The ghost of Stalinist “science” is back with Lysenkoism 2.0. When top climate experts such as MIT’s Richard Lindzen and former NASA climatologist Roy Spencer ridiculed the alarmist movement as the “climate cult” and “global warming Nazis,” they were a lot closer to the mark than even they probably realized. Instead of explaining why the satellite and weather balloon temperature record shows that there has been no warming in over 18 years, in defiance of every United Nations “climate model,” the warmists have decided to simply prosecute and terrorize their critics with threats of fines, jail time, and even executions. Seriously. Now the threats are becoming reality, with Democrat alarmists and Rockefeller-funded activists leading the way.This has frightening parallels to the campaign of firing, imprisonment, sentencing to gulags, and even execution waged against Soviet scientists who questioned the pseudo-scientific views of Soviet biologist Trofim Lysenko, who was supported by Joseph Stalin.With the man-made global-warming theory increasingly becoming the subject of ridicule, Democrat attorneys general in over 15 states are taking it to the next level. They call themselves “AGs United for Clean Power.” Among other schemes, the “law-enforcement officers” are plotting a massive legal attack on climate skeptics, science, free speech, constitutional government, imaginary boogeymen, and of course, common sense. But the plan is almost certain to backfire, big time — even in the remote chance that the prosecutors succeed in duping or strongarming a jury into fining or jailing climate heretics who have helped expose the absurdity of climate alarmism.
A federal science agency is “seriously” interested in reviewing tens of millions in taxpayer-funded grants awarded to a university professor who wants President Obama to prosecute those who don’t share the administration’s view that mankind is changing the world’s climate.The National Science Foundation’s inspector general appears poised to look into Jagadish Shukla’s management of federal grant money, much of it from the science agency itself.The science agency has its own rules and guidelines governing grants, which would be applicable to the millions Shukla, 71, received from the agency.“The longstanding cozy relationship between [government] grant-makers and grantees makes them blind to even the most obvious conflict of interest,” Bonner Cohen, a scholar with a free-market think tank in Washington, told The Daily Signal.Shukla, a professor at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., led the charge by 20 college professors to urge a federal investigation aimed at scientific skeptics who differ with their views on climate change.At the same time, Shukla, his wife, and his research center were awash in taxpayers’ money, according to an internal audit by the university on which The Daily Signal previously reported.A House panel looking into Shukla’s activities sent related information to Allison Lerner, inspector general for the National Science Foundation.Susan Carohan, a spokeswoman for the Office of the Inspector General, said the agency is “unable to comment publicly” on the Shukla case, citing “privacy requirements.”“As with any correspondence from a congressional committee, we take the concerns expressed very seriously,” Carohan said in an email.>>> Audit Details Climate Change Researcher’s ‘Double Dipping’Cohen, senior fellow with the National Center for Public Policy Research, told The Daily Signal that lax enforcement of existing rules has bedeviled the U.S. government for some time:
During a lengthy interview with the editorial board of the Washington Post on March 21, presidential candidate Donald Trump revealed the names of a team chaired by Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) that is advising him on foreign affairs. They are Keith Kellogg, Carter Page, George Papadopoulos, Walid Phares, and Joseph E. Schmitz.Another key point of discussion during the Trump interview with the Post was the candidate’s views on the U.S. role in NATO, which he criticized mainly on economic grounds, as he suggested reduced American participation. “We certainly can’t afford to do this anymore,” Trump said, adding later: “NATO is costing us a fortune, and yes, we’re protecting Europe with NATO, but we’re spending a lot of money.”However, Trump stopped short of advocating U.S. withdrawal from NATO, saying:No, I don’t want to pull [the United States] out. NATO was set up at a different time. NATO was set up when we were a richer country. We’re not a rich country. We’re borrowing….I think the distribution of costs has to be changed. I think NATO as a concept is good, but it is not as good as it was when it first evolved.
The first question security professionals around the world ask after a horrific terrorist attack is: What’s next? The second question is: How to stop it?Today, Americans woke up to news that Europe had been hit again, with reports of two bombs in Brussels that killed and injured scores. The attacks come only days after the arrest in the city of the perpetrators of the terrorist strike in Paris last year.A top concern here will be that the terror campaigns being orchestrated there could be directed here. A precedent exists for that. A core of the participants in the 9/11 attack organized a terrorist cell in Hamburg, Germany.If there are cells in Europe interested in attacking, one of their chief challenges will be traveling here. The U.S. has been focused on thwarting terrorist travel to the U.S. since the attacks on New York and Washington in 2001. The danger was a major subject of investigation for the 9/11 commission.What the U.S. has done since 9/11 has been to focus on finding and stopping terrorists who might try to travel here. That is a strategy that makes sense.
