Is Fox News About To Be Challenged By A New Conservative Network?

oped: Yay I have suggested this several times over the last 5 years...I have never thought FoxNews was a truly conservative network...more akin to a fence sitter leaning slightly right...however this year it appears as though the saddle strap broke and Fox News followed MSM far left! We on the right truly need a conservative network we don't need fair and balanced in the old school way...we need fair and balanced the new school way...at least one truly conservative network to balance the decades long MSM far left network which has now gained FoxNews as a ally! 
Having said that, may I suggest calling it BBQB News...like bbq and beer news...feeding a starving conservative nation Burgers,dogs and Beer...'To die for' Works for me what say y'all? 
 





By Andrew West 

Fox News has had an interesting few months, with massive lineup changes and lawsuits dominating their landscape.

With the losses of on-air personalities Megyn Kelly and Bill O’Reilly in recent months, and bigwig Roger Ailes being ousted after allegations of sexual harassment surfaced surrounding him, the network has seen better days.  While still dominating the cable lineup in terms of ratings, there is no denying that Fox News is rapidly evolving, and soon the network may not be able to recognize itself.

Now, given the smattering of conservative opinions that are gaining momentum in America, and the perceived fracturing of Fox, the conditions could be just right for a challenger to the cable news throne…and that is exactly what one group of so-called “fat cats” are counting on.

“Media industry website Mediaite reported Friday that ‘conservative fat cats’ are considering the formation of a new conservative media outlet.
“According to Mediaite’s report, the pace of the ‘serious discussions’ has been picking up in the wake of rumors suggesting additional changes are in store at Fox News. A source reportedly told Mediaite that ‘two prominent high-powered television executives, some underperforming conservative networks and people who have an interest and the ability to fund a new network’ are meeting Friday to discuss creating a rival to Fox News.
“The group is concerned that Fox News is moving too far left and that an alternative to the conservative media powerhouse would be well received by audiences angry with the television network’s new direction.

“On Thursday, Gabriel Sherman of New York Magazine reported a ‘management shake-up’ could be in the works at Fox News. Sources close to Bill Shine, co-president at Fox News, told New York Magazine that James Murdoch, the news network’s CEO, and Lachlan Murdoch, the co-chairman, were unwilling to issue a statement backing Shine after Shine requested the Murdochs provide a public show of support.”
Only time will tell if Fox can get out of their current funk with their most prominent staff intact.  Should a rival network appear on the horizon, it will certainly make for an interesting dynamic in cable news, with liberal networks such as CNN and MSNBC possibly falling into complete obscurity.

If There’s Going to Be a Government Shutdown, Do It for a Good Reason

 oped: Yes Indeed Paul Ryan and Chuck Schumer are in fact butt buddies who always use the excuse "Government Shutdown" to not act on needed bills always kick the proverbial can down the road~over and over again...don't know about y'all but I for one am sick and tired of the Ryan/Schumer tip toe through the tulips song!  It's all BS! it only shuts down non essential  agencies. HELLO








by Dan Mitchell 
I’m normally a big fan of shutting down the government and I’ve tried to convince timid lawmakers that shutdown fights can be worthwhile.
I wrote a day-by-day analysis of new reports during the big shutdown fight that took place in the Clinton years and showed that there was no downside for Republicans.

• 
  
• I also vigorously defended Ted Cruz and others who tried to kill Obamacare as part of the 2013 shutdown battle, and later explained that there was no damage for the GOP.

The bottom line is that nothing really bad happens when there’s a shutdown (notwithstanding petty efforts by bureaucrats) for the simple reasons that only “non-essential” parts of the bureaucracy actually get closed. In other words, a government shutdown in all cases is simply a partial shutdown.

And since I don’t favor any funding of non-essential functions, I view a partial shutdown as a good start. Indeed, while the various interest groups in DC hyperventilate about supposed disaster, I experience a feeling of joy and serenity (as illustrated by this modified cartoon, which originally was altered to show my reaction to sequestration).
As far as I’m concerned, the key lesson from shutdown fights is that our nation will be better off if bureaucracies such as the Department of Housing and Urban Development or Department of Educationare permanently shuttered. And let’s add the Department of Energy, Department of Transportation, and Department of Agriculture just for the fun of it.

These entities shouldn’t get short-run funding or long-run funding.
That’s the point I made in the second half of this recent interview on Fox Business.
I’m not the only person who likes the idea of a partial shutdown.
Writing for the Resurgent, Erick Erickson explains how a shutdown fight would be valuable.

Americans need to be reminded that the world will not end if the government shuts down. They need to be reminded to take care of themselves instead of relying on Uncle Sam’s teet. A government shutdown with the GOP in charge would be a far different thing from a government shutdown run by Democrats. President Obama tried to inflict maximum pain on the American people to force the GOP to reopen government. President Trump, instead, could take a different approach and use the experience to show Americans how out of control government has really gotten.

And Larry Kudlow had a similar message in a column for National Review back in 2015.

…sometimes you have to make a point. Send a message. Show voters what you really believe. Take a stand. …Most of the Beltway media will blame Republicans. Democrats will blame Republicans. And GOP pundits will blame Republicans. Political death, they will say. Really? …during the Reagan-O’Neill era, most of the shutdowns were budget focused. Reagan wanted less spending; the Democrats wanted more. …The Reagan-O’Neill-era shutdowns were short, and in most of them Reagan prevailed. Meanwhile, the Reagan recovery flourished, the Republicans held the Senate (until 1986), and the Gipper was reelected in a landslide in 1984. Going back to the Obamacare-related shutdown of 2013, a bit more than a year later the Republicans swept the Senate and gained an even larger majority in the House. …shutdowns are a cumbersome way to make a point. …But perhaps Republican leadership in both Houses might think of this: There are too many deals and not enough principles, beliefs, and clear messaging. 

Having now provided all this evidence in favor of government shutdowns, you would think I’m excited about the possibility that there will be a partial shutdown this Saturday when a temporary funding bill expires.
Unfortunately, that’s not the case. I view shutdown as a means to an end. I want those fights to occur in hopes that there will be reforms that shrink the overall burden of government spending.

In this case, though, the shutdown fight largely revolves around President Trump’s request for money to build part of a wall between Mexico and the United States. Some people think that’s a good idea and others think it’s a bad idea, but the one thing I can say with certainty is that it’s not a money-saving idea. Even if Trump wanted to finance the wall by reducing outlays in other parts of the budget, the net result would not be smaller government.
The bottom line is that even though I almost always cheer for a government shutdown, I’ll be sitting on the sidelines for this fight.
But if Trump and congressional Republicans at some point decide to fight for much-needed spending restraint (a naive hope, I realize), then I’ll be the first to cheer if that battle leads to a shutdown.

P.S. My favorite bit of shutdown humor is at the bottom of this post, and other examples of shutdown-related humor can be enjoyed by clicking here, here, here, here, and here.

 

The Left-Wing Takeover of Fox News

by: Cliff Kincaid 

When Bill O’Reilly left Fox News he declared, “I am very confident the truth will come out and when it does I don’t know if you are going to be surprised, but I think you are going to be shaken as I am.” Some observers think he was referring not to the sexual harassment allegations against him, but to behind-the-scenes maneuvers by one of Rupert Murdoch’s sons, James, and his very liberal wife, Kathryn. Her bio says, “Between 2007-2011, Ms. Murdoch served as Director of Strategy & Communications for the Clinton Climate Initiative (CCI) where she also managed CCI ‘s partnership with Microsoft in the development of a global greenhouse gas emissions tracking software.”
In short, she is a globalist insider who sees the green hysteria as a viable way to control people and their lifestyles.
We warned back in 2007 in our column, “Rupert Murdoch Picks Liberal Son as Successor,” that James Murdoch was maneuvering to take control of Fox News. We also noted that James Murdoch “buys into global warming hysteria,” and that his liberal philosophy on environmental and other matters “could become the party line” of the Fox News Channel.

It turns out that his wife is more of an environmental zealot than he is.
Accuracy in Media had attended the annual meeting of the Fox News parent company, raising concern about James Murdoch’s increasing influence in the company and his attacks on conservative groups, such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). He wrote an article for the Guardian attacking CEI for dispensing “inaccurate propaganda” about the global warming issue.
Of course, many conservatives regard the theory of man-made global warming as a hoax and a means by which government at many levels hopes to control, regulate and tax the use of natural resources.
Referring to the alleged effects of global warming, now called climate change, James Murdoch said, “We can have an enormous impact if we encourage our customers to make simple, effective changes in their lifestyles.”
That’s easy for James and Kathryn Murdoch to say; he is the heir to a multi-billion dollar fortune. “The Murdoch fortune now stands at around $14 billion,” noted the publication Inside Philanthropy in 2015. “Because Rupert seems to have zero interest in harnessing this wealth to philanthropy, that challenge will fall to his kids.” 




One of the “focus areas” of the Murdochs’ Quadrivium Foundation is “natural resources.” But rather than exploit them for the good of humanity, the foundation supports “innovation” in their use. This is code, as James Murdoch suggested in his Guardian article, for restricting the economic lifestyle choices of consumers.
A link from their foundation directs people to the webpage of the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) and an advertisement denouncing President Trump for “failing the environment.” Page 25 of the EDF annual report lists “Kathryn Murdoch, President, Quadrivium Foundation,” as a member of the Board of Directors. “At the end of fiscal 2016,” the report states, “EDF’s net assets stood at $217 million, providing a strong financial foundation as we pursue our ambitious environmental goals.”
With the Murdoch billions behind them, those “goals,” which include what the United Nations calls a new “economic development model” to replace global capitalism, could become a reality.
That was the goal, at least, until Donald Trump became president and, as AIM’s Roger Aronoff recently noted, indicated his determination to confront the global “climate change agenda.”

 

The Gateway Pundit website notes that Kathryn Murdoch regularly trashes Trump on Twitter. Indeed, her Twitter feed goes after many different conservative personalities and policies of all kinds. A collection of her most significant Tweets includes attacks on Trump aide Steve Bannon, and despondency over Trump’s election victory. On the other hand, she praised Fox News personality Shepard Smith for criticizing Trump.
Her Tweets have included messages such as:

• A vote for Trump is a vote for climate catastrophe.
• Can we impeach a candidate? Seriously.
• Happy to see this on Fox News. The final argument for Hillary Clinton, based on 3 indisputable facts.

The latter was a reference to a Lanny Davis pro-Hillary article on the Fox News website.
When her husband and his brother Lachlan move to the left, she is quick to retweet those comments, such as when they sent a letter declaring, “We deeply value diversity and believe immigration an essential part of America’s strength.” The letter was intended as a rebuff to President Trump’s effort to restrict the entry into the U.S. of illegal aliens and Islamic terrorists.

 

Despite the Murdochs’ disdain for the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and the likelihood that the group will receive less and less coverage from Fox News, its staffers are demonstrating significant clout with the new Trump administration. In regard to Trump’s promise during the campaign to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, The Washington Times reports that Trump’s top advisers have received a unique proposal from CEI, arguing that the agreement be declared a treaty and sent to the Senate to be killed.
CEI’s interesting proposal would rectify former President Obama’s unconstitutional decision to make the Paris accord into an executive agreement, without the need for Congressional input or approval. By declaring it to be a treaty and sending it to the Senate, where it is not likely to get the necessary two-thirds vote for ratification, Trump could force lawmakers to take a stand on what CEI calls its demands for “regulations that will force Americans to pay more and more for energy.”

CEI’s message to Trump is, “Don’t listen to the Swamp. Please keep your campaign promise to withdraw the United States from the U.N. Paris Climate Treaty and send it to the Senate for a vote.”
The Fox News coverage of this showdown will be another indication of the pull that James and Kathryn Murdoch are starting to exert over the once “conservative” news channel.

California enacts $52 billion fuel tax hike for road, bridge repairs

oped: Here we go again...Jerry Brown The Taxman See:  http://sharlaslabyrinth.blogspot.com/2015/12/with-dnc-its-all-about-taxesnot.html

By Steve Gorman

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law on Friday a bill to raise gasoline taxes and other transportation-related fees for the first time in decades in an ambitious $52 billion plan to repair the state's long-neglected roads and bridges.

The measure will increase excise taxes on gasoline by 12 cents per gallon, from the current rate of 28 cents, and on diesel fuel by 20 cents per gallon over the next 10 years. It will go into effect in November.

The bill cleared the state legislature three weeks ago, on the strength of a two-thirds super-majority the Democrats wield in both houses that allows them to pass new taxes with little or no Republican support.

Republicans condemned the increases, saying the state's transportation taxes and fees are already among the highest in the nation. They call the measure the largest gasoline tax in California's history. 

"Californians got a lemon of a gas and car tax hike today," Senate Republican leader Patricia Bates said.

The average motorist in California, a state renowned for its car culture, will see transportation costs rise by about $10 a month, the bill's supporters say.

The governor insisted the pain of higher taxes would be more than offset by economic benefits.

"Safe and smooth roads make California a better place to live and strengthen our economy," Brown said. "This legislation will put thousands of people to work."

Brown, a Democrat who has governed largely as a fiscal moderate, refused to back any plan that involved borrowing money to shore up a sagging transportation system that has gone unrepaired and unexpanded for decades. 

Supporters say the measure is needed to address a mounting backlog of deferred maintenance projects, including more than 500 bridges statewide requiring major repair, most of which are considered structurally deficient.

