FAIRY FOR CHILDREN

- Hallo friend FAIRY FOR CHILDREN, In the article you read this time with the title , we have prepared well for this article you read and download the information therein. hopefully fill posts Article adventure, Article animation, Article fantasy, Article The latest, Article wit, we write can understand. Well, happy reading.

Title :
link :

WWW.MOEISSUESOFTHEDA

.BLOGSPOT.COM
Sun. July 23, 2017

Pinkerton — The Presidential Comeback: How Reagan’s First Term Recovery Offers Hope for Trump

29

0

Molly Riley-Pool/Getty Images, AP Photo

by JAMES P. PINKERTON

What they say about the weather is also true of politics: If you don’t like what’s happening now, wait a bit—because things will change.

The same point holds true for presidential politics.  Presidents are sometimes up, and they’re sometimes down—except when they’re in between.

Moreover, there’s a lot of resilience in the presidency, because presidents are elected to a four-year term, and the reality of a fixed term prevents the sort of rapid-fire rise-and-fall sometimes seen in parliamentary systems.  In Italy, for example, the government has changed 68 times since World War Two. By contrast, here in the U.S., we’ve seen just 12 presidents.

Speaking of resilience, I was myself a minor participant in an epic presidential comeback; in the early 1980s, I was working as a low-level aide in the Reagan White House—and early on, the administration took a skid.

In May 1981, the administration proposed a sharp cut in Social Security benefits.  This was at a time when the system was in crisis; indeed, in those days, many Democrats in Congress thought that significant changes, including at least some cuts, needed to be made.  Still, the Reagan proposal, rushed out without adequate vetting and proposing big cuts, was ill-received, to put it mildly.

On May 20, 1981, the U.S. Senate, controlled by Republicans, voted 96:0 to reject Reagan’s cuts.  This vote was a big deal, sending political shockwaves across the nation.  The New York Times referred to it as “Mr. Reagan’s first big political blunder.” And the Associated Press added: “The Senate delivered a unanimous jolt to Reagan’s Social Security proposals by voting against ‘precipitous and unfair’ cuts.”

Indeed, in a parliamentary system, it’s possible that the government would have fallen in the wake of such a negative vote.  Yet the U.S. doesn’t have a parliamentary system, and Reagan was still president.

Still, the severe repercussions continued; the voters had been rattled by the prospect of sudden cuts in the popular retirement system.  A month later, in June, Reagan’s Republican Party had a bad scare in a special election in a presumed safe seat in Ohio.  GOPer Mike Oxley won the special election in Ohio’s fourth Congressional district by a scant .3 percent—this being a district that the previous GOP incumbent had won just seven months earlier by a whopping 44 points. (Oxley went on to win another dozen elections to the House, none of them as close as that first one.)

Yet for his part, President Reagan had learned a lesson.  But he was nevertheless determined to fulfill his mandate from the 1980 election; he had a bold agenda, and he couldn’t wait to advance it.

But first, he had to move the Social Security issue offstage; he worked with Congressional leaders in both parties to set in motion a bipartisan commission to study the future of that entitlement program—the so-called Greenspan Commission, which released its report a full two years later.

Then, with that sticky wicket in the rearview mirror, the 40th president moved forward.  On July 31, the same Senate that had voted “nay” by such a big margin on Social Security turned around and voted “aye” on his bold tax-rate-reduction plan.

Next, on August 13, the Gipper signed the Economic Recovery Tax Act (known to history as Kemp-Roth) into law.

Even so, despite that massive success, Reagan wasn’t out of the woods; the economy, after all, was still suffering from the hangover of the “stagflation” of the 1970s.  And yet now, it was “Reaganomics” that was getting the blame.

After the 1982 midterms, in which Republicans suffered big losses in Congress, The New York Times ran a lead editorial proclaiming, “The stench of failure hangs over Ronald Reagan’s White House.”

In addition to the brickbats from the media, the polling, too, was negative.  In January 1983, a Gallup Poll found that Reagan was losing, badly, in hypothetical presidential matchups against Democrats; he was down a full 12 points to Walter Mondale, who was, in fact, the future Democratic presidential nominee.

Yet soon, the good effects of Reagan’s economic agenda were starting to be felt: Just as the President had predicted, the sun came out, and the economy came roaring back in 1983 and 1984.  And so Reagan—who not long before had been written off as a loser—won his ’84 re-election bid by 18 points, carrying 49 of the 50 states.

