Tuesday, May 23, 2017

Academia's Loons: You Just Can't Make This Stuff Up! Tampons in Men’s Bathrooms Because, “Some Men on Campus Menstruate…”

Written by Keely Sharp

Okay, I am going to try to put this the nicest way possible……if a person menstruates, that means that they have a vagina and a uterus. If said person has a uterus and a period, then they are therefore a woman and should not be in the men’s restroom. Point blank.  That doesn’t stop the “bright” people of colleges from putting tampons in the bathrooms. The reason given: “…the reason we do that is because there are some men on the campus who menstruate…”
.....To

The End of the Collusion “BS”

By Adrian Vance May 22, 2017

Director James Comey should have been fired immediately following his disastrous press briefing July 5, 2016 in which he meticulously laid out the case against Hillary Clinton over mishandled “Classified” material so he took it upon himself to excuse her, overstepping his authority, radiating sanctimony, only to abrogate power again in October clumsily intervening in the election as he had apparently concluded Hillary would lose!

Comey should have been fired on January 20 in President Trump’s first act.

Everything since has been “cat and mouse” for Comey since. He is a former Manhattan US attorney, where his biggest case was sending Martha Stewart to prison for something every Congressman does in every year of his term; buy and sell stocks on inside information. For them it is legal, for us it is not, but no one seems to be able to say, “That is unconstitutional!” .......To Read More.....

A Major Scandal Rocks the DNC

by   21May, 2017

Looks like reality just bit the Dems in the butt big time. Oh, the irony! The Democratic Party is being sued by dozens of their field workers for not paying overtime and for paying substandard wages.

Oops!! This is the party that pushes Fight for 15! and a minimum wage of $15 an hour. On average, I think Bernie Sanders paid his guys $12 an hour. And by the time overtime was counted, Dem workers made well below minimum wage. Their excuse? They couldn’t afford to pay them.......This is endemic with the Democrats. Elizabeth Warren pays her female staffers 71% what the male ones make. Both Warren and Pelosi underpay their staff and hypocritically rail against the Republicans for not pushing a nationwide minimum wage........To Read More.....

My Take - I don't consider this a "major" scandal since there's a whole lot more to come out that will more clearly define what a "major" scandal really is. 

DNC Begins to Panic as Seth Rich Story Continues to Gain Traction

By Andrew West May 22, 2017

The fracturing of the democratic party has reached crisis status in the months following Hillary Clinton’s embarrassing defeat in November. Assaulted by a battery of leaked material during her campaign, Clinton was forced to slink away into the relative obscurity of her upstate NY home in the weeks immediately following the election, as the fallout from a number of Wikileaks’ disclosures threatened the very existence of the party for whom she was running.

The now-public information revealed not only that Clinton believed her best shot at becoming President would come against Donald Trump, but also that she actively pushed the media narrative to prop up Trump. Further leaks disclosed a massive collusion between the Clinton campaign and the DNC itself in which the organizations worked in tandem to nullify the threat posed by democratic socialist Bernie Sanders, who was polling much more dangerously against Trump than the corrupt former first lady.

Clinton immediately attempted to spin these leaks as part of her blanket Russian conspiracy theory, in which the Kremlin was involved in a myriad of schemes meant to get Donald Trump into the White House, where he would work in the best interests of Mother Russia.........To Read More....

My Take - It makes me wonder what's going on in the minds of these people demanding all these investigations.  It appeared to me from the beginning one of these investigations would turn up information the Democrats wouldn't like.  The Putin/Trump scenario seemed ludicrous to me from the start.   The media started demanding an impeachment three days before the innaguraltion.....no sense of conspiracy there.....right? 

Here's the way I see this playing out.

The Democrats have nothing to offer except outrage and scandal - scandal that will have no basis in fact and will come back to haunt them.  But sinse they have no policy plan other than more taxes, more spending, more regulations, bigger government and smaller people - that's all they have. 

They'll be concentrating on their unfounded claims while the Trump team - knowing this is baloney and the investigations will prove this is nothing but TV fiction show orchestrated by the left and their allies in the media - will ignore all of this allowing them to concentrate on domestic and foreign policy.  The Democrats will be caught behind and befuddled. 

Information will be uncovered - indictable information - by either the special council, investigators for the Congress or by the FBI and Justice department - against the Democrats.  Indictments will be issued against some of the biggest names in Democrat politics and eventually Obama's team will start to squeal to save themselves.   Then the TV reality show will begin!  That will be the Watergate scandal they're constantly screaming about - but against them.

The Dirty Red Secrets of May: The Left and Communism

By Daniel Greenfield

This is the left: It returns to the dream of the true radicalism of a totalitarian leftist state. It occasionally deals with uncomfortable truths. Circles around them. And then it lapses back into an opium dream of Marxists sitting around a kitchen table and debating which windows to smash first and who to shoot first.

American leftists celebrated the venerable Communist holiday of May Day in the traditional fashion. Portland grad students, who have never worked a day in their lives, marked International Workers Day by smashing the windows of local businesses. There’s a long proud tradition of the revolutions of the working class being led by rich leftists like Marx, Engels, Lenin and Castro to who work is an evil mystery that they spent their miserable lives resolving never to become acquainted with.
The New York Times, which has far too many of its own windows to go around smashing those of others, instead offered some sickening nostalgia for the red dead past with a little piece titled, “When Communism Inspired Americans.”

Which Americans did Communism inspire?.........Curiously, the left never applies this same indictment to its own fondness for Communism. Instead it traffics in nostalgia for Communism’s idealism, as if its ideals were any nobler than those of Nazism. But, the left believes they were. And how could it not? Communism is just the left taken to its inevitable conclusion. And, so, the left excuses Communism’s excess of enthusiasm for the cause.

Mistakes were made. The mass murder of millions being one of them. Generations of repression being another. Forced abortions, mass starvation, forced labor, slavery, death camps, virulent racism, psychiatric torture, invasion and terrorism being a few others. But their ideals were so idealistic...........Read More

Judge: Lois Lerner’s tea party-targeting testimony can stay secret — for now

Critics seek transparency in IRS probe

By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Thursday, May 18, 2017 

Lois G. Lerner and Holly Paz, two key figures in the IRS‘ tea party-targeting, can keep testimony about their role in the targeting secret, at least for now, a federal judge ruled Thursday.

The two women had said they feared death threats and other harassment if their depositions in a class action lawsuit against the IRS became public.

U.S. District Judge Michael R. Barrett had originally ordered their depositions be sealed, but on Thursday he removed that prohibition and instead said the testimony should be deemed “confidential,” keeping it secret until he can see what the women had to say and what effect releasing it to the public would have........To Read More......

The Dem Savior With "Kennedyish" Features

Posted by Daniel Greenfield Sunday, May 21, 2017 3 Comments @ Sultan Knish Blog

The Democrats are in trouble. And the list of party saviors is as broad as it is laughable. There’s Bernie Sanders, who denies that he’s a Democrat, Elizabeth Warren, who might not even survive reelection in her own state, Keith Ellison, an Islamist who keeps lying about his past with Farrakhan, Howard Dean, currently denying the existence of the First Amendment, and Maxine Waters.

You know you’re in trouble when your party is being represented on cable news by Maxine Waters. Desperate lefties had tried to tout the 78-year-old Waters as a hero to millennials. Maxine tried to help out by claiming, “I was a millennial once”.

When trying to appeal to millennials, it’s a good idea to use speakers who know what millennials are.

Jon Ossoff, the latest Dem savior, has one thing and only one thing going for him. He is a millennial. Ossoff didn’t vote in the 2012 presidential election. He can’t vote for himself in his current battle to take Georgia's sixth district for the Dems because he doesn’t live in the district he’s running to represent.

In his defense, Ossoff has argued that no one should have expected him to live in the district because, "No one knew there was going to be an election coming".

And why would he bother living in the district unless an election was coming? Or even once the election was underway. At least Facebook billionaire Chris Hughes actually bought his boyfriend Sean Eldridge a $2 mil home in the district he was trying to represent. Even if he didn’t bother living there. Couldn’t Ossoff have at least paid lip service to the locals by picking up a nice mansion to pretend to live in?

His $500K in Apple stock, $250K in Home Depot stock or $100K in Apple and GE stock should have been enough to cover a nice fixer-upper in some of the sixth district’s poorer areas.

However it should be noted that unlike Maxine Waters, who was born almost half a century before the existence of millennials, Jon Ossoff really is a millennial. As Mother Jones boasts, “Jon Ossoff's Race Is the First Real Battle Between Millennials and Trump”. (Trump actually won white millennials 48 to 43.)

Ossoff is also the public face of the new DNC plan which involves DNC boss Tom Perez yelling obscenities into a microphone to prove just how “woke” he is and a 50 state strategy consisting of narrowly failing to win special elections in Republican districts.

The new DNC is Obama’s creature. Its boss is an Obama lackey and Ossoff is the perfect Obama Dem. He's a graduate of the London School of Economics; the local equivalent of the Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow. He followed that up by plowing his dead grandfather’s money into a documentary company whose biggest clients included Al Jazeera.

Then he claimed that this made him a small business owner. “I’m a small business owner. I’ve made payroll every month and balanced the budget every year at my company.”

When most people think of a small business owner they don’t think of a rich kid playing around with documentaries for a terrorist network. But it doesn’t get more Obama than that.

And Ossoff is the model for what an Obama Dem should be. As a New Yorker hagiography put it, he has “Kennedy-ish features and a deliberate, Obama-like manner of speaking.”

Kennedy-ish features certainly cover a lot of territory. Ossoff reputedly boasts a nose, eyes and teeth. Just like a Kennedy. But nothing excites Dems like the latest incarnation of JFK. Especially now that its former incarnation, Bill Clinton, is looking more and more like Ted Kennedy every day.

Ossoff’s experience in politics comes from handling foreign policy for Hank Johnson; a member of Congress who makes Maxine Waters seem statesmanlike. If millennials know Hank Johnson, it’s because he went viral for asking whether Guam might tip over if there were too many people living there.

Jon Ossoff’s position on Guam tipping over is unknown.

Also there was the time that Hank Johnson compared Jews to termites. "You see one home after another being appropriated by Jewish people," he grumbled at a BDS event. "Almost like termites can get into a residence and eat before you know that you’ve been eaten up."

Jon Ossoff isn’t a big fan of Jewish termites either. Instead he backs J Street which has spent years seeking a two state solution to the Jewish termite problem. J Street’s PAC has kicked in $56K to Ossoff.

That’s pennies considering Ossoff’s $8 million war chest. But it won’t surprise you too much that 95% of his donors are from out of state. 75% of them probably couldn’t find Georgia on a map.

It’s unknown whether Jon Ossoff can find the district that he doesn’t live in on a map.

Ossoff boasts an impressive Hank resume. By 19, he claimed to have been the Deputy Communications Director for Hank Johnson where he served as “Speechwriter, press officer, strategist for successful 2006 effort to unseat a 12-year Congressional incumbent.”

That’s not bad for a kid who couldn’t legally buy a drink in a bar.

By 20, he was the Legislative Correspondent and Systems Administrator for Johnson. By 23, he was Johnson’s campaign manager. Not to mention his Senior Legislative Assistant.

That’s very impressive. Or maybe not.

Ossoff’s parents are regular Dem donors. In 2006, the year that Ossoff’s LinkedIn resume claims he became the Deputy Communications Director for Hank Johnson, his father wrote a nice check to his boss. His parents, Richard Ossoff and Heather Fenton, went on writing those nice checks.

Hank Johnson raises a lot of money even though he doesn’t face competitive elections. He ran unopposed in 2014. He routinely wins elections by 75%. And yet he raised $638,258 for that race in which he ran unopposed.

At the end of 2016, Ossoff’s parents suddenly began writing some big checks to the DNC for a total of around $50,000. And the DNC became very enthusiastic about Jon Ossoff. It anointed him as the candidate.

This is the new Democrat Party.

A ton of money didn’t buy Ossoff the election. And that was the plan. Bet a ton of cash on a Dem in a low turnout special election while the Republicans squabble among themselves. No other Dem managed to score above 0.3%. But the Republicans still scored a majority of the vote. And so now there’s a runoff.

And that giant pile of cash might buy Ossoff as much as it did Sean Eldridge.

Dems are celebrating a near victory in a special election with a 192,000 voter turnout. The previous year’s election had a 326,000 turnout. The Ossoff miracle that the media is buzzing about is that he won 92,000 votes. The last Democrat to run for that seat won almost 125,000 votes.

He was still crushed 62% to 38% by Tom Price with 201,000 votes. In a previous midterm election, Price had to make do with only 139,000 votes.

Sneaking in to win a special election outright with a giant wad of outside cash was Ossoff’s best bet. It was a good bet on a bad candidate. Now the new DNC’s media allies will go back to talking up how much less of a margin they lost by this time around. Like that other special election they lost in Kansas 53 to 46. And preemptively blaming racist Republican vote suppression for Ossoff’s defeat.

Think of all the black people eager to vote for a rich white leftist hipster with “Kennedy-ish features” who didn’t get their chance.

All three of them.

But the DNC is more committed to fundraising and leftist politics than it is to winning. That’s why Jon Ossoff is where he is. It would have been smarter to run a more conservative candidate in the district. But the DNC is now an Obama joint dedicated to the proposition of running unapologetic leftists who can be confused with JFK by a blind drunk in a dark room. If Ossoff does nothing else, he pushes the party further to the left and blocks any move to recruit conservative Dem candidates.

Ossoff’s slogan was “Make Trump Furious”. But the real slogan is, “Keep the Dems Left”.


Medicaid Reforms in Trump Budget Are Necessary and Desirable

May 22, 2017 by Dan Mitchell @ International Liberty
When President Trump released his so-called “skinny budget” back in March (dealing with the parts of Leviathan that are annually appropriated), I applauded several of the specific recommendations.
  • Shutting down the wasteful National Endowment for the Arts.
  • Defunding National Public Radio and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
  • Terminating the scandal-plagued Community Development Block Grant program.
The only problem is that I didn’t sense – and still don’t see – any serious effort to push through these much-needed fiscal reforms (and the same is true for his proposed tax cut).

The bottom line is that Trump has the power to achieve the bulk of his agenda, but only if he is willing to veto pork-filled bills and force a partial government shutdown. But he’s already blinked once in this type of battle, so the spending lobbies feel confident that he can be rolled again.

But let’s set that aside. The White House is about to release the President’s full budget and there already is considerable angst about potential reforms to Medicaid. Here are some excerpts from a report in the Washington Post.
President Trump’s first major budget proposal on Tuesday will include massive cuts to Medicaid…more than $800 billion over 10 years. …Trump’s decision to include the Medicaid cuts is significant because it shows he is rejecting calls from a number of Senate Republicans not to reverse the expansion of Medicaid that President Barack Obama achieved as part of the Affordable Care Act. The House has voted to cut the Medicaid funding… The proposed changes will be a central feature of Trump’s first comprehensive budget plan…it will seek changes to entitlements — programs that are essentially on auto­pilot and don’t need annual authorization from Congress.
I have two reactions to this story.

