DOJ abruptly drops once-heralded prosecution of Russian troll farm initiated by Mueller

{“The Democrats were bigger meddlers in the 2016 election than the Russians were.
The DNC and Hillary Clinton tampered with a Presidential election when the debate questions were provided to Hillary in advance of the National Presidential Debate, by CNN employee and former chair of the DNC, Donna Brazile. Trump still won the debate.

Conspiring to produce a hoax dossier with the deliberate intention of smearing Donald Trump by linking him with Russia to imply collusion.

The Obama administration used the Secret Service to arrange a meeting between former President Bill Clinton (his plane) and AG Loretta Lynch (her plane) on a isolated part of the tarmac at the airport in Phoenix, Arizona.
Just nine days later, after a year-long investigation, FBI Director James Comey suddenly announced that Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton would not be facing any charges for illegally sending classified information over an illegal and unauthorized server.

The DNC was caught red-handed running a smear campaign against Bernie Sanders, and withheld badly needed campaign funding for Sanders campaign. DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz was force to resign in shame.”}

In a striking and unexpected abandonment of a once-heralded prosecution initiated by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, the Justice Department moved Monday to drop charges against two Russian companies that were accused of funding a social media meme campaign to further their “strategic goal to sow discord in the U.S. political system, including the 2016 presidential election.”

Late Monday, with jury selection in the case set to begin in just two weeks, a federal judge granted the DOJ’s motion to kill the prosecution. The government acknowledged the Russian companies were never likely to actually face punishment anyway and cited possible national security risks with going forward to trial.

Concord Management and Consulting LLC and Concord Catering were among three companies and 13 individuals charged in February 2018 by Mueller. Their alleged criminal effort included social media postings and campaigns aimed at dividing American public opinion and sowing discord in the electorate, officials said, although no actual impact on voters was ever proven.

Of the 13 Russians and three Russian companies charged by Mueller in the social media disinformation effort, Concord was the sole defendant to enter an appearance in Washington’s federal court and contest and the allegations. Mueller’s 37-page indictment said the actions detailed by prosecutors dated back to 2014. (Mueller later brought separate charges against other entities related to a hack of Democrats’ emails in the summer of 2018.)

READ THE DOJ’S MOTION TO DROP CHARGES

President Trump noted that no Russian collusion with his campaign was ever proven, and Republicans and even left-of-center commenators argued that Russian disinformation was mostly irrelevant, given that social media and other platforms are already rife with inaccuracies.

“Before a pandemic, there was a time when we were relentlessly told to fear Russian social media accounts,” mused journalist Aaron Mate on Monday. “Their juvenile memes not only elected Trump, but also ‘sowed chaos.’ When Mueller indicted 13 Russians over it, he was hailed as a hero. Well, DOJ just dropped the case.”

‘Dead Sea Scrolls’ at the DC Museum of the Bible are all forgeries.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – On the fourth floor of the Museum of the Bible, a sweeping permanent exhibit tells the story of how the ancient scripture became the world’s most popular book. A warmly lit sanctum at the exhibit’s heart reveals some of the museum’s most prized possessions: fragments of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ancient texts that include the oldest known surviving copies of the Hebrew Bible.

But now, the Washington, D.C. museum has confirmed a bitter truth about the fragments’ authenticity. On Friday, independent researchers funded by the Museum of the Bible announced that all 16 of the museum’s Dead Sea Scroll fragments are modern forgeries that duped outside collectors, the museum’s founder, and some of the world’s leading biblical scholars. Officials unveiled the findings at an academic conference hosted by the museum.

“The Museum of the Bible is trying to be as transparent as possible,” says CEO Harry Hargrave. “We’re victims—we’re victims of misrepresentation, we’re victims of fraud.”

In a report spanning more than 200 pages, a team of researchers led by art fraud investigator Colette Loll found that while the pieces are probably made of ancient leather, they were inked in modern times and modified to resemble real Dead Sea Scrolls. “These fragments were manipulated with the intent to deceive,” Loll says.

The new findings don’t cast doubt on the 100,000 real Dead Sea Scroll fragments, most of which lie in the Shrine of the Book, part of the Israel Museum, Jerusalem. However, the report’s findings raise grave questions about the “post-2002” Dead Sea Scroll fragments, a group of some 70 snippets of biblical text that entered the antiquities market in the 2000s. Even before the new report, some scholars believed that most to all of the post-2002 fragments were modern fakes.

“Once one or two of the fragments were fake, you know all of them probably are, because they come from the same sources, and they look basically the same,” says Årstein Justnes, a researcher at Norway’s University of Agder whose Lying Pen of Scribes project tracks the post-2002 fragments.
Since its 2017 opening, the Museum of the Bible has funded research into the pieces and sent off five fragments to Germany’s Federal Institute for Materials Research for testing. In late 2018, the museum announced the results to the world: All five tested fragments were probably modern forgeries.

But what of the other 11 fragments? And how had the forgers managed to fool the world’s leading Dead Sea Scroll scholars and the Museum of the Bible?

“It really was—and still is—an interesting kind of detective story,” says Jeffrey Kloha, the Museum of the Bible’s chief curatorial officer. “We really hope this is helpful to other institutions and researchers, because we think this provides a good foundation for looking at other pieces, even if it raises other questions.”

Under the microscope

To find out more about its fragments, the Museum of the Bible reached out to Loll and her company, Art Fraud Insights, in February 2019 and charged her with conducting a thorough physical and chemical investigation of all 16 pieces. Loll was no stranger to fakes and forgeries. After getting her master’s in art history at George Washington University, Loll went on to study international art crime, run forgery investigations, and train federal agents on matters of cultural heritage.

Loll insisted on independence. Not only would the Museum of the Bible have no say on the team’s findings, her report would be final—and would have to be released to the public. The Museum of the Bible agreed to the terms. “Honestly, I’ve never worked with a museum that was so up-front,” Loll says.

Loll quickly assembled a team of five conservators and scientists. From February to October, the team periodically visited the museum and pulled together their findings. By the time their report was finalized in November 2019, the researchers were unanimous. All 16 fragments appeared to be modern forgeries…….

Joe Biden Blasts Trump’s Coronavirus Response, Then Plagiarizes Trump’s Plan

Well, plagiarism is one of his better known tactics as he’s done it twice before, so…..

On Thursday, Joe Biden slammed President Trump’s response to the coronavirus outbreak while speaking in Wilmington, Del., on Thursday afternoon. “The administration’s failure on testing is colossal and it’s a failure of leadership, planning, and execution,” Biden said. “This virus laid bare the severe shortcomings of the current administration.”

Biden went on to suggest things that should have been done. And if you thought they sounded familiar, you’re right, because immediately after blaming Trump for not doing enough, Biden suggested things that have, in fact, already been done.

Joe Biden said “no efforts should be spared” to get private labs and universities working to rapidly expand testing for coronavirus. Congratulations Joe, President Trump did this weeks ago when he ordered the FDA to allow hundreds of private labs and academic hospitals to rapidly begin testing for coronavirus.

Joe Biden also said that small businesses will need relief from the economic impact of the coronavirus. Congratulations, Joe, Trump literally called for $50 billion in liquidity to small business owners a day prior to Biden’s remarks and has asked Congress for even more relief.

The former vice president also said insurance companies should waive copays for coronavirus testing, which is a good idea. And guess what? Trump already did that, too, as well as getting commitments from providers to expand their coverage include treatment for the coronavirus in their plans.

Think Biden was done ripping off President Trump’s actions and presenting them as his own ideas? Nope. He added that we need to “accelerate” the development of a coronavirus vaccine. Hey, guess what happened in January while Democrats were all focused on impeachment? The Trump administration fast-tracked the development of a vaccine with the goal of clinical trials to begin within months.

Echoing what pretty much all experts have been advising for weeks now, Joe Biden also advised Americans not to go to work if they’re sick, to wash their hands (duh), and to avoid large public gatherings… which Trump advised Americans to do last month.

It takes a lot of gall to blast Trump’s response to the coronavirus and then call for the exact same courses of action Trump has taken and try to pass it off as your own plan. Plagiarism is hardly a new thing for Joe Biden, but this example truly takes the cake. Trump’s decisive actions in response to the outbreak saved lives, but Biden cares more about politicizing the issue and, I suppose, assuming credit for coming up with ideas that Trump already put in place.

This may be because Biden is trying to cover up the fact that he has a lousy record when it comes to public health crises. “In the past, Joe Biden has shown terrible judgment and incompetence in the face of public health issues,” Tim Murtaugh, the communications director for the Trump campaign said in a statement. “The Obama White House had to publicly apologize for and clean up after Biden when his irresponsible remarks caused panic during the swine flu outbreak in 2009. Just weeks ago, he was openly critical of President Trump’s early move to restrict travel from China to the United States in response to the coronavirus – a decision which medical experts agree helped impede the spread of the virus to this country.”

EXCLUSIVE: White House Officials Allege Speaker Pelosi Pushed To Include Hyde Amendment Loophole Into Coronavirus Stimulus Plan.

Well, when it’s a tenet of your religion (Pelosi says she’s a Catholic, but she actually must worship Moloch) you do what you can to advance it.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sought to include a potential way to guarantee federal funding for abortion into the coronavirus economic stimulus plan, according to multiple senior White House officials.

Speaking to the Daily Caller, those officials alleged that while negotiating the stimulus with U.S. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, Pelosi tried to lobby for “several” provisions that stalled bipartisan commitment to the effort. One was a mandate for up to $1 billion to reimburse laboratory claims, which White House officials say would set a precedent of health spending without protections outlined in the Hyde Amendment.

The Hyde Amendment blocks clinics that perform abortions from receiving federal funding, and Democrats have pushed the Trump administration to end it since he was elected in 2016

“A new mandatory funding stream that does not have Hyde protections would be unprecedented,” one White House official explained. “Under the guise of protecting people, Speaker Pelosi is working to make sure taxpayer dollars are spent covering abortion — which is not only backwards, but goes against historical norms.”

A second White House official referred to the provision as a “slush fund” and yet another questioned “what the Hyde Amendment and abortion have to do with protecting Americans from coronavirus?”

‘We’re All Going to Die of Climate Change!’, Warns Shock JP Morgan Report

Yeah, when the econuts go with the usual ‘carbon tax’ you know you’re simply looking at another method for graft.

Human life ‘as we know it’ is threatened by climate change and there may be ‘catastrophic outcomes’ unless urgent action is taken, two house economists at JP Morgan have warned in an explosive report ‘Risky Business – the Climate and the Macroeconomy’.

The report’s authors, David Mackie and Jessica Murray, warn that ‘climate change would not only impact GDP and welfare directly but would also have indirect effects via morbidity, mortality, famine, water stress, conflict, and migration.’

“We cannot rule out catastrophic outcomes where human life as we know it is threatened”, they add darkly, urging the immediate introduction of a global carbon tax to avert potential disaster.

Then again, they say, covering their bets, it may do none of those things because climate change is very unpredictable.

Their report has been greeted with undisguised rapture by the leftist media – including the BBC and the Guardian – delighted to have all its prejudices confirmed by an apparently rigorous study produced by a bank which it has previously criticised because of its investments in fossil fuels.

Wiser heads, however, recognise that the report is yet another climatological nothingburger cobbled together from the usual, compromised, dubious alarmist studies by a pair of economists with no special knowledge to bring to the party.

The report is not merely wrong but culpably misleading – the kind of false prospectus which would normally get any financial organisation promoting it into heaps of legal trouble.

Where it particularly falls down is in its reliance on RCP8.5. This is the so-called ‘business as usual’ (BAU) scenario which climate alarmists have for years being using on their computer models to predict potentially catastrophic temperature rises of the kind mentioned in the JP Morgan report.

The problem with RCP8.5 is that as Judith Curry, Roger Pielke Jr and others have pointed out, there is no real world evidence to support its hysterical predictions. On the contrary, as time goes by, the doomsday predictions of the RCP8.5 models look like a risible fantasy of no scientific value whatsoever.

