Visit Counter

Thursday, December 22, 2016

Obama Admin Fired Top Scientist to Advance Climate Change Agenda





Under Barry...what Dept is not politicized?

Some incongruity here? Scientist fired…but Holder, Lerner, Koskinen, Sibelius, Killary, and a whole host of others were not.



Politicizing in all its glory:

When his candidate lost the Electoral College became a... "vestige" a "carryover" from the time of the founding fathers." Would he hold the same opinion if she had won? 


One more:


This is his attempt to get rid of the 2nd amendment under the guise of gun control:




So what is his solution to fix it?

Release thousands of inmates into society who will invariably shoot people so he can blame it on gun control...which was the ultimate goal of his and Holder's in their infamous F&F debacle. 

Oct 2015



His latest:

12-19-2016

Check out the 'pharmacists' scheduled for early release.

Great news for all the rehab centers across the country!


He's releasing thousand of prisoners back into society and wants to admit 10.000 unfettered Syrians into the country. You have to wonder what his true motivation is.

----------------------------------------



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

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

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

The report also provides evidence that the Obama administration worked to kill legislation in order to ensure that it could receive full funding for its own hotly contested climate change agenda.

The report additionally discovered efforts by the Obama administration to censor the information given to Congress, interfering with the body's ability to perform critical oversight work.

"Instead of providing the type of scientific information needed by Congress to legislate effectively, senior departmental officials sought to hide information, lobbied against legislation, and retaliated against a scientist for being forthcoming," Smith said in a statement. "In this staff report based on lengthy record before the committee, much has been revealed about how senior level agency officials under the Obama administration retaliated against a scientist who did not follow the party line."

"Moving forward, the department needs to overhaul its management practices to ensure that Congress is provided the information it requires to legislate and that federal employees and scientists who provide that information do so without fear of retribution," Smith said.

The report goes into Congress' efforts to regulate the Low Dose Radiation Research Program, or LDRRP, which sought to test the impact of radiation on human beings. The program, started in the 1990s, was meant to support research into waste cleanup and the impact of nuclear weapons.

In mid-2014, lawmakers introduced legislation, the Low Dose Radiation Act of 2014, to help regulate the program and minimize harmful side effects.

During an October 2014 briefing with senior DoE staff on the matter, lawmakers heard testimony from Dr. Noelle Metting, the radiation research program's manager.

Less than a month later, lawmakers discovered that Obama administration officials had "removed Dr. Metting from federal service for allegedly providing too much information in response to questions posed by" Congress during the briefing, the report states.

Congressional investigators later determined that the administration's "actions to remove Dr. Metting were, in part, retaliation against Dr. Metting because she refused to conform to the predetermined remarks and talking points designed by Management to undermine the advancement of" the 2014 radiation act.

Emails unearthed during the investigation "show a sequence of events leading to a premeditated scheme by senior DoE employees 'to squash the prospects of Senate support'" for the radiation act, a move that lawmakers claim was meant to help advance President Obama's own climate change goals.

"The committee has learned that one of DoE's stated purposes for Dr. Metting's removal from federal service was her failure to confine the discussion at the briefing to pre-approved talking points," according to the report. "The committee has also established that DoE management … failed to exercise even a minimal standard of care to avoid chilling other agency scientists as a result of the retaliation against Dr. Metting for her refusal to censor information from Congress."

The investigation concluded that "DoE placed its own priorities to further the president's Climate Action Plan before its constitutional obligations to be candid with Congress," the report states. "The DoE's actions constitute a reckless and calculated attack on the legislative process itself, which undermines the power of Congress to legislate. The committee further concludes that DoE's disregard for separation of powers is not limited to a small group of employees, but rather is an institutional problem that must be corrected by overhauling its management practices with respect to its relationship with the Congress."

These moves by the administration were part of an effort to secure full funding for the president's climate change agenda, the report claims.

"Instead of working to understand the value of the LDRRP for emergency situations, DoE Management engaged in a campaign to terminate research programs that could divert funds from the president's Climate Action Plan," the report states.

Congress is recommending a full overhaul of the DoE's management structure in order to ensure this type of situation does not occur again.







Share/Bookmark

Wednesday, December 21, 2016

Good advice on fake news












Share/Bookmark

This is precisely why we have an Electoral College



Final tally shows Trump lost the popular vote by 2.8 million – but he BEAT Clinton by 3 million votes outside of California and New York



Final vote tallies from the November 8 election show that Democrat Hillary Clinton out-polled President-elect Donald Trump by 2.8 million votes while losing the contest by a wide margin in the all-important Electoral College.

Her upper hand with voters, however, came down to performances in New York and California that were far stronger than necessary.

Clinton won California by 4.2 million and took New York by more than 1.6 million. The combined 5.8 million-vote advantage in just those two states was more than twice the size of her overall edge nationwide.

When the dust settled, she lost the rest of the country by 3 million votes.



