Please Hit

Folks, This is a Free Site and will ALWAYS stay that way. But the only way I offset my expenses is through the donations of my readers. PLEASE Consider Making a Donation to Keep This Site Going. SO HIT THE TIP JAR (it's on the left-hand column).

Wednesday, September 2, 2015

California Attorney General Trying To Scare Conservative Groups Into Silence

California's attorney general, the Democratic Party's Kamala Harris is doing her best to silence conservative speech. She is demanding the Center for Competitive Politics (CCP), public-interest law firm specializing in protecting the First Amendment's guarantee of free political speech, to disclose its principal donors to the state, a move that is putting a chill down the spines of 501(C)(3) and 501(C)(4) organizations that operate in the state. As the AG Harris oversees licensing of charities and other nonprofits so her threat is real.

Charities list all the donors on their federal tax returns (Form 990), however they redact the lists when they make them public or submit them to the states. When I discovered, for example, that George Soros was donating to J Street it was only because the anti-Israel group forgot to black out the donor list when they submitted it to Foundation Finder.

The Center for Competitive Politics, a Virginia nonprofit registered with the California Attorney General, challenged the Attorney General’s unredacted Schedule B filing requirement. On May 1, 2015, in Center for Competitive Politics v. Harris, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the California regulation allowing the California Attorney General to request such information.

On August 13th American Target Advertising (ATA), a company specializing in promoting conservative causes  along with 57 nonprofit and other organizations filed a friend-of-the court brief asking the Supreme Court to hear the appeal of the case officially called  Center for Competitive Politics v. Kamala Harris, Attorney General of California.

Note:  One of those 57 organizations is the Media Research Center an organization that employs me as a freelance blogger.  I was unaware of their participation until I began researching this post. As with everything put up on this site, this post is my opinion, it has not been shared with anyone before it was posted and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the folks at MRC.

The brief refers to the 1957 case of NAACP v. Alabama where the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Alabama could not require the NAACP to reveal to the State's Attorney General the names and addresses of all the NAACP's members and agents in the state. "The court held that a compelled disclosure of the NAACP's membership lists would have the effect of suppressing legal association among the group's members. Nothing short of an "overriding valid interest of the State," something not present in this case, was needed to justify Alabama's actions."

Per a press release issued by ATA:
This is the NAACP v. Alabama of the 21st Century," said ATA President of Corporate Affairs Mark Fitzgibbons, who added, "Using methods more comprehensive and arbitrary than the Alabama attorney general and other politicians in the 1950s who sought to destroy the civil rights movement by intimidating and silencing activists and their organizations, Ms. Harris and many politicos want to use the power of government to intimidate or even put their grassroots critics out of business. In her unlawful quest, Harris is also violating privacy and association rights of donors to all charities essential for Toquevillian, non-governmental democracy in American society."

The National Organization for Marriage, whose donor names were leaked by the IRS to hostile blogs, and nationally recognized conservative nonprofit organizations such as Media Research Center, Concerned Women for America, Citizens United, Family Research Council, Faith & Freedom Coalition, the Weyrich Lunch, and Leadership Institute are among the 58 organizations on the brief.
A copy of the brief can be viewed here.  But when you sift through all the lawyer talk it has three main points
  • AG Harris's demands that nonprofit organizations disclose to her their donor names and addresses on an IRS schedule violate federal law protecting confidential tax return information, violate the landmark 1958 decision NAACP v. Alabama protecting freedom of association, and violate privacy rights;
  • Harris's demands are an "extortionate unconstitutional condition" to obtain a permit to engage in constitutionally protected rights, and interfere with important privacy rights at the core of American society.
  • The  California statute delegating unbridled discretion to AG Harris to determine what registrants must file is unconstitutional on its face for First Amendment reasons, and is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power.
Folks this is nothing more than another Democratic Party scheme to suppress political speech by their conservative opposition. They cannot win a battle of ideas so they are shutting off any opposition.

President Obama Gets His Legacy

Obama has 34 votes in the Senate to support his P5+1 Iran Disaster...I will write more later...but for now I fear this will be his real legacy:

Obama's Lying About The Alaskan Glaciers They've Been Melting For Three Centuries

Once again this president is lying to promote his global re-distribution of income policy also known as climate change.  Yesterday he visited the glaciers in Alaska (having been there...they are beautiful!).  He claimed that global warming was melting the glaciers---he is lying.  They've been melting since before the American Revolution. The good news is that the Arctic ice caps are growing:
- President Barack Obama walked down a winding wooded path, past a small brown post marked "1926" and a glacial stream trickling over gravel that eons of ice have scraped off mountain peaks.