Belgians and all Europeans are looking around themselves today with renewed apprehension, having been reminded once more by the attacks in Brussels about their vulnerability to terrorism that arises from within their midst. They’ve allowed parallel societies to emerge, and now they fear that the problem can only grow.It was only fitting, for example, that when police arrested the suspected terrorist Salah Abdeslam in the gritty Molenbeek neighborhood of Brussels late last week, across town, European Union leaders were meeting at the plush EU Commission headquarters to discuss the immigration crisis that bedevils Europe. The Molenbeek neighborhood represents the division and separation that exist in European society.Fitting because the Molenbeek neighborhood represents the division and separation that exist in European society, and why there is a fear that migrants arriving in Europe in their hundreds of thousands could find in such places networks ready to radicalize those migrants.
While critics are disturbed about New York City returning to its crime-filled, dangerous pre-Giuliani past under the liberal guidance of Mayor Bill de Blasio, the mayor himself says an uptick in knife attacks is actually a sign that his NYPD is improving the city.“I’m not a criminologist,” de Blasio said of the slashings. “But I can safely say that guns are being taken off the street in an unprecedented way. Some people, unfortunately, are turning to a different weapon.”Since the beginning of the year, there has been a 20% increase in the number of slashings – many of them random attacks by criminals using knives, razors, and other cutting implements. But while a correlation in reduced shootings would seem to provide some measure of support for the mayor’s argument, crime in general is way up in 2016. Furthermore, while shootings have fallen this year, they’re still higher than when de Blasio came into office.Law enforcement experts who spoke to Fox News said that de Blasio’s crackdown on illegal guns had nothing to do with the rise in slashings: “These criminals didn’t just start carrying knives out of the blue or because of the guns getting taken — I don’t believe that for a second,” former NYPD Detective Scott Prendergast, who runs the private investigation service Cornelius Investigations, told FoxNews.com. Instead, Prendergast blames the rise in knife attacks on de Blasio for ending “stop-and-frisk,” a policy in which police officers stop people based on suspicion and frisk them for weapons or other illegal items.
July 18, 2016. Many Republicans and conservatives are looking ahead to that Monday with a sense of foreboding. The party faithful, along with party apostates, will convene in Cleveland to select their presidential nominee.Some fear a contentious battle between Trump delegates and the ‘anybody but Trump’ folks, including that nefarious but ill-defined ‘Republican establishment.’ This week the front-runner himself warned, ‘I think you’d have riots’ if the nomination is snatched away in what his supporters deem an unfair way. So you can understand why the Grand Old Party fears a not-so-grand scene that would embarrass them all and lead to defeat in November.Then there are the malcontents who look ahead to the Republican convention with glee, rubbing their hands together at the thought of creating mayhem. Black Lives Matter, MoveOn, and other far-left outfits may have provided a preview of coming attractions last Friday when they shut down a Trump rally in Chicago. The mainstream media, neither for the first time nor the last, did not tell you the entire story behind the chaos.Days before Trump was scheduled to speak at the University of Illinois at Chicago, MoveOn circulated an online petition protesting the rally. Tens of thousands of fellow travelers enlisted in the fight to deny a presidential candidate his First Amendment right to speak. Trump, citing safety concerns, heeded the advice of George and Ira Gershwin and called the whole thing off. The protesters were positively gleeful, boasting, ‘We stopped Trump!’ Yeah, great.
As Chief Judge of the most important federal appeals court in the nation, there is no question that Merrick Garland is eminently qualified to immediately serve on the Supreme Court. A meticulous jurist with a record of forging consensus among judges across the ideological spectrum, he was confirmed to sit on the U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C. in 1997 in a strong bipartisan vote of 76 to 23. Today, as Chief Judge of the D.C. Circuit, Judge Garland has more federal judicial experience than any Supreme Court nominee in history.
Born and raised in Illinois and a devoted family man, Judge Garland has dedicated his life to serving the American people, taking on some of the most difficult anti-terrorism cases in our nation’s history. In the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing, he led the investigation and prosecution that ultimately brought Timothy McVeigh to justice. As a mentor to his law clerks and a tutor to elementary school children, he is a dedicated and compassionate public servant whom conservatives and progressives praise for his rigorous intellect, his respect for the role of the judiciary, and his mastery of the law.
And that’s exactly why the President chose to nominate him.
Q: What happens after the President chooses a Supreme Court nominee?
The Constitution states that it is the President’s responsibility to nominate a person to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court, a duty he fulfilled yesterday when he sent a letter notifying the Senate that he has selected Chief Judge Garland.
Now, according to the Constitution, it is the Senate’s job to advise and provide consent on the President’s nominee. That means that Senate Judiciary Committee members should hold a hearing to vet Chief Judge Garland, provide their recommendation, and then the full Senate should debate and vote on whether or not to confirm Judge Garland to the Senate. Every nominee since 1875 has received a hearing and a vote.
When it comes to the Supreme Court, this would be an unprecedented level of obstruction. Every nominee who was not withdrawn has received a vote within 125 days of nomination. The Senate has almost a full year to consider and confirm a nominee. In fact, since 1975, the average time from nomination to confirmation is 67 days. The longest time before confirmation in the past three decades was 99 days, for Justice Thomas, and the last four Justices, spanning two Administrations, were confirmed in an average of 75 days.
