Just What Is It With These Speakers Of The House?

Just what is it about being a “Speaker” that causes some people to lose control, get in trouble, or otherwise cause controversies?

This past week, House Speaker John Boehner announced his resignation not just from the speakership, but from the U.S. House of Representatives entirely. (Thank God.) Boehner is now known for his autocratic crackdown on Tea Party dissent. And his many crying fits. And his alleged alcoholism. (Yeah, but what congressman isn’t a drunk, a drug-addict, or a womanizer, or all of the above)? And now he’s leaving. One hopes ALL these jerks will follow him out the door, and not be replaced!

Before Speaker Boehner, there was Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who said about the Affordable Care Act: “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what’s in it.” Pelosi also complained about “disparity in our country of income, where the wealthy people continue to get wealthier,” while she herself is part of the 0.1 percent. Of all the nerve, Nancy!

And then there was Speaker Dennis Hastert, under whose speakership earmarks (a.k.a. “pork”) increased like crazy, and especially to benefit himself. And while this year he has been indicted for the non-crime of withdrawing money from his own bank account, such withdrawals were allegedly to pay “hush money” to an alleged accuser of alleged sexual abuse while Hastert was a school teacher.

What is it with these people?!

And then there was Speaker Newt Gingrich: his House reprimand and $300,000 fine for ethics violations; his bogus “Contract With America”; his marriages, affairs and divorces (or vice versa); and his anti-freedom ignorance. Yes, he was “Mr. Speaker,” but certainly not “Mr. Brilliant.”

I can’t go any further back than that; my head is spinning.

Speaking of “Speakers,” you won’t believe just how bad it is with “Speakers” in Massachusetts.

Former Speaker Sal DiMasi was put on trial in 2011 for a kickback scheme to “line his own pockets,” and found guilty of conspiracy, fraud and extortion. That was after the previous Speaker, the retroactively disbarred Thomas Finneran, pleaded guilty in 2007 for felony obstruction of justice to avoid jail time in a redistricting case. Finneran then went on to be a radio talk show host, where he was known by other WRKO hosts and listeners as “Felon Finneran,” or just “The Felon.” Finneran is now a lobbyist, in Rhode Island. I’m shocked. And before Speaker Finneran was the previous Speaker, Charlie Flaherty, who pleaded guilty in 1996 to felony tax evasion and violating conflict of interest laws.

That’s three felon Massachusetts Speakers in a row, folks. Can any other state beat that?

The current Massachusetts Speaker of the House, Bob DeLeo, had a close brush with corruption exposure at last year’s trial of a former probation commissioner; but DeLeo wasn’t charged with anything despite questionable ties. He wasn’t even called as a witness, even though he probably should have been. And now, his fellow hacks at the State House want to help him to extend his time as Speaker by repealing Speaker term limits despite his earlier promise to quit at the end of his legal term limit. (Heh, that’s a new one.)

Poor Speaker Bob DeLeo recently had gastric sleeve weight loss surgery. I hope that helps. Coincidentally, previous to Speaker Flaherty was the 400-pound Speaker George Keverian, who had gastric bypass surgery in 2002, which did help him. He died a few years later, in 2009. During the 1980s and ’90s, when Speaker Keverian weighed 400 lbs, Howie Carr would refer to “George Keverian (D-Papa Gino’s)” in his Boston Herald columns. And he still does, apparently. But now, the formerly donut-munching Howie Carr himself also had gastric sleeve surgery for weight loss. That’s really catching on.

Anyway, whoever replaces Speaker John Boehner will be either a drunk, a crybaby, a fatso, corrupt, or all of the above. (Unless they draft Ron Paul, of course.)

This commentary originally appeared at Scott’s blog

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

Hillary Clinton Email Scandal – But What About Romney’s Scandal That Wasn’t?