So there you have it: What happens to a president early on is not automatically dispositive to what happens to that president later on.  (And yes, inside the White House, it felt like a roller coaster—a bit scary at times, but then, ultimately, exhilarating.)

In fact, if we look back into U.S. history, we see many other presidential precedents that prove the same point.  The armies of President Abraham Lincoln, for example, suffered defeat after defeat in the early years of the Civil War, leading many to question Lincoln’s leadership.  Yet by November 1864, the situation had turned around, and the Union forces were winning; Lincoln was re-elected in a landslide, winning 22 of 25 states.

More recently, President Harry Truman, assuming office in 1945, found his administration rocked by a series of reverses, including the massive defeat of his party in the 1946 midterm elections; the Democrats lost control of both chambers for the first time in nearly 20 years.  And yet Truman hung in there; he rallied his forces in the 1948 election, and then, in the final campaign, he gave ‘em hell.  As a result, not only was he elected to a second term, but his party won back the Congress.  To this day, Truman is the patron saint of presidential underdogs.

Admittedly, it’s easier to recall the past than it is to predict the future. And yet all history speaks loudly to the basic wisdom known by every sports fan: It ain’t over till it’s over.

Trump launches morning tirade against ‘illegal leaks’

Written by  Associated Press

President Donald Trump is complaining about a Washington Post report that the Russian ambassador to the U.S. said he discussed election-related issues with U.S. Sen. Jeff Sessions when the men met during the 2016 presidential race.

Trump tweeted on Saturday morning: “A new INTELLIGENCE LEAK from the Amazon Washington Post, this time against A.G. Jeff Sessions.These illegal leaks, like Comey’s, must stop!”

The Post on Friday cited anonymous U.S. officials who described U.S. intelligence intercepts of Ambassador Sergey Kislyak’s descriptions of his meetings with Sessions, who was a Trump foreign policy adviser and now serves as attorney general.

The Department of Justice says Sessions stands by his previous assertion he never had conversations with Russian officials about any type of interference with the election.

Trump Makes Surprise Announcement About What Ted Cruz Did

Ever since he became a Trump supporter, Ted Cruz has been bringing talent to the table, and he just did it again.

Dennis Michael Lynch reported that in an attempt to make the Obamacare repeal and replace plan work, Ted Cruz has added an amendment to the bill allowing insurers to offer a larger variety of plans by limiting prescription or maternity benefits.

This option is called the “Consumer Freedom Option” and fulfills the long-held desires of low-risk men along with low risk and childless women, who don’t want to pay for the much higher costs of others.

Hopefully, this will allow the millions of Americans who don’t want Obamacare to buy this cheaper option instead.

The Department of Health & Human Services estimates that this will lower costs and result in more people voluntarily buying health insurance.

The HHS also estimated that Americans who sign up for Obamacare Silver plans would be paying $380 per month come 2024. That’s significantly down from the $845 they’ll pay if the Senate does nothing.

Overall, HHS estimates that individual enrollment in health insurance will go up to 16.1 million by 2024, not including Medicaid. Prices are thought to drop to an average of $240 per month.

This plan still keeps all who are insured in the same risk pool, which has reportedly lost the support of Senator Mike Lee (R-UT).

Insurance lobbies are complaining about Cruz’s amendment. They suggest it will cause more consumers to cancel their plans. Perhaps that’s so. It’s likely that many would want to cancel their plan and opt for a cheaper plan, but that’s not a negative from We the People’s perspective!

More choice in the insurance market is always a good thing. The one-size-fits-all approach of the Obama administration left many Americans over paying or opting out of health insurance entirely–especially those with little risk of becoming ill.

Insurance lobbies are just upset they no longer have a captive market.

They’ll have to get competitive. That’s just the way the free market works, and Obama should have never tried to limit it.

The Media’s Use of This ‘Hate Group’ Label Puts Conservatives’ Safety at Risk

Katrina Trinko / @KatrinaTrinko

Capitol Police Officer Crystal Griner throws out the ceremonial first pitch from her wheelchair before the start of the Congressional Women's Softball Game in Washington ,D.C., in June. She was injured when a gunman opened fire on the Republican congressional baseball team. (Photo: Jeff Malet Photography/Newscom)

ORANGE COUNTY, California—Once again, the mainstream media is demonstrating it doesn’t care about the impact of extremist rhetoric on conservatives.

