Author Archive


First lady brings up president’s birth certificate

It has been nearly eight years since Barack Obama was elected to the White House, but the president’s wife is now admitting she is still very bothered by an issue that has haunted her husband since he burst onto the national political scene: his legal eligibility to serve as president.

On Saturday, first lady Michelle Obama revived the issue of natural-born citizenship during a commencement speech at Jackson State University in Mississippi.

What do YOU think? If Trump is elected, will he re-examine Obama’s eligibility? Sound off in today’s WND poll.

According to ABC News, Mrs. Obama lamented the vitriol directed toward her husband over his term as president, including the “birther” conspiracy theory widely promoted by GOP front-runner Donald Trump just five years ago.

“And then there’s the countless times when that language gets personal and is directed at my husband – charges that he doesn’t love our country,” Michelle Obama said.

“The time he was called a liar in front of a joint session of Congress. The nonstop questions about his birth certificate and his belief in God.”

Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from, America’s independent news network.

As WND reported, a probe by Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, found there is probable cause the birth certificate proffered by the White House is actually a forgery.

In addition, there remain unanswered questions regarding the precise hospital at which Barack Obama was born.

A photograph taken by the Kapi’olani Medical Center for WND shows a letter allegedly written by President Obama on embossed White House stationery in which he declares the Honolulu hospital to be “the place of my birth,” The hospital, after publicizing the letter then refusing to confirm it even existed, is now vouching for its authenticity, but not its content. The White House has yet to verify any aspect of the letter.
During her commencement speech Saturday, Mrs. Obama also complained about “anger and vitriol” in the political environment.

“We pay endless attention to folks who are blocking action, blocking judges, blocking immigration, blocking a raise in the minimum wage. Just blocking,” she said. “We are consumed with the anger and vitriol that are bubbling up, with folks shouting at each other, using hateful and divisive language.”

Get the autographed book that probes Obama’s eligibility like no other: “Where’s the Birth Certificate?”

The first lady also targeted Mississippi’s recently-passed “religious freedom” bill.

“We see it right here in Mississippi – just two weeks ago – how swiftly progress can hurtle backward,” Obama said. “How easy it is to single out a small group and marginalize them because of who they are or who they love.”

“So we’ve got to stand side by side with all our neighbors – straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender; Muslim, Jew, Christian, Hindu immigrant, Native American – because the march for civil rights isn’t just about African Americans, it’s about all Americans,” she said. “It’s about making things more just, more equal, more free for all our kids and grandkids. That’s the story you all have the opportunity to write. That’s what this historic university has prepared you to do.”


In Indiana, the Deal to Stop Trump May Be Backfiring

The alliance between Cruz and Kasich looks to some Hoosiers like insider politics. And some won’t pull the lever for Cruz.
The silence in the parking lot of the Hamilton County fairgrounds is pierced only by a few songbirds, the ringing echo of a halyard slapping against a flagpole, and the gravel crunching beneath the footsteps of John Kasich’s frustrated supporters.
A stream of voters arrived at the suburban Indianapolis fairgrounds on Tuesday to see the Republican presidential candidate, unaware the event had been canceled. They hadn’t heard that Kasich scotched the appearance and ceded the state to Ted Cruz, calculating that the Texas senator had the best chance here of slowing down Donald Trump and saving his resources for other states.
Much like the men and women at the fairgrounds, the voters of Indiana don’t seem to be on board with the imperatives of the political moment. The race here is shaping up to be a last stand not just for Cruz, but also for the “stop Trump” movement, an unlikely confederation of activists and party donors. But, from members of the donor class in Indianapolis unwilling to back Cruz to blue-collar voters in Elkhart outraged by the collaboration, the movement is not coalescing, and is even backfiring. “People who were supporting Kasich have been coming into the office to pick up Trump signs,” said Laura Campbell, Republican chairwoman of Hamilton County, whose residents earn more money than anyone else in the state. “People are not happy here with that alliance.”
Cruz, trailing in the polls, has a week to change minds before Indiana’s primary on May 3. He’s been campaigning in the state for several days, and on Wednesday announced Carly Fiorina, the former chief executive officer for Hewlett Packard, as his running mate. The move was aimed at injecting some energy and interest in the race at a crucial moment. It may also help Cruz later in California, where Fiorina won the Republican primary for the U.S. Senate in 2010. She lost to Barbara Boxer, a Democrat, in the general election.
Even though Kasich is a popular two-term governor in neighboring Ohio, it’s Cruz who has won most Midwestern states. Those victories included a come-from-behind win in Wisconsin earlier this month that, at least temporarily, boosted his campaign. But that victory serves as the high-water mark for Cruz, who has trailed Trump since the second contest of the nomination race in February.
Cruz ignored questions during a campaign stop in Indianapolis on Wednesday about whether Indiana is a must-win for him. But the stakes couldn’t be higher. Trump has scored some of the biggest victories of the campaign during the past two weeks, while his standing in national polls has improved. A victory in Indiana could bolster Cruz as he heads towards California’s primary June 7, where there are enough delegates at stake to ensure the party’s first contested convention in 40 years.
“Indiana now has the chance to speak, not only for Hoosiers across the state, but for the people across this country,” Cruz told reporters outside Sisters’ Pancake House. “Indiana has a chance to make a decision that is going to impact the Republican Party, that is going to impact the country.”

