The world’s most prolific assassins, regime changers and disinformation specialists have been given free rein to recruit and shape curriculum at the largest Black higher education system in the nation.
“The Democratic Party’s Black minions have insanely embraced the agency as part of the ‘resistance’ to Trump’s raging racism.”
The Southern University System has opened its arms to the CIA with an agreement to allow the agency to recruit operatives and shape classroom workshops and curriculum on the system’s five historically Black campuses in Louisiana. According to a press release featuring the smiling faces of Southern University president-chancellor Ray Belton and agency operatives, the super-spooks hope to “foster ongoing relationships with key university staff and personnel” and gain access to “a qualified and diverse applicant pool.” University chief Benton — the “Spook Who Opened the Door,” not to be confused with “The Spook Who Sat by the Door ,” the Black insurrectionary novel and movie – said the CIA connection enhances Southern’s “public-private partnerships portfolio.” He praised the “reputable stature” of the CIA as “an asset to the university, students and faculty.”
The Southern University-CIA collaboration is a gift from President Trump, the first of many in-plain-sight CIA infiltrations of Black higher education envisioned under his White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Defenders of hard-pressed HBCUs will doubtless offer an “any port in a storm” excuse for subjecting young Black minds and underpaid faculty to the enticements of global Murder Incorporated – the assassins of Patrice Lumumba and countless other freedom fighters, as well as the planet’s most accomplished psychological warfare specialists. Some Negroes are capable of excusing anything – and do…
The political and moral culture of the United States allows for bipartisan cooperation to destroy an entire country, killing hundreds of thousands of people in the process, without even the flimsiest of justification. Then, only a few years later, everyone can act as if it never happened.
In 2011, the U.S. withdrew most of its military personnel from Iraq, leaving the country in ruins. Estimates of the number of civilians who died during the war in Iraq range from 151,000 to 655,000. An additional 4,491 American military personnel perished in the war. Because the bombs have stopped falling from the sky and the invasion and occupation of Iraq no longer makes headlines, Americans likely devote no thought to the devastation that occurred in their name.
With the exception of Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii, who is currently polling at or below 2 percent, no candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination has consistently addressed the criminality, cruelty and cavalier wastefulness of American foreign policy. Joe Biden, the frontrunner in the race, not only supported the war in Iraq — despite his recent incoherent claims to the contrary — but as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee acted as its most effective and influential salesman in the Democratic Party.
The blasé attitude of America toward the death and destruction it creates, all while boasting of its benevolence, cannot withstand the scrutiny of science. Dr. Mozhgan Savabieasfahani, an environmental toxicologist at the University of Michigan and recipient of the Rachel Carson Prize, has led several investigative expeditions in Iraq to determine how the pollutants and toxic chemicals from the U.S.-led war are poisoning Iraq’s people and environment. The health effects are catastrophic, and will remain so long after the war reached its official end…
Bombs and bullets have been used on an extreme scale in Iraq. Dropping tons of bombs and releasing millions of bullets leaves toxic residues the in air, water and soil of the targeted population. These pollutants continue to poison those populations years after the bombing stops.
What’s more, the United States imported thousands of tons of military equipment into Iraq to use in their occupation. They include, tanks, trucks, bombers, armored vehicles, infantry weapons, antiaircraft systems, artillery and mortars — some of which are coated with depleted uranium, and much more. These eventually find their way into U.S. military junkyards which remain across Iraq.
There are unknown numbers of military junkyards scattered across the Iraqi landscape.
Fluctuations in temperature facilitates the rusting and weathering of military junk, releasing toxic pollutants [including radioactive uranium compounds, neurotoxic lead and mercury, etc.] into the Iraqi environment.
Uranium and its related compounds remain toxic for millennia and poison local populations through food, air and water contamination…
I expect nothing from the American political establishment or their propaganda machines which masquerade as “news media” and feed uncritically off State Department press briefings.
Fortunately, there is a movement to criminalize environmental contamination caused by war. Damage to nature and the human environment must be considered a war crime.
