Saturday, June 24, 2017

In Penn. Parties To Risperdal Mass Tort Gynecomastia Case To Meet Next Month

Posted on June 23, 2017 by Monika Donimirska

Parties to Pennsylvania Risperdal Gynecomastia Lawsuits Set to Meet Next Month to Discuss Status of Mass Tort Litigation, Bernstein Liebhard LLP Reports 

NEW YORK, June 23, 2017 /PRNewswire/ -- Thousands of Risperdal lawsuits involving the antipsychotic medication's alleged potential to cause gynecomastia (male breast growth) continue to move forward in a mass tort litigation now underway in Pennsylvania's Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. According to a posting on the website for the Philadelphia Complex Litigation Center, the Court will convene a meeting on July 11th, 11:30 p.m. EST, to discuss the status of the Risperdal litigation. (Case No. 130600861)

"Our Firm is representing many men and boys who allegedly developed female-like breasts due to treatment with Risperdal. We will continue to monitor the Pennsylvania litigation closely for any developments that could impact our clients' cases," said Sandy A. Liebhard, a partner at Bernstein Liebhard LLP, a nationwide law firm representing the victims of defective drugs and medical devices. The Firm continues to provide free legal reviews to men and boys who were diagnosed with gynecomastia allegedly related to their use of Risperdal.

Risperdal Gynecomastia Allegations

Court records indicate that Johnson & Johnson and its Janssen Pharmaceuticals subsidiary have been named defendants in more than 5,800 Pennsylvania Risperdal lawsuits. In May, Johnson & Johnson reported that at least 16,900 product liability claims have been filed in courts nationwide over the medication's alleged side effects. Gynecomastia plaintiffs claim that the drugs' manufacturers concealed data linking Risperdal to excessive male breast growth and failed to provide the public with appropriate warnings regarding this risk.

The Pennsylvania litigation has convened 8 Risperdal trials since early 2015. So far, juries have ruled for plaintiffs in four cases, awarding damages ranging from $500,000 to $70 million. Confidential Risperdal settlements have also been reached in some gynecomastia lawsuits just prior to trial. Bernstein Liebhard LLP continues to provide free legal reviews to alleged victims of Risperdal and gynecomastia. To learn more about filing a Risperdal lawsuit, please contact Bernstein Liebhard LLP by visiting the Firm's website, or by calling 800-511-5092.

Thank You satprnews.

Friday, June 23, 2017

Pharma Boy Martin Shkreli Prepares Himself For Trial By Live Streaming Himself Playing Video Games

Robert Donachie Finance and Health Care Reporter
10:28 AM 06/23/2017

Martin Shkreli, former hedge fund manager and Turing Pharmaceuticals CEO, live-streamed himself playing video games, petting his cat and drinking soda Monday evening after leaving a federal pre-trial court hearing.

The “pharma bro” spent hours live-streaming himself as he played League of Legends, fiddled with Excel charts mapping out the trends of pharmaceutical stocks and doing other rather mundane tasks Monday night, The New York Times reported Thursday. Shkreli is currently under federal investigation for eight counts of securities and wire fraud.

The charges against Shkreli stem from two of his former hedge funds: MSMB Capital Management and MSMB Healthcare and Retrophin. The former CEO is accused of looting Retrophin out of nearly $11 million, which he used to pay off investors in MSMB that he had reportedly frauded. Shkreli allegedly lied to the investors in MSMB about the funds’ overall performance, the number of investors in the fund and the salary he drew from MSMB.

The pharmaceutical became a household name in 2016 when he raised the price of Daraprim, a drug used to treat parasitic infections, from $13.50 to $750 a tablet. Shkreli faced a congressional hearing for the matter, along with a slew of negative press coverage. 

Thank You Mr Donachie and DC.

"Risperdal Boys" Photo Project Vividly Captures Pain of Gynecomastia

Injury Help
Published on June 21, 2017 by Laurie Villanueva

Thousands of Risperdal lawsuits have been filed in U.S. courts on behalf of men and boys who allegedly developed gynecomastia due to treatment with the antipsychotic drug. Now a new photography project is vividly capturing the suffering endured by victims of this disfiguring condition.

Entitled “Risperdal Boys,” the project features six young men, all of whom experienced excessive breast development after they were prescribed the medication. According to, each was featured in a candid portrait, a posed shot in a natural environment, and a shot in front of a backdrop with a single strobe. The photos were taken during a 6-day road trip that covered 10 cities and over 4,000 miles.

“Of the young men who agreed to allow their pictures to be used, to a man, it was because they wanted the world to know what happened to them,” photographer Richard Johnson said.

“All agreed their struggle would be easier if they knew others were facing the same bullying and social isolation that they faced as a boy with breasts,” he continued.

Risperdal and Gynecomastia

Gynecomastia is marked by the development of female-like breasts in men and boys. The condition may be accompanied by breast pain and tenderness, as well as a discharge from the nipple. Breast growth associated with gynecomastia is permanent, and can only be treated via surgical intervention such as liposuction or mastectomy.

Risperdal is known to increase the amount of prolactin produced by the pituitary gland. While this hormone plays a role in female breast development and lactation, high levels can cause excessive breast growth in males. Prior to October 2006, the Risperdal label characterized gynecomastia as a rare side effect that appeared in less than 1 in 1,000 patients. That month, the prescribing information was updated to note that 2.3% of male adolescents treated Risperdal had developed the condition.

Risperdal Litigation

Risperdal is currently indicated to treat adult and adolescent schizophrenia, bipolar disorder in adults and children ages 10-to-17, and irritability in children (5-to-16 years of age) with autistic disorder. While Risperdal was introduced in the 1990s, its pediatric indications weren’t approved by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) in October 2006.

In November 2013, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that Johnson & Johnson and its Janssen Pharmaceuticals unit had agreed to pay $2.5 million to resolve criminal and civil charges stemming from the marketing of Risperdal and other drugs. Among other things, federal prosecutors had alleged that the companies improperly marketed Risperdal for off-label pediatric indications and concealed gynecomastia and other side effects associated with its use.

More than 18,000 Risperdal lawsuits are currently pending in U.S. courts, most of which involve gynecomastia. Plaintiffs allege that the drug’s manufacturers concealed data linking Risperdal to excessive male breast growth and failed to adequately warn the public about this potential risk. The lawsuits also claim that around 20% of Risperdal prescriptions were written for children, allegedly due to the defendants’ aggressive off-label marketing efforts.

Thank You Ms Villanueva and Injury Help.

Thursday, June 22, 2017

Get Our Viking Fiction Trilogy Complete, 100% FREE From June 23 to June 27 Only At Amazon

Here's the Link.

 If you don't already have the also FREE Kindle Reader software program, get it.

Amazon uses the .mobi format for their e-books whereas the rest of the e-tail book stores use .epub.

It's on the Amazon page right under the book cover art.

It's summer. Live a little.

What if you killed someone for insulting you, and when their family took you to court the judges punished them instead of you, for insulting the law because the dead person knew what the law was and they must have wanted it because they certainly went begging for it.

One continuous Saga of Love, Murder, and War among people who'll balk at nothing but a saleable excuse for their crooked courts, complete as the Full Saga or available as 3 separate Volumes/Parts.

In Volume/Part I, Grab The Wolf, Chieftains conspire, vengeance for old killings visits, and loves and obsessions turn to murder.

In Volume/Part II, Kill Them Twice, conspiracies bear fruit as battle presages battle, hunters hunt, and war invades the forests.

In Volume/Part III, war trades faces as the law and honor shove the hunter home guard, sailors, and everyone's kin at the other's throats.

In the year 1000 Leif Erikson sailed to the New World and back to Greenland.

This time Viking Outlaws who'd been run out of everywhere sailed back in droves to the island of Hellulandia (Newfoundland). Many of the Irish too sailed to New Tara (Chesapeake Bay) hoping to finally rid themselves of those damn Norwegians and Danes. No such luck.

Eventually, on Hellulandia, law and order broke out again and their own outlaws were tossed off the island west onto Skoggangurstrond (Outlaws Coast/New Brunswick) where their descendants eventually again imposed law and order, sort of, under new Chieftains who also took to outlawing and booting out their own trash.

It's the year 1279 and everyone including the Skraelings who've been there long before the Norse and Irish are plotting to get rid of those double, triple, and quadruple crossing guys who aren't their guys just one last time, all over again.

Dead in the middle of Skoggangurstrond where all crossings converge are Chieftain Tore's Ravens, who know a good deal about what's going to crop up, having planted it, and great deal more about cutting it down.

Tore and his crews are heading off to New Tara, leaving behind them his twelve hunters, their leader his criminally womanizing Marshal, the village priest and a blacksmith who are not supposed to even see the army headed their way. Destroying it has been left in other hands.

But, . . .

In the icy, edge of spring forest night a hundred women and girls who can't stop fighting with each other and have never killed anything worse than crop raiding pests follow the hunters into their black and forbidding realm against an army twice the size those other hands haven't done a thing about.

Foremost among Marshal Jarnulf's fighting women are his current woman, and a most enticing infuriation, his ex, warring with him and each other over who really owns him.

With bows, and steel they barely know how to use, the women can't win a fight and they know it.

But with the skills of their hunters, undreamt even now, they're going to find that in war as in love fair is a fable untold by an idiot, because fair killed him before he could tell it.

Ravens, always last to leave the field of battle.

Prof: Racist 'Hate Speech' Causes Cigarette Smoking

Your tax dollars paying for the cushy lifestyles of Behaviorist, Blithering Idiots.

campus reform
Nikita Vladimirov Investigative Reporter @nikvofficial Today at 8:25 AM EDT

A Northwestern University professor argued Wednesday that "hate speech" should be a form of expression that is subject to legal limitation.

Laura Beth Nielsen claims that "racist hate speech" causes negative outcomes like cigarette smoking and PTSD, and should therefore be banned just like incitement to violence.

A Northwestern University professor argued Wednesday that "hate speech" should be a form of expression that is subject to legal limitation.

In an op-ed for The Los Angeles Times, sociology professor Laura Beth Nielsen contends that “members of traditionally marginalized groups suffer” when Americans are granted the freedom “to be hateful.”

"Racist hate speech has been linked to cigarette smoking...and post-traumatic stress disorder."

[RELATED: Volokh demolishes Feinstein in campus free speech hearing]

“Perhaps it’s nonsense to characterize the nature of the harm as nothing more than an emotional scratch,” Nielsen postulates. “That’s a reflection of the deep inequalities in our society, and one that demonstrates a profound misunderstanding of how hate speech affects its targets.”

The professor maintains that free speech is already a limited right, mentioning numerous restrictions on panhandling, protesting veteran’s funerals, advertising, inciting lawless action, and more.

“So soldiers’ families, shoppers, and workers are protected from troubling speech," she deduces. "People of color, women walking down public streets or just living in their dorm on a college campus are not."

To support her argument, Nielsen cites "empirical data" suggesting that “frequent verbal harassment can lead to various negative consequences.” According to the professor, the negative consequences of “racist hate speech” include high blood pressure, cigarette smoking, depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder.

“Instead of characterizing racist and sexist hate speech as ‘just speech,’ courts and legislatures need to account for this research and, perhaps, allow the restriction of hate speech as do all of the other economically advanced democracies in the world,” she argues.

While Nielsen briefly considers basic objections that could be raised by “free-speech absolutists,” she reiterated her view that freedom of speech is already “far from absolute.”

[RELATED: UMich paper defends silencing speakers who 'outrage' students]

“But these free-speech absolutists must at least acknowledge two facts," she declares. "First, the right to speak already is far from absolute. Second, they are asking disadvantaged members of our society to shoulder a heavy burden with serious consequences. Because we are 'free' to be hateful, members of traditionally marginalized groups suffer."

Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the government may not prohibit hate speech in a case involving an all-Asian American rock band called The Slants, whose name is also a derogatory term for Asians.

Justice Samuel Alito, writing an opinion for four justices, argued that the ability of the government to restrict offensive speech “strikes at the heart of the First Amendment."

“Speech that demeans on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, age, disability, or any other similar ground is hateful," Alito acknowledged, "but the proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom to express ‘the thought that we hate.’”

[RELATED: Evergreen students: 'F*** free speech' that 'validates' hate]

In an interview with Campus Reform, Nielsen said that her main criticism of the legal system is its failure to “recognize some harms even as they recognize others," adding that "those that are recognized tend to be the ones endured by those who already enjoy privilege in our society.”

Zachary Greenberg, Justice Robert H. Jackson Legal Fellow at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), agreed that freedom of speech is not "absolute," but warned that there is no clear definition of the term “hate speech.”

“You can ask a hundred people what hate speech is and you get a thousand different answers,” Greenberg told Campus Reform, later adding that “there is really no ending point” once you start punishing offensive expression.

“When you have these very vague, ambiguous terms for punishing speech, you end up suppressing and punishing a wide variety of speech, much more speech than what is intended to be punished to begin with,” he pointed out.

Greenberg also noted that certain “buffer zones” that restrict protests around funerals have been struck down by the Supreme Court, and maintained that even they are not necessarily a “permissible restriction” under the constitutional law.

Thank You Mr Vladimirov and Campus Reform,

Students Can Get Scholarship For Attending 'White Privilege' Conference


daily caller

HuffPost Says Women Lose Again After Woman Wins Congressional Seat

Grace Carr
9:34 AM 06/22/2017

A Huffington Post reporter contended Wednesday that Karen Handel’s win in Georgia’s special congressional election is bad for women.

HuffPost writer Emma Gray headlined her article, “Reminder: A Win For A Woman Doesn’t Always Mean A Win For Women,” and wrote that “having more women in Congress is great, but Karen Handel isn’t pro-woman.”

Gray also took a swipe at Donald Trump Jr., who she said is “frustrated Handel is not being celebrated as a feminist glass-ceiling breaker simply for being a woman.”

Gray admits that it is admirable to see the Republican party sending more women to Congress, but quoted writer Jennifer Wright who argued in Harper’s Bazaar, “Feminism doesn’t mean liking every stupid woman you meet… if women are opposed to women’s rights? If they’re cheerfully complacent with sexual harassment or scaling back women’s opportunities? If they’re actively going to make life hard work for you and others like you? Speak the fuck out. Don’t worry about seeming polite. Just worry about speaking out.”

Handel is pro-life, supports market-based and patient-centered healthcare reforms, a fairer simpler tax structure with lower rates for families and businesses, and a less punitive tax code among other issues, according to her website platform.

But despite these goals, she is “dedicated to making life harder and worse for lots of women,” according to HuffPost.

Gray also criticizes her for pushing to cut Planned Parenthood funding.

She concludes the article that Handel’s track record and policy priorities indicate that she won’t do anything to advance rights and opportunities for other women, and that “a glass ceiling broken is only worth celebrating if it means something for more than the individual smashing it.” 

Thank You Ms Carr and DC.

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

Anthem Health Drops Out Of 2 More State ObamaCare Exchanges

Since the GOPE lacks the spine to do it, will Someone Please just stake this vamp and call it a day?

daily caller

Robert Donachie Finance and Health Care Reporter
3:00 PM 06/21/2017

Health insurance provider Anthem announced Wednesday that it will drop out of the state exchanges in Wisconsin and Indiana, marking the latest sign that insurance companies are finding it difficult to continue offering Obamacare plans.

The company said it will keep offering plans outside the exchanges in those states, but will stop offering Obamacare plans in 2018, The Wall Street Journal reports. Anthem, like many insurance companies who have opted out of Obamacare in recent months, cited market volatility and rampant uncertainty as reasons for its exit in Wisconsin and Indiana.

“Planning and pricing for ACA-compliant health plans has become increasingly difficult due to a shrinking and deteriorating individual market, as well as continual changes and uncertainty in federal operations,” Anthem said in a statement.

With Wednesday’s announcement, the company has now reduced its exposure on the Obamacare exchanges to only 11 states.

Anthem announced in early-June that it will be pulling out of Obamacare entirely in Ohio, a decision that would likely leave nearly 20 counties in the state without a single insurer on the exchanges.

Current projections for the 2018 Obamacare exchanges expect at least 47 counties will have no insurance provider to choose from in the marketplace.

Three of the most prominent insurers on the Obamacare exchanges are either ditching Obamacare entirely or are significantly scaling back their involvement in 2018. (RELATED: Insurance Providers Ditch Obamacare Follow A Similar Pattern)

UnitedHealth reduced its exposure on the exchanges significantly, cutting its participation from 34 states in 2016 to just three in 2017 — Virginia, Nevada and New York. It plans to drop Obamacare plans in Virginia in 2018. Health insurance providers Aetna and Humana are pushing one step further, completely opting out of Obamacare altogether in 2018.

Thank You Mr Donachie and DC.

Tuesday, June 13, 2017

Kamala Harris Silenced, AGAIN, During Sessions Meeting

Amber Athey
5:12 PM 06/13/2017

video @ the link

Funny how she didn't have any trouble keeping her mouth shut - as the San Francisco City and County Attorney - when This was going on right under her nose: SFMHB 06/13/07


Democratic California Sen. Kamala Harris was silenced during the testimony of Attorney General Jeff Sessions when she refused to let him fully answer her questions.

The California senator tried to lock Sessions in a rapid fire question-and-answer style that didn’t allow Sessions to give full answers to her line of questioning.

“Did you consult [Department of Justice policy] before you came before this committee knowing we would ask you questions about it?” Harris asked of Sessions’ assertion that he wouldn’t discuss private conversations with the president.

Sessions tried to answer before Harris cut him off, asking, “Did you ask that it would be shown to you?”

Sessions was clearly becoming frustrated with her inability to let him finish his thoughts, but Harris kept going.

“Did you not ask your staff to show you the policy that would be the basis for your refusing to answer the majority of questions that have been asked of you?”

“Chairman, the witness should be allowed to answer the question,” one senator can be heard in the background.

Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr took the reigns, saying, “Senators will allow the chair to control the hearing. Senator Harris, let him answer.”

Thank You Ms Athey and DC.

Monday, June 12, 2017

UC Santa Barbara Student Group Offers Kit To Test Purity of Illicit Ecstasy Pills

In today's running of the University of California Bulls,
Corrie Faith Lee - Regent University •June 8, 2017


University offers support, promotion for recreational drug screening

A student group at the University of California Santa Barbara recently started providing students with free kits that allows them to “see what’s in the drugs they’ve obtained before they use them,” with the university offering promotion and support for the initiative.

The program was started by Patrick Dohoney, an student senator. Dohoney argues it’s an effort to reduce the number of serious “drug-related emergencies” on campus, according to the campus newspaper The Bottom Line.

The system, which was paid for by a student fundraising effort, allows students to temporarily check out drug testing kits to be used at home. The kits are made to test the purity of the drug MDMA, popularly known as ecstasy. After testing the drugs, the student is required to return the test kit.

“It is very naive to deny the fact that there are students on this campus that are doing hard drugs,” Dohoney told The Bottom Line. Dohoney did not return repeated requests for comment from The College Fix.

UC Santa Barbara is widely known for its party scene, ranking near the top of many “party school” lists over the years.

A campus spokeswoman defended the initiative in an email to The College Fix.

“Over the last few years we have had many conversations with our students about MDMA testing kits and we are very aware of how beneficial these and other safety practices can be for students,” spokeswoman Jackie Kurta told The Fix.

“It is our understanding that a student group on campus has developed an initiative to fund and distribute these testing kits,” Kurta added. “Although the Alcohol and Drug Program will not be providing funding for this initiative, we have offered to collaborate with the students to promote their efforts through our ongoing social media campaigns and outreach programs.”

Kurta also noted that the UC Santa Barbara student group “Life of the Party” would be involved in the promotion of the drug testing kits. Life of the Party advocates for safe alcohol and illegal drug usage among students, advising on its website, for example, that students be cautious when “using illegal drugs or substances that are not prescribed to you.”

One student, a colleague of Dohoney’s, said the test kits were a welcome addition to campus.

“Patrick did have support of the entire Senate and it was not controversial at all,” student senator Izabella Kipnis told The Fix via Facebook message. “Although the use of drugs is not encouraged, the Senate understood that it is better for students who plan to experiment with them to do it in a safe way.”

Though UC Santa Barbara is assisting in the promotion of the drug testing kits, the university does not officially endorse drug use.

The university’s stated policy on drug and substance abuse reads: “Unlawful manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, use, or sale of alcohol or of controlled substances by University employees and students… is prohibited.”

MORE: UMich pilot program cracks down on alcohol, drug abuse

Like The College Fix on Facebook / Follow us on Twitter

Thank You Ms Lee and thecollegefix

Thursday, June 8, 2017

Napolitano Staff Accused of Tampering With Audit of State University

And in other news Scientists discover that water is wet.

David Krayden Contributor
3:20 PM 06/08/2017


University of California (UC) president Janet Napolitano’s office is under investigation for allegations that her staff tampered with a survey ordered by the state auditor.

According to a story first reported by the San Francisco Chronicle, UC’s board of regents has hired none other than former state Supreme Court Justice Carlos Moreno as well as a local law firm to investigate the allegations that Napolitano’s office improperly viewed a confidential survey.

Board chairwoman Monica Lozano said Monday that any such interference would have nullified the results of the survey. “Justice Moreno will provide expertise in the areas of fact-finding and neutral evaluation,” she told the Chronicle.

At the root of the controversy is an accusation in a report from state auditor Elaine Howle that says the university was insisting it needed to increase student tuition fees to cover costs while it clandestinely reserved $175 million in savings. The document says that Napolitano’s office inflated the cost of administrating the 10-satellite university complex and actually provided less funding than the official budget indicated.

The investigation was launched just as the state legislature introduced tough new legislation that is designed to bring the law down on anyone who interferes with a state audit with malicious intent, Campus Reform reports.

Howle is now accusing Napolitano’s office of vetting confidential responses that the audit from the university’s administrators.

The San Francisco Chronicle has obtained email transmissions between UC’s head office and its various campuses that would seem to indicate that Napolitano’s staff wanted to see the audit responses before sending them to Howle.

Napolitano testified before California legislators in May that her staff only assessed the responses after they had already been sent to the state auditor. Though she apologized for how the correspondence was managed, she said during her appearance that she “wasn’t involved in the day-to-day, back and forth of the surveys.”

Follow David on Twitter
Tags: Janet Napolitano, University of California

Thank You Mr Krayden and DC.

Wednesday, June 7, 2017

Ca Governor Moonbeam Flying To China To Defy Trump on Climate Deal

Cortney O'Brien
|Posted: Jun 06, 2017 8:00 PM

California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) is going to great lengths to oppose President Trump’s plans to pull the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord. In an interview with Politico, Brown shared his plans to fly to China to rally support for his anti-climate change agenda.

“I’m on the side of angels,” he claimed, adding that Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris agreement is "insane" and California will "resist."

To answer the White House, Brown is considering establishing a climate summit of like minded governors, Politico reports.

Trump announced last week that he’d be taking the U.S. out of the Paris agreement because it punished businesses and would be detrimental to our economy.

Joining Brown in his campaign against the president is New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio. In a tweet following Trump’s announcement, De Blasio promised that he would sign an executive order upholding the environmental mandates.

I signed Executive Order 26 because New York City's future is threatened by climate change. We will honor the goals of the #ParisAgreement.— Bill de Blasio (@NYCMayor) June 2, 2017

As Hot Air's Jazz Shaw noted, De Blasio's order may have little "practical effect," but it could certainly make life harder for New York businesses as they struggle to meet the order's strict environmental regulations.

Thank You Ms Brown and Townhall.

DOJ: Almost 60,000 Drug Overdose Deaths In 2016, Largest Annual Increase In American History

The FDA: hard at work 'Speeding Approval of New, Life Saving Medications" by getting as deep into bed with drug makers as they physically can.

By Susan Jones | June 7, 2017 | 6:32 AM EDT

( – “For Americans under the age of 50, drug overdoses now are the leading cause of death,” Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein told employees of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration on Tuesday.

“On an average day, 90 Americans will die from an opioid-related overdose. About four people will overdose and die while we sit here this morning,” Rosenstein said.

Outlining the “horrifying surge in drug overdoses,” Rosenstein noted that in 2015, more than 52,000 Americans lost their lives to drug overdoses, 33,000 of them from heroin, fentanyl and other opioids.

“The preliminary numbers for 2016 show an increase to almost 60,000 deaths. That will be the largest annual increase in American history,” Rosenstein said.

And the opioid crisis is posing new dangers to law enforcement and other first responders, he warned:

Fentanyl is 30 to 50 times more deadly than heroin. Just 2 milligrams – the equivalent of a few grains of table salt – an amount that can fit on the tip of your finger – can be lethal.

Fentanyl exposure can injure or kill innocent law enforcement officers and other first responders. Inhaling just a few airborne particles could be fatal. Our police officers and first responders face this danger every day.

This is not a hypothetical problem. Law enforcement officers have already suffered exposures to fentanyl in New Jersey, Georgia, and Connecticut…Just a few weeks ago, a police officer in East Liverpool, Ohio nearly died from exposure to an extremely potent opioid, most likely a fentanyl-related compound. The officer had pulled over a car and noticed an unidentified white powder in the vehicle. The officer took precautions by putting on gloves and a mask for personal protection.

When the officer returned to the police station, another officer pointed out that he had powder on his shirt. Instinctively, he brushed off the powder while not wearing gloves. About an hour later, he collapsed. That officer had to be treated with four doses of naloxone. Luckily, he survived and is recovering.

Three weeks ago, a sheriff’s deputy in my home state of Maryland responded to an overdose scene. He was exposed to opioids and needed a dose of Narcan to reverse the effects.

The spread of fentanyl means that any encounter a law enforcement officer has with an unidentified white powder could be fatal.

Only a few grains of fentanyl, the amount shown here, is enough to kill a grown man who touches it, inhales it, or ingests it.

The DEA this week released a video message to law enforcement nationwide about the dangers of coming into contact with fentanyl.

Acting DEA Administrator Chuck Rosenberg is cautioning police not to field test any substance they suspect may contain fentanyl. Police dogs also are vulnerable.

“Something that looks like heroin could be pure fentanyl—assume the worst,” he said. “Don’t touch these substances or their wrappings without the proper personal protective equipment.”

The DEA has just issued guidelines for proper handling of fentanyl.

In addition to wearing gloves, face masks, eye protection and other protective gear, DEA says Naloxone (the opioid antidote) should be readily available for administration.

First responders should not eat, drink or smoke in places where fentanyl is suspected to be present.

Any opened mail and shipping materials located at the scene of an overdose with a return address from China could also indicate the presence of fentanyl.

And DEA says it is possible that fentanyl residue could be present on items of nondrug evidence such as currency, money counters, cellular telephones, or drug paraphernalia which could create an additional vulnerability to law enforcement.

Thank You Ms Jones and CNS.

And these are only the cases which GOT reported.

Monday, June 5, 2017

It's Failing: Blue Cross Blue Shield Abandons ObamaCare In Nebraska

Posted: Jun 05, 2017 10:31 AM
As one of the few major carriers that hasn't announced sweeping plans to pull out of Obamacare's crumbling marketplaces nationwide, Blue Cross Blue Shield is sometimes touted by the failing law's defenders as a tenuous "success" story.  They occasionally point to a narrowly-tailored study that purports to demonstrate that the exchanges may be turning a corner toward profitability.  This optimism flies in the face of a drumbeat of business decisions made by numerous insurers over recent years, based on cold, hard accounting calculations.  For many of them, despite Obamacare's ineffectual requirement that everyone in America purchase their products, participation in the law has racked up hundreds of millions of dollars in annual losses (further underscoring the silliness of the Congressional Budget Office's religious faith in the power of the mandate tax).  BCBS might be a ray of hope, we're told, based on some data and projections.  But as we've seen in greater Kansas City and the entire state of Iowa, reality is once again intruding on the company's balance sheets -- this time in Nebraska:
Health insurer Blue Cross Blue Shield announced Thursday that it would not be participating in the invidual market in Nebraska next year, and the remaining insurer hasn't decided if it will leave also. Blue Cross Blue Shield is projected to lose $12 million this year from offering plans in the state, and the company would need to increase its price for premiums next year by 50 percent. The company previously participated in the Obamacare exchanges, which resulted in $150 million in losses...About 100,000 Nebraskans purchase their health insurance through the Obamacare exchanges, which allow most enrollees to receive tax subsidies to pay for their plans. Medica is the other insurer offering plans on the exchange in Nebraska.
Nebraskans purchasing insurance on the Obamacare-dominated individual market are down to just one "choice" in coverage, and that remaining carrier is also contemplating its future in the state.  The Obamacare chorus, exulting in recent polling showing that the law is less unpopular than ever before (sentiments likely driven by dishonest demagoguery against a GOP replacement proposal, anti-Trump polarization, status quo bias, and the fact that most Americans are not affected by turmoil in the individual market), are trying to blame the ongoing upheaval on Republican-caused "uncertainty" and "sabotage."  There is some evidence that a continued lack of clarity on the future of certain bailout-style reimbursement payments to insurers is contributing to some of the skittishness, but this terribly-written and promise-shattering law is sabotaging itself -- and has been for years.  The underlying problems of Obamacare's unsustainable risk pools and adverse selection dilemma have nothing to do with Republicans.  They're inherent, destabilizing flaws in the law itself, which was written and imposed entirely by Democrats.  Premium hikes and access shock have been enduring flaws, long predating Donald Trump's presidency.  The fundamental issue, as Nebraska's Governor correctly notes, is the unworkable structure of Democrats' disintegrating scheme:
Medica Health hasn’t decided whether to offer plans next year that meet the Affordable Care Act’s standards. If Medica joins the ranks of health insurance companies leaving the individual marketplace because they have been losing millions of dollars, Nebraskans seeking individual policies may not be able to find health plans at any price...Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts said Blue Cross’s decision “demonstrates the failure of Obamacare and how the system was so poorly designed that great companies like Blue Cross Blue Shield can’t stay in the marketplace. It highlights that Congress needs to act to make the health care system sustainable.” An additional 86,000 people in Nebraska have ACA plans this year, about 50,000 of those from Aetna Health, which decided last month it wouldn’t offer the plans in 2018 because of financial losses. That will leave only Medica, which covers about 36,000 people this year.
Recent public opinion surveys have shown that only 40 percent of voters support the House-passed American Health Care Act as written, with most wanting to see significant changes in the Senate. Major shifts in the law are virtually inevitably as the upper chamber does its work, which is currently being debated by a 13-member working group. According to a Senator involved in those negotiations, differences over 'essential health benefits' are being overshadowed over disagreements about the rate at which Medicaid outlays should increase in the future; moderate GOP Senators would like to see a more generous standard growth rate, while more conservative members prefer that benchmark be pegged at a lower clip.  Regardless of polling and policy details, the current system is falling apart, necessitating a replacement.  Even extremely liberal states are beginning to contemplate a post-Obamacare future, with California taking another step toward an economically ruinous (that's not hyperbole) single-payer system. The plan would more than double their entire state budget, which is already in bad shape, and sponsors have offered zero concrete plans for how to pay for it. But facts and empirical reality aren't meaningful obstacles to California Democrats:

Good luck with that, California taxpayers. And I'm looking at you, working- and middle-class families; not "the rich." I'll leave you with this since-deleted incitement of Obamacare, via Deputy DNC Chairman Keith Ellison in the wake of the awful Portland killings:

 Thank You Mr Benson and Townhall.

Saturday, June 3, 2017

So Now Who's Nutz? Ca. Senate Passes Bill Allowing 3rd Gender Option On IDs

By Annabel Scott | June 2, 2017 | 6:35 PM EDT  

( - California lawmakers voted to pass a bill Wednesday that will add a third gender option - non-binary - on state identification cards.

Senate Bill 179, introduced by Sen. Tori Atkins, will now move onto Assembly after the 26-12 Senate vote. If it passes Assembly, California Gov. Jerry Brown can sign the measure into law, making California the first state to add a third gender option on IDs.

In addition to changing the gender selection on driver’s licenses, the bill would also allow three options for birth certificates, identity cards and gender change court orders.

The bill, if signed into law, will allow minors to apply for a gender change on their birth certificates with parental or guardian consent.

Atkins applauded her fellow senators for passing the bill, saying their vote showed bravery.

“Most of us use our I.D. on a daily basis and take it for granted,” Atkins said in a statement. “SB 179 will make what should be a simple task much easier for our transgender and non-binary neighbors.”

The bill, although celebrated by many California lawmakers, has its fair share of opposition.

The California Family Council, a conservative religious group, has openly opposed the bill.

“If you allow someone who is physically male to list themselves on a government document as a female, or vice a versa, then the government will be legalizing a lie,” California Family Council spokesperson Greg Burt said during testimony to the California Senate Transportation and Housing Committee in April. “As state senators, I know you think you are powerful, but you do not have the authority to simply change the meaning of words just because you want to.”

Atkins also penned a bill similar to SB 179 that passed through the Senate on Wednesday.

Senate Bill 310, if signed into law after passing through assembly, guarantees prison inmates the right to ask the court for gender change or name change. In addition, the bill states that if a name or gender change is granted to an inmate, then correction officers must refer to a prisoner by their new alias.

Thank You Ms Scott and CNS.

Friday, June 2, 2017

Insanity In Norway

 Ordinarily we agree with FPM content, however (here comes the spoiler) for a site with 'Inside Every Progressive Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out" on the banner, . . . well, Bruce, . . . it's hard to think of a situation more deserving of the epithet, "Walk A Mile In Another Man's Shoes", . . . because your position, uniformed biases, and erroneous conclusions demonstrate perfectly the totalitarian attitude FPM's banner alludes to.

Take a bow Bruce, after being Taken In by the Prevailing Mental Health Industry Con.

In Norwegian psychiatric hospitals, the craziest thing isn't the patients.
June 1, 2017
Bruce Bawer


I am an American who has lived in Norway for almost twenty years. I love Norway. There is much that is wonderful about it. But there are some aspects of it, generally institutional, that, when viewed through the eyes of an outsider, can seem, at best, bizarre and comical and, at worst, menacing and malignant.

This, as it happens, was the thrust of Lilyhammer, a terrific, hilarious TV series (2012-14) about Frank Tagliano, a New York mobster (played by Steven van Zandt), who is relocated by the Witness Protection Program to Lillehammer, Norway. In the series, which I reviewed three years ago, both Frank and the viewer are introduced to a wide range of Norwegian customs and cultural practices – ranging from the absurdly expensive and extensive preparation required to acquire a Norwegian driver's license to dugnad, the tradition whereby people who rent apartments are expected to maintain the public spaces of the building in which they live (as well as its grounds).

Many of the practices Frank encounters come under the category of naive do-gooderism – such as the volunteer night patrols that are trained to respond to gangster criminality with “dialogue.” In one episode, the manager of a day-care center brainwashes small children with a puppet show about “Muriburiland,” an imaginary Communist utopia rich in solidarity and free of the evils of capitalism. As I wrote in my review, Frank “even spends a few days in a Norwegian prison, which he finds surprisingly cushy ('I should have been arrested a lot sooner!') and where he and other inmates – and guards – are taught to play the recorder by a hippie lady.”

One institution Frank doesn't experience is a Norwegian psychiatric ward – which is a shame, because Norway's approach to mental illness would have made for one of the series' more instructive episodes. In other countries, it's understood that if somebody's suffering from, say, bipolar disorder, he needs medication to keep from getting depressed (and potentially suicidal) as well as from becoming manic (which entails destructive conduct toward one's family, friends, and finances, and which can also lead to suicide). It's further understood in other countries that if a bipolar person goes off his meds and has a severe manic or depressive episode, he needs to be hospitalized, kept under lock and key, and medicated until he ceases to be a danger to himself and others.

In this as in so many other ways, however, Norway is special. Among psychologically healthy people, Norwegian law is very clear about who counts as an individual's next of kin: for example, a spouse trumps a parent, an adult offspring trumps a sibling. But psychotics who are committed to psych wards are permitted to name their own “next of kin” – which has vital repercussions, because the persons treating a patient are only obliged to share information about his treatment and the current state of his health with the designated next of kin, and are prohibited by privacy laws from sharing such information with anyone else. So it is that a psychotic patient may, for example, name as his next of kin his mailman, his garbageman, some celebrity he's never met, or the self-styled fortune teller in the hospital room next to his – thereby leaving his real next of kin entirely in the dark about how his treatment and condition.

Norway also has something called the “Control Commission” that wields immense power over the lives of mentally ill people and their loved ones. It is the commission, and only the commission, that can order a patient to be held against his will or to be released from commitment (calling “sectioning” in Britain). It also has the authority to determine the specific conditions of such patients' hospitalization. The commission tends to consist primarily of lawyers and doctors, with a sprinkling of persons in other professions. It is sort of a modern-day Star Chamber whose decisions can only be overruled by a court.

It is also a secretive body. But if you poke around enough online, you will get a good idea of what kind of mentality reigns among its members. Its 2016 conference, held last November, featured a presentation by one Jan Magne Sørensen, head of a group called Hvite Ørn (White Eagle), that is premised on the idea that mental illness isn't necessarily a bad thing. Instead of calling it mental illness, the group calls it “psychic imbalance” and believes that it “can be a reminder that changes of course in life are necessary.” Indeed, psychic imbalance “can be a springboard to personal growth and positive life development....psychosis can be a positive transformational process.” Sørensen (in a recent article) has also put it this way: “psychic imbalance” can provide a patient with “room to play out something of the madness and achieve acceptance of the fact that one is furious at a world that doesn't function so well.” Does a patient hear voices? No big deal, says Sørensen: he's “seeing and believing in original things.” Cool, huh? Above all, argues Sørensen, psychiatrists, psychologists, and nurses shouldn't act as if they “know better” than the patient – instead, they should show respect for the patient's “picture of reality.”

Another speaker at the 2016 conference, a professor named Lars Lien, agreed with most of Sørensen's dangerous drivel. In a Power Point presentation, he argued against forcing medication on patients, advocated for allowing patients to take part in determining how they should be medicated (or permitting them to refuse medication altogether), and encouraged replacing psychotropic drugs with treatments like cognitive therapy, dietary supplements or “natural preparations.” Under the words “Alternatives to Medication,” Lien presented several photographs, including one of a bare-chested guy playing guitar at the beach and another showing a group of people sitting around outside in a circle, apparently deep in meaningful conversation.

Make no mistake about it: to view mental illness in the way that Sørensen and Lien do is Muriburiland medicine. It's Allen Ginsberg-style old-hippie thinking – you're not crazy, the world is. It's the ultimate in relativism – a psychotic's view of the real world is no less valid than a sane person's. Such obscene folderol is an insult not only to people who are bipolar but also to the people who love them – and who have been robbed for months or years at a time, or forever, of their ailing loved ones, who have turned into absolute lunatics and have remained that way far longer than necessary owing to misguided “treatments” such as the ones these vile quacks propose. (Among Sørensen's alternatives for psychotropic medication: yoga and canoeing.)

Also speaking at the2016 conference was law professor Aslak Syle, who framed the commitment of psychiatric patients as a human-rights violation. Syle cited with admiration Norwegian laws that protect an individual's rights, even when that individual is a psychiatric patient. Syle served up plenty of pretty language about the need to respect “personal integrity,” about the individual's right to “freedom of movement,” and about the wickedness of “deprivation of liberty” – all of which sounds just peachy until your totally out-to-lunch patient walks in front of a truck. In a nice postmodern touch, Syle even equated the restriction of psychotic patient's activity by mental-health professionals with that most odious of phenomena, “paternalism.”

Syle also praised the “right to communication” enjoyed by patients in the Norwegian psychiatric-care system. As a result of this right, I have discovered, even a patient in the depth of psychosis is allowed to have unlimited, unmonitored Internet and telephone access – and is thus able to send deranged e-mails or Facebook messages to, say, his own boss or landlord, even if those messages end up losing him his job or apartment. When I asked one hospital psychiatrist if there was any way to prohibit or at least limit this access, she told me that some degree of limitation by the Control Commission is possible only in the most extraordinary of circumstance – specifically, if evidence is adduced proving that the patient has been issuing serious and repeated threats to someone on the outside or has been sending inappropriate materials to children.

When I asked whom such evidence might be sent to, the doctor provided me with an e-mail address at a particular hospital, but warned me that nobody in authority would be permitted under the law to examine any such evidence, because that would represent an invasion of a patient's privacy. My conversation with this doctor was in Norwegian, but after hearing this I was compelled to switch for a moment into English, because I do not know of any term in Norwegian that would cover what she had just told me: “Ser du ikke at det er en perfekt Catch-22?” I exclaimed. (“Don't you see that that's a perfect Catch-22?”) In the Kafkaesque manner that I have encountered over and over in my conversations with psychiatrists, psychologists, and psychiatric nurses about these issues, she merely tut-tutted and assured me that it was no such thing.

Then there is the money issue. In a current case with which I am personally familiar, the brother and spouse of a bipolar individual who had experienced a psychotic break managed to confiscate his credit cards and bank cards, along with several thousand dollars in cash that he had withdrawn from ATMs and was carrying around in his backpack. They then took him to a psychiatric hospital, where he was diagnosed and committed on the spot. The brother and spouse thought they had nipped in the bud the possibility that the patient would empty his own bank account, spend his money profligately, and thereby incur a massive debt, as he had done during a previous psychotic episode. But no. Although the patient was supposedly confined to a “closed ward,” he was nonetheless permitted to go to a bank, open a new bank account, and acquire a bank card, which he then used to buy thousands of dollars' worth useless junk online.

Anyone who has had real-world experience with bipolar patients knows that all of these aspects of “treatment” that I have described are pie-in-the-sky nonsense. A human being in the grip of psychosis is in no position to make sensible decisions about anything. We are talking about people who are convinced they have magical powers, who think they have discovered the secrets of life and death, who believe the CIA is spying on them. We are talking about people who, when in good psychiatric health, are kind and peaceable, but who, when mentally ill, are capable of hurling at their loved ones the most disgusting obscenities and accusations, emptying their families' bank accounts, and even committing acts of violence. (Needless to say, daily long-term exposure to a psychotic spouse can do profound psychiatric damage to a mentally healthy partner.) We are talking about people who, given even a measure of unmediated and unmonitored contact with the outside world, can do untold harm to themselves and others.

We are not talking here, in short, about mere “imbalance.” We are not talking about anything that is remotely positive or growth-inducing. We are talking about maladies that are as serious as cancer and that should be treated just as aggressively by intelligent professionals using the very best medical, psychiatric, and pharmacological approaches. But don't tell that to Norway's august Control Commission, which, like so many of the country's fatuously trendy official institutions, apparently prides itself on being a bastion of “progressive” thinking – thinking which, in this case, too often involves the championing of mental patients' “right” to decide to destroy their own lives while in the grip of utter madness. 

Thank You FPM, and see if you can get a ride on down to Clues Are Us. 

They have a branch office right here on our sidebar.

Just follow the links.

You're Fired, Paris Climate Accord

President Trump cleans up more of Obama’s mess.
June 2, 2017
Matthew Vadum

President Donald Trump fulfilled a key campaign promise yesterday when he announced the United States will pull out of the potentially economically disastrous Paris Climate Accord that President Obama imposed on the country in his final months in office.

In so doing, Trump is taking on all of this global warming poppycock that rests on the utterly ridiculous notion that carbon dioxide, the natural gas humans and other earthly life forms constantly produce and expel, the same gas that promotes plant growth, is a pollutant.

It is a truly insane idea that has no support in science but leftists are running with it because they hope to browbeat and intimidate Americans into accepting shrinking the economy by drastically reducing carbon emissions.

Obama signed a legal instrument related to the Paris Climate Accord on Aug. 20, 2016, titled “Acceptance on behalf of the United States of America." The relevant part of the document provides that Obama does "hereby accept the said Agreement and every article and clause thereof on behalf of the United States of America."

Some on the Left are now arguing that process somehow prevents Trump from taking the country out of the agreement unilaterally, even though Obama (unconstitutionally) purported to bring the country into the agreement unilaterally.

In the White House’s Rose Garden, Trump called the treaty “the latest example of Washington entering into an agreement that disadvantages the United States to the exclusive benefit of other countries.” The agreement leaves American workers and taxpayers “to absorb the cost in terms of lost jobs, lower wages, shuttered factories, and vastly diminished economic production.”

He continued:

Thus, as of today, the United States will cease all implementation of the non-binding Paris Accord and the draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country. This includes ending the implementation of the nationally determined contribution and, very importantly, the Green Climate Fund which is costing the United States a vast fortune.

Compliance with the PCA could cost the country as many as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025, he said, citing a study by National Economic Research Associates. By 2040, he added, compliance could cause the country to miss out on $3 trillion in gross domestic product, wipe out 6.5 million industrial jobs, and reduce household incomes by $7,000 or more.

The pact leaves America at a disadvantage by “effectively putting” the country’s vast energy reserves, including coal, “under lock and key,” while allowing other countries to further develop their coal resources.

“In short, the agreement doesn’t eliminate coal jobs, it just transfers those jobs out of America and the United States, and ships them to foreign countries,” he said. The PCA is “a massive redistribution of United States wealth to other countries.”

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt hailed Trump’s action as “an historic restoration of American economic independence -- one that will benefit the working class, the working poor, and working people of all stripes.” Trump has “declared that the people are rulers of this country once again,” he said in a shot at the overreaching Obama administration.

Trump has “corrected a view that was paramount in Paris that somehow the United States should penalize its own economy, be apologetic, lead with our chin, while the rest of world does little. Other nations talk a good game; we lead with action -- not words.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) praised Trump "for dealing yet another significant blow to the Obama administration's assault on domestic energy production and jobs."

Ken Cuccinelli, president of Senate Conservatives Action, said Trump’s decision “sends a clear message that the environmental extremists around the globe will not dictate our economic policies.”

The Left exploded in anger at Trump for goring one of its most sacred cows, unleashing the kind of over-the-top rhetoric we’ve grown accustomed to throughout the Obama years.

Obama himself trashed Trump, and urged defiance. “Even in the absence of American leadership; even as this Administration joins a small handful of nations that reject the future, I’m confident that our states, cities, and businesses will step up and do even more to lead the way, and help protect for future generations the one planet we’ve got."

Democratic office-holders promptly answered Obama’s call to action, the Daily Caller reports. New York Mayor Bill DeBlasio and Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto promised to pursue the goals of the PCA on their own, the key objective of which is to prevent future global temperatures from rising 2 degrees Celsius.

Democratic governors announced the formation of something called the United States Climate Alliance. Govs. Jerry Brown (California), Andrew Cuomo (New York), and Jay Inslee (Washington) vowed to achieve the PCA’s goals.

San Francisco billionaire, heavy-duty Democratic donor, and George Soros ally Tom Steyer blasted out an email petition, asking recipients to “urge your governor to fulfill the commitment your state has already made to meet our Paris targets: Go to 100% renewable energy.”

“It’s now up to states, cities, and local communities to pick up the mantle of leadership and take the actions necessary to protect our children and leave them a better world,” Steyer wrote. Separately, he tweeted, “Generations of Americans will suffer the destructive effects of Trump’s greedy, selfish, and immoral decision.”

Predictably, socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said Trump’s decision was “an abdication of American leadership and an international disgrace.”

Former Vice President Al Gore, probably the wealthiest climate change con artist in the world, said the decision was “a reckless and indefensible action.”

The ACLU criticized Trump’s move, calling it "a massive step back for racial justice, and an assault on communities of color across the U.S.," whatever that means.

Filmmaking leftist nut Michael Moore tweeted, "Trump just committed a crime against humanity. This admitted predator has now expanded his predatory acts to the entire planet. #ParisAccord[.]”

Some left-wingers insist that the Trump administration cannot easily extricate the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accord. They’re whistling past the graveyard.

The Secretariat of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) claims the treaty took effect last fall after a sufficient number of countries collectively meeting the greenhouse gas-emission threshold ratified it.

The Paris Agreement entered into force on 4 November 2016, thirty days after the date on which at least 55 Parties to the Convention accounting in total for at least an estimated 55% of the total global greenhouse gas emissions have deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession with the Depositary.

Whether the PCA is now in effect as a lawful international treaty is one thing; whether the U.S. is part of it is a separate question.

The UN recognizes President Obama’s unilateral actions as constituting a valid U.S. ratification of the treaty. The UN is plainly wrong. Obama’s claim last year to be able to bind the U.S. on his own authority was an unconstitutional power grab.

According to the U.S. Constitution, the treaty cannot come into force in the U.S. without ratification by an affirmative vote of a constitutionally-stipulated supermajority of U.S. senators. Obama failed to submit the treaty to the Senate because he knew that it would never ratify an economic suicide pact that would deindustrialize America.

Obama’s efforts demonstrated “contempt for the U.S. treaty process and the role of Congress, particularly the Senate,” according to Steven Groves of the Heritage Foundation. “It is an attempt to achieve through executive fiat that which cannot be achieved through the democratic process.”

In “Lessons from Kyoto,” a study released by the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on April 21, 2016, the authors wrote that a head of state’s signature on a UN climate treaty does not in and of itself impose the obligations of the treaty on that country.

Just because a country signs a UNFCCC agreement does not mean the agreement has any legal effect in the country. The Clinton Administration signed the Kyoto Protocol in November 1998, more than six months after the agreement opened for signature. President Clinton never submitted it to U.S. Senate for ratification. In March 2001, President George W. Bush rejected Kyoto and the U.S. never became a party.

The serially dishonest leftist Greg Sargent moans and whines at the Washington Post about how difficult, time-consuming, disruptive, and complex pulling out of the PCA is. As the Daily Caller reported in 2012, Sargent is a stenographer for the George Soros-funded Media Matters for America, according to a source there. “Greg Sargent will write anything you give him. He was the go-to guy to leak stuff.”

About the climate pact, Sargent goes on at length, claiming “[t]here will likely be a window of several years before our withdrawal takes effect — and paradoxically, some of the consequences of our pending exit from this 195-country accord could begin to take hold in the interim.”

Along similar lines, Michael D. Shear of the New York Times asserts without offering proof that Trump "will stick to the withdrawal process laid out in the Paris agreement, which President Barack Obama joined and most of the world has already ratified. That could take nearly four years to complete, meaning a final decision would be up to the American voters in the next presidential election."

Sargent and Shear are being deceitful, arguing that because Obama supposedly ratified the PCA, that somehow constitutes a near-insurmountable obstacle preventing Trump from yanking the country out of the agreement.

This, of course, is complete nonsense.

"Trump is not quitting the Paris accord,” writes Eugene Kontorovich, a professor at Northwestern University School of Law. “The United States was never in it in the first place."

According to Kontorovich, an expert in constitutional and international law, what Trump should have said at his press availability was that “the United States never properly joined the accord: It is a treaty that requires the advice and consent of the Senate. Instead, President Barack Obama choose to ‘adopt’ it with an executive order last September.”

In other words, the president is merely declaring that, notwithstanding the actions of his kinglike predecessor, the United States no longer considers itself bound by this international pact that Obama unconstitutionally foisted on the country in the absence of proper ratification by the U.S. Senate.

But Sargent tries to dazzle and distract his readers by waving all sorts of officialdom in their faces.

As CNN reports this morning, the deal stipulates that countries can’t withdraw until three years after the deal took hold, plus a one-year notice period, which means even if Trump pulls us out, that won’t take effect until late in 2020. It’s possible that Trump could pull us out in only one year, by withdrawing the United State from the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, an international treaty to combat global warming that provides the Paris deal’s underpinnings. But that would be a truly drastic step — it was signed by former Republican president George H.W. Bush and overwhelmingly ratified by both parties in the Senate. So it’s likely several years will pass before our exit is formal.

Again, the U.S. cannot withdraw from something to which it is not a party. This remains true despite non-lawyer Trump’s infelicitous use of the verb “withdraw” during the presser yesterday.

Sargent warns that “if the blowback is severe enough, Trump could come under great pressure to reverse his decision.” Of course, there will be no serious blowback, at least none in the United States. Americans don’t care about the phony global warming issue. Only left-wingers and corrupt crony capitalists care.

With President Trump’s courageous decision to extend his middle finger to the cultish global warming crowd, he has placed the country back on track for impressive economic growth.

Unless, of course, lawmakers from his own party undermine him. 

Thank You President Trump, Mr Vadum, and FPM.