One Citizen Speaking

DEMOCRATS: WHAT CHANGED THEIR MIND ON ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION?

In their own words, former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former President Barack Obama, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, former President Bill Clinton, and 2020 Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders all condemn illegal immigration and support protecting American sovereignty. So what changed their minds?

Simple, as the United States became politically polarized and divided, the gap between winning and losing major election narrowed to the point where small clusters of voters could tip the scales in favor of those who were willing to pander to these groups.

The progressive socialist democrats mastered educational indoctrination, the use of our own legal system as a suicidal weapon, and turned the media into their propaganda machine. They mastered the art of projection – ascribing their historical sins of slavery, segregation, anti-civil rights, and un-American activities to the GOP. The engaged in identity politics that furthered racism, bigotry, and division in America.

How can you explain this?

If the video cannot be displayed, it can be found here.

The only explanation is that the progressive socialist democrats will say or do anything to gain or maintain political power. In perpetuity, if possible.

Bottom line …

From their actions, one can only conclude that the Democrat Party has been infiltrated by the socialists and communists to the point where it acts as a fifth column seeking to destroy America from within on behalf of our enemies, both foreign and domestic.

This cannot be allowed to stand or else we are totally and completely screwed and our freedoms forfeit to an ideology that leads to totalitarianism and the rise of the collective state over individual freedoms.

-- steve

DEMOCRATS FEAR HOW AN OPEN MUELLER HEARING WOULD LOOK TO THE PUBLIC

Of course, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) wants Special Counsel Robert Mueller to testify privately, and of course, he is willing to allow Mueller to make a public opening statement and have the transcript of his testimony released to the public after the fact. Full well knowing that transcripts can be edited, but streamed public video tells the whole story. Anything to keep the virulent rancor, clownish behavior, and softball questions from the Democrat majority from being live-streamed or videotaped. Even more worrisome are the GOP questions that will probe Mueller’s selection of a conflicted and partisan team, the use of the Steele material, the involvement of the White House and other Obama Administration agencies, and why he went far beyond his mandate and produced the unprecedented report.

Bottom line…

Congress represents “We the People,” and not the Democrat Party or the Obama Administration. It is time to start telling the truth. WE MUST DEMAND FULL AND COMPLETE DISCLOSURE OF THE COMMITTEE HEARINGS. To the extent that classified or Grand Jury information is sought – let Mueller note the exception and testify in a second closed-door hearing. Timelines and information sources leaked to the media should now be acknowledged.

It is time that claims that classified information protects the national interest be challenged instead of covering-up government wrongdoing.

-- steve

ELIJAH CUMMINGS: PEOPLE IN GLASS HOUSES SHOULDN'T THROW STONES

It is supremely ironic that House Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-MD) has issued a subpoena to obtain 10 years of President Donald Trump’s financial records from his accounting firm Mazars USA. Ostensibly to carry out the committee oversight activities which remain rather vague and constitutionally questionable, especially since the demand for the production of the records includes years when Trump was not running for office or inaugurated as the President of the United States.

It appears that the predicate for the Trump subpoena, according to Cummings, is the statement of a proven liar who has breached client-attorney privilege to protect himself from criminal charges for activities having nothing to do with Donald Trump, as a businessman, as a candidate, or as the president.

“On February 27, 2019, President Trump's longtime former attorney, Michael Cohen, testified before the Committee that the President altered the estimated value of his assets and liabilities on financial statements-including inflating or deflating the value of assets depending on the purpose for which he intended to use the statements.” [OCS: Michael Cohen is a witness that has repeatedly lied to Congress and can hardly be considered a reliable or creditable source. Considering that Congress is not a law enforcement or investigative agency, the matter of shifting valuations, as provided by an individual U.S. citizen operating in the real estate market, is not a legitimate concern for the committee.] “… raise grave questions about whether the President has been accurate in his financial reporting.” [OCS: This is supremely ironic given the implications of the material presented below.] The Committee has full authority to investigate whether the President may have engaged in illegal conduct before and during his tenure in office, to determine whether he has undisclosed conflicts of interest that may impair his ability to make impartial policy decisions, to assess whether he is complying with the Emoluments Clauses of the Constitution, and to review whether he has accurately reported his finances to the Office of Government Ethics and other federal entities. [OCS: If this were the standard to which elected officials are now held, and a raison d'être to launch a prolonged and intrusive investigation of a candidate or elected official, then the Republic has created a “star chamber” and abandoned the protections of the U.S. Constitution. There are only two outcomes: one, a criminal referral to the Department of Justice or impeachment with a trial by the Senate. In regard to an impeachment proceeding, it is unlikely that any crime committed prior to taking office would rise to a high crime or misdemeanor as it is presently understood by non-partisan constitutional scholars.] The Committee's interest in these matters informs its review of multiple laws and legislative proposals under our jurisdiction, and to suggest otherwise is both inaccurate and contrary to the core mission of the Committee to serve as an independent check on the Executive Branch. [OCS: Being mindful of the separation of powers and all presidential perks, privileges, and duties, one might suggest that since, there does not appear to be any limit to the investigative timeframe, that one might consider the retroactive examination of the Obama Administration and its officials?] <Source: Cummings 4/12/2019 Staff Memo>

Whoops!!!

