Just What We Needed–Another Government Agency!

On Sunday, The Epoch Times reported the following:

The Biden administration on Saturday launched a new national office dubbed the “Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights” charged with addressing what some officials say are the disproportionate harms inflicted on low-income areas and communities of color by pollution and climate change.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), an independent executive agency of the U.S. federal government, announced that the new office “will position the agency to better advance environmental justice, enforce civil rights laws in overburdened communities, and deliver new grants and technical assistance.”

The new office will oversee a portion of Democrats’ $60 billion investment in environmental justice initiatives created by the Inflation Reduction Act—specifically, the implementation and delivery of $3 billion in block grants to underserved communities affected by pollution.

The EPA said the new office will also “ensure EPA’s implementation of other funding programs provided by the Inflation Reduction Act [and] Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.”

Three existing EPA programs that oversee environmental justice, civil rights, and conflict prevention and resolution will be merged into the new senior-level office.

Wow! A whole agency saying that the climate is racist. Good grief!

I have a suggestion. If the summertime temperature is higher in black neighborhoods that white neighborhoods, plant trees. I am sure something could be worked out so that the city involved could afford to do that. We don’t need another government agency to do that.

Note that they are merging three current EPA programs into this new office. These programs oversee environmental justice, civil rights, conflict prevention and resolution. Let’s get something straight–if the earth burns up because of climate change (which is highly unlikely) all people will be equally impacted. The climate is not aware of anyone’s financial situation or political power. If those screaming the loudest about climate change really believed what they were saying, would they buy oceanfront estates and run around in private jets?

The article concludes:

The EPA’s definition of “environmental justice” is “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.”

There is no such thing as environmental justice–the government does NOT control the environment! This office will simply be a center for the redistribution of wealth, which is the ultimate goal of the Biden (Obama) administration.

The Inflation Reduction Act

The Inflation Reduction Act has passed through Congress and will undoubtedly be signed into law by President Biden by the time you read this. So what exactly does this law do? Well, for starters it does not reduce inflation and it will not impact the climate. However, it will help China’s economy (they dominate the green energy field) and it will let Democrats celebrate that they passed something through Congress. It will also raise the cost of living for all Americans in the form of increased energy costs and some tax increases.

On Monday, The New York Post reported:

An analysis by the CBO estimates those earning less than $400,000 — the group on which Biden promised not to raise taxes — will pay an estimated $20 billion more in taxes over the next decade as a result of the Democrat-pushed $740 billion package, which also sets aside $80 billion to hire 87,000 IRS agents.

The bill has yet to be scored in its entirety by the CBO — which typically gives each piece of legislation a price tag before it is voted on — but the agency scored the impact of the IRS expansion on middle-class taxpayers on Aug. 12 after a provision from Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) sought to exempt those making under $400,000 from increased IRS scrutiny.

Crapo’s proposed amendment would have kept those taxpayers from being targeted by the new IRS hires, but his provision was shot down 51-50 in the bill passed by the Senate last week.

On Monday, John Hinderaker at Power Line Blog reported the following:

Democrats quickly gave up on the Inflation Reduction Act, since they couldn’t sell the idea that another $700+ billion in deficit spending would somehow reduce inflation. So now it is alleged to be a climate control act, instead.

But the bill won’t affect the climate any more than it would have reduced inflation. Even if you assume the UN’s inflated estimate of the impact of CO2 emissions on global warming, the bill’s impact is nil:

[W]e get somewhere between 0.028 and 0.0009°F reduction in temperature by 2100 for about 400 billion dollars in climate spending contained in the bill.

But the oceans will stop rising! Which, by the way, they have been doing for the last 15,000 or so years.

The article at Power Line Blog concludes:

So the Democrats’ prize legislation is an exercise in futility. Unless, of course, you are one of the many Democratic Party constituents who will be cashing the checks that add up to more than $700 billion, with a little over half ostensibly going to benefit the climate.

The purpose here is to buy votes, obviously, and the Democratic Party press is ecstatic over the idea that Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer finally have a “win” to brag about. But I wonder. I haven’t seen much evidence that the Democrats’ deficit spending extravaganzas are especially popular outside the precincts of those who cash the checks. (And, by the way, the number one beneficiary of this particular $700 billion will be the Communist Chinese, who dominate “green” energy.) My guess is that most Americans have caught on to the Democrats’ game, and understand that this legislation will no more dictate the Earth’s climate than it will bring our crippling inflation under control.

That’s where we are, folks.

A Very Short-Sighted Plan

There is a lot of climate change panic going on right now. It’s summer, and it is hot. In some places it is hotter than it has been for a long time. However, I would hesitate to say that it is hotter than it has ever been (we still haven’t seen plants growing on the Greenland Ice Cap where plant life fossils have been found in the past). Since everyone is sweating and complaining about the heat, this is a really good time to talk about global warming and blame man for its existence. We can choose to overlook climate cycles and simply complain about the heat. The Biden administration is planning to take full advantage of our summer heat wave.

On Tuesday, Townhall reported the following:

President Joe Biden’s Special Coordinator for International Energy Affairs Amos Hochstein made an appearance on CNN Tuesday morning as gas prices continue to bust the budgets of American families. 

During his remarks, Hochstein said the White House does not want oil and gas companies embarking on new projects and that they are working to accelerate the current, extremely painful and unaffordable transition to alternative energy. 

Has it occurred to the brilliant people in the Biden administration that we are more likely to find a way to turn fossil fuel into almost entirely clean energy than we are to be able to run a country on green energy? When you evaluate the push toward green energy by our political leaders, it’s a good idea to look at their stock portfolios and investments as well as their personal actions (private jets, oceanfront property, carbon footprint, etc.). In 2010 I wrote an article about the closing of the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) which was doing carbon trading. What had happened was that the Obama administration had not been successful in passing Cap and Trade legislation and the trading of carbon credits was not going to happen. A lot of liberal Congressmen lost money they had invested in the CCX when it stopped carbon trading. That alone should tell you all you need to know about the dreaded climate change.

The article at Townhall notes:

“It’s about making a choice between what is the short term and the medium term so we can make sure we have enough oil and gas to support us through the transition and what are the kind of steps we don’t want the oil and gas industry to take that would have longterm consequences when we don’t want new major projects that would take 20-30 years that would become profitable,” Hochstein said. “So we have to make that differentiation to make sure the American consumer has what it needs to grow, grow our economy and the global economy, but not take steps and endanger the climate work that we’re trying to do to make sure that we’re on a better footing to accelerate the transition.”

The political elites in America will find a way to avoid the suffering that will result from their policies. Meanwhile, Americans who are simply trying to work, raise families, and generally be good citizens will suffer. The only way to deal with the Biden administration is to limit their power by placing conservatives (I didn’t say Republicans) in Congress in 2022 and electing a conservative President in 2024.

 

Bad Behavior Never Advances A Cause

On Friday, The Gateway Pundit reported on a group of people called The Tyre Extinguishers deflated tires on forty SUVs in New York City’s Upper East Side neighborhood. First of all, this group needs to take a deep breath and take a good look around. If global warming were going to kill us all in the very near future, why are celebrities and politicians still running around in private jets, yachts, etc.? Why have they demanding that the rest of us decrease our carbon footprint while making no effort to decrease theirs?

The article reports:

Starting initially in the UK, Tyre Extinguishers groups have sprung up in the UK, USA, Austria, Germany, Switzerland, The Netherlands, Sweden and New Zealand. In the UK, actions have taken place in London, Brighton, Bristol, Cambridge, Dundee, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Sheffield, Liverpool, Manchester.

This is the first action in New York City, the first of many.

The Tyre Extinguishers target SUVs because:
• SUVs are a climate disaster
• SUVs cause air pollution
• SUVs are dangerous
• SUVs are unnecessary

The Tyre Extinguishers want to see bans on SUVs in urban areas,
pollution levies to tax SUVs out of existence, and massive investment in free, comprehensive public transport. But until politicians make this a reality, Tyre Extinguishers action will continue.

So the Tyre Extinguishers want the government to tell us what we can drive. I wonder if they have thought this through.

The article includes the Tyre Extinguishers rationale for what they are doing:

We are The Tyre Extinguishers.

We are people from all walks of life with one aim: To make it impossible to own a huge polluting 4×4 in the world’s urban areas. We are defending ourselves against climate change, air pollution and unsafe drivers.

We do this with a simple tactic: Deflating the tyres of these massive, unnecessary vehicles, causing inconvenience for their owners.

Deflating tyres repeatedly and encouraging others to do the same will turn the minor inconvenience of a flat tyre into a giant obstacle for driving massive killer vehicles around our streets.

We’re taking this action because governments and politicians have failed to protect us from these huge vehicles. Everyone hates them, apart from the people who drive them.

We want to live in towns and cities with clean air and safe streets. Politely asking and protesting for these things has failed. It’s time for action. Join us.

We have no leader – anyone can take part, wherever you are, using the simple instructions on this website.

The terrorists encourage attacks on hybrid and electric SUVS:

Hybrids and electric cars are fair game. We cannot electrify our way out of the climate crisis – there are not enough rare earth metals to replace everyone’s car and the mining of these metals causes suffering. Plus, the danger to other road users still stands, as does the air pollution (PM 2.5 pollution is still produced from tyres and brake pads).”

The terrorists claim attacks on thousands of vehicles around the globe.

This is not protest–this is destruction of other people’s property, and the people doing this should spend enough time in jail to rethink what they are doing.

Putting Legislative Action Back In Congress Where It Belongs

On Tuesday, Hot Air reported that a federal judge in New Orleans will hear the case regarding Joe Biden’s executive order imposing a moratorium on the sale of new drilling leases to oil and gas companies.

The article quotes the Associated Press:

A federal appeals court in New Orleans hears arguments Tuesday about whether President Joe Biden legally suspended new oil and gas lease sales shortly after taking office because of climate change worries.

The case has not been tried but a federal judge blocked the order, saying only Congress could suspend the sales.

Federal lawyers say the government has broad power to hold, cancel or defer lease sales.

The article reports:

The plaintiffs appear to have a fairly well-developed argument here. The President and the Department of the Interior only have the ability to offer drilling leases because Congress granted them that authority long ago. There is no provision in the existing federal law allowing for the process to be “paused.” In fact, the opposite is true. In a 1987 update to the law, it specifically states that such leases “shall be made available four times per year” in states with eligible federal lands.

In other words, Biden’s executive order not only gummed up the normal process established by Congress, but it may have been a violation of federal law. It’s not as if he has to worry about his own Justice Department trying to prosecute him for this, but the contrast between the claims of the White House and the laws passed by Congress is glaring.

The article concludes:

The only opposition to the new lease sales these days is actually coming from the oil and gas companies themselves. Industry executives are hesitant to expand their current operations for a variety of reasons. For one thing, there is a shortage of workers available to staff up new operations at the moment. Also, inflation impacts the oil and gas industry as much as anyone else. All of the costs associated with putting up a rig and starting to drill have risen. If the price of oil suddenly starts to crater again when production increases, they could wind up losing money on new drilling sites.

In any event, this entire mess began when Joe Biden took office and decided to keep a campaign promise by shutting down drilling on federal land. The predictable results have been damaging across the board and the President is very late to the party in terms of making a course correction now.

We were energy independent when President Biden took office. We need to be there again.

Do The Fact-Checkers Actually Check The Facts?

On Sunday, Forbes posted an article about fact checkers. The article specifically focuses on the fact-checkers who ‘check facts’ in the areas of Covid-19 and climate change, two of the more controversial topics of the day.

On the subject of Covid-19, the article notes:

Over two years into the pandemic, some of the most basic questions remain contentious, and even questions of data integrity remain mired in controversy. Are covid deaths over-reported since many may have died with covid rather than of covid? Did lockdowns and masks make any discernible difference to public health? Are there viable early treatments for the disease available or are vaccines approved under Emergency Use Authorization by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the only way to go? Are covid vaccines safe and effective? To each of these questions, the overwhelming majority of the fact checking sites (or fact checking departments of the legacy media) support the reigning narrative articulated by big pharmaceutical companies, government agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the FDA, and key government officials such as Dr. Anthony Fauci. The Biden administration welcomes this, and goes further in calling social media companies such as Facebook to partner with the White House to “fight misinformation” about covid-19.

When three distinguished medical people released the Great Barrington Declaration which contradicted the administration’s policies, their ideas were immediately squelched without debate. That’s not how science is supposed to work.

The article also discusses the climate-change fact-checkers:

Like the media coverage of covid-19, climate change headlines in the mainstream media for the past three decades have been overwhelmingly one-sided. The basic premise is that the “science is settled” as in a tweet by then U.S. President Barack Obama in 2013: “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: climate change is real, man-made and dangerous” with the obvious subtext: “Who are you to challenge this?” And, as in the covid-19 context, the marginalization of climate sceptics has a long track record.

Two examples suffice how fact checks and editorializing serve to ensure that sceptics need not apply for access to the wider public. The first relates to the London-based BBC, fondly known as “beebs”, for its authoritative news broadcasts around the world as it emerged from the ashes of World War II. The British media giant was known and praised not only for its balanced news features but also for its nature documentaries. And in this space, two celebrities with the same first name – David Bellamy and David Attenborough – emerged in the 1970s, directing fascinating TV programs on nature and the environment from every corner of the globe into tens of millions of homes. As British commentator James Dellingpole wrote in his eulogy to Bellamy who died in 2019, “both were superstars…both were well on their way to becoming national treasures.”

Yet, while one, Attenborough, basks in the glow of international fame and is invited to many of the climate conferences as star speaker and delegate, the other claimed he had become a pariah as soon as he rejected group-think on global warming – describing climate change as “poppycock”. Though his climate scepticism killed his media career he remained utterly unrepentant. The BBC itself has made it clear to its staff that it will not invite climate sceptics to its interviews and panel discussions to balance debates because the “science is settled”

The article concludes:

Without getting into details about the claims of the so-called factchecker, the key point here is to note the perversions of truth in representing the arguments critiqued in such “fact checks”. Perhaps this is best revealed by the fact that Facebook argued in its legal defence that its cited fact check was “just opinion” when faced by a lawsuit brought by celebrated journalist John Stossel who had posted two climate change videos.

Readers and viewers beware of this peculiar twist to the caveat emptor clause: the “fact checks” used by the mainstream news outlets and social media to police what you read and watch are just opinions.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. We are being played.

Do As I Say–Not As I Do

On Tuesday, The Daily Wire posted an article about some of the actions that contrast with the words of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

The article reports:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has spent more than $500,000 in taxpayer money on private jets since 2020, even though she often describes climate change as an “existential” threat and says the U.S. has a “moral” obligation to solve it, according to a new report.

“According to campaign filings with the Federal Election Commission, Pelosi’s campaign paid a Virginia-based private aviation provider, Advanced Aviation Team, over $437,000 between October 2020 and December 2021 and over $65,000 to Clay Lacy Aviation, a California-based private jet provider,” Fox News reported on Monday.

Pelosi, who will run for re-election again this year at age 82, lead a 21-member congressional delegation to the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Glasgow, Scotland in November, where she said: “For me, it’s a religious thing. I believe this is God’s creation, and we have a moral obligation to be good stewards.”

“We must face the existential threat of our time: the climate crisis,” Pelosi said in January 2019 in her opening address to Congress. “The entire Congress must work to put an end to the inaction and denial of science that threaten the planet and the future.”

The article concludes:

During the administration of George W. Bush, Pelosi requested regular access to an Air Force passenger jet, but that created a debate over whether she would get the large aircraft she wants and who she may take as passengers.

At the time, one Republican called it a “flying Lincoln Bedroom,” and Rep. Patrick T. McHenry (R-NC) labeled the speaker’s plane “Pelosi One.”

“This is a bullet point to a larger value — Pelosi’s abuse of power continues,” McHenry said. “It began when the speaker denied minority rights to Republicans … and now she’s exploiting America’s armed forces and taxpayers for her own personal convenience.”

I might be inclined to take the idea that man actually is a major influence on the earth’s climate seriously if I saw those yelling that we need to panic actually acting like they saw a threat.

Global Warming Did Not Cause The Tornadoes

Before I write this article, I would like to ask anyone who feels as if they would like to help the victims of the awful tornadoes that ripped through our country this weekend to consider donating to either Samaritan’s Purse or Operation Blessing. Both of those organizations have very low administrative costs and will stay on the scene as long as necessary. When hurricane Florence hit New Bern, both organizations were staged outside the range of the hurricane in preparation, arrived on the scene almost immediately, and stayed long after other organizations had left. I strongly recommend both of them.

On Monday, The Blaze posted an article about the tornadoes. The article features the research of Meteorologist Joe Bastardi. One of the things that I truly appreciate about Mr. Bastardi is that he views weather in the context of cycles. Because of that, his long-range weather predictions tend to be much more accurate than most of what you see on television.

The article reports:

When a reporter asked Biden on Saturday whether climate change contributed to the deadly tornadoes, Biden pointed to climate change allegedly increasing the intensity of storms.

“All I know is that the intensity of the weather across the board has some impacts as a consequence of the warming of the planet and climate change,” Biden said. “The specific impact on these specific storms, I can’t say at this point.”

“I’m going to be asking the EPA and others to take a look at that,” Biden continued. “But the fact is that we all know everything is more intense when the climate is warming. Everything. And obviously, it has some impact here, but I can’t give you a quantitative read on that.”

The reason he can’t give us a quantitative read is that what he is saying is simply not true.

The article continues:

How did Bastardi respond?

The famed meteorologist accused Biden of weaponizing tornados and shared data showing that severe weather this year has not been as severe compared to previous years.

“Clueless Joe Biden In action again with his weaponization of Tornados. 1) Violent tornadoes not increasing. 2) this year tornados, hail and wind all together near-record low,” Bastardi said. “Mindless media should do their dang job and call him on it, I called Trump out on Dorian jibberish.”

The data Bastardi included, coming from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, directly contradicts claims from Biden and Criswell that severe weather is more intense because of climate change.

Please follow the link to read the entire article. Mr. Bastardi includes graphs and further information to make his point.

The article notes:

Climate change hawks love to exploit isolated weather events to promote a certain narrative about the climate. However, climate, by its very definition, describes observable patterns of weather over long periods of time — not isolated events.

Thus, if climate change were truly driving more intense weather, such a phenomenon would be observable over a substantial period of time. But as Colorado University professor Roger Pielke Jr. pointed out on Sunday, the U.S. government’s own data shows that tornados, for example, are becoming less common in the U.S.

“According to data from the U.S. National Weather Service from 2000 to 2020 only four of the strongest category of tornadoes were observed (which are labelled as F/EF5 tornadoes) In comparison, from 1954 to 1974 36 (!) such powerful tornadoes were observed,” Pielke explained. “Our research on tornado damage in the United States over many decades shows a decline that is suggestive of an actual decline in tornado incidence.”

Pielke also highlighted an important point to consider when politicians and those with an agenda begin blaming climate change for weather disasters.

Fear paves the way for more government control. If we have learned nothing else in the past two years, we should have learned that.

The Price We Are Paying At The Gas Pump

The year 2020 was a good year for American drivers. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the price of a gallon of gasoline at the pump was $2.64 in January 2020, dropped to $1.94 in April, and ended the year at $2.29. The website lists the current cost of a gallon of gasoline at $3.50. That’s a $12 increase in cost every time I put 10 gallons of gasoline in my car. If you are commuting to work, that adds up fast. So how does the Biden administration feel about this significant increase in the cost of gasoline? The Epoch Times posted an article today that answers that question.

The article reports:

When he announced last week that he would release more oil from the American Strategic Petroleum Reserve, President Joe Biden told the American people he is doing everything possible to bring down gas prices at the pump.

That’s a lie. This administration and the climate change crazies have declared war on American energy.

They want high oil and gas prices. The Biden master plan is for American oil and gas production and consumption to go to zero over the next 15 to 20 years. How do you achieve that goal? By making oil and gas so expensive and so unavailable that Americans are forced to use alternatives.

In other words, the fact that gasoline is roughly $1.25 more expensive per gallon today under Biden than it was a year ago under former President Donald Trump didn’t happen by accident. This was not a result of a natural disaster, such as a hurricane, that could knock out our oil facilities. This was by design.

The left believes that they can change the temperature of the planet by forcing American energy companies to produce less oil and to force Americans to use less of it. How do you get people to buy less of something? You raise its price. This is basic high-school introductory economics.

The article concludes:

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said it well in August that Texas “can easily produce that oil” if Biden “will just stay out of the way.”

He won’t.

The Biden administration strategy is to force-feed the American economy expensive, unreliable, and made-in-China wind and solar energy. His $3 trillion Build Back Better bill would dole out more than $500 billion of taxpayer dollars to the wind, solar, and electric vehicle industry to break the back of oil and gas production. If this energy source is so efficient, why does it need a half trillion dollars of your and my money?

Meanwhile, nearly every Biden policy has been deliberately aimed at killing U.S. oil and gas production—from killing the Keystone XL pipeline to trying to shut down other existing natural gas pipelines in the Midwest (Home heating costs are going way up this winter.) to shutting down much of Alaska oil production to new Environmental Protection Agency rules making it very difficult and expensive to drill here in America. He is also preventing the mining of American coal, which is still one of the dominant sources of electric power around the world. He also wants to raise taxes on the oil and gas industry.

Now, let’s be honest. Do any of these policies suggest that Biden and his liberal friends in the green-energy movement want to keep oil and gas prices low? If you answer yes to that, you probably believe that Al Gore invented the internet.

Elections have consequences.

Now Even The Climate Is Racist

It has long been known that cities are hotter than the countryside. Some of the ‘scientists’ measuring global warming have purposely put some of their temperature measuring devices near air conditional exhausts or runways where planes idle to make sure that the surface stations show an increase in temperature. In 2012 a study was posted at WattsUpWithThat explaining that half of the global warming in America is artificial. Yesterday CNN posted an article explaining that urban heat is worse in black neighborhoods in Atlanta, Georgia, due to racism.

The article reports:

On a warm September afternoon, Mona Scott sat on the front porch while her home baked like an oven. As she ran a frozen water bottle across her forehead and arms, Scott told CNN her air conditioning broke 10 days earlier and had not yet been fixed.

“The windows are painted shut,” Scott said. “We come outside at night to sleep because it’s too hot inside.”

Like Scott, residents in the low-income communities across south and southwest Atlanta are struggling to cope with the hottest summer since the Dust Bowl period of the 1930s.

Why are the windows painted shut? Can’t you scrape the paint off and open them?

Note: “the hottest summers since the Dust Bowl period of the 1930’s.” If global warming has been happening so rapidly, why was this the hottest summer since the 1930’s? How many SUV’s were driving around in 1930?

The article continues:

Across America’s largest cities, Black homeowners are nearly five times more likely than White families to own homes in these historically redlined communities, according to a study by Redfin. These communities, like where Scott resides in South Atlanta, endure the greatest burdens of our rapidly warming planet, and now tend to be the hottest and poorest areas.

Extreme heat threatens the health and well-being of underserved communities today, while predominantly White neighborhoods reap the cooler benefits of decades of investment.

“I went to get groceries the other day and I thought I was going to pass out.” Scott told CNN. She said she suffers from high blood pressure and diabetes, which are underlying health conditions made worse by excessive heat.
Keeping the lights on is hard enough financially for Scott, and so many other disadvantaged community members, let alone having access to reliable air conditioning.

Do these residents have jobs? If not, how much do these residents receive a month in housing assistance, food stamps, and basic welfare payments? Are they required to work for these payments? How is that money spent?

The article also notes:

Some cities, like New Orleans and New York, suffer from the worst urban heat in the nation, according to a recent study by Climate Central. Atlanta, affectionately known as “Hotlanta,” is also particularly hot.

Spelman College, a historically Black college in Atlanta, partnered with a NOAA campaign and other universities to map the hottest and most vulnerable communities. Spelman’s involvement is significant because it is the first time a historically Black college or university has led an initiative such as this, Na’Taki Osborne Jelks, assistant professor of environmental and health sciences at Spelman College told CNN.

“As we think about global challenges like climate change, this is one of the issues that disproportionately impacts Black and other communities of color,” Jelks said. “So, it’s very important that we are at the table.”

Am I supposed to believe that global warming seeks out minority communities and makes them hotter? I don’t think so. Not all of the poor who live in urban areas are minorities. Not everyone who lives in a southern urban area is a minority. Everyone who lives in a city lives in a place where it is warmer than the corresponding rural area. That has nothing to do with race, creed, or color–it is simply science. I object to the idea of trying to turn climate change (the climate has been changing since the earth was created–why else did they find evidence of plant life under the ice in Greenland?) into a racial issue.

Lied To Again

Louisiana just experienced its first major hurricane of the season. Ida left a path of destruction–flooding, wind damage, power outages, etc. The cleanup has begun and Americans are pitching in to help those impacted by the storm. The usual voices are claiming that this is the hottest summer ever and hurricanes are stronger than they have ever been. Not so fast.

CBN posted an article today that provides some historical perspective on climate change.

The article notes:

What if what we’ve really had this year is nothing more than what folks used to call a “hot summer,” and not even close to the hottest summer this nation has ever experienced?

The Hottest Summers Were Long Before SUVs

The summer heat this year wasn’t even close to 1936.

“The 1930s were really when the terrible heatwaves were,” says Tony Heller of RealClimateScience.com.

Heller is an environmentalist who, as an electrical engineer, helped develop the modern computer microprocessor. His website has become a collection of weather history which shows it was a lot hotter 90 and 100 years ago than it is now. 

“The claims that summers are getting hotter are simply not true,” Heller said. “During 1936, 21 states had their all-time temperature records, and none set them this year.”

In the 1930s most of the nation saw temperatures over 100 degrees. Without air conditioning, it was common for families to sleep outdoors.

Many thousands died, and what would become known as the Dust Bowl forced the migration of three and a half million climate refugees out of the Great Plains and Midwest; many of them to California.

Heller said, “Places like Wisconsin were seeing temperatures of 114 degrees. North Dakota saw 121 degrees. 100-degree temperatures were very common in the Midwest prior to about 1960, but since 1960 they’ve become much less common.”

The article also notes:

But what about wildfires? News reports suggest they’re getting a lot more common. But the record shows wildfire burn acreage is down 90% from the 1920s and 30s. 

One reason wildfires seem to have increased is that the wildfire data before 1983 has been erased. 

The website of the National Interagency Fire Center used to show how wildfires were much worse in the 1920s and 30s. That has been removed. The reason given by the National Interagency Fire Center?  “Prior to 1983, the federal wildland fire agencies did not track official wildfire data using current reporting processes.” 

So now, when the media visit the website, it shows wildfires steadily getting worse. 

Heller also documents how NASA has changed its historic weather data. NASA’s temperature graph from 1999 showed the warmest temperatures in the early 1900s.

Sometime later NASA’s graph changed and now shows U.S. temperatures getting warmer.  

So what is the purpose of the lies? Left on its own, government increases its power and control. Americans have not paid enough attention recently to our government’s power grabs. If climate change can be sold as an imminent threat, the government can control how much energy you use in your house, what car you drive, how large a house you are allowed to own, and how far you can travel. That is a scary prospect, but if the idea of an imminent threat can be sold, it is our future.

Does Anyone Actually Believe This?

Yesterday Newsbusters posted an article about some recent reporting done by Newsweek. Newsweek posted the following headline, “Seeking World Recognition, Taliban Vows to Help Fight Terror and Climate Change.” I am willing to believe that the Taliban seeks world recognition. I am not willing to believe that they will help fight terrorism and climate change.

Newsbusters reports:

Newsweek Senior Writer of Foreign Policy Tom O’Connor pushed how Taliban Cultural Commission member Abdul Qahar Balkhi “told Newsweek that his group sought worldwide recognition of the Islamic Emirate.” Balkhi propagandized to the outlet how the organization’s drive for “recognition” would be bolstered in part by the terror group’s commitment to “fight terror” and so-called climate change. “‘We hope not only to be recognized by regional countries but the entire world at large as the legitimate representative government of the people of Afghanistan,’” Balkhi said in part, according to Newsweek.

It is damning that a U.S. publication would lower itself so far down the eco-extremist cesspool that it would attempt to humanize an Islamic terrorist group currently slaughtering people in Afghanistan as a result of President Joe Biden’s massive foreign policy failure.

The article at Newsbusters concludes:

Newsweek’s decision to provide a megaphone to the Taliban wasn’t the first time a prominent outlet has tried to nonsensically lump the terrorist group and climate change together. Recently, CBS News published an outrageous story blaming climate change for the Taliban’s rise. CBS News climate and energy reporter Cara Korte’s absurd story was headlined: “How climate change helped strengthen the Taliban.”

But O’Connor’s Taliban spin was horrific in another context as well. The United Nations reported in July that “[m]ore women and children were killed and wounded in Afghanistan in the first half of 2021 than in the first six months of any year since records began in 2009.” The UN said these records followed “the Taliban offensive to take territory from Government forces.” But that didn’t stop O’Connor from summarizing the Taliban’s absurdity that “militants would never again be allowed to launch attacks against other countries” in the first paragraph of his story.

Conservatives are under attack. Contact Newsweek and hold it to account for pushing the Taliban’s talking points.

Anyone who relies on the mainstream media as their only news source at this time is not hearing the truth. The lies that they are hearing endanger themselves and our country.

Congress Evidently Has It’s Own Concept Of Reality

Yesterday One America News posted an article about some recent comments by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Speaker Pelosi stated that she blames President Trump and climate change for the current border crisis (she refuses to call it a crisis–she refers to it as a “humanitarian challenge.”

The article reports:

She said the Biden administration inherited a broken system, and even went as far as to say migrants were fleeing Central America because of so-called “climate change.”

“My most recent trip to the Northern Triangle, that would be Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, you saw the impact of the climate change,” Pelosi stated. “Mind you, these people were leaving because of the drought they couldn’t farm.”

Critics are now pointing out how Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have been promising amnesty to illegal migrants, ultimately enticing the thousands of people to flood the United States in droves.

When you stop construction of the border wall and dangle amnesty in front of people in incredibly poor countries, they see hope for a better life by coming to America without waiting in line. I don’t blame them for wanting a better life, but breaking the law to enter a country is not a good way to start your life there. We are sending large amounts of money to the countries these migrants are from, and obviously the money is doing nothing to help the people in those countries. It is time not only to review our immigration policies but also to review our foreign aid policies. If the money we are sending is only going to corrupt leaders and not to the people who need it, why should we send money?

This Is Not Good News

The energy independence America achieved during the Trump administration had a lot of impact internationally. It allowed America to make decisions based on our own interests rather than worrying about whether a decision would affect our supply of oil. It gave us leverage with countries that were importing our oil and natural gas. It also helped some countries reduce their dependence on countries that would use their oil supply to coerce their government into bad decisions. Unfortunately with the change of administration, we are moving back to the place where we will not have the influence or security we had as an energy independent country.

Yesterday The Daily Wire reported the following:

Gazprom, a majority-state owned Russian energy company, resumed work in laying pipeline in Danish waters over the weekend after the project was halted during the Trump-era over the threat of sanctions.

“The pipelay vessel Fortuna has started pipelay works on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline in Denmark’s Exclusive Economic Zone today, following the start of works in the construction corridor there on 24 January and successful completion of sea trials,” a Nord Stream 2 spokesperson said via email.

This pipeline will have a serious impact on international affairs:

“Construction of the pipeline is mostly complete but around 120 km is left to be laid in Danish waters as well as 30 km in German waters, before it makes landfall at the northern German coastal town of Lubmin, near Greifswald,” Reuters reported. “The United States has long said the pipeline will increase Russian leverage over Europe and will bypass Ukraine, depriving Kyiv of lucrative transit fees. The United States is also keen to sell its sea-borne liquefied natural gas to European countries.”

The news generated backlash for the Biden administration after they canceled the Keystone XL Pipeline during Biden’s first week in office, which killed the jobs of many of Americans.

Meanwhile American pipeline workers are unemployed. One thing to remember here is that America has cut its carbon emissions in recent years (largely through fracking and the use of natural gas). It is folly to believe that drastic cuts that cripple our economy will actually make a difference in the earth’s climate when other countries are not cutting their emissions. The science is questionable to begin with–do we actually have the power to change the earth’s climate? I doubt it. I am in favor of clean air and clean water, but I am not in favor of crippling our economy for unproven science.

So Why Are We Doing This?

In a rare moment of honesty by a politician, President Biden’s climate czar, John Kerry, stated that America’s reducing its carbon emissions to zero wouldn’t really make a difference in the fight against climate change. Wow. So why are we wrecking the American economy for no apparent reason? I really don’t have a problem with virtue signalling as long as it doesn’t actually harm anyone, but this is going to hurt a lot of Americans–many Americans that the Biden administration promised to help.

The New York Post posted an article about the statement yesterday.

The article reports:

Kerry’s remarks were made ahead of Biden’s signing of a host of executive actions on Wednesday pushing his $2 trillion Green New Deal-inspired climate agenda.

“He knows Paris alone is not enough,” Kerry told reporters at a White House press briefing, referring to Biden re-entering the US in the Paris Climate Agreement in one of his first acts as president.

“Not when almost 90 percent of all of the planet’s global emissions come from outside of US borders. We could go to zero tomorrow and the problem isn’t solved,” Kerry conceded.

The former secretary of state, now Biden’s climate envoy, acknowledged that it would be difficult to bring the world’s top polluters to the table, including China, which produces 30 percent of the world’s carbon emissions.

Why is a man with a private jet and a yacht lecturing us on carbon footprints and climate change?

I Need Someone To Explain The Logic Of This

Yesterday The Washington Free Beacon posted an article with the following headline, “Incoming White House Climate Team Blames ‘Systemic Racism’ for Climate Change.” Wow. Who knew?

The article reports:

A pair of top incoming White House environmental aides has blamed “systemic racism” as a driver of climate change in an attempt to justify a government-led economic overhaul.

President-elect Joe Biden named progressive policy adviser Maggie Thomas as Office of Domestic Climate Policy chief of staff and climate advocate Cecilia Martinez as “senior director for environmental justice” on Thursday. Both Thomas and Martinez have cited racial inequality as perpetuating climate change, arguing that the Biden administration’s environmental policy must be centered on “racial and economic justice.”

“Unless intentionally interrupted, systemic racism will continue to be a major obstacle to creating a healthy planet,” Martinez said in a 2019 press release touting her “Equitable & Just” climate platform. “The only path forward is to design national climate policies that are centered on justice.”

For Thomas and Martinez, such policies require “massive” government spending and the “realignment of public dollars at all levels.” Thomas’s climate plan demands “trillions” in public investment—not only to “crack down” on oil production and shift away from the nation’s “fossil fuel economy” but also to fund welfare programs, including rent and utility relief. Martinez’s platform calls for much of the same, including increased government investment into “affordable and quality housing.”

Has it occurred to the policy makers that oil production provides tax revenue that funds the ‘social justice’ programs they are touting. The oil industry provides well-paying jobs for people who pay taxes that support the welfare system.

The article notes:

Power the Future founder and executive director Daniel Turner accused Biden’s climate team of using “racism” and “justice” to “nationalize the nation’s energy industry.”

“Punishing America’s energy workers will do nothing to address climate change and it will do nothing to address injustices. It will, however, cause the prices of gas and utilities to rise sharply, and that will punish the less privileged most of all,” Turner told the Washington Free Beacon. “We do need to talk about housing, employment, and racism, but doing so under the pretext of energy policy will deliver muddied, expensive, and pointless legislation.”

This is insanity that will only hurt the people President-elect Biden claims to want to help.

Just two final questions, “How much of what I earn is someone else entitled to? Why isn’t wanting to take money from someone who earned it considered greed?”

 

 

The Following Was Posted On Facebook By A Friend

 

Some of these goals are very worthwhile goals; however, we live in a representative republic that is supposed to be governed by the people. Using a disease to jam through policies without the approval of the people is not acceptable. There is also the aspect of the viability of some of these goals.

I love the idea of no poverty. However, people make decisions that result in their living in poverty. Does it help them for the rest of us to continually bail them out, or should we help them learn from their mistakes?

Clean and affordable energy is a great idea, but how realistic is it with the current technology? How clean is it? What about the children working in the Lithium mines? Are they part of clean and affordable energy?

Reduced inequalities also sounds like a great concept. The Pilgrims thought so too until they almost starved to death. People have different levels of ambition. Those who work the hardest need to be rewarded the most. Otherwise no one will bother to work hard. Read the history of the Plymouth Colony for further illustrations of that point.

Peace, justice, and strong institutions also sounds great. Who would be in charge of those institutions? Does justice include freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, freedom of assembly? Who determines what justice is?

This little chart of wonderful ideals actually illustrates the wisdom of the Founding Fathers of America. All of the ideals listed in the chart are possible under the government our Founding Fathers created. Poverty is still with us because people have the freedom to make their own decisions. A number of years ago, an American author pointed out that there are three things that you can do that will give you a 90 percent chance of avoiding poverty–finish high school, get a job, and get married before you have children. Statistically if everyone did that, we could end poverty.

The chart above is simply an illustration of the wonderful-sounding concepts those who would take away our freedom would use to advance their agenda. Don’t be fooled.

Climate Change Does Not Start Fires

This has been a warm year everywhere. However, in places where good forest management has been the rule, forest fires haven’t been a problem. I live in an area where the forests are routinely cleared of underbrush and controlled burns are used to keep any fuel that would feed a massive wildfire at a minimum. That doesn’t mean there will never be a fire here, but it does lessen the chances of an out-of-control event.

There are some opportunists who have jumped on the opportunity to claim that the fires burning up our western states are the result of climate change. Somehow they have chosen to overlook the fact that environmentalists in California have blocked the clearing of the underbrush that feeds these massive fires. In Washington, it has become obvious that climate change is not responsible for the first.

The Gateway Pundit is reporting today:

Spokane police arrested serial arsonist Christine Comello for starting fires in East Spokane last week. Comello was arrested on Monday. She was also accuse(d) of burglary and arson at a local business in Spokane.

The article notes:

Spokane Police arrested a woman for allegedly starting fires in East Spokane while crews were trying to fix fallen power lines and put out electrical fires on Monday.

An officer was responding to a fire call by Magnolia and Riverside; there had been several fallen power lines that day, so he went to investigate.

Instead, he found grass and a pallet on fire outside of a business, with no way it could have started outside of arson, according to Police. A few blocks away, the same officer spotted another fire in an alleyway, next to an old oil drum by a garage and some trees…

…Officers eventually identified 36-year-old Christine Comello, who lied to police about her name. Comello had a felony warrant for burglary and reckless burning, tied to another incident a few weeks prior where she reportedly started fires at a Spokane Valley business.

Comello appeared on the surveillance video and was identified by witnesses. I guess the fires were not started by climate change.

Policies Proposed By The Biden Campaign

Issues & Insights posted an article today about one of the proposals of the Biden campaign. All of us understand that politicians often do not keep their campaign promises, but in this case that might actually be a good thing.

The article reports:

Joe Biden’s $2 trillion climate change plan, released this week, was described by one liberal outlet as “the Green New Deal, minus the crazy.” We beg to differ. Just look at Biden’s plan to eliminate the internal combustion engine.

Biden says that on his first day in office, he will develop “rigorous new fuel economy standards aimed at ensuring 100% of new sales for light- and medium-duty vehicles will be zero emissions.”

…Aside from fuel economy mandates, Biden also wants to extend and expand the EV tax credit, pump federal money into charging stations, and create a new “cash for clunkers” program for those who trade in a gasoline-powered car for a plug-in.

The cost of all this? Who knows. Aside from the $2 trillion price tag that Biden put on his entire Green New Deal plan, he hasn’t broken down his EV mandate scheme. But Sen. Chuck Schumer has already proposed a cash-for-clunkers plan, which would cost $454 billion over a decade.

The article continues:

And for all this, the electric car mandate will have a negligible impact on CO2 emissions and zero impact on the climate.

For one thing, the CO2 advantage of electric cars is vastly oversold. These are not “zero emissions” vehicles. They simply change the source of the emissions from the car to power plants — most of them powered by coal and natural gas.

A study by the University of Michigan’s Transportation Research Institute found that when you factor in CO2 emissions from electricity production, the average plug-in produces as much CO2 over its lifetime as a gas-powered car that gets 55 miles per gallon.

The CO2 advantage of electric cars diminishes even more when you consider the entire lifecycle of the vehicle, including the environmental impact of mining required to manufacture the batteries. A study by the Union of Concerned Scientists found that CO2 emissions from manufacturing electric cars was 68% higher than gas-powered cars.

We already did cash-for-clunkers in 2009. The cars turned in had to be disabled or scrapped. The ultimate result of the program was that it artificially inflated the cost of used cars, hurting the people who couldn’t afford to buy new cars.

Wikipedia (not always a reliable source, but in this case cited sources) reported:

The Economists’ Voice reported in 2009 that for each vehicle trade, the program had a net cost of approximately $2,000, with total costs outweighing all benefits by $1.4 billion. Edmunds reported that Cash for Clunkers cost US taxpayers $24,000 per vehicle sold, that nearly 690,000 vehicles were sold, and that only 125,000 of vehicle sales were incremental. Edmunds CEO concluded that without Cash for Clunkers, auto sales would have been even better.

I think we need to learn from our mistakes.

Not A Cabinet I Would Vote For

The deep state wants its power back. They see the road to that power in the election of Joe Biden as President. As the campaign continues, there are some valid questions as to whether or not Joe Biden is mentally up to the task of being President, but that hasn’t slowed the momentum of the deep state in trying to put him there.

Breitbart posted an article today based on an article in Axios, a liberal-leaning source, about possible cabinet picks by a President Biden.

The article notes:

…Many of the names would return from the Obama administration, constituting an effective “third term.”

Axios says that former Secretary of State John Kerry could return in that role, or be appointed to a new Cabinet-level climate change position.

Former National Security Advisor Susan Rice — who was never nominated for Secretary of State because of fears she would not survive confirmation after misleading the nation about the Benghazi attacks — could find her way to that position in a potential Biden administration, Axios claims.

There would also be room in the Biden Cabinet for some of his former 2020 rivals, including former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, who could be UN ambassador, or U.S. trade representative.

Several are also currently under consideration, Axios reports, to be Biden’s running mate, including Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Kamala Harris (D-CA). The final choice may be up to Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC), who delivered the key endorsement that helped Biden win South Carolina and change the direction of the entire Democratic primary.

Susan Rice lied about Benghazi; John Kerry lied about the Iran deal. President Obama did serious damage to the American economy in eight years because of over-regulation and increased taxes. Do we really want to bring the deep state back into power?

Blacklisting In The Scientific Community

Climate change seems to be an issue that will not die. Even when science refutes it, the call for crippling our economy in the name of the environment continues. Climate change enthusiasts seem to overlook the fact that America has reduced its carbon footprint significantly in the past few years. Meanwhile, the march toward green energy that so far is unworkable continues.

Today Issues and Answers reported the following:

“A climate advocacy group called Skeptical Science hosts a list of academics that it has labeled ‘climate misinformers,’” Pielke recently wrote in Forbes. “The list includes 17 academics and is intended as a blacklist.” 

Pielke says we know this through a Skeptical Science blogger “named Dana Nuccitelli.” According to Pielke, Nuccitelli believes that Judith Curry should be “unhirable in academia” based on her statements about global warming.

Nuccitelli tweeted that “Curry’s words, as documented … are what make her ‘unhirable.’” Both the blog and Nuccitelli of course deny there’s a blacklist.

The “unhirable” Curry is no crank. She is the former chair of Georgia Tech’s School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, and is a fellow of both the American Geophysical Union and American Meteorological Society. She stepped down from her position at Georgia Tech at the insistence of an administrator, she told Pielke. The Earth and Atmospheric Sciences dean had heard from “several activist climate scientists who had a very direct pipeline to” the dean’s office, and had expressed their “extreme displeasure” over Curry’s presence at the school, she said.

Curry looked into positions at other universities, interviewed for two, but was never hired. According to her headhunter, “the show stopper was my public profile in the climate debate.”

Follow the link to the article to see more examples of this blacklisting.

This is even more concerning when you consider the following the following comments about the true agenda of the climate-change movement:

Have doubts? Then listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:

“One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole,” said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.

So what is the goal of environmental policy?

“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy,” said Edenhofer.

This quote is posted in an article at rightwinggranny on March 30, 2016. The quote was from Investor’s Business Daily.

 

Another Unsung Accomplishment By President Trump

Hot Air is reporting today that America reduced its greenhouse gas emissions in 2019.

The article reports:

Increased natural gas consumption helped bring down U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2019, according to a recent report from the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Chances are you haven’t heard. That’s because the mainstream media and environmentalists insist on condemning the Trump administration for championing fossil fuels even though the United States is doing a better job at reducing emissions than many other countries that signed the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement.

The public can credit much of this success to the fracking boom, which has made natural gas much more plentiful. Cheap, abundant natural gas has gradually been displacing coal, which emits about twice as much carbon dioxide. A recent Rhodium Group study found that coal-fired power generation dropped by 18% last year, the lowest level since 1975.

The article concludes:

Meanwhile, thanks to a huge abundance of cheap natural gas (generated via fracking), America reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 2% in 2019 after previously cutting them by the same amount the prior year. In fact, U.S. emissions went down by 12% between 2005 and 2017. By next year, American emissions are projected to be the lowest they have been since 1991, a time when the population was much lower than it is now.

By comparison, how are the “good” countries who signed on to the Paris accord doing? As it turns out, France Germany and the United Kingdom all missed their emissions reduction goals last year. Germany’s emissions actually increased after they started gutting their nuclear power program and were forced to restart some coal-fired plants to keep the lights turned on.

The only countries that are given high marks for meeting the climate agreement’s objectives are very small nations with low populations and not very much economic or industrial activity. So who are the real bad guys in this story? Before any global consortium starts trying to dictate to us how to handle our greenhouse gas emissions, perhaps they should get their own houses in order and follow our example. Rather than just talking about reducing emissions, we’re actually doing it. And we didn’t need a treaty with anyone else to get the job done.

The reason the success of America in reducing greenhouse gases is not heralded is that the success goes against the purpose of the climate change agenda–it doesn’t allow tyrannical countries to shake down democracies and republics.The goal of the climate change rhetoric is to redistribute the world’s wealth–to take money from countries that have prospered under the free market and give it to countries where the government controls the economy. America’s success in reducing greenhouse gas emissions simply does not fit the desired template.

This Should Be An Interesting House Race

Hot Air posted an article yesterday about one of the Democrat candidates for the 2nd U.S House district in New Jersey. The person currently holding this seat is Representative Jeff Van Drew, who recently switched from Democrat to Republican. The Democrat candidate is Amy Kennedy, ex-wife of former Representative Patrick Kennedy (son of Ted). Patrick Kennedy represented Rhode Island from 1995 to 2011. Patrick Kennedy has confessed to struggling with alcohol and has worked to combat drug addiction since leaving the House of Representatives.

The article reports:

Amy Kennedy released a video announcing her candidacy Monday.

What I see in that video is a candidate who knows exactly who she needs to win over to get elected – other women. She goes straight to our “moral compass” with a photo of Van Drew and Trump. She includes the soccer mom lingo of showing kindness, treat others with respect, and show compassion. All of this is heard in every household with kids every day. Then she pivots to the economy. She says people in south Jersey can’t find jobs. According to this chart, unemployment is higher in south New Jersey than the northern part of the state where it is more industrialized. The ‘richest corporations” she references are located further north. South New Jersey is more rural and always has been. Back in my college days, my first roommate was from Bridgeton. Her family owned a farm and her parents were active Republicans. In other words, it is traditionally a conservative part of New Jersey. Apparently, Kennedy thinks that inserting some far-left class warfare into the race is the way to go.

She speaks to the deregulation of the energy industry and mentions climate change. She’s really checking off all the boxes, isn’t she? She goes on to mention the mental health and addiction epidemic, too. “We continue to ignore the biggest public health emergency of our time — the mental health and addiction crisis that affects virtually every family.” Well, at least she didn’t succumb to the opinion of the most woke among us and say that climate change is the biggest emergency of our time. That will probably come later.

The video overall will certainly appeal to the audience for which she strives. She’s a former teacher and the mother of five. She’s the mom next door. She can fight the patriarchy and the bad Orange Man without breaking a sweat. Liberal voters are not prone to hold Kennedys morally accountable as they do conservatives. Conservatives see the irony of a Kennedy lecturing about the loss of morality in public life but liberals do not. We only have to look to the career of her father-in-law to see that.

It will be interesting to see how the voters of New Jersey react to Representative Jeff Van Drew’s decision to become a Republican and how they react to the candidacy of Amy Kennedy.