First, the Washington Post is lying (and not for the first time). There will be no Medicaid cuts in Trump’s budget. Contrary to the headline, there aren’t “big cuts” and there won’t be any “slashing.” We won’t see the actual numbers until tomorrow, but I can state with complete certainty that the Trump Administration is merely going to propose a reduction in how fast the program’s budget increases.

Second, it’s a very good idea to slow down the growth of Medicaid spending.
Here is some background information on the program, starting with an article in The Week by Shikha Dalmia
Medicaid is arguably the civilized world’s worst health insurance program. …This joint federal and state program has historically allowed the feds to give states 50 cents for every dollar they spent on purchasing health coverage for the poor. Because of this federal largesse, Medicaid has grown astronomically, becoming the single biggest ticket item on virtually every state budget. …President Obama essentially money-bombed states into expanding it even further. He told states that Uncle Sam would pick up 100 percent of the tab for the first three years for every additional person they covered up to 138 percent of the poverty level. …Medicaid now covers almost 75 million Americans. And even before ObamaCare took effect, Medicaid paid for almost half of all births in America. …The combined annual cost of the program now exceeds half a trillion dollars (with the feds’ share at 63 percent and states’ at 37 percent) — which adds up to roughly $7,000 for every man, woman, and child covered by the program. …Several reputable studies have found that Medicaid patients experience no better health outcomes than uninsured people, and arguably even slightly worse outcomes. …ObamaCare is like a Rube Goldberg contraption. Taking it apart and reassembling it is easier said than done — even if it’s the right and smart thing to do. And if Republicans can’t figure out a way to do so, American patients and taxpayers will be the big losers.
And here are some excerpts from a Wall Street Journal editorial.
The…important goal is to change the incentives over the long term and eliminate the perverse formulas that discount the welfare of the truly needy. …A helpful revolution in Medicaid would be to end the match rate that rewards higher spending and move to block grants. States would get some fixed pot of money annually, determined by how many people are enrolled. The pots might be expensive in the early years, but states would become accountable for marginal per capita spending growth over time. Governors can be assuaged by ending Medicaid’s command-and-control regulatory model, freeing them to use new tools to control costs.
James Capretta of the American Enterprise has additional details, particularly showing how the “federal medical assistance percentage” encourages higher spending.
In 1965, the authors of Medicaid thought they were creating a program that would provide federal structure, uniformity, and some funding for the many state programs that were already providing relatively inexpensive “indigent care” services to low-income households. …Medicaid has grown into the largest health care program in the country by enrollment, with 66 million participants and with annual federal and state costs of more than $550 billion. …Medicaid spending has increased rapidly nearly every year since the program was enacted, creating significant pressure in federal and state budgets. …The Medicaid FMAP is the fundamental flaw in the program’s current design and the main reason it is so costly. States can initiate new spending in Medicaid—spending that often will boost economic activity in the state—and federal taxpayers pay for at least half the cost. At the same time, savings from state-initiated Medicaid-spending cuts are also shared with federal taxpayers. For instance, in a state where the FMAP is 60 percent, the governor and state legislators face the unattractive prospect of keeping only $1.00 of every $2.50 in Medicaid savings they can identify and implement. The other $1.50 goes to the federal treasury. Put another way, governors and state legislators are reluctant to impose $2.50 in budgetary pain for a $1.00 gain to their bottom line.
The solution to this rigged system, he explains, is block grants or per-capita caps.
The…important structural change would be the switch to some form of fixed federal funding to states. The federal government would continue to heavily support the Medicaid program, but the commitment would have a limit, which would give states a strong incentive to manage the program for efficiency and cost control. One approach would be a block grant. Under a block grant, the federal government would make fixed, aggregate payments to the states based on historical spending patterns. Cost overruns at the state level would require the state to find additional resources within the state budget. Conversely, states that were able to control costs would enjoy the full benefits of their efforts. …Under per capita caps, the federal government would establish for each state a per-person payment for each of the main eligibility categories in the Medicaid program: the elderly, the blind and disabled, nondisabled adults, and children. The federal government would then make payments to the states based on the number of Medicaid enrollees in each of these categories. The per capita payment would be based on historical spending rates for the various categories of beneficiaries in each state and, again, would be indexed to a predetermined growth rate.
By the way, I previously shared two very depressing charts from Jim’s article.
In a 2012 column for Forbes, Avik Roy explains why reform will produce good results.
People on Medicaid have far worse health outcomes than those with private insurance, and in many cases those with no insurance at all. …there are…substantial efficiencies that can be gained by giving states broad flexibility in the way they care for the poor. Indeed, this is what made block-granting welfare in 1996 such a spectacular success. …three states—Rhode Island, Indiana, and New York—have taken advantage of more flexibility to save money while delivering better care. …Rhode Island was able to save $100 million, and slow the growth of Medicaid from 8 percent per year to 3 percent, by making a few tweaks to their program that they couldn’t before…under a block-grant system, states can identify ways to save money while improving care, and other states can adopt best practices.
Writing for the Wall Street Journal, Professor Regina Herzlinger and Dr. Richard Boxer elaborate on how a new system would work.
Republicans should combine two ideas popular in their party: block grants and health savings accounts. The former would let states tailor their Medicaid policies to their local communities, while the latter would give enrollees the ability to choose their own insurers and providers. In essence, Washington could give the states Medicaid block grants, allocated per capita, to provide beneficiaries with high-deductible insurance and health savings accounts. …Health savings accounts, which force medical providers to compete for consumers who pay out of their own pocket, also reduce overall costs. When employers introduce such accounts, health-care costs are reduced by about 5% for each of the next three years, according to a 2015 study from the National Bureau of Economic Research.
Nicholas Eberstadt, in an article for Commentary, points out the Medicaid is an employment killer.
21st-century America has witnessed a dreadful collapse of work. …According to the Census Bureau’s SIPP survey (Survey of Income and Program Participation), as of 2013, over one-fifth (21 percent) of all civilian men between 25 and 55 years of age were Medicaid beneficiaries. For prime-age people not in the labor force, the share was over half (53 percent). …means-tested benefits cannot support a lavish lifestyle. But they can offer a permanent alternative to paid employment, and for growing numbers of American men, they do. The rise of these programs has coincided with the death of work for larger and larger numbers of American men not yet of retirement age.
And the icing on the cake is that Medicaid finances much of the opioid problem in America.
[The Medicaid card] pays for medicine—whatever pills a doctor deems that the insured patient needs. …For a three-dollar Medicaid co-pay, therefore, addicts got pills priced at thousands of dollars, with the difference paid for by U.S. and state taxpayers. A user could turn around and sell those pills, obtained for that three-dollar co-pay, for as much as ten thousand dollars on the street. …Medicaid inadvertently helped finance America’s immense and increasing appetite for opioids in our new century.
And if we want a cherry on top of the icing, Medicaid also is a cesspool of fraud, as reported by Reason.
Every year, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) releases a report putting a dollar figure on the amount of improper payments in Medicaid. …it shows that the program…spends a substantial portion of its annual budget…On fraud, on waste, on services not rendered, not medically necessary, or incorrectly billed. Last year, for example, the GAO found that about 9.8 percent of federal Medicaid expenditures, or about $29 billion, was spent improperly. …This year, the total has risen once again. About 10.5 percent, or $36 billion, of federal spending on the program isn’t up to snuff, according to a GAO report released this morning.
On that issue, my “favorite” example of Medicaid fraud was perpetrated by Russian diplomats.
Last but not least, Charlie Katebi discusses Medicaid problems in a column for the Federalist.
Trump advisor Kellyanne Conway said Trump wants to “block-grant Medicaid to the states” to ensure “those who are closest to the people in need will be administering.” …Block grants would cap federal Medicaid funding and let states decide how to use those dollars. It would introduce flexibility and budget discipline to a program that sorely needs both. …Medicaid’s funding formula incentivizes policymakers to expand the program at the expense of core state government functions. …Medicaid’s structure also hurts its beneficiaries. …Washington bars reformers from making meaningful changes without going through a lengthy and restrictive approval process. This forces states to control costs the only way they can: paying doctors less. States have cut Medicaid’s reimbursement so low that many providers simply refuse to treat its beneficiaries. …Block grants promise to break Medicaid’s vicious cycle of rising costs and declining care. Spendthrift politicians would no longer be able to expand Medicaid and expect the federal government to foot the bill. But state-level reformers will enjoy greater authority to streamline and improve the program.
I may as well close with the video I narrated for the Center for Freedom and Prosperity.

The video was released in 2011, but nothing has changed…except that the numbers today are far worse, in part because of Obama’s Medicaid expansion.

P.S. Based on CBO’s long-run forecast, Trump also should reconsider his views on old-age entitlements and support Medicare reform and Social Security reform.


Energy & Environmental Newsletter: May 22, 2017

By -- May 22, 2017

The Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions (AWED) is an informal coalition of individuals and organizations interested in improving national, state, and local energy and environmental policies. Our premise is that technical matters like these should be addressed by using Real Science (please consult WiseEnergy.org for more information).

A key element of AWED’s efforts is public education. Towards that end, every three weeks we put together a newsletter to balance what is found in the mainstream media about energy and the environment. We appreciate MasterResource for their assistance in publishing this information.
Some of the more important articles in this issue are:

Wind turbines are not clean or green, and they provide zero global energy
Pitting Wind and Solar Against Nuclear Power
What Happens to an Economy When Forced to Use Renewable Energy?
How Much Does the U.S. Govt Subsidize Electricity Generating Technologies?
Wind Subsidies Should End
Is Renewable Energy an Economic Boon or Bust
Environmental Noise Pollution: Has Public Health Become too Utilitarian?
Impact of Noise on Health: The Divide between Policy and Science
MI Town passed 30 dBA night turbine noise limit and 35 dBA day limit
The Continuing Saga of Wind Turbine Noise
Bats Massacred by Wind Turbines May Get Reprieve in Sweden
Tennessee Passes One Year Wind Energy Moratorium
AWEA: Five Community Tactics to Enable More Wind Development
Thoughts on the Public Discourse over Climate Change
Are Microbiologists Climate-Denying Science Haters?
Red Team EMA’s Endangerment Finding
You’re Calling Me “Anti Science?”
15 New Studies Abandon Claims of Man-Made Influence on Arctic Climate
Dilbert Disses Global Warming; Liberal Heads Explode
How to Convince Skeptics that Climate Change is a Problem
Climate Dollars: How a flawed study fooled a lot of the media
Peer Reviewed Study: Penis is Conceptual Driver Behind Much of Climate Change
NY Times Apologizes for being Accurate and Objective

