• https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-09-08-google-discriminates-against-anyone-who-challenges-climate-change.html
    https://www.naturalnews.com/2019-09-08-google-discriminates-against-anyone-who-challenges-climate-change.html
    New analysis finds that Google not only discriminates against conservatives but also anyone who challenges the “climate change” hoax
    A new analysis notes that search and tech behemoth Google is not only working to suppress conservative voices and opinions, but also anyone who disputes the Left-wing “climate change” hoax, which is really nothing more than an attack on capitalism. That’s a problem, writes David Wojick for Capito
    WWW.NATURALNEWS.COM
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • https://www.activistpost.com/2019/09/company-seeks-5g-superheroes-to-help-overcome-difficult-engineering-infrastructure-and-security-challenges-what-about-the-other-challenges.html
    https://www.activistpost.com/2019/09/company-seeks-5g-superheroes-to-help-overcome-difficult-engineering-infrastructure-and-security-challenges-what-about-the-other-challenges.html
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • https://www.wnd.com/2019/09/prager-challenges-hollywoods-rating-cartoon-documentary/
    https://www.wnd.com/2019/09/prager-challenges-hollywoods-rating-cartoon-documentary/
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • The Trump Administration’s Assault on Fair Housing
    https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/08/24/trump-administrations-assault-fair-housing
    Olatunde Johnson, Michelle Aronowitz

    This week, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) published a proposed rule that would substantially limit enforcement of the 1968 Fair Housing Act, whose purpose is to provide for fair housing throughout the United States.

    The re-reading of the Fair Housing Act urged by the President and his Cabinet Secretary Ben Carson appears to eliminate the possibility of challenging systemic discrimination—which is often subtle and embedded in government and industry practices—and risks deepening patterns of segregation and racial wealth disparities.

    The proposal would gut the core of the Act’s disparate impact method of proof. This is despite the Supreme Court’s affirmance of this approach in a 2015 decision authored by Justice Kennedy in Texas Dep’t of Housing & Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project (ICP).

    The disparate impact method of proof has been used to challenge loan practices that exclude or charge higher prices to minorities or target them for subprime loans; it has also been used to address practices that displace minority communities to further gentrification and to combat discriminatory zoning practices that exclude minorities from majority-white communities.

    The proposal "risks deepening patterns of segregation and racial wealth disparities." An example of disparate impact involves a challenge to actions taken by St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana, a majority-white community outside of New Orleans, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The parish had adopted a number of measures to prevent blacks displaced by the Hurricane from relocating to the Parish. One such measure was a “blood relative ordinance,” which prohibited rentals to those without blood ties to existing St. Bernard Parish residents. A court ruled that the Parish’s actions violated the Fair Housing Act under intent and impact theories, and Justice Kennedy in ICP cited this case in making clear that the Act reached disparate impact claims.

    The single question presented in ICP was whether the statute permits disparate impact claims. The Court therefore did not decide what standard should be used to analyze those claims.

    HUD’s current disparate impact rule, adopted in 2013 by the Obama administration after an extensive regulatory process, formalizes the longstanding understanding that the Act prohibits policies and practices by the housing industry that cause segregation or adverse disparate effects on protected groups, and that lack sufficient justification.

    The 2013 rule applies the traditional three-step burden shifting approach for proving disparate impact claims, embodied in other civil rights statutes such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (employment discrimination). The Title VII disparate impact standard was codified by statute in 1991, and the current HUD standard aligns closely with that. As in employment, HUD’s 2013 rule made clear that a statistical disparity alone is not enough to prove disparate impact discrimination under the Fair Housing Act.

    The Trump Administration’s proposed rule would tear through that careful structure by piling on new requirements for plaintiffs and creating broad defenses for the housing industry.

    First, HUD’s proposal perverts the concept of a prima facie case by incorporating the defendant’s rebuttal into the plaintiff’s prima facie case. Traditionally, if the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case and the defendant fails to rebut, the plaintiff prevails.

    Under the new rule, in order to prevail, the plaintiff is expected to establish its affirmative case as well as prove the negative – that no rebuttal is possible. In other words, as part of the prima facie case, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant has no “valid interest or legitimate objective” in the challenged practice.