Top Democrat's wife may have gained 'illegal private benefit' from his committee activities A charity run by the wife of Rep. Elijah Cummings received millions from special interest groups and corporations that had business before her husband’s committee and could have been used illegally, according to an IRS complaint filed by an ethics watchdog group. Cummings, 68, a Maryland Democrat, is chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. His wife, Maya Rockeymoore, 48, is the chairman of the Maryland Democratic Party and briefly ran in the state's gubernatorial race last year. The couple married in 2008. Cummings was once heavily in debt — in part due to hefty child support payments to his first wife and two other women he had children with — but his financial situation has improved considerably over the past decade. Rockeymoore runs two entities, a nonprofit group called the Center for Global Policy Solutions and a for-profit consulting firm called Global Policy Solutions, LLC, whose operations appear to have overlapped, according to the IRS complaint filed by watchdog group the National Legal and Policy Center on Monday. [OCS: Crooks often use similarly-named entities to provide plausible deniability of wrongdoing and the comingling of funds – claiming it was a simple clerical error.] The complaint states that the arrangement may have been used to derive "illegal private benefit." Global Policy Solutions received more than $6.2 million in grants between 2013 and 2016, according to tax records. Several of the nonprofit group’s financial backers — which included Google, J.P Morgan, and Prudential — have business interests before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Cummings has served as Democratic chairman of the committee since January and previously served as ranking member. [OCS: Why would large corporations pump significant amounts of money into organizations that would seem to have little The largest contributor to the nonprofit organization was the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, a company that is regulated by Cummings’ committee. The foundation, which gave a total of $5.5 million to Rockeymoore’s Top Democrat Elijah Cummings' wife may have gained 'illegal private benefit' from his committee activities Tom Anderson, director of the National Legal and Policy Center’s Government Integrity Project, which has been investigating the nonprofit arrangement and provided research to the Washington Examiner, said the potential for corruption is “off the charts.” He said Rockeymoore declined to let his organization view her nonprofit organization’s most recent public financial records as required by the IRS. “When a powerful chairman of a committee of the House of Representatives has a wife that is bringing in money from entities with interests before his Committee and she is not providing the transparency mandated by the IRS, there's a serious problem,” said Anderson. “The potential for corruption in this situation is simply off the charts and can't be understated. We hope Chairman Cummings works with his wife to end the stonewalling and provide the public with what's legally mandated all charities provide.” Both Cummings and Rockeymoore refused to discuss the allegations with the Washington Examiner. Cummings did not answer questions about the overlap between companies with interests before his committee and donors to his wife’s foundation. Rockeymoore did not respond to request for comment. The complaint asked the IRS to investigate the “shared leadership,” “integrated operations,” and “shared address and physical facilities” of her two companies. Rockeymoore’s nonprofit and the LLC have mutual clients, donors and projects, and were located at the same address and share a phone number. According to its website, the Center for Global Policy Solutions is a nonprofit group that seeks to “create healthier communities, strengthen Social Security, and close racial wealth disparities." The for-profit consulting firm, Global Policy Solutions LLC, describes itself as “a social change strategy firm dedicated to making policy work for people and their environments.” The complaint states that they “appear to operate almost as a single entity, allowing for an illegal private benefit for Maya Rockeymoore Cummings and her husband." Rockeymoore’s consulting firm was selected for a $1 million federal contract with the General Services Administration in 2017 for work on the “Leadership for Healthy Communities” project to combat childhood obesity, according to federal records. At the same time, Rockeymoore’s nonprofit group “served as the national program office for Leadership for Healthy Communities,” according to its website. If both groups were involved in managing the project, “the arrangement is ‘self-dealing’ and cannot be ‘arms length’” as required by IRS law and “prompt the question of whether its organizers are getting fat off the grants,” according to the watchdog group’s complaint. Cummings struggled with serious financial problems after joining Congress over 20 years ago. His house was placed in foreclosure, at one point; he owed $30,000 in unpaid taxes to the IRS; and he was taken to court multiple times for thousands in unpaid debts. Cummings said his financial difficulties were due to his hefty child support payments. Since marrying Rockeymoore 11 years ago, Cummings’ financial outlook has improved considerably, according to financial disclosure reports and property records. The couple currently owns two rental properties in Baltimore worth between $250,000 and $500,000 each, and last year, they sold their three-bedroom Victorian row house in northwest Washington, D.C. for $896,000. Cummings disclosed in his financial reports that his wife earns an unspecified salary from Global Policy Solutions LLC; he did not disclose that she receives a salary from her nonprofit organization, which was $152,000 in 2016, according to the group’s tax records from that year. <Read More>

Time to subpoena at least ten years of Cummings, Rockeymoore’s, and the involved entity's financial records, including tax filings, bank records, and material prepared by their accountants. In fact, the IRS and the DOJ have a more legitimate right to these documents than the Committee has a legitimate right to Donald Trump’s business records.

