Previous month:
April 2017
Next month:
June 2017

ONE OF TRUMP ADMINISTRATION'S BIGGEST LIES: IRAN IS COMPLIANT ON NUCLEAR DEAL

The apparent truth is that the Trump Administration lacks the personnel and skillset to effectively govern …

First, there is the President himself – who runs the White House and attendant political operation like he ran the Trump Organization. Walking up each morning, checking his press clippings, and diving in to the swirling mass of people in his office that are seeking self-serving favors or selling their own version of the Trump agenda. Trump appears to be a “helicopter president,” dropping in to deal with an issue, continuing his “meet and greet” diplomacy and the leaving for Mar-a-Lago for a dual-purpose weekend: promoting himself and the Trump brand. The idea that Trump’s spawn, daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner, can take the place of seasoned political advisers is ludicrous. Perhaps made more ridiculous by Trump claiming that these two are geniuses.

Second, the scarcity of experienced hands is allowing Obama holdovers to remain in place and continue Obama’s third term under Trump’s very nose. It appears that Trump is having a difficult time attracting first-rate people to his Administration, primarily because serious people do not want their reputations compromised by Trump’s mercurial manner and gross lack of professionalism when it comes to his petty, vindictive, and counter-productive tweets.

And third, Donald Trump appears to be totally transactional, learning more toward the progressive socialist democrats than the constitutional conservatives. It is this lack of core beliefs that is most troubling as Trump styles himself as a “great dealmaker” even though we will never see what Trump has conceded or provided to the other side to get even the appearance of a deal. In this area, Trump is more lake former President Obama than a Ronald Reagan.

Here is Trump today …

In his speech to Arab heads of state in the Saudi capital, Mr. Trump repeatedly attacked Iran, claiming it “funds arms, trains militias that spread destruction and chaos” and pointing to Iran’s support for Syria’s Bashar al-Assad as he committed “unspeakable crimes”.

While campaigning ahead of the US election, Mr. Trump said the 2015 nuclear agreement Tehran signed with international powers was the “the worst deal ever” and that he was determined to “dismantle this disastrous mistake”. 

Since then the Trump administration, despite grudgingly admitting that Iran was complying with its obligations under the agreement, has made repeated threats against Tehran. This, it was feared, would play into the hands of the hardliners in Iran, who attacked Mr. Rouhani for signing the nuclear deal. <Source>

Under what scenario can we accept Trump’s official lies to Congress and the American public?

President Obama stood before the American people and told us we can keep our doctor. The Obama State Department told us the Iran deal was “open and transparent” – except for all of those secret side-deals which ran contrary to the talking points and assurances used to sell the program to a distrustful population. And Trump promised he would be tough on Iran and their nuclear ambitions.

During a speech at AIPAC's Policy Conference, Trump explained how he would deal with Iran as president. He said, "My number one priority is to dismantle the disastrous deal with Iran. I have been in business a long time. I know deal-making and let me tell you, this deal is catastrophic - for America, for Israel, and for the whole Middle East. The problem here is fundamental. We have rewarded the world's leading state sponsor of terror with $150 billion and we received absolutely nothing in return. I've studied this issue in greater detail than almost anybody.

The biggest concern with the deal is not necessarily that Iran is going to violate it, although it already has, the bigger problem is that they can keep the terms and still get to the bomb by simply running out the clock, and, of course, they keep the billions.

The deal doesn’t even require Iran to dismantle its military nuclear capability! Yes, it places limits on its military nuclear program for only a certain number of years. But when those restrictions expire, Iran will have an industrial-size military nuclear capability ready to go, and with zero provision for delay no matter how bad Iran's behavior is.

When I am president, I will adopt a strategy that focuses on three things when it comes to Iran. First, we will stand up to Iran’s aggressive push to destabilize and dominate the region. Iran is a very big problem and will continue to be, but if I'm elected President, I know how to deal with trouble. ... Secondly, we will totally dismantle Iran’s global terror network. Iran has seeded terror groups all over the world. During the last five years, Iran has perpetrated terror attacks in 25 different countries on five continents. They’ve got terror cells everywhere, including in the western hemisphere very close to home. Iran is the biggest sponsor of terrorism around the world and we will work to dismantle that reach. Third, at the very least, we must hold Iran accountable by restructuring the terms of the previous deal. Iran has already - since the deal is in place - test-fired ballistic missiles three times. Those ballistic missiles, with a range of 1,250 miles, were designed to intimidate not only Israel, which is only 600 miles away but also intended to frighten Europe, and, someday, the United States." <Source>

And, now we find the Trump Administration lying through its teeth by “certifying” that Iran is in compliance with Obama’s nuclear deal …   

state-department-logo

Press Statement
Rex W. Tillerson, Secretary of State
Washington, DC (April 18, 2017)


Trump Administration Undergoing Interagency Review of Iran Deal

The U.S. Department of State certified to U.S. House Speaker Paul Ryan today that Iran is compliant through April 18th with its commitments under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. However, the Secretary also raised concerns about Iran’s role as a state sponsor of terrorism and alerted Congress to an effort directed by the President to evaluate whether continuing to lift sanctions would be in U.S. national security interests.

"Iran remains a leading state sponsor of terror, through many platforms and methods. President Donald J. Trump has directed a National Security Council-led interagency review of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action that will evaluate whether suspension of sanctions related to Iran pursuant to the JCPOA is vital to the national security interests of the United States."


The Full Text of the Letter:

April 18, 2017

The Honorable Paul D. Ryan
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Mr. Speaker:

This letter certifies that the conditions of Section 135(d)(6) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (AEA), as amended, including as amended by the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 (Public Law 114-17), enacted May 22, 2015, are met as of April 18, 2017.

[OCS: Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is lying to Congress, and by extension, the Trump Administration is lying to the American people. There is adequate proof that Iran is continuing to develop its nuclear capabilities under the Trump Administration as it has done with the Obama Administration. Unfortunately, the Trump Administration is continuing to allow Obama holdover personnel to deal with Iran as if Obama never left office.]

Notwithstanding, Iran remains a leading state sponsor of terror through many platforms and methods. President Donald J. Trump has directed a National Security Council-led interagency review of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) that will evaluate whether suspension of sanctions related to Iran pursuant to the JCPOA is vital to the national security interests of the United States. When the interagency review is completed, the administration looks forward to working with Congress on this issue.