Scientists are currently asking international lawmakers to adopt a fifth Geneva Convention which would recognize damage to nature as a war crime, alongside other war crimes. I hope that will make a difference in our ability to protect human lives and our environment.
The DNC/Clinton transgendered itself out of a victory last time. Now they are impeaching their way to defeat when the working stiffs are concerned about jobs.
Republicrats are otherwise addicted to domestic spying and wars of all sizes and shapes.
Our plight is less than an afterthought. We are dying rihgt along with them.
On the bright side I see today that Future of Freedom Foundation founder Jacob Hornberger is running as a Libertarian.
History is full of ironies, and perhaps it will suit the irony gods for The Donald to take down the Republican Party and the Clinton dynasty to destroy the Democratic Party.
Let’s start by stipulating my bias: I would cheer the collapse of both self-serving, venal political parties, which have stood by for decades as the rich have become immeasurably richer and the politically powerful few have disempowered the many. The transparent “populist” bleatings of both parties–“we serve the people!”–sound increasingly like stale, pathetically disconnected from reality Soviet-era propaganda.
Let’s say I’m a relatively disinterested observer other than my fervent wish that both corrupt, self-serving parties slide into the dustbin of history, the sooner the better.
The Republicans were hijacked by Donald Trump and given a binary choice: accept Trump as their candidate and have a chance of winning, or reject him and guarantee losing. After surveying the wreckage left by the Bush dynasty and Romney’s loss, the Repubs swallowed their distrust and distaste for The Donald and chose winning over losing–the easily predictable choice for all politicos.
The Democrats chose to enact a Greek tragedy featuring off-the-charts hubris. Despite Hillary’s private email server, the Clinton Foundation’s shameless shakedowns for millions of dollars in “contributions” (the polite word for influence peddling), and her delight in mocking those who chose not to vote for her as “deplorables,” the Democrats were supremely confident that the Clinton dynasty would sweep them to an easy and overwhelming victory.
As the Greek dramatists understood, hubris doesn’t just invite disaster, it welcomes disaster. The Democrats were then handed a binary choice: either cast the Clintons adrift with a few provisions and a hearty cheer and move on, or set the course of the Party for the next four years to the Clintons’ Ahab-like obsession: we wuz robbed, and the terrible error of history (Hillary losing the 2016 election) would have to be corrected regardless of the cost.
To aid their mono-maniacal campaign, the Democrats partnered with the most anti-Democratic and corrupting force in America, the alphabet agencies of Imperial Pretensions, the CIA et al., who are institutionally bound to view the citizenry’s right to choose its government and its government’s policies with utter disdain: we rule the Empire, and democracy is only acceptable as long as it rubber-stamps our rule.
This aligned perfectly with the Clinton dynasty’s view, and so the unending campaign to unseat The Donald was launched.
For better or worse, this unholy alliance put the Democratic Party’s legitimacy on the gambling table. The Democratic Party, whether it accepts or understands this reality or not, has devolved to an absurdist cable-channel devoted exclusively to unseating The Donald, regardless of the cost and regardless of the sacrifices required to pursue what is increasingly a quixotically misguided venture.
Wittingly or unwittingly, every institution allied with the Democrats has also put its legitimacy on the gaming table, the most important of which is the mainstream media, including the quasi-public Propaganda Broadcast Service (PBS). The corporate media and PBS have been reduced to late-night TV programming, selling the same flimsy gadgets with the same tired pitch: “But wait–there’s more!”
All of which leads us to the question: will the Clintons destroy the Democratic Party, or perhaps even more saliently: have the Clintons already sealed the fate of the Democratic Party?
We won’t know the voters’ judgment until November 2020, but judging by campaign contributions, the delegitimizing ill-will being generated by the Party’s transparent suppression of Tulsi Gabbard, its Ahab-like obsession with impeachment and its bad-karma reliance on the FBI and CIA’s most treacherous operatives, the Party’s leadership might not hold a winning hand.
History is full of ironies, and perhaps it will suit the irony gods for The Donald to take down the Republican Party and the Clinton dynasty to destroy the Democratic Party.
A society can get rid of all sorts of crimes, misdemeanors, and unwanted behavior. A way of doing this is introducing total surveillance. There may be some issues with capacity and corruption among the watchmen, but in theory it is at least possible. The concept of pre-crime of Minority Report comes to mind. Do we really want such a society?
Thirteen is an unlucky number, some say. I was making my way for my twelfth visit, also counting one overnight transit, to the United States.
It’s the type of story you always hope never turns out to be about yourself. In July, I was on my way to the twelfth FreedomFest in Las Vegas, and yes, it is by a coincidence also my twelfth visit to the American union; all my visits to the U.S. have not been FreedomFest occasions.
Perhaps 12 is my unlucky number?
What Happened?
I flew in to Detroit Metropolitan Airport with my international flight. I had heard stories about seizures and searches of electronic devices. That was why I had planned not to bring my ordinary laptop, only a reserve/backup device.
I came to the immigration checkpoint. The standard procedure with questioning started. I answered the questions as best I could. I told the officer my purpose was a conference, and upon followup I said it was the FreedomFest in Las Vegas. Apparently, the officer was so interested in the conference she googled it.
I don’t know what the reason for it was. Was it one of my answers that provoked them? Was it the fact that I was a single male traveler? Was it my information about going to a conference? I don’t know. No matter the cause, I was taken to a room for extended interview/interrogation.
There were several subjects of extended checks in this room.
I was ordered early on to get my checked bag.
They turned the pages of my physical papers.
I don’t know what it was that triggered it. Could it have been my misunderstanding of a question, interpreted by the officer as ill intent? Could I have hesitated for a few seconds too long in answering a question, interpreted by the officer as my having something to hide? Was it that I didn’t have any conference, hotel, or return flight documentation on me? Was it that I was claiming to go to a (suspect) freedom conference?
No matter the cause, I was requested/ordered to put my cell phone on and in flight mode and to enter the password.
They were two officers now. I was given an informational form about seizures of electronic devices. I could observe that an officer was scanning my cell phone with another cell phone. When the officer did so, she had opened my text messages. Parts of my text message threads were being scanned.
The officer searching my phone finished her search of my phone by telling the other officer she didn’t find anything.
When I was let go from the intrusive questioning and searching, I asked about the photographing of my phone. I was told it was just translating. When checking my phone later on, several apps I never use had apparently been opened.
Later, when I got home I filed a complaint/inquiry. To be exact, this was on July 31. Specifically, in this inquiry, I asked for the specific reason for my phone search. Normal processing time is stated to be 10-15 working days. While high season may cause processing time to be longer, I still haven’t heard anything, and more than 3-4 times that stated normal processing time has now passed.
One of the the immigration officers nagged about the place I was staying, which I had given exact details of both in my ESTA application and when filling out information via the airline. Apparently, it was a problem that I didn’t remember the street number exactly – or was unsure about the zip code. He had also been nagging about my return flight, which was just a week later. Checking my passport, I had been granted entry for 90 days.
What Can Be Said About It?
Several travelers, also known as entry candidates, were in the same room at the same time. In the case they claim these extended checks are between the officers and the traveler, this is certainly not so…
A society can get rid of all sorts of crimes, misdemeanors, and unwanted behavior. A way of doing this is introducing total surveillance. There may be some issues with capacity and corruption among the watchmen, but in theory it is at least possible. The concept of pre-crime of Minority Report comes to mind. Do we really want such a society?
(Natural News) In lieu of the media-generated threat over mass shootings, public schools throughout the country are regularly conducting active shooter drills with some of these drills featuring simulated gun fire to further terrorize children.
One such drill happened last week in Dayton, OH – the site of a mass shooting in August by an ANTIFA-linked killer which resulted in 10 deaths.
The Dayton Daily Newsreported about the drill that took place on Oct. 1:
School Resource Officer Amanda Myers said students will meet in their homerooms and will be taken to the auditorium for a presentation about the drill they are about to experience. She said teachers in the building went through a similar drill two weeks ago.
Myers said after the presentation, students will return to their classrooms and await the start of the scripted drill. She said teachers will have the option to say where the shots were coming from or not during the drill. During each set of shots, the students and teachers will talk about it and a possible plan of action whether to barricade their classroom or evacuate.
Outside of the building, staff members will be wearing safety vests to assist and direct students to pre-determined safe zones. In addition, there will be school buses circulating in the adjacent neighborhood which will also be safe zones. The safety staff members will have a list of safety steps relating to medical treatment, cover and concealment, bus locations.
Following the drill, students will return to their homerooms as well as back to the auditorium for a one-hour debriefing. After lunch, students will have discussions with their teachers and participate in social emotional activities.
Other drills featuring simulated gun fire have occurred without any prior notice and were done to send the message to children that they are never safe.
Lake Brantley High School in Altamonte Springs, FL issued a “code red” lock-down on Dec. 8 of last year. A voice broadcast over the PA system that “this is not a drill,” as teachers were sent text messages telling them that an active shooter was on the premises. It sent the entire school into hysteria, for what turned out to be a cruel hoax perpetrated by the county Sheriff’s Office.
“It took a lot of people a lot of time to process what was happening,” said 17-year-old Miryam Elshaer, who was traumatized by the ordeal, to the Orlando Sentinel. “In my head I was like, ‘Oh my god I could’ve died today.’”
“My first reaction was anger,” said 16-year-old Sabrina Bonadio after the drill tok place. “No one really talked about the emotional impact, which I feel like is more longer lasting. I feel like [administrators] never really recognized that people had panic attacks.”
Experts have indicated that there is no evidence showing that these active shooter drills increase public safety at all. They are routinely compared to the laughable and futile “duck and cover” drills that children were made to do in the 1950s in case of a nuclear holocaust.
Daryl Morey sent, then deleted what is likely the most expensive tweet in history:
Fight for Freedom, Stand with Hong Kong
Why so expensive? Morey is general manager of the NBA’s Houston Rockets. The NBA is big business in China. Several NBA stars make big money in China. Several NBA teams are currently in China playing exhibition games.
Suffice it to say, the government of China is not happy. Sponsorships are being pulled, events are being cancelled, billboards are being taken down. This could cost the league billions…unless the NBA bows low to the wishes of the communist government.
The poor NBA. They have gone further than any other pro sports league in the US in allowing all employees – players and management – to speak out on social issues, politics, etc.
It seems “wokeness” is not something China wants to import from the United States. The NBA has no good way out of this. Maybe one: put a lid on players and management from commenting on social issues anywhere. The players might go along, given how many hundreds of millions of dollars accrue to them via relationships in China. That would really be funny.
It’s always funny until someone gets hurt. Wokeness is funny when you are poking those who cannot fight back (hint: straight white Christian males).
But watching this self-inflicted circus from hell really is hilarious.
Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff should be embarrassed for their hypocrisy in calling for an inquiry into Trump, knowing full well how his phone call stacks up against true pure evil. And mainstream media is revealing whose side they are playing on, and it is not the side of truth and justice.
Put in the context of recent presidential history, the media’s objurgating of President Trump, because of his phone call to Ukranian president Volodymyr Zelensky, shows a remarkable lack of knowledge of recent American history or dishonesty—or both.
Laid next to the evil activities of other recent presidents, the Trump-Zelensky phone call is a nothing burger. At most, he asked for Zelensky to investigate what appears to be shady dealings by Hunter Biden in Ukraine at the time his father Joe Biden was vice president.
Compare this activity to most recent presidents. Lyndon Baines Johnson
Lyndon Baines Johnson lied about an attack in the Gulf of Tonkin. The Pentagon Papers, the memoirs of Robert McNamara, and NSA publications from 2005, proved material misrepresentation by LBJ to justify an escalation of the war against Vietnam.
The outcome of this false claim, along with another true claim, was the passage by Congress of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which granted Johnson the authority to assist any Southeast Asian country whose government was considered to be jeopardized by “communist aggression”. The resolution served as Johnson’s legal justification for deploying U.S. conventional forces and the commencement of open warfare against North Vietnam.
According to Raymond McGovern, a retired CIA officer (CIA analyst from 1963 to 1990, and in the 1980s, chairman of the National Intelligence Estimates), the CIA, “not to mention President Lyndon Johnson, Defense Secretary Robert McNamara and National Security Adviser McGeorge Bundy all knew full well that the evidence of any armed attack on the evening of Aug. 4, 1964, the so-called ‘second’ Tonkin Gulf incident, was highly dubious. … During the summer of 1964, President Johnson and the Joint Chiefs of Staff were eager to widen the war in Vietnam. They stepped up sabotage and hit-and-run attacks on the coast of North Vietnam.”
Here is Johnson lying to the American people:
Ronald Reagan
One of the leading national issues during 1980 was the release of 52 Americans being held hostage in Iran since November 4, 1979. Many historians believe that representatives of Reagan’s presidential campaign had conspired with Iran to delay the release until after the election to thwart President Carter from pulling off an “October surprise”.
Reagan won the election. On the day of his inauguration— 20 minutes after he concluded his inaugural address—the Islamic Republic of Iran announced the release of the hostages.
It is believed the Reagan Administration subsequently rewarded Iran for its participation in the plot by supplying Iran with weapons via Israel and by unblocking Iranian government monetary assets in U.S. banks.
Several high ranking officials support these allegations, most notably former Iranian President Abulhassan Banisadr, former naval intelligence officer and U.S. National Security Council member Gary Sick, and former Reagan/Bush campaign staffer and White House analyst Barbara Honegger George H.W. Bush
Here is The New York Times explaining how the George H.W. Bush administration encouraged Iraq’s leader Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait, which ultimately led to the first US attack on Iraq.
In the two weeks before Iraq’s seizure of Kuwait, the Bush Administration on the advice of Arab leaders gave President Saddam Hussein little reason to fear a forceful American response if his troops invaded the country.
The Administration’s message to Baghdad, articulated in public statements in Washington by senior policy makers and delivered directly to Mr. Hussein by the United States Ambassador, April C. Glaspie, was this: The United States was concerned about Iraq’s military buildup on its border with Kuwait, but did not intend to take sides in what it perceived as a no-win border dispute between Arab neighbors.
In a meeting with Mr. Hussein in Baghdad on July 25, eight days before the invasion, Ms. Glaspie urged the Iraqi leader to settle his differences with Kuwait peacefully but added, ”We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait,” according to an Iraqi document described as a transcript of their conversation.
This is viewed by scholars as the US giving Saddam a green light to attack Kuwait, which was then used as cover to attack Iraq.
Bill Clinton
On August 20, 1998, President Bill Clinton ordered American cruise missile strikes on al-Qaeda bases in Khost, Afghanistan, and the Al-Shifa pharmaceutical factory in Khartoum, Sudan.
The missiles were launched three days after Clinton testified on the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and some countries, media outlets, protesters, and Republicans accused Clinton of ordering the attacks as a diversion from the Lewinsky scandal.
The best estimates available suggest that more than 250,000 people have died as a result of George W. Bush and Tony Blair’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003. A newly released investigative report from the UK government suggests that intelligence officials knew ahead of time that the war would cause massive instability and societal collapse and make the problem of terrorism worse — and that Blair and Bush went ahead with the effort anyway…
The Bush administration on numerous occasions exaggerated or outright fabricated conclusions from intelligence in its public statements. Bush really did lie, and people really did die as a result of the war those lies were meant to build a case for. Those are the facts.
The failure of Iraq was not merely a case of well-meaning but incompetent policymakers rushing into what they should’ve known would be a disaster. It’s the story of those policymakers repeatedly misleading the public about why, exactly, the war started.
In October 2002, Bush said that Saddam Hussein had a “massive stockpile” of biological weapons. But as CIA Director George Tenet noted in early 2004, the CIA had informed policymakers it had “no specific information on the types or quantities of weapons agent or stockpiles at Baghdad’s disposal.” The “massive stockpile” was just literally made up…
The universal basic income (UBI) is gaining popularity as the alternative to the current welfare system. The idea is to give each citizen the same amount of money, no matter if he or she works or not. Therefore, unlike traditional welfare systems, the UBI has no means test, nor willingness-to-work test. Nobody would be then left without a livelihood even if there is no work for him. Doesn’t that sound great?
The problem is that the program must be financed somehow. Let us assume for simplicity that there are 250 million adult Americans and that each of them would receive $1,000 monthly (as presidential candidate Andrew Yang proposes). So we get a total cost of $250 billion monthly and $3 trillion annually. It would amount to about 14 percent of US GDP, or 42 percent of total government spending, or 73 percent of the federal outlays. For comparison, this is more than the total expenditure on health care, defense, and education. And yet we are talking about “just” $12,000 annually (or 19 percent of the median household salary, or 36 percent of the median personal income). Good luck with such an expensive program!
This is why the UBI is a utopian idea. Its introduction would require either a departure from universality (e.g., providing benefits only for young people), or a departure from unconditionality (e.g., the introduction of an income criterion), or reducing payment to small symbolic amounts. Other options include a radical increase in taxes, or implementing “modern monetary theory” and launching the printing press.
The first two options would distort the idea of the program, transforming it into another traditional welfare program. The third scenario would not fulfill the program goals, as it would neither eradicate poverty nor significantly increase social security. And the last two options would have negative overall economic consequences that could lead to the results contrary to the intentions of the program, (e.g., an increase in the unemployment rate as a result of additional tax burden on wages), or a reduction in the amount of real benefits as a result of increased inflation. It means that the implementation of the UBI at a substantial level without incurring significant economic costs is a myth.
This is confirmed by a recent article “Basic income or a single tapering rule? Incentives, inclusiveness and affordability compared for the case of Finland” published by OECD economists on the occasion of an experiment with UBI in Finland (which was not a government program). They estimated that the replacement of the current social benefits system by the UBI in Finland would either be too expensive or would mean insufficient benefits for the most deprived and, consequently, an increase in the share of people below the poverty line from 11.5 to 14.3 percent!
The second economic problem with UBI is the negative impact on the labor supply. Economic analysis clearly suggests that an increase in non-wage income shifts the budget constraint line up and increases the reservation wage, which leads to a reduction in working time. And this is what the previous experiments with negative income tax, a concept similar to the UBI, showed — especially in case of women and youth, which were less attached to the labor market. The results are not surprising given the fact that giving people money for nothing reduces the opportunity cost of not working…
Such a perverse perspective is, however, a consequence of the view that UBI should be a right, not a privilege. That is, supporters believe that everyone should have the right to taxpayer-provided income, regardless of their contribution and the possibility of earning on the market. The problem is that someone would have to finance this program, so UBI would still be the privilege of some people at the expense of others. One person’s right to a basic income means that someone else has to pay for it.
The idea of the UBI boils down to breaking the link between income and work, i.e., freeing people from the unpleasant necessity to earn. And here we come across several problems. First thing: who will do the needed, albeit low-paid jobs, since everyone will be emancipated from the yoke of work? Is it possible to eliminate the unpleasantness of work at all or is it just the reality of the temporal world? Will robots take care of our grandmothers? A likely outcome is a significant decline in the overall output of the economy — meaning impoverishment across the board…
But there is a paradox that comes with the promise of socioeconomic independence: someone still must pay the UBI. So the dependence would not disappear — only people would become more dependent on Leviathan. Robert Nisbet writes in The Quest for Community that the desire for a sense of belonging does not disappear — if it cannot be realized within the family, neighborhoods, and regional communities, then the gap will be filled by the nation and centralized state. Are you sure this is what we want? Maybe the UBI is thus not merely a utopia we can’t afford, but it’s actually a dystopia?
The first you’re all familiar with: unreliable electricity means you always have to have fossil fuel power plants backing up when the sun doesn’t shine or the wind doesn’t blow.
But this is the kind of info I have been waiting to see…
It takes 150 times more land to get the same amount of electricity from a solar farm as from a nuclear plant; 17 times more materials are required for solar than for nuclear; and if you just total up all the used solar panel waste compared with nuclear, solar actually creates 300 times more toxic waste than nuclear.
Before we go to the main event and meet the only Greenie talking sense on climate change and the environment, let’s first catch up with the latest in Climate Stupid…
Extinction Rebellion protestors in Germany have been caught green-handed powering their camp with a ‘planet-destroying’ diesel generator – which they tried to hide with wooden pallets.
In Berlin, XR cunningly hide the ‘planet-destroying’ generator powering their camp.pic.twitter.com/qQsWxTl1mf
The BBC has been caught lying again about climate change, this time with a cock and bull story about rising sea levels displacing families in Vietnam’s Mekong Delta. (The real reason is soil subsidence: but that doesn’t suit the climate change narrative, obviously)
Disgraced climate ‘scientist’, fake Nobel prizewinner and failed litigant Michael Mann has been caught trying to erase from history the well-documented Medieval Warm Period (MWP) using ‘dubious, revisionist temperature data.’ Why are Mann and his co-conspirator Katharine Hayhoe so keen to ditch the MWP? Because between 900 AD and 1200 AD, the world was at least as warm – if not warmer – than it is today. Yet there were no 4 x 4s or planes or factories ‘pumping out CO2’ to make this happen – so gosh, what might this tell us about Anthropogenic Global Warming theory?
The BBC’s only politically unbiased interviewer Andrew Neil has totally owned an Extinction Rebellion activist called Zion Lights. (He/she was presumably named after some kind of super potent indica/sativa hybrid you buy on the dark web). Having been Andrew Neiled myself, I do have a tiny smidgen of sympathy for Zion Lights. Except then again I totally don’t because I’m right on the No Deal Brexit thing whereas Zion Lights is totally wrong on her/his/its entire belief system.
Extinction Rebellion crusties are currently trying to close down London City Airport. If you listened to Nick Robinson’s questions on the Today programme this morning — my wife forced me to listen as I drove her to work because she hates me and because she wanted me to see just how much worse the BBC has got since I stopped listening to its drivel a year ago — you would have got the impression that this is perfectly legit and that London City’s Airport’s management really should be in the business of having to justify their core business (viz being an airport, where aeroplanes take off and land, with business people and holidaymakers inside) to tone deaf, left-biased BBC reporters.
The police have made some arrests, including of some whiny harpie who screeched ‘You’re hurting me’ as she was dragged off. “Not enough,” I imagine one or two air passengers are muttering this morning…
“You’re hurting me!”
Two women from Extinction Rebellion are dragged out of London City Airport by police, after failing to break through security into the terminal. pic.twitter.com/Ygo8V877Tq
What does all this tell us about climate change? Nothing that we didn’t know already: that it’s a bogus cause, invented by dodgy, activist scientists, propped up by mainstream media lies and hysteria and promoted by soap-dodging loons who are not only naive and ill-informed but outrageously hypocritical in the way that they want to end Western Civilisation but still somehow keep their mobile phones powered…
This is why I was so pleased to meet just about the world’s only sensible Greenie, Mike Shellenberger. Shellenberger used to be a deep green activist – pushing heavily for renewables – but then saw the light.
He still cares about nature very much. But he thinks greenies like Extinction Rebellion are doing more harm than good.
I asked him what the red-pill moment was that made him see the light.
“So in the early 2000s I was the co-founder of our original Green New Deal. We called it the New Apollo Project. It was for a $300 billion investment in renewables. And we succeeded. We got President Obama, he did about $150 billion in renewables between 2007 and 2015 but right away we started running into big problems.
The first you’re all familiar with: unreliable electricity means you always have to have fossil fuel power plants backing up when the sun doesn’t shine or the wind doesn’t blow. But the other issue, which had a bigger impact on my heart, is the environmental impact of all those solar and wind farms.
So you started having local conservationists raising concerns about the impacts of wind farms on bird and bat species; about the impact of solar farms on our desert tortoise. So you started having environmental consequences of renewables. I started running the numbers. It takes 150 times more land to get the same amount of electricity from a solar farm as from a nuclear plant; 17 times more materials are required for solar than for nuclear; and if you just total up all the used solar panel waste compared with nuclear, solar actually creates 300 times more toxic waste than nuclear.
For me it was like, if I care about the environment, why are we not doing more nuclear power? Even if you don’t care about climate change. Nuclear has the smallest environmental footprint because it has the highest energy density. So for me my red pill moment was realising that energy density determines environmental impact. A single coke can of uranium provides enough energy for my entire life. Whereas it would require many train cars full of coal, oil or gas; many more of renewables. So that for me was what made me change my mind.”
I was very impressed by Shellenberger (who, incidentally, may soon be running for Governor of California). You can hear more from him on my Delingpod podcast and vidcast next Thursday (details here).
Never mind that both Adam Schiff and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sound like they should be investigating Joe Biden, given that then-vice-president Biden himself bragged at length about threatening to withhold aid from the Ukraine government if a prosecutor who was investigating Biden’s son were not fired.
Adam Schiff, the Democrat representative from California’s 28th district, is once again prey to delusions.
During Congressional testimony on Sept. 26, the frustrated screenwriter and Chair of the House Intelligence Committee performed his version of President Trump’s conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, claiming without evidence that there was an attempt by the President to put mafia-like pressure on Zelensky. But Schiff’s every word was immediately contradicted when Trump had the transcript of the conversation released to the public.
Since then, an unchastened Schiff has repeated his slander over and over again in the Democrat party’s continuing doomed attempt to overturn the 2016 election. Schiff claims to have information based on second- and third-hand stories provided by a leaker, whom the Democrats call a “whistleblower” to keep his identity from the citizenry. The leaker is thought to be a CIA employee who was spying on the White House, for reasons yet to be explained.
But for Schiff, the important point is that poor Zelensky is the hapless victim of intolerable pressure from Mr. Trump, that Trump has jeopardized American national security, violated his oath of office, and threatened “our democracy.” And let’s not forget “obstructed justice.”
And it’s deja vu all over again, except more boring, predictable and annoying.
And what, according to Schiff, was Trump’s nefarious aim? To get dirt on his possible -though unlikely -opponent in the 2020 election, former vice-president Joe Biden. Or as Mr. Schiff would say, “[he] abused the power of his office for personal gain.”
Never mind that both Adam Schiff and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi sound like they should be investigating Joe Biden, given that then-vice-president Biden himself bragged at length about threatening to withhold aid from the Ukraine government if a prosecutor who was investigating Biden’s son were not fired. And never mind that other sources had already wondered in print about Hunter Biden being a threat to his father’s presidential prospects.
If Schiff’s and Pelosi’s true purpose was to get Joe Biden out of the race, they couldn’t have hit on a better plan.
This morning Schiff inflicted yet another addled and sanctimonious lecture on the American people. During a press conference following Ambassador to the EU Gordon Sondland’s no-show for a deposition before Congress, Schiff insisted again and again that the Congress “is a co-equal branch of government.”
Speaking to reporters, Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Intelligence Committee and Democrats’ point man on the impeachment inquiry, called the administration’s efforts to block Sondland’s deposition “further acts of obstruction of a coequal branch of government.”
But the House is not a co-equal branch of government. It is one of two parts of the legislative branch of government. If the House is co-equal to anything, that thing is the Senate, which many consider the upper chamber of the legislative branch. The House has 435 voting members, each representing one district. And at the moment, it is the only part of the government that is under Democrat control, with 235 Democrat seats versus 197 Republicans (and 1 Independent and 2 recently resigned vacancies.)
You’d think a big-shot Committee Chair would know that.