Never mind that a mere 29 days ago, Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., was shot by a violent man, a man whose actions would have resulted in “a massacre,” according to Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who was present, were it not for the actions of the Capitol Police.

In fact, the Capitol Police generally would not have been present for a baseball practice among lawmakers, and were in fact only there because Scalise is a member of the GOP House leadership. Never mind that others were also shot and that Scalise was back in the ICU the day after the Fourth of July, battling an infection.

And never mind that the alleged shooter, James T. Hodgkinson, liked the Southern Poverty Law Center on Facebook.

Because this week, the mainstream media are back in force to attacking social conservatives as haters, consequences be damned. And they’re using the “hate group” label produced by the ultra-liberal Southern Poverty Law Center.

“Jeff Sessions addresses ‘anti-LGBT hate group,’ but DOJ won’t release his remarks,” blared an ABC News headline. The first two paragraphs of the “news” story doubled down on the criticism:

Attorney General Jeff Sessions delivered a speech to an alleged hate group at an event closed to reporters on Tuesday night, but the Department of Justice is refusing to reveal what he said.

Sessions addressed members of the Alliance Defending Freedom, which was designated an ‘anti-LGBT hate group’ by the Southern Poverty Law Center in 2016 …

Nor is it just ABC News that is irresponsibly painting social conservatives as hateful activists. “Attorney General Jeff Sessions Criticized for Speaking to ‘Hate Group,’” was NBC News’ headline. And here’s the first paragraph:

Democrats and LGBT groups assailed Attorney General Jeff Sessions for an off-camera, closed-door speech Tuesday to an organization designated as a ‘hate group’ by a prominent civil rights watchdog.

So disclosure time: I’m attending this supposed hate group’s conference this week.

And you know what I haven’t heard at all? Hate. And considering how I’ve been in an insane number of conversations, all off the record, it’s clear there is no secret hate agenda here.

(And yes, I’m one of those crazy Christians who thinks it’s a sin to lie … so I’m telling you the truth here.)

Alliance Defending Freedom, for those not familiar with the organization, is a group dedicated to preserving religious freedom. And what I’ve heard over and over again at this conference is people discussing how to keep the United States a country where people can be true to their beliefs, where they are not forced by a tyrannical government to violate their conscience.

Much of the conversation has revolved around Alliance Defending Freedom’s case heading to the Supreme Court next term, a case about whether the state can force someone to use their speech to promote a cause they don’t believe in.

Yes, this particular case is about Jack Phillips, a baker who refused to make a same-sex couple a commitment ceremony cake in 2012 (a time when same-sex marriage wasn’t even legal in his state of Colorado).  

But Phillips’ case has implications for anyone who has beliefs, regardless of their views on same-sex marriage.

As Phillips’ lawyer, Alliance Defending Freedom’s Kristen Waggoner, pointed out in a recent appearance on “The View,” no liberal would want to be forced by the government to write speeches for a conservative.

And here’s some facts about Phillips the mainstream media likely won’t be trumpeting.

First, there are many cakes Phillips won’t bake. He wouldn’t do a lewd cake for a bachelor party. He doesn’t do Halloween cakes because of his beliefs. And he also won’t do cakes that include alcohol.

So yes, his faith affects his life in many areas, not just LGBT issues.

And oh yes, he serves LGBT customers, and has no problem doing so. He just doesn’t want to make wedding cakes for them.

How outrageous that Phillips, who sees his cake as art, doesn’t want to use his artistic expression to make something that goes against his beliefs.

Or not.

After all, it’s hard to imagine the mainstream media losing their minds over, oh, an LGBT activist refusing to make a cake for a Christian church saying marriage should only be between a man and a woman. Or a gun control advocate having to make flyers hawking the NRA. Or a die-hard Hillary Clinton aficionado having to make a photo album celebrating the success of Donald Trump’s presidency.

Now let’s talk about the Southern Poverty Law Center.

First off, the Scalise shooting wasn’t the first time there was a tie between the Southern Poverty Law Center and violence. In 2012, Floyd Lee Corkins II went to the Family Research Council, also called a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, with a gun.

“Corkins—who had chosen the research council as his target after finding it listed as an anti-gay group on the website of the Southern Poverty Law Center—had planned to stride into the building and open fire on the people inside in an effort to kill as many as possible, he told investigators, according to the court documents,” reported CNN in 2013.

