*VIDEOS* House Committees: Hearings On Executive Amnesty And Immigration Law Enforcement


HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING ON PRESIDENT OBAMA’S EXECUTIVE AMNESTY

.
REPRESENTATIVE TREY GOWDY’S OPENING STATEMENT

.
REPRESENTATIVE TREY GOWDY QUESTIONS LEFTIST PROFESSOR STEPHEN LEGOMSKY

.
FULL HEARING

……………………….Click on image above to watch video.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related videos:

.

HOUSE OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM COMMITTEE HEARING ON IMMIGRATION LAW ENFORCEMENT

.
TESTIMONY OF JAMIEL SHAW, FATHER OF TEENAGER MURDERED BY ILLEGAL ALIEN

.
FULL HEARING

.

*VIDEO* Pajamas Media: Trifecta – Hillary Clinton’s Evil War On women


.

.

Take Action – Stop Net “Neutrality” – Contact The FCC And Congress Today


.
Click HERE to contact the FCC via online form at its official website and tell the bureaucrats thereof to keep their hands off the internet!

You can also contact them via email: openinternet@fcc.gov

And don’t forget to contact your members of Congress about the issue, just for good measure.

U.S. Senate
U.S. House Of Representatives

.
…………

.

Now We Know Who To Believe On Iran (David Horovitz)

Now We Know Who To Believe On Iran – David Horovitz

.

.
In an op-ed on February 9, I suggested that Israel’s opposition leader, Isaac Herzog, should stand alongside Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu before Congress on March 3, to underline “their common conviction that the regime in Tehran cannot be appeased and must be faced down.”

On Monday evening, as details of the looming US-led deal with Iran emerged from Geneva, Israel’s most respected Middle East affairs analyst, Channel 2 commentator Ehud Ya’ari, made precisely the same suggestion. So problematic are the reported terms of the deal, Ya’ari indicated, that Israel’s two leading contenders in the March 17 elections, Netanyahu and Herzog, need to put aside their differences and make plain to US legislators that the need to thwart such an accord crosses party lines in Israel and stands as a consensual imperative.

After anonymous sources in Jerusalem leaked to Israeli reporters in recent weeks the ostensible terms of the deal being hammered out, various spokespeople for the Obama administration contended that the Netanyahu government was misrepresenting the specifics for narrow political ends. They sneered that Israel didn’t actually know what the terms were. And they made the acknowledgement – the astounding acknowledgement for a United States whose key regional ally is directly and relentlessly threatened with destruction by Iran – that the Obama administration is consequently no longer sharing with Jerusalem all sensitive details of the Iran talks.

And yet among the terms of the deal being reported by the Associated Press from Geneva on Monday are precisely those that were asserted in recent weeks by the Israeli sources, precisely those that were scoffed at by the Administration. Centrally, Iran is to be allowed to keep 6,500 centrifuges spinning, and there will be a sunset clause providing for an end to intrusive inspections in some 10-15 years. If anything, indeed, some of the terms reported by the AP are even more worrying than those that were leaked in Jerusalem: “The idea would be to reward Iran for good behavior over the last years of any agreement,” the AP said, “gradually lifting constraints on its uranium enrichment program and slowly easing economic sanctions.” There is also no indication of restrictions on Iran’s missile development – its potential delivery systems.

In his TV commentary on Monday night, Ya’ari highlighted that the deal could further embolden Iran as it expands its influence throughout this region, and he noted that the isolation of Iran even by Israel’s key allies was already cracking, with the firmly pro-Israel foreign minister of Australia, Julie Bishop, announcing an imminent visit to Tehran – the first Australian foreign minister to make such a trip in a decade.

Ya’ari also noted that the International Atomic Energy Agency has made clear that it lacks the tools to effectively monitor the kind of nuclear program that Iran will be allowed to maintain under the emerging deal – incapable, that is, of ensuring that Iran does not fool the West as it has done in the past.

The devil of such deals is generally in the detail. But the devil, here, is in the principle as well — the principle that the P5+1 is about to legitimize Iran as a nuclear threshold state. From there, it will be capable of rapidly breaking out to the bomb, well aware that the international community lacks the will to stop it.

The Obama administration would evidently like to believe that 10-15 years from now, the ayatollahs will be gone, Iran will have a different leadership, and the threat of what Netanyahu has repeatedly called “the most dangerous regime in the world attaining the most dangerous weapon in the world” will have passed.

But if the deal now taking shape is indeed finalized, the chances of the regime being ousted from within, or effectively confronted from without, will drastically recede. This deal, indeed, will help cement the ayatollahs in power, with dire consequences for Israel, relatively moderate Arab states, and the free world.

It goes without saying that this weekend’s developments in Geneva have only bolstered Netanyahu’s determination to sound the alarm before Congress next Tuesday. It’s also still clearer today why the Obama administration has been so anxious to query his motives and seek to discredit his concerns.

I headlined my February 9 op-ed “Who to believe on Iran: Obama or Netanyahu?” I think we know now.

.

.

Global Warming Cultists Panic Over Peer-Reviewed Climate Paper

Left Panics Over Peer-Reviewed Climate Paper’s Threat To Global Warming Alarmism – Big Journalism

.

.
You’ve heard it said that the science is settled. And it’s true. It is settled – settled beyond the possibility of any dispute. A fundamental, inescapable, indubitable bedrock scientific principle is that lousy theories make lousy predictions.

Climate forecasts are lousy, therefore it is settled science that they must necessarily be based on lousy theories. And lousy theories should not be trusted.

Put it this way. Climate forecasts, of the type relied upon by the IPCC and over governmental entities, stink. They are no good. They have been promising ever increasing temperatures for decades, but the observations have been more or less steady. This must mean – it is inescapable – that something is very badly wrong with the theory behind the models. What?

There are many guesses. One is that something called “climate sensitivity,” a measure of the overall reaction of the atmosphere to carbon dioxide, is set too high in the models. So Lord Christopher Monckton, Willie Soon, David Legates, and I created a model to investigate this. Although our model is crude and captures only the barest characteristics of the atmosphere, it matches reality better than its luxuriously funded, more complex cousins.

The funding is important. Nobody asked or paid us to create our model. We asked nobody for anything, and nobody offered us anything. We did the work on our own time and submitted a peer-reviewed paper to the Science Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. It’s title is “Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model.”

The paper was quickly noticed, receiving at this writing well over 10,000 downloads. Anybody who understood the settled science that bad theories make bad forecasts knew that this paper was a key challenge to the climatological community to show that our guess of why climate models stink is wrong, or to prove there were other, better explanations for the decades-long failure to produce skillful forecasts.

After the paper made international news, strange things began to happen. My site was hacked. A pest named David Appell issued a FOIA request to Legates’s employer, the University of Delaware, to release all of Legates’s emails. But since we received no funding for our paper, which of course implies no state funding from Delaware, the university turned Appell down.

The cult-like Greenpeace had better luck with Soon’s employer, the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, who were very obliging.

They turned over all of Soon’s emails. And then Greenpeace sent them to a set of sympathetic mainstream reporters.

Why did Greenpeace do this? Because they suspected we were lying about receiving funding. They were hoping that if they could prove Soon was paid then Soon should have declared to Science Bulletin a conflict of interest, and because he didn’t (none of us did), then he should retract the paper.

Greenpeace went away disappointed. We were telling the truth. Soon, like most research scientists, has in the past accepted money from sources other than our beneficent government (and what makes government money pure?). Greenpeace, for instance, often issues these kinds of grants. But there was no money for this paper, as we said.

But Greenpeace still needed to sidetrack discussion – anything to distract from the news that climate models are broken–hence their cozying up to “science reporters.”

These reporters, all of whom are paid by corporate interests, emailed asking about the “alleged conflict.” I explained to them that we received no funding and thus had no conflict of interest. But they never heard me. It was as if they didn’t want to. I offered to discuss the science behind our paper, but none took me up on this.

I posted a running log of these emails at my site, and they make for fascinating reading of how narrow-minded and willfully ignorant the mainstream press can be.

Justin Gillis of the New York Times was particularly reprehensible. In an email sent before publishing a hit piece on Sunday, Gillis accused Soon of an “ethical breach.” He issued veiled threats by saying that Soon ought to talk to him, because Soon’s employer “may be preparing to take adverse personnel action against” him.

I told Gillis there was no conflict. And I asked Gillis to explain his ties with Greenpeace and other environmental organizations.

Surprisingly, he refused to answer. Well, he did block me on Twitter.

Greenpeace denies the settled science that bad forecasts mean incorrect theories. Don’t let them change the subject. This is not about some false accusation of conflict of interest. This is about bad science passing for good because it’s politically expedient.

.

.

Losing The Internet (Richard Fernandez)

Losing The Internet – Richard Fernandez

.

.
The administration’s plan to create a “free and open Internet” means, as usual, the opposite of what it says. As Gordon Crovitz explains in the Wall Street Journal, it is really a monumental, bare-faced power grab.

The permissionless Internet, which allows anyone to introduce a website, app or device without government review, ends this week. On Thursday the three Democrats among the five commissioners on the Federal Communications Commission will vote to regulate the Internet under rules written for monopoly utilities.

No one, including the bullied FCC chairman, Tom Wheeler, thought the agency would go this far. The big politicization came when President Obama in November demanded that the supposedly independent FCC apply the agency’s most extreme regulation to the Internet. A recent page-one Wall Street Journal story headlined “Net Neutrality: How White House Thwarted FCC Chief” documented “an unusual, secretive effort inside the White House… acting as a parallel version of the FCC itself.”…

The more than 300 pages of new regulations are secret, but Mr. Wheeler says they will subject the Internet to the key provisions of Title II of the Communications Act of 1934, under which the FCC oversaw Ma Bell.

The specifics of the grab don’t matter as much as the direction in which things must inevitably move. Regulation is an absorbing state like the Hotel California. You can try to check out any time you like, but once inside you can never really leave. Three hundred pages of regulation will become 301… 302… A new administration might slow down the rate of growth, but it can never reverse it.

The very success of the Internet doomed its independence. Like any rich, glittering center of wealth that springs up in the desert sands, it would inevitably be coveted by nearby chieftains. And if there’s anything this administration – and to a lesser extent any administration – hankers after it is power. So a-raiding they will go. So here is prince Barack, at the tech city gates, demanding the keys. Not that he will know what to do with it after obtaining them. But possession of the bauble is in the first instance enough.

There is the notion, often reticiently expressed but frequently glimpsed in news stories, that the key to the future World Order is information. Lawfare, the use of sanctions – in fact every application of ”smart” policy – implicitly depends on information dominance. Information is the key to the Western elite’s power. It is probably the administration’s idea that possession of tech will open the gates to this new World Order.

The “other side” – whatever you want to call them since they cannot be referred to as the ‘enemy’ know this too. They understand or guess that the world is dividing into wired and unwired spaces. Their basic strategy is to base themselves and expand in the ungoverned – and coincidentally the unwired – spaces of the world where they operate in conventional ways; with armies, trucks and outlandishly uniformed men. But in the wired West, their strategy is totally different to suit the conditions.

There Lawfare is waiting to defend the West with surveillance. Homeland Defense doesn’t really rely on screeners at airports or border crossings who are there only to impress the rubes. The real defense of the realm depends on ever increasing amounts of domestic monitoring. The cracked encryption on your SIM; the data retained on your ISP, the real-time machine monitoring of conversations, the proposed sharing of data collected by Silicon Valley these are all bricks in the wall that keep the Jihadis out. They are also bricks in the invisible prison that surrounds you. But a brick is a brick and the information sharing the president proposes will naturally enough be put under Homeland Security rather than the NSA.

The “other side” understands this and therefore employs “lone wolf” tactics against the West for two reasons. First, singletons are difficult even for the wired world to detect; and second, they encourage the metastatic growth of more wires to prevent the next attack. The joint product of political correctness, lawfare, surveillance and lone wolves is to essentially create fascism and discontent in the West. The president’s response to the lone wolf problem will essentially be to watch everybody. In that way nobody is profiled. Everyone is suspected equally. This suits the every players’ book. The El-Shabab threatens to attack the malls and Jeh Johnson gets a billion dollars more. What’s not to like?

This happy cycle can go on indefinitely until eventually the the world is divided into two distinct spaces: a West completely crisscrossed by a “free and open” Internet and Internet of Things governed by a man called Hussein and 8th century badlands governed by other men called Hussein. Welcome to the 21st century. So are we doomed? Probably. But critically not in the way you might think and perhaps more importantly, not in the way president Obama thinks.

The actual effect of government control is to institutionalize incompetence. The more Obama controls, the more he destroys. Take Obamacare. Hardly a day goes by when we don’t read that 80 million records have been stolen by Chinese hackers from Obamacare provider Anthem; or that Obamacare itself is sharing information with third party providers. Only the other day the public learned that 800,000 wrong tax forms were mailed to Obamacare policy holders because they used the wrong year in the computation; that after 3 years the backend isn’t finished.

And in other news let’s not forget that Snowden stole the crown jewels from the NSA. In fact, Glenn Greenwald was on hand to collect the Oscar given by Hollywood to the documentary depicting the theft.

The administration’s proposal has been called Obamacare for the Internet. What Obama’s Internet grab will do is activate the Law of Unintended consequences. The princes may be attracted to the glittering city in the sands but they don’t know a thing about running it. Never having governed before, they haven’t learned that the wires can strangle them also. Once they lose information – and cover it up in the habitual way – the loss can have deadly consequences. To see how this can happen, let’s take a trip back in time to 1920 and the review destruction of the Cairo Gang.

The Cairo Gang was a special British intelligence unit dispatched to Ireland to finish the IRA. ” Its members lived in boarding houses and hotels across Dublin, where they lived unobtrusively while preparing a hit list of known republicans. However, the IRA Intelligence Department (IRAID) was one step ahead of them and was receiving information from numerous well-placed sources, including Lily Merin, who was the confidential code clerk for British Army Intelligence Centre in Parkgate Street, and Sergeant Jerry Mannix, stationed in Donnybrook. Mannix provided the IRAID with a list of names and addresses for all the members of the Cairo Gang”.

This is a simple example of what it means to lose information. The IRA got inside the wires. The IRA hunters were themselves killed on “morning of 21 November 1920 by the IRA in a planned series of simultaneous early-morning strikes engineered by Michael Collins”. Now imagine if you will, some enemy power getting inside the ramshackle empire of Homeland Security and getting a list of all the people who really matter in American defense and doing a Michael Collins. Or think about a monumental takedown of a powergrid, or the compromise of a vital SCADA system.

Many of the administration’s supporters don’t understand that they are making themselves, not just others, vulnerable. Once you put the wires in the hands of Barack Obama, what could go wrong? Ambassador Stevens must have trusted the administration. Where is Stevens now?

In some ways, leaving the Internet alone has the same advantages as leaving all the P-40s at Pearl Harbor in their original revetments. Readers will recall that as a security measure against sabotage, military authorities ordered all the P-40s in Hawaii taken out of their shelters and parked in the center of the runways in order to better guard them. That was how the Japanese found them on December 7, 1941.

Will the administration give you a “freer and more open Internet” than you have now? Or more to the point, will giving it over to the feds enhance security? We are in all probability doomed by this move. The difference is we know it. The administration has not yet figured out that in incompetent hands even the finest weapon can be turned around to face its hapless wielder.

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related article:

.
Obama’s Regs Will Make Internet Slow As In Europe, Warn FCC, FEC Commissioners – Washington Examiner

As the Federal Communications Commission and Federal Election Commission toy with regulating aspects of the Internet, critics on those agencies are warning that speed and freedom of speech are in jeopardy.

In a joint column, Federal Communications Commission member Ajit Pai and Federal Election Commission member Lee Goodman, leveled the boom on the Obama-favored regulations, essentially charging that it will muck up the freedom the nation has come to expect from the Internet.

In one key passage of the column published in Politico, the duo wrote Monday that heavy-handed FCC regulations like those imposed in Europe will significantly slow down Internet speech.

“These Internet regulations will deter broadband deployment, depress network investment and slow broadband speeds. How do we know? Compare Europe, which has long had utility-style regulations, with the United States, which has embraced a light-touch regulatory model. Broadband speeds in the United States, both wired and wireless, are significantly faster than those in Europe. Broadband investment in the United States is several multiples that of Europe. And broadband’s reach is much wider in the United States, despite its much lower population density,” the two wrote.

They also joined to warn about the Democrat-chaired Federal Election Commission eyeing regulation of political speech on the Internet.

Noting recent votes on the issue that ended in a political deadlock, the two wrote, “these close votes and the risk of idiosyncratic case-by-case enforcement inevitably discourage citizens and groups from speaking freely online about politics.”

Bottom line, they warned: “Internet freedom works. It is difficult to imagine where we would be today had the government micromanaged the Internet for the past two decades as it does Amtrak and the U.S. Postal Service. Neither of us wants to find out where the Internet will be two decades from now if the federal government tightens its regulatory grip. We don’t need to shift control of the Internet to bureaucracies in Washington. Let’s leave the power where it belongs – with the American people. When it comes to Americans’ ability to access online content or offer political speech online, there isn’t anything broken for the government to “fix.” To paraphrase President Ronald Reagan, Internet regulation isn’t the solution to a problem. Internet regulation is the problem.”

.
————————————————————————————————————————–
.

Related video:

.

.