In Northern Indiana, home to many of the working-class, white voters who have turned out in droves for Trump, Thomas Adkison visited the New York businessman’s campaign headquarters in Fort Wayne. The retired semi driver wanted a “Veterans For Trump” sign to put in the window of his car, and Trump yard signs.
“You understand how mad I am when I see all these factories closing?” Adkison asked in an interview outside the Trump office. “I want an outsider. I don’t want these here establishment people that are in there.”
Trump mentions—every chance he can—the loss of manufacturing jobs in Indiana, especially United Technologies Electronic Controls Inc., and its subsidiary Carrier Corp., moving heating and air conditioning assembly operations to Mexico. The move eliminated 2,100 jobs in Indianapolis and Huntington.
The loss of manufacturing jobs in Indiana’s economy mirrors the nation’s, and makes Trump’s tough talk about rewriting trade deals and promise to “make America great again” appealing, said Ball State economist Michael Hicks.
While the state added 1.4 million net jobs between 1969 and 2014, the percentage in manufacturing declined to 14 percent from 33 percent, he said. Manufacturing output has actually risen to record levels because of increased productivity, even as there are fewer workers required who are paid less than their fathers and grandfathers, Hicks said.
Northern Indiana, with a mix of Democrats backed by labor unions, Republicans, and self-described independents such as Adkison, shows that trend. While unemployment in Elkhart has fallen from almost 20 percent during the recession to less than 5 percent, there are now many fewer jobs that pay what the Studebaker factory in nearby South Bend and other old-line manufacturing jobs did, Hicks said. Older, middle-class Hoosiers with a high school diploma who once were able to raise a family, send kids to college and get a new car every three or four years now find themselves working in jobs paying $15 an hour or replaced entirely by younger, less-costly workers, Hicks said.
“Donald Trump’s likely to do very well here simply because the feeling about the economy matches his narrative, even though the data do not,” Hicks said.
Trump’s campaign said that the deal between Kasich and Cruz, with its whiff of insider politics, will only help their cause. “Don’t pass the smell test,” Rex Early, a former Indiana Republican Party chairman and Trump’s Indiana chairman, said in a telephone interview.
“This backroom double-dealing thing that they put on now, that is going to hurt Cruz,” Early said. “Hoosiers like fair.”
Even some Cruz supporters in Indiana aren’t happy about the arrangement. Tim Douglass, 30, a social worker from South Bend, said he initially supported Trump because he liked the idea of an outsider. He switched to Cruz when the billionaire failed to provide specifics, but Douglass doesn’t agree with the effort to block Trump.
“I don’t like the teaming up,” Douglass said while standing in line on Tuesday for a $1 pretzel at the opening of a Ben’s Soft Pretzels store downtown. “You should play to win, not play to stop someone else.”
Craig Dunn, the Indiana Republican Party’s 4th District chairman and a delegate who is supporting Kasich, termed the race a “jump ball” between Cruz’s appeal to religious and social conservatives and Trump’s economic and populist appeal. He called the pact between Kasich and Cruz a “political mistake” that was unnecessary.
“I just don’t know if there’ll be enough Kasich people that will say they’re going to participate in this strategy,” Dunn said. “And probably the ones who do will be somewhat cancelled out by others that say, ‘Gee whiz, Indiana’s not important enough for him to do it, so I’m going to do Trump.’”