The Hillary Clinton email controversy has been in the news a little, but there are still plenty millions of people out there who will still vote for her. But why is all this attention being paid to Hillary Clinton’s possible cover-ups of things? No one made any fuss over Willard Romney’s similar (or perhaps worse or more blatant acts) of cover-up. According to Reuters, when he was just leaving office as governor of Massachusetts, Romney’s staff spent nearly $100,000 to hide records.

Mitt Romney spent nearly $100,000 in state funds to replace computers in his office at the end of his term as governor of Massachusetts in 2007 as part of an unprecedented effort to keep his records secret, Reuters has learned.

When Romney left the governorship of Massachusetts, 11 of his aides bought the hard drives of their state-issued computers to keep for themselves. Also before he left office, the governor’s staff had emails and other electronic communications by Romney’s administration wiped from state servers, state officials say.

Those actions erased much of the internal documentation of Romney’s four-year tenure as governor, which ended in January 2007. Precisely what information was erased is unclear.

Well, duh. I wonder how much crony corruption we would have seen during their development of “RomneyCare,” the Massachusetts version of what was to become CronyCare ObamaCare, in all the emails that were erased, and the hard drives either destroyed or taken. If there wasn’t evidence of corruption, illegalities and ethics violations, then why was it so important to cover things up and destroy the material (which may very well have been evidence of criminality)? Who the hell does that? With the exception of Watergate and some other smaller scandals in the news since then, I haven’t really heard of a governor engaged in what appears to be sneaky shenanigans of cover-up.

And why didn’t the media and political opponents pay any attention to that story? Am I way off? But Hillary Clinton is in the hot seat for possibly compromising “classified” information and “national security.” (Even though what really compromised national security was the idiots in Washington provoking foreigners by starting wars of aggression against countries that were of no threat to us, the U.S. bureaucrats imposing deadly sanctions, and firing drone bombs and continuing to murder even more innocents.)

There is talk of Romney running for President and losing a third time, and also talk of a possible third-party Romney run. How sick is that? The Establishment neanderthals hate Trump so much that they would do that! I can just imagine how the 2012 election might have been had Romney not stolen the Republican nomination away from Ron Paul. That is how corrupt, power-hungry politicians and their little minions operate. Deleting and shredding stuff, doing the “public’s” business behind closed doors, stealing elections.

This commentary originally appeared at Scott’s blog

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

Unbelievable: Alarmists Want Skeptics Prosecuted Under RICO

They haven’t employed the thumb screws, rack or auto-da-fe that churches and states once used to interrogate, silence and eliminate heretics and witches. However, global warming alarmists are well practiced in the modern equivalents, to protect their $1.5-trillion Climate Crisis Industry.

They see only what they want to see, and publicize only what they want us to see. They refuse to debate anyone who questions the nature, severity or reality of “manmade climate change dangers” that are the foundation of their demands that we slash fossil fuel use, lower our living standards, and accept global government planning of economies and massive climate “adaptation and reparation” payments.

They collude to hide and manipulate data, and employ computer models that make the Little Ice Age disappear and global temperatures climb rapidly after 1950. They pressure editors to keep contrarian papers out of scientific journals, and present false claims that 97% of scientists agree that humans are causing dangerous climate change. They take billions from government agencies whose policies and regulations they promote. They blindly ignore the serious adverse effects that their policies have on blue-collar families and the world’s poor. Imbued with religious zeal, now they’re really ramping it up.

Led by Jagadish Shukla and four associates at his George Mason University-based Institute of Global Environment and Society, NCAR researcher Kevin Trenberth and 14 little-known “climate scientists” joined in signing anastounding letter that shows how far they will go to defend their turf and cause.

It asks President Obama, Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Obama science advisor John Holdren to investigate “organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change,” under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act.

The letter claims the organizations’ actions “have been extensively documented,” and their “misdeeds” must be “stopped as soon as possible,” so that the world can “restabilize the Earth’s climate, before even more lasting damage is done” to human health, agriculture, biodiversity and the world’s poorest people.

The letter’s ironies, fallacies and falsehoods are almost too numerous to recount.

First, the attack on skeptic scientists was launched from a university named for George Mason, the patriot who wrote the original Virginia version of our Bill of Rights. They include freedom of speech, association, assembly, petitioning our government, and not having livelihoods and other property unreasonably seized. Sadly, it reflects the appalling state of “academic freedom” on too many campuses, which today celebrate every kind of diversity except diversity of opinion.

Second, this action is a blatant effort to (a) coerce, intimidate, slander and silence scientists and organizations that question human-caused climate dangers; (b) forcibly shut down skeptic research, funding, speech and publication; (c) destroy skeptics’ funding, businesses and livelihoods; (d) protect alarmist funding, standing and influence; and (e) bankrupt skeptics, who would have to spend personal fortunes responding to RICO charges and a Justice Department that has limitless resources at its disposal.

Third, the RICO-20 signed their names as members of university faculties and government agencies – suggesting that they represent their organizations and/or these organizations endorse their efforts. If that is the case, it represents another blatant double standard – and a tacit endorsement of the RICO agenda.

Will those institutions now demand that the RICO-20 remove any mention of their affiliations? Will they step forward to vigorously defend academic freedom, constitutional rights, and a scientific method that is severely undermined by this letter and other toxic battles over manmade climate cataclysm claims?

Fourth, RICO is used to prosecute underlying patterns or practices of criminal behavior. This letter may constitute just “acting out.” But whether it represents a pattern of alarmist parties illegally engaging in items (a) through (e) above by calling for criminal prosecution of climate skeptics – or whether opposing the ideological and political campaign for the anti-fossil fuel climate agenda constitutes the required “criminal enterprise” – remains unanswered.

In any event, the “misdeeds” alluded to in the RICO-20 letter are studies, reports and discussions that contradict alarmist allegations and what skeptics charge are exaggerations, fabrications and computer model failures that underlie those claims. This extensive library of challenges to the climate chaos thesis includes peer-reviewed NIPCC Climate Change Reconsidered reports, international climate skeptic conferences, and numerous articles, op-eds, interviews and briefings. They clearly undermine climate chaos theory, but they are protected free speech and reflect honest, replicable science.

This raises the fifth point, that “racketeering” means conducting a “racket.” The term is commonly understood to mean fraudulently offering to solve a problem, because the problem does not actually exist and/or the proffered “solution” would do nothing to solve the problem. Many would say this definition accurately describes the Climate Crisis Industry.

Climate change has been “real” throughout Earth and human history. Driven by powerful natural forces that we do not yet understand and certainly cannot control, it has ranged from gradual to sudden, from beneficial to harmful or even devastating. Contrary to alarmist assertions and computer models, there is still no observational evidence that what we are experiencing today: is different from what our ancestors confronted; is now driven by plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide instead of by the natural forces of yore; or could be prevented or controlled by ending fossil fuel use and dramatically lowering our living standards.

In fact, the notion that we can “restabilize” an unstable and frequently fluctuating planetary climate is ludicrous. So is any claim that carbon-based fuels are superfluous or readily dispensable – or that they are more damaging to human health, agriculture, biodiversity and the world’s poorest people than eliminating those fuels and relying on expensive, land-intensive, unreliable wind, solar and biofuel “substitutes.”

Equally doubtful is any suggestion that the IGES/COLA (Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Studies) can understand or predict Earth’s ongoing climate variations by focusing on carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, and ignoring the solar, cosmic, oceanic and other natural forces that govern climate.

However, IGES/COLA derived 99.6% of its 2014 funding ($3.8 million in taxpayer money) from NASA, NOAA and the National Science Foundation, according to IRS Form 990 and other documents. Under the Obama Administration, those agencies have been almost completely co-opted by the alarmist climate agenda – and would likely terminate funding for any organization that expressed doubts about CO2, reduced its focus on greenhouse gases, or reengineered its climate models to reflect the full panoply of natural forces and thereby better assure accurate monsoon and climate forecasting.

