polecat news and views

Monday, June 3, 2019

The Stunning Statistical Fraud Behind The Global Warming Scare

3/29/2018

Global Warming: The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration may have a boring name, but it has a very important job: It measures U.S. temperatures. Unfortunately, it seems to be a captive of the global warming religion. Its data are fraudulent.

02:26

What do we mean by fraudulent? How about this: NOAA has made repeated "adjustments" to its data, for the presumed scientific reason of making the data sets more accurate.

Nothing wrong with that. Except, all their changes point to one thing — lowering previously measured temperatures to show cooler weather in the past, and raising more recent temperatures to show warming in the recent present.

This creates a data illusion of ever-rising temperatures to match the increase in CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere since the mid-1800s, which global warming advocates say is a cause-and-effect relationship. The more CO2, the more warming.

But the actual measured temperature record shows something different: There have been hot years and hot decades since the turn of the last century, and colder years and colder decades. But the overall measured temperature shows no clear trend over the last century, at least not one that suggests runaway warming.

That is, until the NOAA's statisticians "adjust" the data. Using complex statistical models, they change the data to reflect not reality, but their underlying theories of global warming. That's clear from a simple fact of statistics: Data generate random errors, which cancel out over time. So by averaging data, the errors mostly disappear.

That's not what NOAA does.

According to the NOAA, the errors aren't random. They're systematic. As we noted, all of their temperature adjustments lean cooler in the distant past, and warmer in the more recent past. But they're very fuzzy about why this should be.

Far from legitimately "adjusting" anything, it appears they are cooking the data to show a politically correct trend toward global warming. Not by coincidence, that has been part and parcel of the government's underlying policies for the better part of two decades.

What NOAA does aren't niggling little changes, either.

As Tony Heller at the Real Climate Science web site notes, "Pre-2000 temperatures are progressively cooled, and post-2000 temperatures are warmed. This year has been a particularly spectacular episode of data tampering by NOAA, as they introduce nearly 2.5 degrees of fake warming since 1895."

So the global warming scare is basically a hoax.

This winter, for instance, as measured by temperature in city after city and by snow-storm severity, has been one of the coldest on record in the Northeast.

But after the NOAA's wizards finished with the data, it was merely about average.

Climate analyst Paul Homewood notes for instance that in New York state, measured temperatures this year were 2.7 degrees or more colder than in 1943. Not to NOAA. Its data show temperatures this year as 0.9 degrees cooler than the actual data in 1943.

Erasing Winter

By the way, a similar result occurred after the brutally cold 2013-2014 winter in New York. It was simply adjusted away. Do this year after year, and with the goal of radically altering the temperature record to fit the global warming narrative, and you have what amounts to climate fraud.

"Clearly NOAA's highly homogenized and adjusted version of the Central Lakes temperature record bears no resemblance at all the the actual station data," writes Homewood. "And if this one division is so badly in error, what confidence can there be that the rest of the U.S. is any better?"

That's the big question. And for those who think that government officials don't have political, cultural or other agendas, that's naivete of the highest sort. They do.

Since the official government mantra for all of the bureaucracies at least since the Clinton era is that CO2 production is an evil that inevitably leads to runaway global warming, those who toil in the bureaucracies' statistical sweat shops know that their careers and future funding depend on having the politically correct answers — not the scientifically correct ones.

"The key point here is that while NOAA frequently makes these adjustments to the raw data, it has never offered a convincing explanation as to why they are necessary," wrote James Delingpole recently in Breitbart's Big Government. "Nor yet, how exactly their adjusted data provides a more accurate version of the truth than the original data."

There are at least some signs of progress, however. In the case of the Environmental Protection Agency, future reports and studies will include the data and the underlying scientific assumptions for public scrutiny.

That's one way to bring greater honesty to government — and to keep climate charlatans from bankrupting our nation with spurious demands for carbon taxes and deindustrialization of our economy to prevent global warming. The only real result won't be a cooler planet, but rather mass poverty and lower standards of living for all.

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-stunning-statistical-fraud-behind-the-global-warming-scare/?sfns=xmwa

Sanders: Of Course We’re Going To Increase Your Taxes

JAZZ SHAWPosted

You might be able to start thinking of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders as the anti-George H.W. Bush. In his eventually unsuccessful 1992 reelection bid, the elder Bush was taken to task for his earlier campaign promise where he famously said, “Read my lips. No new taxes.” Sanders, by contrast, has the opposite message for you. “Read my lips. Plenty of new taxes.”

Hey, if nothing else you have to give the guy some points for honesty, right? (Free Beacon)

During a town hall on Tuesday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) told the audience his healthcare plan, which would create a single payer, government-run system, would require tax increases for Americans.

Sanders was asked about how he would pay for his Medicare for All plan, which the Mercatus Center found would cost the federal government $32.6 trillion during the first ten years of its implementation…

One area Sanders suggested he would look to raise taxes on is an increase in payroll taxes paid by employers. Most employers are already required to pay taxes on an employee’s earnings including those for social security and Medicare.

He additionally added he would fund his government-run healthcare program by “an increase in income taxes in a progressive way for ordinary people.”

Bernie is, of course, still talking about his Medicare for All plan. That boondoggle is estimated to cost $32.6 trillion over the first ten years while basically wiping out the health insurance industry in the process. So Sanders is talking about double-digit increases in payroll/income taxes. And that’s only going to pay for one of his proposals.

In the post-American socialist paradise that Bernie Sanders envisions, there will be many, many other programs to be funded. Where will we come up with the money? Sanders isn’t saying, suggesting that he’s not going to tell you how he plans to “raise every nickel in a $3.5 trillion budget” because it would just “engender enormous debate.”

Not for nothing, Senator, but isn’t a presidential primary sort of defined as a series of enormous debates? You’re talking about gargantuan proposals to address huge challenges facing the country. If handled poorly, the economy that’s finally fought its way back onto its feet would be sent crashing back into another recession. With all that in mind, do you really think the country should just accept an answer of, “trust me and we’ll figure out the details later?”

If Sanders is given his way with a compliant Democratic majority in both legislative chambers, he’ll be well on his way to vacuuming as much money as possible out of the private sector. Some of that wealth will be “redistributed” while the rest will go toward constructing a massive federal government that will ensure equality by telling you how to run each and every detail of your life. As I noted above, I suppose we should give him some credit for being mostly honest about it. But we should also take him at his word and make sure he never gets within smelling distance of the White House unless it’s on a guided public tour.

https://hotair.com/archives/2019/05/29/sanders-course-going-increase-taxes/

Sunday, June 2, 2019

CNN Anchor Mocks Rape Survivor For 2nd Amendment Views

By Madeline Osburn

CNN Anchor Chris Cuomo thought he had a real sick burn on Wednesday when he mocked rape survivor Kimberly Corban on Twitter for saying she protects herself and her family with a firearm.

“Only in America,” Cuomo tweeted in response to a National Rifle Association video of Corban sharing about the night she was suffocated and raped in her dorm room at age 20.

In 2016, Corban confronted President Obama during a CNN “Guns in America” town hall, saying protecting her family is a basic responsibility for a parent.

“I have been unspeakably victimized once already, and I refuse to let that happen again to myself or my kids. So why can’t your administration see that these restrictions that you’re putting to make it harder for me to own a gun, or harder for me to take that where I need to be is actually just making my kids and I less safe?” she asked.

It’s doubtful that Cuomo was sincerely remarking on the fact that only in the United States does a woman have a right to defend herself with firearms. In Cuomo’s world, it’s a shame that the United States does not have the strict gun control laws other countries do, preventing citizens from arming themselves against rapists and violent attacks.

The last time CNN injected itself into the gun debate, it did not age well. Days after the horrific school shooting in Parkland, Florida, CNN hosted a town hall whitewashing the Broward County sheriff’s failings in the lead-up and aftermath of that tragedy, and turning a wild crowd against NRA Spokeswoman Dana Loesch.

Cuomo and CNN should probably stay out of covering or commenting on the Second Amendment rights that protect millions of Americans.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/05/29/cnn-anchor-mocks-rape-survivor-2nd-amendment-views/

Biden Pledges To Defeat National Rifle Association

by Tom Knighton

AP Photo/Matt Slocum

Former Vice President Joe Biden is the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for president. That’s not surprising since he’s a former vice president and was part of the Obama administration, which Democrats seem to view as a positive for some insane reason. However, if he wanted to keep that status, he’s going to have to beat the anti-gun war drum.

Luckily for him, he was ready to do just that.

Former Vice President Joe Biden pledged on Tuesday to “defeat the National Rifle Association” as part of his 2020 campaign promise to fight for school safety.

“As President, he will secure passage of gun legislation to make our students safer, and he knows he can do it because he’s defeated the National Rifle Association twice before,” Biden’s plan, released on Tuesday, read.

It stated part of the plan to “defeat” the NRA included supporting legislation that banned “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines.

His plan came after a slew of school shootings that prompted Democrats to call for gun control laws. Biden’s planned seemed more moderate than other 2020 candidates’ — specifically Sens. Cory Booker, D-N.J., and Kamala Harris, D-Calif., — in that he focused on working through Congress rather than substantially expanding executive authority in the ways others proposed doing.

Of course, Biden didn’t mention that we had an “assault weapon” ban for a decade and it accomplished jack squat.

He should know. He was part of the Congress that passed it. He was also there when the measure sunset and discussions were had about possibly renewing the law. It was pointed out then that the law didn’t do anything.

At the time, anti-gunners pointed to a decrease in the crime rate and tried to claim credit for it. The problem was, the crime rate had been dropping for years beforethe “assault weapon” ban and continued at the same rate after the ban went into effect. Further, that crime rate continued to drop after the ban sunset.

In other words, it didn’t do a damn thing.

Now, either Biden knows this, in which case he’s pandering, or he doesn’t, which means he’s an idiot. Of course, pandering doesn’t preclude stupidity.

If there’s at least one good thing about Biden’s proposals, it’s that he’s acknowledging the limits of executive power. If we’re going to get saddled with federal gun control laws, they have to come through Congress. That’s how the Constitution lays out the legislative process. Congress passes laws, the president signs and enforces those laws. Presidents don’t get to make them up on their own.

Further, as noted in the quote above, Biden’s proposal is less bombastic, more moderate. That’s likely to play better with moderate members of the Democratic Party, voters who are feeling more and more alienated by the liberal extremism that’s taking hold of it. These are voters who don’t like “assault weapons” typically but also aren’t interested in radically changing the firearm landscape.

Not that what Biden is proposing is any better. Gun control is gun control, and we don’t need any of it.

It should be interesting to see what role gun control plays in the primary process. We’ll learn an awful lot about the hearts and minds of Democrats in the process.

https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2019/05/29/biden-pledges-defeat-national-rifle-association/

'A Hard Rain's Gonna Fall' on Obama's Bad Cops and Spies

COMMENTARY

By Charles Lipson -

The skies are growing dark and increasingly ominous for dirty officials at the top of Obama-era law enforcement and intelligence agencies. Leading the “I’m really worried” list are James Comey, John Brennan, James Clapper, Loretta Lynch, and their senior aides, all political appointees. They expected Hillary Clinton to win in 2016 and bury any traces of malfeasance, just as they had buried hers. It didn’t work out that way.

Now they need protection themselves. House Democrats and anonymous leakers are busy providing it. Many are delicately called “current and former senior officials” by the New York Times, Washington Post, and other legacy media. Gee, I wonder who they are?

These defenders of the old guard are sliming Attorney General Bill Barr, who heads the investigation into their actions. They have good reasons, if not clean hands, for their attack. First, they want to keep as much secret as they can. Exposure can only harm them. Their main argument is that any disclosures will damage U.S. national security. Second, they want to paint the disclosures and forthcoming indictments as President Trump’s revenge, the illegitimate use of powerful agencies that should be nonpartisan. That, of course, is precisely what they are accused of doing.

Barr won’t be deterred. He did not return for a second stint as AG to pad his résumé or protect Donald Trump. He returned to clean out the Augean Stables. He needs to muck out the mess left by his predecessors and find the horses that left it.

Barr is determined to do that. He intends to find out how and why the Department of Justice embarked on an all-consuming, two-year project to investigate Trump’s alleged cooperation with Putin’s Russia to win the presidency. The investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller found no such cooperation (going well beyond saying he simply could not indict). Now, Barr wants to understand the origins of the probe and whether the tools used to launch it were lies or distortions — and were known to be so by DoJ, FBI, and CIA officials. Barr wants to know if U.S. intelligence agencies were used to spy illegally on Americans, or if they outsourced that to friendly foreign services and then recovered the information from them. He wants to know if the investigations really began in July 2016, as the FBI testified, or earlier, and what evidence was used to begin them.

None dare call it spying. At least no Democrats or Obama officials will. But that’s exactly what it was. As that master of the English language, Winston Churchill, put it, “Short words are best and old words when short are best of all.” That’s far too clear for bureaucratic obfuscators, presidential contenders, and their media allies. They prefer long, Latinate terms like “surveillance” and “surreptitious investigation.” Barr is effectively telling them to “pound sand.”

Over the next few months, the public will finally see what kind of malfeasance there was. At least they will see some of it. Some will remain classified to protect sources and methods; some will be released only after criminal charges are filed. The initial evidence will come from two sources: a major report by DoJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz, and the steady declassification of underlying documents by AG Barr, who was given that task by the president. Barr needed that authority because the FBI and intelligence community are resisting disclosure with all their institutional power. They fear years of abuse will be exposed.

Horowitz, a highly regarded career prosecutor, initially appointed by President Obama, will issue a public report and is virtually certain to make criminal referrals. The referrals will then be handled by John Durham, a skilled, apolitical U.S. attorney, who has successfully prosecuted major corruption cases for AGs in both parties. Apparently, he has already convened a grand jury. Another federal prosecutor, John Huber, has been working on related problems. Durham will coordinate, supervised by Barr.

These joint efforts will show whether there were good legal reasons to spy on Americans, whether the secret intelligence courts were given complete and honest information before they issued search warrants, whether top officials leaked secret information to the media, and whether U.S. intelligence agencies (which cannot legally spy on Americans) evaded that restriction. They may also show if outside contractors illegally tapped into classified databases and spied on American citizens, including political opponents.

These are very serious charges, and, if proven, serious crimes. What makes them worse — far worse — is that they may well be connected to each other. If they are, they would represent a high-level conspiracy by government officials, appointed by one party and directed at political opponents during and after an election.

This assault on democracy has not been proven, but the evidence emerging in dribs and drabs strongly suggests the possibility. If it is proven, and if the Obama White House was directly involved, as some FBI texts plainly say, the scandal would be one of the biggest in American history.

How big? Big enough that major news organizations, which always favor transparency (“Democracy Dies in Darkness”), are now deeply troubled by the release of any secret documents. They know the stakes are too high and transparency too dangerous for their side, politically.

Right now, we don’t know how big the scandal is, how extensive the coordination was, and how far up it went. But we certainly need to know, just as we needed to know if Donald Trump won the presidency by cooperating with a hostile foreign power. He did not, according to the Mueller report. Now, we need to know if the U.S. government itself worked secretly and illegally to prevent his election and, when that failed, to damage his new presidency. That conspiracy would be equally serious, and for the same reasons. It needs to be rooted out, exposed, and punished.

The fundamental problem was identified by James Madison, who led the drafting of our constitution. “In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men,” he wrote in Federalist Paper 51, “the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself." Under Comey, Lynch, Brennan, and Clapper, under Obama and Biden, it failed to control itself.

Over the next few months, we will learn the extent of that failure. We will see if top officials misused their agencies to investigate and crush their political opponents. Constitutional democracies cannot permit that. They cannot wave it off as yesterday’s news and expect to survive unscathed. If undetected and unpunished, it will happen again to another party, another candidate.

As the evidence comes out, a hard rain’s gonna fall. The damage will be compounded by partisan divisions, corroding trust in our basic institutions, and an impending election. For democracy’s sake, let’s hope the bitter winds are not a Cat-5 storm.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2019/05/28/a_hard_rains_gonna_fall_on_obamas_bad_cops_and_spies_140429.html

Saturday, June 1, 2019

We Don't Have a Problem with White Supremacy. We Have a Problem with Leftist Supremacy

BY SARAH HOYT

(Image by Dimitris Vetsikas via Pixabay)

The left is obsessed with white supremacists the way that children are obsessed with Santa Claus, and for more or less the same reasons.

You see, if they manage to convince people that the alternative to their own crazy, race-obsessed, power-centralizing, socialist policies is white supremacy, then they get everything they ever wanted, plus a pony.

In an America as mixed as we are, the idea that white supremacists are the only ones who will do well is scary to most people. Beyond that, it is the most antithetical thing to American beliefs you can imagine. The nation that banned nobility of birth, and which fought a war to free slaves would never codify a regime where your genetics at birth determines what kind of happiness you can even think of pursuing. In America, equality under the law has always been the goal, even when honored in the breach.

Fortunately, we don't have any need to worry about real white supremacy. Just like you don't have to worry that Santa Claus is watching you, or has put a spy bug in your bedroom.

This is the problem the left has. And their response to it is to launch a brainwashing/gaslighting campaign to find white supremacy where there is none.

Also, unfortunately, as with all these things the left engages in, it causes more harm than... well, than even I can imagine, and I write some pretty dystopian stuff.

So, just like their attempt to define "patriarchy" has led them to make it impossible for business women to have closed-door meetings with male bosses or mentors, their definition of white supremacy is making it impossible for any minorities or, for that matter, under-privileged white people to improve themselves or create a better future for their descendants.

For instance, according to the New York Post, this is what passes for fighting white supremacy in NYC schools: Richard Carranza held ‘white-supremacy culture’ training for school admins.

This presentation included the following slide:

We'll pass over the point that defensiveness is supposed to be a matter of white supremacy, okay? Apparently, when you're being accused of horrible stuff, you're not supposed to be defensive. Yeah. That's interesting.

Instead, let's consider that individualism is now supposed to be white supremacy, and if you like working on your own, or dislike group work (remember group work from school? Almost anyone competent hated it) you're supposedly a white supremacist.

Let's consider instead stuff like perfectionism -- you know, trying to make things as perfect as possible and calling out people on their f*ck ups. Or a sense of urgency -- or as we call it around here, having your work done on time. Or what they call "worship of the written word," which apparently is the ability to express yourself in writing. Or objectivity, which they define as BELIEVING THERE'S AN ULTIMATE TRUTH.

Supposedly all of these things -- things that are absolutely required for any kind of workplace to get any kind of, you know, work done -- are toxic whiteness and signs of white supremacy.

So, the left, in teaching people to avoid white supremacy, assumes that minorities cannot express themselves in writing, can't get things done on time, and won't try to make the work as good as possible.

In other words, the left are in fact the white supremacists who believe any virtue that contributes to civilization must be white. The fact that they then want to suppress it -- in everyone but themselves -- is probably part of their plan to concentrate power.

Also, it's the reason why every institution taken over by leftists falls apart and dies.

And they have not the slightest bit of care for the people -- minorities and non-minorities -- this nonsense hurts. Because in their minds, the more other people are hampered, the more power they get in their grubby little hands.

We don't have a problem with white supremacy. We have a problem with Leftist Supremacy.

https://pjmedia.com/trending/meet-the-real-white-supremacists/

ASIANS AS BENEFICIARIES OF WHITE PRIVILEGE

BY JOHN HINDERAKER IN EDUCATION, NEW YORK CITY, RACE

The success of Asian-Americans is a severe embarrassment to the race industry. Race hustlers focus on “gaps” between whites and blacks with regard to income and educational attainment, which they attribute to “systemic” racism. But what about the gaps between Asian-Americans and whites? Asians, on average, earn considerably more than whites and as a group they do better in school. Is their superior performance due to “systemic” racism directed against whites?

Presumably not. But then, what becomes of the assumption that “gaps” between ethnic groups must necessarily be the result of racism? There is no answer to this question, which is why race hustlers generally ignore Asians.

We wrote here about the anti-“white supremacy” initiative in New York City’s public schools. Today the New York Post has more:

A city DOE-sponsored panel designed to combat racism told parents that Asian-American students “benefit from white supremacy” and “proximity to white privilege,” an outraged mom told The Post.

The comments drew backlash from some parents and Asian activists, but not the Department of Education, which neither denied nor denounced them.

The panel was conducted by the Center for Racial Justice in Education, a group of race consultants that is being paid $400,000 by New York’s taxpayers. Like all such groups, they see race in black and white terms.

Two CRJE presenters at the February meeting — which included about 30 District 3 parents from the Upper West Side and Harlem in Manhattan — outlined a racial-advantage hierarchy, with African-Americans at the bottom and whites at the top, according to attendee Ingrid Flinn.

Flinn, who has an adopted Asian child, noted that Asians were never mentioned in the presentation and said that she felt compelled to ask about their status.

The presenters told the room that Asians were on the upper rungs, enough in “proximity to white privilege” to “benefit from white supremacy,” Flinn recalled.

This answer is idiotic. What does it mean to be in “proximity to white privilege”? Presumably nothing, other than that statistics relating to Asian-American achievement are embarrassing to race hustlers. And if Asians “benefit from white supremacy,” it must be a weird sort of white supremacy that actually has nothing to do with race. (Which is true, as noted here.)

Sadly, the Asian parents quoted by the Post were mostly upset about being deprived of always-profitable victim status. The Post reached out to the consultants who put on the program; they responded with boilerplate that didn’t deny the comments attributed to them about Asians. For now, they and other similar groups are still getting paid to poison one educational system after another. But time is against them: America’s increasing ethnic diversity will ultimately doom the race hustlers who rely on a black and white world.

https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/05/asians-as-beneficiaries-of-white-privilege.php

Byron York: As Barr mulls declassification, a familiar tune from critics

Byron York: As Barr mulls declassification, a familiar tune from critics
by Byron York

In February 2018, the House Intelligence Committee released the so-called Nunes memo. In four pages, the document, from the committee's then-chairman Rep. Devin Nunes, revealed much of what the public knows today about the FBI's reliance on the Steele dossier in pursuing since-discredited allegations that the Trump campaign and Russia conspired to fix the 2016 election. Specifically, it revealed that the FBI included unverified material from the dossier in applications to a secret spy court to win a warrant to wiretap Trump foreign policy volunteer adviser Carter Page.

All that was classified. To release it, the committee appealed to President Trump, who made a declassification order. That is the only way Americans know about the Page warrant. From that knowledge came later revelations about the FBI's use of confidential informants and undercover agents to get information on Trump campaign figures.

It is good that the public knows such things, just as it is good that the public knows what is in the Mueller report. But in the days before the Nunes memo was declassified, many of the nation's top current and former intelligence officials, members of Congress, and analysts in the press warned that declassification would do grave damage to American national security.

It didn't happen.

Now, some of the same people are issuing somber warnings of the damage that will be done if Attorney General William Barr declassifies documents showing what else the nation's law enforcement and intelligence agencies did in the 2016 Trump investigation.

In 2018, former CIA Director John Brennan said of the Nunes memo: "I never witnessed the type of reckless partisan behavior I am now seeing." Recently, Brennan called the Barr declassification project "a reckless, reckless initiative."

In 2018, Rep. Adam Schiff, of the Intelligence Committee, said the Nunes memo "crosses a dangerous line." Recently, he said the Barr initiative marks "a new and dangerous phase."

In 2018, former Attorney General Eric Holder called the Nunes memo "unheard of" and "dangerous" and "irresponsible." Recently, he called the Barr initiative "the height of irresponsibility" and "a dangerous precedent."

Many others echoed Brennan's and Schiff's and Holder's sentiments. The problem is, they were wrong then, and they are likely wrong again now.

The revelation that the FBI used the Steele dossier — the collection of unconfirmed anti-Trump dirt compiled for the Hillary Clinton campaign by the former British spy Christopher Steele — set off a tremendous argument about the dossier's reliability. But there was no doubt that the Nunes memo was correct, that the FBI had indeed cited the dossier as evidence in its argument that Carter Page should be wiretapped. It's hard to avoid the conclusion that some of the loudest voices denouncing Nunes were angry about the exposure of the FBI's questionable actions and not the fact that the FBI's actions were indeed questionable.

Indeed, after the release of the Nunes memo, there was little discussion of any specific damage it had done to U.S. national security.

Now, there is another fight about declassification. Nunes himself has heard this all before. "Every time we have tried to get information on the Russia hoax, the Left as well as the media and their leakers claimed it would devastate national security," Nunes said in a text exchange. "Now we hear the same argument from the same reporters, leakers, and leftists, even though all their previous doomsday warnings proved false. These people simply use national security as a false justification to hide information that would reveal their abuses."

Nunes summed up with one more line: "Democracy dies in darkness."

The resistance to Barr's work is likely to be ferocious. Almost immediately after President Trump ordered intelligence agencies to cooperate with Barr and gave the attorney general "full and complete authority" to declassify information from the Trump-Russia investigation, the intelligence world struck back when the New York Times reported that Barr's project could endanger one of the CIA's most prized sources.

Attributing its story to "former officials," the Times said the source was someone "close to [Vladimir] Putin" who gave the CIA "information about [Putin's] involvement" in U.S. election interference, and specifically turned over evidence to support the conclusion that "Putin himself was behind the Russia hack." The source had been "long nurtured" by the CIA and was highly valued by Brennan when he was director. All of that work might be at risk from Barr's work, the Times suggested.

Now, if anything might endanger such a source, it would be exposure in the New York Times. But the story showed that the intelligence world will push back hard against this new effort to investigate its record. The fight could be messy. But Barr, like Devin Nunes, has heard such threats before. It's time to find out what the CIA, FBI, and other agencies did in those difficult days of the 2016 campaign.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/columnists/byron-york-as-barr-mulls-declassification-a-familiar-tune-from-critics