This travesty of electoral politics begat the worldwide plague of Radical Militant Islamic Terrorism that has cost thousands of American lives since Carter abandoned a longtime ally, the Shah of Iran, perhaps not the best ruler around but a damn sight better than what he knew would follow. The ancient, exotic and Persian Iran was enthusiastically westernizing but the Shah’s authoritarianism (unacceptable to the liberal intelligentsia) was, predictably, followed by a brutal theocratic dictatorship. A reliable ally was transformed into a worldwide scourge of 7th Century brutality on a genocidal scale. Yet another cautionary tale.
Fortunately, a courageous, conservative master communicator was able to overcome the complicit press/media and end the Carter “national nightmare” of economic chaos at home and terrorism abroad, especially for 55 Americans held 444 days by the Ayatollah in Iran. Even the press/media could not stomach the truth of American hostages and 20% inflation.
Once Ronald Reagan was in office, the liberal government-intelligentsia propaganda cabal took up where it left off in January 1977 and the dynamic didn’t change appreciably until October 1996 when a new player entered the press/media arena – the conservative leaning Fox News organization – a highly successful direct counterpoint to the liberal government-intelligentsia establishment.
As was the case in the defense of Alger Hiss, the blatant bludgeoning of the truth and the slander of FoxNews by the progressive/liberal establishment goes on to this day. For all of their effort, the influence of this lone conservative outlet for broadcast news continues to grow. Worldwide viewership/readership of all press/media sources continues to shrink except for the FoxNews audience – and talk-radio. Perhaps the People are indeed yearning for the return of the truth in the press which always results from a fair and balanced presentation of all of the facts.
Even when the creative force behind FoxNews and its most powerful voice are dismissed, over a sinister, orchestrated and well-funded liberal media campaign about claims of sexual harassment of whatever veracity, the PLDC is ready with a smear campaign as if the FoxNews organization was ignoring the issue.
The company fired the alleged, yet unconvicted, perpetrators and established public policies to emphasize a positive environment for all employees and prevent further occurrences of the alleged behavior!
If only the progressive/liberal media had been as outraged over the numerous, actual and verifiable incidents of sexual assault committed by one of their icons – former Democrat president Bill Clinton.
Today, the progressive/liberal/democrat cabal has corrupted and compromised not only governments but scientists (dependent upon government grants for their livelihood – sound familiar?) in an all-out attack on the truth – the truth about the “greatest social issue and the greatest threat to America” – according to President Obama – the amorphous truth about global warming.
But the problem with an amorphous truth is much more complicated than actual fact and there is a great recent debate amongst governments and scientists – in this case, child psychologists – that crystalizes the danger. The issue is with North Carolina’s “bathroom bill,” which makes it illegal for transgender (or potentially transgender) individuals to use bathrooms they feel correspond to their professed gender on any particular day, rather than the one corresponding to their genetic gender.
The use of bathrooms by transgender individuals came center stage in the 2016 presidential campaign for a reason: The bathroom debate is really a debate about the fundamental way we Americans will define any truth – whether as something deeply felt by an individual, or something perhaps scientifically demonstrable and verifiable and whether that conflict is negotiable.
According to Dr. Keith Ablow, “whether or not one believes gender reassignment therapy or surgery is wise, the cultural acceptance of biological/genetic females as male and vice-versa is tied to whether our species is willing to abandon genetics and biology as fact, in favor of considering a person’s desired self-image to be fact. But, [an] even more fundamental question is tied, in the minds of millions of people, to whether any evidence or data [that is challengeable – unlike “Every living human being has an organ (real or artificial) called the heart.”] – should ever be considered more sacred than closely-held [belief].
Dr. Ablow proposes that, “If I maintain that my self-concept is that of a black person … and I tattoo myself black, head-to-foot, should our culture accept me as a black man? If I apply to law school as African-American, should I be given any preference that is allowed a minority applicant? If I maintain that my entire being tells me I am not 54-years-old, but 75-years-old (in my tastes and friendships and energy level), should I be entitled to receive Medicare? [Apparently so] because attorneys I have asked have told me that case law related to transgender issues would make the argument that I ought to be eligible for Medicare carry weight. [What] if a 25-year-old man maintains that his maturity level and sense-of-self make him a 13-year-old, should he be allowed to be involved sexually with “other 13-year-olds?”
See, if we believe that transgender individuals must use the restrooms they choose, one could argue that many of our cultural institutions must flex away from fact. And one could argue that cultural chaos will result. These questions, after all, extend to other realms than race and age. If I were a male member of ISIS, and jailed for terrorist acts, but then insisted while incarcerated that I were a 15-year-old, female American citizen who not only has changed my opinions, but am no longer in any way the person who was convicted of terrorist acts, should I then be released?
If the German people were to vote overwhelmingly, even unanimously, to assert that the Holocaust never happened, and then were to remove any reference to it or evidence of it from their culture, should we be required to not offend them by asserting that the Holocaust did, indeed, happen?”
Some readers may think that my questions are preposterous, but they make this point: Because taken to its extreme, the slippery slope I have described really could have us embracing what is asserted, rather than what is evidenced scientifically, or is historically known to be fact. And it would then be very hard, or impossible, to plan for our country’s survival or that of our species.
And yet, that is exactly what the PLDC is proposing!
You’ve heard the warnings: Global warming could doom humanity. Overpopulation and deforestation will destroy the planet. We’re going to run out of energy. And, in the end, the sun will explode and incinerate the entire solar system.
It isn’t happening right now, experts say, but it could happen in a few decades. “Yet, decades ago, experts warned that many catastrophes would happen now – by the year 2015. Yet they have not. FoxNews.com found five predictions that went astray.
UN overestimated global warming by 2015.
Two decades ago, the UN came up with several models that all predicted that by 2015, the Earth would have warmed by at least one degree Fahrenheit. Yet in the last two decades, there has instead been virtually no warning according to satellite temperature measurements.Most climate scientists say this is just a temporary pause and that warming will soon pick up again, though some say they now expect to see less warming in the future due to the pause.
All Rainforest Species Will Be Extinct
Dr. Paul Ehrlich, the President of the Center for Conservation Biology at Stanford University, got famous for his 1968 book “The Population Bomb” which predicted that increasing human populations would spell doom. One part of that doom, he warned in his 1981 book “Extinction,” was that all rainforest species would likely soon go extinct due to environmental destruction.
“Half of the populations and species in tropical moist forests would be extinct early in the next century [the 2000s] and none would be left by 2025,” he warns on page 291. He added that that his model indicated that, on the upper bound, complete extinction would occur as soon as 2010.
Elsewhere in the book, he also wrote that his model’s assumptions were “more realistic” than those typically used and that “unless appropriate steps are taken soon… humanity faces a catastrophe fully as serious as an all-out thermonuclear war.”
- Oil will run out by 2015
A Pennsylvania state government “Student and Teacher Guide” reads: “Some estimates of the oil reserves suggest that by the year 2015 we will have used all of our accessible oil supply.” Yet the Earth still has oil: at least 1.6 trillion gallons of proven reserves, according to the Energy Information Administration, a US government agency. In fact, proven reserves have more than doubled over the last several decades, as technological innovation made more oil accessible. Reserves of oil and natural gas under America may double that estimate.
In fact, a recent report identified a 1.2 billion barrel oil deposit discovered off-shore in Alaska. With this find, 2018 is predicted to be America’s most productive oil producing year ever, surpassing 1970’s 9.6 billion barrels.
2) Arctic sea ice will disappear by 2015.
“Peter Wadhams, who heads the Polar Ocean Physics Group at the University of Cambridge… believes that the Arctic is likely to become ice-free before 2020 and possibly as early as 2015,” Yale Environment 360 reported in 2012. Yet government data shows that arctic sea ice has increased since then. At its lowest point during 2014, sea ice covered about 1.7 million square miles – an area nearly half the size of the United States.
Additionally, a “new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.
The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.
According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.” There is nothing quite like scientists being totally wrong.
5) Looking to the future: One prediction that will come true: a billion people could die from climate change
“Dr. John Holdren, who in 2015 served as the White House Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, made dire predictions about global warming in the 1980s. Paul Ehrlich cites Holdren in his 1987 book “The Machinery of Nature”, noting that: “As University of California physicist John Holdren has said, it is possible that carbon dioxide climate-induced famines could kill as many as a billion people before the year 2020.”
Holdren told FoxNews.com that he does not view that as a prediction. “As accurately reflected in the quoted passage, my statement in the 1980s about potential impacts of climate change on food production by 2020 was not a ‘prediction’ or a ‘forecast.’ It was, precisely, a statement about what ‘is possible,’” he wrote in an email to FoxNews.com.
He added that new regulations (of course) are the best way to avoid catastrophe. “I very much hope, of course, that nothing as dire as a famine killing a billion people will happen as a result of climate change by 2020, or ever. But the prospects for permanently avoiding such an outcome… will be greatly improved if this country follows through on the sensible measures in the President’s (Obama) Climate Action Plan,” he obligingly wrote.
“But, it won’t be carbon dioxide [from human beings] or climate change directly. It will be carbon dioxide and other elements from massive wildfires in the tropics caused by cyclical global warming that destroys habitat, worsens drought and overwhelms food production/distribution as populations in the tropics continue their unsustainable increase. This has verifiably happened several times in earth’s history, most spectacularly, keeping the giant sauropods (like those depicted in Jurassic Park) from the tropics for eons during the Age of the Dinosaurs.”
What the compromised scientists don’t provide to the debate is perspective. First: the earth’s climate is not static, it is dynamic – it is constantly changing. It changes in response to cyclical factors of immense power – beyond our comprehension – like the influence of the earth’s elliptical orbit around the sun and the tilt in the earth’s axis toward and away from the sun. Taken together, these are known as the Milankovitch Cycles.
The ‘eccentricity’ cycle period is around 100,000 years. This causes the orbit of the earth to elongate or become more elliptical. Imagine that the more elliptic it becomes, the less time during the year it spends near the sun. So, the planet receives less solar energy and cools a bit. In turn, it becomes less elliptic and spends more time during the year closer to the sun.
The ‘obliquity’ cycle tilts the earth every 41,000 years and that causes the land mass of the norther hemisphere to face more towards the sun or less towards the sun.
The ‘precession’ cycle occurs about every 26,000 years and influences the wobble of the polar axis. This also influences earth’s climate by causing winters and summers to be warmer or colder depending on the amount of land surface being more or less exposed to the sun.
Other contributors to solar energy variation are the sun’s rotation and the tilt of the sun’s axis to the plane of the solar system; the changing climate of the sun’s surface as evidenced by sunspots and solar flares; the moon’s elliptical orbit and its influence on earth’s oceans, the real engine of climate conditions; ocean currents and continental drift.
What these factors and the variable nature of their cycles has produced is a fairly regular overall cycle of climate variation that falls within fairly predictable patterns. For instance:
Climate temperature peaks have occurred at fairly regular intervals of about 100,000 years over the past half a million years. For instance: 400,000 years ago, climate temperature peaked at +3.5°C; 320,000 years ago, +4°C; 240,000 years ago, +3.1°C; 130,000 years ago, +6°C. Now, climate temperature has climbed to about +3°C above the norm.
Since the last Ice Age ended about 10,000 years ago, the earth’s overall climate temperature has peaked at 8,000 years ago at about +1.5°C; 7000 years ago, at about +1.2°C; 4500 years ago, at about +1.0°C; 3500 years ago, at about +1.3°C and about 2000 years ago, at about +0.6°C. Only 200 years ago, temperatures fell to -1.4°C from the norm.
The fact that all of these “extremes”, and their associated natural spikes in CO2 concentration, occurred without the benefit of industrial age pollution gives lie to the argument that a warming globe in the present day is the exclusive result of man’s influence on the earth’s environment and, certainly not the exclusive responsibility of the citizens of the United States – especially since warming has increased as America’s contribution to atmospheric gases has declined dramatically since 1970.
“It is probable, if the earth warms naturally over the next decades, that populations in sub-Saharan Africa, South and Southeast Asia and Central and northern South America will be decimated in the truest sense – a minimum 10 – 15% loss in population – perhaps as high as 50% because of theirunsustainable birth rates. The developed maritime latitudes, those with sustainable birth rates, North America, Europe, North Asia, southern South America and South Africa, will not experience similar catastrophes.”
“However, e-mails between top Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) officials reveal they saw their fight against global warming as putting them at “forefront of progressive national policy.”
“You’re a good boss. I do realize that. I pinch myself all the time,” Heinzerling replied that same day to Jackson, who, as a government employee, was using an illegal-alias e-mail account under the fake name “Richard Windsor.”
These emails, which were part of a batch obtained by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, show what top Obama Administration EPA officials were thinking as the agency prepared to release its greenhouse gas endangerment finding – which would give the agency the power to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from automobile tailpipes and, eventually, from power plants.
“This is not about climate,” CEI senior fellow Chris Horner told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “This is the progressive agenda.” “Our laws don’t always shine to being used as pretenses for ideological agendas; this is plainly in the name of climate, but Obama has said it is to finally make renewables profitable,” Horner added.
Indeed, EPA rules aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions [would] have little to no impact on global warming since developing countries, like China and India [the first and third largest emitters], will continue emitting, thus negating any actions taken in the U.S. Also, President Obama and the EPA justified recent greenhouse gas emission limits on power plants as being necessary to promote green energy and essential for social justice [whatever that means].
Current Democrat proposals for massive expenditures by American power companies and manufacturers will contribute less than one-tenth of one percent of worldwide carbon dioxide reduction [if that, but will further disadvantage American companies, thus costing more jobs and making more Americans dependent upon the federal government]!
“The great thing about this proposal is that it really is an investment opportunity,” EPA chief Gina McCarthy told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee when it was in Democrat hands. “This is not about pollution control.” “Carbon pollution standards are an issue of justice,” McCarthy told environmentalists on a phone conference. “If we want to protect communities of color, we need to protect them from climate change.” [Truly mindboggling!]
Heinzerling played an integral role in convincing the Supreme Court in 2007, which said the EPA could regulate greenhouse gas emissions if they represent a threat to public health and welfare. The EPA made this determination less than one year after Obama took office.
The first source the EPA sought to regulate was greenhouse gases from vehicle tailpipe emissions, a rule which was finalized in May 2010 and forced light-duty vehicles to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. In November 2011, the EPA clamped down on emissions from medium – and heavy- duty vehicles.
In 2012, the Obama administration unveiled even stricter greenhouse gas emissions standards for light-duty vehicles. Apparently, these mobile source rules were only the beginning of a “progressive national policy” by the Obama administration. But Heinzerling would not be in the administration to help see it through, as she left the EPA in at the end of 2010 to return to Georgetown University as a law professor, according to Politico.
After emissions from mobile sources were regulated, they began to focus on greenhouse gas emissions from stationary sources, especially power plants. In 2013, the EPA issued its first-ever greenhouse gas emissions rules for new power plants. The rules have been criticized for harming the coal industry.
The EPA’s new power plant rule sets the greenhouse gas emissions limit so low that even the most efficient coal-fired power plant cannot meet the standard on its own. To come into compliance, new coal plants would have to install carbon capture and storage technology, but such equipment is not a commercially proven technology.
The EPA doubled down on its power plant regulating binge and proposed greenhouse gas emissions limits for power plants already in operation. The rule has been extremely controversial, with opponents saying it will raise electricity prices and force more power plants to shut down.
“The EPA’s war on coal has troubling economic implications for every American and U.S. business,” wrote PA Republican Rep. Mike Kelly in the Wall Street Journal. “As the new regulations take effect, Americans could see their electric bills increase annually by more than 10 percent — $150 for the average consumer — by the end of the decade.”
So intent was the PLDC to decimate the coal industry that their presidential candidate in 2016, Hillary Clinton, gleefully and arrogantly told crowds that she was going to, in effect, shut down the coal industry once and for all. The coal States of Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee promptly turned out for her opponent and were the critical key to Donald Trump’s stunning victory. Next time: Al Gore and Climate Change.