Rick Santorum had the impossible job of defending Donald Trump during Friday s Real Time and he found himself humiliatingly outnumbered.Bill Maher began by expressing astonishment at how the Republican nominee has been acting throughout the campaign. Even conservative commentator Tara Setmayer couldn t believe Trump s antics, surmising that it s almost like he is trying to lose but people just keep supporting him so he has to do something even more outrageous. It s easy to behave this way when you re mentally ill, director Rob Reiner chimed in. It s not like he s trying to lose. He can t help himself. Then Santorum took his turn and instantly became the punching bag for Maher and the other two panelists when he attempted to defend Trump as some kind of change-maker while portraying Hillary Clinton as a politics-as-usual candidate.Setmayer pointed at Santorum and pointed out that people like him are to blame for Trump getting this far while Rob Reiner once again pleaded, Stop being mentally ill. Santorum claimed that Trump was relatively tame on Friday, prompting Setmayer to ask if Trump seriously wants a cookie for acting like an adult for once.Maher explained that Trump can never be president because his number one priority is getting back at anybody who has slighted him in any way. Santorum continued repeating how Trump has tapped into some kind of anger among conservatives who think they are being ignored, but Setmayer hit back by noting that there s a way to do that without acting like a petulant child, and that Trump is an embarrassment.Santorum then attacked Hillary Clinton by claiming Trump isn t a liar like her by bringing up her emails again, which drew the ire of Rob Reiner. Let s talk about the FBI! There was one email! One email that was not listed as classified with a little tiny c and James Comey said anybody could have missed that! Enough of that! Enough of that! Bill Maher agreed, saying that he is sick of hearing about Hillary s emails all the time.The panel continued piling on Santorum with Setmayer doing the most damage and then Maher slammed Republicans for handcuffing themselves to a dead hooker by making Trump their nominee and catering to a base that hates and denies facts.Here s the video via YouTube:Donald Trump is an embarrassment to this country and as this episode of Maher demonstrates, even conservatives are embarrassed that he is the Republican nominee. Those who still support him are either ignorant or just want to watch the world burn.Featured Image: Screenshot


(Editor's note: This story contains language in the second paragraph that may offend readers) The president of Maine's state Senate on Friday said he would not pursue a special session to censure Governor Paul LePage for leaving a profanity-laden voicemail message for a lawmaker amid a dispute about the governor's comments on race and drug dealing. Senator Michael Thibodeau, who like LePage is a Republican, earlier in the week had said he was interested in a one-day special session to officially reprimand the two-term governor for calling a Democratic state legislator a "little son-of-a-bitch, socialist cocksucker." But on Friday he said he would not follow the lead of state House Speaker Mark Eves, who began polling lawmakers in his chamber as to whether they were ready to call a special session "to take action regarding the Governor's conduct." "He is unfit to serve as Governor and must resign or be removed from office," Eves said of LePage in a statement on Friday. That query, Thibodeau said, went further than Senate Republicans were willing to go, adding that his party had been ready to vote for a one-day session to vote on an official censure of LePage, whose current term extends through 2018. "We're not interested in coming back for impeachment," Thibodeau told reporters. The state House and Senate both adjourned in April and are not due to meet again until after the November elections. LePage has faced a flurry of criticism over the past week for saying that members of minority groups from out of state were responsible for the lion's share of the heroin trade in Maine. He drew further criticism after leaving a profane and widely circulated voicemail for a lawmaker that he believed had called him a racist. Earlier in the week he mused during a 15-minute radio interview about the idea of not finishing out his term, only to come back a day later to say that he would not resign. Earlier this year a group of lawmakers started an effort to impeach him, contending the governor overstepped his authority by threatening to withhold funds from a nonprofit group that hired a political rival, but that effort collapsed before making it to the full House. Under Maine's constitution, Thibodeau would have been first in line to succeed LePage if he stepped down or was removed from office.


I m a political refugee from Iran. I ve been to prison. I ve been under Islamic law. And I know how it starts, and I know how it ends. And it always starts with uh, for some reason unity of the left and Islamists and it scares me. So, I came here to be free. I chose Canada as my second home to live in a free country, and uh, I m beginning to get really scared. Because the way things are going, it looks like they re going to basically appease Islamists, just to not raise any ruckus. They [Islamists] see it as a sign of weakness, so they re [Islamists] are just gong to take more and more Watch:Iranian immigrant warns the West. Islamofascism "always starts with the unity of Leftists & Islamists." https://t.co/vFLOdAYjGL Tarek Fatah (@TarekFatah) March 5, 2017