He reached another post reading "1951", a marker for the edge of Alaska's Exit Glacier that year, and gazed up toward where the rock-rutted ice mass has since receded, a quarter mile away.

"This is as good a signpost of what we're dealing with on climate change as just about anything," Obama told reporters near the base of the glacier.
Glacial melting is nothing new, they have been receding before this country had a president.  Lets go back in history...take a look at this news article from 1952 which says the glaciers in Alaska had already lost half their size:

OK I hear you--1952 isn't early enough, how about 1923?

You want it even earlier, take a look at the map of Glacier Bay Alaska.  It shows where the glaciers are today vs. where they were up to at various points back to just before the American Revolution.  Unless Gen. Washington let the revolutionary army in SUVs there was no problem with greenhouse gasses back then.  In fact if you look at the map most of the melting took place before the 20th century.  Does Barack Obama really believe Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves and melted the glaciers?

Note: the source of the three pictures above is Steven Goddard's Real Science Blog

Lets take a look at what's been happening since Obama was elected.  Check that, let's take a look at what's been happening since Bill Clinton was president. To be honest NOTHING.

That's right, the satellite monthly global mean surface temperature  shows no global warming for 18 years 7 months since January 1997 the last time Hillary Clinton was trolling around the White House. Note that yes there was warming before Jan. 97, and thanks to the El Nino there may be warming in the near future (at least until the La Niña starts or the lack of sunspot activity throws us into a mini ice age as some scientists are predicting).

Those claims of the hottest temperatures on record are "sort of"  true also. Firstly they are talking warmest by a hundredth of a degree. Secondly it uses land based temperature readings rather than satellite data. Climate scientists actually preferred the satellite data as being more accurate until it started disproving their global warming hypothesis.

I hate to upset the president but the truth is the ice caps are growing. A July 2015 article in the U.K. Telegraph called "How Arctic ice has made fools of all those poor warmists" reported:
In recent years there has been more polar ice in the world than at any time since satellite records began in 1979. In the very year they had forecast that the Arctic would be “ice free”, its thickness increased by a third. Polar bear numbers are rising, not falling. Temperatures in Greenland have shown no increase for decades.
When the Telegraph talks about more polar ice since 1979, it is really talking about both poles combined as the Antarctic ice cap has been growing more substantially over that period.

The Arctic Ice had a period of melting but as reported in Nature Geoscience:
However, we observe 33% and 25% more ice in autumn 2013 and 2014, respectively, relative to the 2010–2012 seasonal mean, which offset earlier losses. This increase was caused by the retention of thick sea ice northwest of Greenland during 2013 which, in turn, was associated with a 5% drop in the number of days on which melting occurred—conditions more typical of the late 1990s. In contrast, springtime Arctic sea ice volume has remained stable. 
In other words if the ice cap could talk it would say, "Baby I'm Back!"   It seems as if the Ice Cap size ebbs and flows for natural reasons and has nothing to do with CO2 in the air. That's why as the carbon in the atmosphere as been growing in the last century we've seen the ice grow, recede, and grow again.

In fact the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is at its highest level in almost13,000 years. Approximately 12,750 years ago before big cars and coal plants CO2 levels were higher than today. And during some past ice ages levels were up to 20x today's levels--ice ages, that's a lot of polar ice that didn't melt.

Obama talked about severe storms yesterday...another lie. No Increase In Hurricanes: A study published in the July 2012 in the journal of the American Meteorological Society concluded unequivocally there is no trend of stronger or more frequent storms, asserting:
We have identified considerable inter-annual variability in the frequency of global hurricane landfalls, but within the resolution of the available data, our evidence does not support the presence of significant long-period global or individual basin linear trends for minor, major, or total hurricanes within the period(s) covered by the available quality data.
Perhaps it's because he thinks news doesn't travel well from Alaska, but Barack Obama is lying about glacier shrinkage, about the ice caps, and about an increase in storms during his first trip to Alaska. 

Tuesday, September 1, 2015

John Kerry To Appear On Anti-Semite Al Sharpton's Radio Show To Try And Sell Iran Deal

Somehow this makes sense John Kerry is going on Al Sharpton's radio show to try and sell the Iran deal.  After all Sharpton led two anti-Semitic pogroms in New York City, and Kerry is trying to sell a deal that will guarantee Iran will get a nuclear bomb to use against the Jewish State.

Boy oh boy do those Democrats like them Joos or what?

Carly Fiorina "I Look Forward To Discussing And Debating With" Trump

One of the first media appearances made by Carly Fiorina after CNN announced the rules change for the second GOP debate was the Hugh Hewitt Radio Show. Hugh who along with Jake Tapper will be the moderator of the CNN debate asked Ms. Fiorina about why she thought CNN finally made the change and of course how she felt about being on stage with "the Donald." Then the conversation turned to the the Kentucky county clerk who is continuing her refusal to issue same-sex marriage licensees despite a court order.

Below is a transcript of and videos of the interview:
Hewitt: So pleased to bring you breaking news. CNN has amended its rules for the debate in which I will participate as a panelist on September 16th, and the person most likely to benefit from that amendment is joining me now live on the line, Carly Fiorina. Hello Carly. Welcome. It’s good to have you back.

Fiorina: Well, thank you so much, Hugh. And really, I’m calling to say thank you. Thank you to you. Thank you to all your listeners. Your listeners put a lot of pressure on CNN and CNN responded. Good for them. It’s good for the RNC. Thank you so much.

Hewitt: I think CNN made a very solid news decision. I have Mark Preston coming on after the break to discuss it. What’s your reaction on how does it change - if anything - what Carly Fiorina is doing to prepare for the Reagan Library debate?

Fiorina: Well obviously, now we know who we’re going to be on the stage with. That’s helpful (laughs). And I really look forward to the debate. I look forward to having a substantive conversation that I know that’s what we will have because you, Hugh, are one of the moderators. I look forward to having a substantive conversation about the issues that face our nation with the other front-runners. Which we would have more of, not less of.

Hewitt: Does this instantly become a Trump-Fiorina showdown?

Fiorina: I don’t know about that, but certainly Trump is the front-runner. He is someone that I look forward to discussing and debating with.

Hewitt: Now since the announcement was made by CNN about an hour ago. I’m sure you’ve been deluged with calls from all the national news media. Did their amendment explanation make as much sense to you as it did to me?

Fiorina: Well it does make sense because what they basically acknowledged is that in this particular cycle unlike, apparently, other cycles, there was just too few polls after the August 6th debate as compared to the number of polls before the August 6th debate. We can argue about whether national polls are the right polls. I happen to think state polls are more relevant because - after all - we have a state primary system, not a national primary system. On the other hand, a poll came out today - PPP - I’m number four. It’s pretty clear that I’m in the top five. And so, I think they made the right decision based on the data which clearly has shifted - in my case - dramatically, from prior to August 6th to post-August 6th.

Hewitt: Now Carly Fiorina, are you doing debate prep in the classic style of the murder boards they’re called, where you have eleven people on the stage and three people playing the panelists. Are you doing that?

Fiorina: No. Not in that sense. That’s a lot to try and simulate. I think I would probably use a very similar practice as the one I used last time which is that there a whole set of issues that I will want to become more educated about. There’re a series of questions that I will have think through my answers to. The truth is, you don’t exactly what exactly you’re going to be asked. The truth is, you need to be able to respond in an authentic and straightforward manner no matter what you’re asked. And the truth is, you have to able to roll with the punches and go where the conversation goes.

Hewitt: And let me close our conversation by throwing a hard one at you. There’s a Kentucky county clerk today. He’s refusing to issue licenses to same-sex marriage couples. She’s in contempt of court in essence. What would your advice be to her.

Fiorina: First, I think that we must protect religious liberties with great passion and be willing to expend a lot of political capital to do so now because it’s clear religious liberty is under assault in many, many ways. Having said that, when you are a government employee, I think you take on a different role. When you are a government employee as opposed to say, an employee of another kind of organization, then in essence, you are agreeing to act as an arm of the government. And, while I disagree with this court’s decision, their actions are clear. And so I think in this particular case. This woman now needs to make a decision that’s conscious - is she prepared to continue to work for the government, be paid for by the government in which case she needs to execute the government’s will, or does she feel so strongly about this that she wants to severe her employment with the government and go seek employment elsewhere where her religious liberties would be paramount over her duties as government employee.

Hewitt: You don’t counsel that she continue civil disobedience?

Fiorina: Given the role that she’s playing. Given the fact that the government is paying her salary, I think that is not appropriate. Now that’s my personal opinion. Others may disagree with that, but I think it’s a very different situation for her than someone in a hospital who’s asked to perform an abortion or someone at a florist who’s asked to serve a gay wedding. I think when you’re a government employee; you are put into a different position honestly.

Hewitt: Carly Fiorina, great to have you. That’s why I like to ask you questions. You just answer them. I look forward to asking them of you at the Reagan Library debate in all likelihood with you on the main stage as of the amendment of the CNN rules an hour ago. Carly Fiorina, thanks for calling in.