Sunday, July 23, 2017

Chuck Schumer says Hillary Clinton should blame herself for losing, not the FBI or Russia-Washington Post, Daily Beast

7/23/17, "Schumer Rips Hillary: Don’t Blame Comey or Russia, ‘Blame Yourself’," Daily Beast

"Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer ripped his former colleague, Hillary Clinton, over her election loss to President Donald Trump and her subsequent efforts to explain why she lost.  

“When you lose to somebody who has 40 percent popularity, you don’t blame other things—Comey, Russia—you blame yourself,” Schumer told The Washington Post. “So what did we do wrong? People didn’t know what we stood for, just that we were against Trump. And still believe that.” Schumer’s comments—referring to Clinton blaming Russian meddling and the former FBI director for her loss to Trump—come as Democrats are trying to re-brand ahead of the 2018 midterm elections. Democrats unveiled their new slogan as, “A Better Deal: Better Jobs, Better Wages, Better Future.”" Read it at Washington Post 

Additional source:

July 23, 2017, "Schumer Comes Clean: Democrats - Not Russia - Are To Blame For Hillary's Loss," Zero Hedge, Durden

"In a somewhat shockingly frank interview with The Washington Post, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer says that Democrats, not Russia, are to blame for Hillary Clinton’s loss to President Trump. 

"When you lose to somebody who has 40 percent popularity, you don’t blame other things - [James] Comey, Russia - you blame yourself." 

"So what did we do wrong? People didn’t know what we stood for, just that we were against Trump. And still believe that"

The reason for Schumer's sudden bout of honesty appears to be a rebranding effort for The Democrats. As The Hill reports, 

"The Democratic party is planning to unveil a new agenda which includes the slogan, “A Better Deal: Better Jobs, Better Wages, Better Future,” and Schumer vows that it’s an expression “that everyone will use - a better deal for workers, a better deal for women, a better deal for prescription-drug buyers.” 

Schumer said the new agenda “is not about moving the party left or right, and it’s not about appealing to one coalition or another. A strong, sharp-edged, populist, bold economic message appeals to the Obama coalition and the people who voted for Trump - former Democrats who voted for Trump.”
Of course, this is not the narrative that Hillary Clinton has spewed for the last 8 months. As we detailed in June, Hillary Clinton has put forth a formidable list of culprits for why she lost the 2016 presidential election....

However there seems to be one glaring omission... Hillary Clinton!

And it's not just Trump supporters, as Liberty Blitzkrieg's Mike Krieger notes, even Hillary Clinton's former aides are sick of her incessant bullshit...

I issued a code red warning last month highlighting that I thought Hillary Clinton’s ongoing spotlight-hogging, blame deflecting, Russia fear-mongering tour is driven by a remnant burning desire to be President and the delusional dream that it could still happen.

As I explained in the post, Manufacturing Resistance – The American Public is Being Manipulated Into Irrelevance:

"The current environment is fertile ground for real populist movements to fight for an improvement in the lives of average Americans, but the public is being fooled into focusing all its energy on an unproven Russia collusion theory which hasn’t caused any of our very real national suffering. Our very own homegrown racketeers and thieves are to blame for that, but we’re being told to focus our attention on Russia. This isn’t an accident people, you’re being played, and played quite easily at that. 

Ironically, “the resistance” is actually sucking all the air out of what should be real resistance. After spending a few months in the woods, Hillary is now actively moving to co-opt the entire movement. Why’s she doing that? I think she still covets the throne, and I think she’s power hungry and delusional enough to go for it....

Even worse, there’s the naive and gullible Bernie Sanders still trying to “change Democrats from within,” a laughable and useless exercise. It’s unbelievably pathetic and disempowering, but it could get a lot worse. Brace yourselves for a few years of Hillary running around in leather jackets talking like a “populist” as she desperately attempts to reinvent herself. Our national nightmare is far from over."
I don’t know much, but I do know if the Democrats renominate Hillary Clinton or some other war-mongering, corporate stooge you can pretty much guarantee eight years of Donald Trump. If there’s no real choice, and we’re destined to go down in imperial flames anyway, we may as well have the reality tv guy entertain us along the way."...