    These unusual standards are incorporated into the proposed rule’s novel five-factor test for establishing a prima facie case. Not only does the defendant have no burden to prove a valid interest to rebut the prima facie case (although it can elect to submit evidence if it would like), it is afforded two entirely new, extremely broad defenses that shield it from liability.

    The first of the two defenses operates almost like a preemption doctrine rather than how it is described in the preamble – as a rebuttal of plaintiff’s causation requirement. The proposed rule gives the defendant a complete defense to a disparate impact claim if it can show its discretion is “materially limited” by federal, state or local law, or by a “binding or controlling court, arbitral, regulatory, administrative order, or administrative requirement.”

    The Trump administration’s “following orders” defense flies in the face of the core purpose of the Fair Housing Act – which is to dismantle segregation and eradicate barriers to equal housing opportunity – be they intentionally imposed or inadvertent yet unnecessary, and whether established at the local, state or federal level, or by private corporate interests.

    The second defense to a prima facie case is available to defendants who use algorithms or other models in making their housing decisions; but it operates more like an exemption for most if not all of the financial services industry – namely mortgage banking and homeowners insurance.

    For instance, it makes disparate impact challenges to underwriting decisions unenforceable if the model is the industry standard, or if the model predicts for risk or some other valid objective and none of the factors in the model are intentionally discriminatory (i.e., are “substitutes or close proxies for” a protected group).

    The effect of this defense is to exempt from the Act those industries that denied or limited black access to the wealth generating capital available to many Americans, regardless of class. More recently in cities like Baltimore, banks sought out black and brown communities to provide them inferior loans. Nationally, black communities still have not recovered the wealth lost during the financial crises.

