Apple’s “100% renewable” lie

A few years ago tech giant Apple announced that it was using 100% renewable sources of energy such as solar and wind for many of its power needs, including its data centers, and that 87% of its global operations were run on “renewables.”

Now Apple says it that it is “globally powered by 100 percent renewable energy.”

As part of its commitment to combat climate change and create a healthier environment, Apple today announced its global facilities are powered with 100 percent clean energy. This achievement includes retail stores, offices, data centers and co-located facilities in 43 countries—including the United States, the United Kingdom, China and India.

It’s not true. As I explained in a 2016 Forbes column, Apple is cooking its energy books to sell us on the lie that it runs on solar and wind.

Apple, like nearly every other international technology company in the world, gets the overwhelming percentage of its power from cheap, plentiful, reliable coal and almost none from expensive, unreliable solar and wind.

Like any other large tech company, Apple requires a lot of energy for its operations–and this energy needs to be cheap and reliable. But today’s politically correct sources of energy, above all solar and wind, are neither reliable nor affordable. To call them “renewables” is a misnomer, because “renewables” advocates generally refuse to support the only cost-effective “renewable” option, large-scale hydroelectric power: building a dam, they say, is not sufficiently “green.” Solar and wind should be called “unreliables” because the intermittent nature of sunlight and wind have made them useless as scalable, reliable sources of energy that can meaningfully substitute for hydro, nuclear, let alone fossil fuel power. These unreliables require subsidies and government mandates to exist.

So how can Apple claim to be between 87-100% renewable yet actually be a coal-powered company?

By committing two types of energy accounting sleight-of-hand:

  1. Paying off other companies and consumers to give Apple “green credits” for its coal electricity usage.
  2. Concealing that the vast majority of computer energy use comes from coal-powered manufacturing and the coal-powered Internet.

You can read the whole thing here.

Unfortunately, Apple isn’t the only company dishonestly portraying itself as “100% renewable.” Everyone from Intel to LEGO to Whole Foods to Google is trying to ride the green bandwagon by lying about their energy usage. (One news story describing Apple’s recent announcement had to append this note: “Clarified that Apple, like Google, is not actually 100 percent powered by clean energy, but it uses the term to signal that it buys enough green energy to offset its global power consumption.”)

It is bad enough that these companies are making false claims to build up their image, but they are using their unearned status to promote policies that would deprive others—especially poorer Americans who can’t afford to live in San Francisco mansions—of energy. That is shameful.

Tim Cook and the other “100% renewable” CEOs owe the public—including members of the fossil fuel industry—an apology. They should tell the truth about their energy usage, and thank the men and women who provide the reliable energy that allows them to flourish.


Thank you for presenting in Ferndale, WA on March 29th at the Silver Reef. I enjoyed your balanced view of the role of energy and how to frame the conversation in a positive way. Unfortunately, the discussion is biased, sloppy, and anti-human just as you described. Framing the issue with the goal of human flourishing versus unchanged nature is the way to have a productive conversation.

Thanks for your perspective, it’s refreshing. -Jason J.

1. Change a mind by sharing my Google talk. Do you have someone you know who needs to learn pro-human thinking about energy issues? A great place to start is by sharing my talk at Google, which is designed to persuade even those immersed in the biased, sloppy, and anti-human energy thinking in our culture. Click the button below and I’ll send you the link to the talk.

Access Google Talk

2. Empower a friend by inviting them to this newsletter. If you know someone who wants to increase their clarity and influence on energy issues, click the button below to invite them to this newsletter.

Invite to Newsletter

3. Bring me to speak at your next event. If you have an upcoming board meeting, employee town hall, or association meeting, I have some new and updated speeches about the moral case for fossil fuels, winning hearts and minds, and communications strategy in the new political climate. If you’d like to consider me for your event, click the button below and I’ll send you the info.

Send Speaking Engagement Details

4. Recommend me for a high-level speaking event (and get an I Love Fossil Fuels t-shirt). One way to influence a high-level audience is to have me speak to them. If you are connected to any high-level events at companies, associations, and conferences, your recommendation could make a huge difference. A simple way to do this is to send an email to your event contact, CC’ing me, with: 1. That you’ve seen me speak. 2. Why you liked it. 3. Why I might be a good fit for their event. For every introduction you make I’ll send you an “I Love Fossil Fuels” t-shirt or a signed copy of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels.

Overcoming Bias in Energy Conversations

Last week I gave a 5-hour workshop on How to Have Constructive Conversations about Energy. Here’s a clip where I discuss the biased thinking behind opposition to fossil fuels–and a simple but deeply powerful technique for framing a conversation to minimize bias.

Please share the video. And if you’re interested in having me host a Constructive Conversation Workshop or speak on some other topic click the below link.

Send Speaking Engagement Details

Californians Not So Keen on Marijuana Industry

The Southern California News Group and other Digital First newspapers have compiled a database tracking citizens’ acceptance of the marijuana industry voted into existence by Proposition 64 in 2016 and implemented as of January 1, 2018. Prop 64 made it legal to possess up to an ounce of marijuana and to grow it at home, but the law also gives California cities and counties the right to restrict or ban pot businesses within their boundaries.

So far, fewer than one-third of the state’s 482 cities and only 18 of its counties allow any kind of marijuana business to operate within their borders.

The database scores each jurisdiction according to how lenient they are in allowing pot commerce. To get above 96 points, jurisdictions must allow licenses for medical and recreational marijuana sales, cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, and testing. To get 100 points they must also allow marijuana lounges or festivals, meaning use in public, which nearly all recreational states ban.

More than five dozen cities score zero on the scale, banning all pot businesses, not allowing residents to grow outdoors for personal use, and requiring residents to obtain a permit to grow indoors for personal use.

The database can be accessed from this article. Read “Database of Marijuana Rules from Every City and County in California Shows Slow Acceptance of Prop. 64” here.

RELATED ARTICLE: Opioids Kill: Here’s How an Overdose Shuts Down Your Body – Science News

Elections Have Consequences for the 2020 Census

By Jay O’ Callaghan

As former President Obama once told a group of House Republicans after his election, “Elections have consequences… and at the end of the day, I won. So, I think on that one I trump you.” That mainly describes the situation as the Census Bureau prepares the final list of questions for the 2020 census which must be sent to Congress for its approval.

The result has been the elimination of the Obama Census Bureau’s recommendations for two new complicated artificial questions for racial categories based on geography – Middle Eastern North African (MENA) and ethnicity – Hispanic-Latino, as well as a complex new sex question for those identifying themselves as LGBT persons.