In the normal course of things, Cummings would be allowed to amend his previous erroneous filings without penalty and if the matter were ever turned over to the House Ethics Committee, he would probably be given the same treatment as Maxine Waters who clearly attempted to use her official position to pressure a federal financial agency into assisting her husband’s failing financial institution. Perhaps we should also look over the records of all high-ranking party officials and committee members.

Bottom line…

Like President Trump says, this is a witch hunt for the sole purposes of obtaining opposition research on the taxpayer’s dime and to interfere with an election by disparaging a single candidate for office.

We are so screwed.

-- steve

JOE BIDEN: WHAT ARE THE DEMOCRATS DOING TO AMERICA?

Say it ain’t so Joe…

Joe Biden, another coin-operated politician.

Stripped of that common-man persona he affects, Joe Biden is a Democrat elitist – believing, like Hillary Clinton, his time has come and he is owed the presidency for long and faithful service to the Democrat Party.

It appears that the only qualifications the 76-year-old Joe Biden has for the Office of the Presidency is that he has been in politics since he was 30, mostly on the wrong side of history, and served as the perfunctory 47th Vice President of the United States in what was one of the most arguably corrupt administrations in American history. Yet, as Obama's number two man, Biden claims no knowledge of domestic spying, gun running, or other scandals. Perhaps a true statement as Biden was more about being trotted out for photo-ops than actually advancing America’s interests or freedoms.

But, just like Hillary Clinton, it appears that he also engaged in a scheme whereby his son acted as the bagman and was willing to sell access and support for a price. Read about Biden's suspicious activities in both Ukraine and in China.

Biden is ill-tempered and vicious, especially when he chaired the Judiciary Committee during the contentious U.S. Supreme Court nominations of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas.

Bottom line…

Am I the only one that believes the Democrat Party is content to throw SH*T against the wall to see which candidate does not dribble down into the toilet? It may be crude language, but it appears to be true.

And, unfortunately, the GOP will not press the advantage and point out his shortcomings. Presumably, sitting back and watching the SH*T show. Possibly hoping the candidates will attack each other rather than President Trump.

Hopefully, Biden will succeed at a three-peat; losing the nomination in 1988, 2008, and 2020.

We are so screwed.

-- steve

THERE COMES A TIME WHEN A POLITICAL PARTY MUST BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE

Dispatches from bizzaroland, Washington, D.C., the home of the fifth column seeking to destroy America, its Constitution, its institutions, its exceptionalism, and its economy …

(Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, Chairman of the Intelligence Committee Adam Schiff, Chairman of the Judiciary Committee Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the House Financial Services Committee Maxine Waters, Chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform)

I cannot imagine another group of political party leaders, so hell-bent on perverting the United States Congress into a political weapon to be used in a silent coup d'état. All members of the Obama Administration who, in concert with the top leadership of the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Internal Revenue Service, Department of State, Central Intelligence Agency, National Security Agency, and others who knowingly lied to the American public about the candidacy and presidency of Donald Trump.

I understand that President Trump’s accomplishments, both foreign and domestic, over the past two-plus years, has significantly overshadowed the past eight years of the Obama, but that is hardly a rationalization for attempting the overthrow of a constitutionally valid presidency – with an election looming only eighteen months away. All of this while Trump was under massive assault by the progressive media 24/7 which functioned as the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party – which makes it all that more impressive.

Where are the demands for releasing transcripts from Nadler and Schiff now that we are learning that transcripts of FBI interactions with confidential informants and George Papadopoulos exist? Where are their calls for transparency now that we are finding members of the Obama Administration are lying to Congress? 

There is only one person on whose watch the government was subverted and the Russians allowed to interfere with a presidential election…

Barack Obama, a man whose presidency is one of constitutional malignancy and malfeasance in office. A man who has become as irrelevant as his “Nobel Peace Prize” awarded for nothing other than looking good and sounding coherent before a TelePrompTer. A man who claimed no knowledge of any scandal in his administration, including those blasted about 24/7 in a progressive media echo chamber created in the White House.

Bottom line…

Forget the distraction caused by the deliberate foolishness of banning fossil fuels, cow farts, and building a Democrat utopia that is theoretically and practically impossible. Think about holding the Democrat Party responsible for the damage they have done to the constitution and our country.

We are so screwed.

-- steve

ISLAMISTS IN CONGRESS AND THE PERPETUATION OF PALESTINIAN PROPAGANDA?

One might think that after 70 years, the Palestinians would have moved on from living in "refugee camps" ... but that does not serve their propaganda and fundraising needs? One might also ask how Russian puppet Yasser Arafat managed to become a billionaire when he headed the Palestinian Liberation Organization. 

Terror Racket and Corruption from Pierre Rehov on Vimeo.

Something stinks in Congress and Ramallah.

-- steve

ANATOMY OF A BUSINESS INSIDER SMEAR JOB

Can you believe anything you read on the progressive Business Insider” site?

