Somehow The Mainstream Media Forgot To Report This

On Tuesday, The Gateway Pundit reported that George Nader, a Lebanese-American businessman, who funneled foreign campaign contributions to the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, has pleaded guilty to that charge.

The article quotes a Washington Examiner article from Monday:

The Department of Justice revealed in a December sentencing memo that Nader had pleaded guilty to a single count on July 22, 2020. The court filing says Nader and Ahmad “Andy” Khawaja, a Los Angeles-based chief executive of Allied Wallet, “orchestrated a scheme to funnel over $3.5 million in foreign funds into the 2016 presidential election.” The DOJ added that they “did so to gain direct access to unsuspecting high-level political figures to further their professional endeavors: in the defendant’s case, out of a desire to lobby on behalf and advance the interests of his client, the government of the United Arab Emirates; in Khawaja’s case, in the hopes of securing political appointment in the future.”

Nader was indicted in December 2019 for what prosecutors said was his role in a scheme to conceal large sums of illegal campaign contributions to help Clinton in 2016. He was accused of conspiring with Khawaja to conceal the source of more than $3.5 million in campaign contributions to political committees associated with Clinton.

Khawaja gave more than $4 million to Clinton’s campaign and other Democrats during the 2016 cycle but later donated $1 million to former President Donald Trump’s inaugural committee after Clinton lost. As he shifted his focus to Republicans after the 2016 election, the Lebanese-born Khawaja met with Trump at a Manhattan fundraiser and got a photo with the president in the Oval Office.

If you want to get foreign money out of American politics, the Clintons might not be a bad place to start.

The Great Divide Increases

There are a lot of differing medical opinions on the coronavirus and the vaccines for the coronavirus. Somehow the prevention and treatment of a disease has become political. I don’t understand how or why that happened, but it is now a reality. The Washington Examiner posted an article on Thursday that further illustrates this divide.

The article reports:

Nearly two years after former President Donald Trump tossed politics into the nation’s battle against the coronavirus, the partisan divide appears to have grown, with Republicans fighting mandates and Democrats calling for harsh punishments for those who refuse to get vaccinated.

In an expanded survey of the public’s view of mandates and punishments to get people vaccinated, Rasmussen Reports found that Democrats even support fines, home confinement, and prison for those who fight the government on masks and shots.

…Consider: Twenty-nine percent of Democrats would go so far as to support taking children away from parents who refused to be vaccinated.

…Next came a question on President Joe Biden’s mandate that companies of 100 employees or more should demand workers to get vaccinated. Just 22% of Republicans agreed, while Democrats were all in at 78%.

Asked if voters favor a federal or state fine for those who refuse a vaccine, only 19% of Republicans said “favor” to 55% of Democrats.

The conclusion of the article is frightening:

Rasmussen next asked if people favor home confinement for those who are not vaccinated. On the GOP side, 79% were opposed, while 59% of Democrats favored it.

The survey also asked about those who challenge the government’s view of vaccines and if opponents should be jailed or fined for questioning it on social media. A remarkable 48% of Democrats supported those punishments.

And nearly half of Democrats favored fixing tracking devices on those who refused to vaccinate.

Rasmussen added that Biden supporters would go even further than Democrats.

“President Biden’s strongest supporters are most likely to endorse the harshest punishments against those who won’t get the COVID-19 vaccine. Among voters who have a Very Favorable impression of Biden, 51% are in favor of government putting the unvaccinated in “designated facilities,” and 54% favor imposing fines or prison sentences on vaccine critics,” said the pollster.

It seems as if the Democrat party has forgotten the concepts of freedom and equality.

The Real Numbers

On Monday, The Washington Examiner posted an article about the crisis at America’s southern border.

The article reports:

Newly revealed Immigration and Customs Enforcement data show that deportations have dropped 90% under the Biden administration, noted for its open-border policies and red tape tying the hands of immigration agents.

What’s more, removals of illegal immigrants convicted of murder, rape, and arson have experienced a dramatic drop from pre-pandemic policies put in place by the Trump administration, which put a high priority on them.

The new data were unveiled today by the Center for Immigration Studies and policy director Jessica M. Vaughan, known for her ties to ICE and Border Patrol officials. She told us that President Joe Biden’s “deliberate refusal to enforce immigration laws is one of the most clueless and egregious acts of negligence in modern government history.”

It is no surprise that deportations are down, though the level is shocking, she said in her report. When Biden came to the Oval Office, he moved swiftly to dismantle former President Donald Trump’s border policies, which had greatly slowed the flow of illegal migrants across the U.S.-Mexico border.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. It includes a chart showing the drop in the number of deportations and the report by the Center for Immigration Studies. It makes no sense to stop deporting illegal aliens who have committed crimes in America. If the liberals in Congress and some of our states are so determined to empty out our prisons, it seems as if they might actually want to send dangerous criminals back to where they came from.

I Wonder What The Real Story Is

Yesterday The Washington Examiner reported the following:

The FBI has conducted searches of at least two New York locations tied to the conservative investigative group Project Veritas, reportedly in connection with the alleged theft of a diary belonging to Ashley Biden, the youngest daughter of President Joe Biden.

“I awoke to the news that apartments and homes of Project Veritas journalists, or former journalists, had been raided by FBI agents,” Project Veritas founder James O’Keefe said in a statement posted on his website on Friday. “It appears the Southern District of New York now has journalists in their sights for the supposed ‘crime’ of doing their jobs lawfully and honestly. Or at least, this journalist.”

The Biden family claims the diary was stolen in a burglary in 2020, but that may or may not be the case.

The article notes:

A right-wing outlet called the National File published dozens of pages of 40-year-old Ashley Biden’s purported diary in October 2020, with the handwritten pages covering a number of salacious, personal topics. The outlet said at the time it “has obtained what a whistleblower has identified as a copy of the complete diary” belonging to Biden’s daughter with first lady Jill Biden, as well as an audio recording of Ashley Biden, “admitting this is her diary.”

O’Keefe said Friday, “Late last year, we were approached by tipsters claiming they had a copy of Ashley Biden’s diary. We had never met or heard of the tipsters. The tipsters indicated that the diary had been abandoned in a room in which Ms. Biden stayed at the time, and in which the tipsters stayed in temporarily after Ms. Biden departed the room.

“The tipsters indicated that the diary included explosive allegations against then-candidate, Joe Biden. The tipsters indicated that they were negotiating with a different media outlet for the payment of monies for the diary.”

