Film ‘Climate Hustle 2’ Targets Hollywood’s Green Hypocrisy, Double Standards

Politicians, media figures, and Hollywood elites who maintain lavish lifestyles while advocating restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions are on full display in a new documentary.

Climate Hustle 2: Rise of the Climate Monarchy” is a sequel to the 2016 documentary film “Climate Hustle,” which questioned the premise of theories linking human activity with potentially catastrophic climate change.

“Climate Hustle 2” is not in theaters because of the COVID-19 pandemic, but was scheduled to be streamed as of  8 p.m. Thursday and available for replay through Sunday.

The new film builds on the findings of the first one while taking a deeper dive into motivations behind climate change initiatives such as the congressional resolutions called the Green New Deal and the United Nations’ Paris climate agreement, which the Trump administration has exited.


How are socialists deluding a whole generation? Learn more now >>


Actor Kevin Sorbo is narrator of the new documentary. In opening scenes, Sorbo cites “an increasing number of scientists who are becoming skeptical” about “overhyped claims made about severe weather events, temperatures, rising sea levels, and even disappearing polar bears.”

Sorbo then asks some questions in arguing that science has shifted against alarmist claims.

“Why would those claiming a global warming catastrophe spread a false narrative?” he asks, adding:

What would motivate them? Why would they try to hustle you? Are they trying to control the climate, or you? …

At its core, the motivations are as old as mankind itself.  They revolve around money, power, ideology, and control. …

Stopping climate change is … about climate elites trying to convince us to accept a future where they call all the shots, plan our lives, and regulate how we should live our lives. They want to create, in essence, a climate monarchy.

“Climate Hustle 2” is a project of the Washington-based nonprofit Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, or CFACT, which describes itself as promoting “a much-needed, positive, alternative voice on issues of environment and development.”

Marc Morano, the organization’s communications director and editor of  its Climate Depot blog, provides the film’s reporting and interviews key figures on both sides of the climate debate.

Featured climate scientists and researchers include Patrick Moore, co-founder of the environmental group Greenpeace; Richard Lindzen, an atmospheric physicist and professor emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Willie Soon, an astrophysicist and geoscientist based in Cambridge, Massachusetts; Robert Giegengack, a geologist who chaired the Department of Earth and Environmental Science at University of Pennsylvania; and David Legates, a climatologist and geology professor at the University of Delaware.

Morano appears in front of the Palace of Versailles, just outside Paris, to establish some major themes of the film. The palace, he says, was “designed to show the supremacy of the state and the ruling class over the common man.”

“Today, like the nobility of old, world leaders, celebrity activists, and Western environmentalists also enjoy a lavish lifestyle and have no problem with multiple homes, endless airline flights, and luxuries galore,” Morano says.

The action moves to Sicily, Italy, where celebrities such as actors Leonardo DiCaprio and Bradley Cooper, singer Katy Perry, and Prince Harry attend what E! News describes as a “billionaires’ summer party” to discuss climate change. The program’s host comments on gas-guzzling private jets and yachts used by attendees.

Conservative commentator Mark Steyn, who makes multiple appearances in “Climate Hustle 2,” weighs in on motivations he says are behind climate activism.

“Al Gore and John Kerry and the prince of Wales, they want to return us to an Age of Kings in which they fly around from one climate conference to another and the rest of us are just contained within our carbon allowance—which if we’re lucky will enable us to take a long weekend for a fishing trip somewhere once a year,” Steyn says.

Gore, the former U.S. vice president and long-time crusader for limiting carbon emissions to prevent global warming, again comes under scrutiny for the large “carbon footprint” associated with his Tennessee residence and his travel arrangements.

DiCaprio and other Hollywood celebrities who have pledged to “live a green lifestyle” also come under criticism for lifestyles that don’t square with their rhetoric. DiCaprio owns multiple homes and makes frequent use of private jets and yachts, the documentary notes. Singer-actress Barbra Streisand has flown her dogs to London to watch her perform, it adds.

Morano then discusses what science actually says about carbon dioxide.

“If these global leaders and activists really think we face a man-made climate apocalypse, why have they not changed their ways and cut back on their CO2 emissions and overall excess?” Morano asks. “Is there something they’re not telling us about the science?”

Some answers come from scientists, researchers, and academics in the documentary who set out to dismantle alarmist claims that don’t fit with rigorous scientific research.

“Carbon dioxide is the main building block of all life,” Moore, the Greenpeace co-founder, says in a “Fox & Friends” interview used in the film. “In fact, the whole climate crisis as they call it is not only fake news, it’s fake science. There is no climate crisis.”

Giegengack, the geologist, is equally dismissive.

“You don’t find strong empiric support for the idea that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are the primary drivers of atmospheric temperature and global climate, and there are so many other variables that are much more likely to have been responsible for that,” Giegengack says in the film.

Legates, the climatologist, warns that carbon rationing proposals, such as those advocated by liberals in Congress, ultimately could lead to human beings lacking the “basic necessities of life” such as “food, clothing, shelter, and security.”

Near the film’s close, Sorbo asks viewers to resist the political agenda of climate activism.

“We have the gift of freedom,” he says. “Don’t let it slip away. Don’t let them establish a climate monarchy.”

For details on viewing or purchasing “Climate Hustle” and “Climate Hustle 2,” go here.

COLUMN BY

Kevin Mooney

Kevin Mooney is an investigative reporter for The Daily Signal. Send an email to Kevin. Twitter: @KevinMooneyDC.


A Note for our Readers:

Democratic Socialists say, “America should be more like socialist countries such as Sweden and Denmark.” And millions of young people believe them…

For years, “Democratic Socialists” have been growing a crop of followers that include students and young professionals. America’s future will be in their hands.

How are socialists deluding a whole generation? One of their most effective arguments is that “democratic socialism” is working in Scandinavian countries like Sweden and Norway. They claim these countries are “proof” that socialism will work for America. But they’re wrong. And it’s easy to explain why.

Our friends at The Heritage Foundation just published a new guide that provides three irrefutable facts that debunks these myths. For a limited time, they’re offering it to readers of The Daily Signal for free.

Get your free copy of “Why Democratic Socialists Can’t Legitimately Claim Sweden and Denmark as Success Stories” today and equip yourself with the facts you need to debunk these myths once and for all.

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW »


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Just 1% of U.S. Counties Have Had Nearly Half of All COVID-19 Deaths

As Heritage Foundation researchers have demonstrated throughout the coronavirus pandemic, the spread of COVID-19 in the U.S. has been heavily concentrated in a small number of states—and among a small number of counties within those states.

As our research has pointed out, state-level figures do not adequately describe the concentrated nature of the spread of COVID-19.


What’s the best way for America to reopen and return to business? The National Coronavirus Recovery Commission, a project of The Heritage Foundation, assembled America’s top thinkers to figure that out. So far, it has made more than 260 recommendations. Learn more here.


Moreover, even though the U.S. saw a rapid rise in cases during the summer, the overall levels of concentration have remained fairly consistent.


How are socialists deluding a whole generation? Learn more now >>


For instance, as of Sept. 15, the 30 counties with the most COVID-19 deaths accounted for 26% of all the cases in the U.S. and 40% of all deaths, much greater than those counties’ share of the population (18.4%). That is, just 1% of the counties in the U.S., representing just over 18% of the population, are responsible for almost half of the country’s COVID-19 deaths.

The Heritage Foundation’s newest interactive graphic allows individuals to see more detail on these concentrations among the counties with the most deaths as well as those with the fewest.

For instance, the graphic allows users to select data from the five counties with the most deaths, all the way up to the 50 counties with the most deaths. It also allows visitors to select data from counties with no deaths, all the way up to counties with 10 or fewer.

Once a category is selected, the graphic provides the percentage of counties represented by that category, the percentage of the population contained in those counties, and the percentage of all U.S. COVID-19 deaths in those counties.

For example, as of Sept. 15, 60.6% of all counties are reporting 10 or fewer deaths. These counties represent 13.1% of the population, and account for only 2.7% of total COVID-19 deaths in the U.S.

In contrast, the five counties with the most COVID-19 deaths represent just 0.2% of all counties, but they account for 16% of all COVID-19 deaths in the U.S., nearly three times their population share of 6.5%.

A list of the 50 counties with the most deaths is also provided, and that list has not changed very much since April. New York, for instance, recorded 32,745 deaths as of Sept. 15.

In fact, New York City has exerted an outsized influence on the national COVID-19-related death rate. Removing New York City’s deaths moves the U.S. from eighth place in the world in deaths per million to 13th place.

The New York City metropolitan statistical area even has an outsized influence on the overall statistics for the state of New York.

Removing counties in the New York City metropolitan statistical area from the state’s totals drops the death rate for New York state to 348 per million, nearly 80% lower than the state’s rate when the New York City metropolitan statistical area is included (1,674).

That’s well below the national average and would move New York state from second place to 23rd place in deaths per million.

The same exercise with COVID-19 cases in the New York City area has a similar effect on the state’s totals.

Specifically, when withholding the New York City metropolitan statistical area cases, the overall case rate for New York state plummets by 71% (from 22,065 to 6,505), a level that is well below the national average.

Removing the New York City metropolitan statistical area moves the state of New York from sixth in case rate among U.S. states to 42nd place.

As new Heritage Foundation research shows, as of Aug. 22, the death rate of 2,196 per million residents recorded in the New York City metropolitan statistical area is almost twice that of its nearest rival, Detroit, at 1,177.

Furthermore, the gap between New York City’s COVID-19-related death rate and those of cities that have experienced more recent outbreaks is even more pronounced. The New York City metropolitan statistical area’s death rate is more than triple those of Phoenix and Miami—two cities that have recorded higher rates of infection than New York. It is four and a half times that of Los Angeles and nearly six times that of Houston.

Now that COVID-19 testing has increased dramatically and many state and local governments have relaxed stay-at-home orders, it’s even more critical to study the trends in deaths along with cases.

To make studying these trends easier, The Heritage Foundation now has two interactive COVID-19 trackers. One tracks trends in cases; the other tracks trends in deaths.

The trackers describe whether the trend of cases—or deaths—is increasing or decreasing over the prior 14 days, and provides a visual depiction of new cases—or deaths—during that time period.

These tools help put the concentrated nature of the pandemic in perspective with county-level data. They show just how difficult it can be to use only one metric to gauge whether a county—or state—is doing well. Readers are invited to explore the information in the tracker and check back frequently for updates, as well as to explore the other visual tools on Heritage’s COVID-19 resources page.

COMMENTARY BY

Drew Gonshorowski focuses his research and writing on the nation’s new health care law, including the repercussions for Medicare and Medicaid, as a policy analyst in the Center for Data Analysis at The Heritage Foundation. He also studies economic mobility and the Austrian school of economics.

Norbert Michel studies and writes about housing finance, including the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as The Heritage Foundation’s research fellow in financial regulations. Read his research. Twitter: .

RELATED TWEET:


A Note for our Readers:

Democratic Socialists say, “America should be more like socialist countries such as Sweden and Denmark.” And millions of young people believe them…

For years, “Democratic Socialists” have been growing a crop of followers that include students and young professionals. America’s future will be in their hands.

How are socialists deluding a whole generation? One of their most effective arguments is that “democratic socialism” is working in Scandinavian countries like Sweden and Norway. They claim these countries are “proof” that socialism will work for America. But they’re wrong. And it’s easy to explain why.

Our friends at The Heritage Foundation just published a new guide that provides three irrefutable facts that debunks these myths. For a limited time, they’re offering it to readers of The Daily Signal for free.

Get your free copy of “Why Democratic Socialists Can’t Legitimately Claim Sweden and Denmark as Success Stories” today and equip yourself with the facts you need to debunk these myths once and for all.

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW »


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: The Vortex — Stone-Cold Killer

Enough with the earthly praise. Get real.

TRANSCRIPT

Let’s cut through all the garbage and platitudes about a nation mourning a “trailblazing” jurist. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was a stone-cold killer who sent tens of millions of children to their deaths before they ever saw the light of day.

All this talk about her nice, sweet demeanor is nothing more than talk. And from a theological point of view, consider this: A few days ago when she closed her eyes on this life (forever) and opened them up on the next (forever), she would have been met, in part, by that throng of millions and millions of children she was instrumental in executing.

She went from being a judge to being judged, and unlike what she wielded, the Divine Judge deals strictly in justice, not agendas that pervert justice. This evil woman conflated women’s rights to include murdering a child in the womb. She twisted the dignity of the feminine to open a door for the demonic.

And, while we can’t know for certain, there are only a few reasons to presume she is not a slave to the demonic now for all eternity. Hell, Satan, the demons have no regard for whether you served once on the “most powerful court in the land.”

But since we are talking about a Justice and her own personal judgment and trial before the divine judgment seat, let’s think about a few things, shall we? First, as will be the case for all of us — every last one — Satan, the accuser, will be there, as he was with Ruth Bader Ginsburg, accusing her.

Ponder for a moment what the diabolical prosecutor would have been accusing her of. Child murder! By the tens of millions. The perversion of natural law, the law of God the Creator, who, uncomfortably and inconveniently for Ruth Bader Ginsburg, is also the same Creator sitting on the judgment seat.

It’s one thing to sin, to even embrace sin. It is something of an entirely different magnitude to create an environment where an entire nation — hundreds and hundreds of millions of people over decades — embrace that sin, all as part of your own twisted worldview.

Woe to those who call evil “good,” and good “evil.” For the record, woe is not the word any of us wants coming up at our individual judgments before Almighty God. As in any court or trial, evidence is presented — testimony and so forth.

Let’s return to that multitude of witnesses to her evil — the victims of her ideology. Children torn to shreds in their mothers’ wombs, ribboned into little pieces in a swirl of blood and gore, sucked out through a vacuum hose with thin razor blades on the end.

Those souls had only a moment’s existence compared to her nearly 90 years. Yet she saw fit to keep the wheels of the child-killing factory turning, well-oiled, with no exceptions. Not one single child in the womb was safe from this megalomaniac’s monstrous contortion of natural law.

The Marxists can go on all they want in this life about her legacy, but before the divine judgment seat, this would have been her legacy — testified to by her tens of millions of victims. She pronounced judgment on their bodies in this life, but they were there in the next life as judgment was pronounced on her soul.

And let’s go even further into this. Of course, we do not know with certainty what her judgment was, but that does not lift the duty of pondering about Heaven and Hell — for every human being who has ever existed will be in one or the other. Pay attention Bp. Barron.

For a soul to be saved, that soul must die in a state of grace — in a state of sanctifying grace. That means they must have the life of the Blessed Trinity in them. “If you love me, you will keep my commandments; and my Father and I will come to you, and we will make our home in you.”

A state, an existence of having Father, Son and Spirit living in you. But this state is not just stumbled upon. It doesn’t just happen after a person has achieved the age of reason. It must be acted on, desired, cooperated in and with. And its purpose is to increase, to grow in holiness until we are brought at last into perfect holiness in the Beatific Vision, the beholding of God in the face.

No one stumbles or trips into Heaven. You must carry your cross, suffer, die to your passions, forsake evil, struggle to cooperate with the life of Christ in you so that you can move from a state of fallenness to the heights of the supernatural.

We are, in short, fighting for Heaven, the whole meaning of the term Church Militant. Part of the fight demands a rejection of sin, even though it still frequently holds an attraction for us. That’s why confession exists.

But note, absolution in confession, in the sacrament, being forgiven of your sins, of our sins, requires a turning away from our sins, a pronouncement from us that we detest them, because of how abhorrent they are before God. Such an acknowledgment is a movement toward holiness, toward God. It also requires a promise that, as we leave the confessional, we will strive not to sin again.

So forgiveness is conditional: Of course it is. God’s love for us is unconditional, but salvation is not. Salvation comes with many conditions, and the rejection and walking away from sin — at least the sincere promise to — is one of the them.

So it becomes a point of contemplation, in light of Ginsburg’s death, indeed for all of us, that at our judgments, one factor weighing in the balance of our eternal destiny is this: Given the opportunity to have continued living, would we have changed?

The good thief certainly did. We know that from Our Lord’s words. Had he been taken down from the cross by some last-minute act of mercy by Pilate and nursed back to health, would he have amended his life and turned from his sins?

Yes. He had a true deathbed conversion. Amen. But what about the soul who is brought before the judgment seat by Michael — the Angel of Death — who, if she had been given more years, would not have turned from her sin? Precisely in what divine calculus could such a soul be saved?

Is it reasonable to assume that had Hitler been granted another century of life on earth and was somehow spared — over those ensuing decades of the breakdown of the body that he retained the vigor of youth, or middle age — he would somehow have turned from mass killer and bringer-of-war to a spokesman for peace?

And likewise for Joseph Stalin — even more so, in fact, for Joseph Stalin — had Our Lord extended his life and likewise extended his physical strength for another hundred years, would he have abandoned his plans for world domination by godless Marxism?

Would he, at some point, have donned sackcloth and ashes and made reparation for the killing of tens of millions of people, for the enslavement of whole nations? The proof, as they say, is in the pudding.

Why would we assume that someone who dies in a state of grave sin — with blood on his or her hands, who probably (because of the killing) sent others to Hell before they might have repented — might be saved? It isn’t enough to say, “Well, we don’t know (even though we don’t).” We do know the sum of their lives. And in some cases, we know their dying wishes, at least their last expressed ones.

Three days before he died, pro-abortion senator Ted Kennedy dictated a letter from his deathbed (or so we are told by family). In that letter, he expressed his desire that the U.S. Senate pass Obamacare — with all its provisions for abortion and contraception and the payment for abortion by taxpayers, even over their good-conscience objections.

His letter, in fact, became something of a rallying cry for his fellow child-killers in the U.S. Senate to pass Obamacare, which, of course, they did. As far as the world knows, that is the state Ted Kennedy died in. It’s possible he changed his mind, repented in his heart with his last breath. We can only hope. But emphasis on hope.

We may not think it because there is not a thing to suggest it. There is nothing to inform our intellects with that any such occurrence happened. Turning back to the matter of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, we are told, as in the case with Kennedy, that she too expressed what amounts to a dying wish that her seat be filled by someone other than Trump — with, of course, what everyone understands to mean (and she certainty intended to mean) someone who would keep the child killing going.

This is, after all, all about abortion. Nowhere was there any remorse for her crimes against God. Nowhere. There was not in life and now, in death, a breath of repentance for the millions of young lives she crushed and snuffed out beneath her murderous ideology and the ideology of those who celebrated her.

But those tripping all over themselves to praise her cannot see her in her likely present state. And let’s be honest here: She was either saved or damned, and no one who is spiritually honest can lay their odds on the former. We can hope, without reason, she was saved. In fact, some members of the staff and I were out eating when the news hit our phones, and after the first few immediate seconds of shock, we did exactly what good Catholics do and Our Lord demands: We prayed for her.

Ginsburg was ultimately an enemy of truth in this life. The tens of millions of her (and others’) victims were brought before the throne of God at her judgment so she could see the fullness of her evil choices in this life. She would not admit or confront her evil in this life; she was made to do so in the next.

Those others will likewise face their own judgments, and when their time comes, that same cloud of witnesses will be assembled, called upon yet again to appear and be a living testimony against their evil. What a horror all this is to think about, even briefly.

But justice and truth demand this all be said. The godless have the media, and they want no talk of things divine — and certainly not of the next world (of actual justice). Ginsburg lived a life fundamentally opposed to the truth, even if every now and then she did manifest some small modicum of judicial restraint or evenhandedness.

When it mattered, she sided with evil against truth — meaning against Christ. Well, now she has stood before Christ, as every single one of us will (including Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Dick Durban, John Roberts, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and hordes of other power-hungry politicians and jurists who will see their role model, King Herod, in the fires of Hell if they do not repent before their deaths).

But the truly earth-shaking reality is that many of these people do not believe they have anything to repent from. At some point, earlier in their lives, they might have. Somewhere back up the road, they knew somewhere inside themselves what they were doing was wrong, that they were slaughtering good on the altar of evil for their own careers.

Somewhere later in their lives, because of the monstrosity of their sins, they killed their consciences — or so nearly killed them that truth, God, no longer had access to them. He knocks. He never stops knocking. They simply refuse to open. So be it. In what should be taken as a terrifying message, consider chapter 11 of Ecclesiastes: “Whether a tree falls to the south or to the north, wherever it falls, there shall it lie.”

Things go the way they go and where they go according to their natures, regardless of the accolades of those still on earth who will, nevertheless, shortly follow them down below. If Ginsburg did indeed go to Hell, she has barely concluded her first hundred hours of torment that will never end.

For the damned, the horror of that reality comes crashing back on them: No matter how intense the torment, no matter how tremendous the agony, there is no escape. However “accepting” of the pain a soul might become (we’re speaking figuratively here), it suddenly intensifies at the repeated realization that 100 hours means absolutely nothing because there is no time and there is no relief.

This never ends. Abandon all hope ye who enter here. Do everything you can in this life; endure whatever you must, but escape those fires of Hell. Nothing in this life — nothing — is worth eternal damnation.

EDITORS NOTE: This Church Militant video is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Who [Or What] Killed George Floyd?

If they get a fair trial, a questionable proposition at best, Minneapolis police officers charged with murdering George Floyd should be acquitted.

Let’s consider new, undisputed evidence, beyond the initial bystander’s video that we’ve all seen, to understand why.

On Memorial Day, around 8 PM, Minneapolis Police are called to a local convenience store.  Two suspects passed a fake $20 bill to buy cigarettes.  When police arrived, the shop manager pointed across the street, where three suspects sat in a parked vehicle. George Floyd sat behind the wheel.

When the officers crossed the street to investigate, two other suspects, another man, and a woman, both black, stepped from the car and politely cooperated.

But George argued and disobeyed ten separate commands from officers to keep his hands up. After the tenth order, he finally put his hands on the steering wheel as instructed.

As George protested, police walked him across the street to the police cruiser, the vehicle shown in the bystander’s video.

That bystander’s video, isolated alone, implies that the officer cruelly forced George onto the ground, then callously put his knee on George’s neck, causing George to cry out, pitifully, “I can’t breathe.”

But when a Minnesota judge authorized the release of police body cam footage, a completer and more different story emerged.  First, the police never wanted George on the ground at all, and frantically tried getting him into the back of their squad car.

But Floyd, a strong six-feet-eight-inches tall, fought police every second, and tried pushing his way out. Police video shows George repeatedly saying, “I can’t breathe” long before he was on the ground, and before Officer Chauvin employed the infamous knee-restraint tactic.

This is crucial.

Claiming to be “claustrophobic” as they ordered him into the back seat, George Floyd demanded to be placed on the ground. So, the officers did not thrust him down to the ground and then put their knee on George’s neck, as the bystander’s video suggests.

Let’s delve into the evidence.

From Officer Thomas Lane’s body camera, at 8:09 PM, officers approached George’s vehicle, tapped on the window, instructing him to either put his hands up or put his hands on the steering wheel. But George refuses.

Ten separate times, police either instructed George to let them see his hands, or to put his hands on the wheel. Finally, George puts his hands on the wheel, protesting he had “not done anything.”

At 8:17 PM, officers walk George across the street. He keeps arguing, as they order him into the back of the squad car.

“I’m claustrophobic,” he claims, twice, resisting as they again order him to sit in the back seat. He screams, fights and resists getting in the squad car.

At 8:18:08, still standing beside the car and fighting the officers, he says, for the first time, with no knee on his neck, “I can’t breathe, officer!”  At this point, police are still ordering him into the back seat.

A bystander urges George to stop fighting. “You can’t win,” the bystander says.

George fights anyway.

Police push him in the back seat. He keeps resisting.

Nine seconds later, fighting from the backseat of the police car, George says three times, in rapid succession, beginning at 8:18:19, “I want to lay on the ground!  I want to lay on the ground! I want to lay on the ground!”  He repeats it a fourth time, five seconds later, ““I want to lay on the ground!”

Then, as if he knows he is dying, says, “I’m going down.”

At 8:18:39, fighting in the backseat, he again says, three times in rapid succession, “I can’t breathe!” Then again,” I can’t breathe.” And then, again, at 8:18:50 repeats, “I can’t breathe!”

At this point, George had demanded to be laid on the ground four times and said “I can’t breathe” at least six times, while in the back seat of the squad car, with no knee on his neck.

At 8:19:06, he again says, “I can’t breathe,” for the seventh time.

Of course he can’t breathe. A fentanyl overdose stops a man from breathing.

George fought the officers non-stop for over ten minutes before officers finally removed him from the car and put him down on the ground, beside the squad car, as George himself demanded.

Bystanders then film George on the ground, declaring, “I can’t breathe,”  as if this was the first time George said, “I can’t breathe,” and as if Officer Chauvin’s knee (not the fentanyl) caused George’s breathing problems.

Fox 9 in Minneapolis reported that Chief Hennepin County Medical Examiner Dr. Andrew Baker, in a memorandum filed May 26 concluded, “The autopsy revealed no physical evidence suggesting that Mr. Floyd died of asphyxiation.”

In other words, Dr. Baker initially ruled out Chauvin’s knee as causing George’s death.

In a second memorandum filed June 1, Baker described Floyd’s fentanyl level as “pretty high,” and a potentially “fatal level.”

Dr. Baker reported Floyd had 11 ng/mL of fentanyl in his blood, adding, “If he were found dead at home alone and no other apparent causes, this could be acceptable to call an OD. Deaths have been certified with levels of 3.”

In other words, while levels of 3 ng/mL have caused fatal fentanyl overdoses. George ingested nearly four times that amount, or 11 ng/mL of fentanyl, in his bloodstream.  In another document, Dr. Baker said, “That is a fatal level of fentanyl under normal circumstances.”

Granted, mounting political pressure led to subsequent private autopsy reports, paid for by the family, showing the cause of death as a combination of both fentanyl and asphyxiation from the officer’s knee.

Of course they do.

But the prosecution, to obtain a conviction, must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They must prove that the officer’s knee, and not the massive fentanyl dosage, killed George Floyd.

That’s a tall order.

Not only that, but the infamous, “knee-technique,” which should be banned, was authorized by the Minneapolis PD.  Officer Chauvin followed authorized procedure, a technique for keeping a suspect on the ground, after George Floyd had fought officers for over ten minutes, and after, only — and this is the kicker — George requested, repeatedly, to lay on the ground.

But Chauvin’s knee is a red herring. The issue here is fentanyl.

Here’s how the respected website, WebMD, describes the effects of fentanyl:

“[F]entanyl has rapid and potent effects on the brain and body, and even very small amounts can be extremely dangerous.

“It only takes a tiny amount of the drug to cause a deadly reaction,” … “Fentanyl can depress breathing and lead to death. The risk of overdose is high with fentanyl.”

Here’s what the CDC says about fentanyl, “It is 50 to 100 times more potent than morphine.”

Of course George couldn’t breathe — because fentanyl, mixed with methamphetamines, kills breathing.  Despite the bad optics, “I can’t breathe” was not because of the officer’s knee.

The medical examiner’s statement on lethal fentanyl, and the previous protestations of “I can’t breathe,” even before he got into the back seat of the squad car, and long before Chauvin applied the notorious “knee” technique, shows that George was already dying from the lethal fentanyl overdose before officers put him in the back seat of the car. That fentanyl, with methamphetamine ingestion, and cannabinoids — that’s right, George popped some meth alongside the fentanyl, plus a little reefer too — raises more than a reasonable doubt in favor of these policemen.

Here’s the prosecution’s problem – proving beyond a reasonable doubt that it was the officer’s knee, and not the massive fentanyl overdose, that killed George.

No one can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, not in this case, that Chauvin killed Floyd, not with any intellectual honesty. George overdosed on fentanyl, and mixed it with meth, and reefer. That’s why he’s dead. Without the overdose, George Floyd would still be alive. The officers should be acquitted.

Which begs the question, who killed George Floyd?

Sadly, George Floyd killed himself.

Why the Left loathes Tucker Carlson

Using absurd claims that Tucker Carlson is a racist, white supremacist, bigot, etc., etc., etc., the Left has furiously attempted to have his prime-time Fox News show taken off the air. The opening segment of the September 17 edition of Tucker Carlson Tonight is a perfect example of why the left hates his guts.

Citing a breaking report by a local TV station, Carlson revealed that, acting in concert with other high level members of his administration, Nashville’s Democrat mayor intentionally withheld from the public encouraging Covid-19 data that showed an unexpectedly low infection rate at the city’s bars and restaurants. By concealing that information, Mayor John Cooper was able to justify keeping Nashville’s restaurant industry under a virtual lockdown, thus suppressing the city’s economic recovery until after the election. Please watch Tucker’s explosive report, and consider sharing it with your friends. (See Below)

From coast to coast and border to border, Democrat governors and Democrat mayors are making coronavirus decisions that have next to nothing to do with public health, and everything to do with using their official powers to rig the election against President Trump.

When the June jobs report showed the economy was undergoing a brisk recovery, with 4.8 million new jobs added, Democrats panicked. Since then, Democrat mayors and governors have surreptitiously done what Nashville’s mayor did: cook the coronavirus books in ways that retard local economic recovery between now and the election. Much to the delight of Democrats, by August the number of new jobs had fallen from 4.8 million in June to 1.4 million, a drop of 64%. Mission accomplished.

The same kind of disgraceful tactics are being used to delay school openings. Acting in concert with Democrat-controlled school boards, blue city health officials are blocking pre-election school openings to tamp down rising employment numbers by making it difficult for parents with school-aged children to go back to work. No better example of that can be found than in California, where Los Angeles County Health Director, Dr. Barbara Ferrer recently told the press that it’s “not realistic” to open the county’s schools “until after the election.”

Of things that matter to Democrats, public health and economic recovery take a distant back seat to their insatiable desire for ironclad political power.

©John Edison. All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: Anarchists are working to tear down America.

In a Pandemic, Dogmatism is the Real Enemy

What we need is careful science, not scientism


Eight months into this pandemic, we sometimes seem to be no nearer to knowing what’s going on than we were at the beginning.

Lockdowns vs. no lockdowns; masks vs. no masks; hydroxychloroquine vs. remdesivir; opening schools vs. closing schools, etc., etc. Every day, top-level experts express significantly divergent viewpoints on each of these questions. One study published one day concludes one thing; another study published the next concludes the opposite, and critics attack both. One newspaper analyzes the latest data and claims that things are getting better; another newspaper, looking at the same data, laments they have never been worse. Meanwhile, fundamental and simple questions, such as how this virus is transmitted, or where it originated, are still the subject of ongoing research and intense debate.

All of which is to say, science is operating exactly as it always has.

Preaching Orthodoxies Prematurely

If the history of science proves anything, it’s that attaining certainty even on relatively narrow questions is an arduous process. It requires huge investments of time and is often preceded by false starts, dead ends, and premature claims of success. Science is often muddied by haste, ineptness, researcher bias, and conflicting personal, financial, political, and ideological interests.

Given the additional, staggering complexity of a global pandemic, the surprising thing about our present uncertainty is not the uncertainty itself, but how distraught or even scandalized many people are by it. An excessive desire for certainty is leading to counter-productive responses — and to a breakdown of communication and trust, precisely when we most need both.

Over the past eight months, people of every political stripe have prematurely seized on scientific claims and preached them as though they were orthodoxies, with a zeal out of proportion to our actual knowledge. Rather than explore and attempt diverse approaches, or carve out space for conversation, creativity, and experimentation, we too often assume “the other side” is malicious. We call even mild nonconformism or risk-taking a moral failing rather than a necessary prerequisite for advancing our knowledge. Often, the public “debate” has been little more productive than a pie fight

Not long ago, as Allan Bloom pointed out in The Closing of the American Mindsome form of skepticism or relativism was the default epistemological position of the overwhelming majority of people. Every day college freshmen repeated some version of the claim that “truth is relative” as though it were a platitude. But today we expect and demand absolute certainty on extraordinarily complex matters, at the snap of our fingers.

Scientism, Superstition, and Dogmatism

Most people seem to agree that the pandemic is a scientific problem that needs a scientific solution. This is true, but only partially. To view the plague as purely a scientific problem is reductive. As Andrew Sullivan noted in a recent essay, a plague is not just a medical event. It is also a “social and cultural and political” event. Plagues “insinuate themselves into every nook and cranny of our lives and psyches — from sex to shopping, from work to religion, from politics to journalism — and thereby alter them.”

After all, even if our scientific understanding of the virus were complete, we still wouldn’t all agree on the right response, and for good reason. Many medical experts presume that our goal should be to save as many lives as possible from the virus — but there are limits to that goal. Saving more lives in the short term at the expense of fundamental rights and freedoms, or of social order, or of the long-term viability of the economy, may be too high a price to pay. How to balance these concerns cannot be answered by science alone.

Talking heads on TV exhort the public to “trust the science” as if “the science” were some monolith, unaffected by human fallibility and constraints, that could answer all the political, ethical, and social questions that the pandemic raises. Many seem to believe that, if scientists just work harder, at some point “the science” will tell us what to do, down to the minutest detail.

This is scientism, and it is a form of superstition. Like all superstitions, it stems from a desire to escape the discomfort of uncertainty; the painful duties of investigation, debate, and decision-making; and the risk of being wrong.

Rather than stretch our minds to fit the problem, superstition reduces the problem to fit the limitations of our minds. It replaces reason with dogma, and thanks to the spread of scientism today, dogmatism is ubiquitous. Even those who criticize the dogmatism of others who demand fealty to “the science” often adhere to their own scientific dogmatism — only they find their dogmas in far-flung and seedy corners of science and the media. Moreover, both sides often insist that their favored scientist, or group of scientists, or publication, or journalist, is the only one who has “figured it out.” If we would just listen to them, everything would be all right.

The dogmatist is scandalized by the difficulty of how humans come to know — bit by bit, at the expenditure of enormous energy, and in many matters reaching only probable conclusions. He prefers to seize on a simplistic explanation and call it a solution. One can see why such people often become conspiracy theorists. Perplexed by a vast confusion of data points, the conspiracy theorist does not patiently investigate the data to discover their objective connection (which is hard). Rather, he presumes an explanation, investigates how to fit the various data points to it, and simply discards the data that will not fit (which is easy).

How to Debate About a Plague

But maybe there is no one correct solution to this pandemic — no one strategy that we know with certainty (based on irrefutable scientific data) will save more lives than the alternatives; or that won’t come with its own unacceptable, long-term costs. Or if there is any such answer, perhaps we cannot possibly know what it is until well after this pandemic is over, when there are no more decisions to make. There are simply too many factors at play and too many unknowns; and we have no idea how the coming days, months, and years will unfold.

Should we throw up our hands in despair? Are there no solutions that are clearly better, or supported by better evidence, than others? Is the science so hopelessly complex that we can’t possibly look to it for any guidance? Should we not advocate our favored solutions, based on the best available evidence, or not oppose the solutions we believe to be harmful or misguided?

Of course not. Doing nothing is not an option. We may not know everything we would like to know about this virus, but we do know much more than we did before, and certainly more than the human race has ever known when facing a similar crisis. We have to move, and in order to move, we must select a starting point. We must make decisions based on the limited information we have, and then execute those decisions with conviction, hoping that they turn out as planned.

On the other hand, we should be aware of the sorts of errors that may cloud our judgment.

Dogmatism closes questions that ought to remain open and blinds us to any truths that go against our own prejudices and political loyalties. It precludes fruitful conversation and compromise by treating as moral those questions that are merely practical and therefore debatable. We should be rigid only on moral absolutes and be flexible in everything else. We need to bear courageously the burden of uncertainty in matters that are uncertain. We ought not cast aspersions on the motives of others, when a plausible case can be made that they are simply reading the data differently.

Another common error is the “sunk cost” fallacy: when we continue down a path — even in the face of evidence that it is the wrong way — merely because we have already gone so far down it, or because we staked so much of our reputations on it. Then there is confirmation bias, the error by which we ask how new data support our preferred conclusion, rather than whether they do so in fact.

Wisdom lies not in having a great deal of knowledge, but in honestly identifying the limits of our knowledge. Socrates was the wisest man in Athens precisely because he believed himself to be ignorant. We ought to be suspicious of politicians, media talking heads, conspiracy theorists, and social media warriors who profess to be wise. Their alluring reductions and ideologies are leading us astray and tearing us apart.

Above all, let us have the humility to admit when we are wrong. If anything is certain in a global pandemic, it is that every one of us will be wrong some of the time.

This article has been republished with permission from The Public Discourse.

COLUMN BY

John Jalsevac

John Jalsevac is working on a PhD in medieval philosophy, with a dissertation examining Thomas Aquinas’s philosophy of memory. .

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Facts About Climate Change and California Fires

Despite some progress made by heroic firefighters, wildfires continue to tear through the West. Tragically, the fires have taken more than 30 lives (with many more missing), destroyed thousands of structures, and burned millions of acres.

Here are answers to some of the commonly asked questions on causes for the wildfires and obstacles that stand in the way of solutions.

What caused the wildfires?

At least several factors. At the end of August, a storm with a lot of lightning and little rain struck. An estimated 11,000 lightning strikes hit California over a three-day span, sparking fires throughout the state.

More recently, two of the fires started because of hot soot from a car tailpipe and a family using a “smoke-generating pyrotechnic device” for a gender reveal party. One man in Oregon has been charged with arson.


How are socialists deluding a whole generation? Learn more now >>


Investigations continue into the causes of some of the fires. In the past, campfires, discarded cigarettes, fallen power lines, and arson have been the culprit.

Despite accusations that extremists on both the left and right set certain wildfires, neither has been the case. In fact, false rumors have served only to spread resources thinner and detract from serious investigations.

Are these fires the worst ever? Are wildfires more frequent and destructive?

The more than 3.2 million acres burned thus far in California are the most in recorded history.

According to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, data over the past 30 years shows that the number of fires is on a downward trend while the number of acres burned is on an upward trend.

However, as Mother Jones reports, ecologists and fire scientists estimate that prehistoric fires were worse, burning between 4.4 million and 11.8 million acres per year.

On a national scale, data from the National Interagency Fire Center shows a downward trend for both fires and acres burned from 1926 through 2019, though reporting methods differed before 1983.

Why have the wildfires been so severe?

California is a hot and dry place. The winds can be fierce this time of year and the steep slopes of the topography can make them practically unstoppable.  Although the winds come every year, they’re also unpredictable.

Alexandra Syphard, an ecologist at the Conservation Biology Institute, noted that “wind-driven fires are the ones most associated with catastrophic losses” because of their difficulty to contain and propensity to reach places where people live.

Then there’s the fuel load. Without proper management, whether prescribed burns or timber harvesting, California is a tinder box comprised of dry trees, grass, and shrubs. Invasive species, including grasses and shrubs, also contribute to worse wildfires because they dry out and have a higher likelihood of burning than native plants.

Better land management long has been understood as a necessity to reduce the severity of fires. Malcolm North, of the U.S. Forest Survey, says: “Climate dries the [wood] fuels out and extends the fire season from four to six months to nearly year-round. [B]ut it’s not the cause of the intensity of the fires. The cause of that is fire suppression and the existing debt of wood fuel.”

Timothy Ingalsbee, executive director for Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics, and Ecology, told ProPublica: “We need to get good fire on the ground and whittle down some of that fuel load.”

If controlled burns and thinning forests are effective, why are they so hard to do?

California’s fuel load has been a long-standing, worsening problem and a top priority for ecologists and land managers who want to reduce the severity of wildfires.

Jon Keeley, senior scientist at the U.S. Geological Survey’s Western Ecological Research Center, said: “We ought to be much more concerned with ignition sources than a 1- to 2-degree change in temperature.”

Prescribed burns (see photos here) are an effective, non-controversial way to reduce the fuel load and consequently reduce the destruction caused by a wildfire. Fires also help  to control pests, to remove non-native plants, and to provide nutrients to trees and other vegetation.

As the narrator says in this National Geographic video: “Giant sequoias depend on fire to reproduce. The heat opens their seed cones, their seeds are released, the flames clear the earth for their germination. While lesser trees blaze around them, the giant sequoias stand virtually unscathed by the flames.”

Studies have shown that these prescribed burns do not harm the ecology of the forest. California has implemented controlled burns for an average of 13,000 acres from 1997 to 2017. But a February article in the journal Nature Sustainability suggests that California needs about 20 million acres burned.

Controlled burns are by no means a silver bullet, but an overwhelming consensus exists among land managers that such burns are the most immediate and effective action to take.

As for why that hasn’t happened, the same article in Nature Sustainability breaks it down to three categories: risk, resources, and regulation.

Some have concerns about the smoke from controlled burns, and that the fires may get out of control; others have concerns over liability should that occur. Even so, the practice largely has won public acceptance.

Another barrier is presented by weather and location. Controlled burns take into account ideal humidity ranges, as well as wind direction and speed. Some controlled burns occur where there are power lines or pipelines, which require additional attention. COVID-19 postponed many of the prescribed burns.

Regulation presents a major obstacle. Prescribed burns go through a lengthy approval process. Securing a permit can take up to 18 months.  These burns are subject to the National Environmental Policy Act and must meet federal, state, and local air quality standards.

Of course, the pollution and air quality is much worse from the wildfires than from a controlled burn. Even when a plan seemingly checks all the necessary boxes, it still may be held up in the courts. Although some progress has occurred to expedite the process, more needs to be done.

Another solution is timber harvesting, which helps thin the landscape and put those resources to productive use.

What is the role of climate change?

It stands to reason that as the planet warms, the American West will become drier and states’ wildfire seasons will be longer. The planet has been in a warming period for the past 160 years, and part of that warming is a result of human activity.

One study out of UCLA estimates that the number of days with extreme fire weather in the fall has more than doubled over the past 40 years. Another study in Earth’s Future found similar results for warming’s effect on fuel drying, but noted that a changing climate has not affected wind or precipitation patterns:

In fall, wind events and delayed onset of winter precipitation are the dominant promoters of wildfire. While these variables did not change much over the past century, background warming and consequent fuel drying is increasingly enhancing the potential for large fall wildfires.

Cliff Mass, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Washington, emphasizes that even without the warming that is occurring, fuels are “plenty dry enough to burn already.”

Soil moisture is another factor that can determine how severe a wildfire might be. Last year, in a very mild season, soil moisture in California was 40% above average for most of the state and even higher in some parts.

Droughts can be both bad and good. Droughts obviously create a dry climate for vegetation to burn, but extended droughts can result in less fire because, as NASA’s Ben Cook points out, “the vegetation will not grow back as vigorously, and you may run out of fuel to burn.”

Some parts of California, such as the area where the Camp Fire wildfire occurred in 2018, saw no discernible trend in fuel moisture or precipitation, but the winds were strong enough to dry out the vegetation anyway.

Which brings us to another point of the discussion: how climate change affects wind patterns. California is known for intense winds, such as the Diablo winds in the north and the Santa Ana winds in the south.

Several studies show that warming actually could reduce the frequency of the Santa Ana winds and potentially weaken the pressure of Diablo winds. If precipitation patterns change, however, that merely might push the wildfire season from the fall into the winter.

That’s to say that the link between climate change and wildfires exists, but it also is quite complex.

What about where we live, and housing policies?

Residents of the West are moving to more fire-prone areas. The New York Times podcast “The Daily” explains that this is called the Wildland Urban Interface, where development meets wild vegetation.

People choose to live in more rural areas for a host of reasons. They may want to be closer to nature and where houses are more affordable. The higher number of homes and businesses in these areas also increases the likelihood of a human-induced fire and puts more lives and structures at risk. These threats as they pertain to the Wildland Urban Interface are not specific to California, but exist in many places around the country.

Housing policies also contribute to the decision by some to move to the Wildland Urban Interface. A homelessness problem plagues California and home prices are high, particularly in the cities.

The combination of the difficulty in expanding housing in the cities, the ease of building on green space, and state and local incentives to build in more remote locations encourages development in places that are at higher risk for wildfires.

Both state-subsidized housing (140,000 units in the Wildland Urban Interface) and local subsidies result in more houses than otherwise might be there. Also, because subsidies for building are still there, not to mention that a town’s budget and operations are paid for through property taxes, a strong incentive exists to rebuild.

And yet another piece of this puzzle is insurance. Insurance prices can be the great arbiter of accepting a certain amount of risk, whether that’s accepting the insurance premium of a sports car or purchasing a home in a flood- or fire-prone area.

A major part of the problem, however, is that the government can distort that risk by socializing it among taxpayers, or, in the case of California, banning insurers from refusing to renew fire insurance policies they deemed too risky. At the same time, some of the state’s housing policies encouraged expansion of homes and businesses to these more remote areas.

It’s understandable why homeowners are frustrated at the prospects of not being able to have insurance, but these policies skew the actual risk of living in these areas.

Alternative, market-based risk models are cropping up in parts of the country to better assess the risk and deploy fire- suppression resources where they’re needed most.

When the risk is accurately assessed, it should incentivize more prescribed burns, timber harvesting, and installation of fire- resistant materials on homes and other buildings. But even then, it is challenging because most often reducing the fuel load is out of the hands of the home or business owner.

The Western wildfires are tragic and devastating. A nearly universal consensus exists that prescribed burns can measurably reduce the risk of future fires.

Now is the time for the political will to make it happen, so we’re not writing and reading the same story a year from now.

COMMENTARY BY

Read his research. Twitter: .


A Note for our Readers:

Democratic Socialists say, “America should be more like socialist countries such as Sweden and Denmark.” And millions of young people believe them…

For years, “Democratic Socialists” have been growing a crop of followers that include students and young professionals. America’s future will be in their hands.

How are socialists deluding a whole generation? One of their most effective arguments is that “democratic socialism” is working in Scandinavian countries like Sweden and Norway. They claim these countries are “proof” that socialism will work for America. But they’re wrong. And it’s easy to explain why.

Our friends at The Heritage Foundation just published a new guide that provides three irrefutable facts that debunks these myths. For a limited time, they’re offering it to readers of The Daily Signal for free.

Get your free copy of “Why Democratic Socialists Can’t Legitimately Claim Sweden and Denmark as Success Stories” today and equip yourself with the facts you need to debunk these myths once and for all.

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW »


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Fr. James Altman — You cannot be Catholic and a Democrat. Period!

Alpha News MN published the following commentary and below video by Fr. James Altman titled ““You cannot be Catholic and a Democrat. Period!”

Father James Altman calls out the hypocrisies of Church hierarchy and their destructive leftist politicization of the Catholic Church that has slapped faithful Catholics in the face and led many others astray. Altman also explains the basis of human nature and our purpose in life. Video produced by filmmaker Rebecca Brannon.

In a American Life League column titled Speaking Truth Crushes Evil Judie Brown wrote:

Fr. James Altman, pastor of St. James the Less in La Crosse, Wisconsin, has become a national hero to many. He has even been called the modern Elijah. Catholics who have heard his 10-minute homily entitled “You Cannot Be Catholic and a Democrat. Period” are elated with his words of truth, not to mention his courage in uttering them aloud. That is because it is wonderful to hear simple truth in an age when the level of political correctness spewing from many pulpits is unbelievably disturbing.

Read more.

©All rights reserved.

Why There Are So Many Wildfires in California, but Few in the Southeastern United States

California wildfires continue to blaze in one of the worst fire seasons in recent memory. While California fires are nothing new, government data show the damage has been substantial.

The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection says that since August 15, when California’s fire activity accelerated, there have been at least 24 fatalities and more than 4,200 structures destroyed. (Ten people have also died in Oregon, CNN reports.) So far in 2020, California wildfires have burned more than 3.2 million acres of land—an area roughly the size of Connecticut.

As the fires rage, politicians argue over what (and who) is to blame.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti say climate change is the culprit, while President Donald Trump says the fires are the result of poor land management.

These answers are not mutually exclusive, of course, and evidence suggests that both poor land management and California’s high temperatures and arid climate have played a role.

While addressing California’s extreme temperatures is difficult, especially in the short term (unless you’re a member of the X-Men named Storm), evidence suggests immediate solutions are available to improve state and federal forestry management.

Citing the fires scorching the West, The New York Times last week ran an article that stated it was time for government agencies to rethink their fire management policies.

“For over a century, firefighting agencies have focused on extinguishing fires whenever they occur. That strategy has often proved counterproductive,” the Times reports. “Many landscapes evolved to burn periodically, and when fires are suppressed, vegetation builds up thickly in forests. So when fires do break out, they tend to be far more severe and destructive.”

This was precisely what economist Jairaj Devadiga pointed out in a 2018 FEE article that examined why California’s wildfires historically have been much worse than those of Baja California, where fires are allowed to burn naturally at low intensity, regularly clearing out forest floors and limiting the spread of large conflagrations.

Though the Times doesn’t mention Baja California, the paper does endorse the Mexican state’s strategy of allowing fires to burn naturally to eliminate vegetation, pointing out that experts attribute the tactic to the more successful fire prevention approach found in the Southeastern United States.

Scientists who study wildfires agree that allowing forests and grasslands to burn periodically — by, say, intentionally setting smaller fires under controlled conditions — can be a more effective way to clear out vegetation. In Ponderosa pine forests, for instance, low-level fire can nurture ecosystems and help prevent destructive large-scale fires from breaking out.

This already occurs in the Southeastern United States, where officials use prescribed fires to burn millions of acres each year. While the region still sees destructive blazes — like Tennessee’s drought-fueled Great Smoky Mountains fires in 2016, which killed at least 14 people — experts credit the use of controlled burns with sparing many Southeastern communities from fire damage.

Contrary to Western states, “fire is widely accepted as a tool for land management in the Southeast,” fire scientist Crystal Kolden told the Times. This is in stark contrast to California, where just 50,000 acres were intentionally burned in 2017. (As a point of reference, academics estimate between 4.4 million and 11.8 million acres of forest burned annually in prehistoric California.)

Fortunately, it appears that political leaders are beginning to recognize the problem. In August,

Newsom signed a memo acknowledging California needs more preventive fire.

While this is a step in the right direction, federal regulations could prove an obstacle to the strategy.

As Sam Rutzick at Reason point outs, the Clean Air Act of 1990 treats the smoke from a controlled burn as a pollutant (in contrast to a wildfire allowed to burn) and the National Environmental Policy Act requires “a couple-thousand-page document analyzing every single conceivable impact to the environment that the (burn) plan might have.”

The wildfires are a reminder of an unpleasant reality: the governments are poor stewards of the environment.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Virologist Dr. Li Meng Yan ‘Chinese Intentionally Created This Virus’

RELATED ARTICLE: Chinese Whistleblower to Tucker Carlson: Coronavirus Was Man-Made And Released Intentionally

EDITORS NOTE: These videos posted by on the Vlad Tepes Blog are republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Some Schools Don’t Want You to Know What They Are Teaching Your Kids. That’s a Problem.

Six months into the pandemic, some traditions will still not be upset by a virus. As approximately half of K-12 schools are only offering online instruction, parents will still know little, if anything, of what their children are being taught in school except by accident—or  unless they ask.

Recent fallout from such asymmetric information comes from Wylie, Texas, where a cartoon associating police with the KKK went from classroom to living room to the press room and on to the governor.

At Cooper Junior High, eighth-grade students were assigned to write about a political cartoon that depicts slave owners, then KKK members, and then police in corresponding panels. Furious parents, who only learned of the assignment because their children told them, contacted the school and wrote angry statements on social media.

Last week, Gov. Greg Abbott said the teacher responsible for the assignment should be fired.


How are socialists deluding a whole generation? Learn more now >>


To be sure, there have always been disagreements about the content that students are taught in the classroom. From the introduction of “new math” and alternative ways of teaching reading in the 1950s and ’60s, to the arrival of Common Core textbooks over the last decade, changes in school curriculum always sparks debate, and will continue to do so long as schools enroll more than one student.

But in a period that historians will mark less for its civil discourse than for the birth of cancel culture and vicious riots, parents should be wary of projects that want to reframe history or train children to see injustice all around them.

For example, the New York Times Magazine and Pulitzer Center’s 1619 Project includes a school curriculum that would change how U.S. history is taught, marking 1619, the year slaves arrived in the Virginia colony, as “our nation’s foundational date.”

Reviewers, including decorated historians, have found multiple errors within the 1619 Project, starting with the date: slaves arrived via Spanish ships in North America a century before 1619. And despite the project’s claim, American colonists did not use the preservation of slavery as the primary reason to fight the American Revolution.

Noted academics including Gordon WoodJames McPhersonAllen Guelzo, and Sean Wilentz, to name a few, have catalogued the errors.

Meanwhile, Black Lives Matter also has a school curriculum, if one can call a list of  progressive policy demands the basis for a course of study. Considering that instructions for hosting a week of action precedes the list of actual learning materials, it’s no surprise to find politically charged titles as “Open Secrets in First Grade Math: Teaching about White Supremacy on American Currency” on the list.

This material goes beyond teaching students the dangers of racism and ventures well into the misuse of journalistic license and a philosophy of perpetual victimization.

What can be done? For parents, pandemic pods are all the rage right now, in which a small group of parents pool their resources to hire private instructors for their children.

But for generations, isolated groups parents have gathered to educate themselves on what their children are learning and become active with their school board. Today we might call these “textbook pods,” but “concerned citizens” will do. For all parents now, the pandemic offers a unique opportunity to review what your child is learning while content is being delivered online for all or part of the school week.

This may sound simple, but there are startling examples of schools attempting to prevent parents from finding out what is being taught. For example, in Rutherford County, Tennessee, school officials asked parents to sign forms stating they would not watch their child’s online classes while the district remains closed for in-person learning. The district released different guidance, but only after parents complained and the policy made headlines.

State and local policymakers should help parents’ efforts by requiring that public schools provide descriptions of their curricular materials online and make copies of assigned reading or written tasks available upon request.

Goldwater Institute research explains that Arizona, Texas, and Tennessee lawmakers have already enacted provisions that allow parents to see instructional content before it is taught to students, though even some of these provisions come with caveats (and considering the incident in Rutherford County, state legislators should make sure districts follow through).

In Arizona, for example, parents only view the content on school grounds. State lawmakers should require that districts bear the responsibility for providing instructional content to parents either in physical form or online.

Finally, state and federal lawmakers should affirm a parent’s right to choose how and where their child learns. Parent choice in education became a reality for everyone this year when nearly every school in the world closed due to the pandemic, and then only certain schools re-opened for in-person learning in time for the current school year.

Again, it may seem commonsensical to say that parents should be allowed to make choices about their child’s education, but some state and local policymakers have tried to stop parents from moving their child out of an assigned school.

Last month, Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan overruled Montgomery County officials’ decision to require private school buildings to remain closed while district schools were closed to in-person instruction.

Officials in North Carolina recently blocked virtual charter school enrollment, following similar decisions from lawmakers in Oregon and Pennsylvania earlier this year.

Lawmakers must maintain a consistent message that parents should be allowed to know what their children are taught, and can choose how and where their children learn.

For federal lawmakers, delivering this message without expanding the federal footprint will take legislative restraint. But such a visible show of support for parents trying to find a quality education for their child would be a welcome one, and would restore a vital tradition for everyone involved in K-12 schools: The pursuit of truth.

COMMENTARY BY

Jonathan Butcher is a senior policy analyst in The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Education Policy and a senior fellow for the Goldwater Institute and the Beacon Center of Tennessee. Twitter:


A Note for our Readers:

Democratic Socialists say, “America should be more like socialist countries such as Sweden and Denmark.” And millions of young people believe them…

For years, “Democratic Socialists” have been growing a crop of followers that include students and young professionals. America’s future will be in their hands.

How are socialists deluding a whole generation? One of their most effective arguments is that “democratic socialism” is working in Scandinavian countries like Sweden and Norway. They claim these countries are “proof” that socialism will work for America. But they’re wrong. And it’s easy to explain why.

Our friends at The Heritage Foundation just published a new guide that provides three irrefutable facts that debunks these myths. For a limited time, they’re offering it to readers of The Daily Signal for free.

Get your free copy of “Why Democratic Socialists Can’t Legitimately Claim Sweden and Denmark as Success Stories” today and equip yourself with the facts you need to debunk these myths once and for all.

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW »


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Wildfires Will Get Worse Under Decades-Old Liberal Policies, Veteran Forester Says

Nearly 30 years ago, President Bill Clinton made a significant change to federal land management that created the conditions necessary for massive wildfires to consume portions of the West Coast, according to a fire expert who predicted the problem years ago.

Shortly before leaving office in 2001, Clinton limited the ability of the United States Forest Service to thin out a dense thicket of foliage and downed trees on federal land to bring the West into a pristine state, Bob Zybach, an experienced forester with a Ph.D. in environmental science, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. The former president’s decision created a ticking time bomb, Zybach argues.

“If you don’t start managing these forests, then they are going to start burning up. Thirty years later, they are still ignoring it,” said Zybach, who spent more than 20 years as a reforestation contractor.

He was referring to warnings he made years ago, telling officials that warding off prescribed burns in Oregon and California creates kindling that fuels fires.

Such rules make it more difficult to deploy prescribed burns, which are controlled burns designed to cull all of the underbrush in forests to lessen the chance of massive fires, Zybach noted.

Years of keeping these areas in their natural state result in dead trees and dried organic material settling on the forest floor, which become like matchsticks soaked in jet fuel during dry seasons, he said.

Zybach’s comments come as wildfires continue churning through parts of California, Oregon, and Washington, media reports show.

Fires have killed 26 in West Coast states since August, including 19 in California, and have culminated in more than 500,000 evacuating Oregon, a number representing roughly 10% of the state’s overall population.

Roughly 100 massive fires are blazing Saturday in the West, including 12 in Idaho and nine in Montana, the National Interagency Fire Center said Saturday. All told, the wildfires have churned through more than 4.5 million acres in 12 states.

Shortly before leaving office, Clinton introduced the Roadless Rule that restricted the use of existing roads and construction of new roads on 49 million acres of National Forest, making it difficult for officials to scan the land for the kind of kindling that fuels massive conflagrations.

The move was part of the Northwest Forest Plan (NWFP), a resolution adopted by Clinton in 1994 to protect forests from being over-logged.

Ten years before Clinton’s rule, the Fish and Wildlife Service placed the northern spotted owl on the Endangered Species Act, forcing the Forest Service to adopt a new policy that resulted in a greater reduction in timber harvests. The amount of timber removed from federal lands plummeted, according to data accumulated in 2015 by the Reason Foundation.

An average of 10 million feet of timber was removed each year from Forest Service land between 1960 and 1990, the data show. Those numbers dropped between 1991 and 2000 and continued dropping—an average of only 2.1 billion feet of timber was removed from the land between 2000 and 2013, according to the data. That’s an 80% decline.

“They’ve gone and left hundreds of thousands of acres of burnt timber, a fire bomb waiting to happen, standing in place because the black back woodpecker prefers that habitat,” Zybach said. “It’s great for lawyers, but it’s bad for people who breathe air or work in the woods.”

“The prescribed burns are an ancient form of management for keeping the fuels down so these events don’t happen,” Zybach added, referring to Native American Indians who used controlled burns to ward away pests and prevent wildfires from licking their homes.

The Clinton administration’s plan to turn forests in the West into pristine land free of human interference risked fueling “wildfires reminiscent of the Tillamook burn, the 1910 fires, and the Yellowstone fire,” Zybach, who is based in Oregon, told Evergreen magazine in 1994, when the NWFP came into effect.

Western Oregon had one major fire above 10,000 acres between 1952 and 1987, reports show. The Silver Complex Fire of 1987 snapped that streak after torching more than 100,000 acres in the Kalmiopsis Wilderness area, killing rare plants and trees the federal government sought to protect from human activities.

Fire Experts Agree: Prescribed Burns Are Critical 

Overzealous fire suppression across California are helping to build up wildland fuels, which contribute to wildfires, according to Tim Ingalsbee, a fire ecologist who began a career in the 1980s as a wildland firefighter. The solution is “to get good fire on the ground and whittle down some of that fuel load,” he told ProPublica in August.

“It’s just … well … it’s horrible. Horrible to see this happening when the science is so clear and has been clear for years. I suffer from Cassandra syndrome,” Ingalsbee said, referring to the Cassandra Syndrome, a Greek metaphor people use when they believe their valid warnings are not heeded.

“Every year I warn people: Disaster’s coming. We got to change. And no one listens. And then it happens.”

Other experts have made similar arguments in the past.

Overgrown grasslands, forests, and woodlands contributed to California wildfires in 2017, Sasha Berleman, a fire ecologist, told High Country News that year. “I’m more certain than ever that there’s a lot we can do between now and the next time this happens to make it so that the negative consequences to people are nowhere near as dramatic,” she said.

The devastating fires that ran through California’s wine country in October of 2017 killed 42 people and destroyed nearly 7,000 buildings, High Country News noted.

The solution might be easier said than done. Nearly 20 million acres in California, or an area about the size of Maine, will need to experience controlled burns to limit catastrophic wildfires, a January study from Nature Sustainability found.

Blaming Climate Change

Former President Barack Obama suggested in a tweet Thursday that California’s wildfires are a result of climate change.

“The fires across the West Coast are just the latest examples of the very real ways our changing climate is changing our communities,” Obama wrote in a tweet that included pictures showing how soot and ash from the wildfires are turning San Francisco’s sky bright orange.

Obama isn’t the only prominent Democrat tying the fires to global warming.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat from New York, published a tweet Saturday that read: “The proof of the urgency of the climate crisis is literally in the air around us.” Schumer included a link to a Sept. 10 article from CBS blaming climate change for the fires.

Zybach is not convinced. “The lack of active land management is almost 100% the cause,” he told The Daily Caller News Foundation, noting that climate change has almost nothing to do with fire kindling gathering across the forest floors. Other researchers share his skepticism.

“Global warming may contribute slightly, but the key factors are mismanaged forests, years of fire suppression, increased population, people living where they should not, invasive flammable species, and the fact that California has always had fire,” University of Washington climate scientist Cliff Mass told The Daily Caller News Foundation in 2018.

Mass’ critique came as the Mendocino Complex Fire was spreading across California on its way to becoming the largest wildfire in the state, engulfing more than 283,000 acres.

COLUMN BY

Chris White

Chris White is a reporter for The Daily Caller News Foundation. Twitter: @ZanderKelly30.

RELATED TWEET:

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump, Newsom Shun Heated Partisanship in Confronting California Wildfires

How to Get California’s Wildfires Under Control

Countering the Left’s Climate Power Grab With Facts

It Turns Out a Number of Fires on the West Coast Aren’t Because of ‘Climate Change’

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Family Breakdown and the Rise of Identity Politics

With months of race riots continuing in the United States, identity politics is a phrase all too familiar to us in 2020.

Often credited to French philosopher Michel Foucault, identity politics is a window on the world that sees all social relationships as a power struggle. Black versus white, male versus female, gay versus straight, and on the list goes. Each group, according to this worldview, is battling it out to advance their particular political agenda.

With humour and precision, Michael Bird, a lecturer at Ridley College, explains that in the new social pyramid:

Your authority derives not so much from achievement or ability, but from your minority status and experiences of victimisation. So, that means in an argument, a white woman trumps a white man; a black woman trumps a white woman, a disabled woman trumps a black woman, and a disabled black transgendered Muslim refugee trumps pretty much everybody.

Late last year, Australians watching Q&A encountered a rather confronting example of this new creed. One of the visiting guests was Egyptian-American journalist Mona Eltahawy, whose writings have appeared in The Washington Post, the New York Times and beyond.

To viewers’ surprise, Eltahawy labelled Australian Prime Minister Scott Morrison a “white supremacist” and a “patriarchal authoritarian”. She went on to explain that, “for me, as a feminist, the most important thing is to destroy patriarchy.” At one point, Eltahawy bypassed the panel to address the audience directly:

How long must we wait for men and boys to stop murdering us, to stop beating us, and to stop raping us? How many rapists must we kill — not by the state, because I disagree with the death penalty… until men stop raping us?

Behind her biting words, of course, Eltahawy had some genuine grievances. Domestic violence, for instance, affects women especially, and it’s an issue dealt with by police every two minutes in Australia. Sexual abuse remains a serious problem in our societies, and one that predominantly affects women, too.

There are many social ills in the modern world, and they should concern us all. But Eltahawy’s biting tone was unnerving, and it is becoming more commonplace.

Westerners are finding it increasingly difficult to sift social concerns from heated ideas like identity politics. The pressure is on now, not just to provide care to the disadvantaged, but to prove your sincerity by embracing politicised viewpoints. Resentment, victimhood and grievance are the new currency.

In the interests of equality, we are learning to assume the best about some people and the worst about others, even if we haven’t met them. This hardly feels like progress. How did it all come to this?

Essayist and author Mary Eberstadt recently addressed this question in her book Primal Screams: How the Sexual Revolution Created Identity Politics. It’s a title worth the price of entry.

Until the 1960s, Western sexual ethics were more or less Christian sexual ethics: a man married a woman; sex was reserved for that covenant; children were a natural result; and the family unit was the safe place for children to be raised.

The Sexual Revolution changed all that. As faith waned and morals loosened after the wars, personal happiness was one pursuit we could all agree on. Sexual fulfilment played a crucial role in this. Consequently, rates of infidelity, divorce, teenage sex and unmarried pregnancy began to soar from the 60s, and they have stayed high ever since.

Other forces were at play. Abortion and the pill turned sex into a childless exchange. This made marriage optional. IVF therapies took this a step further by enabling children to be born in the absence of either a father or a mother. So what the family unit looks like now is limited only to the imagination.

Many consider all of these benign trends of the modern world, but Eberstadt disagrees. Having researched and published widely in this field, Eberstadt credits the Sexual Revolution and its impact on the family unit with a “sharp rise in psychiatric trouble among the young… the explosion of loneliness on a scale never before recorded [and] the rise in so-called ‘deaths of despair’ that are plainly related to loss of love.”

She explains how the weakening of family ties and identity has led to a ‘longing for belonging’ among many in the West. She quotes Arthur Schlesinger Jr, who reasoned that:

“the more people feel themselves adrift in a vast, impersonal, anonymous sea, the more desperately they swim toward any familiar, intelligible, protective life-raft; the more they crave a politics of identity.”

In other words, says Eberstadt, the breakdown of loving, stable homes in the West has prompted us to look for family and loyalty elsewhere.

Enter identity politics.

Mary Eberstadt’s thesis is a compelling one — that the erosion of the family unit has led us to find our identity in fragmented groups. Whether or not hers is the best explanation for the social splintering we now see in the West, it is a trend that shows no signs of slowing down.

Having taken individualism to an extreme and tasted the loneliness it can cause, we now face a new kind of tribal warfare — a postmodern caste system. We are losing the ability to see each other as individuals, and instead as mere symbols of rival groups.

This is not progress. We will need something greater than the sum of our parts to pull us back together. Perhaps we can begin with the wise words of C.S. Lewis, who said:

We all want progress, but if you’re on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; in that case, the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive.

This content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license.

COLUMN BY

Kurt Mahlburg

Kurt Mahlburg is a teacher, freelance writer, and the Features Editor of the Canberra Declaration. He contributes regularly at the Spectator Australia, Caldron Pool and The Good Sauce. He hosts his own… .

RELATED ARTICLES:

Children’s ‘mental health’ problems may be spiritual

Can societies abandon religion and continue to prosper?

A huge increase in the childless elderly signals a crisis in social care

EDITORS NOTE: This MercatorNet column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Overpopulation is an Environmental Red Herring

It is not too much of a stretch to suggest that 2020 has been an interesting year (in the sense of “May you live in interesting times”). Fires, plagues, floods, Presidential impeachment, global economic meltdown, lockdowns: this year has seen them all. And we’re only in September. Thank goodness there isn’t a major election coming up where some are predicting social breakdown in nearly every conceivable scenario or anything

It’s not quite dogs and cats living together in peace and harmony, but another sign that the end is nigh is that I find myself nodding along to an article of George Monbiot (greenie extraordinaire) in the Guardian. In it, Monbiot argues that blaming overpopulation for environmental concerns is a cop out, particularly for rich people in first world nations who get to lecture the third world on the need to have fewer children while they enjoy a lifestyle with a carbon footprint bigger than that of small central African nations.

As he states, the current population growth is overwhelmingly concentrated among the world’s poorest people. This means that a rising human population is only producing a tiny fraction of the extra resource use and greenhouse gas emissions due to consumption growth. Instead, we in the West should be turning our attention on our own behaviours (that latest iPhone, the plane trip to Davos to discuss climate change) rather than fretting about more Indian or African babies.

The example Monbiot gives of Dame Jane Goodall is a good one. She told the World Economic Forum in Davos that if only we had the same population as we did 500 years ago (500 million) then the current environmental issues would not be with us. The audience of course consisted of those with ecological footprints many thousand times greater than the global average. But the greater irony is that Goodall has previously appeared in British Airways advertising. If the world’s population was 500 million, and it was entirely composed of the average UK plane passenger, then our environmental impact would probably be greater than the 7.8 billion people alive today. When it comes to the environment, population size does not matter nearly as much as lifestyle.

Indeed, wishing that the world’s population was one-sixteenth its current size is the same as wishing for the moon and just as useless. Tut-tutting about more people being born over there saves us from having to worry about anything we are doing over here. It is environmental virtue-signalling.

Except when it leads to policy outcomes that are far worse than virtue-signalling. Population panic has led to barbaric, coercive population control measures in many countries throughout the world. And this is not an historical problem: UK foreign aid was helping to fund crude, dangerous and coercive sterilisation in India as recently as 2011, it was justified on the grounds that it was helping to “fight climate change”. (At the same time the UK aid was also pouring money into developing coal, gas and oil plants around the world…)

Of course, Monbiot could have been reading Pope Francis’ encyclical Laudato Si in which the Holy Father said that:

“To blame population growth instead of extreme and selective consumerism on the part of some, is one way of refusing to face the issues. It is an attempt to legitimize the present model of distribution, where a minority believes that it has the right to consume in a way which can never be universalized, since the planet could not even contain the waste products of such consumption.”

And both Monbiot and Pope Francis had perhaps been reading this very blog, since nearly a decade ago I wrote of the thinly-veiled condescending bigotry underlying much of the West’s panic about overpopulation. Perhaps now that the more people are coming around to the view that the world’s population will stop growing in a few decades, we will see less insistence on the kinds of arguments Monbiot is railing against.

This content is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license.

COLUMN BY

Marcus Roberts

Marcus Roberts was two years out of law school when he decided that practising law was no longer for him. He therefore went back to university and did his LLM while tutoring. He now teaches contract and… .

RELATED ARTICLE: Grandma took her life yesterday. Her doctors helped her

EDITORS NOTE: This Mercator Net column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

‘OPEN THE SCHOOLS’: President Trump Calls For Defunding Schools That Remain Shuttered

President Donald Trump demanded that Democrats assist him in re-opening public schools on Thursday, saying schools that remain closed should lose government funding.

Trump has pressed for reopening schools for weeks, making several threats to limit or cut funding altogether if children continue to be forced into distance learning. The main opposition to reopening comes from teachers unions, which consistently align with the Democrats.

Trump first began his push to reopen schools in July, arguing that his Democratic opponents were halting the reopening process for political reasons.

“We have to open our schools. Open our schools. Stop this nonsense,” Trump said Thursday. “It’s only political nonsense. They don’t want to open because they think it will help them on November 3rd. I think it will hurt them on November 3rd.”

Governors across the country ordered schools to close for the final months of the 2019-2020 school year, but states and districts disagree on when classrooms should reopen. The Trump administration released a set of eight recommendations in August for how schools can safely reopen.

The White House recommendations are as follows:

  • Educate teachers and students about the symptoms of COVID-19
  • Require students and teachers to “self-assess” their health each morning
  • Encourage frequent hand washing
  • Minimize large, indoor gatherings
  • Maintain high levels of ventilation in classrooms
  • Require students and teachers to socially distance from “high-risk individuals”
  • Encourage the use of masks
  • Post instructions for hygiene and social distancing around the school

Trump maintains that distanced learning is not an adequate replacement for schooling.

“When you sit at home in a basement looking at a computer, your brain starts to wither away,” Trump said when announcing the recommendations. “We have a lot of good experience at that just by taking a look at what’s happening in politics.”

Trump’s comments echoed those of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which came forward last month to urge state governments to reopen schools in the fall, saying risk of COVID-19 spread among students is low. The group also said dangers of keeping students home and away from learning outweighs the potential risk of spread.

“Lengthy time away from school and associated interruption of supportive services often results in social isolation, making it difficult for schools to identify and address important learning deficits as well as child and adolescent physical or sexual abuse, substance use, depression, and suicidal ideation,” the group said according to U.S. News.

COLUMN BY

ANDERS HAGSTROM

White House correspondent.

RELATED ARTICLES:

White House Praises SCOTUS For Striking Down State Law Banning Aid To Religious Schools

‘Stop This Political Nonsense’: Trump Calls For Schools To Reopen, Blames Democrats For Closures

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved