RUTHFULLY YOURS

The seventeen attorneys general who have been pursuing “climate deniers” for prosecution have been put on notice: turnabout is fair play. If Democrats can use the force of law to silence climate change narratives they deem to be fraudulent, so can Republicans. This is not a road anyone should want to go down, but fascistic Democrats have left Republicans with no choice. A group of Republican AGs along with Republicans on the House science panel have decided to push back.

On June 15, the Republican AGs of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and Wisconsin sent a letter to the Democrat AGs pointing out that if statements minimizing the risks of climate change are prosecutable as “fraud,” then so are statements exaggerating the dangers of climate change.

Via the Washington Times:

The “cuts both ways” argument was among those raised by 13 Republican attorneys general in a letter urging their Democratic counterparts to stop using their law enforcement power against fossil fuel companies and others that challenge the climate change catastrophe narrative.

Consider carefully the legal precedent and threat to free speech, said the state prosecutors in their letter this week, headed by Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange.

“If it is possible to minimize the risks of climate change, then the same goes for exaggeration,” said the letter. “If minimization is fraud, exaggeration is fraud.”

The letter comes as Exxon Mobil fights off subpoenas by two prosecutors — Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey and Virgin Islands Attorney General Claude E. Walker — for decades’ worth of climate-related documents and communications with academics, universities and free-market think tanks.

New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman and California Attorney General Kamala Harris have also reportedly launched probes.

The 17 attorneys general — 16 Democrats and one independent — announced at a March 29 press conference that they had formed a coalition, AGs United for Clean Power.

“We think this effort by our colleagues to police the global warming debate through the power of the subpoena is a grave mistake,” said the letter.

The name of the coalition itself shows that the attorneys general “have taken the unusual step of aligning themselves with the competition of their investigative targets,” namely the solar and wind energy.

“If the focus is fraud, such alignment by law enforcement sends the dangerous signal that companies in certain segments of the energy market need not worry about their misrepresentations,” said the GOP letter.

Schneiderman spokesman Eric Soufer insisted in a statement that “the law is clear: the First Amendment does not give any corporation the right to commit fraud.”

We are going to take care of the troops, first, last and all the time’ – George Marshall, 1940

Really?! General Marshall must be spinning in his grave.

You might be wondering why an article about Memorial Day is nearly 2 weeks after the actual day of commemoration, and why I will use it to talk about veterans. Simply put, if we want to honor the dead, let’s take care of the men and women in uniform they died for. I can picture the ghosts of deceased military – brave men and women who died in battle – floating above, and crying for their battlefield buddies who survived, because too many of these veterans sleep under bridges, and pan-handle on our street corners. Whether because of undiagnosed or undertreated psychiatric disorders – battlefield related or not – or economic reasons, too many of our former servicemen and women are marginalized. That needs to stop.

To be sure many community charities are trying to fill the gaps, and provide outreach to struggling vets. But it is a patchwork of efforts – sincere, sometimes effective, but not comprehensive enough.

Most countries have some form of commemoration for those who wore the uniform, especially those who died for their nation. Not that the media are doing much to honor the dead. But Memorial Day should also put into specific relief a sobering notion that we have active duty who can die in the next battle, and veterans who will die – not from an enemy’s bullet but on a street, homeless, hungry, alone, or sick and waiting for promised medical care from a system designed to provide for the military continues to fail.

On behalf of a grateful nation…but are we?

I shudder to think homelessness, untreated illness, or vets abandoned after being wounded is our nation’s expression of “gratitude,” or commemorating the sacrifice of survivors. Not exactly the stuff of a grateful nation.

The security of a nation rests upon the shoulders of men and women in uniform – and that security comes with a price…including blood. Memorial Day reminds us of that ultimate sacrifice made for our country. Veteran’s Day celebrates those who served, and by extension, those still in uniform; a day often overlooked by society beyond being a great time to buy a car. Neither Veteran’s Day nor Memorial Day seems sufficient. Critically important infrastructure changes are needed to provide for those who serve.

Often tempted to opine if the military voted Democrat instead of mostly Republican, would the administration treat our people in uniform better? Like maybe as well as the entitlement folks? Truth be told, neither party has distinguished itself in the service of our military’s needs.

From a must-read article on the FBI’s Orlando Intel failure by Pamela Geller:

Under Obama, the Department of Homeland Security was prohibited from using words like jihad and sharia. Instead, according to the Daily Caller:

One of the sitting members on the Homeland Security Advisory Council’s (HSAC) Subcommittee on Countering Violent Extremism is a 25-year-old immigrant of Syrian heritage who said that the 9/11 attacks “changed the world for good” and has consistently disparaged America, free speech and white people on social media. Laila Alawa was one of just 15 people tapped to serve on the newly-formed HSAC Subcommittee on Countering Violent Extremism in 2015 — the same year she became an American citizen.

The result?

The subcommittee Alawa serves on instructed the DHS to begin “using American English instead of religious, legal and cultural terms like ‘jihad,’ ‘sharia,’ ‘takfir’ or ‘umma’” when discussing terrorism in order to avoid offending Muslims.

Not only did this Syrian immigrant cheer 9/11; in April 2013 she told me to “go f–k yourself” after I called the Boston bombing jihad. This is who Obama assigns to keep us safe. Who is going to keep us safe from this woman? And she is not alone: another Homeland Security Advisor, Salam al-Marayati, has said that the U.S. is doing Israel’s “dirty work” and blamed Israel for the 9/11 attacks. Salam al-Marayati defends terrorist acts and the groups who carry them out.

With the recent release of another exhaustive report by the National Academies of Sciences attesting to the safety of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, it is time for the food industry and advocates of genetically engineered crops to stand up for their products and put a label on them.

This could be the best way to make consumers confront their irrational fears, to stamp out public ignorance and to save an important technology that is too easily demonized by companies—like Whole Foods and Chipotle—that exploit consumer ignorance to seek competitive advantage in the marketplace.

Despite the scientific evidence, polls continue to show that most Americans fear that GMOs may harm their health. A 2015 report by the Pew Research Center, for instance, found that 57% of American adults think GMOs are generally unsafe whereas 88% of scientists think they are generally safe.

Statistics like these scare farmers and food manufacturers who have opposed mandatory GMO labeling laws like the one soon to be implemented in Vermont. Some have even pre-emptively pulled products from grocery shelves or replaced GMO ingredients.

But food producers may be more worried than they need to be. Studies that indicate popular aversion to GMOs do so in highly stylized experimental settings that highlight GMO attributes and do not resemble typical grocery shopping experiences. They reveal consumers to be poorly informed about the foods they eat and to have inconsistent preferences that vary depending upon how studies are conducted.

For instance, 90% of Americans want GMOs labeled if that question is posed to them, according to a 2013 survey by Rutgers University. But when researchers ask them to list the food characteristics they want labeled, only 7% name GMOs. And a 2015 survey by Oklahoma State University found that 80% of respondents would require labels on foods containing DNA—even though all foods contain DNA. CONTINUE AT SITE

It’s a leap year, which means it’s even more important than usual for the Obama administration to deny the threat of Islamic terrorism. In September 2012, it fell to Susan Rice, then ambassador to the U.N., to make the rounds on the Sunday-morning talk shows and peddle the falsehood that the attack at Benghazi, Libya, was just a high-spirited reaction to an amateur video.

Yesterday—a week after the biggest terror attack on American soil since 9/11—the Rice role fell to Attorney General Loretta Lynch. This time, the administration didn’t even bother pretending it was going to tell the truth.

Here’s the transcript, from NBC’s “Meet the Press”:

Lynch: What we’re announcing tomorrow is that the FBI is releasing a partial transcript of the killer’s calls with law enforcement, from inside the club. These are the calls with the Orlando PD negotiating team, who he was, where he was . . . that will be coming out tomorrow and I’ll be headed to Orlando on Tuesday.

Host Chuck Todd: Including the hostage negotiation part of this?

Lynch: Yes, it will be primarily a partial transcript of his calls with the hostage negotiators.

Todd: You say partial, what’s being left out?

Lynch: What we’re not going to do is further proclaim this man’s pledges of allegiance to terrorist groups, and further his propaganda.

Todd: We’re not going to hear him talk about those things?

Lynch: We will hear him talk about some of those things, but we are not going to hear him make his assertions of allegiance and that. It will not be audio, it will be a printed transcript. But it will begin to capture the back and forth between him and the negotiators, we’re trying to get as much information about this investigation out as possible. As you know, because the killer is dead, we have a bit more leeway there and we will be producing that information tomorrow.

Michael Del Moro, who worked alternately at the Obama White House and ABC News (and is currently with the latter), tweeted the transcript as released this morning by authorities (which we are quoting verbatim, including the bracketed portions):

To stop future terrorist attacks, we need solutions from all sides: better security and surveillance at home, a vigorous fight abroad and the support of Muslim moderates everywhere

The massacre at a gay nightclub in Orlando—the worst act of terrorism on American soil since the attacks of 9/11—had barely ended when the debate over its significance began. As usual, the political class divided into competing camps, with liberals predictably claiming that the real issue is gun control and conservatives just as predictably claiming that the real issue is radical Islam. There wasn’t even agreement over whether this was a hate crime or an act of terrorism. (Why couldn’t it be both?)

Faced with the cacophony of competing sound bites, it is tempting to throw one’s hands up in despair and simply bemoan the debased state of political discourse. But we don’t have that luxury, because terrorism remains a real and growing danger. So how should we combat it? By adopting the best ideas from the left and the right on how to improve security at home and by going after terrorists abroad. In dealing with such a complex threat, no part of the political spectrum has a monopoly on the truth.

Start with domestic security. The state of our homeland defenses has improved since 9/11, thanks to greater awareness of the terrorist threat, greater resources devoted to stopping it and greater cooperation among law enforcement and intelligence agencies. But it is hard to stop a violent fanatic from walking into a nightclub and opening fire—and always will be.

The fact that there are more than 300 million firearms in private hands in the U.S. compounds the danger, because it means that anyone with a grudge can acquire the means to commit mass murder. Terrorists are aware of this vulnerability and seek to exploit it. As the American-born al Qaeda spokesman Adam Gadahn said in a 2011 video, “America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms. You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle without a background check and most likely without having to show an identification card. So what are you waiting for?” (You can’t buy a fully automatic weapon, but otherwise he was correct.)

Omar Mateen did not wait. Possibly inspired by a recent message from Islamic State urging its followers to turn Ramadan into “a month of suffering,” he marched into the Pulse nightclub and opened fire. The fact that he was able to work as a licensed security guard and to legally purchase firearms, despite having been investigated twice by the FBI for potential terrorist ties, suggests a fundamental breakdown in our safeguards.

There is no reason why the American public should be able to purchase military-style semiautomatic weapons such as the AR-15, which has become a favorite of mass shooters. As retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal, one of the leaders of a new veterans’ group for gun control, notes, the purpose of the AR-15 is to kill a great many people as quickly as possible. It is also important to ban high-capacity magazines, which allow a killer to keep killing without reloading. Mateen used a Sig Sauer MCX semiautomatic rifle (similar to the AR-15) with a 30-round magazine.

Even if bans on assault weapons and high capacity magazines aren’t politically possible, Congress should, at a minimum, prevent suspects on terrorism watch lists from purchasing firearms legally—something that they were able to do 223 times in 2015, according to the Government Accountability Office. (Only one transaction in 10 was denied.)CONTINUE AT SITE