Please Hit

There are MANY expenses associated with running this site, computers, wifi cards, travel to debates and conferences, purchase of research, etc.

Despite what the progressives say, I receive no funding from the Koch Brothers, Karl Rove, or the Worldwide Jewish Conspiracy.

The only way I offset my expenses is through the donations of my readers.

Folks PLEASE Consider Making a Donation to Keep This Site Going.

Hit the Tip Jar (it's on the left-hand column).

Thursday, March 5, 2015

Sen.Sessions-EPA Head Can't Answer Basic Climate Questions (Next Time Invite Me To Testify)

I am not a client scientist and global warming enthusiast enjoy pointing that out whenever they try to skewer a post which calls into question their precious climate change hypothesis. But now I can respond that I know facts about climate change off the top of my head that EPA Director Gina McCarthy doesn't know.

Alabama's Sen. Jeff Sessions and EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy discussed some climate  change facts during yesterday's Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing. Session asked McCarthy about droughts, hurricanes and the figures used to show climate change and the EPA head was clueless.
Sessions:  Let me ask you this. There was an article from Mr. [Bjorn] Lomborg … from the Copenhagen Institute. He says, along with Dr. Pielke from Colorado, that we’ve had fewer droughts in recent years. Do you dispute that?”

McCarthy: “I don’t know in what context he’s making statements like that, but I can certainly tell you about the droughts are happening today.”

Sessions: “I’m asking you what what other data you know about … world-wide data about whether we are having fewer or less droughts?”

McCarthy: “I’d be happy to provide it, but I certainly am aware that droughts are becoming more extreme and frequent.”

Sessions: “Are you aware that the IPCC has found that moisture content of the soil is, if anything, slightly greater than it has been over the last decade. It’s in their report, are you aware of that?

McCarthy: “I don’t know what you’re referring to, senator, but I’m happy to respond …”

Sessions: “Well you need to know because you’re asking this economy to sustain tremendous costs and you don’t know whether the soil worldwide is more moist or less moist.” 
Here's what McCarthy supposedly didn't know about :
"It is misleading and just plain incorrect to claim that disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or droughts have increased on climate timescales either in the United States or globally,” Professor Roger Pielke Jr. said in his testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

In May of 2014 Professor Pielke published a graph that shows the intensity of the planet's droughts from 1982 to 2012. The graph shows that neither droughts nor their intensity have seen a growth trend during that 30-year period.

Seems pretty clear cut to me even though I am not an expert like the head of the EPA.

Sessions pressed McCarthy on hurricanes something the warming enthusiasts love to talk about.
Sessions: “What about hurricanes. Have we had more or less hurricanes in the last decade?”
McCarthy: “In terms of landing those hurricanes on land, I cannot answer that question. It’s a very complicated issue.”
Sessions: “It’s not complicated on how many have landed. We’ve had a dramatic reduction in the number. We’ve gone a decade without a hurricane [Category] 3 or above.
A study published in the July 2012 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.
 And then there is the veracity of climate models.
Sessions: Would you acknowledge that over the last 18 years, that the increase in temperature has been very little, and that it is well below, matter of fact 90 percent below most of the environmental models that showed how fast temperature would increase?”
McCarthy: “I do not know what the models actually are predicting that you are referring to …”
Sessions: “This is a stunning development, that the head of the Environmental Protection Agency — who should know more than anybody else in the world, who is imposing hundreds of billions of dollars in cost to prevent this climate temperature increase — doesn’t know whether their projections have been right or wrong.”
There is plenty of information about the climate models for example a recent study reported that climate models have over-stated the last 55 years of global warming. Some scientists have even suggested that climate models are worthless.

So it's obvious that I know more about the climate than the EPA head.  Senator Sessions, next time you want to have a hearing, invite me--I have the information you are looking for---the EPA's McCarthy knows nothing (but if you invite me I expect cookies).

Watch the full exchange on the video below (H/T

Hillary's State Dept. Forced Out US Ambassador To Kenya For Using Private Email

Approximately eight months before Hillary Clinton left Foggy Bottom U.S. Ambassador to Kenya Scott Gration resigned because of a scathing report by the State Department’s Inspector General’s office.