[OCS: Giving the appearance of action where no significant forward movement exists.]

Sincerely,

Rex W. Tillerson

<Source: Department of State>

There is no doubt that Iran has violated the negotiated nuclear deal and should be subject to sanctions … 

The publicly known reasons that Iran is not in compliance with the JCPOA include:

- Iran is not allowing International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors access to military sites.  If Iran is engaged in covert nuclear weapons work, this is where it is taking place.  As long as Iran refuses to allow the IAEA unfettered access to all military sites, it is not in compliance with the JCPOA and the international community cannot be confident that Iran’s nuclear weapons program has been halted.

- According to a March 3, 2017 report by the Institute for Science and International Security, Iran has produced and stockpiled more heavy-water than it is allowed under the JCPOA and is storing some heavy-water outside of Iran. Heavy-water is a proliferation concern because it can be used in a nuclear reactor design that produces large amounts of plutonium, a nuclear weapons fuel. 

- The Institute report also said that although a February 2017 IAEA report claimed Iran was in compliance with a commitment to limit its stockpile of reactor-grade uranium to 300 kg, it only met this cap because the JCPOA’s Joint Commission granted Iran exemptions to exclude several quantities of enriched uranium from the cap. Concerning the IAEA’s reporting on this issue, the Institute report said the IAEA was being forced to use “convoluted and potentially deceptive language.”

Although the above violations are serious, it is worth stressing that Iran can continue making progress in its nuclear weapons program without violating the JCPOA since the deal allows it to enrich uranium with over 5,000 centrifuges, develop and test advanced centrifuges and construct a plutonium-producing heavy-water reactor. As Israeli Ambassador to the United States put it in an April 14, 2017 Wall Street Journal oped, the JCPOA “is so inherently flawed that Tehran doesn’t even have to break it. Honoring it will be enough to endanger millions of lives.” <Source>

Bottom line …

The real threat to America is not regional nuclear weapons, but Iran’s insistence – along with North Korea – to build Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles that are capable of projecting a nuclear weapon into the United States itself. There is nothing in the Obama-negotiated deal that curtails the development of long-range weaponry that can be used against the United States.\

Whether through laziness, incompetence, or deception, President Donald Trump needs to be reminded that words have meaning and that he will be held accountable for his actions while in office. This is not one of his dodgy deals where he can walk away from failure by removing his name from signage and disavow the horrible management for any problems and adverse consequences.

While Donald Trump probably believes what he is saying at the moment, changing his story to fit his audience or “winging it” will be his downfall.

We are so screwed.

-- steve


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



TRUMP GOES GLOBAL IN SAUDI ARABIA

A-GLOBAL-TRUMP


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



JUSTICE RUTH BADER GINSBURG: ASLEEP AT THE SWITCH?

There is no better illustration of why America needs a 5th Amendment Convention of the States to impose term limits on the judiciary. In the present instance, we find Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, 84, unable to keep her eyes open during official functions. While she may be the darling of the socialists and communists at the ACLU where she served as Chief Counsel, she is unfit for office. In fact, like many of the older members of the court, the actual work is done by Court Clerks, all of whom attempt to write within the ideology and style of the Justice they are serving. It is time for Ruth Bader Ginsburg to resign and retire. 

Since no cameras are allowed in court, here is the next best thing, an artist’s capturing Ruth Bader Ginsburg snoozing while listening to a case being argued …

rbg-2

A recent email the lefties are circulating to urge Ruth Bader Ginsberg to hold on …

The following sponsored email was sent to you by AlterNet on behalf of Fight for Reform:

SIGN IF YOU AGREE: Ruth Bader Ginsburg is one of the BEST Supreme Court Justices in our lifetime >>


Trump may have been able to appoint another Big Money Justice to the Supreme Court -- BUT thankfully, Ruth isn’t going anywhere!

rb1

We think that Ruth is one of the best Supreme Court Justices in history. She has fought endlessly against Big Money in politics.

Add your name if you agree that Ruth is one of the BEST Supreme Court Justices of our lifetime:

SIGN YOUR NAME >>

We know that Trump wants Ruth GONE. He’s desperate to get her off the Court for good:

tr-1

That’s why we have to stand with Ruth. We need to collect 1O,OOO signatures to say that Ruth is one of the best Justices in history. Please, add your name NOW!

http:// <redacted>/Ruth-Is-Great

-<redacted>.org

Paid political advertisement paid for and provided in kind by End Citizens United Nonfederal, 1050 17th Street, NW Suite 590, Washington, DC 20036.

AlterNet | 1881 Harmon St. Berkeley CA 94703

Even at important state functions, Ginsburg is hard-pressed to stay awake …

rbg1

One of the most amazing facts about Justice Ginsburg is that she was a close personal friend of her ideological opposite, the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia with whom she used to vacation.

Ginsburg’s Statement on the passing of Antonin Scalia …

Toward the end of the opera Scalia/Ginsburg, tenor Scalia and soprano Ginsburg sing a duet: "We are different, we are one," different in our interpretation of written texts, one in our reverence for the Constitution and the institution we serve.

From our years together at the D.C. Circuit, we were best buddies. We disagreed now and then, but when I wrote for the Court and received a Scalia dissent, the opinion ultimately released was notably better than my initial circulation.

Justice Scalia nailed all the weak spots — the "applesauce" and "argle bargle"—and gave me just what I needed to strengthen the majority opinion. He was a jurist of captivating brilliance and wit, with a rare talent to make even the most sober judge laugh.

The press referred to his "energetic fervor," "astringent intellect," "peppery prose," "acumen," and "affability," all apt descriptions. He was eminently quotable, his pungent opinions so clearly stated that his words never slipped from the reader's grasp.

Justice Scalia once described as the peak of his days on the bench an evening at the Opera Ball when he joined two Washington National Opera tenors at the piano for a medley of songs. He called it the famous Three Tenors performance.

He was, indeed, a magnificent performer. It was my great good fortune to have known him as working colleague and treasured friend.

Bottom line …

It is time to urge your state legislators to call for a 5th Amendment Convention of the States to return America to our Constitutional roots where the checks and balances between the three branches of government are restored, there are limitations on torturing the language of the various clauses to allow the federal government to accrete power belonging to the states or “we the people,” and to impose term limits on our elected officials to destroy professional politicians that place themselves above our nation.

