Monday, May 21, 2018

Real Russian collusion the Dems and MSM ignore

Putin pals fund radical groups that interfere with US elections, energy, agriculture and economy  

Paul Driessen @ CFACT
Robert Mueller’s politicized investigation into allegations that President Trump or the Trump campaign or some Trump associate somehow colluded with Russians continues unproven but unabated. Many think partisan politics ensure it will not be concluded or terminated before the fall 2018 elections.
Federal District Court Judge T. S. Ellis may have rebuked Mueller for attempting to wield “unfettered power” and actually being motivated primarily by a desire to hurt the President. But Mr. Mueller seems determined to find collusion somewhere – except where it seems blatantly obvious: in former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s dealings with Putin oligarchs and the Clinton Family Foundation, her presidential campaign’s ties to Russia in funding and utilizing the Steele-Fusion GPS dossier that launched the Mueller probe, a host of top Obama Administration and Democratic National Committee officials who connived to spy on and disrupt the Trump campaign and transition, and multiple other activities.
Moreover, Putin cronies and agents have long colluded with Obama- and Clinton-allied organizations in yet another area to impact election outcomes and drive important public policies. Congress, journalists and others have investigated this collusion and bankrolling – but their detailed reports have been ignored by Mueller, Democrats and the “mainstream” media. They need to open their eyes.
The US Senate “Billionaires’ Club” and Environmental Policy Alliance “From Russia with Love” reports, articles by investigative journalists like Ron Arnold and Lachlan Markay (here and here), studies by the US National Intelligence Director and Iowa State University, and a March 2018 report by the US House Science Committee reveal money laundering by Putin cronies and ongoing propaganda efforts by Russian media groups to undermine American drilling, fracking, pipeline and agricultural programs. They found:
One of the most clandestine and devious arrangements involves firms owned or controlled by Nathaniel Simons and his wife. Tax records reveal that their Sea Change Foundation gives tens of millions a year to the Natural Resources Defense Council, Climate Action Network, League of Conservation Voters, Center for American Progress, Progressive Policy Institute, Food & Water Watch, Sierra Club and others.
Extensive Sea Change funding comes through Bermuda-based Klein, Ltd., a shell company whose apparent sole purpose is to channel money covertly to Sea Change, which passes it on to environmental advocacy and “educational” groups. Klein’s only officers are employees of Bermuda law firm Wakefield Quin, its address is the same as WQ’s, and its registered business agents work for Wakefield.
Hefty portions of Klein funds come from Russia: Rosneft, the Russian-government-owned oil and gas giant that is one of Wakefield’s largest clients; Spectrum Partners, a Moscow-based energy investment firm with major assets in Russian oil and gas; the IPOC Group, an international growth fund owned by Russian minister of telecommunications and Putin friend Leonid Reiman; and other Russian companies. (Other Sea Change donors include the Gates Foundation, eBay’s Omidyar Network Fund, David Rockefeller’s personal foundation, the Walmart Foundation and the extended Simons family.)
The Science Committee Report explains how the Russian government funnel money through surrogates to US environmentalist organizations to fund attacks on the fossil fuels industry. It also reveals how Russian operatives create and spread propaganda on US social media platforms, to manipulate American opinions about pipelines, fossil fuels, fracking and climate change.
Before and after the 2016 elections, Russian agents also promoted protests to block pipeline construction and prevent oil and gas production projects, using Twitter and Facebook accounts created by the Russian government-linked Internet Research Agency, Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) noted.
Russian operatives use similar tactics to undermine hydraulic fracturing and pipelines in Europe, which depends on Russia for a third of its natural gas. In fact, several countries get 100% of their gas from Putin-controlled companies, creating serious risks of high prices, transmission interruptions and blackmail. Even more troubling, the FBI and Department of Homeland Security have revealed that Russian hackers were behind cyber intrusions into America’s electricity gridand might have been setting the stage for hack attacks that could cause widespread blackouts in the USA and other nations.
On the agriculture front, the Iowa State study found that Russian agents have orchestrated campaigns to disparage genetically engineered (GE) crops that American farmers utilize to produce more food, from less land, using less water and fewer pesticides, and with greater resistance to droughts, floods, insects and climate shifts, than is possible with conventional or organic farming. Precise modern GE technologies also created Golden Rice, which prevents malnutrition, blindness and death in Third World children; heat-resistant wheat; and the corn (maize) US ethanol producers use as their feed stock.
However, radical groups like Greenpeace and Food & Water Watch are determined to eliminate every form of agricultural biotechnology. They are just as virulently opposed to pesticides and herbicides.
Financed by organic and natural food companies – and by the Russia-Sea Change Laundromat – they are adept at devising and conducting their own anti-GE/GMO, anti-glyphosate, anti-pesticide and other campaigns. All are eagerly and uncritically covered by print, electronic and social media. But US activist groups and news outlets also parrot or expand on Russia’s RT (formerly Russia Today) and Sputnik propaganda stories that likewise falsely portray these technologies as risky for people and planet.
Why do they do all this? US fracking operations, oil and gas exports, miraculous agricultural output, and corn, wheat and other crop exports have hurt Russia’s income, economy, ruble and military. By supporting radical green groups, Russian agents impair US energy and agricultural exports, increase export opportunities for Russian companies, advance their nation’s economic and geopolitical ambitions, especially regarding Europe – and (they hope) make Russia stronger by making America weaker.
Foundations, government agencies, rich liberals like Michael Bloomberg, corporations and other donors agree with the green agenda, want to avoid activist attacks, or just can’t see past utopian assertions to recognize what Hard Green agendas really do, especially to working class and Third World families.
Radical greens gladly take Russian funds because they can never have too much money to advance their domestic and international ambitions. As Ron Arnold notes in our book Cracking Big Green: just the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund, Greenpeace and ten other major US eco organizations raked in $2.1 billion in 2012. Total revenue for all US environmentalist groups exceeds $6.5 billion a year. Over a 12-year period, they received more than $21 billion from major foundations; countless millions in taxpayer money from US government agencies during the Obama era; and billions from other sources.
All this cash is fungible. Even if these shady, secretive Russian contributions aen’t used directly to fund anti-energy and anti-technology campaigns – or to air political ads, support candidates (some 99.9% of them Democrats) and influence elections – they free up other funds that do exactly that. And the donors and recipients are fundamentally in sync philosophically on totalitarian socialism, global governance, wealth redistribution, disguised but real disdain for the less fortunate, and detesting America (especially under President Trump) and free enterprise capitalism.
All of this is illuminating and disturbing, but hardly surprising. It’s yet another example of greens and other leftists demanding ethics, responsibility, transparency and accountability – except for themselves.
So if Mr. Mueller and Judge Ellis ultimately decide there actually are no limits to the scope of these “Russian collusion” investigations and interrogations, perhaps they can focus some of Mueller’s staff and seemingly bottomless budget on the HRC activities noted above; the suspicious funding and spending practices of the Clinton Foundation; and the ongoing transfer of countless millions of dollars from Russia through secretive laundering outfits to radical environmentalist groups that are deeply involved in US policy-making, pressure campaigns, shareholder actions, and political elections of every description.
That investigation into Russian collusion would be an eye-opening service to America and the world.

