  However, some of the foremost of those organizations, such as ISNA, MAS, the MSA, CAIR and others, have links of various kinds to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

A mainstream Muslim spokesman in the US,  Ground Zero mosque Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, refused to condemn Hamas until it became too politically damaging for him not to do so.

CAIR’s Nihad Awad openly declared his support for Hamas in 1994.

Other mainstream Muslim spokesmen in the US, such as Obama’s ambassador to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Rashad Hussain, and media gadfly Hussein Ibish have praised and defended Sami al-arian, the confessed leader of yet another Jihad terror group, Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Do these men and organizations represent a tiny minority of extremists that actually do not express the opinions of the broad mainstream of Muslims in this country?

Maybe, but there’s something no counterparts, no individuals of comparable influence or groups of comparable size that have not expressed sympathy for some Islamic terror group.

Nonetheless, in the face of Ackerman’s reports, the FBI went into full retreat in September 2011.  It announced that it was dropping one of the programs that Ackerman had zeroed in on then on October 19, 2011.

Farhana Cara of Muslim advocates, who had complained for years about supposed Muslim profiling and entrapment sent a letter to John Brennan, who was then the
assistant to the President on national security for Homeland Security and counterterrorism.  The letter was signed not just by Cara but by the leaders of virtually all the significant Islamic groups in the US:  57 Muslim, Arab and South or Asian organizations, many, again, with ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, including CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim American Society, the Islamic circle of North America, Islamic Relief USA and the Muslim Public Affairs Council.

The letter denounced what it characterized as US government agencies use of biased false and highly offensive training materials about Muslims and Islam.  It criticized the FBI’s use of biased experts and training materials.

CAIR complained that my books could be found in the FBI’s library at the FBI training academy in Quantico, Virginia, that a reading list accompanying a PowerPoint presentation by the FBI’s law enforcement communications unit recommended my book The Truth about Mohammad, and that in July 2010, I presented a two-hour seminar on the belief system of Islamic jihadists to the Joint Terrorism Task Force in Tidewater, Virginia and presented a similar lecture to the US Attorney’s anti-terrorism Advisory Council, which is co-hosted by the FBI’s Norfolk field office.

Now, these were supposed to be terrible things because I was supposed to be bigoted and hateful, but many of the examples CAIR adduced of bigoted and distorted materials involved statements that were not actually bigoted and distorted at all, but simply accurate.

What was distorted was CAIR’s representation of them.

For instance, CAIR stated this:  A 2006 FBI intelligence report stating that individuals who convert to Islam are on the path to becoming homegrown Islamic extremists if they exhibit any of the following behavior:

  • wearing traditional Muslim attire
  • growing facial hair
  • frequent attendance at a mosque or a prayer group
  • travel to a Muslim country
  • increased activity in a pro-Muslim social group or political cause

Now, note the FBI intelligence report that CAIR purported to be describing did not actually say that converts to Islam were necessarily on the path to becoming extremists if they wore traditional Muslim attire, grew facial hair and frequently attended a mosque. It simply included these behaviors among a list of 14 indicators to identify an individual going through the radicalization process .

Others included:

  • travel without obvious source of funds
  • suspicious purchases of bomb-making paraphernalia or weapons
  • large transfer of funds from or to overseas and;
  • formation of operational cells

CAIR selectively quoted and misrepresented the list to give the impression that the FBI was saying that devout observance of Islam led inevitably and in every case to extremism despite the factual accuracy of the material about which they were complaining.

The Muslim groups signing the letter demanded that the task force purge all federal government trainings of materials of these supposedly biased materials and implement a mandatory retraining program for FBI agents, US army officers and all federal, state and local law enforcement who had been subjected to biased training.

They asked for more as well to ensure that all law enforcement officials would learn about Islam in Jihad only what the signatories, through this letter, wanted them to learn.

Brennan immediately complied numerous books and presentations that gave a perfectly accurate view of Islam in Jihad were purged, but it wasn’t just Brennan.

Now, we know that it was Mueller all along.  Both Brennan and Mueller, of course, are part of the same Washington establishment that has wholeheartedly endorsed the idea that honest analysis of jihadist motives is Islamophobia.

The longer our military and intelligence apparatus subscribes to this view, the worse off we will be.

Advertisements

STUDY: Satellites Show No Acceleration In Global Warming For 23 Years | The Daily Caller

STUDY: Satellites Show No Acceleration In Global Warming For 23 Years

 By Michael Bastaschglobal_warming_hoax
 
Global warming has not accelerated temperature rise in the bulk atmosphere in more than two decades, according to a new study funded by the Department of Energy.

University of Alabama-Huntsville climate scientists John Christy and Richard McNider found that by removing the climate effects of volcanic eruptions early on in the satellite temperature record it showed virtually no change in the rate of warming since the early 1990s.

“We indicated 23 years ago — in our 1994 Nature article — that climate models had the atmosphere’s sensitivity to CO2 much too high,” Christy said in a statement. “This recent paper bolsters that conclusion.”

Christy and McNider found the rate of warming has been 0.096 degrees Celsius per decade after “the removal of volcanic cooling in the early part of the record,” which “is essentially the same value we determined in 1994 … using only 15 years of data.”