U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt gave Reuters a wide-ranging interview on Monday at his office in Washington, discussing issues from climate science to automobile emissions. The following is a full transcript of the interview: REUTERS: You have said the EPA will focus on a "Back to Basics" approach under your leadership. What does this mean for how EPA enforces polluters? You have been critical of the idea of regulation by enforcement. PRUITT: I think what I'm speaking about there is a consent decree approach to enforcement, where you use judicial proceedings to actually engage in regulation. Enforcement should be about existing regulations that you're actually enforcing against someone who may be violating that, very much in the prosecutorial manner. As attorney general [in Oklahoma], I lived that. There was a grand jury that I led. Being a prosecutor, I understand very much the importance of prioritization, of enforcing the rule of law, of addressing bad actors. That's something we are going to do in a meaningful way across the broad spectrum of cases, whether it is in the office of air or the superfund area, or otherwise. REUTERS: Do you want to see states play a bigger role in enforcing polluters, even though some have less of a capacity to do so – financially and personnel wise? PRUITT: I think the state's role is really, when you look at this office working with states it should be how do we assist, how do we engage in compliance and assistance with states. The office [at EPA that deals with enforcement] is called OECA, the Office of Enforcement, Compliance and Assistance, so those are the tools we have in the tool box to achieve better outcomes. So what we ought to be doing is working proactively with state DEQs [Departments of Environmental Quality] to get their state implementation plans [for federal regulations] timely submitted, provide assistance and technical support, drive a draft of state implementation plans and then actually work with them on how to achieve through those plans better outcomes and air and water quality. As far as enforcement is concerned we will actually work with states. We actually did that recently with Colorado, there was an oil and gas company that was emitting some 3,000 tons, is that what it was, it was quite a bit, of… it was an ozone case. In any event, we joined with Colorado in that prosecution. So sometimes states will do it, sometimes we will join with them. The importance is, in my view, that with respect to achieving good environmental outcomes, you need to use all of the tools in the toolbox to achieve that – compliance, assistance and enforcement – and use that enforcement in a meaningful impactful way to ensure that actions are addressed in a timely way. REUTERS: Some of the pending settlements that are out there – Harley-Davidson for example – where do they stand? And would you look at some of these previous settlements that were reached during the last days of the Obama administration and revisit them? PRUITT: Well, I'm not familiar with… I don't know the latest on the Harley Davidson case… My review predominantly has been with respect to the consent decrees that were being used to engage in regulation. There is a distinction there. I want to make sure I'm saying that clearly. In one instance with respect to enforcement you have a regulation that has already been adopted and a standard that has to be met and a company that is not meeting the standard that was set by regulation. That is enforcement. This is what OECA should be working with the states to address. The part that has not been handled well over the past several years is the part where you have the EPA sued by third party, not an enforcement mechanism, but sued by an NGO, and that NGO is asking the court to compel this agency to take certain steps, either through change in statute or time lines set by statute and then the agency will acquiesce through a consent decree changing the very statutory framework. That is regulation through litigation and that is inconsistent with the authority in my view of this agency. That has nothing to do with enforcement. REUTERS: What are some examples that are egregious? PRUITT: There is a host of consent decrees that I've inherited that we are evaluating on a case by case basis to see what authority we have to address those. But again, that is not enforcement that is completely under the banner of regulation by litigation. Let me say to you that it is important because Congress has said that as you engage in rulemaking you follow the administrative procedures act, which is you propose a rule, you take comment, you respond to that comment on the record, you make an informed decision and then you finalize the rule. The reason that is important is that is how you build consensus. That is how you hear from people at the state level. That is how you hear from states. That is how you hear from industry. All these various voices are heard in that process and you make a more robust and informed decision. And the merits of the rule, I think, are received better that way. And when you do it through one case, through litigation, and it is passed on to the rest of the country, voices are subverted in that process and it is not good decision-making. REUTERS: With the cheat devises used by automakers to skirt EPA vehicle emission standards, did you think that some of those penalties were too harsh? PRUITT: Look, what VW and Fiat… you've got this Fiat case that is on the horizon as well. The emails and the communications that I'm aware of: it was strategic and intentional and should be dealt with very aggressively. They knew very, very well what they did. I wouldn't call what was done too light at all. I'm fact, I would tell you that as we look forward… what VW did was very, very troublesome and we need to make sure it doesn't happen again. REUTERS: Will you model EPA enforcement after what you did in Oklahoma as attorney general? PRUITT: It is a completely different role that I had as attorney general. In fact, as I said during my confirmation process, the AG is not the enforcement arm at the state level with respect to permitting. That is DEQ. The environmental unit that we set up in the previous administration was not set up to address enforcement. It was actually set up to address a nuisance claim that was filed against a company on poultry waste that we dealt with in other ways with the state of Arkansas. Long and short of it, the role that I have here is very different from the role. As it turned out we were not the front-line enforcer. It was the DEQ and the state regulatory bodies. Now we did provide assistance to them through general counsel, and they provided support and input to them. But as far as a standalone enforcement arm, that was handled by the individual agencies in the state of Oklahoma. Which is different than here [at EPA]. We have a robust, very important role of enforcement here. We are coordinating with the regions, making sure there is consistency across the regions…I tried to explain it during the confirmation hearing. Look at Superfund. People don't usually equate that with enforcement. Under the CERCLA statute [the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980] we have joint and several liability with respect to potential responsible parties, and a large percentage of our portfolio at the Superfund is through responsible parties, private funding. I think the agency has not done the best job historically at holding those private parties accountable for the amount of waste and remediation that needs to take place. We have tremendous authority. I'm going to have a very thoughtful and meaningful enforcement response to Superfund to make sure that we are achieving good outcomes for citizens across the country with respect to that entire portfolio of 1,336 or so sites. Again, that is not often thought about in terms of enforcement. We think about air, we think about permitting, but we don't often think about remediation under CERCLA and I think we have got a lot of room for improvement and opportunity to get accountability in that area. I've got a report on my desk that spent thirty or so days. I'm doing the task force recommendations right now, on how to better achieve accountability from enforcement across the board. REUTERS: But the administration's proposed budget for FY2018 proposes severe budget cuts across the board, including to Superfund … PRUITT: But there aren't. There aren't budget cuts across the board. We have a Continuing Resolution until the end of April that funded us around $8 billion or so, and Congress is going through that process with respect to what the funding levels are going to be on Superfund. So the fact that we have a proposed budget… Congress is having that discussion and there haven't been any budget cuts taking place at this point and we're working with Congress to make sure that there is adequate funding to address both the enforcement side and the Superfund side. REUTERS: When you saw the president's budget proposal which called for a 31 percent cut to the EPA budget, did it worry you? PRUITT: I think there are certain parts of the agency that there is room for true legitimate cuts, and there are other parts of the agency where that is not the case - as it is in every department. But to take something like Superfund and say that whatever the proposed budget was means that we can't do what we need to do as far as our reform and accountability is just simply not accurate. Most of the challenges I've seen from the Superfund program have been related to attitude management leadership and less about money. But as I told Congress during the budget and nomination process, if I determine that we need more moneys there, we'll ask Congress, because that's the priority. Enforcement and Superfund are included in that category. When you're funding [inaudible] million dollars you've got room to cut. But I can tell you this, the core mission of the agency – improving air and water quality, addressing remediation as far as the superfund sites – those types of priorities … REUTERS: There have been reports about the EPA launching what has been called a red team-blue team review of climate change science. Can you tell us more about this? Will this lead to a re-evaluation of the 2009 endangerment finding that carbon dioxide endangers human health? PRUITT: I'm thinking about it. Steve Koonin, professor at NYU, did a very exciting piece in the Wall Street Journal called Red Team Blue Team. I scheduled time with Steve in my office the week that article came out. I didn't know it was coming out… So Steve and I were meeting about some other things, and we didn't really focus on that, but I took the opportunity to talk to him about it and … we're considering it. I think the American people deserve and honest, open, transparent discussion. What do we know? What don't we know? Does it pose an existential threat, what can be done about it? etc… There are lots of questions that have not been asked and answered. Who better to do that than a group of scientists? Red team scientists and blue team scientists getting together and having a robust discussion about that for all the world to see. So, I'm not a scientist, I'm an attorney. That does beg the question because there is a follow-up question to that, which is what can be done about it [climate change] that is statutory and legal? But as I've shared with senators in the confirmation process, Congress has never responded to this issue. If you ask people that amended the Clean Air Act in 1990, including [former Michigan Democratic] Congressman Dingle, he is endlessly quoted as saying that if you try to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act of 1990 that it would create "a glorious mess." So the Clean Air Act was truly set up to address local and regional air pollutants. So, you hear often about the regulation of GHG and CO2, but there has to be a determination of what can be done. What are the tools in the toolbox? If the tools are not in the toolbox to address this issue, I can't, and this agency can't, just simply make it up. We can't re-imagine authority. The past administration tried to do that with its Clean Power Plan. It was extraordinary what the Supreme Court did [in its 2014 ruling on the Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA case. The court backed the EPA's ability to regulate greenhouse gases from mobile and stationary sources but threw out its "tailoring rule," which revised the statutory thresholds for requiring federal air permits for greenhouse gases.] It said a lot. It said the authority the previous administration was trying to say that they had in regulating carbon dioxide wasn't there. So there are two parts to this question: what do we know/what don't we know? And two, what is the response…the statutory response? The red team blue team is intended to be a response that provides answers to the American people… the American people deserve, in my view, an open transparent honest discussion about this issue…. So we are contemplating being a part of that process. REUTERS: The consensus has been overwhelming that climate change has been caused by human beings… PRUITT: That's not the question. It is not a question about whether the climate is warming. It is not a question about whether human activity contributes to it. It is a question about how much we contribute to it? How do we measure that with precision? And by the way, are we on an unsustainable path? And what harm...is it causing an existential threat? There is another great piece in the New York Times by Brett Stephens, I think it was, that talked about the climate of complete certainty. His whole premise is that there is a basis of consensus we know but the politicians have done what? Created an elasticity approach. They've stretched it so far that it's reached a point where the credibility is being strained. That article, along with the red-team blue-team, I think those book-end this approach where we have a discussion about that. Some of the blue team scientists – they say oh we are not going to participate in that. Why not? Why don't you want to participate? It's like the New York Yankees according to them. It's like the New York Yankees playing a Little League team. If you're going to win and if you're so certain about it, come and do your deal. They shouldn't be scared of the debate and discussion. That's what science is all about. That's what scientific debate is about. Let's get red team scientists in. Let's get blue team scientists in. Let's let them question one another. That would be exciting to see. REUTERS: But what would it look like? PRUITT: It's in its formative stages. The idea is a good idea because it's an idea that advances science. It advances discussion. It advances transparency. It advances for the American people to consume and participate through this debate because there is not consensus on this issue. How do we know that? There has been no policy response. That's why we haven't seen Congress act because there has been such a question. It's not a question about whether warming is happening or whether we are contributing to it. That's not what we are debating. It's how much? To what degree? The precision of measurement. Does it pose a meaningful threat? Is it unsustainable? There is a host of questions that will be asked and answered during the process. It's exciting. REUTERS: But how would this be brought to the public? Would you put it on television? PRUITT: "I think so. I think so. I mean, I don't know yet, but you want this to be open to the world. You want this to be on full display. I think the American people would be very interested in consuming that. I think they deserve it." REUTERS: How do you guarantee the objectivity of scientists? Make sure there are no conflicts of interest? PRUITT: That's why the red team blue team matters. Steve modeled this after national security and defense [exercises] - they kind of check one another. There is a consumption, an evaluation and interpretation. They will check one another. REUTERS: Congress hasn't legislated on the endangerment finding. Will this scientific review lead to a review of the endangerment finding? PRUITT: You have the 2007 Massachusetts vs. EPA ruling which most people misinterpret. Mass vs. EPA didn't say to the EPA that you must regulate CO2. What Mass vs. EPA said is that you must make a decision whether you regulate or not. You can't just simply not make a decision. That was whole thing about Mass vs. EPA. And then what happened in post script. What happened post script was in 2009 with the endangerment finding but that was for mobile sources. That's another thing that important. The endangerment funding was focused on mobile sources –cars – and section 111 [of the Clean Air Act]– what the [Obama administration] Clean Power Plan dealt with – was stationary sources. And they are separate requirements under section 111 of the Clean Air Act. There are a lot of process/ legal-related issues here that the previous administration didn't comply with. But the endangerment finding is only on the mobile side. When I say Congress hasn't responded, you've had a court case and an endangerment finding and then you've had an agency engage in regulatory response – by the way using tools currently in the Clean Air Act – and failed twice. They tried to respond to the endangerment finding by regulating under section 111 and failed and failed with the UARG decision (with the tailoring rule). So the question is begged – what are the tools in the toolbox? I talked about that in my confirmation hearing. I've talked about that with individual senators. It's something that Congress has to ask and answer. We have no authority except that which Congress gives us. We can't just simply make it up. The previous administration made it up with WOTUS [the Waters of the United States act]. They re-imagined authority in defining the Waters of the United States to include things that included dry creek beds and puddles. It just went too far and the sixth circuit struck that down or put a stay in place and did the same with CO2. This Supreme Court has been very, very clear that this agency, like any other agency in the federal government, can't simply re-imagine authority and a large authority beyond the statutory text. The scientific review – the red team blue team discussion – is intended to have an open transparent debate about something that is a policy issue that is extremely important in this country that is not taking place. The endangerment finding in 2009 was based on IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] information not on the science of this agency. The red team blue team is intended to provide that type of vehicle, mechanism, to have an open debate, discussion. REUTERS: So you might take a look at the endangerment finding? PRUITT: That's not what this is about. What this is about is exactly what I described. REUTERS: Let's move on to the California waiver, which allows California to set its own more stringent emissions standards for vehicles. Is that something the EPA will review or change? PRUITT: It's not under review right now. REUTERS: Will you review it in the future? PRUITT: The governor of California and I have traded correspondence with respect to California's role – very important. Congress has recognized it. They were regulating air quality before the Clean Air Act was adopted in 1972, which is why the California waiver exists. We've reached out to the California governor as part of our CAFE midterm review in 2018. I'm hopeful that the state of California, the governor there, will respond with reciprocity and we are working through that process. REUTERS: Are there any meetings taking place now with automakers? PRUITT: I don't know what conversations have taken place between automakers and California. The president and I were in Detroit announcing that the midterm review was going to take place when it should have taken place which is April of 2018, which is 16 months early, which occurred January this year. We restored process there and order there. We're going through the process now and we've reached out to California and believe that it is important to have a holistic discussion with California and we're optimistic that they will respond with reciprocity. REUTERS: On the Renewable Fuel Standard- How seriously is the EPA taking the proposal by Trump advisor and billionaire investor Carl Icahn to move the point of obligation? PRUITT: As you know, 18,000 comments were submitted. That was actually the process that began late in the last administration. We are still reviewing those comments. But the RFS is something – look, it's a statute that Congress has passed. And Congress – I take seriously the importance of enforcing a statute that Congress has passed and there are some challenges to that statute as you know. there are targets that have been put in prescriptively in the statute such as billions of gallons of cellulosic being blended into the fuel supply when I think the last numbers we had as far as produced numbers are around 190 million that's actually production. That's a problem and it makes it tough administering the statute. I think whatever waiver authority we use we use it judiciously. Tied to production and actual market demand. Our job is to fulfill the objectives as best as possible of the statute and we're going to do that. The RVOs [renewable volume obligations] were supposed to be published every year in November. The past administration didn't do that timely. We are. We are going to have those out in November. We're on path to do that which is very good for people across the country to know what is expected of them. That's going to be done timely. We just released our proposed volume numbers and the preamble and in the language of the RVOs we talked about production demand market realities with respect to those advanced fuels. We are seeking to do our job there in a very meaningful way. There is a lot of discussion on Capitol Hill about the statute and perhaps a bipartisan approach to update the statute because it actually expires in 2022 and so there's a lot of discussion about trying to update the statute. It's well received here and I encourage Congress to continue that. REUTERS: What is your strategy with your legal defense of your moves to undo the Obama era rules? The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals last week denied your bid to delay the Obama administration's regulations on methane. PRUITT: There are various authorities. That (methane case) was a case about our authority to stay certain rules. That's distinct from withdrawing rules. On WOTUS [the Waters of the United States rule] we've actually proposed a withdrawal. I signed that on June 27 on energy dominance week. I think that our section 307 stay that we used there was because we were up against the compliance time and try to use authority that we thought was well established. We are going to respond to that accordingly. But going forward… I think it was a case focused on the facts of that particular case. I don't think it says anything to us with respect to authority we have to stay under section 705 of the administrative procedures act or section 307 of the Clean Air Act. Those are well established procedures we have. We will use them accordingly as necessary. That's what we are doing on the Clean Power Plan. We have a proposed rule to withdraw the CPP. What comes next is yet to be determined but what we do know with regards to that particular rule is that SCOTUS has issued a stay against it which means there is a likelihood of success on the merits as far as it being inconsistent with statutory authority and so it's not wise of this agency to use resources to advance the defense of a rule that maybe deficient. We are going to withdraw that and see what our authority is- the tools in the toolbox on that particular issue. REUTERS: On Paris and climate change, polls show younger people are more supportive of U.S leadership on climate change. How do you explain your decision to a younger generation? PRUITT: That's not what Paris was about. I get what you're saying but here's the deal though. It was not about whether the U.S. is going to continue leading on reducing our CO2 footprint because Paris didn't actually do that. Paris was a bumper sticker. Go back and read the articles about the criticism that was levied on the environmental left. They were very critical and dismissive of the Paris agreement. You know why? Because China didn't have to do anything until 2030 and India conditioned all of their obligations upon receiving two and a half trillion dollars of aid. Russia, India and China contributed 0 dollars to the Green Climate Fund. People have short memories there. We are already at pre 94 levels and we exited Kyoto in 2001 and from 2000 to 2014 we reduced our CO2 foot print by 18 plus percent. That's better than others across the globe. When people really want action and meaningful outcomes with regards to this, we are doing it. We are at pre-1994 levels. Paris was not in my view – it shouldn't be symbolic or optical with respect to whether progress or no progress is being made in CO2 reduction. REUTERS: What do you think about the argument some major fossil fuel companies like Exxon and Cloud Peak Energy (coal company) made that it is better for the US to remain in the Paris agreement because it gives them a competitive advantage? I don't understand that argument. I just simply don't understand that argument because if they are saying that the technology that is being developed domestically that we are not going to be able to export and other countries will be interested in? Where is the evidence of that? China is still building coal facilities to the tune of almost one a day. They had 800 planned and they have scaled that back. India is going to continue burning coal. What we ought to be doing is exporting technology and innovation to help them do it cleaner. It is not the job of this agency and it shouldn't be the job of any regulatory body to force or pick winners and losers in the energy mix. We need fuel diversity as far as the generation of electricity because you can only get so much natural gas through the pipelines. So if there is an attack on your infrastructure with regards to the pipes and how natural gas is delivered to generate electricity, what do you do? You have to have a solid amount of hydrocarbons – coal stored on site – that allows you to address peak demand. If GDP growth is going to continue at 3 percent, then you've got to have [fuel] diversity- it's energy security across the board. It's unwise in business to have one client or two clients. It's unwise in electricity to have one source or two sources. In Oklahoma – 18 percent of our electricity is wind generated. This is an all of the above approach and EPA should not get in the business of foisting upon the markets decisions to say don't burn fossil fuels. The past administration was unapologetic. That's not what regulation should be about. Now Paris? Paris was a bad business deal for this country at the end of the day. It put us at an economic disadvantage. The US has never been about agreeing to targets. In this case, 26 - 28 percent [**the U.S. pledge for emissions reductions under the Paris agreement] in this instance. Every rule that the previous administration adopted…Their entire climate action plan – fell 40 percent short. It was failed from the very beginning. So why did they go to Paris and agree to 26-28 percent targets? Because it provided exposure domestically. Third party groups – NGOs – could sue this agency and say you need to do more under section 115 of the Clean Air Act [a section of the CAA that enables the United States to work cooperatively with other nations to address trans-boundary air pollution]. So there was legal exposure and we were already leading the world with respect to CO2 reduction. To interpret the president – who said by the way engagement, renegotiate or another agreement – but the Paris agreement is bad for this country and doesn't achieve good environmental outcomes. We have nothing to be apologetic about with regards to what we are already going. It was absolutely a decision of courage and fortitude and truly represented an America First strategy with respect to how we are leading on this issue. Germany is burning more coal. REUTERS: Didn't the US position on Paris isolate the United States at G20? PRUITT: The past administration was all about words. This administration is all about action. Look at the actions this country has taken. We have reduced our greenhouse gas levels to pre 1994 levels primarily through technology and innovation, not through government mandate. We have nothing to be apologetic about with the rest of the world. And if we really want to do something about reducing the CO2 footprint, then hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling need to be exported to China and India and Europe because that has created the greatest reduction in CO2. And nuclear. Why is Germany going away from nuclear? They are abolishing their nuclear portfolio and increasing what? Their CO2 emissions. Why doesn't anyone talk to chancellor Merkel about that? REUTERS: Do you ever talk to your kids about climate change? Do they agree with you? PRUITT: My kids are wonderfully talented individuals and their world view is wonderful. They look at these issues in a smart way and I think they would probably echo the things that I have shared.


The Democratic National Committee announced Friday that it is still holding onto most of the money it received from Hollywood mogul and alleged sexual harasser Harvey Weinstein.The DNC will donate just ten percent of the almost $300,000 received from Weinstein, money that will go to organizations close to the Democratic Party: EMILY s List, Emerge America, and Higher Heights, all of which predominately help Democratic candidates running for office. The DNC s response to the Harvey Weinstein matter is shockingly bad even by Washington standards, Alexandra Smith of the conservative opposition research firm America Rising said. Donating a mere 10 percent of the entire Weinstein contribution to another left-leaning political action committee is a complete embarrassment. The mission statement of EMILY s List is: We elect pro-choice Democratic women to office. Emerge America adds ethnic diversity to that same basic mission, proclaiming its intent to increase the number of Democratic women leaders. Higher Heights goal is to help black women get elected; the Center for Responsive Politics notes that it gives exclusively to Democrats.Some Democratic politicians are donating money received from Weinstein to nonprofits helping victims of sexual violence, while others have remained silent on the matter. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) announced he would donate his Weinstein money to several charities supporting women following a Washington Free Beacon report about Democrats inaction. WFB


The United Nations aviation agency is backing the creation of a single global drone registry, as part of broader efforts to come up with common rules for flying and tracking unmanned aircraft. While the International Civil Aviation Organization cannot impose regulations on countries, ICAO has proposed formation of the registry during a Montreal symposium this month to make data accessible in real time, said Stephen Creamer, director of ICAO s air navigation bureau. The single registry would eschew multiple databases in favor of a one-stop-shop that would allow law enforcement to remotely identify and track unmanned aircraft, along with their operator and owner. The initiative comes at a time when drone usage is soaring in the United States, Europe and China, raising privacy concerns and fears of collisions with commercial jets. You ve got to have some commonality so that you re not carrying five receivers in your police car, Creamer said in an interview on Thursday. It s not yet clear who would operate such a database, although ICAO could possibly fill that role. The proposal, however, could face push back from users, after hobbyists successfully challenged the creation of a U.S. drone registry by the Federal Aviation Administration in court earlier this year. ICAO will host the symposium from Sept 22-23 on issues like registering and tracking drones, along with geofencing-like systems to prevent their operation in restricted areas. The talks will be at an event attended by experts and companies like Google, Rockwell Collins (COL.N) and Amazon.com (AMZN.O), according to the meeting program schedule. Montreal-headquartered ICAO, which normally sets standards for international civil aviation that are adopted by its 191-member countries, was asked to assist in the development of more uniform domestic drone regulations because the remotely-piloted aircraft are sold and flown globally. They (drone makers) are worried that Europe might create one set of standards, United States might do a second and China might do a third. And they ve got to build a drone differently in these different environments, Creamer said. Parimal Kopardekar, a principal investigator for Unmanned Aircraft System Traffic Management (UTM) at the NASA Ames Research Center in California said he supported the drone industry developing around the world with common operating standards. I think it s smart that ICAO is trying to harmonize it, he said by phone. If you have a drone that you build in one country you should be able to use it in another country and vice versa.


