Florida’s Congressional Delegation not helping lower electricity bills

In an email, Thomas J. Pyle, President of the American Energy Alliance, released its Energy Scorecard. Pyle noted:

Major pieces of legislation get the spotlight and shape the national debate. But each year, Congress considers hundreds of smaller measures that have a big impact on our country and our lives.

That’s where the American Energy Alliance comes in.

AEA analyzes and tracks these bills, including what they do and who co-sponsored them — and shares those summaries and key points with supporters like you. When it comes time for a vote, AEA tracks that, too, and includes it all in a scorecard for each Member of Congress.

With the AEA Energy Scorecard, you can see — at a single glance — where your representatives stood on the most important energy votes of the year … and who the true energy champions are in Congress.

The higher the score on the AEA Energy Scorecard, the more you can count on that elected official to advance a Pro-American energy agenda.

Electricity Local reports:

Residential electricity bills in Florida

  • Residential electricity bills in FL [1]
    • The average monthly residential electricity bill in Florida is $123, which ranks 9th in the U.S.
    • This average monthly residential electricity bill in Florida is 14.95% greater than the national average monthly bill of $107.
    • Average monthly residential electricity bills in the U.S. range from approximately $75 to $203.

Residential electricity rates in Florida

  • Residential electricity rates in FL [1]
    • Residential electricity rates in Florida average 11.42¢/kWh, which ranks the state 22nd in the nation.
    • The average residential electricity rate of 11.42¢/kWh in FL is 3.87% less than the national average residential rate of 11.88¢/kWh.
    • The approximate range of residential electricity rates in the U.S. is 8.37¢/kWh to 37.34¢/kWh.

Residential electricity consumption in Florida

  • Residential electricity consumption in FL [1]
    • Residential electricity consumption in Florida averages 1,081 kWh/month, which ranks 13th in the U.S.
    • This average monthly residential electricity consumption in FL is 19.71% greater than the national average monthly consumption of 903 kWh/month.
    • Monthly residential electricity consumption in the U.S. ranges from approximately 531 kWh/mo. to 1,254 kWh/mo.

How do the members of the Florida delegation vote on energy legislation? Here are their voting records:

State Results: Florida


It appears that the Florida delegation, especially the Democrat Party members, are not interested in helping lower the electric bills of Floridians.

New Video: My Gift To Climate Alarmists

On September 21st, 2019 Tony Heller posted the below video with comment on Real Climate Science.

This is my most concise expose of the climate scam.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions

New Study Links Premarital Sex with Separation and Divorce

Study: ‘Generalized beliefs that uncommitted sex is okay … can contribute to the failure of a marriage’

by Paul Murano  •  ChurchMilitant.com

If you already knew divorce rates today are in part the byproduct of the sexual revolution, this will confirm your wisdom. A new study conducted by a group of Florida State University researchers, published in the journal Psychological Scienceconcludes that premarital sex can have deleterious effects on one’s future marriage.

The researchers investigated common factors influential in determining the success and failure of marriagesAmong the major factors contributing to marriage failure is an individual’s premarital beliefs and behaviors toward uncommitted sex.

What we’ve found,” Juliana French, the first author of the studysaid in a statement to the Association for Psychological Science, “is that when, prior to their marriage, one or both spouses hold generalized beliefs that uncommitted sex is okay, that can contribute to the failure of a marriage.”

Generalized beliefs that uncommitted sex is okay can contribute to the failure of a marriage.Tweet

French, along with assistant professor Andrea Meltzer and fellow graduate student Emma Altgelt, collected and analyzed data from 204 newly married couples, focusing primarily on information gathered about their behaviors and attitudes prior to marriage. 

While following up periodically with the couples over several years in order to discover what may lead to marital satisfaction, they collected information and cataloged data on which couples had eventually separated or filed for divorce.

The researchers found that people who expressed behaviors, desires and attitudes prior to marriage that would make them more likely to engage in uncommitted sexual relationshipswho generally believed that sex without love or commitment is OKwere more likely to separate and divorce.

The bad news goes even further. While those who were loose in attitude and behavior on sex without commitment were less satisfied at the start of their marriages, and experienced more rapid declines in satisfaction over the first several years of marriagepeople whose marital partners had been “unrestricted” or promiscuous in action and attitude prior to marriage also  experienced a rapid decline in marital satisfaction over the first few years of marriage, leading to greater likelihood of separation or divorce — even if they themselves were premaritally celibate.

“What we found most surprising about these results was the fact that both [spouses’ premarital attitudes and experience] play an important role in long-term marital outcomes,” said French.

This study is another example of science supporting the truth and goodness of natural law, codified in Christian moral teachingScripture infers that sexual union is not simply something one does, but something two become. 

Two becoming “one flesh” could happen within (Gen. 2:24), or outside of (1 Cor. 6:16) marriage. Aquinas speaks of the one-flesh union as creating a new relation that cannot be repudiated. We are learning more through science about the profundity of the biblical term of two becoming one flesh. 

Scripture infers that sexual union is not simply something one does, but something two become. Tweet

Genetic material, chemical compounds, hormones and prostaglandins, nucleotides and seminal proteins are exchanged and commingled in this greatest of natural human intimaciesTracey Chapman, a researcher at the University of East Anglia in Norwich in the United Kingdom, has conducted studies on fruit flies and has concluded that seminal protein is a “master regulator of genes and that females exposed to it through sexual union show a wide range of changes in gene expression.

Cells have proteins called receptors that bind to signaling molecules and initiate a physiological response. Chapman believes this kind of sexual signaling is widespread in the animal world, raising questions about what kind of behavioral responses may occur in female mammals.

A 2002 CUNY study conducted by psychologist Gordon Gallup and subsequent confirmations indicate that seminal fluid does indeed alter the mood of womenas it is absorbed into their bloodstream and acts as a mood stabilizer and safeguard against depression

It is now well-documented that “bonding hormones” such as oxytocin and vasopressin are released during sexual intimacy, causing emotional and psychological bonding between the two partners. Other scientific studies relating to male microchimerism in women and the possibility of telegony in humans have pointed to other interesting possibilities that may someday uncover more depth of truth about the one-flesh union.

The more science reveals insight into the physical, psychological and social dimensions of the family, the more the “Sexual Revolution” is nakedly exposed as the destructive foundation upholding our Culture of DeathAs this study points to in its correlation between premarital sex and divorce, it is a revolution not only against God, but against human nature as well.

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

PODCAST: In NYC, a Change of Orientation

The last place anyone would expect liberals to rethink their extremism is New York City. But, thanks to a new lawsuit, even the Big Apple seems to understand when it’s vulnerable. “Pinch yourself,” FRC’s Cathy Ruse says. One of the most radical cities on earth is about to walk back its LGBT counseling ban. All because one courageous psychotherapist fought back.

Like most Americans, Dr. Dovid Schwartz doesn’t want the government telling him what he can and can’t say — especially not to patients in desperate need of a listening ear. As someone who’s practiced in New York City for 50 years, he’s seen countless people who want his help overcoming same-sex attractions. After the council passed its ban on talk therapy for patients like his, simply offering that help would have come at a price: $1,000, $5,000, or $10,000 for first, second, and third violations. In Schwartz’s opinion, people should have the right to seek whatever counseling they need. By passing the law, they weren’t just punishing therapists, they were punishing patients. It’s “inhumane,” he argued.

So, with the help of Alliance Defending Freedom, he filed a lawsuit. And, without even stepping foot in a courtroom, Schwartz won. The council, seeing the writing on the wall, buckled, announcing that it would be the first legislative body in America to reverse itself on the issue. “Obviously, I didn’t want to repeal this,” the council’s speaker, Corey Johnson, told reporters last week. “I don’t want to be someone who is giving in to these right-wing groups. But the Supreme Court has become conservative; the Second Circuit, which oversees New York, has become more conservative. [And] we think this is the most responsible, prudent course.”

Friday, on “Washington Watch,” lead ADF attorney Roger Brooks told listeners that this case was about a lot more than sexual orientation or gender identity. It goes to the heart of free speech as we know it. “What this lawsuit is about is defending the right of New Yorkers — and obviously, down the road, protect every American to pursue their [own] lives [and seek their own] counsel… [T]here were fundamental constitutional issues at stake… And the bottom line, I think, is that after they looked a little harder at the case, the city attorneys had to agree and agreed that this was simply found unconstitutional.”

ADF’s hope — and ours — is that more elected officials see what’s happening in New York and stop to think about the dangerous side effects to policies like this one. This law, he points out, “extended to conversations between a therapist and an adult,” but there are a great many other laws that take aim at minors and their free speech and personal rights. “Some of those laws are currently being challenged… [and] I think that this case is likely to slow down the emotion elsewhere in the country.” Maybe, he hints, it’s the start of something.

FRC’s Ruse agrees. In a column for the Stream, she talks about the significance of the LGBT movement — “a wrecking ball against any cultural or legal edifice in its way — repealing its own law out of fear. It fears that the new slate of federal judges — who see themselves as umpires and not social problem-solvers — might well strike its law. And in the process, create a precedent that threatens other new laws policing LGBT speech. This is, in a word, huge. It might even rise to the level of a paradigm shift.”

But, she warns, it’s not over until it’s over. “Even if the New York City gag rule is repealed, nearly 20 state gag rules still stand, including one passed by the New York General Assembly this January.” That’s where you come in. There are plenty of local councils and state leaders trying to keep Americans trapped in a lifestyle of pain and bondage. Ohio has a hearing on a similar ban this Wednesday. Minnesota, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin aren’t far behind. Make sure you’re informed. Find out how Sexual Orientation Change Efforts (SOCE) are helping people — and what you can do to protect them in Peter Sprigg’s new issue analysis, here.

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


Over Their Dead Bodies

Kavanaugh Allegations Hit All Times Low

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

Michigan: See List of Doctors Illegally Pushing Opiods

There are some American-sounding names on the list, but gosh this looks like a list of names of UN delegates or something.

From the Detroit Free Press:

Michigan’s opioid pushers: Is your doctor on this list?

Michigan locks up more doctors and pharmacists for peddling pain pills than any other state except New York, the Department of Justice says.

A Free Press investigation focused on this trend and found that metro Detroit doctors in particular are among the leading culprits fueling the opioid crisis, with more than 100 area physicians facing criminal charges over the last decade for running painkiller schemes.

Dr. Obioma Agomuoh. Prison sentence: 5 years

Dr. Asm Akter Ahmed, 58, of Hamtramck. Prison sentence: Time served

Dr. Muhammad Ahmed, 65, of Ypsilanti. Prison sentence: 4 years

Dr. Abbey Akinwumi, 55, of Superior Township. Prison sentence: 7 years and 3 months.

Dr. Yasser Awaad, a Bloomfield Hills neurologist, is accused in civil suit of diagnosing hundreds of children with epilepsy who didn’t have. He fled the country in 2017.

Dr. Hussein “Sam” Awada, 46, of Royal Oak. Prison sentence: 7 years

Dr. Gavin Awerbuch of West Bloomfield. Prison sentence: 32 months

Dr. Mohamed Batayneh, 68, of Livonia. Prison sentence: 8 years and 1 month

The case of Lebanese born Doctor Farid Fata was front page news in Michigan for years.  He got 45 years, but his victims wanted even more!

Dr. Farid Fata, 50, of Oakland Township. Prison sentence: 45 years (See what Debbie Schlussel said about Dr. Farid Fata in 2013.)

Have a look at the whole list that wraps with this one:

Dr. Mohammed Zahoor, 51, of Novi. Charged in pending health care fraud case involving opioids.

I guess these are some of the ‘new American’ entrepreneurs the Open Borders propagandists are always telling us about.


WH Calls for Investigation of Ind. Abortionist; Buttigieg Silent

Discovery of Fetal Remains at Abortionist’s House Shows the Cruelty of Abortion

RELATED VIDEO: Prescription Opioids: Even When Prescribed by a Doctor – CDC.

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

The Environmental Costs of Renewable Energy Are Staggering

“If the world isn’t careful, renewable energy could become as destructive as fossil fuels,” warns a recent article from Foreign Policy.

“The Limits of Clean Energy” is the title of an article by Jason Hickel in Foreign Policy, with the sub-title “If the world isn’t careful, renewable energy could become as destructive as fossil fuels.” Here’s the opening:

The conversation about climate change has been blazing ahead in recent months. Propelled by the school climate strikes and social movements like Extinction Rebellion, a number of governments have declared a climate emergency, and progressive political parties are making plans—at last—for a rapid transition to clean energy under the banner of the Green New Deal.

This is a welcome shift, and we need more of it.

But a new problem is beginning to emerge that warrants our attention. Some proponents of the Green New Deal seem to believe that it will pave the way to a utopia of “green growth.” Once we trade dirty fossil fuels for clean energy, there’s no reason we can’t keep expanding the economy forever.

This narrative may seem reasonable enough at first glance, but there are good reasons to think twice about it. One of them has to do with clean energy itself. The phrase “clean energy” normally conjures up happy, innocent images of warm sunshine and fresh wind. But while sunshine and wind is obviously clean, the infrastructure we need to capture it is not. Far from it. The transition to renewables is going to require a dramatic increase in the extraction of metals and rare-earth minerals, with real ecological and social costs.

In 2017, the World Bank released a little-noticed report that offered the first comprehensive look at this question. It models the increase in material extraction that would be required to build enough solar and wind utilities to produce an annual output of about 7 terawatts of electricity by 2050. That’s enough to power roughly half of the global economy. By doubling the World Bank figures, we can estimate what it will take to get all the way to zero emissions—and the results are staggering: 34 million metric tons of copper, 40 million tons of lead, 50 million tons of zinc, 162 million tons of aluminum, and no less than 4.8 billion tons of iron.

MP: As we learned from Thomas Sowell, “There are no solutions. There are only trade-offs.” See video below.

This article was reprinted from the American Enterprise Institute.


Mark J. Perry

Mark J. Perry is a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and a professor of economics and finance at the University of Michigan’s Flint campus.


More Buckets of Icy Cold Energy Reality

Climate Change: The End Is Near (And It Can’t Come Fast Enough)

Amidst Global Warming Hysteria, NASA Expects Global Cooling

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

The Humanitarian Hoax of Climate Change II – Debunking the Bunk

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

The humanitarian hoax of climate change is so enormous and far-reaching that one article on the subject is simply not enough.

My first article, The Humanitarian Hoax of Climate Change: Killing America With Kindness – hoax 4, was published two years ago on 7.21.2017. The second, The Riddle of Climate Change, published on 2.27.19 continued the discussion. Now it is necessary to explore the ever-expanding climate change hoax and examine the progress the hucksters have made in advance of the pivotal 2020 elections.

Let’s begin with huckster-in-chief Barack Obama and his recent staggeringly hypocritical purchase of a 15 million dollar waterfront mansion on Martha’s Vineyard. Why would Obama purchase a waterfront mansion doomed to sink underwater in twelve years? He wouldn’t. Let’s review.

In Obama’s first inaugural address 1.20.09 he pledged to “roll back the specter of a warming planet.” In his second inaugural address 1.21.13 he affirmed climate change saying: “We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.” He went on to shame anyone who disagreed with his assessment saying, “Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and powerful storms.”

The overwhelming judgment of science?? Why did Obama ignore the damning 2009 Climategate scandal, NASA climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer’s 2010 book, and later the 2014 Senate testimony of Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore? Let’s find out.

Climategate is the scandal that erupted on 11.19.09 when a collection of email messages, data files and data processing programs were leaked from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU) located in the UK, revealing scientific fraud and data manipulation by scientists concerning the global warming theory. Climategate is said to have revealed the biggest scientific hoax in world history.

It’s findings revealed that corruption of climate science is a worldwide problem and not confined to just Britain’s CRU climate research centre. For instance, it was discovered that the reported warming trend in New Zealand over the past 156 years (from 1853 to 2008) was created by manmade adjustments of the temperature data.” WHAT?

The Climategate emails showed how all the data centers worldwide, including American NOAA and NASA, conspired in the manipulation of global temperature records to suggest that temperatures in the 20th century rose faster than they actually did.

Climategate occurred in the first year of Obama’s first term. Climategate’s stunning revelations showed that the “settled science” of climate change was completely fraudulent and politically motivated. Yet, the mainstream media attempted to bury the story for years and continued to push for passage of Obama’s Paris Accord during his second term.

Obama committed his second term to promoting the fiction of manmade climate change, and implementing regulatory environmental policies through the Environmental Protection Agency. New York Times writers Stevenson and Broder compared Obama’s environmental efforts in their 1.21.13 article, Speech Gives Climate Goals Center Stage. “The approach is a turnabout from the first term, when Mr. Obama’s guiding principle in trying to pass the cap-and-trade bill was that a negotiated legislative solution was likely to be more politically palatable than regulation by executive fiat.”

Executive fiat is an executive order – a directive issued by the President of the United States that manages operations of the federal government and has the force of law. The Paris Agreement aka Paris Climate Accord was enacted by Barack Obama during his second term by executive order. The Paris Agreement was made with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, never ratified by Congress, and effective 11.4.16. Remember the date.

Doomsday articles warning of cataclysmic flooding and drought began appearing. The narrative of manmade climate change hysteria was launched to support Obama’s executive order limiting emissions, and the echo chamber of the mainstream media kept repeating the narrative incessantly. The problem, of course, was that unbiased scientists continued challenging the narrative and climate “science” of the the United Nations. Let’s review.

The climate changes, but “manmade” climate change is the deliberately misleading narrative that human behavior is causing cataclysmic changes to the Earth’s climate. The Climategate scandal exposed the fraudulent “research” that supported its politically motivated claims and exposed the hoax.

Former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance Marxist objectives saying, “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international key to unlock the New World Order.” Gorbachev was referring, of course, to the new world order of an internationalized world community administered under the auspices of the United Nations. Oh my!

Dr. Roy Spencer, climatologist, author, and former NASA senior scientist helped debunk the bunk being foisted on an increasingly worried American voting population in 2010. Dr Spencer explained that climate sensitivity is the critical issue in finding the truth of climate changes. “Climate sensitivity is the temperature response of the Earth to a given amount of ‘radiative forcing,’ of which there are two kinds: a change in either the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth, or in the infrared energy the Earth emits to outer space.”

Political science and climate change huckster extraordinaire Al Gore claimed climate sensitivity is very high. Dr Spencer relied on satellite evidence that suggest climate sensitivity is very low. He made the claim for natural climate change and that climate change happens with or without our help.

Dr Spencer’s 2010 book, The Great Global Warming Blunder presented stunning new evidence that warming is not the fault of humans, it is the result of chaotic internal natural cycles that have been responsible for fluctuating periods of warming and cooling for millennia. The book reveals how climate researchers have mistaken cause and effect of cloud behavior and fallen prey to group-think acceptance of misguided political global warming policy proposals.

Dr Spencer’s analysis is atmospheric science not political science – he completely discards the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that greenhouse gases are all that are needed to explain global warming. Spencer shows that a natural, internally generated climate variability called “climate chaos” that is generated by clouds is responsible. Spencer exposes the political motivations of the United Nations IPCC reports saying, “The IPCC process for reviewing the science of global warming and climate change has been a peculiar perversion of the usual practice of scientific investigation. Science normally involves the testing of alternative hypotheses, not picking the first one that comes along and then religiously sticking to it. But that is exactly what the IPCC has done.”

Of course it is. Dr Spencer discovered the IPCC politicization of science saying,

“As I wrote this book, I found myself increasingly criticizing the IPCC’s leadership and the way it politicized my scientific discipline, atmospheric science, in order to promote specific policies. The truth is that the IPCC doesn’t actually do scientific research. It is primarily a political advocacy group that cloaks itself in the aura of scientific respectability while it cherry-picks the science that best supports its desired policy outcomes, and marginalizes or ignores science that might contradictory the party line. It claims to be policy-neutral, yet it will not entertain any science that might indicate there is no need for policy change on greenhouse gas emissions. Contrary to what the public has been led to believe, the IPCC’s relatively brief Summary for Policymakers is not written by hundreds of scientists, but by about fifty handpicked true believers who spin the science of climate change to support specific policy goals.”

The United Nations IPCC goals are unapologetically stated in United Nations Agenda 2030 – the manifesto for imposing the new world order of one world government. The 17 Sustainable Development Goals reaffirm the United Nations globalist stance that planet Earth and its ecosystems are “our common home and that ‘Mother Earth’ is a common expression in a number of countries and regions.” This is all Orwellian doublespeak to rationalize imposition of a new world order of one world government under the auspices of the corrupt United Nations.

Nazi Joseph Goebbels infamously remarked, “If you repeat a lie often enough people believe it.” That is exactly what happened with manmade climate change. Let’s recap.

Huckster-in-chief Barack Obama presented himself as your children’s advocate who is altruistically implementing policies for their safety. The presidential huckster issued executive orders that seriously restricted the emissions you are told are killing your children and the planet. The lie was told so often by so many that the general population started believing it, and then began ostracizing and shaming anyone who didn’t believe the lie.

Apostate Greenpeace co-founder and former president of Greenpeace Canada Patrick Moore told a US Senate Committee unequivocally on 2.25.14, “There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years.”

Patrick Moore exposes the lie of “settled science.” He explains how environmental science has been completely co-opted by political science. There is not a shred of credible evidence that manmade climate change exists – but no matter. The truth never stops a determined huckster. Moore explains:

“When they talk about the 99 percent consensus [among scientists] on climate change, that’s a completely ridiculous and false number. But most of the scientists — put it in quotes, scientists — who are pushing this catastrophic theory are getting paid by public money, they are not being paid by General Electric or Dupont or 3M to do this research, where private companies expect to get something useful from their research that might produce a better product and make them a profit in the end because people want it — build a better mousetrap type of idea.”

Patrick Moore described the details of the climate change hoax and the green movement:

“And so you’ve got the green movement creating stories that instill fear in the public. You’ve got the media echo chamber — fake news — repeating it over and over and over again to everybody that they’re killing their children.”

Shaming is a powerful tool used and abused by humanitarian hucksters to promote their manmade climate change narrative, and to silence any opposition to their false claims of “settled” climate science.

The manmade climate change hucksters continue to perpetrate their monstrous hoax through fear and guilt. Fear is a powerful motivator for behavior change. If parents can be convinced that catastrophe will strike their children unless they change their own behavior, their guilt will motivate parents to change and the big lie of manmade climate change becomes generational.

Children are being indoctrinated to believe the lie by their parents and by the collaborating educational curriculum courtesy of Obama’s Common Core and UN Agenda 2030. More on that later.

The big lie continues today. A recent bill proposed by Democrat Senator Edward Markey (MA) would authorize the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to establish a “Climate Change Education Program.” This legislation deceitfully denies that manmade climate change is a disputed scientific theory and, instead, presents its disinformation as undeniable.

Markey, like his fellow Democrats, ignore Patrick Moore’s emphatic warning, “The narrative of anthropogenic [manmade] global warming or ‘climate change’ is an existential threat to reason:

It is the biggest lie since people thought the Earth was at the center of the universe. This is Galileo-type stuff. If you remember, Galileo discovered that the sun was at the center of the solar system and the Earth revolved around it. He was sentenced to death by the Catholic Church, and only because he recanted was he allowed to live in house arrest for the rest of his life.

So this was around the beginning of what we call the Enlightenment, when science became the way in which we gained knowledge instead of using superstition and instead of using invisible demons and whatever else, we started to understand that you have to have observation of actual events and then you have to repeat those observations over and over again, and that is basically the scientific method.

But this abomination that is occurring today in the climate issue is the biggest threat to the Enlightenment that has occurred since Galileo,” declared Moore. “Nothing else comes close to it. This is as bad a thing that has happened to science in the history of science.”

Moore concluded, “It’s taking over science with superstition and a kind of toxic combination of religion and political ideology. There is no truth to this. It is a complete hoax and scam.”

Obama’s Paris agreement deceitfully ignored the Climategate scandal, Dr Spencer’s theory, and Patrick Moore’s testimony. It required individual countries to comply with greenhouse gas emissions mitigation, adaptation, and finance starting in the year 2020. The contribution required of each participating country were labelled “nationally determined contributions.” What happened?

President Donald J. Trump defeated Obama’s legacy candidate and fellow manmade climate change huckster Hillary Clinton. One of the first things President Trump did was withdraw the United States from the egregious Paris Agreement. WHY?

The climate change hoax is being perpetrated worldwide by globalists in charge of global education and the United Nations Agenda 2030. The hucksters do not care about Climategate and that their “science” is demonstrably false. They continue to perpetrate the lie with confidence that if you tell a lie big enough and often enough it will be believed. So it is with climate “science.”

Manmade climate change hysteria has reached epic proportions in advance of the 2020 elections. America-first President Donald Trump recognizes the humanitarian hoax of climate change being perpetrated by the enemies of American sovereignty, and stands firm on his decision to withdraw from the deceitful Paris Accord.

The Paris Accord is an anti-America humanitarian hoax designed to transfer the wealth from industrialized countries, especially the United States, to non-industrialized countries. The purpose of the climate change hoax is to de-industrialize the United States of America and collapse her economy in preparation for one world government.

American democracy is the single greatest existential threat to one-world government with President Donald Trump as America’s leader. The globalist elite are desperate to stop Trump because if Obama is exposed as a con man it leaves them without their primetime huckster to continue marching America toward anarchy and socialism with his “resistance” movement. The globalist elites who fund the leftist humanitarian hucksters are using them as useful idiots to facilitate climate alarmism and the great humanitarian hoax of climate change worldwide. It is a deliberate plan to create the overwhelming social chaos necessary to impose their own special brand of a new world order.

Debunking the bunk of the humanitarian hoax of climate change exposes its sinister objective to return the world to the feudal system of one world government. Obama ignored Climategate, Dr Spencer, and Patrick Moore because he knew they were all telling the truth. Huckster-in-chief Barack Obama, his 15 million dollar waterfront mansion, and his family are all safe because manmade climate change is bunk.

RELATED ARTICLE: Climate Change and the Democrats

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

Student of Environmental Science explains how it has gone from Science to Scientism

Posted by Eeyore

Direct link.

The Cure for Confused Male/Female Relationships

At our annual Labor Day family reunion, I surprisingly found myself in conversations in which male/female relations was a reoccurring theme.

A happily married female relative told me about five of her middle-aged girlfriends who are looking for husbands. She said they probably will not be successful because they are domineering women who refuse to respect a man.

A gentleman said he asked his wife to prepare him a plate of food from the buffet which she did happily. A radical feminist scolded his wife, “Why did you do that? There is nothing wrong with his feet and hands!” The gentleman told the bitter woman to stay out of their relationship.

A young female relative cornered me at the dessert table. She ranted about how her dating pool is filled with boys rather than real men like her dad. “I am so tired of wearing the pants in every relationship. I would gladly take off the pants and hand them over to a real man. I’ll even cut the pants off, turning them into shorts if it will make him feel better. I just want a responsible adult male that I can respect and depend on”.

At poolside watching the kids have a ball in the pool, a frustrated young father told me his vindictive ex-wife selfishly uses their 12 year old son as a pawn. Over the years, he has spent thousands in attorney fees for visitation rights. I praised him for fighting to stay a part of his son’s life whom he brought to the reunion.

Male/female relations are a mess folks. America is suffering the dire consequences of allowing radical feminists and progressives’ anti-biblical ideology to dominate our culture.

Progressive schools, radical feminists and Hollywood have absurdly taught young women that gender equality means they must reject their femininity and physically compete with men. Several ridiculous movies feature 100 pound women beating the crap out of 300 pound men. The absurd message is men and women are the same.

Consequently, far too many young women are clueless regarding the tremendous power of their God given femininity. Remember that song in the musical, “Flower Drum Song” titled, “I Enjoy Being a Girl”? Celebrating femininity is deemed offensive and oppressive today.

As a child, our choir was on a bus trip. The bus was ready to leave and some of the kids had not returned to the bus. Our choir director, Miss Robena said, “Lloyd you can run fast. Run back and tell the kids to hurry.” I ran as fast as I could because I wanted to please Miss Robena. That’s the power of femininity.

Progressives claim to be our superiors regarding advocating for people of color. And yet, progressives promote anti-biblical and irresponsible behaviors which produce problems that plague urban blacks. For example: The Oxygen channel produced a reality TV show titled, “All My Babies’ Mammas”. The show irresponsibly celebrated a black rapper who has 11 kids by 10 black women.

Fatherless households negatively impact urban blacks, causing a cycle of generational poverty, addiction to government dependency, black on black crime, gang membership, high incarceration and epidemic school dropout rates. The dirty little secret is Democrats’ insidiously evil game-plan is to keep their constituents on the government dependency plantation.

This is why every 2020 Democrat presidential candidate is promising free everything, including a monthly check to able-bodied Americans who simply refuse to work. Trump’s economy has created more jobs than there are people to fill them. Trump has reduced black unemployment to a historic low.

Black Entertainment Television (BET) is extremely hypocritical. While claiming to be super advocates for blacks, BET has partnered with progressives promoting debauchery which contributes greatly to the moral and cultural decay of urban blacks.

Due to politically correct mixed messaging, men and women are confused about how to relate to each other; rejecting their biological instincts. Feminist women magazines say it is insulting for the man to automatically pick up the check at dinner. They say the woman should have an opportunity to pay for the meal. However, if he allows her to pay, the woman should run from him.

Dad taught my three younger brothers and me that when we took a girl on a date, as men, it was our responsibility to return her home safely. Even at our peril.

Adding to the confusion about how males and females should relate to each other is the implementation of the LGBTQ curriculum in schools which teach kids to reject nature’s definition of male and female. Thank God hundreds of parents in California pulled their kids out of school in protest of the LGBTQ curriculum.

In progressives’ relentless war against nature, we are bombarded 24/7 with the glorification of same sex attraction. The TV cooking show “Chopped” would have us believe a third of America’s chefs are involved in same sex relationships which is an absurd lie. Only 2-3% of the population is homosexual.

Progressives’ latest attack on normal male/female relationships is a NBC News report, “Heterosexuality is just not working.” The report claims that men are so horrible that women are opting out of heterosexuality and choosing to become lesbians. Wait a minute. Haven’t LGBTQ activists insisted that people are born homosexual and it is not a choice?

While claiming they only want tolerance, the real agenda of LGBTQ activists is to demonize heterosexuality and throw people in jail who publicly disapprove of the LGBTQ lifestyle.

Our Creator has provided the perfect instructional manual to achieve happy and fulfilling male/female relationships. The Bible. Progressives despise God’s instructions and seek to implement their hideously evil and destructive perversion.

© All right reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Teacher Stands Ground Against Transgender Student, Now Whole Staff Faces Training – Report

Autism –– Still looking for answers in all the wrong places

Updated from an April 2014 article on this issue.

According to 2018 statistics from the Center for Disease Control (CDC), about 1 in 59 children has been identified with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), up from the one in 68 in 2016.


As always, the powers-that-be at the CDC trot out the age-old rationales to explain these disturbing statistics:

  • Greater awareness and therefore earlier and more accurate diagnoses
  • The role that being older parents play not only in the incidence of autism but also Down syndrome and other developmental disabilities
  • Genes
  • “Something” in the environment

Five years ago, a CDC study found that the incidence of autism in blacks “continues to lag behind whites and Hispanics,” which some experts attributed to racial bias––i.e., blacks lack equal access to medical care. But other experts say that blacks may simply be less vulnerable to autism for some unknown reason.

What is consistently omitted, however, is the role that ultrasound exams during pregnancy may and probably do play in the rapidly-escalating incidence of this lifelong condition.


Autism is a neurological disorder that affects the normal development of the brain, causing self-defeating behaviors and an inability to form social relationships. It usually appears before the age of three. Most scientists believe that autism is strongly influenced by genetics but allow that environmental factors may also play a role.

To be diagnosed on the autistic spectrum, a child must have deficits in three areas:

  1. Communication (most children can’t make eye contact; others can’t speak).
  2. Social skills (typified by disinterest in both people and surroundings).
  3. Typically “normal” behavior (many autistic children have tics, repetitive behavior, inappropriate affects, et al).

Those diagnosed on the autistic spectrum range from high-functioning, self-sufficient people––even geniuses––to those who need lifelong supportive help.


The increased incidence of autism has been attributed by legions of parents and a number of professionals to the mercury-containing preservative thimerosol, used to prevent bacterial or fungal contamination in the vaccines babies and children routinely receive.

This is not backed up by hard science.

Thimerosol, which has been used in vaccines since the 1930s, has not been used in the U.S. since 2001 and the vaccine dosages containing the preservative that were given before then had about the same amount of mercury found in an infant’s daily supply of breast milk.

Numerous studies––by The CDC, The Institute of Medicine, The American Academy of Pediatrics, The World Health Organization, and The National Academy of Sciences, among other prestigious organizations––have found no autism-vaccine link, while other studies have shown an increase in autism in countries that have removed thimerosal from vaccines.

In fact, between late 1999 and late 2002, mercury was removed from most childhood vaccines, including DPT (Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis), Hepatitis B, and Hib [Haemophilus influenza b]. The MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella), which is a live vaccine, is not compatible with thimerosal.

What appears significant, however, is the degree to which diagnoses of mental retardation and learning disabilities throughout the country have decreased at the same time as diagnoses of autism have risen, as reported in a May 2006 issue of Behavioral Pediatrics.

Some experts theorize that “diagnostic substitution” may explain this phenomenon. Diagnostic Substitution means that children who were diagnosed with other conditions––including ADHD and learning disabilities––are now diagnosed with autism.


In the early ’70s, I worked as a delivery-room nurse at a university-affiliated hospital. It was a revolutionary time in obstetrics, when the Lamaze method of “prepared childbirth” and the use of sonograms to visualize fetuses in the womb were just gaining popularity.

Ultrasound technology was first developed in Scotland in the mid-1950s by obstetrician Ian Donald and engineer Tom Brown to detect industrial flaws in ships. But it was only in the early 1970s that it was used in American hospitals to check that the developing baby, placenta, and amniotic fluid were normal and to detect abnormal conditions such as birth defects and ectopic pregnancies, et al.

At the end of the ’70s, I became a certified Lamaze teacher and spent the next 22 years giving classes in my home. In a very real way, I had my own laboratory, as I learned directly from my clients about the increasing escalation of sonogram exams.

In the early 1980s, it was common for only one or two out of the 10 women in my classes to have a sonogram. In just a few years, every woman in my classes had had a sonogram. And in the late ’80s and ’90s, almost every woman had not one but often two or three or four or five sonograms––starting as early as three-or-four weeks of gestation and extending, in some instances, right up to the ninth month!

It was in the ’90s, in fact, that it began to occur to me that the scary rise in the incidence of autism might be linked to the significant rise in ultrasound exams. Over the years, I’ve posited my theory to a number of people and written letters to the editors of newspapers––including the NY Times, for which I wrote for over 20 years, but they still refused to publish my letter.

I contacted autism researchers Dr. Marcel Just and Dr. Diane L. Williams, who told me via e-mail that Dr. Pasko Rakic at Yale was, indeed, exploring the autism-ultrasound link.


Then, in 2006, I found an article in Midwifery Today: “Questions about Prenatal Ultrasound and the Alarming Increase in Autism,” by writer-researcher Caroline Rodgers.

“The steep increase in autism,” Rodgers wrote, “goes beyond the U.S.: It is a “global phenomenon”… that “has emerged…across vastly different environments and cultures.”

“What do countries and regions with climates, diets and exposure to known toxins as disparate as the U.S., Japan, Scandinavia, Australia, India and the UK have in common?” Rodgers asked.

“No common factor in the water, air, local pesticides, diet or even building materials and clothing can explain the emergence and relentless increase in this serious, life-long neurodevelopmental disorder,” she stated.

“What all industrial countries do have in common,” she added, “is …the use of routine prenatal ultrasound on pregnant women. In countries with nationalized healthcare, where virtually all pregnant women are exposed to ultrasound, the autism rates are even higher than in the U.S., where due to disparities in income and health insurance, some 30 percent of pregnant women do not yet undergo ultrasound scanning.”

The cause of autism, Rodgers continues, “has been pinned on everything from ’emotionally remote’ mothers…to vaccines, genetics, immunological disorders, environmental toxins and maternal infections, [but] a far simpler possibility…is the pervasive use of prenatal ultrasound, which can cause potentially dangerous thermal effects.


In August 2006, Pasko Rakic, M.D., chair of Yale School of Medicine’s Department of Neurobiology, announced the results of a study with pregnant mice undergoing various durations of ultrasound. The brains of the offspring showed damage consistent with that found in the brains of people with autism.

The research, funded by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, also implicated ultrasound in neurodevelopmental problems in children, such as dyslexia, epilepsy, mental retardation and schizophrenia, and showed that damage to brain cells increased with longer exposures.

Dr. Rakic’s study, Rodgers said, “… is just one of many animal experiments and human studies conducted over the years indicating that prenatal ultrasound can be harmful to babies.”

Jennifer Margulis, author of Business of Baby: What Doctors Don’t Tell You, What Corporations Try to Sell You, and How to Put Your Baby Before Their Bottom Linewrites that Dr. Rakic “concluded that all nonmedical use of ultrasound on pregnant women should be avoided.”

In her research, Margulis discovered that “there is mounting evidence that overexposure to sound waves––or perhaps exposure to sound waves at a critical time during fetal development––is to blame for the astronomic rise in neurological disorders among America’s children.”


A 2009 Scientific American  article by John Slocum explains that sonar––Sound Navigation And Ranging systems––first developed by the U.S. Navy to detect enemy submarines, “generate slow-rolling sound waves topping out at around 235 decibels, [while] the world’s loudest rock bands top out at only 130. These sound waves can travel for hundreds of miles under water, and can retain an intensity of 140 decibels as far as 300 miles from their source.”

This is relevant because many mass deaths and strandings of whales and dolphins have been attributed to the sonar waves emitted from Navy ships. As many as 3,000 dead dolphins were found in Peru during the summer of 2012, which researchers attributed to the deep-water sonar by ships in nearby waters. And in June of 2008, four days after a Navy helicopter was using sonar equipment in training exercises off the coast of Great Britain, 26 dolphins died in a mass stranding.

Quick question: If sonar beams can kill fully-developed dolphins, what effect do they have on the developing brains of in-utero embryos and fetuses in the first three months of development?


Rodgers explained that ultrasound used in fetal imaging emits high-frequency sound waves that are converted into images and waves that can heat both tissue and bone.”

She cited a warning the Food and Drug Administration issued in 2004: “…even at low levels, [ultrasound] laboratory studies have shown it can have…`jarring vibrations’ – one study compared the noise to a subway coming into a station – `and a rise in temperature.’”

Imagine how these assaults affect the fragile brain of a developing fetus!

Just as concerning, as far back 1982, a study by the World Health Organization (WHO)––”Effects of Ultrasound on Biological Systems”––concluded that “…neurological, behavioral, developmental, immunological, hematological changes and reduced fetal weight can result from exposure to ultrasound.”


Two years later, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) reported that when birth defects occurred, the acoustic output [of sonograms] was usually high enough to cause considerable heat.

And yet, in 1993, the FDA approved an eight-fold increase in the potential acoustical output of ultrasound equipment, ostensibly to enhance better visualization of the heart and small vessels during microsurgery. Clearly, the health and well-being of developing fetuses was not a consideration!

“Can the fact that this increase in potential thermal effects happened during the same period of time that the incidence of autism increased nearly 60-fold be merely coincidental?” Rodgers asks.

KEEPING THE HEAT ON (so to speak)

In 2010, Ms. Rodgers presented a lecture about autism and ultrasound entitled “The Elephant in the Room” at the Interagency Autism Coordinating Committee of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. These were but a few of her shocking conclusions:

  • A worldwide autism boom was identified by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that began in 1988-1989.
  • Ultrasound use and autism are more prevalent among higher socioeconomic groups.
  • An increased prevalence of autism occurs among better-educated, more affluent communities. Among other things, women in these communities have more ultrasound exams.

Women who are at higher risk of bearing children with autism include:

  • Mothers who receive first-trimester care
  • Mothers with higher educations
  • Mothers with private health insurance
  • Older mothers

Rodgers concludes: Only increased exposure to prenatal ultrasound can explain all of the above.


Numerous studies “prove” fetal ultrasound exams are safe, like the recent study reported in The Journal of the American Medical Association, which essentially said no problem!

In addition, WebMD touts the benefits of the technology, including that sonograms depict 4D imaging which vividly presents “the baby’s in utero facial expressions.”

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) tells prospective parents that ultrasound provides “a valuable opportunity to view and hear the heartbeat of the fetus, bond with the unborn baby, and capture images to share with family and friends.”

And the CDC denies any association between ultrasound and adverse maternal, fetal or neonatal outcomes.


And yet, Jim West, author of Ultrasound: Human Studies Indicate Extreme Risk, contends that the “subtle and not-so-subtle” biological effects of ultrasound “have set the human species on a tragic path” from which it may take generations to recover….a single exposure to ultrasound produces cellular and DNA damage similar to 250 chest X-rays—and damage [is] permanent and heritable for 10 generations and beyond.”

Ultrasound also uses non-ionizing radiation (used in cell phones, cell towers, etc.), which can cause cellular and DNA damage.

We also know that when there is a vested financial, professional, ideological or political interest in a certain result, scientific “experts” are quite susceptible to “shaping” their findings to fit the views of the people who are funding the study.

We’ve seen this with the tobacco industry and the sugar industry, and another perfect example, as written extensively about by Henry Payne in National Review––Global Warming–Follow the Money––are the climate change so-called scientists who always “shape” their results to their benefactors’ satisfaction.

Another reason for skepticism are the numerous examples of rosy promises that turned into disasters.

  • Diethylstilbestrol (DES), given to women from 1940 to 1970 to prevent miscarriages until catastrophic health conditions happened to the daughters and sons of the women who took the drug.
  • The Copper 7 intrauterine device (IUD), introduced in the mid-1970s, ultimately was found to cause pelvic inflammatory disease, ectopic pregnancies, septic miscarriages, infection, et al.
  • Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT), introduced in the 1940s to help women with symptoms of menopause, was highly effective until a front-page article in The Wall St. Journal (in about 2008) cited studies linking this therapy to a rise in metastatic breast cancer, effectively destroying the world’s best-selling drug, Premarin––a high-estrogen medication.
  • Vioxx, approved by the FDA in 1999 for pain relief and reducing inflammation of osteoarthritis, was pulled from the market in 2004 because of all the heart attacks and strokes it caused.

This is the very very very short list! But if you want more info on the drugs approved by the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) and then pulled off the market because of disastrous effects, Laima Jonusiene, M.D., spells it all out here.


There is a vast human tragedy––a true man-made disaster––taking place before our eyes.

For whatever reasons––follow the money?––the mountain of evidence that points to a causal relationship between prenatal ultrasound exams and an escalating pandemic of autism is being completely ignored.

Could it have anything to do with the huge investments doctors and scientists have made in ultrasound technology, which, according to Jennifer Margulis, “adds more than $1 billion to the cost of caring for pregnant women in America each year”?

Could it have anything to do with the revenue now pouring like an avalanche into the coffers of diagnostic and treatment centers and classrooms?

Could it have anything to do with modern journalism’s complete abandonment of hard-nosed reporting and life-saving exposés?

As Caroline Rodgers said, there is an elephant in the room when it comes to the subject of autism. And that elephant is the worldwide blitzkrieg of ultrasound exams on pregnant women–– exams that have bombarded the babies they’re carrying with the brain-warping sound waves and heat that will affect them every second of their autistic lives.


What’s wrong with this picture? America has 320-million people. If even half that number are parents or grandparents, when will all of them start to demand accountability from our health experts, as well as answers––and action!––from our feckless politicians?

Marijuana, Mental Illness, and Violence

The following is adapted from a speech delivered on January 15, 2019, at Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C.

Seventy miles northwest of New York City is a hospital that looks like a prison, its drab brick buildings wrapped in layers of fencing and barbed wire. This grim facility is called the Mid-Hudson Forensic Psychiatric Institute. It’s one of three places the state of New York sends the criminally mentally ill—defendants judged not guilty by reason of insanity.

Until recently, my wife Jackie­—Dr. Jacqueline Berenson—was a senior psychiatrist there. Many of Mid-Hudson’s 300 patients are killers and arsonists. At least one is a cannibal. Most have been diagnosed with psychotic disorders like schizophrenia that provoked them to violence against family members or strangers.

A couple of years ago, Jackie was telling me about a patient. In passing, she said something like, Of course he’d been smoking pot his whole life.

Of course? I said.

Yes, they all smoke.

So marijuana causes schizophrenia?

I was surprised, to say the least. I tended to be a libertarian on drugs. Years before, I’d covered the pharmaceutical industry for The New York Times. I was aware of the claims about marijuana as medicine, and I’d watched the slow spread of legalized cannabis without much interest.

Jackie would have been within her rights to say, I know what I’m talking about, unlike you. Instead she offered something neutral like, I think that’s what the big studies say. You should read them.

So I did. The big studies, the little ones, and all the rest. I read everything I could find. I talked to every psychiatrist and brain scientist who would talk to me. And I soon realized that in all my years as a journalist I had never seen a story where the gap between insider and outsider knowledge was so great, or the stakes so high.

I began to wonder why—with the stocks of cannabis companies soaring and politicians promoting legalization as a low-risk way to raise tax revenue and reduce crime—I had never heard the truth about marijuana, mental illness, and violence.

Over the last 30 years, psychiatrists and epidemiologists have turned speculation about marijuana’s dangers into science. Yet over the same period, a shrewd and expensive lobbying campaign has pushed public attitudes about marijuana the other way. And the effects are now becoming apparent.

Almost everything you think you know about the health effects of cannabis, almost everything advocates and the media have told you for a generation, is wrong.

They’ve told you marijuana has many different medical uses. In reality marijuana and THC, its active ingredient, have been shown to work only in a few narrow conditions. They are most commonly prescribed for pain relief. But they are rarely tested against other pain relief drugs like ibuprofen—and in July, a large four-year study of patients with chronic pain in Australia showed cannabis use was associated with greater pain over time.

They’ve told you cannabis can stem opioid use—“Two new studies show how marijuana can help fight the opioid epidemic,” according to Wonkblog, a Washington Post website, in April 2018— and that marijuana’s effects as a painkiller make it a potential substitute for opiates. In reality, like alcohol, marijuana is too weak as a painkiller to work for most people who truly need opiates, such as terminal cancer patients. Even cannabis advocates, like Rob Kampia, the co-founder of the Marijuana Policy Project, acknowledge that they have always viewed medical marijuana laws primarily as a way to protect recreational users.

As for the marijuana-reduces-opiate-use theory, it is based largely on a single paper comparing overdose deaths by state before 2010 to the spread of medical marijuana laws— and the paper’s finding is probably a result of simple geographic coincidence. The opiate epidemic began in Appalachia, while the first states to legalize medical marijuana were in the West. Since 2010, as both the epidemic and medical marijuana laws have spread nationally, the finding has vanished. And the United States, the Western country with the most cannabis use, also has by far the worst problem with opioids.

Research on individual users—a better way to trace cause and effect than looking at aggregate state-level data—consistently shows that marijuana use leads to other drug use. For example, a January 2018 paper in the American Journal of Psychiatry showed that people who used cannabis in 2001 were almost three times as likely to use opiates three years later, even after adjusting for other potential risks.

Most of all, advocates have told you that marijuana is not just safe for people with psychiatric problems like depression, but that it is a potential treatment for those patients. On its website, the cannabis delivery service Eaze offers the “Best Marijuana Strains and Products for Treating Anxiety.” “How Does Cannabis Help Depression?” is the topic of an article on Leafly, the largest cannabis website. But a mountain of peer-reviewed research in top medical journals shows that marijuana can cause or worsen severe mental illness, especially psychosis, the medical term for a break from reality. Teenagers who smoke marijuana regularly are about three times as likely to develop schizophrenia, the most devastating psychotic disorder.

After an exhaustive review, the National Academy of Medicine found in 2017 that “cannabis use is likely to increase the risk of developing schizophrenia and other psychoses; the higher the use, the greater the risk.” Also that “regular cannabis use is likely to increase the risk for developing social anxiety disorder.”

Over the past decade, as legalization has spread, patterns of marijuana use—and the drug itself—have changed in dangerous ways.

Legalization has not led to a huge increase in people using the drug casually. About 15 percent of Americans used cannabis at least once in 2017, up from ten percent in 2006, according to a large federal study called the National Survey on Drug Use and Health. (By contrast, about 65 percent of Americans had a drink in the last year.) But the number of Americans who use cannabis heavily is soaring. In 2006, about three million Americans reported using cannabis at least 300 times a year, the standard for daily use. By 2017, that number had nearly tripled, to eight million, approaching the twelve million Americans who drank alcohol every day. Put another way, one in 15 drinkers consumed alcohol daily; about one in five marijuana users used cannabis that often.

Cannabis users today are also consuming a drug that is far more potent than ever before, as measured by the amount of THC—delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol, the chemical in cannabis responsible for its psychoactive effects—it contains. In the 1970s, the last time this many Americans used cannabis, most marijuana contained less than two percent THC. Today, marijuana routinely contains 20 to 25 percent THC, thanks to sophisticated farming and cloning techniques—as well as to a demand by users for cannabis that produces a stronger high more quickly. In states where cannabis is legal, many users prefer extracts that are nearly pure THC. Think of the difference between near-beer and a martini, or even grain alcohol, to understand the difference.

These new patterns of use have caused problems with the drug to soar. In 2014, people who had diagnosable cannabis use disorder, the medical term for marijuana abuse or addiction, made up about 1.5 percent of Americans. But they accounted for eleven percent of all the psychosis cases in emergency rooms—90,000 cases, 250 a day, triple the number in 2006. In states like Colorado, emergency room physicians have become experts on dealing with cannabis-induced psychosis.

Cannabis advocates often argue that the drug can’t be as neurotoxic as studies suggest, because otherwise Western countries would have seen population-wide increases in psychosis alongside rising use. In reality, accurately tracking psychosis cases is impossible in the United States. The government carefully tracks diseases like cancer with central registries, but no such registry exists for schizophrenia or other severe mental illnesses.

On the other hand, research from Finland and Denmark, two countries that track mental illness more comprehensively, shows a significant increase in psychosis since 2000, following an increase in cannabis use. And in September of last year, a large federal survey found a rise in serious mental illness in the United States as well, especially among young adults, the heaviest users of cannabis.

According to this latter study, 7.5 percent of adults age 18-25 met the criteria for serious mental illness in 2017, double the rate in 2008. What’s especially striking is that adolescents age 12-17 don’t show these increases in cannabis use and severe mental illness.

A caveat: this federal survey doesn’t count individual cases, and it lumps psychosis with other severe mental illness. So it isn’t as accurate as the Finnish or Danish studies. Nor do any of these studies prove that rising cannabis use has caused population-wide increases in psychosis or other mental illness. The most that can be said is that they offer intriguing evidence of a link.

Advocates for people with mental illness do not like discussing the link between schizophrenia and crime. They fear it will stigmatize people with the disease. “Most people with mental illness are not violent,” the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) explains on its website. But wishing away the link can’t make it disappear. In truth, psychosis is a shockingly high risk factor for violence. The best analysis came in a 2009 paper in PLOS Medicine by Dr. Seena Fazel, an Oxford University psychiatrist and epidemiologist. Drawing on earlier studies, the paper found that people with schizophrenia are five times as likely to commit violent crimes as healthy people, and almost 20 times as likely to commit homicide.

NAMI’s statement that most people with mental illness are not violent is of course accurate, given that “most” simply means “more than half”; but it is deeply misleading. Schizophrenia is rare. But people with the disorder commit an appreciable fraction of all murders, in the range of six to nine percent.

“The best way to deal with the stigma is to reduce the violence,” says Dr. Sheilagh Hodgins, a professor at the University of Montreal who has studied mental illness and violence for more than 30 years.

The marijuana-psychosis-violence connection is even stronger than those figures suggest. People with schizophrenia are only moderately more likely to become violent than healthy people when they are taking antipsychotic medicine and avoiding recreational drugs. But when they use drugs, their risk of violence skyrockets. “You don’t just have an increased risk of one thing—these things occur in clusters,” Dr. Fazel told me.

Along with alcohol, the drug that psychotic patients use more than any other is cannabis: a 2010 review of earlier studies in Schizophrenia Bulletin found that 27 percent of people with schizophrenia had been diagnosed with cannabis use disorder in their lives. And unfortunately—despite its reputation for making users relaxed and calm—cannabis appears to provoke many of them to violence.

A Swiss study of 265 psychotic patients published in Frontiers of Forensic Psychiatry last June found that over a three-year period, young men with psychosis who used cannabis had a 50 percent chance of becoming violent. That risk was four times higher than for those with psychosis who didn’t use, even after adjusting for factors such as alcohol use. Other researchers have produced similar findings. A 2013 paper in an Italian psychiatric journal examined almost 1,600 psychiatric patients in southern Italy and found that cannabis use was associated with a ten-fold increase in violence.

The most obvious way that cannabis fuels violence in psychotic people is through its tendency to cause paranoia—something even cannabis advocates acknowledge the drug can cause. The risk is so obvious that users joke about it and dispensaries advertise certain strains as less likely to induce paranoia. And for people with psychotic disorders, paranoia can fuel extreme violence. A 2007 paper in the Medical Journal of Australia on 88 defendants who had committed homicide during psychotic episodes found that most believed they were in danger from the victim, and almost two-thirds reported misusing cannabis—more than alcohol and amphetamines combined.

Yet the link between marijuana and violence doesn’t appear limited to people with preexisting psychosis. Researchers have studied alcohol and violence for generations, proving that alcohol is a risk factor for domestic abuse, assault, and even murder. Far less work has been done on marijuana, in part because advocates have stigmatized anyone who raises the issue. But studies showing that marijuana use is a significant risk factor for violence have quietly piled up. Many of them weren’t even designed to catch the link, but they did. Dozens of such studies exist, covering everything from bullying by high school students to fighting among vacationers in Spain.

In most cases, studies find that the risk is at least as significant as with alcohol. A 2012 paper in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence examined a federal survey of more than 9,000 adolescents and found that marijuana use was associated with a doubling of domestic violence; a 2017 paper in Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology examined drivers of violence among 6,000 British and Chinese men and found that drug use—the drug nearly always being cannabis—translated into a five-fold increase in violence.

Today that risk is translating into real-world impacts. Before states legalized recreational cannabis, advocates said that legalization would let police focus on hardened criminals rather than marijuana smokers and thus reduce violent crime. Some advocates go so far as to claim that legalization has reduced violent crime. In a 2017 speech calling for federal legalization, U.S. Senator Cory Booker said that “states [that have legalized marijuana] are seeing decreases in violent crime.” He was wrong.

The first four states to legalize marijuana for recreational use were Colorado and Washington in 2014 and Alaska and Oregon in 2015. Combined, those four states had about 450 murders and 30,300 aggravated assaults in 2013. Last year, they had almost 620 murders and 38,000 aggravated assaults—an increase of 37 percent for murders and 25 percent for aggravated assaults, far greater than the national increase, even after accounting for differences in population growth.

Knowing exactly how much of the increase is related to cannabis is impossible without researching every crime. But police reports, news stories, and arrest warrants suggest a close link in many cases. For example, last September, police in Longmont, Colorado, arrested Daniel Lopez for stabbing his brother Thomas to death as a neighbor watched. Daniel Lopez had been diagnosed with schizophrenia and was “self-medicating” with marijuana, according to an arrest affidavit.

In every state, not just those where marijuana is legal, cases like Lopez’s are far more common than either cannabis or mental illness advocates acknowledge. Cannabis is also associated with a disturbing number of child deaths from abuse and neglect—many more than alcohol, and more than cocaine, methamphetamines, and opioids combined—according to reports from Texas, one of the few states to provide detailed information on drug use by perpetrators.

These crimes rarely receive more than local attention. Psychosis-induced violence takes particularly ugly forms and is frequently directed at helpless family members. The elite national media prefers to ignore the crimes as tabloid fodder. Even police departments, which see this violence up close, have been slow to recognize the trend, in part because the epidemic of opioid overdose deaths has overwhelmed them.

So the black tide of psychosis and the red tide of violence are rising steadily, almost unnoticed, on a slow green wave.

For centuries, people worldwide have understood that cannabis causes mental illness and violence—just as they’ve known that opiates cause addiction and overdose. Hard data on the relationship between marijuana and madness dates back 150 years, to British asylum registers in India. Yet 20 years ago, the United States moved to encourage wider use of cannabis and opiates.

In both cases, we decided we could outsmart these drugs—that we could have their benefits without their costs. And in both cases we were wrong. Opiates are riskier, and the overdose deaths they cause a more imminent crisis, so we have focused on those. But soon enough the mental illness and violence that follow cannabis use will also be too widespread to ignore.

Whether to use cannabis, or any drug, is a personal decision. Whether cannabis should be legal is a political issue. But its precise legal status is far less important than making sure that anyone who uses it is aware of its risks. Most cigarette smokers don’t die of lung cancer. But we have made it widely known that cigarettes cause cancer, full stop. Most people who drink and drive don’t have fatal accidents. But we have highlighted the cases of those who do.

We need equally unambiguous and well-funded advertising campaigns on the risks of cannabis. Instead, we are now in the worst of all worlds. Marijuana is legal in some states, illegal in others, dangerously potent, and sold without warnings everywhere.

But before we can do anything, we—especially cannabis advocates and those in the elite media who have for too long credulously accepted their claims—need to come to terms with the truth about the science on marijuana. That adjustment may be painful. But the alternative is far worse, as the patients at Mid-Hudson Forensic Psychiatric Institute—and their victims—know.


Alex Berenson

Alex Berenson is a graduate of Yale University with degrees in history and economics. He began his career in journalism in 1994 as a business reporter for the Denver Post, joined the financial news website TheStreet.com in 1996, and worked as an investigative reporter for The New York Times from 1999 to 2010, during which time he also served two stints as an Iraq War correspondent. In 2006 he published The Faithful Spy, which won the 2007 Edgar Award for best first novel from the Mystery Writers of America. He has published ten additional novels and two nonfiction books, The Number: How the Drive for Quarterly Earnings Corrupted Wall Street and Corportate America and Tell Your Children: The Truth About Marijuana, Mental Illness, and Violence.

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

An open letter to Greta Thunberg

Dear Greta –

Congratulations on making a carbon-free trip to New York. You are setting a great example for people who believe fossil fuel use is destroying the planet. While I fully support your right to protest, I hope you’ll allow me to explain why I’m skeptical of the cause you embrace.

I’m not a scientist, but do have a degree in electrical engineering, which I mention only to point out that I have at least some basis for arriving at reasoned opinions concerning dire claims about the climate. I guess I’m what’s referred to as a climate denier, but I bend over backwards to limit my own carbon footprint. I use less than two gallons of hot water to shower, wash dishes by hand, wash clothes in cold water, never use my electric clothes dryer, never have my groceries put in plastic bags, and keep my thermostat at 61 in winter, 81 in summer. The monthly energy bill of my 1,800 sf home has never been above $100. I believe we all are duty-bound to be good stewards of the planet, but I have many doubts about man-made global warming theory. In the interest of brevity, I’ll touch on just one of those concerns here.

As you may have noticed, the wealthy people who talk the loudest about the need for “each and every one of us” to make dramatic cutbacks in the way we live aren’t making dramatic cutbacks in the way they live. These wealthy climate preachers are many in number. Since you’re aware of the most prominent, I won’t list them here. Suffice it to say that not a single member of their living-large alliance practices what they preach.

Please allow me to cite one example.

Since leaving the White House, President and Mrs. Obama have amassed an enviable fortune of $100 million. President Obama speaks passionately about how we all must choose to live in smaller homes that require less energy to heat and cool. During a speech in South Africa last year, he criticized rich people for their lavish lifestyles:

“There’s only so big a house you can have; there’s only so many nice trips you can take. I mean, it’s enough.”

Big houses…

The first major purchase the Obamas made as private citizens was an 8,200 sf mansion in the nation’s capitol. They reportedly are buying another spacious mansion, a luxurious oceanside estate in Martha’s Vineyard. Maybe it’s impolite to say, but two high profile climate preachers living in such spacious homes just because they can afford it is not what most people would refer to as of environmental leadership.

Nice trip …

President Obama speaks with deep conviction about how we all must dramatically cut back on leisure trips fueled by carbon energy. As I’m sure you know, Greta, private planes are the most planet-abusive way to fly. Here’s a list of leisure trips President Obama took during the first four months of his retirement:

► The day he left office, he flew 2,200 miles in a near-empty U.S. government Boeing 747 all the way across the continent to Palm Springs, California for his first post-presidency vacation.

► After relaxing in an 11,000 sf villa at the exclusive Thunderbird Heights Resort in nearby Rancho Mirage, he flew 3,300 miles, by private jet, all the way back across the continent to the Caribbean, where he vacationed with Richard Branson on Branson’s private island.

► After that vacation, he flew 6,000 miles, by private jet, for a brief stay at Marlon Brando’s French Polynesian hideaway in Tahiti.

► He left Tahiti, by private jet, on a 2,700-mile trip to Hawaii, where he golfed for a few days before leaving, by private jet, for the 4,800-mile return trip to his DC mansion.

► Once home, he twice traveled 400 roundtrip miles to New York, both times by private jet, the first to take in a play on Broadway, the second to have dinner with U2’s Bono.

► In early May, he flew 8,400 roundtrip miles, by private jet, to Milan, Italy, where a caravan of 14 carbon-powered SUVs took him to a conference to give a speech about—sit down for this—people burning more than their fair share of fossil fuels.

► While in Italy, he flew, by private jet, from Milan to Tuscany, where he unwound at Borgo Finocchieto, an exclusive resort featuring luxury villas measuring out at 9,500 sf.

► After leaving Italy, he returned, by private jet, to his home in DC.

During his first four months of retirement, America’s most recent former president flew more than 27,000 miles, a distance greater that Earth’s circumference. There’s no telling how many private jet leisure trips he’s taken in the last two years.

Other prominent climate preachers indulge in the same type of lavishness as the Obamas. To justify living large, some purchase ‘carbon offsets,’ which allegedly are used for some green purpose, such as planting a few trees. When eco-preacher Prince Harry recently took heat for his incessant use of private jets, Elton John came to his defense by purchasing a carbon offset that purportedly neutralized the atmospheric degradation caused by the private jet flight Harry and his wife took for a leisurely stay at the famous singer’s extravagant home in Nice, France.

Maybe I’m wrong, but it seems carbon offsets are little more than a clever fig leaf that enables wealthy climate preachers explain away unlimited private jet travel, which cannot occur without using copious quantities of fossil fuel. These mega-rich people rationalize pigging out on fossil fuel energy by purchasing offsets, the cost of which is an infinitesimal drop in their immense financial buckets. Offsets are useful for environmental chest thumping, but do nothing to change the fact that the virtue signaling rich folks who purchase them are nevertheless guilty of burning unconscionable amounts of carbon energy in their insatiable pursuit of lavish living.

Despite your young age, Greta, you have considerable sway with the wealthy elitists whose only contribution toward saving the planet is preaching. Because you walk the walk, you have the moral standing to call them out. And you should, because they’re the same self-indulgent carbon gluttons who terrified you when you were a little girl. Their opulent lifestyles are unmistakable proof that not a single one of them is the least bit concerned that CO2 is destroying the environment.

Call them out, Greta. Make them man up. They owe it to you and the millions of other young people they traumatized, all while burning fossil fuels like there’s no tomorrow.

Respectfully and best wishes,

John Eidson
Atlanta, GA


Free Greta Thunberg From Her Cruel Political Exploitation By Leftists

“Climate Change” Is A Hoax

CNN’s Town Hall on Climate Change Revealed More Than Intended

America Tunes Out the Demented Dems

4 Catastrophic Climate Predictions That Never Came True

Current climate predictions can be terrifying if you don’t know about the previous dire climate claims that amounted to nothing.

If you’re under 50, there’s a good chance you’re expecting to see climate change create chaos and death in your lifetime. Scientists and pundits seem so certain we’re headed for global collapse and their predictions can be terrifying—especially if you’re young enough not to remember the last dozen times they predicted imminent collapse and were wrong. In each case, claims of impending environmental disaster were backed by allegedly irrefutable data and policymakers were encouraged to act before it was too late.

The Prediction: Top climate specialists and environmental activists predicted that “global cooling trends” observed between WWII and 1970 would result in a world “eleven degrees colder in the year 2000 … about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” Bitter winters and floods from “delayed typhoons” would trigger massive drops in food production, followed by widespread famine.

The Prophecies:

  • Newsweek Magazine’s “The Cooling World” Peter Gwynne April 28, 1975 
  • Time Magazine’s “A New Ice Age?” April 28, 1974
  • BBC’s Nigel Calder International Wildlife magazine, 1975
  • Betty Friedan in Harper’s magazine, 1958
  • University of California at Davis professor Kenneth Watt, Earth Day 1974

What Actually Happened: Global cooling trends didn’t continue unabated, and temperatures stabilized. Within a few years, the same alarmists were predicting a life-threatening rise in temperatures, presaging many of the same dire effects on plant and animal life. Those new predictions were continually revised as their “near certainty” collided with the truth year after year, but prophets seem unchastened by their abysmal historical accuracy. Newsweek issued a correction to the 1975 article in 2006.

The Prediction: More women having babies in the developing world was expected to exceed the “carrying capacity” of the earth, experts were certain. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supply we make,” Ehrlich said. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years [1970-1980].” Ehrlich predicted that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.” This would lead to “an utter breakdown of the capacity of the planet to support humanity.”

The Prophecies:

What Actually Happened: Motivated by the urgent call for population control and fears of famine, India and China performed millions of forced abortions and sterilizations. But the number of people at risk of starvation dropped from 25 percent to 10 percent globally as genetically modified seeds and advances in irrigation improved crop yields. Far from the Great Die-Off, the global population nearly doubled while agricultural capacity soared and rates of starvation plummeted. Ehrlich’s star has continued to rise, though his signature predictions were nonsense, and now holds an endowed chair in Population Studies at Stanford. The millions scapegoated by his fear-mongering have not fared as well.

The Prediction: Ecologists and environmentalists claimed that the buildup of nitrogen, dust, fumes, and other forms of pollution would make the air unbreathable by the mid-1980s. They predicted all urban dwellers would have to don gas masks to survive, that particle clouds would block the majority of sunlight from reaching earth, and that farm yields would drop as dust blotted out the sun.

The Prophecies:

What Actually Happened: When these doomsayers were pronouncing the imminent death of our atmosphere, the rate of air pollution had already been falling for most of the world, usually in the absence of dedicated policy changes. Developments like air filtration, as well as an overall decline in household pollutants (like the smoke from cooking with coal or wood) greatly reduced the health risks of the particles that remained. Increased adoption of fossil fuels and electricity grids, rather than traditional stoves, accelerated the improvements.

The Prediction: Alleged experts in biology and zoology predicted that of all species of animals alive in 1970, at least 75 percent would be extinct by 1995. They blamed human activities like hunting and farming for shrinking wild habitats and cited pollution and climate change as key drivers of the new extinctions. Paul Ehrlich claimed “[By 1985] all important animal life in the sea will be extinct.”

The Prophecies:

What Actually Happened: You may have noticed that earth has not lost three-quarters of its 8.7 million species, and indeed total biomass continues to grow. 99 percent of all species that have ever existed are already extinct, and natural rates of extinction predict we might lose anywhere from 200 to 2,000 species per year without any human intervention. Since 2000, we’ve identified fewer than 20.

The language surrounding these various environmental disasters sounds much like Wednesday night’s town hall, and yet each thesis has faded from public consciousness, and the fear-mongers faced no accountability for their misplaced alarmism. Before we make unprecedented sacrifices to fight a climate phantom, let’s review the credibility of claims that the end is near—but really, this time.


CNN Climate Townhall: Cements the Re-election of Donald J. Trump and insures Republican Majorities in U.S. House and Senate

CNN has done a great service to America. I know, you’re asking yourself why did I write this?

CNN hosted a seven hour townhall with key Democratic primary candidates for president. The topic was climate change. During the CNN Climate Townhall each Democrat put forth policies that would make any American citizen cringe. It seems that Democrats just can’t help themselves. Let’s look at some of the highlights.

Highlights of CNN’s Climate Townhall

Here are some key statements made by Democrats who participated in the Climate Townhall:

  • Socialist presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders says if he’s elected, he wants American taxpayers to pay for abortions in poor countries around the world to limit population growth. Why? Because Sanders claims mass abortions will limit climate change. (Source: BizPac Review)
  • Sen. Bernie Sanders tell his town hall audience, his sweeping Green New Deal is a logical and practical response to climate change. But Sanders’ description of how he plans to raise the money to fund his plan — an estimated $16 trillion over the course of a decade — shows he is planning to profoundly transform American society. (Source: CNN)
  • As for the people in the oil and gas business who would lose their jobs, Sanders says he would provide 5 years of income as well as education for displaced workers. (Source: CNN)
  • Sen. Elizabeth Warren embraced flawed policy priorities during the CNN town hall, rejecting nuclear energy and calling for expensive, job-killing carbon mandates and $3 trillion in new taxpayer spending. Her proposal to ban offshore oil drilling would hike gas prices and the cost of household goods, hurting middle-class families. (Source: CNN)
  • Andrew Yang supports ending subsidies for the fossil fuel industry. He wants everyone to love driving electric cars, as opposed to “gas guzzlers” and “clunkers.” Andrew Yang said, “This is not a country where you take someone’s clunker away from them. But you are going to offer to buy the clunker back and help them upgrade.” (Source: CNN)
  • Julian Castro highlighted an ambitious plan aiming to get the United States to net-zero by 2045, meaning all coal-generated electricity will be phased out and replaced by zero-emission sources. And while Castro focused on taxing “corporate polluters,” he could not name one of the culprits when asked. (Source: CNN)
  • Senator Kamala Harris, “If Republicans continue to block progress, I’ll get rid of the filibuster to pass a Green New Deal.” (Source: CNN/Twitter)
  • Joe Biden, “I will bring the world together — and that’s what we need to address climate change.”
  • Amy Klobuchar, “[T]alked about the importance of environmental justice for communities of color living on the front lines of pollution; she touted plans for moving money from polluters’ pockets into programs that can lift these communities up with a price on carbon.” (Source: CNN)
  • Julian Castro, “more people are protected by national flood insurance” by subsidizing it. That would be a mistake. Flood insurance encourages people to live in flood zones that should never have been populated in the first place, and are now more vulnerable than ever. It’s sad, but the reality is that climate adaptation will necessarily involve relocating some Americans out of high-risk flood zones. (Source: CNN)
  • Beto O’Rourke promised that he would re-enter the Paris agreement on “day-one” of his presidency. The Texas Democrat announced his climate plan in April, which will cost $5 trillion over 10 years to build out renewable energy and infrastructure, among a host of other pet projects. (Source: The Daily Caller)
  • Pete Buttigieg, Industrial America — including South Bend and the Studebaker cars we once produced — was built on oil and gas. But just as my community has moved forward, so must our country. So we’ll launch a 21st-century Industrial Revolution, investing in mass transit, transitioning to electric vehicles, and making buildings and homes more energy efficient. And with scientists indicating our soil can absorb as much carbon as the global transportation system emits, we’ll put American farmers at the center of our climate revolution. Too often, rural America has been told they’re the problem, not invited to be part of the solution. Through investments in soil management and other technologies, we can make a farm in Iowa as much a symbol of confronting climate disruption as an electric vehicle in California. ( Source: CNN Op-ed)
  • Democrats concur that rejoining the Paris Climate Agreement is important. (Source: CNN)

How CNN became the Committee to Re-elect Donald J. Trump

President Trump has withdrawn from the Paris Climate Accords, which every Democrat wants to rejoin. There is a reason for this. The reason is that the Paris Climate Accord punishes America and the American worker and rewards China, the worlds largest polluter.

I have learned three things about the climate:

  1. The climate changes.
  2. These changes in the climate follow natural cycles (e.g. summer, fall, winter, spring)
  3. There is nothing mankind can do to change these natural cycles. Nothing.

The policies put forth during the CNN Climate Crisis townhall are not only inhuman but will certainly lead to greater centralized government control of all aspects of our lives. The goal is to achieve the fantasy of “environmental justice.” At whose expense exactly?

You guessed it, America’s working class.

© All rights reserved.

RELATED VIDEO: Fox & Friends hosted Marc Morano on the CNN Climate Crisis town hall.


CNN’s Town Hall on Climate Change Revealed More Than Intended

List: Craziest Things Said at CNN Climate Event…

Bernie Sanders Says Abortion Will Help Fight Climate Change

Democrat Prez Candidate Castro Proposes New Category of Refugees—Climate Refugees

Banning Plastic Straws, Fossil Fuels: Here Are Seven Standout Moments From CNN’s Climate Town Hall

Pete Buttigieg: Combatting Climate Change May Be ‘More Challenging Than’ Winning WWII

Elizabeth Warren To Struggling Families Dependent On Oil Jobs: ‘That’s Not the Only Job’

The “D” in Democrat stands for “Delusional”

A friend sent me the following in an email:

When one tries to “reason” with a lefty democrat, remember you are dealing with a person that believes that a man can be a woman and a woman can be a man and that such a delusion should be encouraged, not discouraged.  Discouragement of the delusion is considered immoral and bigoted. Thus our society has unnecessary dilemmas concerning bathrooms,  athletic competition at all levels, and “pronoun” controversies subjecting ourselves to all manner of laws, rules, regulation and more needless government control.

Here is a suggestion to break the left’s ridiculous gender ideology and denial of biological reality.  President Trump should make a declaration that he is identifying as a woman.  The left will have to admit the absurdity of their gender ideology or accept and celebrate “Donna Trump” as the first woman President, thus beating Hillary, Liz Warren, Amy Klobuchar, Kamala Harris and Kirsten Gillibrand to the glorious goal of one of their “female firsts”.  Furthermore, if he remains married to Melania he will also be the first gay president and the first lesbian president. He will also be the first lesbian president married to an immigrant! What a most glorious event for the democrats to celebrate.

This, in a nut shell, explains just one of the many delusions that have become part of the Democratic Party’s platform. Ask any Democrat, and even some Republicans, about “gender identity” and you will get as many different answers as their are gender pronoun choices on Facebook.

Why there’s even going to be the second annual International Gender Pronoun Day on October 16, 2019. International Gender Pronoun Day, seeks to make respecting, sharing, and educating about personal pronouns commonplace.”

One can lose their job, be arrested and even be fined up to $250,000 for addressing someone by the wrong gender pronoun.

Science is clear, there are two sexes XX (female) and XY (male). There is no gay gene.

But science only counts when Democrats want it to count, like in climate change.

The Delusion of Gender Politics

I recently wrote about identity politics. Identity politics began with Black feminists in 1977 as a socialist movement to further the “destruction of the political-economic systems of capitalism and imperialism as well as patriarchy.”

Gender politics has the same goals but adds to it the destruction of scriptural beliefs of the three Abrahamic religions – Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Here are quotes from the Old Testament, New Testament and Qur’an on homosexuality:

  • Genesis 19:4-7 Before they could lie down, all the men of Sodom and its outskirts, both young and old, surrounded the house. They called out to Lot and asked, “Where are the men who came to visit you tonight? Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!” Lot went outside to them, shut the door behind him, and said, “I urge you, my brothers, don’t do such a wicked thing.”
  • Leviticus 18:22 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.
  • Amir ul-Mu’minīn ‘Ali (a.s.) has said: “Sodomy is a Greater Sin and carries punishment when a man mounts upon another man but does not penetrate. If he penetrates, it is kufr”.

Destroy God and replace Him with government is the ultimate goal. One of the minority groups (less than 4%) that want to destroy every culture and its religious foundation are gays. They do it in the name of “equal rights.” They use words such as “pride.”

Equal rights, pride and gender pronouns are oxymoronic.

The LGBTQ community wants equal rights for them but not for you. The LGBTQ and their allies (i.e. Antifa) protest against straight pride parades being held in cities like Boston. The LGBTQ community wants you to guess what is their preferred pronoun and if you get it wrong they want to punish you.

Each of these oxymorons violates the U.S. Constitution.

Destroy the U.S. Constitution bit-by-bit and you will eventually destroy America. Once this is done you can then fundamentally transform the culture as you wish.

Making personal pronouns commonplace requires that the idea of heterosexuality be erased.

Just as identity politics has destroyed the nuclear family (especially in the black community) so to does gender politics destroy the traditional family, defined as marriage between one man and one woman.

Destruction of the traditional family means that the new patriarchy is government.


The primary outcome of this socialist/LGBTQ identity politics is the destruction of the nuclear family.

Delusional right? But happening.

© All rights reserved.


Government Shouldn’t Force Teachers to Use Transgender Pronouns

No ‘gay gene’: Massive study homes in on genetic basis of human sexuality – Nature: International Journal of Science

Student Group Flags Top 5 Instances of Campus Censorship of Conservatives

Ruling in Minnesota Wedding Videographers’ Case Properly Prioritizes First Amendment Rights