If nothing else, President Donald Trump may become best known as the President who returned the Supreme Court of the United States to centrist conservatism from a Court serving the radical progressive agenda of destroying America from within. A magnificent accomplishment that is worthy of historical note.

Until then, we continue to be screwed.

-- steve


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



WILL TRUMP'S LACK OF EMOTIONAL INTELLIGENCE BE HIS UNDOING?

dt-xf

There is little doubt that Donald Trump, as a sitting President, is unqualified by knowledge, experience, and temperament to be the President of the United States.  And unlike the sycophants that openly and enthusiastically admired the Emperor’s New Clothes, I will remain a constitutional conservative as I respectfully decline to board the Trump bandwagon. Not for a minute do I believe that Trump’s behavior is any part of a grand scheme to circumvent the mainstream media to communicate with the American public. His self-inflicted wounds are more reminiscent of a petulant five-year-old throwing a temper tantrum.

Why would anyone, especially the President of the United States, stoop to openly disparaging a high-ranking official after terminating their services?

That Firing ‘Nut Job’ Comey Eased Pressure From Investigation

President Trump told Russian officials in the Oval Office this month that firing the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, had relieved “great pressure” on him, according to a document summarizing the meeting. “I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job,” Mr. Trump said, according to the document, which was read to The New York Times by an American official. “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.” Mr. Trump added, “I’m not under investigation.” The conversation, during a May 10 meeting — the day after he fired Mr. Comey — reinforces the notion that Mr. Trump dismissed him primarily because of the bureau’s investigation into possible collusion between his campaign and Russian operatives. Mr. Trump said as much in one televised interview, but the White House has offered changing justifications for the firing.  <Source: The New York Times>

Three possibilities …

  1. The remarks attributed to President Trump, characteristic of his past public behavior and tweets, is true and accurate as reported. This would indicate that Trump’s lack of emotional intelligence and maturity is now becoming an impediment to Trump’s presidency as he keeps shooting himself in the foot and arousing opposition anger where none need exist. Definitely not the demeanor and comportment of a serious man and the President of the United States.
  1. The person reading this transcript to The New York Times may very well have their own agenda and is attempting to damage President Trump and his presidency on behalf of themselves or their political ideology.
  1. This is an example of the unsourced “fake news” that is a staple of the progressive mainstream media such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times and other so-called “journalistic” enterprises.

Loyalty is a two-way street …

As with former President Obama, President Trump appears to dissemble and throw people under the bus should things go South. His management style always alternated between “you’re the greatest” and “you are a total loser” depending on the degree of necessity for Trump's agenda and the level of Trump-flattery. Like Obama, claiming ignorance of any significant adverse events.

Consider the case of Trump’s allegedly hand-picked chief executive of Trump Mortgage, E. J. Ridings, who was introduced by Trump  as a “top executive at one of Wall Street’s most prestigious investment banks.”  In fact, Ridings “was a registered stockbroker with Dean Witter Reynolds for a total of six days, and an entry-level loan originator at a boutique mortgage company for a little over a year.” It turns out that Ridings was a friend of Donald Trump, Jr. and Trump Mortgage was little more than a company that licensed Trump’s name. <Source>  Trump’s explanation: “We weren’t happy with them and we terminated them based on the fact they were not doing what they said they were going to do.”  Trump knew nobody and nothing about the matter.

Trump does not seem to actually vet his associates, some associated with organized crime (to be expected in New York real estate and construction). Why is it that I and others thought Michael Flynn sold out to the Russians when he offered to do military and statecraft commentary on RT (a totally-owned propaganda operation of the Kremlin)? Even the rising number of conflicts of interest among his family and the lobbyists he appointed is recognizable to anyone who might Google their names and read their Wikipedia entries. A low vetting threshold to be sure, but a necessary one.

Bottom line …

Trump is definitely not a traditional President. He appears to be an uncouth ego-driven bully who apparently believes he can be a “helicopter president” – dropping in, making a decision, and then departing for Mar-a-Lago for the weekend. Perhaps he is the right man at the right time, serving to shake up the traditional politicians, our allies, and our enemies after the disastrous presidency of Barack Obama, a man who did more harm to the United States than former President Jimmy Carter who gave us the Islamo-fascist regime in Iran and helped nuclearize North Korea by interfering with Bill Clinton’s nuclear talks.

Perhaps the only prudent thing to save the Presidency is to shut-down Trump’s access to Twitter.

We are so screwed.

-- steve


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



DILBERT: SCOTT ADAMS NAILS GLOBAL WARMING SCIENCE AND ANNOYS THE LIBERALS ...

As a technologist, I have loved and followed cartoonist/social commentator Scott Adam’s Dilbert series from the beginning. Most containing that uncomfortable kernel of truth that is both entertaining and educational. There is little doubt in my mind that this particular strip on global warming is not only spot on, but if the comments of some of my friends can be globalized, it is greatly annoying the progressive socialist democrats who believe that Scott Adams is one of them. Unfortunately, ideology is not funny – funny is funny, ideology be damned.

dilbert

Let’s analyze …

Science – the magic word that the progressives use to compel ordinary people to suspend belief and to allow ideologues to pursue an agenda that is detrimental to their freedom, person, and wallet.

Scientist – in the realm of global climate change, a scientist is a shill for the politicians, hoping that few will notice that they have compromised their souls in order for their institutions and projects to be able to attract funding from the politicians and special interests who have a pre-ordained agenda.

Global catastrophe – nothing is media-worthy if it does not contain a dire threat to humanity and the planet. Unfortunately, few notice that global climate cycles are thousands of years long if not longer. Nothing is imminent and confusing short term weather effects with global climate change is only one of the deceptions perpetrated by the politicians and their captive media.

Starting with the science – there is nothing more reassuring to the public than scientific efforts which start with the basics, physics and chemistry – although physicists would argue that chemistry is simply applied physics.

Measure – measurements are good. Except when we have too few data points to really measure global impact and some of those data points are created by ill-sited measuring stations or dodgy proxies like tree-rings and ice cores.

Models – I have met few people that do not automatically accept the output of a computer as gospel; even ignoring the basic principle of “garbage-in, garbage-out.” In global climate models we have incomplete and flawed models that are using pre-digested and homogenized data to produce those wonderfully dramatic graphics that are scaled for impact. Seeing that “hockey-stick” pattern is certainly more impressive than telling you that the actual fluctuation is plus or minus 3.8 degrees Celsius. And, overlooking in most cases, that the decimal point precision is a construct of computation and implies a precision that is non-existent as man’s overall climate signal is lost in the noise of climate’s normal variability. Scott is spot-on when he notes that the output of computer models that do not agree with the fashionable science of the moment is often discarded. Truth-be-told, most of the models are tweaked and tuned to replicate historic patterns and fail miserably when used to project the future.

About those economic models – Nobel Laureate and Economist Hayek pointed out that adopting the trappings and mathematical methodology  of the physical sciences did not imbue chaotic economic studies with any more certitude than a probabilistic coin-toss. These models are the tools of the politicians and special interests to convince everyone that politicians are spending your money wisely. A big lie that is revealed by anyone looking at the billions in waste fraud and abuse in governmental operations and contracting each year.

Science deniers – Again Adams is spot-on as the progressives label anyone who questions their dodgy science, economics, and agenda with pejorative labels.

Michael Mann, climate alarmist cheerleader appears to acknowledges that it is him that is being parodied …

mm-1

A pathetic pushback …  mm-3

mm4

Bottom line …

Read Dilbert. Buy Scott Adams’ books. And, you will become a more enlightened person with a fine-tuned bullsh*t detector – and one that can laugh at the vagaries of life. Progressives, ignore the above and crucify the bastard for not adhering to the progressive's agenda – or, at the very least, do not invite him to those cool wine-cheese-drug-sex parties you hold high in the Hollywood hills.

We are so screwed.


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



HOW STUPID IS FORMER FBI DIRECTOR JAMES COMEY?

comey-clouseau

Comey appears to be guilty of either politicizing the FBI or malfeasance or possibly both …

Consider former FBI Director James Comey’s apparent interference with a Presidential election. Consider Comey’s usurpation of the decision-making authority of a sitting United States Attorney General and her sitting Deputy. If the Attorney General were compromised by the Bill Clinton-Loretta Lynch secret meeting on the tarmac before the conclusion of the Clinton e-mail investigation, the decision-making power would be transferred after a recusal to the Deputy Attorney General. Yet, we find James Comey taking it upon himself to announce that the Department of Justice will not prosecute Hillary Clinton because no reasonable attorney would bring such a case. And, then taking the unprecedented step of laying out a damaging case against a person who will not be charged, Hillary Clinton, and then deliberately misinterpreting the controlling statute to include the non-existent element of “intent” where no such element was contemplated by legislators. In fact, there are people who have or who are currently serving prison time for unintentionally mishandling classified information. Not to mention defying an order to investigate media leaks. Not to mention never resolving issues related to crimes committed by IRS, BATFE, and State Department employees.

Once again, we find the actions of former FBI Director Jim Comey to be deeply troubling …

In an apparent high-stakes game of chicken with the President of the United States, Comey or someone close to Comey leaked a portion of a memo of a conversation containing alleged contemporaneous notes taken after a meeting with President Trump. Other such memos are said to exist but have not been described as to nature, number, or frequency with which they were added to the official files.

Comey Memo Says Trump Asked Him to End Flynn Investigation

President Trump asked the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, to shut down the federal investigation into Mr. Trump’s former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, in an Oval Office meeting in February, according to a memo Mr. Comey wrote shortly after the meeting. “I hope you can let this go,” the president told Mr. Comey, according to the memo. The documentation of Mr. Trump’s request is the clearest evidence that the president has tried to directly influence the Justice Department and F.B.I. investigation into links between Mr. Trump’s associates and Russia. <Source: New York Times>

If James Comey believed that President Trump was trying to influence his investigation of Flynn and sat on his hands for months, he might be guilty of a federal crime. 

18 U.S. Code § 4 - Misprision of felony

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 684; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(G), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

(1994—Pub. L. 103–322 substituted “fined under this title” for “fined not more than $500”.) [OCS: Upon conviction, Comey would also be disbarred and lose his ability to practice law.]

If James Comey did not believe President Trump was trying to influence his investigation of Flynn, one would have to wonder why he wrote the leaked memo and was he trying to blackmail the President of the United States at some later date? Since his termination as the Director of the FBI came without warning, it is believable that the memo was squirreled away for use at a later time.

Bottom line …

The revelation that Comey wrote contemporaneous memos now suggests that he may have memos covering meetings with Attorneys General Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch and others involving significant scandals that occurred during the Obama era. These are the type of revelations that can destroy reputations and result in criminal charges. If Comey fails to produce other documents, then he may appear to look like he politicized the FBI and/or may be obstructing justice.

Another tangled web woven by Washington’s elite masterminds. The bright side is that President Obama can no longer exert privileges over documents that are clearly not presidential.

We are so screwed.

-- steve

P.S.  Originally I had high hopes for Director Comey who I believed was a stand-up guy at the time. However, there is no doubt in my mind that Comey's handling of the Clinton matter was totally wrong and compromised both himself and the FBI. How Comey could give Hillary Clinton a pass by altering the law in her favor while simultaneously laying out the case against her. Puzzling was Comey's comment that no DOJ prosecutor would bring the case -- although the case was clear, convincing, and decisive. It is my belief that the deciding factor was that he might have believed Hillary Clinton would become the President. Maybe he did it for America and to avert a deeply troubling national crisis -- but that was not his job or place. I just re-watched the 60-Minutes segment on Jim Comey ( http://www.onecitizenspeaking.com/2014/10/is-60-minutes-selling-fbi-director-james-comey-as-the-next-us-attorney-general.html) and my impression was totally different: well-spoken, telegenic, and possibly self-serving disingenuous. 


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



DID THE FBI MAKE A YUGE MISTAKE IN APPOINTING A SPECIAL COUNSEL?

comey-clouseau

I can’t help but wonder if the FBI is attempting to cover their own collective asses in light of their behavior during the investigations of Obama’s scandals and the ginned-up Trump/Russia affair? Appointing the former director of the FBI as the special counsel raises the subject of institutional ass-covering and an attempt at credibility restoration. 