    Between the unusually stringent and likely never to be satisfied prima facie case, and the two all-encompassing and easy to satisfy defenses, the proposed rule appears to use a belt and suspenders approach geared to ensure no effects case slips through. If the rule is finalized, it is likely to be challenged in court. It will then be to challengers to show a court that the Trump administration’s interpretation distorts the meaning of the 1968 Fair Housing Act and undermines both congressional and judicial authority.
    The Trump Administration’s Assault on Fair Housing https://www.commondreams.org/views/2019/08/24/trump-administrations-assault-fair-housing Olatunde Johnson, Michelle Aronowitz This week, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) published a proposed rule that would substantially limit enforcement of the 1968 Fair Housing Act, whose purpose is to provide for fair housing throughout the United States. The re-reading of the Fair Housing Act urged by the President and his Cabinet Secretary Ben Carson appears to eliminate the possibility of challenging systemic discrimination—which is often subtle and embedded in government and industry practices—and risks deepening patterns of segregation and racial wealth disparities. The proposal would gut the core of the Act’s disparate impact method of proof. This is despite the Supreme Court’s affirmance of this approach in a 2015 decision authored by Justice Kennedy in Texas Dep’t of Housing & Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project (ICP). The disparate impact method of proof has been used to challenge loan practices that exclude or charge higher prices to minorities or target them for subprime loans; it has also been used to address practices that displace minority communities to further gentrification and to combat discriminatory zoning practices that exclude minorities from majority-white communities. The proposal "risks deepening patterns of segregation and racial wealth disparities." An example of disparate impact involves a challenge to actions taken by St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana, a majority-white community outside of New Orleans, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. The parish had adopted a number of measures to prevent blacks displaced by the Hurricane from relocating to the Parish. One such measure was a “blood relative ordinance,” which prohibited rentals to those without blood ties to existing St. Bernard Parish residents. A court ruled that the Parish’s actions violated the Fair Housing Act under intent and impact theories, and Justice Kennedy in ICP cited this case in making clear that the Act reached disparate impact claims. The single question presented in ICP was whether the statute permits disparate impact claims. The Court therefore did not decide what standard should be used to analyze those claims. HUD’s current disparate impact rule, adopted in 2013 by the Obama administration after an extensive regulatory process, formalizes the longstanding understanding that the Act prohibits policies and practices by the housing industry that cause segregation or adverse disparate effects on protected groups, and that lack sufficient justification. The 2013 rule applies the traditional three-step burden shifting approach for proving disparate impact claims, embodied in other civil rights statutes such as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (employment discrimination). The Title VII disparate impact standard was codified by statute in 1991, and the current HUD standard aligns closely with that. As in employment, HUD’s 2013 rule made clear that a statistical disparity alone is not enough to prove disparate impact discrimination under the Fair Housing Act. The Trump Administration’s proposed rule would tear through that careful structure by piling on new requirements for plaintiffs and creating broad defenses for the housing industry. First, HUD’s proposal perverts the concept of a prima facie case by incorporating the defendant’s rebuttal into the plaintiff’s prima facie case. Traditionally, if the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case and the defendant fails to rebut, the plaintiff prevails. Under the new rule, in order to prevail, the plaintiff is expected to establish its affirmative case as well as prove the negative – that no rebuttal is possible. In other words, as part of the prima facie case, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant has no “valid interest or legitimate objective” in the challenged practice. These unusual standards are incorporated into the proposed rule’s novel five-factor test for establishing a prima facie case. Not only does the defendant have no burden to prove a valid interest to rebut the prima facie case (although it can elect to submit evidence if it would like), it is afforded two entirely new, extremely broad defenses that shield it from liability. The first of the two defenses operates almost like a preemption doctrine rather than how it is described in the preamble – as a rebuttal of plaintiff’s causation requirement. The proposed rule gives the defendant a complete defense to a disparate impact claim if it can show its discretion is “materially limited” by federal, state or local law, or by a “binding or controlling court, arbitral, regulatory, administrative order, or administrative requirement.” The Trump administration’s “following orders” defense flies in the face of the core purpose of the Fair Housing Act – which is to dismantle segregation and eradicate barriers to equal housing opportunity – be they intentionally imposed or inadvertent yet unnecessary, and whether established at the local, state or federal level, or by private corporate interests. The second defense to a prima facie case is available to defendants who use algorithms or other models in making their housing decisions; but it operates more like an exemption for most if not all of the financial services industry – namely mortgage banking and homeowners insurance. For instance, it makes disparate impact challenges to underwriting decisions unenforceable if the model is the industry standard, or if the model predicts for risk or some other valid objective and none of the factors in the model are intentionally discriminatory (i.e., are “substitutes or close proxies for” a protected group). The effect of this defense is to exempt from the Act those industries that denied or limited black access to the wealth generating capital available to many Americans, regardless of class. More recently in cities like Baltimore, banks sought out black and brown communities to provide them inferior loans. Nationally, black communities still have not recovered the wealth lost during the financial crises. Between the unusually stringent and likely never to be satisfied prima facie case, and the two all-encompassing and easy to satisfy defenses, the proposed rule appears to use a belt and suspenders approach geared to ensure no effects case slips through. If the rule is finalized, it is likely to be challenged in court. It will then be to challengers to show a court that the Trump administration’s interpretation distorts the meaning of the 1968 Fair Housing Act and undermines both congressional and judicial authority.
    The Trump Administration’s Assault on Fair Housing
    The proposal would gut the core of the Fair Housing Act’s disparate impact method of proof... This week, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) published a proposed rule that would substantially limit enforcement of the 1968 Fair Housing Act, whose purpose is to provide for fair housing throughout the United States.
    WWW.COMMONDREAMS.ORG
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • "This is what Trudeau’s ‘Sunny Ways’ have been reduced to, claiming that people sharing heartfelt stories about overcoming health challenges are actors."
    https://www.spencerfernando.com/2019/08/05/despicable-liberals-falsely-claim-cancer-survivor-who-spoke-to-scheer-about-healthcare-is-an-actor/
    "This is what Trudeau’s ‘Sunny Ways’ have been reduced to, claiming that people sharing heartfelt stories about overcoming health challenges are actors." https://www.spencerfernando.com/2019/08/05/despicable-liberals-falsely-claim-cancer-survivor-who-spoke-to-scheer-about-healthcare-is-an-actor/
    DESPICABLE: Liberals FALSELY Claim Cancer Survivor Who Spoke To Scheer About Healthcare Is An 'Actor' - Spencer Fernando
    This is what Trudeau's 'Sunny Ways' have been reduced to, claiming that people sharing heartfelt stories about overcoming health challenges are actors. In
    WWW.SPENCERFERNANDO.COM
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • Top Scientist Says He Quit USDA Because Trump Admin Tried to Bury His Study on Climate and Nutrition
    https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/08/05/top-scientist-says-he-quit-usda-because-trump-admin-tried-bury-his-study-climate-and
    Jessica Corbett, staff writer