O’Keefe added, “At the end of the day, we made the ethical decision that because, in part, we could not determine if the diary was real, if the diary in fact belonged to Ashley Biden, or if the contents of the diary occurred, we could not publish the diary and any part thereof. We attempted to return the diary to an attorney representing Ms. Biden, but that attorney refused to authenticate it. Project Veritas gave the diary to law enforcement to ensure it could be returned to its rightful owner. We never published it.”

So where is the diary now? Why is the FBI spending its time looking for a diary?

An Interesting Reversal

Yesterday The Washington Examiner posted an article about a recent statement by Patrick Moore, a Canadian environmentalist who previously served as president of Greenpeace Canada and director of Greenpeace International.

The article reports:

Polar bears would not exist today without climate change, and they may even be thriving because of current climate trends. That’s what the co-founder of Greenpeace (Patrick Moore) told scientists, economists, and academics who took part in an international conference challenging alarmist claims about global warming.

…During his talk, Moore described some of the events that helped gain notoriety for Greenpeace, such as the campaigns directed against nuclear testing and whale hunting dating back to the 1970s. He eventually felt compelled to leave Greenpeace when activists began to lose sight of their humanitarian mission while engaging in campaigns that were not rooted in sound science, he explained.

“At a philosophical level, Greenpeace had started with a strong humanitarian orientation to save human civilization from nuclear war,” Moore said. “That meant we actually liked people. That’s the peace in Greenpeace. The green, of course, was the environment. … I decided to fashion myself a sensible environmentalist basing my positions on science and logic rather than sensationalism, misinformation, and fear.”

The article concludes:

Moore also suggested there is good reason to view contemporary climate conditions as beneficial to polar bears. That’s because the reduction in sea ice during the summer months enables the sun to shine through the opening in the ocean in a manner that is beneficial to the marine life that supports the polar bear population, he said.

While commenting on energy policy, Moore called for the development of more nuclear power plants to help reduce fossil fuel use. He estimated that there are about 440 plants worldwide, but he would like to see something in the neighborhood of 4,000. Moore said he favors reducing fossil fuel use not because of carbon dioxide emissions, which he views as beneficial, but because fossil fuels should be conserved for energy needs that only those energy sources can supply.

“Fossil fuels are the most important energy for making civilization,” Moore said. In fact, he added, fossil fuels are “causing us to live longer and live better.”

It is interesting that Moore currently is a director for the CO2 Coalition, a nonprofit group that includes scientists devoted to highlighting the benefits of carbon dioxide. He has written a book titled Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom. I suspect his return to actual science has not been well received by those at Greenpeace.

 

 

Censorship Abounds

This morning as I was doing my research for this blog, I came across the following article, “Ohio lawmakers propose school choice for all students” at the Washington Examiner. In the morning when I come across an article I think I would like to post on my blog, I copy the link and post it in the Right Wing Granny group on Facebook. Imagine my surprise when it didn’t post and Facebook told me it did not meet the community standards. Wow.

Here are some excerpts from the Washington Examiner article:

Two Ohio lawmakers want to give all Ohio students the option of school choice and create K-12 education competition, which they say would raise the level of public and private education throughout the state.

The Ohio Backpack Bill, originally introduced in May and updated with a sub-bill to House Bill 290 , would allow all parents to send their children to public school or establish an education savings account. The state would send the money earmarked for that student to the public school or into the parent’s account, allowing it to be used for private school tuition or other education expenses.

…The state sends money allocated for each student to the public school district. If a student qualifies for school choice through income-eligibility, the local public school district sends the money to private school.

“It’s about students and increasing the education opportunities for all. This bill seeks to find the right educational opportunity for each of the children in Ohio,” Rep. Riordan McClain, R-Upper Sandusky, said. “It creates a true money-follows-the-child program. Money goes to public school if parents want, and if a parent wants an educational scholarship account, then the state has to put that money in that account, which the parent can use for education expenses.”

The bill addresses only state education funding. Local public school districts still would collect local and federal money. The average state expense per student is $6,600, according to Christian Education Network Executive Director Troy McIntosh. The legislation would allocate $5,500 per K-9 student and $7,500 for 9-12 students.

“This is not a bill intended to benefit the kids that want to run off and attend a private school,” McIntosh said. “We want this bill to benefit every student in Ohio. An overwhelming majority of parents are realizing and asking for this sort of program.”

The state treasurer would oversee the program. Educations savings accounts could be used for private school tuition, homeschool expenses, tutoring, books and other educational expenses.

“This model is not new. This approach is gaining momentum in Ohio and nationwide,” McClain said. “We want to fund students not systems. When parents have options, they are more engaged. When schools compete for students, children’s outcomes rise.”

The article concludes:

Center for Christian Virtue President Aaron Baer said the bill would give parents recourse in districts similar to Upper Arlington, which recently created single-sex bathrooms, or others that imposed mask mandates.

I suspect the previous paragraph is what caused the problem on Facebook.

What Will Be The Long-Term Impact Of This?

Scott Johnson at Power Line Blog posted an article today about what is happening with the Haitian refugees that are coming into our country right now.

The article quotes the Associated Press:

Many Haitian migrants camped in a small Texas border town are being released in the United States, two U.S. officials said, undercutting the Biden administration’s public statements that the thousands in the camp faced immediate expulsion.

Haitians have been freed on a “very, very large scale” in recent days, according to one U.S. official who put the figure in the thousands. The official, with direct knowledge of operations who was not authorized to discuss the matter Tuesday and thus spoke on condition of anonymity.

Many have been released with notices to appear at an immigration office within 60 days, an outcome that requires less processing time from Border Patrol agents than ordering an appearance in immigration court and points to the speed at which authorities are moving, the official said.

The Homeland Security Department has been busing Haitians from Del Rio to El Paso, Laredo and Rio Grande Valley along the Texas border, and this week added flights to Tucson, Arizona, the official said. They are processed by the Border Patrol at those locations.

The article notes that a U.S. official has stated that large numbers of Haitians are being released into America rather than being sent home as we have been told.

Meanwhile, Yahoo News reported the following yesterday:

Haitians deported from the U.S. on Tuesday assaulted the pilots on board one of the flights when it arrived in Port-au-Prince and injured three U.S. immigration officers, according to a source familiar with internal reports of the incident.

Unrest broke out shortly after a flight carrying single adult men arrived and released the men to Haitian authorities on the tarmac. Then, the source said, several of the men stormed another recently arrived flight carrying families.

The men assaulted the pilots of that plane, who work for a government contractor licensed to fly deportation flights for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, while the families were still on board. Three ICE officers were also attacked on that plane, each suffering non-life-threatening injuries, the source said.

Yesterday The Washington Examiner reported:

Haitian migrants who were being transported on a federally contracted private bus away from the border revolted during the ride and overtook control of the commercial vehicle before escaping, according to two law enforcement officials.

A large white bus bound for San Antonio, Texas, was overtaken Monday afternoon during the two-and-a-half-hour trip from the international bridge in Del Rio. The migrants on board had been picked up from the makeshift migrant camp, where thousands are waiting to be taken into custody, two federal law enforcement agents told the Washington Examiner.

“They did break out of the bus, and they did escape,” a senior federal law enforcement official confirmed to the Washington Examiner on Tuesday.

There seems to be a pattern here, and it is not a good one.

Letting Down Our Citizens And Our Allies

On Friday, The Washington Examiner is reporting the following:

Maj. Gen. Christopher Donahue has told his British Army counterpart, a high-ranking field-grade officer of the British army’s 22nd Special Air Service Regiment, that British operations were embarrassing the United States military in the absence of similar U.S. military operations, according to multiple military sources. I understand that the British officer firmly rejected the request.

Col. Joe Buccino, a spokesman for the XVIII Airborne Corps, denied that Donahue made such a request.

“The XVIII Airborne Corps denies the central thrust of this story,” the spokesman said. “Specifically, Gen. Chris Donahue, whose sole focus is security at HKIA, never made such a request to any British Army officials and would have no motive for doing so.”

The article concludes:

A bureaucratic tug of war between the State Department, Pentagon, and White House is also disrupting evacuation operations out of Kabul. This is aggravating British, French, and other Kabul-present military authorities. I understand that these governments have been further aggravated by the failure of the White House and Pentagon to communicate adequately, or in some cases, to communicate at all, on their intentions and actions. All these allies admit, however, that only the U.S. military could provide the airfield defense and air traffic control capabilities now on display.

Still, as I noted on Wednesday , the Biden administration’s conduct of the Afghanistan withdrawal has raised deep concerns by allies as to the administration’s credibility and confidence. Speaking on the condition of anonymity, allied officials reemphasized this concern to me on Friday.

Please follow the link above to read the entire article. It has been a long time since America has so totally botched a military operation and alienated our allies at the same time. In this case I am more inclined to believe the British account of the incident than the American account. Our military leadership does not seem to be reliable right now.

This Really Is Not Surprising

Yesterday The Washington Examiner posted an article about what is happening at America’s southern border.

The article reports:

Unprecedented numbers of known or suspected terrorists have crossed the southern border in recent months, the outgoing Border Patrol chief said.

The head of the Border Patrol, Rodney Scott, told his 19,000 agents before retiring on Aug. 14 that their national security mission is paramount right now despite the Biden administration’s focus on migrant families and children who are coming across the United States-Mexico boundary at record rates.

“Over and over again, I see other people talk about our mission, your mission, and the context of it being immigration or the current crisis today being an immigration crisis,” Scott said in a video message to agents, obtained by the Washington Examiner. “I firmly believe that it is a national security crisis. Immigration is just a subcomponent of it, and right now, it’s just a cover for massive amounts of smuggling going across the southwest border — to include TSDBs at a level we have never seen before. That’s a real threat.”

TSDB refers to known or suspected terrorists, as identified in the FBI’s Terrorist Screening Database.

The article concludes:

The Washington Examiner was first to report in June that Biden administration officials were forcing out Scott at Border Patrol headquarters in Washington after 16 months on the job.

One person with firsthand knowledge of Scott’s decision said in May that Scott was told to retire, resign, or move away from headquarters. The decision by Scott’s bosses was “completely driven by politics,” even though Scott’s position is apolitical and he is a 29-year employee of the Border Patrol.

“I did choose to retire, but I am not retiring to run away from this crisis. I’m just going to fight for you from a slightly different angle,” Scott said in his message to agents, though he did not explain his future plans.

“I am asking each one of you to look in the mirror and remind yourself, and if you haven’t thought about it before, think about the fact that you are not immigration police and our job is not immigration on the border,” Scott said. “Our job is to know who and what comes in this country and then to filter it out based on the rules applied by Congress and by law. That’s critically important, and when you put it in the context of immigration only, I think you miss the bigger fight. This job is extremely important. Your mission’s very important.”

Firing competent people is not the path to good government.

Closing Which Border?

Yesterday The Washington Examiner posted an article about the border policies of the Biden administration.

The article reports:

Members of President Joe Biden’s party are upset about his decision not to allow Canadians into the United States despite Canada’s plan to begin admitting Americans in the coming weeks.

“As Canada prepares to further open the border next month, the United States is failing to reciprocate, jeopardizing an already tenuous recovery for thousands of businesses, families and communities across Upstate New York,” said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a New York Democrat, in a statement. “It is critical for the United States to level the playing field and create a uniform system, following the science and data, to safely — and finally — reopen the border for those vaccinated.”

In Washington state, Democratic Rep. Suzan DelBene said the move would prompt “further suffering in our border communities.” Rep. Brian Higgins, a New York Democrat, agreed, adding the negative impact would be felt across the 5,500-mile border between the continental U.S. and Canada.

Since March 21, 2020, the government has not allowed foreigners on “nonessential” travel to enter the U.S. at a land port of entry as a pandemic measure. However, people from outside the U.S. are often permitted to fly into the country from abroad.

Why are we closing our northern border to Canadian citizens while allowing illegal immigrants to flow freely into America at our southern border?

The article continues:

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas defended the decision as being based on a “specific threat to human life or national interests” as the COVID-19 delta variant spreads worldwide and cases spike in the U.S. and Mexico.

More than 75 members of the House of Representatives sent a letter to Biden earlier this month asking him to reinstate international travel fully because the closure cost $125 billion in export profits last year.

While land ports of entry remain closed on the southern and northern borders, hundreds of thousands of migrants have illegally crossed the southern border since February. Tens of thousands of migrants have been allowed to go deeper into the U.S., even though the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended in 2020 all migrants be turned away at the border and not detained or released into the U.S.

Migrants are not given coronavirus vaccines before they’re released from federal custody.

So I guess illegal immigrants are going to be allowed to spread the coronavirus while the Canadians who have been vaccinated and probably won’t spread the coronavirus are kept out of America. In what world does this make sense?

Big Brother Is Watching

On Thursday, The Washington Examiner posted an article about a recent statement by Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra.

The article reports:

Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra argued that the federal government is entitled to know who in the United States has been vaccinated, responding to anger from GOP House members who say the Biden administration is infringing on personal liberty.

“Perhaps we should point out that the federal government has had to spend trillions of dollars to try to keep Americans alive during this pandemic, so it is absolutely the government’s business. It is taxpayers’ business if we have to continue to spend money to try to keep people from contracting COVID and helping reopen the economy,” Becerra said on CNN Thursday.

Unfortunately, there is a clause in the HIPAA (The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996) law that allows the government to collect this information.

According to the CDC:

The Privacy Rule allows for the existing practice of sharing PHI with public health authorities that are authorized by law to collect or receive such information to aid them in their mission of protecting the health of the public.

So essentially all the government has to do is say that it is necessary for them to have your personal information regarding the Covid-19 vaccine in order to deal with the Covid-19 epidemic.

The article concludes:

Arizona Republican Rep. Andy Biggs tweeted Wednesday, “In 2021, the nine most terrifying words in the English language: ‘I’m from the government, have you been vaccinated yet?’” Colorado Republican Rep. Lauren Boebert, meanwhile, tweeted Tuesday, “Door to door to vaccinate Americans this year… door to door to confiscate guns next year?”

To date, more than 67% of U.S. adults have received at least one dose of vaccine, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Roughly 58% of adults have been fully vaccinated.

And how many Americans have natural immunity because they have had the disease? When I had my antibodies checked seven months after having Covid-19, I still had antibodies. Why would I want to get the shot to do the same thing?

When The Justice Department Is Compromised

Yesterday The Washington Examiner reported the following:

President Joe Biden has, for a second time, selected a nominee with ties to his son Hunter Biden for a top post at the Justice Department, picking a former longtime partner at the law firm where his son worked for years and that was involved in helping the younger Biden in his business dealings with Burisma.

Biden announced on Friday that he had nominated Hampton Dellinger, a Yale Law School graduate and former deputy attorney general in North Carolina, to be assistant attorney general for DOJ’s Office of Legal Policy. Dellinger’s LinkedIn indicates he founded Hampton Dellinger PLLC in November after working as a partner at Boies, Schiller, and Flexner from May 2013 through last year. Hunter Biden was a counsel at the same firm, starting there in 2010 and reportedly leaving in 2017. In 2014, the president’s son landed the Ukrainian energy giant as a client for the firm and took a lucrative position on its board.

Biden discussed the firm’s involvement in the Burisma saga in his memoir, Beautiful Things.

“I brought Burisma to Boies Schiller Flexner. … They wanted to see whether Burisma was legit or plagued with corruption before taking them on,” he wrote.

The article also notes:

Devon Archer, a business associate of Hunter Biden, was convicted in 2018 for securities fraud and conspiracy charges. Biden sent an email to Archer in April 2014 just over a week before then-Vice President Joe Biden gave a press conference with Ukraine’s prime minister, with Hunter Biden writing, “The announcement of my guys [sic] upcoming travels should be characterized as part of our advice and thinking — but what he will say and do is out of our hands.” In the laptop emails obtained by the New York Post, Hunter Biden also wrote to Archer about his financial expectations, saying, “If we are not protected financially regardless of the outcome we could find ourselves frozen out of a lot of current and future opportunities. The contract should begin now — not after the upcoming visit of my guy. That should include a retainer in the range of 25k p/m [$25,000 per month] w/ additional fees where appropriate for more in depth work to go to BSF [Boies Schiller Flexner] for our protection. Complete separate from our respective deals re board participation.”

In 2019, The New York Times reported that “unreported financial data from the Ukrainian prosecutor general’s office show the company paid $283,000 to Boies Schiller for legal services in 2014.”

Burisma adviser Vadym Pozharskyi messaged Hunter Biden and Archer in May 2014, according to laptop emails obtained by Fox News in October, worrying about “one or more pretrial proceedings were initiated by the Ministry of Internal Affairs with regard to Burisma Holdings.” Pozharskyi told Biden that “we urgently need your advice on how you could use your influence to convey a message / signal, etc. to stop what we consider to be politically motivated actions.”

Please follow the link to the article to read the entire story.

I have stated before–President Biden is not responsible for the behavior of his adult son. However, he is responsible for enabling, aiding, and abetting that behavior when it is illegal. To appoint people to the Justice Department who have ties to Hunter Biden’s questionable activities is a slap in the face to all Americans who believe in equal justice under the law.

Is there anyone in the Justice Department who cares about the reputation of the Department?

Closing The Barn Door After The Horse Has Left

Yesterday The Washington Examiner reported that Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger is poised to remove more than 100,000 “outdated” names from the state’s voter registration rolls unless those on the list take immediate action.

The article reports:

Some critics, such as Gerald Griggs with the Atlanta NAACP, described the move as a voter purge. Griggs said thousands of voters were improperly removed from the 2019 list. However, state officials noted the removals are required by law and that the maintenance occurs every two years.

Raffensperger’s office also removed 18,486 voter files of dead individuals based on information obtained from Georgia’s Office of Vital Records and the Electronic Registration Information Center.

“These people don’t live in Georgia anymore. Then, you have 18,000 people who passed. So, they are not going to be voting anymore. You need to have accurate voter rolls and proper list maintenance. It also helps your county election directors,” Raffensperger told WSB-TV 2.o

It needs to be mentioned here for those who are concerned that voting laws aimed at reducing voter fraud are disenfranchising voters, that every illegal vote cast cancels out the vote of a legal voter. Therefore, changing voter laws to prevent fraud is actually making sure that the votes of legal voters will be counted. If the people who are being removed from the voter rolls are no longer entitled to vote in Georgia, they need to be removed from the voter rolls. The only reason to keep them on the rolls is to commit voter fraud.

Our Justice System Has Become Political

Yesterday The Washington Examiner posted an article telling the story of the people who were arrested in Washington on January 6th. It’s not a story that aligns very well with the constitutional rights of Americans.

The article reports:

Many participants in the Jan. 6 Capitol riots are being held in solitary confinement in Washington, D.C.’s city jail, a situation that’s drawing scrutiny from Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bob Casey and the American Civil Liberties Union.

The Department of Justice has charged 510 individuals in connection with the Jan. 6 breach, which began when supporters of outgoing President Donald Trump stormed the Capitol with the intent of trying to stop the certification of Electoral College votes for Joe Biden as president.

After Jan. 6, Washington, D.C., jail officials decided that all Capitol riot detainees be held in “restrictive housing” as a safety measure for the accused. However, the accused found themselves in solitary confinement 23 hours a day before their trials even started.

“I do not believe in solitary confinement for extended periods of time for anyone,” Warren, a Massachusetts senator and former Harvard Law School professor, said of the Jan. 6 rioters when asked by the Washington Examiner.

I very rarely agree with Senator Warren, but she is right in this case.

Even the ACLU has weighed in:

The American Civil Liberties Union, which has recently drawn criticism for favoring liberal causes over its tradition of representing unsympathetic clients and causes, is also weighing in on the side of Trump protesters being held alone.

“Prolonged solitary confinement is torture and certainly should not be used as a punitive tool to intimidate or extract cooperation. We’re pleased to see that message is getting through to Senators,” Tammie Gregg, deputy director of the ACLU National Prison Project, told the Washington Examiner in a statement.

If you remember, Paul Manafort, President Trump’s campaign manager was kept in solitary confinement. He was put in jail for mortgage fraud, not usually considered a crime worthy of solitary confinement. Our Justice Department has become politicized in recent years. If that does not change in the near future, living in America will be like living in a dictatorship–if you hold the wrong political views, your civil rights will not be respected.

I Guess He Didn’t Read The Memo

The Washington Examiner reported the following today:

Secretary of State Antony Blinken claims that he hasn’t been shown evidence to justify Israel’s airstrike of the building in Gaza, which housed the Associated Press and Al-Jazeera offices.

“Shortly after the strike we did request additional details regarding the justification for it,” Blinken said at a news conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, choosing not to address specifics, adding that he “will leave it to others to characterize if any information has been shared and our assessment that information,” according to the Associated Press.

“I have not seen any information provided,” he continued.

Why hasn’t he seen the information provided? Is this another example of ‘plausible deniability”?

Meanwhile, Breitbart reported the following yesterday:

Israel reportedly showed U.S. officials “smoking gun” intelligence Sunday indicating that the Palestinian Hamas terrorist organization was using the Jala Tower in Gaza, which also housed the Associated Press, Al Jazeera, and other international news outlets.

On Saturday, Israel destroyed the tower, after warning the occupants to allow them to leave. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) tweeted that the building contained “Hamas military intelligence assets” and that the media had been used as “human shields.”

In deciding which story to believe, it’s important to look at the entire event and the history of both sides. Hamas has a history of using ‘human shields’. It places rocket launchers in hospitals and homes. Israel has a history of bending over backwards to avoid civilian casualties–to the point of sending ‘knock-knock’ bombs to warn civilians to evacuate.

The article at Breitbart concludes:

But on Sunday, according to the Jerusalem Post, Israel shared its evidence that the building had been used by Hamas:

Israel shared intelligence with the US showing how Hamas operated inside the same building with the Associated Press and Al-Jazeera in Gaza, officials in Jerusalem said on Sunday.

Officials in more than one government office confirmed that US President Joe Biden’s phone call to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Saturday was, in part, about the bombing of the building, and that Israel showed Biden and American officials the intelligence behind the action.

“We showed them the smoking gun proving Hamas worked out of that building,” a source close to Foreign Minister Gabi Ashkenazi said. “I understand they found the explanation satisfactory.”

Hamas continued firing rockets at Israeli communities on Sunday, even as its officials claimed that they wanted a ceasefire.

If the Secretary of State hasn’t been shown the evidence of Hamas headquarters in the same building as the media, maybe he need to ask why.

Not Surprising

The Washington Examiner reported yesterday that President Biden has received less negative press coverage than any president in the past thirty years. Obviously he has gotten some negative coverage from conservative news sources, but the mainstream media has chosen to ignore the crisis at the southern border, the increasingly frequent senior moments, and the outright lies in the stories told and the credit claimed for the coronavirus vaccine and its rollout.

The article reports:

The study found that about 19% of the coverage of Biden’s fir 60 days days has been negative over the first 60 days of his administration, which ranked best among presidents of the last three decades. Former Presidents Bill Clinton (28%), George W. Bush (28%), Barack Obama (20%), and Donald Trump (62%) all saw more negative coverage than Biden.

“While the media landscape has changed dramatically since Clinton’s presidential inauguration, the Center has been able to conduct a long-term comparison for each of the recent administrations across a smaller subset of outlets and variables,” Pew Research Center wrote of its findings.

The difference in coverage between the early days of Trump’s presidency compared to Biden’s was particularly stark, with negative stories about Trump outnumbering positive ones by a “four-to-one” ratio.

The article notes an interesting difference in how President Trump and President Biden were covered by the media:

“Another stark difference in the early coverage of the Biden and Trump administrations was in how stories were framed,” Pew wrote. “About two-thirds of Biden stories (65%) were framed around ideology and agenda, while about one-third (35%) focused on leadership and character. With Trump, the numbers were roughly reversed, with 74% framed around leadership and character and 26% around policy and ideology.”

Unfortunately Americans will be reaping the results of the Biden agenda in the near future. I don’t think it will be fun.

Are The Census Numbers Real?

The Washington Examiner posted an article today about the recent census numbers. It seems that some of the numbers may not add up.

The article reports:

There is something very fishy about the new 2020 Census Bureau data determining which states picked up seats and those that lost seats.

Most of the revisions to the original estimates have moved in one direction: population gains were added to blue states, and population losses were subtracted from red states. The December revisions in population estimates under the Biden Census Bureau added some 2.5 million blue state residents and subtracted more than 500,000 red state residents. These population estimates determine how many electoral votes each state receives for presidential elections and the number of congressional seats in each state.

Is this a mere coincidence?

Remember, the House of Representatives is razor-thin today, with the Democrats sporting just a three-seat majority with five seats currently vacant. So a switch in three or four seats in 2022 elections could flip the House and take the gavel away from current Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats. A population shift of 3 million is the equivalent of four seats moving from R to D.

The article cites a number of examples:

1) New York — We’ve been tracking the annual population/migration changes between states since the last census of 2010. According to census data over the past decade, New York lost about 1.3 million residents on net to other states. (This does not include immigration, births, and deaths.) Still, this is a population loss equivalent to two, maybe three, lost congressional seats. But the final numbers ADDED more than 860,000. That’s roughly twice the population of Buffalo and Rochester — combined. This is the state that has lost by far the largest population over the past decade.

2) Many deep blue states had 2020 census numbers significantly revised upward from their December estimates: Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

3) Many red states had 2020 census numbers significantly lower than their 2020 estimates: Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, Texas.

4) Going back to the 2010 census, the final headcount in every state was within 0.4% of the original estimate, and 30 of them were within 0.2%. This time around, 19 states were more than 1% off, 7 were more than 2% off, NY was more than 3.8% off, and NJ was more than 4.5% off.

5) Virtually every one of the significant deviations from the estimates favored Democrats. Just five states in the 2020 census were within the same margin (0.41%) that all states were within from the 2010 census.

Please follow the link above to read the article. Figures don’t lie, but liars figure.

More Morning Raids

Yesterday The Washington Examiner posted an article about a woman in Anchorage, Alaska, whose home was raided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) because she bears a resemblance to someone who was in Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s office on January 6th.

The article reports:

The FBI and an agent from the U.S. Capitol Police served a warrant on Wednesday at the home of Paul and Marilyn Hueper, who said the search was related to the siege of Congress.

The couple said federal agents accused her of entering the U.S. Capitol and stealing Pelosi’s laptop and seized some laptops and cellphones from their home, according to an interview with KSRM-AM radio.

“So, I think almost right off the bat, they said, ‘Well, you probably know why we’re here,’ or something like that. It’s like, ‘Yeah, no, not really.’ And they said, ‘Well, we’re here for Nancy Pelosi’s laptop.’ And I said, ‘Oh.’”

Hueper said the warrant did not specifically name Pelosi but said she was told by officers they were searching for the laptop.

A spokeswoman for the FBI in Anchorage confirmed to Anchorage Daily News the agency did conduct a “court-authorized law enforcement activity” on April 28 at the address of the Huepers.

“We just can’t discuss the details or existence of an investigation,” FBI spokeswoman Chloe Martin said.

Hueper said agents broke down her door Wednesday morning as she, her husband, and other guests were asleep.

Officers had their guns drawn and handcuffed everyone in the home, including their guests, Hueper said. The woman said she and her husband were placed in different rooms and couldn’t see what was happening as officers searched.

An officer took out a photo of a woman from the riot and asked Hueper if she could identify the person. Hueper said she was surprised because the woman looked like her and had a coat like the one she owns. Hueper said a second picture of the suspect showed the woman in a sweater that she had never worn or owned.

The Huepers did attend a rally in Washington, D.C., for then-President Donald Trump just before the Capitol invasion that day, though the woman claims she and her husband never entered the U.S. Capitol or stole any materials from inside.

The article notes:

A Pennsylvania woman who was also accused of stealing Pelosi’s laptop during the Capitol riot was arrested in January, though her attorney said at the time the FBI did not obtain the device from his client.

First of all, it sounds as if the FBI needs to up their game on their investigative skills. Second of all, it seems as if a lot of people are being subjected to early morning raids that might not be warranted. We are getting very close to a government that is using intimidation tactics on its political opposition. That is not a good place to be.

A Portrait Of Things To Come

One of the things that President Trump did that positively impacted the American economy was to deal with over-regulation and to make sure that the rights of people who chose not to join unions were protected. Well, that was then; this is now.

Yesterday The Washington Free Beacon reported on a recent ruling by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

The article reports:

President Joe Biden’s labor arbiter threw out hundreds of votes from workers attempting to cut ties with a Delaware union.

The National Labor Relations Board overruled hundreds of Delaware poultry workers who had voted to reject union leadership. The agency said in a 3-1 ruling released Wednesday that a provision prohibiting workers from leaving a union for a set time period after a contract is signed allowed the board to ignore the workers’ March 2020 vote. The decision reversed a regional NLRB director who had initially ruled in the workers’ favor.

Oscar Cruz Sosa, the employee who led the charge to hold the election, ripped union leadership for disregarding the voices of workers. “The union has been harassing and intimidating us for a long time and it’s unbelievable that they’re going to get their way by having 800 ballots destroyed,” Cruz Sosa told the Washington Free Beacon.

The article notes:

The decision marks a victory for the local chapter of the United Food and Commercial Workers union, the nation’s largest private sector union and a major backer of Democratic candidates. The union’s PAC spent more than $1.2 million in 2020 electing Democratic candidates.

Of course they did.

The article concludes:

The decision comes after the NLRB became engulfed in a political scandal over a series of unprecedented personnel moves made by Biden. As one of his first moves in office, the Democrat fired the NLRB’s top prosecutor after the general counsel refused to resign. Glenn Taubman, a National Right to Work attorney who helped represent Cruz Sosa, said the Biden administration has repeatedly signaled that it “exists solely to please labor union officials.”

“They do not give one whit about employees and employee rights. All they want is to force employees to pay dues to labor union officials, whether those employees want to or not,” Taubman said. “The whole tone and tenor of this administration is, ‘We’re here for the union bosses and if it’s good for them, we don’t care who it harms or it’s bad for.'”

The NLRB declined to comment further on the decision beyond the press release. The United Food and Commercial Workers union did not respond to a request for comment.

The politicization of the NLRB began under President Obama.

On August 11, 2015, The Washington Examiner reported:

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday that Lafe Solomon, the former acting general counsel for the National Labor Relations Board from 2011 through 2013, had been serving in violation of the law governing federal appointments. It was the latest example of a federal court throwing out President Obama’s picks for the board, which is the main federal labor law enforcement agency.

Last year, the Supreme Court ruled in the case Noel Canning v. NLRB that three of Obama’s 2012 recess appointments to board were unconstitutional. The decision voided an entire year’s worth of agency decisions.

Friday’s ruling is unlikely to be as far-reaching as the Supreme Court decision. A three-judge panel for the circuit court was careful to say the ruling was specific to the case in question, which involved a business that had directly challenged the legality of Solomon’s appointment at the time he was serving, and would extend only those that had made the same challenge.

Unfortunately, any objectivity in the NLRB will be further eroded under President Biden. The formerly non-partisan NLRB is simply another casualty of the 2020 presidential election.

Actions Have Consequences

Yesterday The Washington Examiner posted an article warning of the consequences of passing the Biden administration’s infrastructure bill.

The article reports:

We are often told to “follow the science.” This is true of wearing masks, how we teach children to read, and addressing the perils of climate change. So we should probably better do the same with the economy, no?

Consider the new Congressional Budget Office report on that very thing, the budget, the economy, and how we tax it. Let’s assume that we want the Federal government to spend lots more money on infrastructure. I don’t, because I’m certain that the money will be sprayed up the wall like the last few trillions were.

Still, the CBO report is useful in laying down the basic science of taxation. Whatever we tax, we’ll get less of. Tax corporations and there will be less corporate activity. Tax the income from capital investment and there will be less investment. Tax labor incomes and fewer will work so hard to make that money. Put simply, if people get less from doing something, they’ll do less of it. Toddlers grasp this: they will do more for two pieces of candy and less for one. In the jargon these are known as “deadweights.” That is to say, things that do not happen, economic activity that is wiped out by taxation.

Yes, it’s true that we can buy lovely things with the money that has been taxed, or at least we might. But it is still true that the act of taxing itself reduces economic activity. Worthwhile tax and spend is defined as that which is even more lovely in its results than what we’ve lost by financing it.

The Democrats seem to be unaware of the Laffer Curve. That is the principle that says that after people who produce wealth are taxed to a certain point, they will stop producing wealth. We will reach a point where the only way to pay for our bloated government is to devalue our currency. That is happening to some extent right now. The result of that will be hyper-inflation and a total collapse of our economy. That is the end result of unbridled tax and spend programs.

We Need To Find Some Of Our ‘Experts’ A Hobby

Yesterday The  Washington Examiner reported that the Arizona Education Department has created an “equity toolkit” that encourages parents to talk to their children about race–beginning as early as three months. Right. I remember some of the intellectual discussions I had with my children when they were three months old.

The article reports:

“SCOOP: The Arizona Department of Education has created an ‘equity’ toolkit claiming that babies show the first signs of racism at three months old and that white children ‘remain strongly biased in favor of whiteness’ by age five,” writer Christopher F. Rufo reported on Twitter.

…An infographic included with the tweet shows how children’s racial attitudes evolve from birth to age 6, with newborn babies showing no racial preferences but starting to develop one as early as 3 months old.

“At birth, babies look equally at faces of all races. At 3 months, babies look more at faces that match the race of their caregivers,” the graphic says.

By 30 months, children are using race to choose playmates, and by ages 4 to 5, children’s “expressions of racial prejudice peak.”

But while black and Hispanic children start to lose their inherent racism, white children are apparently prone to carry racial biases further into adolescence.

The article concludes:

The resource says that white people “throw in terms” such as “the race card, black-on-black crime, reverse racism” and “colorblindness” as a way to “alleviate some of their white fragility.”

“These are made-up terms that white people use to feel better about themselves,” the resource says.

While the resource says it is a “good” thing for white people to have had children, partners, and friends of color, it warns that “those relationships do not give you a one-way ticket out of Racism Town.”

“Unless we, as white people, are listening, learning, and changing based on what we’re being taught within these relationships, we aren’t doing any good at all,” the resource continues. “In fact, we’re doing more harm than good. Clapping back when being called out only proves that white people cannot stand not to be at the center of every single conversation, policy, and action.”

The Arizona Department of Education did not immediately respond to the Washington Examiner’s request for comment.

I firmly believe that you could fertilize your garden with the information put out in the ‘equity toollkit.’

Common Sense In Alabama

Yesterday The Washington Examiner reported that the Alabama state Senate voted Tuesday to make it a felony for medical professionals to treat minors with hormone therapy or sex change surgery.

The article reports:

The bill, sponsored by Republican state Sen. Shay Shelnutt and dubbed the Vulnerable Child Compassion and Protection Act, passed through the chamber by a margin of 23-4, according to CBS News.

The bill would result in criminal felony charges for any medical professional who treats transgender minors under the age of 19 with “gender-affirming care” and would come with the punishment of up to 10 years in prison or a $15,000 fine.

…The bill also requires school staff in the state to notify parents that “a minor’s perception that his or her gender is inconsistent with his or her sex.”

If signed into law, the bill would be the first of its kind in the United States to be enacted.

The article includes the following information about objections to the bill:

Liberal groups, including the Southern Poverty Law Center, AIDS Alabama, and the Alabama American Civil Liberties Union, have voiced opposition to the bill, arguing that it puts transgender children at risk.

“Lawmakers are insisting that they know what’s best for transgender young people and ignoring the recommendations of medical experts, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, and more,” Allison Scott, a director at the Campaign for Southern Equality, said about the legislation. “It’s effectively endangering many possible lifelines for a transgender child: Under this bill, they can’t go to their doctor for help, and they can’t seek counsel or comfort from their teachers or school staff.”

The children need to talk to their parents. That should be their first resort. Also, you can’t get your ears pierced without parental consent if you are under 18, why should you be encouraged to make such a life-changing decision without their knowledge or consent? If a child still wants to make that decision at 19, then he is considered an adult. However, I would like to point out that we don’t let children smoke or drink until they are 21. Why would we allow them to change their sex before they can smoke or drink? The logic escapes me.

A Seriously Misnamed Bill

Today the House of Representatives passed the Equality Act. The Act is would amend the 1964 Civil Rights Act to protect people from being discriminated based on sexual orientation and gender identity in employment, housing and other services as well as access to public accommodations such as restaurants. That sounds very innocent until you look closer to see what it actually means. There is nothing equal about the Equality Act.

Yesterday The Washington Examiner posted an article explaining exactly what the Act will do.

The article reports:

If this bill is adopted, the fact that we are male or female is in danger of being replaced with the subjective concept of gender identity. The ramifications of this change, at the center of our universe of knowledge about human beings, would be profound. Making gender identity a protected class in the 1964 Civil Rights Act would discredit the idea that sex is binary, that men and women are different, and that recognition of these differences can be helpful to achieving justice and fairness in a variety of circumstances.

A legal change of this magnitude, based on subjective and transient feelings, is unprecedented. But gender identity is riding on a powerful wave of identity politics that seeks to upend a perceived “power structure” that “privileges” those who are comfortable with their bodies. “Cisgender normativity” might be an easy concept to dismiss along with erasure of mother and father,” and the introduction of “chestfeeding.” But to think of the gender identity revolution as merely another chapter in “woke” wonderland would be to miss the import of the linguistic, cultural, and political revolution for the integrity of education, medicine, and science.

Like the heliocentric model, the sex binary was once consistently taught in every academic discipline and at all levels. Sex differences inform everything from our treatment of disease, to the benefits of single-sex education, to our understanding of parenting and leadership styles. But postmodernism, the sexual revolution, and critical gender and queer theory have firmly placed feelings at the center of academia, displacing empirical knowledge. Every discipline has been transformed, not just literature and history, but even the hard sciences. The Medical College Admissions Test now asks about the gender identity of patients. The American Association of Medical Colleges is the major accrediting body for medical schools. Its inclusion of this question signals to aspiring doctors that they must show not just knowledge and skills but ideological conformity.

The article concludes:

Perhaps most alarming are the stories of regret from a growing number of “detransitioners.” Their bodies are scarred, their voices broken, and their fertility lost — casualties of hormones and surgeries that failed to deliver peace. Those who have tried to sound the alarm, such as feminist icon J.K. Rowling, tennis pioneer Martina Navratilova, and leading medical experts Dr. Paul McHugh, are bulldozed. Name, shame, cancel, repeat.

If the Equality Act passes the House this week, it won’t be the result of new scientific discoveries about the sexes or the result of a thoughtful, open political debate. It will be the denial of all that previous generations around the world have learned and observed about sex differences over centuries. It will be the triumph of cancel culture over facts, reason, and empirical knowledge. And if the sex binary can be canceled, who knows what’s next?

Gender isn’t fluid–it’s contained in your DNA. To encourage children of any age to take drastic medical steps to become something they are not is simply child abuse. Unfortunately this bill enshrines that behavior. We are in a very sad place as a society.

Perspective Matters

Yesterday Breitbart posted an article about President Biden’s recent call to Chinese dictator Xi Jinping.

The article notes:

Chinese media outlets praised President Joe Biden on Wednesday for what they characterized as a respectful, “positive” call between the head of state and Chinese dictator Xi Jinping.

The Xinhua news agency and the Global Times state propaganda newspaper both highlighted the timing – on the eve of the Lunar New Year – as a gesture of goodwill from the new presidential administration. The former expressed hope that, after President Donald Trump’s tenure featured policies designed to contain the influence of the Chinese Communist Party abroad and frequent condemnations of its human rights atrocities, America under Biden would return to the “right track” of policy favorable to Beijing.

I am all in favor of diplomacy and getting along with everyone, but let’s take a look at what the “right track” might be in the eyes of China. On February 9th, The Washington Examiner posted an article with the following headline, “Biden withdraws Trump rule on schools disclosing ties to Chinese state-run Confucius Institutes.” The Biden administration has put the sale of TikTok on hold. The Trump administration was working to sell the company to a majority-owned American company due to national security concerns.

The article at Breitbart notes:

Chinese media coverage of the phone call, the first between the two since Biden became president, contrasted considerably with American mainstream media claims that Biden had “pressured” Xi on issues such as the genocide of the Uyghur people in western Xinjiang or the repression of political dissidents in Hong Kong.

“The Spring Festival is a very important holiday for the Chinese,” Xinhua’s coverage noted. “The telephone conversation between the two heads of state on the eve of the Lunar New Year marks a new starting point for direct communication, symbolizes goodwill, and conforms to the expectations of the Chinese and Americans, as well as those of the wider global community.”

The article concludes:

Mainstream American outlets did not convey in their coverage of the call a sense that Biden had been overly effusive in sharing goodwill or “respect,” as their Chinese counterparts did. The New York Times painted the call as aggressive, leading with the claim that Biden raised “concerns about Beijing’s aggressive policies abroad and human rights abuses at home,” which Chinese outlets largely disregarded. The newspaper nonetheless noted that Biden has “said that he believed he had spent more time with Mr. Xi than he has with any other world leader.”

CNN similarly claimed that Biden “call[ed] China out on a range of issues related to its nefarious use of technology, unfair trade and human rights abuses,” citing unidentified sources within the Biden administration.

NBC News, citing the White House, also led its coverage with an emphasis on Biden mentioning the existence of human rights problems in China.

Somehow I think the media has sold us out.

At Least Someone Is Fighting This Policy

On Thursday, The Washington Examiner posted an article about the Western Energy Alliance. This group sued the Biden administration Wednesday alleging that the pause on oil and gas leases on federal land and waters exceeds presidential authority.

The article reports:

As part of President Biden’s ultimate goal of eliminating fossil fuel as a power source by 2035, and from the entire U.S. economy entirely by 2050, Wednesday’s executive orders direct agencies to end federal subsidies for fossil fuels, to pause new oil and gas leases on federal lands and water. It aims to conserve 30% of the country’s lands and ocean waters in the next 10 years and requires federal agencies to move to all-electric vehicle fleets.

It carries significant risks and opposition.

Michael Shellenberger, the author of Apocalypse Never, said: “Climate change is not the most important environmental problem. Most of the trends are going in the right direction: Deaths from natural disasters are at an all-time low. Carbon emissions in the United States peaked over a decade ago; they’ve been going down ever since. They’ve been going down in wealthy countries for almost 40 years. We should continue to do what’s been working, replacing coal with natural gas and nuclear, but this is not the apocalyptic trend that people have been led to believe it is.”

Shellenberger, an environmentalist, a Democrat, and Biden voter, maintains that wind and solar produce their own environmental damage, adding, “They just gave permission, the federal government, to industrial wind farms to kill condors. This is, for people that are environmentalists, true conservationists — that’s bonkers.”

The article concludes:

Republicans will no doubt attack what they see as Democratic hypocrisy on the issue. Climate czar Kerry is known to fly on the Heinz Family Foundation’s private Gulfstream jet. Private jets consume roughly 40 times the carbon per passenger as commercial jets.

I support using the cleanest energy possible. However, the idea of running an economy entirely on green energy reminds me of the search for the perpetual motion machine. There are laws of physics that come into play when you are dealing with energy, the creation of energy, and motion.

We need to learn from the experience of Spain, as detailed in The Daily Caller on August 28, 2014.

Please follow the link to read the entire article in The Daily Caller, but this is the bottom line:

Spain has actually been scaling back its costly green energy agenda the past year or two in the face of high debt and unemployment. The country cut wind subsidies to major wind farms back in February and, in June, Spanish officials announced a new electricity rate schedule that effectively ended green energy feed-in tariffs.

The IER study also notes that Spain’s green agenda was not able to keep its carbon footprint from rising. Between 1994 and 2011, Spain’s carbon dioxide emissions grew 34.5 percent, despite the country’s green push which began in the 1990s.

“While the renewable policies themselves were likely not the cause of the emissions increase, the upward trend does prove that renewable energy policies were insufficient to reduce CO2 emissions over a roughly twenty-year period,” according to IER.

“is anything but the model for American energy policy,” reads the IER study. “The country’s expensive feed-in tariff system, subsidies, and renewable energy quotas have plunged a sizable portion of Spaniards into fuel poverty, raised electricity bills, all while having almost no meaningful impact on curtailing carbon dioxide emissions.”

We shouldn’t try to reinvent the wheel. We need to learn the lessons of those who already reinvented the wheel and discovered it needed to be round. To attempt to go down the same road as Spain, ignoring the lessons they learned, is folly.