Former FBI Director Mueller Appointed Special Counsel To Oversee Russia Probe

The Justice Department is appointing former FBI Director Robert Mueller as a special counsel to oversee the growing probe into Russian meddling in the 2016 election and possible ties between the Trump campaign.

[OCS: it remains to be seen what powers are granted to Mueller as there is a great deal of difference between a “special counsel”and a “special prosecutor” with wide-ranging powers, a large budget, no time restrictions, and overseeing an investigation that may not be limited to just investigating the matter at hand.]

"In my capacity as acting Attorney General, I determined that it is in the public interest for me to exercise my authority and appoint a Special Counsel to assume responsibility for this matter," Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said in a statement.

"My decision is not a finding that crimes have been committed or that any prosecution is warranted. I have made no such determination," Rosenstein continued. "What I have determined is that based upon the unique circumstances, the public interest requires me to place this investigation under the authority of a person who exercises a degree of independence from the normal chain of command."

[OCS: It appears that the unique circumstances also include malfeasance and the politicization of the FBI and its leadership. Especially, Comey’s handling of the Clinton affair and all of those non-investigation/investigations of Fast and Furious, the IRS scandal, the wiretapping of a reporter and his family, Benghazi where the FBI walked over evidence (the Ambassador’s diary found by the media after the FBI left), and other matters.] 

<Source>

I would also note that former FBI Director Mueller was appointed in 2001 and served in the position until 2013. And, his term in office was extended two years beyond the normal 10-year tenure by none other than former President Barack Obama.

The risks to Trump ...

The Trump Administration will always be tainted with the false allegations that there may have been collusion between the Trump Administration and the Russians with respect to the election. Lest they forget, John Kennedy and his pal John Tunney did make contact with the Russians explicitly to thwart the election of Ronald Reagan.

And, I am concerned that Mueller -- a political being no matter what anyone claims -- will attempt to justify the existence of a special counsel by inventing a "procedural crime" like not telling the truth to a federal investigator post facto. The very same thing that happened to Scooter Libby -- even though the investigators knew well in advance who had leaked the identity of Valerie Plame.

The Democrats, having been decimated and losing the House, the Senate, the Presidency, and numerous governorships and house legislatures, is on the ropes and will stoop at nothing to delegitimize Trump and attempt to remove him from office.  Unfortunately, Trump cannot play the race card like Obama to excuse himself from taking responsibility for his actions.

Bottom line …

  • Personally, I want to know why the leadership of the IRS was not fully investigated and prosecuted for various acts including obstruction of justice, destruction of government records, perjury, and the interference with a presidential election by limiting fundraising to one opposition party?
  • Personally, I want to know why the leadership of the BATFE was not fully investigated and prosecuted for illegal gun running to Mexican drug cartels to provide a reason for increased domestic gun controls – and which resulted in numerous deaths including a Border Patrol agent?
  • Personally, I want to know why certain White House officials were not investigated and prosecuted for perjury and potential illegal gun running to Islamic terrorists in Benghazi?
  • And, personally, I want to know why Hillary Clinton was not prosecuted for perjury, obstruction of justice, destroying government documents, public corruption, and the Espionage Act?

And, what if the Democrats knew that it was their (murdered) employee at the DNC who provided the DNC documents to WikiLeaks? Then what does one do about the Democrat’s finger-pointing at Russia? Remember, the DNC refused to allow the FBI access to their server to determine if it was hacked by a foreign sovereign power.

It is a bitch when you cannot trust your government officials, especially the President of the United States, the Attorney General, the Director of the FBI, the Director of the IRS, and others to tell the truth – even under oath. Let us give Mueller the benefit of the doubt, for now, and see what he finds.

We are so screwed.

-- steve


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



GLORIA STEINEM: ABORTION PREVENTS GLOBAL WARMING

In numerous posts, I have posited that the progressive socialist democrats were locked into the false narrative of a Malthusian worldview which demands that natural resources be conserved by some central authority for the benefit of the people and future generations.

Basically, the theory states that population tends to increase at a faster rate than its means of subsistence and that unless it is checked by moral restraint or by disease, famine, war, or other disaster widespread poverty and degradation inevitably result.

A relatively old 18th-century viewpoint that does not take into account that nature appears to be a self-correcting mechanism and that adaptation, science, and technology can provide sustainable living and sustenance far beyond that which was imagined in the times of Malthus.

It is all about population control which is congruent with the socialist/communist viewpoint of an elite cadre of enlightened individuals from academia being able to centrally plan economies and standards of living.

Unfortunately, the entire viewpoint is anti-American as it stresses that people are unexceptional population units to be managed and not individuals with freedoms and should be free to own property and pursue their own self-interests. And, it also explains the progressive socialist democrat's interest in eugenics, abortion, feminism, homosexuality, and the redefinition of the sexual agenda to non-reproductive areas. Unfortunately, much of the third-world has yet to get the message and remains unchecked until they encounter a Malthusian catastrophe lie disease, war, famine, or other disaster. One might even go so far as to suggest that this evil viewpoint of the socialists and communists led to the acceptance of widespread human-made famine among socialist and communist nations. Or, the reason the United Nations banned DDT causing the deaths of millions. In fact, it appears that most disease controls were aimed at protecting first world nations with little regard for the masses in faraway lands.

feminism

Here is an example of this boneheaded thinking …

Feminist Icon Gloria Steinem: More Abortions Would Stop Global Warming

In a recent interview with Refinery 29, Gloria Steinem said climate change could have been prevented if more women had aborted their children.

She explained “climate deprivation” is caused by population and that more abortions would’ve prevented the earth’s temperature from ticking upwards.

Listen, what causes climate deprivation is population. If we had not been systematically forcing women to have children they don’t want or can’t care for over the 500 years of patriarchy, we wouldn’t have the climate problems that we have. That’s the fundamental cause of climate change. Even if the Vatican doesn’t tell us that. In addition to that, because women are the major agricultural workers in the world, and also the carriers of water and the feeders of families and so on, it’s a disproportionate burden. <Source>

Ah, the wisdom of vaginal science and politics. I wonder if Steinem realizes that feminism is a political construct that is more acceptable to first world nations and that population growth in undeveloped nations is often considered an asset – especially if a large proportion of that population is exported into more desirable first-world countries as a means of culture and political change as well as a stream of return money flow to the homeland?

