Amazon

Sunday, July 30, 2017

Police Threat to the Second Amendment

 by DAVID FRENCH July 30, 2017 4:00 AM @DAVIDAFRENCH Police raid the wrong home? If the innocent homeowner is lawfully armed, he could end up dead. It’s happened again. Police officers in Southaven, Miss., were trying to serve an arrest warrant for aggravated assault on a man named Samuel Pearman, but instead they showed up at a trailer owned by an auto mechanic named Ismael Lopez. It was nighttime, and according to his wife, Lopez went to the door to investigate a noise. She stayed in bed. What happened next was tragic. According to the police, Lopez opened his door and a pit bull charged out. One officer opened fire on the dog, the other officer fired on the man allegedly holding a gun in the doorway, pointing it at the men approaching his home. As the Washington Post reported on July 26, it was only after the smoke cleared that the officers made their “heart-dropping discovery: They were at the wrong home.” Lopez died that night. Just like Andrew Scott died in his entrance hall, gun in hand, when the police pounded on the wrong door late one night, Scott opened it, saw shadowy figures outside, and started to retreat back into his house. Police opened fire, and he died in seconds. Angel Mendez was more fortunate. He “only” lost his leg when the police barged into his home without a warrant and without announcing themselves. They saw his BB gun and opened fire, inflicting grievous wounds. Donald Trump slammed for comments about police brutality 00:21 00:55 If past precedent holds, it’s likely that the officers who killed Ismael Lopez will be treated exactly like the officers in the Scott and Mendez cases. They won’t be prosecuted for crimes, and they’ll probably even be immune from civil suit, with the court following precedents holding that the officers didn’t violate Lopez’s “clearly established” constitutional rights when they approached the wrong house. After all, officers have their own rights of self-defense. What, exactly, are they supposed to do when a gun is pointed at their face? In other words, the law typically allows officers to shoot innocent homeowners who are lawfully exercising their Second Amendment rights and then provides these same innocent victims with no compensation for the deaths and injuries that result. This is unacceptable, it’s unjust, and it undermines the Second Amendment. Think where this leaves homeowners who hear strange sounds or who confront pounding on the door. Should they risk their safety by leaving their gun in the safe while they check to make sure it’s not the police? Should they risk their lives by bringing the gun to the door, knowing that the police may not announce themselves and may simply be trying to barge into the wrong home? Doesn’t the right to be free from “unreasonable” search and seizure include a right to be free of armed, mistaken, warrantless, home intrusions? Doesn’t the right to be free from ‘unreasonable’ search and seizure include a right to be free of armed, mistaken, warrantless, home intrusions? It’s time for the law to accommodate the Second Amendment. It’s time for legal doctrine to reflect that when the state intrudes in the wrong home — or lawlessly or recklessly even into the right home — that it absolutely bears the costs of its own mistakes. It’s time for law enforcement practice to reflect the reality that tens of millions of law-abiding men and women exercise their fundamental, constitutional rights to protect themselves and their families. What does this mean, in practice? First, extraordinarily dangerous and kinetic no-knock raids should be used only in the most extreme circumstances. Writers such as Radley Balko have written extensively about the prevalence of the practice (even in routine drug busts), the dangers inherent in dynamic entry, and the sad and terrible circumstances where the police find themselves in a gunfight with terrified homeowners. Second, prosecutors should closely scrutinize every single instance of mistaken-identity raids. Good-faith mistakes are always possible, but given the stakes involved when police raid homes or pound on doors late at night with their guns drawn, they should exercise a high degree of care and caution in choosing the right house. It’s hard to imagine a worse or more tragic injustice than being gunned down in your own home by mistaken agents of the state. Third, if and when police do kill or injure innocent homeowners, they should be stripped of qualified immunity — even when the homeowner is armed. There are circumstances where it would improper to file criminal charges against an officer who makes a good-faith mistake and finds himself making an immediate life-or-death situation, but when the mistake is his, then he should face strict liability for all the harm he causes. As the law now stands, police are not only rarely prosecuted when they violate the Fourth and Second Amendment rights of innocent homeowners by gunning them down in their own home, it’s often difficult even to impose civil liability. Innocent men and women are left with no recourse, and officers remain immune from judicial accountability for their own, tragic mistakes. Last year a Minnesota police officer shot a lawfully armed Philando Castile during a traffic stop — despite the fact that Castile was precisely following the officer’s commands. The officer’s acquittal unquestionably undermined the Second Amendment, but such shootings are mercifully rare. More common are the panicked, confused moments late at night or early in the morning — when a homeowner hears shouts at his door, or someone breaks it down, and all he knows is that armed men are in his house. In those moments, a person’s rights of self-defense are at their unquestioned apex. It’s the state’s responsibility to protect those rights, not snuff out a life and escape all legal consequence.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449990/police-threaten-second-amendment-raid-wrong-home-shoot-innocent-man