BIG WIN: Donald Trump won the presidency with broad support of a majority of states in the all-important Electoral College that actually selects America's leaders




SMALL COMFORT: Hillary Clinton collected more votes than Trump but did it by running up the score in California and New York, two very liberal states that were virtually guaranteed to her



Trump tweeted, deleted and replaced a message Wednesday morning suggesting that the Electoral College system presents more difficult challenges than an election that relies only on raw vote totals.

'Campaigning for votes under the Electoral College system is much more difficult, and different, than the popular vote,' he wrote on Twitter at first.

That message disappeared almost immediately, and Trump replaced it 20 minutes later with a more aggressive tweet including a direct shot at Clinton.

'Campaigning to win the Electoral College is much more difficult & sophisticated than the popular vote. Hillary focused on the wrong states!' he wrote in the replacement tweet. 

Trump wrote in a follow-up message that 'I would have done even better in the election, if that is possible, if the winner was based on popular vote - but would campaign differently.'

Then he added: 'I have not heard any of the pundits or commentators discussing the fact that I spent FAR LESS MONEY on the win than Hillary on the loss!'





SORE LOSERS: Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich on Wednesday morning blasted liberals who insist Trump's victory is illegitimate because more Americans voted for Clinton




BEFORE AND AFTER: Trump tweeted (top), deleted and then replaced (bottom) a message about raw vote totals and the Electoral College on Wednesday morning





Trump ended Election Night controlling 306 votes in the Electoral College, a number that slipped to 304 when presidential electors cast their ballots on Monday. Clinton had 232, but lost five turncoats for a total of 227.

Clinton would still have won California's 55 electoral votes if her margin there had been far smaller. The same is true of New York's 29 electoral votes.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich on Wednesday morning blasted liberals who insist Trump's victory is illegitimate because more Americans voted for Clinton.

'This is football season. A team can have more yards and lose the game. What matters is how many points you put on the board. The Electoral College is the points,' he said on 'Fox & Friends.'

'Trump actually carried – in the 49 states outside of California, he had a 1.2 million vote majority. He got killed in California because he never campaigned there,' Gingrich said.

'The Democrats had two people running for the U.S. Senate the way California law works, no Republican running for the U.S. Senate. So we got beaten in the biggest state. It didn't matter. That's not how you pick the presidency. Trump's now going to be president. She's not going to be president. That's called winning the game.'

He said some Democrats are 'not going to get used to the idea' of a President Trump 'because he is, from their standpoint, horrifying. ... They live in a delusional world. That's why they lost the election: They decided to stay with the delusion.'






Share/Bookmark

Lena Dunham says she never had an abortion but 'I wish I had'








Liberals... truly are fucking whacked!


--------------------------------





Lena Dunham said on the latest episode of her podcast that she wishes she'd had an abortion to fight the "stigma around this issue."

"Something I've thought about a lot is the fact that there is stigma around abortion," Dunham said on her podcast "Women of the Hour" December 14.

The "Girls" creator recounted visiting a Planned Parenthood in Texas several years ago where a young girl asked her to join a project where women share their stories of abortion.

"I sort of jumped," Dunham said. "'I haven’t had an abortion,' I told her. I wanted to make it really clear to her that as much as I was going out and fighting for other women’s options, I myself had never had an abortion."

It was then, Dunham said, she realized "Even I, the woman who cares as much as anybody about a woman’s right to choose, felt it was important that people know I was unblemished in this department."

She added, "Now I can say that I still haven’t had an abortion, but I wish I had."




Many people took to Twitter to express their outrage at Dunham's comments.


.@lenadunham FYI an abortion is not something you "get to have." It's an awful experience one SHOULDN'T wish for like a gift from Santa 😑🙄— s a s h a (@kisslow) December 20, 2016


@lenadunham should never be able to brag about having an abortion it's sad that u think this would make u more authentically pro-choice— s i h (@Susanna_I_H) December 20, 2016


I can't even imagine how offensive Lena Dunham's comments are to women who actually had to go through abortions— KFC (@KFCBarstool) December 20, 2016


@KFCBarstool I can't tell if her consciously making these comments would be worse or being so out of touch she doesn't even realize it.— Andrew Rodriguez (@RodriguezAJ100) December 20, 2016


@lenadunham you're honestly the worst kind of feminist and no one should want an abortion that isn't just like a fun little choice¿??— Nora Baron (@bambibaron) December 20, 2016

A rep for Dunham did not return FOX411's request for comment.







Share/Bookmark

German police in search for asylum seeker in deadly Christmas market attack



"Asylum seeker" is code for terrorist. 

But for the grace of God, this could happen here as often as Germany since Barry desperately wants to emulate Angela Merkle.





-----------------------------------------

When will we learn...don't pet a snake?


German authorities issued a wanted notice for Anis Amri on Wednesday and offered a reward of up to 100,000 euros ($104,000) for information leading to the 24-year-old's arrest



What perpetually gets me about these Muslims dogs, they are taken in by an act kindness, and the dirty bastards gratitude is a knife in the back.