One need only look to the shrill shrieks of progressive socialist democrat Rosie O’Donnell and her political rants to understand it is not about their rights, but curtailing your freedom and telling you how to live your life.

Bottom line …

Feminism, like all of the other modes of victimhood that are based on class, race, gender, sexual preference, etc. are simply Marxist constructs to divide the people into manageable groups with real or perceived grievances that can be remedied only by ceding funding and political power to a select group of “enlightened” politicians who claim to represent the people. Unfortunately, centralizing power ignores human nature and the natural propensity to do anything, fair or foul, to gain, maintain, and then consolidate power in perpetuity. A prescription for a totalitarian government ruling over unexceptional population units without using the word slavery.

According to Marxist feminists, like Gloria Steinem, women's liberation can only be achieved through a revolution, bringing about a radical replacement of the capitalist economy, in much of women's labor is uncompensated, in favor of a social justice system such as socialism/communism.

There is nothing wrong with equality and justice, except when it is used to redefine, restrict, or redistribute our inalienable rights.

We are so screwed.

-- steve


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



ANOTHER PROGRESSIVE TRIES TO CLAIM THAT CONSENSUS IS SCIENCE ...

With the recognition that the climate is always changing and has since the formation of Earth’s atmosphere, I call bullsh*t …

(1) Science funded by a single sponsor (the government) with a known agenda (use science to justify draconian public policies that advance a political agenda) introduces a bias toward funding those institutions, scientists, and projects that are likely to produce results favorable to the single sponsor. Funds to research contrary beliefs and hypotheses, or to falsify fashionable research conducted by noted institutions and individuals is less forthcoming.

(2) Unfortunately, the fix was in on the day that the IPCC’s (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) global framework specified that research was to be conducted on anthropogenic (man-made) global warming and not so much the natural drivers of climate change such as the Sun’s energy output in all spectral bands, the Earth’s position relative to the Sun, cosmic rays affecting cloud formation, the rotational and precessional dynamics of the Earth, the Earth’s vulcanology and plate tectonics, deep ocean currents, and the greatest greenhouse gas, water vapor (clouds).

To be noted, the IPCC is a body comprised of politicians and bureaucrats who write reports using cherry-picked peer-reviewed scientific papers to present its apparently pre-ordained (and reason for the IPCC’s existence) conclusion that it is man that affects the climate to the point of creating a planetary emergency which demands greater political control over economies and individuals. The road is headed to a one-world totalitarian approach to governance. Also to be noted, the peer-review process is a publishing process to insure that what is being published adheres to the journal's guidelines, is clear and unambiguous as possible, and is not a crackpot theory. The reviewers do not review the methodology, the findings, and express no opinion on the research. We have seen corruption in the peer-review process where a small number of reviewers, with a particular viewpoint, review each other’[s work.

(3) In fact, it appears that man’s climate contribution signal is lost among the noise of climate’s natural variability. And, to avoid considering the long time frames (thousands, tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands) of climate cycles, most temperature readings are measured as anomalies – deviations from a man-selected 30-year baseline – that can be highly manipulated by statistical procedures that introduce error through the process of homogenization. Considering that the terrestrial datasets have been corrupted beyond repair (the original raw data lost over time), the only true dataset is a relatively short term satellite record that differs greatly from the computer models used to assert a case for global warming. Not to mention the scarcity of correctly sited and monitored recording station that cannot be used to develop global projections. Similar to sampling polar bears in a small, accessible region by air and making estimates of the global polar bear populations of a million square miles.

(4) Scientists do not vote on whether or not something is a physical reality. Therefore, a consensus is a political process that merely reinforces the fashionable science of the day – much like the consensus that determined that the Sun rotated around the Earth. In fact, if we look closely at the actual scientific papers that are used to create this so-called consensus, they are filled with qualifications and uncertainties; and not one contains public policy recommendations to deal with the ongoing phenomenon of climate changes.

(5) For those pursuing a political agenda, one attacks the source of information rather than the information itself. One mark of intellectual dishonesty is an ad hominem attack on the research author rather than refuting the research on a scientific basis.

(6) Here we have a video based on a research paper written by someone who studies climate change communications which appear to be a polite way of saying advertising research to sell the public on ceding control to the politicians using specious science.

 

How very intellectual – another nonsensical argument supporting consensus as science …  

How to Recognize ‘Science Denial’
by John Cook May 15, 2017

Climate change, scientific consensus, and fake experts

Editor’s Note: This essay is a critique of Oren Cass’s cover story in the May 1, 2017, issue of National Review, “Who’s the Denier Now?” Mr. Cass responds, here.

There is a consensus of evidence that human activity is causing all of recent global warming. Not some of it. Not even most of it. All of it.

[OCS: This statement is so intellectually dishonest as to beyond belief. The use of the word evidence, especially the results of flawed or incomplete computer modeling using highly manipulated data, is unbelievable. And, that there would be a consensus denying the impact of nature on global warming (after a recognized 18+ year hiatus in the warming trend) is beyond the pale.]

Numerous studies have quantified the human contribution to global warming since the mid 20th century. Most estimates cluster around 100 percent. In fact, the best estimate is slightly over 100 percent. Various natural factors such as changes in solar activity, volcanoes, and wobbles in the Earth’s orbit have likely contributed slight cooling in recent decades.

[OCS: One, notice the very short cherry-picked time frame starting in the mid-20th century. Not a sufficient time scale to deal with the geologic time proportions of the global climate phenomenon. Two, not the use of the word estimate without any indication of the confidence level or error tolerance. Three, to claim that the best estimate is slightly over 100 percent is ludicrous as well as meaningless. The idea that nature is the minor feedback to man’s major activities instead of the other way around beggars the imagination. And four, the author acknowledges a slight cooling in recent decades, but makes no mention of how this phenomenon can exist in the face of rising atmospheric carbon dioxide which the “experts” and “scientists” tell us is the proximate cause of global warming.] 

hc-1 Based on this evidence, around 97 percent of climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming. Again, this estimate isn’t based on a single survey. Rather, it’s based on a number of studies using a variety of independent methods. This includes surveys of scientists, analysis of public statements by scientists, and analyses of peer-reviewed climate research.

I co-authored a synthesis of the studies into scientific consensus on climate change. Two features jumped out at us from the research. First, as scientists’ expertise in climate science gets stronger, so too does their agreement that humans are causing global warming.

Second, among the scientists with the greatest expertise — climate scientists publishing climate research — there is 90 to 100 percent consensus with a number of estimates converging on 97 percent.

sq-1

[OCS: This is a meaningless illustration that provides the illusion of the scientific nature of a consensus viewpoint. What is not mention is how the scientific papers for the consensus were selected and if the papers specifically excluded credible papers from opposing viewpoints. And, let us not forget that not all credible and valuable research appears in peer-reviewed journals.]

That scientific agreement increases with climate expertise has been exploited by those looking to cast doubt on expert consensus. Unfortunately, it’s all-too-easy to mislead people into thinking that experts disagree on human-caused global warming. Just select a group of scientists with lower levels of expertise in climate science and portray their opinions as expert agreement. Or take it a step further and try it with non-scientists, which seems to work almost as well. If you want to work out whether you’re getting taken in with the fake-expert strategy, take a closer look at the “experts” who are being cited.

[OCS: There have been well-educated, well-credentialed experts with significant expertise who have come to the wrong conclusion about a physical phenomenon. One merely needs to see the array of scientific experts who refused to believe Einstein’s theories, to see the falsity of equating expertise with certitude of findings. In fact, Einstein rejected much of the science of quantum mechanics and you would admit he was smart, well-educated, and had extraordinary expertise in his field of theoretical physics. Not to mention the number of well-credentialed people who reject the idea of string theory which requires complex mathematics and extra dimensions to work.] 

The most egregious example of the fake-expert strategy is the Global Warming Petition Project. This lists over 31,000 people with a science degree who signed a statement claiming that humans aren’t disrupting climate. This petition is held up as evidence against expert consensus on climate change. The flaw in this petition? Only 0.1 percent of the signatories actually have expertise in climate science. A mind-boggling 99.9 percent of the petition signatories are not climate scientists. This is fake experts in bulk.

[OCS: I agree, especially knowing that the IPCC is comprised of mostly politicians and bureaucrats and that numerous credible people without credentials in atmospheric chemistry have also opined on global climate change. Especially those who use climate proxies such as tree rings to asset a case for global warming. Michael Mann (of hockey stick fame) is a well-credentialed physicist who became interested in paleoclimatology and will his collaborators set about reconstructing the climate record from tree rings. The fact that he refused to provide his research data to other scientists for replication and may have used “Mike’s trick” of grafting actual temperature data to his tree ring observations has introduced a large helping of skepticism into the field of climate science, especially after the revelations of Climategate I and Climategate II.

If one were intellectually honest, one would independently test the hypothesis to validate or nullify the hypothesis rather than attacking the researcher.]

This brings us Oren Cass’s cover story in the May 1, 2017, issue of National Review, “Who’s the Denier Now?” Before we get to consensus and fake experts, it’s instructive to begin where Cass begins — on the topic of the term “climate denier.” I agree with Cass that equating the rejection of climate science to holocaust denial is inappropriate. Rather, a less rhetorical and more evidence-based approach is to look to the scientific research into the phenomenon of science denial.

Science denial, as a behavior rather than a label, is a consequential and not-to-be ignored part of society. Denial of the link between HIV and AIDS caused hundreds of thousands of deaths in South Africa. Vaccination denial has allowed preventable diseases to make a comeback. When people ignore important messages from science, the consequences can be dire. And if we fail to understand how science denial works, that makes us vulnerable to being misled by the techniques of denial.

[OCS: The author is intellectually dishonest when he uses AIDS/HIV as an example because the United Nations has already admitted to overstating the numbers (counting anyone with a cold and weight loss as being infected) to raise both awareness and funding. Additionally, the denial that HIV/AIDS was predominately spread by gays engaged in risky sexual behavior was politically charged and added to the problematical portrayal of the actual science. To this day, we know being HIV positive does not automatically lead to AIDS, and that you don’t die from AIDS, but from opportunistic infections as a consequence of a compromised immune system. Try to bridge the politics that HIV/AIDS is a predominately gay disease and you will find a great deal of falsity and denial.

A better example would be citing the junk science behind the DDT ban which lead to the deaths of millions and untold suffering in mosquito-active regions. The science did not work – but the politicians (especially those who believed in population control in faraway lands) were delighted to pursue false science for a political agenda.]

How do we recognize science denial? The various movements who have rejected a scientific consensus share the same five characteristics of science denial: reliance on fake experts, using logical fallacies to arrive at false conclusions, demanding impossible expectations of scientific proof, cherry picking from the full body of evidence and conspiracy theories to explain the consensus.

[OCS: The author is one-hundred percent correct about his five characteristics. But he ignores the sixth and most important characteristic: the willingness to lie, exaggerate, or falsify conclusions to advance a personal, professional, political, or profit-making agenda. Perhaps the most significant of the characteristics. Can one cite a reason why the preponderance of global warming advocates are associated with progressive socialist democrat political agendas and believe in the absolute necessity of population control?]

Psychology tells us something important about the five characteristics of science denial. While they may come across as nefarious tactics, they’re not always deliberately deceptive. The traits of denial can also result from unconscious, psychological biases. This means that deliberate deception can be indistinguishable from someone who genuinely believes false arguments.

[OCS: This also applies to the scientist who so strongly believes in their hypothetical construct that the unconsciously bias the experiment, observation, or computer model or interpret the results in a contrary manner. In essence, seeing what we expect and/or wish to observe.]

By way of example, let’s return to the issue of fake experts. Psychological research finds that we tend to ascribe greater expertise to people we agree with. Think of when a person looks through someone else’s music or book collection and exclaims, “You’ve got great taste!” They’re really saying, “You’ve got my taste.”

This unconscious bias makes us vulnerable to reliance on fake experts when they express views we’re sympathetic to. This isn’t necessarily a malevolent strategy. It’s a natural human bias. This is one of the insights gleaned from the science of science denial.

[OCS: There is no “science of science denial” or as the late Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman observed: “any discipline with the name science is not likely to be based on science.” An insight from psychology, yes, but science of science denial?]

Our 2016 survey-of-surveys warns against the fallacy of selecting samples of non-experts to cast doubt on expert consensus:

Low estimates of consensus arise from samples that include non-experts such as scientists (or non-scientists) who are not actively publishing climate research, while samples of experts are consistent in showing overwhelming consensus.

It’s with some degree of irony that Cass quotes figures from our survey-of-surveys to cast doubt on the consensus. He employs the very technique we warn against by using samples including non-experts.

[A survey of surveys is a nonsensical approach to science. Not only do the research papers cover different aspects of the hypothesis, but they all have probability and error margins that are only amplified when you do a survey-of-surveys. You don’t do science by consensus. You certainly don’t do science by surveys. And a survey-of-surveys elevates the science to the realm of nonsensical and useless except for political purposes or publishing a paper.]

For example, Cass cites 82 percent consensus. Let’s take a closer look at where he got this figure. It comes from a 2009 paper by Peter Doran and Maggie Zimmermann, who surveyed a broad group of Earth scientists. This included a variety of scientific disciplines with varying degrees of acceptance of climate change (unsurprisingly, the lowest agreement came from economic geologists). When Doran looked at scientists with the relevant expertise — climate scientists publishing climate research — he found 97 percent consensus.

[OCS: Why would one include an economic geologist – concerned with earth materials that can be monetized – as a proper source of climate information? Of course, smaller samples from a population that directly profits from a particular viewpoint is likely to feature a greater consensus – but this does not mean that their scientific findings or conclusions are accurate, relevant, and useful.]

Similarly, Cass cites a 2014 study (that I co-authored) as evidence that the expert consensus is 85 percent. Rick Santorum also misrepresented this study to cast doubt on the 97 percent consensus. Cass draws on a group that includes non-scientists who hadn’t published peer-reviewed climate papers. When we looked at the relevant experts — scientists who had published climate research — we found 90 percent consensus.

[OCS: Do we really give a crap about one failed presidential candidate and politician may have said. So he misquoted the results. Big effin deal. I would be more concerned when Michael Mann misstates the results and relevance of his work or researchers take tree ring data in Russia and claim it is a global proxy – especially for mid-latitude micro- and macro-climates.]

Overall, our survey-of-surveys found that across the different studies into consensus, expert agreement ranged between 90 to 100 percent. Moreover, we found a number of studies converging on 97 percent consensus. And it’s always important to come back to the fact that this consensus is built on a foundation of independent lines of empirical evidence.

When the evidence converges on a single coherent conclusion, affirmed by a scientific consensus, we can accept the science or we can deny it. How do we tell the difference between genuine scientific skepticism and science denial? The science of science denial identifies distinct, tell-tale characteristics of denial. Understanding those traits is essential to avoid being misled by misinformation.

[OCS: Yada, yada, yada … ]

— Dr. John Cook is a Research Assistant Professor at the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University.

Climate Change & “Science Denial” -- Oren Cass’s “Who’s the Denier Now?” Essay Response | National Review

What does Dr. Cook’s institution really do and are they an unbiased observer?

George Mason University --  Center for Climate Change Communication

As a result of human activity – primarily the burning of fossil fuels – the earth’s climate is becoming dangerously disrupted and destabilized.

Our mission is to develop and apply social science insights to help society make informed decisions that will stabilize the earth’s life-sustaining climate, and prevent further harm from climate change.

To achieve this goal, our center engages in three broad activities: we conduct unbiased communication research; we help government agencies, civic organizations, professional associations, and companies apply social science research to improve their public engagement initiatives; and we train students and professionals with the knowledge and skills necessary to improve public engagement with climate change. <Source>

In their own words, they are a propaganda mill or bullsh*t factory

Bottom line …

The clearest indication of a bullsh*t artist and propagandist is the near certitude in which they state an unproven scientific hypothesis with a near degree of certitude and then challenge those who do not believe as they believe.

Another article to add weight to the “big lie” of climate change. Climate change is a naturally occurring phenomenon that is beyond man’s power to effect. It is not a planetary emergency. And there is no rational need to surrender our system of government, our economy, our culture, and our freedoms to the so-called experts who have made a mess of such places as China, Russia, Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea with their wrong-headed ideas. If the author is lucky, he will be cited in proving the weight on pro-articles is greater than the weight of anti-articles as if that were somehow science and worthy of driving public opinion.

We are so screwed.


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



TIME TO PLAY MUSICAL CHAIRS: TRUMP IS UNHAPPY WITH HIS TEAM?

Almost everybody thought that Trump would adopt the traditional model of the Presidency where time and access were tightly controlled by a strong Chief of Staff who knew how to manage the Office of the Presidency and get things done. But what we appear to be seeing is a loosey-goosey version of the Trump Organization. A menagerie of advisors and fixers walking about – where reason and knowledge appear to be secondary to personal popularity and the degree of public sycophancy.

TRUMP-CHART

A YUGE change coming?

Scoop: Trump, irked at cabinet and staff, mulls sweeping shake-up

At the urging of longtime friends and outside advisers, most of whom he consults after dark, President Trump is considering a "huge reboot" that could take out everyone from Chief of Staff Reince Priebus and chief strategist Steve Bannon, to counsel Don McGahn and press secretary Sean Spicer, White House sources tell me.

The conversations intensified this week as the aftermath of the Comey firing pushed the White House from chaos into crisis. Trump's friends are telling him that many of his top aides don't know how to work with him, and point out that his approval ratings aren't rising, but the leaks are.

If Trump follows through, his innermost White House circle would shrink from a loop to a straight line of mid-30s family members with scant governing experience: Jared and Ivanka. So while the fighting and leaking might ease, the problems may not because it's the president, not the staff, calling the shots.

One note of caution: Trump often talks about firing people when things go south and does not follow through on it. So it's possible these conversations are his way of venting, and seeking reassuranceScoop: Trump, irked at cabinet and staff, mulls sweeping shake-up - Axios

“Venting and seeking reassurance?” Are we living in a world of adults capable of governing the United States? How do you work with an apparently disorganized ego-maniac who requires constant attention and obsequious flattery from sycophants?

Bottom line …

Will this become the Trump Presidential style?

it-hdr

Can anyone really combat inexperience and lack of knowledge when the principal subject believes he can govern the nation on the fly. We are so screwed.

-- steve


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell