The Humanitarian Hoax of Relativism: Killing America With Kindness

The humanitarian hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.

Relativism is defined as the belief that there is no absolute truth, only truths that a particular individual or culture happen to believe. People who believe in relativism accept that different people can have different views about what is moral and immoral. So far so good – society can tolerate multiple opinions on the relative merits of a thing or an idea. Here is the problem – civilized society requires consensus on the existence of that thing or idea – it requires agreement on what is real.

Objective reality is the foundation for the laws and rules that regulate public behavior in society.

In a previous article I introduced the problem of multiple realities inherent in Kurt Lewin’s Change Theory with the example of a man walking down the street.

Let’s review. A man is walking down the street. There are four people nearby. The first person says there is a man walking down the street. The second person says there is a person walking down the street. The third person says I’m not sure who is walking down the street. The fourth person says there is a woman walking down the street.

The objective reality is that there is a man walking down the street regardless of what the observers perceptions are. Objective reality is rooted in facts and exists independent of the perceptions of those facts. Subjective reality tolerates conflicting multiple realities because it is rooted in perceptions and informed by opinions. So, in subjective reality the fourth person’s observation that it is a woman walking down the street is accepted. The consequence, of course, is that societal acceptance of multiple realities ultimately creates chaos because there is no agreement on what is real.

Joseph Backholm is director of Family Policy Institute of Washington and is factually a 5’9” white male. In April, 2016 he interviewed students on campus at University of Washington to see if they would accept or reject his self-identification as a 6’5” Chinese woman or a seven-year-old child. The answers were shocking.

Backholm asked, “What if I said I was 7 years old?” A young woman answered if he felt like he was seven years old at heart then so be it – good for you. She actually accepted an adult male’s self-identification as a seven-year-old child. When asked if it would be okay for him to enroll in a first grade class another student answered that as long as he wasn’t hindering society and causing harm to other people it should be okay. Not hindering society? Not causing harm to other people? Backholm continued, “What if I told you I was 6’5” what would you say?” One student answered that it is not her place as another human to say he is wrong and to draw lines or boundaries. Another said that if he believes he is taller than he is it is not harmful so it is not a problem for her – but she would not tell him he was wrong. Only one student rejected Backholm’s self-description as 6’5″ saying he is not 6’5” even though she accepted him saying that he is a Chinese woman. These students demonstrated that their reality testing is firmly rooted in subjective feelings and opinions not in objective facts. Why is this a problem?

The students interviewed demonstrate the Leftist narrative that says all opinions are equal has moved beyond differences of opinion and debates about the merits of ideas into the realm of different realities. Leftist relativism is presented as humanitarian and respectful. These students do not consider accepting a 5’9” white adult male as a 7 year old child or as a 6’5” Chinese woman to be hurtful to another person or a hindrance to society. They live in the dreamworld of subjective reality where time, space, and factual reality are entirely absent. In dreams anything goes. In the conscious world the destruction of our societal standard of objective reality is beyond hurtful it is catastrophic because without consensus on what is real there is no infrastructure for laws and rules that regulate public behavior. Eventually there is only chaos.

Consider the shift in the definition of mental health. Historically mental health was a metric of being in touch with objective reality. Any student accepting a 5’9” white adult male as a 7 year old child or a 6’5” Chinese woman would be diagnosed as delusional because he/she is clearly out of touch with reality. Today the World Health Organization, an agency of the United Nations, defines mental health as a state of well-being in which every individual realizes his/her potential, can cope with the normal stresses of life, can work productively and fruitfully, and is able to make a contribution to his/her community. No mention of being in touch with objective reality. So, students who accept a 5’9” adult white male as a 7 year old child or a 6’5” Chinese woman are considered mentally healthy as long as they reach their potential, cope with stress, work productively, and contribute to society.

What is the purpose of this change? Who benefits from the shift?

The Culture War on America is a war between subjective reality and objective reality. The Leftist narrative based in feelings and opinions seeks to collapse the established authority of objective reality based in facts. The Left has already unfrozen established American cultural norms that required consensus and objective reality through its educational and media indoctrination. Society is being indoctrinated to willingly accept multiple realities as normative and embrace feelings over facts. America is currently in a state of transition – the puddle of water – when college students, our future leaders are comfortable accepting unreality as reality.

The Left is using Lewin’s model to fundamentally transform the infrastructure of America from objective reality into subjective reality. The Leftist pressure to accept subjective reality is their primary weapon of destabilization. The Left is driving society crazy by demanding people accept unreality as reality.

Let’s review. Lewin’s three-step change theory can be visualized as:

1. UNFREEZE –  a block of ice that melts
2. CHANGE – into a puddle of water.
3. REFREEZE – and is then reshaped into a cone.

The Left seeks to refreeze America into a cone of subjective reality based on feelings not facts where the entire population, not just college students, will accept a white 5’9” male as a 6’5” Chinese woman. Why? Because the Culture War on America is a political a war between objective reality and subjective reality that will determine the course of our country. Why?

The end game of the cone of subjective reality is social control. This is how it works. Social chaos is always followed by government suppression that restores order. Civil liberties are suspended and the government acquires total control. This endgame of the Leftist Culture War on America is total government control.

RELATED ARTICLE: How the Left Became So Intolerant

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in the Goudsmit Pundicity.

Misandry Rises: In Defense of Men

Don’t vote for men!” is the message of a recent campaign ad.  Issued by Dana Nessel, Democratic attorney general contender in Michigan, what she literally says is, “Who can you trust most not to show you their [sic] penis in a professional setting?”

She answers that it’s the candidate who doesn’t have one.

Now, a person could easily go tit for tat (not that I’d ever consider such a thing!). Noting how some voters, addressing politicians’ pusillanimity, lament how we need leaders with “a pair,” one could ask “Who can you trust most to have a pair?” and answer “The candidate who by definition has one.”

But the anti-male bias animating Nessel has long been brewing. In 2004, Sweden’s Left Party (yeah, that’s its actual name) proposed a “Man Tax,” a special levy on men designed to compensate society for the cost of male violence. I always answer that I’ll be happy to pay my man tax — as long as I also get royalties for all of history’s man-birthed inventions and innovations. I’ll then use what’s left over to self-fund a presidential run.

Of course, responding to Nessel’s claim that sexual misconduct is a male domain, we could highlight the continual stories about female teachers having relations with young male students or the NYC juvenile-detention center where female guards were allegedly using the teen boy inmates as “sex slaves.” And man-tax misandrists should note that women are actually more likely than men to initiate domestic violence.

Yet, in reality, sound bites and simple facts don’t truly illuminate this issue. For there is some truth in Nessel’s nitwittedness, man-tax twittering and in my responses to both.

USA Today recently ran the headline, “’Guns don’t kill people; men and boys kill people,’ experts say,” which is about as insightful as stating “Men are taller than women.” Of course, even though blacks and Hispanics commit 98 percent of all gun crime in NYC, we’d never see the headline “Big Apple Crime: Guns don’t kill people; blacks and Hispanics kill people, experts say.” That said, it has always been known that men commit the bulk of major violence; it’s also not news that men are the more lustful sex and are more likely to commit sexual misconduct.

Yet crime doesn’t completely tell the tale — because the sexes sin differently. Consider: When a little boy gets upset, he may have a temper tantrum and explode like a volcano, creating quite a scene. Yet 10 minutes later he may act as if the event never happened. A little girl is more likely to not boil over but simmer for a long time, even perhaps holding a grudge. Thus, the amount of negative energy expended may be the same; only the intensity and duration vary. But which trespass is far more likely to bring punishment?

This is evident throughout life: Men’s sins are more overt, women’s more covert. Boys are more prone to get into fistfights, but girls may be more apt to bully peers to the point of suicide. In this case, the trespass more likely to bring punishment is the less severe.

And so it goes. Male violence is matched by female emotional manipulation and vindictiveness; male lust by female vanity; male gluttony, sloth and anger by female pride, envy and avarice. (Yes, there is overlap; I’m speaking of characteristic faults.)

Which set is worse? It may all balance out, but I certainly would rather endure a firm slap in the face than a 10-minute, emotionally abusive harangue. The point is that just as something’s value doesn’t always correspond to its price, something’s wickedness doesn’t always correspond to the worldly price you have to pay for it.

However visible men’s sins, though, they are today, as they’ve always been, recognized. What’s new is that while men are, again, virtually all history’s inventors and innovators, this is minimized. Men’s faults are now treated as innate — or, at best, as a function of deeply ingrained “toxic masculinity” — while their triumphs are written off as nurture, the result of mere opportunity.

Feminist Camille Paglia once noted, “If civilization had been left in female hands, we would still be living in grass huts” (a naturally imposed grass ceiling?). Paglia was getting at an age-old truth: Men are the actuating sex, the wilder one, which accounts for both their dynamism and their dangerousness. They’re two sides of the same coin, giving men the capacity to be a Churchill or a Hitler, to write the Communist Manifesto or the Constitution. Yes, most murdered women are killed by men, but women only now outlive men (they once died younger) because of male-born medical science. Men have been killers — but many more lives have been saved because they’ve also been curers.

There are two reasons, one more politically incorrect than the other, why men are the groundbreakers: inclination and ability. Ivanka Trump has been on a crusade to get women into scientific and high-tech fields. She ought to watch the excellent documentary “The Gender Equality Paradox,” which points out that women are more likely to enter non-traditional fields (e.g., computer tech) in relatively patriarchal India than in über-egalitarian Norway. Why? Because India’s poverty forces women to go where the money is; in rich nations, however, they can afford to follow their hearts. As for where this takes them, there’s a reason boys would play with erector sets and girls with dolls — and, no, it’s not conditioning.

Dr. Larry Summers lost his job as Harvard University’s president in 2006 for saying that there may be few women in top science positions because of “issues of intrinsic aptitude.” When analyzing this, one could point out (not that I’d ever consider such a thing) that, contrary to popular myth, men have somewhat higher IQs than women do (and brains approximately 11 percent larger). Moreover, the gap in intrinsic scientific aptitude is likely even greater than that I.Q. gap of five points would indicate.

Yet none of this matters. You see, it isn’t the average person, or even the average intelligent person, who makes the great breakthroughs. It is the genius, the fantastically gifted.

And such people are virtually always male.

For example, “[A]t the near-genius level (an IQ of 145), brilliant men outnumber brilliant women by 8 to one,” wrote Professor Richard Lynn in 2010. Of course, the ratio varies depending on what data you use, but the pattern is unmistakable, consistent and finds no disagreement among experts: As you move up the I.Q. scale, the ratio becomes more skewed in men’s favor until (according to the study here) the category “I.Q. over 176,” where there is no ratio — because no woman scored that high.

Why this disparity? I’d theorize that it’s for the same reason why males are more likely to develop X-linked chromosomal abnormalities (such as color-blindness or hemophilia): because, put simply, the Y (male) chromosome increases the chances of anomalies’ emergence. And, well, genius is an anomaly.

Of course, this phenomenon would apply to other abilities as well, whether in music, art, athletics, cooking, chess, writing or, well, most anything else under the sun.

This is why virtually all history’s inventors and innovators have been men. It’s why, barring some bizarre, nature-rending genetic engineering (which would also be birthed by men), they always will be.

What implications does this hold for society and policy? First, it’s a fool’s errand and highly destructive to try to equalize the number of men and women in the STEM fields. After all, if we ever instituted what the Bill Clinton administration desired — applying Title IX “proportionality” mandates to STEM — it would not magically breed female geniuses or even spark women’s interest in STEM.

But it might result in denying some brilliant men the opportunity to exploit their potential.

Now, China already produces 10 times as many scientists as we do (with just four times the population). Do we want to make that ratio 20 to 1? Thirty to one? Then just keep it up with the political correctness.

Second, as wise parents have always understood, boys must be given outlets for their boundless energy. As someone I knew once put it, “Boys always have to be doing something — even if it’s the wrong thing.” It will more likely be the wrong thing (e.g., gangs) if we rob them of right things, which is what happens when in the name Equality™ we remove their necessary outlets (e.g., applying Title IX and eliminating boys’ athletic opportunities).

Remember, again, the choice is dynamism or dangerousness, whether that dangerousness is violence or the self-destructiveness of drinking or drugs. The same thing causing little boys to explore, sometimes where they shouldn’t, motivates them to later explore all manner of arenas, pushing back frontiers in science and medicine, creating and innovating, building and breaking through. Active little boys become actuating grown men, for genius without impetus goes as far as an engine without fuel.

Returning to anti-male insanity, years ago feminists in Sweden, Germany and Australia adopted a new cause — compelling men to sit down while urinating — and did succeed in getting the urinals removed from a Swedish elementary school. They claimed that the typical way men tend to a nature call is symbolic of, as Dr. Walter E. Williams related it, “triumphing in their masculinity.” Of course, it’s triumphant masculinity that created the whole modern world and that made arguments over urination technique possible. Because, yeah, men invented the flush toilet, too.

Speaking of which, that’s precisely where feminism and equality dogma ought to be put.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

In the Pronoun Wars, Be Thankful for the Founding Fathers

It is sometimes astounding the kind of foresight the Founding Fathers had in protecting future generations from tyranny.

The current international push to criminalize free speech in the name of various social movements should make us thankful that we have the First Amendment. Most other nations, even in the Western world, don’t have nearly the codified protection of speech that we in America have.

For instance, French President Emmanuel Macron recently called on his country to address the fact that France had no age of consent law (oh, France) and the more common global issue of sexual harassment. These were worthy goals, yet his proposal was a low that would have taken an ax to free speech rights.

Macron suggested his country criminalize gender-based offensive statements.

“Let’s seal a pact of equality between men and women,” he said. “It is essential that shame changes camp. Gender-based insults will be punishable by law. Offenders will face a deterrent fine.”

So if you say that Macron does tyranny like a girl, it seems you may be in hot water with the law.

 According to The Daily Caller, France is also considering making cat-calling illegal.

To be sure, cat-calling is a particularly boorish and ungentlemanly behavior, yet one can see how such a law can be immediately abused. Additionally, similar measures in other countries haven’t been particularly effective.

The individual rights of citizens get curtailed, but the social pathology continues. The worst of all worlds.

Government control of speech in relation to gender has perhaps even deeper implications in the transgender debate, as some Western countries have taken to passing laws that effectively force citizens to use the pronoun of a person’s choice under the threat of fines, or even jail time.

One of the most far-reaching of these laws was passed in Canada earlier this year. It threatens people who refuse to use preferred or gender-neutral pronouns with legal punishment.

The law’s authors contend that it was created to prevent discrimination based on gender identity. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau called it a “critical extension of human rights.”

Of course, it’s really a bald assault on the individual right of free speech. As The Weekly Standard’s Max Diamond wrote:

Those who refuse to use gender neutral pronouns such as ‘they’ or ‘zi’ and ‘zir,’ or who oppose the notion that gender is subjectively determined, may find themselves facing the full force of federal law.

Alas, Canada has nothing like the First Amendment that would have cut off such a law at the knees. Such laws criminalizing speech are much more difficult to enact in the United States because of the First Amendment.

Of course, getting smacked down in court hasn’t stopped some states from pushing the envelope. The New York City Commission on Human Rights adopted legal guidance in 2016 that threatened employers with fines of up to $125,000 for refusing to use a person’s preferred pronoun, and up to $250,000 for such “violations that are the result of willful, wanton, or malicious conduct.”

In October, California Gov. Jerry Brown signed a law that criminalizes using the wrong pronoun to identify a transgender person in a nursing home. This law even puts jail time on the table for repeat violators of the law.

But as Hans Bader, an attorney for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, wrote, laws that force individuals to use pronouns will likely be ruled in violation of the First Amendment by the Supreme Court.

One of the greatest gifts that the First Amendment and the culture of free speech has given the United States is our ability to deconstruct lies through free debate and dissent.

The Founders didn’t write free speech protections into the Constitution because they thought all speech would be good, or even truthful. No—the goal was to allow us all to rigorously pursue the truth. They placed more confidence in the people to find the truth out of a cacophony of views than in the government to be neutral in enforcing speech laws.

These latest Orwellian attempts to force people to use certain pronouns is exactly the kind of governmental overreach the Founders feared.

Laws designed to crack down on speech, or compel individuals to say things they don’t believe out of punishment, are not simply oppressive—they obscure reality itself and the possibility of debating, and finding, truth.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Jarrett Stepman

Jarrett Stepman is an editor for The Daily Signal. Send an email to Jarrett. Twitter: .

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

SUPPORT THE DAILY SIGNAL

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of a protester holding a sign at an LGBT demonstration in New York. (Photo: Erik Mcgregor/Zuma Press/Newscom)

Florida Must Become Energy Independent by 2020

What will promote human life? What will promote human flourishing — realizing the full potential of life? How do we maximize the years in our life and the life in our years? Answer: cheap and reliable power.

Organic Fossil Fuels are the Lifeblood of Civilization!

Florida’s Governor, Congressional delegation and state legislature must make it their number 1 priority to make the Sunshine State Energy Independent by 2020 or sooner!

Florida:

  1. Imports all of its natural gas and 99.9 % of its oil.
  2. Imports all of its refined petroleum based products (e.g. gasoline).
  3. Is the second largest user of natural gas, Texas being the largest.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration:

  1. Geologists believe there may be large oil and natural gas deposits in the federal Outer Continental Shelf off of Florida’s western coast.
  2. Florida was second only to Texas in 2014 in net electricity generation from natural gas, which accounted for 61% of Florida’s net generation; coal accounted for almost 23%, the state’s nuclear power plants accounted for 12%, and other resources, including renewable energy, supplied the remaining 4% of electricity generation.
  3. Renewable energy accounted for 2.3% of Florida’s total net electricity generation in 2014, and the state ranked 10th in the nation in net generation from utility-scale solar energy.
  4. In part because of high air conditioning use during the hot summer months and the widespread use of electricity for home heating during the winter months, Florida’s retail electricity sales to the residential sector were second in the nation after Texas in 2014.
  5. Electricity accounts for 90% of the site energy consumed by Florida households, and the annual electricity expenditures of $1,900 are 40% higher than the U.S. average, according to EIA’s Residential Energy Consumption Survey.

Even as human populations have grown dramatically and increased their use of fossil fuels, the world has become a much better place.

As CO2 emissions have risen so too have the GDP per person, life expectancy and the population.

Florida politicians are addicted to the precautionary principle (“better safe than sorry”). It is a maxim embraced by government planners and regulators in the Sunshine state at every level. They do not even want to determine what organic fossil fuels lay off of Florida’s coastlines. The precautionary principle worked to stop the building of nuclear power plants in the United States after the 3 Mile Island incident. Today the same tactic is being used to stop off shore drilling using the Deepwater Horizon incident.

Off shore drilling naysayers use the example of the Deepwater Horizon spill to strike fear into the hearts of Floridians. But as FDR said, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.”  An example of using the fear factor (precautionary principle) is what happened in Japan following the meltdown of a nuclear power plan in Fukushima. The facts are that no one has died from radiation, nor has cancer increased however, 1,600 did die of stress due to the unnecessary evacuation of people from the area.

Fear kills.

What off shore naysayers, fear mongers, don’t tell you is that mother nature is the greatest polluter in the Gulf of Mexico. According to NOAA over 2,500 barrels of oil naturally seeps daily from fissures in the Gulf. This seeping has been going on for tens of thousands of years, yet the Gulf is doing just fine. Would it not be better to capture this oil, and natural gas, than have it continue to seep into the Gulf?

Some argue that even if natural gas is discovered in Florida’s waters that building an on shore natural gas processing plant is not economically feasible or politically doable. There is an answer to this negative with a positive via new technology. Israel is faced with the same concerns about onshore natural gas processing plants. To solve the problem Nobel Energy and Shell Oil have come up with a solution. Process the natural gas using floating plants. According to Robert Sullivan of the New York Times:

It’s called Prelude, and it’s bigger than big. More than 530 yards long and 80 yards wide, it was constructed with 260,000 metric tons of steel, more than was used in the entire original World Trade Center complex, and it’s expected to displace 600,000 metric tons of water, or as much as six aircraft carriers. Even the paint job is huge: Most big vessels dry-dock every five years for a new coat, but Prelude’s paint is supposed to last 25 years. It will produce more natural gas than Hong Kong needs in a year. And it’s so big that you can’t really photograph it, at least not all at once.

[ … ]

What makes this giant liquefied-natural-gas enterprise feasible, paradoxically enough, is the miniaturization its construction represents. It’s much smaller than landlocked equivalents — imagine shrinking your local refinery until it fits on a barge. Shell Oil, which has the biggest stake in the project, describes Prelude as more environmentally friendly than an onshore site. There are no estuaries under threat, no shorelines to run pipe across and reduced risks to population centers, given the explosiveness of natural gas. And it is designed to ride out extreme weather, thanks to three giant 6,700-horsepower thrusters that can turn it into the wind and waves. “These are the things that the naval architects had to worry through,” says Robert Bea, co-founder of the Center for Catastrophic Risk Management, at the University of California, Berkeley. “It works like a big-ass weather vane.”

Read more.

Environmentalists use the fear factor when talking about drilling for natural gas and oil off of Florida’s shores. The same is true for some of Florida’s Congressional delegation, such as Rep. Vern Buchanan.

Fear is not good public policy.

What is good public policy is insuring that Floridians have access to cheap and reliable power in the foreseeable future. Now it the time to take action. Waiting is not an option.

If Governor Rick Scott and Republicans are committed to creating jobs, then they must diversify the economy by promoting energy independence. Energy independence will lead to reduced costs for electricity, gasoline and diversify the economy.

That is good public policy. This is the moral thing to do.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Global Warming: Fake News from the Start

President Trump Opens Doors on Oil Exploration, but Deeper Reforms Needed

VIDEO: Demographic Winter — the decline of the human family [Full Movie]

In the Spring 2008 edition of The Harvard Divinity Bulletin, Kathryn Joyce did a review of the film Demographic Winter: The Decline of the Human Family. Joyce wrote:

Settling in to watch the counterintuitive “depopulation threat” documentary, Demographic Winter: The Decline of the Human Family, feels disorientingly like life imitating art, or more specifically, social science imitating apocalypse cinema. Above an ominous, skeletal piano score, telegraphing a claustrophobic sense of impending doom, an assembly of prominent conservative researchers and pundits, including Nobel laureate Gary Becker and academics from conservative think-tanks, ruefully predicts a new end-of-days. Everywhere throughout the film, there is a plague of disappearing bodies, particularly children’s bodies, literally vanishing from the screen.  The children, classrooms full of them, become translucent and fade from dens, swing sets, teeter-totters, bikes and shady suburban walkways as flurries of snowflakes start to fly.  Over it all a voiceover, read by a female narrator, lends the film an eerily automated calm, recalling a familiar science fiction juxtaposition: humanity rendered impotent beside an unflappable computerized countdown. The effect is a clear arrow pointing to mankind’s culpability in its downfall, having tampered with the established order to the point of self-destruction: a timeworn morality tale science fiction lifted from religion.

The same moral is intended in Demographic Winter, but the original sin isn’t the creation of tyrannical artificial intelligence, or the destruction of the environment, but rather the failure of people worldwide to have enough children to replace their old and dying, a cultural shift in family planning and size that has led to falling birthrates globally, but particularly in the affluent, developed nations of the West. The sin that preoccupies the entire documentary – though such morally-infused terms are assiduously avoided throughout the film – is birth control and the sexual revolution, and the widespread cultural decision of women to limit their fertility. But you have to listen hard to identify that agenda, because instead of laying that argument out, the movie is a projection of social conservative fears about what changes to traditional family structures will bring, a vivid dystopia illustrated with both futuristic doomsday imagery and a catalogue of historical horrors: the disappearing bodies a gentle rendition of nuclear flash incineration; the snow that replaces them at once evoking atomic and crematorium ashes, as well as emblemizing the frostier demographic death the filmmakers envision. Either way, it signals massive dying, and in case the rhetorical stakes for the demographic winter theory aren’t high enough, the filmmakers declared, in a banner at their Heritage Foundation premiere in mid-February, that the film’s topic is, “the single most powerful force directing the fate and future of society.”

The argument put forth in Demographic Winter is a familiar one to those who have been watching conservative strategy develop over the past several years: that with birthrates falling globally over the last half-century, and in most developed nations falling below the “replacement rate” of 2.1 children per woman, the ratio of young to old will shift dramatically and wreak havoc upon existing social security and healthcare systems. The economy at large may also suffer, as the elderly cease spending and a smaller generation of workers is crippled by the taxes needed to support their parents. And the reasons why it’s occurring is a litany of culture-war complaints: women working, the “divorce revolution,” the sexual revolution (including cohabitation and the pill), worries, or what the filmmakers call “inaccurate presumptions,” about overpopulation and limited resources, and an affluence that leads to fewer children. It’s a massive failure to be fruitful and multiply, writ large, but again, such religious cues are kept off-screen.

The world this will bring about, according to the filmmakers, is bleak: grandparents left untended and alone in the streets of Europe as intergenerational bonds are shattered; the potential desolation of small countries such as Latvia, and a worldwide depression that will touch even those countries that don’t disappear under the sheath of snow that the film shows blanketing the entire globe. So argues Harry S. Dent, Jr., an economist who specializes in “demographic-based economic forecasting,” and who predicts that the West will follow Japan’s aging population bust.

Read more.

Perhaps it is time to re-look at what was said in this film.

One of the most ominous events of modern history is quietly unfolding. Social scientists and economists agree — we are headed toward a demographic winter which threatens to have catastrophic social and economic consequences. The effects will be severe and long lasting and are already becoming manifest in much of Europe.

This ground breaking film draws upon experts from many different disciplines and reveals in chilling soberness the dangers facing society and the world’s economies, dangers far more imminent than global warming and at least as severe.

The Relationship Charade: Walking on Eggshells is not Reconciliation

Many articles have been written about the growing trend of adult children choosing estrangement in American families. The recent Thanksgiving holiday has highlighted this alarming movement toward the dissolution of family bonds of love and loyalty. What is the source of this dreadful shift? What happened to honor thy father and mother?

Sheri McGregor, M.A. has written an important book titled Done With The Crying that explores the disturbing increase in families with adult children who disown their parents. There are, of course, appropriate conditions for estrangement but the current trend appears baffling to the 9,000 confused and grieving parents surveyed who cannot fathom why the children they have loved for a lifetime are choosing to reject them. Done With The Crying attempts to help devastated parents accept their loss and move on with their lives. McGregor is asking “What now?” I am asking “Why now?”

Generation gaps between parents and their adult children have traditionally been resolved with courtesy, respect, and a sense of humor. Adult children honored their parents even when they disagreed with them and chose a different path for their own lives. A fundamental level of gratitude for the parent’s efforts and dedication allowed the differences to be minimized and the family bonds maximized. What has changed?

The bewildered parents McGregor describes cannot accept the estrangement because they simply do not understand it. She describes the staggering lack of respect, restraint, gratitude, and overarching sense of entitlement in adult children’s demand for parental conformity including restricting their parents’ freedom of speech. In the upside-down world of self-seeking millennials the parent/child role has been reversed. Parents are expected to conform to their adult child’s new norms. If the parent refuses the adult child withdraws himself to a “safe space” seeking protection from the “toxic” ideas of his parents. Toxicity, like hate speech, has been redefined as anything the adult child opposes.

Respondents in McGregor’s book expose the injurious participation of the mental health community which continues to counsel disrespected parents to persevere and strive for reconciliation no matter how cruel and abusive their adult children’s behavior becomes. It is shocking that any mental health professional would advocate unconditional love in adult relationships. Separating an individual from his/her behavior is pathological in adulthood. Any adult with self-respect recognizes the destructiveness of accepting the unacceptable. So why has the mental health community abdicated its responsibility toward growth and maturity and instead embraced the regressive trend toward dependency that demands unconditional love?

The humanities students of the 60s became the social science “experts” who enthusiastically embraced left-wing politics and political correctness. They launched a seismic paradigm shift that steered American society away from adult responsibility toward valuing feelings and happiness above all else. Instead of striving for achievement and merit-based awards parents were told that their children’s self-esteem would suffer in competition. Effort became the criteria for awards, children were told they were all butterflies, and everyone received trophies for “trying.” Here is the problem. Political correctness that values feelings over facts is extremely destructive because the effort to avoid hurt feelings sacrifices objective reality. Effort and achievement are not equivalent. Theoretically education at home and at school prepares children for adulthood because in the adult world of facts it is necessary to achieve – effort is not enough.

Consider the consequences in everyday life when trying is considered equivalent to achieving. Workers try to complete tasks but don’t. Students try to understand concepts but don’t. Mothers try to get meals on the table but don’t. In the real world trying is not the same as accomplishing. The outcome of the politically correct paradigm shift has been catastrophic. It has produced infantilized chronological adults lacking adult work skills, coping skills, with zero frustration tolerance, who are too fragile to listen to anyone who disagrees with them. The outcome of their incompetence is anger and self-loathing. Even the exceptional millennials who have managed to compartmentalize their brain power, achieving quite remarkable things in academia, business, medicine, et al, remain fixated and angry in their infantilism and dependency modes.

Only in the subjective reality of their politically correct social groups can these underachieving millennials feel good about themselves. It explains why the Left hypocritically tolerates anyone who looks different but cannot tolerate anyone who thinks differently including their parents. The Left, like any orthodoxy, is extremely intolerant and relies on absolute conformity to its tenets of political correctness, moral relativity, and historical revisionism in order to survive and to recruit new members to its ideological identity politics. Those who disagree are maligned, shunned, and rejected – including parents.

Competence is the mother of self-esteem. Accomplishment creates genuine self-esteem and the marvelous sense of satisfaction that proficiency provides. Telling children that they are all butterflies (subjective reality) is dishonest because all children are not the same and they know it. Encouraging a child to accomplish a task is far more supportive of self-esteem than empty compliments because encouragement supports growth, maturity, and the acquisition of skills. The crippling policies that support the paradigm shift toward feelings has yielded a crop of immature, fragile, angry snowflakes. Anger is an extremely powerful emotion that can be exploited for destruction – and that is the underlying goal of the Left.

The cultural revolution fomented by the radical Left demands regression, incites rebellion, and fuels the infantile anger that drives the war on America. Thought precedes behavior. Virtual children who have been indoctrinated toward entitlements, unconditional love, and eternal childhood rage when their dependency needs are unmet. Their anger is then exploited as they are groomed to become the useful idiot soldiers necessary to topple the existing government with promises of cradle-to-grave care from a romanticized socialist government. The estranged child’s loyalty shifts away from of his nuclear family to his new family of choice – he converts – and embraces the new religion of liberalism where his rejection of traditional authority is applauded in an atmosphere of adolescent rebellion.

These disinformed snowflakes are too childish and too angry to examine the reality of life in actual socialist countries. They do not interview citizens of Venezuela or Cuba – instead they just parrot the socialist propaganda. When parents expose the glaring inconsistencies between reality and Leftist ideology these fragile snowflakes choose estrangement rather than risk a personal meltdown. Millennial adult children are far more loyal to the liberal ideology that reinforces them than to their parents who challenge them.

The bewilderment and shock of estrangement for parents is rivaled only by the stunning realization that the Left purposefully foments family estrangement to shatter the bonds of family loyalty and parental authority. Grieving parents cannot accept estrangement until they realize that their adult children are choosing ideology over genealogy. The courtesy, respect, and gratitude that characterized past generations are absent in the millennial generation.

Instead of “honoring thy father and thy mother” the millennial sense of butterfly entitlement has frozen them in an infantile world (subjective reality) where only “self” and self-gratification exist. There is no reconciliation with angry adult children who continue to reject their parents’ objective reality. There is no respectful agreeing to disagree with adult children who demand parents surrender to their “version” of the truth.

The psychology of estrangement is a collision between the objective reality of the parents and the subjective reality of their children. Walking on eggshells with adult children is not reconciliation – it is a relationship charade. Parents have an obligation to stay in objective reality even when their children choose to leave. Parents of adult children who have disowned them are well-advised to walk on – walk beyond the pain of the eggshells and continue walking inside the adult world of objective reality. Your children know where to find you if they decide to walk with you. The choice is theirs.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in Goudsmit Pundicity.

Some Recent Energy & Environmental News

The newest edition of the Energy and Environmental Newsletter is now online.

We’re repeating this key report as it is very popular: at least ten (10) financial liabilities that can adversely affect a community hosting a wind project!

Here’s a new summary document that lists multiple ways that industrial wind turbines can interfere with various types of communication — including RADAR.

Some of the more informative energy articles in this issue are:

Wind and Solar Power Advance, but Carbon Refuses to Retreat

Wind & Solar are Less Efficient Decarbonizers than CC Gas Turbines

Maine DEP Issues Draft Wind Energy Rules (two VERY good parts)

Grid-Scale Storage of Renewable Energy: The Impossible Dream

Tesla battery production releases as much CO2 as 8 years of gasoline driving

Report by head of German Wildlife FoundationTruly Green?

Stop Subsidizing the Big Wind Bullies

Excellent: Senate speech re killing the wind PTC

Presentation: Hidden Costs of Wind and Solar Power

Videos: America First Energy Conference

Some of the more interesting Global Warming articles in this issue are:

Unambiguous Fraud In The National Climate Assessment

The Paris Agreement: A Fairytale’s Failure

Reconciling CO2 Concentrations With Emissions and Energy Consumption

NOAA Lets Politics Corrupt Its Science

Important crowd-funding request is here

Core of climate science is in the real-world data

The Climate Alarmists Definitely Don’t Believe Their Own Propaganda

NYT: The Climate Crisis? It’s Capitalism, Stupid

The Real Story Behind The Heartland Institute’s Role In The Trump Admin

John Droz, Jr.
Physicist & Citizen Advocate

PS: Our intention is to put some balance into what most people see from the mainstream media about energy and environmental issues… As always, please pass this on to open-minded citizens, and on your social media sites. If there are others who you think would benefit from being on our energy & environmental email list, please let me know. If at any time you’d like to be taken off this list, simply send me an email saying that.

PPS: I am not an attorney, so no material appearing in any of the Newsletters (or our WiseEnergy.org website) should be construed as giving legal advice. My recommendation has always been: consult a competent attorney when you are involved with legal issues.

After 30 Years, Alarmists Are Still Predicting A Global Warming ‘Apocalypse’

By Michael Bastasch

For at least three decades scientists and environmental activists have been warning that the world is on the verge of a global warming “apocalypse” that will flood coastal cities, tear up roads and bridges with mega-storms and bring widespread famine and misery to much of the world.

The only solution, they say, is to rid the world of fossil fuels — coal, natural gas and oil — that serve as the pillars of modern society. Only quick, decisive global action can avert the worst effects of manmade climate change, warn international bodies like the United Nations, who say we only have decades left — or even less!

Of course, human civilization has not collapsed, despite decades of predictions that we only have years left to avert disaster. Ten years ago, the U.N. predicted we only had “as little as eight years left to avoid a dangerous global average rise of 2C or more.”

This failed prediction, however, has not stopped the U.N. and others from issuing more apocalyptic statements.

To celebrate nearly three decades of dire predictions, The Daily Caller News Foundation put together this list of some of the most severe doomsday prophecies made by scientists, activists and politicians:

1. Apocalyptic warnings on repeat

A group of 1,700 scientists and experts signed a letter 25 years ago warning of massive ecological and societal collapse if nothing was done to curb overpopulation, pollution and, ultimately, the capitalist society in which we live today.

The Union of Concerned Scientists put out a second letter earlier this year, once again warning of the dire consequences of global warming and other alleged ecological ills. Now numbering 15,000, the group warns “soon it will be too late to shift course away from our failing trajectory, and time is running out.”

“We must recognize, in our day-to-day lives and in our governing institutions, that Earth with all its life is our only home,” the scientists and experts warned.

It’s a terrifying warning — if you ignore the fact that none of their 1992 warning has come to fruition.

2. The planet will be “uninhabitable” by the end of the century

New York Magazine writer David Wallace-Wells published a 7,000-word article claiming global warming could make Earth “uninhabitable” by “the end of this century.”

Wallace-Wells’s article warned of terrors, like “Heat Death,” “Climate Plagues,” “Permanent Economic Collapse” and “Poisoned Oceans.”

“Indeed, absent a significant adjustment to how billions of humans conduct their lives, parts of the Earth will likely become close to uninhabitable, and other parts horrifically inhospitable, as soon as the end of this century,” Wallace-Wells wrote.

3. Prince Charles’s global warming deadline passed…and nothing happened

Prince Charles famously warned in July 2009 that humanity had only 96 months to save the world from “irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse, and all that goes with it.” That deadline has passed, and the prince has not issued an update to when the world needs to be saved.

Though the recently-released “Paradise Papers” show Charles lobbied U.K. lawmakers to enact policies that benefited his estate’s investment in a Bermuda company that does sustainable forestry. So, there’s that.

4. ‘Ice Apocalypse’ Now

Liberal writer and climate scientist Eric Holthaus claimed manmade global warming would set off the “ice apocalypse” at a pace “too quickly for humanity to adapt.”

Holthaus warned the wholesale collapse of two Antarctic glaciers — Pine Island and Thwaites — could happen sooner than previously believed, resulting in “flooding coastal cities and creating hundreds of millions of climate refugees.” Sounds terrible, but his conclusions aren’t really backed up by the science.

“I think his article is too pessimistic: that it overstates the possibility of disaster. Too soon, too certain,” Tamsin Edwards, a scientist who’s studied Antarctica, wrote in The Guardian about Holthaus’s article.

5. 2015 is the ‘last effective opportunity’ to stop catastrophic warming

World leaders meeting at the Vatican  issued a statement saying that 2015 was the “last effective opportunity to negotiate arrangements that keep human-induced warming below 2-degrees [Celsius].”

Pope Francis wants to weigh in on global warming, and is expected to issue an encyclical saying basically the same thing. Francis reiterated that 2015 is the last chance to stop massive warming.

But what he should really say is that the U.N. conference this year is the “last” chance to cut a deal to stem global warming…since last year when the U.N. said basically the same thing about 2014’s climate summit.

6. France’s foreign minister said we only have “500 days” to stop “climate chaos”

When Laurent Fabius met with Secretary of State John Kerry on May 13, 2014 to talk about world issues he said “we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos.”

Ironically at the time of Fabius’ comments, the U.N. had scheduled a climate summit to meet in Paris in December 2015 — some 565 days after his remarks. Looks like the U.N. is 65 days too late to save the world.

7. Former President Barack Obama is the last chance to stop global warming

When Obama made the campaign promise to “slow the rise of the oceans,” some environmentalists may have taken him quite literally.

The United Nations Foundation President Tim Wirth told Climatewire in 2012 that Obama’s second term was “the last window of opportunity” to impose policies to restrict fossil fuel use. Wirth said it’s “the last chance we have to get anything approaching 2 degrees Centigrade,” adding that if “we don’t do it now, we are committing the world to a drastically different place.”

Even before that, then-National Aeronautics and Space Administration Goddard Space Flight Center head James Hansen warned in 2009 that Obama only “has four years to save Earth.”

8. Remember when we had “hours” to stop global warming?

World leaders met in Copenhagen, Denmark in 2009 to potentially hash out another climate treaty. That same year, the head of Canada’s Green Party wrote that there was only “hours” left to stop global warming.

“We have hours to act to avert a slow-motion tsunami that could destroy civilization as we know it,” Elizabeth May, leader of the Greens in Canada, wrote in 2009. “Earth has a long time. Humanity does not. We need to act urgently. We no longer have decades; we have hours. We mark that in Earth Hour on Saturday.”

‘Skewed Statistics, Fuzzy Facts, and Dodgy Data’

You’ve heard of “fake news,” but what about fake science? That’s been around even longer, thanks to liberals. Desperate to prop up their unpopular or unnatural agendas, the Left resorts to all kinds of statistical manipulation to persuade people that their arguments are legitimate. They insist the science is “settled” on hot-button topics like abortion, the environment, homosexuality, or same-sex marriage. And they’re right. It is settled — but not on their side!

From when life begins to what your gender is, conservatives are fed up with the lies the Left is using to shut them up. The Center for Family and Human Rights’s Austin Ruse was so frustrated with this coordinated effort that he wrote a book to expose it: Fake Science: Exposing the Left’s Skewed Statistics, Fuzzy Facts, and Dodgy Data. Yesterday, he stopped by “Washington Watch” and explained why liberals feel like they need to twist the truth. (Check out the full segment here.)

“What’s behind it is an ideology that, in our scientific age, needs scientific facts to back them up — when in fact, they don’t exist. The language of our age… is science, and if you don’t come to a political argument with a study in hand — or two or three — then you’re in trouble. People automatically want to know what the science says and what the social science says. And what’s driving it is a Leftist political agenda in search of arguments that will convince the public. And therefore they go out and either create these studies or commission studies that tend to be phony… Either the sample sizes are too small or the sample sizes are drawn from sympathetic audiences — there’s a whole lot of ways to game these studies, mostly in social science… A lot of the things they’re trying to prove are not really provable, and so they have to rely on fake science.”

For years, the far Left has tried to pin the anti-science label on conservatives, but the irony, Austin points out, is that “not only is the other side making things up, but science generally confirms the things we believe — like natural law… In the work that you and I do, we run across this all the time. On homosexuality, for instance, [they tell us] it’s inborn, and if you don’t believe it’s inborn and immutable, then you’re a hater. But science doesn’t show it’s inborn or that it’s immutable…”

The Left claims to be the party of science, but some won’t even acknowledge basic biology! In the battle over gender identity, they can’t accept that our sex is determined by our chromosomes at birth. They think it’s defined by feelings! And unfortunately, Austin explains, fake science is even more dangerous than fake news because scientific statistics — no matter their dubious origins — tend to lodge in our brains and stay there. Fake news, on the other hand, is just superseded by the next news cycle.

In other words, conservatives have to fight even harder to be heard! Consider partnering with FRC as we speak truth into a culture — and Capitol — that desperately needs it. Our work depends on people like you.


Tony Perkins’ Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.


Also in the November 17 Washington Update:

A Tax Bill Tanks Giving

The B-I-B-L-E, Yes, That’s the Museum for Me

The Ugly Truth About Sex Reassignment the Transgender Lobby Doesn’t Want You to Know [+video]

Sex reassignment is as natural as being born, some in the media tell us. And many Americans are buying it.

But a growing chorus of dissenters made up of physicians, researchers, and even transgender individuals is beginning to paint a far different picture of the truth.

These dissenters are now coming forward to expose just how harmful gender transition and reassignment are—both medically and sociologically speaking.

First, consider recent revelations about how problematic sex reassignment surgery is as a therapy for gender dysphoria.

In an interview with The Telegraph, world-renowned genital reconstructive surgeon Miroslav Djordjevic said his clinics are experiencing an increase in “reversal” surgeries for those who want their genitalia back. These people express crippling levels of depression and, in some instances, suicidal thoughts.

In male-to-female reassignment surgery, doctors such as Djordjevic transform the man’s genitals into the shape of a vagina, removing the testicles and inverting the penis.

In female-to-male reassignment surgery, doctors remove the woman’s breasts, uterus, and ovaries, and extend the urethra so that the woman-turned-man can urinate from the standing position.

A recent Newsweek article takes note of Djordjevic’s concerns, illustrating their legitimacy by pointing to the case of Charles Kane, a man who underwent male-to-female reassignment surgery.

In a BBC interview, Kane explains that he decided to have the initial surgery immediately after having a nervous breakdown. But after having the surgery and identifying as a female named “Sam Hashimi,” Kane soon regretted the decision and went for reversal surgery.

“When I was in the psychiatric hospital,” Kane said, “there was a man on one side of me who thought he was King George and another guy on the other side who thought he was Jesus Christ. I decided I was [a girl named] Sam.”

Similarly, Claudia MacLean, a transgender woman, is quoted as saying her psychiatrist referred her to a sex reassignment surgeon after having only a 45-minute consultation. “In my opinion,” MacLean said, “what happened to me was all about money.”

Given that clinics charge up to $50,000 for reassignment surgeries, Djordjevic says he fears that doctors are stuffing their bank accounts without concern for the physical and psychological well-being of their patients.

Physical and psychological well-being should be a concern, given that 41 percent of transgender people will attempt suicide at some point in their lives, and people who have had sex reassignment surgery are approximately 20 times more likely than the general population to die by suicide.

In addition to the problems inherent to sex reassignment surgery, we should recognize the troublesome nature of giving hormonal “treatments” to gender dysphoric children to delay puberty.

In a recent paper, “Growing Pains: Problems with Puberty Suppression in Treating Gender Dysphoria,” endocrinologist Paul Hruz, biostatistician Lawrence Mayer, and psychiatrist Paul McHugh challenge this practice.

They note that approximately 80 percent of gender dysphoric children grow comfortable in their bodies and no longer experience dysphoria, and conclude that there is “little evidence that puberty suppression is reversible, safe, or effective for treating gender dysphoria.”

Thus, scientific evidence suggests that hormone-induced puberty suppression is harmful and even abusive.

Finally, gender transitions are problematic for society at large, as revealed in recent debates about restroom usagemilitary realitieshousing policies, and sporting events.

What is often overlooked in these debates is the troublesome and even dangerous situation created when transgendered “females” compete in female athletic competitions.

Consider the 2014 women’s mixed martial arts bout between Tamikka Brents and Fallon Fox. During a two-minute beating, Brents suffered a concussion, an orbital bone fracture, and a head wound requiring seven staples.

“I’ve fought a lot of women and have never felt the strength that I felt in a fight as I did that night,” said Brents.

As it turns out, her opponent, Fox, wasn’t born female. She is a biological male who identifies as transgender.

Brents thought Fox had an unfair advantage. “I can’t answer whether it’s because she was born a man or not because I’m not a doctor,” said Brents. “I can only say, I’ve never felt so overpowered ever in my life, and I am an abnormally strong female in my own right.”

Brents was right to consider Fox’s advantage unfair: The physical differences between men and women are significant enough that professional female fighters cannot compete effectively against other professional male fighters.

Given all this, why do we not see a more constructive and sustained public debate among surgeons, psychiatrists, and lawmakers about the ethics of sex reassignment?

The most significant reason is the power of the transgender lobby.

Consider psychotherapist James Caspian’s recent claim that Bath Spa University in the United Kingdom refused his application to conduct research on sex reversal surgeries because the topic was deemed “potentially politically incorrect.”

According to Caspian, the university initially approved his research proposal, but later rejected it because of the backlash it expected from powerful transgender lobbies.

Regardless of how politically incorrect the evidence may be, and even while we accommodate the privacy and safety concerns of those who identify as transgender, we must also draw a sober and honest conclusion about the human costs of sex reassignment.

The best medical science, social science, philosophy, and theology coalesce. As Heritage Foundation senior research fellow Ryan Anderson puts it, they reveal that sex is a biological reality, that gender is the social expression of that reality, and that sex reassignment surgeries and treatments are therefore not good remedies for the distress felt by people with gender dysphoria.

The most helpful therapies for gender dysphoria, therefore, will be ones that help people live in conformity with the biological truth about their bodies.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Bruce Ashford

Bruce Ashford is provost and professor at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary. He is the co-author of “One Nation Under God: A Christian Hope for American Politics,” and blogs at “Christianity for the Common Good. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLE: DNC Official Says She Doesn’t Want To Recruit ‘Cisgender Straight White Males’ | Daily Wire

RELATED VIDEO: The Hopeless Homosexual?

A Note for our Readers:

Trust in the mainstream media is at a historic low—and rightfully so given the behavior of many journalists in Washington, D.C.

Ever since Donald Trump was elected president, it is painfully clear that the mainstream media covers liberals glowingly and conservatives critically.

Now journalists spread false, negative rumors about President Trump before any evidence is even produced.

Americans need an alternative to the mainstream media. That’s why The Daily Signal exists.

The Daily Signal’s mission is to give Americans the real, unvarnished truth about what is happening in Washington and what must be done to save our country.

Our dedicated team of more than 100 journalists and policy experts rely on the financial support of patriots like you.

Your donation helps us fight for access to our nation’s leaders and report the facts.

You deserve the truth about what’s going on in Washington.

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

Europe Squanders Money on Green Dreams

By Cathie Adams, Eagle Forum International Issues Chairman.

President Trump’s energy agenda assures a bright future for Americans. He and his delegation did an amazing job defending free-market capitalism, national sovereignty, and our standard of living in Bonn without pandering to the radical greens. To stay on this bright path, it is imperative that Americans understand the United Nations agenda, and boldly stand with our President.

The supposed purpose of the Bonn meeting was to create a rulebook to implement the Paris Agreement, but that work will continue into next year at meetings leading up to the next major meeting in Poland.

Senators at COP23 in Bonn, Germany

The real purpose of the Bonn meeting, and every climate change meeting, is to redistribute wealth from rich to poor countries.  This statement by the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) prior to convening in Bonn affirms the claim: “The LDCs are calling for COP23 to be a COP of finance and support…for two funds in particular, the Least Developed Countries Fund and the Adaptation Fund.” They were highly successful as evidenced by these examples:

  • Germany pledged 50 million Euros on the opening day of the conference to the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) and another 50 million Euros to the Adaptation Fund.
  • Germany also pledged an additional $125 million for an InsuResilience Initiative, a provision of insurance to 400 million poor people by 2020. This insurance mechanism is a partnership between Germany, the UK, other nations, and financial institutions such as the World Bank. This brings G20 nations into partnership with 49 vulnerable nations, called the V20.
  • Germany and Britain combined pledged $153 million to expand programs to fight climate change and deforestation in the Amazon rainforest.
  • The UK pledged 30 million Pounds to its Centre for Global Disaster Protection. And to immediately begin phasing out its coal usage.
  • Belgium pledged 3.25 million Euros to the LDCF.
  • Sweden pledged $185 million to the Adaptation Fund, plus $185 million to the LDCF.
  • Luxembourg pledged 5 million Euros to the Green for Growth Fund for development in the Middle East and North Africa.
  • Norway, Unilever, and the World Bank pledged $400 million to stimulate resilient social development, i.e. high productivity agriculture, smallholder inclusion and forest protection. Laura Tuck, VP of sustainable development at the World Bank commented, “Achieving economic development and the eradication of poverty can’t be achieved if we don’t build climate resilience. This is why the World Bank is putting resilience, and the management of climate risks, at the heart of its investments.”
  • Norway also announced that it will divest its pension funds amounting to about $35-40 billion from fossil fuel companies.
  • Italy pledged 7 million Euros to the Adaptation Fund and another 2.5 million Euros to create a new “Capacity Award Program to Advance Capabilities and Institutional Training in one Year (CAPACITY) to developing local professional expertise in countries that are most vulnerable to climate change.
  • The European Investment Bank pledged $75 million for a new $405 million investment for the Water Authority of Fiji to strengthen the resilience of water distribution and wastewater treatment following Cyclone Winston in February 2016.
  • The Green Climate Fund and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development pledged a $37.6 grant for a $243 million project to make Moroccan agriculture more resilient.
  • The World Resources Institute pledged $2.1 billion of private investment to restore degraded lands in Latin America and the Caribbean.
  • The UN Development Program, Germany, Spain and the EU pledged 42 million Euros for the Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC) Support Program to help countries deliver on the Paris Agreement.
  • Thirteen countries and the International Energy Agency pledged 30 million Euros to the “IEA Clean Energy Transitions Program” to support clean energy transitions around the world.
  • Ecuador pledged to reduce 15 million tons of CO2 emissions in its forest sector.
  • National parks in the central African nation of Gabon pledged to halt illegal logging to stop 20 million tons of CO2.
  • Microsoft and Walmart also announced pledges to the UN climate change agenda. Microsoft pledged to cut CO2 emissions by 75% by 2030. And Walmart pledged to provide commodities that do not increase deforestation.
  • A gender action plan, an indigenous peoples platform, and an oceans pathway were created, but the Fiji host did not get what they wanted most: money for storm loss and damage.

Billions or even trillions of dollars will never satisfy the radical greens. Raijeli Nicole, regional director for Oxfam in the Pacific, put it this way, “For the most part, rich countries showed up to Bonn empty-handed. Instead, we got a tepid agreement that they’ll report back next year on progress towards their $100 billion promise.” The $100 billion promise is the annual UN Green Climate Fund that currently contains only about $10 billion.

Litigation abuse is another tool being plied by the radical greens.They have a number of legal cases hoping the courts will impose penalties for climate change on fossil fuel companies, similar to the penalties that were levied against the tobacco industry. They also bragged about potential litigation against major meat producers accusing them of liability for methane emissions.

The U.S. wisely kept a low profile in Bonn. Judith G. Garber, Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, did address the delegations reiterating President Trump’s plan to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, yet to remain open to rejoining under terms more favorable to the American people. She reported that while the U.S., since 2005, has reduced net greenhouse gas emissions by 11.5%, our economy has grown 15%, adjusted for inflation. She added that the U.S. will continue to support the cleanest, most efficient power generation, regardless of the source.

But that didn’t prevent U.S. Democratic Senators from Rhode Island, Oregon, Hawaii and Massachusetts from showing up in Bonn to make delusional claims: “Trump is just a temporary resident of the White House….Climate outlasts Presidents….We hold the Trump card….The American people are still in [the Paris Agreement.”

Jesse Young, a senior advisor at Oxfam America, also threw jabs at Garber’s remarks: “Today, the U.S. said it remains open to staying in Paris, and wants to help the world address the challenges of climate change. But until they cease their efforts to leave Paris and actually invest in policies to fight climate impacts — today’s statement will be worth little more than the paper on which it was written.”

Oxfam’s Pacific representative added, “From activists to governors and business leaders, we saw the real face of American climate activism here in Bonn. The world has left Trump behind, sitting alone on a throne of coal.” Nothing could be further from the truth.

The undeniable truth is that America’s free-market capitalism, our clean air and water, and our standard of living are lights on a hill that can greatly benefit the rest of the world. Should the radical greens choose to take off their socialist blinders, they too can follow our successful path to an even brighter future.

Cathie Adams

Cathie Adams currently serves as the “International Issues” chairman for Eagle Forum and on the board of the national Eagle Forum. She previously served five years as president of the Dallas Eagle Forum and 16 years as president of the Texas Eagle Forum, until being elected chairman of the Republican Party of Texas in 2009. She was named by Campaigns and Elections magazine’s August 2010 issue as one of the top 50 Republican influencers in Texas.

Eagle Forum’s mission is to enable conservative and pro-family men and women to participate in the process of self-government and public policy-making so that America will continue to be a land of individual liberty, respect for family integrity, public and private virtue, and private enterprise.

Cathie has been an election judge, a member of the district, state and national resolutions/platform committees; and a delegate to five Republican National Conventions. She was elected Republican National Committeewoman for Texas and as Chairman of the Republican Party of Texas.

Capitol Inside’s Texas Lobby Power Rankings placed Cathie first on their list of lobbyists for cause from 2005 through 2009. “The Democratic insurgence hasn’t pushed Texas Eagle Forum President Cathie Adams out of the number one spot on the list of people who lobby for causes. Adams, a veteran activist who was elected to the Republican National Committee last summer, commands the immediate attention of GOP lawmakers whenever her organization decides to turn up the grassroots pressure on conservative issues dear to its heart.”

Most recently, Cathie has been observing the United Nations design a Green Climate Fund. As an observer of major UN conferences since 1995, Cathie enjoys telling about her experiences. She attended the Women’s Conference in Beijing, China; the Housing Summit in Istanbul, Turkey; the Food Summit in Rome, Italy; and a number of Climate Change meetings in Kyoto, Japan, Buenos Aires, Argentina, Bonn, Germany, The Hague, Netherlands, Poznan, Poland and Cancun, Mexico. When the International Criminal Court was created in Rome in 1998, Cathie attended the proceedings. She also attended the 2000 Millennium Summit in New York City, the Global Taxing Summit in Monterrey, Mexico, and the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg, South Africa. She traveled to Hong Kong for a Ministerial Meeting of the World Trade Organization and to Paris, France for a UNESCO meeting.

Cathie has been involved in other civic activities as well. She was a member of the Human Services Commission for the City of Dallas, and has testified before the State Board of Education as well as several Legislative committees in Austin, Texas. The news media frequently calls her for the “conservative” side of their reporting.

Mrs. Cathie Adams is a full-time volunteer. She has been married to Dr. Homer Adams for 41 years and they have five grandchildren. Their son and daughter-in-law are both Texas A&M graduates.

Posts by Cathie Adams

Rep. Vern Buchanan Wrong on Sea Levels Rising, Wrong on the Paris Accord

Florida  Representative Vern Buchanan is running for reelection in 2018. He is now officially a career politician first elected in 2006. Buchanan has sadly learned how to pander to certain constituencies, like environmentalists, for political gain.

Recently Buchanan sent out the following in an email with an accompanying ABC Channel 7 video:

Climate change is a serious issue for a state like Florida that has two coastlines vulnerable to rising waters. That’s why I am again calling on President Trump to reconsider his decision to withdraw the U.S. from the landmark Paris Climate Accord.

Take a look at the video below and let me know what you think by replying to this email.

Vern

The greatest problem facing Florida is saltwater intrusion not rising sea levels.

Dr. Roger Bezdek has found that salt water intrusion is caused by land subsidence due to groundwater withdrawal from subsurface shale and sandstone formations, and to “glacial isostatic adjustments” that have been ongoing since the last glaciers melted.

In a column titled “Sea level rise – or land subsidence? Excessive groundwater pumping is the real culprit” CFACT reports:

[T]he Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimated in 2007 that seas might rise up to only 2 feet by 2107. By comparison, oceans have risen nearly 400 feet since the last ice age ended, reflecting how much water was trapped in mile-thick glaciers that buried much of North America, Europe, and Asia. In recent decades, though, global sea level rise has averaged just 7 inches per century…

[ … ]

As a new report by Dr. Roger Bezdek explains, reality is much different. (His report awaits publication in a scientific journal.) At least for the Chesapeake region, Houston-Galveston, Texas, area, Santa Clara Valley, California, and other places around the globe, the primary cause of seawater intrusions is not rising oceans – but land subsidence due to groundwater withdrawal from subsurface shale and sandstone formations, and to “glacial isostatic adjustments” that have been ongoing since the last glaciers melted.

The solution therefore is not to continue trying to control Earth’s climate – an impossible, economy-busting task that would further impede fossil fuel use, economic development, job creation, and human health and welfare. The solution requires reducing groundwater removal in these coastal areas. 

President Trump was right to leave the Paris Accord. It is nothing more than a massive $100 billion annual “climate finance” transfer of money from the United States to third world countries. Also understand that China, Russia and India are paying nothing.

Clearly Representative Buchanan needs to understand that mankind cannot control either the weather or sea levels. But Florida can control the removal of groundwater in our coastal areas.

The real issue with Buchanan is drilling off of Florida’s coastlines, not the Paris Accord. He is against drilling while President Trump is opening up vast areas to energy exploration and fast tracking environmental processes and removing regulatory hindrances to energy exploration and drilling.

Buchanan is anti-President Trump’s policies of economic growth via increased energy production. That’s the real issue facing Floridians. Cheap reliable power or sending billions in U.S. tax dollars to third world nations. You choose.

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Europe Squanders Money on Green Dreams

Another Obama Legacy: Americans Will Pay Billions for a Useless Climate Agreement

President Obama’s Climate-Change Agenda Costs American Lives

China caused a two percent surge in global CO2 emissions after joining the UN climate pact

Alarmists feverish over sea levels

VIDEO: Alex Epstein — Harvard Business School Fireside Chat

A few weeks ago I was joined by my favorite energy economist, Michael Lynch, for a fireside chat hosted by Harvard Business School. It was a great discussion and the audience asked a lot of thoughtful questions. You can now view the video of that event:


Mr. Epstein Goes to Washington

I’ll be in DC the week of November 27 to share my approach to reframing the energy debate with some high-level officials. It looks like I’ll be speaking to the Congressional Coal Caucus on Wednesday, November 29. On November 30, I’ll be speaking at the Crossroads IV: Energy and Climate Policy Summit in Washington, D.C. The event is presented by the Texas Public Policy Foundation and the Heritage Foundation and includes some of the world’s leading scientists, policy makers, entrepreneurs, and energy experts. I will be speaking on the moral case for fossil fuels. The event is nearly sold out, but there will be a waiting list. You can find more information at https://www.crossroads-summit.com.


ALSO: Whenever you’re ready, here are 3 ways I can help your organization turn non-supporters into supporters and turn supporters into champions.

  1. Hire me to speak at your next event.
  2. Fill out the free Constructive Conversation Scorecard to assess where you are and where you want to be in your one-on-one communications. Email it back to me and I’ll send you my step-by-step Constructive Conversation System that will enable you to talk to anyone about energy.
  3. Hold a Constructive Conversation workshop.

For the last two years I have been testing and refining an approach to one-on-one conversations that anybody can use. I call it the Constructive Conversation Formula. If you have between 5-20 people who interact frequently with stakeholders and want custom guidance on how to win hearts and minds, just reply to this email and put “Workshop” in the subject line.

Gun Controllers Choose to Ignore Cases of Good Guys with Guns

Less than three hours after the tragedy at the First Baptist Church in Sutherland Springs, Texas, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) was looking to score political points. As is his custom, Murphy fired off a tweet admonishing his colleagues for their refusal to submit to the gun control lobby’s agenda. However, in the following hours, as more information about the shooting became available, it became clear the event didn’t fit so neatly into Murphy’s preconceived anti-gun narrative.

Reports began to come out that an armed citizen, later identified as NRA Member and former NRA Instructor Stephen Willeford, had engaged the shooter with his own firearm, prompting the killer to flee the scene. With little information and no qualms about denigrating the brave actions of an American hero, the omniscient Murphy tweeted, “Let’s be clear – nobody ‘stopped’ this shooting…” At the time Willeford engaged the shooter, there were at least 20 people still alive inside the church. A heart-rending account provided to the Washington Post by David Brown, son of wounded churchgoer Farida Brown, made clear that Farida Brown feared the shooter was not finished killing when Willeford came on the scene.

Murphy’s attempt to dismiss Willeford’s courageous response to the shooting is in keeping with gun control advocates’ longstanding messaging efforts and shows the depths anti-gun activists will sink to bury the facts. According to these gun-control proponents, good guys with guns don’t stop bad guys with guns.

In order to justify this position, gun control activists ignore cases where armed civilians have put a halt to mass violence. Like a perverse Goldilocks, gun controllers will discount cases where a criminal was stopped before they were able to carry out sufficient carnage, and, as in the case of the shooting in Southerland Springs, dismiss a case where the killer was able to exact significant violence before an armed citizen could arrive.

When you look past gun control advocates and much of the media’s biased filtering, there are a number of documented cases where armed citizens have confronted these types of killers and likely saved lives. Here are just a handful:

On August 1, 1966, a madman went to the observation deck of the University of Texas at Austin Tower and began firing at those on the ground, eventually killing 14. During the shooting, several citizens retrieved their personal firearms and returned fire. According to a university effort to compile a complete historical record of the incident, “The ground fire did pin down Whitman, most likely keeping him from killing more people.” One eyewitness told Texas Monthly in 2006, “It seemed like every other guy had a rifle. There was a sort of cowboy atmosphere, this ‘Let’s get him’ spirit.”

On January 16, 2002, a disgruntled former student returned to Appalachian School of Law in Grundy, Va. and shot two school officials. According to an account from student Tracy Bridges printed in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, he and fellow student Michael Gross retrieved firearms from their vehicles and went to confront the shooter. Along with two other students, Bridges and Gross were able to subdue the killer until police could arrive. In his book, The Bias Against Guns, Economist John Lott pointed out that “out of 208 news stories (from a computerized Nexis-Lexis search) in the week after the event, just four stories mentioned that the students who stopped the attack had guns.”

On December 9, 2007, a man entered the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colo. after having killed two people earlier in day at a Christian center in Arvada, Colo. The killer was met by volunteer armed church security guard Jeanne Assam. Describing her actions, Assam said, “I took cover. I identified myself. I engaged him. I took him down.” Following the incident, Church Pastor Brady Boyd called Assam a hero and explained, “Three people are needlessly dead, but many more lives could have been lost.” 

On April 17, 2015, a man fired into a crowd of people in Chicago’s Logan Square. John Hendricks, an Uber driver and Right-to-Carry permit holder, drew a handgun and shot the assailant, who collapsed onto the sidewalk. Recalling his experience for the Chicago Tribune, Hendricks explained, “There was a threat to me and I helped somebody in the process as well… It’s a positive feeling.”

On May 5, 2015, a deranged man drove into the parking lot of a fire station in New Holland, S.C. According to a report from WIS-TV, several children and firefighters were in the lot. The man then exited his vehicle with a firearm and shot into the air and at his own automobile. Firefighter Gary Knoll and one of his colleagues, both Right-to-Carry permit holders, drew firearms and confronted the man. Knoll and his colleagues were able to disarm the man and detain him until police could arrive. Speaking to the local media about the importance of exercising the Right-to-Carry, Knoll said, “It saved a life, if not multiple.”

On May 3, 2017, a man entered the Zona Caliente sports bar in Arlington, Texas, began speaking incoherently, and opened fire. At the time of the shooting, there were more than a dozen people inside the restaurant. A patron, who was also a Right-to-Carry permit holder, shot and killed the shooter, ending the incident. Arlington Police Spokesman Christopher Cook told the Dallas Morning News that the armed citizen was a “hero,” and noted that he “prevented further loss of life.”

In an interview with NRA, Willeford recalled the moment when he became aware of the gunfire at the church and said, “I kept hearing those shots and I knew every shot might be representing another person getting hit by a bullet.” Acting as fast as he could, Willeford retrieved his rifle, grabbed a handful of ammunition, and raced out his door barefoot towards the church. Anyone who has seen the NRA video, or Willeford’s other interviews, can see the anguish of a man who wishes he could have done even more to protect his community. Maybe Willeford’s heroic response wasn’t enough for Murphy to consider him a good guy with a gun, but the survivors in Sutherland Springs and the decent portion of America likely disagree.

RELATED ARTICLE: GUN CONTROL FAIL: Terrorists Use BANNED Guns To Murder 235 Egyptians, Media Fails To Report

How Many Democrats Believe Your Gender Can Be Different Than Biological Sex

Most of us didn’t need a poll to show us that liberals have lost their grip on reality. But Pew Research Center is providing one anyway.

In a survey that will probably leave you speechless about the radical bent of President Barack Obama’s party, Pew asked Americans what they really think about gender identity. If the results don’t surprise you, check your pulse.

First, the good news. A majority of Americans (though far less than one might guess, 54 percent) still believe that a person’s gender is “determined at birth.” Fewer, 44 percent, think someone “can be a man or woman even if that is different than the sex they were assigned at birth.”

That’s right. Only a 10 percent gap separates Americans on what, a decade ago, would have been a consensus issue. Now, after eight years of chipping away at the country’s moral sensibilities with bathroom mandates, Caitlyn Jenner homages, and Chelsea Manning pardons, the activist left’s quiet war on gender is having its effect.

But so far, it’s a one-sided victory. An overwhelming number of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents (80 percent) aren’t playing these liberals’ game of make believe. They think that a person is born whatever gender they truly are. Amazingly, an enormous number of Democrats and Democratic leaners disagree: 64 percent, to be exact. That’s a jaw-dropping population of political misled and scientifically misguided people.

No wonder we’re having to debate commonsense bathroom guidelines, driver’s licenses, classroom pronouns, and military policy. With the exception of black Democrats and Hispanic Democrats, (55 percent and 41 percent, respectively), Obama’s reality-optional politics have had a major effect on his party’s agenda.

Breitbart broke down Pew’s numbers and uncovered this stunner: “The survey,” Neil Munro points out, “finds that Democrats with a bachelor’s degree or more education are more likely than other Democrats to say a person’s gender can be different from the sex they were assigned at birth. About three-quarters (77 percent ) of Democrats with a bachelor’s degree or more say this, compared with 60 percent of Democrats with some college and 57 percent of those with a high school diploma or less. No such [education] divide exists among Republicans.”

In other words, the supposedly “more educated” class of Democrats are the ones denying science and basic biology. Republicans, by contrast, stand steadfastly behind a person’s DNA as the defining factor of a person’s gender—regardless of their age, race, or education.

Asked if America has done enough to accommodate people who identify as transgender, only 32 percent say the country has gone “too far.” Thirty-nine percent think we haven’t gone far enough.

They’re the ones willing to sacrifice women and children’s safety, national security, and religious liberty on the altar of liberal deception. They’re the ones eager to discard reality as a means to a political end. But regardless of what they say, truth is not up for self-determination. And a nation that thinks otherwise not only deceives itself, but dooms itself as well.

This was originally published in Tony Perkins’ Washington Update, which is written with the aid of Family Research Council senior writers.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Tony Perkins

Tony Perkins is president of the Family Research Council. Twitter: .