    The exodus of federal scientists in the era of President Donald Trump continued Friday as 62-year-old plant physiologist Lewis Ziska left the U.S. Department of Agriculture "over the Trump administration's efforts to bury his groundbreaking study about how rice loses nutrients due to rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere," Politico reported Monday.

    Ziska—who worked at USDA under five presidents, both Republicans and Democrats—charged in an interview with Politico that he left the department's Agricultural Research Service (ARS) because the USDA tried to block the public dissemination of his research on how the human-caused climate crisis's impact on rice could threaten the nutrition of 600 million people. The study, Politico reported, was internally cleared at the department and peer reviewed prior to its publication in the journal Science Advances last year.

    USDA, in a statement to the outlet, said that "this was a joint decision by ARS national program leaders—all career scientists—not to send out a press release on this paper" based on scientific disagreement, and the decisions involving the study weren't politically motivated.

    Ziska, however, said that "this isn't about the science. It's about something else, but it's not about the science."

    "You get the sense that things have changed, that this is not a place for you to be exploring things that don't agree with someone's political views," Ziska said about the current environment at the USDA. "That's so sad. I can't even begin to tell you how sad that is."

    Ziska's resignation comes after the departures of Rod Schoonover, a State Department official who claimed the administration blocked the submission of his report on the climate crisis and national security to a U.S. House committee, and Maria Caffrey, a National Park Service employee who wrote for The Guardian last month, "In February 2019, I lost my job because I was a climate scientist in a climate-denying administration."

    Politico previously reported on the Trump USDA refusing to publicize dozens of government-funded studies that warn about the climate emergency's consequences or to release a "multiyear plan that outlines how the department should help agriculture understand, adapt to, and minimize the effects" of the crisis.

    Timothy A. Wise @TimothyAWise
    Turns out the "swamp" that @realDonaldTrump wants to drain isn't lobbyists it's civil-servant scientists. #USDA relocation is as cynical as it gets. (Until tomorrow, brace yourself.) https://twitter.com/ceboudreau/status/1158371238236086272

    Catherine Boudreau ✔ @ceboudreau
    “You get the sense that things have changed, that this is not a place for you to be exploring things that don't agree with someone's political views.”

    A leading climate scientist tells @hbottemiller he is quitting USDA over its handling of his research https://politi.co/2yCQdYD
    9:17 AM - Aug 5, 2019

    But it's not just top-down censorship that's impacting U.S. government research on the climate, Ziska told Politico.

    The overriding fear among scientists within USDA, Ziska said, was that the administration would take an axe to the department's science budget, and research priorities that perhaps didn't align with the administration's agenda would be the first to go. (The Trump administration has repeatedly proposed significant cuts to ARS' budget, but Congress has so far largely kept funding flat.)

    Anything related to climate change was seen as extremely vulnerable, he said.

    "We were careful," he explained. "And then it got to the point where language started to change. No one wanted to say climate change, you would say climate uncertainty or you would say extreme events. Or you would use whatever euphemism was available to not draw attention."

    "There was a sense that if the science agreed with the politics, then the policymakers would consider it to be 'good science,' and if it didn’t agree with the politics, then it was something that was flawed and needed to be done again," Ziska added. "That was a sea change in how we viewed our role."

    Ziska told Politico that by politicizing climate science, the administration is jeopardizing the future of agriculture on a global scale, which could have devastating consequences for human health. As he put it:

    To ignore it. To just dismiss it and say 'oh that's political' ...I don't have the words to describe that. It's surreal. It feels like something out of a bad sci-fi movie.