 

The study is sure to be contentious. Christy has argued for years that climate models exaggerate global warming in the bulk atmosphere, which satellites have monitored since the late 1970s.

Christy, a noted skeptic of catastrophic man-made global warming, said his results reinforce his claim that climate models predict too much warming in the troposphere, the lowest five miles of the atmosphere. Models are too sensitive to increases in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, he said.

“From our observations we calculated that value as 1.1 C (almost 2° Fahrenheit), while climate models estimate that value as 2.3 C (about 4.1° F),” Christy said.

While many scientists have acknowledged the mismatch between model predictions and actual temperature observations, few have really challenged the validity of the models themselves.

A recent study led by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory climate scientist Ben Santer found that while the models ran hot, the “overestimation” was “partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.”

Christy’s removal of volcanic-driven cooling from satellite temperature data could also draw scrutiny. The study also removed El Nino and La Nina cycles, which are particularly pronounced in satellite records, but those cycles largely canceled each other out, the co-authors said.

Christy said his works shows the “climate models need to be retooled to better reflect conditions in the actual climate, while policies based on previous climate model output and predictions might need to be reconsidered.”

Two major volcanoes — El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991 — caused global average temperature to dip as a result of volcanic ash, soot and debris reflecting sunlight back into space.

Those eruptions meant there was more subsequent warming in the following years, making the rate of warming appear to be rising as a result of man-made emissions or other factors, Christy said.

“Those eruptions happened relatively early in our study period, which pushed down temperatures in the first part of the dataset, which caused the overall record to show an exaggerated warming trend,” Christy said.

“While volcanic eruptions are natural events, it was the timing of these that had such a noticeable effect on the trend. If the same eruptions had happened near the more recent end of the dataset, they could have pushed the overall trend into negative numbers, or a long-term cooling,” Christy said.

DON’T FORGET TO WATCH GORE’S DISASTROUS CNN TOWN HALL:

Follow Michael on Facebook and Twitter

 

The Myth That Climate Change Created Harvey, Irma

Residents in Rockport, Texas, survey the property damage wrought by Hurricane Harvey. (Photo: Glenn Fawcett/UPI /Newscom)

Flooding in homes and businesses across Houston was still on the rise when Politico ran a provocative article, titled “Harvey Is What Climate Change Looks Like.”

Politico was not alone, as another news outlet called the one-two punch of Harvey and Irma the potential “new normal.” Brad Johnson, executive director of the advocacy group Climate Hawks Vote, says Harvey and Irma are reason to finally jail officials who “reject science.”

Rather than focus on the victims and offer solutions for speedy recovery, pundits and politicians in the wake of Harvey focused on saying, “I told you so.”

 

Except they’re not telling the full story.

Consider this data from a 2012 article in the Journal of Climate, authored by climatologists Roger Pielke Jr. and Jessica Weinkle. Pielke tweeted a graph from the paper that shows no trends in global tropical cyclone landfalls over the past 46 years.

Statistician and Danish author Bjorn Lomborg also tweeted a graph showing major hurricanes making landfall in the U.S. trending downward for well over a century.

Before anyone starts claiming that Pielke and Lomborg’s charts rely on denier data, mainstream science published similar findings.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported in its most recent scientific assessment that “[n]o robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes, and major hurricanes … have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin,” and that there are “no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency.”

Further, “confidence in large-scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones [such as ‘Superstorm’ Sandy] since 1900 is low.”

Other media outlets tying Harvey to climate change took a more measured approach.

For instance, Vox wrote that man-made global warming did not actually cause Harvey, but simply exacerbated the natural disaster by creating heavier rainfalls.

But this claim is discredited by University of Washington climatologist Cliff Mass, who after examining precipitation levels in the Gulf found that “[t]here is no evidence that global warming is influencing Texas coastal precipitation in the long term and little evidence that warmer than normal temperatures had any real impact on the precipitation intensity from this storm.”

Mass went on to explicitly refute those who attribute Hurricane Harvey to climate change:

The bottom line in this analysis is that both observations of the past decades and models looking forward to the future do not suggest that one can explain the heavy rains of Harvey by global warming, and folks that are suggesting it are poorly informing the public and decision makers.

Politicians seeking to exploit Harvey and Irma as reasons to act on climate change would only make a bad situation worse. Climate policies and regulations designed to prevent natural disasters and slow the earth’s warming simply will not do so.

Such policies aim to limit access to affordable, reliable conventional energy sources that power 80 percent of the country. Restricting their use through regulations or taxes will drive energy prices through the roof and make unemployment lines longer.

Further, these policies will destroy economic wealth, meaning fewer resources would be available to strengthen infrastructure to contain the future effects of natural disasters and to afterward.

Instead of blaming man-made greenhouse gas emissions, climate catastrophists should see natural disasters for what they really are: natural.

If policymakers want to take a page out of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s “never let a crisis go to waste” playbook, they should worry less about costly nonsolutions to climate change and focus on natural disaster response, resilience, and preparedness.

The Left’s Values Are Our State Church

 

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”

The First Amendment assumes that the proper sphere of government is policies, not values. And so it protects the right of political participation and prohibits a state church that would define values.

