Trump Townhall Underscores Life as a 2024 Issue

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

The Trump administration was, decidedly, the most pro-life in our history. During his debate with Hillary Clinton in 2016, former President Trump graphically described the brutality of the abortion procedure. A signal achievement was his appointment of three Supreme Court justices who support the Constitution as it was written, underscoring the sanctity of unborn life.

So, when President Trump’s spokesman recently said that “President Donald J. Trump believes … [abortion] is an issue that should be decided at the state level,” I was deeply concerned. That’s why, earlier this week, I joined Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, for a meeting in Florida to discuss the important topic directly with the former president.

Our sense of alarm has been growing. After last summer’s Supreme Court decision returned the power to defend life to the people, a number of Republicans heaved a sigh of relief. Many of them were glad to see the end of the fictional constitutional right to abortion, but some seemed more glad to kick the life issue back to the states than take any further action. More concerned with political consequences than protecting the unborn, their eagerness to abandon the pro-life cause was striking.

That’s not what they were saying before the Dobbs decision, which returned to them the power to defend life. Since the mid-1980s, the GOP has called for the right of the unborn to live to be recognized as the most fundamental of human rights. Overwhelmingly, Republican lawmakers have supported a human life amendment to the U.S. Constitution and called upon legislators and judges in the states to respect human personhood in the womb, where life begins. Science tells us that personhood begins in the womb. For years, Republicans at the federal level have taken a stance in defense of life, and presidential administrations have defended it. So what has changed now?

None of these proposals would prevent states from enacting pro-life legislation, whether protecting the unborn after they can feel pain, after a certain point in gestation, protecting American taxpayers from funding abortion, or anything else. I was a state legislator in Louisiana for many years and authored a number of pro-life measures. And no one is more committed to a constitutional understanding of the limits of the federal government and the broad authority of the states than me. Yet personhood in the womb is not just a state issue — it is the most profound of all human rights issues. It merits federal consideration — and protection.

During our meeting in Miami, Mr. Trump reaffirmed his commitment to protecting children who can feel pain and are actually sucking their thumb in their mother’s womb. His horror at late-term abortion and the incredible idea that some so-called “unwanted” children could be left to die after birth remains unchanged. That’s why we met with him: To encourage the former president to stay strong on the issue of the sanctity of human life. And I can report that Mr. Trump has not changed his position. He remains committed to his strong presidential track record of defending the unborn to the fullest extent of the executive branch’s authority.

During his Wednesday town hall in New Hampshire, he said of his pro-life record, “I am honored to have done what I did.” President Trump noted several times during the event that pro-abortion activists are radical. And radicals are unreasonable and never satisfied. This is why, in last November’s elections, Democrats spent at least $320 million in advertising to attack the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade. The Biden administration has authorized nearly half a billion dollars of taxpayer funds that can be used to subsidize abortions and abortion businesses. Republicans spend only a fraction of this amount celebrating unborn life.

I deeply appreciate the pro-life, pro-family policies that President Trump’s administration advanced. As we move into the 2024 presidential election cycle, my role will not be to endorse in the primary election but to work with the candidates, like President Trump, to ensure the issues impacting faith, family, and freedom are understood and advanced. My focus will be ensuring that the sanctity of human life, upholding the true, God-given purpose of human sexuality, and the myriad policies that affect the family — ranging from religious freedom to tax policy — remain front and center.

It is encouraging to see that Mr. Trump remains committed to defending the little ones in the womb. But how much more heartening it is to know the God Who gives us the privilege of protecting them and their mother from the abortion industry. That’s a high calling, and we’ll never retreat from it.

AUTHOR

Tony Perkins

Tony Perkins is president of Family Research Council and executive editor of 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.

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

/in , , , , , , /by

The Man-Made Global Warming Myth Debunked.

Devastating for the climate narrative.

Carbon-14 dating shows only 12% of atmospheric CO2 added since 1750 is manmade. ‘Much too low to be the cause of global warming.’

Truth is the enemy to the left. They are destroying civilization, our very way of life, in their pursuit of a dark, miserable future.

World Atmospheric CO2, Its 14C Specific Activity, Non-fossil Component, Anthropogenic Fossil Component, and Emissions (1750–2018)

Abstract

After 1750 and the onset of the industrial revolution, the anthropogenic fossil component and the non-fossil component in the total atmospheric CO2 concentration, C(t), began to increase. Despite the lack of knowledge of these two components, claims that all or most of the increase in C(t) since 1800 has been due to the anthropogenic fossil component have continued since they began in 1960 with “Keeling Curve: Increase in CO2 from burning fossil fuel.” Data and plots of annual anthropogenic fossil CO2 emissions and concentrations, C(t), published by the Energy Information Administration, are expanded in this paper. Additions include annual mean values in 1750 through 2018 of the 14C specific activity, concentrations of the two components, and their changes from values in 1750. The specific activity of 14C in the atmosphere gets reduced by a dilution effect when fossil CO2, which is devoid of 14C, enters the atmosphere. We have used the results of this effect to quantify the two components. All results covering the period from 1750 through 2018 are listed in a table and plotted in figures. These results negate claims that the increase in C(t) since 1800 has been dominated by the increase of the anthropogenic fossil component. We determined that in 2018, atmospheric anthropogenic fossil CO2 represented 23% of the total emissions since 1750 with the remaining 77% in the exchange reservoirs. Our results show that the percentage of the total CO2 due to the use of fossil fuels from 1750 to 2018 increased from 0% in 1750 to 12% in 2018, much too low to be the cause of global warming. 

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED VIDEO: Patrick Moore Co-Founder, former leader of Greenpeace: “Speaking Truth to Power Award”

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

Pro-Life Leaders Meet with Trump to Reinforce Federal Strategy

/in , , , , , , , , /by

Family Research Council President Tony Perkins has shared the details about his meeting with former President Donald Trump amid media reports the Republican front-runner had backed away from the pro-life issue ahead of the 2024 presidential election.

Last month, a Trump campaign spokesman told The Washington Post that Trump believes abortion “should be decided at the state level,” touching off media speculation that the candidate would take no federal action to protect life during a second term. Perkins met the 45th president alongside Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and SBA Pro-Life America President Marjorie Dannenfelser on Monday afternoon.

“The purpose of the meeting was simply to encourage the president to stay strong on the issue of the sanctity of human life. And I can report that the former president, Donald Trump, has not changed his position,” Perkins told listeners of “Washington Watch” on Tuesday.

“There was some mischaracterizations of some things that he had said,” Perkins added.

The four leaders found common ground talking about the Republican Party platform, which Perkins has helped craft for the last four election cycles.

“We support state and federal efforts against the cruelest forms of abortion,” says the most recent Republican Party platform (emphasis added). The GOP’s guiding document also calls on Congress to pass a plethora of pro-life legislation ending abortions based on a child’s sex or disability diagnosis, as well as dismemberment abortions, and to adopt a Human Life Amendment to the U.S. Constitution “to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to children before birth.”

The Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision does not preclude abortion-related legislation at the federal level. “It’s a states issue, but it’s also a federal issue,” Perkins explained. “The court said this is in the hands of elected officials, not judges.”

“I talked about that with him. And I said, ‘Look, that’s the standard. It was there before Roe was overturned. Why should it change?’” said Perkins. “When a baby feels pain and is sucking his thumb in his mother’s womb, that ought to be a place we can draw the line. We’ve got 67% of Americans who agree that abortion across the board should be outlawed after that.”

“I’m pleased to say that the president understood that,” Perkins told his audience.

Trump remains the front-runner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, holding a commanding a 29-point lead over his nearest challenger, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis (R), according to the RealClear Politics average of national polls.

Perkins also noted that Trump was not the only — or even the first — presidential hopeful he had briefed on pro-life, pro-family issues.

“I’ve sat down with a couple of them already. This will be my third” candidate consultation meeting, Perkins revealed. “I will meet with any presidential candidate to have a discussion about the issues, and where they should be on these issues to connect with what we call SAGE Cons,” a term coined by pollster George Barna meaning Spiritually Active Governance Engaged Conservatives.

Perkins, a former elected official, made clear meeting with Trump did not constitute an endorsement in the 2024 presidential race. “I will not be endorsing a presidential candidate in the primary. I will be sitting down, talking with any and all” candidates who “want to talk about the issues that matter,” he said, specifying the sanctity of human life, human sexuality, tax policy that impacts the family, and religious freedom — “anything that touches the family.”

