As your President, Trump has the authority to do no more or less than any other President. Making decisions about who works where in government is under the authority vested in the office of the President. Every President. President Trump is your President, therefore, true to his words, he can do what he wants with the DOJ. He can replace the entire department, from Attorney General on down, replace them with orangutans, and nobody can say squat about it (actually, orangutans might be an improvement).

It is too bad Obama didn't say anything 'like' that, because then he might have kept his mouth shut on much more egregious claims:

https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/terence-p-jeffrey/obama-claims-power-make-illegal-immigrants-eligible-social-security

http://www.wnd.com/2017/12/13-scientific-studies-suggest-little-ice-age-looming/

Global-warming diehards who converted their cause to “climate change” when the warming ceased a few years back are being dealt another blow as scientific forecasts of global cooling are about to take over.

“During 2017, 120 papers linking historical and modern climate change to variations in solar activity and its modulators (clouds, cosmic rays) have been published in scientific journals,” reported Kenneth Richard at NoTricksZone.

Richard compiled a list of multiple studies from the past few years drawing the same conclusion: It’s the sun’s activities that have a huge influence on whether earth’s temperatures vary. Thirteen forecast global cooling.

The global-warming alarmists contend mankind’s use of fossil fuels is irreparably heating up the earth’s average temperatures.

Global warming has become an industry, with the buying and selling of “carbon credits” that grant permission to use carbon fuel, massive tax plans to pay for alternative energy programs and more.

Richard explained: “It has been increasingly established that low solar activity (few sunspots) and increased cloud cover (as modulated by cosmic rays) are highly associated with a cooling climate. In recent years, the earth has unfortunately left a period of very high solar activity, the Modern Grand Maximum. Periods of high solar activity correspond to multi-decadal- to centennial-scale warming.”

He said solar scientists are now increasingly forecasting a period of very low activity that will commence in the next few years, by around 2020 to 2025. The result? Cooling.

“This will lead to climate cooling, even Little Ice Age conditions.”

As U.S. Sen. James Inhofe, an expert on the politicization of “climate change,” has pointed out, “for more than 100 years, journalists have quoted scientists predicting the destruction of civilization by, in alternation, either runaway heat or a new Ice Age.”

In fact, over the last century America’s major media have predicted an impending global climate crisis four different times – each prediction warning that entire countries would be wiped out or that lower crop yields would mean “billions will die.” In 1895, the panic was over an imminent ice age. Later, in the late 1920s, when the earth’s surface warmed less than half a degree, the media jumped on a new threat – global warming, which continued into the late 1950s. Then in 1975, the New York Times’ headline blared, “A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable.” Then in 1981 it was back to global warming, with the Times quoting seven government atmospheric scientists who predicted global warming of an “almost unprecedented magnitude.”

Today, to cover all their bases, much of the press has changed its terminology from “global warming” to “climate change” or “climate catastrophe.” That way they’re covered either way.

Richard compiled excerpts from 13 recent papers on the topic that discuss global cooling to come, seven from 2017 and a few each from 2016 and 2015.

For example, the Sun et al report revealed “a certain relationship exists between the movement of the planetary system, solar activity, and global climate change” that appears to run in cycles of about every two centuries.

There have been six such reversals since A.D. 1000 described as protracted solar minimums, and another is looming, the report said.

The Nurtaev and Nurtaev study concluded that very soon ocean levels will be lower “due to more snow and glacier accumulation on continents” and temperatures will be up to 0.7 degrees Centigrade lower.

The Yndestad and Solheim study notes the forecasts for fewer sunspots.

“Periods with few sunspots are associated with low solar activity and cold climate periods. Periods with many sunspots are associated with high solar activity and warm climate periods. … We are currently leaving a grand activity maximum, which began in approximately 1940 and is now declining.”

The Ludecke and Weiss study found what it called “proof” of an approximate 190-year climate cycle attributable to a “solar origin.”

At Marc Morano’s Climate Depot, Rob Bushway commented on the findings.

“The truth is that everything appears far less spectacular than what many would have us believe,” he said. “On October 4, 2017, a study by Yoshida et al was published. It presented the results produced by simulations of tropical storms and their future development. According to the models, the number of tropical storms on a global scale will drop by 33 percent. Moreover there will be a significant reduction in storms of the especially harsh categories 4 and 5.”

The number and intensity of stormy-weather events have been blamed on global warming.

WND reported only weeks ago a former United Nations climate czar was laughing at the suggestion of a globally centralized planning structure to address “climate change.”

Which is a little strange, since Christiana Figueres was the one who made that proposal just a few years ago.

Her latest reaction to the idea is being reported at climate Depot.

