ACTION

How much credibility should we give to a 16-year-old when considering her qualifications to lecture adults about science and an end-of-the-world scenario?

Greta Thunberg has been dubbed by the media as a “climate change activist” and a teen “eco-warrior.” She was at the United Nations in New York last Monday to appear before diplomats and others at a “climate action summit.” Only the UN has less credibility than a teenager.

Thunberg is on a world tour promoting the latest end-of-the-planet scenario. By the way, shouldn’t she be in school? Reporters won’t ask because most appear to buy into her secular doctrine that the apocalypse is just around the corner.

Thunberg claims “people are dying” because the Earth is getting hotter. She warns that adults had better wake up or they will burn in ecological hell or perhaps even the real thing. Her theological qualifications have yet to be examined.

Think back to when you were 16 and believed you knew it all. At 18, an adult called me “precocious” (he didn’t mean it as a compliment). I had to look up the meaning in a dictionary. It was a humbling experience.

As their adolescent brains continue to develop, most teenagers know only what their teachers and textbooks tell them and maybe their parents, if they still listen to them. Science textbooks mostly embrace the climate change scenario, so why wouldn’t kids believe what they read and what they’re taught?

Thunberg was preparing to speak to the assembled adults at the UN when President Trump walked in ahead of her. The man knows showmanship. The expression on Thunberg’s face was priceless. If spitting fire contributed to “global warming,” we’d have been in real trouble.

It appears the girl is being held in intellectual captivity. She might benefit from consulting a list of “50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalytpic Predictions” compiled by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI.org), the nonprofit libertarian think tank based in Washington, D.C.

Just a few examples:

In 1967, the Los Angeles Times carried a story headlined “Dire Famine Forecast by 1975.” The story said it might “already be too late.”

On August 10, 1969, The New York Times quoted a 37-year-old scientist predicting a new ice age and that “everyone will disappear in a cloud of blue steam by 1989.”

An April 16, 1970 story in the Boston Globe quoted Dr. Paul R. Erlich of the University of California, Riverside, predicting America will be “subject to water rationing by 1974 and food rationing by 1980.” Erlich said the oceans would be as dead as Lake Erie in less than a decade.

On July 9, 1971, The Washington Post, which, like most other media, now claims climate change and a warming planet is “settled science,” thought differently then. It quoted Dr. S. I. Rasool of NASA and Columbia University. Rasool predicted a coming “new ice age.” He was described as a “leading atmospheric scientist,” so he should be believed, right? He predicted we had only about “50 or 60 years” to save ourselves from freezing to death.

On her way back to Sweden, Ms. Thunberg should take along a copy of the CEI summary. She just may discover that some older people might know more than she does about most things and that those who preceded her in these “Chicken Little” hysterics were as wrong then as she is now.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/65706?mailing_id=4552&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4552&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

This is definitely good news for American farmers who have felt the brunt of tariffs in the long-running trade war with China. The Wall Street Journal, which has long voiced strong criticism of Trump’s tariff strategy, says, “The Japan deal be the President’s biggest trade victory in his first term.” Furthermore, it increases pressure on China to negotiate an end to the trade war.

While the Journal disappointedly observes that the trade agreement does not include any deal on motor vehicles, the White House statement does note that more may be coming in the future as “the United States will engage in further negotiations in the interest of achieving a final, comprehensive trade deal.”   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/65726?mailing_id=4552&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4552&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

At first glance, there is one statistic that is particularly damning for opponents of gun control; namely, that most of the Top 10 states for highest rates of gun deaths are conservative, pro-Second Amendment “red” states. In other words, the states most determined to protect their gun rights are the states most likely to suffer from high mortality rates due to “gun violence.”

Furthermore, gun-control advocates claim that in “blue” cities/states like Chicago, where death rates from firearms are high, neighboring states like Indiana and Wisconsin (with more lenient gun laws) are to blame, allowing criminals to easily obtain firearms that are then transported across state lines.

As you might have already guessed, there’s more to the story.

Logically, it makes no sense to blame Indiana and Wisconsin for Chicago’s high rate of violent crime. First, fewer guns used in Chicago crimes originate from Indiana and Wisconsin (less than 30%) than originate from Chicago (40%). And logic would dictate (if the pro-gun-control argument is to be believed) that the rate of violent crime would be highest where guns are most easily accessible, and would drop with distance from the epicenter. Conversely, crime would certainly should plummet in a place like Chicago, where guns are largely prohibited and strictly regulated.

Statistically, the argument is also too simplistic. Yes, the highest rates of gun deaths are in “red” states with more lenient gun laws, but that doesn’t tell the whole story. For example, in the state with the highest rate of gun deaths per capita, Alaska, suicide accounted for 80% of those deaths. In the state with the second-highest rate, Alabama, suicides accounted for 52% of gun deaths. Nationally, suicide accounts for nearly two-thirds of all gun deaths. Universal background checks would not do much to prevent someone from committing suicide who is determined to do so.

There is also the fact that, since 1968, federal law has declared anyone who “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution” is barred from possessing or acquiring firearms.

So what we should really be focused on is reducing the number of homicides in which guns are used. The question is, where are these homicides occurring?

According to an analysis of the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) statistics, 54% of all U.S. counties had ZERO homicides in 2014 (latest data available), and 70% of the counties had no more than one homicide. In fact, 68% of all homicides occurred in just 5% of U.S. counties, with over 50% of all homicides occurring in 2% of the counties.

So, in these Republican “red” states, the vast majority of homicides are concentrated in places like Atlanta, Birmingham, Memphis, New Orleans, Baton Rouge, etc. All of these cities have been controlled by Democrats for decades, and most have stringent gun laws. In fact, the U.S. cities that have far and away the highest murder rates are all Democrat-controlled — St. Louis, Baltimore, Detroit, New Orleans, Baton Rouge, Kansas City, Cleveland, Memphis, Newark, Chicago, etc.

Louisiana is a perfect example. It has the cities with the fourth- and fifth-highest murder rates in the country, with New Orleans (39.5 murders per 100,000) and Baton Rouge (38.3 murders per 100,000). Yet the average for the entire state plummets to 12.4 murders per 100,000, meaning that outside of those two cities, the state is actually pretty safe.

The murders tend to be highly concentrated even within counties. For example, the vast majority of murders in Los Angeles County are in the southeastern part of the county, with virtually none in the northwestern section. In Washington, DC, virtually all murders occur in the eastern part of the city.

The caricature of gun owners in general, and NRA members in particular, as gun-totin’, backwoods hillbillies looking for a reason to shoot someone is nothing more than intellectually lazy character assassination. One has only to look at concealed-carry weapons (CCW) permit holders to realize that.

CCW permit holders are even more law abiding than sworn law-enforcement officers. Criminal-justice statistics show that CCW permit holders commit crimes at roughly 1/8th the rate of law-enforcement officers, who themselves commit crimes at a fraction of the general population. CCW holders and NRA members are CCW holders and NRA members precisely because they have a deep respect for Rule of Law, the Constitution, and societal safety and order. Their driving desire in carrying a weapon is to protect their own lives, the lives of their families, and innocent people around them from violent criminals. Most hope to never have to draw their weapon but are ready if they must.

Yes, it’s easier to engage in the character assassination of gun owners than it is to deal with the reality that the vast majority of gun crimes are committed in the urban poverty plantations cultivated by Democrats for decades.

But that won’t save any lives.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/65710?mailing_id=4552&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4552&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Fox News reports, “commie-Sanders’ plan, if enacted into law, would place a 1 percent tax on net worth over $32 million, a 2 percent tax on net worth between $50 million and $250 million, and a 3 percent tax on net worth between $250 million and $500 million. The proposed commie-Sanders tax would increase to 4 percent net worth from $500 million to $1 billion, 5 percent for net worth from $1 billion to $2.5 billion, and ultimately reach 8 percent for wealth over $10 billion.”

Using tired old leftist class-warfare rhetoric, commie-Sanders asserts, “Under this plan, the wealth of billionaires would be cut in half over 15 years, which would substantially break up the concentration of wealth and power of this small, privileged class.”

But commie-Sanders isn’t the only one singing this Marxist tune. Earlier this year, one-percenter Elizabeth dinky-Warren unveiled her own tax-the-rich-to-pay-for-socialism scheme. It would levee a 2% annual tax on everything above $50 million and a 3% tax on net worth above $1 billion.

commie-Sanders’s plan to confiscate wealth from billionaires would still fall well short of the money needed to fund all his socialist policy proposals. For example, his Medicare for All plan alone would cost an estimated $32 trillion over the next 10 years, while his billionaire tax would net just $4.35 trillion over the same period of time. So, who ends up making up the near $28 trillion difference?

Both commie-Sanders and dinky-Warren claim that their tax proposals would only impact 180,000 and 70,000 households respectively. Clearly, neither commie-Sanders nor dinky-Warren recognize the trickle-down effect that raising taxes on the wealthy has upon the economy at large. Like a pebble dropped into a pool, the ripples spread across the entire surface. The simple fact of the matter is that everyone would be impacted by such a grotesque government money grab.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/65699?mailing_id=4549&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4549&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

This complete breakdown in civility toward members of the civil service is a recent phenomenon, and it’s growing worse. Public ire toward government has reached a point where people are growing more comfortable with taking out that frustration on the men and women who work for the same government agencies that make people’s blood boil. The old adage, “I’m just doing my job,” no longer buys one a pass.

In any society where disdain for its government reaches such a point of open hostility, woe be the elected official who refuses to heed the signs. But the signs are not entirely universal. Like anything related to politics in this country these days, there is very little overlap between Republicans and Democrats on the issue. In short, Americans can agree that they hate government, but they cannot agree on why.

As one might imagine, 72% of self-identified Democrats look unfavorably on agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), according to a 2018 Pew Research Center poll. An identical percentage of Republicans look favorably on ICE. Among Republicans, 65% believe the Border Patrol is too lenient on enforcement, while 40% of Democrats believe it is too harsh.

And on it goes. Both IRS and FBI enjoy greater support among Democrats than Republicans, who have been stung by both organizations for their roles in targeting conservatives and for potentially involvement in the  attempted coup to oust President Donald Trump from office.

Conservative and independent citizens, at the behest of our Forefathers, have always held a healthy distrust of government. That distrust is essential to the survival of Liberty, because, as Thomas Jefferson warned, “The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.”

What we see now, though, is not healthy for Liberty or our republic. And unfortunately, the rising level of distrust and lack of respect for government institutions is unlikely to lead to a libertarian renaissance of smaller, more responsive government.

If only the disdain for certain government agencies or policies led to a more concerted effort at reform. But that is unlikely to happen in this hyper-partisan atmosphere where political affiliation outweighs allegiance to the Republic.

Take federal spending for instance. For decades we have watched the minority party in Washington savage the majority for its spendthrift ways. But this rancor only lasts until the next election changes party control. Do spending patterns change? Nope. The only thing different is who’s doling out the perks to keep their party in power.

This is why Democrats continue to run on more government, more centralization of power, and more regulation — even in the face of the growing anti-government trend among the public. They know that dangling “free” college, “free” healthcare, and “free” money in front of people will ultimately get their votes, so long as Democrats successfully hide its true cost. This is why Congress can be the least popular institution in the country with 10% approval, but still enjoy a nearly 90% reelection rate every two years. “Throw the bums out. Just not my bum.”

Our Founders established a constitutionally limited government based upon Rule of Law. It’s understandable, therefore, to see conservative and independent perception of unconstitutional government interference decline in tandem with the rise of unconstitutional interference in our lives. Likewise, it’s concerning how successfully leftists have promoted rule of man, including policies that will increase the very number of government workers few Americans want running their lives.

After all, there’s a reason Ronald Reagan famously said, “The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’”   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/65668?mailing_id=4547&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4547&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

So, do Democrats actually have a legitimate case this time, or is this just another hoax? In an effort to lay out the facts, and in order to avoid falling into the endless speculation game, what follows is a timeline of the events in question.

What came first — Trump’s phone call with Zelensky, or the decision by the Trump administration to withhold the $391 million in military aid to Ukraine? Answer: The decision to withhold military aid came first — more than a week before Trump’s July 25th phone call with Zelensky.

What motivated the Trump administration to withhold the military aid? Answer: According to the White House, the primary concern was corruption within the Ukrainian government. Furthermore, the Washington Examiner reports that the Trump administration wanted time to determine whether the newly elected Zelensky was pro-West or pro-Russia. On Sept. 2, Vice President Mike Pence met Zelenksy, and the following day he said, “As President Trump had me make clear, we have great concerns about issues of corruption.”

When were the funds released and what were the circumstances surrounding their release? Answer: The administration released the aid on Sept. 12 as lawmakers led by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) threatened legislation to force Trump to release the aid. Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) was also on board with scumbag-Durbin, stating, “We support Ukraine. Period. End of discussion.” While that effort was bipartisan, it was Democrat led. Why were Democrats so keen on making sure these funds were given to Ukraine? That’s not yet clear.

Then last week the news broke that a “whistleblower” had contacted the inspector general of the intelligence community to file a complaint over a phone call in which Trump was alleged to have made a problematic “promise” to a foreign leader. It has since been learned that this “whistleblower” came by the information secondhand, though the circumstances surrounding how this individual acquired the information are not yet known.

This morning, Trump noted that in addition to concerns about corruption, his administration withheld funds in part because other European nations weren’t contributing enough. “I’d withhold again and I’ll continue to withhold until such time as Europe and other nations contribute to Ukraine because they’re not doing it,” he said.

Clearly, there are many questions that need to be answered, and Trump, who has explicitly denied having engaged in any quid pro quo with Zelensky, might do well to preemptively release the transcript of the call in question. Should Trump’s description of the conversation be accurate, it would certainly take a lot of wind out of the Democrats’ impeachment hysteria — even if House Speaker liar-Nancy Pelosi is strategically floating the idea. But Demo operatives have likely already seen the conversation transcript and think they can spin it up in order to divert attention from loose lips liar-Joe Biden’s “Ukraine problem.”

Central to the Demos’ claim is that Trump was using his office to undermine loose loip liar-Biden’s campaign. But, why would Trump demand that Zelensky dig up dirt on loose lips liar-Biden when all the dirt on both loose lips liar-Joe and Hunter loose lips liar-Biden was already public? It would seem that concern over corruption would be a more likely Trump motive. Could the newly elected Ukrainian president’s government be trusted to take $400 million in aid and allocate it to the Ukrainian military, or would it be siphoned off into the overseas bank accounts of various corrupt Ukrainian government officials?   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/65671?mailing_id=4547&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4547&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

When a president talks on the phone to a foreign leader, there are multiple people from intelligence agencies listening in. They make transcripts, which are circulated at the highest echelons of our security agencies so that everybody will know what the policy implications are of the conversation.

One individual from an intelligence agency, whom the left and its media allies are referring to as a “whistleblower,” has alleged that President Trump made some sort of offer to a foreign leader that the individual claims was inappropriate.

(It’s interesting that when leaks hurt the left, the leakers are jailed as criminals. But when a deep-state leaker tries to hurt Trump, he’s a “whistleblower.”)

The leaker in this case reported his concerns about Trump’s call. The Justice Department reviewed them and determined that they did not rise to the level that required disclosure with congressional intelligence committees.

Of course, the fake-news media complex immediately went into a frenzy. I suspect they all believed that the country in question was Russia and that Trump had been talking to Vladimir Putin. Some even suggested, with no more information than I just presented, that this “scandal” was a “constitutional crisis” that could bring down Trump’s presidency.

That’s simply ridiculous. But that’s been the mindset of our media for the past two and a half years.

Thursday, President Trump attempted to tamp down the hysteria. He said it was “dumb” to suggest he would “say something inappropriate” while on a “heavily populated call,” referring to all the people that he knows are listening in.

Further leaks indicate that the controversial call was with the newly elected president of Ukraine, who, by the way, is a former comedian. It is quite possible that we may ultimately find out that the president simply made a joke that some denizen of the Deep State misinterpreted.

My Guess on the Call

I have no inside information, but here’s something I could easily imagine.

There have been strong allegations that then-Vice President loose lips liar-Joe Biden threatened senior Ukrainian officials with dour consequences (the loss of a $1 billion loan) unless a prosecutor investigating a company that employed loose lips liar-Biden’s son was fired — and he was.

According to reports, Hunter loose lips liar-Biden made at least $1.8 million as a board member of this Ukrainian natural-gas company. But Big Media have largely ignored the allegations.

There have been reports that Rudy Giuliani has talked to Ukrainian officials to ask if there is any evidence of wrongdoing by either loose lips liar-Joe or Hunter loose lips liar-Biden.

I could certainly imagine President Trump saying to the Ukrainian president-elect, “Congratulations on your victory. By the way, if there’s anything to these loose lips liar-Biden allegations, it could be to your benefit to share it.”

Again, this is just a guess, and it could certainly be something entirely different.

You’d think more journalists would be interested in finding out how “Middle-Class loose lips liar-Joe” and his family made their millions. But no. The media are only interested in taking Trump down.

Climate Strike

Yesterday was the big global climate strike. You should check out how many students participated in your town by walking out of school and pushing the demands of this movement. It will give you a good indication of just how bad the indoctrination is in your local schools.

According to one recent survey, 57% of American teenagers said that news about climate change has made them “afraid,” while 52% said they are “angry.” This is what the left’s propaganda has done to our kids. It has filled them with rage and anxiety.

Just to be clear, everyone is for clean air and clean water. But that’s not the demand of this movement.

It is demanding a complete reordering of the American economy by using the power of big government to change what you eat, where you work, where you live, the temperature on your thermostat, what you drive (if you drive at all), and virtually everything else in your life.

Don’t take my word for it.

Saikat Chakrabarti, Rep. commie-Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s former chief of staff, recently admitted that, telling a fellow progressive, “[The] Green New Deal … wasn’t originally a climate thing at all… We really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”

Other progressives are more honest about their intentions, insisting that “If you take climate change seriously, you do have to throw out the free-market playbook.”

I don’t blame the children who marched yesterday. They have been indoctrinated with false propaganda. As Ronald Reagan used to say, “The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.”

The irony is that if we didn’t have the incredible miracle that is our carbon-based economy, none of these kids would be able to take and post selfies so they can show their friends and family just how morally superior they are.

And that got me thinking how educational it would be if the million-plus people employed in the energy industry went on strike because they were sick and tired of being maligned by people who know so much that isn’t so.

I think the polls would quickly find more teenagers a lot more fearful and angry as the lights started going out and their cellphone batteries started dying.

A “Shocking” Development

If you felt the earth tremble yesterday it was probably caused by the news that Mayor scumbag-Bill de Blasio dropped out of the presidential race, triggering a seismic shift among the other candidates all vying for his 0% in the polls.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/65628?mailing_id=4545&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4545&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

Just to be clear, everyone is for clean air and clean water. But that’s not the demand of this movement. It is demanding a complete reordering of the American economy by using the power of big government to change what you eat, where you work, where you live, the temperature on your thermostat, what you drive (if you drive at all), and virtually everything else in your life.

Don’t take my word for it.

Saikat Chakrabarti, Rep. commie-Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s former chief of staff, recently admitted that, telling a fellow progressive, “[The] Green New Deal … wasn’t originally a climate thing at all… We really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.” Other progressives are more honest about their intentions, insisting that “If you take climate change seriously, you do have to throw out the free-market playbook.”

I don’t blame the children who marched Friday. They have been indoctrinated with false propaganda. As Ronald Reagan used to say, “The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.” The irony is that if we didn’t have the incredible miracle that is our carbon-based economy, none of these kids would be able to take and post selfies so they can show their friends and family just how morally superior they are.

And that got me thinking how educational it would be if the million-plus people employed in the energy industry went on strike because they were sick and tired of being maligned by people who know so much that isn’t so. I think the polls would quickly find more teenagers a lot more fearful and angry as the lights started going out and their cellphone batteries started dying.   ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/65639?mailing_id=4545&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4545&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body