Democrats eked out a better-than-expected midterm election in 2022 in part by flooding the zone with abortion-related messaging portraying Republicans as extreme — largely without GOP pushback. That makes it pivotal for would-be office holders to grasp the issue thoroughly, said FRC Action Vice President Brent Keilen. “We have to remember that the science hasn’t change. And so the policies that the Republican Party has stood for over the last decades that were based and are based off of the science, should not change, either.”

While some in the GOP have advocated a states-only response to abortion, Democratic leaders have already tried to impose their permissive views on the entire nation. “Republicans are pushing for this to go back to the states,” said Keilen. “That is not at all what the Democrats are pushing for.”

The House of Representatives, then controlled by Democrats, passed the “Women’s Health Protection Act” by a near party-line vote last July. The bill would strike down most of the 1,381 pro-life protections enacted by state legislatures between 1973 and the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, including:

  • prohibiting sex-selective abortions;
  • barring many abortions after viability;
  • preventing abortions on babies 20 weeks or older, who are capable of feeling pain;
  • disallowing abortions undertaken without parental consent or notification;
  • prohibiting telemedicine abortion drug prescriptions, which involve no in-person medical examination;
  • banning unlicensed individuals from carrying out abortions;
  • allowing pregnant mothers to receive scientifically accurate information about their babies’ development, or to see an ultrasound or hear the child’s fetal heartbeat; and
  • allowing pro-life medical professionals the right to refuse to participate in an abortion.

The Democratic Party platform calls for taxpayer-funded abortion-on-demand without restriction until the moment of birth as a matter of “health, rights, and justice.” Adopting that position has forced the U.S. to join a handful of rogue human rights abusers that place no federal limit on abortion, including North Korea and China. President Trump, who famously campaigned to “Make America Great Again,” “believes such a position is unworthy of a great nation and believes the American people will rebel against such a radical position,” Dannenfelser said.

“That is the standard position of the Democrat Party that is only supported by about one in five Americans, so you have 80% of the country, according to recent polling, that opposes” Democratic orthodoxy, said Keilen. Only 19% of Americans believe abortion should be permitted “in all cases, with no exceptions,” according to a 2022 Pew Research Center poll. “That doesn’t even get into the Born-alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, which we have not been able to get passed, which would afford those protections to a baby who survives a failed abortion,” Keilen added.

“If you message on this well, the vast majority of Americans are with you on this issue,” said Keilen.

Eyeing a massive wedge issue, GOP leaders have encouraged Republican candidates to attack Democratic extremism. “We are the pro-life, pro-woman, pro-family party, and we can win on abortion. But that means putting Democrats on the defense,” said Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel after the initial Trump brouhaha.

Days later, Trump attacked “the extreme late-term abortionists in the Democrat Party, who believe in abortion-on-demand in the ninth month of pregnancy, and even executing babies after birth.” That rhetoric echoes Trump’s successful strategy in the 2016 presidential campaign. During the third and final debate on October 19, Trump said under Hillary Clinton’s policy, “you can take the baby out of the womb in the ninth month on the final day, and that’s not acceptable.”

That off-the-cuff remark became a revelation to pro-life leaders. “At that moment, I said, ‘He’s going to win this. He is going to secure the votes of pro-life voters.’ And he did,” said Perkins. “What’s more than that is: He actually followed through. … His policies were unprecedented when it came to advancing human life.” Trump named three of the six justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade last June, supported the Hyde Amendment, and signed numerous measures partially defunding abortion businesses such as Planned Parenthood.

After the latest media flare-up, Trump signaled his openness to signing the “Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act,” introduced by Graham, which protects babies from abortion after 15 weeks. “We’ll get something done” in a second term, Trump promised.

“Going forward, I think he’s going to be very clear on this. That’s my hope. That’s what I believe to be the case,” Perkins said.

“And we will not back up from this issue one bit,” Perkins assured his listeners. Effective promotion of pro-life protections, at any level of government, “will be the benchmark of how we evaluate conservative Bible-based candidates for office.”

AUTHOR

Ben Johnson

Ben Johnson is senior reporter and editor at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Donald Trump: Supreme Court Overturning Roe v. Wade Was a “Great Victory”

Gov. Ron DeSantis Signs Bill Protecting Doctors, Nurses From Being Forced to Do Abortions

Documents Show Biden Admin Considers Pro-Life Moms Potential Domestic Terrorists

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.

Artificial Intelligence Bots: Good for Mankind Or Not Good For Mankind—That’s The Question

/in , , , , , , /by

I have lived thru the pre and post-Internet period. I have found that the Internet, which connects individuals, corporations and governments globally, has both its good and bad sides. It has both good and bad outcomes.

The current technological sea change is the use of Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) to interact with the human race. A.I. Robots or A.I. Bots came on the scene in 2016. A.I. Bots imitate human behaviors and language — influencing our daily lives in sneaky, surprising and sometimes concerning ways.

Are A.I Bots Good for Mankind Or Not Good For Mankind?

Will this A.I. Bot technology, being used today by companies like Google and Wendy’s, be good or not good for mankind?

We spoke with some who are developing A.I. Bots and some who are young and use A.I. Bots to get some perspective on this question.

When I was young I read a book titled “I, Robot” by Issac Asimov. In his book Asimov created the following laws that robots (a.k.a. bots) must be programmed to adhere to in order to best serve mankind.

First Law
A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

Second Law
A robot must obey the orders given it by human beings except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

Third Law
A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Zeroth Law
A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm.

QUESTIONS:

  1. Are there similar rules for A.I. Bots like, an A.I. Bot may not harm humanity, or by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm?
  2. If not, should there be?
  3. And if so, what would mankind want these A.I. Bot rules to require?

A Short History of A.I. Bots

On August 15, 2016 VentureBeat.com published an article titled A short history of chatbots and artificial intelligence written by . wrote,

Starting in the 1980s, technology companies like Apple, Microsoft, and many others presented computer users with the graphical user interface as a means to make technology more user-friendly.

The average consumer wasn’t going to learn binary code to use a computer, so the great minds at these leading technology companies slapped a screen on technology and offered an interface that provided icons, buttons, toolbars, and other graphical elements so that the computer could be easily consumed by a mass market.

Today it’s hard to even imagine technological devices without a screen and a graphical presentation — until now.

Early in 2016, we saw the introduction of the first wave of artificial intelligence technology in the form of chatbots. Social media platforms like Facebook allowed developers to create a chatbot for their brand or service so that consumers could carry out some of their daily actions from within their messaging platform. This development of A.I. technology has excited everyone, as the possibilities for the way we communicate with brands have been exponentially expanded.

The introduction of chatbots into society has brought us to the beginning of a new era in technology: the era of the conversational interface. It’s an interface that soon won’t require a screen or a mouse to use. There will be no need to click or swipe. This interface will be completely conversational, and those conversations will be indistinguishable from the conversations that we have with our friends and family.

To fully understand the massiveness of this soon-to-be reality, we’d have to go back to the first days of the computer, when the desire for artificial intelligence technology and a conversational interface first began. [Emphasis added]

A.I. Aspirations—Good or Bad

in his 2016 article A short history of chatbots and artificial intelligence wrote,

Artificial intelligence, by definition, is intelligence exhibited by machines to display them as rational agents that can perceive their surroundings and make decisions. A rational agent defined by humans would be a computer that can realistically simulate human communication.

Are A.I. Bots truly “rational agents”?

Rational is defined as, “Consistent with or based on reason or good judgment; logical or sensible.”

Agent is defined as, “One that acts or has the power or authority to act. One empowered to act for or represent another.”

One developer of A.I. Bots said to us,

The challenge is we are limited in how we see ethics and rules…We can’t fathom how AI will evolve…so my guess is that it will be able to find justification in any action it deems necessary to achieve the goal.

Realize A.I. alone is not the real threat…It’s humans using A.I. That is the problem. A.I. is not in a silo…It can be used offline in the shadows and then deployed like a virus…So not sure if we can stop bad characters getting a hold of it.

Just like a gun doesn’t know it’s being used for evil purpose, nor will A.I. necessarily.

AGI [artificial general intelligence] is a tough thing to do. And even if they find a way…It will be very expensive to run…Like any new tech…So we have time to build bunkers and store cans of food before the apocalypse :).

Can A.I. Bots be used to create an apocalypse? Are A.I. Bots not just rational but moral agents?

Are A.I. Bots Moral?

The bigger question is do AI Bots have a moral basis?

One of our Gen Z fans wrote this about Asimov’s rules,

Although I agree in general with these [Asimov’s] laws, I’ve discussed these them (mainly the first law) with my Philosophy tutor and we both became aware of some of their immediate flaw[s], for instance; with the first law, who will determine/define what harm towards a human means. You might initially think of harm as a simple concept, but I believe that most of us understand harm through a distinctly human frame of reference, a subjective one at that, and thus quantifying harm into a machine learning would have to be human assisted. But of course, with human assistance comes human bias and human error. This is just the most obvious of flaws. I’m sure there are many I haven’t considered.

Laws have always been derived from the Bible. Western Civilization was founded on laws derived from the Ten Commandments.

Mankind has, since creation, been faced with a battle between good and evil.

Not to have laws for everything created by mankind, including A.I. and A.I. Bots, can lead to an apocalypse.

We must come to grips with the existential possibility that A.I. Bots have the potential for misuse and the abuse of mankind.

John Adams wrote, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

We say that those who create A.I. Bots must be held to the same standard or evil will inevitably creep in.

©2023 Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

Sen. Joe Manchin Vows To Block All Biden Nominees To Environmental Protection Agency

/in , , , , , , , , /by

Democratic West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin will block all of President Joe Biden’s nominees to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) over the agency’s proposed rule regulating power plants, he announced Wednesday.

“This Administration is determined to advance its radical climate agenda and has made it clear they are hellbent on doing everything in their power to regulate coal and gas-fueled power plants out of existence, no matter the cost to energy security and reliability. Just last week, before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, every FERC Commissioner agreed that we cannot eliminate coal today or in the near future if we want to have a reliable electric grid. If the reports are true, the pending EPA proposal would impact nearly all fossil-fueled power plants in the United States, which generate about 60 percent of our electricity, without an adequate plan to replace the lost baseload generation. This piles on top of a broader regulatory agenda being rolled out designed to kill the fossil industry by a thousand cuts,” Manchin said in a statement.

“Neither the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law nor the IRA gave new authority to regulate power plant emission standards. However, I fear that this Administration’s commitment to their extreme ideology overshadows their responsibility to ensure long-lasting energy and economic security and I will oppose all EPA nominees until they halt their government overreach,” he continued.

EPA administrator Michael Regan is scheduled to announce his agency’s new power plant regulations on Thursday. The new rules will reportedly require gas and coal power plants to employ carbon capture technology, according to The New York Times. Out of the 3,400 currently operational power plants in the U.S., fewer than 20 have the appropriate technology in place to comply with the rule. They would have to do so by 2040.

Republicans have made extensive use of the Congressional Review Act in the 118th Congress in a bid to push back against Biden administration rules and regulations. Manchin has signed on to resolutions that would roll back the COVID-19 pandemic emergency and a Department of Labor environmental, social, and governance investing rule. Congress could move to roll back the EPA regulation, although any passed resolution would be subject to a presidential veto.

Manchin has voted against Biden administration nominees more often than any other Senate Democrat. Most recently, he announced his opposition to a Department of the Interior nominee over concerns she would play “political games” with energy production. Manchin is still considering whether or not to support Labor Secretary nominee Julie Su.

The Senate is currently considering two nominees for EPA posts, and two others remain vacant, according to a Washington Post tracker.

AUTHOR

MICHAEL GINSBERG

Congressional correspondent.

RELATED ARTICLE: Manchin Sinks Biden Federal Reserve Nominee Who Drew Republican Boycott

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

Wind turbines irreparable harm to our natural world: CFACT to NJ GOP legislators

/in , , , , , , /by

Last week I participated in a hearing conducted by the New Jersey Senate GOP on the subject of offshore wind and whales.  During my testimony I spoke about the “irreparable harm” in store for both people and marine life from permitting these unbelievably massive offshore wind farms to spoil the Jersey Shore.

You can watch the entire hearing below.  My testimony starts at 1:07.

“It’s our contention that the reckless net zero energy policies that are currently being pursued by the Biden Administration as well as certain governors and agencies at both the national and state level” I said, “are doing irreparable harm to our natural world, and they should be halted until further research be undertaken to assess their impacts.”

The rush that federal and state officials are putting on to broom these offshore wind projects through is as stunning as it is irresponsible.  Our coasts are being spoiled without regard to the harmful impacts in store.  This may spell the end for the Atlantic Right Whale as well as other species.

“The decibel level of the sonar testing for the offshore wind, where you are at [New Jersey], is not far removed from that which the Navy used, often reaching near 200 decibels,” I explained, “the monopile driving to place the wind turbines into the ground can also reach that level or higher as well as the operational sound of giant wind turbines once they’re up and running according to our research. This presents a clear and present danger to all whale species, especially the Right Whale, of which there are only about 350 or so that remain in the wild.”

Offshore wind is an inefficient way to produce energy, but a very efficient way to wreck natural habitats. CFACT calls for a halt until all the impacts are thoroughly understood.

For nature and people too.

RELATED ARTICLES:

CFACT’s Rucker invited to testify to NJ Senate GOP hearing on whale deaths

Big ‘Green’ groups love wind turbines — Eagles… not so much

Biden announces airlift of wind turbines and solar panels to Europe

Scotland cut down 14 million trees to make way for wind turbines

Frozen wind turbines, wolf quota hunt, gun control — oh my!

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

The Injustice of Biden’s Equity Agenda

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

In a move that has critics crying “socialism,” the Biden administration created a new policy that will raise mortgage fees on low-risk borrowers so high-risk borrowers can pay less. The most affected group, those with credit scores between 720 and 759 who also have a downpayment of 15% -20%, would pay an additional $3,200 in fees.

Unlike other left-wing economic plans which transfer money from the wealthy to the poor, under this scheme, borrowers with good credit will pay more even if they have less money. In a sane world, this makes no sense. We understand that lending money comes with risk, and borrowers come with different risks. Someone who has paid their bills on time for the past 30 years presents less risk than a recent high school graduate. But we no longer live in a sane world, we live in a world led by those who want every group to experience the same outcome. They call it “equity.”

We’re very familiar with this dynamic when it comes to categories like race, sex, religion, and the suite of LGBTQ identity categories. Applicants to medical school are rewarded and punished based on their skin color as much as their competency, and male-dominated professions like computer science are seen as evidence of sexism, not evidence that women like different things.

The Biden administration’s new mortgage fee policy is just an extension of this logic as they attempt to “level the playing field” so those with bad credit will have the same outcome as those with good credit. What everyone other than the most zealous equity advocates immediately recognize, however, is that this playing field should not be leveled. We do not want to live in a world where responsible people are treated the same as irresponsible people. While equity demands groups be treated similarly, justice demands individuals be treated as individuals. This is why none of us would hire a convicted sex-offender to babysit our children.

We have a criminal justice system because we understand some individuals deserve to walk about freely in society, while others do not. While we should acknowledge the unfortunate ways race and wealth have been relevant in the criminal justice system, we should also acknowledge the entire purpose of the criminal justice system is to treat people justly, not equitably. If we had a criminal equity system instead, we would rotate people in and out of prisons based on their age, sex, or race — regardless of their criminal history — to ensure that no groups were over or under-represented in the prison population. An equity-based credit system is less harmful than an equity based criminal justice system would be, but it is just as unfair. So why do smart people propose it?

Modern sensibilities reject the idea that human nature is inherently sinful but acknowledge the world is broken. Since their starting assumption is that there’s nothing wrong with people, they blame the bad things people do on “systemic injustice.” The gospel tells us the systems will be fixed once hearts change, but modern progressivism tells us heart will change once the systems are fixed.

This is the reason Brandon Johnson, the recently elected Mayor of Chicago, came to the defense of hundreds of teenagers who destroyed property, beat bystanders, and got into gun fights with police in a recent Chicago riot. He said it was “not constructive to demonize youth who have been starved of opportunities.” If the problem is a lack of character, those kids need to take responsibility for what happened. If the problem is a lack of opportunity, everyone but the kids need to take responsibility for what happened.

Of course, there are things we can do to help each other. Life is a team sport best lived in community which means we each have power to help and harm each other. But when we misunderstand the source of our problems, we guarantee the solutions will be inadequate. The pursuit of equity discourages us from treating individuals based on the content of their character. Instead, it encourages us to see people primarily as members of a group and demands those groups be treated the same. So, we treat the guilty the same as the innocent and the capable just like we treat the less capable. And now we’re charging responsible people more for credit because it doesn’t feel right that one group should be treated differently than another.

It isn’t just or fair, but it is equitable.

AUTHOR

Joseph Backholm

Joseph Backholm is Senior Fellow for Biblical Worldview and Strategic Engagement at Family Research Council.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Truth, Sexuality, and Gender

Smirnoff Drag Queen Partner Flashes Bystanders at Texas Capitol

‘They Will Try to Bully You’: Lawmakers Exit the Democratic Party

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.

Climate Change: A Fairy-Tale Wrapped In Falsehoods Inside Fictions

/in , , , , , , , , /by

The phony climate change narrative has had a rough time on Capitol Hill, lately.

David Turk, deputy secretary of the Energy Department, made a complete fool of himself in congressional testimony when he would not say how much it would cost to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050.  He admitted it would cost trillions of dollars, but would not affirm credible estimates it would cost $50 trillion.  All he did was dance around the question and filibuster.  And what do we get for spending $50 trillion?  He was asked point-blank how much achieving carbon neutrality by 2050 would lower world temperatures and he NEVER ANSWERED THE QUESTION.  He went on and on about how it’s a global problem and the U.S. is 13 percent of it, blah blah blah, but he would not be pinned down on the effect of carbon neutrality on temperatures.  He didn’t even offer to provide the information later, as congressional witnesses commonly do.  He just sat there all smug, repeating his platitudes about how “this is a global problem” and how we need ‘fundamental transformation’.  No, what we need is to stop government by phony narratives and get rid of tyrants like Turk who invoke those narratives to rule over us.  According to this guy, we’re just supposed to spend trillions of dollars without asking any questions to reach climate goals he won’t specify because, one may reasonably conclude from his evasiveness, spending trillions of dollars won’t make any difference at all to climate change.

But make no mistake: the ruling over us has already begun.  The Biden administration has issued an avalanche of new rules in the name of climate change raising the cost of washing machines, dishwashers, microwaves, toothbrush chargers, and other household appliances, as well as degrading their performance.  Climate change is YOUR fault, you see, and you must be made to suffer.  Only if you submit and bow down to your new masters will we keep the planet from burning up.  What a crock!

Back to Capitol Hill, Interior Secretary Deb Haaland was asked, “Are you aware that China controls, by proxy production, the supply chain of critical minerals that are critical to both the [electric vehicle] world and defense?  … Are you aware, by multiple studies, that in order to satisfy the present requirements of [electric vehicles] and critical minerals to defense, it would take an increase of 2,000% of mining for 20 years?”  She was tongue-tied.  She had no idea how to respond.  She had never heard this before, despite years of warnings from western land rights activists the federal government is locking up our minerals in national monument designations and making us completely dependent on China for our critical defense needs.    In addition, Haaland’s interior Department has been blocking critical mining projects in Minnesota and elsewhere that would reduce our dependence on China.

A recent World Bank study showed the world cannot possibly produce enough lithium, cobalt, copper, nickel, or other minerals necessary to support a world green energy transition.

So what we have here is government by phony narrative, implemented by ignorant know-nothing fools who have no idea what they’re talking about and are totally out of touch with reality.  All these self-promoters can see is that they’ve made their careers pushing absolute nonsense and the path to further power and riches for themselves is to keep right on doing so, regardless of the consequences to others.

But, as economists like to say, things will continue until they can’t.  Someday, hopefully in the not-too-far distant future, it will become apparent to all the green energy transition is a pipedream completely impossible to achieve.  It will become apparent too many other important values like national security, expense, performance, and living standards are being sacrificed on the altar of climate change for no good reason – green energy regulations are all pain for no gain.  And when that day comes, the charlatans of climate change who want to rule over us will be exposed for what they are.  That day can’t come soon enough.

©Christopher Wright. All rights reserved.

Visit The Daily Skirmish and Watch Eagle Headline News – 7:30am ET Weekdays

‘Death with Dignity’ — Ha!

/in , , , , , , , , , , /by

The Left loves its phony narratives and I’ve taken aim at several of them.  Today I take aim at ‘death with dignity’, the phony narrative the Left uses to sell assisted suicide and euthanasia.

I start with the spectacular story out of the Netherlands in 2019 where a court upheld the actions of a doctor who euthanized a woman with dementia against her wishes.  The doctor put sedatives in the woman’s coffee and had the family hold her down for the lethal injection.  The woman put up a fight.  Doesn’t sound like a very dignified death to me.

And it wasn’t very dignified what happened to the brother of a friend of mine.  The brother had his third stroke and was sedated.  His wife violated his written instructions by stopping all treatment and withdrawing all food and water.  The wife was heard to say she was tired of dealing with the situation and it’s also true the sooner he died, the more she stood to inherit.   A financial motive – how dignified is that?

To these two ugly stories, we can now add a third.  A palliative care nurse recently published the story you are about to hear so “eyes will be opened to the horrifying reality of euthanasia”:

  • They say euthanasia is a compassionate, dignified way to die. They say everyone should have the option, and that a life with suffering is not a life worth living. But that’s not what I’ve seen. I know Medical Aid in Dying (MAID) to be messier and more distressing than anyone cares to talk about.
  • Laura had picked out music to play in the background while she died, and had chosen which loved ones she wanted by her side. It was planned for 6 pm. She was alert and oriented, and had signed a waiver saying that if for whatever reason she was no longer judged to be of sound mind at the time of the MAID provision, she could be euthanized anyways. She thought she had complete control. Just a few hours before 6 pm Laura had a completely unexpected grand mal seizure. She wouldn’t stop seizing and required large doses of a sedating anticonvulsant. The time of the provision came, and she was confused and groggy from the sedating medication, and unable to properly confirm she wanted the euthanasia, or say goodbye to her family members. She tried to speak but no one could understand what she was saying. Laura was euthanized at 6 pm, according to the waiver she had signed. This was what she had requested, but the family came out of her room shaking, with eyes wide. They cried, and kept saying it should have never happened that way. They had no closure. There was no dignified, peaceful ending. Just their loved one, killed in the middle of trying to say something…. (H)er death was sudden, and traumatic, and the family went home right after without anyone to support them through the process…. (A) coworker sped out of the room shaking and crying,
  • I know multiple other nurses who have been through the same experience. Although they had no religious or moral objections to MAID, after witnessing it first hand they swore to never be in the room again while it happened. They were deeply unsettled, and their conscience told them what they couldn’t admit to themselves: the intentional ending of a life is wrong, no matter the circumstances.
  • Patients may think that choosing MAID relieves their family of the burden of waiting for their death, or seeing suffering. But in reality it steals time and closure, and replaces a natural process with an unsettling ending. From what I have seen, loved ones of euthanized patients appear to struggle more in their grief than loved ones of patients who die naturally.

Welcome to the wacky world of the Left, where ‘death with dignity’ means people being killed against their wishes, for unsavory motives like money.  Where the vendors selling assisted suicide are not killers.  Where the real cause of death – assisted suicide – is kept off death certificates.  Where death is considered ‘medical treatment‘ and medicine means a ‘substance to cause death’.   Where doctors push assisted suicide on vulnerable patients, elder abuse is common, agonizing deaths routinely occur from lethal drugs that don’t work as advertised, destructive social contagion takes over, and people are taught all of this is good when it could not be more evil.

If this is ‘death with dignity’, you can keep it.

©2023 Christopher Wright. All rights reserved.

Visit The Daily Skirmish and Watch Eagle Headline News – 7:30am ET Weekdays

Gavin Newsom’s Carbon-Neutral Grid Plan Looks To Be Going The Way Of The Bullet Train To Nowhere

/in , , , , , , , , /by

California’s planned transition to a carbon-neutral electricity grid by 2045 relies heavily on offshore wind power. It might take a miracle to get there. The growth of offshore wind will have to accelerate faster than a Tesla Model S, which goes from zero to 60 in less than two seconds.

As of 2023, there is no offshore wind in California. But, as the Los Angeles Times reports, “state and local governments are banking on offshore wind to help reach their renewable energy goals.” CalMatters environment reporter Nadia Lopez says “California is betting on giant wind farms in the ocean to strengthen the grid and meet [the state’s] renewable energy goals.”

The potential is there. So are the hurdles.

“The California coast is home to some of the best offshore wind resources in the country,” says the energy and environmental blog of law firm Davis Wright Tremaine. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory estimates there is the potential to generate 201,000 megawatts of power off the coast. Plans call for the state to harness from 2,000 to 5,000 megawatts of it by 2030, then 25,000 megawatts (25 gigawatts) by 2045, generating enough electricity for 25 million homes. (There are currently about 14.5 million housing units in California, according to the Census Bureau).

But this is California, where building anything, in particular massive public works projects — say, a bullet train — is a task that is grueling, protracted and in some instances impossible.

The most stubborn barrier to overcome — and who could have guessed this? — will be cost. MIT Technology Review says California’s “audacious plans” run up against “a daunting geological challenge.” Just a few miles off the coast, the continental shelf drops sharply. This “makes it prohibitively expensive to erect standard offshore wind turbines which are set atop fixed structures that extend to the seafloor.” Turbines located near Morro Bay, where the water is 4,300 feet deep, will have to be built on floating platforms. But these floating turbines are not only “speculative,” says MIT, the technology behind them is also “very costly.” As of now, there are only a handful of floating offshore wind platforms in the world and the combined output of these demonstration projects, 123 megawatts, is meaningless on a global scale.

The University of California Berkeley’s Center for Environmental Public Policy says that nearly 24 of the 25 gigawatts of planned offshore electricity will be produced from windmills floating on platforms.

This of course will cause costs to rise to unaffordable levels. At $1.04 per megawatt hour, offshore wind has the most expensive “levelized cost of electricity and levelized cost of storage for new resources entering service in 2027,” according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Battery storage is next at 64 cents per megawatt hour. All dispatchable sources are far cheaper, including nuclear, which would cost 61 cents per megawatt hour.

There are also logistical detours and roadblocks ahead. Adam Stern, executive director of Offshore Wind California, an industry group, says to expect the planning and regulatory process to drag out (our words, not his) for five to six years.

The same eco-warriors who have pressured the state to close natural gas and nuclear plants, and wield almost unlimited political clout in Sacramento and Washington, will find environmental hazards to justify their opposition to offshore wind. Fishermen will protest the negative impacts on their livelihoods, and engineering, material and cost challenges associated with the underwater cables needed to anchor floating turbines and move the power they generate are bound to emerge.

And should the state decide to locate turbines nearer to shore to avoid the high cost of floating platforms, there will be opposition from rich coastal elites who don’t want their views by the spinning monsters.

What’s more, offshore wind is vulnerable to tsunamis, the threat of which is “high to very high” on the West Coast.

We are in the fourth month of 2023, not 22 years from the state’s 2045 deadline, and not a single offshore wind project has been started. It’s unlikely we will see even a glimpse of progress for years, maybe not even in this decade. Despite the obvious obstacles ahead, there’s been no talk of revisiting a surely impossible target date, no sense of uneasiness in Sacramento, just an Admiral Farragut “damn the torpedoes” mindset that has the potential to sink California.

AUTHOR

KERRY JACKSON

Kerry Jackson is a fellow with the Center for California Reform at the Pacific Research Institute.

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

RELATED ARTICLE: JASON ISAAC: The Great Carbon Capture Scam

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

‘The Only Thing That Should Be Dragging in the Navy Is an Anchor’: Congressman

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

Anheuser-Busch hasn’t exactly been teaching a master class on marketing after its poisonous partnership with Dylan Mulvaney. When sales crashed, CEO Michel Doukeris tried the “It wasn’t a campaign — it was just a can” excuse for Bud Light’s relationship with the trans influencer, but it was $6 billion too late. Now, the U.S. Navy seems to be floating the same alibi for its drag queen recruiting videos. “The program has concluded, and the Navy is evaluating it,” Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin claimed. Well, the evaluation from House and Senate Republicans is in, and if this doesn’t stop, “heads will roll.”

For the last two months, the Navy has defended the salacious posts of 2nd Class Petty Officer Joshua Kelly (who goes by stage name “Harpy Daniels”) against the criticism of leaders like Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.), who asked how and why the branch chose a drag queen as one of its five “digital ambassadors.” “Do you believe TikTok videos of sailors dressed in and performing in drag is the best use of the Navy’s recruitment efforts?” he asked, before pointing out that Kelly is dressed in lingerie, underwear, or nothing with captions too grotesque and profane to repeat.

Lt. General (Ret.) William Boykin, who spent 36 years serving his country, openly seethed about Kelly’s posts. “I can’t even watch that,” he told Family Research Council Tony Perkins of Kelly’s videos, revolted. “I mean, I saw it earlier today on the computer, and I can’t watch. … They’re trying to add another 5,000 people to the Navy,” and this is the “kind of nonsense [they think is] going to help recruiting?”

Boykin wasn’t alone in his disgust. Rob O’Neill, the Navy SEAL who killed Osama bin Laden, held nothing back on Twitter, fuming, “Alright. The U.S. Navy is now using an enlisted sailor Drag Queen as a recruiter. I’m done. China is going to destroy us. YOU GOT THIS NAVY. I can’t believe I fought for this bull—-.”

Yet officials defended Kelly’s involvement, insisting that his social media presence didn’t violate military policy since it wasn’t technically endorsed by the Navy. That’s interesting, House and Senate Republicans fired back, since the branch asked their ambassadors to use their accounts to attract new recruits.

“[The Navy said] they weren’t paying him,” Perkins, a Marine veteran, pointed out. “But when you’re in the military, all of your time belongs to the military. … And this is what he is — a ‘digital ambassador’ as a drag queen representing the Navy. I mean, think about what our enemies [are saying], how they responded. They’ve got to be laughing at this.”

The sick images caught the attention of more than a dozen senators, who sent a letter to Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro on May 3, demanding to know if the Navy approves of these sexually explicit performances. “Would the Navy enlist burlesque or exotic dancers to reach possible recruits? Such activity is not appropriate for promotion in a professional workplace or the United States military,” Republicans Ted Cruz (Texas), Tom Cotton (Ark.), Tommy Tuberville (Ala.), and 11 others insisted.

The controversy has been even more infuriating when you consider that the Biden administration was already under fire for hosting Drag Queen Story Hours on military bases. At a House hearing in March, Secretary Austin testified that the DOD does not “support or fund” drag shows. But, Banks argued, “If he was testifying honestly, then he has an obligation to discipline the officials who decided that sexually explicit content should be featured [here] in the Navy’s Digital Ambassador’s program. [This] divisive and woke insanity [is what’s] helped drive recruitment to a record low.”

Like Bud Light, which should be a cautionary tale on how to offend heartland consumers, the Navy is alienating the very patriots who’ve historically made up the military. Putting a man in women’s lingerie isn’t how you appeal to people with conservative values, the most likely pool of future soldiers, sailors, and airmen.

Congressman Mark Alford (R-Mo.) agreed. “I’ll tell you what … the word salad that you just heard from the DOD [defending Kelly’s role], that is standard for the Biden administration,” he said on Thursday’s “Washington Watch.” “What is happening here, I think, is an abomination. … This is not any way to recruit anyone into the military. The only thing that should be dragging in the Navy is an anchor.”

“When we have China on the march, Russia threatening nuclear activity, China launching warships almost on a weekly basis, and we’re focused on pronouns and drag queens,” Perkins shook his head, “something is seriously wrong.”

Worse, Alford pointed out, “only 9% of young people surveyed recently said they had any interest whatsoever in joining the military. … [W]e could possibly be at war with communist China in less than three to five years. We’ve got to rebuild our military. We’ve got to bring some sanity back to the Department of Defense.”

In his testimony, Austin said he would get back to the committee in “due time.” “I’m here to tell you, Secretary Austin, it better be quick,” Alford warned. “We have some serious answers that we need on these serious questions … about the wokeness that has infected our military. … We have got to put a stop to this … and someone’s head is going to roll on this. I don’t know who, but we cannot continue down this path where we are turning our military into [a] circus.”

And before someone accuses him or other conservatives of being “anti-gay” or “transphobic,” he reminded them, “If this were a woman doing burlesque in an oversexualized manner trying to recruit people into the military, it would be wrong as well. … This is not getting people passionate about America again. We need Normal Rockwell … not the ‘Rocky Horror Picture Show.’ And that’s what we’re living in.”

Kelly, meanwhile, was quite content to play the martyr. He blamed critics for creating “toxic environments and hate.” “You only want to support the military when it benefits you and doesn’t involve queer people. … Well, as a service member, a queen, and an open queer person, you don’t scare me and you won’t stop the LGBTQ+ community [from] thriving,” Kelley continued. “Haters only hate when we’re winning.”

But winning — as a nation — is exactly what Republicans are concerned about. “The situation … is so serious with China,” Alford warned. “They are getting ready to invade Taiwan; Russia [is] in this illegal war against Ukraine. What’s going on in the Sudan? We have serious problems in America, and we are asleep. … The big bad wolf is at the door. As I’ve said before, he is huffing and puffing. Our house right now is not made out of brick. And I’m worried that it’s going to be blown down.”

AUTHOR

Suzanne Bowdey

Suzanne Bowdey serves as editorial director and senior writer 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.

Michigan Supreme Court Embroiled in Pronoun Battle Prompted by ACLU—Thomas More Law Center Joins Fray

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

ANN ARBOR, MI — On Monday, May 1, the Thomas More Law Center (“TMLC”) filed its written opposition in the Michigan Supreme Court challenging the wisdom of a proposed amendment to Michigan Court Rule 1.109, which would require all judges in the state to refer to parties and attorneys by any personal pronoun they select.

Erin Elizabeth Mersino, TMLC’s Chief of Supreme Court and Appellate Practice, authored the eight-page opposition to the proposed rule.  She commented that the proposed amendment “is the ACLU’s latest attempt to destroy the very fabric of our nation by subjugating our inalienable right to free speech to mandatory endorsement of its transgender agenda.”  The proposed amendment is so extreme, judges will no longer be able to make judgments on a case-by-case basis.  Failure to use a requested pronoun could result in the judge being punished for violating the court rule by the Michigan Judicial Tenure Commission.

The pronoun controversy erupted when Michigan Court of Appeals Judge Mark Boonstra criticized the other two members of the three-panel court over their use of the Defendant’s preferred pronoun in a concurring opinion in People v. Gorbick.  The Defendant, convicted of multiple counts of criminal sexual abuse on children and self-identifying as having multiple personality disorder, told the court he wanted to use the preferred pronoun, “they” and “them.”  Judge Boonstra expressed his concern for blindly following such a request and wrote that the court “should not be altering its lexicon whenever an individual prefers to be identified in a manner contrary to what society throughout human history has understood to be immutable truth.”

Read Judge Mark Boonstra’s one-page concurring opinion here.

The ACLU along with 18 other LGBTQ organizations including the LGBTQA section of the Michigan State Bar Association sent a letter to Chief Justice McCormack of the Michigan Supreme Court and Chief Judge Gleicher of the Michigan Court of Appeals condemning Judge Boonstra’s words.  The letter also suggested that judges undergo “cultural competency training [a.k.a. indoctrination camp] which would include training on the use of pronouns.”

The proposed amendment to the court rule provides:

“Parties and attorneys may also include any personal pronouns in the name section of the caption, and courts are required to use those personal pronouns when referring to or identifying the party or attorney, either verbally or in writing. Nothing in this subrule prohibits the court from using the individual’s name or other respectful means of addressing the individual if doing so will help ensure a clear record.”

Read TMLC’s written opposition to the proposed rule here.

Although the proposed rule covers judges only, TMLC is concerned that this is the first step down the slippery slope.  If the ACLU and its allies succeed in forcing pronouns on judges, the next demand will be on the lawyers, and then all the people.

Richard Thompson, TMLC’s president, observed, “Every freedom-loving American must be alert to this form of thought control.  By controlling our use of language, the ACLU seeks to control our ability to discern and think.  The “name your pronoun game” has become the absurd obsession of a significant number of large corporations, many law firms, and of academia.  Now, this variation of wokeness poses a danger to our national security as the U.S. Navy is foolishly using a drag queen video in an attempt to increase recruiting.  Ignoring the disastrous financial consequences of having a drag queen promote Bud Light beer, the U.S. Navy sees nothing wrong with using a drag queen to attract young men with similar bizarre sexual eroticism [autogynephilia] to infiltrate their fighting ships.”

Click here to view a short video of the Navy’s Drag Queen Digital Ambassador.

Thompson continued, “The ACLU has become an instrument of tyranny.  If the Michigan Supreme Court adopts the proposed amendment, it will be up to Michigan judges to stop this madness.”

This proposed amendment creates a serious constitutional problem.  It would compel judges to adopt and express a uniform viewpoint that affirms the ACLU’s extreme position on gender identity ideology.  It flies directly in the face of the First Amendment.  The proposed rule also reflects the sad state of our society where the far-left cares more about misgendering and offending the feelings of a convicted pedophile than it does about upholding free speech and the inalienable rights protected by the United States Constitution.

The Thomas More Law Center’s written opposition filed in the Michigan Supreme Court, concludes:

“The State Bar of Michigan has no right to force this compulsion.  In its ostensible effort to be ‘tolerant’ or ‘diverse,’ it would, in fact, be enacting the least tolerant court rule in all its history.  It would be taking a side in the culture war—one that it knows would alienate all of its members who disagree with the amendment for religious, political, moral, personal, constitutional, or scientific reasons.”

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and moral values.  It supports a strong national defense and an independent and sovereign United States of America.  The Law Center accomplishes its mission through litigation, education, and related activities.  It does not charge for its services.  The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations, and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization.  You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website at www.thomasmore.org.

Thank you for your continued support of the Thomas More Law Center. Your donations help us to be Battle Ready to Defend America!

PLEASE DONATE NOW!

©2023 Thomas More Law Center. All rights reserved.

AWED MEDIA BALANCED NEWS: We cover COVID to Climate, as well as Energy to Elections.

/in , , , , , , , , , /by

Welcome! We cover COVID to Climate, as well as Energy to Elections.

Here is the link for this issue, so please share it on social media.

Bookmark or make Favorite the 2023, 2022, 2021 & 2020 Newsletter Archives.

Particularly note the ***asterisked*** items below…

— This Newsletter’s Articles, by Topic —

If You Only Have Time to Read a Few Select Articles:

*** Would Our Founding Fathers Recognize America Today?

*** The 45 Communist Goals Were Just The Initial Blueprint To Take Over America

*** Tucker Carlson’s Recent Talk at Heritage

*** Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.: “There Is No Time In History Where The People Who Were Censoring Speech Were The Good Guys”

*** Welcome to the Great Spiritual War of our Time

*** Congresswoman Tenney Introduces the Promoting Free and Fair Elections Act

*** Republicans need a serious counter-offensive if they want to stand a chance

*** The IPCC’s perversion of science

*** Insanity: Biden Energy Secretary Wants All US Military Vehicles to be Electric by 2030

*** Charge!

*** Smaller, cheaper, safer: The next generation of nuclear power, explained

*** Long List of SMR Manufacturers

*** China Dominates U.S. Solar Market as Lawmakers Tussle Over Tariffs

*** DOE vs. Gas Cooking: A Review of Critical Comments

*** Right, OilPrice.com, Wind Power is Unprofitable

*** The Renewable Capital Cost Green Trick

*** The Statistics That Come Out of Nowhere

*** The ‘Hurtful’ Idea of Scientific Merit

*** Though Beleaguered, Science Education is Alive in America

*** Study: Ivermectin, a potential anticancer drug

*** Fauci’s ‘Humble’ Attempt to Rewrite History

*** Another Op-Ed Attack At Fauci’s Never-Ending Victory Tour

Higher Education Related:

*** Restoring Real Debate on College Campuses

*** 673 university professors sign letter opposing courses on America’s founding, Constitution.  NC Academics Dig in against the Constitution

*** College Professor made ‘The Real Anthony Fauci’ Required Reading for Her Students

Whitworth Students Bar Survivor of Maoist China from Speaking

Here is how big the global edtech market will grow by 2030

Secondary Education Related:

*** Report: The Key to Fixing the US Education System

*** How To Shush Your Negative Inner Voice, Think More Positively and Teach Kids To Do the Same

*** Advanced Public Education — Based on Merit, not Equity!

*** A list of school districts that have Transgender/Gender Nonconforming Policies that openly state that district personnel can or should keep a student’s transgender status hidden from parents

Are Public Schools Broken, or are the Defects Part of the Design?

How the woke, like all totalitarians, are targeting our children

Science Education Now About Squelching Science?

Greed Energy Economics:

*** Right, OilPrice.com, Wind Power is Unprofitable

*** The Renewable Capital Cost Green Trick

*** Green Energy Is Stuck at a Financial Red Light

Wind lobby demands ever more subsidies from poor Europeans

Renewables (General):

*** How Greening the Economy Will Destroy America

*** The inhumanity of the green agenda

*** Environmental Bootleggers and Baptists Fleece Consumers

Video: The Great Renewable Energy Con explained by Dr Benny Peiser

A not-so-green reality behind green transition

Wind Energy — Offshore:

*** The Pentagon Tilts at Windmills

*** Whales and Offshore Wind: The Verdict Was in Before the Coroner’s Report

*** Conservative watchdogs highlight ‘alarming’ surge in whale deaths as wind projects grow off NY, NJ coasts

Wind energy developer funneled cash to Dem senator pushing offshore wind

NOAA proposes hammering 208% of vanishing Right Whales

Calls mount to stop offshore wind project as more whales wash up dead: ‘Need to take a very hard look at this’

Biden Admin Energy Official Won’t Say if Offshore Turbines Can Survive Hurricane

California Wind-power auction shows how money matters in climate projects

We Oppose Delaware Offshore Wind because it’s Expensive, Unreliable, and Threatens the Natural Environment

Cargo ship arrives in Germany with large hole after striking wind turbine

Wind Energy — Other:

*** Taking the Wind Out of Climate Change (referencing 60± studies)

Wind Energy Poll: Nearly 60% say embrace natural gas

Solar Energy:

*** China Dominates U.S. Solar Market as Lawmakers Tussle Over Tariffs

Wisconsin Town Fights Big Solar (And Climate Corporatism)

Firefighters struggling to contain solar facility fire

Utility Scale Solar Kills Jobs

Nuclear Energy:

*** Smaller, cheaper, safer: The next generation of nuclear power, explained

*** DOE Report: Pathways to Commercial Liftoff — Advanced Nuclear

*** Long List of SMR Manufacturers

*** France Delivering a Second Nuclear Era

Doomberg re Nuclear

NC Senate Republicans pave way for nuclear fusion in North Carolina

Nuclear Energy is a Game Changer, But Not For Climate Reasons!

Bill Gates: I’m in Wyoming to celebrate the next nuclear breakthrough

Nuclear Gaining Steam in Canada

Fossil Fuel Energy:

*** DOE vs. Gas Cooking: A Review of Critical Comments

*** Biden’s New ‘Green’ Power Plant Rule Is Probably Illegal

An Earth Day discussion with Alex Epstein, Rick Perry, and the TX State Climatologist

China’s coal boom accelerates as Beijing strengthens energy security

Electric Vehicles (EVs):

*** Insanity: Biden Energy Secretary Wants All US Military Vehicles to be Electric by 2030

Will Electric Vehicles Disappoint You?

Survey: Growing portion of US shoppers are rejecting EVs

Ford is losing roughly $60,000 for every electric vehicle sold

Misc Energy:

*** The IPCC’s perversion of science

*** Charge!

*** Capacity Factors: Comparing Apples & Kumquats

Global Energy Security and Net Zero

Manmade Global Warming — Some Deceptions:

*** The Geothermal Paradox: How the Earth’s Second Largest Heat Source May Be Driving the Most Recent Warming

*** Study: Satellite global temperature data series bolsters the case that climate models are running way too hot

*** The climate scaremongers: How the ‘world disaster’ figures lie

King Charles III: The climate prophet of doom

The Practical Impossibility of Large-Scale Carbon Capture and Storage

Manmade Global Warming — Misc:

Climate Change Papers You Should Read

“No Bricks, No Glass, No Cement” – What Net Zero 2050 Demands According to Government-Funded Report

Simon the Solar Powered Cat :A Climate Scam Subversive?

US Election:

Election-Integrity.info (10 major election reports by our team of experts, plus much more!)

*** Congresswoman Tenney Introduces the Promoting Free and Fair Elections Act

*** Republicans need a serious counter-offensive if they want to stand a chance

*** Report: The Fingerprints of Fraud

*** Corrupt Media Fight Election Accountability With Democrat-Manufactured Lies

*** Dominion vs. ‘Russian Collusion’ and ‘Disinformation’

*** Republicans Hope to Block Biden’s Use of Government to Get Out Vote

Is Blinker’s Boat Sinken

US Election — State Issues:

*** North Carolina Supreme Court tosses out electoral maps, reinstitutes voter ID law

Full Committee Hearing: American Confidence in Elections: State Tools to Promote Voter Confidence

Voter confidence is hurt when voting lists are not being cleaned up

Al Gross should have stayed on U.S. House ballot, Alaska Supreme Court says

Georgia Victory: Legislation Enforcing Ban on ‘Zuckerbucks’ Scheme Signed into Law

Appeals Court in Florida Voids Obama Judge’s Ruling in Win for Election Integrity

Longtime Democratic Campaign Strategist Charged with Election Fraud

Albany NY Area Officials Indicted for Election Fraud

Iran-linked hackers broke into election results website in 2020, general says

Tucker Carlson:

*** Tucker Carlson Out at Fox

*** Tucker Carlson Video Exceeds 60M Views in Less Than 24 Hours

What Happened to Tucker at Fox Proves Mencken and Liebling Right

The Crime of “Talking to Tucker Carlson”

Victor Davis Hanson on Tucker Carlson’s firing, ‘Fox News can’t replace him’

Tucker Shows Us the Way Through A Sandstorm of Lies

Misc US Politics:

*** Big Pharma’s Destruction of American Journalism

*** Biden’s Energy Secretary Endorses Suicidal Mission for the U.S. Military

*** How Corrupt is our Current Situation? It’s Worse that Most Can Fathom

*** DeSantis Made Himself a Conservative Juggernaut…

What is a Democrat?

Now They’re Trying Censor Your Text Messages

Biden Leans Even Further Left to Secure the Votes of ‘Progressive’ Young Adults

The Transgender Cult Owns the Democratic Party

On the Debt Ceiling, GOP Should Unplug DOJ

Federal Court Halts Biden Administration’s Clean Water Overreach

Societally US:

*** The Violent Legacy of Anti-Parent Policies

*** Americans are not working, nor is their collapsing culture

*** Stossel Confronts a Professor

*** Coming to grips with the deadly impact of information overload

Female Crash Test Dummy Says She Doesn’t Know How Car Got Totaled

NY taxpayer outflow hit a new net high of 261,785 in 2020-21

Some Real Life Effects of Equity

A DEI Meeting You’ll Never See

“Transgender” Toddlers as Young as 2 Undergoing Mutilation/Sterilization by NC Medical System, Journalist Alleges

Wokeness And Conservative Economic Power

US Politics and Socialism:

*** Critically Thinking about Woke

*** Would Our Founding Fathers Recognize America Today?

*** The 45 Communist Goals Were Just The Initial Blueprint To Take Over America

*** Need to Keep Masses Afraid is Behind Elite Embrace of Wokeism and Censorship

*** Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.: “There Is No Time In History Where The People Who Were Censoring Speech Were The Good Guys”

*** Central banks and ESG investing: A fatal combination of incompetence and overreach

What Drives The Anti-American Left

What Happened to First Republic Bank?

Globalism:

*** WHO: The Most Dangerous International Treaty Ever Proposed

*** UN, Harvard, And Facebook-Google Launch Push For Censorship Worldwide

*** World On Cusp Of Woke Totalitarianism As Governments Act To End Freedom Of Speech

*** Kennedy: WEF And Bill Gates Are Using ‘Climate Change’ To Control Population

Scoundrels In A Bubble

Report: ESG — A Threat to Individual Liberty, Free Markets, and the U.S. Economy

The Great Reset and the Grand Refusal | Michael Rectenwald

Religion Related:

*** Welcome to the Great Spiritual War of our Time

‘Imagine’

As Religious Faith Continues to Decline, a Faithful Remnant Has Outsized Political Impact

How Christian Popular Culture’s Revival Cast Out the Money Changers

Science:

*** The Statistics That Come Out of Nowhere

*** The ‘Hurtful’ Idea of Scientific Merit

*** Though Beleaguered, Science Education is Alive in America

*** Study: Ivermectin, a potential anticancer drug

Biden Administration Supports ‘Gain of Function’ Research

Artificial Intelligence:

*** What is ChatGPT?

Study: ChatGPT Answers Beat Physicians’ on Info, Patient Empathy

Artificial Intelligence Is Here — Friend, Foe or Both?

Ukraine:

*** Pray for the safety of the Ukrainian people

*** A well-rated source to make a Ukraine donation

*** Latest Developments in Ukraine: May 7th

War Threatens Ukraine Auto Empire of Biden Mega Donor — Who is Urging Greater U.S. Role

COVID-19 — Injections:

*** Serious Harms of the Covid-19 Vaccine: A Systematic Review

*** 500 Australians Join World’s First COVID Vaccine Injury Class Action Lawsuit

*** The FDA knew on September 17, 2021 that people who got the COVID vaccine were 2X more likely to be infected

Don’t let anyone gaslight you on VAERS

Major US Agency to Keep COVID-19 Vaccine Mandate Despite White House Announcement

COVID-19 — Masks:

*** Study: Face Mask Risk = Stillbirths, Testicular Dysfunction, Cognitive Decline

*** Yet Another European Study Contradicts CDC Mask Doctrine

COVID-19 — Misc:

*** Fauci’s ‘Humble’ Attempt to Rewrite History

*** Another Op-Ed Attack At Fauci’s Never-Ending Victory Tour

This Federal Department Was at the Center of COVID-19 Overreach. Here’s What a Conservative President Should Do With It

Texas AG Pax­ton Launch­es Inves­ti­ga­tion into Gain-of-Func­tion Research and Mis­rep­re­sen­ta­tions by Covid-19 Vac­cine Manufacturers

COVID-19 — Repeated Important Information:

My webpage (C19Science.info) with dozens of Science-based COVID-19 reports

*** World Council of Health: Early COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines

*** FLCCC Long COVID Treatment Protocol

*** COVID-19: What You Need To Know (Physicians for Informed Consent)

*** If you have received a COVID-19 injection, here’s how to Detox

*** Place Your US Order for Free At-Home COVID-19 Tests

Please use social media, etc. to pass on this Newsletter to other open-minded citizens…If you’d like to be added to (or unsubscribe from) the distribution of our popular, free, worldwide Media Balance Newsletter, simply send me an email saying that.

Note 1: We recommend reading the Newsletter on your computer, not your phone, as some documents (e.g., PDFs) are much easier to read on a large computer screen… We’ve tried to use common fonts, etc. to minimize display issues.

Note 2: For past Newsletter issues see the archives from: 2020 & 2021 & 2022 & 2023. To accommodate numerous requests received about prior articles over all thirteen plus years of the Newsletter, we’ve put this together — where you can search ALL prior issues, by year. For a background about how the Newsletter is put together, etc., please read this.

Note 3: See this extensive list of reasonable books on climate change. As a parallel effort, we have also put together a list of some good books related to industrial wind energy. Both topics are also extensively covered on my website: WiseEnergy.org.

Note 4: I am not an attorney or a physician, so no material appearing in any of the Newsletters (or any of my websites) should be construed as giving legal or medical advice. My recommendation has always been: consult a competent, licensed attorney when you are involved with legal issues, and consult a competent physician regarding medical matters.

Copyright © 2023; Alliance for Wise Energy Decisions (see WiseEnergy.org).

EU Backs Dutch Scheme to Forcibly Shut Down Thousands of Farms to Meet EU’s Climate Goals

/in , , , , , , , , , , , /by

Dutch Scheme Bans Farmers From Returning to Agriculture Forever.

The buyout scheme prohibits Dutch farmers from moving to other countries and starting up farms abroad, meaning that their knowledge and expertise would be lost.

No one is safe.

Responding to the announcement from the EU, Dutch political commentator Eva Vlaardingerbroek said: “This is how they do it: they put a knife to the farmers’ throats. They make sure they don’t get their licenses renewed, they’re plaguing them with new rules & restrictions every day and then offer them a bride, knowing many will take it out of pure desperation. It’s all so vile.”

“I also highly doubt that prohibiting them to start over elsewhere in the EU is even legal. The whole idea of the EU was supposed to be about freedom of movement and freedom of workers. This is some next-level USSR stuff,” Vlaardingerbroek added.

EU Backs Dutch Scheme to Forcibly Shut Down Thousands of Farms, Ban Farmers From Returning to Agriculture Forever

By: Kurt Zindulka, Breitbart News, 3 May 2023:

The European Commission in Brussels has backed a scheme by the globalist government of Prime Minister Mark Rutte in the Netherlands that would see thousands of farms shut down in order to comply with EU climate goals.

On Tuesday, the governing arm of the European Union officially threw its support behind plans by the Dutch government to buy out thousands of farmers from their lands in order to meet the EU’s Natura 2000 scheme to protect certain environments. The plan, which would offer farmers 120 per cent of the value of their farm, could see some 3,000 so-called “peak” emitters of nitrogen shut down.

It was unclear before this week whether the EU would permit such a scheme, as it could have potentially fallen afoul of regulations surrounding state aid or subsidies. However, Brussels said that the plans were “necessary and appropriate” as they met the broader goals of the European Green Deal.

“The positive effects transcend any distortions of the free market,” the statement added.

In addition to the plan to buyout — or eventually force out if they refuse — the “peak” emitting farms, the government is also planning a separate scheme that would give dairy, pig, and poultry farmers a deal for 100 per cent of the value of their farm if they wished to shut down. In total, some 1.4 billion euros is expected to be set aside for both farm shutdown schemes.

Should the plan go ahead, it would not only be a major blow for the farming industry in the Netherlands, which is one of the most productive in Europe but could potentially impact other nations as well, given that part of the condition of the buyout scheme is that the Dutch farmers would be prohibited from moving to other countries and starting up farms abroad, meaning that their knowledge and expertise would be squandered.

Responding to the announcement from the EU, Dutch political commentator Eva Vlaardingerbroek said: “This is how they do it: they put a knife to the farmers’ throats. They make sure they don’t get their licenses renewed, they’re plaguing them with new rules & restrictions every day and then offer them a bride, knowing many will take it out of pure desperation. It’s all so vile.”

“I also highly doubt that prohibiting them to start over elsewhere in the EU is even legal. The whole idea of the EU was supposed to be about freedom of movement and freedom of workers. This is some next-level USSR stuff,” Vlaardingerbroek added.

The plan to shut down thousands of farms is by no means a done deal, however, given that it would need to be managed mostly at the provincial level. This may be complicated for the fledgling Rutte government as the upstart tractor protest backing Farmer–Citizen Movement (BBB) party not only became the single largest party in the Dutch Senate in March but also one of the largest parties at the provincial level where many of the farms are located.

There have also been some cracks within Rutte’s coalition, with the CDA party expressing doubt over the general nitrogen emission crackdown following the surprise victory of the BBB party.

Read more.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED TWEETS:

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

SEAL Who Helped Kill Bin Laden Fuming Over Navy’s Drag Queen Ambassador: ‘Can’t Believe I Fought Bor This Bullsh–t’

/in , , , , , , , /by

Thank you, hero. Everyone is so afraid to state the obvious.

The military has a huge recruiting and retention problem because they went woke. They’ve hit bottom. So why keep digging?

SEAL who helped kill bin Laden fumes over Navy’s drag queen ambassador: ‘Can’t believe I fought for this bullsh–t’

By: NY Post, May 4, 2023:

A decorated Navy SEAL veteran, who was a part of the mission that killed Osama bin Laden, has spoken out against the Navy’s new recruitment campaign.

Former US Navy SEAL Team Six member, Robert J. O’Neill, took to Twitter Wednesday morning to share his disapproval of the Navy’s hiring of an active-duty drag queen to help recruit “the most talented and diverse workforce” for the military branch.

“Alright. The US Navy is now using an enlisted sailor Drag Queen as a recruiter. I’m done. China is going to destroy us. YOU GOT THIS NAVY. I can’t believe I fought for this bulls-t,” O’Neill wrote to his 590,500 followers.

O’Neill’s comments were targeted at Yeoman 2nd Class Joshua Kelley, the first of five new “Digital Ambassadors” for a new program the Navy piloted from October to March.

Kelley, who identifies as non-binary and goes by the stage name Harpy Daniels, has shared their journey of being a non-binary, drag queen with the Navy through their Instagram and TikTok accounts.

“Thank you to the Navy for giving me this opportunity! I don’t speak for the Navy but simply sharing my experience in the Navy! Hooyah, and let’s go Slay!” Daniels said in a November post.

Kelley was an ambassador of a program “designed to explore the digital environment to reach a wide range of potential candidates” as the Navy battles “the most challenging recruiting environment it has faced since the start of the all-volunteer force,” a Navy spokesperson told Fox News.

O’Neill, who was self-credited with delivering the fatal blow to bin Laden during the May 2, 2011 raid in Abbottabad, Pakistan, has published two books since leaving the military in 2014.

Keep reading.

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLE: ‘The Only Thing That Should Be Dragging in the Navy Is an Anchor’: Congressman

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