The government had the right to decide to go to war with France. It did not have a right to decide what you should believe. Politics extended into the realm of policies, not beliefs.

But as religious belief declined, politics replaced it as the repository of moral and ethical values. This transformation began on the left. The left was the least religious in the traditional sense. And the most likely to build up an ideology of secular values with which to displace traditional religious values.

The last century witnessed an extensive effort to scrub religious values out of government. But this effort was matched by an equally comprehensive project to replace them with the left’s own values. Unlike the wall between church and state, there were few legal safeguards against writing values into legislation if they were irreligious ones. The church was deemed to be the true threat. Not the state.

But the end result looks very much like an establishment of religion. Even in the church sense.

The values written into the legislation reflect those of certain churches, but not others. When nuns are forced to pay for birth control and Christian photographers with traditional beliefs are compelled to participate in gay weddings, the government is picking religious establishment “winners and losers”.

The winners are roughly on the religious left and the losers on the religious right.

Unitarians win, Baptists lose. Quakers win, Mormons lose. The Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) triumphs over the Presbyterian Church in America. The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America prevails over the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod. It’s hard not to see this as an establishment of religion.

This isn’t about doctrinal battles or gay marriage. It’s about the culture war fallout from the left’s power to write its values into law and into the codes of conduct that hold sway in in private organizations.

We take the truth of our values on faith. They are a matter of subjective conviction, not objective fact. To those who believe in them, they appear to be the absolute truths of the enlightened. But they cannot be proven to be true in any meaningful way. You either believe in them. Or you don’t.

Google fired James Damore for questioning a tenet of its beliefs. That is in theory illegal. The search engine monopoly created forums in which employees were meant to discuss these very issues. Damore was not fired for expressing his views at work, but for politely expressing the “incorrect” view.

California law protects employees fired for both religious and political views. But the “hostile workplace” pretext that led to Damore’s firing is an example of how the left’s values are the basis of legislation. Much as “public accommodation” civil rights protect the demand to participate rather than the right of religious dissent, the protection of minority participation is at the heart of the left’s bid for equality. But this has never truly been a matter of law, but of values. The law mandates the elimination of obstacles. It does not demand that values winners and losers be chosen to achieve equality. That is a leftist bias.

The left defends imposing its values by force through outrage at selective “suffering” on the one hand and abstractions about the empowerment of participatory equality on the other. Ultimately though it cannot defend its values without reference to those values. That is typical of belief systems.

The left’s secular religion functions as a theocracy. It promises salvation through Socialism, warns that human sin will destroy the world through global warming and is engaged in a perpetual struggle against those who do not share its values. It wages war on religious freedom because it is a kind of religion.

There can be no political freedom where there is no religious freedom. Religion is more encompassing than politics can ever be. Politics addresses which policy best accomplishes a particular goal. Religion tackles the question of what the goal should be. If you don’t have the freedom to determine your own goals, then your ability to choose policies is as meaningless as some European elections.

Leftist systems seek to create “democratic” arenas in which we are free to disagree on policies, but not goals. They do this by writing values into the system so that only one sort of goal is deemed acceptable.

Deviations from the goal are not acceptable. Questioning the goal is heresy. And leads to sanctions.

Trump Derangement Syndrome, Google’s firing of James Damore and the violent attacks on conservative speakers are all examples of what happens when the goals are blasphemously challenged.

Politics is far more likely to turn violent over values rather than policy. That is why the Founders wanted politics to be confined to policy rather than values. We can rationally debate policy, but we can’t debate values. We can argue over what we feel to be true, but the revelations of our deepest selves cannot be proven. And when they are challenged, anger, hostility and even violence quickly follow.

The First Amendment helped build a system where our representatives debated what we should do, rather than what we should think. Politicians were meant to get things done, not argue dogma. The culture war we are in is less about what we should do than what we should think. The violent confrontations and clashes are not really about campus safe spaces or Confederate memorials, but how we should see ourselves. The confrontations are meant to be both polarizing and clarifying.

They’re a religious war. The left has established its religion. And violence against heretics swiftly follows.

America is in the midst of an ugly conflict because our political system was hijacked by the Church of the Left. The legislative and judicial hijacking of our system has turned our politics into a culture war. To end the conflict we must return to a true understanding of the First Amendment. It is not the role of government to tell us what to think or what to believe. And any government that embarks on such a totalitarian enterprise will tear apart our society and destroy our way of life.

As the left is doing.

Life in fossil-fuel-free utopia – Paul Driessen

Paul Driessen
Life in fossil-fuel-free utopia
 Al Gore’s new movie, a New York Times article on the final Obama Era “manmade climate disaster” report, and a piece saying wrathful people twelve years from now will hang hundreds of “climate deniers” are a tiny sample of Climate Hysteria and Anti-Trump Resistance rising to a crescendo. If we don’t end our evil fossil-fuel-burning lifestyles and go 100% renewable Right Now, we are doomed, they rail.
Maybe it’s our educational system, our cargo cult’s easy access to food and technology far from farms, mines and factories, or the end-of-days propaganda constantly pounded into our heads. Whatever the reason, far too many people have a pitiful grasp of reality: natural climate fluctuations throughout Earth history; the intricate, often fragile sources of things we take for granted; and what life would really be like in the utopian fossil-fuel-free future they dream of. Let’s take a short journey into that idyllic realm. 