2 wild interviews show how AG Barr is behaving more like Trump's personal defense lawyer than the country's top law enforcement officer Sonam Sheth [OCS: The author’s apparent bias can be found in her bio where we find that her previous employer was MSNBC, which has a history of virulent anti-Trump positions and might be considered by fair-minded observers to be part of the propaganda apparatus of the Democrat Party as much as the New York Times and Washington Post. Since MSNBC hires relatively few conservatives, it appears likely that the author is a progressive socialist democrat.<Source>] Business Insider Attorney General William Barr defended President Donald Trump's characterization of the Russia investigation as a "witch hunt" in a new Fox News interview this week. When host Bill Hemmer asked Barr if he's comfortable labeling the Russia probe a witch hunt, Barr replied, "I use what words I use … but I think if I had been falsely accused, I'd be comfortable saying it was a witch hunt." Barr also told Fox News he's investing significant resources into finding out if "government officials abused their power and put their thumb on the scale" when launching the Russia probe. In a separate interview with the Wall Street Journal, Barr doubled down on his previous claims that the FBI was "spying" on the Trump campaign during the 2016 election. "Government power was used to spy on American citizens," Barr said. The interviews added to a growing list of examples that critics say are demonstrative of how Barr is acting more as the president's defense lawyer than as the country's top law enforcement officer. Since he took over as attorney general, William Barr has been at the center of controversy after controversy when it related to his oversight of the FBI's Russia investigation, the special counsel Robert Mueller, and his repeated efforts to shield President Donald Trump from public scrutiny. [OCS: I am unaware of any legitimate controversy other than that ginned-up by the progressive socialist democrats in the efforts to demonize President Donald Trump and any of his Administration officials, ostensibly as part of their positioning for the upcoming 2020 presidential election cycle. There is no credible evidence that the Attorney General could shield Donald Trump from further public scrutiny due to Trump’s propensity to discuss everything openly and usually in front of the media. There were no such claims by the media about AGs Eric Holder and Loretta Lynch who affirmatively protected the Obama Administration. It should be noted that it is the duty of the AG to protect the integrity of the Office of the President and the prerogatives of the Executive Branch over which the President governs with unitary  constitutional power.] This week marked another flashpoint, when Barr made some telling comments to Fox News and The Wall Street Journal, many of which fueled speculation that he is acting more as the president's defense lawyer than as the top law enforcement officer in the US. [OCS: This is the face of “fake news,” A story based on attention-getting hyperbolic language and the speculation of others.] In the new interview with Fox News, Barr gave a full throated defense of the president's baseless accusation that Mueller was on a "witch hunt" against him and his associates. [OCS: This is a distortion of the facts. Barr did not defend the President, but did acknowledge how this matter might appear to be a “witch hunt” from Trump’s perspective. From any perspective, this sordid affair appears to be the worst political scandal in American history – an opposition-funded attempt at a silent coup. And, the more that is revealed about Mueller’s activities, the more it does look like a political witch hunt.”] During his confirmation hearing earlier this year, Barr told the Senate Judiciary Committee he trusted Mueller's judgment and added that he did not believe the special counsel would be involved in a witch hunt. [OCS: Barr and Mueller have been good friends for over 30 years. At the time of his remarks, there was no reason to believe that Mueller was conflicted to the point he would wittingly or unwittingly shade his findings for political impact. We now know that the investigation was deeply flawed, from the hyper-partisan investigators to the intentionally dishonest final report.] But the attorney general changed his tune in a big way this week, telling Fox News host Bill Hemmer that Trump was justified in characterizing the investigation as a politically motivated fishing expedition. [OCS: Two years and $30 million spent running around the globe trying to find dirt on Donald Trump does appear to be little more than a fishing expedition when the source and nature of the original allegations were known to be false and fraudulent from the beginning of the investigation.] "He was saying he was innocent and that he was being falsely accused," Barr said of the president. "And if you're falsely accused, you would think that something was a witch hunt." Barr also told Fox he's investing significant resources into finding out whether "government officials abused their power and put their thumb on the scale" when launching the Russia probe. "A lot of the answers have been inadequate and some of the explanations I've gotten don't hang together," he said. "In a sense, I have more questions today than I did when I first started." [OCS: From what has been reported in the open news media, it does appear that high-ranking Obama Administration officials did abuse the power of their office and attempt to interfere in a presidential election. And, it does appear that many of these activities may be found to be criminal acts that violate existing federal laws and campaign rules and regulations.] Barr added that Trump has been investigated for "conspiring with the Russians, and we now know that was simply false." When Hemmer asked Barr if he's comfortable labeling the Russia probe a witch hunt, Barr replied, "I use what words I use … but I think if I had been falsely accused, I'd be comfortable saying it was a witch hunt."' [OCS: Why the author’s preoccupation with “witch hunts?” It is time to move on.] Meanwhile, in a separate interview with The Journal, Barr doubled down on his previous claims that the FBI was "spying" on the Trump campaign during the 2016 election. "Government power was used to spy on American citizens," Barr told The Journal. "I can't imagine any world where we wouldn't take a look and make sure that was done properly." [OCS: Electronic surveillance and the insertion of operatives, both foreign and domestic, into a political campaign or Administration can be fairly and accurately characterized as “spying.”] There is no evidence to date that the FBI or the Justice Department broke protocol when conducting the Russia investigation or seeking a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) warrant against Trump aide Carter Page. [OCS: This is a bald-faced lie. It is true only if you are writing about evidence introduced in a court of competent jurisdiction. However, there is documentary evidence of improper activities in the form of sworn testimony and contemporaneously written materials (emails and memoranda) that the basis of the FISA warrant was not only improper protocol, but may have broken departmental regulations as well as the law regarding perjury.] But there are now three separate entities who have been tasked with investigating alleged misconduct and corruption at both agencies: the DOJ's Office of the Inspector General, and US attorneys John Huber and John Durham. [OCS: This may not be true as there are likely to be other executive-branch IG investigations involving the intelligence agencies and their participation in this sordid affair. It is unknown whether or not the FISA