Greed Energy Economics:

What Happens to an Economy When Forced to Use Renewable Energy?
How Much Does the U.S. Govt Subsidize Electricity Generating Technologies?
Wind Subsidies Should End
Is Renewable Energy an Economic Boon or Bust
Big ‘Green’ and Mean: A Wind-Energy Giant Attacks Small-Town America
Today’s most productive energy workers are in coal and gas, not solar
Massachusetts’ Proposed Carbon Tax Harmful to Residents
Op-Ed: NY Wind Projects – No Economic Benefit In Sight
Wind Industry Titan Soaks Up Billions in Tax Subsidies
Big Wind gets Spanked in Michigan
Congress Asked To Eliminate $270 Million A Year In Solar Subsidies
SolarWorld Says It Is Insolvent
Wind energy – con: Tell taxpayers the real cost

Turbine Health Matters:

Environmental Noise Pollution: Has Public Health Become too Utilitarian?
Impact of Noise on Health: The Divide between Policy and Science
MI Town passed 30 dBA night turbine noise limit and 35 dBA day limit
The Continuing Saga of Wind Turbine Noise
Vermont Issues new noise standards, and 10 X setback
Abstracts Accepted for International Wind Turbine Noise conference
Archive: Wind Turbine Infrasound Recordings Shown On An Oscilloscope
In Canada the Minister of Health does not have authority over turbines

Renewable Energy Destroying Ecosystems:

Bats Massacred by Wind Turbines May Get Reprieve in Sweden
Birds, tortoise at new risk from wind power growth
NYS’ Hypocrisy re Wind Energy
Wind-power pollution: turbine oil seeps into the land in Mexico
Ten Lies About Fracking

Miscellaneous Energy News:

Wind turbines are neither clean nor green and they provide zero global energy
Pitting Wind and Solar Against Nuclear Power
The War On Wind Turbines Is So Right
The coming threat from US wind states
Prior Governor: Wind Energy Was A Big Mistake
Tennessee Passes One Year Wind Energy Moratorium
AWEA: Five Community Tactics to Enable More Wind Development
Bill McKibben’s Wind Energy Hypocrisy
Local Michigan Voters Say No To More Wind Development
Sign Petition to Scrap Renewable Energy Targets
Inside Greenpeace’s Campaign to Stop Australian Coal Export
African Nations to build over 100 New Coal Plants
Why India and Pakistan are Renewing their Love Affair with Coal
Report: China and India Dominate Coal Ownership
Former PM: Renewable Energy Policy is Scandalous
France’s pro-science leader has many challenges ahead
UK Energy and Climate Change Policy
Remarks by President Trump at Signing of EO to Create Energy Independence

Manmade Global Warming Articles:
Thoughts on the Public Discourse over Climate Change
Are Microbiologists Climate-Denying Science Haters?
Red Team EMA’s Endangerment Finding
You’re Calling Me “Anti Science?”
15 New Studies Abandon Claims of Man-Made Influence On Arctic Climate
Dilbert Disses Global Warming; Liberal Heads Explode
How to Convince Skeptics that Climate Change is a Problem
Climate Dollars: How a flawed study fooled a lot of the media
Peer Reviewed Study: Penis is Conceptual Driver Behind Much of Climate Change
Global Warming and Consensus Claims Are Betrayals of Science
NY Times Apologizes for being Accurate and Objective
Open Letter to Ivanka Trump
New Short Video: The Fake News 97% Consensus
Obama Administration Falsified ‘Climate Change’ Data
Global Temperatures Plunge .5 degrees C in April
Is There a Trend in Global Average Temperature?
Sign Petition Against Paris Agreement
Escaping the Paris Climate Agreement
A Global Warming Surprise
NPR Bungles Sea Level Rise Story
Earth’s forests grew 9% in a new satellite survey
Study: The epistemological status of general circulation models
Study: Scrutinizing the carbon cycle and CO2 residence time in the atmosphere

See Prior AWED Newsletters

ENERGY STAR Repeal To Cause Global Depression For Progressive Media

by | May 20, 2017 | Media

President Trump recently announced the ‘close out‘ of the ENERGY STAR program, and has officially begun the deconstruction of one of the most corrupt federal programs in US history. This effectively ends the decades old mandate requiring that all government agencies purchase only the EPA’s brand of ‘certified’ energy efficiency products and services, opening our government contracting to honest competition for the first time in decades.

This is great news for most Americans, not so much for mainstream media outlets that helped market the EPA’s unique commodity for many years. EPA claims their brand has saved over $430 billion in utility bills since 1992, but can’t explain how the extraordinary energy saving occur or why electric bills would skyrocket from the use of ENERGY STAR products........The EPA claims their ENERGY STAR brand saves 25-50% more electrical energy than identical products, but can provide no proof to support their claims.