About the Author: Paul Driessen

Paul Driessen

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow ( and author of books and articles on energy and environmental science and policy.

Rand Paul’s Sensible Budget Rejected, but Here’s the Silver Lining

Editor's NoteThere's a reason I keep the debt counter on P&D, which now shows a national debt of 21 trillion dollars.  It's to make sure no one reading this blog can ignore the crisis looming ahead.   Trump needed to get this budget through to increase the necessary spending for the military,  which is one of the actual and core responsibilities of the central government, but says he'll never sign another budget such as this one.  What will happen next budget?  I think we may well see a shutdown, and this time if it happens we'll have to see if Trump can be bullied by the Democrats,. RINO's and the media.  It will be interesting. RK

May 19, 2018 by Dan Mitchell @ International Liberty
During the election season, I speculated Trump was a big government Republican, and he confirmed my analysis this past February when he acquiesced to an orgy of new spending and agreed to bust the spending caps.

That awful spending spree gave huge increases to almost every part of the budget, and I pointed out that the deal probably will create the conditions for future tax hikes.

I got so upset at profligate GOPers that I crunched the numbers and revealed that (with the notable exception of Reagan) Republican presidents are even bigger spenders than Democrats.
Well, Senate Republicans recently had a chance to atone for their sins by voting for a proposal from Rand Paul to balance the budget.

So what did they do? Rejected it, of course.

In a column for Reason, Eric Boehm justly condemns Republicans for being big spenders.
The Senate on Thursday resoundingly rejected the Kentucky Republican’s plan to balance the federal budget by 2023, voting 76 to 21 against a bill that would have required a $400 billion cut in federal spending next year, followed by 1 percent spending increases for the rest of the next decade. …Paul’s proposal never really had a chance of passing, coming as it did just months after Congress approved enormous spending hikes that busted Obama-era caps once championed by Republicans as necessary for fiscal restraint. …Paul’s plan would have balanced the budget by 2023, as long as revenue met current CBO projections. By 2028, his proposal envisioned a $700 billion surplus instead of the $1.5 trillion deficit currently projected by the CBO.
A Lifezette column by Brendan Kirby was even more critical of big-government Republicans.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) was hoping his Republican colleagues would be embarrassed by their vote to jack up federal spending earlier this year and support his plan to phase in a balanced budget. Few were. Paul got 20 other Republican senators on Thursday — less than half of the Senate GOP caucus — to vote for his “penny plan,” which would balance the federal budget over five years… No Democrats back the proposal. …Even though Paul’s bid failed, it did pick up the support of some senators who voted for the spending bill in February, including Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas). The others were Sens. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) and Jerry Moran (R-Kan.). …Paul also got more votes than he did for a similar proposal last year.
Kirby’s article ended on an upbeat note based on voting patterns.

I also want to close on an upbeat note, but for an entirely different reason. Here are the annual
numbers from the CBO baseline (what will happen to spending and revenue if government continues on its current path) and the numbers for Senator Paul’s proposal.

And why do these depressing numbers leave me with a feeling of optimism?

