Republican Warfare, Part III: National Conservatism and Massive Tax Increases

 

November 11, 2022 by Dan Mitchell @ International Liberty

In yesterday’s column, I explained Republicans are not credible advocates of lower tax rates if they don’t also push for spending restraint.

And, as I explained to the Adam Smith Institute, they will be de facto advocates of higher taxes if they embrace the wrong version of national conservatism.

To understand why I’m concerned, look at the most-recent edition of the Congressional Budget Office’s long-run fiscal forecast.

It shows that the burden of government spending is going to substantially increase over the next three decades – largely due to the unchecked growth of entitlement programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.

Failure to control spending will mean two bad things – either huge tax increases or staggering levels of debt. Probably both.

And if politicians add more spending (as Biden has already done), then those long-run trend lines will get even worse.

My concern is that some national conservatives are unwilling to confront this problem and/or they support policies to make matters worse.

But first, in the interest of fairness, bigger government is not an inherent part of the national conservatism platform. At least based on the statement of principles published by The American Conservative.

That document, signed by the key advocates of national conservatism, lists 10 concepts, most of which are good from a libertarian perspective and only one of which is overtly troubling.

1. National independence (I cheer for anyone opposed to global governance)
2. Rejection of imperialism and globalism (they’re opposed to the bad form of globalism)
3. National government (very akin to “state capacity libertarianism“)
4. God and public religion (not a role for government, but they’re not pushing bad ideas)
5. The rule of law (good idea)
6. Free enterprise (they have a few unnecessary caveats)
7. Public research (I’m skeptical of this one)
8. Family and children (not a role for government, but they’re not pushing bad ideas)
9. Immigration (I’m more sympathetic than they are, but agree on the importance of assimilation)
10. Race (they want neutrality rather than preferences)

Unfortunately, some national conservatives go beyond this statement of principles and push for bigger government.

• Such as industrial policy.
• Such as per-child handouts.

But don’t believe me. Bill McGurn of the Wall Street Journal makes similar points.

Mr. Cass’s movement insists (rightly) that purely economic and material measures are limited. But whenever they move beyond rhetoric to specifics, their preferred solutions almost always turn out to be economic interventions, from child tax credits to industrial policy. …Even a cursory glance at the record of the past half-century shows government often doing the most harm to people precisely when it is trying to help them. Federal efforts to promote homeownership ended up encouraging banks to lend people more than they could afford and feeding a housing bubble. Federal college loans helped drive up tuition while leaving Americans $1.6 trillion in debt. As we ought to have learned from the Great Society, well-intentioned government policies can do immense damage to families and communities. Unfortunately, when it comes to getting the toothpaste back in the tube, government has shown much less success.

The bottom line is that national conservatives always seem to advocate bigger government when they develop or endorse specific policies.

And, to the best of my knowledge, none of them have put forth any agenda to deal with the spending problem that already exists.

That’s an agenda that guarantees future tax increases. And, for what it’s worth, one of the advocates already has embraced a tax-the-rich agenda to help finance the national conservative agenda.

If Republicans go down that path, it won’t end well (just as it didn’t end well when they embraced other fads such as compassionate conservatism, kinder-and-gentler conservatism, common-good capitalism, reform conservatism, etc).

As I’ve previously noted, there no alternative to Reaganism.

Augmenting the Case for Spending Restraint

November 14, 2022 by Dan Mitchell

I explained last week that excessive government spending is responsible for about 97 percent of America’s fiscal deterioration in the 21st century.

 

I followed that column with two post-election pieces that explained how huge tax increases will be inevitable if there is no effort to deal with the spending problem.

Simply stated, lawmakers need to copy the fiscal restraint of the Reagan years and Clinton years.

Why? To help people enjoy better lives thanks to faster growth and more opportunity.

In the Wall Street Journal, Andy Kessler explains that smaller government is the recipe for more growth.

Winston Churchill…said: “We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.” The U.S. should heed that advice… economic growth is going to come from efficient supply chains and productivity in manufacturing in the U.S. Tax and spending cuts are the cure. …Republicans must resist the urge to subsidize higher energy costs and instead help slay inflation and bring back a strong, productive economy.

Let’s look at some new academic research bolstering Kessler’s argument.

Megha Jain Aishwarya Nagpal, and Abhay Jain published a study last year in the South Asia Journal of Macroeconomics and Public Finance.

The key findings deal with the Armey-Rahn Curve and can be found in the abstract.

The current study attempts to examine the linkage between government (public) spending and economic growth in the broader framework of selected South Asian Nations (SANs), BRICS and other emerging nations by using two sets of empirical modelling over the period 2007–2016 by using inverted U-shaped hypothesis, propounded by Armey curve (1995). …The key findings signify the existence of an inverted U-shaped relationship for the selected data set of emerging nations and, therefore, support the Armey curve hypothesis. The projected threshold (tipping) levels (as a percentage of GDP) are 24.31% for the government total expenditures (GTotExp), 12.92% for consumption spending (GConExp) and 7.11% for investment spending (GInvExp). It has been observed that a rise in the public spending (size) resulted in a substantial…decrease…in the growth rate when the public spending was…after…the optimal threshold level, indicating a non-monotonic association.

For what it’s worth, I think the study is wrong and that the growth-maximizing level of government spending is much lower than 24.3 percent of economic output.

But since total government spending in the United States now consumes about 40 percent of GDP, at least we can all agree that there will be more prosperity if America’s fiscal burden is dramatically reduced.

If we ever bring the spending burden back down to 24.3 percent of economic output, we can then figure out whether the ultimate goal is even lower (as it was for much of America’s history).

There is one point from the study that merits further attention. The authors estimated not only the growth-maximizing level of total spending, but also how much the government should spend on “consumption” and “investment” outlays (an issue I addressed last month).

Here’s a chart from the study showing that consumption outlays should be less than 13 percent of economic output.

P.S. If you want to watch videos that address the growth-maximizing size of government, click here, here, here, here, and here.

P.P.S. Ironically, the case for smaller government is bolstered by research from normally left-leaning international bureaucracies such as the OECD, World Bank, ECB, and IMF.

 

Remember When Americans Used Common Sense?

 November 14, 2022 By Mychal Massie @ Daily Rant 

Common sense is the God-given healthy nutrient needed to recognize insanity when one sees it.  I say this in no way marginalizing the Word of God, which has from the beginning spoke to the depth of demonic insanity man would devolve to accept under the guise of science and intellectuality.

I was raised in a day and age that people understood the weather was cyclical and that throughout the lifespan of people we would experience weather patterns that hadn’t been witnessed for varied periods of time.

I remember the old sayings and observations that were more accurate than the weather forecasts of today that are based upon millions of dollars of weather satellites and computers that get it wrong more often than not.  I’m not cynical; I’m a Christian with common sense.

I don’t need a Harvard or Princeton degree to know what weather patterns are developing based upon my sinuses and my joints.

I vividly remember when the environmental lunatics pretended to be concerned about the welfare of Bald Eagles and other birds that were supposedly endangered due to whatever threat they came up with at the time.  Consider how quickly the supposed threat disappeared when wind turbines became the latest craze that would supposedly benefit the planet.

The fact that wind turbines are now slaughter massive numbers of birds including the Eagle is ignored by the environmental loons as long as more wind turbines are erected.

Which brings me to the climate.  The wannabe God complex of these people is unambiguous.  A New York Times headline predicted “Everyone Will Disappear In A Cloud Of Blue Steam By 1989” because of an alleged scientific consensus over impending apocalypse from environmental pollution.

In 1970, environmentalists predicted, in another newspaper headline, “America Subject To Water Rationing By 1974 And Food Rationing By 1980.”

In 1970, scientists working for NASA and the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research warned of an impending New Ice Age by the year 2000.

A 1974 Time magazine headline warned of “Another Ice Age?” and Britain’s The Guardian science reporter headlined, “Space Satellites Show New Ice Age Coming Fast.” Brown University’s Department of Geology warned of an imminent New Ice Age in a letter to President Nixon.

In 1988, environmental scientists predicted disappearance of the Maldive Islands: “A gradual rise in average sea level is threatening to completely cover this Indian Ocean nation of 1196 small islands within the next 30 years.”

In 1989, U.N. environmental experts told the Associated Press: “Rising Seas Could Obliterate Nations” by the year 2000. Part of New York City was supposed to be submerged by 2019.

In 2004, climate hoaxers predicted Britain would be like Siberia by 2020.

So they resolved God’s epic record of failure to bring about their predictions by renaming their hoax “climate change.” Now every storm, snowflake, gust of wind and temperature change is identified as climate change. Never again will they be wrong, no matter how many times their prognostications don’t occur, because climate change is the villain.

It wasn’t necessary for me to read Bob Unruh’s highly informative article: ‘Climate cult’ meeting is ‘all about depopulation,’ to realize anything liars and environmental Mohocks like John Kerry scurry off to in their private jets portends negatively for you and I.  See also: There Will Be No Climate Amnesty by Jason Isaac.

It is common sense to me: these people are a far cry from being “world leaders” as they brand themselves, rather they are “world con-men and charlatans” staying at the opulent environs of Sharm El Sheikh, for COP27, the United Nations’ climate-change conference.

I submit that this isn’t a conference as the idea of a conference at one time conveyed.  This so-called climate conference was a gathering of the world’s most elite to showoff who has the most expensive toys and design a way to rob us blind.

My God-given common sense dictates that I won’t submit to their pathology of abject insanity.  I was raised to understand that ‘crazy’ wasn’t something to be modeled or emulated.  The followers of this climate madness are those who will benefit from it and those who base their self-esteem on modeling the schizophrenic bi-polar insanity of others.

Fat-Al Gore, the former vice-president who did his best work allegedly seeking the sexual gratification of masseuse, pocketed mountains of cash in his global emissions, greenhouse emissions and global warming lies.

Common sense tells me that the idea of there being food shortages is a lie from the pit of hell.  The only way we have food shortages is if they’re manipulated and created for personal gain and/or to control the population.  People who believe such foolishness haven’t drunk the proverbial Kool-Aid; they’ve drunk the liquid waste drunks leave in allies.

Fossil fuels cannot be replaced by electric.  It takes fossil fuels to produce the energy required to have electric vehicles.  As for greenhouse emissions, I submit we could make the entire west coast a cattle farm and the cattle would still not produce enough flatulence to impact the United States much less the world as the claims coming out of New Zealand claimed some years ago.

As a child watching Flash Gordon et al I knew the idea of flying vehicles back and forth from city to city and town-to-town was fantasyland regardless of what the actors claimed during commercials.  Today people pay massive amounts of money to be brainwashed in colleges and universities into believing such travel will be a reality.

The United Nations is a charade created to give the illusion of global security and global wellbeing.  In reality it is a demonic institution created for the purpose of global one world government, control of global finances and the global control of We the People.

I’ve never subscribed to being controlled by fools and liars. My lifetime alone validates that I’m right in refusing such brinkmanship.  Nowhere in scripture am I told to obey that which defiles my God and/or instructs me to subscribe to insanity.

Mychal Massie

Mychal S. Massie is an ordained minister who spent 13 years in full-time Christian Ministry. Today he serves as founder and Chairman of the Racial Policy Center (RPC), a think tank he officially founded in September 2015. RPC advocates for a colorblind society. He was founder and president of the non-profit “In His Name Ministries.” He is the former National Chairman of a conservative Capitol Hill think tank; and a former member of the think tank National Center for Public Policy Research. Read entire bio here

 

FBI Contractor Spied on GOP Congressman to Protect Muslim Brotherhood

Daniel Greenfield November 14, 2022 @ Sultan Knish Blog

The death of Qatari operative Jamal Khashoggi has been the subject of front page headlines, press conferences, a documentary, and speeches by top figures including Joe Biden.

Qatar employing an ex-CIA officer who set out to spy on a Republican congressman to help protect the Muslim Brotherhood has received virtually no coverage in the media.

The Washington Post, which platformed Khashoggi and labored to turn the old friend of Osama bin Laden into a martyr, did not feel that Qatar spying on a congressman was worth more coverage than rerunning the AP’s wire story. The New York Times didn’t even do that much.

The AP’s story alleged that Qatar employed Kevin Chalker, a former CIA officer, and his company, Global Risk Advisors, to target opponents of the Islamic terror state which has ties to everything from 9/11 to Hamas to the Taliban. That included “pitching a sprawling covert influence operation to damage the reputations of U.S. officials perceived as Qatar’s enemies.”

One of those “enemies” of the Islamic terror state may have been Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart.

In 2015, the Republican congressman and Senator Ted Cruz introduced the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act. This would have been extremely inconvenient to Qatar, which hosts Muslim Brotherhood figures and backs the Islamist expansionist movement whose goal is to take over countries and impose the brutality of sharia law on their people.

Including the United States.

The bill was reintroduced again in 2017, co-sponsored by a number of House Republicans, including Rep. Louie Gohmert. While the bill never became law, Rep. Diaz-Balart’s persistence appeared to worry Qatar and the former spooks doing its dirty work.

The AP story reveals that Global Risk Advisors created “Project ENDGAME” and “boasted in internal records that it had ‘developed an approach to a close contact of the congressman’ who sponsored legislation that year to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization.”

“’Developed an approach’” is intelligence jargon for seeking to recruit a potential asset.”

At least one previous GRA effort had allegedly involved a Facebook “honey pot” operation.

While GRA appears to have done a lot of work for Qatar, the AP revealed that “its affiliates have won small contracts with the FBI for a rope-training course and tech consulting work for the Democratic National Committee.”

GRA also appears to have some employees who have gone on to work for Democrats. It may be no coincidence that the two known American targets of GRA operations, Rep. Diaz-Balart and former RNC finance chair Elliot Broidy are both high-profile Republicans. And Democrat media groups and reporters were deeply involved in promoting Broidy’s hacked emails.

Qatar has cultivated Republican contacts, but through its Muslim Brotherhood groups in the United States, it has become an integral part of the Democratic political machine. Unless new names are revealed, Democrat complicity in foreign operations against American officials by an enemy nation becomes a burning question that must urgently be resolved.

The involvement of the FBI is also troubling as it’s the Bureau that is investigating possible misconduct by its former contractor. And as we’ve seen with Russiagate, its personnel have a history of covering up the sins of their contractors and informants to protect their credibility.

In echoes of the Steele Dossier, GRA had allegedly employed British ex-intel officers to spy on the American team conducting a bid for a soccer tournament and used a “fake Facebook profile of an attractive young woman to communicate with the target”.

Was this what Qatar’s assets had in mind for a congressman?

What ought to be an explosive story has instead been studiously ignored by the media because it exposes its own complicity and touches the third rail of the Muslim Brotherhood’s involvement.

The intersection between an ex-CIA figure, an FBI contractor, Qatar and the Muslim Brotherhood also raises the question of Islamist infiltration of the intelligence community.

The AP story on GRA’s work for Qatar notes that the Brotherhood’s Yusuf al-Qaradawi delivered a sermon after Qatar beat out America’s bid for a soccer tournament that the intel operatives had been hired to assure in which he said “Qatar had humbled the United States.”

Qaradawi had previously predicted that, “we will conquer America” and declared that, “those killed fighting the American forces are martyrs”. Serving Qatar ultimately means serving the enablers of Qaradawi and the Muslim Brotherhood’s quest to destroy America.

The complete lack of interest in the AP’s scoop by either the media or the political class also reveals how deeply Qatar, an ally of Iran, a state sponsor of the Muslim Brotherhood and the hand behind Al Jazeera, controls Washington D.C. and the journalists of the mainstream media.

It also offers a peek into how enemies of this country were able to take over Washington D.C.

Kevin Chalker, the ex-CIAer, and Global Risk Advisors came up during the hack of former Republican National Committee deputy finance chair Elliot Broidy. Broidy’s emails were passed on to media operatives which described them as being “leaked”. Broidy’s lawsuits since have alleged that Qatar hired Global Risk Advisors to “coordinate” cyberattacks which led to the hacks of his emails which were then distributed to the media by a PR firm working for Qatar.

The media, which seized on the documents to damage former President Trump, and appeared to be coordinating with operatives working for Qatar, ignored or dismissed the accusations.

And previous AP reporting suggested GRA was engaging in behavior that could be interpreted as treason, after noting that “one Global Risk Advisors document lists the United States as a ‘threat’ to Qatar”.

Despite these revelations, the Democratic National Committee has failed to issue a statement disavowing GRA, laying out GRA’s work on its behalf and committing to ending that work.

Nor has anyone in the media pursued DNC officials to push for an answer.

Global Risk Advisers, to all appearances, appear to be operating normally. And the same media outlets which cried endlessly about Russian operations are keeping quiet.

Even allegations of spying on a Republican congressman aren’t about to change that.

Meanwhile, Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart introduced the Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act once again in 2021. Senator Ted Cruz reintroduced the Senate version: co-sponsored by Senator Ron Johnson. After 7 years, the bill has yet to pass. Will the revelation that Qatar appears to have targeted the bill’s sponsor to protect the Muslim Brotherhood change that?

Or will Qatar, the Muslim and a band of mercenary spooks continue to terrorize Congress?

 

US Elections Are Broken, and Here’s Why

The patient is sick and in dire need of a doctor.

 

By: Leesa K. Donner November 15, 2022 Articles, Opinion, Politics @ Liberty News

It’s autopsy time for the elections, and Americans would be wise to seize the moment and take stock of what just happened in the much-ballyhooed midterms. It wasn’t merely another disappointment for the Republicans because a big, beautiful Red Wave didn’t materialize. A much more critical issue surfaced that must be addressed: The two-party system has mutated into two separate, but not equal, elections.

This is not an off-the-wall theory, and many Republicans have begun to recognize the problem: Democrats gather ballots for months while Republicans take time on Election Day to go to the polls and vote. One can easily determine the more successful system by reflecting on the last two elections, in 2020 and 2022.

  Gathering ballots wins hands down. And it will win every time if Republicans don’t stop whining, get off their collective conservative behinds, and take action to level the playing field.

Since the first step to effectuate change is the ability to recognize the problem, let’s begin there.

Pamela Geller asserts in her widely read blog, “A *vote* cannot be cast by a person who is no longer alive, or no longer lives in the area. However, a *ballot* can be printed, distributed, completed, and returned regardless of the status of the initially attributed and/or registered individual. ‘Votes’ and ‘Ballots’ are two distinctly different things.”

The Conservative Treehouse reviewed the successful candidacies of Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Pennsylvania Lt. Gov. John Fetterman and observed, “Whitmer and Fetterman were not campaigning for votes, that is old school. Instead, the machinery behind both candidates focused on the modern path. The Democrat machines in both states focused on ballot collection and ignored the irrelevant votes as cast.”

Fox News Host Jesse Waters picked up this theme and intoned, “The longer some of these races drag out … the better it is for Democrats because they’ve created a system centered around ballots, not votes. It’s not about winning your vote anymore. It’s not about persuading you. It’s about flooding the state with as many ballots as possible and getting them filled out Democrat.”

Perhaps it’s something in the nature of conservatism that keeps Republicans playing by Marquess of Queensberry rules while the opposition has invented a system that takes much less effort but boasts a higher degree of success: Spend months gathering ballots and drop them off in boxes before Election Day.

The success of this strategy lies in its simplicity.

US Elections: Voting Has Become Outdated

It doesn’t take much to fill out a ballot and stuff it into a box. The voter has plenty of time to do it and is less likely to pay attention to the worthiness of individual candidates than simple ideology. This is how people like President Joe Biden and Fetterman – both of whom have trouble spitting out a coherent sentence — get elected.

Alternatively, it takes more motivation and dedication to go to a particular place on a specific day between selected hours and cast your vote. People who do such things often are the ones with skin in the game; they know the candidate they have chosen and why. However, this voting structure has become passé in the last two election cycles.

For some bizarre reason, Republicans seemed to believe balloting as a means of voting ended with the pandemic. Still, all they had to do was look at the voting rules in states like Pennsylvania, Nevada, and Arizona and see it wasn’t so. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that Election 2022 turned into a ghastly case of déjà vu. Here’s how the nightmare goes: A Republican takes the lead on Election Day, the counting slows to a crawl, and then the GOP sits and watches that lead dwindle to zero until the Democrat gets out in front. Then – boom – it’s all over: another checkmark in the D column.

One has to wonder why party apparatchiks didn’t grab governors like Arizona’s Doug Ducey by the lapels and get them to change the election system in their states back to voting instead of balloting.

Possible Solutions

Republicans have several ways to handle this separate but unequal election system. They can:

• Start playing the balloting game and forget the business of electioneering to get out the vote.
• Make certain Republican state legislatures (especially ones with GOP governors) establish a statewide election system that does not include endless balloting.
• Limit voting to just a few days – perhaps a long weekend – which sets parameters on balloting and at the same time extends the in-person voting over that same period to balance out the system.

The Conservative Treehouse observed: “It’s time for voters to start seeing the difference between elections decided by ballots and elections decided by votes.  Perhaps the 2022 midterm election will awaken people to the two completely different electioneering systems.” Point taken.

Anyone who has listened closely to former President Donald Trump knows he’s been railing against more than just a personal loss in 2020. He found out the hard way that endless ballot gathering makes Election Day essentially moot. Republicans will need to do something to change the way Americans vote or prepare to suffer a similar fate in 2024.

 

P&D Today

De Omnibus Dubitandum

---

By Rich Kozlovich 

 

On occasion there have been those who very graciously worked to have my articles published on sites that are by far more popular than P&D, and I was recently invited to become a regular writer for a national news site.   The bug man....imagine that.  

At any rate, while I've been willing to co-author articles with others who do write for larger and more popular sites, I've not been willing to submit pieces of my own and the reason why is all these sites reserve the option of making changes in the title and even the body of the articles.  And I don't blame them, they own the site and they want to protect themselves.  And besides that, not everything everyone writes will necessarily be in harmony with their views.  

While I don't find their position unreasonable, that doesn't work for me.  P&D is a non-profit passion.  I'm retired, I don't want a job, and I don't need the money, I do what I want, I say what I please because I do a lot of research sourcing the information on each and every topic I write about.  I do everything I can to make sure all I say is absolute fact. I don't need someone making changes without my approval. 

If people find what I have to say is meaningful for them, then I'm grateful, and they should pass it along to others.  If not, they should ignore me. In the meanwhile, I hope you will find today's offerings meaningful, and the cartoon fits in well with my commentary, the second in a four part series.  The other commentaries and links highlight the positions I've taken in my piece.  

Tyranny is the goal of power mongers, and tyranny always ends up destroying lives on a massive scale.  David Horowitz is totally correct when he says, "Inside every progressive is a totalitarian screaming to get out". 

Commentaries

• Suffering is the Beginning of Wisdom: Part II, Did America Really Vote For This? By Rich Kozlovich
•  How The Left Views Administrative Law: A Highlight From The Federalist Society Convention By Francis Menton
• Escaping from the COP-27 insane asylum By Paul Driessen

Links

• EPA Administrator: Elections Won’t Change our Power to Regulate, Our Regulations Were Enhanced under Biden
• Iranian Parliament votes in favor of executing 15,000 women's rights protestors

 

   

 Constant as the North Star

 

Suffering is the Beginning of Wisdom: Part II, Did America Really Vote For This?

By Rich Kozlovich

 

I think this cartoon epitomizes the constant drum beat we're hearing from the media and politicians all over the nation, on both sides of the aisle.  If this cartoon is true, then we're really expected to believe this Red Wave failure was America's rebuke of Donald Trump and an embrace of unending inflation, high crime rates, massive spending, massive taxation, sexual grooming of America's children by the public education system, an out of control administrative state, expensive energy and energy shortages, racial disharmony, uncontrolled crime, unconstitutional mandates for false pandemics, and in short:  We're expected to believe Americans supports destroying America.  

Are we really expected to believe that? 

Well, if that's true then why aren't we seeing that being played out in the real world?   

If this election is a reflection of what America believes, then why is it we're seeing corporations that went all Woke, like Disney, are doing so badly?

Their stock is crashing, there are travel restrictions for company business, a hiring freeze and layoffs in the planning, and the nitwits running Disney claim they've been around for a long time and they will weather this storm.  The only problem for Disney is there isn't a Walt Disney in charge.  There are leftist nitwits who caved in to pressure from a small group of radicalized employees, and picked a fight with DeSantis, and lost.  Their share value has dropped 62%.  

If this election is a reflection of what America really believes then why are all these

If this election is a reflection of what America believes, then why is it all over the nation parents are challenging the dictates of out of control tyrannical school boards who are mandating sexual grooming of America's children, pandemic mandates on masks and vaccination and CRT, and replacing these petty tyrants with conservatives who understand they work for the parents, not the other way around. 

Election night did not deliver the overwhelming victory Republicans had hoped for on a national level, but on a local level — in school board races — conservatives picked up a wave of wins across the country. This week, conservatives flipped at least nine school boards in at least six states — Michigan, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, New Jersey, and Florida — giving them conservative majorities, according to two parental rights groups who endorsed many of the victorious candidates.

If that's true, and it is, then why would we believe these same parents voted for candidates who oppose them on every issue involving education, protection of America's children, and societal stability, even targeting them as domestic terrorists?

In the media the far left wing misfits like CNN's Don Lemon are being demoted because their viewership is dying, and I don't think CNN will survive, even under the new ownership.   So, are we expected to believe Americans who are fleeing these left wing news sources are voting for the very things they're refusing to watch?   

 

Are we really expected to believe that?  

 

Crime is exploding all over the nation.  And it's being caused by Democrat leadership and their failure to prosecute criminals properly and often not at all.   The streets of Philadelphia sre so bad Mexico is using footrage of them in ads to scare young people away from drugs. 