The Trump administration, even, without a director at the helm of the Bureau, has proposed so far, a simpler more common sense set of questions similar to previous censuses with a few refinements. The Justice Department has proposed only one new major question for the main 2020 census form asking about citizenship. This question was recently approved by Secretary of Commerce Wilbur Ross.

Middle Eastern-North African (MENA) Region

The dilemma faced by those who are trying to improve what they believe is an Hispanic undercount (in the questions used for the last forty years) is described by Jomaira Salas Pujols, a sociology Ph.D. student at Rutgers University and a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program fellow recently in the Huffington Post.

Since 1970 “the U.S. Census Bureau has had two questions about race and ethnicity on the main form which is filled out by everyone. The two-question format first asks respondents to identify if they are “Hispanic or Latino,” and then prompts them to select their race: “American Indian and Alaska Native,” “Asian,” “Black or African American,” “Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander,” “White,” or “some other race.”

Pujols points out that “many scholars and other experts had hoped that in the 2020 census, the bureau would change the format to one question by eliminating the ethnicity category and making “Hispanic/Latino” a new racial category. The advantage of this change, experts argued, would be to decrease the number of Latinos who select “some other race,” therefore capturing more accurate data about Latinos as a group.”

Pujols concedes that “there are good reasons to keep the two-part format, especially if Latinos like my father (who is Black and Latino) can be convinced to answer the question in a way that rejects internalized anti-blackness, and reflects their experiences as black Latinos. Latino is not a race, it is an ethnicity. Ethnicity describes a person’s culture, language, heritage and geography. Race, on the other hand, is about how others see us.”

In response to the concerns of scholars like Pujols, the Bureau will ask those who chose the “Black” racial category on their census forms to submit more information about their origins in 2020. They will be asked to add if they are also African-American, Nigerian, Ethiopian, etc. According to NPR, “the Census Bureau has reportedly attempting to respond to calls for more detailed disaggregated data for our diverse American experiences”.

The new suggested format also links specific origins under other race choices. For example, under the “White” choice, they can choose sample ancestries such as German, Irish, English, Italian, Lebanese and Egyptian. This will permit better choices for those from Middle Eastern countries. Respondents will also be allowed to mark one or more choices.

Samer Khalaf, president of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, expressed concern that the MENA racial category was not adopted by the Bureau because it might reduce government funding as well as the political power of Arab Americans. The ancestry question will still be asked on the American Community Survey, which will provide similar data on Arab Americans as it has in the past. As indicated above, the “White” category will be changed to provide data on Americans from Middle Eastern countries.

“For example, the social service organisation is providing social care to the Arab-American community and [finds] it hard to find funding. [It has] no way of giving that government entity how many Arab Americans they will be servicing.” He is also pointed out that “every ten years, each state divides up which areas congressmen are going to represent. They look at racial numbers and ethnic numbers. By stating that Arabs are white and not distinct on their own, this causes great disparities in statistics”

Even Khalad admits that there was a split with some Arab Americans considering themselves white while others do not. “There is also the big question of whether we are an ethnicity or a race. I don’t consider myself from the white race even though my skin tone is light,” he said. “There is a consolation prize in that we can identify ourselves as ‘Egyptian’ or ‘Lebanese’ but this is still not going to be very accurate.” Also, some Arab Americans said they were worried about the MENA category because it could help the government surveil their community.

A recent controversy about an Asian Data Disaggregation bill in Massachusetts raises questions about whether Asian-Americans support dividing Americans into ethnic subgroups. The bill requires all state agencies and entities created by the state identify Asian-Americans, and only Asian-Americans, based on their national origin or ancestry.

The Joint Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight voted on Feb. 7 to postpone consideration of the bill and instead “establish a special commission to study the feasibility and impact of directing state agencies to collect disaggregated demographic data for all ethnic and racial groups, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau. The commission would submit its recommendations by December 31.”

George Shen, a naturalized American citizen from China and an associate partner at IBM in Cambridge, opposes the commission pointing out in an article in The Patriot-Ledger that “the state government’s attempt to divide ethnic groups based on national origin is counterproductive and even detrimental to the fight against deep-rooted racism. Our country has a shameful history of discrimination and xenophobia, from the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 to the Japanese American internment during World War II, and even today, the hidden Asian quota in many top American colleges and universities which reminds us of the Jewish quota in 1920s.”

Shen adds that “it’s not surprising that since the bill was introduced, racial tensions, anxieties, angers and resentments have been running high in many communities. There were half a dozen protests and demonstrations held in the last six months by concerned constituents and an overwhelming number of emails and calls to their representatives. Quite contrary to the original goals … the bill created a deep division and animosities between different ethnic minority groups.”

He quoted President Theodore Roosevelt’s forgotten warning that, “the one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities.”

Shen concluded that “we must stop subdividing and segregating people. With a common set of values, principles, beliefs, and ideals, and a culture which sets us apart from the rest of the world, we shall call ourselves Americans and focus on our shared destiny and shared citizenship. The Legislature must say no to the rise of identity politics, tribalism, favoritism based on race and ethnicity, to ‘a tangle of squabbling nationalities’ and to the divisive and harmful ethnic profiling based on national origin once and for all.”


Jay O’Callaghan has worked extensively with issues involving the U.S. Census Bureau including serving as a professional staff member for the House Government Reform Census Subcommittee, as a senior legislative analyst for the Florida House of Representatives Redistricting Committee and for two U.S. House members. He is also a contributor to SFPPR News & Analysis, of the Conservative-Online-Journalism center at the Washington-based Selous Foundation for Public Policy Research.

Related Articles

The Emerging Arab Vote in Congressional Districts

Will Trump Save the 2020 Census?

Trump Lets You Vote on Controversial 2020 Census C…

Were Muslim Voters Behind Sanders’ Surprising Upse…

Is Obama’s Census Bureau Balkanizing America…

What are fossil fuels?

The hydrocarbon industry has developed a highly resource efficient process to find, extract and harness a naturally concentrated, plentiful and stored source of energy. It’s the only industry that has come up with a process that is cheap, plentiful and reliable. To understand why that is, it’s important to understand what fossil fuels are and how to explain it to someone who doesn’t work in the fossil fuel energy.

Fossil fuels 101

Fossil fuels are created by the decomposition of living organisms over millions of years. Let’s take the example of coal. The organic matter decomposes and combined with time, heat, and pressure, becomes more and more dense, getting buried under several layers of earth and eventually forming coal.

Fossil fuels are also referred to as hydrocarbons because they are very rich in molecules made of hydrogen and carbon atom combinations. When these atoms bond together, they have some remarkable properties.

One is that they are able store a lot of energy in a very small amount of space that is released when burned. This is what allows hydrocarbons to power engines, such as an internal combustion engine or a steam engine.

When you burn fossil fuels, you introduce oxygen into the system, leading the carbon atoms to bond with oxygen and become carbon dioxide, while the hydrogen atoms bond with oxygen to become dihydrogen oxide—that is, water. The energy formerly holding them together is released in the form of heat, which creates pressure that can move the engine. That’s basically how all the different engines in modern life work. It’s a very efficient way of generating energy.

Just how plentiful are fossil fuels?

It’s important to note that there is an enormous amount of hydrocarbon in the earth. But even though there is a huge amount of this material, if we don’t know how to get it or don’t know how to use it, it’s useless. For most of history, we haven’t been able to do either. However, today, thanks to the ingenuity of the fossil fuel industry, we’re able to find and extract those hydrocarbons and use them more efficiently.

Exactly how much is there? What we often discuss is what are called reserves, which is the amount we have in inventory. The thing to realize is that the reserves are usually a very small fraction of the overall in-place amount or deposits that actually exist in the earth.

If you notice, what this graph shows with oil—and the same is true for natural gas—our consumption over time goes up, but our reserves also go up.


That seems impossible unless you realize that the overall deposits are massive; many, many, more times than we have used in the whole history of civilization.

So the key question is not how much deposit is there; it’s whether we have the ingenuity to turn those deposits into usable energy.

The hydrocarbon industry has answered this question by continuing to improve how we access and use these resources, which has translated into an abundant energy source for billions.

Vitamin O

The hydrocarbon industry produces energy for every kind of use: heating, electricity, but perhaps the most distinctive form of energy it produces that no other industry can replicate, is oil.

Oil is a cheap, plentiful, and reliable form of portable energy. Why is portability important? It has allowed us to create new applications for energy, such as cars, planes, and harvesters, which would not exist if their energy sources were not portable.

For example, a modern harvester that reaps enough wheat for 500,000 loaves of bread a day needs to carry its energy with it. Nothing can match liquid hydrocarbons, in this case in the form of diesel fuel. That’s why over 90% of the world’s transportation comes from liquid hydrocarbons, because in terms of portability, it is the best.

So when people talk about restricting that, particularly oil-based fuels, the conversation should include all of the potential consequences. The hydrocarbon industry produces energy for so many different types of uses.

It is the only industry that can produce cheap, plentiful, and reliable energy that we need to power our machines, amplify our productivity, and provide significant amounts of power on the go. It is the only industry to do so for billions of people throughout the world.

There Is No Solid Evidence of Genetic Basis for Trans Identity

A new study into the genes of those who identify as transgender has picked up decent amount of media attention.

The Times in the United Kingdom hailed what it called a genetic “discovery” with the headline “Science pinpoints DNA behind gender identity.” LGBTQ Nation ran a more inconclusive headline: “Scientists discover DNA that could be responsible for gender identity.”

The Times should have paid more attention to Dr. John Theisen, the lead researcher, who said the genes they identified pointed to a “possibility, not a fact.” He cautioned that his research, still in its early stages, used only a small sample size (30 people) and has yet to be peer reviewed—both reasons for exercising major caution when interpreting the results.

In fact, closer examination of the abstract from the research paper reveals that finding a genetic basis for transgender identity wasn’t even the intended purpose of the study. The purpose was much narrower in scope: to identify genes that might point to a potential biological basis so future research could know where to focus its efforts.

In the conclusion, the researchers say, “We identified genetic variants in 20 genes that may play a role in transgender identity.” Words are important, and the word “may” indicates a possibility, not a fact.

Another much larger study is being conducted to explore whether transgender identity has any biological basis. That study, which includes 10,000 participants, is looking to the genome—a person’s complete set of DNA—for clues about whether transgender identity has a biological basis. The findings are years away, though, and completion of the project depends on securing more funding.

In the meantime, no absolute conclusions can be made about a genetic basis for transgender identity.

Some of the difficulty in fashioning a study to find a biological link to transgender identities arises from the definition of the term “transgender.” Medically speaking, a transgender person is defined as someone who has been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, a condition where a person experiences discomfort or distress arising from a mismatch between their biological sex and internal sense of gender identity.

The problem is that transgender identity is based solely on subjective criteria. There is no objective, robust physical test to prove whether “transgender persons” exist beyond a person strongly insisting that he or she is a transgender person.

It’s difficult to even discern who truly has gender dysphoria. Those who self-identify as “transgender” represent a challenging cross-section of individuals. They may be simple cross-dressers, transvestites, or drag queens, yet they may or may not have gender dysphoria.

Many transgender persons are suffering emotionally, psychologically, or psychiatrically, sometimes due to early childhood trauma or co-existing mental disorders. Studies have shown that nearly 70 percent of people diagnosed with gender dysphoria also suffer from a wide variety of co-existing disorders that often go undiagnosed and untreated.

With no medical proof to help diagnose gender dysphoria, and with most who identify as transgender having other issues that need treatment, one could argue that too many people are being gathered under the blanket term “transgender” and being inappropriately directed toward cross-gender hormone therapies and surgeries.

The original advocates of gender change started a social experiment in the 1960s that continues today. Alfred Kinsey, Dr. Harry Benjamin, and Dr. John Money fell short in providing proof that cross-gender hormone therapies and surgeries provide long-term, effective results for gender disorders. The 50 years of reported suicides and a suicide attempt rate of 40 percent suggest that treatments have failed the gender distressed population.

As a young person, I was correctly diagnosed with gender dysphoria and then approved for hormones and surgery by Dr. Paul Walker, the original author of the “Harry Benjamin International Standards of Care.” The treatment was not effective.

I discovered firsthand that society wasn’t the cause of transgender suicide and suicide attempts. The cause was an unfulfilled expectation that cross-gender hormones and surgery would effectively resolve gender distress.

I remain open to the possibility that a biological predisposition to transgender identities may be found. Whether it is found or not, my hope is that today’s barbaric, mutilating gender-change procedures will be replaced by an effective treatment that eliminates the high rate of suicide ideation and brings long-lasting relief to those with gender dysphoria.


Portrait of Walt Heyer

Walt Heyer is an author and public speaker. Through his website,, and his blog,, Heyer raises public awareness about those who regret gender change and the tragic consequences suffered as a result.

A Note for our Readers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.


EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by Altayb/Getty Images.

EPA Chief Puts Science Back Into Environmental Protection

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt may be just a lawyer, but so far he has done more to bring sound science to the EPA than any scientist ever affiliated with the agency.

And, apparently, he’s just getting started.

Since taking the reins at the EPA and despite not having a full complement of presidential appointees helping him—not to mention the 15,000 agency employees, many of whom fancy themselves as part of the “resistance”—Pruitt has shaken up the EPA’s 47-year-old culture and practice of politically-driven science.

Pruitt’s first move last fall was to reform the agency’s practice of appointing its own university research grantees to its science advisory boards so they would be in position to rubber-stamp agency actions. This practice contravened federal law that requires these boards to be made up of unbiased scientists.

In one example, a 26-member board had 24 EPA grantees who had received more than $200 million in research grants from the agency. These scientists were “reviewing” either their own research or the research of their colleagues. It was pal review, not peer review.

So, Pruitt changed the EPA’s policy. Researchers now must choose whether they want to receive research grants from the EPA or serve on its advisory boards. But they can’t do both.

Pruitt also appointed new members to some of these boards. For the first time in at least 20 years, individuals were appointed who are prominent critics of how the EPA uses science—including the chairmen of the two most important science advisory boards.

Pruitt rightly recognizes these boards are advisory in nature and he is not bound to accept their advice. As such, Pruitt should be commended for wanting to get different points of view from the members of his advisory boards. In contrast, the Obama EPA boards were largely just echo chambers of a single point of view.

Just last week, Pruitt announced another giant leap toward improving how the EPA uses science. Pruitt says he will ban the use of so-called “secret science” from agency rule-makings.

Over the past 20 years, for example, the most costly EPA air quality regulations have been based on scientific data in taxpayer-funded studies that Harvard and Brigham Young University researchers have literally kept secret for decades.

In 1994, an EPA external science advisory board known as the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee asked for the data, but the request was ignored by the agency. In 1997, Congress requested the data and was outright refused.

In 1998, Congress passed a law requiring that scientific data relied on by the agency must be made available to the public. But an appellate court held the law unenforceable in 1998.

In 2011, Congress again began politely asking the EPA for the data. No luck. So, in 2013, Congress issued its first subpoena in 30 years to force the EPA to produce the data. Again, no luck.

The House then began passing bills—three of them in successive sessions of Congress—to bar the EPA from relying on secret data to issue regulations. But all got stuck in the Senate, including the current bill known as the HONEST Act.

So Pruitt has decided he will take the initiative and ban the use of secret science at the EPA. If agency rules are going to be based on scientific data, that data must be available to independent researchers for validation purposes.

It of course would be better if Congress passed legislation to make this permanent, but Pruitt recognizes the EPA and the public cannot wait on the hopelessly deadlocked legislature.

These are all major accomplishments. But there’s a lot more to do. The good news is that Pruitt is eager. He is rightly focused on how the EPA uses science and his plans for improving the process.

As someone who has worked on EPA science issues and controversies for more than 27 years, it’s all music to my ears.


Portrait of Steve Milloy

Steve Milloy publishes, was a member of the Trump EPA transition team, and is the author of “Scare Pollution: Why and How to Fix the EPA” (Bench Press, 2016). Twitter: .


Conservative Leaders, GOP Lawmakers Voice Support for Scott Pruitt

EPA Chief Says Media Reports About Him Don’t Tell True Story

Obama EPA Officials Protest Scott Pruitt’s ‘Secret Science’ Reforms. Here’s Why They’re Off Base.

Dear Readers:

With the recent conservative victories related to tax cuts, the Supreme Court, and other major issues, it is easy to become complacent.

However, the liberal Left is not backing down. They are rallying supporters to advance their agenda, moving this nation further from the vision of our founding fathers.

If we are to continue to bring this nation back to our founding principles of limited government and fiscal conservatism, we need to come together as a group of likeminded conservatives.

This is the mission of The Heritage Foundation. We want to continue to develop and present conservative solutions to the nation’s toughest problems. And we cannot do this alone.

Before March 31, we are looking for a select few conservatives to become a Heritage Foundation member. With your membership, you’ll qualify for all associates benefits and you’ll help keep our nation great for future generations.


EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. Photo: Joshua Roberts/Reuters/Newscom.

Washington, D.C. Councilman Blames Jews for Bad Weather and Controlling the Climate

There are few remarks made by someone in a position of authority that could be more profoundly ignorant and stupid than the ones made by Washington, D.C. Council Member Trayon White Sr. about the Rothschilds [watch the below video made by Councilman White].

It is easy to dismiss such remarks as the eructations of a moron, but I’m very much afraid they are a sinister example of what has been going on within the Democratic Party and the black community with their enthusiastic embrace of hate-groups like BLM, ANTIFA and the bevy of beauties who organized the Women’s March.

The irony here, of course, is the strenuous and successful efforts of American Jewry to help pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prominent and senior Democrats such as Senator Al Gore Sr. and Senator Robert Byrd vigorously opposed.

It only took twenty years for Jesse Jackson to start describing New York City as “Hymietown” and another seven years after that for the inveterate race-hustler, Al Sharpton, to incite an anti-Semitic riot in Crown Heights. Twenty seven years after that we now have presidential hopefuls like Kirstin Gillibrand and Cory Booker distancing themselves from the traditional support of Democrats for Israel and we have Representative Keith Ellison and seven other members of the Congressional Black Caucus, a cesspool of anti-Semitism, refusing to denounce or distance themselves from Louis Farrakhan and his cult of Jew-haters and anti-white guttersnipes.

Americans everywhere, not just American Jews, have the right to expect much better and more helpful behavior from these self-styled leaders but one can detect a whiff of sulfur coming from the infusion of vast amounts of money not only from the new politburo of the Left championed by the ubiquitous and treacherous George Soros but also from Islamic states whose title deed, the Quran itself, demands the subjugation and death of Jews.

In the meantime, pandering but ambitious politicians like Mr. White just can’t resist jumping on board a passing bandwagon and getting cozy with all the other morally bankrupt passengers on the rickety but well-fueled contraption they anxiously hope to ride to power. Shame on the miserable lot of them.


By Tamar Lapin, New York Post, March 19, 2018

A DC lawmaker blamed a late-winter snowfall on a family of Jewish bankers — accusing them of controlling the climate and orchestrating natural disasters.

Council member Trayon White Sr. apologized for the comments he made in a since-deleted video on his official Facebook page posted Friday morning as snow fell over the capital.

“Man it just started snowing out of nowhere this morning, man. Y’all better pay attention to this climate control, man, this climate manipulation,” White can be heard saying in the video, the Washington Post reported.

“And D.C. keeps talking about, ‘We a resilient city,’” he continues. “And that’s a model based off the Rothschilds controlling the climate to create natural disasters they can pay for to own the cities, man. Be careful.”

The Rothschilds are a wealthy business dynasty descended from Mayer Amschel Rothschild, an 18th-century Jewish banker who lived in Frankfurt, Germany.

Over the years, they’ve been the subject of wild anti-Semitic conspiracy theories accusing them and other Jewish people of secretly orchestrating world events to their advantage.

“This kind of anti-Semitism is unacceptable in any public official. This so diminishes what America is about and adds to the oppressive feeling going on in the country right now,” Rabbi Daniel Zemel of Temple Micah in northwest Washington told the paper.

Councilman Trayon White Sr. (D-Washington, D.C.)

On Sunday night, White posted a note on Twitter apologizing “to the Jewish community and anyone I have offended.”

“The Jewish community have been allies with me in my journey to help people. I did not intend to be Anti-Semitic, and I see I should not have said that after learning from my colleagues,” the note reads.

White — a Democrat who won the Ward 8 seat in November 2016 — also said he’d reached out to his “friends” at the organization Jews United for Justice.

“They are helping me to understand the history of comments made against Jews and I am committed to figuring out ways continue to be allies with them and others,” he wrote.

The organization acknowledged speaking with White, writing that they “look forward to working with him toward deeper understanding of anti-Semitism and toward our collective liberation.”

Fellow lawmaker Brianne Nadeau, who is Jewish, said she believes White’s apology is sincere.

“I believe he is being truthful when he says he didn’t realize what his statement implied,” she wrote in a statement on Facebook.

Anti-Semitic incidents have jumped 57 percent over the last year nationwide, the Anti-Defamation League reported.

They more than doubled in DC between 2015 and 2017, according to the Washington Post.

RELATED VIDEO: Mark Steyn on lawmaker’s Jewish weather ‘conspiracy’

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Geller Report. Pamela Geller’s shocking new book, “FATWA: HUNTED IN AMERICA” is now available on Amazon. It’s Geller’s tell all, her story – and it’s every story – it’s what happens when you stand for freedom today. Buy it. Now. Here.

Votem joins with Department of Homeland Security to Stop Election Fraud

CLEVELAND, Ohio /PRNewswire/ — Votem is proud to announce its participation in the Department of Homeland Security’s Sector Coordinating Council (SCC) for the Election Infrastructure Subsector. The Council, which is a cooperative effort between the DHS, the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), The National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS), The National Association of State Election Directors (NASED), and state and local election officials, will facilitate joint engagement between public and private entities to coordinate efforts to make voting the United States’ voting infrastructure as secure as possible.

The SCC will also be comprised of private sector companies, including Votem, that have an interest in making American elections more secure and threat-resistant.  Votem is joined in the council by 23 other companies, ranging from elections providers to major publications, that have a stake in the success and betterment of domestic elections.

Votem’s membership on the SCC will offer the company the unique opportunity to weigh in on the most prescient security issues facing the U.S.’s election infrastructure, including questions of how to prevent meddling in the upcoming 2018 Midterms.

“Votem is honored to be a founding member of the Sector Coordinating Council (SCC) which was formed to defend the U.S. elections infrastructure. We believe that the SCC, in conjunction with the Government Coordinating Council (GCC), will help usher in an era of unprecedented security in our elections.” – Votem CEO Pete Martin

About Votem

Votem is a blockchain mobile voting platform enabling citizens around the world to easily vote online with a level of verifiability, accessibility, security and transparency that does not currently exist. Founded in 2014 by CEO, Pete Martin, Votem’s mission is to change the way people vote and believes that mobile voting will lead to positive change in the world by providing voters with complete transparency, thus shaping the future of democracy. Having conducted nine elections for both private and public clients, Votem has received praise and accolades from various institutions including the Cleveland Technology Awards and OHTech Best of Tech Awards.

The mobile voting platform is in its public pre-sale of Simple Agreement for Future Tokens (SAFT) for its VAST tokens that is currently only open to accredited investors. The public pre-sale is scheduled to close on March 29th,2018.

Revolutionary Approach to GOTV Provides 25% Increase in Voters

LOUISVILLE, Ky.March 13, 2018 /PRNewswire/ — In 1980, the English new wave band The Bugglesreleased their iconic song “Video Killed the Radio Star” in the height of the Cold War between the United States and Russia.  The hit track celebrated the evolution of a newer technology over its obsolete predecessor.  At a time when Russian hacking and political influence has us questioning how to get better informed Americans to the polls, a unique technology firm is turning politics on its head – and everyone in the world of political campaigns is taking notice.

A firm known as ‘El Toro‘ out of Louisville, Kentucky is revolutionizing programmatic media through its patented approach of matching physical addresses to IP addresses, allowing clients to effectively target voters in their homes and on their devices where they live.  While campaign hacks debate whether or not political television ads are dead, is this new technology the silver bullet to actually kill this campaign dinosaur?  The results of this case study might certainly lead you to that conclusion.

In this real-life scenario, the client was a municipal organization in a southwest Ohio county.   The campaign, managed by the Ohio firm Burges & Burges Strategists, had identified a group of high fidelity voters who had a 72.77% likelihood to vote – those who had voted in 2 or more of the last 4 similar elections – and launched a get-out-the-vote (GOTV) campaign aiding a ballot measure on behalf of Ohio’s Montgomery County Health & Human Services.  So dire was the need for a win, its very success would secure the continuation of numerous programs serving tens of thousands of citizens with developmental disabilities, homebound seniors, and children in foster care – as well as helping the county fight infectious diseases and drug abuse.

The County needed to increase their specifically targeted voter turnout for a ballot measure in order for voters to reauthorize a $55 million tax levy – at a time when tax issues were historically unpopular.   El Toro needed to heavily target the County’s high-fidelity voters and influence them to vote in favor of the measure.

El Toro’s Approach

Nearly 108,000 homes were identified as part of the voter segment.  These voter homes were split into two groups:  a control group which consisted of about 45,500 voters and a targeted group which was approximately 62, 500.  The target group was delivered 2.2 million display and video advertisements during the four weeks leading up to election day.  The control group did not receive any IP-targeted ads.

Campaign Results

The target group had an incredible 91% election turnout compared to the control group turnout of 73%.  This 18-point, or 25% increase, in turnout was made possible by using precise digital political targeting.  At a cost of less than $4 for each of the 11,500 incremental votes received, these results were 14.5-times more cost effective than the expected cost per incremental vote (Stratmann). “From my observation and study of these methods, delivering messages to voters with such razor-sharp precision and effectiveness has never been easier,” said University of Louisville political science professor Jason Gainous, Ph.D.  “El Toro might have possibly cracked the code.”

So successful was the campaign, Burges & Burges has submitted the GOTV strategy results to the American Association for Political Consultants (AAPC) for their 2018 annual Pollie Awards.  “The dramatic influence in critical GOTV voter turnout was impressive,” said Dorigen Cowling, Senior Consultant at Burges & Burges.  “El Toro really bowled us over with their incredible results, and our client couldn’t be happier with their success.”

So confident is El Toro about delivering similar results for other political and issue campaigns, they are offering a money-back guarantee for any GOTV campaign of over $100,000.  If El Toro doesn’t increase turnout among targeted voters by at least 5%, they’ll give 50 percent of the total spend back to the campaign.  That’s confidence you can take to the bank – or better yet, to the polls.

About El Toro

El Toro is revolutionizing programmatic media through its patented approach of matching physical addresses to IP addresses, allowing clients to effectively target consumers.  The El Toro system is 100% cookie-free and its proprietary approach connects with real people at an unparalleled accuracy, eliminating ad fraud.  With a 95% or greater confidence level, El Toro is the premier choice for digital advertising.  Information on El Toro’s money-back guarantee can be found at

Truth and the Transgender Movement

In the whirlwind few years since Caitlyn Jenner turned the culture debates on their head, many on the far Left have been so busy pushing radical transgender policies that they haven’t stopped long enough to consider the consequences for the people they’re claiming to help. Fortunately, scientific research has.

New research, the Washington Times reports, is screaming “Stop!” to the forces of political correctness carrying on Barack Obama’s agenda. In the journal JAMA, experts from Harvard University and Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine are leading more people to urge caution in this rush to trans-friendly policies. Despite what the sexual extremists might say, there’s absolutely no conclusive evidence that procedures like gender reassignment are actually helping people. (Even Obama’s CDC admitted as much in 2016.)

Even so, the authors point out, there’s been an almost four-fold increase in the number of patients diagnosed with a gender identity disorder. Despite the rapid growth rate, though, the overall numbers remain small, with only 4,118 gender reassignment surgeries being performed in the United States in a 15-year period. That’s only about one in every 56,000 Americans over the age of 18 (according to the 2010 census). It ought to lead us all to ask why our culture is being turned upside down to appease the desires of such a tiny number of troubled individuals!

FRC’s own Peter Sprigg has studied the effects of these surgeries extensively and knows that sometimes the treatments that promise the most help actually harm patients more. While the LGBT lobby and others want us to encourage this fantasy that gender is a choice, the effects of that thinking can be devastating. And Swedish researchers would be the first to say so.

In their “‘robust’ study, the consequences of gender reassignment surgery are startling, and appear to be uniformly negative. They encompass not only higher rates of mental illness (as indicated by psychiatric hospitalization) than in the general Swedish population, but higher rates of physical illness — cancer (“neoplasm”) and heart disease — as well.”

“Most shocking of all, however, was the rate of completed suicides — which was over 19 times higher than in the general Swedish population. Transgender activists often insist that the reason gender reassignment surgery is ‘medically necessary’ is in order to prevent the suicides which might otherwise occur among those who identify as transgender but are frustrated in their desire to surgically alter their bodies. Yet the Swedish study shows that extraordinary rates of suicide persist after surgery.”

At a time when courts are actually stripping parents of custody for refusing to rush their teenagers into these dangerous procedures, it’s time to stop and consider what’s actually best for the people struggling with this confusion. Children, in particular, are being sucked into a world where “feelings” are the new biology, and it’s destroying them. According to the American College of Pediatricians, gender ideology is child abuse. After all, they point out, as many as 98 percent of gender-confused boys and 88 percent of gender-confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty. That hasn’t stopped a loud and vocal minority from pushing people of all ages on a dangerous and irreversible path.

“There is some evidence that surgical techniques have improved, resulting in fewer or less serious physical complications after such surgery,” Peter explains. “Unfortunately, there is no evidence that such procedures achieve their ultimate goal, which is an improvement in the overall mental health of person who identifies as transgender. In other words, this increase is driven almost entirely by ideology, not by scientific evidence the procedures are ultimately effective.”

For more on what you can do on this important topic, check out Peter’s new publication, “How to Respond to the LGBT Movement.”

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


Kansas Republicans Are Standing Up to Transgender Lies, Protecting Kids From Harm

For Babies with Down Syndrome, Quality of Life Looks up

Distortion on Abortion at Planned Parenthood

No Fear for the Future at Truett McConnell

RELATED VIDEO:  Dr. Jordan Peterson on Non-traditional Gender Pronouns:

What Transgenders can Learn from Women about the Dangers of Hormone Therapy

Planned Parenthood has entered into the hormone therapy business. There is a new growth industry, turning little boys into little girls and vice versa.

Hormone therapy is not new. What is new is using it to change a person’s gender identity artificially. 

Women have for decades practiced menopausal hormone therapy. According to the National Cancer Institute (NIH):

Menopausal hormone therapy (MHT) is a treatment that doctors may recommend to relieve common symptoms of menopause and to address long-term biological changes, such as bone loss, that result from declining levels of the natural hormones estrogen and progesterone in a woman’s body during and after the completion of menopause.

The NIH website sites two major studies on the positive and negative effects of hormone therapy. According to the NIH the most comprehensive evidence about risks and benefits of MHT comes from two randomized clinical trials that were sponsored by the National Institutes of Health as part of the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI):

  • The WHI Estrogen-plus-Progestin Study, in which women with a uterus were randomly assigned to receive either a hormone medication containing both estrogen and progestin (Prempro™) or a placebo.
  • The WHI Estrogen-Alone Study, in which women without a uterus were randomly assigned to receive either a hormone medication containing estrogen alone (Premarin™) or a placebo.

Women’s Health Initiative notes, “More than 27,000 healthy women who were 50 to 79 years of age at the time of enrollment took part in the two trials. Although both trials were stopped early (in 2002 and 2004, respectively) when it was determined that both types of therapy were associated with specific health risks, longer-term follow-up of the participants continues to provide new information about the health effects of MHT.”

The positives for women are:

  • One-third fewer hip and vertebral fractures than women taking the placebo. In absolute terms, this meant 10 fractures per 10,000 women per year who took hormone therapy compared with 15 fractures per 10,000 women per year who took the placebo (1).
  • One-third lower risk of colorectal cancer than women taking the placebo. In absolute terms, this meant 10 cases of colorectal cancer per 10,000 women per year who took hormone therapy compared with 16 cases of colorectal cancer per 10,000 women per year who took the placebo (1).

The negatives for women are:

  • Urinary incontinence. Use of estrogen plus progestin increased the risk of urinary incontinence (1).
  • Dementia. Use of estrogen plus progestin doubled the risk of developing dementia among postmenopausal women age 65 and older (5).
  • Stroke, blood clots, and heart attack. Women who took either combined hormone therapy or estrogen alone had an increased risk of stroke, blood clots, and heart attack (13). For women in both groups, however, this risk returned to normal levels after they stopped taking the medication (24).
  • Breast cancer. Women who took estrogen plus progestin were more likely to be diagnosed with breast cancer (6). The breast cancers in these women were larger and more likely to have spread to the lymph nodes by the time they were diagnosed (6). The number of breast cancers in this group of women increased with the length of time that they took the hormones and decreased after they stopped taking the hormones (7).

For little boy wanting to become little girls the risks far outweigh any benefits.

Little boys don’t have breasts and their bodies are not like that of a female. So the positives of these two studies do not apply to boys. However, using hormone therapy on boys, according to these two studies, will lead to dementia, stroke, blood clots, urinary incontinence and heart attack.

The SottoPelle website warns:

Large scientific studies conducted over the past two decades overwhelmingly show that synthetic and animal-derived hormone substitutes are dangerous and risky. Warning labels on these drugs make that abundantly clear. Their molecular formulas differ from hormones made in the human body, making them patentable but incapable of communicating with many receptor cells needed to carry out important work throughout the body.

Pick your poison as the saying goes.

RELATED VIDEO: Benefits and Risks of Hormone Replacement Therapy.

OSCARS: ‘Interspecies Sex’ Wins Best Picture Surrounded by 500 ‘Assault Rifles’

Hollywood’s 1% gathered for their 90th annual look at me party, known as the Oscars. I, like millions of others who did not watch the Oscars, decided to tune into something much more interesting, like episodes of the first prime time series on American television which ran from 1950-1963, The Rifleman.

What happened at the Oscars?

This morning I woke up to learn that the Academy’s best picture was “The Shape of Water.” Since I did not see the film I decided to Goggle it to learn more about it. What I found out is that Shape of Water is about “interspecies sex.”

In a Forbes article titled “Review: ‘The Shape Of Water’ Successfully Depicts An Interspecies Relationship, Somehow” 

[I]n The Shape of Water, he’s [Director Guillermo Del Toro] managed to accomplish something very difficult indeed. He’s managed to depict a loving, consummated relationship between Sally Hawkins and a slimy fish creature, and not induce the audience into vomiting. [Emphasis added]

I then Googled for the closest definition I could find that represents a human consummating a relationship with a different species. The closest I could come is “bestiality” which is defined as:

  1. savagely cruel or depraved behavior.
  2. sexual intercourse between a person and an animal.

Newsweek’s Emily Gaudette reported this on The Shape of Water:

In the first few minutes of Guillermo del Toro’s The Shape of Water, a mute janitor named Elisa, played by Sally Hawkins, draws herself a bath and masturbates. She completes this quick ritual several times early in the film as part of her daily routine. Elisa is lonely, and efficient.

Eventually, she meets the man—or, rather, the monster—of her dreams: an aquatic humanoid without a name, played by Doug Jones under layers of hand-painted latex. Del Toro is a noted monster visionary (as in, an inventor of creatures), but this is the first time the director has envisioned one that makes love to a woman.

Hollywood has morphed from its #MeToo moment into its #MeBestiality and #MeMasturbate moments.

So a human woman having a “consummated relationship” with an animal (bestiality) is worthy of the Best Picture Oscar? Is this like Hollywood actors having consummated relationships with underage children (pedophilia)? Or multiple women having consummated relationships on the casting couch with a well known Hollywood producer (rape)?

What else happened at the Oscars?

A second headline that caught my eye, no not that this year’s Oscars was the lowest rated in history, was the number of guns, including AR-15s, present at this gala Hollywood event.

This headline was interesting because the cause célèbre, no pun intended, for the 2018 Oscars was support of gun control by wearing orange lapel pins.

In a Breitbart news article titled “Oscars: Celebrities Push Gun Control Surrounded by a Wall of 500 Armed Officers” Jerome Hudson reports:

The Los Angeles Police Department will deploy 500 officers to wrap the Dolby Theatre in multiple barriers of armed security for the 90th Academy Awards on Sunday night, an event at which several of Hollywood’s most celebrated stars will actively push for more gun control in America.

“We have these concentric rings of security that start in the middle and radiate outward,” said LAPD Cmdr. Blake Chow, the man tasked with overseeing the massive operation. “We have a lot of officers in fixed posts and foot beats keeping an eye on the event.”

Several celebrities plan to wear orange lapel pins on the red carpet and during tonight’s ceremony in support of gun control and the Michael Bloomberg-founded gun control advocacy group Everytown for Gun Safety.

Tom Trento in a column titled “Hollywood Actor’s Gun Pledge” wrote:

The irony of “Hollywood” deserves its own Oscar.

Here we have a contingent of people who, because they sell tickets, truly believe they have something important to say to us “common-folk.”

So, let’s make an important point with Reductio Ad Absurdum and show the foolishness of “actors” who demand non-actors to change their beliefs and practices while exempting themselves from their own moral standards.


As a Hollywood actor I’m a special person with unique insight into life because I get paid a lot of money to make believe I’m other people. Therefore, GUNS are bad and should be BANNED. I stand in solidarity with students across America to tell Trump to change the law and stop the killing.  We know he won’t because the NRA will not let him but this PLEDGE by all of us Hollywood Actors, Directors, Producers, and Investors will change the law, stop the killing and Make America Gun-Free Again!

(insert real Hollywood name) Pledge to:

  • Never act, produce, direct or invest in any movie that includes a gun in any way in the script, even if it’s a water pistol or one of them guns with the orange thing in the hole in the front.
  • Never hire any bodyguards who carry guns, ever carried guns or thought about carrying guns.
  • Hand in all guns I own to a company that can melt them into plowshares or at least a giant peace symbol.
  • Calculate all the money I have made in movies, TV shows, videos, direct-to-DVD productions and give all that money to groups opposed to the NRA.

Perhaps we can add to Tom’s list:

  • Never act, produce, direct or invest in any movie that includes in any way in the script a “consummated relationship” with an animal (bestiality).

Will Hollywood begin pushing sex with robots? Oops, too late. They already have with the 2017 remake of Blade Runner and the 2015 film Ex Machina. Hollywood deserves a rating of “D” for depraved.

What most impressed you about the Oscars?


Actors Lectured America (Again) About Gun Control While Men With ‘Assault Weapons’ Protected Them at the Oscars.

Ratings Collapse: Early Numbers Show Oscar Telecast Hit All-Time Low

Paul Kersey Reviews BLACK PANTHER: Not Even A Decent Movie-But An Ominous Warning For White America

See DEATH WISH Remake!-The White American Answer To BLACK PANTHER

Closing Mental Institutions Made Us More Vulnerable to Mass Shootings

A liberal-created failure that goes entirely ignored is the left’s harmful agenda for society’s most vulnerable people—the mentally ill.

Eastern State Hospital, built in 1773 in Williamsburg, Virginia, was the first public hospital in America for the care and treatment of the mentally ill. Many more followed. Much of the motivation to build more mental institutions was to provide a remedy for the maltreatment of mentally ill people in our prisons.

According to professor William Gronfein at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis, by 1955 there were nearly 560,000 patients housed in state mental institutions across the nation. By 1977, the population of mental institutions had dropped to about 160,000 patients.

Starting in the 1970s, advocates for closing mental hospitals argued that because of the availability of new psychotropic drugs, people with mental illness could live among the rest of the population in an unrestrained natural setting.

According to a 2013 Wall Street Journal article by Dr. E. Fuller Torrey, founder of the Treatment Advocacy Center, titled “Fifty Years of Failing America’s Mentally Ill,” shutting down mental hospitals didn’t turn out the way advocates promised.

Several studies summarized by the Treatment Advocacy Center show that untreated mentally ill are responsible for 10 percent of homicides (and a higher percentage of the mass killings). They are 20 percent of jail and prison inmates and more than 30 percent of the homeless.

We often encounter these severely mentally ill individuals camped out in libraries, parks, hospital emergency rooms, and train stations, and sleeping in cardboard boxes. They annoy passersby with their sometimes intimidating panhandling.

The disgusting quality of life of many of the mentally ill makes a mockery of the lofty predictions made by the advocates of shutting down mental institutions and transferring their function to community mental health centers, or CMHCs.

Torrey writes:

The evidence is overwhelming that this federal experiment has failed, as seen most recently in the mass shootings by mentally ill individuals in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., and Tucson, Ariz. It is time for the federal government to get out of this business and return the responsibility, and funds, to the states.

Getting the federal government out of the mental health business may be easier said than done.

A 1999 Supreme Court ruling in the case of Olmstead v. L.C. held that under the Americans with Disabilities Act, individuals with mental disabilities have the right to live in an integrated community setting rather than in institutions.

The Department of Justice defined an integrated setting as one “that enables individuals with disabilities to interact with non-disabled persons to the fullest extent possible.” Though some mentally ill people may have benefited from this ruling, many others were harmed—not to mention the public, which must put up with the behavior of the mentally ill.

Torrey says it has now become politically correct to claim that this federal program failed because not enough centers were funded and not enough money was spent. But that’s not true. Torrey says:

Altogether, the annual total public funds for the support and treatment of mentally ill individuals is now more than $140 billion. The equivalent expenditure in 1963 when President John F. Kennedy proposed the [community mental health centers] program was $1 billion, or about $10 billion in today’s dollars. Even allowing for the increase in U.S. population, what we are getting for this 14-fold increase in spending is a disgrace.

The dollar cost of this liberal vision of deinstitutionalization of mentally ill people is a relatively small part of the burden placed on society.

Many innocent people have been assaulted, robbed, and murdered by mentally ill people. Businesspeople and their customers have had to cope with the nuisance created by the mentally ill.

The police response to misbehavior and crime committed by the mentally ill is to arrest them. Thus, they are put in jeopardy of mistreatment by hardened criminals in the nation’s jails and prisons.

Worst of all is the fact that the liberals who engineered the shutting down of mental institutions have never been held accountable for their folly.

Commentary By

Portrait of Walter E. Williams

Walter E. Williams is a professor of economics at George Mason University.

A Note for our Readers:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please make a gift to support The Daily Signal.

Support The Daily Signal

EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is by cglade/Getty Images.

The Dark Side of Green

CFACT barnstormed CPAC, The Conservative Political Action Conference, this weekend with a series of activities that culminated in a light saber duel between “Green Energy” Darth Vader and the “Reliable Energy” Jedi!

“We thought this would get the point across to the crowd pretty easily: That so-called ‘green’ energy that needs subsidies is the bad guy and reliable energy that comes from fossil fuels and nuclear are the good guys,” said Adam Houser. Adam is the director of CFACT’s nationwide network of college chapters.

CPAC has been an important annual gathering of conservatives and libertarians for over 45 years.  This year both President Trump and Vice President Pence were there.

“CFACT’s light saber duel was meant to strike a deeper discussion of what type of energy is right for America going forward.”  Adam reports at CFACT Campus.  “As dozens of students crowded around the duel, and The Opposition, a late-night political satire show on Comedy Central, filmed the fake altercation, it was clear the stunt achieved its intended goal. Students then flocked to CFACT’s booth, where they could take the Energy Challenge to charge their phone and learn more about energy. Vanity Fair,NowThis, and Teen Vogue all stopped at CFACT’s booth to ask questions about energy and take pictures.

‘We gave students the option to charge their phone from a typical outlet, which is powered by fossil fuels, or they could try to go the ‘renewable’ route by blowing on the mini wind turbine or turning the hand crank,’ explained Graham Beduze, CFACT’s Associate Director of Collegians. ‘The vast majority chose conventional energy, although it was hilarious to see some students furiously turning the crank or getting winded trying to generate enough force to charge their phones by blowing on the turbine.'”


Marc Morano, who runs CFACT’s Climate Depot news and information service has a new book out, The Politically Incorrect Guide To Climate Change which launches today.  He gave a series of radio interviews.  You can hear Marc at WMAL Radio: Mornings on the Mall with MARY WALTER AND VINCE COGLIANESE, KVI Radio – John Carlson & Kirby Wilbur Show and The Schilling Show – Rob Schilling.

CPAC presents an opportunity for CFACT to brief some of the nation’s most effective political activists and send them into the field armed with the facts about energy, the environment and other issues.

CFACT’s team did an outstanding job.  We’re proud of them.

RELATES ARTICLE: Doomsday Climate Scenarios Are a Joke – Wall Street Journal