For the simple reason that they show how simple it is to make progress with some modest spending restraint. The lower set of number show that Senator Paul quickly gets to a balanced budget by imposing an overall reduction of about 2 percent on spending in 2019, followed by annual increases of about 1 percent until 2025.

I think that’s a great plan, but I’d also be happy with a plan that allows spending to grow by 1 percent each year. Or even 2 percent each year.

My bottom line is that we need some sort of spending cap so that the burden of government spending grows slower than the productive sector of the economy. In other words, comply with the Golden Rule.

And what’s especially remarkable is that solving our fiscal problems is still quite feasible notwithstanding the reckless spending bill that was recently approved (Paul’s proposal, incidentally,

leaves in place the small – and temporary – tax cut from the recent reform legislation).

P.S. Senator Paul would achieve a balanced budget in just five years by letting spending grow during that period by a bit less than 4/10ths of 1 percent per year. Does that sound impossibly radical? Well, it’s what Republicans managed to achieve during the heyday of the Tea Party revolution, when they actually produced a five-year nominal spending freeze. In other words, zero spending growth! If they could impose that level of discipline with Obama in the White House, why not do the same with Trump (who quasi-endorsed the Penny Plan) at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue?

Northeast states’ greenhouse gas scheme a disaster

Claims at Capitol Hill hearing that the “Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative” boost the economy ignore new research.


by , 6 Comments 

Testifying to the House Committee on Science, Space, & Technology, Dr. Phil Duffy of the Woods Hole Research Center claimed that state efforts to lower CO2 emissions through the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, or RGGI, has been a good thing for the economy of those states that have adopted it. Duffy, however, did not mention research from 2018 that provides data showing the exact opposite.

At the hearing titled “Using Technology to Address Climate Change”,

Duffy stated: “A number of studies have shown positive economic impacts in the nearly ten years that RGGI has been in place…I think the latest study documented $5.7 billion in savings because of improved health outcomes.”

Earlier this year, by contrast, David T. Stevenson, Director of the Center for Energy Competitiveness at the Caesar Rodney Institute, published a study finding the exact opposite — namely that RGGI has hurt the economies of those regions that have adopted it, and that the program has shown minimal impact on health or emissions reductions.

“RGGI allowance costs added to already high regional electric bills. The combined pricing impact resulted in a 12 percent drop in goods production and a 34 percent drop in the production of energy-intensive goods.”

RGGI is a mandatory program put in place by state governments to cap CO₂ emissions and sell CO₂ allowances. The proceeds from these sales are supposed to be invested in renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind, and sustainability projects.

Duffy’s testimony was vague and did not specify as to what studies he was referencing. In contrast, Stevenson directly addresses specific studies, like one put out by the Acadia Center, that make claims similar to Duffy’s.

“The Acadia Center claims that compared to other states RGGI states increased electric prices by half as much, had 3.6 percent more economic growth, and reduced emissions 16 percent more leading to greater health benefits from pollution reduction. In reality, from 2007 to 2015, net weighted average nominal electricity prices rose 4.6 percent in RGGI states compared to 2.8 percent in [states that did not adopt RGGI].

Stevenson’s research found, however “there were no added reductions in CO₂ emissions, or associated health benefits, from the RGGI program.” In fact, any benefits in health or emissions are consistent with a “national trend,” Stevenson says, and can’t be attributed to having an RGGI program in place.

Also according to Stevenson’s work, even the development of wind and solar, which is one of the main intentions of RGGI, is faring less well in RGGI states than others.

“Wind and solar energy installation was slower in RGGI states, increasing by only 2.3 percentage points, while comparison states grew by 5.5 percentage points, more than twice as fast.”
You can read about Stevenson’s study here.

About the Author: Adam Houser

Adam Houser coordinates student leaders for CFACT's collegians program and writes on issues of climate and energy.

The Last Days of Time Inc.

An oral history of how the pre-eminent media organization of the 20th century ended up on the scrap heap.

Democrats wake up to what indulging the Clinton corruption has brought them

Here's one reason the Trump corruption scandals aren't connecting as much as they should: Before Democrats spent the past 18 months telling everyone this is not normal, they spent years reassuring voters that this was normal.  
While I am a bit baffled about his claims of 'Trump corruption scandals' (what is he talking about?) the second half of his statement is dead on. Two can play that game. Or more accurately, the Clintons lowered the bar.............Net result, voters just don't care.Pat yourselves on the back for that, Democrats, because you are living in a 'new normal' of your own making.................Read more

My Take - A nut graf in American English journalism terminology, a nutgraph is a paragraph, particularly in a feature story, that explains the news value of the story. The term is also spelled as nut graf, nut 'graph, nutgraph, nutgraf. ... Sometimes the expression nut paragraph is also used. Now that that's out of the way - the Clintons are corrupt to the bone and the Democrats and leftist loons - oooops, I'm repeating myself - have never found anything wrong with that for as long as they've been in politics. As time goes by it becomes more and more obvious these loons have no moral foundation other than doing and accepting everything and anything will will gain their power and money.