As rain drizzled Tuesday over Indianapolis, residents competed on a temporary obstacle course that had been set up for the popular TV show American Ninja Warrior. Under green and purple stage lights, men and woman alike repeatedly fell from a swinging rope and splashed into a pool of water. Others tumbled from a rolling log, unable to keep their balance, as the crowd groaned after every collapse.
Inside a private club next to the set, Kasich spoke about his own dismay.
Some of them are surely disappointed—he was a little disappointed too, Kasich told donors about his pact with Cruz, according to two sources inside the meeting. After all, he lives in Ohio. He’s their neighbor, he told them.
The Ohio governor canceled his rally earlier in the day, but kept his fundraiser at the Columbia Club, a historic club in the heart of downtown. Kasich also spoke there with Indiana Governor Mike Pence, a Republican who has met with all three of the finalists for his party’s nomination.
When this proposition came along, Kasich told donors about the deal with Cruz, his team recommended that he do this. There’s a chance it might work, he said. Kasich’s campaign declined to comment about what was said at the meeting.
It was hardly a ringing endorsement. And his supporters left the meeting less than enthusiastic about Cruz; in interviews with 10 donors who attended the meeting, just one planned to switch his or her vote to Cruz.
“It’s what has to be done to stop Trump, who is completely reckless and unfit for public office,” said David Carr, a labor attorney and former Zionsville councilman. “Indiana could be the turning point.”
If the Cruz-Kasich plan could be pulled off anywhere in Indiana, it’s the urban center and so-called “donut counties” around Indianapolis. There are more moderate Republicans in that part of the state, and the idea of strategic voting shouldn’t be so foreign in the heart of state government and politics.
And like their counterparts in Milwaukee who helped deliver Cruz a resounding victory in Wisconsin, many Republican voters in the Indianapolis area are on their second and third choice for president.
But unlike their neighbors just north on the shores of Lake Michigan, there is little help so far for Cruz in Indiana. While Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker enthusiastically endorsed the Texas senator, Pence has remained neutral, saying only that he’ll back the party’s eventual nominee. Former Governor Mitch Daniels has eschewed the type of social policies that Cruz backs.
“I cannot bring myself to vote for either Ted Cruz or Donald Trump—I just can’t do it,” said John Mutz, a former Indiana lieutenant governor. “So, even though I understand the strategy, I’m going to vote for John Kasich.”

What the State Dept Did to the Benghazi Files AFTER they were Subpoenaed

Why in the world would the State Department go against a subpoena? Can you say “more than a little something to hide”? Anyone else that pulled a stunt like this would already be locked up and looking forward for the key to be thrown away. Read the story here:
State Department officials removed files from the secretary’s office related to the Benghazi attack in Libya and transferred them to another department after receiving a congressional subpoena last spring, delaying the release of the records to Congress for over a year.

Attorneys for the State Department said the electronic folders, which contain hundreds of documents related to the Benghazi attack and Libya, were belatedly rediscovered at the end of last year.

They said the files had been overlooked by State Department officials because the executive secretary’s office transferred them to another department and flagged them for archiving last April, shortly after receiving a subpoena from the House Select Committee on Benghazi.

The new source of documents includes electronic folders used by senior officials under Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. They were originally kept in the executive secretary’s office, which handles communication and coordination between the secretary of state’s office and other department bureaus…….The House Benghazi Committee requested documents from the secretary’s office in a subpoena filed in March 2015. Congressional investigators met with the head of the executive secretary’s office staff to discuss its records maintenance system and the scope of the subpoena last April. That same month, State Department officials sent the electronic folders to another bureau for archiving, and they were not searched in response to the request.

The blunder could raise new questions about the State Department’s records process, which has come under scrutiny from members of Congress and government watchdogs. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, blasted the State Department’s Freedom of Information Act process as “broken” in January, citing “systematic failures at the agency.”

The inspector general for the State Department also released a report criticizing the agency’s public records process in January. The report highlighted failures in the executive secretary’s office, which responds to records requests for the Office of the Secretary.

Since last fall, the State Department has taken additional steps to increase transparency, recently hiring a transparency coordinator.

But the late discovery of the electronic folders has set back the release of information in a number of public records lawsuits filed against the State Department by watchdog groups.

The State Department first disclosed that staffers had discovered the unsearched folders in a January court filing. Attorneys for the department asked the court for additional time to process and release the documents in response to a 2014 lawsuit filed by the government ethics group Judicial Watch.

Around the same time, the State Department alerted the House Select Committee on Benghazi to the discovery. On April 8, the department turned over 1,100 pages of documents from the electronic folders to the House Benghazi Committee, over a year after the committee’s subpoena. The committee had received other documents from the production in February.

The delay has had consequences. The Benghazi Committee had already completed the majority of its interviews with diplomats and government officials regarding the Benghazi attack before it received the latest tranche of documents.

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R., S.C.), chairman of the Benghazi Committee, said in an April 8 statement it was “deplorable that it took over a year for these records to be produced to our committee.”

“This investigation is about a terrorist attack that killed four Americans, and it could have been completed a lot sooner if the administration had not delayed and delayed and delayed at every turn,” Gowdy said.

The decision by State Department officials to transfer the electronic folders to another bureau after receiving the subpoena could also raise questions.

The subpoena requested Benghazi-related documents and communications from 10 of Hillary Clinton’s top aides for the years 2011 and 2012.

The requests included standard language that “Subpoenaed records, documents, data or information should not be destroyed, modified, removed, transferred or otherwise made inaccessible to the Committee.”

The State Department’s attorneys said the executive secretary’s office transferred the folders to the Office of Information Programs and Services for “retiring” in April 2015. Public records officials did not realize for almost eight months that the folders had been moved, and so they were not searched in response to FOIA requests or subpoenas.

“In April 2015—prior to its search in this [Judicial Watch] case—the Secretariat Staff within the Office of the Executive Secretariat (“S/ES-S”) retired the shared office folders and transferred them to the custody of the Bureau of Administration, Office of Information Programs and Services,” the State Department said in a Feb. 5 court filing.

“The IPS employees working on this FOIA request did not initially identify S/ES retired records as a location to search for potentially responsive records because they were operating with the understanding that, to the extent responsive records from the Office of the Secretary existed, they resided within [the executive secretary’s office].”

According to congressional sources, officials on the House Benghazi Committee had a meeting with the executive secretary’s office to discuss the subpoena and the locations of potentially relevant records on April 10, 2015. Electronic folders of senior staff members were discussed during the briefing.

State Department officials at the meeting included the director of the executive secretary’s office staff, who was responsible for handling the office’s records maintenance, the assistant secretary for legislative affairs, and Catherine Duval, the attorney who oversaw the public release of Hillary Clinton’s official emails. The officials gave no indication that electronic folders had recently been transferred out of the office.

The State Department declined to comment on whether the folders were transferred after the meeting took place.

A State Department official told the Washington Free Beacon that personnel did not mislead congressional investigators, and added that no officials at the meeting were involved in transferring the folders.

“The Department personnel who briefed the Select Committee in April 2015 did not play a role in the transfer of these files to State’s Bureau of Administration,” the State Department official said.

The official added that department files are often moved as a routine matter.

“Files that are generated in an office are regularly moved to the Bureau of Administration for storage according to published records retirement schedules,” the official said. “This is a routine action that would not involve a senior supervisor. It also continues to make them available to respond to either Congressional or FOIA requests.”

Duval left the State Department last September. She had previously overseen document production for the IRS during the targeting controversy. Republicans had criticized that process after agency emails were reportedly destroyed and a key IRS official’s hard drive was shredded months after they had been subpoenaed by Congress.

In recent months, the State Department has been working to increase transparency.

“The Department has worked closely with the Select Committee in a spirit of cooperation and responsiveness,” a State Department official said. “Since the Committee was formed, we have provided 48 witnesses for interviews and more than 95,000 pages of documents.”

The efforts drew some praise from the House Benghazi Committee last fall.

“It’s curious the Department is suddenly able to be more productive after recent staff changes involving those responsible for document production,” committee spokesman Jamal Ware said in a Sept. 25, 2015 press release.

Still, it could be months before the public is able to see many of the Benghazi-related documents belatedly discovered by the State Department. The House Benghazi Committee is still completing its investigation and has not released them.

The department’s attorneys have also been granted extensions to produce the documents in response to several public records lawsuits. In one FOIA case, first filed by the watchdog group Citizens United in 2014, a judge has given the State Department until next August to turn over the new materials.

Correction: The original version of this article stated that the House Select Committee on Benghazi had submitted two subpoenas to the State Department. The Committee only submitted one subpoena, on March 4, 2015. The November 2014 request was an official letter from the Committee to Secretary John Kerry.

Corruption • Crime • Politics Two House Republicans Introduce Resolution to Investigate Obama for High Crimes and Misdemeanors!

Well, that took long enough! Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Sobarkah has less than a year left in office and the Republican-led House, which has been led by Republicans since their victory in 2010, is finally getting around to a resolution to establish a Select Committee on High Crimes and Misdemeanors within the Executive Branch and the Obama Administration.

HRes693 IH was introduced into the House of Representatives by Rep. Ted Yoho 
(R-FL) on Tuesday. The resolution would establish a “permanent Select Committee on Executive Oversight.”

“Every day a new claim and allegation come to light about the abuses of the Obama Administration,” said Yoho. “Blatant Executive overreach, targeting by enforcement agencies, stand down orders of enforcement on existing law—which have resulted in the deaths of Americans, and regulatory agencies that bypass Congress and write their own laws. Enough is enough. While this committee will be tasked with the oversight over future administrations—both Republican and Democrat—the abuses of the current Administration have necessitated the creation of a whole new committee to deal solely with this Administration’s transgressions.”

“We, the Representatives of the people, are tasked with holding the Executive Branch accountable by the guiding document of this nation—the Constitution,” the Florida representative added. “It is our job, our responsibility, and the right thing to do. So, if not now, when? If not us, who? We must prove to the American people we are worthy of the responsibility they have entrusted to us. All it takes for evil or tyranny to prevail or for our Constitutional Republic to fail is for good men and women to do nothing.”

According to the resolution, Rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives would be amended by adding the following clause:

Permanent Select Committee on Oversight of the Executive Branch

`12.(a) There is hereby established the Permanent Select Committee on Oversight of the Executive Branch (hereinafter referred to as the `Select Committee’).

`(b)(1) The Speaker shall appoint 12 Members to the Select Committee, five of whom shall be appointed after consultation with the minority leader.

`(2) The Speaker shall designate one Member to serve as chair of the Select Committee, and the minority leader shall designate one Member to serve as ranking minority member of the Select Committee.

`(3) Any vacancy in the Select Committee shall be filled in the same manner as the original appointment.

`(4) The Select Committee shall enlist the assistance of a Special Task Force established by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, for the sole purpose of assisting the Select Committee in its investigations.

`(c) The Select Committee shall investigate allegations of misconduct by officials of the executive branch. The Select Committee shall not have legislative jurisdiction.

`(d)(1) Notwithstanding clause 3(m) of rule X, the Select Committee is authorized to study the sources and methods of entities described in clause 11(b)(1)(A) of rule X insofar as such study is related to the matters described in paragraph (c).

`(2) Clause 11(e) and the first sentence of clause 11(f) of rule X (relating to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence) shall apply to the Select Committee.

`(3) Rule XI applies to the Select Committee except as follows:

`(A) Clause 2(a) of rule XI shall not apply to the Select Committee.

`(B) Clause 2(g)(2)(D) of rule XI shall apply to the Select Committee in the same manner as it applies to the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

`(C) Pursuant to clause 2(h) of rule XI, two Members of the Select Committee shall constitute a quorum for taking testimony or receiving evidence and one-third of the Members of the Select Committee shall constitute a quorum for taking any action other than one for which the presence of a majority of the Select Committee is required.

`(D) The chair of the Select Committee may authorize and issue subpoenas pursuant to clause 2(m) of rule XI in the investigation and study conducted pursuant to section 3 of this resolution, including for the purpose of taking depositions, as is deemed necessary in the pursuit of truth and justice for the American people.

`(E)(i) The chair of the Select Committee, upon consultation with the ranking minority member, may order the taking of depositions, under oath and pursuant to notice or subpoena, by a Member of the Select Committee or a counsel of the Select Committee.

`(ii) Depositions taken under the authority prescribed in this subdivision shall be governed by the procedures submitted by the chair of the Committee on Rules for printing in the Congressional Record.

`(F) The chair of the Select Committee may, after consultation with the ranking minority member, recognize–

`(i) Members of the Select Committee to question a witness for periods longer than five minutes as though pursuant to clause 2(j)(2)(B) of rule XI; and

`(ii) staff of the Select Committee to question a witness as though pursuant to clause 2(j)(2)(C) of rule XI.’.

(b) Funding for One Hundred Fourteenth Congress-

(1) PAYMENT OF EXPENSES- There shall be paid out of the applicable accounts of the House of Representatives such sums as may be necessary for the expenses of the Permanent Select Committee on Oversight of the Executive Branch established under clause 12 of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives (as added by subsection (a)) during the One Hundred Fourteenth Congress.

(2) VOUCHERS- Payments under this subsection shall be made on vouchers signed by the chair of the Select Committee and approved in the manner directed by the Committee on House Administration.
(3) REGULATIONS- Amounts made available under this subsection shall be expended in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Committee on House Administration.

So far, Yoho only has one co-sponsor, Rep. Randy Weber
, Sr. (R-TX). That should tell you all you need to know about the sellout of Republicans in Washington. While I question whether or not the resolution has any chance of passing, the fact that it has taken this long to even see such a document is quite telling. After all, the Republicans don’t care about the Obama administration’s crimes because they have been involved in aiding him in them.




Secretary of State Hillary Clinton greets Senator John McCain (R-AZ) as she arrives to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the terrorist attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, in Washington, DC on January 23, 2013.   UPI/Molly Riley

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton greets Senator John McCain (R-AZ) as she arrives to testify before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the terrorist attacks on the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, in Washington, DC on January 23, 2013. UPI/Molly Riley

Hillary has mental issues, but don’t take my word for it–the New York Times, NY Mag, Bloomberg, and hundreds of other publications have covered the issue–we just all forgot! The biggest indicator is that she believes in talking to spirits. She used to hold seances with the departed ghost of Eleanor Roosevelt. She once thought she was conversing with Gandhi. And good lord! If only this wasn’t true. As much as I want to hate Hillary (and boy, oh boy, I do!) this just makes me feel a bit sorry for her. The fact is, Hillary has been into some kooky stuff for quite some time — the New York Times actually covered her walk among the spirits all the way back in 1995! That’s right folks, I am not just sourcing this to some wonk’s blog. This is well substantiated fact. Even Billy has talked about it! But let’s get some quotes and citations in here for a moment. Here’s the New York Times:

Dr. Houston, a 57-year-old author of 15 books who is admired by many adherents of the human potential movement and of New Age mysticism, made headlines over the weekend because of her work with another mainstream figure, Hillary Rodham Clinton. “Seances” were among the interpretations of sessions in which Dr. Houston and Mrs. Clinton supposedly conversed with Eleanor Roosevelt and Gandhi.

Sorry, let me repeat that last bit like a normal human would–Mrs. Clinton experienced auditory hallucinations of a conversation between a long dead former First Lady, and a peace-making, non-violent-protesting Indian liberator. My god. But it gets worse, here’s what NY Mag reported:

President Bill Clinton spoke at the ceremony [of a park’s dedication] . “As all of you famously learned when I served as president, my wife, now the secretary of state, was known to commune with Eleanor on a regular basis,” he said.

Well, that’s one joke that HRC is going to regret you made, Bill. Let’s let that stand on its own, and move on to one final quote–this time from Ted Widmer, another former speechwriter for Bill Clinton, said the White House turned to the Roosevelts for a kind of guidance during Clinton’s scandal-heavy second term. “We talked about history all the time,” he said. “We felt like Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt were friendly spirits.”

Oh come on. Can anyone reading this think of 1,000 better ways to phrase that same sentiment without using the word “spirits?” I sure can. Those were choice words. Because he knew about Hillary’s little necromancy. She’s institutionally insane, and everyone should know it by now–this just confirms the suspicions we already had.



Climate forecasts may be flawed, says study

Predictions of unprecedented rainfall extremes in the 20th century driven by global warming turned out wrong, a study said Wednesday, casting doubt on methods used to project future trends.

A massive trawl of Northern Hemisphere rainfall data for the last 1,200 years revealed there had been more dramatic wet-dry weather extremes in earlier, cooler centuries before humans set off fossil fuel-driven global warming.

This is problematic, said a study in the journal Nature, as the same data models used to anticipate that global warming would cause record rainfall extremes in the 1900s, are the basis for projections of things to come.

“It might be more difficult than often assumed to project into the future,” the study’s lead author Fredrik Ljungqvist of Stockholm University told AFP of the findings.

“The truth can be much, much more complicated.”

The UN’s climate science panel, the consensus authority, contends that dry areas will become ever drier and wet ones wetter as the global temperature rises in response to greenhouse gas emissions.

But the new work said sky-high temperatures in the 20th century did not directly translate into record extremes between wet and dry weather, as many had expected.

This meant that “much of the change is not only driven by temperature, but some internal, more random variability,” explained Ljungqvist.