Indeed, the latest Form 990 reveals that Dr. Shukla and his wife received salaries and other compensation totaling $499,145 in 2014 from their tax-exempt research organization. Dr. Shukla worked there only part-time, and his $333,048 compensation package “was presumably on top of his $250,866-per-year [George Mason] academic salary.” That totals $750,000 a year to the RICO-20 leader and his family “from public money for climate work & going after skeptics,” Professor Roger Pielke, Jr. wrote.

The ultimate irony would be an evenhanded investigation that exonerates the skeptic organizations that the RICO-20 want investigated – and results in charges against multiple corporations and organizations (and government agencies?) that engaged in collusion, data manipulation, junk modeling and other deceitful climate research practices that have been highlighted over the years.

The Internal Revenue Service’s targeting of conservative groups could well be what inspired the now fashionable idea of using the Justice Department to prosecute political opponents. The failure of the IRS and DOJ to penalize any of the perpetrators in those cases suggests that prosecution of alarmist fraud or racketeering is highly unlikely under the current administration.

However, the new 2017 administration could take a very different position. At the very least, a new Congress and Executive Branch could derail the climate alarm money train, initiate robust (and long overdue) debate on climate science and models, provide equal funding to skeptics, and end the alarmism. Potential sauce for the gander should make Dr. Shukla and fellow alarmists think twice about their tactic.

This RICO travesty shows how desperate alarmists have become. They are losing the climate science fight. Their models are increasingly contradicted by reality. Their ad hominem attacks will ultimately fail.

They also face major odds in Paris, where they may get a toothless treaty that makes empty promises to redistribute hundreds of billions of dollars from Formerly Rich Countries whose energy use and economic growth are hobbled – but places no binding emission targets on poor countries that will keep developing, burning coal and sending atmospheric carbon dioxide levels ever higher … with no effect on the climate.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death, and coauthor of Cracking Big Green: Saving the world from the Save-the-Earth money machine.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

Exposed: The Establishment’s 2016 Election Strategy

The main objective of the political-media establishment and, in particular, Barack Obama is to prevent any post-election investigation of the rampant corruption in Washington DC.

Both the Democrats and the Republicans want to maintain their standing as permanent political elites, whereby they may continue to treat ordinary Americans as indentured servants and broker the tax revenues for the benefit of themselves and their wealthy donors.

It is clear that the Obamas and Valerie “Rasputin” Jarrett hate the Clintons and do not want to risk “payback time” from a vindictive and ruthless President Hillary.

The Obama strategy is to stretch out the homebrew server scandal to undermine Hillary’s campaign through a death by a thousand cuts. It has to be delicate surgery, something short of indictment and trial–which would likely implicate him–and something that would prevent retaliation from the Clinton camp, perhaps leaks of the Muslim or birther variety that we witnessed from them during the 2008 primary season.

Barack Obama has been secretly searching for a challenger to replace Hillary and is ready to endorse Vice President Joe Biden. But that backing comes with a price – Obama would select his running mate. The Obamas want a high-powered African American who can carry on the Obama legacy, and that choice is likely to be former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick. In such a scenario, Biden would agree to not run for re-election, paving the way for a Patrick presidency.

Equally eager to avoid any corruption investigations, the Republican establishment has selected Jeb Bush, the candidate most likely to continue business as usual and not raise any embarrassing questions.

Jeb’s poll numbers are so anemic, however–an anticipated maximum of 15-20%–that the Republican establishment had to devise a plan that would keep Jeb afloat and gain enough primary victories in the key states to ensure his nomination. By splitting the vote amongst a number of other establishment candidates, the “Jebettes,” enough votes would be drawn away from any significant challenger. Ballooning the field with a large number of candidates has been a deliberate strategy, whereby Jeb could win–not by gaining support, but by fracturing his opponents’ support. The original cast of “Jebettes” was Graham (South Carolina), Kasich (Ohio), Perry (Texas) and Rubio (Florida), with further insurance policies in Virginia (Gilmore) and New York (Pataki).

Unfortunately for the Republican establishment, Donald Trump transformed their grand strategy into a bridge to nowhere. And that is why they are so aggressively trying to get him out of the race, lately by leveraging the fluctuating popularity of Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina as a counterforce to Trump.

The Republican establishment is composed of financiers, like Wall Street, banking interests, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and K-Street Lobbyists, who pay the Republican National Committee (RNC) and derive benefit from the policies created in Washington DC.  It is all part of a machine that tells Republican politicians what to do; the RNC is the Board of Directors, John Boehner and Mitch McConnell are the managers, and the politicians are the employees.

The possibility of a President Trump upsets that cozy financial arrangement, where, like the Democrats, they would like to continue plundering the economy and bleeding white the American Middle Class.

The Republican establishment knows that it cannot control Trump, who may decide that investigations and prosecutions are in order, a possibility that strikes fear in the hearts of all the current holders of government-supplied and guaranteed “Get Out of Jail Free” cards.

The financiers, who every four years hire a President, are generally ambivalent about party affiliation and would be equally pleased from a cost-effectiveness standpoint with either a Hillary or Jeb presidency because they are really only distinguishable by a Y chromosome, whichever one of them has it.

Post-election, the Democrats will continue the relentless movement to the left; highlighted by their tribal politics, profligate spending and political correctness, all practiced until our economy matches that of Venezuela, the southwest is returned to Mexico, beheadings are declared a legitimate Muslim response to any perceived grievance, abortion is made mandatory, and a pedophile is appointed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The Democrat dream is not a country, but a collection of simultaneous arguments, where all we have in common as Americans are our differences.

Regardless of who wins, the Republicans will simply follow the Democrats leftward, attempting to match their racial, ethnic, gender and Muslim pandering in the desperate hope that they can scrape together enough votes to maintain their position as the junior partner in a corrupt status quo.

Then again, a courageous outsider may win and expose the whole stinking mess.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by WesternJournalism.com.

Clinton Campaign Caught In Either Massive Coincidence Or Blatant Breaking Of Law

From all appearances, senior staff members from the Clinton campaign and from a super PAC supporting her candidacy worked together in their messaging regarding the candidate’s ongoing email controversy. The only problem is that federal election laws forbid candidate campaigns and PACs from “coordinating.”

During Hillary Clinton’s appearance on Meet the Press on Sunday, campaign senior adviser and spokeswoman Karen Finney tweeted at 10:16 a.m.:

Less than 20 minutes later, Brad Woodhouse, the head of the pro-Clinton super PAC Correct the Record, tweeted the exact same thing:

The identical messaging did not stop with those two. Democrat strategist Hilary Rosen chimed in…

…as did Former Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm:

Breitbart reports:

The Clinton campaign recently claimed that it can coordinate somewhat, within the law, with Correct the Record when it comes to Internet postings. The Clinton camp thinks that it can comment on Correct the Record’s online content, such as its videos, without being guilty of illegal coordination. But the FEC has still yet to confirm that. And can the campaign and the super PAC literally use the same exact talking point, seemingly copied and pasted from one Twitter account to another?

During the course of the interview, Clinton seemed to contradict the messaging by agreeing with host Chuck Todd that the story is ongoing. “It is like a drip, drip, drip,” she said, adding, “I want these questions to be answered.”

By federal court order, the State Department is required to review and release emails monthly that are responsive to multiple FOIA lawsuits by Judicial Watch. The next batch is due to be released this Wednesday.

Clinton also told Todd, despite previous assurances to the contrary, that she cannot personally guarantee all of her work-related emails have been turned over to the State Department.

“I’m very sure that my attorneys did the most meticulous job that could have been done,” she said.

When the host questioned her about the recently released emails between herself and Gen. David Petraeus that were not previously turned over to the State Department, she admitted: “There was a transition period. I wasn’t that focused on my email account.”

She also could not guarantee that the FBI would not recover emails from her server that might raise more questions.

h/t: Mediaite.com