The fuel tax increases, together with higher vehicle registration fees and a new $100 annual fee on owners of electric-only vehicles, would raise $5.2 billion a year, all earmarked for road, highway and bridge repairs, along with mass transit and anti-congestion projects.

To address concerns that those revenues might end up diverted elsewhere in the budget, the bill calls for a state constitutional amendment to be placed on the June 2018 ballot that would, if approved, prohibit spending the funds on anything but transportation. [oped: Right ...uh huh... sure it will when hell freezes over...old Jerry Brown and his bait and switch tactics at it again..it will go for all the looney left's agenda projects..kick backs to pad their personal portfolios, climate control, gun control, illegal alien welfare & gay everything!]

Supporters foresee creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs over the next decade, based on a federal formula that projects gains of some 13,000 jobs for every $1 billion of investment.

(Reporting by Steve Gorman; Editing by Sandra Maler and Leslie Adler)

Passerby shoots, kills motorist assaulting deputy

A driver who attacked a Florida sheriff’s deputy Monday morning was shot and killed by a bystander who warned him to stop beating the officer, according to a report.

The incident began at around 9:30 a.m. when the Lee County deputy tried to make a traffic stop on Interstate 75 in Estero. Instead of complying, witnesses said the driver took off, reaching speeds of more than 100 miles per hour.
The deputy chased the suspect onto an exit ramp, where a witness said the suspect got out of his car and assaulted his pursuer.

Shanta Holditch told WZVN that the suspect pulled the deputy out of his car and “just kept beating him and beating him … throwing him to the ground and punching him in all different directions.”

At that point, WINK reported, another driver got out of his car and ran to the scene. He told the suspect that he’d shoot him if he didn’t stop beating the deputy.

“[He] refused to get off the officer and the officer kept yelling, ‘shoot him, shoot him, shoot him,’ Holditch said.

When the suspect didn’t stop his attack, the third man shot him three times. The deputy was not hit. The suspect later died.

“I heard like three shots. He fell down on top of the police officer,” said a witness who would only give his last name, Smith.  “After a moment, the police officer rolled him back over, got on his mic, then rolled over back on the ground besides the guy.”
Authorities have not identified the suspect or the person who shot him and it was unclear if charges would be sought. WINK reported that the suspect was armed and the bystander who shot him possessed a concealed weapons license.
WINK identified the deputy as Dean Bardes, a 12-year veteran of the Lee County Sheriff’s Office. He was briefly hospitalized with minor injuries, but later released
The southbound off-ramp at Exit 123 was reopened Monday evening after being closed for several hours while investigators worked the scene.
Read more here
Also here
Picture taken from a motorist who witnessed the fatal struggle near Estero, Florida. Credit: Lee County Sheriff’s Office

After Action Report with Oath Keepers, Stewart Rhodes and John Karriman

Stewart Rhodes and John Karriman give their After Action Report on the April 27 event at Berkeley. 

 

California ‘Catch-22’ on ‘Assault Weapons’ Evokes Fundamental Question for Gun Owners

https://www.oathkeepers.org


 This was put together by some friends of mine back in the Nineties to illustrate the absurdity of what the antis were calling “assault weapons” and trying to ban.

by: David Codrea 

Earlier separate bans on semiautomatic firearms demonized as “assault weapons” weren’t enough for California gun-grabbers. Despite the Roberti-Roos ban on specific firearm models, and the later Perata ban, a new prohibition went into effect early this year, even though the agency tasked with infringement enforcement admits compliance is impossible.
“Assembly Bill 1135 and Senate Bill 880 became effective Jan. 1 of this year and part of the new law requires those who have assault weapons to register them by Jan. 1 2018,” CBS 13 Sacramento reports. “But the website to do so isn’t working.”

We’ll let you know when it’s time to come back and surrender.

That’s a screenshot from the “Department of Justice” website that not only advises the definition of “assault weapon” has been “revised” (yet again – they’ll get it “right” one of these times), but that:

These bills will require that any person who, from January 1, 2001, to December 31, 2016, inclusive, lawfully possessed an assault weapon that does not have a fixed magazine, as defined in Penal Code section 30515, including those weapons with an ammunition feeding device that can be readily removed from the firearm with the use of a tool, shall register the firearm before January 1, 2018, but not before the effective date of the regulations adopted by the DOJ.
These bills will also require registrations to be submitted electronically via the Internet utilizing a public-facing application made available by the DOJ.

“Many gun owners are frustrated and say it’s been months that they’ve been trying to register and can’t,” CBS 13 elaborates. They’re concerned that if it’s not resolved soon, there will be a mad dash to meet the deadline, only eight months away.”
If they don’t, and if they don’t then surrender their guns, they’ll become felons, prohibited persons for life, forbidden to so much as touch a gun. That’s after they have their lives destroyed and “serve” prison sentences where they’re at the mercy of a general prison population that includes every kind of violent, threatening and physically imposing sociopath you can imagine.

Most will comply.
After all, most take their lead from the National Rifle Association, which set the tone it expected of its members:

“Bill did what any honest, law-abiding American would do…he turned in his SKS Sporter [a militia rifle] to the police.”

Is that what Captain John Parker would do?
In places like California, the “progressives” have unchallengeable political control. Give them their way with “pathway to citizenship” illegals and “refugees,” and they will culturally terraform the remainder of the Republic to be just like them. The bottom line is, once the “popular vote” has been lost, those clinging to principles will have one of two choices: Abject surrender or defiance.
That’s the new paradigm of “I will not comply,” (not really all that new, but still one disparaged by the rice bowl gun groups, where the major revenue streams come through a lobbying soicitations über alles business model). It’s for when all other peaceable means of redress have been exhausted.

Think of it as an order we will not obey. And remember “the supreme Law of the Land.”
Easy for me to say, from the comfort and safety of my keyboard?
Not always.  I tore up their damn registration form in front of them. At an NRA-arranged meeting of all places. Where a handful of us were accused of making the rest of the group look bad…
You’d have to be willfully blind at this point not to realize the gun-grabbers want our guns – all of them. You’d have to be a coward or a fool not to admit the purpose of gun registration is so those who want them know who has them so that they can get them.
Ultimately, there’s one question I keep coming back to:
What would Captain Parker do?

—–

If you believe in the mission of Oath Keepers, to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, please consider making a donation to support our work.  You can donate HERE.

Nancy Pelosi Just Got Caught Up In A Major Scandal And It’s Blowing Up In Her Face

Democrats believe they are on track to score a major victory in the 2018 midterms.
They are counting on big money donors to fuel a political wave that will sweep them into power.
However, it’s been revealed that the Nancy Pelosi affiliated House Majority PAC accepted donations from someone who is co-owner of a website alleged to be involved in child prostitution.
The Washington Free Beacon reports:
“A political action committee that is backed by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.) took funds from the co-owner of a website that is linked to underage prostitution.
The House Majority PAC, an Alexandria, Virginia-based Super PAC created in 2011 to “answer the barrage of GOP outside spending” and help Democrats regain seats in the House of Representatives, accepted a $10,000 contribution last year from James Larkin, the co-owner of the Backpage.com, a website linked to underage trafficking and prostitution. 


