The Anti-Israel Effort Increases in Politics and on Campus

Antisemitism is being aggressively promoted in Britain and on American Campuses. Jewish students in American colleges face ostracism or worse.

Quote—“The growing advocacy of BDS and anti-Zionist activists has contributed to a continued deterioration of conditions for Jewish students. A report from John Jay College noted that BDS leaders actively orchestrated the ostracizing of Jewish students, blacklisting other groups who might co-host events with Jewish organizations and harassing individual Jewish students. Some Jewish students feel pressured to denounce Israel and Jewish organizations in order to participate in campus social life”.

“A new report from the AMCHA Initiative discusses these patterns. Among other conclusions, it shows that “nearly all of the Israel-related incidents in 2017 involved behavior intended to suppress pro-Israel expression and/or that specifically targeted pro-Israel individuals or groups for ostracizing or discriminatory behavior intended to exclude them from fully participating in campus life.” While the number of anti-Israel events remained fairly constant, behavior aimed at ostracizing pro-Israel individuals and groups expanded in 2018”.

The Anti-Israel Effort Intensifies in Politics and On Campus

By Dr. Alex Joffe

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Anti-Semitism continues to be aggressively promoted in the guise of anti-Israelism in two highly influential arenas: politics, particularly in Britain; and on campus. In the US, the BDS movement is doing all it can to ostracize Jewish students.

August’s major BDS issue was the continuation of the British Labour Party’s anti-Semitism crisis, which began more than two years ago. It was revealed that Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn had formally endorsed BDS in 2015, had laid a wreath at the graves of the Black September terrorists who orchestrated the 1972 Munich massacre, had met Hamas leaders in the West Bank during an undeclared trip in 2010, and had participated in a 2012 conference in Qatar with Hamas members responsible for numerous terrorist murders.

Corbyn’s preposterous excuse that “I was present at that wreath-laying, I don’t think I was actually involved in it” was excoriated by the British press, British Jews, and many Labour Party members. His later comment that “Zionists” do not understand “English irony” compounded the problem.

But these and other outrages were followed by an explosion of anti-Semitic abuse directed at Corbyn’s critics, including accusations that false claims of anti-Semitism are being used to smear Corbyn and wreck the party. Corbyn’s divisive leadership and the anti-Semitism crisis are among the issues leading some observers to predict a permanent split in the party.

The sources of Labour’s crisis — which originated on college campuses — should be emphasized. Campus politics in Britain have long been incubators for national politics, mirroring such national trends as “intersectionality” and identity politics in progressive circles.

Read more.

Is Violence the New Normal?

California’s Rudy Peters was supposed to be running for Congress — not running for his life. But late Sunday, he was doing both after a scary encounter with the latest rabid liberal fanatic. What should have been a simple campaign stop at the Castro Valley Fall Festival turned violent when police say Farzad Fazeli lunged at Peters and pulled out a switchblade, screaming profanity about Donald Trump. It was a surreal scene, the latest in a string of unimaginable harassment from the Left.

Fortunately for Peters, the switchblade malfunctioned. And when Fazeli decided to throw mugs instead, a quick-thinking Peters used a campaign sign to defend himself. House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.) wasn’t so lucky in 2017, when an armed madman shot him and others at a congressional baseball practice. He, more than anyone, understands where the rising violence could lead. His story, which very nearly ended in a D.C. hospital after multiple gunshot wounds, should have been a moment of national clarity. Instead, the attacks grew — inspired, in a large part, by Democrats’ own leaders!

Americans watched in astonishment as Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) stoked the fire, urging liberals to initiate more confrontations. “If you see anybody from [the Trump] cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd,” the congresswoman added. “And you push back on them. Tell them they’re not welcome any more, anywhere!” Her troops listened, heckling conservatives in public places all across the country. “It’s time to escalate the expression of our outrage and our anger in a massive way,” the Huffington Post suggested. Trump supporters have dodged bricks, eggs, punches — the worst the Left had to deliver. An NRA lobbyist came home to fake blood spray-painted on his house, while White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders was driven out of the Red Hen Restaurant by intolerant owners who refused to serve her. People heckled Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and White House advisor Stephen Miller at dinners in D.C. Things got so out of hand that even the Washington Post called on liberals to please just “Let the Trump Team Eat in Peace.”

In other states, attorneys general were chased out of movie theaters, shouted down by protestors, even run off the road. And why not? New Jersey’s “Spartacus,” Sen. Cory Booker (D), was urging voters to “get up in the face of some congresspeople,” while House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) wondered “why there aren’t uprisings all over the country.” Well, she’s getting her wish. And victims like Steve Scalise are disgusted. “Some on the Left are inciting this violence, and frankly they should be called out on it.” The Louisiana congressman, who nearly died at the hands of a man who took the resistance a little too seriously, demanded that Democrats put a stop to it.

“You’ve got some people on the Left, that just want this idea of resist and ignore the fact that [Trump] is president, they want to interrupt the ability of congress to do its job and of course you’ve got death threats and literal attacks on lives and frankly I want to see the Left stand up to this,” Scalise said. News outlets like Politico warn about the last time liberals got nasty. “History shows why liberals shouldn’t take the low road,” they caution. Apart from the civil unrest, it’s also just a terrible idea politically. Thanks to groups like Antifa, Republicans have piles of footage to choose from for new ads, everything from personal attacks and riots to property damage.

Unfortunately, this is nothing new. The Obama administration spent eight years demeaning opponents, resorting to labels to try to dehumanize people. In the end, that only made it easier to attack them. Now, the hostility is so rampant that even Hollywood celebrities feel comfortable calling for the president’s assassination. “Where’s John Wilkes Booth when you need him?” actress Carole Cook told TMZ.

As we’ve said from the beginning, there is absolutely no room for violence in a civil society — on either side. “When you’re violent and cursing and screaming and blocking me from walking into a movie, there’s something wrong,” Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi (R) told Politico. “The next people are going to come with guns. That’s what’s going to happen.” Or, as Rudy Peters will tell you, knives.


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


RELATED ARTICLES:

An Old Friend to Conservatives Returns to #VVS18

Religious Liberty Takes a Hawley Day

Violence Against Right Escalates as Media Amp up Hate-Rhetoric Against Trump.

The Cannabis Conundrum: Steering Policy and Medicine with Insufficient Data

The current issue of the International Review of Psychiatry issues a call for marijuana regulatory science.

An editorial introducing the issue notes that marijuana’s use as a medicine began with compassion for people with terminal or debilitating conditions for which no standard treatment existed but has expanded into multiple conditions which are neither life-threatening nor debilitating for which effective treatments exist. This expansion has given rise to a “large-scale, for-profit industry fraught with public health concerns.”

“Quality control issues abound in this industry as there are no established standards for cultivating, processing, testing, or labeling cannabis products. There is also concern over advertisements and product labeling that include misleading or unsubstantiated health claims, as these products have not been vetted by traditional drug development methods. The speed in which cannabis policies are changing is rapid, and the fact that these are happening as a direct result of legislation or by voter referendum is reckless given the absence of consensus standards and, in many cases, appropriate regulatory oversight,” writes researcher Ryan Vandrey of Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.

He notes that the US food and Drug Administration (FDA) was recently granted regulatory oversight of nicotine and tobacco products. This has generated an abundance of policy research resulting in regulations that will likely have a positive impact on public health. He writes there is a critical parallel need for marijuana regulatory research.

“Novel products and cannabis delivery devices are rolling onto the shelves of dispensaries at a rapid rate, product development appears to be geared towards high potency/high dose products, and it is all being carefully marketed to increase consumption,” he says.

In addition, Dr. Vandrey says more research is needed to evaluate the risks and benefits for both medicinal and non-medicinal (recreational) marijuana use.

“Currently there is inadequate data for a confident determination of risk/benefit of cannabis use as a potential therapeutic in psychiatry, yet it is being recommended to individuals for use in the treatment of anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder, opioid use disorder, dementia, and psychotic disorders,” he writes.

Although there is a lack of data, he says, there are numerous cases where people have been helped by marijuana and some of its cannabinoids. This should be used to motivate the development of “reliably formulated cannabinoid medications,” he concludes.

Read International Review of Psychiatry article here.


Lack of communication about marijuana for medical use between doctors and their patients

Researchers surveyed 242 patients and their primary care physicians in three family medicine practices in Denver, Colorado. Patients’ and doctors’ surveys were linked by numbers rather than names. The surveys were distributed in the doctors’ offices for patients to fill out anonymously. Only primary care physicians whose patients completed a survey filled out the doctor’s survey.

  • 22 percent of patients reported marijuana use in the past six months.
  • Of those, 61 percent said they used marijuana for medical purposes.
  • None obtained their state medical marijuana card from their primary care physicians.
  • Primary care physicians were aware their patients used marijuana only 53 percent of the time.
  • Primary care physicians identified conditions they believed could be adversely affected by marijuana use in 31 percent of their patients.

Read the Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine article here.


Jimmy Buffett brand to develop cannabis products with Surterra

Margaritaville’s Jimmy Buffett, whose fans are known as Parrotheads, has licensed his band’s name—Coral Reefer—to Surterra Holdings, which will produce a line of marijuana products for medical use under the band’s brand name.

Surterra is a $100 million, five-year-old company based in Atlanta that has done no business in Georgia except to contribute to Georgia politicians. Surterra’s former president holds a seat on a legislative study commission to decide whether to legalize marijuana cultivation in Georgia. The commission’s report is due to the full legislature in time for the 2019 legislative session.

The Wall Street Journal reports the venture will produce Coral Reefer products in the form of vape pens, gel caps, edibles, and lotions. Beau Wrigley, the chewing gum scion who sold the family business a few years ago to establish a family investment firm, raised $65 million for Surterra and became its chairman last month. He said at the time that while Surterra is focused on products for medical use, it plans to compete in the recreational market as well.

Read the SunSentinel story here.


When two studies contradict each other, how do scientists decide which one is true?

People who want marijuana to be legalized for medical and/or recreational use often point to studies that re-enforce their viewpoint. People who don’t want pot legalized often do the same, pointing to studies that are diametrically opposed. How can there be so many studies that contradict each other?

We asked Michael Kuhar, PhD, Candler Professor of Neuropharmacology at Emory University and author of The Addicted Brain, how scientists determine which studies are valid and which are not. Here are his answers:

There are a number of ways scientists evaluate conflicting results.

1. The scientist will evaluate the two conflicting studies on her own, looking closely at both.

  • She might look at the patient population. Are they different? If yes, it might be that both studies are correct for the patient population involved.
  • He might ask which study has more patients because a larger group of patients tends to produce more reliable results.
  • She might compare the methodology, experimental design, and statistical analysis. Does one study look more rigorous than the other?
  • A scientist might look at the authors of the two studies and ask which one has more experience in the field.
  • While the above approach might reveal the best study, even a close review of the papers might not reveal which is more reliable.

2. If the scientist is unsure or is unable to critically evaluate both studies on his own, he might go to another scientist who is expert in that area and who knows more about it. Opinions of other highly trained people are important.

3. She is likely to look for other published studies in the area because confirmation and support for either study is important. The scientist wants to see if someone else has gotten similar results to those of one of the contrary studies. It is possible that, in the face of conflicting studies, everyone may have to wait until additional studies are carried out to see which result is the correct one. Confirmation is a cornerstone of the scientific method.

Scientists are trained to deal with such conflicts. Scientists do not expect a perfect world, and they often look for the preponderance or greatest evidence for a result. Every study may not produce exactly the same result, but the overall bulk of the data (from several studies) will support one view or another. Overall, this is referred to as evidence-based thinking.


FDA cracks down on Juul and e-cigarette retailers

As noted in the first article of today’s The Marijuana Report, the FDA now has jurisdiction over nicotine and tobacco regulation. FDA declared that some 2 million teenagers are using e-cigarettes and vaping products like the popular Juul, pictured above, and are becoming “hooked” on nicotine. The issue has reached epidemic proportions.

Today, FDA announced that it is giving Juul, RJR Vapor Company’s Vuse, Altria Group’s MarkTen, Imperial Grand’s blu and Logic 60 days to prove they can keep their products away from minors. If they fail, FDA may remove the flavored products from the market.

FDA also sent warning letters to 1,100 retailers, including 7-Eleven stores, Walgreens, Circle K convenience shops, and Shell gas stations. It has issued another 131 fines for selling e-cigarettes to minors.

Read the New York Times story here.


Breaking: Marijuana legalization in Colorado not so great after all

The 2018 Rocky Mountain HIDTA report released this morning shows marijuana legalization is having a negative impact in many areas:

  • Marijuana-related traffic deaths have increased 151 percent compared to all Colorado traffic deaths, which have increased 35 percent.
  • Past-month marijuana use among Coloradans age 12 and older is 85 percent higher than the national average.
  • Marijuana-related ER visits have increased 52 percent since Colorado legalized pot.
  • Hospitalizations related to marijuana jumped 148 percent.
  • Violent crime increased 18.6 percent; property crime increased 8.3 percent.
  • 65 percent of local jurisdictions throughout the state have banned both medical and recreational marijuana.

Read full report here.

VIDEO: Obama fired heroes of Benghazi. Made them find their own way home from Germany.

Former President Barack Obama in a speech on September 6th blamed “the politics of resentment and paranoia,” which he said had found a home in the Republican Party, for “wild conspiracy theories – like those surrounding Benghazi.”

Now we learn how badly Obama treated the heroes on Benghazi.

Dialogue with a Demagogue

Barack Obama is hitting the campaign trail — and no one could be happier than Republicans! The former president stepped back into the spotlight last Friday, campaigning for a Congress that he spent his entire two terms ignoring. In a speech to University of Illinois students that was equal parts smug and self-righteous, the 44th president’s antagonism was a potent reminder of what voters rejected in 2016. And not a moment too soon.Almost two years to the day that Hillary Clinton gave her fateful “deplorables” speech, Obama proved that Democrats still haven’t learned how to control their contempt for millions of conservative Americans. With a sanctimony that people learned to despise, one of the most polarizing presidents in history had the nerve to lecture Americans on demagoguery. Implying that Trump supporters are “bigots” and “fearmongers,” Obama went on to blame Republicans for tearing the country apart. “…The politics of division and resentment and paranoia has unfortunately found a home in the Republican party,” he said. This from a man who made Middle-America bashing a professional sport in his eight years at the White House. Who dismissed blue-collar patriots “bitter clingers” who turn to religion and guns because they’re too ignorant to know better. Who called political opponents “unpatriotic” or even “craz[y].”

Republicans like Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) fired back at the hypocrisy almost immediately, posting, “Pres. Obama is right. It is wrong for a President to use divisive language, such as: 1. Call all opponents of same-sex marriage bigots; 2. Call the Pro-Life movement a ‘War on Women;’ 3. Call all immigration enforcement advocates racists; 4. Call the GOP the enemy of Hispanics.” On Fox News, Judge Jeanine Pirro said that if Obama was looking for someone to blame for the animus, he ought to look in the mirror. “Your lies, your policies, and your divisiveness… You elected Donald Trump.”

To evangelicals, his longtime punching bag, he tried to preach a decency he rarely practiced. “Even if you are an evangelical and our position on certain social issues is a bridge too far… I’m here to tell you that you should still be concerned with our current course and should still want to see a restoration of honesty… and lawfulness in our government.” So let me get this straight. The president whose reign included an attorney general who was held in contempt of Congress, an administration that refused to enforce federal law, and misled Congress and the American public with meaningless executive orders wants to lecture evangelicals on lawfulness? That’s like Judas lecturing Matthew on proper accounting principles.

Two years is a long time, but it’s not long enough for the American people to forget the man who built a bigger bypass around the Constitution than I-495! His administration was synonymous with lawlessness. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) chronicled 76 examples of it by 2014 alone. The president who said, “Middle class families can’t wait for Republicans in Congress to do stuff. So, sue me,” is sermonizing on political authority?

“He used his ‘pen and phone’ to circumvent the will of Congress,” Chris Pandolfo fumed. “He sicced his IRS on conservative organizations for opposing his agenda. He ran a gun-running “Fast and Furious” program that put illegal firearms in the hands of violent criminals. His administration spied on Fox News reporter James Rosen. His communications director Anita Dunn said the Obama White House would treat Fox News “the way we would treat an opponent.” Obama lied about keeping your doctor, lied about the Iran nuclear deal, lied about NSA spying, lied about how easy it is to buy a gun, and lied repeatedly throughout his presidency.”

And that’s just the tip of the overreach iceberg. The courts have an equally impressive tally, having rebuked and overturned the administration on everything from recess appointments and immigration to Obamacare mandates.

Not content to sit in the shadows and watch Trump rack up victories on the economy, unemployment, trade, and denuclearization, Obama tried desperately to take some credit for the president’s successes. In a sad attempt to rewrite his disastrous financial legacy, he told the students, “Let’s just remember when this recovery started. I’m glad it’s continued, but when you hear about this economic miracle that’s been going on, when the job numbers come out, monthly job numbers and suddenly Republicans are saying it’s a miracle, I have to kind of remind them, actually, those job numbers are the same as they were in 2015 and 2016 and — anyway. I digress.”

The former president can talk all he wants about jumpstarting the economy, but the numbers speak louder than any stump speech soundbite. In reality, Barack Obama presided over “the worst economic recovery since the Great Depression.” It was so awful, CBS’s Michael Graham pointed out, that “in August of 2011— two years after the $1 trillion stimulus was passed — the economy added zero jobs.” Vice President Mike Pence was just as surprised as anyone else that Obama would try to “tout policies that resulted in less than two percent growth, saw tax increases, Obamacare regulation, and doubling the national debt. [I]t was very disappointing, but frankly I think it just illuminates the choice the American people had in the midterm elections.”

“If we don’t step up,” Obama said, “things could get worse.” Worse, as in more take-home pay, a stronger military and economy, peace with North Korea, and a return to free speech, religious liberty, and respect for life? If that’s the Left’s best argument heading into November, then political strategists are right. Obama is doing more to help conservatives out of the White House than he ever did in it!


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


RELATED ARTICLES:

Giving Acredit Where Acredit Is Due…

A Fragile China Deals with Religious Crackdown

Get Your Kids out of Government Schools — Right Now, Today

VIDEO: How Do We Make Society Better? Left vs. Right

How do you want to improve America? By focusing on improving and refining yourself? Or by transforming society? The answer to that question will reveal whether you’re on the Left or the Right.

Donate today to PragerU!

9/11 Attacks—17 Years Later

Today is the seventeenth anniversary of the September 11, 2001, Muslim terrorist attacks on the New York World Trade Center Towers, the Pentagon and Flight 93, which resulted in the death of almost 3,000 innocent Americans. We also remember the first responders who so selflessly and with no hesitation, answered the call to rescue those who were trapped, many of whom lost their own lives in the collapsing towers.

Click here for an interactive timeline of events on 9/11

For 17 years the evil of Islam has existed within our borders.  Islam has infiltrated every aspect of our society, including our schools and universities, both political parties, Hollywood, mainstream media, cultural elite, and major corporations.

So, how effective has America’s response been in 17 years?

  • 17 years later…World leaders still call Islam a “religion of peace,” including former Presidents Obama, Bush and Clinton and Pope Francis.
  • 17 years later…Muslims are within America’s borders training children to carry out school shootings.
  • 17 years later…American public schools are now teaching our children to recite the Shahada, the Islamic conversion creed: “There is no god except Allah and Prophet Muhammad is his messenger.”
  • 17 years later…victims of the 9/11 attack are still dying from the poisonous dust from Ground Zero.
  • 17 years later…The Muslim Brotherhood, which vows to destroy America from within, continues to operate within our borders.
  • 17 years later…CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations), which vows to make the Koran the highest authority in America and was listed as an unindicted co-conspirator in a terrorism trial, still exists, and routinely appears on national TV spewing Islamic propaganda.
  • 17 years later… Muslims are still persecuting and slaughtering thousands of innocent Christians throughout the world.
  • 17 years later…our Armed Forces are still fighting in Afghanistan, the longest war in America’s history, with no end in sight.
  • 17 years later…American soldiers are still dying in faraway places defending Islam and Sharia law.
  • 17 years later…Turkey hates our guts, formed an alliance with Russia and Iran, and seeks to re-institute the Ottoman Empire.
  • 17 years later…Islamic activity in America is stronger, not weaker.
  • 17 years later…we continue to bring Muslim refugees that do not want to assimilate into our country at taxpayer expense.

Consider this fact: the U.S. government has spent more than $7.6 trillion on defense and homeland security since the 9/11 attacks.

Islam has fought a religious war against Christianity for over 1400 years. And those wars will continue as long as Islam’s goal remains Islamic domination of the world.

RELATED ARTICLE: 17 Years after 9/11, ‘It’s Sharia-supremacism, Stupid’

How Louisiana Stood Up to the Anti-Gun Corporate Elite

The state of Louisiana recently held some members of the corporate social police accountable for discriminating against law-abiding Americans.

By a vote of 7-6, the State Bond Commission excluded Citigroup and Bank of America from the running for a lucrative state contract. Our reason for doing so: these corporations had introduced bank policies that restrict legal access to firearms and bank misrepresentations on those policies.

While our governor and his allies sided with these anti-gun corporations, conservatives stood together to protect the Second Amendment rights of Louisiana citizens.

Citigroup and Bank of America’s policies were grotesque attempts to capitalize on the tragedy in Parkland, Florida. In the wake of the tragedy, they proudly and publicly announced plans to restrict the distribution, manufacture, and purchase of firearms.

When called to task by our commission this past spring, these “too big to fail” companies asserted that they had no policies restricting the availability of firearms to law-abiding citizens.

When asked to defend these positions a second time, Citigroup and Bank of America then attempted to convince us their policies would have minimal effects on Louisianans, stressing that they were specifically tailored to either a particular age group or class of firearm.

This type of double-speak is not uncommon in today’s liberal corporate culture. Banks, airlines, tech firms, and many other corporations have tried to cash in on easy public relations wins by appeasing outraged activists so that “news” outlets like CNN and MSNBC will applaud their actions.

Fortunately, our commission did not fall for the trap. Instead, we fought back—something other government entities would be wise to do.

The clear disconnect between the banks’ policies and their likely effects shows exactly how little these companies care for our Second Amendment rights. Such casual dismissal of our cherished rights and values should not be minimized or dismissed.

Recently, the people of my state directly and overwhelmingly approved the strongest possible constitutional protection of our gun rights. The constitutional amendment states that “the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right and any restriction of that right requires the highest standard of review by a court.”

I intend to continue upholding that duty and fighting boardroom elitists who seek to use their power to undermine our constitutional rights.

I have not and will not allow their public virtue signaling to even nominally affect the ability of Louisiana citizens to enjoy their Second Amendment rights. I am proud of our majority on the Louisiana Bond Commission who saw these policies for what they are.

I hope others will follow our example and hold these companies accountable for the full extent of their actions, especially those that restrict Americans’ exercise of their right to defend themselves and their families.

COMMENTARY BY

Portrait of Jeff Landry

Jeff Landry is the attorney general for Louisiana. Twitter: .


The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now


EDITORS NOTE: The featured image of Shreveport, Louisiana is by Sean Pavone/Getty Images.

VIDEO: Kneeling for the Anthem Disrespects Stories of Heroism and Courage

“This issue of kneeling troubles me in so many ways. But the thing that bothers me the most is the total disrespect to families who have given so much to this country—families that have lost sons and daughters in service to this proud and great nation.” —Grant Stinchfield

The ‘Global Climate Action Summit’s’ Destructive Decarbonization Tsunami

Batten down the hatches! A tsunami of global warming and “clean energy” propaganda is approaching! San Francisco is hosting the September 12-14 Global Climate Action Summit, a massive event at which “international and local leaders from states, regions, cities, businesses, investors and civil society … will be joined by national government leaders, scientists, students, nonprofits and others … [to share] what they have achieved to date and commit to doing more to usher in the era of decarbonization.”

Decarbonization means phasing out the fossil fuels that now provide over 80% of all the energy we use – in favor of wind, solar and other supposedly clean energy sources. In his video promoting the Summit, Governor Jerry Brown said, “It’s up to you and it’s up to me, and tens of millions of other people to get it together to roll back the forces of carbonization and join together to combat the existential threat of climate change.” The Summit home page even claims “decarbonization of the global economy is in sight.”

That is ridiculous. The world has been using more coal, oil and natural gas over the past decade, not less, because they are the best energy sources available. The supposedly clean, green renewable energy sources and their long transmission lines are far too expensive and unreliable for widespread use. They also have major pollution issues of their own, though the worst impacts occur in countries with weak environmental controls. They require vast amounts of fossil fuel energy and raw materials to manufacture. They impact millions of acres for mining, waste disposal, wind and solar facilities, and transmission lines.

At the recent America First Energy Conference, Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry noted that just generating enough electricity to power the Houston metropolitan area would require over 21,000 square miles (13.4 million acres) of corn fields, if the fuel source was corn ethanol. “Think about that footprint!” Landry exclaimed. To produce the same amount of electricity from wind power would take almost 900 square miles of wind turbines or 150 square miles of solar panels, he added (and millions of batteries).

Wind turbines already kill millions of raptors, other birds and bats, many of them rare, threatened or endangered. Imagine the impacts from all the turbines needed to generate all the world’s electricity. And climate change is almost entirely a natural phenomenon, over which humans have essentially no control.

To support the decarbonization ruse, Summit speakers will employ simple but effective language tricks. We’re already getting a taste. For example, the Summit’s Press Room proclaimed on August 23, “19 Global Cities Commit to Make New Buildings ‘Net-Zero Carbon’ by 2030.”

The World Green Building Council says the objective of net-zero carbon building is to “achieve net zero carbon emissions annually in operation.” But of course, that just means that most of the emissions merely have to be created somewhere else, as discussed above.

The WGBC says this is being done to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement, “the start of the most important race in our existence – the race to curb global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, so that global temperature rise remains below 2 degrees Celsius and, ideally, below 1.5 degrees Celsius.”

But that rise began with the modern industrial revolution and end of the Little Ice Age in 1850 – which means we now have less than a degree to spare before climate chaos allegedly sets in. That too is ridiculous. Moreover, humans cannot control climate as if we had a global thermostat, and we are not really talking about controlling “carbon” anyway.

Al Gore started that deception with his 2006 pseudo-documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, which claimed “carbon emissions” were going to destroy our planet. Gore helped popularize the term “carbon footprint,” while always hiding the enormity of his own footprint – and hiding the fact that the “dangerous pollutant” is actually carbon dioxide (CO2), the gas that people and animals exhale and plants use to grow. The more CO2 in the air, the better and faster plants grow.  It’s a natural, happy, mutually beneficial process.

So, in an unfortunately all too successful attempt to scare people, Gore and his cohorts began using “carbon” as a synonym for carbon dioxide, knowing it would conjure up visions of soot, lamp black and coal dust. Aside from the fact that CO2 contains a single molecule of carbon, it has about as much in common with elemental carbon as lightning does with lightning bugs.

Robert Gould, MD, president of the San Francisco Bay Area Chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility, further illustrates how distorted the climate debate terminology has become. Gould says “the decarbonization of our planet is imperative for human survival.” In reality, a decarbonized Earth would be a dead world, a world devoid of all life, including ours.

Many people have unwittingly accepted the “carbon” sleight-of-hand, without realizing they are being manipulated toward negative thoughts about plant food. It is possibly the best example of subliminal brainwashing ever.

Fears that CO2 increases can deleteriously impact temperatures should also be scuttled. Carbon dioxide can absorb only a narrow wave length of the radiation (heat) returning to the atmosphere from Earth, which initially absorbs it from the Sun. That wavelength is 15 microns or millionths of a meter – and the atmosphere’s current 410 parts per million of CO2 has already absorbed essentially all of the heat’s wavelength the Earth has to give. That means any further additions of CO2 can have no measurable impact on the Earth’s greenhouse effect and temperature.

Journalist H. L. Mencken accurately summed up the real goal of these deceptions. “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed and hence clamorous to be led to safety by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary,” he observed. Global warming is the best hobgoblin the radical environmentalists have concocted so far.

Misuse of the word carbon is no laughing matter, however. This unsubstantiated fear is depriving the less fortunate among us of sorely needed, inexpensive energy, by eliminating life-giving fossil fuels and the miracle molecule of life, CO2. In the process, society is subjected to further government control, reduced individual freedom, greater socialism, less free enterprise capitalism – and lower living standards for everyone except wealthy, privileged ruling elites.

If you don’t think such nefarious word games can have such an impact, just remember how the term “Y2K” struck fear in many hearts and minds, by conjuring up endless turmoil that awaited us on New Year’s Eve 1999. Most of us woke up laughing at how we had been conned into worrying for months and years – when in reality turning to the new millennium simply required changing two digits on each computer that controlled planes, trains and electric grids.

The havoc never happened, and billions of dollars were wasted – just as is happening with climate chaos.

Some might say we are merely arguing semantics. If by “semantics” they mean “the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning,” they’d be right. In fact, linguistic and logic deception will be a major weapon wielded by Global Climate Action Summit speakers next week. Indeed, University of Florida linguist M. J. Hardman tells us, “language is inseparable from humanity and follows us in all our works. Language is the instrument with which we form thought and feeling, mood, aspiration, will and act[ion], the instrument by whose means we influence and are influenced.”

So as the Summit wears on, note how often you hear the word “carbon” – as in “carbon emissions,” “carbon footprint,” “carbon trading” and “decarbonization” – when the real topic is carbon dioxide, the plant-fertilizing “gas of life.” Reword the sentences using carbon dioxide, and ponder how they are trying to deceive you, scare you about manmade climate cataclysms, convince you to eliminate 80% of the energy you use, and let them control your life and living standards – while they get rich and powerful.

These word games are not like the difference between saying a flower is “pretty” or “beautiful.” They are intentional distortions used to drive their anti-fossil fuel agenda. We must call them on it every time.

About the Author: Tom Harris

Tom Harris is executive director of the Ottawa-based International Climate Science Coalition.

About the Author: Dr. Jay Lehr

Dr. Jay Lehr is The Heartland Institute’s Science Director. At AFEC, he moderated the conference panel “Why CO2 emissions are not creating a climate crisis.”

Three Movies You Should Watch to Understand the Economic Collapse of 2008

Ten years ago, the Lehmann Brothers investment bank collapsed, sparking a world-wide banking crisis and recession. The economy lost at least 5 million jobs, pushing the unemployment rate from 5 percent to 10.5 percent in just a few months. The US stock market lost $7.4 trillion in value while the real estate market dropped $3.4 trillion. This translated to a loss of $30,000 per American household. Americans were thrown not only out of work but also their homes—5.5 million, to be exact. In addition to these very personal losses, the American taxpayer bailed out the big banks to the tune of 4 trillion dollars.

Since 2008, a stack of books has been written about the causes and consequences of the crisis. But if you want to get a quick survey, then three movies will do the trick.

The first film is The Big Short from 2015. This film has taken Michael Lewis’s riveting book of the same name and turned it an entertaining docu-drama. The film follows several different investors who all figured out that the banks were selling toxic securities based on sub-prime mortgages. The movie stops at various points to actually instruct the viewer in the problem at hand. The film also does a good job of portraying the willful ignorance of the investment banking establishment which refused to believe that a financial tsunami of their own making was on its way.

The second film is Margin Call. This riveting drama chronicles 24 hours in the life of a fictitious investment bank which is hurtled into crisis when a junior-level risk analyst discovers that the firm is on the brink of insolvency. The strength of this film is that it does not try to over-explain the financial issues of 2008. It gives a big picture, without the kind of detail of The Big ShortMargin Call also provides an unflattering view of investment banking culture through the character of Will Emerson, the firm’s top salesman. When Emerson gives a detailed accounting of how he spent his $2.5 million dollar salary—mortgage, Mercedes, clothes, rainy day fund—his math-oriented colleague notes that he left out $75,000. Emerson’s reply? “Booze and hookers.”

How Emerson frivolously spent $75,000 provides a poignant backdrop to Hell or High Water, released in 2016. This film opens with two brothers, Toby and Tanner Howard, confronting the imminent foreclosure of their recently deceased mother’s home in West Texas.  As their mother was dying of cancer,  she refinanced her home using a reverse mortgage to pay for her medical care. Convinced that the local bank, Texas Midlands, had cheated their mother with the mortgage deal, the two brothers decide to rob branches of Texas Midlands in order to raise the $45,000 they need to pay off the mortgage. An experienced Texas Ranger, played by Jeff Bridges, starts to track down the bank robbers, offering his social and economic commentary along the way.

Hell or High Water paints a picture of the consequences of the financial collapse of 2008 for Middle America. If Will Emerson in Margin Call won’t have as much money for “booze and hookers” due to the crisis, then Hell or High Water underscores the fact that millions of Americans don’t have enough money to hang on to their homes.

Some commentators argue that the American economy has not recovered from the collapse of 2008. The lingering recession and slow growth certainly played a role in the election of Donald  Trump. These films are worth watching to be reminded of what happened, why it happened, and why it may not be over.

Reprinted from Intellectual Takeout.

John Elliott

John Elliott

John Elliott is a Senior Fellow at Intellectual Takeout.

America Has A Problem

You hear it everywhere.  You hear it from just about everyone.  This November’s elections are the Most Important In Our Nation’s History.

Don’t they say that about EVERY election?

Well, there is some truth to the hyperbole, however.  Every election IS important.  Every election counts.  And I mean every election, down to local Dog Catcher.  Why is this so?

The person getting the job will represent you, the people, in that elected capacity for the next two or four or six years.  They will administer their duties as they see fit based on the limits of their elected office.

Thus, elections do have consequences.  In fact, every election has massive consequences.  As we have seen this past presidential election, the change in who occupies the Oval Office can change the course of our country on a dime.

A new governor of a state can change the direction of that state nearly over night.  I am not being dramatic, its just the truth.

Our problem as a nation is that we used to accept an election even if our candidate did not win.  We understood the consequence of electing the right and the wrong people.  If we thought it was the wrong person, we geared up for the next election to make sure the right person got elected.

In the mean time, we had to deal with the decisions made by, the votes cast by the person we did not vote for.  It didn’t matter what party that person was a member or if they were not a member of any party at all.  It was the individual that got elected that made us pay attention.  But the election was fair.

But now we have a whole group of people, a generation of people that don’t believe elections should have consequences. They don’t believe in fair elections.  If their candidate of choice does not win, they will not accept the one who does win.

They tell us this person needs to be booted from office before the next election in order to protect and preserve our democracy.  My question is, what kind of democracy says that only one side can win in a fair election?

Our problem as a nation is that this generation as a whole, is ignorant of the meaning of democracy. They are ill-educated in the ways of elections.  They are childish in their mentality when their candidate of choice does not win. They scream Unfair, Unfair at the top of their lungs like a five year old who was just told to share the toys in their kindergarten class.

Yes America has a problem.  As frightening as it may seem, our biggest problem is not those who win various elections.  Its not even those who run for various elected offices.  Our problem is one generation turning into two generations that don’t understand how a Republic or even a simple Democracy runs or even works.

This problem is only going to get worse, bigger with each passing election cycle. Imagine if you will, by the election of 2020, the Millennial Generation will be hitting 40 and Gen Z will begin to populate the voter rolls with the oldest in that group being about 22.  Two generations that are used to getting their way by screaming not fair.

Let me explain it this way.  Right now we have President Trump and over half the population seems to be happy with what he is doing and the direction he is leading the nation.  But those that voted for him will be outnumbered soon.

By 2024 the voter rolls could tip in the favor of these younger generations.  Generations that are ignorant of our Constitution, of what free and fair elections are.  They wont care about outcomes if their candidate of choice does not win.

Now imagine that the presidential election in 2024 goes to their side.  Do you think a Democrat or Socialist will continue in the direction that President Trump has?  If you think its possible then may I remind you that Donald Trump took a completely different course and direction than Barack Obama did and Trump changed course overnight.

That means a Democrat Socialist will do the same.  Now imagine you trying your best to save this nation during this time.  Save freedom and choice.  Save the Constitution during this time.

If we fail to educate our kids, they will turn into adults who vote and whine when they lose.

Now do you see the problem America has?

RELATED ARTICLE: In Sweden, the Elite Lost Touch with the People

Current Media Being Crippled By Culture and Technology

Two coinciding culture points are flowing side-by-side to suggest an ongoing revolution in communications — one that could both dramatically change how Americans choose their communication channels while sharply undermining the influence of the mainstream media.

Number one: We, driven by the media and our celebrity culture, have made American presidents out to be far more important in our daily lives than they really are, and certainly should be.

Number two: The media, largely responsible for No. 1, is again late to see an ongoing revolution in the communications industry, just as it has consistently during the past 25 years.

Here’s how it works.

I’m listening to the radio while working and the top news story at the top of the hour is that Trump has narrowed the list to 12 people who he thinks might be the Anonymous that wrote the utterly unsubstantiated hit piece the New York Times chose to run. The next story was the ongoing circus of clowns and disruptors at the Kavanaugh hearing, followed by the traffic report.

No “news” impacting Americans’ lives in any way until the traffic report. So it goes almost every day, with endless stories about what Trump said or did. It was similar with Obama, just fawning instead of attacking. Trump loves this. So did Obama, every bit as much.

Yes, the media is dishonest as an industry now (however, not every individual in the media) and is only trusted by those within its own worldview silo. Yes, the media is partisan. Yes, the media is chock full of self-aggrandizers from WaPo’s pompous “democracy dies in darkness” to the preening self-puffery of CNN’s Jim Acosta. Yes, the media is actively working to overturn an elected President of the United States. All of this works to undermine the credibility of the media — but only with about half of the country.

The reality is that the media’s hyper-focus on a president is both lazy and dangerous, because it elevates everything a president says or does in a way that is not reflective of reality. It in no way affects Americans’ lives that Trump has narrowed his list to 12. It will not affect Americans’ lives outside of politicophiles when he names the person and fires him or her. Nothing changes in Americans’ lives when he tweets out mean things (almost always in reaction, FYI) or that people in Washington say mean things about him. It is largely is irrelevant to our day.

What does affect Americans are his policies and those enacted by Congress. On that front, we get more about Michelle Obama’s arms in some wondrous dress or that Melania Trump once wore questionable shoes than we do about actual economic policy that really does affect Americans.

The intended portrayal is that Trump is a bad person. Maybe. But the people shouting that the loudest are the people who have been telling us for years there is no objective moral truth. But so what? Is he a bad president? Jimmy Carter was a very good person and a terrible president. Bill Clinton was a very terrible person but a decent president. FDR was a flaming racist against blacks, imprisoned Japanese Americans for having Japanese heritage and tried to expand the Supreme Court for his own political gain. Really bad stuff. But on the foreign front, he was a good president. LBJ was a really bad dude and a pretty bad president. Reagan was a decent guy and a great president.

The point is that there is no correlation between the “goodness” of a president and whether the president is good for the country — which is what actually matters for the president. Yes, we’d greatly prefer a person of high moral character, but what is most relevant is a person who acts in the historical interests of the United States, defends the Constitution, individual liberties and the institutions and foundations that made us exceptional, and pursues sound policy for the benefit of all Americans. That’s what matters.

Yet the media hyper-focuses on all the wrong things (particularly in support of their partisan agenda) which elevates the importance of the president in American minds to demigod status. Trump cannot destroy the country if he wanted. (He doesn’t.) Neither could Obama (Jury is out on whether he wanted to or not.)

This is part and parcel with our celebrity-enthralled culture, which is pretty much bad for everyone. So yes, some is on all of us.

Meanwhile, on point No. Two, mega-podcaster Joe Rogan interviewed Elon Musk for 2 1/2 hours the other day in a substantial, eye-opening, sometimes thought-provoking way — clearly providing insights into Musk that no media coverage ever has. Musk told Rogan it’s “easy to demonize people” but that when you do so, “you’re usually wrong about it.” So true. Rogan’s language is rough, but his long-form interviews are incredibly valuable and he is a premier interviewer in drawing out deep wells of information from his guests. Here’s the deal. Rogan is not a trained journalist in any way. He was a standup comic, a reality show host, and entrepreneur and now the most popular in podcasting — which continues to grow rapidly.

Rogan is hardly alone. He’s joined by so many news and information podcasters that the media has finally realized maybe this podcasting is a thing. The New York Times launched The Daily podcast maybe 18 months ago and it exploded. It’s a slick, 20-minute or so conversation with reporters on a single topic. Others have jumped in, trying to grab the band wagon.

But the key here is that podcasting is an incredibly diverse platform and, unlike Youtube, Facebook and Twitter, it is not centralized in the hands of progressives with their instinct towards censorship of things like “hate speech” — which is only definable in personal opinions and on which there can be no limit, meaning anything is censorable.

Honestly, I get an enormous amount of my information now from podcasts and social media. This continues the siloing effect of information, of course, but that is on the media and its penchant for dishonesty. If they had not become so partisan and then been dishonest about it, the door would not have been so wide open when the technology arrived.

Rogan is just an example. (And FYI, he’s not some kid. He’s 51.) There are news podcasts, lots of commentary podcasts, repurposed TV news podcasts, and podcasts on every subject out there. The uniqueness is that you can be doing other things while listening, from working out to working in the garage to driving to most anything that does not require all your full concentration. And all on demand — not just when it comes on according to a schedule.

Further, it is long form. It’s interesting that as our attention span has diminished with TV, then video games and then down to 140 characters on Twitter and emoji texting, podcasts actually take us the other direction — expanding our attention span and making us think more in-depth. That is good for Americans and America, bad for the media (and arguably the Democratic Party and D.C. establishment.)

Remember, though, it’s not just the tech platform changing, it’s the content.

A lot of podcasters, and youtubers when they are not being censored, are going more in-depth and going longer than the short media hits that tend to totally miss context and full information. I think that is the revolution the media is missing, because people want not just more honesty, but actually more depth, than the media has been providing for a long time.

And that makes the media less influential. And that is a very good thing.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared on The Revolutionary Act.

VIDEO: Dianne Feinstein’s Failed Logic on ‘Assault Weapons’ During Kavanaugh Hearing

“Dianne Feinstein was trying to claim that Kavanaugh was somehow wrong to suggest that these weapons aren’t unusual since there are millions and millions of people who own them… It was horrible logic from a woman who once held a press conference with Michael Bloomberg wherein they pointed all of the barrels at the press.” — Dana Loesch

Ending Black Lives: As NFL Season Starts, Teams Support Abortion-Backing United Way Chapters

The 2018 NFL season officially kicks off today. As players and their corporate allies continue to push racial divisiveness over football, 2ndVote has discovered that 12 NFL teams partner with United Way affiliates that financially support Planned Parenthood–America’s largest abortion company and a group which has targeted black babies for disproportionate death for years.

Earlier this week, 2ndVote cross-referenced United Way’s list of chapters which partner with local teams with those chapters which financially support Planned Parenthood. As seen below, some NFL teams’ United Way partners sent over a hundred thousand dollars to Planned Parenthood.

NFL Team United Way Partner Funds Planned Parenthood?
Arizona Cardinals Valley of the Sun United Way No
Atlanta Falcons United Way of Greater Atlanta No. Last donated 2015.
Baltimore Ravens United Way of Central Maryland Planned Parenthood Federation of America ($6,629) Planned Parenthood Keystone ($8,670) Planned Parenthood of Maryland($125,631)
Buffalo Bills United Way of Buffalo & Erie No
Carolina Panthers United Way of Central Carolinas No
Chicago Bears United Way of Metropolitan Chicago & United Way of Lake County Planned Parenthood of Illinois($5,876)
Cincinnati Bengals United Way of Greater Cincinnati No. Last donated 2015
Cleveland Browns United Way of Greater Cleveland No. Last donated 2015
Dallas Cowboys United Way of Metropolitan Dallas & United Way of Tarrant County Planned Parenthood of North Texas ($7,356)
Denver Broncos Mile High United Way Planned Parenthood of Rocky Mountains Denver($8,455)
Detroit Lions United Way for Southeastern Michigan No
Green Bay Packers Brown County United Way No
Houston Texans United Way of Greater Houston No
Indianapolis Colts United Way of Central Indiana Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky ($33,848)
Jacksonville Jaguars United Way of Northeast Florida No
Kansas City Chiefs United Way of Greater Kansas City Planned Parenthood of Kansas & Mid-MO ($41,946)
Los Angeles Rams United Way of Greater Los Angeles No.
Miami Dolphins United Way of Miami-Dade & United Way of Broward County Miami-Dade last donated in 2014. Broward County does not contribute
Minnesota Vikings Greater Twin Cities United Way No
New Engand Patriots United Way of Massachusetts Bay and Merrimack Valley No
New Orleans Saints United Way of Southest Louisiana No
New York Giants United Way of New York City No
New York Jets United Way of Northern New Jersey No
Oakland Raiders United Way of the Bay Area Planned Parenthood Foundation-Nati HQ ($7,733) & Planned Parenthood Northern California ($23,845)
Philadelphia Eagles United Way of Greater Philadelphia and Southern New Jersey No
Pittsburgh Steelers United Way of Allegheny County Planned Parenthood of Western PA ($84,824)
San Diego Chargers United Way of San Diego County No.
San Fransisco 49ers United Way of the Bay Area Planned Parenthood Foundation-Nati HQ ($7,733) & Planned Parenthood Northern California ($23,845)
Seattle Seahawks United Way of King County Last Donated 2015. 2016 Tax Records not available
Tampa Bay Buccaneers United Way Suncoast Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida ($31,468)
Tennessee Titans United Way of Metropolitan Nashville Planned Parenthood of East and Middle Tennessee ($84,968)
Washington Redskins United Way of the National Capital Area Planned Parenthood Federation of America($5,348) & Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington ($273,215)

This shameful double-speak is outrageous. The NFL has allowed its players to slander America’s police and disrespect the national anthem while promoting a false narrative on race. Yet the league partner is a major partner with United Way and its $2.7 million in donations to Planned Parenthood in 2016 alone.

To make matters worse, Planned Parenthood doesn’t just end lives through abortion, it also has allegedly sold the parts of babies it killed for profit and it has frequently covered up the sexual abuse of minor.

We urge 2ndVote shoppers to double down on forcing the NFL to ditch the double-speak theatrics about black lives, to stop funding killers of black babies, and get back to playing football.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Former NFL Player Colin Kaepernick Donates Thousands to Radical Pro-Abortion Group

Obama Admin Took Teen Girls Out of State for Secret Abortions Without Their Parents Knowing


Help us continue creating content like this and educating conservative shoppers by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!


EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by Shutterstock.