Morano said he approached her with a question on a sidewalk as she was getting into a taxi during the U.N. climate summit in Bonn, Germany.

“Climategate” exposes the global warming scam. Get it, and other key revelations, now at the WND Superstore.

Her comment:

Morano said he asked her about her message to President Trump and her own calls for a U.N. “centralized transformation” that “is going to make life of everyone on the planet very different.”

Morano: “What about [your call for U.N.] ‘centralized transformation’? What about people who might be afraid the U.N. is essentially going to be a climate central power?”

Figueres: Loud laugh.

Morano: “That is your response?”

Figueres: “Now that is real humor.”

She continued to laugh as she got into the waiting car.

But it wasn’t so long ago that she made the proposal.

According to the Tom Nelson blog, it was in 2012 when she said of her work, “It is the most inspiring job in the world because what we are doing here is we are inspiring government, private sector and civil society to [make] the biggest transformation that they have ever undertaken.

“The Industrial Revolution was also a transformation, but it wasn’t ‘a guided transformation from a centralized policy perspective. This [U.N. climate change action] is a centralized transformation that is taking place because governments have decided that they need to listen to science. So it’s a very, very different transformation and one that is going to make the life of everyone on the planet very different.”

Climate Depot said Figueres’ legacy “will be one of central planning, limiting development for the world’s poor, creation of climate slush funds, appeals to climate claims and ‘solutions’ that would make medieval witch accusers blush.”

WND reported earlier this year when Al Gore used the extreme results of “Superstorm Sandy” to support his contention that sea waters are rising significantly.

The claim is in the sequel to his 2006 movie “An Inconvenient Truth.”

The original movie wasn’t without controversy, as a judge in the United Kingdom said it could be shown to schools only if they alert students to nine statements “that are not supported by current mainstream scientific consensus.”

Now promotions for “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power” include what critics say is yet another misstatement by Gore.

According to the Media Research Center’s Newsbusters, Gore claims in his films that the flooding caused by Superstorm Sandy at the site of the Twin Towers memorial in New York City is a fulfillment of his prediction in his original movie that a rise in the ocean level would flood the site.

But that isn’t what happened.

In his 2006 film, he said, illustrated by an animation, “If Greenland broke up and melted, or if half of Greenland and half of West Antarctica broke up and melted, this is what would happen to the sea level in Florida.”

“Climategate” exposes the global warming scam. Get it, and other revelations, now at the WND Superstore.

Then he showed animations of what he believed would happen to San Francisco, the Netherlands, Beijing and other places.

Turning to Manhattan, he said, “This is what would happen to Manhattan; they can measure this precisely.”

The animation shows water reaching the 9/11 memorial.

But Newsbusters argued Gore has twisted his original words to make it appear his prediction about Manhattan came true.

In a newly released clip from the movie, he said: “Ten years ago when the movie ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ came out, the single most criticized scene was an animated scene showing that the combination of sea level rise and storm surge would put the ocean water into the 9/11 memorial site, which was then under construction. And people said, ‘That’s ridiculous. What a terrible exaggeration.'”

The movie then shows news footage of Superstorm Sandy water reaching the memorial site.

See Al Gore:

Newsbusters pointed out the original prediction “was not about extenuating circumstances of a storm like Sandy slamming into New York or any ‘storm surge’ at all.”

“It was about the sea level rise that would be generated as (he predicted) ice melt in Greenland and Antarctica escalated dramatically.”

The report noted the latest maps show that Greenland still has ice 11 years after Gore’s prediction of catastrophic melt.

Even scientists dispute Gore’s contention that Superstorm Sandy was the product of “manmade climate change.”

Gore also told an audience in 2009, for example, that “the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.”

He also predicted increasing temperatures would cause Earth’s oceans to rise by 20 feet, a claim many scientists say is utterly without rational basis.

See those claims:

The new movie promotion says: “Cameras follow him behind the scenes – in moments both private and public, funny and poignant – as he pursues the inspirational idea that while the stakes have never been higher, the perils of climate change can be overcome with human ingenuity and passion.”

Climate Depot said the intent now is not to discuss, investigate or research, but to send “a chilling message to doubters and skeptics” to be silent.

Morano said his movie, “Climate Hustle,” shows “the climate establishment comparing climate skeptics to Holocaust deniers.”

“It’s all an attempt to silence the debate, to silence any science and go right to centralized planning,” he said. “That’s what this is all about. The U.N. has admitted their goal is wealth redistribution and it doesn’t have anything to do with environmental policy.”

The solution offered by the climate establishment, he said, is always the same: “more centralized government.”

He said the result will be tragic for large populations who are being denied access to pumped water, power and heat because of antagonism to carbon-based fuels.