There is no National Standards for the measurement or verification of electrical energy savings in technologies, government bureaucrats are solely responsible for making those energy-saving claims and our intelligence community apparently provided the only verification on the performance of the EPA’s unique product.............Understand that Progressives have no interest in competing for real jobs, have no skill-sets to create new businesses and they certainly don’t have any products or services of value to sell to our government that could ever compete against those provided by American small business. Now that’s what I call depressing!  SOURCE

Monday, May 22, 2017

Activists claim that without long-term studies, GMOs cannot be considered safe: What does science say?


There have been more than a thousand studies, most of them by independent researchers, documenting the safety of GMOs. More than 270 independent global science oversight agencies–most recently the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM)—have issued statements underscoring the safety of GM technology.

But still, even more than a year after the 20-member NASEM panel’s comprehensive report confirmed that foods with genetically engineered ingredients are as safe as organic and other conventionally bred foods, dedicated anti-GMO activists say remain unconvinced.......To Read More....

My Take - How can you reason someone out of  a position they've not been reasoned into?  Environmentalism is in effect a neo-pagan secular religion.  Once we understand that we understand they'll never be convinced to abandon any irrational, misanthropic or morally defective position they've adopted - no matter how many people suffer and die as a result of their schemes.  If any group deserved to be tried for crimes against humanity - it's every one of the green advocacy groups, starting with Greenpeace and the Sierra Club.

When the basis for their arguments against GMOs is fear of "the potential of ‘unknown’ and ‘unique’ dangers of allergens that could be created–the kind that might not be known unless regulators required long-term, multi-generational studies" - we have to understand they're not reasoning - their emoting about unknown and unseen forces. 

Sounds more like religion than science to me.  As for these "long term studies" - that really is the unending story. No matter how long, how expansive, how well funded, how well designed or how well carried out these studies are - they'll demand more studies.  Their real goal for all these studies - and lawsuits - is to create a financial burden so great companies will just abandon their products. 

It's worked over and over again - just ask why we've stopped building refineries in this country. 

The Reality of the Left

By Rich Kozlovich

Do you remember when Hillary was so incensed to hear Trump might not accept the election results?  She just thought that was outrageous,  just about calling it treason?  Until she lost!

What appears to be happening is the left is organized, directed and funded by leftists to attend these meetings to disrupt meetings and intimidate those they disagree with, and the party of the left is directly connected to this, and their public relations arm - the main stream media. Of course having the main stream Republicans as allies doesn't hurt.

Leftism is now and has always been a violent movement. The left will lie, cheat, steal, and physically attack anyone they oppose.  It's so much a part of who and what they are they have no inkling all or any of that just might be wrong. 

They have no sense of right and wrong because this is a movement without a stable moral foundation, with the exception of one moral foundation they all adhere to - do anything it takes to get and hold power.  When that power is denied to them - they react violently.  This will not stop until their icons are thrown into jail - and they can start with the Clintons.

  • Republicans fearing for their safety as anger, threats mount - A growing number of House Republicans are facing physical threats from angry constituents in their districts, leading many to fear for their safety. In the last few weeks alone, the FBI arrested a man threatening Rep. Martha McSally's (R-Ariz.) life, a woman pursued Rep. David Kustoff (R-Tenn.) in her car, and Rep. Tom Garrett (R-Va.) heightened security at a town hall event in response to death threats............“They booed God. They booed the pastor. They booed the prayer. They booed the name of the church. They booed when I said rights come from God,” Brat recounted to The Hill just off the House floor. “That’s a fundamental tenet of western civilization. I mean, I didn’t think that was partisan.”.......
  • House Seeks Security Upgrades at Members' Offices Back Home - The U.S. House's Sergeant-at-Arms is seeking at least $2 million to increase security at Congress members' offices in their home districts, the News4 I-Team has learned.  The security upgrades include panic buttons for offices that don't already have them and video surveillance equipment.  Members of Congress have made an increasing number of requests to improve home-office security, Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving said recently. He's seeking the additional money from the House Appropriations Committee.  He didn't specify the nature of any threats against members........
  • CA Dem Chair: ‘All Together Now: F*ck Donald Trump!’ as Crowd Holds Up Two Middle Fingers (VIDEO) - California – The classless Democrats gathered in Sacramento for a state convention on Saturday. They had some harsh words for the President as they chanted, ‘F*** Donald Trump!’...........
  • Trump Is POTUS, and Leftist Hysteria Is Noise - It's helpful to watch the SecDef press conference on YouTube, if you want to see how Trump's troops are taking charge.  Obama's limp-wristed and arguably pro-jihad policies, which had some of our military in despair about the crimes against children they were forced to witness in places like Syria, are being replaced by solid, competent, humane but forceful military actions.  It's on YouTube; watch it, and you'll see standard American competence in charge..........While the media are doing their famous Daffy Duck act, bungee jumping on their heads to catch all the attention, they are only spreading their own hysteria to our profoundly confused fellow citizens who believed a pack of lies......
  • The Dreary Watergate Trope  - The long overdue firing of the political hack running the FBI has inevitably produced from Democrats that dreary "Watergate" trope: Trump is Nixon, and the Republic is in danger.  These are, of course, the same Democrats who stonewalled efforts to show the corruption of Lois Lerner persecuting conservatives, the criminal destruction of government records, and the transparent lies IRS officials told Congress under oath...........

