School District Tells Gym Teachers To Wear Gay Flags, Use Preferred Pronouns To Make Class More ‘Inclusive’

A Colorado school district encouraged its physical education (P.E.) teachers to don LGBT pride gear and use preferred pronouns in an effort to display their support for the LGBTQ community, according to documents obtained by the Daily Caller News Foundation through a public records request.

On March 8, a group of Jeffco Public Schools high school teachers were trained on how to make the district’s P.E. programs “even more inclusive,” where all students feel welcome regardless of their “race, ethnicity or sexual orientation,” according to a presentation obtained by the DCNF through a public records request. Teachers were trained to engage in “public visibility” by sporting some sort of rainbow pride gear such as a pin or t-shirt, plan or participate in pride events and practice using preferred pronouns.

“We know from research and feedback from students around the country that visibility matters immensely in building inclusion,” the presentation read. “A pin, t-shirt, flags, stickers and use of pronouns are impactful ways of making a difference.”

Teachers can participate in “public visibility” by having “safe-space and ally messages” in waiting areas, hallways and in the locker room, the training stated. Teachers can also wear a “scarf, shirt, tie, lapel pin and shoes” to send a “strong message of support.”

“Guessing” someone’s preferred pronouns can be “offensive and harassing,” while using “correct” pronouns is a good way to show someone you respect them, the training stated. The presentation suggested that teachers include their pronouns on a white board, in their email signature, on their zoom profile and on their business cards.

Students should be allowed to use locker rooms and participate in P.E. classes on the basis of gender identity rather than biological sex, though each transgender student should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, the training stated. To create an “inclusive and safe” locker room, the training suggested teachers use an “anonymous tip box” or “offer alternative spaces.”

“Unless precluded by state interscholastic association policies, students should be permitted to participate in interscholastic athletics in a manner consistent with their gender identity,” the training read.

For sports teams, teachers and coaches were encouraged to document “inclusion” and potentially modify team policies to state that all students are welcome “regardless of race, religion, sexuality or gender identity,” the training stated.

LGBTQ students experience “barriers” that keep them from exercising such as a “lack of safe spaces” in locker rooms and bathrooms, and “gendered classes and teams,” the training showed.

The Education Department (ED) released proposed changes to Title IX in April that, if adopted, would bar public K-12 schools and colleges from adopting a “one-size-fits-all-policy” and prohibit students from joining sports teams on the basis of gender identity. School districts throughout the nation are adopting policies to separate sports teams on the basis of gender identity rather than biological sex; in April, the San Francisco State University athletics director claimed there is no “competitive” difference between men and women in sports.

“We will learn from each other to increase the sense of belonging for our students that identify as LGBTQ+, especially in the world of sports and PE,” the presentation stated.

Jeffco Public Schools did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment.




RELATED TWEETS: Elementary School Turned into LGBTQI+ Pride Indoctrination Camp

RELATED ARTICLE: Child Gender Clinic Trained Teachers To Help Transition Elementary School Kids

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

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact

June 1st ‘Pride Month’: Worshiping Multiple Demonic Sins

 A 1999 proclamation from former President Bill Clinton began what has become known as Pride Month. From 2009 to 2016 President Barack Obama declared June LGBT Pride Month. Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. now continues the celebration of Pride Month beginning on June 1st thru June 30th.

From a Muslim, Jewish and Christian perspective “Pride Month” is the worship of demonic sins:

  1.  Leviticus 18:22-23 states, “It is an abomination to lie with a male as with a woman and to mate with them.”
  2. The Quran 4:16 reads, “And the two who commit it among you, dishonor them both. But if they repent and correct themselves, leave them alone. Indeed, Allah is ever Accepting of repentance and Merciful.” Al-Araf 80-81 reads, “And [We had sent] Lot when he said to his people. Do you commit such immorality as no one has preceded you with from among the worlds? Indeed, you approach men with desire, instead of women. Rather, you are a transgressing people.”
  3. The Torah in Genesis 19:4-5 reads, “But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; and they called to Lot, ‘Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, so that we may know them.’”

One of the Seven Deadly Sins is Pride. Pride is an excessive view of one’s self without regard for others. The Bible says the following in Jeremiah 9:23-24, “…Let not the mighty man boast of his might…but let him who boasts boast of this, that he understands and knows Me…” Pride is also mentioned in the following verses: Proverbs 8:13, Proverbs 16:18, Romans 12:16, 1 Corinthians 13:4, Galatians 6:3 and James 4:6-7.

We now see rainbow flags in public schools. But from where did the rainbow originate?

Genesis 9:13 (ESV) reads, “I have set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth.”

The first rainbow was created by God after the great flood and first seen by Noah and his family. It remains a symbol of God’s hope that His people would not stray ever again from His Commandments.

Smith’s Bible Dictionary says that rainbows in the Bible are:

“the token of the covenant which God made with Noah when he came forth from the ark that the waters should no more become a flood to destroy all flesh. The right interpretation of (Genesis 9:13) seems to be that God took the rainbow, which had hitherto been but a beautiful object shining in the heavens when the sun’s rays fell on falling rain, and consecrated it as the sign of his love and the witness of his promise. Ecclesiastes. 43:11.

The rainbow is a symbol of God’s faithfulness and mercy. The “rainbow around the throne” (Revelation 4:3 ) is seen as the symbol of hope and the bright emblem of mercy and love, all the more accurate as a symbol because it is reflected from the storm itself.”

Pride Month and the Rainbow Flag are an abomination to God/Allah.

Today it is important to understand that Pride and the Rainbow are being used not as “signs of love and the witness of His promise.”

Rather they are a demonic celebration of lust, pedophilia, perversion and pederasty which is a sexual relationship between an adult man and a boy.

Pride Month has all the marks of the seven deadly sins:

  1. A proud look,
  2. a lying tongue,
  3. hands that shed innocent blood,
  4. A heart that devises wicked plans,
  5. feet that are swift in running to evil,
  6. A false witness who speaks lies,
  7. and one who sows discord among brethren.

Sadly, many teachers, politicians, faith leaders, corporate CEOs, young people and adults have embraced Pride Month as the “new normal.”

Disney Faces Backlash as Male Employee in Dress Goes Viral [WATCH]

In truth it is abnormal and a great harm that is being spread, like a plague, across America and the world. 

And so ends todays lesson.

©2023. Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.


With New Wave of Legislation, States Aim to Reintroduce Biblical Values to Schools

As concerns over rising crime and the mental health of minors continue to climb, a new wave of legislation aimed at reintroducing America’s youth to biblical values in school is surging.

In Texas, bills have been introduced that would require that the Ten Commandments be posted in public school classrooms and for schools to be free to hire or accept volunteer chaplains to perform services including mental health support, suicide prevention, and other services.

In Kentucky, a measure was advanced in the state House that would protect the “private religious expression” of teachers. Specific actions protected for school employees under the bill include engaging in religious discussion, sharing religious material with other employees, forming prayer groups with other employees, sponsoring a student religious club, wearing religious clothing or jewelry, and decorating their desks and personal spaces with religious items.

In Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis (R) signed into law a bill that allows schools to say a prayer over the public address system before athletic events.

In Louisiana, a bill that would offer public school students in grades 9-12 a voluntary course on the Bible is currently before the state legislature. The bill’s sponsor, State Representative Valarie Hodges (R), joined “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins” on Monday to discuss the legislation and the increasing openness of her fellow lawmakers to share their faith.

“[T]here were very few people who would openly profess their faith [in years past],” she noted. “Now I would say the majority of people in this legislature are not ashamed to say they’re Christians. They’re not ashamed to stand up for their faith. And it’s past time. It’s way past time that we do that. When prayer was removed out of schools and the Bible was removed, I think people are seeing the end result of that, that it’s not good.”

Hodges went on to emphasize why a course on the Bible is important for today’s public school students.

“The Bible is the most published book in the world, and it contains 6,000 years of history,” she explained. “My bill … authorizes teaching the Bible as literature and history. And what better book could we get our history from? It’s got the most history [of any book] in the world. … [O]ur laws that we have in the United States, our culture, art, so much is encapsulated in the Bible. … My bill [is a] first step [so] we can get the Bible into the hands of students to actually understand what [it] is about.”

Hodges further highlighted how a large swath of America’s youth have little knowledge of the Bible’s historical importance in America’s founding.

“Even our Declaration of Independence [in] the preamble is talking about a creator and acknowledges the creator. … I heard a statistic [that] 90% of teenagers have never read the Bible in this new generation that we have. And so they don’t have a reference point of, ‘What creator are we talking about?’ Our Founding Fathers were referencing the Bible.”

The Louisiana lawmaker additionally contended that a removal of biblical principles from public schools has led to an increase in societal lawlessness.

“When you look at the statistics on crime before the 1960s, it was nothing like it is now,” Hodges argued. “I think there’s a plausible explanation that can be found. … Where do we get our morality from? We get our morality from the Bible. … I was talking to a group last night. We were talking about the murder rates, the crime rates, homelessness, and all this that we’re seeing. Well, we used to teach that stealing is a sin. And we’re not right now. … [If you say] that things are ‘immoral’ — you get laughed at if you use that word anymore. But I think it’s becoming apparent that there is a crisis of morality in our nation. And we’ve got to restore that.”

Hodges expressed hope that her legislation will serve as a model in order to help clear up misconceptions about the idea of the separation of church and state.

“I really hope to see schools adopting this and teachers teaching this because there’s been a lot of confusion in the schools that I’ve [visited when] talking to teachers. … So that was one of the impetuses for me — filing the bill is to clear up any confusion. The Supreme Court ruled that schools can teach the Bible in public schools and private schools. I’m hoping this bill … will clear up any confusion and encourage schools to adopt this course and teachers to teach it.”


Dan Hart

Dan Hart is senior editor at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. All rights reserved. ©2023 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

‘Be fruitful and multiply’ is not religious bumph. It’s how civilizations survive!

While population collapse is an environmentalist’s dream, it is an unfolding nightmare for the rest of humanity.

Demography nerds assiduously follow the data popping up about fast-ageing societies, their loss of dynamism and prospects of population collapse. With each successive generation significantly smaller than the last, we know where we’re headed. While population collapse is an environmentalist’s dream, it is an unfolding nightmare for humanity at large. The world’s economic engine, the Global North, is already shrinking.

That’s not gloom and doom, folks, just the facts.

This puzzles the pundits to no end. The web is alight with nonstop prattle about urbanization, birth control, economics and myriad other material factors. These are but symptoms of a deeper malaise. When a society doesn’t reproduce in the long term, it comes down to social and personal priorities. Those priorities reflect fundamental values that will not change short of a religious revival or spiritual rebirth.

Demography is an incredibly interesting field of study, and I’ve just stumbled across an essay on the subject that blew me away. It is by futurist Adam Van Buskirk, who is not only aware of the demographic conundrum, but also understands how it has come about and where it is going. I highly recommend his most thought-provoking essay, “Industrial Civilization Needs a Biological Future,” that recently appeared in Palladium.

As a futurist, Van Buskirk is enthusiastic about high-tech stuff, and laments that low fertility will eventually impede (and even halt) technological progress. True enough, but that is well down the list of why not having enough children is problematic. I’d gladly give up the gadgets if it meant reviving the family.

Van Buskirk wants to save “industrial civilization.” At this point I’ll settle for saving civilization period, industrial or not.

You can say much in 5100 words and Van Buskirk does not disappoint. His trenchant insights on Modernity are most unusual coming from a techno-geek:

[I]ndustrial modernity as we know it shows an extraordinary propensity to consume those most central to its own functioning. Modernity eats its own children, both native and adopted, both in its original lands and everywhere it spreads…

At the same time that technological evolution seems poised for a quantum leap, the very same system that produced these marvels appears to be burning up its crucial human capital like fuel in a furnace. Industrial society is evolving to a state where its original populations are super-aged, shrinking, and mostly extinct. Those who remain are increasingly only concerned with importing and managing labor from the remaining underdeveloped reservations, in an attempt to keep the lights on a bit longer and assure some degree of comfort.

Later he addresses demography’s $64,000 question:

Why are the most affluent societies that have ever existed on Earth unable to perform the most basic possible task of maintaining their numbers? The explanation is simple and you already know it. Humans seek status and wealth, and current Western or Westernized societies do not confer either one for having children.

This is perhaps the starkest exposition I have seen about globalism-on-steroids and where it is taking us. It’s a biological Ponzi scheme of sorts: When we run out of monetized human beings – something for which no amount of artificial intelligence can compensate – a day of reckoning will be upon us.

Are we in for a Brave New World scenario? If you’ve read Huxley’s novel, remember “Bokanovsky’s Process” and the “Central London Hatching and Conditioning Center.”

While Von Buskirk lays bare the consequences of our nascent brave new world, he also understands something that eludes most gadget-happy techno-nerds, and that is the critical role of religious faith:

Simply practicing any religion, with weekly attendance at services, raises fertility to about replacement level. Women who attend services weekly have a TFR of 2.1, while women who report never attending church have an extremely low TFR of only 1.3.

Among relatively large religious groups, Mormons report the largest family size, at 2.8 children, followed by Muslims at 2.76 children per woman. Orthodox, Protestant, and Catholic Christians all fall around 2.1, which is at least replacement-level fertility.

There are also smaller high-fertility religious groups, such as the Amish and Haredi Jews, who average about seven children per family.

Over time people of faith could become numerically dominant. At that point, according to Van Buskirk, “the industrial modernity that drives the demographic decline will itself cease to be dominant.” So we’re headed for a world of robust families without high-tech? If that is the way forward for survival of the species, so be it. Didn’t the Good Book have something to say about “The meek shall inherit the earth?”

He also expresses an interesting view about reproduction:

Human beings have a biological instinct for sex and even for parenting, but seemingly not for reproduction as such. Because sex can and has been de-linked from reproduction, and child substitutes like dogs can provide an outlet for the parenting instinct, within an advanced civilization the question of reproduction is ultimately an ideological one. [Emphasis added]

Now I disagree that there is no “biological instinct” for reproduction. The whole of creation revolves around the reproductive instinct. I remember as a young’un when ruttin’ season began. That’s when the bucks (male deer) go on the rut and mark their turf, scraping the bark off trees with their antlers. That drive to reproduce comes naturally. But in the Modern Era, homo sapiens, brimming with a surfeit of Age of Reason “wisdom,” can tinker with Mother Nature but not master it. That critical distinction is lost on those addicted to the toxic elixir of hubris, mammon worship and technological progress.

And this business of “child substitutes like dogs” befuddles the heck out of me. I’m an inveterate “dogs welcome, people tolerated” type, and prefer canine company to that of any number of people folk. But I’ve never confused my canine affinity with parental instinct. However, there are enough folks who do, so much so that even Pope Francis saw fit to weigh in:

The other day, I was talking about the demographic winter that we have today … many couples do not have children because they do not want to, or they have just one — but they have two dogs, two cats.

Yes, dogs and cats take the place of children. Yes, it’s funny, I understand, but it is the reality, and this denial of fatherhood and motherhood diminishes us, takes away humanity.

And there is something else the Pontiff likely knows that Mr. Van Buskirk points out: “[W]ithin an advanced civilization the question of reproduction is ultimately an ideological one.” Sadly, he is correct. Ideology has supplanted belief in the transcendent. This is the fruit of modernity’s master-of-the-universe syndrome. Every religious tradition anywhere includes some variant of the Biblical “Be fruitful and multiply.” Funny how that came about. No, it is not the result of some right-wing conspiracy. It is something larger than ourselves.

Genuinely precipitous population decline has yet to kick in but is coming soon. Per Hemingway, so many things happen “gradually, then suddenly.” Any respectable futurist should understand that.


Louis T. March

Louis T. March has a background in government, business and philanthropy. A former talk show host, author and public speaker, he is a dedicated student of history and genealogy. Louis lives with his family… 

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

The Leftist Climate Hoax Agenda Is Buying Its Way Into The News

The news is a fiction much like your favorite episodic TV series. They manufacture a story, frame it, bring in the actors to sell it. Until America understands this, we are susceptible to manipulation and thought control.

The Leftist Green Agenda Is Buying Its Way Into The News

By: Larry Behrens, The Federalist, May 30, 2023

Take a moment to consider the phrase “Joe Biden’s hard-hat environmentalism” that appeared in a recent Associated Press article. Examining Biden’s controversial energy policy and assigning it the positive spin of “hard-hat environmentalism” is something that makes sense as a White House press release or something from the Biden campaign, but not the AP, a purported objective carrier of the news.

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident.

One recent analysis found AP stories mentioned the phrases “climate change,” “global warming,” and “Climate disaster” hundreds of times since receiving grants totaling $8 million in early 2022. The stated purpose of the money is to fund the AP’s “Climate Journalism Initiative,” which would employ 20 new reporters to “transform how the AP covers the climate story.”

Perhaps it also funded the story that gave us Biden’s hard-hat environmentalism?

In another example from the story, former top Clinton adviser John Podesta is heavily quoted in his role as overseer of the $369 billion for green energy from Biden’s so-called Inflation Reduction Act. The story fails to mention Podesta’s political operative past, including his unofficial title of “White House clean-up chief” during the Clinton years. Also quoted are the extreme eco-groups the Natural Resources Defense Council and Center for Biological Diversity. They are all given a lot of space in a story with a lot of reach.

As a wire service, the hard-hat rebranding from the AP will appear in thousands of newspapers across the world as news. We don’t know if the millions the AP received for climate coverage played a role in helping Biden rebrand his energy policy, and that’s precisely the point.

It is no secret that across the country, particularly in rural areas, newspapers are struggling to survive. It’s not unusual to walk into a small-town newspaper and find one person covering what used to be two or even three different full-time positions. The environmental left recognized this struggle and is now providing money and reporter reeducation to fill the void with its own version of the news.

It’s an ethically questionable but smart strategy that is paying immediate dividends.

As just one of many examples, the nationally recognized Poynter Institute recently offered $15,000 grants to reporters or newsrooms willing to cover the Great Lakes area with some eco-strings attached. Any reporter wanting in on the money will have to tell Poynter “A brief description of what they will probe, why they believe there is a story to be told, and how they plan to report the story.” Put another way, reporters must disclose what they cover and how they will cover it before the money flows.

The program receives “funding support” from the Joyce Foundation, and it didn’t take long to see who provides their support. According to documents filed with the IRS, none other than Bloomberg Philanthropies provided millions to Joyce — yes, as in billionaire and climate darling Michael Bloomberg.

By following the bouncing ball of eco-money, there’s a troubling pattern of a frontline journalism association offering grants to reporters, provided they disclose how they will report their stories, by using money that can be traced back to a billionaire with a big green agenda. If it all seems confusing, that’s because it was designed that way.

Proponents of the green movement are putting millions into grants to sneak content supportive of their agenda under the umbrella of news outlets. Sure, the first story or two may include a small disclaimer at the end noting how the story is part of a project funded by an organization. However, green funders put many layers between themselves and the final project to ensure their fingerprints are nowhere to be found.

Keep reading.


RELATED VIDEO: The Dover Sun House. The 1948 Experiment for Solar Power


Biden’s ‘Dr. Jekyll And Mr. Hyde Approach’ To Mining Critical Minerals Could Derail His Own Green Dreams, Critics Say

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Billion Dollar Losses For Companies That Went Woke Are Staggering – Bud Light, Target, Kohls, North Face

For some psychiatric reason, the left can’t grasp that we don’t care what they do with their peckers, just keep them out of the classrooms and away from our children.


National Review: Sales for the beleaguered beer company, Bud Light, have fallen for a sixth consecutive week following its partnership with transgender social-media influencer Dylan Mulvaney. Beer Business Daily, a trade publication, found that the volume of Bud Light sales had dropped by 28.4 percent in the second week of May, up from 27.7 percent the week prior. The consumer cutback on Bud Light has become so bad that one store is even reportedly offering cases of 24-packs – which normally retail close to $20 – for just $3.49 to offset some of the costs of inventory before the beverage expires (National Review). Investors Business Daily: The market value of Anheuser-Busch InBev, whose fourth bestselling brand is Bud Light, dropped $15.7 billion since April 1 (Investors Business Daily).

HITS BOTTOM, KEEPS DIGGING: Bud Light To Sponsor Pride Parades Despite Ongoing Boycott, Joining Children’s Hospital Which Sexually Mutilates Children

Woke Bud Light Can’t Give Their Beer Away – Literally, Now Forced to Buy It Back

Bud Light Sales Plummet For Fifth Straight Week Since Promoting Trans Influencer

Anheuser-Busch Loses $5 Billion Since Announcing Sponsorship of Trans Influencer


Daily Mail: Target has lost more than $10 billion in market capitalization in the span of 10 days – as it continues to face backlash for Pride-themed merchandise. Prior to the controversy – which stems over a LGBTQ-geared clothing campaign that touts ‘tuck-friendly’ bathing suits and pro-trans T-shirts for kids – Target shares were trading at $160.96, giving the retailer a market valuation of roughly $74.3 billion. By the time The New York Stock Exchange closed Friday, the blue-chip stock was trading at $138.93 – marking a market valuation of 64.2 billion, and loss of $10.1 billion (Daily Mail).

Target Shares Plummet Following Trans Push To Children, Posts 10 Billion Dollar Loss


Daily Mail: Kohl’s has become the latest retailer to receive backlash for catering to the ‘woke crowd’ after shoppers slammed their LGBTQ+ apparel for infants. The onesies with the LGBTQ+ pride flag on them, specifically tailored to June, which is known internationally as Pride Month, have even sparked calls for a store boycott (Daily Mail).

End Wokeness: Looks like Kohl’s didn’t learn a thing from Bud Lite and Target (Twitter). Fox News: Kohl’s Corporation has seen its stock plummet over the last year, sinking by over 50% due to various worrying signs. In July 2022, the stock dropped almost 21% after the retailer revealed it had ended a potential deal to be acquired by Franchise Group and warned of a decline in sales exacerbated by a drop in consumer spending (Fox News).


RELATED VIDEO: We added this video at the behest of a Anheuser-Busch distributor.

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Biden’s Strategy to Fight Anti-Semitism Enables Hatred of Jews and Israel

BDS, leftist and Muslim anti-Semitism can’t be talked about.

In 2019, President Trump signed an executive order on combating antisemitism. The order used the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism which includes “denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination”, “using the symbols and images associated with classic antisemitism to characterize Israel” and applying double standards to the Jewish State.

Biden’s hyped U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, released on the eve of the Shavuot holiday, backtracks from this gold standard by claiming that, “there are several definitions of antisemitism, which serve as valuable tools to raise awareness and increase understanding of antisemitism”, including the IHRA, but noting that the Biden administration “welcomes and appreciates the Nexus Document and notes other such efforts.”

The Nexus definition was authored by anti-Israel activists like Tema Smith, who had claimed that, “Hamas — and the Palestinians as a whole — have desperately real and legitimate grievances against Israel.”

“Jews *have* to be ok with Palestinians *explaining* why some turn to terrorism,” she argued.

The Nexus advisory committee included the likes of Hussein Ibish, who had described Hezbollah as a “disciplined and responsible liberation force” whose terrorists had “conducted themselves in an exemplary manner”, along with J Street leader Jeremy Ben Ami, Lila Corwin-Berman, who had defended BDS, and Chaim Seidler-Feller, whose hatred was so intense he had kicked and scratched a Jewish woman over her support for the Jewish State.

The Nexus definition of antisemitism was created to protect anti-Israel activists from charges of antisemitism. That definition, which the Biden administration chose to promote, claims that BDS, or “boycotting goods made in the West Bank and/or Israel is not antisemitic”, and argues that, “opposition to Zionism and/or Israel does not necessarily reflect specific anti-Jewish animus nor purposefully lead to antisemitic behaviors and conditions” and defends double standards by contending that “paying disproportionate attention to Israel and treating Israel differently than other countries is not prima facie proof of antisemitism.”

While the U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism claims that the IHRA definition is the most prominent, that is not the same as an endorsement and the strategy carefully avoids any mention of BDS and beyond its opening has relatively few mentions of Israel. Despite being hyped by Jewish Democrats, it is undeniably a step back from the Trump executive order.

Even with the seemingly strong language cited by administration supporters, such as “when Israel is singled out because of anti-Jewish hatred, that is antisemitism”, the ‘conditional’ in that sentence is clearly a lawyerly use of the Nexus, not the IHRA definition, defining hatred of Israel only as antisemitism when it can be proven to have originated because of antisemitism.

Incorporating the Nexus defense of BDS and hatred of Israel is a symptom of a larger problem.

The U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism insists that the only kind of antisemitism is white supremacism or “right-wing” hatred. Its only references to leftist, black, or Muslim antisemitism are cautiously indirect because those forms of antisemitism cannot be condemned.

After multiple Muslim and black nationalist terrorist attacks on synagogues, Muslims and black nationalists are only mentioned as allies and fellow victims of white supremacist bigotry.

The strategy states that, “antisemitic conspiracy theories are often foundational to white supremacy as well as numerous other violent extremist ideologies. For example, in January 2022, an armed hostage-taker motivated by other violent notions terrorized the members of a synagogue in Colleyville, Texas.” The “other violent notions” were Islamic ones.

Malik Faisal Akram, a Muslim Pakistani supporter of ‘Lady Al Qaeda’, broke into the synagogue and held the people inside hostage until he was shot and killed by the FBI. Al Qaeda later called Akram a “martyr” and declared that “there Is no greater enemy of Islam and inhabitants of Islam than the Jews”.

When a national antisemitism strategy can’t even name and describe an Al Qaeda attack on a synagogue because it would undermine its premise that Muslims can only be victims and that the only threat worth discussing is white supremacy then it’s the problem, not the solution.

If the Biden administration won’t even allow a mention of the most violent kind of Islamic antisemitism by a supporter of a terror group we are at war with, it’s collaborating with it.


The U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism.rollout press release boasts that “the Council on American-Islamic Relations will launch a tour to educate religious communities about steps they can take to protect their houses of worship from hate incidents.”

That’s the same CAIR which has defended Islamic terrorism against Jews, defended Muslim terrorists who plotted attacks on synagogues, whose official, Zahra Billoo, had urged, “we need to pay attention to the Zionist synagogues”, and which was named an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial involving the funding of Hamas.

When Ahmed Ferhani was arrested for a plot to attack a synagogue, CAIR held a rally to support him. It still has materials on its site defending the antisemitic terrorist.

After promoting an antisemite’s definition of antisemitism, the Biden administration is promoting synagogue bombers to tour and educate houses of worship about security measures.

There are good things about the U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism. It does address campus antisemitism, acknowledging that, “on college campuses, Jewish students, educators, and administrators have been derided, ostracized, and sometimes discriminated against because of their actual or perceived views on Israel.” But it fails to note that the antisemitism is coming from Islamists and leftists, and its focus on “swastikas” and “Kristallnacht” implies the familiar white supremacist narrative even when, in one case, the Nazi reference was actually being employed by a Muslim woman.

The strategy does mention that beyond learning about the Holocaust, students should also learn the “histories of antisemitism experienced by Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews—who trace their ancestry to Spain, the Middle East, and North Africa—and their stories of exclusion, persecution, and expulsion.” And that is a good thing, American Jewish historiography has been dominated for too long by Ashkenazi or European Jewish history, but how will it be possible to teach about Muslim antisemitism without even mentioning Islam?

Even though Orthodox Jews have been the victims of the majority of violent physical assaults, there is only one brief mention of this phenomenon, “some traditionally observant Jews, especially traditional Orthodox Jews, are victimized while walking down the street.”

Inconveniently, the attackers tend to be black or other minorities, and so cannot be mentioned.

The black nationalist massacre at a Kosher grocery store in Jersey City and a machete attack at a synagogue in 2019 go completely unmentioned, even though they were among the deadliest recent attacks on Jews along with the white supremacist terrorist attack in Poway, California.

A better name for the new approach would be the U.S. National Strategy to Counter Those Kinds of Antisemitism We Are Willing to Discuss while leaving out the majority of violent antisemitic threats and avoiding the question of Israel as much as it possibly can.

The U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism is crippled by the woke dependency on intersectionality, on the need to view antisemitism as interrelated with other prejudices and bigotries, and to position Jews as common victims and allies against white supremacy, and in the process it ignores what antisemitism actually is and what is unique about it. And that approach has actually ended up enabling leftist antisemitism over the 20th century.

Anitsemitism is not simply a racial or religious hatred. The attempts to narrowly define it run aground on its persistence across thousands of years, through different cultures, religions, and nations. Antisemitism morphs, adopting different shapes and forms, emerging in radically different political movements across both the Left and the Right, to form a common denominator. The Biden strategy seeks to compartmentalize antisemitism within a postmodern rainbow coalition of minority victims faced with the bigotry of a majority, even as the document is forced to awkwardly grapple with the fact that much of the hatred is coming from minorities.

At best that’s denial and at worst that’s complicity.

The U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism isn’t a strategy to fight antisemitism, but to cover up the reality of it as a politically inconvenient reality with a politically convenient myth. And no one should have expected anything else from a radical administration with no shortage of antisemitic nominees, which continues to undermine Israel while supporting hate groups like CAIR. Whether it’s Nexus or the U.S. National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, putting the enablers of antisemitism in charge of defining and fighting antisemitism can never end well.



Jewish groups, Allies Demand CUNY Law Lose Funding After Hijab-Wearing Jew-hater ‘Vile’ Antisemitic Commencement Speech

Biden tells Turkey to allow Sweden into NATO if it wants US F-16’s

Palestinian Campaign to Free Sadistic Murderer Walid Daqqa

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

The Body Reveals the Person: Moving Beyond Sexual Identity Obsession

American culture has become obsessed with sexual identity confusion. This obsession has affected almost every aspect of public life, from sports (in a multitude of ways) to retail companies to beer. It has become such an obsession that a massive swath of corporate America will soon transform their branding into the symbol of this obsession for an entire month.

Most importantly, this obsession has diminished our souls and the very essence of what it means to be human. We are currently about a decade into this culture-wide phenomenon. Lest we settle into seeing this situation as the new normal, it’s important to keep front and center how tragic this sexual identity obsession truly is — it presents a grave misunderstanding of the body and a diminishment of life’s highest goods. We desperately need a way forward out of obsession and into true freedom.

A single verse in the first chapter of the first book of the Bible reveals the essence of human life: “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Genesis 1:27).

From this verse comes a limitless well of truth from which to draw. A groundbreaking understanding of this truth began to develop in 1979, when Pope John Paul II began delivering a series of 129 individual addresses that would later collectively become known as the “Theology of the Body.” The central idea of this theology can be summed up here: “The body, in fact, and it alone, is capable of making visible what is invisible: the spiritual and the divine.” In other words, the body reveals not only the physical person but also the image of the invisible God, as stated in Genesis.

John Paul further declared that “[the body] was created to transfer in the visible reality of the world the invisible mystery hidden since time immemorial in God, and thus be a sign of it.” In other words, the maleness and femaleness of the human person are indissoluble aspects of God that He chose to reveal through the created body.

Indeed, our maleness and femaleness go to the very core of who we are — every cell of our bodies possess either a male or female pair of chromosomes. But the goodness of our bodies goes far beyond merely the physical aspect, as beautiful as that is. We have been created out of an outpouring of generous love of the Trinity and have been adopted through Christ (Romans 8:14-17) as sons and daughters. Our bodies ultimately reveal that we are male sons and female daughters of a loving Father.

All that God has created is infused — filled to the brim — with meaning. This is why we can marvel at the intricacy of a flower, or the truth held in a beautiful painting, or the incomparable goodness of a delicious meal. So too are our bodies filled with immeasurable meaning.

Therefore, when we “identify” as a sex other than what we are, or as “non-binary,” or as some other sexual identity, we are selling ourselves far short of our maleness or femaleness. Our chosen “identity” becomes vacant and stripped of meaning, and we render ourselves androgynous. Rather, it is in and through our male and female bodies that we experience the world around us, and most importantly, our relationship with God our Father.

It is in this way that our bodies and all of visible creation point to the invisible reality of God. When we fully realize the boundless potential of our embodied male and female souls, we will be set free of confusion about our sexual identity, knowing that we have been loved into existence just as we are — in the image of God.


Dan Hart

Dan Hart is senior editor at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. ©2023 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

Biden’s ‘Dr. Jekyll And Mr. Hyde Approach’ To Mining Critical Minerals Could Derail His Own Green Dreams, Critics Say

  • The Biden administration’s policies limiting domestic mining of key minerals are hindering its effort to transition the U.S. economy to green technologies while increasing America’s dependence on China, industry experts and lawmakers told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
  • The administration has taken steps to block major mining projects in Arizona, Alaska and Minnesota, and has been increasingly securing supplies for critical minerals from foreign partners, according to Axios.
  • “I cannot understand why this administration wants to lock in Chinese dominance of mineral supplies instead of investing in a secure, domestic supply chain,” Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia told the DCNF.

President Joe Biden’s mining policies run counter to his efforts to transition the U.S. economy to green technologies while increasing the industry’s dependence on China, industry experts and lawmakers told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Although the White House in 2022 called for “responsible mining” in the U.S. to reduce reliance on Chinese minerals, the administration has taken steps to block major mining projects in ArizonaAlaska and Minnesota, often citing environmental impacts. China currently dominates the supply chain for most minerals necessary for electric vehicles and other green technologies like solar panels, holding a near-monopoly on processing of cobalt, lithium, graphite, manganese and nickel, according to a report by the Institute for Energy Research (IER), an energy think tank.

Despite pressure from a bipartisan group of senators, the U.S. Geological Survey recently declined to name copper a critical mineral — a designation that would prioritize permits for mining projects — a move that Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia said would have significant negative consequences for national security and run counter to the administration’s interests, in a statement to the DCNF.

“I cannot understand why this Administration wants to lock in Chinese dominance of mineral supplies instead of investing in a secure, domestic supply chain,” Manchin — a frequent sparring partner with the administration over climate issues — said. “Copper remains vital to our energy security and economic growth, and the United States cannot remain the superpower of the world without a strong domestic supply chain. … If a mineral isn’t listed until after we are already dependent on foreign suppliers, it will be too late — as illustrated by our current dependence on China for many of the minerals in electric vehicles.”

President Joe Biden’s signature climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act, will support the green manufacturing and energy industries with an estimated $1.2 trillion in government funding — more than three times the government’s initial estimates — and incentivize some $3 trillion in private investments, according to analysts from Goldman Sachs. To support this massive spending spree, the Biden administration has secured deals with more than a half dozen foreign countries to develop a mineral supply chain, a strategy that the National Mining Association — a trade group representing U.S. mining companies — criticized for using “short-term band-aids” while ignoring “long-term, systemic supply chain problems,” in a statement to the DCNF.

“Unfortunately, we are hearing more about U.S. deals to source minerals overseas than we are about mining projects being approved here at home,” NMA spokeswoman Ashley Burke told the DCNF. “America’s growing domestic mineral needs have led us to the highest mineral reliance in our country’s history, yet the administration seems to be doubling down on this glaring and growing vulnerability and placing obstacles in the way of domestic production instead of removing them.”

Dan Kish, a senior fellow at the IER, described the administration as having a “Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde approach” to mining, simultaneously pushing to “electrify everything … driving demand up” while making it “harder and harder” to develop minerals in the U.S., in a statement to the DCNF. He estimated that electric vehicles require roughly six times as much critical minerals compared to their traditional gas-powered counterparts, and anticipates that the increased demand amid limited supply would likely push up mineral prices.

“As mineral demand is skyrocketing, the Biden Administration has banned mining in my northern Minnesota district as well as in Alaska and Arizona,” said Republican Rep. Pete Stauber of Minnesota, referencing the administration’s efforts to effectively kill  the Twin Metals mine in the state. “Meanwhile, the Biden Administration is insistent on making America reliant on global supply chains controlled by unfriendly actors and continues to look abroad for minerals which threatens our national security. This Administration signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Congo where child slave labor is used and the Chinese Communist Party controls 15 of 19 major mines. This is immoral and insulting.”

Chinese Communist Party-linked Ganfeng Lithium is the largest shareholder of the Canadian firm Lithium Americas, which received approval by the Trump administration to operate the Thacker Pass mine, the largest known source of lithium in the U.S. and third largest in the world. The company began construction on the Nevada mine in March after its approval was upheld by a federal judge in February, pending a final environmental review by the Biden administration.

In an early May Senate hearing, Interior Secretary Deb Haaland defended the administration’s efforts to block domestic mining projects because it was protecting “valuable” ecological resources and appeared to be on the verge of tears over climate change in late April when defending the administration’s push for green energy. Haaland had previously refused to say whether she believed it was better for the U.S. to produce oil domestically, or import it from foreign sources.

Beyond supply chain concerns, President Biden’s push to transition the nation to primarily use green manufacturing and energy sources is running headlong into real estate concerns, as states hurry to prepare the massive sites necessary to sustain such projects. Despite this, the Environmental Protection Agency in recent months has proposed a series of aggressive emissions standards that will push the electrification of America’s passenger car and trucking fleets and lead to the shutdown of noncompliant coal and gas-fired power plants by 2040.

EPA Administrator Michael Regan at the time praised the administration’s vehicle standards for being “readily achievable” thanks to the president’s “Investing in America agenda” that will “secure America’s global competitiveness.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a DCNF request for comment.




RELATED ARTICLE: ‘We’re Not Expecting Anything Good’: Oil Drillers Brace For Biden’s New Rules

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

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact

Academic Study Shows That Being A Leftist Drives You Mad, Makes You Crazy

How did they ever get this through? Our nation’s colleges and universities today are radioactive wastelands of far-Left indoctrination. Demonization and defamation of patriots and others who tell truths about issues Leftists cover with lies is common to the point of being routine and taken for granted. A central element of this propaganda is bogus psychoanalysis purporting to show that to stand for freedom and love America is a clear sign of derangement, while believing that men can become women and that socialism is a viable political system are healthy indications of sanity. In that atmosphere, it’s astounding that this academic study was published at all. But it was, and it shows the truth: Leftism is driving people nuts. Literally.

The Left has been weaponizing psychology against patriots for decades. As far back as 1964, a magazine that called itself Fact but was actually unacquainted with anything deserving of the name published a cover story entitled “1,189 Psychiatrists Say Goldwater is Psychologically Unfit To Be President!” Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater sued for libel and won, as none of the psychiatrists involved in the article had ever actually met him; they were all diagnosing him from a distance based on their political proclivities. This new study of the psychology of Leftism, however, is nothing like such political manipulation and hackery; it’s a genuine examination of the effect that Leftism has on a healthy mind.

The New York Post reported Thursday that “Left-wing extremism is linked to toxic, psychopathic tendencies and narcissism, according to a new study published to the peer-reviewed journal Current Psychology.” Anyone on the Right could have told you that after even the most cursory contact with Leftists, but its confirmation in an academic study is a major surprise. The study’s authors state: “Based on existing research, we expected individuals with higher levels of left-wing authoritarianism to also report higher levels of narcissism.” Of course. What else is it but narcissism to think that one is sufficiently knowledgeable and wise to dictate to others how they live, and control their choices so that they do not stray beyond what the Leftist authoritarians consider to be acceptable bounds?

Study authors Ann Krispenz and Alex Bertrams call this Leftist narcissism the “dark-ego-vehicle principle” and explain: “According to this principle, individuals with dark personalities — such as high narcissistic and psychopathic traits — are attracted to certain forms of political and social activism which they can use as a vehicle to satisfy their own ego-focused needs instead of actually aiming at social justice and equality.” What? You mean Leftists aren’t really interested in social justice and equality at all, but simply use such rhetoric to fool the uninformed, while actually pursuing their own “ego-focused needs”? Of course. Any examination of the Soviet Union or any other Marxist state, with its wealthy elites proclaiming themselves the vanguard of the proletariat and living high on the backs of the poor while proclaiming themselves their saviors from economic injustice, makes that abundantly clear.

The study adds that “certain forms of activism might provide them with opportunities for positive self-presentation and displays of moral superiority, to gain social status, to dominate others, and to engage in social conflicts and aggression to satisfy their need for thrill seeking.” Right, that’s an academic way to say that Leftists love to engage in hypocritical virtue-signaling in order to manipulate others.

And the hypocrisy is indeed heavy: “Social justice is often used as a guise for these activists to behave unhinged, the research noted.” What’s more, a Leftist activist “might declare anyone to be ‘old fashioned’ who is opposing their own ‘progressive values,’ strive to suppress free speech to regulate the expression of right-wing beliefs in educational institutions, and even endorse the use of violence to reach their own political goals.” Of course. Because they think they know better, and must impose their superior knowledge upon the racist, redneck, right-wing yahoos who have the temerity to resist their wisdom and prefer their own stupidity.

This study doesn’t tell patriots anything they didn’t know already, but it is remarkable for its singularity, and for the very fact that it exists, and was able to be published in today’s academic environment. It could conceivably even represent a crack in the edifice, and evidence that the kneejerk Leftism that dominates American academia is finally beginning to recede. But for that, we’ll have to see how many years it will be before a similar study is published.


EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The Great American Electric School Bus Boondoggle

Washington, D.C. could use another fiscal hawk like the late Sen. William Proxmire of Wisconsin.

During his Senate career from 1957 to 1988, Proxmire instituted a regular Golden Fleece Award, with which he mocked “the biggest, most ridiculous or most ironic example of government spending.”

Among his infamous recipients was the Department of Justice, receiving the award for conducting a study on why prisoners desire to escape.

Another honoree was the U.S. Postal Service, spending $4 million on an ad campaign urging Americans to write more letters.

In today’s government borrow-and-spend climate, Proxmire would find an embarrassment of riches for his satirical accolades. Here’s one that would surely join the ranks:

In the hardy fishing, timber, and tourism town of Wrangell, Alaska, the school district had the idea to apply for a federal grant for a new electric school bus. With the Environmental Protection Agency distributing nearly $1 billion in these electric school bus grants last year, it was raining money.

In October, the Biden Administration awarded $395,000 to Wrangell for the purchase of the electric bus, intended to expedite the transition to zero-emission vehicles and foster “cleaner air in schools and neighboring communities.

Here’s the rub: Most students in this Alaska town can walk to school or catch a ride with an older sibling or parent who works at the school. Wrangell, with its 2,100 souls and only about 25 miles of road, has a school system serving 263 students and two school buses. And there are no neighboring communities in Wrangell, unless you get on a ferry or a plane.

As for the clean air aspect, Wrangell boasts some of the cleanest air in America. It’s situated in the middle of the nation’s largest national forest, the Tongass, which is the size of Virginia yet has a population of only 70,000 across its numerous islands and archipelagos. Between the millions of carbon-capturing trees and millions of acres of carbon-absorbing ocean, Wrangell is in a rainforest that is already on hydro power. It’s not belching much of anything into the air, which is swept clean by ocean breezes.

But somehow Wrangell, in spite of its voters’ overwhelming preference for President Donald Trump in 2016 and 2020, won a grant from the Biden Administration.

Its success was due to the fact that more northern communities in Alaska can’t use electric buses, as their batteries just don’t last in the cold winters, and the last thing communities need is to have a bus full of children break down in sub-zero blizzards. For most of Alaska, electric vehicles don’t make sense.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski was euphoric. After all, Wrangell is where her father, former Sen. Frank Murkowski, and his wife, Nancy, live. She brought home the bacon.

“Congratulations to the Wrangell School District for being a recipient of the EPA’s Clean School Bus Program, established by the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. Wrangell’s new electric school bus will enhance the district’s ability to operate efficient and safe bus routes. I am thrilled to witness Alaskan communities reaping the benefits of my bipartisan infrastructure law,” she said in a statement.

The projected cost of the new electric bus is $375,000, with an additional $20,000 designated for a charging station.

Thus, the nearly $400,000 to transport even half of those 263 students pencils out to $1,500 per student. That $400,000 amounts to 8% of the district’s annual $5 million operating budget.

This alone would qualify it for Proximire’s Golden Fleece Award, although “Golden Fleet” would also be appropriate.

But then, an unexpected hurdle arose: The EPA grant stipulates that the bus company must dispose of one of its diesel-fueled buses. Not a mere sale or decommissioning of the bus, but complete destruction was required.

Taylor Transportation, the company that has the bus contract in Wrangell, questioned the wisdom of destroying a perfectly functional school bus from its fleet.

With the clock ticking, the district approached the EPA with a proposal: Could Wrangell purchase a bus in another jurisdiction, destroy it, present evidence of its destruction to the federal agency, and subsequently qualify for the grant for the new electric bus?

The EPA saw no apparent obstacles to this unconventional workaround.

For the past few weeks, Wrangell scoured other states for a bus that fit EPA’s criteria, which includes that the bus must have served as a functional student transporter for the last two years.

In other words, the bus Wrangell buys and destroys cannot be the dilapidated remnants of a Burning Man excursion.

In addition, not just any method of destruction will suffice. The EPA has regulations governing the disabling of a diesel school bus—no cliffs can be involved, for instance.

Sen. Proxmire would revel in the circus that is this wasteful endeavor.

Within the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, bizarre trinkets like this abound for every community across America, enough to keep Golden Fleece Awards going for years.

Regardless of party, we need more fiscal hawks like Proxmires and fewer spendthrift Murkowskis in the Senate.

We need senators who will put their foot down on wasteful spending, not put their foot on the gas for borrowing against the futures of our children.

The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not reflect the official position of the Daily Caller News Foundation.



Suzanne Downing is publisher of Must Read Alaska.


STAR PARKER: The Do-Nothing Democrats Want To Pay You To Not Work

DAVID BLACKMON: The Supreme Court Just Voted Unanimously To Rein In Biden’s EPA

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

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact

Does ‘Net Zero’ make sense?

Do the maths. The figures don’t add up.

A lot of people are worried about climate change and global warming. Who can blame them? We are constantly told that global climate catastrophe is only a few years away or that “time has quite literally run out” as then Prince Charles did at COP26 in 2021. “Our world is burning” warnings by prominent leaders such as UN Secretary General Guterres are giving high school students a new kind of mental health trauma – eco-anxiety.

Politicians have responded by promising to stop climate change by reducing CO2 and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Their goal is to cap global warming at a 1.5°C increase over temperatures in pre-industrial times (1850-1900).

Spoiler alert! They are going to fail.

Why? There are two powerful reasons. (1) CO2 has not been the primary driver of temperature through time. (2) Natural forces such as Milankovitch Cycles have much more influence than the contribution of CO2. The solar forcing above 65º N latitude, the usual measure of the Milankovitch influence, can swing back and forth by as much as 100 W/m2 (see here and graph a here). This is significantly more than a 3 W/m2 increase that would result from doubling today’s CO2 level of 420 ppmwhich would “have an inconsequential effect on global temperature.”

Thinking that we can stop climate change which has been going on for millions of years is like thinking that we can stop the movement of tectonic plates. And, by the way, these also contribute to climate change.

Net Zero is the proposed solution. Here’s how the United Nations explains the concept:

Put simply, Net Zero means cutting greenhouse gas emissions to as close to zero as possible, with any remaining emissions re-absorbed from the atmosphere, by oceans and forests for instance …

To keep global warming to no more than 1.5°C – as called for in the Paris Agreement – emissions need to be reduced by 45% by 2030 and reach Net Zero by 2050.

Transitioning to a net-zero world is one of the greatest challenges humankind has faced. It calls for nothing less than a complete transformation of how we produce, consume, and move about. The energy sector is the source of around three-quarters of greenhouse gas emissions today and holds the key to averting the worst effects of climate change. Replacing polluting coal, gas and oil-fired power with energy from renewable sources, such as wind or solar, would dramatically reduce carbon emissions.

But upon close inspection, Net Zero makes little sense.

Let’s look at the second largest emitter of GHGs, the USA, and one of the smallest, the City of Toronto, Canada where I live.

Net Zero for the United States

US Senator for Louisiana John Kennedy recently questioned Department of Energy Deputy Secretary David Turk about Net Zero. The exchange is highly revealing. Astonishingly, Mr Turk was unprepared for basic questions and kept talking about “orders of magnitude” and “getting our act together”. Senator Kennedy said that some of Mr Turk’s colleagues had mentioned US$50 trillion as the cost of fighting climate change.

With a bit of math and science, you can figure out for yourself whether American taxpayers are going to get bang for their bucks. Sharpen your pencil. It’s not hard.

There are three sources of temperature data: ground stations, weather balloons, and satellites.

Satellite data tell us that our atmosphere is warming at 0.13 ℃ / decade or 0.013 ℃ / year. The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) stated, “For the decade 2011–2020, the increase in global surface temperature since 1850–1900 is assessed to be 1.09 [0.95 to 1.20] °C” (p. 41 here). Therefore, the IPCC range of warming is 0.0056 ℃ / year to 0.011 ℃ / year.

Let’s take the high end of the warming — 0.01 ℃ / year. Warming is due to natural causes and to GHGs; from 1850 to 2020 natural causes and GHGs have accounted for about 58% and 42% of warming respectively (footnote 4 here); let’s assume it’s 50/50. The US produces 13% of global GHGs. The human contribution to global warming will decrease every year until we hit Net Zero; the correction factor for that is ½. Lastly, there are only 27 years to go until 2050, the date for global Net Zero.

Multiply those numbers and you’ll get 0.009 ℃ (.01 x 0.5 x 0.13 x 0.5 x 27 ≃0.009). That’s the number that Senator Kennedy was asking for. In other words, American taxpayers will spend $50 trillion (about $150,000 per person) to avoid 0.009 ℃ of warming.

A high school student could tell you that this makes no sense.

When the New York State Legislature became the first US state to ban gas stoves and furnaces in most new buildings to reduce global warming, were its members aware of these facts?

And bear in mind that China, the world’s largest contributor to GHGs, could make America’s Net Zero target irrelevant. Premier Xi Jinping has promised that China will reach Net Zero by 2060. Given the unpredictability of China’s politics and economy, that seems impossibly ambitious. The Climate Action Tracker rates China’s Net Zero efforts as “highly insufficient”. It doesn’t have a great track record. While the US reduced its share of global GHG emissions from 2005 to 2019 from 17.3% to 12.5%, China’s share rose from 18.7% to 26.4%.

Toronto’s Net Zero

In 2019, City of Toronto Council voted unanimously to declare a climate emergency and committed to achieving Net Zero by 2040, one of the most ambitious Net Zero targets in North America. A news release stated:

Toronto is joining more than 800 cities around the world in acknowledging the scale of the climate crisis including Amsterdam, Auckland, Barcelona, Edmonton, London, Los Angeles, Montréal, New York City, Ottawa, Paris, San Francisco, Sydney and Vancouver.

As of today, 2,335 jurisdictions around the world have declared a climate emergency. Could the governments of so many big cities spanning the globe all be wrong? Yes, it is possible, especially if their politicians didn’t ask probing questions like Senator Kennedy did. Groupthink can lead to bad decisions.

To illustrate how sweeping this policy is, Toronto will use “a climate lens that evaluates and considers the climate impacts of all major City of Toronto decisions, including financial decisions” (see para 6.e here). This means in effect that reducing GHGs will outweigh all other criteria and considerations during the budget preparation process.

In December 2021, Toronto City Council adopted the ambitious TransformTO Net Zero Strategy cementing its commitment to GHG reduction. An April 2023 TransformTO update stated, “The Carbon Accountability Report also establishes a science-based corporate policy on offset credits aligned with Net Zero governance best practices, which will continue Toronto’s leadership in this rapidly developing space.”

Got that? Let’s take a closer look at this so-called “science-based” leadership.

Since Canada emits 1.5% of global GHG emissions, and Toronto has approximately 7.6% of Canada’s total population, we know that Toronto emits about 0.11% of global GHG emissions (.015 x .076 = .0011). Do the math as described above, and you’ll see that Toronto’s GHG emissions contribute about 0.000006 ℃ / year to global warming (.01 x .5 x .0011 ≃ 0.000006).

Toronto’s Net Zero Cost

Let’s now look at how much TransformTO Net Zero costs and bring it all together. For some perspective, Toronto’s 2023 operating budget is C$16.16 billion, and its capital budget is C$49.26 billion. TransformTO 2022 Annual Report: Laying the Foundation for Net Zero states: “the total investment required by the entire community, that is, the City corporation, the business community, other levels of government, and individual residents, is $145 billion.” Some of that will be spent on “climate resilience” measures that will not reduce GHGs.

Think about this for a minute. C$145 billion will be spent to avoid 0.00005 ℃ of global warming (0.000006 x 0.5 x 17 ≃ 0.00005).

The impact to Earth’s climate will be negligible, but the cost to Toronto and other levels of government will be huge, because money spent on Net Zero is money that could have been spent solving real problems related to health care, homelessness (declared an emergency in Toronto), education, etc.

This is not to say that we should never pursue green energy solutions. For example, the Toronto Transit Commission studied the deployment of e-buses. In comparison to a diesel fleet, the study concluded, “In 2040, when the capital costs and operating savings have normalized, the annual savings is projected to be $253.6 million.”

These significant savings would be in addition to reduced noise and cleaner air. Who could argue with that?

It’s likely, however, that the anticipated benefits of a successful deployment of an e-bus fleet will be conflated with the GHG reduction that will come from phasing out a diesel fleet, but those are two different things. The former is beneficial and consequential whereas the latter is not. Perhaps astonishingly, according to the CO2 Coalition, “People should be celebrating, not demonizing, modern increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). We cannot overstate the importance of the gas. Without it, life doesn’t exist.”

Politicians will try to present themselves as having accomplished something important with the reduction of GHGs, especially CO2, but they are setting themselves up for failure. The green energy sector will make megabucks, but not the rest of us. As they say, “Follow the money.”

We need to look after our environment and respond to climate change in more sensible ways, keeping in mind that CO2 is not a pollutant and is not involved in the production of smog.

Does your country, state, or city have a Net Zero program? If so, do the math and write to your elected representative with your concerns. Those numbers will communicate a powerful story.


Fabiano Micoli

Fabiano Micoli first learned about A.P. Coleman’s contribution to climate science during a bicycle ride that took him through the Don Valley Brickworks. Fabiano has a B.Eng. (mechanical), MBA, and B.Ed…. More by Fabiano Micoli


STUDY: Only 12% of Atmospheric CO2 Added Since 1750 Is Man-Made, ‘Too low to be the cause of global warming’

DAVID BLACKMON: The Supreme Court Just Voted Unanimously To Rein In Biden’s EPA

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

Yes, climate change is making people depressed and angry – but not for the reasons you might think

Scaring readers out of their wits is not part of the job description of the American Geophysical Union.

The American Geophysical Union (AGU), founded in 1919, is possibly the world’s premier association of earth scientists, and numbers among its members many leading climate experts. I had the privilege of attending its annual Fall Meeting last December, held in Chicago, and I have never seen such a large concentration of scientific expertise in one place before.

The AGU publishes a science-newsmagazine called EOS, which summarizes technical and political developments of interest to the 65,000 or so members of the organization. I mention “political” because of the many scholarly publications I receive, EOS seems to be one of the most “woke.”

A good case in point is the article in the May 2023 issue of EOS with the title “The Mental Toll of Climate Change.” A notice at the head of the article reads, “Content Warning: This article discusses suicide and potential risk factors of suicide.” The author, Katherine Kornei, a science writer, interviewed mental-health providers and an “environmental psychologist” to explore the stresses brought on by both acute weather events (such as floods, tornadoes, and wildfires) and chronic issues (such as droughts and heat waves). And all these things are directly linked by the author to climate change. The few hard-science citations in the article referred to reports and papers that reinforce the notion that basically, anything that happens weather-wise that we don’t like is due to climate change.

Lest you think that an exaggeration, consider the first such citation. “In July 2018, an unprecedented heat wave in Japan killed more than a thousand people; researchers later showed that the event could not have happened without climate change.” This is a bold assertion, so I looked up the paper in question. It was authored by several meteorological researchers in Japan, who used statistical distributions based on a climate model which they admit (in another paper, which I had to track down) ignores atmosphere-ocean interactions and is useful only for modelling periods of up to a few years.

But to a science writer, their paper title (“The July 2018 High Temperature Event in Japan Could Not Have Happened without Human-Induced Global Warming“) was too tempting to resist. Here are a bunch of credentialed scientists saying that this deadly heat wave was the direct result of human activity. Only when one digs down into the details, as I did, does one find that the model they use leaves out essential features. Pretending the atmosphere doesn’t interact with the ocean may simplify a model, but it ignores well-known phenomena that can completely transform a model’s behaviour. And as Steven Koonin pointed out in a book I mentioned recently (Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters), to say anything meaningful about climate means that you need to take at least 30-year averages of data. A program that can only look at five years’ worth of data is useless for predicting climate events, although I’m sure it has enough free parameters to allow the researchers to obtain the results they wanted, namely, that the heat wave couldn’t have happened without climate change.

The rest of Kornei’s mental-health piece describes how “angry, baffled, and horrified” many people are when they hear that (a) climate change is soon going to bring civilization to a horrible end as we bake, freeze, drown, and/or blow away, and (b) there’s nothing we can do about it, or if we do we’ll have to go back to subsistence farming with mules and give up electricity and driving.

Well, if I really believed both of those statements, I’d be angry, baffled, and horrified too. Unfortunately, as Koonin points out in his book, climate scientists have joined forces with government leaders, commercial interests, and science journalists to paint this dismal picture, which Koonin, as an insider, says is highly distorted, to say the least.

Tackling the worst problem first, there is no logical way that any statistical model, even a good one (which the Japanese model is not) can “prove” a given weather event would not have happened without global warming. The only way you can do that is to have two identical Earths going exactly the same way till about 1800 AD and then let one exploit fossil fuels and keep the other one from doing so, and see what differences arise in the weather patterns. This experiment is impossible to do, and while essentially perfect climate and weather models could simulate such a thing, we are probably decades away from having such models, if indeed they can ever be made.

This leads to the second and more serious problem, which is that experts have irresponsibly given in to the temptation to go with the politically favourable climate-catastrophe narrative in flagrant violation of the principle of not venturing beyond your data. The Japanese report is a case in point, but there are hundreds of similar publications from all over the world that join the doom-crying chorus.

The members of the AGU who have encouraged this sort of thing bear the most responsibility for average citizens who are depressed because of climate change. Causing the problem, and then hiring a science writer to write about the problem, is the height of something—hypocrisy, irony, stupidity, take your choice.

The AGU should first clean up its own act by not exaggerating and fabricating claims of certain disaster that awaits us unless we voluntarily throw ourselves back to the Stone Age by giving up industrialized energy use. If as much effort was expended on adapting and mitigating whatever climate-change effects come our way, as there is now on showing how bad it’s going to be and developing punitive policies that thwart human flourishing, we’d be a lot better off.

And the AGU wouldn’t have to run articles on how depressed people are about the climate-change crisis that the AGU has played a large role in creating.

This article has been republished from the author’s blog, Engineering Ethics.


Karl D. Stephan

Karl D. Stephan received the B. S. in Engineering from the California Institute of Technology in 1976. Following a year of graduate study at Cornell, he received the Master of Engineering degree in 1977… More by Karl D. Stephan

RELATED ARTICLE: And the inaugural Montgolfier Award for Sustained Stratospheric Virtue Signaling goes to…

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

Obama-Linked GLSEN Organization Was Handing Out ‘Fisting Kits’ to Children at School Conference

Now Target Is Partnering with GLSEN in Promoting Gender Transition in Schools.

This is what we are up against. The more egregious the actions of left-wing groups or organizations, the higher they climb in the most influential echelons of society. Even when caught, they hide behind their political allies and return a more deadly and potent force. So while it did not surprise me to learn that the organization who introduced “fist f*cking” to children back in 2009 under President Obama is still active in the twisted corruption of children and behind the Target trans fiasco.

Back in 2009 then President Obama appointed Kevin Jennings, founder of GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, Straight Education Network) — which sponsored a school conference that produced the notorious “Fistgate” scandal (in which young teens were guided on how to perform dangerous homosexual perversions including “fisting”) — to head up “Safe Schools” efforts at the Department of Education.

Yes this goes back to Obama. This didn’t just happen. It was made to happen. It is by design.

Obama-Linked GLSEN Organization Was Handing Out ‘Fisting Kits’ to Children at Public Conference – Now Target Is Partnering with GLSEN in Promoting Gender Transition in Schools

By Jim Hoft, TPG, May. 27, 2023:

Retail giant Target has partnered with GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network), a group that advocates policies that keep parents unaware of their child’s in-school gender transition, providing sexually explicit books to schools, and pushing gender ideology throughout public school curricula.

According to the report, GLSEN is a radical education group leading efforts to create ‘inclusive and anti-racist environments’ for LGBTQIA+ students.

“GLSEN believes that every student has the right to a safe, supportive, and LGBTQ-inclusive K-12 education. We are a national network of educators, students, and local GLSEN Chapters working to make this right a reality,” the website reads.

Target Corporation has confirmed its collaboration with GLSEN and expressed pride in their decade-long partnership. The company has been making annual donations to GLSEN, emphasizing its support for the organization’s mission.

In March 2000 the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) organization of Massachusetts held its 10 Year Anniversary GLSEN/Boston conference at Tufts University. This conference was fully supported by the Massachusetts Department of Education, the Safe Schools Program, the Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, and some of the presenters even received federal money. During the 2000 conference, workshop leaders led a “youth only, ages 14-21” session that offered lessons in “fisting” a dangerous sexual practice. During the same workshop an activist asked 14 year-old students, “Spit or swallow?… Is it rude?” The unbelievable audio clip is posted here. Barack Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar” Kevin Jennings is the founder of GLSEN. He was paid $273,573.96 as its executive director in 2007. Jennings was the keynote speaker at the 2000 GLSEN conference.

Read more.


RELATED VIDEO: The Left Is Trying To Keep It Quiet. Everywhere we look we are told that transition is good for our children. Our Exclusive Film DESTROYS Their Lie.


NY law graduate uses graduation speech to claim laws are ‘white supremacy’ that ‘oppress and suppress people’ and to attack ‘fascist’ police and military

Target Shares Plummet Following Trans Push To Children, Posts 9 Billion Loss

It All Started with Obama: Barack’s Fist-F**king “Safe Schools Czar” Pushed Books that Encouraged Children to Meet Adults at Gay Bars for Sex

Ascension of Evil: Obama’s Fist F**king “Safe School Czar” Kevin Jennings

OBAMA APPOINTEE KEVIN JENNINGS: FISTING AND “[F–k] ‘em” to the “Religious Right”


EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Ivermectin for Cancer?

Mentioned below is information sent to me from an associate with a medical intelligence background. This specialist actually worked in the field of intelligence where nations employ medical techniques and science as part of their weaponry. Said weaponry can be used either for good, or evil. Below is the use of Ivermectin for good, but deliberately kept somewhat hidden from the general public. Hidden, that is, until Covid where Ivermectin began to surface as a strong and effective intervention repealing the ravages of Covid, which, itself, was a bio-weapon released by China.

I pray you find the information of value.


Dr. Pierre Kory: Why Big Pharma Was Threatened By Ivermectin

Dr. Pierre Kory Explores the Real Reason Behind the War on Ivermectin


Ivermectin, a potential anticancer drug derived from an antiparasitic drug

The Cancers For Which Ivermectin Has Been Demonstrated to be Effective

Ivermectin has New Application in Inhibiting Colorectal Cancer Cell …

Outcome of Ivermectin in Cancer Treatment: An Experience in … – PubMed

©2023. Lyle J. Rapacki, Ph.D. All rights reserved.