Instead, Corkins was stopped by an unarmed security guard, who managed to tackle him (and was shot in the process). Thankfully, no one died.

But just like with the Scalise shooting, people easily could have. Make no mistake: It’s clear both shooters were intending to produce massacres, and only through the brave actions of others were they unable to do so.

Yet the media is now once again using, in ledes and headlines (not say, buried in paragraph 35 of a 38-paragraph story), the “hate group” labels of the Southern Poverty Law Center.

This is insane.

Nor does the Southern Poverty Law Center have some reason to be seen as a credible organization.

In a June 21 letter directed to GuideStar, a nonprofit tracker that was then using the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “hate group” labels (GuideStar has since removed the labels), dozens of conservative leaders wrote:

The ‘hate group’ list is nothing more than a political weapon targeting people it deems to be its political enemies.  The list is ad hoc, partisan, and agenda-driven.  The [Southern Poverty Law Center] doesn’t even pretend to identify groups on the political left that engage in ‘hate.’  Mosques or Islamist groups that promote radical speech inciting anti-Semitism and actual violence are not listed by the [Southern Poverty Law Center] even though many have been publicly identified after terrorist attacks. Radical, violent leftist environmentalists or speech suppressing thugs—like the rioting ‘antifa’ movement—receive no mention from the [Southern Poverty Law Center].

(Disclosure: Ed Feulner, president of The Heritage Foundation, the parent organization of The Daily Signal, was one of the letter’s signatories, as was Michael Needham, president of Heritage Action for America.)

Guy Benson, a Fox News contributor who announced in 2015 he was gay, also took issue with media citing the Southern Poverty Law Center as a credible source:

✔@guypbenson

Wow, ADF is not a "hate group." Amazing that media keeps treating SPLC seriously. Extreme bias. https://twitter.com/ewerickson/status/885290313132236800 …

12:13 AM - 13 Jul 2017

So let’s review. In recent years, two men with connections to the Southern Poverty Law Center have tried to murder many, and both succeeded in wounding one or more people. The Southern Poverty Law Center itself is clearly not an unbiased, credible organization.

Yet the media is citing their labels front and center in coverage.

The mainstream media says again and again they don’t have an agenda. (And I do believe many mainstream media journalists truly believe they don’t.)

But decisions to cite the Southern Poverty Law Center’s “hate group” labels show they really do have an agenda—and it’s one that isn’t concerned about the well-being and safety of conservatives.

 

The Key Facts About Slavery That the Left Conveniently Ignores

Walter E. Williams

Too many people believe that slavery is a “peculiar institution.”

That’s what Kenneth Stampp called slavery in his book, “Peculiar Institution: Slavery in the Ante-Bellum South.”

But slavery is by no means peculiar, odd, or unusual. It was common among ancient peoples such as the Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Hittites, Greeks, Persians, Armenians, and many others.

Large numbers of Christians were enslaved during the Ottoman wars in Europe. White slaves were common in Europe from the Dark Ages to the Middle Ages. It was only after A.D. 1600 that Europeans joined with Arabs and Africans and started the Atlantic slave trade.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. But this can't be done alone. Find out more >>

As David P. Forsythe wrote in his book, “The Globalist,” “The fact remained that at the beginning of the 19th century an estimated three-quarters of all people alive were trapped in bondage against their will either in some form of slavery or serfdom.”

While slavery constitutes one of the grossest encroachments on human liberty, it is by no means unique or restricted to the Western world or United States, as many liberal academics would have us believe.

Much of their indoctrination of our young people, at all levels of education, paints our nation’s Founders as racist adherents to slavery, but the story is not so simple.

At the time of the 1787 Constitutional Convention, slaves were about 40 percent of the population of the Southern colonies. Apportionment in the House of Representatives and the number of electoral votes each state would have in presidential elections would be based upon population.

Southern delegates to the convention wanted slaves to be counted as one person. Northern delegates to the convention, and those opposed to slavery, wanted only free persons of each state to be counted for the purposes of apportionment in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College.

The compromise reached was that each slave would be counted as only three-fifths of a person.

Many criticize this compromise as proof of racism. My question to these grossly uninformed critics is whether they would have found it more preferable for slaves to be counted as whole persons. Slaves counted as whole persons would have given slaveholding Southern states much more political power.