Friday, July 28, 2017

Western Values Are Superior

Western Values Are Superior

Here's part of President Donald Trump's speech in Poland: "The fundamental question of our time is whether the West has the will to survive. Do we have the confidence in our values to defend them at any cost? Do we have enough respect for our citizens to protect our borders? Do we have the desire and the courage to preserve our civilization in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it?"
After this speech, which was warmly received by Poles, the president encountered predictable criticism. Most of the criticism reflected gross ignorance and dishonesty.
One example of that ignorance was penned in the Atlantic magazine by Peter Beinart, a contributing editor and associate professor of journalism and political science at the City University of New York. Beinart said, "Donald Trump referred 10 times to 'the West' and five times to 'our civilization.' His white nationalist supporters will understand exactly what he means." He added, "The West is a racial and religious term. To be considered Western, a country must be largely Christian (preferably Protestant or Catholic) and largely white."
Intellectual elites argue that different cultures and their values are morally equivalent. That's ludicrous. Western culture and values are superior to all others. I have a few questions for those who'd claim that such a statement is untrue or smacks of racism and Eurocentrism. Is forcible female genital mutilation, as practiced in nearly 30 sub-Saharan African and Middle Eastern countries, a morally equivalent cultural value? Slavery is practiced in Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Chad and Sudan; is it morally equivalent? In most of the Middle East, there are numerous limitations placed on women, such as prohibitions on driving, employment and education. Under Islamic law, in some countries, female adulterers face death by stoning. Thieves face the punishment of having their hands severed. Homosexuality is a crime punishable by death in some countries. Are these cultural values morally equivalent, superior or inferior to Western values?
During his speech, Trump asked several vital questions. "Do we have the confidence in our values to defend them at any cost? Do we have enough respect for our citizens to protect our borders? Do we have the desire and the courage to preserve our civilization in the face of those who would subvert and destroy it?" There's no question that the West has the military might to protect itself. The question is whether we have the intelligence to recognize the attack and the will to defend ourselves from annihilation.Much of the Muslim world is at war with Western civilization. Islamists' use multiculturalism as a foot in the door to attack Western and Christian values from the inside. Much of that attack has its roots on college campuses among the intellectual elite who indoctrinate our youth. Multiculturalism has not yet done the damage in the U.S. that it has in Western European countries -- such as England, France and Germany -- but it's on its way.
My colleague Dr. Thomas Sowell reveals some of the problem. He says, "Those in the Islamic world have for centuries been taught to regard themselves as far superior to the 'infidels' of the West, while everything they see with their own eyes now tells them otherwise." Sowell adds, "Nowhere have whole peoples seen their situation reversed more visibly or more painfully than the peoples of the Islamic world." Few people, such as Persians and Arabs, once at the top of civilization, accept their reversals of fortune gracefully. Moreover, they don't blame themselves and their culture. They blame the West.
By the way, one need not be a Westerner to hold Western values. One just has to accept the sanctity of the individual above all else.