“The reason we know there’s a hustle is their predictions have failed to come true, on a whole host of issues,” Morano said. “That’s why they now want to stop the debate, suppress debate.”

“Climategate” exposes the global warming scam. Get it, and other revelations, now at the WND Superstore.

This IS the back-up plan/strategy of the Left. And this is the main strategy of Progressives on OPP. The Democratic Party: 'the party of pure hatred'. When was the last time you had 'a progressive during a political discussion' say something nice to you. Those on the Right on this blog even tried to present a truce over the Christmas holidays, where we would lay off the insults and make an attempt to have civil discourse during the Christmas season. A few on the Left wanted nothing to do with it. It was funny. We were OK with that because if you said you wanted civil discourse, we knew you were lying like usual anyway. Here's the link: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/12/the_lefts_strategy_when_all_else_fails_return_to_race_hatred.html

By Valerie Tarico / AlterNet


Ok, evangelicals do have a brand problem—but they also have a major product problem.
Bible-believing born-again Christians, aka evangelicals, have had a brand problem since Jerry Falwell’s Moral Majority sold the born-again movement to the Republican party in exchange for political power a generation ago, forging the religious right.
The Republican party has been using Christianity’s good name to cover bad deeds ever since, all the while tapping evangelical media empires and churches as communications and organizing platforms to bring ordinary believers along with the merger. Having become true-believers themselves, Evangelical leaders have offered themselves up as trusted messengers for this New-and-Improved political gospel project.


And it has worked.
Born-again Christians haven’t given up their core beliefs: that the Bible is the literally perfect word of God, Jesus died for their sins, and folks who don’t accept this gift will burn forever in Hell. Rather, most white evangelicals (and a number of blacks and Hispanics) have appended parts of the Republican policy agenda and the underlying conceptual framework to this list. Religious beliefs and political beliefs have become, for many evangelicals, indistinguishable objects of devotion, beyond question. Political tribe and religious tribe now have the same boundaries.
When I outlined evangelicalism’s brand problem in early 2016, few of us had any idea how bad it could get. Now the world associates the term Evangelical with the Trump election—over 80 percent of evangelicals gave him their vote—and with the candidacy of theocrat, Roy Moore, who despite credible allegations that he pursued and pawed young teens while an assistant district attorney, received comparable support from white Alabama evangelicals.
In the aftermath of Moore’s campaign and (merciful) defeat, the minority of Evangelical Christians who found him horrifying are doing some public soul searching—well, except not really. Many recognize only the brand problem and are, more than anything, simply scrambling to get away from the term evangelical itself. “After Trump and Moore, some evangelicals are finding their own label too toxic to use,” reports the Washington Post.  “The term feels irreversibly tainted,” agrees evangelical author Jen Hatmaker.

At Princeton University, the Princeton Evangelical Fellowship renamed itself Princeton Christian Fellowship to get away from the negative associations. But is evangelicalism tainting Christianity itself as a brand? Five years ago, Campus Crusade for Christ–which spends over $500,000,000 annually to recruit and retain evangelical college students–changed its name to the less transparent “Cru.” Mark Galli, editor-in-chief at Christianity Today, wrote of the Moore race, “There is already one loser: Christian faith...No one will believe a word we say, perhaps for a generation. Christianity’s integrity is severely tarnished.”

What even thoughtful evangelical leaders like Galli fail to recognize is that people shouldn’t believe a word they say—not about politics, not about morality, and not even about theology at this point. The problem isn’t skin deep. Their brand problem is a function of their product problem, and as Emmett Price at Gordon-Cornwell Theological Seminary put it, “Ditching a term is simply ditching a term.” Abandoning the term evangelical is the most superficial fix conceivable.
Real soul searching would mean asking what it is about the evangelical worldview that has made evangelical leaders and ordinary Bible-believers susceptible to courtship by authoritarian, bigoted, sexist, tribal, anti-intellectual greedmongers who dangle the carrot of theocracy. But few evangelical leaders are asking this question because that would mean revisiting the peculiar status they grant to the Bible itself. And that is off-limits.

When one treats the Bible as the literally perfect and complete word of God—which most Christian scholars don’t but most evangelicals do—it isn’t hard to find support for every item in the ugly list that now darkens the evangelical brand. The Bible contains some really bad ideas.  The opposite is also true, mind you. It also contains support for compassion, love, generosity, inclusion, and humility—and many other virtues that humanity values widely across both secular and religious wisdom traditions. The Bible is morally inchoate. It documents and sanctifies humanity’s moral infancy; and idolizing the book binds believers to the worldview of the Iron Age, leaving them susceptible to justifying all manner of misbehaviors in the name of god.