When The Democrats Do It, That Means That It’s Not Illegal

Drain The Swamp 11 Comments

During his final year in office, President Obama’s team significantly expanded efforts to search National Security Agency intercepts for information about Americans, distributing thousands of intelligence reports across government with the unredacted names of U.S. residents during the midst of a divisive 2016 presidential election.
Among those whose names were unmasked in 2016 or early 2017 were campaign or transition associates of President Trump as well as members of Congress and their staffers, according to sources with direct knowledge.
[…]
In all, government officials conducted 30,355 searches in 2016 seeking information about Americans in NSA intercept metadata, which include telephone numbers and email addresses. The activity amounted to a 27.5 percent increase over the prior year and more than triple the 9,500 such searches that occurred in 2013, the first year such data was kept.
The government in 2016 also scoured the actual contents of NSA intercepted calls and emails for 5,288 Americans, an increase of 13 percent over the prior year and a massive spike from the 198 names searched in 2013.

OttRob

If Women Ran The World

If Women Ran The World Insufferable Twits 27 Comments

Feminism is cancer.

Internet feminists are outraged after a scientific journal told a group of female researchers that their work on gender bias in academia was gender biased.
Two female evolutionary geneticists collaborated on the piece, which claimed that fewer women Ph.D. candidates were published by established scientific journals, leading them to believe, based on interviews with women across the scientific fields, that the publishing industry was biased against female scientists.
When they submitted their article to a journal that specializes in publishing research on diversity in the fields of science and medicine, a reviewer suggested that the women include a male voice in their study, just to show that they, themselves, were not coming at the issue from a position of gender bias.
[…]
The journal, PLOS, was forced to say they were sorry and retract the critique; they now claim, also, that they’ve placed the reviewer on leave until they can determine exactly what happened.

We Don’t Need No Stinking Giant Mirrors

Alternative Subsidy 15 Comments

Via Stephen Green;

The Securities and Exchange Commission is examining whether San Francisco-based Sunrun Inc. RUN -8.06% and Elon Musk’s San Mateo, Calif.-based SolarCity Corp. have adequately disclosed how many customers have canceled contracts after signing up for a home solar-energy system, the person said.
Investors use that cancellation metric as one way to gauge the companies’ health. Companies typically give customers a few days after signing a contract, or even up until the time of installation, to back out of a deal.
Some solar-energy companies have recently disclosed in public filings and earnings calls that increasing numbers of customers are canceling, but the companies have provided few details about the number of cancellations or their impact on the companies’ business.

Minister McKenna Wants to Hear from You!

Drill, Baby, Drill Science 29 Comments

Today is an opportunity to share your thoughts on the federal environmental review process.
In 2016, an expert panel reviewed federal EA processes as set out in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, which was passed by the Harper government in 2012. The expert panel report – Building Common Ground: A New Vision for Impact Assessment in Canada – was then released in April of this year which summarizes the panel’s recommendations.
To say that this new process could cause some problems is an understatement. According to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the new approach will:

  • Greatly expand the list of projects subject to a federal assessment process in addition to provincial or territorial processes, leading to increased costs and duplicated efforts without improving environmental outcomes.
  • Overstep the constitutional division of responsibilities between the federal government and the provinces and territories, setting the stage for jurisdictional conflict and confusion.
  • Invite participation in the assessment process by parties with no interest in the project, allowing individuals and groups who oppose development generally, or competitors seeking economic advantage through regulatory obstruction, to delay the proceedings.

    • The deadline to respond is May 5, so you don’t have much time. Here are some key points the Chamber has provided which could help you with your own response:

  • The Canadian Chamber supports a rigorous environment assessment process that protects Canadians and our environment. A system that is clear, simple and timely is the best way to balance environmental protection with economic growth.
  • While the expert panel report does contain helpful suggestions, overall the report is a move in the wrong direction, pushing Canada further away from an efficient but rigorous assessment process that could balance environmental protection with economic growth.
  • The expert panel’s proposed approach would likely expand the types of projects and activities subject to federal assessment in addition to provincial/territorial processes, leading to increased costs and duplicated efforts without improving environmental outcomes.
  • The panel’s proposed approach to impact assessments would invite unilateral federal intrusion into provincial/territorial jurisdiction, creating the potential for conflict and confusion.
  • The panel recommends that every step of the assessment process be based on consensus, which is not a realistic approach. Instead, the focus should be on enhancing collaboration, inclusion, engagement and transparency within a fact-based quasi-judicial process.
  • The cost and complexity of Canada’s environmental regulatory processes is becoming yet another area of weighing down the competitiveness of the Canadian business. Canada’s economy cannot afford a regulatory process that is a barrier to investment.

    • Again, go to Let’s Talk EA now and have your say before this woman destroys us all.
    UPDATE: A commentator says that the comments to this initiative have been closed since November. This is not true. That initial feedback period was for the expert panel, whereas this one is a comment period on the panel’s recommendation.
    As for those who think this is a waste of time, know that the Left doesn’t think this way. One of the worst aspects of the environmental review process is that the public input is dominated by activists, so much so that the process gets bogged down into nothingness. The recommendations of this panel propose to return to this state, where project development becomes too burdensome that investors will look elsewhere to put their money.
    Canadian resource companies are definitely taking this seriously. You should too.

    When The Democrats Do It, That Means That It’s Not Illegal

    Bill's Wife 18 Comments


    More on Comey’s testimony here.
    Related:

    The conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch released almost 900 new emails from a Huma Abedin email account on Tuesday, which the group said offer more proof that Hillary Clinton sent and received classified information through her unsecured home server when she was secretary of state. Abedin was a long-time top aide to Clinton.
    Judicial Watch obtained the emails with a Freedom of Information Act request that also required a follow-up lawsuit in 2015 after the State Department failed to produce any records.

    Singing The Blues, In The Key Of A&W

    Uncategorized 32 Comments

    Sales slump.

    The company in recent years has also revamped its ingredient sourcing and promoted its menu items accordingly — among them beef raised without the use of hormones or steroids, eggs from hens fed a diet without animal byproducts, chicken raised without the use of antibiotics and bacon from hogs raised without the use of antibiotics.
    The changes to the chain’s beef sourcing policy led it to expand its supply lines beyond Canada to also include producers in the U.S., Australia and New Zealand who could meet the new requirements, which in turn led to backlash from some quarters in the Canadian livestock sector

    A&W blames the weather.

    Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

    MENU

    Navigation