US taxpayer funding of Carl Gershman's National Endowment for Democracy (NED) must end. NED travels the world meddling in and destabilizing governments and wherever possible, such as in Ukraine, incites war and installs puppets. US taxpayers should never have been forced to fund this neocon group which at minimum creates hatred against Americans

Gershman's NED

Thanks to US taxpayer cash, Carl Gershman's NED spills blood in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela...leaves permanent suffering and hatred for Americans. Image above from, 2/27/2016, "State Department’s Mission: Coup d’etat," Vicky 

NED was first to be banned in Russia for excessive meddling: 7/28/2015, "National Endowment for Democracy is first ‘undesirable’ NGO banned in Russia," UK Guardian, Alec Luhn in Moscow..."Washington-based nonprofit funded largely by US Congress, is the first banned group under a law against ‘undesirable’ international organisations."

(Article below describes decades of misery and death engineered by Carl Gershman, his National Endowment for Democracy, and US taxpayer dollars:)

Jan. 30, 2017, "Firing America’s mischief-makers," Washington Times," Robert W. Merry

"The National Endowment for Democracy should be defunded."

"President Trump declared in his inaugural address, “We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone.” There’s one thing he could do, above all others, that would herald the seriousness of this pledge: kill the National Endowment for Democracy (NED).

This federally funded institution, established in 1983, has been called a kind of “neocon slush fund,” sloshing tens of millions of dollars annually into the coffers of various nongovernment organizations (NGOs), so they can do what Mr. Trump says the United States now won’t seek to do — namely, spread our way of life into nations deemed insufficiently like us.

Killing the NED would have another big benefit to America and the world: It would end the meddlesome activities of the endowment’s longtime leader, Carl Gershman, who as president of the organization since its founding, has acted as a kind of grand-scale global busybody, dispensing some $100 million a year in behalf of efforts to undermine governments around the world. ["According to the NED website, it supports more than 1,000 non-government projects in more than 90 countries."]

Mr. Gershman and his organization played an instrumental role in the February 2014 Ukrainian coup that ousted the elected government of Viktor Yanukovych and sent him packing to Moscow just ahead of a gang of street fighters, who surely would have killed him had he stuck around. In the months before the coup, as Mr. Gershman distributed lavish funds to anti-Yanukovych forces, he wrote a piece in The Washington Post hailing Ukraine as "the biggest prize" in his ongoing democracy project.

But in the same column he indicated his regime-change ambitions actually extended to an even bigger prize. Once Ukraine could be pulled out of Russia’s sphere of influence through a Western-supported regime-change operation, he declared, “Russians, too, face a choice, and Putin may find himself on the losing end not just in the near abroad but within Russia itself.”

So here we had an American official, supported and sustained by federal funds, going around advocating the destabilization of a major regional power with a nuclear arsenal of ominous destructive capacity. This is incendiary — precisely what Mr. Trump was talking about in issuing his promise of U.S. forbearance on such matters....

Moscow’s propaganda newspaper RT (Russia Today) has argued that organizations such as the NED “are nothing but funding channels for activities that used to be run by the CIA under the title of ‘subversion.’” That allegation may seem easy to dismiss based on the source, but it happens to be correct. One of the NED’s early backers, Allen Weinstein (later U.S. archivist), once explained, “A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA. The biggest difference is that when such activities are done overtly, the flap potential is close to zero. Openness is its own protection.”

Indeed, the NED was created during the dark Cold War period of the early Reagan years at the behest of the CIA itself and its powerful director, William Casey, who wanted a substitute for the kinds of CIA operations that had led to scandal through abuse and were subsequently shut down by Congress. In his behind-the-scenes advocacy for such an organization, Casey wrote to White House counselor Edwin Meese III, “Obviously we here [at the CIA] should not get out front in the development of such an organization, nor should we appear to be a sponsor or advocate.”