Throughout history, members of both parties in Congress and in the White House have done their jobs so that the Judicial Branch can do its own. See what President Obama said yesterday:
Q: Will the Senate ultimately confirm Chief Judge Garland?
Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution clearly spells out how the confirmation process is supposed to work. The President took that constitutional responsibility seriously and consulted with both Democratic and Republican Senators before choosing a nominee. He even invited them to put forward potential nominees for his consideration. The result of his consultations and rigorous process is the decision to nominate a thoughtful and meticulous judge for the Supreme Court with a keen ability for building consensus. That’s why even Republicans have described Chief Judge Garland as a consensus nominee.
In 1997, the U.S. Senate confirmed Chief Judge Merrick Garland to the D.C. Circuit Court in a bipartisan vote of 76 to 23.
The President fully expects Congress to honor their constitutional responsibility and allow this nominee a hearing and a vote. Despite repeated declarations that they will ignore such a responsibility, the President believes there will be enough Republicans listening to Americans and editorial boards across the country to honor their oath of office and do their jobs regardless of their party’s political leadership.
Q: Does it matter that this year is a presidential election year?
No. For more than two centuries, it has been standard practice for Congress to confirm a president’s Supreme Court nominee, whether in a presidential election year or not. In fact, six Justices have been confirmed in a presidential election year since 1900. Of those six Justices, three have been Republicans. The most recent Justice to be confirmed in an election year was Justice Kennedy — appointed by President Reagan — who was confirmed by a Democratic-controlled Congress in February 1988.
Q: Where can I get the latest on what’s happening with Judge Garland and the nomination process?
Check out www.whitehouse.gov/scotus and follow @SCOTUSnom on Twitter to all the latest info on what’s happening with the President’s Supreme Court nominee. This is an important process that is meant to stay above politics. So make sure you stay up to date on what’s happening.
See you online!
White House Press Secretary
The White House
The release last week of video footage taken from the cellphone of a passenger inside the pickup truck driven by Arizona rancher Robert LaVoy Finicum provides dramatic new evidence of the final minutes and seconds before he was shot to death at a roadblock near Burns, Oregon, on January 26.It also shows, for the first time, the tense situation for the survivors huddled inside the pickup, as the shooting by the FBI and Oregon State Police (OSP) continued.The video, which was released by the Deschutes County Sheriff’s Office at a press conference on March 8, shows the new footage as an inset within the already well-known FBI footage taken from an aerial camera and released by the FBI on January 28.As The New American previously reported, the FBI video, because it is shaky, jumpy, blurry, is of poor resolution, and has no sound, raises more questions than provides answers. It does not, for example, answer the vital questions concerning when the firing began and how many shots were fired. (Government officials acknowledge that neither Mr. Finicum nor any other occupants of his vehicle fired any weapons, although the incident was widely reported, initially, as a “gunfight.”) Nor does the newly released video definitively resolve the key issue as to whether Mr. Finicum’s hand motion was the result of reaching for a gun (the FBI/OSP version), which, allegedly, was in his pocket, or was reaching toward his side due to having already been shot (the Finicum family’s version).The new video footage, which was taken by Shawna Cox, has been unavailable until now, since it was confiscated by the FBI when she was arrested along with the other passengers in Finicum’s truck. Mrs. Cox’s video, which is of good quality, provides important audio and imagery evidence, but still does not definitively resolve key issues, such as the disputed significance of Finicum’s hand motion, which goes directly to the matter of the use of deadly force.The main takeaway from the March 8 press conference — the message that was blared in headlines in the establishment media — was that the shooting of Finicum, a leader of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, was “justified.” Shane Nelson, the Deschutes County sheriff, told the assembled news organizations: “We have determined that eight shots were fired on that day, six of which have been attributed to the Oregon State Police, including the three shots that resulted in the death of Mr. Finicum, and two shots which were fired by the HRT [FBI’s Hostage Rescue Team] operators.”
Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke is no stranger to controversy, being an African-American outspoken conservative sheriff. So, it came as no surprise that he had an opinion about the violence at a recent Trump event in Chicago, and seemed to lay blame, not at Trump like most liberal pundits, but at the feet of President Barack Obama. According to BizPacReview: He called the protesters “riot starters who show up at these things to create chaos” and labeled them a threat to America. “Donald Trump’s First Amendment rights were squashed last night because of the cancellation of this rally,” he told Fox News’ Neil Cavuto on Saturday and he advised people at the rallies to defend themselves. “Don’t back down to these bullies and these goons!” he said. Clarke said the blame for the protests fell at the feet of President Obama and not Trump as many in the media have said. “The president of the United States is the one that created this division, stoking up racial discord, class warfare, gender warfare for the last eight years,” he said. “For people to blame this on Donald Trump is way out-of-bounds.”