‘I would expect more excitement from our native citizens

The moderator at a Native American forum was shocked on Monday after Democratic presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren (D., Mass.) received very little enthusiasm about her potential election.

Warren participated in the presidential forum on Native American issues in Sioux, City, IA, where she apologized for the “harm” she caused for her past claims of Native American ancestry.

Retired LAPD Sgt. Cheryl Dorsey describes herself as a “TV police expert”
That’s a fraudulent statement if there ever was one.
I think LAPD breathed a sigh of relief when this retard retired.
And that has nothing to do with her skin color, just the lack of brain power.

Nearly 84,000 duplicate voter records found in audit of California’s ‘motor voter’ system.

Now, does anyone think the demoncraps  in California didn’t figure this along with ‘vote harvesting’ to win by very small margins, but win any in districts that had usually been Republican?

 California’s ambitious effort to automate voter registration at Department of Motor Vehicle offices produced almost 84,000 duplicate records and more than twice that number with political party mistakes, according to an audit released Friday by state officials.

The analysis covered just the first five months of the new “motor voter” program, which was launched in April 2018. It found a wide array of problems with the rollout of the DMV system, including a limited amount of testing as well as inconsistent and confusing lines of communication between the state agencies involved in its creation. Many of the findings align with documents discovered by the Los Angeles Times in an investigation earlier this year of the motor voter program.

Auditors reviewed more than 3 million voter registration files, comparing records from both DMV and California’s secretary of state. They found 83,684 duplicate voter registrations, a mistake attributed to inconsistencies in what was listed for voters’ political party preferences.

Ban Assault Weapons Now (BAWN) Accuses Florida AG of Lying about “Assault Weapons Ban”

as usual, the liars are the ones making the most noise about the other side lying. Just like the new assault weapons law in Washington state, one of the rifles now classes as such is any .22 semi-auto rifle with a tube magazine that holds more than 10 rounds (and most, if not all do).

In a recent video on politics at, the station plays quotes from the Florida Attorney General Ashley Moody and the Chair of Ban Assault Weapons Now, Gail Schwartz. The Attorney General says the initiative is deliberately deceptive, a trick. Schwartz says the AG is lying.  From

In a letter to the court submitted Friday, Moody called the language in the proposed amendment “misleading,” saying the court should move to keep the matter from voters. She argues that the proposal goes far beyond banning so-called assault weapons and could also ban the possession of all semi-automatic long guns.

Backers of the proposed amendment fired right back, saying the attorney general was the one being deceptive.

“She is intentionally lying about our amendment to Floridians. We are not looking to ban anyone’s hunting rifles, that would be absurd,” said Gail Schwartz, Chair of Ban Assault Weapons NOW’s committee. “I think it’s pretty obvious that the attorney general is afraid of bringing this issue directly to the voters.”

Who is lying? Here is the wording of the ballot petition proposed to be added to Article 1 Section 8, Right to Bear Arms, of the Florida State Constitution.  Spacing has been slightly changed to make the provisions more readable. The original format can be viewed at the source. From

e) The possession of an assault weapon, as that term is defined in this subsection, is prohibited in Florida except as provided in this subsection.This subsection shall be construed in conformity with the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court.

1) Definitions –

a) Assault Weapons -For purposes of this subsection, any semiautomatic rifle or shotgun capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition at once, either in a fixed or detachable magazine, or any other ammunition-feeding device. This subsection does not apply to handguns.

b) Semiautomatic -For purposes of this subsection, any weapon which fires a single projectile or a number of ball shots through a rifled or smooth bore for each single function of the trigger without further manual action required.

c) Ammunition-feeding device -For purposes of this subsection, any magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device for a firearm.

2) Limitations –

a) This subsection shall not apply to military or law enforcement use, or use by federal personnel, in conduct of their duties, or to an assault weapon being imported for sale and delivery to a federal, state or local governmental agency for use by employees of such agencies to perform official duties

b) This subsection does not apply to any firearm that is not semiautomatic, as defined in this subsection.

c) This subsection does not apply to handguns, as defined in Article I, Section 8(b), Florida Constitution.

d) If a person had lawful possession of an assault weapon prior to the effective date of this subsection, the person’s possession of that assault weapon is not unlawful (1) during the first year after the effective date of this subsection, or (2), after the person has registered that weapon by make, model, and serial number with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement or its successor agency, as designated by the legislature. Registration records shall be available to local, state and federal law enforcement agencies for valid law enforcement purposes but shall otherwise be confidential.

3) Criminal Penalties -Violation of this subsection is a third-degree felony. The legislature may designate greater, but not lesser, penalties for violations.

4) Self-executing -This provision shall be self-executing except where legislative action is required in subsection 2)(d) to implement registration of weapons lawfully possessed prior to the enactment of this subsection or in subsection 3) to designate a more severe penalty for violation of this subsection.

5) Severability -The provisions of this subsection are severable. If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section or subsection of this measure, or an application thereof, is adjudged invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction other provisions shall continue to be in effect to the fullest extent possible.

6) Effective date -The effective date of this amendment shall be thirty days after its passage by the voters.

Here is what Gail Scwartz said:

“She is intentionally lying about our amendment to Floridians. We are not looking to ban anyone’s hunting rifles, that would be absurd,” said Gail Schwartz,

If you parse her sentence, very carefully, she could be considered truthful.

First, the proposed Constitutional amendment does ban enormous numbers of hunting rifles. Nearly all semi-automatic hunting rifles fit the definition. Virtually all .22 rimfire semi-automatic hunting rifles (the most popular kind) fit the definition.

But, when saying “anyone’s hunting rifles”, Schwartz could claim she is only talking about hunting rifles currently owned by individuals, not, “Marlin’s hunting rifles”, or “Remington’s hunting rifles” or “Ruger’s hunting rifles”. Rifles currently owned by individuals will not be banned. They will be required to be registered within the first year after the ban is put in place. Rifles that are registered will not be banned, for now.

There is no provision for more of the banned rifles to be added in the future. The current rifles would be “grandfathered”.



Things Keep Getting Worse For The Fake “Science” Of Human-Caused Global Warming

If you follow closely the subject of hypothesized human-caused global warming, you probably regularly experience, as I do, a strong sense of cognitive dissonance. On the one hand, you read dozens of pieces from seemingly authoritative media sources, as well as from important political officeholders, declaring that the causal relationship between human CO2 emissions and rapidly rising global temperatures is definitive; declaring that “the science is settled”; and further declaring that impending further increases in temperatures over the next decade or several decades are an “existential crisis” that must be addressed immediately through complete transformation of our economy at enormous cost.

On the other hand, you studied the scientific method back in high school, and you can’t help asking yourself the basic questions that that method entails:

  • What is the falsifiable hypothesis that is claimed to have been empirically validated? You can’t find it!

  • What was the null hypothesis, and what about the data caused the null hypothesis to be rejected? You can’t find that either!

  • Where can you get access to the methodology (computer code) and the full data set that was used in the hypothesis validation process; and are those sufficient to fully replicate the results? You can’t find these things either!

  • You learn that there have been major after-the-fact adjustments to the principal data sets that are used to claim rapidly warming global temperatures and to justify press releases claiming that a given year or month was the “hottest ever.” You look to see if you can find details supporting the data alterations, and you learn that such details are not available, as if they are some kind of top secret from the Soviet Union. (You can read my 23-part series on this subject at this link.)

What’s going on here? If this is “science,” it’s some kind of “science” that turns the scientific method that you thought you understood on its head. I have previously covered multiple instances of real scientists attempting to apply the actual scientific method to the human-caused global warming hypothesis. For example, I had a post on September 19, 2016 titled “The ‘Science’ Underlying Climate Alarmism Turns Up Missing.” That post reported on a scientific paper then just out from a group of scientists led by James Wallace that concluded that the so-called “Tropical Hot Spot” (a pattern of temperatures in the tropical lower troposphere) could not be found in the temperature data, thus invalidating the basis on which the U.S. EPA had concluded that CO2-induced greenhouse warming was occurring. Another post on May 14, 2018 titled “More On The ‘Science’ Behind The Global Warming Scare” reported on another paper with Wallace as lead author that tested whether any statistically-significant relationship could be shown between the time series line of world temperatures (as measured by UAH) and the time series line of atmospheric CO2. Conclusion: “[I]ncreasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations did not have a statistically significant impact on the UAH TLT 6.0 temperature data set over the period 1979 to 2016.”

You might think that serious papers like these that seem to have invalidated the very foundations of the global warming scare would draw equally-serious rebuttals from some high-ranking people who back the global warming hypothesis. Perhaps they would point out important data that were not considered, or would demonstrate a flaw in the methodology. But you would be wrong. Instead, these and other comparable papers are simply ignored. In lieu of any rebuttal, we get endless repetition of the mantra that “the science is settled.”


Well, She’s Honest About Her Drive For Power, Anyway.

It’s often instructive to hear what people say when talking among themselves rather than to the public at large.

Thus, note what what Ilhan Omar said when addressing a leftist group known as Netroots Nation:

“There’s a constant struggle oftentimes with people who have power about sharing that power. We are not really in the business of asking for the share of that power. We’re in the business of trying to grab that power,” she said.

That’s just a statement of a truth any observer can already see quite clearly. But at least it’s honest. It’s also a statement that isn’t limited to their plans for the Democratic Party, not by a longshot.

Not only does it say a lot about what the “squad” (I prefer to call them the Gang of Four) plans for the Democratic Party if they ever succeed in their power grab, it’s what they plan for the country if they ever succeed on a nationwide level.

It’s not just Omar by any means. Here’s Ayanna Pressley at the same conference:

…the people closest to the pain should be the closest to the power.

In other words, intersectional victimhood is a huge qualification for holding office and dictating policy. She also said this:

We don’t need any more any brown faces that don’t want to be a brown voice. We don’t need any more black faces that don’t want to be a black voice.

Here Pressley is continuing and expanding on a theme that’s been a leftist message for many years—if a “person of color” is not ideologically pure, then he or she doesn’t count as a person of color and has no right to power.

I really cannot think of a more racist and controlling (anti-free-speech) statement recently by someone in public office, although I’m sure I could find one if I really looked hard. But I can almost guarantee it would have been made by a Democrat, not a Republican. Race is almost everything to this group and confers on members of designated victim groups the right to power, but “people of color” can lose that designation if they think for themselves and don’t follow the party line.

These Four are race-obsessed and power-obsessed.

Sperry: Possible That Ilhan Omar Committed Immigration Fraud, Passport Fraud, Tax Fraud … Petition Demands Congressional Investigation

A naturalized citizen has all the rights of any other citizen, but if that citizen committed immigration fraud the citizenship can be revoked and the now illegal alien deported.

Ilhan Omar was back in the news this week on her tax fraud violations and alleged marriage to her Somali brother.

After several years of avoiding the subject — on Tuesday the Minneapolis Star-Tribunepublished a report on Ilhan Omar, her tax fraud crimes, her illegal use of campaign funds to cover travel costs and touched on her alleged marriage to her younger brother.

Investigative Journalist David Steinberg who has been covering the incredible story for years commented on the report today.

Investigative reporter Paul Sperry today tweeted out that if Ilhan committed immigration fraud, she also committed passport fraud. And tax fraud. And campaign fraud.

Another Win for Judicial Watch: Kentucky to Remove Up to 250,000 Inactive Voters From Voter Registration Rolls

Conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch announced Monday that thanks to a consent judgment, Kentucky is set to remove 250,000 inactive voters from registration voter rolls.

This is in addition to the 1.6 million inactive voters names that are set to be removed from California’s voter rolls.

Judicial Watch is diligently working to clean up dirty voters rolls to reduce voter fraud leading up to the 2020 election.

We all know how much the Democrats love their dead voters!

Nearly 1 Million Californians Registered to Vote Are Ineligible, Says Non-Partisan Group

A non-partisan group has reported that there are still several counties in California where the number of registered voters is greater than the number of eligible citizens, with the total nearing one million people.

The Election Integrity Project California (EIPCa) stated in a release on July 8 (pdf) that if voter problems are not promptly addressed by state officials, fraudulent election activities may continue to haunt the state.

Using the state’s own data on active and inactive status registrants, the organization found that eight counties have not cleaned up their inactive registrant lists, despite a 2018 legal settlement that requires California counties to properly maintain their voter rolls and remove inactive voters according to federal law.

Goyal et al Study: Universal Background Checks vs. “Child” Deaths

I was going to do an all-out analysis of this paper, since just from the press release I knew it had problems (cross-sectional analysis, without longitudinal; 18-21yo “children”), but this persuaded me to not waste that much time…..

So, starting with bad data, and excluding data that would invalidate their thesis, they did a cross-sectional comparison only, with no longitudinal analysis to find an effect of implementation of background check laws on in-state trends. A UC Davis study found no effect on homicide or suicide rates in the ten years after California’s passage of a universal background check law. More recently, California has seen an increase in firearms homicides……

Just another BS paper with a pre-set agenda, lacking in anything resembling science.


Speaking at Nutroots Nation, Ilhan Omar continued the fusillade of abuse that she directs against the country that not only rescued her from an African refugee camp, but elected her to Congress. Talking about the crisis at the Southern border–Democrats now admit that it is a crisis–Omar said that the U.S. treats illegal immigrants worse than dogs because we are racists:

But here’s the thing: the reason there is a humanitarian crisis at the border is because hundreds of thousands of Central Americans are flocking there, trying to gain entry into the U.S. And the Democrats’ hysteria over “separated children” and “people in cages” has not deterred them one whit.

Would Central Americans having no legal right to emigrate to the U.S. try desperately to enter our country if they thought we were a racist nation that would treat them worse than dogs? Apparently Omar thinks illegal immigrants are too dumb to hate America the way she does.

Out of Power Nationally, Politician Finally Tells Truth on “Global Warming”

“We’re all as honest as we can afford to be,” noted late comedian Lenny Bruce. One man who can now afford to be far more honest is politician Barnaby Joyce. Once a two-time deputy prime minister of Australia, Joyce is now a “backbencher” only representing rural New South Wales. As such, he has finally told everyone what he really thinks about the man-made climate-change agenda:

It’s “barking” madness.

American Thinker’s Thomas Lifson explains how Joyce became an “honest man,” writing, “Like the United States, Australia is subject to agitation for CO2 emissions reduction in the name of ‘saving the planet.’ As deputy P.M. serving in coalition under the leadership of warmist true believer Malcolm Turnbull, Joyce could not speak his mind for fear of those interests.”

“But Australia has a new liberal (conservative) government following federal elections last May 19, with the margin of victory attributed by most observers to the opposition by Scott Morrison, the new leader of the Liberals, to closing a major coal mine,” Lifson continues.

Consequently, “Joyce is now a backbencher and can finally tell the truth about the global warming scare,” writes the Herald Sun’s Andrew Bolt (story paywalled).

Regardless of how it took becoming a backbencher to find backbone, Joyce’s comments are so to the point and powerful that they warrant reprint in toto. As he wrote on Facebook:

“The very idea that we can stop climate change is barking mad. Climate change is inevitable, as geology has always shown.” These are the views of New Zealand lecturer of geology, David Shelley. A person vastly more competent than me and the flotilla of others telling the kids the world is going to end from global warming.

The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time — Part XXIII.

The scandal that I call “The Greatest Scientific Fraud Of All Time” is the alteration of official world temperature data by a small number of government employees in the US and the UK. Uniformly, the alterations have the effect of lowering temperatures early in the record, and raising recent temperatures, in order to create and enhance a warming trend that does not exist in the data as originally reported. The purpose of the fraudulent data alteration is to support the continuation of the “global warming” climate scare. To read the prior 22 posts in this series, go to this link.

Despite what you might think from reading the mainstream press, the past few years in world temperatures have not been particularly good for the continuation of climate alarm. No matter how you measure them (the main methods being ground thermometers, weather balloons, and satellites), world atmospheric temperatures have gone down for more than three years since a peak reached in early 2016. The data set that I consider to be the most reliable — the satellite-based measurements from the University of Alabama at Huntsville — gives the global temperature “anomaly” for the most recent month (June 2019) as +0.47 deg C. That is well down from the peak of +0.88 deg C in early 2016, and represents a decrease of about a third of what had been the entire increase since the satellite record began in 1979. Here is the most recent UAH global lower atmosphere temperature graph:


The failure of temperatures to continue to rise in accordance with alarmist model predictions has left the alarm-promoting guys at NASA and NOAA without fodder for their former annual “hottest year ever!!!” press releases. From the NASA end-of-year-2018 release:

2018 Was the Fourth Warmest Year, Continuing Long Warming Trend. . . . The 2018 global temperature average ranks behind 2016, 2017, and 2015.

I leave it for you to figure out how a year that was down from 2017, which in turn was down from 2016, somehow “continues[es] [a] long warming trend.” In a real “long warming trend,” shouldn’t each year be successively warmer than the previous year?


I have written many times about what I consider the worst scandal in the history of science: efforts by the curators of global temperature records to rewrite the past so as to produce an illusion of warming that is not reflected in the temperatures that have actually been recorded.

No Tricks Zone picks up the theme in a post titled “Adjusted ‘Unadjusted Data: NASA Uses The ‘Magic Wand Of Fudging’, Produces Warming Where There Never Was.”

It’s been long known that NASA GISS has been going through its historical temperature data archives and erasing old temperature measurements and replacing them with new, made up figures without any real legitimate reason.

This practice has led to the formation of new datasets called “adjusted” data, with the old datasets being called “V3 unadjusted”. The problem for global warming activists, however, was that when anyone looks at the old “V3 unadjusted” – i.e. untampered data – they often found a downward linear temperature trend. Such negative trends of course are an embarrassment for global warming alarmists, who have been claiming the planet is warming up rapidly.

So what to do? Well, it seems that NASA has decided to adjust its “V3 unadjusted datasets” and rename them as “V4 unadjusted”. That’s right, the adjusted data has become the new V4 “unadjusted” data.

You can’t make this stuff up.

You guessed it. The new V4 unadjusted data are now yielding warmed up trends, even at places where a cooling trend once existed.

This is how NASA uses its magic wand of fudging to turn past cooling into (fake) warming.

The post includes a number of examples, animated GIFs that show how the temperatures originally recorded in a given locale have been changed by NASA to create an alleged warming trend. Here is just one, Marquette, Michigan, from 1880 to 2018, where NASA has “turned a slightly cooling trend into a robust warming trend.”

Much more at the link. The bottom line is that surface temperature data have been hopelessly corrupted by partisans, and can’t be trusted to show temperature trends. The only data that are publicly available, transparent and reliable are the satellite readings that go back, as I recall, to 1979.

Northam Admits Latest Gun Grab Wouldn’t Prevent VA Beach

Gun control proponents latch onto every mass shooting and use it to advance their anti-gun agenda. It doesn’t take long, either. We usually see them push gun control proposals on social media before the facts have even started coming in. They’ll tout “assault weapon” bans before we know what weapon was used, for example.

So it wasn’t surprising to see Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam jump all over the Virginia Beach shooting with such vehemence. It’s the way of his people, after all.

What is surprising is that he is willing to admit that none of the proposals being touted by him and others would have prevented the tragedy.

According to the Roanoke Times, Gov. Ralph Northam admitted his proposed gun plan would not have stopped the Virginia Beach shooting.

During a question and answer session Friday at the Virginia Boys State session at Radford University, Northam was questioned by a group of students who formed a mock goverment and debated how the shooting may have been prevented. The students reportedly decided that the shooting was more about mental health than about guns and challenged Gov. Northam on his proposed gun plan.

According to the Times, Northam eventually “conceded” to some degree that his proposals would not necessarily have prevented the shooting.

And, of course, they wouldn’t have. The killer had legally purchased his weapons and had a clean criminal record. There was nothing that would have prevented him from purchasing his firearms. I’d figured Northam knew as much, but this is confirming what we already knew.

So then, why push for laws that wouldn’t have prevented the tragedy? Like someone once said, “Never let a crisis go to waste.” That’s all this is. There was a shooting, and Northam isn’t willing to let the opportunity pass. That’s why he’s calling for a special legislative session to address the issue of gun control. He knows damn good and well that if he doesn’t force the issue quickly, he’ll miss his chance.

That’s it.

It’s not about stopping the next Virginia Beach. Northam knows none of these proposals will do that. No, it’s about buffing up his anti-gun credentials and making life difficult for law-abiding gun owners — nothing more, nothing less.

Northam’s admission, however, isn’t surprising for pro-gun activists. Anyone who looked critically at the proposals being talked about would have recognized that none of them would have stopped diddly. However, gun control fans tend not to look at these things critically. They see gun control and jump on it. They don’t care if it would have stopped the attack from happening.

If you force their hands, they’ll admit it wouldn’t have but then claim the measures would stop some number of other shootings, all without providing the least bit of evidence to support the claim.

Northam’s admission is surprising only in its honesty, though it won’t stop him from trying to cram gun control down Virginia’s throat. No, he’s never going to let a crisis go to waste.