American Renaissance vs. the Far Left

Chris Roberts, American Renaissance, May 19, 2017

Who is the real counter-culture?
One of the most bizarrely enduring political myths is that there is some kind of shady link between high finance, big business, and white advocates. Leftists seem to believe that the corporate board of Walmart is full of race realists, that the Koch brothers have a vendetta against black people, that Goldman-Sachs funnels money to militias, etc.

It is all a fantasy, of course. With vanishingly few exceptions, the wealthiest people and organizations in the world support more immigration, affirmative-action and integration, and oppose any kind of white identity. This is public information. You can look up how many Fortune 500 companies donate to the NAACP, La Raza—and to the foundation behind AmRen, the New Century Foundation (zero, of course). You can also just as easily find out which companies filed amicus briefs in favor of affirmative action and against President Trump’s attempted travel bans.......To Read More....

The Suicide of the Republican Party

By Robert Arvay May 22, 2017

Sir Winston Churchill once quipped that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. Today, we might quip that Trump was the second worst president we could have elected. But, whatever his faults, Hillary Clinton would have been far worse, a devastating alternative, Obama squared. Her policies as president would have been those of the University of California, Berkeley, on steroids. By now, we would have become a nation without borders. Hate speech would have been defined as anything -- anything at all -- that liberal progressives don’t like. As for the Second Amendment, the government of Hillary, by Hillary, and for Hillary, would be figuring how best to pry your guns from your cold, dead hands. Health care services would have become a government monopoly, as is the Post Office, and worse, with no medical FedEx for competition. With all that sinister certainty, how could any Republican still be a never-Trumper?...........Read more

Bob Beckel fired by Fox News (again)

By Thomas Lifson May 21, 2017

More turmoil at the Fox News Channel, as Bob Beckel, a cast member of the prime time program The Five, has been fired in a scandal with shocking racial overtones. Dave Bauder of the Associated Press reports............Read more

My Take - What they should have fired him for was for being stupid.  They tolerated his rediculous clabber, right along with Juan Williams and Geraldo.  I would think stupid would be a criteria for being on any news show, but it isn't - and the ratings at Fox are starting to show it.  I hope the rest of that crew starts to get tougher on Williams and Geraldo.  Without logical fallacies and out right inaccuracies they're left with nothing to say.  Stop being buddies with these people.  I'm not saying be impolite - but they're not friends of conservatives or conservative thought.  Beat their arguments with the biggest stick you can find. 

European Commission: Scientists find neonicotinoids don’t harm bees, restrictions hurt farmers—but support permanent ban


Every time I think the European Union’s regulatory bureaucrats have bottomed out on substance and integrity, they find a way to sink even lower.

In February, I wrote about how the European Union has rigged the evaluation of whether state-of-the-art neonicotinoid pesticides (“neonics”) are “bee-safe” by using a “Bee Guidance Review Document” whose test conditions were made deliberately impossible to satisfy. (For those of you just tuning in, neonics, introduced in the 1990’s, are currently the most widely used class of pesticides. Mainly applied as seed coatings to crops, they are taken up into the plant and selectively control only the pests that actually damage or destroy crops while minimizing exposure to humans, animals and beneficial insects—including bees.)

Since then, however, the stakes in the EU crop protection drama have only increased. The pressure from activists has intensified–as have the EU’s manipulative and dishonest regulatory machinations. (How appropriate that Machiavelli was from an EU country.)........Then, in a striking bit of Orwellian newspeak, EU health and food safety Commissioner Andriukaitis claimed that the 2013 ban was “at no time based on a direct link on bee mortality.” Rather, he explained, the ban was instituted simply because the “approval criteria were no longer satisfied”–criteria derived from the rigged, unapproved “Bee Guidance Document” mentioned above. This is the sort of bureaucratic doubletalk that has caused EU regulators to be so despised............To Read More....

My Take - It might be interesting to compare the despicable actions of EU bureaucrats and the EPA.  In 2005 the American Council on Science and Health petitioned the EPA under the Information Quality Act, which required agencies to base their regulations on the best information available, to stop declaring products carcinogenic based on rodent testing alone as that was not the best information available for that purpose. 

Months later - after giving themselves numerous extentions - the EPA responded saying these declaration didn't fall under the auspices of the IQA because they weren't based on science but EPA policy.  So the question everyone should be asking is this - if their policies aren't based on science - what's are they based on.

The EU is going to collapse and the EPA needs to be dismantled

Environmental health: Study linking chemicals and pollution to increased cancers misses mark

Last week a colleague sent me an article in the New York Daily News titled “Increased cancer rate in US linked to bad environment” and asked my opinion of it.

The opening sentence read, “Improving the worst environments in the US could prevent 39 in every 100,000 cancer deaths.” The Daily News item refers to an article published in the journal Cancer, which is published by the American Cancer Society, and to an accompanying  editorial......To Read More........