    Congresswoman Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), a member of the U.S. House Agriculture Committee, was among those who responded to news of Ziska's resignation by calling out the Trump administration for "silencing our scientists."

    Chellie Pingree ✔ @chelliepingree
    Once again, the Trump admin is silencing our scientists. @USDA researchers study key topics like the devastating effects of climate change on agriculture—topics the Administration has repeatedly undermined at the expense of real data for farmers. This is a huge loss for USDA. https://twitter.com/politico/status/1158339385798082561

    POLITICO ✔ @politico
    A top climate scientist quit USDA, following others who say President Trump has politicized science https://politi.co/2KrJ4Qb
    8:14 AM - Aug 5, 2019

    The Politico interview was not the only report that cast a spotlight Monday on the Trump administration's impact on government-backed climate research.

    In a blog post for Scientific American, Jacob Carter, a research scientist for the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), wrote that "the Trump administration has suppressed, censored, and threatened to fire many of its experts for the work they do, or simply for discussing scientific information that is politically contentious. In some cases, the Trump administration's actions are driving experts out." He pointed to Schoonover and former Environmental Protection Agency official Betsy Southerland as examples.

    "Imagine the working culture for federal experts watching the Trump administration go on the offense against their own staff. What do you do to get your day-to-day work done? How do you continue to get your work funded? One option is to censor politically contentious words or phrases," Carter continued. "Self-censorship may not make headlines, but there is a lot of evidence that it's happening in the chilling environment the Trump administration has created for federal government experts."

    Environmental Protection Network @EnvProtectioNet
    @UCSJacob, @UCSUSA in @sciam: “We cannot afford to retreat from the science-based policies that help our nation respond effectively to complex challenges to public health, the environment and national security.” #ScienceNotSilence http://epn.news/qzl

    Government Scientists Are Censoring Themselves
    It may not make headlines, but there's a lot of evidence that it's happening in the chilling environment the Trump administration has created
    blogs.scientificamerican.com
    7:43 AM - Aug 5, 2019

    Carter referenced his organization's August 2018 survey of 63,000 scientific experts across 16 federal agencies which revealed, as Common Dreams reported at the time, that "as the Trump administration continues to brazenly attack national environmental regulations, it is also 'sidelining science' within agencies, with staffers reporting issues including 'censorship and self-censorship, political interference in scientists' work, low morale, decreased agency effectiveness, and dwindling resources.'"

    Next week, UCS and other partners will host a panel discussion in Albany, New York about the importance of federal science and how it can be safeguarded from political manipulation:

    Union of Concerned Scientists ✔ @UCSUSA
    When federal scientists can do their work and share it free from political manipulation, we are better able to tackle our most pressing challenges. Join UCS, @RepPaulTonko @CapSciNY @CleanHealthyNY and others for a panel discussion on how we can do that: https://www.facebook.com/events/383938368992712/
    10:00 AM - Aug 5, 2019
    Top Scientist Says He Quit USDA Because Trump Admin Tried to Bury His Study on Climate and Nutrition https://www.commondreams.org/news/2019/08/05/top-scientist-says-he-quit-usda-because-trump-admin-tried-bury-his-study-climate-and Jessica Corbett, staff writer The exodus of federal scientists in the era of President Donald Trump continued Friday as 62-year-old plant physiologist Lewis Ziska left the U.S. Department of Agriculture "over the Trump administration's efforts to bury his groundbreaking study about how rice loses nutrients due to rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere," Politico reported Monday. Ziska—who worked at USDA under five presidents, both Republicans and Democrats—charged in an interview with Politico that he left the department's Agricultural Research Service (ARS) because the USDA tried to block the public dissemination of his research on how the human-caused climate crisis's impact on rice could threaten the nutrition of 600 million people. The study, Politico reported, was internally cleared at the department and peer reviewed prior to its publication in the journal Science Advances last year. USDA, in a statement to the outlet, said that "this was a joint decision by ARS national program leaders—all career scientists—not to send out a press release on this paper" based on scientific disagreement, and the decisions involving the study weren't politically motivated. Ziska, however, said that "this isn't about the science. It's about something else, but it's not about the science." "You get the sense that things have changed, that this is not a place for you to be exploring things that don't agree with someone's political views," Ziska said about the current environment at the USDA. "That's so sad. I can't even begin to tell you how sad that is." Ziska's resignation comes after the departures of Rod Schoonover, a State Department official who claimed the administration blocked the submission of his report on the climate crisis and national security to a U.S. House committee, and Maria Caffrey, a National Park Service employee who wrote for The Guardian last month, "In February 2019, I lost my job because I was a climate scientist in a climate-denying administration." Politico previously reported on the Trump USDA refusing to publicize dozens of government-funded studies that warn about the climate emergency's consequences or to release a "multiyear plan that outlines how the department should help agriculture understand, adapt to, and minimize the effects" of the crisis. Timothy A. Wise @TimothyAWise Turns out the "swamp" that @realDonaldTrump wants to drain isn't lobbyists it's civil-servant scientists. #USDA relocation is as cynical as it gets. (Until tomorrow, brace yourself.) https://twitter.com/ceboudreau/status/1158371238236086272 … Catherine Boudreau ✔ @ceboudreau “You get the sense that things have changed, that this is not a place for you to be exploring things that don't agree with someone's political views.” A leading climate scientist tells @hbottemiller he is quitting USDA over its handling of his research https://politi.co/2yCQdYD 9:17 AM - Aug 5, 2019 But it's not just top-down censorship that's impacting U.S. government research on the climate, Ziska told Politico. The overriding fear among scientists within USDA, Ziska said, was that the administration would take an axe to the department's science budget, and research priorities that perhaps didn't align with the administration's agenda would be the first to go. (The Trump administration has repeatedly proposed significant cuts to ARS' budget, but Congress has so far largely kept funding flat.) Anything related to climate change was seen as extremely vulnerable, he said. "We were careful," he explained. "And then it got to the point where language started to change. No one wanted to say climate change, you would say climate uncertainty or you would say extreme events. Or you would use whatever euphemism was available to not draw attention." "There was a sense that if the science agreed with the politics, then the policymakers would consider it to be 'good science,' and if it didn’t agree with the politics, then it was something that was flawed and needed to be done again," Ziska added. "That was a sea change in how we viewed our role." Ziska told Politico that by politicizing climate science, the administration is jeopardizing the future of agriculture on a global scale, which could have devastating consequences for human health. As he put it: To ignore it. To just dismiss it and say 'oh that's political' ...I don't have the words to describe that. It's surreal. It feels like something out of a bad sci-fi movie. Congresswoman Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), a member of the U.S. House Agriculture Committee, was among those who responded to news of Ziska's resignation by calling out the Trump administration for "silencing our scientists." Chellie Pingree ✔ @chelliepingree Once again, the Trump admin is silencing our scientists. @USDA researchers study key topics like the devastating effects of climate change on agriculture—topics the Administration has repeatedly undermined at the expense of real data for farmers. This is a huge loss for USDA. https://twitter.com/politico/status/1158339385798082561 … POLITICO ✔ @politico A top climate scientist quit USDA, following others who say President Trump has politicized science https://politi.co/2KrJ4Qb 8:14 AM - Aug 5, 2019 The Politico interview was not the only report that cast a spotlight Monday on the Trump administration's impact on government-backed climate research. In a blog post for Scientific American, Jacob Carter, a research scientist for the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), wrote that "the Trump administration has suppressed, censored, and threatened to fire many of its experts for the work they do, or simply for discussing scientific information that is politically contentious. In some cases, the Trump administration's actions are driving experts out." He pointed to Schoonover and former Environmental Protection Agency official Betsy Southerland as examples. "Imagine the working culture for federal experts watching the Trump administration go on the offense against their own staff. What do you do to get your day-to-day work done? How do you continue to get your work funded? One option is to censor politically contentious words or phrases," Carter continued. "Self-censorship may not make headlines, but there is a lot of evidence that it's happening in the chilling environment the Trump administration has created for federal government experts." Environmental Protection Network @EnvProtectioNet @UCSJacob, @UCSUSA in @sciam: “We cannot afford to retreat from the science-based policies that help our nation respond effectively to complex challenges to public health, the environment and national security.” #ScienceNotSilence http://epn.news/qzl Government Scientists Are Censoring Themselves It may not make headlines, but there's a lot of evidence that it's happening in the chilling environment the Trump administration has created blogs.scientificamerican.com 7:43 AM - Aug 5, 2019 Carter referenced his organization's August 2018 survey of 63,000 scientific experts across 16 federal agencies which revealed, as Common Dreams reported at the time, that "as the Trump administration continues to brazenly attack national environmental regulations, it is also 'sidelining science' within agencies, with staffers reporting issues including 'censorship and self-censorship, political interference in scientists' work, low morale, decreased agency effectiveness, and dwindling resources.'" Next week, UCS and other partners will host a panel discussion in Albany, New York about the importance of federal science and how it can be safeguarded from political manipulation: Union of Concerned Scientists ✔ @UCSUSA When federal scientists can do their work and share it free from political manipulation, we are better able to tackle our most pressing challenges. Join UCS, @RepPaulTonko @CapSciNY @CleanHealthyNY and others for a panel discussion on how we can do that: https://www.facebook.com/events/383938368992712/ … 10:00 AM - Aug 5, 2019
    Top Scientist Says He Quit USDA Because Trump Admin Tried to Bury His Study on Climate and Nutrition
    Rep. Chellie Pingree tweeted, "Once again, the Trump admin is silencing our scientists."
    WWW.COMMONDREAMS.ORG
    1
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • "Violence committed by white men inspired by an extremist ideology make up a growing number of domestic terrorism cases"