The poor little ISIS-inspired, chain migration, snowflake, terrorist can t even walk by a Christmas poster without being triggered. How long before Mayor DeBlasio starts the dialogue about removing triggering signs of Christmas from NYC, so as not to offend non-Christians? The taxi driver behind the failed terror attack in a New York City told investigators he meant to detonate his homemade pipe bomb in the busy subway station after seeing the walls festooned with Christmas posters in revenge for violence against Muslims all over the world.While initial reports suggested the crude pipe bomb, made from a pipe, a 9-volt battery, match heads, sugar, Christmas tree lights and screws, had detonated prematurely, suspect Akayed Ullah, 27, insisted he set off the bomb deliberately.Ullah, who was arrested and taken for questioning after the bomb only partially detonated, told police he was walking through the underground tunnel at 7.20am, between the Port Authority station towards Times Square, when he saw the Christmas-themed posters on the wall, which reminded him of ISIS calls last month for militants and lone wolves to attack holiday markets. He acknowledges he purposely set it off then and there, a senior law enforcement official told the New York Post.The Bangladeshi immigrant added that he was specifically inspired by ISIS, not Al-Qaeda .Authorities say that if the explosive had fully detonated in the busy Midtown Manhattan subway station, there would have been more injuries and doubtless loss of life.The attack came days after Ullah s Brooklyn neighbors say they heard a huge row coming from his home, reporting yelling and screaming over the past two nights.Ullah, who was allowed to stop and pray multiple times during his interrogation, was taken to Bellevue Hospital to be treated for serious burns and lacerations to his abdomen and hands but is expected to survive. At the hospital, the Brooklyn resident told investigators that he was inspired to carry out the attack by the recent flare ups between Israelis and Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.Monday s attack was the first terror attack on U.S. soil since that proclamation, but only one of many violent demonstrations across the world since the controversial move was announced last Wednesday. It was also the second time in two months that New York City was the target of a terrorist attack.President Trump said in a statement that lax immigration policies were to blame for the attack, and urged Congress to enact legislative reforms to protect the American people .Authorities say Ullah took the A train subway to the Port Authority Bus Terminal stop Monday morning, and started walking east towards Times Square via an underground terminal when a pipe bomb hidden underneath his clothes prematurely exploded. Law enforcement officials don t believe the passageway was the intended target since the low-tech bomb attached to Ullah with Velcro and zip ties did not explode fully.The chemical explosive appears to have ignited but the pipe itself did not burst. Screws were found at the scene, indicating that they may have filled the pipe and were intended to be used as shrapnel.In the end, Ullah was the only one seriously injured by the explosive (three others reported to hospitals for ringing in the ears and headaches). Daily Mail


A North Carolina sheriff's office said on Monday it would not charge Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump or his campaign with "inciting a riot" at a rally in the state last week. North Carolina is one of five states holding Republican and Democratic primary elections on Tuesday in the race to select candidates for November's U.S. presidential election. The Cumberland County Sheriff's Office, based in Fayetteville, earlier had said it was reviewing whether Trump or his campaign incited a disturbance at a rally last Wednesday. At the rally in Fayettsville, John McGraw, a 78-year-old white Trump supporter, was arrested on a misdemeanor assault charge after he was seen on video punching a 26-year-old black protester in the face. On Monday evening, the Sheriff's Office said in a statement it would not seek a warrant or indictment for Trump or his campaign over the incident. "The Sheriff's Office legal counsel advised, and the Sheriff concurred, that the evidence does not meet the requisites of the law as established under the relevant North Carolina statute and case law to support a conviction of the crime of inciting a riot," the office said. In North Carolina, "inciting to riot" is a legal charge that can apply to a public disturbance and does not necessarily involve a full-scale riot. The offense can be classified as a misdemeanor or a more serious felony. During a trip on Monday to North Carolina, Trump rejected suggestions that his language was to blame for recent clashes at his rallies. The 69-year-old New Yorker leads a field of four Republican candidates vying for the party's presidential nomination.


While President Donald Trump amasses praise from labor unions and work advocates for his cracking down on abuse within the visa program, the U. S. Chamber of Commerce is distressed by the executive order. [The U. S. Chamber of Commerce slammed Trump's order, which mandates that the Departments of Justice, Labor, and Homeland Security conduct legal reviews of the system and its impacts on American labor. "Economic growth requires a skilled workforce, so it should be a priority to make sure American workers have the skills required to fill open jobs with American companies," the Chamber wrote in a statement. "It would be a mistake to close the door on workers from around the world who can contribute to American businesses' growth and expansion and make the U. S. more competitive around the world. The program plays an important role in addressing this need, but it can be improved. " The U. S. Chamber of Commerce's statement also claims the organization supports Trump's 'Buy American' initiative, but said "expanding current 'Buy American' rules in U. S. law would make it more difficult to spur growth and jobs here at home. " Rather than reforming or ending the visa program, which gives at least 85, 000 U. S. jobs to foreign workers every year, the Chamber said they would prefer an expansion. "If the goal is to grow the economy and create jobs, which the administration has indicated, it's important to open more procurement markets for American companies and attract the best and brightest talent," the statement read. "We look forward to working with the administration to accomplish those shared goals. " The U. S. Chamber of Commerce touts their support for "a legal status" for illegal immigrants on their website, despite the harmful impacts it would have on American workers. As Breitbart News has reported, there are perhaps 1. 8 million foreign guest workers in the U. S. despite 4 million young Americans entering the workforce every year. If the visa program had never been introduced and enacted, computer science job availability in the labor market would be up 11 percent and wages in the tech industry would have increased by five percent, Breitbart News reported. With American voters, the visa remains incredibly unpopular, since only 30 percent of Americans said in a recent poll that the visa is necessary, Breitbart Texas reported. John Binder is a contributor for Breitbart Texas. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder.


Monday, 31 October 2016 Wrong  After being accused of trying to make America Great Again by grabbing another pussy, the man who is trying to break the Guinness Book of world records for the most lies told during a presidential campaign, Donald Trump is crying "Wrong" again!  Just when you thought Donald Trump had more lawsuits than total number of sniffles ever recorded during a live speech, more women have come forward to prove he's pointing the wrong finger by showing him their middle ones.  Sexual Assault accusations are pouring in like Viagra Falls between Trumps legs. Donald Trump has been responding by abusing the word "Sue" because it's a womans' name, while his wife Melania Trump continues defending poor little Donald like the mother in denial making excuses for her baby boy who keeps crying "Wrong" while getting in trouble.  Voters fear Donald Trump is so full of malarkey, it's making him turn more orange. Donald Trump just received the 2016 Pinocchio award while donors ran to GOP customer service asking for a refund on the broken product they purchased. The few GOP members that have Donald's back, continue to look for their balls they lost on Trumps golf course. Donald Trump's response to every accusation is "wrong"!


The uproar at the University of Notre Dame over Vice President Mike Pence's upcoming commencement address has escalated, as students are now claiming that his presence on campus will make them feel "unsafe. "[Seniors Imanne Mondane and Jourdyhn Williams have started a whiteboard message campaign to express their concern over the selection of Mike Pence as the university's commencement speaker. Over the past week, Mondane and Williams have taken photographs of students with quotations from Pence that the two seniors feel are "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic. " "For me personally, [Pence] represents the larger Trump administration," Senior Immane Mondane told The Observer, the newspaper of the University of Notre Dame and the nearby St. Mary's College. "His administration represents something, and for many people on our campus, it makes them feel unsafe to have someone who openly is offensive but also demeaning of their humanity and of their life and of their identity. " "I know that during his time as governor of Indiana and also during his campaign trail, along with Trump, he has made offensive statements towards minority groups that affect me, like women and " Williams claimed. Williams argues that the selection of Pence as the university's commencement speaker contradicts with the school's Catholic mission. "I feel that is offensive to such a large population here at Notre Dame, and I also believe it goes against certain Catholic Social Teaching, which is something the University likes to broadcast that it stands behind, but it picks and chooses when it wants to stand behind them," Williams complained. Encouragingly, Mondane has organized a discussion on her concerns and has invited students of all political persuasions to attend and voice their opinions. "We're going to have a discussion in the weeks to come," Mondane said. "Everyone is welcome to the discussion, and we're going to have an event and advertise, but we really want to get the voices there who may not agree with us and who may take issue with what we're doing. We both have an equal platform, and we're on an equal playing field where one narrative isn't totally dominant of the other. " Tom Ciccotta is a libertarian who writes about economics and higher education for Breitbart News. You can follow him on Twitter @tciccotta or email him at tciccotta@breitbart. com


Once U.S. President Donald Trump returns from his overseas trip, the White House plans to launch its most aggressive effort yet to push back against allegations involving Russia and his presidential campaign, tackling head-on a scandal that has threatened to consume his young presidency. Trump's advisers are planning to establish a "war room" to combat mounting questions about communication between Russia and his presidential campaign before and after November's presidential election, while bringing new aides into the White House, administration officials and persons close to Trump told Reuters. The strategic shake-up comes as Republicans in Washington increasingly have fretted that the probe, continued chaos in the West Wing and Trump's steady slide in opinion polls will derail the president's drive to reform healthcare, cut taxes and rebuild the nation's infrastructure. Upon Trump's return, the administration will add experienced political professionals, including Trump's former campaign manager, and possibly more lawyers to handle the Russia probe, which has gained new urgency since the Justice Department appointed a special counsel to head the investigation, the sources said. Beyond pushing back at suggestions that Moscow is unduly influencing Trump's administration, the messaging effort will also focus on advancing Trump's stalled policy agenda and likely involve more trips out of Washington that will feature the kind of raucous rallies that were the hallmark of Trump's campaign. A person in regular touch with the White House said it needed a different structure to focus on the "new reality" that there would be continued leaks to the media from the law enforcement and intelligence communities, leaks that have increased in frequency since Trump fired former Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey on May 9. "Since the firing of Comey, that really exposed the fact that the White House in its current structure ... is not prepared for really a one-front war, let alone a two-front war," the person said. "They need to have a structure in place that allows them to stay focused" while "also truly fighting back on these attacks and these leaks." The White House declined to comment on plans for a "war room" but said Trump will be looking to expand on momentum it believes it has built up during the president's trip to Saudi Arabia, Israel, and Europe. A White House official confirmed plans to hold more rallies. Trump returns to Washington on Saturday from his first trip abroad as president. "The president has had an incredibly successful trip overseas and the White House looks forward to continuing an aggressive messaging strategy to highlight his agenda when we return to D.C.," said White House spokeswoman Sarah Sanders. Jared Kushner, a senior adviser to Trump, will be involved in the new strategic messaging operation, as will Steve Bannon, another top adviser who specializes in managing Trump's populist appeal and shaping his political image, the sources said. Bannon and Trump's chief of staff, Reince Priebus, have been laying the groundwork for the plan this week, they added. On Thursday, NBC News and the Washington Post reported that Kushner, who held several meetings with Russian officials following the election, is a focus of the probe, making him the first current White House official to be caught up in it, although Kushner, who is Trump's son-in-law, has not been accused of any wrongdoing. Corey Lewandowski, Trump's former campaign manager, is also expected to be part of the effort. Lewandowski, who has been seen in the White House recently, could join the administration as early as next week, a source close to him said. Lewandowski was fired by Trump in June 2016 over concerns that he was not experienced enough to oversee the general election fight against Democrat Hillary Clinton, but has remained a trusted adviser to Trump and a steadfast defender of the president on news programs. This month, the Justice Department named Robert Mueller, a former FBI director, as an independent special counsel in the probe. Trump has been frustrated of late that his communications team hasn't done a more effective job at making the case that he isn't implicated in the Russia probe and highlighting his administration's successes, sources close to the president said. The White House declined to comment on the president's frustrations. Another Republican close to the White House said the new team is taking a page out of former President Bill Clinton's playbook. When Clinton faced impeachment in the late 1990s, he assembled a crisis-management operation that dealt with fallout from his affair with Monica Lewinsky while allowing the rest of the White House to deal with day-to-day policy matters. "The goal of the White House is to try and contain the crisis and media coverage of the special counsel," the Republican said. Christopher Ruddy, chief executive of Newsmax Media and a Trump friend, said he expects the president will travel more when he returns from overseas and encouraged the White House to focus on issues that pump up his base voters. "From my perspective, I think the president should be doing the stuff that he does best, which is talking about his agenda: jobs, trade and security," Ruddy said. Trump has scheduled a political rally for next week in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. The White House said other similar events are in the planning stages. Republicans in Congress are aching for Trump to leave the distraction of the Russia probe aside and focus on legislation and nominating officials to fill the hundreds of vacant slots across the administration. "What we really want to be able to do is tend to our business," Mike Rounds, a Republican Senator from South Dakota, told Reuters. "We've got a healthcare bill we're working on. We've got tax reform that we think is important." Some of Trump's donors, too, say they are concerned. Stanley Hubbard, a billionaire radio mogul from Minnesota, said he worries that the White House continues to be distracted by the Russia scandal, but laid some of the blame on Trump himself. "He talks when he shouldn't," he said. Former U.S. House Speaker John Boehner said this week that Trump's time in office has been a "complete disaster" aside from foreign affairs. Boehner, a fellow Republican, told an energy conference he supported efforts to "get to the bottom" of any potential interactions between Trump associates and the Russian government but described any calls to impeach Trump as the purview of "the crazy left-wing Democratic colleagues of mine."


Last month, about 50 new movies opened in New York and Los Angeles. Some, like a Robert De Niro vehicle called "The Comedian," showed up in one or a handful of theaters to qualify for Oscar consideration. Some showed up everywhere. (Hi, "Assassin's Creed. " Hello, "Rogue One. ") Who's got time to see them all? But just in time for Sunday's Golden Globes broadcast, we plucked four movies from the glut to discuss on "Still Processing": "Fences," directed by and starring Denzel Washington the romance "Passengers," with Jennifer Lawrence and Chris Pratt the Los Angeles romantic musical "La La Land," starring Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling and "Patriots Day," about the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing, starring a bunch of people but especially Mark Wahlberg. Jenna calls that one "the perfect movie for our time. " We like a couple. We're mixed on another. And one we hate. That's life — at the movies, anyway. We also had to take a minute to express our heartfelt sympathies for — and total bafflement about — Mariah Carey's New Year's Eve debacle: so uncomfortable, so funny, so, so her. From a desktop or laptop, you can listen by pressing play on the button above. Or if you're on a mobile device, the instructions below will help you find and subscribe to the series. On your iPhone or iPad: 1. Open your podcast app. It's a preloaded app called "Podcasts" with a purple icon. (This link may help.) 2. Search for the series. Tap on the "search" magnifying glass icon at the bottom of the screen, type in "Still Processing" and select it from the list of results. 3. Subscribe. Once on the series page, tap on the "subscribe" button to have new episodes sent to your phone free. You may want to adjust your notifications to be alerted when a new episode arrives. 4. Or just sample. If you would rather listen to an episode or two before deciding to subscribe, tap on the episode title from the list on the series page. If you have an internet connection, you'll be able to stream the episode. On your Android phone or tablet: 1. Open your podcast app. It's a preloaded app called "Play Music" with an icon. (This link may help.) 2. Search for the series. Click on the magnifying glass icon at the top of the screen, search for "Still Processing" and select it from the list of results. You may have to scroll down to find the "Podcasts" search results. 3. Subscribe. Once on the series page, click on the word "subscribe" to have new episodes sent to your phone free. 4. Or just sample. If you would rather listen to an episode or two before deciding to subscribe, click on the episode title from the list on the series page. If you have an internet connection, you'll be able to stream the episode.


A Kosovo prosecutor withdrew his bid on Thursday to extradite a Turkish citizen accused by Turkey of being part of a group linked to a failed coup there in 2016, saying Ankara had not provided enough evidence to back the case. Ugur Toksoy was arrested in October at the request of prosecutors in the Turkish region of Hatay, on charges of working for an NGO in Kosovo linked to U.S.-based cleric Fetullah Gulen, whom Ankara accuses of masterminding a failed coup attempt in 2016. The Hatay prosecutors said Toksoy had participated in the attempted coup. Gulen has denied any involvement in the attempted coup. The Kosovo prosecutor told the judge in withdrawing his case that he had asked the Turkish embassy to provide more evidence but had not received any. He said he could start the case again if Turkey sends more evidence. Justice in Kosovo has won with this verdict because there was no evidence for extradition, Toksoy s lawyer Adem Vokshi said after the session was over. If Turkey had proof about him, they would have sent it by now. Toksoy is one of two Kosovo-based Turks named on a Turkish wanted list of 11 people issued by the public prosecutor in Hatay province bordering Syria and seen by Reuters. The others are listed as living in Austria, Thailand, Mauritania, Romania and Lithuania. Gulen-linked schools and foundations have been facing funding problems and closing in the Balkans and elsewhere. Kosovo has refused to close Gulen schools on its soil, while Turkish government-supported schools are also being opened across the country. Turkey remains one of the biggest supporters of Kosovo s independence and its companies run the country s sole airport, own electricity distribution and have won the tenders to build two highways worth around $2 billion.


There are moments in life when you have to admit you made mistakes. However, for New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, this is not one of those moments. To be blunt, he s having a very bad week. Not only is Christie no longer in the running for the White House, he made the bizarre choice to endorse Donald Trump on the same weekend that Trump wouldn t disavow the Ku Klux Klan. And it even seems as if Trump isn t that thrilled with the support, telling Christie that he should just go home. Christie claims he s proud to support Trump, but his actions at a recent press conference suggest otherwise. He insisted that he only be asked questions that were on-topic, and anytime he was asked about Trump he would go off into a rehearsed non-answer to avoid the subject. He said things, such as: No, I won t permit you to. I told you that there s going to be only on-topic questions today. So, permission denied. That s an off-topic question. I think you understand that I m answering on-topic questions today. And then when asked why he wouldn t answer any questions related to Trump, he responded with the maturity level of a four-year-old being asked to eat his peas: Because I don t want to. At this point the New Jersey governor should just go back to his state to take care of business instead of try to hold on to whatever remaining spotlight he can. He should do so not only for his state, but also for his dignity.Christie, back away slowly while you still can and do your job. Both your state and your nation will appreciate it. Not only does your endorsement mean nothing to Trump, it makes you look like, to use your language, an idiot.Watch the awkward moments from the press conference here:


The New York Daily News has never been subtle with their covers. This is especially true when the subject of said covers is Donald Trump. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that its Sunday cover will be one of its most explosive yet, considering that Trump spent his Saturday leveling an extraordinary claim at President Barack Obama: That Obama tapped the phones at Trump Tower during the presidential campaign.On the cover, the Daily News shows an unhinged photo of Trump, with a huge headline reading NUTS! Underneath are bullet points highlighting Trump s Saturday Twitter insanity and baseless claims. Here is the image, via Twitter:Tomorrow's front page NUTS!@realDonaldTrump claims Obama tapped his phones before election https://t.co/B1yJ9KalPd pic.twitter.com/cr2NgJ3UqH New York Daily News (@NYDailyNews) March 5, 2017The NUTS! part is most important, of course. We can no longer afford to ignore a very important fact: The man currently occupying the Oval Office is dangerously unhinged. His behavior becomes more outrageous and erratic every day. He lies pathologically, peddles conspiracy theories, threatens the free press, decries any story he doesn t like as fake news, and holds his officials hostage and forces them to lie repeatedly to the American public as well.There have been some brave souls in Congress who have openly questioned the president s mental stability most notably Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA), Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT), and Rep. Karen Bass (D-CA). However, the Democrats are not in control, so they can do nothing to put safeguards in place to keep Trump s instability from endangering the nation even more than he has already. So, it s time for the GOP to step up and put country before party, and admit that they know that Donald Trump is stark raving mad and has no business being president.Until then, thank you journalists at papers like the New York Daily News for speaking truth to power. It just might be the Fourth Estate that saves us after all.


Former US President Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary, the current Democratic Party presidential nominee, have attracted billions of dollars to their own foundation to trade power and influence, Wall Street investor and analyst Charles Ortel told Sputnik.  Charles Ortel is a veteran Wall Street investment analyst who has carried out major studies into the operation of the Clinton Foundation and its legal status, and runs a blog monitoring its activities. Ortel was the whistleblower that blew the lid off the General Electric financial discrepancies in 2008. "The Clinton Foundation has been a gigantic slush fund," Ortel said. "People can donate relatively small sums to the Clinton regime and get gigantic concessions worth hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars back." During the four years that Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, hundreds of millions of dollars flowed into the Clinton Foundation from governments around the world, many of which then enjoyed favored treatment from the US State Department, Ortel noted. "To the world at large, the Clintons are open for business," he stated. The US corporate media always refused to subject the Clinton Foundation to any kind of serious or skeptical coverage, in part because of fear of alienating the Clintons, Ortel explained. "This is such a big story that the US press is not doing its job. What we have in 'Clinton Incorporated,' is Tammany Hall on steroids," he said.


So, if the climate scare-mongers can t frighten the adults, the next logical step is to heap angst on their children who then frighten (or better, pester) the adults into action. You need to read this ENTIRE story and watch the video near the end of the page. Finally, the United Nations Environmental Programme is spending our money to come out with scary children s fairy tales about global warming. Sedena, the Mother of the Sea, is featured in the UN Environmental Programme s latest children s book on global warming entitled Tore and the Town on Thin Ice . This book tells the story of a young boy named Tore who lives in a village in the Arctic and is upset when he loses a dog sled race. The Mother of the Sea appears in Tore s dream and informs him that the thinning ice, which caused his loss in the dog sled race, was due to man-made global warming. But that is nothing compared to what it is doing to the Mother of the Sea s own dominion and to all living creatures. She sends an owl, a polar bear, and a whale to scare poor Tore into thinking that they will become extinct during his lifetime and that our world is melting from climate changes, mostly caused by those bad people in rich countries who are spewing gases in the air from their huge cars , air conditioners and the like. In the words of the whale, children like Tore should get good and angry . The book ends with a so-called facts section, blaming climate change on the Industrial Revolution in Europe and North America and singling out the United States in particular for its contribution to the production of carbon dioxide added by humans. It claims that climate change will hit the poorer countries hardest while at the same time saying that New York along with other coastal areas could disappear beneath the waves. A psychotherapist, a true believer in the Climate Church, nevertheless argues that children should not be targeted by the climate activists it is not good for the children and it is not good for the cause. I wish she could also see that her cause is a phony one, but I m glad she is against harming children in the name of it:Climate change community groups often want to work with children. We must get into the schools, says someone and there is a nod of agreement. It s worth thinking about the psychology behind this. Why is this idea so appealing? And why is it so damaging?The appeal is clear. It s fun working with children: they re responsive, creative and willing. And it s certainly easier than working with white-van-man, frequent fliers or the oil industry. The reasons given for working with children are usually two-fold:We need to influence them while they are young. If they understand the issue and the effect of their actions, they will grow up finding it natural to care for the environment. It s a good way of getting to their parents. Who can resist their child pleading with them to change the lightbulbs because it will save a polar bear?Both reasons are suspect. The first reason assumes that instruction at best participatory, at worst didactic is the route either to action or to the inculcation of positive values towards the environment. There is little evidence for this. We know that information based campaigns have a limited impact with adults, so why should we expect children to be different? As for values these tend to be formed through experience, relationship, identification and social systems, not through information. If the school has an influence on values it will be through its culture, ethos and the relationships and experiences it offers not through the information it provides.Both reasons also raise direct ethical questions. It is easy to engage the sympathies of children with stories of damage to the natural world and images of suffering animals they will identify with. But children have very little power. Of all the sections of society who might make an impact on climate change, they have the least influence, the least agency, the least leverage. There is a real risk of raising levels of anxiety amongst children that will not only cause distress in the immediate term but will in the long term lead to those children turning against the environmental causes we hoped they might espouse.When I was 10 a speaker came to my school and told us about food shortages and starvation in the third world. I rushed home and explained to my parents that we needed to grow more food. I couldn t understand why they wouldn t accede to my idea of banding together with the neighbours and turning all our back gardens into a corn field. I was left haunted by images of dying children, guilt at my good fortune and the anxiety that feeds on powerlessness. In adolescence I became determinedly indifferent to the appeals from 3rd world charities. As an adult I have continued to find them difficult to relate to.We need to ask what happens to the child whose parents are indifferent to their attempts to get them to act? What happens to the child who is overwhelmed by stories of disasters he or she cannot influence?But the deeper question is why are adults so keen to focus on children? Why concentrate on the weakest, least influential members of society and ask them to act?Got kids? Watched as they ve been indoctrinated sorry, I mean educated about global warming over the last decade? Then you ll know what I mean. They come home from school moodily depressed about the future of our planet and, of course, what that means for their own lives. What s the point? We re all doomed! Why study? Why bother getting an education? It s futile. Sea levels are rising. Temperatures are soaring. Soon we ll all be living in a polluted hell-hole constantly battling the equivalent of the Queensland floods or the Victorian bushfires year upon year. And you want me to waste what precious time I have left studying accountancy? It s called nihilism, and it s even more terrifying to witness in your teenage children than hickeys, drunkenness, truancy, insolence, idleness, bad marks or bullying. Nihilism, or the conviction that life on Earth is totally pointless, saps the young of their energy, their ambition, and their will to strive, struggle and triumph. Extract from an online article by Rowan Dean, 17 August 2011.A postgraduate student in Oxford gets it This should be a wake-up call for all the purveyors of the politics of fear . Children are, naturally, relatively powerless and likely to feel overwhelmed by the challenges facing mankind. But as adults, we should have a greater sense of our own collective power to master problems and build better societies. Not only does jumping from one panic to another, each with disastrous consequences mobile phone radiation, BSE, SARS, crime, paedophilia, terrorism, bird flu, global warming diminish our own sense of agency, by turning childhood dreams of utopia into nightmarish visions of the future it is teaching the citizens of the future all the wrong lessons. This is one of the best videos we have seen on climate change. There are 5 parts to this series. This is Part 1:An excellent, easy to understand piece about the TRUTH surrounding phony climate cooling, warming, change:The pollution resulting from the rapid uncontrolled post-war industrial expansion spawned two environmentalist movements. One group primarily composed of physical scientists and engineers set about to directly address the pollution problems by developing facilities and legislative controls that have to date virtually eliminated industrial contamination of soil, water and air.A second group primarily composed of activists with little or no physical science background did nothing but protest against industry without ever having addressed a single environmental problem for which they created a solution.While the physical scientists and engineers worked quietly with industry solving the environmental problems, the ideology driven environmentalist activists, used dramatic alarmist rhetoric to gain media control and have become a dominant political force capable of forcing their self-serving ideologies on the general public with impunity.The Earth entered a cooling phase in 1942, and by 1970 the environmentalists found a way to blame this cooling on industrial expansion. The concept was that particulate matter from fossil fuel usage was blocking energy from the sun giving this cooling effect. This concept was incorporated as a parameter in the crude climate models of the time, and the predictions from models run by James Hansen in 1971 projected fifty years of further cooling from the increased use of fossil fuels.Only four years later, and in spite of the continued increase in fossil fuel usage global cooling came to an end, proving that the models did not have a proper physical basis for relating fossil fuel usage to global cooling.By 1988, after 13 years of global warming the ideological environmentalists developed a new tact for blaming fossil fuels. The British Government had embarked on a political campaign to promote their nuclear industry and attack the powerful coal unions by creating alarmist scenarios of runaway global warming resulting from CO2 produced by coal and other fossil fuels. This was entirely political in nature with absolutely no scientific backing, but it did make the perfect weapon for the environmentalists to promote their anti energy (and anti humanity) ideology. All that was needed was some scientific justification.As was done in 1971, climate models which were now far more sophisticated provided the science backing. Instead of blaming fossil fuels for blocking incoming solar radiation, the models removed this parameter and replaced it with a newly contrived parameter that now related global warming to the effect of fossil fuel sourced CO2 on the outgoing thermal radiation from the Earth.This model also produced by James Hansen, projected warming for the next century because of the fossil fuel CO2 emissions that were increasing at a continued accelerated rate. As with the 1971 model, the 1988 model was proven to be false when global warming ended after 1998 even as CO2 emissions continued to rise at unprecedented rates. To make matters worse since 2002, the Earth has been cooling making all of the projections clearly in the wrong direction.By even the most basic standards of ethical science, models that first predict cooling from fossil fuel usage that are discredited just four years later when warming occurs with increased usage, and then predict warming from fossil fuel usage and are again discredited ten years later as cooling reoccurs with increased usage, would be declared absolutely invalid; but when ideology is involved science protocol is totally abandoned.Impact 2009As a result of the alarmist predictions of the 1988 climate models of Hansen, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed under the auspices of the United Nations. This body was given a science mandate to investigate the possibility of human effects on climate to determine if the projections of Hansen were valid.The true nature of the IPCC was not that of a science based body, but that of a political body to give scientific legitimacy to false alarmist predictions in order to meet a political self serving environmentalist agenda. Since its inception, the IPCC has used its position of authority to promote its agenda to the detriment of science and even more importantly to the detriment of the global population.From 1997 to 1998 the average global temperature increased by over half a degree C and from 1998 to 1999 the average global temperature fell by over half a degree C. This was due to an extraordinary el Ni o and has nothing to do with either the greenhouse effect or CO2 emissions (CO2 emissions increased from 24.0gt/y in 1997 to 24.2gt/y in 1998 to 24.4gt/y in 1999).An honest scientific body would have made some sort of statement to this effect, but the IPCC in their 2001 Third Assessment Report and particularly in their Summary for Policy Makers for this report not only made no mention of the fact that from 1998 to 1999 the Earth cooled more than it had ever cooled during the entire global temperature record, but emphatically stated that from 1997 to 1998 the Earth had warmed more than it ever had.This is an absolute violation of science ethics because the policy makers were purposely misinformed with alarmist rhetoric. This same 2001 report also stated that the observed global warming for the past century which they stated was attributable to CO2 emissions was measured at 0.60 C + 0.20 C. This is only 0.006 C per year making the el Ni o temperature spike over eighty times greater than what the IPCC stated was attributable to CO2 emissions, so it is clear that this was stated for the purpose of politically motivated alarmism and not to properly convey information in a scientifically justified manner.The 2001 IPCC report also included the infamous MBH98 Hockey Stick temperature proxy which used physical temperature measurement data up to and including 1998 which gave the alarmist impression of twice the 20th century warming because 1999 was not included.The Hockey Stick graph became the pivotal evidence that convinced governments around the world to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, that has resulted in such detrimental effects to the global population and global economy.In this regard the el Ni o temperature spike of 1998 may be considered the most significant climate event in recent history, and when one considers the hundreds of millions of the world s poorest people starving because of Kyoto biofuel initiatives that has literally taken their food away and made it into Kyoto friendly fuel, this el Ni o might also be considered the most tragic climate event as well.Through diligence and hard work physical scientists were able to correct most of the environmental problems that had been created through industrialization, but there is no scientific effort capable of undoing the damage caused to the global population by the ideological environmentalists. This issue is now out of the hands of the scientists and the only salvation for the global population is the media who must readopt their lost journalistic integrity and expose the true nature of this global fraud.


It never ceases to amaze me how, blinded by their narcissism, Hollyweirdos and other pop culture "celebrities" are rank hypocrites, utterly devoid of introspection.  The latest exemplar: Pop singer Mariah Carey.  Carey, 46, is the best-selling female singer of all time, with an estimate net worth of $500 million from her preternatural ability to screech like a dolphin in heat (apologies to dolphins).  Born in New York state, Carey is biracial — her father is of African descent, her mother is of Irish descent — which makes Mariah Carey a racial "minority" in the U.S.  Beginning at the 0:58 mark in the video below, Carey says she agrees with protests over the lack of women and minorities in "entertainment" because:  "I don't think women get a fair deal in anything . . . . [In the music business] it's obvious that we've had to, you know, women and minorities have had to fight for, you know, trying to get equal opportunities for, for ages . . . . There's not enough diversity . . . . I'm just an entertainer but, um, you know, I'm a fan of Hillary [Clinton] . . . of course I'm a fan of Hillary. Of course I would love to see a woman president."  Carey is very much in the news these days because Australian playboy billionaire James Packer recently broke off their engagement. Rumors have it that one of the reasons for the breakup was her "insane spending sprees".  According to an account in New York Post 's " Page Six " on Oct. 27, 2016, the following are examples of Carey's "over-the-top . . . frenzied spending that may have doomed her engagement to Packer": Sources say Carey "regularly drops $10,000 to get her hair and makeup perfect — even if it's all going to last just a single day." Power 105's The Breakfast Club radio host Charlamagne Tha God, aka Lenard McKelvey, who knows the singer, told The Post : "Mariah is the last of the divas — she's got a very old-school approach to stardom. It's champagne-in-the-morning type stuff. She [once] shared some with the Breakfast Club staff at 10 o'clock in the morning, but she did not pour her own champagne — someone else poured it for her." In 2014, Carey — who once called overhead lighting "abusive" — showed up to a filmed radio interview on The Breakfast Club over an hour late, with her own lighting crew in tow. McKelvey told The Post : "I remember thinking to myself, damn, what kind of disposable income she has where she has her own lighting director? That was the first and only time that that has ever happened on the radio show." Carey reportedly drops at least $45,000 a year on spa treatments for her dogs — Jack Russells named Cha Cha and Jill E. Beans — even flying them first class to LA in January, which cost over $2,000 per dog. A close friend of Packer told Woman's Day last month that Carey "spends $100,000 a month ordering exotic flowers from around the world to where she happens to be." Carey has her own yacht, the Capri, which costs a cool $340,000 per week plus expenses to maintain, according to "Entertainment Tonight" . She would use a ferry to reach Packer's boat, the Arctic P, which is the seventh-largest privately owned vessel in the world. Carey's closet is "the stuff of legends, packed with more stilettos than the Barneys shoe department." She has a room just to store her shoes. In a recent Instagram showing off part of her vast footwear collection, she calls the room "always my favorite room in the house".  But Mariah Carey tells us that women can't get a fair deal in anything and, in the music business, women and minorities have to fight for equal opportunities.  If you buy this delusional woman's music or go to her concerts, you're contributing to Mariah "Marie Antoinette" Carey's obscene spending that pollutes the environment and squanders the world's resources.  ~Eowyn


Angry law enforcement investigators are talking about corruption at the top of the FBI's "investigation" of Hillary.  Here's how it went sideways. NEWSLETTER SIGN UP Get the latest breaking news & specials from Alex Jones and the Infowars Crew. Related Articles Download on your mobile device now for free. Today on the Show Get the latest breaking news & specials from Alex Jones and the Infowars crew. From the store Featured Videos FEATURED VIDEOS A Vote For Hillary is a Vote For World War 3 - See the rest on the Alex Jones YouTube channel . The Most Offensive Halloween EVER! - See the rest on the Alex Jones YouTube channel . ILLUSTRATION How much will your healthcare premiums rise in 2017?


It started in 1998, with a $50 check out of the blue. The money was a donation from one of the highest-placed men in Florida politics — Jeb Bush, the son of a former president who was about to be elected governor — to one of the lowest. Marco Rubio, 26, was running for the city commission in tiny West Miami. "I remember him showing it off," a Rubio friend recalled. " 'I got a check from Jeb Bush!' " In the years to come, the two men formed an alliance that, at times, even looked like a politician's odd version of friendship. Rubio, younger and gifted, provided Bush with help in the state legislature. Bush provided Rubio with donors, endorsements and — at one especially curious moment — a golden sword. By this week, however, the relationship itself had become a kind of weapon. "Someone has convinced you that attacking me is going to help you," Rubio told Bush during Wednesday night's GOP presidential debate, after Bush had criticized Rubio. The power of the comeback was in its familiarity — in Rubio's pitying sense that he knew Bush well enough to know Bush had betrayed himself. That moment had been coming for months, as a presidential election put the old allies on a path to collide. They schmoozed the same donors. Courted the same pro-establishment voters. Each threw insults — veiled, then not veiled — at the other. A confrontation was coming. And people who watched these allies turn into enemies had little doubt who would win. "It was a godsend for Marco," a chance to show off his political talents and get out of Bush's shadow, all in the same sentence, said Jorge Luis Lopez, a lawyer in Miami who is backing Rubio. "For years, everybody [in Rubio's camp] always had to validate, 'Is Marco ready to do it?' And now, everybody sees Marco is ready to do it. And it came from the lips of his own mentor." For now, both Rubio and Bush are losing in this race. But both say they're playing a longer game. After a while, both men believe, the outsiders Donald Trump and Ben Carson will fade, and voters will come looking for somebody safer. Both Bush and Rubio, of course, think the safe choice will be him. That competition has put the campaign's spotlight on a two-decades-long relationship that never fit conventional categories. "Friends" was always too warm a word, even back then. "Enemies" is too strong, even now. "Frenementor," said Dan Gelber, a Democrat who served in the Florida House when both Rubio and Bush were in state government. Bush and Rubio were born, 18 years apart, into vastly different American experiences. Rubio's parents were Cuban immigrants who had worked as a bartender and a maid. Bush was a Bush. The first office he ran for was governor of Florida. As Rubio rose in politics — interning for a congresswoman, working for a politically connected lawyer — Bush took notice. That was what the $50 was about. Then, in 2000, the two men realized they could help each other in new and more concrete ways. Rubio was a new state legislator, at a time when term limits had cleared out the old guard. Bush was the governor, looking for a new ally. "Jeb looked around, and suddenly Marco was one of the people he knew best in the House," said a former colleague who worked closely with both men. Rubio advocated Bush's ideas, and Bush steered Rubio toward conservative politics, especially the gospel of small government. By 2005, the two men were close enough that when Rubio gave an emotional speech after winning the race to be Florida's House speaker, Bush made a show of his mentorship. Bush honored Rubio with a gift: a sword, which he said belonged to a great "conservative warrior" named Chang. "Chang is somebody who believes in conservative principles, believes in entrepreneurial capitalism, believes in moral values that underpin a free society," Bush told a crowd so large that a plane had to be chartered to ferry well-wishers from Miami to Tallahassee. "Chang, this mystical warrior, has never let me down." This gesture was even stranger than it sounds. It appears that "Chang" was not a real person but something from a Bush family in-joke about Chinese Nationalist leader Chiang Kai-shek ("Unleash Chiang!"). Now, Jeb — whose father was once the U.S. envoy to Beijing — had garbled the story into something about a mystical warrior with a sword. The sword "really meant something to Jeb," a longtime friend and colleague of both men said. "He thought it was Marco who would continue his legacy." At the time, the sword seemed to mean something to Rubio, too. He hung it in a place of honor in his office — or at least, he used to. "I have it somewhere at home," Rubio told reporters in New Hampshire this year. "I have young kids. I don't want them to run around with a sword." Bush left the governor's office in 2007. After that, friends say, he kept up his alliance with the still-rising Rubio. He supported Rubio, working donors behind the scenes, when Rubio took on the Florida GOP establishment in the 2010 Senate race. After Rubio won, the two would meet for coffee after workouts in the gym at the luxurious Biltmore Hotel in Coral Gables, Fla., where Bush has an office. Then the men — who now shared friends, donors and allies — began to realize they would be rivals. "He's entitled to do this — there's not something per se wrong," Al Cardenas, a power broker in Florida politics who backs Bush, said of Rubio. "But we believe that most people would have decided not to proceed." Bush made clear last year that he planned to run. In April, Rubio announced his candidacy, and pointedly told his audience that America couldn't go "back to the leaders and ideas of the past." This was the first of many signals: Rubio wasn't just running alongside his old ally but against him, lumping him in with Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton as symbols of the stale political order. "The minute I saw [Rubio's] announcement, I had every reason to assume, regrettably, that this was never going to be the same," said Jorge Arrizurieta, who first met Bush in the 1980s, served in different roles during his governorship and is now a top donor. "I've heard many common friends call it a betrayal by Marco, but not Jeb," said Ana Navarro, a Republican strategist who is a friend of both men but supports Bush in this race. "Jeb's not a guy to cry over spilled milk. Jeb's got a goal ahead of him, and wasting time psychoanalyzing Marco's motives won't help him get there." Since then, Bush and Rubio have rarely spoken one another's names — but they have talked about each other all the time. Rubio, for instance, talked for 25 minutes in June at the Prescott Bush awards dinner — named for Jeb Bush's grandfather — without mentioning the Bush name. He never mentioned Bush to a room full of seniors during a central Florida campaign stop in September. But in both places, he implied a contrast, telling the Prescott Bush awards crowd in Connecticut that it was time to "transition from the past we are so proud of to the exciting future that awaits our country." Bush has also deployed a knock-him-without-naming-him strategy against Rubio. For months, he's called for members of Congress who miss many votes — as Rubio has — to have their pay docked. In late September, Bush tried to burnish his leadership credentials by telling a TV interviewer that he "relied on people like Marco Rubio and many others to follow my leadership" in Florida. Later, the two campaigns squabbled about which one of them had a disappointing quarter of fundraising. (They both did). By Monday, Bush's campaign — increasingly desperate amid a cash shortage and staff cuts — labeled Rubio a "GOP Obama" in a meeting with top donors. That may not sound like an insult, since Obama did manage to get elected president twice. But Bush meant it in the context of Republicans who view the president as inexperienced and untrustworthy. In a broad sense, Bush was losing the argument. Rubio was overtaking him in the polls. And the very thing that had made Rubio such an attractive ally before — he shared Bush's basic political beliefs but did a better job of selling them — made him a devastating rival now. "I support Jeb because he's older, he's got a lot of experience, he was governor for two terms and did an extraordinarily good job, but if Jeb doesn't make it I certainly hope Marco does," said Barney Bishop, a prominent Florida lobbyist who is backing Bush but has also given to Rubio's super PAC. "A lot of us are torn between both Jeb and Marco because we think Marco has a great future ahead of him. We don't want to see either one of them have to do battle with each other in order to get ahead." Their competition finally came to a head at Wednesday night's debate, producing the defining moment in their relationship so far. Even on the attack, Bush seemed hindered by the relationship and by his blue-blood sense of decorum. "Could I — could I bring something up here?" he said. "Marco, when you signed up for this [the Senate], this was a six-year term, and you should be showing up to work," Bush said. Rubio seemed to know that the intimacy of their relationship gave him more power, not less. He looked Bush right in the eye, knee-capped him, and then turned away from him to face the audience. "My campaign is going to be about the future of America, it's not going to be about attacking anyone else on this stage," he said. "I will continue to have tremendous admiration and respect for Governor Bush." He was talking about his old ally as though Bush was already gone.


Hey Robert Mueller! Do you care to find out which foreign leaders candidate Hillary Clinton spoke with during her campaign? Because according to Hillary, she received messages from foreign leaders asking her if they can endorse her to stop Donald Trump from becoming President. I am already receiving messages from leaders. I m having foreign leaders ask if they can endorse me to stop Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton, March, 2016Hmmm Is there a tape of candidate Donald Trump like the one of Hillary, where he admits to having discussions with foreign leaders about how to stop Hillary from becoming President?While speaking at a Democratic Presidential Townhall meeting in Columbus, Ohio, in March of 2016, Hillary thought she was rather clever by attempting to make it appear as though Donald Trump was wildly unpopular with all of her foreign connections. It s too bad the media forgot about this clip:TREASON? Video surfaces of Hillary admitting she was in contact with foreign leaders interfering in our election! https://t.co/EHHTyC0sEU Newt-Trump Fan Club (@NewtTrump) July 19, 2017


The Republican Party s establishment candidates are being thrashed by the evangelical right wingers. So, when Jeb Bush went appeared on MSNBC s Morning Joe on Monday morning, he decided it was time to fight fire with fire. He opened a can of whoop-ass.Bush took a moment to hit out at his Republcan peers for failing to take on Donald Trump. He seems staggered by the success of the Trump campaign, which has turned former anticipated favorites into footnotes in the race so far. He puts this down to other candidates being too scared to confront the bully. It s just ridiculous. I mean the guy, he s just a real estate guy he told the hosts. He s gone bankrupt four times! He s a successful man but not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, so why not confront him, challenge him? Later on, Bush played a word association game about his Republican and Democrat rivals with host Mika Brzezinski. The results were more than revealing. Here were his answers:MIKA: Chris ChristieJEB!: Great guy.MIKA: Marco RubioJEB!: Work in progressMIKA: Hillary ClintonJEB!: Can be beatenMIKA: Bernie SandersJEB!: Love the ad!But the one the really stands out? He summed up Trump Eoin just one word.MIKA: Donald TrumpJEB!: Loser.There aren t really any issues where we agree with the platform of Jeb Bush. Despite presenting himself as a moderate among the likes of Trump and Cruz, Bush is promising a pretty similar offer to America. He is just another anti-science, anti-choice, pro-gun, creationist attempting to drag America back into the dark ages. but on this one thing, Jeb: spot on. It s actually the second time in 24 hours that Jeb! has called Trump as loser. He got a standing ovation for doing the same during an address in New Hampshire on Sunday night.But however angry Bush is, he is still polling below 10% in New Hampshire while Trump soars over 30%. It appears the GOP is choosing which lunatic they want to run the asylum, and the crazier the better. Featured image from video screen capture