Romney Advisor: Eliminating Electoral College Would Force GOP to Adapt for the Better

‘As long as the Republican Party believes it can win as an overwhelmingly white party, it will never feel the political pressure to change…’

Stuart Stevens / IMAGE: MSNBC via Youtube

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) One of Mitt Romney‘s top strategists during his failed 2012 presidential bid to oust Barack Obama has come out in favor of a controversial, left-driven push to end the Electoral College.

The initiative to switch to a popular-vote system for electing the president has been met with heavy skepticism, particularly as Democrats have openly encouraged illegal immigrants to steal their way into the country by the thousands on a daily basis.

Even if those illegals themselves are ineligible to vote, the 14th Amendment’s birthright citizenship clause—passed in the aftermath of the Civil War—ensures that groups favored by Democrats’ socialist-friendly policies are only a generation away from securing permanent leftist majorities.

Some radical liberals seeking the presidential nomination, such as former Obama Housing Secretary Julian Castro, have even endorsed open borders that would eliminate any check on how Americans defined citizenship.

Those calls would be likely to grow even louder should schemes like the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact succeed.

But former Romney adviser Stuart Stevens claimed in USA Today op-ed published Monday that being forced to adapt to such a new world order would actually be healthy for conservatives. 

Stevens is currently working on former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld‘s campaign to pose a GOP primary challenge to President Donald Trump.

Employing a common trope on the Left to tie Republican values to whiteness—and, accordingly, link any opposition of leftist policies to racism—he said that the GOP was doomed to fail in its current trajectory due to demographic shifts.

“As long as the Republican Party believes it can win as an overwhelmingly white party, it will never feel the political pressure to change,” Stevens wrote.

“Parties rarely voluntarily change as part of some long-term strategy to improve future results,” he said. “Parties change because they are facing defeat and/or extinction if they don’t change.”

Even at the risk of pushing the entire political system farther leftward, Stevens said that the need to adapt would ultimately preserve some vestige of the Republican Party by forcing it to adopt more progressive attitudes on race-based issues.

Naturally, he blamed President Donald Trump for entrenching the GOP in what he deemed an unhealthy and unsustainable set of beliefs.

“Donald Trump is defining the Republican Party as a white grievance party, settling the score for the great injustices being wrought on America’s white middle class,” Stevens said.

“That was just enough to win in 2016 with the decline in black turnout and the rise of third-party voters, but losing a campaign by 3 million votes should be a serious warning sign for anyone who cares about the health of a center-right party in America.”

Trump and others—such as the Public Interest Legal Foundation—have questioned the legitimacy of the claims that Hillary Clinton won the 2016 popular vote, noting that voter fraud is rampant in blue places like California, New York and Illinois that have since fashioned themselves into “sanctuary states” for illegal immigrants.

Stevens, however, dismissed the notion that a popular-vote system would shift political influence disproportionately to the more populous blue states, thus forcing candidates to ignore rural and conservative-leaning areas.

Oddly, he cited the failed Senate campaign of former Rep. Beto O’Rourke, D-Texas, to support his point.

“The benefits of campaign appearances are far more about driving a message than the acquisition of votes in that particular market,” Steven said. “… O’Rourke campaigned in each of the 254 counties in Texas despite the fact that 84% of Texans live in urban areas.”

Stevens also puzzled, inexplicably, over why blue states like California had not established their own Electoral College systems if it was so effective at maintaining a representative democracy—ignoring that such a measure would require the far-left establishment there to yield some of its existing power.

“The Electoral College has never performed as intended, with electors acting as a deliberative check on the whims of a national election,” he said. “In practice, its only function is to allow for the possibility that the choice of a plurality of American voters will be thwarted and subject America to minority rule.”

After SCOTUS Loss, Holder Continues Gerrymandering Fight; Still Ignores Blue States

‘Mr. Holder wants to repeat this across any state where he can promote a liberal judicial majority if he can’t elect a liberal Legislature or Governor…’

Eric Holder Mocks Trump Supporters: 'Exactly When Did You Think America Was Great?'
Eric Holder / IMAGE: MSNBC via Youtube

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) Despite a new Supreme Court decision that ruled the federal courts had no jurisdiction to decide partisan gerrymandering cases, former Attorney General Eric Holder, now in charge of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee, has pledged to continue pushing his agenda through the courts at both state and federal levels.

