Right Wing Granny

News behind the news. This picture is me (white spot) standing on the bridge connecting European and North American tectonic plates. It is located in the Reykjanes area of Iceland. By-the-way, this is a color picture.

Right Wing Granny

Tag Archives: Power Line Blog

How Spin Works

Posted on by

The shortage of baby formula is no joke for young parents. The fact that pallets of formula are showing up at the southern border for illegal immigrants is an indication of how much those in Washington care about the welfare of average Americans. However, one interesting aspect of this crisis is the media’s attempt to keep the blame away from the Biden administration. On Saturday, John Hinderaker posted an article at Power Line Blog detailing the media spin.

The article reports:

You can tell the Biden administration has badly bungled the infant formula situation when the best their shills at the Associated Press can do is play the “Republicans pounce” card: “GOP’s new midterm attack: Blaming Biden for formula shortage.”

Republicans aiming to retake control of Congress have already sharpened a message centering around blaming Democrats for high inflation, expensive gas, migrants crossing the U.S.-Mexico border and violent crime in some cities.

But GOP leaders landed on an issue this week that it hopes could prove even more potent: tying President Joe Biden to a shortage in baby formula.
***
Asked if his administration had responded as quickly as it should have, Biden said, ”If we’d been better mind readers, I guess we could’ve. But we moved as quickly as the problem became apparent.”

But the defense by the White House illustrates how finger-pointing at the Biden administration has already spread far and wide among Republicans in Washington, on television and on social media. It’s a new issue for the GOP to hammer at and a way to address families at a time when Democrats believe outrage over the U.S. Supreme Court possibly ending the right to an abortion could galvanize women and other key voters, and thwart or at least lessen a Republican wave in November.

The AP takes up the cudgels for Joe Biden, describing the now-famous photo and video of stacks of formula containers at an illegal immigrant facility at the border:

The AP has not independently verified the photo’s authenticity or when exactly it was captured. Some conservative pundits and news outlets have since spun even greater tall tales from the photo…

“Spun even greater tall tales.” Remember that this is not an opinion piece, it purports to be news reporting.

…with some claiming that they show Biden is shipping “thousands” of pallets of baby formula to the border while parents in the U.S. struggle to find formula.

So how many pallets are there? The AP has no idea.

White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki said Friday that Border Patrol is “following the law” that requires the government to provide adequate food, specifically formula for children under the age of one, who are detained at the border.

GOP political consultants nonetheless call it a ready-made issue that resonates with voters.

Somehow I don’t think the spin is going to work on young American mothers trying to find formula for their babies.

Food And The Green Movement

Posted on by

The radical environmentalists don’t seem to be aware of the unintended consequences of their extreme goals. Balance seems to be a concept that has long since left the building. On Monday, John Hinderaker posted an article at Power Line Blog illustrating one aspect of the problem.

The article quotes an article from The Guardian on May 1:

Northern Ireland will need to lose more than 1 million sheep and cattle to meet its new legally binding climate emissions targets, according to an industry-commissioned analysis seen by the Guardian.

The large-scale reduction in farm animals comes after the passing of the ​​jurisdiction’s first ever climate act, requiring the farming sector to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050 and reduce methane emissions by almost 50% over the same period.

… Analysis by KPMG, commissioned by industry representatives including the Ulster Farmers’ Union (UFU), estimates more than 500,000 cattle and about 700,000 sheep would need to be lost in order for Northern Ireland to meet the new climate targets.

Separate analysis by the UK government’s climate advisers suggests chicken numbers would also need to be cut by 5 million by 2035.

So we are going to destroy the food supply, starve massive numbers of people, and call it saving the planet? For whom are we saving the planet? Is that a question that needs to be asked–do you think the ruling class will starve?

The article at Power Line Blog concludes:

So if you do away with cows, sheep, chickens and pigs, you are basically doing away with agriculture in Northern Ireland. But people will still need to eat. The environmentalists don’t care, of course. But others do:

Although farm labour only accounts for 7% of the country’s labour force, many more depend on the rural economy. Altogether the rural population makes up about 40% of the total in N Ireland. Destroying a large part of farming sector there would be catastrophic for the rural sector. Replacing the meat and dairy sector with, for instance, potatoes would decimate incomes and lead to mass migration out of the countryside.