Court is also investigating the matter as well as already empaneled Grand Juries] How the Russia investigation started, and how Barr has twisted Mueller's findings [OCS: According to those who got caught-up in a criminal political operation?] In July 2016, WikiLeaks published the first of several troves of hacked Democratic National Committee emails that had been stolen by the Russian government. [OCS: There is sufficient reason to believe that a campaign insider downloaded and leaked the documents in question rather than the system being hacked. It should be noted that the DNC refused to allow the FBI to forensically examine their server and that they used a partisan security firm who made the allegation – which remains uncorroborated. The crime involves the unauthorized access to the computer, not the distribution and reporting of the purloined materials.] Following the leak, the Australian government notified the FBI that George Papadopoulos, then a Trump campaign foreign policy aide, boasted a few months earlier to an Australian diplomat that Russia had dirt on the Hillary Clinton campaign in the form of "thousands" of emails. The tip prompted the FBI to open an inquiry into Russia's interference in the 2016 election and whether anyone associated with the Trump campaign secretly worked with Moscow to help tilt the race in his favor. [OCS: Note at this point this was a counterintelligence operation not a criminal investigation. And considering that Papadopoulos was covertly approached by several intelligence operatives, it appears that he was set-up to become the ignition point of the investigation. There was no proof that Trump or any campaign official was working with the Russians at this point in time. However, Hillary Clinton’s people through Christopher Steele were working with Russians to develop dirt on Donald Trump.] Meanwhile, when Trump fired FBI director James Comey in May 2017, the move sparked significant concern among senior officials that the president was working on behalf of the Russian government. After Comey's firing, the bureau also launched a criminal investigation into whether Trump obstructed justice. [OCS: Firing James Comey for cause was a legal prerogative of the President. And, have the Democrats forgotten that they called for Comey’s firing as did Acting Attorney General Rod Rosenstein. There was no predicate crime and no judicial proceedings for Trump to have obstructed. Unlike Barack Obama, Trump turned over documents without the claim of executive privilege and made executive-branch personnel available to investigators. Trump, it seems, is the most ethical and open of the modern presidents.] Mueller's final report said the Russia investigation did not establish that members of the campaign coordinated with Russia during the election. [OCS: A prosecutor speaks through indictments, not reports. No indictments – nothing to see here, move along.] But prosecutors prefaced that statement with a notable caveat: "The investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and … the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts." [OCS: This is spin – the person who wrote those words was not an investigator, not a prosecutor, but a political operative who inserted deliberately inflammatory language in a confidential document.] The special counsel declined to make a "traditional prosecutorial judgment" on whether Trump obstructed justice, citing DOJ guidelines that say a sitting president cannot be indicted. [OCS: This too is spin. The traditional prosecutorial judgement was made: no indictment was sought or brought. As for the DOJ guidelines, it appears that Mueller was unwilling to test them in a court of law should he have felt that strongly that the President should have been indicted.] But his team laid out an extensive roadmap of evidence against Trump, adding, "If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state … Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment." [OCS: This s bullpucky. This type  material never appears in prosecution reports to their superiors. The information, at this point is the prosecutor’s opinion, based on hearsay, and has not been challenged and tested in a court of law. Because of public pressure, Mueller’s report was regarded as a mechanism to put these matters before Congress and the American public.] Instead of releasing Mueller's report when it was submitted to him, Barr opted to put out a four-page summary of his "principal conclusions" about Mueller's findings. The letter highlighted Mueller's conclusion that there wasn't enough evidence to bring a criminal conspiracy charge against Trump or anyone on his campaign. It also said Mueller declined to make a judgment on the obstruction question. [OCS: This is disingenuous. AG Barr had no legal requirement to release the report. And, it appears that the Mueller team did not identify the reasons for the redactions which artificially delayed the release of the report so the progressive spin could continue. Rather that wait, Barr released a top-line summary after Mueller refused to review or comment on the report prior to release. Barr subsequently released the entire point and people can judge for themselves what is in the report. And, unlike the progressive spinmeisters, the redactions do not hide or obscure a smoking gun. ] The letter left out the extensive details Mueller laid out on the myriad contacts Trump associates had with Russians, and Trump's concerted efforts to hamper the resulting investigation. [OCS: Condensing 400+ pages into 4 pages is an impossible task. The acts cited by the report did not rise to obstruction, hence no indictments, open or sealed, were sought.] Mueller indicated in the report that it was up to Congress to investigate the obstruction question further. But Barr took it upon himself to announce, before the report was released, that Trump had not committed an obstruction offense. [OCS: Congress is not an investigatory body, has limited access to other branches of government under “separation of powers,” and a prosecutor’s report is not meant for Congress, but it is meant to tell the AG how his employees decided to indict or not to indict. Five-minute rounds of committee speechifying in the form of a question is not an honest attempt to elicit useful information.] Earlier this month, it surfaced that Mueller sent two letters to Barr expressing frustration with the way the attorney general handled the report. One was sent on March 25, one day after Barr released his summary of the report. The second was sent on March 27. In the March 27 letter, Mueller said he was dissatisfied with the fact that Barr's letter "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions." [OCS: Mueller did not take issue with the substance of Barr’s summary, but how it was being spun and misperceived in the partisan media. Something beyond Barr’s control. Since Mueller refused to review the document prior to release, his letter was disingenuous and possibly written to save him from progressive scorn because he did not deliver the Trump indictment that the progressives sought.] "We communicated that concern to the Department on the morning of March 25," Mueller continued. "There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose for which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations." <Source> [OCS: That Robert Mueller and his team were deeply mired in the swamp is proof of their conflicted ability to conduct a fair and impartial investigation. Especially when they deliberately overlooked the source of the allegations: a false and misleading document paid for by Hillary Clinton and the DNC through a law firm that laundered campaign cash beyond the reporting requirements of the FEC. The entire affair stinks to high heaven.]

Bottom Line…

There is a discernable difference between analysis and a progressive hit job. There is little time left for the progressive socialist democrats to disparage and destroy Attorney General William Barr’s credibility before we start seeing hardcore evidence, and possibly indictments, of Obama-era officials – one of which may bring the scandal to the door of Obama himself. The idea that Obama was oblivious to the activities around him is ludicrous since they were reported in the progressive mainstream media and involved his top people.

Unfortunately, there is no shame when the progressive socialist Democrats claim “nobody is above the law” and conveniently ignore the activities of President Obama and the Clintons.

We are so screwed.

-- steve

PROGRESSIVES USE "EQUALITY" TO DESTROY TRADITIONAL AMERICAN VALUES

Call me a racist, a bigot, a homophobe, or any other pejorative you wish, but…

(1)  As a constitutional conservative, I believe that all people should be treated equally under the law and have the inalienable right to do what they want as long as it does not impinge upon my rights and freedoms. I find giving special consideration to certain groups to be an anathema to the U.S. Constitution as it does not produce equality, it produces division which leads to dissension. If you assault someone, they are assaulted regardless of what you may have called them prior to the assault.

(2)  I believe that marriage is an act of faith and commitment between a man and a woman. Civil partnerships cover the rest of the different combinations. For some reason, I just find it odd and unnatural for a man such as 2020 Democrat candidate Mayor Pete Buttigieg to refer to another man as being his husband and his partner referring to the candidate as his wife. The word spouse would be fine, but husband and wife are traditional roles filled by people of the traditional sex.

(3)  As a matter of privacy and safety, I believe you should use the bathroom dictated by your plumbing, not how you feel on any given day.

(4)  No matter what hormones or plumbing revisions may have been made, on the average, men are stronger and more adept at certain tasks than women, and to allow men to compete against women in some sports disadvantages capable and competitive women. I have no problem with sports like shooting, archery, and similar contests having both sexes compete. Track and field, wrestling, and other similar events should be respectful of traditional sex roles.

(5)  I believe there are always exceptions that should be handled on a case-by-case basis, with waivers, not legislation, as necessary.

(6)  I believe that there will always be a chromosomal difference between men and women, with a few exceptions, and that is not a reason to substitute “gender identity” for sex in matters of public policy, decency, and safety.

We have heard it before, “all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others” …

It appears that the House of Representatives has passed with a 236 – 173 vote the so-called “Equality Act” which I believe is a misnamed and misguided attempt by the progressive socialist democrats to destroy traditional American values in favor of identity politics that benefit the Democrat party. The bill adds sexual orientation and gender identity to the other characteristics such as race, color, religion, sex, and national origin, which are legally protected from discrimination under the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Another windfall for the Democrats, the party of slip-and-fall lawyers.

In addition to the unanimous support from the progressive socialist Democrats, eight Republicans, Susan Brooks (R-IN), Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Will Hurd (R-TX), John Katko R-NY), Tom Reed R-NY), Elise Stefanik R-NY), and Greg Walden (R-OR) crossed the aisle to further the destruction of American values. 

There are any number of anticipated and unintended consequences that will result from what I believe to be partisan pandering and faulty legislation. Among them the violation of the U.S. Constitution, destruction of parental rights, and the criminalization of acts of faith and conscience by individuals and organizations.

Bottom line…

True equality exists when the government respects the freedom of all -- and what we are experiencing is the tyranny of the minority – the consequences of the progressive socialist democrats pandering to the alphabet people (GLBTQ+) trying to normalize their existence in the greater society.

Like Obamacare which nearly nationalized all of the health care industry and destroyed the concept of affordable insurance to cover a minuscule portion of the population, we are seeing our constitution shredded for a small number of vocal minority activists who care nothing about the constitution or traditional American values.

The legislation is likely to be killed in the Senate.

We are so screwed.

-- steve

NOAA FINALLY ADMITS THE TRUTH ABOUT TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENTS

GIGO: Garbage In, Garbage Out…

Since the dawn of science, researchers have understood that their experiments and models were only as good as the data collected or presented to the model. For years I have complained or challenged the findings of climate activists and the widespread corruption and dishonesty within the climate science business. And, it is a big business with billions of government dollars flowing through the system – far dwarfing the sponsorship of the big energy companies with investments in fossil fuels.

Let us look through some of the problems…

(1) The UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) and the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) are political organizations that seek to use science to justify their political ambitions: one, of creating a perpetual funding mechanism for the United Nations independent of member-state contributions; two, assume a legal posture which is superior to the sovereignty of member-states for the purposes of setting standards, enforcing standards, and collecting taxes, fines, and imposing other penalties; and three, to promote their progressive agenda of a one world government with central planning by its member-states. These organizations do not perform science but cherry-pick existing scientific reports that support their agenda while ignoring, suppressing, or denigrating opposing viewpoints.

(2) The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change mandated that the climate research effort to discover and describe the phenomena of global warming center on anthropomorphic (man-made) causes and the minimum of natural phenomenon. The purpose of the UNFCCC is no secret: “Preventing ‘dangerous’ human interference with the climate system is the ultimate aim of the UNFCCC.” To admit that man cannot control the climate is to acknowledge that efforts to create public policy on that theme are illegitimate, unwarranted, and a fraud perpetrated on its member states.

There is not one climate researcher who has found a way to directly detect, measure, and scientifically describe man’s climate signal against the background noise of climate’s natural and variability.

Ignoring the gross power of the real drivers of climate change (Sun's energy output in all spectral bands, the production of extraterrestrial cosmic rays, the Earth's position relative to the Sun, the Earth's precessional and rotational dynamics, the Earth's vulcanology and plate tectonics, the heat transfer and behavior of deep ocean currents, and the most significant greenhouse gas influence, water vapor) to concentrate on the miniscule effects of atmospheric carbon dioxide makes little sense. That is, until one realizes that by controlling carbon emissions, governments can control the economies of nations and thus impose near-dictatorial powers in the name of preventing a planetary emergency which may be thousands of years in the future, and supposing that nature’s feedback mechanisms will not revert to the mean and produce another ice age. Thus, using an artificial thirty-year time scale in the face of geological time scales to make public policies is an insult to the intellect and the freedom of man.

(3)  There are few ways to overcome the inherent bias of the government’s funding of institutions, scientists, and projects which results in funding select projects that conform to the fashionable science of the patrons to the minimization of the research expressing a contrarian viewpoint. Those holding contrary views are not allowed to participate in so-called “open forums” and are often denigrated as “deniers” – a pejorative used to describe deniers of the Holocaust.

(4)  In their zeal to produce results acceptable to their funding patrons and to secure additional monies, it is not uncommon for activists to fudge the results. Anyone who wants to read the Climategate emails can see this rancorous bias for themselves. The purpose of the scientific method is to produce findings without fear or favor in the pursuit of knowledge, the end result being a paper that can be examined to see if the findings can be replicated and validated, falsified, or simply adding to the common understanding. Thus we see scientists refusing to provide their computer code, data, and research notes using the dodge of proprietary intellectual property – even though the bulk of the research is funded from public sources. We see scientists fudging the results by parameterization – simply plugging in a result to avoid the lack of descriptive equations and the computational load of simultaneously solving complex equations.

(5)  So why should anyone be surprised when we find scientists manipulating the raw data to exhibit a favorable result and calling the methodology “statistical homogenization?” Replacing missing data with data from nearby stations, adjusting the data for site location and altitude, and changing the time of observations. Unfortunately, in many cases, the original raw data has been lost (ostensibly by the cost of storage) forever and the statistical methodologies shrouded in layers of dense code.

But even worse, is knowing that the data you are collecting is damaged by the very location you have chosen for placing your instrumentation. The resultant data pollution or “heat island” effect tends to produce data that suggests hotter temperatures which feed into the meme of global warming. This was readily apparent from the pioneering work of Anthony Watts and a small group of volunteers who visited climate stations to record site problems such as locating a station near recognizable heat sources.