Liberal Lies And Slanders Are A Slippery Slope To Trouble

Kurt SchlichterMay 21, 2018

How does the left think that normal people are going to react to the left’s rejection of the idea of rational discussion and debate and it’s attempt to keep them from participating in their own governance?  What does the elite think lurks at the bottom of that slippery slope?  Do liberals think the normals will A) meekly submit to abuse and be cowed into submission, or B) that the normals will grow even more militant and make their voices heard in other, nastier ways?

Spoiler: The answer is B. Donald Trump is just one manifestation of the blowback against the rule-by-contempt our alleged betters currently practice. And if the election of The Donald doesn’t convince them to change their ways, what will come next will not be anywhere near as pleasant......

Now, the problem for liberals is that when we reason, they lose. Leftism has a historical track record unblemished by success, and that includes its effeminate little brother American liberalism, whose greatest hits include rampant crime, welfare cheats, and national decline.

This legacy of failure is why the goateed durwoods lurking around campus coffee shops in berets and ironic Army surplus jackets always insist to anyone within earshot that “True socialism has never been tried.” Hope springs eternal in the hearts of Marxists, but the rest of us have too much common sense to buy that nonsense..............Don’t believe me? Just look at the one area where American liberals have nearly total power, academia. There’s no freedom of speech there, none. Conservative speakers, on the rare occasions they are invited in, are immediately driven back out. Professors punish students who refuse to buy into liberal lies about our country, about the climate scam, and about whether the list of all possible genders consists of more than boys and girl and that is all.............To Read More.....

Spies Like Obama?

The treachery of “Crossfire Hurricane” comes into the light.
“I hereby demand, and will do so officially tomorrow, that the Department of Justice look into whether or not the [Federal Bureau of Investigation/Department of Justice] infiltrated or surveilled the Trump Campaign for Political Purposes – and if any such demands or requests were made by people within the Obama Administration!”

The Homeless Hole That Ate Los Angeles

What’s a few billion more for social justice?

Starbucks decides to turn its cafes into homeless shelters

Sunday, May 20, 2018

Caruba's Corner: Green Slander

 By Alan Caruba  Saturday, February 28, 2015 @ Warning Signs


It is a sure sign that the advocates of the “global warming” and “climate change” hoaxes know that the public no longer believes that the former is occurring or that the latter represents an immediate, global threat.

Even though the “climate skeptics”, scientists who have produced research proving false methodology and the conclusions based on it are quite few in number, an effort to silence them by smearing their reputations and denying funding for their work has been launched and it is based entirely on a lie.

Scientists are supposed to be skeptical, not only of other scientist’s findings, but their own. Good science must be able to reproduce the results of published research. In the case of the many computer models cited as proof that global warming was occurring or would, the passing years have demonstrated that none were accurate.

As Joseph L. Bast, president of The Heartland Institute and Joseph A. Morris, an attorney who has fought in several countries to defend free speech, wrote in a February 24 commentary, “The Crucifixion of Dr. Wei-Hock Soon”, of an article co-authored with Christopher Monckton, Matt Briggs, and David Legates, and published in the Science Bulletin, a publication of the Chinese Academy of Sciences “The article reveals what appears to be an error in the computer models used to predict global warming that leads models to over-estimate future warming by a factor of three.” (Emphasis added) Their commentary has been downloaded more than 10,000 times!

“If the work of Soon et al is confirmed by other scientists, the ‘global warming crisis’ may need to be cancelled and we can all enjoy lower taxes, fewer regulations, and more personal freedom.” However, “having failed to refute the article, environmentalists turned to smearing the authors.”
Little wonder the “Warmists” are worried; the Earth has been in a cooling cycle since 1996. People are noticing just how cold this record-breaking and record-setting winter is. 

The attack on Dr. Soon began with a Greenpeace news release that was republished on the front page of The New York Times on February 22nd. Despite its august reputation, The Times' coverage of climate issues has been an utter disgrace for decades. As public interest waned, it eliminated its staff of reporters exclusively devoted to writing about the “environment.”

Myron Ebell, a climate change skeptic and director of Global Warming and International Environmental Policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, noted on February 27th that the Greenpeace attack on Dr. Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics claimed they had secured $1.2 million in funding for his research over the past decade and that it came from energy corporations, electric utilities, and charitable foundations related to those companies.  The truth, however, is “that the grants were made not to Dr. Soon but to the Smithsonian, which never complained while taking its sizable cut off the top.”

Columnist Larry Bell who is also an endowed professor at the University of Houston, disputed the Greenpeace claim, saying, “First, let’s recognize that the supporting FOIA documents referred to an agreement between the Smithsonian (not Dr. Soon) and Southern Company Services, Inc., whereby 40 percent of that more than $1.2 million went directly to the Smithsonian” leaving “an average funding of $71,000 a year for the past eleven years to support the actual research activities.”

Focusing on Greenpeace and its Climate Investigations Center which describes itself as “a group funded by foundations seeking to limit the risks of climate change”, Bell asked “Do these activist organizations make their estimated $360,000,000 annual funding publicly available?” Bell said “Ad hominem assaults disparaging the integrity of this leading authority on relationships between solar phenomena and global climate are unconscionable.”

In his article, “Vilifying realist science—and scientists”, Paul Driessen, a policy advisor to the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), noted that in 2012 Greenpeace USA was the recipient of $32,791,149 and that this is true of other environmental pressure groups that in 2012 secured $111,915.138 for the Environmental Defense Fund, $98,701,707 for the Natural Resources Defense Council, $97,757,678 for the Sierra Club, and, for Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection, $19,150,215.

“All told,” noted Driessen, “more than 16,000 American environmental groups collect(ed) total annual revenues of over $13.4 billion (2009 figures). Only a small part of that comes from membership dues and individual contributions.”  With that kind of money you can do a lot of damage to scientist’s reputation.

They fear that the public may actually learn the truth about “global warming” and the fear-mongering claims about “climate change” does not stop with just the environmental organizations. At the same time The New York Times was printing the Greenpeace lies, U.S. Senators Ed Market (D-Mass), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) joined together on February 25th to send letters to 107 companies, trade associations, and non-profit groups demanding comprehensive information about all funding of research on climate or related issues.

Among the groups receiving the letter were two for whom I am a policy advisor, The Heartland Institute and CFACT, but others include the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the George C. Marshall Institute, the American Legislative Exchange Council, and the American Energy Alliance.

Following The New York Times article, Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), the ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, sent letters to the presidents of seven universities asking them to provide details about seven professors who are either prominent global warming skeptics.

As Rich Lowrey, editor of the National Review, pointed out on February 27th, that "Science as an enterprise usually doesn't need political enforcers. But proponents of a climate alarmism that demands immediate action to avert worldwide catastrophe won't and can't simply let the science speak for itself."

This is not fact-finding. It is an act of intimidation.
And it looks like a carefully organized effort to quash any research that might dispute “global warming” or “climate change” as defined by the Greens and by both the President and the Secretary of State as the greatest threat we and the rest of the world faces.

The greatest threat is the scores of environmental organizations that have been exaggerating and distorting their alleged “science” in order to thwart development here and around the world that would enhance everyone’s life. Now they are attacking real scientists, those who are skeptical of their claims, to silence them.

This is what fascists do.

Editor's Note: My friend Alan Caruba passed on June 15, 2015. Alan's work is insightful, logical, factual, and has a timeless about it. Alan had given me blanket permission to publish his work when he was alive. I had intended to archive many of his articles, but like most of us, I got caught up in life. Well, that effort is long overdue, so every week I intend to publish one or more of of his old articles from Warning Signs starting from the last one published as a tribute to my friend, Alan Caruba. Please enjoy Caruba's Corner!

Alt-Left Insanity: Teen Vogue Readers Learn Marx from ‘White Genocide’ Prof

By Matt Philbin | May 18, 2018

“If a man is not a socialist at 20, he has no heart. If he is still a socialist at 40, he has no brain.” And if at 17 a girl thinks socialism is “where the community (rather than rich people) have ownership and control over their labor,” she’s been reading Teen Vogue.

Teen Vogue already does a bang-up job combining standard beauty-fashion-celebrity superficiality with standard gay-trans-feminist “woke” superficiality into a sort of glossy pop-cultural marxism (with bonus anal sex tutorials!). So why not venture into the real economic Marxism by introducing Karl Marx to the Clearasil set?
Sure, there are drawbacks to introducing Teen Vogue’s discerning readers to Uncle Karl, “the famed German [who] co-authored The Communist Manifesto with fellow scholar Friedrich Engels in 1848,” as Teen Vogue described him. For one thing, despite the hipster beard, his fashion sense was strictly proletarian – and not in the cool, street way. And he did most of his writing in a public library. I mean, what kind of dweebs are gonna see you write your deep thoughts in a library? Had they no coffee houses, no smoothie bars?
But Teen Vogue’s Danielle Corcione was undaunted because Marx’s ideas “later inspired millions of people to resist oppressive political leaders and spark political revolutions all over the world.” Cool, like #resist, right? Besides, Teen Vogue has a go-to educator in its Rolodex: “Former Drexel University professor George Ciccariello-Maher,” who was fired from Drexel for tweeting “All I Want For Christmas Is White Genocide.” And you can tell Ciccariello-Maher is a professional teacher because he makes sure his meaning is clear. He followed up that tweet with: “To clarify: when the whites were massacred during the Haitian revolution, that was a good thing indeed.”
“So how can teens learn the legacy of Marx’s ideas and how they’re relevant to the current political climate?” Corcione chirped.
Some quick suggestions:
  • Look at Venezuela, where the people – in the form of Madero’s socialist government – are enjoying ownership of the nation’s massive oil industry. They can’t get food or toilet paper and they’re fleeing Venezuela by the thousands, but they own the means of production.
  • Check out the “workers’ paradise” of Cuba, where actual Cubans aren’t allowed in the tourist hotels, the Nash Rambler is the hottest set of wheels, and it might take 10 years to save up for the laptop on which to read Teen Vogue (if it isn’t censored by the government.)
  • North Korea is another fun and informative place to celebrate the Marx legacy (go in the spring – the new grass is delicious.)
Those are just a few living examples. There are also 100 million dead ones........To Read More....

The Deep State Is Real, And Much Bigger Than You Know

Derek Hunter May 20, 2018

I used to be a doubter who would cringe, just a little, at any mention of “the deep state.” I admit it, it all seemed a little far-fetched to me that there was this cabal of careerists conspiring from within the government to harm President Donald Trump when I first heard it. I never doubted there were individuals doing it, but a wide net of conspirators seemed like something out of a bad movie more than anything that could actually happen in the United States. I was wrong, very wrong, the deep state is real. But there is much more than just this small group of powerful people working toward a common goal, there is an entire infrastructure created by the left not only to destroy Trump, but to indoctrinate unsuspecting Americans into their agenda.

As the curtain is pulled back on the Obama administration’s unprecedented efforts to spy on the Trump campaign, there is a good possibility many of the perpetrators could face criminal charges, or at least should. But it’s important to understand that liberals didn’t just create this out of the blue in 2016, it’s the culmination of everything they’ve worked toward for decades...........
But liberals have conditioned people to accept what they’re told through a corrupt public education system that offers political spin as fact and focus the idea liberal thought as “tolerant.”

Through so-called experts, elevated by simply putting them on TV and giving them impressive sounding titles like “analyst” or “strategist,” the public can be led to believe just about anything. After all, to be an “expert” on TV means you have expertise, right? Not even close..............The deep state is real, but it does not exist in a vacuum. In my new book, “Outrage, INC: How the Liberal Mob Ruined Science, Journalism, and Hollywood,” I explain how not just government, but nearly every aspect of public life has been corrupted, in ways both obvious and subtle, to serve the liberal agenda. ..............To Read More.....

Political Homogeneity in Academia

Nearly 40% of colleges have no Republicans as faculty.

Tenured Jihadist Professor at Kent State Fired and Charged For Lying

Universities must pay a price for sheltering professors who support terrorism.

The Witch Hunt Turns One

Bogus Mueller probe begins second year -- empty-handed. 

EPA opens office of “continuous improvement”

Keeping EPA workers accountable and projects on schedule

by , 2 Comments @ CFACT

CFACT attended an event held by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt on Monday, May 14 in Washington DC to finally improve efficiency and accountability at EPA.

“Under budget and ahead of schedule” is the catchphrase used by President Trump to describe his intentions going into business ventures and government initiatives. Unfortunately, EPA has historically fallen well short of this mark.
In the past, the Agency has created a nightmare of bureaucratic red tape and costly mandates to business owners, developers, farmers, and anyone trying to make any sort of positive difference in this country in the private sector.

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt may have just placed EPA back in line with President Trump’s ethos of efficiency, however.

At the announcement, which CFACT was invited to and attended, Pruitt announced the opening of the Office of Continuous Improvement, with the sole job of keeping EPA workers accountable and projects on schedule.

“That which is measured, improves,” said Pruitt at the announcement. Going further, Pruitt explained that with the new directives “We set real goals and we track those goals and reach real improvement.”

Further emphasizing the commitment to low costs and efficiency, the new Office of Continuous Improvement will require zero additional resources. According to a press release from EPA, “Through reorganization, EPA is using existing resources to support the Office of Continuous Improvement.”

Hopefully, this will continue to streamline the processes to clean up sites that are a real environmental problem, such as hazardous waste Superfund sites, around the nation.

This initiative comes on the heels of Pruitt announcing an end to “secret science” at EPA, which was notoriously abused by the Obama administration and past administrations to justify economy and freedom killing regulations without having to reveal the data that the regulations were based on.
The ending of secret science and the new office to ensure accountability at EPA have the potential to be a “one-two punch” in the ongoing fight to drain the EPA and climate swamp by Pruitt and President Trump.

About the Author: Adam Houser   

Adam Houser coordinates student leaders for CFACT's collegians program and writes on issues of climate and energy.

Quote of the Day

1. "Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us."

2. “When peace comes we will perhaps in time be able to forgive the Arabs for killing our sons, but it will be harder for us to forgive them for having forced us to kill their sons.”

Golda Meir

Editor's Note:  I found the first quote in a comment section of an article I posted and decided I should post it as the Quote of the Day.  However, I've become gun shy about quotes from famous people as I've so often found great quotes from famous people aren't always capable of being authenticated, so I looked it up and found the second quote attributed to Golda Meir.  It appears these two iconic quotes attributed to her can't be authenticated. 

I’ve also concluded famous people talk a lot - everyone expects them to - and they're expected to say great things - espouse great wisdom - and they very often do in private conversations.  It seems totally plausible to me this could have been the case here.  However, whether she uttered these profound thoughts or not in no way diminishes the value of those thoughts - ergo - my Quote(s) of the Day! RK

The Pox of Multiculturalism

May 19, 2018 By Bruce Walker

What the left calls "multiculturalism" is actually the systematic destruction of cultures and the replacement of these cultures by a synthetic, artificial, and meaningless global culture. When the left talks about "diversity," it really means the crushing of differences in thought, values, and art into a sort of baby food which neither nourishes the soul or elevates the mind. This is because cultural differences are based on geography and exist in nations and regions rather than in the nonsensical "global" community.