“It’s therefore very, very hard also to predict (precipitation extremes) with models.”

Over the study period, drought was most severe during the 12th century, which was a warm one, and the 15th which was cold, said the scientist.

– Watch this space –

For the study, a team of experts in history, climate, geology and mathematics, compiled drought and rainfall data for Europe, North Asia and North America, and reconstructed 12 centuries worth of “water history”.

They considered geologically preserved evidence of stream flow, lake levels, marine and lake sediments, tree rings and historical records.

The team’s reconstruction for the 20th century differed vastly from climate models which had suggested wet areas should have been wetter, and dry ones drier, than ever before.

“In the past, on a longer timescale, there have been even larger variabilities,” said Ljungqvist.

This divergence “certainly adds fuel to the fiery debate” on the link between warming and rainfall extremes, Matthew Kirby of California State University’s Department of Geological Sciences wrote in a comment published by Nature.

“Do their results invalidate current predictive models? Certainly not. But they do highlight a big challenge for climate modellers, and present major research opportunities both for modellers and climate scientists…”

James Renwick of the Victoria University of Wellington said the predicted wet and dry extremes are “very likely” to materialise in the 21st, century.

Extreme drought and downpours are among many risks that scientists warn about in a warmer world. Others include land-gobbling sea level rise, crop and water shortages, disease spread and wars over dwindling resources.

In December, the nations of the world signed a pact to limit average global warming to no more than two degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) over pre-Industrial Revolution levels, when the fossil fuel burning began.

Research suggests we may already have reached 1 C.


It’s something climate skeptics have long suspected: Government involvement in science has skewed data to reflect the government’s agenda.

“Many have suspected that U.S. political intervention in climate science has corrupted the outcome,” notes Ron Arnold in an essay posted on “The new emergence of an old 1995 document from the U.S. State Department to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change confirms those suspicions, or at least gives the allegation credence enough to ask questions.”

Though a FOIA request for the 1995 document came up empty (“No such correspondence in our files”), the pdf is available online. The 30-page document, entitled “U.S. Government Specific Comments on the Draft IPCC WG I Summary for Policymakers,” gives detailed instructions on “how to change the IPCC’s science document and the summary for policymakers.”

“The document itself consists of a three-page cover letter to Sir John Houghton, head of IPCC Working Group I (Science), from Day Mount, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Acting, Environment and Development, United States Department of State, along with the thirty-page instruction set with line-by-line ‘suggestions,’ written by scientist Robert Watson and others,” writes Arnold.

“Climategate” exposes the global warming scam. Get it now at the WND Superstore.

He also notes, “Among the more revealing tidbits is a remark scolding a scientist for being honest about the weakness of aerosol forcing data: ‘We clearly cannot use aerosol forcing as the trigger of our smoking gun, and then make a generalized appeal to uncertainty to exclude these effects from the forward-looking modeling analysis.’ One instruction was to change a correct statement about warming rates into a flat lie: ‘Change “continue to rise” to “rise by even greater amounts” to provide a sense of magnitude of the extended change.’”

This verbal manipulation as far back as 1995 illustrates how government involvement in climate science is skewing the outcome to reflect an agenda.

In an article entitled “Climate Policy’s Advocates Take Page From Same-Sex Marriage Playbook,” Coral Davenport notes, “Two months ahead of a federal court hearing on President Obama’s signature climate change rule, a coordinated public relations offensive has begun – modeled after the same-sex marriage campaign – to influence the outcome of the case. … While developing the campaign, the environmental advocates closely examined the messaging tactics of the same-sex marriage efforts – particularly the message that the issue affects individual lives beyond the gay community.

“‘On gay marriage, it was that everyone has a friend, a neighbor, a sibling who could be impacted,’ said Joshua Dorner, a strategist at the Washington political communications firm SKDKnickerbocker, who worked on the same-sex marriage public relations campaigns ahead of the Supreme Court argument. The same message could be applied to a campaign on climate change, ‘showing how it directly impacts people’s lives,’ he said.”

NASA is noted to have altered its own temperature data by 0.5C since 2001. “NASA temperature data doesn’t even agree with NASA temperature data from 15 years ago,” notes the article “Global temperature record is a smoking gun of collusion and fraud.”

NASA global surface temperature, 2001 vs. 2016; source Real Science
The article also chronicles similar manipulation by the Japan Meteorological Agency; and that much of the Southern Hemisphere data is “mostly made up.”

“The claimed agreement in temperature data is simply not legitimate,” it notes. “The people involved know that their data is inadequate, tampered and largely made up. They all use basically the same GHCN data set from NOAA (which has lost more than 80 percent of their stations over the past few decades) and E-mails show that they discussed with each other ways to alter the data to make it agree with their theory.”

WND has reported extensively on global warming, including a few months back when, despite no rise in average global temperature for nearly two decades, some two-dozen scientists with major U.S. universities urged President Obama to use RICO laws to prosecute opponents who deny mankind is causing catastrophic changes in the climate.

That’s the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, which can put people in jail.

The scientists said their critics’ methods “are quite similar to those used earlier by the tobacco industry,” which was the target of a RICO investigation that “played an important role in stopping the tobacco industry from continuing to deceive the American people about the dangers of smoking.”

“Climategate” exposes the global warming scam. Get it now at the WND Superstore.

Tim Ball, a former University of Winnipeg climatology professor, said global temperatures have been dropping since the turn of the century, prompting the change in terminology from “global warming” to “climate change.”

Activists are also spending less time discussing temperatures and more time pointing to more extreme events such as tornadoes, droughts, cold snaps and heat waves. Ball said there’s a shred of truth there, but it’s being badly distorted.

Marc Morano is executive editor and chief correspondent for ClimateDepot, as well as host and producer of the upcoming film “Climate Hustle.” In an interview with WND, he said, “These documents further reveal how the grand narrative of man-made global warming has been crafted and forged into a partisan like campaign cause. The U.N. reports were altered as needed to promote the ideological and political goals of the establishment pushing climate fears.

“Any talking points that did not fit their narrative were cast aside and any expression of uncertainty quashed,” he added. “The ‘global warming’ movement is a pure lobbying movement on some levels. These old documents echo the 2009 Climategate scandal where the upper echelon of the U.N. scientists were exposed colluding on how to craft a narrative and mold the science to persuade the public, media and policy makers of the urgency of ‘acting’ on ‘global warming.’”

Manipulation of public emotion through various strategies influences public policy in massive ways, which makes the 1995 document noteworthy for how far back this goes.

“The 1995 document raises 2016 questions about the State Department’s actions in the subsequent United National IPCC Assessment Reports,” notes Arnold. “What did they do? Where are the correspondence and instructions to change the science in all the IPCC Assessments? What is the Obama State Department doing to corrupt climate science to its forward its radical social and political agenda? Some of that is obvious. It’s the clandestine part we need to know.”


Get politics out of climate debate

Get politics out of climate debate: Opposing view
John Coleman 4:29 p.m. EDT April 21, 2016
Science has taken a back seat at the United Nations.

On this Earth Day 2016, there is a great deal of frenzy about how our Earth is going to become uninhabitable, as the civilized activities of man allegedly trigger unstoppable global warming and climate change.

With the Obama administration set to commit the U.S. to the Paris climate agreement by signing our nation onto the document Friday, it is obvious that science has taken a back seat at the United Nations.

The environmentalists, bureaucrats and politicians who make up the U.N.’s climate panel recruit scientists to research the climate issue. And they place only those who will produce the desired results. Money, politics and ideology have replaced science.

U.N. climate chief Christiana Figueres has called for a “centralized transformation” that is “going to make the life of everyone on the planet very different” to combat the alleged global warming threat. How many Americans are looking forward to the U.N. transforming their lives?

Another U.N. official has admitted that the U.N. seeks to “redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.” The former head of the U.N. climate panel also recently declared that global warming “is my religion.”

The heat is on: Our view

When all the scare talk is pushed aside, it is the science that should be the basis for the debate. And the hard cold truth is that the basic theory has failed. Many notable scientists reject man-made global warming fears. And several of them, including a Nobel Prize winner, are in the new Climate Hustle movie. The film is an informative and even humorous new feature length movie that is the ultimate answer to Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. It will be shown one day only in theaters nationwide on May 2.

As a skeptic of man-made global warming, I love our environment as much as anyone. I share the deepest commitment to protecting our planet for our children and grandchildren. However, I desperately want to get politics out of the climate debate. The Paris climate agreement is all about empowering the U.N. and has nothing to do with the climate.

Weather Channel founder John Coleman has spent more than 60 years as a meteorologist, including seven years as the original weathercaster on ABC’s Good Morning America.