As Jaime Jessop writes:

In the absence also of any observably catastrophic global rise in temperature throughout the 21st century (which not even ‘pause-busting’ adjustments to temperature data could conjure up), alarmists have turned to inventing imminent future catastrophes via the invocation of highly speculative ‘tipping points’ which supposedly will be ‘triggered’ at imaginary and entirely ad hoc global warming thresholds (1.5C, 2C, 3C etc. relative to pre-industrial baseline). They have also increasingly employed the highly unrealistic ‘business as usual’ scenario RCP8.5 to supercharge their global warming projections in order to manufacture climate alarmist narratives in the media, a strategy which only in the last couple of months has started to be seriously questioned. Roger Pielke Jr has recently been at the vanguard of the movement to expose the misuse of this nightmarishly unrealistic scenario as ‘business as usual’.

Apart from being alarmist propaganda bilge, the report’s other most dishonest feature is the way that it is being spun as something uncharacteristic of the financial industry.

In fact, the financial sector has long since capitulated to climate alarmism, not least because its dodgier operators – see Al Gore as an early example of this – have recognised the green scam as a route to easy profit.

It is, in fact, probably the single most alarming thing about the great global warming con: that big money is now so heavily involved in promoting it that it may be impossible for honest science or economic and political integrity to win the battle against all the mendacious and cynical vested interests seeking to profit from it (at the expense, of course, of all the little people).

This is what Terence Corcoran warns of here:

New plans to overthrow market-driven investment systems are a constant feature of today’s global financial scene. The recent appointment of Bank of England Governor Mark Carney as the UN’s special envoy for climate action and finance signals a renewed international effort to turn the world’s energy investors into pawns of state climate activists and agitators for market-distorting policies.

The movement to subvert markets, however, is much bigger than Carney. It is now accepted dogma globally that the financial markets are unreliable, twisted by greed and even corrupt. In Carney’s words, markets are based on “selective information, spin, misdirection.” That’s a mild criticism compared with the views of others. “Capitalism as we know it is dead,” said Salesforce chief Marc Benioff, one of many business leaders who have joined the anti-corporate left in claiming the financial and capital markets are destroying the planet.

In short, there is nothing surprising about JP Morgan throwing its weight behind the $1.5 trillion plus climate industrial complex because this is what all the world’s crony capitalists and rent-seekers are doing right now, so why should JP Morgan miss out on the party?

But the report needs to be taken with a very large pinch of salt. And if there’s anyone who doubts this, I’ve got an amazing deal just for you: a huge bridge, going cheap; and my vast and potentially hugely profitable portfolio of Enron and Solyndra shares.

No Evidence ‘Assault Weapon’ Bans Reduce Mass Shootings

A study released by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health declares there is no evidence “assault weapon” bans lead to a lower “incidence of fatal mass shootings.”

Expanded Background Checks Don’t Lower Mass Shooting Rate

A study by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health found expanding background checks does nothing to lower the mass shooting rate.


Researchers did claim licensing requirements like those in Connecticut help reduce the number of mass shootings, but their study omitted the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School in which 26 were killed at the school and another victim was killed in a private home.

In other words, a study which claims licensing reduces instances of mass shootings omitted one of the most often cited mass shootings in U.S. history, even though that shooting occurred in a licensing state.

Moreover, John Hopkins’ criteria for licensing laws allowed them to bypass Illinois which, in turn, allowed them to sidestep the never ending gun crime of Chicago.

But the study was clear there is no evidence tying “assault weapons” to a lower incidence of mass shootings.


Johns Hopkins Study:

Firearm Purchaser Licensing Laws Linked to Fewer Fatal Mass Shootings
BANS ON LARGE-CAPACITY MAGAZINES WERE ALSO ASSOCIATED WITH FEWER FATAL MASS SHOOTINGS AND FATALITIES
Firearm purchaser licensing laws that require an in-person application or fingerprinting are associated with an estimated 56 percent fewer fatal mass shootings in states that have them, according to a new study by researchers at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.

The study analyzed fatal mass shootings in 45 states between 1984 and 2017 and the association between the rates of those shootings and the presence of various firearm laws.

The study was published in a February 2020 special issue on mass violence in the U.S. in the journal Criminology & Public Policy.

The researchers also found evidence that laws banning large-capacity magazines, defined as those that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition, were associated with significant reductions in the rate of fatal mass shootings with four or more fatalities and the number killed in those shootings. >>>>The size and precision of the estimated effects of LCM bans varied across many statistical analyses presented in study.<<<<

(in other words, our evidence depends on our point of view because the numbers really don’t add up)

“After each horrible mass shooting, there are always policy debates on how they can be prevented,” says lead author Daniel Webster, ScD, MPH, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research and Bloomberg Professor of American Health in Violence Prevention. “One side often calls for expanding background checks to private purchasers, and the other usually calls for fewer restrictions on civilian gun carrying. Our findings indicate that neither of those prescriptions are associated with lower rates of fatal mass shootings. What does appear to work to reduce mass shootings are licensing laws and laws banning large-capacity magazines.”

(But later on down the page they admit that magazine laws have to be ‘controlled for’  – in other words numerically skewed to fit a preconceived idea – …so the above is a lie, right??)

In their analyses, researchers identified 604 mass shootings involving four or more victim fatalities; a total of 2,976 victims were killed in these incidents. Approximately 28 percent (842) of victim fatalities were from domestic-related shootings, 61 percent (2,057) were from non-domestic related shootings, and it was unclear among the remaining 11 percent (77) of victims whether the shooting was domestic-related. Most mass shootings had four to six victim fatalities.

As for licensing, federal law requires licensed firearm dealers—but not private sellers—to initiate a background check before the purchase of a gun. Firearm purchaser licensing laws require even more: a direct application to a law enforcement agency that conducts background checks, often aided by fingerprint-based identity verification of the applicant. Under such laws, a license or permit to purchase is needed for sales by private individuals as well as licensed firearm dealers. Nine states—Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina—and the District of Columbia currently have some form of firearm purchaser or owner licensing laws.

Previous research shows that firearm purchaser licensing laws are associated with reductions in rates of firearm homicides and suicides.

(Did they conveniently forget Chicago?) 

For the study, the researchers analyzed data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Supplementary Homicide Reports, a database of homicide records voluntarily reported to the FBI by local law enforcement agencies, from 1984 to 2017. Data for Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, Nebraska, and Montana were excluded due to significant gaps in reporting.

(What are these ‘significant gaps’? Is it that the stats from these states don’t jibe with the anticipated outcome…hmm?)

The Supplementary Homicide Reports collects information on the number of victims, weapon(s) used, circumstances or motive, and the relationship between the offender and the first victim. Shootings connected to gang or illegal drug-related activities were excluded from the analyses.

Due to voluntary reporting policies, the FBI’s database did not include several high-profile mass shootings, including the 2012 Newtown, Connecticut, school shooting, 2012 Aurora, Colorado, movie theater shooting, and the 2017 Sutherland Springs, Texas, church shooting. The researchers addressed these gaps by using data from Stanford University’s Stanford Mass Shootings in America database and the Gun Violence Archive to identify 33 additional fatal mass shootings.

In their study, the researchers made a comprehensive list of all the mass shootings between 1984 and 2017 and categorized the events based on whether the shooter had a domestic relationship (family or intimate partner) to one of the victims. The researchers’ analyses estimated the independent association between annual rates of fatal mass shootings in states and the presence of various state and federal gun laws, while controlling for differences in demographics, social and economic conditions, alcohol consumption, deaths from drug overdoses, and national trends in fatal mass shootings.

Types of firearm laws examined in the study included regulation of civilian concealed carry; extensions of background check requirements at the point of sale for private transfers; prohibitions for non-felony violence, including restraining orders for domestic violence; assault weapon bans; and large-capacity magazine bans.

The study also examined purchaser licensing laws that required in-person application to a law enforcement agency or other fingerprint-based identification of applicants, regardless of whether the sale was by a licensed gun dealer or a private seller. Seven states—Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York—and the District of Columbia currently meet that criteria and were analyzed in the study. Three additional states—Missouri, Michigan, and Nebraska—were also included in the analyses based on their purchaser licensing laws; during the study period, these states repealed all or part of their licensing requirements.

The study did not find significant associations between the incidence of fatal mass shootings and concealed carry laws, comprehensive background check laws without licensing requirements, or firearm prohibitions for violent misdemeanor convictions and domestic violence restraining orders. Although researchers did not find a clear association between firearm restrictions for domestic abusers and reduced fatal mass shootings, other research has shown these laws do reduce intimate partner homicides.

In addition, the study did not find an independent association between assault weapon bans and the incidence of fatal mass shootings after controlling for the effects of bans on large-capacity magazines.

“Evidence Concerning the Regulation of Firearms Design, Sale, and Carrying on Fatal Mass Shootings in the United States” was written by Daniel W. Webster, Alexander McCourt, Cassandra K. Crifasi, Marisa D. Booty, and Elizabeth A. Stuart.

The study was supported by The Joyce Foundation and Dr. Webster’s professorship funded by the Bloomberg American Health Initiative.

(The Joyce Foundation…That right there is the tip off. TJF is and always has been one of the more rabid anti-gun/anti-self defense entities in the U.S. Just another scrap piece of proselytizing from the controllers.)

Bloomberg’s $10M Super Bowl ad posts misleading stat on child gun deaths

Cue the meme generator

Democratic presidential candidate Mike Bloomberg’s $10 million 2020 Super Bowl ad includes a misleading statistic concerning the number of children killed in violent gun-related crimes, and inaccurately suggests that an adult victim of gun crime in Texas was a child, Fox News has found.

In the raw and emotional one-minute spot, Calandrian Simpson Kemp recalls her son’s death: “On a Friday morning, George was shot. George didn’t survive. I just kept saying, ‘You cannot tell me that the child that I gave birth to, is no longer here.’ Lives are being lost every day. It is a national crisis.”

A statistic immediately appears on the screen: “2,900 CHILDREN DIE FROM GUN VIOLENCE EVERY YEAR.” The number is not attributed to any source.

However, a recent report from the Bloomberg-founded group Everytown for Gun Safety came up with that same number — but only when it included teenagers ages 18 and 19 in the calculation. Bloomberg’s advertisement makes no mention of older teenagers and suggests that the statistic is referring to younger children only. Washington Free Beacon reporter Stephen Gutowski found that once adults were removed from the calculation, the number dropped by nearly half.

Additionally, court documents from a Texas state appellate court reviewed by Fox News show that the victim referenced in the advertisement, George Kemp, was 20 years old at the time of his death.

 

Perjury charge filed against woman who tried to have CSU officer’s weapons confiscated

FORT COLLINS, Colo. — A perjury charge has been filed against Susan Holmes, the woman who recently tried to use Colorado’s new “red flag” law to have a Colorado State University officer’s weapons confiscated.

Earlier this month, Holmes filed an extreme risk protection order against Cpl. Phillip Morris. It was denied.

Morris shot and killed Holmes’ son in 2017. The district attorney found the shooting to be “clearly justified.”

A petition for an extreme risk protection order requires the petitioner to have a connection to the respondent, such as being a blood relative, a marriage or domestic partner, or having a child in common with the respondent.

Under penalty of perjury, Holmes claimed she had a child in common with Morris when in fact, she does not.

On Thursday, Colorado court records showed Holmes is charged with one count of perjury and one count of attempt to influence a public servant. The latter charge is for allegedly lying to a judge.

The Larimer County Sheriff’s Office said a warrant is out for Holmes and she is not in custody. The sheriff’s office confirmed the warrant is in relation to the ERPO case.

The warrant has been active for about one week.

Holmes’ bond is currently set at $5,000.

Michael Bloomberg Isn’t Really Running For President, And That Should Worry You
The staff, the ad spending, the campaigning — Michael Bloomberg was going to do all of this to defeat President Donald Trump already. Doing it as a ‘candidate’ exempts him from limits on PACs and political donations.

Everyone was saying he was running just because he’s a narcissistic ass, but figuring it’s personal since they’re both NooYawk billionaires and he hates Trump’s guts is more reasonable. And just because he is a billionaire and apparently doesn’t mind spending a billion here and a billion there doesn’t mean if he can figure out a good deal, he won’t use it.

There is very good reason to believe Michael Bloomberg isn’t actually running for president.

Of course, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. For one, he declared he is. He’s also hired more than 1,000 staff and is still expanding, offering salaries far above campaign averages. This week, he became the first of the declared candidates to have campaigned in all 14 states of March 3’s Super Tuesday primary battle, and he’s spent a quarter billion on political advertising so far. All would point toward Bloomberg indeed running for president.

But here’s the snag: He wanted to do all of this anyway. Everything, that is, but the declaration bit. That, he was loathe to do. But the staff, the ad spending, the campaigning — he was going to do all of this to defeat President Donald Trump already, and we know this because he told us so.

As early as February 2019, the billionaire pledged he’d spend at least $500 million to defeat the president as either a candidate or as what Politico called “a shadow political party for the Democratic nominee.” That massive spend, the report continued, represents “just 1 percent of Bloomberg’s estimated net worth.”

Just a month later, the wealthy New Yorker laughed at the idea he would ever run for president, mocking “Amtrak Joe” Biden for apologizing “for being male, over 50 [and] white,” and Beh-tóh O’Rourke, who Bloomberg joked had “apologized for being born.” Well, a few months later he jumped in anyway. But does the world-renowned winner have any intention of actually winning the nomination?

We might all agree it is strange to hear the hyper-competitive Bloomberg declare he will pay his sizable staff to work on behalf of the people who are supposed to be his primary opponents. His “army of some 500 staffers will march on through the general election in November even if he loses the Democratic nomination, campaign officials [told] NBC News” back when he employed a measly 500 staffers.

Of course, Bloomberg has said the same of the now $2 billion he’s reportedly willing to spend for any campaign to defeat Trump.

This magnanimity in defeat doesn’t seem to square with Michael Bloomberg, cut-throat capitalist billionaire, but it does make sense when viewed in the light of his Bloomberg News empire, which loses money every year. The losses don’t seem to bother Bloomberg, because in this aspect of business he is a man who wants his ideas in the world and is willing to pay to make it happen.

So why declare? Simply put, the billionaire mayor gets a lot more for his money as a candidate than he ever could as a donor or even as the operator of a super PAC.

First, there are limits to what a donor can give a campaign, and $2 billion is way out of the question. Even so, Bloomberg could pour billions into an organization to sway elections, as Charles Koch and George Soros seek to do. Then, there’s something campaigns have that no PAC has — and that’s access to the best rates the market has to offer.

See, super PACs pay more for everything. And not a little more: Depending on the spend, these outfits pay maybe double what a candidate for office must pay for advertisements in digital, radio, cable, newspapers, network television, and even mail.

By law, candidates for office are entitled to the best treatment a station can give. “In the 45 days before a primary and the 60 days before a general election,” Radio & Television Business Report explains, “legally qualified candidates get the lowest rate for a spot that is then running on the station within any class of advertising time and particular daypart.”

If a private entity earned a bonus spot, the ability for his ads to preempt other ads, or any other perks, those must also be made available to the person running for office. Someone is getting a deal for buying in bulk? Then so is the candidate, even if the campaign isn’t buying in bulk. And on and on.

Remember that doctor that purportedly got a threatening flyer on his windshield, but got his story busted online since it looked too fake to be real?

HATE HOAX: Anti-Gun Trauma Surgeon Panics After Getting Exposed, Deletes His Fake ‘Death Threat’ Tweets – Then Lies About His Contact with Fairfax Police!

Dr. Joseph Sakran panicked after hundreds of Twitter users exposed his hate hoax this week so he deleted his fake ‘death threat’ tweets then made up a bizarre story claiming the Fairfax police told him to delete his tweets.

It was all a lie.

A Lieutenant at Fairfax PD verified to The Post Millennial that Dr. Sakran never filed a police report nor did the Fairfax PD ask him to delete his tweet!

The tweets have been deleted, and no, the Fairfax police never asked him to delete his tweets.

The truth is Dr. Sakran cooked up the hoax and after hundreds of Twitter users descended on his account and pointed out the flaws in his fable, he panicked and made up another lie to try to cover up his hoax.

Dr. Sakran is a radical anti-gun activist who works with the most dangerous anti-2nd Amendment groups on Capitol Hill in order to disarm American citizens.

Fake Atomic Scientists Warn Not Believing the Media Will Destroy the World

Every year, Rachel Bronson, President and CEO of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, who has a degree in political science from Columbia, gets up in front of a fake clock to announce that the world is doomed.

And the media eagerly covers the annual imminent warning of doom as if it came with an open bar.

Bronson is not an atomic scientist. Or any kind of scientist. Unless you believe politics is a science. And if politics is a science, then Bronson is the Lysenko of the field, predicting doom out of bias and ignorance.

This year, the Doomsday Clock had its hands set forward to 100 seconds to midnight. After setting the clock at 2 minutes to midnight in honor of President Trump two years ago, it’s all out of minutes.

Now it’s down to seconds. At this rate the fake clock will soon be down to negative numbers.

If you don’t believe Rachel, maybe you’ll listen to Jerry Brown, former California governor and executive chair of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. Jerry is not an atomic scientist, but he did nuke California.

According to Jerry, “If there’s ever a time to wake up, it’s now.”

But Jerry doesn’t want people waking up. He wants them to go back to sleep. And stay that way.

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, led by atomic scientists like Rachel and Jerry, demand that, “the international community should begin multilateral discussions aimed at establishing norms of behavior, both domestic and international, that discourage and penalize the misuse of science.”

Like people claiming to be atomic scientists when they’re actually political hacks?

The Bulletin had been set up by lefties who were actual scientists to warn of a nuclear war. But, no matter what Rachel does with her big clock, a nuclear war is less likely than ever. So, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which is short on atoms, scientists and apocalypses, threw in global warming.

But global warming isn’t enough. The Doomsday Clock is at 100 seconds to midnight because of the threat of nuclear war and global warming, also fake news, deepfakes, AI, the internet, the Space Force, and mainly President Donald J. Trump. We’ve gone from nuclear scientists warning of nuclear war to political scientists warning that “national leaders have increasingly dismissed information with which they do not agree as fake news.” I wonder whom the Bulletin of the Political Scientists could mean.

“Leaders intent on blurring the line between fact and politically motivated fantasy—are a profound threat to effective democracies,” the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists warns.

That’s ironic because the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is a politically motivated fantasy…………

 

PRESS RELEASE: HEARTLAND INSTITUTE REACTS TO NOAA’S CLAIM 2019 ‘SECOND-WARMEST YEAR ON RECORD’

Agency’s own data actually shows 2019 was cooler than 2005 in the United States; global temp claims riddled with problems

ARLINGTON HEIGHTS, IL (January 15, 2020) – The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) today

released a new report claiming 2019 was “the second warmest [year] since modern recordkeeping began in 1880. NOAA says this past year was 0.98 degrees Celsius warmer than the 1951 to 1980 mean, making the 2010s “clearly the warmest decade on record.”

Climate experts at The Heartland Institute dispute this claim, pointing to a cherry-picked period for the “mean” comparison and data that has been consistently adjusted to artificially make recent years appear significantly warmer than in decades past. In fact, NOAA’s state-of-the-art land-based temperature stations in the United States, placed by design to minimize the urban heat-island effect and other factors that corrupt the data, show that the U.S. was cooler in 2019 than in 2005. See the chart below from the U.S. Climate Reference Network via the NOAA website.

Trulli
 The following statements from climate and environment experts at The Heartland Institute—a free-market think tank—may be used for attribution. For more comments, refer to the contact information below. To book a Heartland guest on your program, please contact Media Specialist Billy Aouste at media@heartland.org.“The NOAA/NASA press release is inconsistently presented. For example, they can’t even agree on a common base period for comparisons. Some graphs use 1951-1980 while others compare to 1981-2010 averages to create anomaly plots. NOAA and NASA owe it to the public to present climate data with a consistent climate period for comparison, otherwise it’s just sloppy science.

“NOAA’s U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN) has the best quality climate data on the planet, yet it never gets mentioned in their press releases. While the U.S. isn’t the world, the lack of a warming signal in the contiguous United States since 2005 suggests that the data NOAA and NASA use from the antiquated Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) reflects warmer biases due to urbanization and adjustments to the data. The USCRN has no biases, and no need for adjustments, and in my opinion represents a ground truth for climate change.”

Anthony Watts
Senior Fellow
The Heartland Institute
awatts@heartland.org

“Modest warming has, thankfully, been occurring since we slipped out of the Little Ice Age a little more than a century ago. That was the coldest period of the past 10,000 years and brought horrible human misery. The modest warming that is lately occurring should naturally lead to subsequent years being a little warmer than previous years, which is the case. This is a good thing and just brought tremendous human health and welfare benefits, along with substantial environmental benefits.”

James Taylor
Director of the Arthur B. Robinson Center for Climate and Environmental Policy
The Heartland Institute
jtaylor@heartland.org

“Once again, NASA and NOAA are throwing gasoline on a fire they largely created by ignoring the best data on temperature, and instead using compromised or adjusted temperature readings to reinforce their claim humans are causing a climate crisis. The U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), the gold standard of surface temperature data, plus data from global satellites and weather balloons, all record minimal or almost no warming over the past 40 years, yet NASA and NOAA ignore these sources of unbiased data, because it undermines their dogmatic belief in human caused climate catastrophe.”

“NASA and NOAA are like toddlers trying to fit round toys into square holes, and just as likely as toddlers to throw fits when their efforts are stymied by reality.”

H. Sterling Burnett, Ph.D.
Senior Fellow, Environment & Energy Policy
The Heartland Institute
Managing Editor, Environment & Climate News
hburnett@heartland.org

Dr. John Robson looks back on the 10th anniversary of the exposure of the scandalous “Climategate” decision to delete awkward data that contradicted the idea that settled science said we face a man-made global warming crisis.

Va. Senate committee strikes ‘assault weapons’ bill, advances other proposed gun laws

They were moving the ‘Overton Window’ so the rest of their anti-gun proposals would seem more ‘reasonable’.

RICHMOND, Va. (WHSV) — One of the most controversial gun control bills proposed in the Virginia General Assembly has been killed, while others passed out of committee on Monday morning.

Senate Bill 16, proposed by Sen. Richard Saslaw, would have expanded the definition of “assault firearms” under Virginia law, outlawed their possession, and outlawed the the selling or transfer of any firearm magazine with a capacity for more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

In the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday morning, as hundreds gathered outside the Virginia Capitol for a gun rights rally, Saslaw requested that his bill be pulled from consideration.

According to media outlets present at the meeting, committee Democrats unanimously voted to dismiss the bill. Republicans all abstained from voting after arguing that it was too late to dismiss the bill since it had already been docketed.

The vote came after a contentious start to the committee’s meeting, in which Sen. Mark Obenshain requested that no votes on gun control bills be passed due to the absence of Republican Sen. Stanley.

However, Democrats in charge of the committee pressed ahead as long lines of people worked their way through security outside the capitol to get inside, following a new rule passed last week barring firearms from the building.

After the committee voted to strike SB 16 from consideration, votes moved ahead on other proposed gun legislation.

Committee members voted on party lines, 9 to 5, to combine Senate Bills 22 and 69, which both would institute a “one gun a month” law for Virginia limiting citizens to one handgun purchase within any 30-day period, and moved those out of the committee.

Senate Bills 12 and 70, both of which would establish mandatory background checks for any transfer of firearms, including private sales, were combined as well and moved forward out of the committee.

Also on 9-5 party line votes, the committee reported SB 240, establishing red flag laws, out of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Each of those bills will move forward to the Virginia Senate for further consideration. To become law, they would need to pass the Senate, then pass the House of Delegates, then have any differences from the different chambers resolved and voted on, and then be signed into law by Gov. Ralph Northam, who has pledged to pass new gun laws since the Virginia Beach mass shooting last year.

The Martyrdom of Saint Greta of Sweden

So Meat Loaf caused a little kerfuffle this weekend by saying he thought Greta Thunberg had been “brainwashed.”

I don’t know that should be a surprise, but it got me thinking about her again. I have a lot of sympathy for the kid.

For me, it started with seeing her picture. She’s small, slight, even scrawny; her head looks out of proportion to her body. She’s now 17 (as of 3 January) but she still looks childlike, prepubertal, younger than her 14-year-old sister. Frankly, she looks like she’s been in a concentration camp: malnourished over the long term

Sure enough, reading a little about her, we find that she’s an Asperger’s child (I guess this month that’s now called “high-functioning autism”), she has obsessive-compulsive disorder, she stopped eating for months and still refuses to eat anything but certain specific things, in particular, a dish of pancakes filled with rice — but her OCD keeps her from eating if there’s a sticker or label on the package. She suffers from “selective mutism”, which means basically that there are situations in which she’s unable to speak……..

Her public career started when she took Fridays off from school to hold up a sign outside the Swedish Parliament; this grew into a movement that spread throughout Europe.

Through it all, things keep striking me as odd. I don’t know what it’s like in Sweden, but cutting classes one day a week isn’t normally feted as heroic in the US. And she hasn’t been attending school for months as she traveled. In the US, that’s called “dropping out”.

So, this is what we’re being asked to believe: that an autistic kid with OCD who often can’t speak on her own has

  • organized a worldwide movement
  • given TED talks, spoken to the UN General Assembly, and been named Person of the Year by Time Magazine
  • managed to get a ride on a multimillion-dollar racing yacht so she wouldn’t have to fly (and bragged on how she wasn’t releasing CO2 on the trip, although it required seven plane tickets for the crew for the boat).

There’s a bucolic barnyard term for that — actually, several, depending on your choice of equine, bovine, or galline.

This isn’t a neurologically atypical high school kid arranging this: there are adults, and probably a lot of adults, using her as a front.

Gun Control Activist Promotes False Data To Uphold Anti-Gun Propaganda

In light of the West Freeway Church shooting in White Settlement, Texas, gun control activists are blaming gun access and conceal-carry laws for the rise in gun deaths in the United States.

Gun control activist Shannon Watts claimed more than 3,500 Texans are killed by guns every year. Her tweet insinuated mass shooters and increased access to guns are to blame for the rise in this number.

“If more guns and fewer gun laws made Texas safer, it would be the safest state in the US. Instead, it has high rates of gun suicide and homicide, and is home to 4 of the 10 deadliest mass shootings,” Watts tweeted.

In fact, CDC data shows that since 1990, homicidal and suicidal gun deaths per capita in Texas have fallen bellow the rest of the U.S. population.

The graph tweeted by Watts also fails to differentiate types of gun deaths. According to the CDC, the “firearm-related deaths” referenced in Watts’s graph is not limited to deaths by mass shooter or deaths by homicides. Causes of death included in “firearm-related injuries” includes: suicides, homicides, terrorism, accidental misfire, and legal intervention involving firearm discharge.

For instance, in the West Freeway Church shooting that took place on Sunday, the shooter was shot and killed. This was considered a heroic act and saved many more lives, but it would be considered a “firearm-related injury” according to Watts’s data. So would a suicide, so would the death of a terrorist, so would the death of individual shot by a policeman or other legal authorities. This data simply does not take into account the entire picture or encapsulate the entire problem.

This narrative and messaging is completely on brand with Democrats and the mainstream media. They ignore the big picture and put a laser focus on the issues they wish to highlight, no matter how out of context these issues may be.

No, Jesus Was Not a Refugee and He Was Not Homeless

Every Christmas, we hear the same tired refrain from the same charlatans. Jesus, they claim, was a refugee. The implication is that if you are a Christian that you are obligated to welcome refugees because they are pretty much like Jesus.

The latest edition comes from Pete Buttigieg. Buttigieg is one of those people who, despite living an immoral and dissolute lifestyle explicitly condemned by Scripture (that would be the proscription on homosexual acts) and in direct disobedience to the words of Christ (see Matthew 19:4-6), takes it upon himself to lecture everyone else about what it means to be a Christian.

This is patent nonsense.

First, at no point in Scripture, or, if you are Catholic, in Sacred Tradition is there any intimation that Jesus was born in poverty. Tradition holds that Saint Joseph was a carpenter. Lately there has been a debate among lefty theologians over his occupation, rendered by Matthew as “tektori,” and whether than meant “carpenter.” Tektori can mean any skilled artisan. There is a hint, based on the procedures laid out for a census in 1st Century Egypt, that Joseph might have had some property interest in Bethlehem that would have required him to register for the census there. The upshot is that Joseph was a skilled craftsman and while probably not affluent, he most likely provided a home for his family that was a bit above the poverty line for Judea in the 1st Century AD.

Jesus was not homeless. He was born in a manger because his parents arrived in a Bethlehem in the midst of an influx of people there to register for the census. There were no rooms to be had. It was the manager or nothing. The Holy Family had a home in Nazareth.

Finally, Jesus was not a refugee.

Joseph and Mary and Jesus were citizens of a province of the Roman Empire. When the Massacre of Innocents took place, they fled to Egypt and stayed, we think, in the rather sizable Jewish community there. Egypt was also part of the Roman Empire. The odious Reverend James Martin claims that Jesus was a refugee based on the UN High Commissioner on Refugees definition

refugee is someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war, or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.

Martin, by the way, is probably the most dishonest non-televangelist pastor/priest in any denomination. There is literally no lie he will not tell to warp Scripture to fit his personal goal of mainstreaming homosexuality. Here is the central lie in his argument:

The Holy Family, as Matthew recounts the story, was fleeing because of a “well-founded fear of persecution” because of their “membership in a particular social group,” in this case people with young children living in Bethlehem. I am not sure how you could get any clearer than that.

This is [also, ed.] patent nonsense. A birth cohort is not “membership in a particular social group.” They Holy Family was a refugee in exactly the same way that anyone today on the run from state authorities would be called a refugee. The move from one region of the Roman Empire to another is not even remotely similar to that of a modern refugee. At a stretch, He could be classed as an internally displaced person, with an emphasis on the singular form of “person” because there were no others similarly situated. The period of time in which the Holy Family was away from Nazareth was fairly short. Herod the Great died no more than a year or two after the birth of Christ and then the family returned home. By age 12, we know the Holy Family was traveling openly to Jerusalem for Passover pilgrimage (again, not a mark of a family in poverty).

The truth here is very simple. Christ is not a metaphor for whatever political cause you are flogging. The Nativity is not a primarily a reminder of illegal immigrants or the poor or the social justice cause you are pushing. The Nativity is the a demonstration of God’s love for the world and his desire that we all be saved…………

Fisa Court Committed a Fraud upon America.

Presiding judge Rosemary Collyer, having returned from her vacation on Mars and just in time for her retirement, has demanded of the FBI revised procedures to ensure that the multiple frauds committed upon the court, including inclusion of fraudulent material, omission of exculpatory information, and the deliberate alteration of documents to mislead the court.  It was farcical to hear her, in the face of multiple felonies in a Deep State plot bordering on sedition, suggest that revised procedures for the handling and submitting of FISA applications is the answer to our chief law enforcement agency’s attempt to overthrow a sitting president of the United States.

Did she just wake up?  Where has she been?

Back on February 2, 2018, a House Intelligence Committee memo, written when it was chaired by the now vindicated Rep. Devin Nunes, detailed the phoniness and falsification of the data used in the first and subsequent FISA warrants based primarily on the fraudulent Steele dossier.

Nunes told how FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe admitted that without the now fully discredited Steele dossier, there would have been no FISA warrants and no subsequent Deep State coup against Trump under the guise of a counter-intelligence investigation:

The dossier, authored by former British spy Christopher Steele and commissioned by Fusion GPS, was paid for by the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign through law firm Perkins Coie.  It included salacious and unverified allegations about Trump’s connections to Russia.

The memo, which has been at the center of an intense power struggle between congressional Republicans and the FBI, specifically cites the DOJ and FBI’s surveillance of Trump campaign adviser Carter Page, saying the dossier “formed an essential part” of the application to spy on him[.] …

The memo states that in December 2017, then FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe testified that “no surveillance warrant would have been sought” from the FISA court “without the Steele dossier information.”

The memo also says Steele was eventually cut off from the FBI for being chatty with the media.  It says he was terminated in October 2016 as an FBI source “for what the FBI defines as the most serious of violations — an unauthorized disclosure to the media of his relationship with the FBI.”

Justice is supposed to be blind, but in her case and that of the other FISA court judges, it was brain-dead………..

Most Americans know of the FISA court and its star chamber judges but not about it, which is that it is a borderline example of the prophetic warning about trading liberty for security and winding up with neither.  The potential abuse of FISA powers is enormous and the damage that has been done to our republic, and our politics has been staggering:

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court deals with some of the most sensitive matters of national security — terror threats and espionage.  Its work for the most part cannot be examined by the American public, by order of the Congress and the President.  It is a tribunal that is completely secret (or supposed to be), its structure largely one-sided, and its members unilaterally chosen by one person.

A rotating panel of federal judges at the FISC decides whether to grant certain types of government requests — wiretapping, data analysis, and other monitoring for “foreign intelligence purposes” of suspected terrorists and spies operating in the United States.

… [T]he 11 judges are appointed exclusively by the Chief Justice of the United States, without any supplemental confirmation from the other two branches of government.  John Roberts has named every member of the current court, as a well as a separate three-judge panel to hear appeals of FISC orders, known as the Court of Review.

The FISA court knew all of this or should have.  The remedy is to impose the appropriate criminal sanctions authorized by law.  As Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett notes:

A year and a half ago when the redacted FISA applications were first made public, it was obvious that the FBI relied almost entirely on Christopher Steele’s phony “dossier” and that the FISA court was being lied to.  Back then, Collyer should have immediately ordered a “show cause contempt” hearing demanding that Comey, Sally Yates, Andrew McCabe, Dana Boente and Rod Rosenstein all appear before the court to explain why they should not be held in criminal contempt for deceiving judges in the four warrant applications they signed.  They swore that the information was true and verified when they knew or should have known it was not.  Collyer still isn’t ordering a contempt hearing.  This is an appalling abdication of judicial duty.

Indeed it is. Imprisonment and/or disbarment for the lot of them is required.  After that, abolish the FISA court itself.  It is an unelected fourth branch of government with no real accountability.  We have sacrificed our liberty for its bogus promise of security, putting our democracy at risk.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and we see that happening before our very eyes.

Georgia: federal judge allows state to proceed with mass voting rolls purge.

Standard practice before the demoncraps started fighting all the anti-fraud measures.

A federal judge is allowing Georgia to proceed with a mass purge of its voting rolls planned for Monday evening, but he also scheduled a hearing later in the week to hear more arguments about the matter.

A voting rights group founded by the Democrat Stacey Abrams had filed an emergency motion on Monday, asking a court to halt the plan.

The motion was filed by Fair Fight Action in US district court, hours before the secretary of state’s office planned to begin the purge of inactive voter registrations.

But the decision by the judge was to allow the action to go ahead after a lawyer for the state assured him that if the judge finds later that some people should not have been removed, they can be easily and quickly reinstated.

In October, the secretary of state, Brad Raffensperger, released a list of more than 313,000 voters whose registrations were at risk of being canceled, about 4% of registered voters in Georgia. Those voters were mailed notices in November and had 30 days to respond in order to keep their registration intact.

Walter Jones, a spokesman for the secretary of state, said the purge was planned for overnight Monday into Tuesday. He said the exact number and names of voters removed would not be known until then and that more information would be made available later.