That’s precisely what he was, though....The openness hailed by Weinstein and others hasn’t blunted the angers stirred abroad by the meddling of the NED and similar organizations in the internal dynamics of sovereign nations. After Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak was ousted from office through massive street demonstrations, supported by idealistic Western entities such as those funded by NED, the Egyptian government raided the offices of 10 local civil-society organizations, including two core NED grantees. Some 43 NGO workers, including 19 Americans, were arrested and charged with crimes. It looked harrowing until the aid workers were released some months later. Russia also has taken steps to diminish the impact of such NGOs within its borders.

But there’s still plenty of potential for mischief. Consider the ongoing Ukraine drama. By wresting that tragically split country out of Russia’s sphere of influence, the West forced Russia into entirely predictable actions aimed at protecting its regional interests. That included the annexation of Crimea, with its crucial Black Sea naval base at Sevastopol, and actions to protect ethnic Russians in Ukraine’s eastern sectors. That, in turn, seriously tattered relations between Russia and the United States, with sanctions, recriminations, hoof pounding and military maneuvers.

Democracy in Ukraine is never going to be easy or smooth, given the country’s ethnic mix and cultural split. But it had a duly elected government until the West moved to undermine it, with Mr. Gershman leading the cheers and his federally supported Paladin operation financing the opposition. The result has been not only the destabilization of Ukraine but also serious and potentially ominous tensions in the region and even more ominous tensions in U.S.-Russian relations.

All this was unnecessary, the result of a cultural sanctimony and international intrusiveness reflected so revealingly in Carl Gershman and his National Endowment for Democracy. If President Trump really is serious about ensuring that America won’t seek to impose its way of life on other nations, he will move to shut this thing down and escort Mr. Gershman into the private sector."

• "Robert W. Merry, longtime Washington, D.C., journalist and publishing executive, is editor of The American Conservative. His next book, due out from Simon and Schuster in September, is a biography of William McKinley."


Added: Bloody neocons: "As the blood flowed and the suffering worsened, the neocons just sought out someone else to blame." 

Longtime State Dept. neocon Victoria Nuland is married to fellow neocon, Washington Post columnist Robert Kagan:

7/28/2015, "National Endowment for Democracy is first ‘undesirable’ NGO banned in Russia," UK Guardian, Alec Luhn in Moscow 

"“The radicals and rioters got the money where such suspicious people usually get it, in Washington. As it turns out, the National Endowment for Democracy paid for the cookies,” the news agency said, referring to a December 2013 incident in which assistant secretary of state Victoria Nuland handed out cookies to demonstrators....

NED and USAID, along with eBay founder Pierre Omidyar, gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to Ukrainian organisations advocating European-style reforms."...


Added: More on NED: "U.S. citizens fund the NED with public money, for the most part without their knowledge or consent."

March 12, 2015, "How the US Funds Dissent against Latin American Governments," (Venezuela)

"NED (National Endowment for Democracy, created in 1983, funded by US taxpayers via Congress) and USAID, also a US taxpayer funded group which nevertheless functions outside of US government and has a board of directors:

"Only recently has there been wider acknowledgement about the role that U.S. funding to nongovernmental organizations — particularly via the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) — plays in furthering U.S. foreign policy.

For example, in 2012 governments of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA) collectively signed a resolution to expel USAID from each of the member countries.

Those countries include Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Dominica, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. 

The National Endowment for Democracy (NED)

The NED was created by the administration of former U.S. President Ronald Reagan in 1983, operates as a foundation that provides grants for “democracy promotion.” The foundation is structured as an umbrella with an almost corporatist flavor.

It houses four other organizations reflecting U.S. sectoral and party interest: the U.S. labor-affiliated American Center for International Labor Solidarity (ACILS); the Chamber of Commerce-linked Center for International Private Enterprise (CIPE); and the other two, the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI) and the International Republican Institute (IRI), reflect Democrat and Republican affiliations respectively.

