Mini bathroom makeovers for your weekend

Is your bathroom dull and lackluster? Has it become cluttered with ugly plastic bottles and tattered towels? It’s time to retake control and restore some calm and tranquility. Luckily, giving your bathroom a mini-makeover is easy — the time and cost are minimal but the effect can be long-lasting. These simple styling projects take anywhere from 30 minutes to an hour to complete, and even the most inexperienced DIYers can have a go at most of them. Roll up your sleeves and get started! Introduce standout accessories.Be bold and bring some unexpected home accessories into your bathroom. A woven rug, chunky knit pouf or even a coat rack will instill some character. Or why not go all out and add an armchair? Multiply your mirrors. Ho-hum mirrors can really let a bathroom down in the style department. Two or more mirrors instead of the traditional one create a contemporary feel, especially when their shapes are as pleasing to the eye as these. Give lotions and potions a luxe overhaul. Invest in some chic bathroom accessories such as a soap dispenser and stylish bottles for an elegant and well-groomed look. To create a boutique-hotel feel, cluster bottles on a wooden or metallic tray and add a fresh bloom or two. Keeping your cotton balls and swabs in lidded glass jars will enhance the five-star appeal. Pick an accent color. Adding color to a stark white bathroom will perk it up in a flash. The key is to start with a boldly patterned shower curtain or a set of eye-catching towels, then extend the theme by painting part of the bathroom in a complementary color. In this room, an unexpected touch of zesty lime is introduced above the mirror, making the room feel fresh and spacious. Even the soap matches!

Fun!!  To read more from Louise O’Bryan at houzz, click on the text above.   :-)

‘Climate Hustle’ storm brews as Weather Channel founder calls Bill Nye ‘pretend scientist’

Even before the skeptical documentary “Climate Hustle” hits U.S. theaters Monday, it already has unsettled the climate change debate. Weather Channel founder John Coleman rushed to the defense of the film, which challenges the catastrophic climate change narrative, after “science guy” Bill Nye slammed it in a clip released over the weekend as “not in our national interest and the world’s interest.” “I have always been amazed that anyone would pay attention to Bill Nye, a pretend scientist in a bow tie,” Mr. Coleman said Saturday on the website Climate Depot. “As a man who has studied the science of meteorology for over 60 years and received the [American Meteorological Society] Meteorologist of the Year award, I am totally offended that Nye gets the press and media attention he does,” Mr. Coleman said. “And I am rooting for the ‘Climate Hustle’ film to become a huge hit — bigger than ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ by Al Gore.” Indeed, the documentary by Climate Depot’s Marc Morano bills itself as a response to the former vice president’s Academy Award-winning 2006 documentary, which sparked international alarm with its warnings of imminent environmental disaster fueled by rising greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere. “Climate Hustle,” which has a one-day screening at theaters nationwide Monday, argues that the climate change catastrophe scenarios are part of an “overheated environmental con job” aimed at creating hysteria to drive public support for bigger government and ever-increasing regulation. The documentary’s full name is: “Climate Hustle: Are They Trying to Control the Climate … Or You?” Anthony Watts, who runs the skeptical climate website Watts Up With That, said the documentary is the first aimed at debunking the claims of the climate change movement. He called the film “corny” at times but also vastly more entertaining than ponderous climate documentaries such as Leonardo DiCaprio’s 2007 “The 11th Hour,” which bombed at the box office. “[T]hat’s the purpose of this film, to make people laugh at the ridiculous claims that have been created about global warming/climate change. Morano does this and does it well. That’s the power behind this film,” Mr. Watts said in his review. The film has won similar praise in reviews on conservative and free market outlets including National Review, Breitbart and The Daily Caller. Hollywood in Toto’s Christian Toto called “Climate Hustle” “brutally effective” and “the most dangerous documentary of the year.” Meanwhile, the climate change movement has blasted the film as propaganda. The liberal website DeSmog created another website, Climate Hustler, aimed at discrediting the film and Mr. Morano, a former Republican staffer for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. “Climate Hustle, Morano’s new ‘documentary film’ is pure propaganda. It is a snake oil salesman’s latest attempt to confuse the public about the urgent need for political action to address the global warming crisis driven by burning fossil fuels,” said the website. In an interview with Mr. Morano, Mr. Nye says in the documentary, “I think it will expose your point of view as very much in the minority and very much not in our national interest and the world’s interest.” Climate change advocacy groups routinely accuse skeptics of being funded by the fossil fuel industry — the Climate Hustler site shows dollar signs raining down from a factory smokestack — but several reviews of “Climate Hustle” point out that it’s clearly not a big-budget affair. DeSmog quotes filmmaker Randy Olson describing the “Climate Hustle” as “very amateurish,” while Mr. Watts says that’s part of its charm. “[D]espite the claims of millions of dollars from oil companies we are all supposed to be getting, its production values give away that it was made on a shoestring, and has none of the glitzy production values of these other films that bombed,” Mr. Watts said in his review. Mr. Morano tries to interview scientists who end up fleeing from the microphone. Other scientists say that expressing skepticism on global warming comes with a price. “The film’s most effective moments come when left-of-center experts describe how they abandoned their previous climate change positions,” Mr. Toto says in his review. “Doing so opened them up to scathing critiques from their colleagues.” Mr. Morano, whose Climate Depot website is a project of the free market Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, has a knack for drumming up publicity. He spurred a kerfuffle in December by staging the “world premiere” of the film at the Paris climate talks, prompting environmentalists to plaster “wanted” posters with his face throughout the city. “Climate Hustle” features a panel discussion after the film with Mr. Morano, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, Media Research Center President Brent Bozell and David R. Legates, professor of geography and climatology at the University of Delaware.

See Climate Hustle if you can!

One Year of Silence on Hillary Clinton Uranium Deal

For more than a year, the mainstream media has failed to ask Hillary Clinton some very basic questions about a series of extremely troubling deals. Why? Last Spring, my book Clinton Cash was released and it initially set off a media maelstrom. It began on April 19, 2015, with a leaked copy of the book going to the New York Times. The copy was not sent by me or my publisher. If the Clintons leaked the book with the hope of having it prematurely dismissed, that proved to be a mistake. The paper called the book “the most anticipated and feared book” of the political season. The Times went on to note that the book was hardly a hysterical attack on the Clintons, but rather, “mainly in the voice of a neutral journalist” who “meticulously documents his sources, including tax records and government documents.” Things got worse for the Clintons a few days later when two New York Times Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporters, Jo Becker and Mike McIntire, took two of the most explosive chapters in the book and did their own digging. What they found confirmed what I had reported. They ran a 3,000-word, front-page article in the paper confirming that: –Bill and Hillary Clinton had helped a Canadian financier named Frank Giustra and a small Canadian company obtain a lucrative uranium mining concession from the dictator in Kazakhstan; –The same Canadian company, renamed Uranium One, bought uranium concessions in the United States; –The Russian government came calling and sought to buy that Canadian company for a price that would mean big profits for the Canadian investors; –For the Russians to buy that Canadian company, it would require the approval of the Obama administration, including Hillary’s State Department, because uranium is a strategically important commodity; –Nine shareholders in Uranium One just happened to provide more than $145 million in donations to the Clinton Foundation in the run-up to State Department approval; –Some of the donations, including those from the Chairman of Uranium One, Ian Teler, were kept secret, even though the Clintons promised to disclose all donations; –Hillary’s State Department approved the deal; –The Russian government now owns 20 percent of U.S. uranium assets. In short, here was what you might call a radioactive scandal. It included secret donations, the Russian government, foreign financiers, more than $145 million, and Bill and Hillary Clinton. And this was just two chapters of the book. And yet, one year later, Hillary Clinton has never once been asked about this controversial uranium deal by the national media. It never came up during the many Democratic Party presidential debates; never during any of her media appearances on cable news or network television; never by print journalists who are covering her campaign. The single time she was asked about the uranium deal was by a local reporter in New Hampshire. In June 2015, she sat down with Josh McElveen of local television WMUR. Kudos to McElveen, who raised the uranium deal during the interview. Hillary’s response was evasive. She tried to obscure the facts. She argued that as Secretary of State she was unaware of the deal. She also claimed that the flow of money and the transfer of the uranium were not connected because the timing “doesn’t work.” She claimed that the money flowed from the Canadians to the Clinton Foundation before she was Secretary of State. This is flat out untrue. As I reported, and the New York Times confirmed, the chairman of Uranium One, Ian Telfer, was making donations to the Clinton Foundation at the time that the State Department was reviewing the sale to Russia. Those donations were kept secret by the Clinton Foundation. Remember: the Clintons had promised President Obama and the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee that they would disclose all donations. It is remarkable that in the year following the release of Clinton Cash and a 3,000-word article on the front page of the New York Times confirming these facts, that no one in the media (save Mr. McElveen) has been interested in asking Hillary Clinton about this troubling uranium deal.

And why is that, exactly?  The answer to that question would be fascinating.  Kudos to Peter Schweizer for reporting this.  If you want to learn more, get a copy of his book, “Clinton Cash.”  If you’re on the fence about Hillary, you need to read that book.  She unbelievably corrupt.

Heidi Cruz says ‘Ted is an immigrant’

At a campaign stop just days before the critical Indiana primary, Heidi Cruz, wife of Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz, said one of her husband’s strengths in the campaign is that he “is an immigrant.” “Ted is an immigrant,” Mrs. Cruz said, emphasizing the word “is.” “He is Hispanic.” Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada but who is an American citizen by birth, has come under withering fire from rival Donald Trump over his Canadian birth. Trump has questioned whether Cruz is constitutionally eligible to be president. (Most legal experts believe there is no question that Cruz is, but the matter has not been litigated.) And Trump has mocked Cruz, whose given name is Rafael Edward Cruz and whose mother is American and whose father is Cuban, over the circumstances of his birth. “Rafael! Straight outta the hills of Canada,” Trump said at a rally in Connecticut last week. “Was a Canadian citizen until 14, 15 months ago. And then he ran for the Senate. You know, you’re registered as a Canadian citizen. He says, ‘Oh, I’d never do that.’ He never knew he was a Canadian! I can’t believe that.” Asked later, a Cruz aide said Mrs. Cruz misspoke. “As she has in numerous speeches over and over, Heidi was referring to Ted as being the son of an immigrant,” said spokeswoman Catherine Frazier. “That is a story she shares repeatedly on the campaign trail. It is an integral part of his background and personal story, one which resonates with the millions of Americans who share a similar background, and that gives hope to those struggling to climb the economic ladder.” Mrs. Cruz has had to discuss the issue of her husband’s birth before. In January, she appeared on a radio program in Iowa in which she was asked whether she is “sleeping with an immigrant.” Mrs. Cruz laughed and said, “There was a funny post on the Internet that the Canadians said, ‘Don’t worry, he’s 100 percent American.’ So I think that can partly settle the question.” She went on to explain that she believes her husband is a natural-born citizen constitutionally eligible to be president.

DOH!!   Talk about putting your foot in your mouth!  lol  To hear audio of Heidi saying this, click on the text above  Wow..

Latino, black teen birth rates fall to all-time low – though still twice the rate of whites

Birth rates are falling dramatically for black and Hispanic teenagers, but they continue to be much higher than the birth rate for white teens. The Hispanic teen birth rate fell by half over about eight years, and the black teen birth rate dropped nearly that much. But even with those declines, the white teen birth rate is still only half as high, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported Thursday. “Despite this historic progress, profound disparities remain,” said Bill Albert, chief program officer for the National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy. The teen birth rate has been falling since 1991, which experts attribute to more teens using birth control and more waiting until they are older to have sex. But in the new report, the CDC focused on 2006 through 2014 — the most recent phase of the decline, when the fall was steepest. The agency saw declines in every state and in every racial and ethnic group. The recent drops in the black and Hispanic teen birth rates look more dramatic in part because they started at far higher rate, Albert said. The Hispanic rate fell 51 percent — from 77 to 38 births per 1,000 Hispanic girls ages 15 to 19. The black rate fell 44 percent — from 62 to 35 per 1,000. The white rate fell 35 percent, from 27 to 17 per 1,000. Teen births have been declining across the country, through the drop has been greater in some states than others. The teen birth rate fell nearly 50 percent in Arizona, Colorado and Connecticut, but only about 13 percent in North Dakota and 15 percent in West Virginia. Arkansas, Mississippi and New Mexico have the highest teen birth rates; each state sees more than 40 births to teen moms per every 1,000 girls ages 15 to 19. Massachusetts and New Hampshire have the lowest, at 11 per 1,000. About 4 million babies were born in the United States in 2014. Of those, about 250,000 were born to mothers ages 15 to 19.

Given all the sex education in schools today, and outreach from groups like Planned Parenthood and so on…  The only conclusion I get out of this is that white teens are still smarter about sex, and specifically the issue of teen pregnancy, than blacks and Hispanics.  It used to be an education, demographic, thing…and access to services, etc.  But, now it’s purely a cultural thing.  White teens are more averse to getting pregnant, while blacks and Hispanics don’t care as much.

Opinion: Good News in Global Warming

There were two big pieces of news out of NASA this week. NASA’s Hubble Space Telescope and scientists at the Southwest Research Institute discovered a new moon, orbiting a dwarf planet named Makemake (one of the many Pluto-esque bodies that live in the far reaches of the solar system). And NASA announced that the Earth is getting greener. Literally greener. Plant growth is way up. Why is plant growth way up? Because of all the extra carbon dioxide in the air. According to the study, which was published this week in the scientific journal Nature, the total area of the planet that’s covered by plants has increased by more than 11 million square miles in the last 33 years. For perspective: North America, including Greenland, is a little less than nine and a half million square miles. Of course, not all of this increase is due to CO2 and global warming. But 78 percent of it is. (Says the study.) This is very good news. Plants feed the world. It is not, however, unexpected news. Wall Street Journal readers may recall a piece published in May of 2013 called “In Defense of Carbon Dioxide,” by William Happer, one of Princeton’s top-flight physicists, and Harrison Schmitt, a geologist, a former Republican senator from New Mexico, and an Apollo astronaut who walked on the moon. “In Defense of Carbon Dioxide” criticized the “conventional wisdom” about CO2 and the “single-minded demonization of this natural and essential atmospheric gas.” “Contrary to what some would have us believe,” wrote Schmitt and Happer, “increased carbon dioxide will benefit the increasing population on the planet by increasing agricultural productivity.” Needless to say, they were right on the money. And this was no shot in the dark — in fact, the benefit of carbon dioxide to plant life is not only a well-established fact, but suffocatingly obvious, when you think about it: The (very reasonable, entirely correct) trope of conservationists is that we need more plants, because we breathe oxygen and emit carbon dioxide, whereas plants breathe carbon dioxide and emit oxygen. It follows that plants need carbon dioxide in more or less the same way we need oxygen. This is why — point out Schmitt and Happer — commercial greenhouses tend to grow plants in air that is 150 percent richer in carbon dioxide than the great outdoors. Schmitt and Happer’s piece also explained that higher levels of atmospheric CO2 make plants more resistant to drought — basically, by reducing the number of water-wasting air holes a plant needs to breathe — which (they say) is why droughts in the age of global warming don’t look like droughts in the age of the Dust Bowl. And they point out that the current elevated CO2 levels are still much lower than CO2 levels were in the distant (pre-human) past. They add that “variations in global temperature correlate much better with solar activity and complicated cycles of the oceans and atmosphere” than they do with increased levels of carbon dioxide. And that “there isn’t the slightest evidence that more carbon dioxide has caused more extreme weather.” Unfortunately, Happer and Schmitt’s good tidings were not enough to assuage the concerns of environmental opinion-makers. But the fact that their predictions have been perfectly borne out should give some ammunition to fighters of the good fight. And in the meantime, everyone on every side of the global-warming argument should take a few moments to appreciate these, our salad days, and — at last — some good news in global warming.

— Josh Gelernter is the author of that piece



General Dunford Suggests White House Is Limiting His Ability to Fight ISIS

On Thursday, Senator Lindsey Graham asked General Dunford about his ISIS strategy. “[T]he military strategy that we’re embarked on is the best way to destroy ISIL. And it’s what you recommended. Or is it limited by conditions put on you by the White House?” Dunford responded, “[T]o clarify, so if I say…” Graham interrupted, “[W]ould you do more if you could?” He answered, “I would do more if I could, but the limitation is not just a political limitation. Part of it is our partners on the ground…” Click here to see the video of the exchange.