Larkin, along with Michael G. Lacey, were co-owners of the scandal-plagued Backpage when legal troubles began to mount against the site for accepting prostitution advertisements that included postings for sex with underage girls.
The duo began stepping up their political contributions after the site came under fire for its ads and have since donated more than $160,0000 to Democrats in Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado, the Arizona Republic reported.
The donation from Larkin to the House Majority PAC, which is backed by Nancy Pelosi, was made on Oct. 13, 2016, shortly before the general election.”
Backpage has been neck deep in controversy for years.
Congress became involved after one study found 80 percent of the ads on the site were for prostitution – including some for underage girls.

The Washington Free Beacon also reports:
“A study of Backpage in 2012 conducted by Arizona State University and the Phoenix Police Department discovered that almost 80 percent of the advertisements posted to the site involved prostitution. In Phoenix alone, more than 900 ads for prostitution were found, including ads for underage girls.
The National Association of Attorneys General called on Congress in July 2013 to amend federal law to hold companies such as Backpage accountable for their actions.
In May 2014, the U.S. House of Representatives passed legislation to hold companies accountable that knowingly post ads for commercial sex acts involving minors. Rep. Ann Wagner (R., Mo.), the bill’s co-sponsor, named Backpage as one of the “vehicles for advertising the victims of the child sex trade to the world.” 


The U.S. Senate later passed a resolution in March 2016 holding Backpage in civil contempt of Congress after ignoring a subpoena to turn over documents detailing what the site was doing to deal with trafficking in its ads.
Carl Ferrer, the chief executive of Backpage, was arrested following a three-year investigation in October 2016 over the underage prostitution allegations. Arrest warrants were issued against Larkin and Lacey, who were described as “controlling shareholders” of the site.” 


n 2014, the Democratic candidate for governor in Arizona donated a $2,000 contribution from Michael Lacey to groups which tackle youth homelessness and human trafficking.
However, The Free Beacon did not receive word whether the Pelosi-backed House Majority PAC returned or donated the $10,000 it received from Lacey in October 2016.
Will the Pelosi-supported House Majority PAC continue to accept donations from Lacey?
That is one of many questions that still need to be answered.

Source: http://www.americanpatriotdaily.com

Jesse Watters Announces Sudden Vacation Following Backlash For Remarks Deemed Inappropriate

oped: Just shakes my head..wth is going on at FoxNews? I was watching The Five on Tuesday and heard this comment...I took it as Jesse said he meant it...whoever claimed it was a sexual innuendo has their proverbial mind in the gutter not Jesse! or they exaggerated it to attack another conservative... either way Fox News better get their act together and stop acting like CNN MSNBC light...lest there ratings will bottom out!


By V. Saxena 

Fox News commentator Jesse Watters, who in April became a full-time host on The Five following the departure of longtime network pundit Bill O’Reilly, announced Wednesday evening that he would be going on vacation until next Monday.
“I’m going to be taking a vacation with my family, so I’m not going to be here tomorrow,” he said on Wednesday’s edition of The Five, only a day after backlash began brewing over remarks he made Tuesday evening about President Donald Trump’s daughter, Ivanka Trump. “I’ll be back on Monday, so don’t miss me too much,” he added.
On Tuesday’s show Watters criticized leftists for having booed Ivanka while she spoke earlier in the day at a women’s rights panel in Germany.

“It’s funny — the left says they really respect women and then when given an opportunity to respect a woman like that they boo and hiss, so I don’t really get what’s going on here, but I really liked how she was speaking into that microphone,” he said.
Critics immediately pounced on Watters, claiming his remark was a sexual innuendo, though he later refuted these allegations via Twitter, stating unequivocally that he had been “referring to Ivanka’s voice and how it resonates like a smooth jazz radio DJ.”

On air I was referring to Ivanka's voice and how it resonates like a smooth jazz radio DJ. This was in no way a joke about anything else.

— Jesse Watters (@jessebwatters) April 26, 2017

Hours later he announced his sudden vacation, leading many critics to wonder whether the same fate as O’Reilly lies in store for him.
Shortly after word broke in early April that Fox News and O’Reilly had paid out around $13 million in settlements to five women who accused the longtime host of sexually harassing them, the then-host of The O’Reilly Factor suddenly announced a two-week vacation.
Many wondered at the time whether the “vacation” would be permanent, and their suspicions were proven correct.

“After a thorough and careful review of the allegations, the Company and Bill O’Reilly have agreed that Bill O’Reilly will not be returning to Fox News Channel,” FNC announced in a statement published April 19.
Due to the massive scheduling changes that followed O’Reilly departure, Watters earned a spot on The Five in the seat of former host Eric Bolling, who has since been granted his own program.
What do you think? Scroll down to comment below.

BREAKING: Shocking New Report Claims They FOUND Out What Got Andrew BREITBART KILLED

Folks, there are many theories surrounding the death of Andrew Breitbart. 

Andrew James Breitbart (February 1, 1969 – March 1, 2012) was an American entrepreneur, conservative publisher, commentator for The Washington Times, media critic, journalist, author, and television and radio personality on various news programs, who served as an editor for the Drudge Report website.

From Conservative Post

Breitbart created his own website Breitbart.com, a news and opinion website, along with multiple other “BIG” sites – BIGHollywood, BIGGovernment, BIGJournalism. He played central roles in the Anthony Weiner sexting scandal, the firing of Shirley Sherrod, and the ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy. Commenters such as Nick Gillespie and Conor Friedersdorf have credited Breitbart with changing how people wrote about politics.
Breitbart may be remembered for something else altogether — something most of us missed until now. Andrew Breitbart tweeted about John Podesta and his child sex-slavery ring years ago. In the video below, you can see him calling out Podesta over the “skeletons in his closest.”  

In a tweet from February 2011, Breitbart called out John Podesta as a “world class underage sex slave op cover-upper.” It was only a little more than a year later, in March of 2012, that Breitbart died, supposedly of a “random heart attack” at the age of 43. 

 

Is it merely a coincidence that Breitbart is dead after calling out one of Hillary Clinton’s closest staff members? If you think so, one fact may change your mind. The coroner was poisoned to death a couple weeks after Breitbart’s death as well. Another coincidence?
Breitbart didn’t only call out Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman once, he did it several times, eluding to the “pizzagate“ scandal that set the internet on fire.


Andrew Breitbart certainly didn’t like John Podesta, and those of us who have read the depraved chairman’s leaked emails now know why. Breitbart knew all of this over five years ago, before the emails were leaked just a few months ago.