According to Josh Rogan who wrote about the resignation in Foreign Policy at the time
"But Gration’s independent streak and insistence on doing things his own way, outside of the interagency policy process, ran afoul of the embassy staff in Nairobi almost immediately. Multiple sources familiar with the disputes confirmed reports Friday that Gration preferred to use his Gmail account for official business and set up private offices in his residence — and an embassy bathroom — to conduct business outside the purview of the embassy staff."
Indeed the bottom of page 43 of the Inspector General's critical report begins:
Very soon after the Ambassador’s arrival in May 2011, he broadcast his lack of confidence in the information management staff. Because the information management office could not change the Department’s policy for handling Sensitive But Unclassified material, he assumed charge of the mission’s information management operations. He ordered a commercial Internet connection installed in his embassy office bathroom so he could work there on a laptop not connected to the Department email system. He drafted and distributed a mission policy authorizing himself and other mission personnel to use commercial email for daily communication of official government business. During the inspection, the Ambassador continued to use commercial email for official government business. The Department email system provides automatic security, record-keeping, and backup functions as required. The Ambassador’s requirements for use of commercial email in the office and his flouting of direct instructions to adhere to Department policy have placed the information management staff in a conundrum: balancing the desire to be responsive to their mission leader and the need to adhere to Department regulations and government information security standards.
Now if the Ambassador to Kenya got an awful performance report which forced him to resign, logic dictates that the Secretary of State would know about it even before the ambassador found out. And unless that Secretary of State was mentally challenged, she would realize that while she wasn't using email, she was using a private system which didn't "provides automatic security, record-keeping, and backup functions as required" and that she didn't "adhere to Department regulations and government information security standards."

Ms. Clinton has some explaining to do. 

(H/T: Weekly Standard)

Hillary's Fake Email Transparency Obscures Her Lack Of Regard for National Security

It was Hillary Clinton sounding like she was being magnanimous. Late Wednesday night she announced her request to the State Department to disclose all of the emails she sent them from her term as Secretary of State.
Isn't she wonderful. Isn't this a much different Hillary Clinton, allowing the public to see all the emails that she, along with her advisers decided to give the State Department?

Actually it wasn't her decision.  Clinton provided the 55,000 emails after the State Department asked them, and we are not sure of which emails she didn't give. But the Democrats are rushing to praise their only choice for 2016. For example ABC commentator Donna Brazile.

Of course being the party first type, Brazile ignores the fact that the partisan filter happened before  the emails were released to the State Department.

And there is really nothing magnanimous about Hillary releasing her emails. Those realeased other may never see the light of day are not her property they are the property of the American people. The Federal Records Act  states clearly that all department heads (including the Secretary of State). “shall make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency and designed to furnish the information necessary to protect the legal and financial rights of the Government and of persons directly affected by the agency’s activities.”

As a former First Lady and a Secretary of State the federal records act should not be a surprise, especially after her friend and former National Security Adviser for her husband Sandy Berger was caught stuffing confidential documents down his pants trying to steal them from National Archives (Berger pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of unauthorized removal of federal documents).

There is a bigger issue in this latest of Clinton scandals. Even if we give her the benefit of the doubt (and that's a HUGE benefit). Let's assume for a moment that she didn't set up the personal email server in her house explicitly for being able to control what get's release, lets also assume that the 55K emails she turned over were all of them, that she held nothing back and nothing was erased. Of course you would have to believe that unicorns exist also--but bear with me.

The bigger issue is national security. Here was the Secretary of State using a private server without the same protections as a government server to send her sometimes sensitive communications.  Any good hacker could have gotten into her emails. Heck if they knew about Hilliary's lack of protection, North Korea might have ignored Sony and gone into her emails.

This means Clinton have very little regard for national security or at least she had a much higher regard for being able to control her political message than she had for national security.

Should someone with such a lack of regard for national security even be considered for the office of President?