In many ways the NED resembles previous CIA efforts in the 1950s, 60s and 70s to provide mostly public money for secret operations aimed to bolster pro-U.S. governments and movements abroad. In South America for example, between 1975 and 1978 the U.S. helped with the creation and implementation of Operation Condor. The U.S. provided right-wing dictatorships in Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay, Colombia, Peru, Venezuela and Ecuador with technical and military support for the goal of hunting down and killing political opponents. Some estimate that Operation Condor killed between 60,000 and 80,000 people.

In 1986, the then president of the NED, Carl Gershman, explained to the New York Times, “We should not have to do this kind of work covertlyIt would be terrible for democratic groups around the world to be seen as subsidized by the C.I.A. We saw that in the 60s, and that's why it has been discontinued. We have not had the capability of doing this, and that's why the endowment was created.”

U.S. citizens fund the NED with public money,
for the most part without their knowledge or consent. The U.S. government allocates part the budget of the U.S. Department of State to USAID, which in turn provides most of the NED’s funding. Although it receives practically all of its funding from the U.S. government, the NED is technically a nongovernmental organization, headed by a board of directors. The current board includes:

  • Francis Fukuyama, a political economist, author and free-market universalist;
  • Elliott Abrams, former deputy assistant and deputy national security adviser on Middle East policy in the administration of George W. Bush;
  • Moises Naim, Venezuelan Minister of Trade and Industry during the turbulent early 1990s and former executive director of the World Bank;
  • Robert B. Zoellick, former deputy secretary of state under George W. Bush and Vice Chairmanship at Goldman Sachs Group.
The scope of activity of the NED is truly impressive. According to the NED website, it supports more than 1,000 non-government projects in more than 90 countries. 

At its inception in the early 1980s, the NED’s funding allocation was set at US$18 million and reached its peak in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Allocations for 2014 and 2015 have been approved for US$103.5 million, while over US$7 million was directed primarily to opposition organizations in Ecuador, Bolivia, Venezuela and Cuba in 2013.

Within the U.S. Department of State’s “Justification of Request” documents, which outline the reasons for funding requests, it is clear that funding priorities in Latin America and the Caribbean reflect the NED’s modern strategy of overtly carrying out old covert objectives. 

Michel Chossudovsky, a professor emeritus of economics at the University of Ottawa in Canada, sees this funding as an element in manufacturing dissent” against governments that the U.S. government dislikes. However, these funders do not work alone.

“The NED (and USAID) are entities linked with the U.S. State department, but they operate in tandem with a whole of other organizations,” said Chossudovsky.

In May 2010 the Foundation for International Relations and Foreign Dialogue released their report “Assessing Democracy Assistance in Venezuela,” which revealed that in addition to NED and USAID funding, a broad range of private and European-based foundations funded opposition-aligned nongovernmental organizations in the country with some US$40-50 million annually....

The United States Agency for International Development
Created in 1961 as a foreign assistance program under President John F. Kennedy, USAID commands a much larger budget and broader scope than the NED. While U.S. diplomats continue to stress that USAID funding does not have a political basis, USAID documents nonetheless acknowledge its role in “furthering America's interests” while carrying out “U.S. foreign policy by promoting broad-scale human progress at the same time it expands stable, free societies, creates markets and trade partners for the United States.” But critics are skeptical of USAID’s missionary work, noting how its strategy has changed over time.

USAID’s mandate is “to provide development aid and historically it has provided development aid, tied into debt negotiations and so on. Subsequently with the evolution of the development aid program it has redirected its endeavours on funding NGOs,” said Chossudovsky....

The extent of U.S. political ambitions recently came into the international spotlight with the revelation that USAID had secretly spent US$1.6 million to fund a social messaging network in Cuba called ZunZuneo, with the stated purpose to "renegotiate the balance of power between the state and society." The project was headed up by Joe McSpedon of the USAID's Office of Transition Initiatives (OTI).

Other USAID officials accused of active political meddling in the affairs of sovereign countries include regional head Mark Feierstein. According to Venezuelan investigative journalist Eva Golinger, in 2013 Feierstein met Venezuelan opposition figures including right-wing politicians Maria Corina Machado, Julio Borges and Ramon Guillermo Avelado, as well as political strategist Juan Jose Rendon, to devise a plan to undermine the Venezuelan government.

At the State Department budgetary hearing, Feierstein also confirmed “a long-standing program in place to support those who are advocating and fighting on behalf of democracy and human rights in Venezuela…and we are prepared to continue those under any scenario.”

State Department cables revealed by WikiLeaks also brought to light previous activities by USAID/OTI in Venezuela, including the development of a five-point, anti-government strategy for U.S. embassy activities, as well as the confirmation that grantees had been active in promoting street demonstrations in 2009....

In Bolivia, local rural workers’ groups and the government expelled the U.S.-based Chemonics International Inc. after their US$2.7 million USAID-funded "Strengthening Democracy" program was accused of financing destabilization attempts against the government. Chemonics operates in approximately 150 countries, offering various technical services and “consulting.”
The Bolivian government publicly outlined what they argued was proof of USAID-funded programs to mobilize the indigenous population against the government, in particular an indigenous march protesting the construction of a highway. USAID-funded programs were active in these areas, and had funded some of the leading organizations, such as the Eastern Bolivia Indigenous Peoples and Communities Confederation (CIDOB).
“USAID refused to reveal who it was funding and the Bolivian government had strong reasons to believe that it had ties and coordination with opposition groups in the country which at the time was involved in violence and destructive activities aimed at toppling the Morales government,” said Beeton. Now we know through WikiLeaks that that’s what really was going on.” 

President Evo Morales also revealed transcripts of phone calls between the anti-highway march organizers and U.S. embassy officials. The U.S. embassy confirmed the calls, but explained that they were merely trying to familiarize themselves with the country’s political and social situation.

Officials also denounced the lack of accountability to the Bolivian government or to the recipient constituencies of USAID funds. The head of the CIDOB, Lazaro Taco, confirmed that they had received “external support for our workshops," but would not identify the source.

These and other USAID activities led Bolivian President Evo Morales to claim that the agency was conspiring against his government.
The government expelled USAID from the country in May 2013, while USAID denied any wrongdoing."...



Cheered on by blood drenched Washington Post, US taxpayers have been forced to pay for both 'sides' in Syria war, and Washington Post wants even more US taxpayer cash for Islamic terrorists specially chosen by totally inept CIA for endless Middle East wars. Washington Post publisher Bezos has $600 million contract with his CIA pals. Put 5 reporters on this, WaPo: US taxpayers are no longer your global slaves. If you want endless wars and human misery, pay for them yourself. Better yet, get a life. You can't have ours

Washington Post publisher Jeff Bezos has a $600 million contract with the CIA.....Millions in CIA weapons meant for Syrian "rebels" stolen by Jordan and sold on black market (6/2016, NY Times)....US taxpayers are forced to fund both "sides" in Syria war, (3/2016, LA Times)....It's a deadly lie to say Free Syrian Army are "moderate rebels" per American held hostage in Syria who begged to be taken to Free Syrian Army believing they were "moderate" : "The F.S.A. [Free Syrian Army] transferred me to a group of Islamists, and I had my first lesson in how to distinguish Islamist fighters from the Free Syrian Army." The former tortures you more slowly. "Children participated in the torture sessions." 10/29/2014, "My Captivity," NY Times Magazine, Theo Padnos. "Theo Padnos, American Journalist, on Being Kidnapped, Tortured and Released in Syria"] 

7/22/17, "Trump Cancels a Failed CIA Operation—It’s Gotta Be the Russians!" American Greatness, Esther Goldberg 

"When the Washington Post puts five reporters on a story, it must be important, right? Over the course of the last two days, the Post reported on President Trump’s decision to officially kill “an ineffective and largely defunct” covert CIA program to recruit, train and arm anti-Assad rebels in Syria.

We learned about this program three years ago, when it emerged that while the CIA had appropriated around $500 million for this effort, the agency had been able to find only about 60 Syrian fighters deemed “moderate” enough to train and arm. Of these 60, the CIA was able to account for only five at the end of the effort, the rest having melded into various murderous militias—including ISIS—slaughtering each other in Syria. That discovery marked the effective end of the failed program.

Yet the rebels are not happy with Trump’s decision, according to the Post. “We definitely feel betrayed… It feels like we are being abandoned,” said General Tlass al-Salameh of Osoud al-Sharqiya of the Free Syrian Army [an al Qaeda group], channeling his inner James Comey.

It struggled to find an explanation for the decision. Many might have thought that you needn’t look far to account for why we’ve stopped pouring money down a rat hole. But there’s something else going on, says the Post. Something that, for the Post, explains everything that happens in Trump’s America: Russia.

The Post’s investigative team found an anonymous “official” to pronounce that “Putin won in Syria.” 

True, there’d long been talk of ending the program, but not “for free,” said a former official. “To give [the program] away without getting anything in return would be foolish.” President Trump should have negotiated. “C’mon Vlad, what will you give to end this defunct and ineffective program?”

If you don’t do something for me, I’ll continue to hit myself on the head with this hammer.

“A huge strategic mistake,” said a former Obama official who’d only just a few moments ago more accurately described it as “a nod to reality.” Some of his aides wanted Obama to supply the rebels with serious anti-aircraft weapons, but he demurred, not wanting “to be pulled into a conflict with Russia.” Indeed, a conflict with Russia would not sit well with Obama’s Iranian allies. [No one cares what sits well with US taxpayers.] 

It’s complicated, you see. Obama didn’t want the rebels to win. 

The Obama policy was, in fact, designed to provoke a battlefield stalematewhich the administration hoped would lead to a negotiated end to the conflict.” This might explain why the CIA trainees were forbidden to fight Assad loyalists, and to limit their fight to ISIS, a prohibition that caused many of them to defect to other militias. And a “negotiated end” contemplates that Assad might be permitted to stay. 

So the rebels weren’t permitted to rebel.

Obama was in a bind. On the one hand, Americans were urging him to defeat Assad and put an end to the humanitarian crisis in Syria. On the other, the Iranians were not predisposed to having their man in Damascus taken out. Indeed, that would jeopardize the nuclear deal, and with it Obama’s legacy. Best, then, to pretend to be doing something while doing nothing at all. Except spending our money foolishly.

Someone whose business it is to investigate such matters on the ground told me a couple of years ago that what he saw in Syria was American personnel being moved from one location to another and then back again. “It’s like they’re trying to look like they’re doing something,” he said. 

This is how a Potemkin president wages a Potemkin war. You have to be trained in the higher stupidity of liberalism to think that any of this makes sense.

What’s this all about, then? Why does it require input from five reporters, including Heba Habib all the way from Stockholm, and Zakaria Zakaria from Istanbul? And no one from Syria? 

In reality, there’s no story. In 2013, the CIA established a covert program to find, train, and arm moderate Syrian rebels to fight ISIS. The program flopped, “fizzled out amid battlefield losses and concerns about extremism within rebel ranks,” but was allowed to linger on the books. It didn’t do anything for us except draw us into an unwinnable Middle East quagmire, with the goal of trying to make a feckless president look like he was doing something.

But if Trump formally ended a stupid and ill-conceived program, it must be a “huge strategic mistake.” And, as always, the Washington Post sees the dark hand of Russia shaping our policies." 


Friday, July 21, 2017

Obama spoon-feeds yummy ObamaCare to obedient little Mitch McConnell-New Yorker Magazine cover, 4/14/2014


4/14/14, New Yorker Magazine cover with Obama spoon-feeding an obedient Mitch McConnell his yummy ObamaCare, via TPM


List of vicious, hateful House Republicans who know very well it's not about CO2 but they seek to tighten chains of global slavery around necks of Americans. Per UN official, the multi-trillion dollar CO2 danger industry isn't about climate, but redistributing world's weath. Such 'redistribution' only happens via deeply corrupt US political class. This decades long demonization and starvation of Americans is defined as genocide, per Lemkin. Bush #1 began it in 1990 with his USGCRP

(List of Republicans below). UN climate official clearly states it's not about climate nor environmental policy, rather it's about redistributing the world's wealth: "It is a great mistake to discuss climate politics separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in CancĂșn at the end of the month (Nov. 2010) is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conventions since the Second World War....One has to say clearly: We are de facto distributing world wealth through climate policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy, with problems like forest extinction or ozone hole....Then we have to see that successful climate policy needs a different global trade and financial policy."...11/14/2010, "Climate policy redistributes world wealth," NZZamSontag, interview with Ottmar Edenhofer by Bernhard Potter

Genocide as described by the term's creator, Raphael Lemkin: "Genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation....It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty,  health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals"...

July 17, 2017, "Who are the GOP Warmists?" David Archibald, American Thinker

"Who are these people? Which Republican congressmen have broken faith and voted to subject their people to servitude, oppression, and contempt? The list can be broken into two. Firstly, there are the members of House Climate Solutions Caucus, the inner circle of self-selected misanthropes.

The Republican members of this group are:

If this first list can be considered as those who have consciously made a choice for evil, this second group are the easily deluded fools:

If you see your congressman on either list, please point out to him the error of his ways....

The head of the EPA, Scott Pruitt, has proposed a blue team-red team dialogue to progress climate science, instead of simply appointing someone, such as Will Happer, to write the required report and get it over and done with. Perhaps Mr. Pruitt thinks such an approach will provide legitimacy for the outcome. The blue team won't play, though, because it means entertaining the thought that they could possibly be wrong. Besides, we don't have the luxury of time. There has yet to be even one official government report, from anywhere on the planet, saying global warming is nonsense. There are 33 Republican-controlled states in the Union currently. Any one of them could commission such a report on climate; all of them should.. This is a strategy that will capture the enemy's center of gravity – the scientific imprimatur for their belief system.... 

Foreign Policy, the propaganda arm of the Brookings Institution, reports that a number of Republican congressmen helped defeat an amendment to the 2018 defense funding bill proposed by Scott Perry of Pennsylvania.  Perry's amendment would have removed an amendment introduced by Jim Langevin of Rhode Island to require the Department of Defense to report on global warming.

Langevin's amendment has some amusing bits. In the supporting evidence for global warming, one piece of evidence listed to demonstrate that global warming is really, truly, unequivocally happening is on page four:

"(13) In the Yukon Training Area, units conducting artillery training accidentally started a wildfire despite observing the necessary practices during red flag warning conditions." 

So some artillery rounds set fire to some brush in Alaska.  And as a consequence, the Department of Defense is required to examine the effects of make-believe on its operations? On page five, the make-believers listed their demands with respect to the report the Department of Defense is required to compile, including reporting on the effects of increased flooding and drought at the same time.

The make-believers shouldn't be forced to choose. They can have both flood and drought if they want them, and if everyone believes. 

The United States pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement, per Lincoln's assessment that the United States is "the last, best hope of earth." That pullout may have saved humanity from a form of servitude. As the Duke of Wellington said of Waterloo, it was "a damn close-run thing." But the forces of darkness still hold a lot of high ground, believe they can still prevail and mount counterattacks to gain ground, as per the Langevin amendment. The fact that the Department of Defense is producing a report on global warming will be used to say how serious a problem it is."...

Added: 2015 paper: The explosion of global climate science spending was traced to the United States Executive branch in 1990 and Bush #1's USGCRP mandate ordering massive diversion of US tax dollars

3/6/2015, "Causes and consequences of the climate science boom," William Butos and Thomas McQuade (Butos, Prof. of Economics, Trinity College, Hartford, CT, McQuade, Independent Scholar, San Diego, CA. Forthcoming in The Independent Review)

"2. By any standards, what we have documented here is a massive funding drive, highlighting the patterns of climate science Rand D as funded and directed only by the Executive Branch."...1. The Government’s Role in Climate Science Funding...took a critical step with passage of the Global Change Research Act of 1990.  

Funding appears to be driving the science rather than the other way around....[32]" (item #11) 

The new phrase “global change”, if it means anything, is a more accommodating substitute for “global warming”....

The political attractiveness of a putative crisis apparently calling for a large expansion of state power [6]"...(From Introduction)... 

2....To put its magnitude into some context, the $9.3 billion funding requested for climate science R and D in 2013 is about one-third of the total amount appropriated for all 27 National Institutes of Health in the same year, [41] yet it is more than enough to sustain a science boom."

New World Order, says Bush

Referenced in above paper, Bush's 1990 Global Change Research Act: "Reference: Global Change Research Act (Public Law 101-606, 104 Stat. 3096-3104), signed on November 16, 1990,"

"To require the establishment of a United States Global Change Research Program, Nov 16, 1990, aimed at understanding and responding to global change, including the cumulative effects of human activities and natural processes on the environment, to promote discussions toward international protocols in global change research, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Global Change United States of America in Congress assembled, Research Act of 1990.... MEMBERSHIP.—The Committee shall consist of at least one representative from— 
(1) the National Science Foundation;
 (2) the National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
 (3) the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the Department of   Commerce;
 (4) the Environmental Protection Agency;
  (5) the Department of Energy;
  (6) the Department of State;
  (7) the Department of Defense;
 (8) the Department of the Interior;
  (9) the Department of Agriculture;
 (10) the Department of Transportation;
 (11) the Office of Management and Budget;
 (12) the Office of Science and Technology Policy;
(13) the Council on Environmental Quality;
  (14) the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
 of the National Institutes of Health; and p. 3, pdf:
     (15) such other agencies and departments of the United States
     as the President or the Chairman of the Council considers

    Such representatives shall be high ranking officials of their agency or department....(e)"

 ....(Image above of Bush #1 via You Tube "New World Order quotes")  

Added: "No amount of money you wouldn't pay:" GOP Energy lobbyist insider Mike McKenna, quoted in 2013 Politico article: 

"“If you really believe or accept that global warming is a legitimate, real, immediate threat, then there's no amount of money you wouldn't pay to avoid it," he said:"

6/27/2013, "GOP climate tack: Talk jobs, not science," Politico Pro, Darren Goode (near end of article)

Added: Keep this quiet: African dust travels across the entire state of Florida each year, kills millions of Florida fish, kills manatees, poisons shellfish, can cause human respiratory problems. NASA tested 8,100 sq. mile region between Tampa Bay and Fort Myers, Florida-NASA, Aug. 2001 study 

Image caption: Satellites can track African dust clouds as they migrate across the Atlantic Ocean. This NASA TOMS aerosol movie, which spans the interval June 13 through 21, 2001, shows such a cloud raining bits of the Sahara Desert over the Caribbean and the Gulf of Mexico. [more information]

Aug. 2001 NASA article:
8/30/2001, "Desert Dust Kills Florida Fish," "New research links huge African dust clouds with the "red tides" that kill millions of fish along the Florida coast each year,"

Added: US taxpayers ordered "to assist the world" in a newly invented industry requiring constant jet setting to global meetings:.

"Legal Mandate," From

"The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) was established by Presidential Initiative in 1989 and mandated by Congress in the Global Change Research Act (GCRA) of 1990 to “assist the Nation and the world to understand, assess, predict, and respond to human-induced and natural processes of global change.”"