Source: http://eheadlines.com/breaking-shocking-new-report-claims-they-found-out-what-got-andrew-breitbart-killed/

Why No Questions about Transgender Army Traitor?

by: Cliff Kincaid 


The most glaring omission in Tucker Carlson’s interview of the human oddity known as Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner was the failure to seek comment on the transgender traitor by the name of Bradley/Chelsea Manning. This is the former U.S. Army analyst scheduled for release from prison next month because former President Barack Obama commuted his/her sentence for Russian-style espionage.
Jenner, a former male Olympic champion, is now a spokesman for the “trans community” that includes espionage agent Bradley/Chelsea Manning. So what about Manning? What did Manning’s gender confusion and mental problems have to do with his/her espionage against the United States?
Will Manning get a “courage” award in the same way that Jenner was honored by ESPN for a biological transformation through chemicals and surgery from masculine to feminine?

We understand that the Jenner appearance on Fox News was a cheap publicity stunt, designed by Jenner to sell her new book, and for the cable channel to herald Tucker Carlson’s new show, a replacement for the “O’Reilly Factor” and its fired host, Bill O’Reilly. Still, there was an opportunity for Tucker to ask about one of the major espionage cases of our time. He blew it.
In his recent remarks at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, CIA Director Mike Pompeo described Manning essentially as an agent of Russia through his association with WikiLeaks, which functions on behalf of Russian and other anti-American interests. Pompeo said, “WikiLeaks walks like a hostile intelligence service and talks like a hostile intelligence service. It has encouraged its followers to find jobs at CIA in order to obtain intelligence. It directed Chelsea Manning in her theft of specific secret information. And it overwhelmingly focuses on the United States, while seeking support from anti-democratic countries and organizations.”

Pompeo raises more questions than he answers. How many more insider spies like Manning are there? Are the WikiLeaks followers at the CIA among the agency’s transgender work force? What, if anything, will Pompeo do to purge the questionable hires at the CIA that were made under the reign of Obama CIA director John Brennan, an advocate of “diversity” who laid out a multi-year plan to hire gays and transgenders?
Pompeo’s comments about Manning and the insider spy threat were unusual because he had been asked during his confirmation hearings by Senator Kamala Harris (D-CA) about the agency’s gay and transgender employees. “You have my assurance that every employee will be treated in a way that is appropriate and equal,” Pompeo responded.
Of course, the word “appropriate” leaves the door open for dealing with traitors in the CIA in a special manner.

WikiLeaks declared “Victory” after Manning’s sentence was commuted, while former CIA/NSA analyst Edward Snowden said, “Thanks, Obama.” Snowden is a traitor who fled to Russia after disclosing classified information.
So does this mean that Obama is an agent of Russia? In this case, he is clearly serving Russian interests.
At the time of Manning’s commutation, CNN reported that WikiLeaks “is at the center of the storm over alleged Russian hacking of Democratic servers during the election, and Assange is being accused of directly subverting American democracy.”
Here was a case of Obama openly assisting a de facto Russia agent and his pro-Russian handlers. Of course, that’s not the way CNN put it. Instead, Obama had come “under intense pressure from LGBT groups that have been stalwart supporters throughout his political career to show eleventh hour compassion towards Manning,” CNN reported.

So the fact that Obama pleased the LGBT community with his “compassionate” decision makes everything all right and eliminates the need for informed speculation about Obama serving Russian interests.
Carlson should have asked Jenner about Manning’s role as a transgender hero.
Jenner, a rich reality TV star who lives in Malibu, can pay for her fancy clothes, which were on display in the Diane Sawyer special on ABC. She can pay for chemicals and surgeries to complete the “transition” to female.
It’s been different for Manning. Taxpayers have picked up the bill.
During his/her time in prison, according to The New York Times, Manning wears female prison undergarments, including a sports bra, and “subdued cosmetics.” In early 2015, the paper reported, he/she was allowed “to get speech therapy to feminize the tone and pitch of her voice and began cross-sex hormone therapy.”

These perks came about because Manning’s legal team at the ACLU sued for the benefits.
Subsequently, Obama’s Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter announced unilaterally, without Congressional input or approval, that the Pentagon would start paying for transgender surgeries for Armed Services personnel.
The situation is so extreme that West Point hosted a Transgender Day of Remembrance, organized by the Army’s Office of Diversity, Inclusion and Equal Opportunity. Judicial Watch disclosed that Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Amanda Simpson, a former test pilot named Mitchell, spoke at the event, at a cost of $1,099.92.
The Fox News publicity stunt with Caitlyn Jenner could have produced some real news, if only Carlson had asked about the Manning case and others like it. Instead, he permitted Jenner to say that she wished President Donald Trump would go further in his support for LGBT rights.

Carlson called Jenner “the world’s most famous transgender person.” This designation may not last for long.
When Manning gets out of prison in May, can we expect an appearance on “Tucker Carlson Tonight?” If Carlson is struggling to get O’Reilly-type ratings, you can bet on it.

—-

Cliff Kincaid is the Director of the AIM Center for Investigative Journalism and can be contacted at cliff.kincaid@aim.org.

Low cut tops, sexual harassment, and Bill O’Reilly

by: Dr. Michael Brown 


I’m not defending or accusing Bill O’Reilly, and I don’t know if his antagonists are telling the truth. I’m simply asking a question: If a woman wears a low cut top to work and a male colleague (or employer) looks at her cleavage, is that sexual harassment?
I asked my Twitter followers this question, and the responses were somewhat surprising. But before I share what they had to say, let me start with the appropriate caveats.
I’m not denying the reality of sexual harassment in the workplace.
I’m not denying that some men feel they have the right to treat women as sexual objects.
I’m not denying that many women feel constant pressure to dress and look sensually.
I’m not denying that some judges have outrageously implied that rape victims got what they deserved because of their scanty attire.

I’m not questioning or minimizing or excusing any of this. Not a chance.
What I’m questioning is whether it’s sexual harassment if a woman wears suggestive attire and a man checks her out. Is she getting the desired results – namely, male attention – or is this a form of sexual harassment?
Again, I’m not justifying the man’s behavior or the woman’s attire. As a follower of Jesus, I do my best to look away from temptation, not towards it. And my wife and I taught our daughters never to dress in such a way as to appeal to male lusts.
But if a woman comes to work in a very tight, very short mini-skirt and some male coworker checks out her legs, is he guilty of sexual harassment? Or, more generally, if he says to her, “That’s a nice outfit!” has he sexually harassed her?

Perquita Burgess, one of O’Reilly’s accusers, claimed he “would come by her desk and would leer at her up and down. She felt like he was looking at her cleavage and it made her feel uncomfortable.”
If true, was this harassment? Perhaps it’s one thing to glance and another thing to leer? Or was she displaying her cleavage for all to see? I’m simply asking questions.
She also claimed that “O’Reilly told her ‘lookin’ good there girl’ one time when she was getting off the elevator.”
What about this behavior? Can a friendly compliment be construed as sexual harassment (unless it was part of a larger complex of inappropriate comments)? Or is this just one more, exaggerated reaction from our hyper-PC culture in which almost everything is construed to be sexist or racist?