My guess is that no democracy will actually go through with the idiotic “green” promises that governments have made. I hope not, anyway. As for the autocracies, they have been careful not to promise anything meaningful, and they wouldn’t follow through in any event. This gives them a huge economic and human advantage to the extent that democracies fulfill their irrational commitments.

Do you still believe that environmentalism is actually about the environment?

 

Have You Read “Johnny The Walrus”?

Posted on by

On Thursday, John Hinderaker posted an article at Power Line Blog about a book by Matt Walsh titled, “Johnny the Walrus.”

The article reports:

Matt Walsh has written a book for children called Johnny the Walrus. It satirizes the current transgender craze, which has resulted in an epidemic of irreversible child abuse:

Johnny is a little boy with a big imagination. One day he pretends to be a big scary dinosaur, the next day he’s a knight in shining armor or a playful puppy. But when the internet people find out Johnny likes to make-believe, he’s forced to make a decision between the little boy he is and the things he pretends to be — and he’s not allowed to change his mind.

To the horror of the libs who work at Amazon, Walsh’s book is selling like hotcakes on that platform. Someone leaked a zoom call on which Amazon employees wring their hands over what to do about Johnny the Walrus. I should note that the statements about the book made by the anonymous caller are entirely false. In typical liberal fashion, she just made them up. The people on the call would know they were false if they took the trouble to read Johnny the Walrus, a kids’ board book, which probably would have taken two minutes or less. But of course they didn’t bother. Ideology is everything.

The article includes screenshots of Amazon therapy session for trauma from Matt Walsh’s books. Evidently the thought of anyone writing an allegorical story about the damage that is being done to our children is upsetting to those who support doing the damage. Please follow the link above to read the entire article and view the screenshots.The book is not currently available on Amazon.

To Mask Or Not To Mask

Posted on by

On Tuesday, Just the News reported that the Biden administration intends to appeal the court decision that mask mandates were unconstitutional. The statement is shrouded in ‘wiggle words,’ but that is the general direction the administration is going.

The article reports:

The Department of Justice on Tuesday announced that if the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention determines masks to be necessary, it will appeal the Florida judge’s decision striking down the Biden administration’s COVID-19 mask mandate on transportation.

So the administration will blame the CDC if it decides to appeal.

Scott Johnson at Power Line Blog also posted an article about mask mandates on Thursday.

The article at Power Line Blog notes:

Speaking of maskaholism, former New York Times science writer John Tierney reviews the record in the outstanding City Journal column “Maskaholics.” Tierney includes the graph below with his column. It was created by data analyst Ian Miller. Tierney comments that the graph should be required viewing for everyone still wearing a mask and every public official or journalist who still insists that mask mandates “control the spread[,]” such as Mr. Playbook above.

Tierney explains:

The graph tracks the results of a natural experiment that occurred nationwide during the pandemic. Eleven states never mandated masks, while the other 39 states enforced mandates. The mandates typically began early in the pandemic in 2020 and remained until at least the summer of 2021, with some extending into 2022. The black line on the graph shows the weekly rate of Covid cases in all the states with mask mandates that week, while the orange line shows the rate in all the states without mandates.

As you can see from the lines’ similar trajectories, the mask mandates hardly controlled the virus. By the time the mandates were introduced in New York and other states in the spring of 2020 (at the left side of the graph), infections had already been declining in those states, and the mandates didn’t prevent a surge later that year, when cases rose and fell in nearly identical trajectories regardless of states’ mask policies. The pandemic’s second year saw slight deviations in both directions, but those reflected the seasonality of the virus and the geography of mask mandates, which remained more common in northern states. Cases were higher in the non-mandate states last summer, when the seasonal surge in the South disproportionately hit Republican states without mandates, but those states went on to have fewer cases during the winter, when the seasonal surge in the North hit more Democratic states with mandates.

If you add up all the numbers on those two lines, you find that the mask mandates made zero difference. The cumulative rate of infection over the course of the pandemic was about 24 percent in the mandate states as well as in the non-mandate states. Their cumulative rates of Covid mortality were virtually identical, too (in fact, there were slightly more deaths per capita in the states with mask mandates).

Please follow the links to both articles for further information and insight into the significance of masks.

Inflation And Taxes

Posted on by

On Wednesday, Steven Hayward posted an article at Power Line Blog about President Biden’s tax proposal that would only ‘tax the rich.’ Taxing the rich has never been a really good idea–the ‘rich’ have tax accountants to limit their tax liability. Generally speaking, the middle-class does not have tax accountants and gets stuck paying the taxes that were for the ‘rich.’

The article reports:

Everyone is familiar with the two great lies of modern times: the check is in the mail, and “Of course I’ll still respect you in the morning.” To which should be added a third: “wealth taxes” will only affect the very rich—the middle class has nothing to fear. When you hear Democrats say this, reach for your wallet.

This needs to be kept in mind with thinking about President Biden’s new proposed “wealth tax,” which would impose a 20 percent tax on unrealized gains of liquid assets (i.e., stocks and bonds) for households with a net worth of more than $100 million. The Biden Administration claims this proposed tax will only hit the top 0.01 percent of taxpayers, with most of the incidence of the tax falling on billionaires.

Of course, this is what liberals told us about the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) back in the late 1960s, when the left created a scandal around the fact that 155 people with adjusted gross income above $200,000 paid zero income tax on their 1967 tax returns. (Adjusted for inflation, that would be around $1.5 million today.) As the internet clickbait headlines like to say, “You’ll never guess what happened next!” Of course you don’t need to guess: by 2017, before the Trump tax cut finally scaled back the AMT (but only temporarily because of our strange budget rules), 5.2 million households were caught up in it, a far cry from the few hundred originally targeted in 1969.

The same thing will surely happen with any “wealth tax” targeted at the super rich, and for the same reasons: inflation, and the insatiable appetite of liberals for revenue, which can only come in sufficient amounts by taxing the middle class. Devices like the AMT or a “wealth tax” are gimmicks to disguise this fact.

The article notes:

Thomas Hoenig of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University (and former president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City) warns in Barron’s:

The proposal sounds so simple. Report income and unrealized gains in liquid assets and tax them at a minimum of 20%—the assumption being that only the richest experience significant increases in asset values. However, the truth is that in a period of persistent asset inflation, which we have had now for decades, such a tax eventually would apply to an ever-larger proportion of the population, notably the middle class.

The income tax is a good example of how a tax on the wealthy becomes a tax on the middle class. In 1913, Congress passed the first income tax under the newly passed 16th Amendment to the Constitution, which topped out at 7% for income above $500,000. After a temporary, significant tax increase to pay for World War I, tax rates settled in at 25% on incomes above $100,000. It was only a matter of time before the politicians forgot about the “wealthy” part.

Taxing the rich is one of those ideas that sounds really good but never actually works!

One Perspective On Fake News

Posted on by

‘Fake news’ was the expression used by Democrats whenever someone outside the mainstream media reported something that was true (that might damage the Democrat image). Now, as The New York Times admits that the Hunter Biden laptop was real, many Americans are beginning to wonder exactly who is disseminating fake news. On Saturday, John Hinderaker at Power Line Blog posted his evaluation of our current media situation.

The article reminds us of the history of the laptop and reporting on it:

Some observers consider the New York Times’ belated admission that Hunter Biden’s laptop was genuine to be a big deal. I don’t. For one thing, the Times hasn’t acknowledged, and won’t report on, the specific information on the laptop that told the story of Joe Biden’s corruption.

Moreover, there was never any doubt about the genuineness of the laptop and the data it contained. The owner of the repair shop had a receipt with Hunter Biden’s signature on it, the laptop contained a large number of self-validating videos and photos of Hunter in various compromising situations, and the authenticity of emails on the laptop was confirmed by the presence of the same emails in other accounts. The idea that the laptop was “Russian disinformation” was a desperate and absurd invention intended to fool those who paid no attention, and those who wanted to be fooled.

The laptop saga was really a continuation of the Russia collusion hoax. As in the larger case of the collusion hoax, those who perpetrated the “Russian disinformation” fraud are unrepentant. The Times now implicitly admits that it was wrong to ignore or impugn the evidence of the laptop, but has it issued any corrections to, or retractions of, its reporting? No. Has it launched an investigation into how it could have been “fooled”? Of course not.

The New York Times was never ‘fooled.’ What they were was part of a campaign to elect Joe Biden.

The article concludes:

The New York Times expresses no regret because it doesn’t regret what it did. The Times isn’t a newspaper, it is a mouthpiece. Its purpose was obvious. It was the same purpose that animated many other news outlets, Twitter, and the 51 lying spies: they were trying to get Joe Biden elected president.

That effort succeeded. Lying about the laptop was just one of many corners they cut to achieve their desired objective, but poll data suggest that it was one of the most important. If voters had realized how demonstrably corrupt Joe Biden is–no one has ever bribed Hunter Biden–polls suggest that Donald Trump would have been re-elected. Liberal news outlets are proud of the fact that they acted together to prevent that awful possibility. If it took some lies to accomplish the mission, so what?

Thus, I attribute little significance to the New York Times’ casual acknowledgement that it blew the Hunter laptop story–really, it blew the 2020 election, if you think the Times is trying to report objectively on the news. But of course no one thinks that. For the Times, Twitter, and countless other liberal institutions, their lies about Joe Biden and Donald Trump accomplished the intended mission. There will be no apologies, no regrets–only, behind the scenes, discreet high fives.

The lies about the laptop achieved their purpose. Anything said now is moot.

What Security Does Europe Actually Have?

Posted on by

On Sunday, John Hinderaker posted an article at Power Line Blog wondering what protection against Russian invasion does Europe have from NATO or the European Union. It’s a very timely question.

The article notes:

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has caused a number of European countries–probably all of them–to reconsider their military defense postures. If Russia attacks them, will they be able to resist? And whom can they count on to come to their aid?

Responses vary. Germany is talking about abandoning its post-WWII de-militarization. France, in Gaullist tradition, wants the EU to take the lead on security. Others rely on a presumed airtight NATO guarantee of military assistance.

Sweden is an interesting case. Sweden is not a member of NATO, although it has collaborated closely with NATO’s central command. Instead, Sweden has allied itself with the U.S. and, to a lesser extent, the U.K.

This is a portion of the interview with Björn Fägersten, head of the Europe program at the Swedish Institute of International Affairs, included in the article:

Does the EU’s mutual defence clause have a similar effect to Nato’s Article 5?

Björn Fägersten: In a purely legal sense they are equivalent – in some ways the EU is a bit sharper. But on the other hand, the EU’s clause has a sub-clause that makes clear that it doesn’t affect member states’ individual choices on security policy, for instance for those countries that are neutral.

A key difference between the EU and Nato is that the EU has no real apparatus. Nato has a joint military headquarters, SHAPE, but the EU doesn’t have an equivalent.

Within the EU there are also expectations that Nato will be at the centre of European planning – most EU countries are members. In the EU’s Global Strategy from 2016 it is made clear that Nato is the cornerstone of the EU’s defence.

Looking to the future, many in the EU, not least Macron, have long spoken about the need for strategic autonomy, where Europe will take a more independent line in defence from the US. Last week Germany announced a huge increase in defence spending. How will that change the equation for Sweden?

BF: If in the long term Europe starts taking greater responsibility while the US takes the main responsibility for handling China, that would change Sweden’s calculation. Sweden would like there to be an American interest in its security, but if, for example, a new president was elected in the US in 2024 who had a more doubtful approach to European security, Sweden would be forced to rapidly reevaluate its defence strategy.

The article concludes:

Call me a cynical lawyer, but does “such action as it deems necessary” really obligate the U.S., or anyone else, to a full military response to Russian aggression in Europe? Might “such action” merely encompass economic sanctions in the event of a Russian invasion of, say, Lithuania?

I suppose it is best if Russia’s leaders assume that Article 5 represents an airtight mutual security pact, but it is easy to imagine a weaselly or mentally challenged president–or, perhaps, one who is uniquely focused on American self-interest–going back on 70 years of interpretation of Article 5 and more or less abandoning our European allies. No doubt that is something that they, too, are imagining.

Which I think is probably to the good. Donald Trump was right: it is long past time for powerful European countries, including Germany, to look to their own defense, even if in cooperation with us. And, of course, the more able they are to defend themselves against Russian aggression, the more likely they are to receive military help from their NATO allies, including us, should the time come.

There is value in working together and providing mutual aid, but there is also a lot of value in standing on your own two feet.

A Lot Of People Saw This Coming

Posted on by

There have been a number of arguments to legalize recreational marijuana over the years. I am not going to get into the right or wrong of legalization, but I am going to post an article about a not-so-inevitable outcome of that legalization in California.

On Saturday, John Hinderaker at Power Line Blog posted an article about some recent problems in California that are the result of legalizing marijuana so that the state government could tax it.

The article reports:

How many industries have been damaged or destroyed by high taxes and excessive regulation? A lot. But I have mixed feelings about this one: California cannabis industry on brink as buyers return to dealers.

The cannabis industry in California is on the brink of collapse because of high taxes and onerous regulations that have burdened legal operators and allowed illegal growers to flourish, campaigners have warned.
***
About 75 per cent of cannabis consumed in the state comes from illegal sources, industry figures say. They blame taxes, too much regulation and a failure to tackle illegal competition, which is free from red tape and able to offer cannabis at much lower prices.

Marijuana is cheap and easy to grow. Legal sellers complain that police do little to enforce the laws against illegal dope, but once the government declares marijuana to be A-OK, there isn’t much reason to prioritize a crackdown on those who sell a legal product but dodge taxes. The case against legalized marijuana having been abandoned, legal sellers are in somewhat the same position as the taxi companies who tried to get Uber and Lyft banned in various cities.

The article notes that the marijuana industry is trying to get tax relief. Obviously, if legalizing marijuana was done to raise tax revenue, seeking tax relief goes against the whole reason for legalizing it. Having the police crackdown on people who are growing marijuana at home for their own personal use makes about as much sense as arresting someone for growing five tobacco plants in their backyard.

Discrimination Based On Race Used To Be Illegal

Posted on by

On Sunday, Paul Mirengoff at Power Line Blog posted an article about a new program at Princeton University.

The article reports:

Last week, Princeton freshmen received an email regarding Morgan Stanley’s Freshman Enhancement Program. That program “is designed to help diverse rising sophomores in college gain a better understanding of the various businesses and career paths Morgan Stanley provides.”

If selected for the program, rising sophomores “will participate in a hybrid program consisting of virtual learning and an in-person component.” They will also receive what Morgan Stanley describes as “valuable training, as well as opportunities to network with each other and learn from Morgan Stanley professionals across our divisions.” And they “will have the opportunity to interview for the 2023 Sophomore Summer Analyst Programs for the specific track they are in.”

Who is included in the “diverse” group that will receive these benefits and advantages? That group includes Blacks, Hispanics, Native Americans, and/or LGBTQ+ freshman undergraduate students in the class of 2025. Everyone else is excluded. In fact, the program description lists membership in one or more of the above-mentioned groups as a “qualification” for the program.

It’s fine, in my view, that Morgan Stanley, Princeton, and other colleges involved in this program want to provide opportunities to students from a diverse set of backgrounds and, in particular, students who come from low-income families. It occurs to me, however, that anyone who’s a freshman at Princeton has a good opportunity to enter the world of investment banking and financial services.

Princeton students from any kind of family and background already have “privileged” status in the job market. It’s far from clear that any of them needs to be “enhanced.”

In any case, excluding students on the basis of their race, ethnicity, and or sexual orientation is problematic and illegal. And that’s what Morgan Stanley’s program does. It makes no pretense of using a “holistic” analysis to identify freshmen who come from low-income families or from other backgrounds (e.g. recent immigrants) that might put them at a disadvantage in seeking employment with Morgan Stanley or other firms in the same field.

In my view, Morgan Stanley, Princeton, and other participating schools are violating federal civil rights statutes through this program. They are probably violating state law, as well.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination in employment because of race, national origin, and sex. That has been expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. Excluding white heterosexual males and females from the program is illegal.

There are also other Civil Rights statutes being violated.

The article notes:

Title VI states that “no person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Its ban on discrimination extends, but is not limited to, admissions, recruitment, financial aid, and alike, but also academic programs, student treatment and services, counseling and guidance, discipline, classroom assignment, grading, vocational education, recreation, physical education, athletics, housing and employment.

The Freshman Enhancement Program seems to run afoul of Title VI by discriminating in the distribution of training and employment opportunities.

Title IX is similar to Title XI. It prohibits sex discrimination (including discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity) in any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. The Freshman Enhancement Program expressly discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Thus, Princeton seems to be violating Title IX.

I hope some of the students who are ineligible for this training program will hire some good lawyers and put an end to this foolishness.

The Department Of Homeland Security Has Gone Off The Rails

Posted on by

On Wednesday, John Hinderaker posted an article at Power Line Blog about a recent National Terrorism Advisory System Bulletin. The article includes a scribd of the bulletin. I will post some of the highlights, but please follow the link above to read the entire article.

The bulletin states:

The United States remains in a heightened threat environment fueled by several factors, including an online environment filled with false or misleading narratives and conspiracy theories, and other forms of mis- dis- and mal-information (MDM) introduced and/or amplified by foreign and domestic threat actors.

…These threat actors seek to exacerbate societal friction to sow discord and undermine public trust in government institutions to encourage unrest, which could potentially inspire acts of violence.

…Key factors contributing to the current heightened threat environment include:

1. The proliferation of false or misleading narratives, which sow discord or undermine public trust in U.S. government institutions:

* For example, there is widespread online proliferation of false or misleading narratives regarding unsubstantiated widespread election fraud and COVID-19. Grievances associated with these themes inspired violent extremist attacks during 2021.

…Some domestic violent extremists have continued to advocate for violence in response to false or misleading narratives about unsubstantiated election fraud. The months preceding the upcoming 2022 midterm elections could provide additional opportunities for these extremists and other individuals to call for violence directed at democratic institutions, political candidates, party offices, election events, and election workers.

Maybe my memory is going in old age, but I seem to remember that the violence in 2020 and 2021 was the work of  Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and other anarchist groups. I remember what happened to the people who left the Republican convention meeting at the White House. There was a riot on January 6th in Washington, but the damage and loss of live on that day was  minuscule compared to what happened the summer before. When you compare the sentences of the January 6th rioters to the sentences of the rioters from the summer of 2020 (article here), you really begin to wonder about the priorities and values of our Justice and Homeland Security Departments.

Hopefully, This Will Be A Futile Effort

Posted on by

Yesterday John Hinderaker at Power Line Blog posted an article illustrating how the mainstream media would try to discredit what the truck drivers in Canada are doing.

The article reports:

You no doubt are aware of the protest being staged by thousands of Canadian truck drivers who have now converged on Ottawa. The truckers began by protesting against a vaccination mandate for truckers crossing the U.S. border, but it has grown into a movement opposing extreme and irrational anti-covid measures, and promoting freedom generally.

Naturally, the liberal press is horrified. You likely have seen this bizarre editorial cartoon that appeared in–where else–the Washington Post:

When I first saw the cartoon, I literally did not understand it. Someone had to explain that the Post’s cartoonist is calling the truckers who are demonstrating on behalf of freedom fascists. Freedom is slavery, after all.

The article goes on to note that the liberal media is hoping that the protest will turn violent (giving them further reason to condemn it).

The article quotes The New York Times:

Thousands of protesters on foot, many carrying handmade signs on hockey sticks, wandered through the parked vehicles and the slow-moving traffic or gathered on the lawn in front of Parliament. Some of them carried Canadian flags upside down; at least one flag had swastikas drawn on it.

The article notes:

Liberals always try to imply that if someone draws a swastika it means that person is pro-Nazi. Actually, it means (in this context, at least) that the person is accusing the Canadian government of using Nazi-like tactics. I don’t agree, but let’s not smear the protesters by inverting the intent behind their signs.

The article concludes:

Here is more on the truckers’ protest from the BBC.

Defence Minister Anita Anand said the incidents were “beyond reprehensible”.

No incident described was even remotely violent. This one is darkly humorous:

Ottawa police said in a Twitter post that “several” investigations were now under way into the “desecration” of a number monuments in the capital city….

So now the Left is against desecrating monuments! I thought it had become more or less compulsory.

Putting aside whatever you may think about vaccination mandates, the hostility of the press’s response to any movement that expresses a desire for freedom is striking.

The ruling class does not like it when people begin to wake up.

When The Laws Of Physics Get In The Way

Posted on by

On Sunday, John Hinderaker at Power Line Blog posted an article about the problems with the government’s push toward green energy. The main problem is the laws of physics. Those laws are unavoidable and unbreakable.

The article quotes Isaac Orr at American Experiment:

It is a well-understood phenomenon that wind generation in the Midwest essentially disappears when the mercury dips below -22° F. Electricity generation from wind turbines drops under these circumstances because wind turbines are programmed to automatically shut off when the temperatures get this cold to prevent them from breaking.

The article at American Experiment includes the following graph:

The article at Power Line Blog concludes:

The basic point here is that wind energy shows up only sporadically and unpredictably, and tends to disappear when it is needed the most. The worst time for a blackout is when the mercury is at -20, as it was yesterday where I live. Note where electricity was actually coming from in the chart above: coal, the dark brown line, was the principal source, while natural gas, the light brown line, is only slightly behind. These are the sources that liberals want to do away with. Wind was flighty; sometimes it worked, but often it didn’t. Is that how you want your light switches to operate? And if you can find solar energy on this chart, a technology in which many billions of dollars have been invested, your eyes are sharper than mine.

On energy, we are in a race against time. We need to inform voters before the lavishly-funded “green” energy lobby destroys our electrical grid and our economy, at great profit to them but at ruinous loss to the rest of us.

Please read the article posted in 2014 to see what happened when Spain decided to rely strictly on green energy. Recently the European Union seems to have had a small awakening regarding the perils of relying solely on green energy (article here).

 

The Comparisons Don’t Hold Up

Posted on by

On Monday, Paul Mirengoff posted an article at Power Line Blog that illustrates the current media campaign centered around January 6th. We need to keep in focus the fact that January 6th, although it was a serious event that involved illegal actions, followed a summer of violence which involved major property destruction and injuries to law enforcement that the mainstream media chose to overlook. How can we forget the news anchor describing the BLM protests as ‘mostly peaceful’ with the sky behind him lit up with fires set by the protestors? One cannot decry the ‘violence’ of January 6th while ignoring the deaths and property damage of the summer that preceded it.

The article reports:

The Washington Post reports that many people who worked at the U.S. Capitol have left their jobs because they were traumatized by the events of January 6. Among those who have quit are an unspecified number of congressional staffers. The few staffers cited by the Post all worked for Democratic members.

How many staffers were injured on January 6? I believe the answer is zero. Yet, the Post describes the staffers who haven’t quit as “soldiering on.” Should we give them medals?

If folks who work for liberal members of Congress really are as fragile and fainthearted as the Post makes them out to be, I consider that good news.

Some Capitol police officers were attacked and injured. It’s understandable that some within that group were traumatized to the point that they have resigned.

However, five dozen Secret Service officers and agents were injured by a mob near the White House during BLM protests in late May 2020. How many of them resigned?

We don’t know because media organs like the Post have never, to my knowledge, said. These news outlets don’t care. Their entire focus was on the supposed outrage of clearing the way for President Trump to make his way from the White House to a nearby church. Apparently, Trump should have holed up in the White House until the protesters finally tired of hanging out on Pennsylvania Avenue.

And what about police officers throughout America who have been attacked by BLM protesters? What about the ones who have had to cope with the invasion, and even the burning of, police stations? How many of them have resigned as a result?

To my knowledge, the Post has never addressed that question. It’s a pertinent one, though, because police officers perform far more important services than random congressional staffers.

The article concludes:

As we approach January 6 of this year, we can expect more articles like the one I discuss here. The events of last January 6 were serious and bad. The perpetrators should be, and are being, punished. If necessary, Capitol security should be enhanced to make sure something like this doesn’t happen again.

But the efforts of Democrats and their lefty media allies to convert January 6 into something like a national day of mourning, while studiously ignoring comparable or worse violence by BLM and Antifa that rocked city after city in 2020, is laughable.

Hopefully Americans are getting wise to the mainstream media’s antics.