 Indeed, there are cultural differences within most nations of any size that reflect the differences within parts of a nation. Canada is a good example. Quebec decades ago insisted upon the preservation of the French language and with it French culture in that quarter of Canada. Scotland is likewise a nation within the United Kingdom that the English allowed to retain Scottish state religion; Scottish money; Scottish judicial systems; and, over the last few decades, an independent Scottish Parliament........

Indeed, the very idea that a nation and its culture ought to be compelled to absorb alien peoples with different values, religions, and customs would once have been considered absurd. What used to be accepted when immigrants came into America was that, as a condition of citizenship, these immigrants learn and accept the values of their new homeland and leave behind, by and large, the ways of the lands from which they came ............ Read more

Attacking Israel for $100, Defending it for $13

Posted by Daniel Greenfield 7 Comments Wednesday, May 16, 2018 @ Sultan Knish Blog
Hamas supporters in Gaza held the world’s first peaceful protest with hand grenades, pipe bombs, cleavers and guns. And Israeli soldiers peacefully defended their country leaving multiple Hamas attackers at peace. The Great Hamas March of Return came with instructions to, "bring a knife, dagger, or handgun, if you have one, and to leave them under your clothes and not use them or show them, except if you identify one of the soldiers or settlers."

"We will tear down the border," Hamas Prime Minister Yahya Sinwar had peacefully vowed. "And we will tear out their hearts from their bodies."

But the only hearts his terror thugs tore out were already bleeding with sympathy for Islamic terrorists and bile for the Israelis they were there to kill with those knives, daggers and guns.

The Hamas mob chanted, “Allahu Akbar” and the genocidal racist threat of, “Khaybar Khaybar, ya yahud," a reference to the primal Islamic massacre of the Jews. While IDF soldiers held back the invaders, the jets of the IAF targeted the snake’s head striking Hamas compounds and outposts. By 5.30 PM, the Hamas organizers changed course and began urging the thugs away from further fence attacks.

Hamas had offered $100 to every rioter. During previous violent assaults back in April, the Muslim Brotherhood terrorist group had been offering $200 to anyone shot by Israelis, $500 for severe injuries and $3,000 to the dead.

$100 a day may not seem like a lot, but the Israeli teen soldiers they’re trying to kill, earn $13 a day.

The Hamas supporting thugs are depicted as helpless, starving victims who can barely lift the firebombs they’re throwing at Israelis, but they make ten times as much as the Israeli soldiers they are there to kill.

Hamas can write all those checks to its aspiring killers because the cash is coming from Iran.

Last year, Senwar, whom Israel had released in exchange for captured Israeli hostage Gilad Shalit, had boasted that Iran was once again "the largest backer financially and militarily".

That comes out to an estimated $100 million a year.

With as many as 50,000 Hamas supporters in Gaza participating in the day’s attacks at $100 a head, over 1,000 allegedly injured at least $200 each, and another 52 allegedly killed at $3,000 each (there is no reason to treat Hamas casualty figures coming out of Gaza as anything other than propaganda), the whole thing cost Hamas and Iran $5.3 million. The unmarked cargo plane filled with foreign currency that Obama dispatched to Iran carried $400 million. That was part of a known $1.7 billion cash payment.

But the total Obama terror payments to Tehran may go as high as $33.6 billion.

Despite media misreporting, the Hamas mass fence attacks began back on March 30 and even though their Great March of Return was supposed to end in mid-May, the show proved to be unexpectedly popular in Tehran, Brussels and Berkeley, and the attacks will continue through at least June.

Even a single one of Obama’s cash smuggling runs to Iran is enough to fund attacks just like these for two and a half months. And the $100,000 that an Iranian group offered to anyone who blows up the embassy? That illegal cash run can pay for bounties on every American diplomatic facility in the world.

Lefties bemoaning Israel’s moral authority can look up and follow the money trail from Iran’s IRGC (the terror mothership whom Obama resisted sanctioning), to the unmarked cargo planes from Obama, and to their own greasy little fingers that pushed the button or marked the ballot for him. The Israeli teens in IDF khaki with rules of engagement for using force longer than some graduate thesis papers are dealing with a problem from hell created by Democrat voters who wanted to feel inspired by Obama.

The cost of that inspiration today ran to dozens dead. If the Israeli teens shooting in self-defense lack moral authority, where is the moral authority of the Obama voters whose votes financed the attack?

Those Israeli teens in green earn $408 a month if they're in a combat unit. Before a raise a few years ago, they weren't even earning $300. Support units earn $327 and rear units $225. Not only is that far lower than the average civilian salary, but if often hardly covers living expenses. Dodging the draft isn’t hard these days. The average red-shirted hipster does it easily, putting in a few years at a fake startup before heading to Berlin to protest Zionism. And those who serve know if that they make a single mistake, if they shoot an attacker who turns out not to be armed, Israeli leftists will see them jailed.

Hamas supporters charge at them for $100 a day. And IDF soldiers hold the line for $400 a month.

So why for $400 a month, do Israeli soldiers face down mobs of tens of thousands of Hamas supporters baying for their blood? The average IDF soldier who reports for duty comes from one of the Judean communities (slurred as settlements) under attack by Hamas or from development towns in the north under attack by Hezbollah. He is often a religious settler who sees the hand of G-d in the high hills or a descendant of Mizrahi immigrants whose recent ancestors were oppressed under Muslim rule.

When your family lives under fire, holding the line on the Hamas mob isn’t an abstract idea of duty.

The Hamas invaders were there to kill Israelis. The Israeli soldiers were there to protect Israelis. The attackers were invading someone else’s land while the defenders were protecting their own country.

That’s why Hamas has to pay its rioting thugs ten times as much as Israeli soldiers earn to attack them.

While the $100 a day thugs threw rocks and firebombs, the professional terrorists hung back waiting for a breach in the fence. Some were caught planting bombs. And killed. They are among the 10 known Hamas terrorists killed in the Gaza fighting and bemoaned by the media as victims of a Jewish massacre.

The $400 a month Israeli teenager with a rifle is there as the front line in case the fence is breached. Hamas wants to take more hostages to free more terrorists. If it can’t do that, it will kill them. And if the attackers make it past the soldiers, they will hit Israeli towns and villages hoping to kill anyone they find.

While the fence holds up, the Hamas terrorists and their supporters sent flaming kites in the hopes of setting Israeli farms and fields on fire. One such attack had already destroyed 400 acres of wheat.

A sympathetic New York Times piece from last week described the "flaming-kite squadrons" prepping hundreds of fire kites, but unfortunately, "The wind was blowing the other way."

“The wind is still against us,” Ismail al-Qrinawi whined. “We are waiting for it to pick up so we can fly tens of kites and burn their crops." Instead, "the direction of the wind not only thwarted the kites, but also blew copious amounts of Israeli tear gas toward the protesters."

Pharaoh and his legions had the same bad experience with the wind. G-d must be an Islamophobe.

Hamas organized the invasion. It urged its human shields to head to the fence telling them that the Israelis had run away. That was the same way Egypt’s Nasser had tricked Jordan’s King Hussein during the Six Day War. Instead of defeating the Israelis and salvaging Gaza, Nasser’s scheme led to the liberation of Jerusalem, along with Judea and Samaria by the indigenous Jewish people. And it also had disastrous consequences for this latest attempted invasion by Egyptian-Jordanian settlers into Israel.

While the Hamas supporters were destroying their own crossing point infrastructure, as they had previously trashed their own gas lines, the United States was inaugurating the opening of an embassy in Jerusalem. Despite media misinformation, the riots predated the embassy and will postdate it.

The media used contrasting photos of the embassy opening and the Pallywood fake photos of protesters crying for the cameras and pretending to limp on crutches to smear Israel and America. And as usual they missed the real story. While Israelis and Americans were building something, Muslim terrorists were destroying everything they could get their hands on. While Rabbis and Pastors blessed, Imams cursed.

Hamas Sheikh Iyad Abu Funun had sworn on the Koran that, "We will not leave a single Jew on our Islamic land." It did not matter, “whether left-Wing, right-wing, secular, religious, or extremist.”

That is what this is about.

The dedication of the embassy is a leap of faith. Faith in building rather than destruction. Faith in life instead of death. Faith in the G-d who watches over Jerusalem, not the Allah for whom Gaza burns.

UPDATE: New Israeli information states that it's a $100 subsidy per family for rioters.

Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article previously appeared at the Center's Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And click here to support my work with a donation.

Thank you for reading.

Pope Francis Endorses Slower Growth and More Poverty

I almost feel guilty when I criticize the garbled economic thoughts of Pope Francis. After all, he was influenced by Peronist ideology as a youngster, so he was probably a lost cause from the beginning.
Moreover, Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell have already dissected his irrational ramblings on economics and explained that free markets are better for the poor. Especially when compared to government dependency.
But since Pope Francis just attacked tax havens, and I consider myself the world’s foremost defender of these low-tax jurisdictions, I can’t resist adding my two cents. Here’s what the Wall Street Journal just reported about the Pope’s ideological opposition to market-friendly tax systems.
The Vatican denounced the use of offshore tax havens… The document, which was released jointly by the Vatican’s offices for Catholic doctrine and social justice, echoed past warnings by Pope Francis over the dangers of unbridled capitalism. …The teaching document, which was personally approved by the pope, suggested that greater regulation of the world’s financial markets was necessary to contain “predatory and speculative” practices and economic inequality.
He even embraced global regulation, not understanding that this increases systemic risk.
“The supranational dimension of the economic system makes it easy to bypass the regulations established by individual countries,” the Vatican said. “The current globalization of the financial system requires a stable, clear and effective coordination among various national regulatory authorities.”
And he said that governments should have more money to spend.
A section of the document was dedicated to criticizing offshore tax havens, which it said contribute to the “creation of economic systems founded on inequality,” by depriving nations of legitimate revenue.
Wow, it’s like the Pope is applying for a job at the IMF or OECD. Or even with the scam charity Oxfam.
In any event, he’s definitely wrong on how to generate more prosperity. Maybe he should watch this video.
Or read Marian Tupy.
Or see what Nobel Prize winners have to say.
P.S. And if the all that doesn’t work, methinks Pope Francis should have a conversation with Libertarian Jesus. He could start here, here, and here.