    This is the sort of racist rhetoric that is causing many of our problems in society today and continuing the racial divide that the leftards began when the boy king was in office. Violence has absolutely nothing to do with skin color even though the news and the left wants you to believe it does. Not convinced? Check into how many shootings occur in Chicago each and every weekend and then see what skin color they have. It's definitly not a 'white thing' . . .

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/shootings-highlight-law-enforcement-challenges-to-combating-domestic-terror-11564947769

    "Violence committed by white men inspired by an extremist ideology make up a growing number of domestic terrorism cases" This is the sort of racist rhetoric that is causing many of our problems in society today and continuing the racial divide that the leftards began when the boy king was in office. Violence has absolutely nothing to do with skin color even though the news and the left wants you to believe it does. Not convinced? Check into how many shootings occur in Chicago each and every weekend and then see what skin color they have. It's definitly not a 'white thing' . . . https://www.wsj.com/articles/shootings-highlight-law-enforcement-challenges-to-combating-domestic-terror-11564947769
    White Nationalists Pose Challenge to Investigators
    Two shootings in Texas and Ohio that killed at least 31 people over the weekend left authorities searching for how to confront mass violence and domestic terrorists, some driven by white-nationalist ideologies.
    WWW.WSJ.COM
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • https://phibetaiota.net/2019/07/penguin-12-open-source-software-challenges-for-business/
    https://phibetaiota.net/2019/07/penguin-12-open-source-software-challenges-for-business/
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jul/18/kevin-mcaleenan-challenges-democrats-help-improve-/
    https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/jul/18/kevin-mcaleenan-challenges-democrats-help-improve-/
    DHS chief challenges Democrats to help improve conditions at border
    Acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan told Congress on Thursday that the answer to troubling stories of overcrowding of illegal immigrants at the border is to increase money for ICE detention in the interior, putting the burden back on the Democrats most vocal in complaining about the conditions.
    WWW.WASHINGTONTIMES.COM
    0 Comments 0 Shares
  • https://freedomwire.com/republican-scherie-murray-challenges-aoc/?utm_source=FRW-Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Daily-Article-Traffic
    https://freedomwire.com/republican-scherie-murray-challenges-aoc/?utm_source=FRW-Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Daily-Article-Traffic
    0 Comments 0 Shares

No results to show

No results to show

No results to show

No results to show