Or, would the critics of the Founders prefer that the Northern delegates not compromise and not allow slaves to be counted at all. If they hadn’t, it is likely that the Constitution would have not been ratified.

Thus, the question that emerges is whether blacks would be better off with Northern states having gone their way and Southern states having gone theirs, resulting in no U.S. Constitution and no Union?

Unlike today’s pseudo intellectuals, black abolitionist Frederick Douglass understood the compromise, saying that the three-fifths clause was “a downright disability laid upon the slaveholding states” that deprived them of “two-fifths of their natural basis of representation.”

Douglass’ vision was shared by Patrick Henry and others. Henry said, expressing the reality of the three-fifths compromise, “As much as I deplore slavery, I see that prudence forbids its abolition.”

With this union, Congress at least had the power to abolish slave trade by 1808. According to Delegate James Wilson, many believed the anti-slave trade clause laid “the foundation for banishing slavery out of this country.”

Many of the Founders abhorred slavery. Their statements can be read on my website, walterewilliams.com.

The most unique aspect of slavery in the Western world was the moral outrage against it, which began to emerge in the 18th century and led to massive elimination efforts.

It was Britain’s military sea power that put an end to the slave trade. And our country fought a costly war that brought an end to slavery.

Unfortunately, these facts about slavery are not in the lessons taught in our schools and colleges. Instead, there is gross misrepresentation and suggestion that slavery was a uniquely American practice.

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given     the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

This New Obama IRS Scandal Is Bad News For Democrats

IRS scandals were a constant theme of Obama’s eight-year reign in office.

Now there is new evidence that is bad news for Obama and the Democrats.

The findings in the latest Freedom of Information Act request are a shocking must-read.

In April of this year, Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) against the IRS.

The goal of the request was to find information relating to the IRS’s targeting of conservative groups and citizens during the Obama administration.

They were looking to obtain records relating to the “preservation and/or retention” of email records from officials who have left the agency since January 2010.

Judicial Watch’s findings were shocking, but not surprising to any conservative American who is familiar with the corruption of the IRS:

“JUDICIAL WATCH’S LITIGATION FORCED THE IRS FIRST TO SAY THAT EMAILS BELONGING TO LOIS LERNER, FORMER DIRECTOR OF THE EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS UNIT OF THE IRS, WERE SUPPOSEDLY MISSING AND LATER DECLARE TO THE COURT THAT THE EMAILS WERE ON IRS BACK-UP SYSTEMS.  LERNER WAS ONE OF THE TOP OFFICIALS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE IRS’ TARGETING OF PRESIDENT OBAMA’S POLITICAL OPPONENTS.  JUDICIAL WATCH EXPOSED VARIOUS IRS’ RECORD KEEPING PROBLEMS:

• IN JUNE 2014, THE IRS CLAIMED TO HAVE “LOST” RESPONSIVE EMAILS BELONGING TO LERNER AND OTHER IRS OFFICIALS.
  
• IN JULY 2014 JUDGE EMMETT SULLIVAN ORDERED THE IRS TO SUBMIT TO THE COURT A WRITTEN DECLARATION UNDER OATH ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED TO LERNER’S “LOST” EMAILS. THE SWORN DECLARATIONS PROVED TO BE LESS THAN FORTHCOMING.
  
• IN AUGUST 2014, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ATTORNEYS FOR THE IRS FINALLY ADMITTED JUDICIAL WATCH THAT LERNER’S EMAILS, INDEED ALL GOVERNMENT COMPUTER RECORDS, ARE BACKED UP BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IN CASE OF A GOVERNMENT-WIDE CATASTROPHE. THE IRS’ ATTORNEYS ALSO DISCLOSED THAT TREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION (TIGTA) WAS LOOKING AT SEVERAL OF THESE BACKUP TAPES.
  
• IN NOVEMBER 2014, THE IRS TOLD THE COURT IT HAD FAILED TO SEARCH ANY OF THE IRS STANDARD COMPUTER SYSTEMS FOR THE “MISSING” EMAILS OF LERNER AND OTHER IRS OFFICIALS”

Basically, what this means is the IRS records management practice resulted in lost records and incomplete IRS responses to FOIA requests and congressional inquiries.

This is just another example of government incompetence in the Obama administration.