Remember that one campus listed complimentary comments to women such as, “I love your shoes!” as gender microagressions, since it would suggest that females had nothing to offer other than nice attire.
Getting back to my Twitter poll, I asked: “If a woman wears a low-cut top to work, is it sexual harassment if a man checks her out?”
The four possible responses were: Yes (I’m female); No (I’m female); Yes (I’m male); No (I’m male).
My Twitter followers seem to be about two-thirds male (in contrast with my Facebook followers, who are about 55 percent female, especially in the older age groups). So the responses to my poll were in keeping with the demographics, with men representing 68 percent of the responders and women 32 percent.

Interestingly, 81 percent of those responding answered with No. And check this out: The percentage of women answering No was virtually identical to that of men who answered No. How striking! (To be exact, of the 32 percent of women responding, 6 percent answered Yes and 26 percent No; of the 68 percent of men responding, 13 percent answered Yes and 55 percent No.)
So, not only did the vast majority of my respondents believe that this was not sexual harassment, but the women and men agreed.
One woman tweeted back to me: “That’s why women wear revealing stuff, whether they admit or not….so men will look at them.”
Another woman tweeted: “Totally agree. Females who say otherwise are dishonest. A person w/positive self-concept won’t dress immodestly to get attention. Conversely, a female doesn’t accidentally put a top on so her action hangs out …. It’s on PURPOSE! I see it on campus. Shorts so one literally sees the you know what. I find it repulsive not to mention unsanitary. Totally unnecessary!”

Yet another woman added: “Women should respect themselves more if they want to be respected!!!”
And another: “Touching is obviously a no-no. But why not dress modestly at work? I don’t mean up to the chin, but not so low. Or tight. Show respect.”
And one more: “If a woman displays herself are men expected to NOT look?”
(Remember: These were all women expressing these views.)
One man did feel that to check the woman out was harassment. But, he added, “Do women have a responsibility of addressing themselves properly? Men are visual. Let’s be real.”

Not all, however, agreed.
One woman wrote: “Next step: ‘Please wear a burka because it’s your responsibility if I find you attractive and can’t rule myself.'”
Interestingly, when I clicked on the bio of this Tweeter, her description was short and to the point: “Liberal and atheist.” Perhaps her response is not so surprising?
From the totally opposite perspective, one man asked: “I’d also like to know how many men feel uncomfortable when a woman wears a ‘low cut top’ to work? Isn’t that sexual harassment?”
Who wants to open that can of worms?

All this being said, I trust we agree that: 1) making a woman feel uncomfortable because of her looks is inappropriate; 2) our airbrushed, super-model culture puts women under extra pressure to present themselves a certain way; and 3) men can sometimes act like male animals chasing a female dog in heat.
But is it sexual harassment if a man compliments a female coworker’s attire (in non-lewd terms)? Or is it sexual harassment if a man’s eyes are drawn to a female coworker’s highly accentuated areas? I think not.
What do you think? 


Copyright OneNewsNow.com. Reprinted with permission.

Bill Nye “the Science Guy” Butchers the Constitution… AGAIN

oped: And the saga continues:  http://sharlaslabyrinth.blogspot.com/2017/04/bill-nye-outraged-that-cnn-had-him.html

By Gary DeMar 
Not only is Bill Nye not a scientist, but he’s also not a historian or a student of the United States Constitution.
Anybody can make any written document say anything if portions of it are taken out of context. It’s done with the Bible all the time. The second most misquoted and misapplied document is the Constitution.
In a recent interview with CNN at the March for Science, Bill Nye the so-called “Science Guy” stated, “And it is interesting to note, I think, that Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution refers to the progress of science and the useful arts. . . . Useful arts in 18th Century usage would be what we call engineering or city planning or architecture.”

Nye said something similar in a 2015 interview:

“So if you’re a politician looking to derail the progress of science, I think you’re not doing your job. I want voters and taxpayers to recognize this. Do you really want to vote for somebody who doesn’t believe in the scientific method — and doesn’t believe that we defeated smallpox? Do you really want that person running your government?
“When you have people denying this basic process, and how we all got here, it’s offensive to me intellectually. And I happen to think it’s unpatriotic. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution says the government shall ‘promote the progress of science and useful arts.’”

Wow! Nye is counting on two things: (1) the general constitutional ignorance of the American people (there’s a lot of it) and (2) that most people will not actually read Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. I’ll tell you what’s unpatriotic — misinterpreting the Constitution in order to stop people from questioning bad science.
How many times have you heard someone appeal to the constitutional doctrine of the separation of church and state even though the Constitution never uses the words “church” or “separation”? The First Amendment is about the relationship between the national government (“Congress shall make no law…”) and the various state governments that had their own constitutional provisions regarding religion…

Read the Rest of the Story at Gary DeMar.com…

Florida Makes Moves To Commemorate History, Liberal Snowflakes are FURIOUS

oped: And the saga continues: http://sharlaslabyrinth.blogspot.com/2017/04/new-orleans-is-latest-victim-of.html

By Andrew West 
Liberals the nation over have been hellbent on completely erasing portions of American history over the course of the past several decades.  Of particular note is their targeting of the Confederacy of the American Civil War, and all of the symbolism associated with it.

Yesterday was Confederate Memorial Day; a holiday that many outside of the southern United States don’t even know exists, and may very well believe is a joke.  You see, liberal states in union have been teaching the Civil War with an increasingly vitriolic slant in recent years, blaming the entire debacle on the south’s insistence on continuing the reprehensible practice of slavery.  By vilifying the south and the southern heritage associated with the war between the states, democrats are able to take advantage of the tarnished perception when it comes time to gather votes. 

The truth of the matter, of course, is a much more complicated menagerie of states’ right, manifest destiny, governmental overreach, and an aggressive politics.  Regardless of the alternative facts being propagated by the left, however, it will always be true that a great many Americans lost their lives fighting for or supporting whichever side of the conflict they found themselves on.
Now, to celebrate Confederate Memorial Day, a community in Florida will display the battle flag of the Confederacy…something that will surely invoke anger from the liberals of the nation.

“A third flag will join the U.S. and Florida ones on Wednesday at Belleview’s City Hall to honor Confederate History Day.
“The third national Confederate flag, also known as the ‘blood-stained banner,’ will be raised to half-staff around 7:30 a.m. to honor Confederate veterans. The local Sons of Confederate Veterans unit has performed this tribute ceremony for more than 10 years.
“Sons of Confederate Veterans 8th Brigade Commander Chuck Kadel said it is important to recognize all American veterans.
“'(Confederate veterans) were veterans just as American veterans are,’ he said.

“April is recognized by the state of Florida as Confederate History Month. A Belleview city proclamation passed April 4, which will be read at the flag raising ceremony, states that Florida supplied the greatest percentage of its population as soldiers compared to all other Confederate states. Further, one-third of the Floridian soldiers did not return from war.”

Belleview’s decision to display the historic “stars and bars” flag is an example of history done right.  By ignoring or purposefully censoring history, the nation is doomed to repeat some of the world’s most egregious atrocities.  These Civil War soldiers fought and died for their America, the same way that soldiers in any war die fighting for something that they believe in.  It’s a personal duty, and not one to be whitewashed by liberal snowflakes who believe that they have a right to not be offended.

Al Gore Puts A Price Tag on Global Warming Hoax “Fix”, And It Is ENORMOUS

By Andrew West 

For some strange reason, liberal climate change hoaxers are continuing to put a microphone or a camera in front of former Vice President Al Gore.

As the most recognizable face in the litany of lunatic leftists who foolishly subscribe to the phony narrative behind the global warming hoax, Gore has been an integral part of developing the culture of ignorance that permeates the entire movement.
Gore’s interest in the subject began as a business venture; a fact that many democrats would like us all to forget.  The former Vice President first established a “carbon credits” company in which he would prey on the guilt of entitled Americans who believed that the way in which they lived their lives was further enhancing their carbon footprint – a term that had barely been used previous to Gore’s involvement in the hoax.  Then, after Al Gore’s company was ready to receive customers, and their money, the former politician released his now-infamous propaganda film “An Inconvenient Truth”.  The film was a box office success, riding the leftist wave that was permeating the nation at the time, and it propelled Gore’s carbon credits company into a massive windfall of Americans’ guilt-money.

Now, after releasing a second film to a much more skeptical audience, Gore is looking to put a price tag on the end of “global warming” the way a snake oil salesman puts a price on the wares that he is peddling.
“A group of executives who want to fight global warming has published a new report calling for countries to spend up to $600 billion a year over the next two decades to boost green energy deployment and energy efficiency equipment.
“The Energy Transitions Commission’s (ETC) report claims ‘additional investments of around $300-$600 billion per annum do not pose a major macroeconomic challenge,’ which they say will help the world meet the goals laid out in the Paris agreement.
“ETC is made up of energy executives, activist leaders and investment bankers, including former Vice President Al Gore, who would no doubt get a piece of the trillions of dollars they are calling for.

“ETC’s goal is to ‘accelerate change towards low-carbon energy systems that enable robust economic development’ and limit global warming. ETC’s report comes out as the Trump administration considers whether or not to stay party to the Paris agreement, which went into effect in 2016.”

The global warming charade may be on its death bed, but Gore seems hellbent on milking the cultural phenomenon for all its worth before its inevitable end.  With republican Donald Trump in the White House, and with conservatives making up a majority of both houses of Congress, it could prove rather difficult for the profiteering “activist” to accomplish any project that requires such a leftist leap of faith.
As with all trendy pseudoscience, the global warming hoax will likely go the way of spiritualism and Uri Geller’s bending-spoon tricks.
 

Vets Set Up “Muslim Free Zones”. Liberals ATTACK…But Look Who BACKED The Vets!

 

by: Kirsty Jane 

Free speech seems only to apply to liberals these days. Conservatives who want to voice “controversial” positions BEWARE! 



US Army vet Troy Maxham found that out when he publicly declared his property to be a “Muslim-free zone.”
Conservative Post Reports
From Mad World News:

Vermont resident Troy Maxham selflessly served his country, but he never expected that he’d see the day his beloved nation would welcome in perhaps it’s most dangerous enemies.

Protesting against the fundamentally violent ideology of Islam, Maxham placed a homemade sign outside of his house in early March, declaring the property to be a “Muslim Free Zone.”

Like clockwork, socialist Democrats came out in full force, calling Roxbury police to complain about the cardboard display hanging in his front yard. 

Oh, but the pontificating liberals were in for a BIG SURPRISE.
Local police did indeed respond, but NOT in the way liberals hoped.
Rather than order Maxham to remove the sign, officers stated that it was, in fact, PROTECTED BY THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
Sorry, liberals.
You want to preach about free speech, then you gotta apply it to EVERYONE.

Outrage! Ivanka Trump BOOED for… what!?

oped: IMO I do believe it is past due time for the US to withdraw occupation forces and military aid/presence within the EU and Germany keep a presence in the UK and possibly France...there is absolutely no reason to be there now...WWII ended 72 years ago in Europe...all countries involved are solvent and prosperous and capable of defending themselves...all it is to the US is a money pit we give they take and we get zip zero in return! Time to leave including leaving the UN... another money pit with zip zero return. 
The next war will most likely be in the Middle East and South East Asia...so keep a military presence there ...maybe cut a deal with Israel to have a US Military presence in Israel... a fast reactionary force... to deal with potential hot spots! Bring the rest home and save billions in welfare payments to those who dislike us! Thats my story and I'm sticking to it!



President Donald Trump’s oldest daughter Ivanka attended the W20 Women’s Summit in Germany Tuesday, where she was aggressively met with boos and groans when describing her father as “a tremendous champion of supporting families.”
She defended his attitudes toward women as she made her first international outing as a White House adviser, pledging to push for “incremental, positive change” for women in the U.S. economy.
As the heckling began, Ivanka responded gracefully with a subtle smile.

Her calm reaction is likely attributed to the fact that, regardless of the audience’s reaction, her first-hand experience proves her father is an advocate for women.
When challenged on her father’s support of women, Ivanka defends him, citing the “thousands of women who have worked with and for my father for decades, when he was in the private sector, are a testament to his belief and solid conviction and the potential of women and their ability to do the job as well as any man.”
She goes even further, describing her upbringing in a household full of brothers.
“I grew up in a house where there was no barriers to what I could accomplish beyond my own perseverance and my own tenacity.”

And Ivanka isn’t the only women in Trump’s life that has described him as incredibly encouraging to the women he works with.
CBS News talked to 19 women who had worked for the Trump organization, and their responses were overwhelmingly positive.
One former employee of the Trump Plaza in Atlantic City, Alexis Poe Feder, said she, “felt very empowered when I worked there.”
Another employee acknowledged his tough attitude, but that it had nothing to do with gender. “I heard him yell and scream, but I never heard him call anyone a bimbo. I never heard him demean anyone,” Joanne Blank told CBS.

“From the standpoint of being a woman, I just thought he was phenomenal,” Louise Sunshine, who joined Trump’s real estate business in the mid-1970s and worked with him for 15 years told the Washington Post. “So supportive and encouraging… He gave me the ropes and I could either hang myself or prove myself.”
Trump himself has said empowering things about women, writing in his book “The Art of the Deal,” that he hired, “a lot of women for top jobs, they’re among the best people.”
See the uninformed crowd boo at the classy Ivanka as she defends what she knows to be true:




Ivanka’s one-day visit, at the invitation of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, gave Merkel and other officials face-to-face access with the president’s influential daughter at a time when world leaders are still trying to discern where President Trump’s policies will lead.
Merkel and Trump were part of a high-powered panel discussion at the W20 Summit, a women-focused effort within the Group of 20 countries, entitled “Inspiring women: Scaling up women’s entrepreneurship.” They were joined by Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland, International Monetary Fund chief Christine Lagarde and the Netherlands’ Queen Maxima, among others.
The 35-year-old Ivanka, who stepped away from both running her fashion brand and from an executive role at the Trump Organization to become an unpaid White House adviser, said she is still finding her feet in her new role.
“I’m listening, I’m learning, I’m defining the ways in which I think that I’ll be able to have impact” in empowering women in the U.S. economy and beyond, she said.

She says she plans “to bring the advice, to bring the knowledge, back to the United States, back to both my father and the president — and hopefully that will bring about incremental, positive change. And that is my goal.”
Trump has been a vocal advocate for policies benefiting working women and vocational training. During Merkel’s visit to Washington in March, she organized a discussion with the German leader, her father, and American and German executives about how companies can better train workers.
-The Associated Press and the Horn News editorial team contributed to this article.

Bill Nye Outraged that CNN had him Debate a Real Scientist

oped: Yes indeed Bill Nye and Al Gore two green peas in a pod...akin to a Looney Toon Cartoon!  

http://sharlaslabyrinth.blogspot.com/2015/12/bill-nyes-solution-for-climate-change.html

See more: http://sharlaslabyrinth.blogspot.com/2016/12/al-gores-making-sequel-to-his-global.html




by Philip Hodges 

Bill Nye isn’t a scientist, but he plays one on TV.
He was mad that CNN had the audacity to pair him up with an actual scientist. William Happer is an atomic physicist and professor at Princeton University.
Ordinarily, I’m sure Bill Nye would love to engage in a conversation with such a credentialed scientist, considering that Bill Nye is all about the science. But this is a different situation. William Happer doesn’t buy into the manmade global warming alarmism that’s captured the hearts and minds of many politicians and TV personalities like Bill Nye.

Nye was visibly agitated and even scolded CNN for daring to invite a ‘climate change skeptic’ to debate something that everyone knows is ‘settled science.’
“And I will say, much as I love the CNN,” Nye chastised, “you’re doing a disservice by having one climate change skeptic and not 97 or 98 scientists or engineers concerned about climate change.”
Nye was only mad, because he knew he was totally out of his element.

It was interesting seeing the 77-year-old physicist simply answer the hosts’ questions calmly with brief, concise statements without trying to get into a back-and-forth exchange with Nye or the other guest. He didn’t take their bait. That must be hard to do, especially for someone like Happer, who obviously knows a lot more than anyone else he was interacting with on CNN’s ‘New Day.’
Part of what irritated Nye was Happer’s answer on carbon dioxide. Here’s what the real scientist said:
“There’s this myth that’s developed around carbon dioxide that it’s a pollutant, but you and I both exhale carbon dioxide with every breath. Each of us emits about two pounds of carbon dioxide a day, so are we polluting the planet? Carbon dioxide is a perfectly natural gas, it’s just like water vapor, it’s something that plants love. They grow better with more carbon dioxide, and you can see the greening of the earth already from the additional carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.”

Nye responded:  “What he claims to not understand is the rate. It’s the speed at which we’re adding carbon dioxide.”
And that’s pretty much all he said in response to Happer’s comments on carbon dioxide before he went into his rebuke directed to CNN about how they invited this guy on – this one ‘climate change skeptic’ – when they should have invited ’97 or 98 scientists or engineers concerned about climate change.’ In other words, dissent needs to be stifled, and shame on CNN for opening the door to other opinions, especially opinions from people who are real scientists. It might give viewers the wrong idea.
But Nye wasn’t alone. It was Bill Nye and May Boeve, the executive director for 350.org, an environmental group. Neither are scientists, and both are professional activists fighting for the cause of manmade global warming alarmism.

It’s not the environment they’re actually concerned about. They want the fossil fuel industry to be bankrupted and outlawed and the green industry to be given a government-subsidized monopoly over the energy market. If that means impoverishing hundreds of millions of people, then so be it.
So, it was those two against one real scientist.
Happer really got under their nerves when he was asked about the Paris Climate Agreement. He compared the treaty to the policy of appeasement, made famous by British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain in relation to Adolf Hitler. Nazi and Hitler references are a big no-no. Unless you’re a Democrat.
“It is an appropriate comparison, because it was a treaty that was not going to do any good,” Happer explained. “This treaty also will not do any good.”
“Anyone who looks at the results of doing what the treaty says can see that the effect on the earth’s climate is — even if you take the alarmist computer models, trivial.” He added, “It will not make any difference and yet it will cause enormous harm to many people.”

GRAPHIC: Archer shoots Western Diamondback rattlesnake in head

The Western diamondback rattlesnake or Texas diamond-back (Crotalus atrox) is a venomous rattlesnake species found in the southwestern United States and Mexico. It is likely responsible for the majority of snakebite fatalities in northern Mexico and the greatest number of snakebites in the U.S. According to the Arizona Sonora website there are two dark diagonal lines on each side of its face running from the eyes to its jaws. It has dark diamond-shaped patterns along is back. The tail has black and white bands just above the rattles. This species ranges throughout the southwestern United States (Arizona, California, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas)and northern half of Mexico.
Western diamondbacks are pit vipers. This means that they have a heat sensing pit (loreal pit) located behind each nostril that can detect differences in temperature, sometimes differences that are only a fraction of a degree apart. The heat given off by an animal is detected by the snake helping it to determine predator from prey. This snake is considered a generalist, which means that it isn’t too picky about its habitat. It can be found living in deserts, grassy plains, forests, rocky hillsides and areas along the coast. It lives in elevations from below sea level up to 6500 feet (2000m). They eat Mice, rats, rabbits, gophers, ground dwelling birds, lizards and other small animals.

Fun facts

• These snakes can live approximately 15-20 years in captivity.
• The rattle of the rattlesnake is made up of a protein called keratin (the same protein that your hair and fingernails are made of). A new segment is added each time a rattlesnake sheds, but they can shed at different rates. Because of this, and the fact that segments can break off, you really can’t tell a snakes age by counting the segments.
• A rattlesnake can move its rattle back and forth 60 or more times per second. 

Watch this one get shot in the head by an arrow in a ranch clean-up operation. VIDEO CONTAINS MILD VIOLENCE!!! This Western Diamondback Rattlesnake is shot through the eye in one clean shot. Yes, the bowman ate the snake. 






Source: http://www.selfreliancecentral.com