However, his supposedly nonpartisan effort to end gerrymandering through the courts is widely regarded as bid to make it more partisan by simply realigning red states to his liking while ignoring the blue states altogether.

Holder published an op-ed piece in The Washington Post on July 3 that outlined his intention to press forward with the well-funded initiative, aiming to undermine the maps drawn by voter-elected Republican state legislatures and replace them with those mandated by often left-leaning, unaccountable judiciaries.

The NDRC ” will continue to bring racial gerrymandering claims in the federal courts and partisan gerrymandering cases in the state courts,” he wrote.

Astoundingly, that includes an effort to reverse the high court’s decision by pressing the very same lawsuit at the state level in North Carolina that was just defeated by the Supreme Court at the federal level.

Common Cause, the activist group that attempted to undo the state legislature’s maps in the failed federal case Rucho v. Common Cause, is now attempting to plead its case to the state Supreme Court, which holds a 5-2 majority of liberal to conservative judges.

There, rather than try to force a redraw of the federal congressional districts, the group—which Holder calls an NDRC “affiliate”—is hoping to redraw the state districts and flip the legislature blue prior to the next round of redistricting so that Democrats can enact their own gerrymandering.

Ironically, the activist group already succeeded in forcing the maps to be redrawn once in North Carolina, which resulted in Republicans losing a super-majority in the state legislature, although they were still able to hold the majority in both chambers.

That was not enough, however, for the Left’s “sue till blue” effort to be a success, so Common Cause is now declaring its own previously endorsed map to be unfair and partisan.

NC state Senate President Phil Berger called out the blatant political ploy—modeled after a case that succeeded in Pennsylvania prior to the 2018 midterm election.

There, the liberal Pennsylvania Supreme Court was able to carve up the regions surrounding Philadelphia and add three additional blue seats once held by Republicans—thus helping the Democrats to retake the U.S. House of Representatives last year.

“That’s not democracy. It’s judicial usurpation of democracy,” Berger said. “Mr. Holder wants to repeat this across any state where he can promote a liberal judicial majority if he can’t elect a liberal Legislature or Governor.”

In addition to targeting North Carolina, the NDRC has 11 other states in its cross-hairs—all traditionally conservative-leaning or toss-up battleground states where Republicans are vulnerable to be hurt politically by Holder’s election-meddling efforts.

“For too long, the Democratic Party has failed to focus on the state and local elections that impact the lives of American citizens on a day-to-day basis and determine who has a seat at the redistricting table,” Holder wrote in his op-ed.

Not included on the NDRC’s hit list is Maryland, where a conservative-based companion case to Common Cause’s North Carolina lawsuit originated. In that instance, a left-leaning legislature attempted to redraw the maps to eliminate one of the state’s few red districts.

Despite having one branch of the NDRC designated for IRS purposes as a tax-free, nonpartisan nonprofit (another wing is designated as a trust, and a third is a political-action committee) Holder has made patently clear that the group’s core objectives are entirely partisan rather than principled in nature.

The aim, ultimately, is not to end the practice of gerrymandering when it benefits the Left, but simply to establish permanent Democratic majorities that will block out any opposition efforts.

“Democrats must invest in—and win—state and local elections in 2019 and 2020 to make sure that Republicans do not retain total control in the remaining states and manipulate the process again during 2021 redistricting,” Holder wrote.

Republicans dominated the previous round of redistricting, following the 2010 census, largely due to a backlash of then-President Barack Obama’s highly partisan policies, including the March 2010 passage of the Affordable Care Act along party lines.

Cuomo Uses Publicly-Funded Org. to Resist ICE’s Deportations

New York will continue to stand with all immigrants to ensure they have the full protections afforded under the law…’

NY Gov. Cuomo Signs Bill Granting Driver’s Licenses to Illegal Immigrants
Andrew Cuomo/Photo by zrs_one (CC)

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced Monday that he would use a publicly-funded resource to help illegal aliens flout current federal deportation efforts.

Cuomo has increasingly sought to pit himself as a nemesis against President Donald Trump, injecting his unsolicited opinions into discussions of policies that have little bearing on the governance of his own state.