**********************


German police mounted a manhunt for a male asylum-seeker with Tunisian papers in connection to this week’s deadly assault on a Berlin Christmas market, according to a senior law enforcement official Wednesday.

The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive case, said investigators discovered the man’s “leave to remain” papers in the cabin of the truck used Monday to ram the market, an attack that killed 12, wounded dozens and horrified the nation.

He had a “toleration” status, meaning he was not granted full asylum but allowed to stay in Germany.

Germany’s Bild newspaper ran a photo of the suspect, who had several aliases and was apparently born in the southern Tunisian desert town of Tataouine in 1992. Bild reported that the suspect was known by the police for alleged physical assault, but was never charged, because he had disappeared.

Witnesses described one man fleeing the scene after the truck — packed with a cargo of steel — roared into revelers at a traditional Christmas market. Although one suspect — a Pakistani asylum seeker — was arrested on Monday night, authorities later released him due to lack of evidence. 

They are now considering the Tunisian man as the prime suspect. 

“We have a strong lead at the moment and our officers are out on the street,” the senior official told The Washington Post.

According to the daily Süddeutsche Zeitung, the suspect arrived in Italy in 2012, but moved to Germany in July 2015. In April 2016, he applied for asylum, but disappeared earlier this month. The paper said he had been using eight different names. 

The paper, along with other German media outlets, added that the man had contacts with a network run by a radical Islamist known as Abu Walaa, who was arrested last month for allegedly recruiting Islamic State fighters. According to the report, police were searching all area hospitals as part of the manhunt.

The new information emerged as German investigators raced for clues in the hunt for suspects in the deadly assault, pouring over forensic evidence and GPS data as they sought to retrace the steps of the runway attacker. They were re-questioning witnesses and analyzing DNA traces found in the truck, and well as on the body of a dead Polish man in the passenger seat. 

The Pole worked for a trucking company and was delivering a payload of steel to Berlin. Investigators are currently going on the assumption that he was taken hostage by the assailant — and may even have died a hero. Jörg Radek deputy chairman of the German Trade Union of the Police, said evidence suggested that “a fight took place in the driver’s cabin.” As it careened toward the crowded market, the truck was not driving straight, but “in a zigzag line,” he noted.

Bild also quoted an investigator as saying the Polish man — who was shot dead — also had received multiple stab wounds in a manner that suggested he may have tried to grab the steering wheel to stop the assault as it happened. 

Amid these latest revelations, the country has been convulsed in a national debate and political blame trading.

The Islamic State on Tuesday claimed responsibility for inspiring the unknown attacker — a claim as yet unproven and possibility just opportunistic — leading some politicians to quickly point the finger at Chancellor Angela Merkel’s humanitarian move last year to open Germany’s door to nearly a million migrants, most from the war-torn Middle East. 

Yet others quickly pushed back, calling the accusations a politicizing of tragedy that had no place in progressive Germany.

On Tuesday, Horst Seehofer, chairman of the Christian Social Union, sister party of Merkel’s Christian Democrats said: “We owe it to the victims, those affected and the entire population to rethink and readjust our entire immigration and security policy.”

On Wednesday, Bavarian Interior Minister Joachim Herrmann defended Seehofer from a barrage of critics claiming he and others were seizing on the attack to further their anti-migrant stance. 

“This is no sweeping judgment of refugees,” he said. “Compared to the high number of refugees, these are only very few, but the risks are obvious and we must not close our eyes.” 

A number of newspaper editorials and other politicians on Wednesday criticized Herrman’s remarks and similar statements as premature and lacking in respect for the victims.

Commentator Jürgen Kaube in the daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung said such comments risked over-generalizing Muslim migrants and were implicitly turning the hateful views of the Islamic State into “the true representative of the Muslim world.”

“It is appalling if there are now calls to reconsider the refugee policy as a whole,” the paper Die Tageszeitung wrote in an editorial. “Why for heaven’s sake? . . . What happened in Berlin was long feared. An act of brutal violence. The only effective defense: to keep calm.” 

There were also growing calls for the deployment of more police on the streets with heavy weapons, including automatic ones — a frequent sight in France and Belgium, for instance, but far more unusual in pacifist Germany.

Klaus Bouillon, head of a conference of interior ministers from German states, declared on Tuesday that the country was now “in a state of war.” He called for beefed up security at public events. 

“We have to look into what technical possibilities there are to block streets . . . There are big concrete blocks . . . there are systems I have already requested,” he said. “We also will have to increasingly work with machine guns and long weapons.”

At the normally quant and picturesque Christmas markets in at least two German cities — Mainz and Magdeburg — concrete barriers were quickly erected for added security. In Magdeburg, police officers armed with automatic weapons were guarding the entrance.

Yet others argued that living a free and open society was perhaps more important, and that Germans were willing to accept a certain measure of risk to preserve that openness. 

“If we want to maintain the freedom of our society, we simply have to live with the risk contained in this decision,” Die Tageszeitung added in its editorial.






Share/Bookmark