Suppose we generate just the 25 billion megawatt-hours of today’s total global electricity consumption using wind turbines. (That’s not total energy consumption, and it doesn’t include what we’d need to charge a billion electric vehicles.) We’d need more than 830 million gigantic 3-megawatt turbines!

Spacing them at just 15 acres per turbine would require 12.5 billion acres! That’s twice the land area of North America! All those whirling blades would virtually exterminate raptors, other birds and bats. Rodent and insect populations would soar. Add in transmission lines, solar panels and biofuel plantations to meet the rest of the world’s energy demands – and the mostly illegal tree cutting for firewood to heat poor families’ homes – and huge swaths of our remaining forest and grassland habitats would disappear.

The renewable future assumes these “eco-friendly alternatives” would provide reliable, affordable energy 24/7/365, even during windless, sunless weeks and cold, dry growing seasons. They never will, of course. That means we will have electricity and fuels when nature cooperates, instead of when we need it.

With backup power plants gone, constantly on-and-off electricity will make it impossible to operate assembly lines, use the internet, do an MRI or surgery, enjoy favorite TV shows or even cook dinner. Refrigerators and freezers would conk out for hours or days at a time. Medicines and foods would spoil.

 

Petrochemical feed stocks would be gone – so we wouldn’t have paints, plastics, synthetic fibers or pharmaceuticals, except what can be obtained at great expense from weather-dependent biodiesel. Kiss your cotton-polyester-lycra leggings and yoga pants good-bye.

But of course all that is really not likely to happen. It would actually be far worse.

First of all, there wouldn’t even be any wind turbines or solar panels. Without fossil fuels – or far more nuclear and hydroelectric plants, which rabid environmentalists also despise – we couldn’t mine the needed ores, process and smelt them, build and operate foundries, factories, refineries or cement kilns, manufacture and assemble turbines and panels. We couldn’t even make machinery to put in factories.

Wind turbines, solar panels and solar thermal installations cannot produce consistently high enough heat to smelt ores and forge metals. They cannot generate power on a reliable enough basis to operate facilities that make modern technologies possible. They cannot provide the power required to manufacture turbines, panels, batteries or transmission lines – much less power civilization.

 

My grandmother used to tell me, “The only good thing about the good old days is that they’re gone.” Well, they’d be back, as the USA is de-carbonized, de-industrialized and de-developed.

Ponder America and Europe before coal fueled the modern industrial age. Recall what we were able to do back then, what lives were like, how long people lived. Visit Colonial Williamsburg and Claude Moore Colonial Farm in Virginia, or similar places in your state. Explore rural Africa and India.

Imagine living that way, every day: pulling water from wells, working the fields with your hoe and ox-pulled plow, spinning cotton thread and weaving on looms, relying on whatever metal tools your local blacksmith shop can produce. When the sun goes down, your lives will largely shut down.

 

Think back to amazing construction projects of ancient Egypt, Greece or Rome – or even 18th century London, Paris, New York. Ponder how they were built, how many people it took, how they obtained and moved the raw materials. Imagine being part of those wondrous enterprises, from sunup to sundown.

The good news is that there will be millions of new jobs. The bad news is that they’d involve mostly backbreaking labor with picks and shovels, for a buck an hour. Low-skill, low-productivity jobs just don’t pay all that well. Maybe to create even more jobs, the government will issue spoons, instead of shovels.

That will be your life, not reading, watching TV and YouTube or playing video games. Heck, there won’t even be any televisions or cell phones. Drugs and alcohol will be much harder to come by, too. (No more opioid crisis.) Water wheels and wind mills will be back in fashion. All-natural power, not all the time. 

More good news: Polluting, gas-guzzling, climate-changing cars and light trucks will be a thing of the past. Instead, you’ll have horses, oxen, donkeys, buggies and wagons again … grow millions of acres of hay to feed them – and have to dispose of millions or billions of tons of manure and urine every year.

There’ll be no paved streets – unless armies of low-skill workers pound rocks into gravel, mine and grind limestone, shale, bauxite and sand for cement, and make charcoal for lime kilns. Homes will revert to what can be built with pre-industrial technologies, with no central heat and definitely no AC.

Ah, but you folks promoting the idyllic renewable energy future will still be the ruling elites. You’ll get to live better than the rest of us, enjoy lives of reading and leisure, telling us commoners how we must live. Don’t bet on it. Don’t even bet on having the stamina to read after a long day with your shovel or spoon.

As society and especially big urban areas collapse into chaos, it will be survival of the fittest. And that group likely won’t include too many Handgun Control and Gun Free Zone devotees.

But at least your climate will be stable and serene – or so you suppose. You won’t have any more extreme weather events. Sea levels will stay right where they are today: 400 feet higher than when a warming planet melted the last mile-thick glaciers that covered half the Northern Hemisphere 12,000 years ago.

At least it will be stable and serene until those solar, cosmic ray, ocean currents and other pesky, powerful natural forces decide to mess around with Planet Earth again.

Of course, many countries won’t be as stupid as the self-righteous utopian nations. They will still use fossil fuels, plus nuclear and hydroelectric, and watch while you roll backward toward the “good old days.” Those that don’t swoop in to conquer and plunder may even send us food, clothing and monetary aid (most of which will end up with ruling elites and their families, friends, cronies and private armies).

So how about this as a better option?

Stop obsessing over “dangerous manmade climate change.” Focus on what really threatens our planet and its people: North Korea, Iran, Islamist terrorism – and rampant poverty, disease, malnutrition and early death among the billions who still do not have access to electricity and the living standards it brings.

Worry less about manmade climate cataclysms – and more about cataclysms caused by policies promoted in the name of controlling Earth’s climate, when they really end up controlling our lives.

Don’t force-feed us with today’s substandard, subsidized, pseudo-sustainable, pseudo-renewable energy systems. When better, more efficient, more practical energy technologies are developed, they will replace fossil fuels. Until then, we would be crazy to go down the primrose path to renewable energy utopia.

Trump Slashing Obama Legacy in Epic Fashion

One of the key campaign promises that then-candidate Donald Trump ran on and that likely contributed to his successful election was his oft-repeated vow to cut through the bureaucratic red tape holding back the economy by slashing unnecessary government regulations.

According to Reuters, it appears that President Trump and his administration are making good on that promise, as the White House just announced that they had either killed or removed from consideration some 800 different proposed regulations set forth under former President Barack Obama’s administration that had not yet been finalized or taken effect.

At least 469 planned regulations had been withdrawn and some 391 other regulations already in the active process had been reclassified as long-term or inactive in order to allow for “further careful review.”

The administration isn’t done there, as some 300 other energy production-related regulations coming from the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as the Departments of Energy and Interior, would be delayed, reviewed and possibly rescinded.

And that is just from those three departments. This process is playing out in virtually every department and agency across the entirety of the executive branch.

Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney said that this was evidence that the administration was addressing and diminishing “that slow cancer that can come from regulatory burdens that we put on our people.”

Along those lines, the Washington Examiner reported on another bit of related good news involving Trump’s agenda to cut back on government regulations.

Our readers will no doubt recall that one of Trump’s first executive orders stipulated that for every new regulation that was proposed, two old regulations would have to be done away with.

Trump’s administration has actually done even better than that in practice; in fact, eight times better, as they are averaging 16 old regulations killed for every new rule put forward.

“It’s really the beginning of a kind of fundamental regulatory reform and a reorientation of where we’re going with regulation,” explained Neomi Rao, administrator of the OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

Rao also revealed that the goal of what is being called “MAGAnomics” is to reach three percent economic growth, largely spurred on by cutting regulations and providing businesses more room to hire and expand.

She further added that, unlike prior regulatory reports from previous administrations which didn’t track deregulation at all, future reports would indeed feature a column highlighting killed regulations.

Just for a bit of context regarding Trump’s deregulation from the Washington Examiner: the OMB pointed out that under the last five months of Obama’s administration, some $6.8 billion in new rules were imposed on the economy. In comparison, Trump has imposed less than $0 in his first six months.

Similarly, Obama added $3.1 billion in new regulatory costs in his first six months, while Trump has instead saved an estimated $22 million thus far.

This is what we voted for, and we are thrilled to see this major campaign promise regarding deregulation being fulfilled. So is our nation’s economy.

H/T Washington Free Beacon

Please share this on Facebook and Twitter to let everyone know that Trump has been keeping his word in terms of cutting back burdensome regulations.

HUGE! Solar Power Generates 300x More Toxic Waste Than Nuclear (Video) :: The Last Great Stand

I’m going to go out on a limb, and suggest that if I was brave enough to tell a room full of rabid liberals and academics several weeks ago that solar power was more dangerous to the environment than coal or nuclear power combined, it would have been a safe bet that I’d have been ridiculed, personally attacked, or perhaps worse by room of said rabid liberals.   

I probably would have heard things like, “Duh, everyone knows that “97% of climate scientists agree that climate change cannot be denied,” and everyone also knows solar power is better for the environment than coal, or nuclear energy, etc.  Duh! That’s soooo “settled science.”

Sadly, that type of idiocy is to be expected when those talking would rather commit to memory that “97% of climate scientists agree that climate change cannot be denied, than fill their devoid little heads with anything factual. First of all, news flash: The infamous 97% consensus line is nothing more than an urban legend built on a TOTAL lie. If memory serves me right, factually (that word liberals hate),, 97% out of a total of a handful of California scientists said climate change cannot be denied. Ooops.  

 Furthermore, a new study now revealed that solar power actually generates 300x more toxic waste than nuclear power, and since social justice warriors have been ramming solar power down society’s throats for as long as they have without knowing all the facts (as usual), now society could have a massive problem on our hands. Well done once again social justice warriors. Well done you fools. In the following video, Right Wing News reviews the horrific findings from the new study… 

Young Conservatives writes:

Liberals are always pushing the nation toward solar power because, they imagine, it is “cleaner” than any other power source. However, a new study finds that solar panels generate 300 times more toxic waste than nuclear reactors!

 

The new study by the group Environmental Progress finds that the manufacturing of solar panels is fraught with toxic materials, Daily Caller reported.

The report found that solar panels use heavy metals, including lead, chromium and cadmium, which can harm the environment. The hazards of nuclear waste are well known and can be planned for, but very little has been done to mitigate solar waste issues.

Wow, that is revelatory.

“The problem with waste from solar is that it isn’t handled as well as nuclear waste,” Dr. Jeff Terry, a professor of nuclear physics involved in energy research at the Illinois Institute of Technology, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “There are two types of waste from solar. Waste from the manufacturing scene and waste from the solar panel after it has gone through its useful life. There are materials in those that if they leached out, it wouldn’t be good.

The group noted that as the years pass we will soon discover that all this toxic waste will become a problem as older panels need to be replaced or repaired.

“The magnitude of the waste problem from solar is a lot larger than nuclear just because of energy density,” Terry said. “Per pound of waste generated, you get so much more power from nuclear. You need a lot more material to generate from solar and wind than you do from nuclear.”

There is also the problem that our waste industry is not yet familiar with the toxic materials in solar panels and is not geared to deal with it.

“All forms of energy create byproduct waste materials from their initial construction, operation, and eventual disposal,” Lake Barrett, former deputy director of the Department of Energy’s Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, told The DCNF.. “Society has over 50 years of exhaustive scientific experience with safely managing and technical disposal of nuclear waste, but very little knowledge of renewable energy waste management and disposal.”

And if old solar panel are simply buried in landfills we may have a toxic mess seeping into the ground that wee are woefully unprepared to deal with, the experts say.

Interestingly, the experts also point out that radioactive waste from nuclear power industry eventually does deteriorate and become harmless — even if it takes hundreds of years — but heavy metals are toxic forever and will seep into the environment seriously hurting the land.

As you can see, there is a lot of the mess from solar panels that we just aren’t prepared for.

But, it’s “cleaner,” right? Riiiiight.

 

 

5 Reasons Why America Will Transform Into a Very Conservative Country (Video) :: The Last Great Stand

People on the left operate under the delusion that progression equals leftism; they feel that as America progresses economically, technologically, socially, and culturally that it is natural that the nation will swing more and more to the left. Unfortunately, this is nothing but a false belief; America may indeed continue to progress in all those aspects, but it is highly likely that it will become more conservative, not less.

In the following video, Right Wing News examines an article detailing five reasons why America will become even more conservative in the future. A changing Supreme Court, declining immigration and liberal birth rates plus a more conservative next generation all portend a rightward swing in the future of this nation. How will the left react to this upcoming change?

Zero Hedge reports:

For generations, we’ve seen the political landscape in this country teeter back and forth between the Left and the Right. Usually about every 8 years or so, whichever political party is dominating Congress, the Executive Branch, and the state legislatures, is kicked out by voters and replaced with the other political party.

However, there’s something very different going on this time around. Donald Trump’s ascent to the oval office represents a major shift in our society and culture, and I’m not talking about the intermittent shuffle of politicians that we see every few years. Instead, the pendulum is about to swing very hard to the right.

I think that the political landscape in America is going to be drifting towards conservatism for the next 20-40 years. Though it may not be identical to what we view as conservative today, and it certainly won’t be the phony neoconservatism that dominated the past, it will be right-wing nonetheless. Here’s why:

1. The Supreme Court Is About To Change

President Trump has already chosen one Supreme Court justice, and there’s a good chance that he’s going to wind up choosing several more (much to the dismay of the Left). Because of their advanced age, we may see three more Supreme Court justices retire or die over the next four to eight years, two of whom lean to the left.

DO NOT MISS: Reports: Trump Expecting Second Supreme Court Nomination Soon! (Video)

If Trump lasts two terms, we’re definitely going to see a Supreme Court that is dominated by conservatives for the next 20-30 years. So even when liberals take back Congress and the presidency on occasion, many of their most radical ideas won’t be able to take hold for many years.

2. Immigration Is Going To Decline

The percentage of the population that is foreign born hasn’t been this high since the early 1900’s, and most of those immigrants are liberal. That’s why our loose borders, combined with The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, have probably done more to bolster the ranks of the Left than any other law.

But just as our nation’s political landscape tends to swing back and forth between the Left and the Right, so to does number of immigrants in America. In the short term, we can expect people like Trump to restrict the border and maybe pass laws that will decrease immigration to some degree.

But there’s a long term trend to consider as well, because the election of Trump likely represents a turning point for our society. Considering how crucial his immigration stance was to his victory, it’s clear that a growing number of Americans want the border tightened up, and the number of immigrants moving here to decrease. And rest assured that in the near future, there will be more conservatives voting for politicians who will try to lower immigration rates, because…

3. The Next Generation Is Incredibly Conservative

Over the years we’ve seen each generation of Americans become a little more liberal than the last, but that’s about to change. According to a study from last year, Generation Z, which represents kids born after the year 2000, is the most conservative generation since World War Two.

DO NOT MISS: 12 Signs That America Has Become A Politically-Correct Madhouse (Video)

To give you an idea of just how right-wing the next generation is, when asked if they are “quite conservative,” 14% of teenagers say they are, compared to just 2% of Millennials. That’s a mind boggling shift, from one generation to the next.

4. Liberal Birth Rates Are Declining

The Left is about to pay a huge price for denigrating the family and traditional gender roles for so many years. Because liberal women tend to be more career minded and wait longer to have children, they often have fewer kids over the course of their lives. That’s why liberal states always have lower birth rates than conservative states.

All of the states with a birth rate of of 60 or less per 1000 people are liberal, and all of the states with a birth rate of 70 or more per 1000 people are conservative. That may not sound drastic, but consider that these states still have a sizeable mix of conservatives and liberals. Even the most liberal states have millions of conservative residents and vice versa, which offsets the results. If ideology is really driving birth rates, then liberals are probably having very very few children. They’re probably not reaching the minimum replacement rate of 2.1 children per mother.

When you consider how many values kids learn from their parents and carry into adulthood, it’s obvious that the Left has a serious demographic problem. The only way they’ve been able to create more liberals, is through immigration and through indoctrination in the school system. Unfortunately for the Left, they’re not going to have a stranglehold on our schools for much longer either.

5. Leftist Academia Is In Serious Trouble

From Kindergarten to college, our schools are breeding grounds for liberal ideas. That’s become abundantly clear in recent years, as we’ve seen the horrifying rise of political correctness and social justice beliefs on college campuses. These institutions are little more than indoctrination centers for the Left.

But this isn’t going to go on for much longer. We have a whole generation of kids who were buried in over a trillion dollars worth of debt, just so they could get worthless liberal arts degrees that won’t ever help them get a job. They paid tens of thousands of dollars to be indoctrinated by liberal professors, before going back home to live with their parents.

DO NOT MISS: You Will Not BELIEVE What Was Found in Children’s Backpacks From School (Video)

That’s why student loans constitute a bubble in our economy, and once it pops, colleges are going to have to cut back on many classes that don’t actually increase the earning power of students. Coincidentally, the fields of study that harbor the most liberal professors, are the ones that don’t help most students get jobs, like the arts, humanities, liberal arts, gender studies, etc. Someday soon, colleges are going to be forced to trim the fat, and many of these Marxist professors and diversity administrators are going to get the axe. Their positions are incredibly superfluous.

As for the leftists public schools, let’s not forget that the number of kids being homeschooled is growing rapidly, and most of their parents are conservatives. They’re raising a new generation that isn’t going to be brainwashed by government run schools.

And let’s not forget that the mainstream media, which has been largely wed to the left, is dying. So basically, every institution that the Left uses to teach its ideas, from the media to academia, is slowly crumbling away.

In summation, everything liberals have relied on to bolster their ranks, propagate their ideas, and pass their laws, are failing. So there shouldn’t be any doubt. Over the next few decades, America is going to become a very conservative place.

o) :: The Last Great Stand

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:

Breaking News: Scientists Discovered A New Paradigm for Climate Science ⋆ The Constitution

Breaking News: Scientists Discovered A New Paradigm for Climate Science

Atmospheric Pressure, Not ‘Greenhouse Gases’ Are Responsible for the “Greenhouse Effect”

 

Scientists Ned Nikolov and Karl Zeller have a unique and extremely elegant peer-reviewed and published research paper entitled ‘New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model’ that proves that the accused Greenhouse Gases (Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Water Vapor (H2O), etc.) are actually innocent of the mistaken claims that they are the cause of Climate Change and the ‘Greenhouse Effect’.

Their work comes out of left field; it provides a shocking new paradigm heretofore unbeknown to science; it is physically plausible, and it proves beyond a doubt that greenhouses gases cannot cause, in principle, the global warming observed since 1850. In other words, we now have written
Scientific proof that humans are not responsible for climate change on Earth.

However, the problem now is that both believers and skeptics of anthropogenic-caused climate change have a difficult time accepting the Nikolov-Zeller discovery, because:

  • The proposed mechanism (supported by NASA planetary data) was not taught in school.
  • In addition, NZ’s adopted macro-level (top-down) approach does not explicitly include natural processes such as radiant heat trapping by free atmospheric trace ‘greenhouse’-gases assumed
    a priori’ to be true for the last 190 years, but never proven.

The Nikolov-Zeller discovery points to the fact that fundamental theoretical misconceptions can still occur in science despite the high-technology information environment of the modern world.

Rather than argue about global temperature trends or what the sensitivity of Earth’s climate to a CO­2 increase might be, Nikolov and Zeller decided to go back to the basics taking inspiration from Copernicus, who propose the revolutionary heliocentric model of the Solar System that was later mathematically proven by Johannes Kepler.

Nikolov and Zeller divined three (3) fundamental questions that most climate scientists do not consider worth asking or thinking about:

  1. What would the mean global temperatures () of the rocky planets Venus, Earth, Mars, and the moons Triton and Titan be if they didn’t have atmospheres?
  2. Might the same physical principles determine the global temperatures () of Venus, Earth, Mars, Titan and Triton? In other words, is Earth a special case in terms of its climate, or is it part of a cosmic physical continuum?
  3. What are the fundamental controllers of the long-term average equilibrium global surface temperature of a planet or moon?

Analyzing vetted NASA data from various space exploration missions conducted over the past three (3) decades, Nikolov and Zeller found that the Earth’s 30-year equilibrium surface temperature is quite stable and fully explainable in the context of an interplanetary physical continuum.

They discovered that the real factors responsible for the ‘Greenhouse Effect’ are:

  • The Total Surface Air Pressure of the Earth’s Atmosphere, and
  • The Earth’s distance to the Sun – Enabling computation of the available solar heat-energy;

By applying their PTE Effect theory to compute and accurately predict the 30-year mean global surface temperature of Earth.  Likewise, by knowing extraterrestrial data-parameters for Mars, Venus, Moon, Titan and Triton, they can also make predictions for other celestial bodies.

Amazingly, as it turns out, their model (empirically derived from NASA data) does not need any information about atmospheric composition to reliably calculate Earth’s or other celestial bodies’ mean global surface temperature!

In other words, the amounts of greenhouse gases are not needed nor relevant.

The Figure below encapsulates the new finding explained in the scientific paper by Nikolov & Zeller (2017):

Figure: On this graph, is the actual observed 30-year mean equilibrium global surface temperature of a planetary body, while is the body’s mean global surface temperature in the absence of an atmosphere. The ratio shown on the vertical axis represents the Atmospheric Thermal Effect (ATE) of a planet or moon also known as the Natural Greenhouse Effect. The graph implies that the background thermal effect (i.e. the ‘greenhouse effect’) of a planetary atmosphere is only a function of the total air pressure and does not depend on the atmospheric chemical composition.

In other words, the Greenhouse Effect is a Pressure-induced Thermal Enhancement (PTE) Effect and not a radiative phenomenon driven by heat-absorbing & re-radiative gases as currently believed. Hence, carbon emissions cannot affect the global climate.

The sensitivity of Earth’s climate to Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is virtually zero!

Some 500 years ago, Copernicus simplified the complicated “Earth-Centered” model describing planetary retrogressions that accounted for the apparent erratic movement of the planets & sun around the Earth by conceptually observing Earth from afar and recognizing that the existing theory was based on a false premise (i.e., the Earth was at the Center). He correctly discovered that the Earth and other planets rotated around the Sun eliminating the apparent erratic movements and complicated prediction equations.

Similarly, the study by Nikolov & Zeller (2017) simplifies the understanding of the physics of climate by taking a similar broad extra-terrestrial perspective which is based on established scientific principles of Physics and Thermodynamics which prove that the powerful Atmospheric Pressure force caused by the huge weight of the Earth’s Atmosphere (i.e., ~5 Billion-Million Metric-Tons) results in a Pressure force at the Earth’s Surface below 18,000 ft. of 10 Metric-Tons/sq. meter which drives the Pressure Induced Thermal Enhancement (PTE) Effect amplifying the available Solar Heat-Energy that creates the PTE “Greenhouse”-warming Effect.

The Nikolov-Zeller PTE Effect theory completely accounts for why the Earth and other celestial bodies with an atmosphere are warmer than they would be without their atmospheres – Replacing the current ‘Greenhouse Gas Effect’ hypothesis that has never been empirically proven in the last 190 years since it was first postulated.

Similar to the way a Diesel Engine’s piston compresses gases (only constant, non-cyclical) creating pressure that enhances the existing heat in each cylinder to reach the temperature needed to ignite the fuel – The huge mass of the Earth’s atmosphere’s gas molecules, being compressed by the natural pull of gravity, provides the constant Pressure-induced Thermal Enhancement (PTE) of the available Solar Heat-Energy which results in the PTE ‘Greenhouse Effect’ that keeps our planet habitably warmer than it would be without an atmosphere (i.e., a global mean temperature of approximately 58oF with our atmosphere vs. below 0oF without an atmosphere).

Making this new climate-science paradigm most promising is the fact that the Nikolov-Zeller discovery:

  • Is based on established and straight-forward scientific principles following rules of Physics such as: Charles’ Law, The Ideal Gas Law, Dalton’s Law, etc. which are able to be validated empirically.
  • Is applicable to not only our Earth, but has been shown to also apply to other celestial bodies in our solar system (Earth, Mars, Venus, & the Moons: Titan, Triton and Earth’s) using vetted NASA empirical data.
  • Appears to also be Universally Applicable to other celestial bodies within our solar system as well as beyond, since their discovery is based on solid scientific laws of physics of the universe.

Their findings also provide new insight as to why the man-made UN IPCC-supported Global Climate Models (GCMs) based on the radiative ‘Greenhouse Gas’ concept and assumptions consistently fail to predict observed global temperature trends, hence they should not be used for policy decision making.

More information on the Science of their discovery is presented in a video by Ned Nikolov, use this link:

The London Climate Change Conference 2016 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L82YMAuhjvw).


References:

Nikolov N, Zeller K (2017) New insights on the physical nature of the atmospheric greenhouse effect deduced from an empirical planetary temperature model. https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf

Volokin D, ReLlez L (2014) On the average temperature of airless spherical bodies and the magnitude of Earth’s atmospheric thermal effect. SpringerPlus 3:723, doi:10.1186/2193-1801-3-723. http://springerplus.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/2193-1801-3-723

NB: Volkin and ReLlez are pseudonyms for Nikolov and Zeller.