 

Defund the police and release violent criminals into the public is an unending theme among Democrat politicians.  Politicians who have absolutely insane views and yet were elected, like John Fetterman.  Are we expected to believe Americans really want to defund their police forces all over the nation, have uncontrolled illegal immigration, create sanctuary cities to prevent their deportation? A constant theme among these leftist politicians.  It's clear these leftist elitists don't care people are being killed on the streets, in stores, and worrying about paying their rent. Daniel Greenfield asks:  “How Could Anyone Possibly Vote for These Freakshows?”

 

In New York City a man was beaten to death with wooden board by a mob.  Was this an anomaly?  No, in point of fact this Democrat-controlled city is facing a major increase in major crimes:

 

".......increasing by 29.1 percent since this time last year, according to NYPD crime statistics. Felony assault is up by 13.9 percent, burglary is up by 28.4 percent, and robbery is up by 31.5 percent.  Furthermore, in the North Queens Patrol borough — where Sunday’s homicide occurred — crime has risen higher than the city rate at 45.9 percent since last year. Felony assault is up by 24.2 percent, rape is up by 26.6 percent, and robberies within the area have risen by 58.3 percent."

 

Are we expected to believe that's what America likes, and voted accordingly?  

 

Well, if what Americans are supporting, and what Americans are rejecting in the real world is any indication, it would appear Americans don't like any of that, and yet Democrats managed to flip several state legislatures, putting those states under total Democrat control.  

 

If Americans don't support businesses, school boards and the news media that supports Democrat policies, then why in the world would America vote Democrats into offices that gives them tyrannical control over their lives?    

 

They wouldn't, so there must be another explanation, which I will address tomorrow.  

• Suffering is the Beginning of Wisdom: Part I, It's All Trump's Fault!

How The Left Views Administrative Law: A Highlight From The Federalist Society Convention

November 12, 2022/ Francis Menton @ Manhattan Contrarian

You may have seen that the Federalist Society has been holding its annual convention in Washington. I was there on Thursday and Friday. They have recorded all the presentations. If you want to watch some, go to this link and see what interests you.

There was not a lot of moaning about the election results. Rather, the focus was on high-minded issues, mostly of constitutional and administrative law.

I have selected a highlight that you may find interesting. One of the lunchtime panels on Thursday was titled “Render Law Unto Congress and Execution Unto the Executive: The Supreme Court Rebalances Constitutional Power.” Here is the description of the subject of the panel:

The Roberts Court is recasting the administrative state according to its view of the separation of powers. It is giving the President more authority to fire his subordinates and creating a hierarchical executive where the President and his principal officers have more authority over appointments and decision making. It is forcing the legislature to speak clearly when it wants to vest agencies with major powers and expressing interest in reinvigorating limits on some delegations of legislative power. It is strengthening the judiciary’s interpretative role, declining to give as much deference to regulatory interpretations by agencies. Is its view coherent and sound? Should the Court square its vision with a modern government that was formed on different principles? If so, how?

The full video of the panel, 1:23:30 in length, can be found at this link. The panel featured four speakers (Nicholas Parrillo of the Yale Law School, Aditya Bamzai of the Virginia Law School, Thomas Griffith, formerly Judge of the DC Circuit, and Sally Katzen of NYU Law School) describing and debating the merits of recent Supreme Court cases that have articulated something called the Major Questions Doctrine as a limit on administrative agency power to promulgate regulations of sweeping import without clear statutory basis. The most important of the cases under discussion was West Virginia v. EPA, the June 30 Supreme Court decision that held that EPA’s Clean Power Plan — a mechanism to shut down all generation of electricity using fossil fuels — exceeded the agency’s authority under the Clean Air Act.

As is typical on Federalist Society panels, the majority were conservative scholars or judges, who thus were generally supportive of the Court’s approach, although offering a variety of perspectives. However, the fourth panelist, in this case Ms. Katzen of NYU, was a die-hard left-winger. It fell to Ms. Katzen to defend the position that EPA was well within its powers under the CAA to promulgate a regulation that would force the closure of all coal power plants in a short period of time, followed in short order by all natural gas power plants over the next decade or so.

In her opening remarks (beginning about the 31 minute mark of the video at the link) Ms. Katzen described Congress as having become a completely dysfunctional institution that has been paralyzed by partisanship and can barely pass a spending bill to keep the government operating, let alone address any serious policy issue with major legislation. Meanwhile, she noted that since adoption of the Constitution the country had become huge, wealthy, and enormously complex. Thus Congress has seen fit to delegate the problems of dealing with the great complexities to specialists and experts in various fields. But now, said Ms. Katzen, her voice dripping with scorn, the Supreme Court has decreed that only the dysfunctional Congress can address the most critical issues facing us. She was particularly critical of the Court having struck down the Clean Power Plan, which in her view was well within the authority granted to EPA under the CAA, as well as being a subject that could only properly be dealt with by people with the necessary expertise, such as the bureaucrats at EPA.

Before reading on, you might consider whether those arguments appear persuasive to you.

After the panelists’ remarks, there was a period for questions from the audience. I managed to maneuver myself into a position to get to the microphone and ask the first question. I’m going to transcribe my question and Ms. Katzen’s response. This begins at 1:04:24 of the video:

Question: Thank you. My name is Francis Menton. My affiliation is Manhattan Contrarian. That’s my blog; many people here may read it. So out there we have the Clean Air Act, and the Clean Air Act basically gives the EPA the authority to regulate “pollutants.” And then a decade or so ago the EPA decided that carbon dioxide was a pollutant. And I guess this question is mainly for Professor Katzen. So carbon dioxide has been declared a pollutant by the EPA. They’re an “expert.” 

Does that mean, could the EPA then, on its own authority, say, well, airplanes all generate carbon dioxide, we hereby say they must be all grounded? Oh, and industry must be ended, that generates carbon dioxide. And 80% of our electricity generation is fossil fuel, generates carbon dioxide. And of course all automobiles, so you can’t drive them any more. Can the EPA do that? Or does that go beyond what they’ve been authorized to do? And if it goes beyond, what is the limiting principle? Do you have one, or are you completely fine with that if EPA does that?

Professor Katzen: I’m not sure I completely followed because there’s a lot of distracting noise out there. But the Congress clearly gave the EPA authority to specify those pollutants that are dangerous and should be regulated, and to set limits for them based on that which is necessary to protect the public health, with an adequate margin of safety and all that. There are standards to be applied. They can’t just say “no cars.” I don’t think that would survive any kind of judicial review.

Me: What’s the standard?

Professor Katzen: (Several seconds delay) The standard as set forth in the Clean Air Act is the scientific basis for levels to be set. That’s not — I’m not an environmental lawyer, and maybe there are others here who could provide the exact terminology. But the EPA is not able to and does not do whatever it has a whim to do when it wakes up in the morning. It bases it normally through rule-making through notice and comment, cost/benefit analysis, scientific determinations, that are subject to the critique and then response by the agency. 

You may not be happy with the answer any more than I was not happy when they stayed the Clean Power Plan in the first place, even though it had not yet gone through the courts. It was an extreme action taken to shut down rule-making in this area. And I thought that was unfortunate that we were never able to develop the kind of record that would enable sensible people to see if the agency was acting within its authority as granted by Congress. 

I am not saying that the organic statute or the authorizing statute is meaningless. It survives. But if it is granted authority, then the agency should be able to use it, even if the pollutant is something that they didn’t think of when they passed the statute, or weren’t aware of when they passed the statute. Any more than under the FCC Act, it was radio, that was in 1933, it was radio, but it was interpreted to mean television. It wasn’t a big step.

It’s too bad this wasn’t a cross examination, because Professor Katzen was trapped, and it would have been fun to keep pressing. The next obvious question would have been:  

“My question was, what’s the limiting principle? You haven’t answered. Please state the limiting principle. Do you have one or not?”

So Professor Katzen was completely outraged that the Supreme Court had struck down the Clean Power Plan (“it was an extreme action taken to shut down rule-making in this area”). Yet she couldn’t come up with any reason why, if EPA could force the shut down of all fossil fuel burning power plants, it could not also ban all burning of fossil fuels for airplanes, cars, industry, agriculture, home heat, etc. She flatly asserted “there are standards” without being able to specify any of them. (There are no meaningful standards in the statute that would constrain EPA in these circumstances, if the courts approved the Clean Power Plan.). 

The best she came up with was “notice and comment rule-making,” which is not a standard, but rather a procedure. It can be a time-consuming and burdensome procedure, and may generate thousands or even millions of comments, but at the end of that the EPA can just go ahead and implement the rule it started with and planned to implement all along. When Professor Katzen says that “EPA is not able to and does not do whatever it has a whim to do when it wakes up in the morning,” she is just plain wrong.

If you are wondering what the Clean Air Act may actually have to say on this subject, I would point out that the Act is lengthy and nearly incomprehensible. However, in the West Virginia litigation EPA had to come up with something in the CAA to point to as its authority for promulgating the Clean Power Plan, and the best it could do was Section 111(d) of the Act. Here is the text of that section:

(d) Standards of performance for existing sources; remaining useful life of source

(1) The Administrator shall prescribe regulations which shall establish a procedure similar to that provided by section 7410 of this title under which each State shall submit to the Administrator a plan which (A) establishes standards of performance for any existing source for any air pollutant (i) for which air quality criteria have not been issued or which is not included on a list published under section 7408(a) of this title or emitted from a source category which is regulated under section 7412 of this title but (ii) to which a standard of performance under this section would apply if such existing source were a new source, and (B) provides for the implementation and enforcement of such standards of performance. Regulations of the Administrator under this paragraph shall permit the State in applying a standard of performance to any particular source under a plan submitted under this paragraph to take into consideration, among other factors, the remaining useful life of the existing source to which such standard applies.

(2)The Administrator shall have the same authority—

(A) to prescribe a plan for a State in cases where the State fails to submit a satisfactory plan as he would have under section 7410(c) of this title in the case of failure to submit an implementation plan, and

(B) to enforce the provisions of such plan in cases where the State fails to enforce them as he would have under sections 7413 and 7414 of this title with respect to an implementation plan.

In promulgating a standard of performance under a plan prescribed under this paragraph, the Administrator shall take into consideration, among other factors, remaining useful lives of the sources in the category of sources to which such standard applies.

Make of all that mumbo jumbo what you will. What is certainly not there is any limiting principle or standard that constrains what EPA may do to effectively ban use of fossil fuel energy in all sectors, once it is accepted that EPA can regulate CO2 as a “pollutant.” Instead what is found in that section is blanket authority to EPA to set “standards of performance.” And in the Clean Power Plan EPA has set those “standards” in a way to make all use of fossil fuels in electricity generation non-compliant over time. If the courts allowed EPA to do that under this section, there would be nothing to stop it, if it wanted, from setting “standards” to make fossil fuels non-compliant in other sectors.

Here’s the bottom line: Under a statute that gives EPA general authority to set “standards of performance” with respect to “pollutants,” the progressives (including the liberal wing of the Supreme Court) are totally OK with allowing EPA to declare CO2 a “pollutant” 40 years after the statute was enacted, and then set “standards of performance” to ban CO2 and shut down the entire economy one sector at a time. Fortunately, with our current Supreme Court, we’ll get to see how this plays out in places like Germany and the UK before our federal government can impose it on all of us by executive fiat.

 

 

Escaping from the COP-27 insane asylum

Let’s hope climate talks finally come to grips with energy, scientific and economic reality

Paul Driessen 

“Show us the money!” climate activists demand, and rich countries are expected to pony up.
 
Do I hear $100 billion? Would you give $1 trillion? Now, then, would you give $2 trillion?
 
The climate reparations bidding war is on. What began at $100-billion-a-year at COP-21 in Paris rapidly ballooned to $1.3-trillion on the eve of COP-27 in Sharm-el-Sheikh-Down, Egypt and now stands at $2.4-trillion annually! And we’re nowhere near “going once, going twice, sold.”
 
Of course, it was always about the money – endless sums of cash supposedly to help developing countries (like China!) adapt to dangerous manmade climate change, cover entire regions with wind and solar, and secure “fair, just and equitable” reparations for soaring temperatures, rising seas, destructive storms, floods, droughts and famines allegedly caused by countries that have used fossil fuels since 1850.
 
Yes, China. The Middle Kingdom has long postured itself as a developing country, when it comes to when it might start building fewer coal-fired power plants and slowly shift to “renewable” energy.
 
Now China says it will pay non-cash climate reparations, if the United States pays in dollars. Of course, any US, UK, German, et cetera “fair share” would be exorbitant – and paid while they “transition” rapidly away from fossil fuels, regardless of the economic, social and ecological costs.
 
As Oliver Hardy would say, “Another fine mess you’ve gotten me into,” Joe, John and the rest of Team Biden’s climate-obsessed, fossil-fuel-eradicating, eco-justice warriors.
 
They and their activist, media and academia allies created the climate scare – the assertion that fossil fuel emissions alone are driving today’s climate and weather. Never mind that, since the last Pleistocene ice age, average global temperatures climbed significantly (Baruch Hashem); sea levels rose some 400 feet; and floods, droughts, hurricanes and other disasters ravaged planet and humanity countless times. Anything happening today, however, is due to countries that got rich using fossil fuels. Or so they insist.
 
Therefore, naturally, COP-27 organizers, activists and attendees now say the “climate crisis” requires enormous payments from rich countries to poor countries – or more accurately, from poor people in rich countries to rich kleptocrats in poor countries. That raises another inconvenient truth.
 
Not long ago, Obama “science advisor” John Holdren intoned: “Only one rational path is open to us – simultaneous de-development of the [United States and other over-developed countries] and semi-development of the under-developed countries, in order to approach a decent and ecologically sustainable standard of living for all in between.” This de-development ideology is shared by many others.
 
Well, de-development and de-industrialization are already underway in Britain, Germany and elsewhere, because wind, solar and battery (WSB) energy cannot possibly replace abundant, reliable, affordable, non-weather-dependent fossil fuel and nuclear energy. Jobs, companies and entire industries are already disappearing across Europe, as it destroys fossil fuel power plants but has nothing viable to replace them.
 
So how are all these de-developing Formerly Rich Countries (FRCs) going to deliver billions or trillions annually, to pay climate reparations and help poor countries develop? They cannot possibly do so.
 
Even worse, eco-imperialist developed countries continue demanding that poor countries develop only to the minimal extent that WSB technologies would permit. Rich countries, the World Bank and global financial institutions refuse to finance anything but pseudo-renewable energy.
 
These unconscionable policies perpetuate joblessness, poverty, disease and death – and advance the other basic goal of “climate stabilization” programs: controlling our lives and living standards. But poor nations have inalienable, God-given rights to develop, using fossil fuel, nuclear and hydroelectric power – and petroleum as feed stocks for fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, plastics and hundreds of other miraculous life-enhancing, life-saving products (developed by countries that are now expected to pay reparations).
 
Developed nations must help developing nations reach those goals. Instead, they too often block pathways to better lives. Still more outrageous, the USA and Europe have the nerve to ask African, Asian and Latin American nations to produce more oil and gas, but only for export to the USA and Europe!
 
Meanwhile, Britain is setting up “warm rooms,” where people can go for a few hours a day, instead of freezing hungry and jobless in dark apartments. It’s as though Merry Old England has suddenly been transported back to the Middle Ages, by politicians who put climate virtue signaling above their constituents’ basic needs.
 
Meanwhile, Germany is dismantling an industrial wind power installation – so that it can extract the lignite coal underneath, to run generating plants, to keep factories operating and homes warm!
 
Even crazier, these are just a few examples of the insanity gripping the world’s political classes, especially during Conferences of Parties (COPs) on climate change. Happily, escaping this insane asylum requires little more than recognizing a few simple realities.

* The vast majority of nations signed the Paris climate treaty for the money – most of which they are now beginning to realize they will never receive. Moreover, coal, oil and natural gas still provide 82% of the world’s energy; nuclear, hydroelectric and biomass (wood and dung) provide most remaining energy needs, and less than 2% comes from wind and solar.
 
* Developing countries will be using fossil fuels for decades to come – and emitting more plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide in the process – much of it to extract the raw materials and manufacture the “green tech” they will export to the US, UK, EU and other soon-to-be-FRCs. So even if developed countries totally eliminated their fossil fuel use, atmospheric greenhouse gas levels will continue to climb.
 
* But that won’t matter, because there is no evidence that we face a climate crisis, much less a manmade climate crisis, much less changes unprecedented in Earth or human history. Humans are likely affecting temperature, humidity, climate and weather to some degree, especially around large urban “heat islands.” But that is a far cry from cataclysms allegedly resulting from fossil fuels replacing the powerful natural forces that have controlled climate and weather throughout history.
 
* The 1.5 degrees C that we are supposed to avoid to avert catastrophe is arbitrary, meaningless – and tied not just to the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, but to the end of the Little Ice Age. Another degree or two of warming would be mostly beneficial, whereas another little or big ice age would devastate agriculture, habitats, wildlife and humanity.
 
* The entire climate crisis agenda is based on computer models that (a) cannot possibly reflect all the forces that govern climate, and (b) consistently predict planetary warming that is two to three times greater than actually recorded by satellites, weather balloons and surface temperature monitors.
 
* Basing economy-destroying, life-altering policies on useless models is sheer insanity – especially if the replacement energy comes from WSB systems that would require mining, processing, manufacturing and installations on scales that would ravage our planet.

The only reason these realities are so little known is that climate activists, politicians, academics, and news and social media studiously demonize, harass, censor, silence, deplatform and demonetize scientists, economists and energy experts who challenge climate crisis narratives.

Thankfully, the Truth is slowly winning out. Perhaps COP-27 will bring a healthy dose of climate and energy sanity. If it doesn’t, we could end up with John Holdren’s formula for rolling back development and living standards. Just don’t expect the ruling elites and their Hollywood and Big Tech allies to lead by example.
 
Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of books and articles on energy, climate change, environmental policy and human rights.
  

 

P&D Today

De Omnibus Dubitandum

---

By Rich Kozlovich 

 

• Suffering is the Beginning of Wisdom: Part I, It's All Trump's Fault! By Rich Kozlovich
• Biden to Meet with Xi Jinping – Punching Above His Weight Again By Dave Patterson
• OPEC Can’t Stop Humiliating Joe Bide By Andrew Moran
• Pigs Are Flying—A Famous Rock Star Denounces Che Guevara!  Humberto Fontova

Biden Consequence

• Who's Running this Ship of Fools?

Voter Fraud

• FTX + Ukraine = Money Laundering?
• Election Engineering 2.0 – A Few Details You Should Know

Insanity Squared

• DEMONIC: Montana Votes to Deny Medical Care for Born-Alive Infants And Let Them Die
• 'Diary of a Wimpy Kid' actor sentenced to life in prison for killing mother
• 20-Year-Old Instagram Influencer Their Official Climate Change Advisor
• Shameless Hollywood Murderer Alec Baldwin Sues ‘Rust’ Crew to ‘Clear His Name’

 

   

 Constant as the North Star

 

Quote of the Day

Wind and sunshine are free, clean, green, renewable, and sustainable. But harnessing this diffuse, unreliable, weather-dependent energy to power civilization is not.  Paul Driessen

The Coming Green Electricity Nightmare

Paul Driessen

Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) wanted regulatory reform, in part to reverse some of the Biden Administration's reversals of Trump-era reforms intended to expedite permits for fossil fuel projects. 

Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) needed Manchin’s vote in the 50-50 Senate to enact his latest spending extravaganza, the Inflation Reduction Act, which was primarily a massive climate and “green” energy subsidy arrangement. It gives Schumer allies some $370 billion in wind, solar, battery, and other funding, tax credits, and subsidies. In exchange, Schumer would offer a path for Manchin’s reform bill. 

Manchin voted YEA and promptly got bushwhacked. Once he’d helped enact the IRA, he had zero leverage. Schumer, he discovered, had promised an opportunity, maybe a vote, but not actual support. House and Senate members told him, we weren’t part of your secret negotiations with Schumer; we didn’t shake hands on any deal; we don’t want easier permitting for drilling, pipelines, and LNG terminals that could help send US natural gas to Britain and Europe. 

In the end, it’s probably a good thing Manchin’s bill went nowhere.

Yes, it provided some much-needed and long overdue reforms to curb the paralysis by analysis and endless litigation that have plagued fossil fuels, highways, airports, and countless other projects for decades. 

But it also had Trojan horse provisions that would have unleashed hordes of newly subsidized wind, solar, and transmission marauders on much of the Lower 48 USA, to send pseudo-clean electricity to mostly Democrat cities and states that don’t want even “renewable” power generation in their backyards. 

As the Wall Street Journal and energy analyst Robert Bryce observed, Manchin’s “reforms” would give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and other bureaucrats the power to issue permits and force multiple states to acquiesce to new transmission lines and 200-foot-tall towers across their scenic, habitat, agricultural and even residential lands – if they decide (decree) that the lines are in the "national interest.” This could easily transform into federal powers of eminent domain, to take the needed acreage. 

The feds could decree that thousands of miles of new transmission lines are in the “national interest” if, for instance, the lines “enhance the ability” of faraway wind and solar facilities to connect their intermittent, weather-dependent energy to an electric grid; or enable distant blue states to reach their renewable energy goals; or help achieve Biden Administration goals of stopping manmade climate change, “advancing environmental justice” and having “a net-zero economy” by 2050. 

Populous states like New York could also work with FERC & Co. to have offshore wind turbines installed off less populated coasts, like Maine or North Carolina – and have the electricity delivered to the Empire State. New York’s peak summertime needs alone would require 2,500 monstrous 680-foot-tall 12-MW offshore turbines, operating 24/7 – when we’d be lucky if they generated electricity 40% of the year. (Imagine how many offshore ... or 6-MW onshore ... turbines we’d need to power the entire USA.) 

Compounding the energy colonialism, the Manchin reform package would also give FERC authority to allocate and “socialize” transmission line costs, so that residents of states that don’t even get any of the electricity being sent along the newly imposed transmission lines could still have to help pay for them. 

In short, the feds would be able to ride roughshod over states, local communities, and federalism. 

Let me say it again: Wind and sunshine are free, clean, green, renewable, and sustainable. But harnessing this diffuse, unreliable, weather-dependent energy to power civilization is not. 

The Green Lobby and its legislator and regulator friends think they can just pass laws and earmark subsidies, demanding energy transformations by 2050 – and it will just happen. The raw materials will just be there, perhaps with a little MAGIC: Materials Acquisition for Global Industrial Change. That is, just assume the necessary raw materials will also just be there. 

Not one of these luminaries has given a moment’s thought, much less attempted to calculate, what this net-zero transition would require: 

How many millions of wind turbines, billions of solar panels, billions of EV and backup batteries, millions of transformers, thousands of miles of transmission lines – sprawling across how many millions of acres of wildlife habitat, scenic and agricultural lands, and people’s once-placid backyards? 

How many billions of tons of copper, steel, aluminum, nickel, cobalt, lithium, concrete, rare earth, and composite plastics? How many trillions of tons of ores and overburden? How many mines, across how many more acres – with how much fossil fuel energy to operate the enormous mining equipment, and how much toxic air and water pollution emitted in the process?  

To cite just one example, just those 2,500 wind turbines for New York electricity (30,000 megawatts) would require nearly 110,000 tons of copper – which would require mining, crushing, processing, and refining 25 million tons of copper ore ... after removing some 40 million tons of overlying rock to reach the ore bodies. Multiply that times 50 states – and the entire world – plus transmission lines. 

How many processing plants and factories would be needed? How much fossil fuel power to run those massive operations? How many thousands of square miles of toxic waste pits all over the world are under zero to minimal environmental standards, workplace safety standards, and child and slave labor rules? 

How many dead birds, bats, and endangered and other species would be killed off all across the USA and world – from mineral extraction activities, wind turbine blades, solar panels blanketing thousands of square miles of wildlife habitats, and transmission lines impacting still more land? 

Not only do the luminaries and activists ignore these issues and refuse to address them. They actively suppress, cancel, censor and de-platform the questions and discussions about them. They collude with chBig Tech companies and news agencies, which too often seem too happy to assist. 

The hard reality is, there are not, will not be, and cannot be, enough mines, metals, and minerals on the entire planet – to reach any “net-zero” US economy by 2050, much less a global “green” economy. 

Here’s another issue: electric vehicles and backup lithium-ion battery modules can erupt spontaneously into chemical-fueled infernos that cannot be extinguished by conventional fire-fighting means. That raises an important analog to rules Alec Baldwin should have kept uppermost in mind last year. Treat every firearm as if it is loaded. Never point your muzzle at anything you are not prepared to destroy. 

In the Biden-Newsom-Kerry energy arena: Treat every electric vehicle and backup battery system as if it is loaded and ready to ignite. Never park an EV, install a PowerWall or locate a backup power facility near anything you are not prepared to destroy. 

That includes in your garage; near other vehicles; in parking garages under apartment and office buildings; in residential neighborhoods and highway tunnels; or on cargo ships like the Felicity Ace. 

And yet we’re supposed to go along with Green Energy schemes – as we did with masks, school lockdowns, and vaccinations to stop Covid – because we have to destroy the planet to save it. 

Because our government, media, and “public interest” groups insist that we “follow the science,” on which there can be no doubt (certainly none permitted) that we face a “manmade climate crisis” that threatens the very existence of humanity and “the only Earth we have.” 

It’s time to short-circuit this electricity nightmare, by asking these questions, demanding answers, and ending the notion that governments can simply issue edicts and compel reality to change in response. 

Paul Driessen is a senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and the author of books and articles on energy, environmental, and human rights issues.