Tuesday, July 25, 2017

USAF

On this day in 1974, I was discharged from the United States Air Force.  Spent 9 1/2 years on active duty, war was over.

Sunday, July 23, 2017

Abortion poll.

New poll findings reveal that the liberal media, who applaud abortion “healthcare” as “moral,” are out of touch with nearly half of the United States. And so, while the media readily cite polls supporting their agenda, it’s doubtful they’ll report this one.
While only 20% of Americans say abortion should be “totally illegal,” 48% of Americans agree that abortion is “morally wrong,” according to Gallup findings released Thursday.
When researching the difference between Americans’ “views of the moral acceptability” of an issue and their “views on making it illegal,” Gallup found that “abortion provides the most striking example of the disparity.”
The report, by Frank Newport and Robert Bird, compiled data from surveys taken 2013 through 2017 for Gallup's annual Values and Beliefs poll and stressed that “Americans are often more likely to view behaviors as morally wrong than they are to advocate that these behaviors be made illegal.”
In its findings, the report focused on how almost three in 10 Americans view abortion as “morally wrong” while also “believing it should remain legal (at least in some circumstances).”
In other words, while “many of those sympathetic to an anti-abortion position are demonstrably not sympathetic to a ‘total ban’ type of strategy,” those same people would likely “be more sympathetic to efforts to place restrictions on abortion ... which in many ways embodies the strategy groups opposing abortion have taken.”
Other polls indicate likewise. While support for abortion varies greatly, a majority of Americans wantlimitations on abortion and oppose taxpayer funding.
The report also stressed the difference between conservatives and liberals or Democrats on abortion. Not surprisingly, conservatives were more pro-life:
Over two-thirds of conservatives in fact think abortion is morally wrong, but the majority of that group still says it should be legal, at least in some circumstances. Specifically, 41% of conservatives are in the ‘morally wrong but legal’ category, well above the average of 29% among all Americans. Another 28% of conservatives are in the ‘morally wrong and illegal’ category. Just over one in five say abortion is OK morally and should be legal.
In contrast, “Relatively few liberals or Democrats are in the ‘morally wrong but legal’ category,” the report read, “primarily because so many in these groups see abortion as morally acceptable and believe it should be legal.”
Other issues Gallup examined included “doctor-assisted suicide” and “gay and lesbian relations.”
The report found a “not insignificant number of Americans see both doctor-assisted suicide and gay and lesbian relations as morally wrong, but hesitate when it comes to advocating that they be made illegal.”

Saturday, July 22, 2017

2nd Amendment, Civil Rights update.


CCW, Changing America, one permit at a time.

by DAVID FRENCH July 22, 2017 4:00 AM @DAVIDAFRENCH A recent increase in law-abiding gun ownership bodes well for the country’s future. The great arming is underway, and that’s a very good thing for our nation, for our culture, and for the relationship between citizen and state. On Thursday, John Lott and the Crime Prevention Research Center published a comprehensive survey of the growth in concealed-carry permits in the United States. The numbers are stunning — not just in their growth, but in their depth and consequence. Here’s a sampling. During Barack Obama’s presidency, the number of concealed-carry permit holders increased by a whopping 256 percent. The numbers have increased across multiple demographics, with a higher percentage growth for women than men and for black citizens than white. In eleven states at least 10 percent of the adults possess carry permits. All told, 16.36 million Americans have carry permits, a number that understates the amount of people who carry weapons, since 14 states “have adopted constitutional carry in all or part of the state” — which means that no permit is required for citizens to carry a gun. At the same time that carry permits have increased at an astonishing rate, violent crime has decreased, and concealed-carry permit holders remain remarkably law-abiding. From 2007 to 2015, murder rates decreased by 12.5 percent and “overall violent crime fell by 18 percent.” At the same time, “the percentage of adults with permits soared by 190 percent.” And yet despite that growth, available data still indicate that permit holders are substantially more law-abiding than the police. For example, using data from Florida and Texas, Lott found that “permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies at less than a sixth of the rate for police officers.” 6 things to know about new Trump appointee Anthony Scaramucci 00:33 01:00 Those who closely follow gun-control debates are likely familiar with many (if not most) of these statistics, and I’m thus less interested in what they say than in what they mean. Simply put, American culture is changing from the ground up, and if present trends continue the gun-control debate will be settled by the sheer number of weapons in law-abiding hands. To borrow the Left’s language, it looks like the arc of history is bending, and it’s bending toward an armed citizenry. I’ve been battling the Left over gun control for two decades, and I’ve been a part of “gun culture” all my life. If I remember correctly, I fired my first gun — a .22 rifle — when I was eight years old (and I was behind my peers). During that time I’ve not only seen the debate change, I’ve seen people change the moment they not just learn to fire a gun but also the moment they start to carry. If I had to sum up the change in one word, I’d choose “independence.” Give me two, and I’ll add “courage.” Let me use three, and I’ll take “responsibility.” First, it’s just a fact that for the vast majority of people, the instant they start carrying a gun is the instant they change their relationship with the state. No longer are they a protectee. They’re suddenly and substantially less dependent. They become a protector — of themselves and others — and that transition has a powerful psychological effect. It grants them greater security in their home, and it grants them greater freedom in their community. For many people, it gives them freedom from fear. Along with the independence, I’ve seen a measurable increase in personal courage. Most people who carry guns also think through scenarios where they’d be required to use that weapon. They’ll discuss tactics with instructors, practice using their weapon at the range, and they’ll talk about troublesome scenarios with friends. Along the way, their mindset changes. They often subtly change from a person who can protect others to a person who will protect others, from a person who will run from danger to a person who will run to danger. A sense of resolve sets in, and the armed citizen actually feels a greater connection with those around him. He’s aware, alert, and ready. Not alarmed. Not frightened. But calmly confident. Moreover, there are few things that build responsibility and attention to detail better than lawful gun ownership. Those who carry are aware of the gun’s presence, and fully aware of its power. Those who’ve earned permits have already demonstrated that they’re worthy of trust, and for the overwhelming majority, the decision to carry only amplifies their sense of duty. It’s always interesting to see data merge with observed experience. The independent, courageous, responsible reality I see with my own eyes is reflected not just in statistics showing that permit holders are extraordinarily law-abiding but also in the repeated incidents where they come to the aid of friends and neighbors in need. More permit-holders do not lead to more gun crime. They do, however, mean more help and protection for the innocent and the vulnerable. Indeed, while the sources and causes of crime are extraordinarily complex, it does appear that states with higher carry rates and the loosest carry restrictions have lower violent-crime rates than jurisdictions with the lowest carry percentages, and that sharp increases in carry permits correlate with decreases in murder rates. According to Lott, “Using permit and murder data from 2011 through 2014, we find that states with the sharpest increases in permits had the largest percentage drops in murder rates.” It’s often said that politics is downstream from culture, and for conservatives those words so often mean that we’re losing ground. The ground is shifting beneath our feet on matters involving sexuality and marriage. But the news is not all bad, and culture change does not always run to the left. The pro-life movement stands strong, and the ground is shifting beneath progressives’ feet on guns. An armed citizenry is more likely to remain a free citizenry, and free citizens are more likely to maintain the independence and courage that have long been hallmarks of the American spirit. In this important respect our nation is changing for the better — one carry permit at a time. — David French is a senior writer for National Review, a senior fellow at the National Review Institute, and an attorney.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449754/concealed-carry-permits-increasing-good-america

Friday, July 21, 2017

Walter Williams is a national Treasure.

Slavery

Too many people believe that slavery is a "peculiar institution." That's what Kenneth Stampp called slavery in his book, "Peculiar Institution: Slavery in the Ante-Bellum South." But slavery is by no means peculiar, odd or unusual. It was common among ancient peoples such as the Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Hittites, Greeks, Persians, Armenians and many others. Large numbers of Christians were enslaved during the Ottoman wars in Europe. White slaves were common in Europe from the Dark Ages to the Middle Ages. It was only after A.D. 1600 that Europeans joined with Arabs and Africans and started the Atlantic slave trade. As David P. Forsythe wrote in his book, "The Globalist," "The fact remained that at the beginning of the nineteenth century an estimated three-quarters of all people alive were trapped in bondage against their will either in some form of slavery or serfdom."
While slavery constitutes one of the grossest encroachments on human liberty, it is by no means unique or restricted to the Western world or United States, as many liberal academics would have us believe. Much of their indoctrination of our young people, at all levels of education, paints our nation's founders as racist adherents to slavery, but the story is not so simple.
At the time of the 1787 Constitutional Convention, slaves were about 40 percent of the population of the Southern colonies. Apportionment in the House of Representatives and the number of electoral votes each state would have in presidential elections would be based upon population. Southern delegates to the convention wanted slaves to be counted as one person. Northern delegates to the convention, and those opposed to slavery, wanted only free persons of each state to be counted for the purposes of apportionment in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College. The compromise reached was that each slave would be counted as only three-fifths of a person.
Many criticize this compromise as proof of racism. My question to these grossly uninformed critics is whether they would have found it more preferable for slaves to be counted as whole persons. Slaves counted as whole persons would have given slave holding Southern states much more political power. Or, would the critics of the founders prefer that the Northern delegates not compromise and not allow slaves to be counted at all. If they did, it is likely that the Constitution would have not been ratified. Thus, the question emerges is whether blacks would be better off with Northern states having gone their way and Southern states having gone theirs, resulting in no U.S. Constitution and no Union? Unlike today's pseudointellectuals, black abolitionist Frederick Douglass understood the compromise, saying that the three-fifths clause was "a downright disability laid upon the slave holding states" that deprived them of "two-fifths of their natural basis of representation."
Douglass' vision was shared by Patrick Henry and others. Henry said, expressing the reality of the three-fifths compromise, "As much as I deplore slavery, I see that prudence forbids its abolition." With this union, Congress at least had the power to abolish slave trade by 1808. According to delegate James Wilson, many believed the anti-slave-trade clause laid "the foundation for banishing slavery out of this country." Many of the founders abhorred slavery. Their statements can be read on my website, walterewilliams.com.
The most unique aspect of slavery in the Western world was the moral outrage against it, which began to emerge in the 18th century and led to massive elimination efforts. It was Britain's military sea power that put an end to the slave trade. And our country fought a costly war that brought an end to slavery. Unfortunately, these facts about slavery are not in the lessons taught in our schools and colleges. Instead, there is gross misrepresentation and suggestion that slavery was a uniquely American practice.

Thursday, July 20, 2017

Inconvenient Truth.




Study: Percentage of Adults with Carry Permits Up 190 Percent, Violent Crime Down 18 Percent

5

A study from the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) shows during the time period 2007 to 2015, the percentage of adults with carry permits rose 190% and violent crime fell by 18%.

The cut-off year is 2015 because it is “the last full year that crime data is available.” ”
According to CPRC,  from 2007 to 2015 the “murder rates fell from 5.6 [per 100,000] to 4.9 per 100,000. This represents a 12.5% drop.” At the same time, “overall violent crime fell by 18 percent.” And again, these drops are coinciding with a 190% increase in “the percentage of adults with permits.”
This news comes in the same report in which the CPRC showed that the number of concealed carry permit holders “grew by a record 1.83 million” in 2016. This beats the previous record of 1.73 million, set in 2015, and means “6.53% of American adults have permits.” Moreover, “outside the restrictive states of California and New York, about 8% of the adult population has a permit.”
There are 11 states where over 10% of the adult population possesses a carry permit. Those 11 states are led by Alabama, where 20% are permitted, and Indiana, where 15.8% of all adults have a permit.
CPRC observes:
Regression estimates show a significant association between increased permit ownership and drops in murder and violent crime rates. Each one percentage pointincrease in rates of permit-holding is associated with a roughly 2.5 percent drop in the murder rate. This holds true even after accounting for incarceration rates, the number of police per capita, and other demographics.
In other words, more concealed carriers, less murder.
AWR Hawkins is the Second Amendment columnist for Breitbart News and host of Bullets with AWR Hawkins, a Breitbart News podcast. He is also the political analyst for Armed American Radio. Follow him on Twitter: @AWRHawkins. Reach him directly at awrhawkins@breitbart.com

Infanticide, once abortion is OK, it's not a big leap.

Jerry Coyne, a professor in the department of ecology and human evolution at the University of Chicago, recently posted a defense of killing disabled infants on his Why Evolution Is True blog: If you are allowed to abort a fetus that has a severe genetic defect, microcephaly, spina bifida, or so on, then why aren’t you able to euthanize that same fetus just after it’s born? His argument, which is riddled with flaws and mistaken assumptions, begins with a claim commonly found in the works of pro-infanticide philosophers: After all, newborn babies aren’t aware of death, aren’t nearly as sentient as an older child or adult, and have no rational faculties to make judgments (and if there’s severe mental disability, would never develop such faculties). It makes little sense to keep alive a suffering child who is doomed to die or suffer life in a vegetative or horribly painful state. UP NEXT Supreme Court: Part of Trump travel ban can take effect for now 00:35 00:40 In short, lack of sentience and reason boosts the moral acceptability of killing deformed and handicapped infants. This reasoning makes sense only in a “throwaway culture,” which presumes that it’s right to discard the weakest and most vulnerable simply because they don’t meet an arbitrarily imposed marker of when life is worth saving. It is the logic of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World: eliminate any responsibility to care for the suffering by trying to remove all suffering. The problem, however, is that killing is a poor means of reducing pain and suffering. It fosters a culture that undermines the value of life. And this isn’t merely words on a page. In the Netherlands, for example, some patients have been euthanized because they were “tired of living,” as the Washington Post reported in a recent story on assisted suicide. Promoting death is a recipe for more suffering and loss, not less. Robert George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton, and Patrick Lee, a professor of philosophy at Franciscan University of Steubenville, have pointed out, in “The Wrong of Abortion,” additional problems with this argument: This argument is based on a false premise. It implicitly identifies the human person with a consciousness which inhabits (or is somehow associated with) and uses a body; the truth, however, is that we human persons are particular kinds of physical organisms. . . . We are not consciousnesses that possess or inhabit bodies. Rather, we are living bodily entities. George and Lee continue by arguing that “it makes no sense to say that the human organism came to be at one point but the person — you or I — came to be at some later point,” because “to have destroyed the human organism that you are or I am even at an early stage of our lives would have been to have killed you or me.” Coyne’s primary claim, that lack of sentience or rational faculties significantly bolsters the case for killing disabled newborns, is flawed. Coyne later tries to put a positive spin on his argument by asserting that changing views about euthanasia are “the result of a tide of increasing morality in our world, a tide described and explained by Steve Pinker in his superb book The Better Angels of Our Nature.” In Coyne’s mind, the historical tide of progress has led the world to euthanasia. He rests his assumptions on the crass Enlightenment triumphalism of Pinker, whose profoundly misleading book was perhaps best described by philosophical theologian David Bentley Hart, in “The Precious Steven Pinker,” as “not only in excess of the facts, but in resolute defiance of them.” Even a cursory reading of history over the past few hundred years reveals an unprecedented degree of violence simply because it was once impossible to produce violence on such a mass scale. Furthermore, the aggressive rise of moral relativism has muddied the moral waters by casting doubt on the sheer existence of right and wrong. The progressive optimism of Coyne and Pinker is unfounded. It is also difficult to miss the shadow of eugenics hanging over Coyne’s argument. Coyne, in fact, tries to preempt any criticisms on this front: As for the “slippery slope” argument — that this will lead to Nazi-like eugenics — well, this hasn’t come to pass in places where assisted suicide or euthanasia of adults is legal. Superficially, he is correct, but it is silly to think that abuses will occur only in such an explicit manner. “The violence we commit,” writes Hart, “is more hygienic, subtler, and less inconvenient than that committed by our forebears.” Indeed, Wesley J. Smith has highlighted how an increasing number of mentally ill patients are euthanized in countries where it is legal. As he noted at NRO, these patients tend to be “the prime candidates for conjoining euthanasia with organ harvesting.” Sometimes, however, fatal malpractice is more explicit: In 2015, hundreds were euthanized in the Netherlands without request. Ultimately, Coyne doesn’t think humans are any different from other animals, and this justifies euthanasia: The reason we don’t allow euthanasia of newborns is because humans are seen as special, and I think this comes from religion — in particular, the view that humans, unlike animals, are endowed with a soul. Coyne’s Darwin-mad viewpoint is rooted in the faulty notion that modern science and the theory of evolution have taken man down from his pedestal, a process the British humanist and philosopher Raymond Tallis critically termed “aping mankind.” Such a presumption is, to adopt Hart’s phrase, in excess of the facts. Scores of scientists and philosophers would (and do) dispute this sort of hyper-materialistic reductionism. (See Stephen Barr’s The Beliveing Scientist, Hart’s The Experience of God, and Kenneth Miller’s Finding Darwin’s God, for starters.) Unfortunately, Coyne has a platform to teach students at a respectable university. One can only hope that his students see through and reject his misguided, poorly constructed arguments.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449667/infanticide-morally-acceptable-professor-argues

Tuesday, July 18, 2017

Bring it!

Deep Bench: Disgraced Eric Holder Mulling 2020 Run

Posted by  on Jun 21, 2017 at 9:34 am
holdersharpton
We’re sure the media will be all over his gun-running fiasco and how that disqualifies him from running for higher office.
More than two years after leaving the Obama administration, former Attorney General Eric Holder is reentering the political fray.
His goal: to lead the legal resistance to Donald Trump’s agenda — and perhaps even run against the president in 2020.
Seized by a sense of urgency to oppose Trump and restore what he regards as America’s best self, Holder is mulling a White House bid of his own, according to three sources who have spoken to him and are familiar with his thinking.
“Up to now, I have been more behind-the-scenes,” Holder told Yahoo News in an exclusive interview about his plans. “But that’s about to change. I have a certain status as the former attorney general. A certain familiarity as the first African-American attorney general. There’s a justified perception that I’m close to President Obama. So I want to use whatever skills I have, whatever notoriety I have, to be effective in opposing things that are, at the end of the day, just bad for the country.
“Now is the time to be more visible,” Holder added. “Now is the time to be heard.”
Because the Democrats have such trouble getting their message out what with having 99% of the media publicly fellating them 24/7.
Rarely mentioned as a 2020 contender and controversial while in office, Holder would enter any Democratic primary contest as a long shot. Even his engagement with the resistance is something of a surprise. For most of his career, Holder was seen as a conventional, mild-mannered figure. But he grew more pugnacious as attorney general, in part because Republicans never stopped attacking him, and he wound up pursuing a sharply progressive agenda during Obama’s second term.
Even so, Holder insists that he never envisioned himself as an anti-Trump crusader.
“I thought, frankly, along with everybody else, that after the election, with Hillary Clinton as president, I could walk off the field,” he said. “So when she didn’t win, I thought, ‘We’ll have to see how this plays out.’ But it became clear relatively soon — and certainly sooner than I expected — that I had to get back on the field and be in effective opposition.”
Like most Democrats, the delusional Holder actually thinks California is still some kind of trendsetter, when in reality it’s the last vestige of a dead ideology.
“California is in so many ways a trendsetter, whether it is in pop culture or in politics,” Holder told Yahoo News. “That’s why it was such an attractive possibility for me to go to California and work with the legislatorsthere in crafting their response to the Trump administration — because I think what California does gives courage to other states and other public officials in other parts of the country who might be thinking about principled opposition. It shows how that opposition can take shape.”
California obviously has such a great effect on the special election in Georgia Tuesday night, right?
What a clown.

