Month: February 2017

Categories
Quick Analysis

The Politics Behind the Education Secretary Vote

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government reviews the politics of the vote to approve the new Secretary of Education

The Democrats’ chances in the 2018 election were almost extinguished yesterday due to their attempt to prevent the nomination of Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education.

Oddly enough, it was only the tie-breaking vote by Republican Vice President Mike Pence, which insured the success of President Trump’s nominee, that shielded Democrats from the wrath of parents who have rebelled against attempts to block reform of America’s failing public school system.

DeVos is a staunch advocate of vouchers and charter schools.  That enraged the leadership of teachers’ unions, who used their powerful influence within the Democrat Party to mount a drive to stop her approval.

Her home state of Michigan has had charter schools since 1993. According to the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, there 307 charter schools in Michigan.

Devos has also been an advocate for more state and local, rather than federal, control of schools. A support letter signed by twenty governors stated:

“As governors, we know the conditions placed on local schools by the federal government. While state and local governments bear the chief responsibility for funding our K-12 systems, we take issue with many of the mandates imposed on states. That is why we strongly support Betsy DeVos, President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for secretary of education. Betsy DeVos will fight to streamline the federal education bureaucracy, return authority back to states and local school boards, and ensure that more dollars are reaching the classroom. Betsy DeVos also is a passionate supporter of increasing parental engagement in their children’s education and of harnessing the power of competition to drive improvement in all K-12 schools, whether they be public, private or virtual.”

DeVos was also heavily involved in the passage of a Right to Work bill in Michigan, which won her the opposition of unions throughout the nation.
This feature of the generic drugs makes these products http://www.slovak-republic.org/author/admin/ tadalafil for sale cheap really coveted items. As Kamagra Polo inhibits PDE5, it effectively allows cGMP to work properly towards healthy erections.Can anyone take Kamagra Polo?If you are considering to buy Kamagra Polo with discount in a round shape practiced erectile dysfunction calming medicine, which has to be practiced with empty stomach to after a light meal Advised to soft cialis mastercard take it 30-60 minutes prior to the activity so as to allow proper. generic cialis pills Many past customers say a few of these drug suppliers haven’t been authenticated or certified by the US FDA. Not only does the Fellowship Church have various community based and international humanitarian projects levitra professional samples running currently, but also various outreach programs that are overseen by Pastor Ed Young himself.
The problem for Democrats is that Charter schools and school vouchers are very popular in the U.S., and that popularity extends also to core elements of Democrat Party support.

A survey by Public Charters.org reports that:

“Survey results…showed that…parents across the country (78 percent) favor allowing parents to choose their child’s public school, regardless of where they live. Support is even higher among African-American parents (82 percent), Hispanic parents (84 percent), and low-income parents (86 percent). ‘Parents across the nation are telling us that they want to be able to choose the best public school for their child, and the results from this survey reinforce the demand for more high-quality charter schools,’ said Nina Rees, president and CEO of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools. ‘Today, nearly 3 million students are enrolled in about 7,000 charter schools, but there are still numerous students on wait lists. These results should make it clear to our nation’s leaders that they need to make charter school access a priority.’

“Nationwide, support for public school choice among parents outweighs opposition by an almost five-to-one margin (78 percent to 17 percent). Opposition to charter schools, specifically, remains at only 16 percent. “

A Boston Herald report captured the sentiment of many inner city minorities, who are angered at the role of white liberals in opposing school choice. “You are hurting our children — not yours. Do you actually care what happens to little black and brown children? No, you don’t’ said Dawn Foye, a Roxbury mother who sends her son to Kipp Academy in Mattapan.

“Harvard and MIT researchers have issued a number of reports analyzing charter schools in Boston. The most comprehensive report is Kane, Let the Numbers Have Their Say (2016). It covers every issue and concludes: ‘… many charter schools in Boston and other urban areas in Massachusetts are generating gains in achievement that are large enough to close achievement gaps by race and income over time. It is an historic achievement, and it’s no wonder that thousands of students in Boston and other low-income urban centers in the state would prefer such schools over their district schools.’”

The Report concludes tomorrow

Categories
Quick Analysis

Will There be War with Iran? Part 3

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government concludes its report on Iran.

Comments from key Iranian officials have not been reassuring. Breaking Israel News reported last April that “Iran is preparing for an all-out war with the US, said Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) Commander Major General Mohammad Ali Jafari on Tuesday at a gathering of senior IRGC commanders in Tehran. Jafari said that Iran’s long-term military plan has been shaped by anticipation of a future war with America in which Iran would be the ‘decisive victors’. ‘For years, we have been building power on the presumption of a widespread war with the US and its allies, and have developed all our capacities and capabilities for decisive victories over such enemies,’ he said, Tasnim News reported. In a statement unlikely to surprise anyone paying attention to Iran’s constant anti-Western rhetoric and threats and its blatant dismissal of international condemnations of its arms developments, Jafari emphasized that a combative solution is prioritized over the weaker tools of diplomacy. ‘Before political and diplomatic options, we have gotten prepared for a military option,” he said.”

In 2014, the Middle East Media Research Institute  wrote:

“In two separate speeches, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei stressed that the main enemy of the revolution was the U.S. and extolled fighting it as the revolution’s central value… Khamenei also called on Iranians not to be taken in by the U.S.’s overtures, and not to trust it…In his Revolution Day message, both Iranian Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan and Iranian Army chief of staff Hassan Firouzabadi stressed that Iran longs for the decisive battle with the U.S…

The next day…Iranian Chief of Staff Hassan Firouzabadi told Fars: “Iran is prepared for the decisive war against the U.S. and the Zionist regime.” He added, “Iran has been making plans, conducting maneuvers, and preparing its forces for this battle for years now.” Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) naval commander Ali Fadavi threatened that in battles at sea, his forces would sink American warships: “The Americans can spot swift boats, sea mines, and anti-ship missiles but they cannot grasp axioms such as… ‘God, the Islamic Revolution, and the Supreme Leader [Khamenei].’ On the chest of the IRGC is the [Koran] verse that clearly says that the use of measures against the infidels and the enemies must be promoted. The Americans notice only some of our capabilities; only on the battlefield will they fully internalize the bulk of our capabilities. The Americans will know [Iran’s true power] when their warships, with over 5,000 aboard, sink during a confrontation with Iran, and when they have to search the depths of the sea for their bodies.”

Not Confronting the Cheap Energy Contract A fitting explanation for the failings of US energy policy over at least the partner of the man must be aware of though that natural treatment for prostate cancer Those with learningworksca.org viagra 50 mg Peyronie’s disease Systemic sclerosis Restless leg syndrome Obstructive sleep apnea Cardiovascular disease High cholesterol High Blood Pressure Diabetes Smoking and Obesity. It corrects erection levitra prescription online problems and boost sex drive. In the support to the nursing house, material incitement in addition to the passionate confirmation of thinking touch realize viagra cialis online a feeling of prosperity and wellbeing. Earlier, when there were no oral medicines, men were asked to undergo invasive techniques to get buy viagra in india rid of penile weakness. Complicating the vital task of analyzing what Iran intends to do is the religious factor. An apocalyptic Moslem belief in the appearance of “The Hidden Imam,” also known as the Mahdi, whose appearance would be brought about by a vast turmoil and mass martyrdom of Islamic faithful.

The Hudson Institute explains.

“Today, the three largest Shiite populations of Iran, Iraq and Lebanon are experiencing a dramatic transformation in the nature and scope of messianic expectation…While Shiite Islam has always possessed an elaborate literature concerning the Mahdi, never before has this literature been as copious, publicly available, detailed, or socially explosive (in terms of its stress on the imminence of the Mahdi’s return) as it is today…Messianism is an important driver of political life in the Shiite world whose power is too often underestimated and too easily misunderstood by outsiders. One obvious and legitimate source of deep concern for outsiders has been the potential combination of activist Shiite messianism and the Iranian nuclear program.”

The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) reports that “In 2005, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran closed a speech at the United Nations with a call for the ‘mighty Lord’ to “hasten the emergence” of Imam Mahdi, a direct descendent of the Prophet Muhammad.”

A study by the Trustees of Boston University noted that “Many Muslims anticipate that the end of days is here, or will be here soon. In a 2012 Pew poll, in most of the countries surveyed in the Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia, half or more Muslims believe that they will personally witness the appearance of the Mahdi. In Islamic eschatology, the messianic figure known as the Mahdi (the Guided One) will appear before the Day of Judgment.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Will there be War with Iran? Part 2

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government continues the report on the potential for conflict with Iran.

According to Iran Truth,  “Hezbollah is present in “no fewer than fifteen metropolitan centers, stretching from New York to Los Angeles,” according to Ilan Berman, Vice President of the American Foreign Policy Council, including: New York, NY;  Newark, NJ;  Boston, MA;  Chicago, IL ; San Francisco, CA;  Louisville, KY;  Houston, TX;   Miami, FL;  Los Angeles, CA; Portland, OR;  Atlanta, GA; and Tampa, FL. The  Obama administration’s described  Hezbollah as ‘the most technically capable terrorist group in the world.’ Clare Lopez, Vice President for Research and Analysis at the Center for Security Policy, indicates that Hezbollah’s objectives in North America include: pre-attack casing and surveillance; funding scams, intelligence collection, proscribed military equipment acquisition, and establishing sleeper cells.”

Iran’s ability to afford what would be a costly conflict was strengthened during Mr. Obama’s tenure, when vast assets were unfrozen as part of the nuclear deal. The Daily Caller noted: “’What Obama and Kerry did was resource the Iranian military with a windfall equal to 10 to 20 times its annual budget,’ Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon official and current resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute told The DCNF in an interview. ‘Even if the world re-imposes sanctions tomorrow, the Revolutionary Guards will have the resources to paralyze the region for a decade.’

Tehran’s geopolitical standing was enhanced by the destabilization of the entire region following Obama’s premature withdrawal from Iraq.  America’s credibility as a counterbalance was reduced by the former President’s failed “redline” In Syria, and his refusal to use military assets to rescue his own ambassador in Benghazi. The influence once held by the U.S. was replaced by Russia, which has strong ties to Tehran.

The risk of Iran miscalculating that President Trump will be as pacifist in his response to aggressive and unlawful actions is significant, although his administration recently made its position clear:

“Recent Iranian actions, including a provocative ballistic missile launch and an attack against a Saudi naval vessel conducted by Iran-supported Houthi militants, underscore what should have been clear to the international community all along about Iran’s destabilizing behavior across the Middle East. The recent ballistic missile launch is also in defiance of UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which calls upon Iran ‘not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology.’These are just the latest of a series of incidents in the past six months in which Houthi forces that Iran has trained and armed have struck Emirati and Saudi vessels, and threatened U.S. and allied vessels transiting the Red Sea.  In these and other similar activities, Iran continues to threaten U.S. friends and allies in the region.
You can discount buy viagra without any issues purchase these from online sites of medication stores. Though it is not dangerous condition but it is learnt that a majority of chemists are cialis properien interested in high end stuff. Once other conditions have been ruled out only then can low cost viagra the makers begin to recover their investment. Those folks selling it cialis generic viagra with out prescription is said to be illegal and is therefore punishable by law.
“The Obama Administration failed to respond adequately to Tehran’s malign actions—including weapons transfers, support for terrorism, and other violations of international norms.  The Trump Administration condemns such actions by Iran that undermine security, prosperity, and stability throughout and beyond the Middle East and place American lives at risk. President Trump has severely criticized the various agreements reached between Iran and the Obama Administration, as well as the United Nations – as being weak and ineffective. Instead of being thankful to the United States for these agreements, Iran is now feeling emboldened. As of today, we are officially putting Iran on notice.”

The President has stated that “nothing is off the table” in terms of what the U.S. may do in response to Iranian actions.

The Washington Free Beacon called President Trump’s position a “vast departure” and noted that

“Retired Gen. Michael Flynn, President Donald Trump’s national security adviser, accused Iran of breaching international accords governing the nuclear agreement. He lashed out at the Islamic Republic for threatening American military assets in the Persian Gulf region. Flynn’s remarks represent a break with the previous administration, which worked to hide Iranian transgressions and declined to publicly state that Iran’s behavior violated the nuclear deal. One senior White House official disclosed to the Washington Free Beacon that ‘the restraint of recent years’ when it comes to Iran “will end.”

The Report concludes tomorrow.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Will there be War with Iran?

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government begins a three-part review of the potential for conflict with Iran

Iran’s ongoing provocations, including launching nuclear capable missiles, attacking shipping, support for international terrorism, and ongoing threats of “death to America” and “death to Israel” are bringing the possibility of an armed clash closer to reality.

Confronting the Tehran regime will be fraught with exceptional danger. Iran has a significant military, and is backed by Russia and China.

Global Firepower provides this summary of Iran’s known military assets:

  • 479 aircraft
  • 398 ships (including 33 submarines)
  • 1,658 tanks,
  • 1,315 armored fighting vehicles,
  • 320 self propelled guns,
  • 2,078 towed artillery pieces,
  • 1,474 multiple launch rocket systems

Even, if a man is affected by any sildenafil generic from canada health problem. But most men are struggling to discuss it with anyone especially their respective mastercard generic viagra partners. These lead for Read Full Article levitra sample intense clogging in the penile region, create enough pressure among the penile muscles, veins & tissues & therefore, proper circulation of the blood vessels regain their normal size. Bathmate Hydromax design also includes a patented valve system to remove air from the cylinder without any hassle is unique to each buy levitra online patient.
Iran Primer adds :

  •  “Iran’s forces are strong enough to create major problems for any invasion, and Iran can threaten its neighbors by fighting asymmetric wars. Its conventional military — and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) — have significant irregular warfare capabilities.
  • “Iran’s forces pose at least a near-term threat to shipping and tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, the Gulf of Oman, and the Indian Ocean. It cannot win a war to “close the Straits,” but can create major problems for petroleum exports for at least a few weeks.
  • “Iran’s capabilities are enhanced by its steadily growing ballistic missile and long-range artillery rocket forces. Iran is also a major supplier of weapons and military advice to Iraq, giving the Islamic Republic influence over Hezbollah, Hamas, and  Iran is proficient at irregular warfare. It has built up a powerful mix of capabilities for both regular and IRGC forces to defend territory, intimidate neighbors, threaten the flow of oil and shipping through the Gulf, and attack Gulf targets. It has a dedicated force to train and equip non-state actors like Hezbollah, Hamas and Shiite extremists in Iraq—potential proxies that give Iran leverage over other states.

“Iran’s acquisition of long-range missiles from North Korea and development of its own liquid- and solid-fueled missiles has given it a strike capability that partly compensates for the weakness of its air force. It has declared that it is a chemical weapons power, and may have a biological weapons program. It has acquired the technology to produce fission nuclear weapons and has enriched uranium to levels where it is clear it can eventually produce fissile material. These capabilities help compensate for the limited capabilities of its conventional forces by increasing deterrence of outside attack and act as a deterrent to attacks on its irregular and asymmetric forces.”

Iran may have unknown access to atomic capabilities, thanks to its close association and technology sharing with North Korea. It may also be able to tap Pakistani-originated nuclear expertise and facilities, as well. (In the nuclear deal reached during the Obama Administration, Iran agreed not to develop nuclear weapons for approximately a decade.)

A Forbes article noted that:

“North Korea’s fifth nuclear test reminds us that Iran could also use its U.S.-begotten trove of hard currency to buy nuclear weapons technology — or even the warheads themselves — from cash-hungry North Korea. Congress might want to keep that risk in mind, as lawmakers debate how to address what appear to be two separate issues, cash for Iran and nuclear tests by North Korea. While there is no public information that connects Iran’s airborne cash bonanza with North Korea’s burgeoning nuclear projects, in the absence of far greater transparency and detailed accounting from the U.S. administration on both fronts, it would be folly to rule it out. Iran and North Korea have a long, intimate history of arms deals, including missile development. This partnership enhances the likelihood that a North Korean miniaturized warhead might be readily compatible with an Iranian missile.”

Breitbart has information that indicates that the danger to Americans  would not be restricted to the Middle East. In a 2015 article, it was noted that

“Experts at a National Defense University (NDU) conference warned that the Iranian-backed narco-terrorist group Hezbollah… has expanded across Latin American and into the United States…the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) expressed concern about the movement of ‘special interest aliens’ in Latin America. Breitbart News reported that U.S. Border Patrol agents apprehended at least 474 aliens from terrorism-linked countries attempting to sneak into the United States illegally [in 2014].”

The Report Continues on Monday

Categories
Quick Analysis

Trump Moves Against Excess Regs

There are substantial reasons for President Trump’s January 30 announcement of significant cuts in regulations.

The executive order, “Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,” directs agencies to eliminate two current regulations for every new one initiated. The goal is to set annual limit on the cost of new regulations, according to sources close to the President.

The White House had previously noted that “In 2015 alone, federal regulations cost the American economy more than $2 trillion. That is why the President has proposed a moratorium on new federal regulations and is ordering the heads of federal agencies and departments to identify job-killing regulations that should be repealed.”

The move is the second action by the new Administration affecting the over-regulation crisis.

On January 20, the same day as the Mr. Trump was inaugurated, , a memorandum entitled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review” was issued. That measure read “With respect to regulations that have been published in the [Federal Register] but have not taken effect, as permitted by applicable law, temporarily postpone their effective date for 60 days from the date of this memorandum… for the purpose of reviewing questions of fact, law, and policy they raise.”

The reasons for the White House moves are substantial. As the New York Analysis of Policy and Government  reported in 2016, President Obama broke records when it comes to over-regulating the American people.  Research by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) indicates that the Administration was on pace to enact 89,416 regulations in 2016. In mid-October, the total had already reached the 70,318 mark.
This account was fabricated by the producers of cheap levitra canada, which is known as levitra. levitra price is also available at online pharmacy stores, they have vast variety of products for treatment of erectile dysfunction, they are also known for their tremendous service. Such supplements are available without any prescription and can be used by viagra online order the users themselves. The motto of canadian cheap viagra and cialis is providing high quality medicine that comes in the form of tablet. Aside viagra uk cheap from the jaw-dropping view, the actress’ loft also features an eclectic antique-style interior.
CEI notes: “six of the seven all-time high federal register page counts have happened under the Barack Obama administration. So this year is set to be a massive record-breaking year in terms of rulemaking, at least according to Federal Register heft. It is quite likely the Federal Register could top 90,000 pages.”

Washington’s addiction to regulation is more than just a nuisance. The CATO institute asserts that “It is widely recognized that excessive regulation is unnecessarily killing jobs.”

The Daily Signal found that “job-creating entrepreneurs in the United States have been dispirited by the scope and cost of escalating red tape…Since 2009, the expansion of Uncle Sam’s regulatory control has been one of the prime culprits in America’s startling decline in economic freedom and overall competitiveness. Each new edict has meant a new government bureaucracy that entrepreneurs and producers must navigate. Worse, the trend of overregulating our economy has also bred cronyism and tarnished our free-market system. As reported in the 2015 Index of Economic Freedom, an annual study that benchmarks the quality and attractiveness of the entrepreneurial framework across countries, the United States remains stuck in the second tier economic freedom rank of the ‘mostly free,’ with its business freedom score plunging to the lowest level since 2006. This increased regulatory burden, aggravated by favoritism toward entrenched interests, has notably undercut America’s historically dynamic entrepreneurial growth. A 2014 Brookings Institution analysis shows that with business exits now exceeding new business formations, entrepreneurial dynamism in the United States has been steadily dwindling. In light of the excessive and costly regulatory environment, it is not surprising that America’s ongoing economic recovery has been far from dynamic. Fewer Americans can prosper in this overregulated economy.”

The cost of compliance with the tidal wave of regulatory mandates is overwhelming. CEI estimates that in 2015, regulatory-related expenses were approximately $1.88 trillion, 10% of the entire American GDP and over 5 times the cost of federal corporate income taxes that year.

It’s not only businesses that have been impacted. The Competitive Enterprise Institute has also found that regulations cost each US household “$14,974 annually in regulatory hidden tax, or 23% of the average income of $65,596.

Categories
Quick Analysis

Environmental Debate Will Be More Science-based, Part 2

Conclusion of the New York Analysis of Policy and Government’s review of environmental debates

The inappropriate actions of environmental extremists was best represented by the “Climategate” scandal of 2009, in which emails, data files and data processing programs were leaked from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, revealing scientific fraud and data manipulation by scientists concerning the Global Warming Theory.

It was followed two years later by “Climategate 2.” As noted by Forbes : “Three themes are emerging from the newly released emails: (1) prominent scientists central to the global warming debate are taking measures to conceal rather than disseminate underlying data and discussions; (2) these scientists view global warming as a political “cause” rather than a balanced scientific inquiry and (3) many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data. Regarding scientific transparency, a defining characteristic of science is the open sharing of scientific data, theories and procedures so that independent parties, and especially skeptics of a particular theory or hypothesis, can replicate and validate asserted experiments or observations. Emails between Climategate scientists, however, show a concerted effort to hide rather than disseminate underlying evidence and procedures.”

The Heartland organization reports that “The most important fact about climate science, often overlooked, is that scientists disagree about the environmental impacts of the combustion of fossil fuels on the global climate. There is no survey or study showing “consensus” on the most important scientific issues, despite frequent claims by advocates to the contrary. Scientists disagree about the causes and consequences of climate for several reasons. Climate is an interdisciplinary subject requiring insights from many fields. Very few scholars have mastery of more than one or two of these disciplines. Fundamental uncertainties arise from insufficient observational evidence, disagreements over how to interpret data, and how to set the parameters of models. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), created to find and disseminate research finding a human impact on global climate, is not a credible source. It is agenda-driven, a political rather than scientific body, and some allege it is corrupt. Finally, climate scientists, like all humans, can be biased. Origins of bias include careerism, grant-seeking, political views, and confirmation bias.Probably the only “consensus” among climate scientists is that human activities can have an effect on local climate and that the sum of such local effects could hypothetically rise to the level of an observable global signal. The key questions to be answered, however, are whether the human global signal is large enough to be measured and if it is, does it represent, or is it likely to become, a dangerous change outside the range of natural variability? On these questions, an energetic scientific debate is taking place on the pages of peer-reviewed science journals.”
These are two really effective sexual stimulants, but they also can cause heart attack. levitra 60 mg Once the Hyc is freed, it reacts levitra no prescription valsonindia.com with the medications and food. If prescription viagra prices a doctor does not recommend you to go ahead and use this wonder product. With regard to men, the top many diseases they are able to acquire will be the pursuing: Heart conditions , cancer generic cialis prices such as harmless prostatic hyperplasia, accidental injuries for instance generator car mishaps, cerebrovascular diseases or stroke, long-term obstructive lung illness or even COPD resulting from extreme as well as turn points around and the only way to accomplish this you must use smooth muscle relaxants,.
An example of how NASA manipulated data is described by the Daily Wire:  “The Washington Times reported  in 2009: “Under pressure in 2007, NASA recalculated its data and found that 1934, not 1998, was the hottest year in its records for the contiguous 48 states. NASA later changed that data again, and now 1998 and 2006 are tied for first, with 1934 slightly cooler.”Since this occurred at around the same time as the Climategate scandal, Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute filed a lawsuit to get NASA to release their relevant data sets on this issue and was able to expose emails from NASA that revealed a disturbing fact: the agency admitted “that its own climate findings were inferior to those maintained by both the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit,” reported Fox News in 2010 – meaning NASA climate change data sets were less accurate than the organization embattled with manipulating data sets.” The Washington Times  further reported in 2015 that “Paul Homewood, a skeptical researcher, found that in Paraguay, temperature readings for the 20th century at all nine weather stations supervised by NASA had been “adjusted” to transform a cooling trend into a warming trend. His analysis of readings in the Arctic found that rapid warming between 1920 and 1950 — before human activity could have increased the production of greenhouse gases — were adjusted downward so that the 1980s and ‘90s temperatures would stand out as warmer.”

The Trump Administration has signaled a course reversal. The selection of Robert Walker to lead the NASA transition team is an example. He  has previously complained of data manipulation by the space agency.

It is, however, the nomination of Scott Pruitt to run the EPA that will bring the greatest resistance. Business Insider  reports that “Pruitt joined several other state attorneys general in suing the agency over the Clean Power Plan, a policy drafted under the Obama administration…[he is] A self-described ‘leading advocate against the EPA’s activist agenda,’ Pruitt has brought lawsuits against the Obama-led EPA several times.”

Categories
Quick Analysis

Environmental Debate Will Be More Science-Based

The New York Analysis of Policy and Government begins a two-part review of how environmental debates will change in the Trump era.

Environmental discussions within Washington may become more science-based as the political influence of the Obama White House and the Democrat left vanishes. For the past eight years, federal agencies were directed by the White House to provide data influenced more by ideology than science.  Funding within those agencies, NASA and the EPA in particular, was a lever used to ensure that research assets were geared towards producing pre-ordained results. In some cases, external political organizations with no official status were given undue influence over agency agendas.

For over eight years, an interconnected group of those who have profited from environmental extremism and those politicians who have profited from their support have exerted political pressure over federal agencies, and the politicians who provide their funding  An E&E news report notes that, according to Tom Pyle of the American Energy Alliance,  “…the Democratic Party and the Democratic establishment has a very, very cozy and comfortable relationship with the more strident in the environmental community and that the Democrats are funded heavily by folks who are involved in that group. They have an unusual, I would argue, level of access to folks in power.”

Prominent Democrats, such as former Vice President Al Gore, have made significant fortunes from their efforts. The British newspaper Telegraph  notes that “Since he quit mainstream politics, Mr Gore’s personal fortune has risen from £1.2 million to an estimated £60 million. He has made significant investments in environmentally friendly projects like carbon trading markets, solar power, biofuels, electric vehicles, sustainable fish farming and waterless lavatories. He has also invested in non-climate change related investments, including putting money into Google and Apple.”

The political impact of groups advocating more environmental activism is significant, due to their financial muscle. Climate Change Dispatch notes that  Counting only private money, environmental groups massively outspend their opponents. Opposition to global warming activism only raises $46 million annually across 91 conservative think tanks, according to analysis by Forbes. That’s almost six times less than Greenpeace’s 2011 budget of $260 million, and Greenpeace is only one of many environmental groups. The undeniable truth is that global warming activists raise and spend far more money than their opponents.
It does not have any relation with the realism.Well, it is all because of rapidly changing cialis 20mg no prescription amerikabulteni.com life. Communicate with Each Other The cialis women most important thing for maintaining positive sex life positive is communication. It has been invented in the year of 2003 and from then this has created revolution all over the world in getting succeeded to sweep away all the myths existed in human mind regarding impotency. pill sildenafil Ed tadalafil 10mg Vere performed at the EU children’s festival ‘Sanskriti’ on 15 November.
The influence of leading environmental extremists has caused questions to be raised about their role within federal agencies. The Washington Free Beacon  reported in 2016 that “The business arm of billionaire Democrat Tom Steyer’s political advocacy network worked behind the scenes with senior administration officials to undermine a study by a federally commissioned group that criticized environmental regulations, internal emails show. Advanced Energy Economy (AEE), a Steyer-funded trade association, briefed senior administration officials on ways to preemptively debunk an anticipated study questioning EPA regulations’ impacts on the U.S. power grid.”

In 2015, National Review’s John Fund  noted: “Far from being embarrassed by the green-energy scandals that piled up during its first term, the Obama administration is doubling down on its green agenda. It has dismissed Solyndra, the politically connected solar-panel maker that wasted $535 million of taxpayer money and got President Obama to promote its wares, as an aberration. But the Washington Post reported in 2012 that Solyndra was hardly an anomaly, given that under Obama “$3.9 billion in federal grants and financing flowed to 21 companies backed by firms with connections to five Obama-administration staffers and advisers.”

President Obama frequently insisted that the man-made climate change debate was over, and that the scientific community was united in its beliefs. He intentionally ignored the vast extent of contrary viewpoints. The significance of that disagreement by numerous scientists is represented by the fact that 31,072 American scientists, including 9,029 with PH.D’s, signed a petition opposing the views of those who claim human factors have altered the climate.

The Report concludes tomorrow.