Wednesday, March 4, 2015

Video From 2007-When Hillary Slammed Bush WH For Using Private Emails

The video below was played Wednesday on Greta Van Susteren's On The Record show. It shows part of a Hillary Clinton campaign speech from June 20th 2007 where Ms Clinton blasts the Bush White House, saying its use of secret emails was an example of the Administration shredding the constitution.
Our constitution is being shredded. We know about the secret wiretaps. We know about the secret military tribunals. The secret White House email accounts. It is a stunning record of secrecy and corruption of cronyism run amuck. It is everything our founders were afraid of. Everything our constitution was designed to prevent.

Is It Time For The Democratic Party To Have A Plan B?

Hillary Clinton has spent much of the past two years running for president without running for president. She is seen as the likely nominee of the Democratic Party in 2016, despite the fact that during that time she has shown herself to be a poor candidate, her book tour was at best a disappointment to her Democratic Party Fans. But over the past days, things have worsened, the scandals revealed over the past week may lead the Party establishment to wish they had a "plan b," a candidate to run against the former Secretary of State.

Last week we learned that the Clinton Foundation had gamed the ethics system and accepted donations from foreign governments despite having made a public display of not doing so. Even though the Foundation had agreed not to accept such donations while Mrs. Clinton was serving as Secretary of State there was only one case where the State Dept. objected.

And as soon as Clinton left office the money from foreign governments including the likes of Qatar and Algeria with whom she had close dealings during her term at foggy bottom, despite the fact that she (and everybody else in the world) knew she was going to run for president.

A stunning report by the New York Times yesterday reveals that as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did not have a government email account, she used a personal email account which was not only a security violation but her aides took no actions to have her personal emails preserved on department servers at the time, as required by the Federal Records Act.

Not only did she use a personal account but "coincidentally" that personal account was set up the day of her Senate confirmation.

It was only two months ago, in response to a new State Department effort to comply with federal record-keeping practices, that Mrs. Clinton’s advisers reviewed tens of thousands of pages of her personal emails and decided which ones to turn over to the State Department. All told, 55,000 pages of emails were given to the department. Mrs. Clinton stepped down from the secretary’s post in early 2013.
Today the AP reported that she set up her own email server in her New York home to handle her emails.  Its hard to ignore that with premeditation Clinton was trying to hide her mail.

Now put that on top of Benghazi and other apparent cover-ups during her State Dept. tenure, and don't forget the scandals during her period of First Lady including the Rose Law Firm billing records and her "luck" in the cattle futures market.
On April 11, 1994, The Clinton White House Acknowledged That Most Of Clinton’s Profitable Trades In Cattle Futures Were Placed By Clinton Ally Jim Blair, After Initially Saying That Clinton Made Her Own Trades With Blair Serving As An Advisor. “The White House said today that most of the commodity orders by which Hillary Rodham Clinton turned $1,000 into nearly $100,000 in the 1970′s were placed by James B. Blair, a friend and lawyer for the Tyson Foods Company, whose role Clinton Administration officials had previously described as only an adviser to Mrs. Clinton.” (Robert D. Hershey Jr., “Friend Did Futures Trades For Hillary Clinton,” The New York Times, 4/11/94)

In Her First Investment, Clinton Was Able To Order 10 Cattle Futures – Normally A $12,000 Investment – With Just $1,000 In Her Account And Turned Her Initial Investment Into $6,300 Overnight. “Hillary Rodham Clinton was allowed to order 10 cattle futures contracts, normally a $12,000 investment, in her first commodity trade in 1978 although she had only $1,000 in her account at the time, according to trade records the White House released yesterday. The computerized records of her trades, which the White House obtained from the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, show for the first time how she was able to turn her initial investment into $6,300 overnight.” (Charles R. Babcock, “Hillary Clinton Futures Trades Detailed,” The Washington Post, 5/27/94)
Despite Hillary's apparent ownership of the nomination, the Democratic Party may be scurrying for an different candidate. After all she has no apparent successes running the State Dept., but many failures which can be pointed toward her including Ukraine and ISIS. Her baggage of scandal during her state tenure is getting very heavy, and that baggage is sitting on top of her scandals as First Lady. All together Clinton's baggage may finally out weigh what to the Democrats is seemingly her number one selling point, she has lady parts.