Monday, July 17, 2017

Global Warming Hoax

New Research Calls Global WarmingData 'Not a Valid Representation of Reality'

hot earth, global warming, climate change
(Getty Images)
A new report that analyzed Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data generated by NASA and the NOAA found that it's complete bunk.
The paper was peer-reviewed by some notable scientists with some pretty impressive credentials who agree with the report's conclusions. Among them:
Dr. Alan Carlin, Retired Senior Analyst and manager, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.; Author,Environmentalism Gone Mad, Stairway Press, 2015; Ph.D., Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA; BS, Physics, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA.
Dr. Harold H. Doiron, Retired VP-Engineering Analysis and Test Division, InDyne, Inc.; Ex-NASA JSC, Aerospace Consultant; B.S. Physics, University of Louisiana - Lafayette; M.S., Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston.
Dr. Theodore R. Eck, Ph.D., Economics, Michigan State University; M.A, Economics, University of Michigan; Fulbright Professor of International Economics; Former Chief Economist of Amoco Corp. and Exxon Venezuela; Advisory Board of the Gas Technology Institute and Energy Intelligence Group.
Dr. Richard A. Keen, Instructor Emeritus of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado; Ph.D., Geography/Climatology, University of Colorado; M.S., Astro-Geophysics, University of Colorado; B.A., Astronomy, Northwestern University.
Dr. Anthony R. Lupo, IPCC Expert Reviewer; Professor, Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri; Ph.D.,; Atmospheric Science, Purdue University; M.S., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University
The authors of the study, Dr. James P. Wallace III, Dr. Joseph S. D’Aleo, and Dr. Craig D. Idso, have reached some devastating conclusions:
In this research report, the most important surface data adjustment issues are identified and past changes in the previously reported historical data are quantified.  It was found that each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history. And, it was nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern. This was true for all three entities providing GAST data measurement, NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU.
As a result, this research sought to validate the current estimates of GAST using the best available relevant data. This included the best documented and understood data sets from the U.S. and elsewhere as well as global data from satellites that provide far more extensive global coverage and are not contaminated by bad siting and urbanization impacts. Satellite data integrity also benefits from having cross checks with Balloon data.
The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever –despite current claims of record setting warming.
Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings. (Full Abstract Report)
[...]
While the notion that some “adjustments” to historical data might need to be made is not challenged, logically it would be expected that such historical temperature data adjustments would sometimes raise these temperatures, and sometimes lower them. This situation would mean that the impact of such adjustments on the temperature trend line slope is uncertain. However, each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history.
Can you say, "cooking the books"? Climate skeptics have been saying for years that the "adjustment" of temperature data has suspiciously always seen the adjusted temps go up, never down. The famous "hockey stick" graph was built on these "adjustments."
As the researchers point out, there is nothing wrong with making adjustments to temperatures. Many of the weather stations that have kept decades-long records upon which the temperature data is based have been moved, or a city has grown up around them, or their location above or below sea level has changed. All of these things and much more affect the temperature from year to year.
To compensate for those changes, ethical researchers develop adjustments that are applied across the board to more accurately reflect reality.
But unethical researchers, or those with a political agenda, find ways to subtly manipulate the "adjustments" to temperatures. What the authors of the paper found is that NASA and the NOAA managed to leave out cyclical temperature patterns, thus making it appear the average temperature was constantly rising.
Of course, this report will not be accepted by global warming hysterics. They will probably accuse the authors of being in the pay of Big Oil. But wherever the truth still matters, the report will generate discussion and debate — exactly what good science is supposed to do.