Many who were charged with keeping temperature records vocally disagreed with Watts’ findings that nullified much of the recorded temperature dataset based on poor instrument locations. Even to the extent of NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) funding a multi-year experiment to invalidate Watts’ conclusions about the effects of instrument location. 

The results are in, and it turns out that Watts was right. And it suggests that you find a lower 30-year temperature trend when only high-quality temperature stations which are unaffected by urbanization are used. Using the old methodology overstates the temperature by as much as one-third and suggesting that much of our terrestrial temperature dataset is deeply flawed.

Impacts of Small-Scale Urban Encroachment on Air Temperature Observations Abstract A field experiment was performed in Oak Ridge, TN, with four instrumented towers placed over grass at increasing distances (4, 30, 50, 124, and 300 m) from a built-up area. Stations were aligned in such a way to simulate the impact of small-scale encroachment on temperature observations. ' As expected, temperature observations were warmest for the site closest to the built environment with an average temperature difference of 0.31 and 0.24 °C for aspirated and unaspirated sensors respectively. Mean aspirated temperature differences were greater during the evening (0.47 °C) than day (0.16 °C). This was particularly true for evenings following greater daytime solar insolation (20+ MJDay−1) with surface winds from the direction of the built environment where mean differences exceeded 0.80 °C. The impact of the built environment on air temperature diminished with distance with a warm bias only detectable out to tower-B’ located 50 meters away. The experimental findings were comparable to a known case of urban encroachment at a U. S. Climate Reference Network station in Kingston, RI. The experimental and operational results both lead to reductions in the diurnal temperature range of ~0.39 °C for fan aspirated sensors. ' Interestingly, the unaspirated sensor had a larger reduction in DTR of 0.48 °C. These results suggest that small-scale urban encroachment within 50 meters of a station can have important impacts on daily temperature extrema (maximum and minimum) with the magnitude of these differences dependent upon prevailing environmental conditions and sensing technology. <Source>

For further analysis of the subject, you may wish to visit WATTS Up With That -- Verified by NOAA – poor weather station siting leads to artificial long term warming.

Bottom line…

There is no doubt that the climate is changing and has changed since the Earth formed an atmosphere and oceans. The real question is, can anyone actually predict what the climate will be in the future given nature’s feedback loops and long timescales? Man’s best option is to adapt – as do those who live in the inhospitable desert and arctic conditions.

As for the bafflegab attempt to whipsaw “We the People” into surrendering our inalienable rights and freedoms based on little more than an unproven hypothesis is not only self-defeating but downright criminal.

We are so screwed.

-- steve

NEW TO GUNS, THIS IS THE SITE YOU WANT TO CHECK OUT FIRST

Every once in a blue moon, I encounter a site that provides real value to the community of gun owners and enthusiasts and am pleased to share that link with my readers. To confirm my first impression, I sent the link to my best friend Al who is a walking compendium of guns, bullets, and ballistics. His comment, in his usual understated style, tipped the scales toward publishing – “Not a bad website!” Which if you knew Al, that is sincere praise.

You should visit http://GunPros.com – if for no other reason than to read their refresher, The 4 Universal Gun Safety Rules, Plus 13 More You Should Follow.

In all the years I have been shooting and hunting, I have seen precisely two gun-related accidents. Both by seasoned hunters using shotguns -- and both avoidable.

(1)  One hunter was climbing a hill and handed his loaded shotgun to his friend on the flat area below. After scrambling up the hill, his friend went to hand him his shotgun, and a twig caught on the trigger – boom! The hunter on the hill almost lost his head and spent the next hours virtually deaf. NEVER HAND A LOADED SHOTGUN TO ANYONE.

(2)  One extremely experienced hunter was using two of his favorite shotguns while doing a little bird hunting after looking for wild boar. He accidentally loaded a smaller gauge shell along with larger-gauge shells in the magazine. When he racked the smaller shell into the chamber, and he fired – all he heard was a click, so he racked the second, larger gauge, shell into the chamber. When he fired the shotgun, the gun exploded, taking a chunk out of his hand. Not a good outcome for a craftsman who works with precision parts. The hunting guide had to drive him 60 miles to the hospital, which was only the beginning of his medical issues. Of course, the county sheriff rolled into our camp to follow-up on the hospital’s report about a gunshot wound. NEVER MIX AMMUNITION IN YOUR BAG – EVEN IF YOU THINK THE SHELL’S COLOR WILL PROTECT YOU FROM THIS TYPE OF MISTAKE.

All it takes is a distraction or a moment of inattention, and you are now facing a life-altering event. Be safe or be watching the television.

The right attitude…

Some of the informative information …  

And, my favorite section…

Bottom line…

Definitely, a useful site to visit and bookmark.

Remember, In my world, gun control means you hit what you aim at.

-- steve

Disclaimer: I have no financial or other relationship with GunPros.com or its owners, employees, or sponsors. We do not endorse the positions of other sites and present them to you for your consideration. We do not recommend specific products nor take any responsibility for any third-party links.