He has previously sparred with the White House on an array of issues, including tax cuts and gun rights.

Last week, the far-left governor called for a probe of the president’s Hurricane Maria response and the emergency provisions given to Puerto Rico, claiming the debt-ridden and corruption-plagued U.S. territory did not receive the same relief funding as Texas and Florida after recent hurricanes.

The most recent attack on Trump comes as Immigration and Customs Enforcement finalized its plans to follow up on the president’s earlier delayed promise of mass deportations.

While inserting himself into the debate, Cuomo, bizarrely, accused the president of trying to politicize immigration by enforcing federal law.

“This is the latest example of this administration’s politicization of immigration in this country and constant assault on the civil rights and dignity of individuals and families,” Cuomo said in a statement.

He said that New York’s public–private Liberty Defense Project would help those facing deportation to continue to forestall the process by attempting to clog the judicial system with specious legal challenges.

New York will continue to stand with all immigrants to ensure they have the full protections afforded under the law,” Cuomo said.

Despite New York’s budget having encountered a more than $2 billion shortfall this year, Cuomo allotted $10 million in state funding to expand the Liberty Defense Project, a primarily state-run initiative that also involves many activist immigration-advocacy groups, according to its website.

Ken Cuccinelli, the acting director of Citizenship and Immigration Services, explained Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation” that the deportations impacted illegals who already had reached the end of the legal hearings process and continued to defy orders to self-deport.

“[ICE is] ready to just perform their mission, which is to go and find and detain and then deport the approximately 1 million people who have final removal orders,” Cuccinelli said. “They’ve been all the way through the due process and have final removal orders.”

Measures such as Cuomo’s to undermine immigration enforcement efforts have been criticized by the federal agencies, who say they create danger to the law-enforcement officers and the community.

Attempts to delay deportations by exploiting loopholes in the asylum laws to overwhelm the courts have also resulted in an overflow of detention centers at the southern border, creating cramped conditions for the immigtants who continue to flood across by the thousands every day.

“It’s important for people to realize that we continue to effectuate an asylum process that is intended to help people who are persecuted for political, religious, et cetera reasons,” Cuccinelli said. “But that whole process is being swamped by fraudulent asylum claims.”

Cuccinelli said he was “disappointed” that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had included nothing on the legislative agenda to address the emergency, despite increasingly severe rhetoric from Democrats in the Congressional Hispanic Caucus—where some, like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio–Cortez, D-NY, have claimed the facilities resembled Nazi “concentration camps.”

Those overseeing the immigration enforcement efforts say the ball is in Congress’s court to fix the issues that regulatory policies alone cannot achieve.

“Until we start fixing these loopholes and getting some changes in place it’s going to be very difficult to avoid overcrowding to avoid the kind of conditions at the border that all of us would like to see dissipated” Cuccinelli said.

Calif. Gov. Newsom Hopes to Poach Nike Plant from Ariz. w/ Liberal Virtue-Signaling

‘Hey, @Nike — we’re just a quick jaunt over the border…’

Calif. Gov. Wants Nationwide Background Checks on Ammo Purchases
Gavin Newsom/Photo by XPRIZE Foundation (CC)

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) As many flee the oppressive taxation and costs of doing business in California, Gov. Gavin Newsom hoped to butter up athletic-apparel company Nike on Tuesday, not with economic incentives but with left-wing virtue-signaling.

Nike faced immense backlash from conservatives after pulling a line of shoes that featured a “Betsy Ross” American flag with 13 stars, which controversial pitchman Colin Kaepernick deemed racist due to the flag’s associations with slavery.

In response, Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey announced the withdrawal of a million dollar incentive grant and another million in waived fees for the company to locate a new manufacturing plant in the Phoenix suburb of Goodyear.

Nike, in turn, planned to invest $184.5 million in the plant with a promise of bringing around 500 jobs, according to the Associated Press.

The Oregon-based corporation has an estimated net worth of some $92 billion.

In recent years, Newsom’s state has dealt with a large-scale exodus of both industry and wealthy residents to more affordable neighboring regions like Arizona and Nevada.

But in the wake of the Nike controversy, the California governor saw an opportunity for revenge by attempting to poach the Arizona plant.

Newsom recently made a similar appeal to disaffected movie-industry workers who, having left southern California to take advantage of tax incentives in areas like Georgia, found themselves alienated by red-state conservative values.

That included Georgia’s passage of a pro-life, “heartbeat” law restricting when pregnant women could seek an abortion.

In a Twitter video, Newsom besought the Tinsel Town refugees to “come back home.”

However, the idea that Nike would embrace a substantially higher corporate overhead simply to make a political point remained a dubious prospect.

The hiring of Kaepernick—the former San Francisco 49ers quarterback better known for his anthem kneeling than his athletic achievements—appeared to cement Nike’s divisive political stance, only to be reinforced by the recent recall of the flag-bearing Air Max 1 Quick Strikes.

It was a groundbreaking shift in paradigm for the company, which took a decidedly more innocuous approach in the past.

After declining to endorse the Democratic challenger in a 1990 North Carolina race, Nike pitchman Michael Jordan was famously reputed to have said, “Republicans buy sneakers too.”

But despite the change in strategy, industry analysts have noted that Nike’s hiring of Kaepernick remained a shrewdly calculated marketing gambit more than anything.

Nike’s affront to conservatives, even at the risk of a boycott, ultimately increased the company’s exposure and brand loyalty among its core demographic of younger consumers, who saw the move as an iconoclastic jab at the establishment.

Relocating its plant to California, while helping to reaffirm the company’s hard leftward shift, would not offer the same return on investment that its associations with Kaepernick afforded.

Rather, Newsom’s pitch was, in some ways, reminiscent of the disastrous efforts by Amazon to relocate its headquarters to tax-heavy New York earlier this year, only to scuttle the deal in March after its $1.7 billion in tax breaks and incentives came under harsh scrutiny from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio–Cortez, D-NY.

 1
Air Max 1 Quick Strike Fourth of July / IMAGE: Twitter

In a statement issued Tuesday in response to the recent flag flap, Nike downplayed its political posturing, claiming it had actually pulled the shoes to avoid creating controversy.

“We regularly make business decisions to withdraw initiatives, products and services,” it said, according to Fox News.

“NIKE made the decision to halt distribution of the Air Max 1 Quick Strike Fourth of July based on concerns that it could unintentionally offend and detract from the nation’s patriotic holiday,” the statement said.

Bootlegged pairs of the limited-edition shoes that had already hit the market on Tuesday were selling online for $2,500—more than 20 times their original price, according to Bloomberg.

Ariz. Gov. Revokes Economic Incentives for Flag-Bashing Nike

‘We don’t need to suck up to companies that consciously denigrate our nation’s history…’

 1
Air Max 1 Quick Strike Fourth of July / IMAGE: Twitter

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) As patriotism-trashing shoemakers Nike sought to gin up more controversy by recalling a product that featured an American flag, Arizona’s governor responded by revoking a package economic incentives for the company.

Gov. Doug Ducey took to Twitter in a series of nine posts (see below) expressing his disappointment over the virtue-signalling corporation’s latest attack on American values.

“Arizona’s economy is doing just fine without Nike,” Ducey said. “We don’t need to suck up to companies that consciously denigrate our nation’s history.”

The company’s latest firestorm erupted as the city of Goodyear was set to move forward on an agreement for Nike to build a manufacturing facility there, expected to create 505 jobs, according to CNN Wire.

In return, the Phoenix suburb planned to waive about $1 million in permit and review fees, and to reimburse Nike up to $1 million in costs through an economic-development grant supplied by the Arizona Commerce Authority.

Ducey’s announcement left the overall fate of the deal uncertain as it was unclear what role state-level officials played in brokering it.

Nike said it recalled the shoes, which inexplicably incorporated a version of the original “Betsy Ross” flag of the 13 colonies stitched on their back, because controversial spokesman Colin Kaepernick took offense.

Kaepernick
Colin Kaepernick (center)/IMAGE: Johnny Ahoy via Youtube

CNN reported that Nike already had shipped the Air Max 1 Quick Strike Fourth of July products to stores but had asked for their return after Kaepernick—the former San Francisco 49ers quarterback now known more for his anthem-kneeling protests—said he found the flag’s association with slavery to be racist.

The announcement last year that Kaepernick had signed as a Nike pitchman initially drew strong backlash, with product boycotts and even some consumers burning their Nike gear in protest.

However, the company deftly used the negative publicity to rebrand itself among its target younger demographics and ultimately was said to reap considerable dividends from the scandal.

The extent to which Nike actively engineered the latest controversy remains unknown.

Last week, it pulled another limited-edition line from Chinese stores after their Japanese designer drew backlash by supporting a Hong Kong protest against the mainland.

Already, the black-market price of the recalled “Betsy Ross” shoes has risen to $2,500, more than 20 times their original value, reported Bloomberg.

In addition, Nike has once again succeeded in getting free marketing exposure from the flap, with other conservatives—including Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas—joining Ducey to express their outrage.

Eric Holder Has Plan to Bypass SCOTUS’s Gerrymandering Decision

‘History will not be kind in its assessment of the ways in which this court has undermined voting rights and core democratic principles in America…’

Eric Holder, Dems Have Plan to Bypass SCOTUS Gerrymandering Decision
Eric Holder / IMAGE: Mother Jones via Youtube

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) When the Supreme Court last week ruled in a pair of landmark cases that federal courts had no jurisdiction in dictating how states determine their voting districts, conservatives hailed it as a victory against the Left’s efforts to undermine duly elected state legislatures.

But, in fact, it merely added an extra step for groups like former Attorney General Eric Holder‘s National Democratic Redistricting Committee, which has considerable resources tied in its plan to forcibly redraw the political map using liberal judges.

The focus is now on installing radical activists on state Supreme Courts, who can then use their authority to gerrymander both federal districts and the state districts in order to turn state legislatures blue before the next round of redistricting in 2021.

And with the U.S. Supreme Court having washed its hands of the matter, there will be no legal remedy if they succeed.

Already, Democrat activists in North Carolina, one of the two states—along with Maryland—that was represented in the recent court decision, have pushed the very same complaint to the state level, where a solid liberal majority on the state Supreme Court bench is poised to forcibly redistrict the state’s Republican legislative seats.

Meanwhile Holder has shifted his list of targets from national races to hone in completely on state-level races in vulnerable regions.

There, he is able to leverage the massive infrastructure and funding from NDRC’s tax-exempt trust and political-action committee to influence key local elections with implications for the entire country.

Earlier this year, former President Barack Obama merged his own campaign arm, Organizing for Action, into the Holder-led gerrymandering group, giving his self-declared wingman and donation bundler access to an army of social-justice warriors ready to mobilize at the click of a button.

Although conservatives recently established their own counterpart, the National Republican Redistricting Trust, with former Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker helping to raise the group’s profile, it has nowhere near the level of resources needed to go toe-to-toe with the NDRC in courtroom battles.

Scott Walker Tells NFL Players to Focus on Not Beating Their Wives 1
Scott Walker/Photo by Gage Skidmore (CC)

Walker’s home state of Wisconsin is among the 12 historically red or battleground states that the NDRC has directly targeted for upcoming elections.

Issuing a menacing statement in response to the recent Supreme Court decision, Holder—who notoriously has declared that America was never great—threatened the conservative judiciary that it will suffer for not ruling in his favor.

“History will not be kind in its assessment of the ways in which this court has undermined voting rights and core democratic principles in America,” he said.

In its decision last week, however, the Supreme Court explicitly rejected the effort to use the courts as a means of reversing unfavorable election outcomes.

Chief Justice John Roberts cautioned that the result could be having every future election challenged and decided ultimately by the ideological leanings of the court rather than the people of the district.

“The expansion of judicial authority would not be into just any area of controversy, but into one of the most intensely partisan aspects of American political life,” Roberts said.

“That intervention would be unlimited in scope and duration—it would recur over and over again around the country with each new round of districting, for state as well as federal representatives,” he said.

Despite those bipartisan concerns, Holder continued to use misinformation to sway the partisan Left into supporting his efforts, with the goal of securing a permanent Democrat majority in both the legislatures and the courts.

Holder collaborated with far-left mouthpiece Mother Jones to create a propaganda video in order to spin his efforts to the general populace.

NYTimes Unhinged by Satirical Joe Biden Website

‘Mr. Mauldin’s website hews far closer to the disinformation spread by Russian trolls in 2016 than typical political messaging…’

BIDEN: 'Regret That I am Not President'
Joe Biden/IMAGE: YouTube

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) Leftist media, who have long ducked behind the cover of anti-conservative political comedy, are far less bemused by a humor site mocking former Vice President Joe Biden, which The New York Times likened to a Russian cyber-attack.

From websites like The Onion to television programs like “The Daily Show,” satire often has played a pivotal role in the Left’s attacks on conservatism.

Ridiculing one’s opponent ranks as No. 5 on Saul Alinsky‘s “Rules for Radicals“—which helped to lay the foundation of political strategies like those used by the Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton campaigns.

A few months prior to the 2016 election, in fact, The Boston Globe (owned until 2013 by The New York Times) ran a fake front page spoofing then-candidate Donald Trump, among a litany of questionable journalistic practices.

More recently, Rep. Devin Nunes, R-Calif., was criticized by media leftists after filing a defamation suit over a Twitter profile that claimed to represent his mother and one claiming to be his cow.

Nunes said the sites “repeatedly tweeted and retweeted abusive and hateful content” against him.

Yet, in a scathing, 2,400-word, front-page report in Saturday’s Times, writer Matthew Rosenberg came unhinged over the popularity of JoeBiden.info.

The site lampoons Biden on his many gaffes and his creepy invasion of other people’s personal boundaries, including that of many underage girls.

Rosenberg’s piece sought primarily to expose the owner of the site, Patrick Mauldin.

The reporter deployed all of his investigative skills to root out the unidentified jokester and then to breathlessly attack Mauldin for having the audacity to parody the current Democratic front-runner.

“[I]n anonymously trying to exploit the fissures within the Democratic ranks—fissures that ran through this past week’s debates — Mr. Mauldin’s website hews far closer to the disinformation spread by Russian trolls in 2016 than typical political messaging,”Rosenberg whined.

Rosenberg then linked to a September 2017 article about Russian conspiracies and election meddling that seemed to cast aside the nearly two-year-long Mueller investigation, which debunked many of the underlying claims that the Times and others had relentlessly perpetuated.

“With nothing to indicate its creator’s motives or employer,” the Times griped of the Biden spoof, “the website offers a preview of what election experts and national security officials say Americans can expect to be bombarded with for the next year and a half: anonymous and hard-to-trace digital messaging spread by sophisticated political operatives whose aim is to sow discord through deceit. Trolling, that is, as a political strategy.”

REPORT: Focus on Climate Change Takes Away from REAL Disaster Planning

‘The more urgent problem of our lemming-like march to the sea requires immediate and sustained attention…’

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) A leading climatologist said that blaming things like carbon-dioxide emissions while ignoring the real policy issues surrounding natural disasters left regions more vulnerable for future catastrophe.

Judith Curry, president of the Climate Forecast Applications Network and a professor emeritus of Georgia Tech’s climatology department, became a leading climate-change skeptic after looking at the scientific evidence.

Curry was among the expert witnesses to testify recently before a House Oversight subcommittee on the topic of “Recovery, Resilience and Readiness,” where she was pitted against climate-change dogmatists and research manipulators including Penn State’s Michael Mann.

Curry followed up on her written testimony for the committee by adapting it into a report, which was released Monday by The Global Warming Policy Foundation.

Even if evidence fails to support man-made climate change as a cause for natural disasters, she said, the recurrence and unpredictability of extreme weather patterns meant more should be done to anticipate them in order to minimize risk.

“Many regions of the U.S. are not well adapted to the current weather and climate variability or to the extremes that were seen earlier in the 20th century,” Curry said in a GWPF press release. “We can do much to improve our resilience to extreme weather regardless of climate change.”

In fact, the illusion of climate change—which taps into a long continuum throughout history of blaming extreme weather on the sins of mankind—creates greater risk in suggesting that the weather will somehow become less severe simply by going green.

“Since no level of decarbonisation will prevent hurricanes or wildfires from hitting towns and cities, only a pragmatic policy of preparedness and adaptation will make communities saver and more resilient,” said the GWPF press release.

To illustrate the point, Curry noted, as have some in Congress, that a discrepancy between wildfires on public and private lands proved it was poor forest management that was, in effect, fueling fires in places like California, where environmental regulations prevented foresters from clearing brush.

“The abundance of fuels is the most important controlling variable in fire regimes of these semi-arid forests,” noted the report. “Reduction of widespread fires over the last century reflects extensive human impacts on forests and fire regimes.”

To the extent that climate variability factored into the equation—such as periods of drought—the current uptick mirrors one from the early part of the 20th century when the fires were even more prevalent.

Curry’s report also examined the alleged man-made impact on Atlantic hurricanes.

 1
2018’s Hurricane Michael, the fourth deadliest U.S. hurricane on record since the 20th century recording began, left parts of southern Florida in rubble. /IMAGE: The Washington Post via Youtube

“In spite of the low confidence in attributing changes in hurricane activity to human influence, the public discourse on the threat of hurricanes in a changing climate is often characterized by exaggerated alarm, fueled by statements from some climate scientists,” she wrote, taking a dig at Mann’s claims of major cities being lost.

Although a period in the mid-2000s saw back-to-back years with four and three major hurricanes, lending to the perception of increased weather severity, it was immediately followed by a span of nearly that broke records for having no major hurricanes.

This results in a negative overall trend, a slight downturn in the number of hurricanes, since the early 20th century.

The fact that there was no consensus on the 2019 hurricane season underscored the challenges scientists continued to face in predicting the weather, Curry said.

“The variation among these forecasts reflects different assumptions about the important factors that drive seasonal hurricane activity,” she said. “The relatively low skill of seasonal hurricane forecasts reflects a combination of incomplete understanding and unpredictable weather variability.”

Curry’s own models, based on the prevalence of La Niña events—essentially the cooling phase of ocean surface temperatures—would indicate a 2019 season with heavy hurricanes and an overall upward trend of hurricanes lasting into the 2020s before shifting into another period of decline, noted the report.

Curry said that adapting a “resilience” mindset geared more toward recovering from extreme weather than trying to prevent it would lessen the impact.

“A focus on policies that support resilience, anti-fragility and thrivability reduces our vulnerability to extreme weather events and doesn’t rely on highly uncertain predictions of the future climate,” she noted in the report.

However, in terms of prevention efforts, one of the leading factors was that government policies encouraged risk. While Western states’ tree-thinning regulations increased risk of fires, so, also, did its insurance industry regulations, by inviting people to build near coastal areas prone to greater risk, increase the devastation caused by the major events.

“[T]he more urgent problem of our lemming-like march to the sea requires immediate and sustained attention,” noted Curry and a coalition of scientists in a 2006 statement. “We call upon leaders of government and industry to undertake a comprehensive evaluation of building practices, and insurance, land use, and disaster relief policies that currently serve to promote an ever-increasing vulnerability to hurricanes.”

JUDICIAL WATCH: Obama Justice Dept. Gave Immunity to Hillary Lawyer Who Vetted Emails

Ex-White House liaison contradicted previous FBI deposition in which she claimed no knowledge of private server during public service…

JUDICIAL WATCH: Obama Justice Dept. Gave Immunity to Hillary Lawyer Who Vetted Emails
Heather Samuelson / IMAGE: Screenshot via State.gov

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) In its ongoing efforts to shed light on Hillary Clinton‘s campaign corruption and the subsequent cover-up efforts, Judicial Watch revealed new testimony from a top Clinton lawyer who helped destroy crucial evidence, acknowledging that she got an immunity deal.

Heather Samuelson, who became Clinton’s personal attorney after serving a stint as her White House liaison at the State Department, “was primarily responsible for conducting the review of Clinton emails and sorting out ‘personal’ emails from government emails,” said the nonprofit accountability watchdog.

Clinton’s team later used a BleachBit software to wipe clean all of the emails on her server that Samuelson deemed unnecessary to return to the State Department servers.

During a sworn deposition with Judicial Watch, Samuelson acknowledged that she, like several other Clinton associates who helped oversee the cover-up, secured from the Loretta Lynch-headed Justice Department an immunity deal from prosecution around June 2016, according to her estimation.

Fox News previously reported on side-deals with the James Comey-led FBI that both Samuelson and Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills had been offered, which included having the agency destroy their laptops after reviewing them.

Judicial Watch said Samuelson in her recent testimony also contradicted her previous FBI deposition by saying she was, in fact, aware of Clinton’s use of a private server during the latter’s time as secretary of State.

“I believe I first became aware when either she e-mailed me on personal matters, such as wishing me happy birthday,” Samuelson said, “or when I infrequently would receive e-mails forwarded to me from others at the department that had that e-mail address listed elsewhere in the document.”

Then-President Barack Obama similarly denied knowledge of the private server, only to have it be revealed later that he, himself, had sent official messages to and from her [email protected] address while using a fake name himself.

Samuelson also acknowledged but was unable to account for a gap in the emails from January to March of 2009, Clinton’s first two months as head of the State Department.

She blamed the gap on Platte River Networks, the private, Colorado-based company that had maintained the server.

“My understanding is—well, I’m sorry, I should say my recollection is—when we received the documents, the file from Platte River Networks, there was a period of time that was missing in her e-mails,” Samuelson said. “… They said they did not have that information.”

Judicial Watch conducted the investigation as part of an ongoing Freedom of Information Act lawsuit that originally focused on the cover-up surrounding the Benghazi embassy attacks during Clinton’s State Department tenure.

Was Pinocchio-Plagued Flip-Flopper Kamala REALLY the Thurs. Night Debate Winner?

‘You’re not answering the question directly…’

Candidates during the first Democratic primary debate raise their hand in response to a question over their support for eliminating private health insurance and extending public health benefits to illegal immigrants. / IMAGE: America Rising PAC

(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) Sen. Kamala Harris was touted as one of the big winners of Thursday night’s Democratic primary debates thanks to a carefully orchestrated race-baiting attack on former Vice President Joe Biden, the current front-runner.

But, once again, Harris proved that she is far weaker when put on the spot, often struggling to explain where she stands on even the most basic of positions in the current Democratic platform.

Harris in the past has waffled on issues such as whether she supported the debunked Jussie Smollet case and whether she would allow incarcerated felons to vote.

She put her flip–flopping skills on display again during the debate over a controversial call for extending universal healthcare that would forcibly end private insurance plans and socialize the entire medical industry.

After raising her hands in support, Harris promptly walked back her position the next morning, noted the conservative America Rising PAC.

“Less than 12 hours later, she said on ‘Morning Joe’ that she is not in support of eliminating private insurance and had a different interpretation of the question than the 9 other Democrats on stage, the moderators, and the millions of Americans watching,” they said in a release on Friday.

Harris clarified on the MSNBC show, “The question was, ‘Would you give up your private insurance for that option,’ and I said yes.”

However, America Rising noted that it wasn’t her first time walking back a statement that she would eliminate private insurance and switch to a single-payer system.

She did the same thing in January during a CNN town-hall forum, it noted.

Despite being a co-sponsor of the Medicare for All bill introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., within 24 hours after pronouncing her support Harris reversed course when other Democrats in the field rejected the position.

America Rising compiled its own four-minute montage of the many times Harris had second-guessed herself on her own private insurance stance.

Harris has also been the recipient of several “Pinocchio” ratings by Washington Post fact-checkers, particularly over a policy she endorsed as a San Francisco district attorney that resulted in the incarceration of parents due to their children’s school truancy.

Other issues that have been called out by fact-checkers include a false statement about President Donald Trump’s tax cuts and a deceptive video about Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh during his nomination hearing.

Harris’s confusion problem has even come into play during high-profile testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

She notably attacked Attorney General William Barr at a hearing over the Mueller Report, demanding to know whether then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein—who oversaw the bulk of the investigation—had been cleared to do so, given what Harris claimed was a conflict of interests.

Rosenstein was approved directly by the Senate in a 96–4 vote following the recusal of then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

“I think they cleared it when he took over the investigation,” Barr said, noting what appeared to be a flip–flop by Democrats who had strongly favored Rosenstein in the past.

“Sir, the flip–flop in this case, I think, is that you’re not answering the question directly,” Harris said, cutting off the attorney general.