In response to these findings, President of Judicial Watch, Tom Fitton, was shocked but not surprised, stating:

“THIS NEW REPORT IS SHOCKING BUT NOT SURPRISING.  WE HAVE LONG BATTLED THE IRS IN COURT OVER ITS OBSTRUCTION IN RESPONDING TO FOIA REQUESTS ABOUT OBAMA ERA IRS ABUSES.  IT IS A SCANDAL THAT THE OBAMA IRS DID NOT TELL JUDICIAL WATCH, THE COURTS, OR CONGRESS ABOUT THE LOSS OF GOVERNMENT RECORDS.  OUR ATTORNEYS WILL REVIEW THIS REPORT TO ASSESS WHETHER WE SHOULD SEEK RELIEF AND ACCOUNTABILITY FROM THE COURTS.  IN THE MEANTIME, PRESIDENT TRUMP SHOULD FINALLY FIRE IRS COMMISSIONER JOHN KOSKINEN AND DIRECT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT TO REOPEN ITS CRIMINAL INQUIRY INTO THE OBAMA IRS ABUSES AND COVER-UPS.”

What do you think about these findings?

Did Trump Make A Big Concession To Putin At G20?

By DICK MORRIS

Published on DickMorris.com

 

At the recent G20 meeting in Hamburg this month, Russian dictator Vladimir Putin met on the side with President Trump for what they called an "informal" fifteen minute session.  Press reports indicate that they discussed "adoptions."

 

Presumably, this refers to the Russian ban on American adoptions of Russian infants that was enacted in 2012 to retaliate against the United States for new sanctions imposed by the Congress on Russians.  The sanctions, called the Magnitsky Act, were voted to punish individual Russians who were complicit in the jailhouse murder of Sergei Magnitsky, a lawyer who was arrested after exposing hundreds of millions of dollars of corruption by Putin.

At the time of the adoption ban, Russia was the third most popular country for infant adoptions with almost 1,000 adoptions each year.

Putin wants the Magnitsky Act repealed by Congress.  Human rights activist Bill Browder wants them extended to 280 new Russians who he says were complicit in the persecution, arrest, and murder of Sergei Magnitsky or in the corruption he exposed.

To say that they discussed "adoptions" is a euphemism for the fact that they likely talked about repealing the Magnitsky Act.  Because Magnitsky's charges of corruption were personally leveled at Putin and perhaps because he might have been involved in the murder, the Russian leader has pushed hard for it repeal.

The push to weaken the Magnitsky Act interfaces with the charges that Trump and Putin conspired to fix the U.S. election.  The Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya and her countryman, lobbyist Rinat Akhmetshin, both were hired as lobbyists for a Foundation pushing for repeal of the Magnitsky Act.  And they were also both present at the now famous meeting with Trump's son and also raised the issue of "adoptions" with him.

To add to the mix, Fusion GPS, the negative research firm that hired former British spy Christopher Steele to dig up dirt on Trump, also worked to lobby against the Magnitsky Act.

So, we are driven to ask the question:  Did Trump promise Putin to weaken -- or at least not expand -- the Magnitsky Act?

The fact that Putin's lobbyists raised the Magnitsky Act with Trump Jr. and now that the dictator himself brought it up with the president, shows how important the question is to Putin personally.   If Trump relented and gave in to Putin on the issue, it is a very big deal indeed.

The media, so far, has not penetrated beyond the description of the meeting as being about "adoptions" to get at the real issue beneath.

‘Fake Science’: Book Debunks Peer Review Scam

3

by DAN RIEHL

Author and Breitbart News contributor Austin Ruse spoke with Breitbart News Daily SiriusXM host Alex Marlow on Friday regarding his new book, Fake Science: Exposing the Left’s Skewed Statistics, Fuzzy Facts, and Dodgy Data.

The quote below is from the book notes on Amazon:

You’d think we were living in the golden age of science and reason. But the truth is far more sinister, says Austin Ruse. We’re actually living in the age of the low information voter, easily mislead by all-too-convincing false statistics and studies. In Fake Science, Ruse debunks so-called “facts” used to advance political causes one after the other, revealing how poorly they stand up to actual science.

Regarding the work he does at the United Nations, Ruse told Marlow, “I run into fake science all the time on the life and family issues. And then in all of the articles I wrote for Breitbart over the years, a whole lot of that was debunking the fake science that the left throws at us.”

“When they intone science in their white coats,” added Ruse, “we’re supposed to sit down and shut up.”

Ruse said global warming is the most prominent example of “fake science.”

“The chapter I wrote on global warming is called “Global Warming Is Real, and It Is Good.” What I mean by that is, yes, the earth has warmed since the Little Ice Age, not a lot, a little. And the implications for that are actually quite good.”

He continued, “It’s good for agriculture, for instance. But the fake science comes in when they begin to talk about Michael Mann’s hockey stick, for instance – utterly fake science. He postulated that global temperature took off like a rocket at one point. But he was able to achieve that only by taking out a key part of history, which is called the Medieval Warm Period.”

“Flowing from that are also fake claims. We’re supposed to be out of polar bears by now,” said Ruse. “That’s what Al Gore said in his movie.”

As for peer review, Ruse said, “There are a couple of ways that “peer reviewed” is a scam. First of all, a conservative can’t get peer reviewed because they’re conservative. Ruse cited a work on sexuality and gender by Lawrence S. Mayer and Paul R. McHugh in the New Atlantis as an example. “But because the New Atlantis is not peer reviewed, their work has been dismissed out of hand,” said Ruse.

Ruse also cited a number of recent scandals in the peer review process, including “bad data or outright fraud” that have forced retractions.

Fake Science: Exposing the Left’s Skewed Statistics, Fuzzy Facts, and Dodgy Data is available here.

Breitbart News Daily airs on SiriusXM Patriot 125 weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. Eastern.

Rush Limbaugh Just Exposed The Secret Truth About Who Is Conspiring Against Trump

Trump supporters know there is a conspiracy against Trump to ruin his Presidency.

Rush Limbaugh offered up his theory.

And you won’t believe who is involved.

Up until now, it has been accepted that the Deep State – which includes Obama loyalists and establishment Republicans – has tag teamed with the media in a conspiracy to bring down Donald Trump.

But now that the GOP Congress has failed to deliver on their promise to repeal Obamacare, another layer has been added to this plot.

Rush Limbaugh believes establishment members of Congress –and this includes Republicans – are invested in Trump failing and are personally sabotaging his legislative agenda.

The Blaze reports:

“Rush Limbaugh, nationally syndicated conservative radio show host, during the Tuesday broadcast of his show, accused the “Washington establishment” of plotting a “silent coup” in order to oust President Donald Trump.

Limbaugh, discussing Trump’s presidency, claimed that ever since Trump was elected, the established Washington power players “began to circle the wagons,” and from that day forward, Trump was not going to be “allowed to triumph on anything.”

Intimating that success would be by a very narrow margin — if at all — Limbaugh added, “There was no way that this establishment was going to permit an outsider to come in and clean house and show how Washington can work and blow their cover for the last how many decades.”

Limbaugh went on to explain that the real fight in Washington is not between the Republicans and the Democrats, but between Trump and his supporters and the Washington establishment.

The Blaze also reports:

“Limbaugh noted that it doesn’t necessarily mean that a draining of the swamp can’t be done, but that the Washington elite “weren’t going to help this along.”

“They were not going to contribute,” he added. “They were not going to make this easy for Trump.”

The radio host even went as far as to say that the election of Trump “has never been about” the president “unifying the Republican party in order to beat the Democrats.”

“That’s been the mistake,” Limbaugh said. “That’s not the fight here. The fight is Donald Trump and his cadre and you, the Trump base, versus the Washington establishment. It has always been that and nothing more.”

Limbaugh described these efforts to sabotage Trump as nothing less than a “silent coup.”

And there is more to his comments than pundits wish to admit.

In addition to failing to pass an Obamacare repeal bill, Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell have made no effort to fund Trump’s border wall.

They included zero money for the project in the legislation for funding the government through September.

Now Congressional Republicans have inserted just $1.57 billion in the Homeland Security bill.

This will fund just 28 miles of new border wall construction along the Mexican border.

Establishment Republicans never bought into Trump’s ‘America First’ agenda.

And rather than accept the reality that Trump and his agenda is what voters want, they are trying to torpedo his agenda to make it politically toxic so no one ever attempts to smash their hold on power again.

G’ day…Ciao…

Helen and Moe Lauzier

Thus articles

that is all articles This time, hopefully can provide benefits to you all. Okay, see you in another article post.

You are now reading the article the link address https://fairyforreference.blogspot.com/2017/07/www_23.html

Tweet

Subscribe to receive free email updates: