Der Grëtchënführër™ strikes again (as if this wasn’t expected)


Governor vetoes Theis bill protecting Second Amendment rights
Would have guaranteed issue of concealed pistol licenses during emergencies
LANSING, Mich. — Sen. Lana Theis’ legislation that would have ensured the issuance and renewal of concealed pistol licenses during declared emergencies was vetoed by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer on Friday.

“This is a disappointing day for gun owners,” said Theis, R-Brighton. “The Second Amendment is clear that the rights of law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but that is exactly what Gov. Gretchen Whitmer did today.

“People must be able to defend their life and property even, and especially, in times of emergency. State law is clear that county clerks shall issue concealed pistol licenses to those who are qualified, and my bill would have ensured that this essential service would continue regardless of any declared emergency.

“While I am disappointed with Whitmer’s veto, I cannot say that I am shocked. She has never supported gun owners and she likely never will. I hope responsible gun owners will continue their efforts to protect this right. I certainly will.”

Theis fielded numerous complaints throughout the COVID-19 pandemic that county clerks across the state refused or delayed issuing or renewing concealed pistol licenses, infringing on law-abiding citizens’ Second Amendment rights.

Senate Bill 11 would have required county clerks to continue to issue and renew concealed pistol licenses regardless of any shutdown issued by executive order or public health order. County clerks and law enforcement would have also been required to continue providing the fingerprinting services necessary to obtain a new concealed pistol license.

Additionally, the bill would have enabled the Michigan State Police to provide personal identification numbers to concealed pistol license holders, so they may renew their licenses online during any declared emergency.

The Democrats Are Trying to Hide a Very Dirty Secret About Electric Cars

The Left views electric cars like the Rings of Power. It’s predictable but also pathetic. Driving electric cars saves the environment, says the left-wing drone. It emits next to nothing regarding carbon emissions, except that it does. Do liberals think we don’t know that this whole fad is a con game? Where do you think the energy that powers the batteries comes from? Fairies? Electric cars aren’t as efficient as gas-powered vehicles, but you pay more because…of feelings. Screw that. Green energy is a backdoor to communism from greenies who talk more about controlling the means of production than saving Mother Earth. Clean energy is a grift and political crony project aimed at giving fat cat donors tax breaks. Solyndra forever ruined this industry. I don’t care what anyone says, it’s all a long miserable exercise in subsidizing sub-par products.

Coal is what powers your electric car. Do liberals even know that? The very people who mock states like West Virginia don’t seem to know that these areas allow them to drive their precious, overpriced electric cars (via The Federalist):

To advance their climate agenda and deflect backlash about rising gas prices, Democrats are telling Americans that driving electric cars is for the greater good of the environment, fully knowing the charging stations for these cars are not fossil fuel free.

In reality, one of Tesla’s Supercharger stations was reported to get 13 percent of their energy from natural gas and 27 percent from coal. Power plants burn coal to generate electricity to power electric cars and emit a higher fossil fuel footprint than the left would care to admit.

While these vehicles may be falsely advertised, many who invest in these overpriced cars are able to avoid paying the currently outrageous gas prices. Still, Americans’ growing reliance on electric cars and the batteries they require will increase our dependence on countries such as China for materials.

“Chinese companies, particularly CATL, have secured vast supplies of the raw materials that go inside the batteries,” The New York Times reported in December. “That dominance has stirred fears in Washington that Detroit could someday be rendered obsolete, and that Beijing could control American driving in the 21st century the way that oil-producing nations sometimes could in the 20th.”

By increasing our use of electric cars, the United States will require more lithium batteries and will further rely on China to sustain our supply.

Well, isn’t that peachy. Liberals seem to have the yellow fever when it comes to China, or at least they’re a bit kinky when it comes to their wanting to be dominated by this country. Gas prices began to soar when Joe Biden took a hatchet to the Keystone Pipeline and our own oil and gas industry. That’s just a fact.

With the Ukraine war raging now, and sanctions being slapped on Russia for their invasion, the line the Biden White House is selling right now is ‘if you worried about $8/gallon for gas, you should buy a…$50k+ electric car.’ It’s almost too good to be true. You cannot make it up. The Democrats’ plan to ease gas price pain for a large swath of Americans is to force them to buy vehicles they can’t afford. A part of that is due to liberals being idiots. The other part is that it shows how the Democratic Party doesn’t know working people anymore. It’s all urban-based, rich, over-educated, and very white people making these snide remarks. The professional Left is the Democratic Party—and these people view those who drive pick-up trucks as neo-Nazis.

The dirty little secret is that a lot of fossil fuels are used to power the liberal delusions behind their electric car fetish. The Federalist did a great job sifting through the nonsense.

It is an often repeated line that SloJoe has always been on the wrong side of a foreign policy decision even since he set foot in office as a senator


BLUF:
The Arab ministers are telling the US that if it cannot see a terrorist group for what it is, the Arabs are capable of doing so.

The message that many Arabs are sending to Washington is that the appeasement of the mullahs and failure to stand with friends in the Arab world is emboldening the Houthis and other Islamic terrorist groups that are threatening not only Arabs and Muslims, but the US and other Western countries as well.

If the Biden administration and its friends reach a new deal with Iran’s mullahs, we are likely to see more Arabs come out against the US.

Saudi Arabia’s then Minister of Foreign Affairs, Adel al-Jubeir, already warned years ago, “We have made it very clear that if Iran acquires a nuclear capability we will do everything we can to do the same.”

The Arabs consider Iran a lethal threat to their national security and the stability of the entire Middle East and other parts of the world. If the Biden administration is going to align itself with the mullahs, it will lose the support of its Arab and Muslim allies, who feel bitterly betrayed and fear that nuclear weapons will end up in the hands of these very mullahs and their terrorist groups.

A Final Warning from Arabs to Biden

  • In a message directed at the Biden administration and the other Western powers involved in the Vienna negotiations, the Arab countries said that Iran and its terrorist militias are continuing to create chaos and instability, especially in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Lebanon.
  • The Arabs, including the Arab League, are telling the Biden administration that, in their view, it is not only Iran that threatens their security, but also its terrorist proxies, including Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and the Houthis.
  • The Arabs are clearly worried about the financial and military aid that Iran is providing to the terrorist groups.
  • Any deal with Iran will further strengthen these groups and encourage them to step up their terrorist attacks.
  • The Arabs are also worried that when Iran obtains nuclear weapons, they will sooner or later find their way into the hands of its terrorist proxies and other terrorist groups, including Islamic State (ISIS) and Al-Qaeda.
  • “This president [Biden] is deaf. He cannot be trusted.” – Ali Al-Sarraf, Iraqi political analyst, Al-Arab, March 12, 2022.
  • If the Biden administration and its friends reach a new deal with Iran’s mullahs, we are likely to see more Arabs come out against the US.
  • “We have made it very clear that if Iran acquires a nuclear capability we will do everything we can to do the same.” — Adel al-Jubeir, then Saudi Minister of Foreign Affairs, to CNN, May 9, 2018.
  • The Arabs consider Iran a lethal threat to their national security and the stability of the entire Middle East and other parts of the world. If the Biden administration is going to align itself with the mullahs, it will lose the support of its Arab and Muslim allies, who feel bitterly betrayed and fear that nuclear weapons will end up in the hands of these very mullahs and their terrorist groups.

In what appears to be an eleventh hour and desperate warning to the Biden administration against striking a deal with the Iranian regime, four Arab countries have expressed deep concern over Iran’s ballistic missile program and ongoing support for terrorism.

In a statement issued in Cairo on March 9, the Arab Quartet Committee — Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Bahrain and Egypt — said that Iran continues to interfere in the internal affairs of Arab countries and play a role in sowing sectarian discord among them by supporting and arming terrorist groups such as the Houthi and Hezbollah militias.

The statement was issued amid growing concern in some Arab countries, that the US and other Western powers could reach a deal with Iran to revive the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, also known as the Iran nuclear deal.

Continue reading “”

From earlier;
Yeah, give guns to others but want to take guns from us.

The U.S. will directly transfer the following equipment to the Ukrainian military as part of the latest package, according to a White House fact sheet:

800 Stinger anti-aircraft systems
2,000 Javelin anti-armor missiles
1,000 light anti-armor weapons
6,000 AT-4 anti-armor systems
100 Tactical Unmanned Aerial Systems (armed drones)
7,000 small arms for both military and civilian use (100 grenade launchers, 5,000 rifles, 1,000 pistols, 400 machine guns and 400 shotguns)
Over 20 million rounds of ammunition
25,000 sets of body armor
25,000 helmets

Columbia, SC to roll back gun control amid state threats

Some cities think they should pass gun control measures regardless of what rules the state may have in place. In South Carolina, for example, they have preemption. That means cities are forbidden from trying to have local gun control in place. Columbia, South Carolina seemed to think that rule didn’t apply to them.

Now, they’re trying to roll back the gun control measures they passed so they don’t lose state funding.

Columbia will move forward with repealing a series of gun-control measures after bowing from a court fight with S.C. Attorney General Alan Wilson and not wanting a fight with state lawmakers who have the power to fund much-needed city projects.

Columbia, with the backing of then-Mayor Steve Benjamin, passed a series of gun ordinances in 2019 making it illegal to possess firearms within 1,000 feet of a school; allowing gun seizures from people under an extreme risk protection order, commonly known as a “red flag” law; and a rule that added buildings where homemade firearms known as “ghost guns” are constructed to be subject to the city’s nuisance laws.

Wilson sued the city in 2020, arguing that state law preempted local authority on the gun regulations. A Richland County judge sided with Wilson in 2021.

The City Council gave initial approval March 15 to roll back the gun rules in a split vote. Mayor Daniel Rickenmann and council members Aditi Bussells, Howard Duvall and Joe Taylor voted to repeal. Council members Tina Herbert, Ed McDowell and Will Brennan voted against taking the ordinances off of the books.

It seems some of the City Council objected to the idea that they lost the court case. Of course, they did.

The confusion was because the city planned to appeal, but withdrew the appeal the day of the vote. However, that wouldn’t have changed matters in the least. Preemption laws have been upheld time and time again, so there’s no reason to believe South Carolina’s preemption law would have been an exception.

This leads us to what state lawmakers were considering to push the city back on the straight and narrow.

State Rep. Kirkman Finlay, a Columbia Republican and member of the House budget-writing committee, said he urged a city lobbyist and some council members to outright repeal the rules after the deferred vote or risk jeopardizing his ability to secure backing for $170 million the city requested from lawmakers for a number of projects.

At the top of the list is a $35 million request to fix train crossings that can snarl traffic around downtown.…

Finlay has proposed a bill in the House that would allow the state to withhold money for municipalities that do not follow state law.

Frankly, it’s certainly an option that states should at least consider.

See, the problem with far too many preemption laws is that they lack any real teeth. A municipality can pass a gun control law and while it may be illegal, it can linger indefinitely for any number of reasons. Usually, it’s because private citizens lack standing to challenge such a measure unless they’ve been impacted–that often means “arrested”–and if the state opts not to do its job, you get quite the mess.

We’ve seen it happen in Pennsylvania, for example.

Threatening to withhold funding for various projects may be a good incentive to keep places like Columbia from trying to pass their own gun control measures.

Observation O’ The Day
“Most of the West is run by woke morons. The West’s wealth has largely insulated it from the costs associated with having morons in charge, but we’ve pretty much run through the safety margins.”


Scottish Government Ignores Frantic Food Crisis Warnings, Embraces Green Piety.

The Ukraine was the bread basket of Europe, and Russia was a major source of fertiliser. Yet as the interruption of grain and fertiliser supplies raises the spectre of crop failures and severe food shortages, senior British politicians are ignoring frantic pleas from farmers to release arable land reserved for “re-wilding” projects, and other whacky green schemes.

Green Agenda: Minister Ignores Ukraine Food Crisis Warnings in Favour of Solving ‘Nature Emergency’

PETER CADDLE 14 Mar 2022

A UK minister has ignored the pleas of farmers to take action against the forthcoming Ukraine food crisis in favour of maintaining her leftist government’s green agenda.

As the Ukraine crisis causes Europe’s food security situation to significantly worsen, British farmers have asked authorities to allow land earmarked for “rewilding” to be used for crops in the hopes of curbing ever-rising food prices.

However, Scotland’s leftist Biodiversity minister, Lorna Slater, has outright rejected the farmers’ pleas, instead prioritising pushing her government’s green agenda.…

“We want to do as much as we can for nature and the environment, and we have done that for a long time and yes we will do more,” said the president of the National Union of Farmers Scotland, Martin Kennedy.

“But right now the world has changed and we need to focus on what is really important… food and water is something we take for granted far too much,” he warned.

However, despite the serious supply problems the Ukraine crisis poses for Britain’s supply of food, Minister Slater has outright dismissed the request in favour of her administration’s green agenda.

“We are still in a nature emergency that hasn’t gone away… so it’s a no,” Slater is reported as saying in response to the pleas of farmers.…

Read more: https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2022/03/14/green-agenda-minister-ignores-ukraine-food-crisis-warnings-in-favour-of-solving-nature-emergency/

If you can’t get your hands on enough fertiliser, the next best option is to expand the acreage of cultivated land, to bring every acre of arable land you can get your hands on into production, like Britain did in WW2.

Fertiliser production is an energy intensive process, which is why it has long been outsourced to countries like China and Russia, the number one and two global producers, countries which have plenty of cheap energy. Just under 2% of the world’s global energy production is expended producing ammonia, a first step in the production of agricultural fertiliser. The USA and Canada produce significant amounts of Ammonia, but US and Canadian production is dwarfed by Russian and Chinese production.

The chemical factories which produce ammonia are very large, and contain enormous, multi-story, high pressure reaction vessels. Not something which could be built in five minutes – especially in nations which have also outsourced most of their heavy industry to Russia and China. I fully support starting construction of new fertiliser plants, but plants which have yet to be built won’t solve this year’s problems.

Fertiliser application makes a big difference to crop productivity – around 35 – 60% of modern crop yields is attributable to application of fertiliser. We might get away with one year of reduced fertiliser application, but If soils are depleted by a series of years in which inadequate fertiliser is applied, crop yields could drop by more than 60%.

It doesn’t take much to trigger a food crisis. In 2007-2008 the world experienced a food crisis. The 2007-2008 crisis was not severe enough to significantly affect rich nations, but it led to mass starvation and riots in poor countries. The root cause in that case was a series of droughts, and excessive biofuel subsidies. Just a small blip in production and use of food was enough to push millions of people into hunger.

There is no way of knowing how the current food crisis risk will play out, and who will be affected.

Time is running out to make a decision – northern nations like Britain have very well defined planting and growing seasons. Some high nutrition plants like potatoes grow well throughout Britain, including Scotland, but planting must start in the next month, for most crops, or it will be too late to harvest by the end of Summer.

I strongly suggest people in Britain let green obsessives like Minister Lorna Slater know their “nature emergencies” and re-wilding projects can wait, before British food prices spiral out of the reach of poor people.

We are ‘led’ by the literally mentally defective

Biden’s Remarks at ‘Equal Pay’ Event Were a Gaffe-Filled Dumpster Fire

The White House hosted a Women’s History Month event on Tuesday evening to highlight the left’s ‘Equal Pay Day’ but President Biden apparently decided to make an attempt at breaking the record for how many gaffes he could spit out during his 14 minute remarks.

Right out of the gate, President Biden sought to explain who wasn’t appearing at the event with him saying “there’s been a little change in the arrangement of who’s on the stage because of the First Lady’s husband contracted COVID, but look at this room and what you see,” Biden stated before someone off-stage in the White House pointed out that the “First Lady’s husband” is…Joe Biden. Uncomfortable laughter from the crowd followed as Biden said “that’s right, she’s fine, that’s me that’s not together.” No kidding.

Biden continued by referring to Doug Emhoff as “the Second Lady” before correcting himself with (also wrong) “First Gentleman,” listing two additional incorrect monikers for Kamala Harris’ husband who is in fact the Second Gentleman and not the husband of the president nor the vice president’s wife, nor a lady.

But Biden’s nomenclature challenges didn’t end there. In a line about his U.N. ambassador, the president incorrectly called her “Linda Thomas-Greenhouse,” before correcting himself and using her actual name Linda Thomas-Greenfield. Biden was reading from his teleprompter at this point and, assuming the White House knows the name of the ambassador to the United Nations, Biden should have trusted the words scrolling in front of his eyes. It also wasn’t the first time Biden incorrectly called her “Greenhouse.”

Then, when telling one of his classic freewheeling anecdotes, Biden tripped himself up talking about his Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm. “I often kid her, and I wasn’t kidding, early on when I was seeking the nomination had she been born in America she’d be standing here and I’d be sitting there,” Biden said.

“She was a former governor of the state of, uh, Michigan. Michigan, wrong,” Biden said incorrectly fact-checking himself in real-time. “She was a former state of, she was a governor. I’m teasing.” Biden was, of course, right the first time. But he incorrectly corrected himself, called Granholm a former state, and then decided to write the situation off as “teasing.” Hoo-boy.

Continue reading “”

Biden Blames the Jews for His Ukraine Policy
The president and his people try to seal a new Iran deal by hanging their appeasement of Putin on Israel

Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was precipitated by assurances from China, Germany, and the United States that each of Russia’s major trading partners either backed his position or had zero interest in getting in his way. President Joe Biden’s invitations to Putin to bite off more chunks of Ukraine made it clear that America was not interested in a fight with the Russian dictator in his own backyard. Surely, the mighty Putin would make quick work of the Ukrainians. After all, he helped put down the Syrian rebellion to preserve Iran’s stake in Syria, and thereby sealed Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with the clerical regime in Tehran. So why make a big fuss, especially since at the same time Putin is intent on breaking Ukraine, he is also brokering the new Iran Deal with U.S. negotiators in Vienna?

The problem for Biden is that Putin is not winning his war in anything like the quick and easy fashion that the White House and other world powers apparently expected. Moreover, the prospect of a dictator murdering thousands of Ukrainians in Europe in a prolonged war may be a tougher pill to swallow for so-called Western elites than the same dictator helping to murder half a million Syrians.

Continue reading “”

You have his word as a Biden.


Biden pledges: We won’t fight a war against Russia in Ukraine.

A leftover from Friday. Hawks are complaining about this statement on grounds that it implicitly invites Putin to grab any non-NATO country he likes and to pummel Ukraine into submission using whatever conventional means he can muster.

 

BLUF:
The problem, in an age of political polarization, is that about 40% of the population will automatically believe anything a Democrat tells them, even if it contradicts the most basic principles of economics, and there is a vast media establishment which won’t even question Biden’s bizarre counterfactual claims about inflation, energy policy, etc. All that matters to them is the cynical question, “Cui bono?” Who benefits from a particular belief — Democrats or Republicans?……..

Thus does “truth” become a partisan prize, over which one party claims a monopoly. By selling their souls to advance this belief system, the media destroy their own credibility. Then they wonder why we don’t trust them.

‘Simply Not True.

Joe Biden believes he is honest, and that anyone who disagrees with him is lying, or is ignorant, or has been deceived by liars.

So deeply convinced is Joe Biden of his own honesty that he thinks his very name is synonymous with truth-telling:

“I give you my word as a Biden: I will never stoop to President Trump’s level.”
— Nov. 20, 2019

“I give you my word as a Biden: If I am elected president I will do everything in my power to protect our children from gun violence.”
— March 10, 2020

“I give you my word as a Biden: When I’m president, I will lead with science, listen to the experts and heed their advice, and always tell you the truth.”
— March 18, 2020

When I first noticed him using this “my word as a Biden” phrase during the 2020 campaign, I was puzzled. Has the Biden family been so prominently associated with honesty that when Joe says this, most Americans say, “Well, that settles it”? Of course not. In fact, Biden’s first presidential campaign, in 1988, collapsed in disgrace specifically because of Joe’s dishonesty, when he was caught plagiarizing others — most notably British Labour leader Ne0l Kinnock — in his speeches:

Democratic presidential candidate Joseph R. Biden Jr., a U.S. senator from Delaware, was driven from the nomination battle after delivering, without attribution, passages from a speech by British Labor party leader Neil Kinnock. A barrage of subsidiary revelations by the press also contributed to Biden’s withdrawal: a serious plagiarism incident involving Biden during his law school years; the senator’s boastful exaggerations of his academic record at a New Hampshire campaign event; and the discovery of other quotations in Biden’s speeches pilfered from past Democratic politicians.

Joe Biden lies about a lot of things, including his own biography. It is fair to say he is notoriously dishonest, and yet he seems to believe that nobody knows this, and that he enjoys a reputation as a truth-teller.


[Well, that ‘he seems to believe’ goes along with the delusions of senile dementia and SloJoe believing his own propaganda. Sucks for us to have a Commander In Chief who for the time, is no more than a meat puppet, It makes you wonder what might happen if one day Joe decides that his handlers are wrong and he’s going to do something other than what they want him to, and Jill – and the secret service – decide to back him up.]


Continue reading “”

Oregon and Washington lift mask requirements today

PORTLAND — After spending a majority of the pandemic under statewide indoor face covering requirements, Washington and Oregon will be lifting their mask mandates Saturday — marking a significant step in restoring normalcy.

The milestone, which comes two years after the World Health Organization declared COVID-19 a pandemic, is on trend with the rest of the country as public health orders were dropped in droves. Oregon and Washington are among the last states to lift mask requirements.

“We’re turning a page in our fight against the COVID virus,” Washington Gov. Jay Inslee said during a recent news conference.

Last month — as COVID-19 cases and hospitalizations drastically declined, following a surge caused by the omicron variant — Oregon and Washington’s Democratic governors announced that they would be lifting rules requiring masks in indoor public places and schools on March 12.

Continue reading “”

It’s like the goobermint’s policies depend on which way the politics might affect the next election (which is really all that most politicians worry about anyway…keeping that cushy seat on the .gov gravy train)


From “After 2 Years of Pandemic Life, Turn Toward Normalcy Is a Shake-Up/As the Omicron variant recedes, cities and states with the longest mask and vaccine mandates are rapidly lifting them. The abrupt shift has unsettled the most vigilant Americans” (New York Times):


“Several people said they felt whipsawed as Democratic mayors and governors who once championed safety measures as a public good and emblem of civic virtue now seemed ready to turn the page…”

“… on a pandemic that, while easing, is still killing more than 1,000 people every day across the United States…. ‘It feels like we’ve truly been left to die,’ said Elizabeth Kestrel Rogers, a writer in Mountain View, Calif., with cystic fibrosis. ‘It seems too much too soon, like people are giving up because they can’t be bothered anymore.’… ‘We just haven’t learned,’ Dr. David Goldberg, 32, an internal medicine physician, said as he and his wife took their 1-year-old daughter, Isabel, for a walk through their neighborhood in Richmond, Va. Parents of children younger than 5, who are not eligible to be vaccinated…. He said he was standing in line at a grocery store recently when a man next to him complained that he did not feel well. ‘I was like, Dude, what are you doing?’ Dr. Goldberg said. ‘I feel for parents who are just waiting. They feel left behind. Kids can get sick and they can die.'”

 

“The best of hands………..”


UPDATE…….

As per Standard Operating Procedure, the White House transcript ‘clarifies’  the foot-in-mouth.


Remarks by Vice President Harris at the DNC Winter Meeting

“So I will say what I know we all say, and I will say over and over again: The United States stands firmly with the Ukrainian people >>[and]<< in defense of the NATO Alliance.”


The “and” was added after the fact, as indicated by brackets.

Rolling Stone: “there are better, cheaper ways of powering our world with oil, gas, and coal”

According to Rolling Stone, the best way to defeat Putin is renewable energy, which despite being cheaper than coal seems to be taking a long time to manifest.

Putin Is a Fossil-Fuel Gangster. Clean Energy Could Cut Him Off at the Knees

Putin’s war on Ukraine is financed by Russia’s vast oil-and-gas wealth, but the conflict may signal the endgame for the carbon mafia

For decades, world leaders and Big Oil CEOs were happy to turn a blind eye to Russian President Vladimir Putin’s autocratic impulses and fantasies of empire building. They were all fossil-fuel junkies, hooked on the easy money of oil and gas, and Putin had plenty of it.

They helped finance pipelines and drilling rigs, and then bought as much oil and gas as he would sell them. For Putin, the cash from fossil fuels fired up his darkest ambitions.

It not only helped him build the military force that he sent into Ukraine, it also gave him the means to stash billions in offshore banks that he believed would allow him to weather any economic fallout from the war.…

Among other things, Putin miscalculated how fast the world is changing. Industrial nations are in the midst of what energy geeks like to call “a great transition” away from fossil fuels and toward clean-energy sources. It is driven by the simple and brutal understanding that if the rich, Western world continues to burn fossil fuels in the future the way it has in the past, we will literally cook the planet, making it uninhabitable for life as we know it today.

If there is any good news to come out of the horrific carnage inflicted by this war, it’s this: Instead of slowing the transition to clean energy, Putin’s invasion of Ukraine may well have supercharged it. And however the war ends, Putin will pay the price. Russian oil and gas is now forever linked to autocracy, war crimes, and human carnage. “The war marks the end of Russia as an energy superpower,” says Tsafos.…

Predictably, Republicans and their corrupt band of climate crooks and deniers immediately used the invasion of Ukraine as an excuse to deepen our dependence on fossil fuels, not free ourselves from it. They willfully ignored the simple truth that there are better, cheaper ways of powering our world with oil, gas, and coal. To them fossil fuels are the energy equivalent of testosterone. Florida Sen. Marco Rubio tweeted that Biden’s “war on American oil and gas” made Putin stronger. South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem told Fox News that “from the very day [Biden] got into the White House, he gave Putin all the power.”…

Read more: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/putin-russia-ukraine-fossil-fuels-climate-change-1319417/

If renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuel, where is it? How many trillions have been wasted on useless renewables in Europe? Yet that Russian gas still keeps flowing.

Putin gets the joke. So long as European rulers and their cheerleaders cling to the delusion that renewable energy has anything to offer in terms of independence from the Russian gas teat, Putin will have a stranglehold on Europe.

 

It really doesn’t have to be this way. If Europe ditched their delusional belief in renewables, and embraced energy solutions which actually work, like scaling up coal mining and fracking in the short term, and a French style nuclear programme for the medium to long term, they would not be in the pathetic position begging Putin to maintain the flow of gas, even as Russia’s armies destroy one of their fellow European nations.

Why is this happening? Why are European nations finding it so difficult to behave rationally about energy policy, and take obvious countermeasures in the face of Russia’s energy blackmail, and the very real chance the Ukraine is just the beginning of Putin’s territorial ambitions?

I don’t have a good answer to those questions. But history contains plenty of examples of nations which responded irrationally to problems, and didn’t take obvious measures to counter external threats. Such nations are described in painstaking detail, in books whose titles start with “The fall of…”.

It wasn’t for the benefit of the children, but the state


Why Government Schooling Came to America.

In the first two essays in this series on the relationship between government and the education of children (“How the Redneck Intellectual Discovered Educational Freedom—and How You Can, Too” and “The New Abolitionism: A Manifesto for a Movement”), I established, first, how and why the principle of “Separation of School and State” is both a logical and moral necessity grounded in the rights of nature, and then I demonstrated how and why America’s government schools should be abolished as logical and moral necessities.

In this essay, I’d like to drill down more deeply into the nature and purposes of government schooling in order to further demonstrate how and why a system of government-run education is anathema to the tradition of American freedom and therefore immoral. Let me be clear (if I haven’t been so already): I regard the government school system to be the single worst and most destructive institution in America. It cannot be “reformed,” and it cannot be tolerated. Period. It must, therefore, be abolished.

To that end, it is important to understand how and why government schooling came to the United States in the first place. Most Americans today assume that the “public” school system is as American as apple pie, that it has been around since the first foundings of Britain’s North American colonies in the seventeenth century or at least since the founding of the United States of American in 1788. But this is not true.

In the longue durée of American history from the early seventeenth century to the present, the government school system is actually a relatively recent phenomenon. A system of nation-wide government schools was not fully implemented in this country until about 100 years ago.

Let’s begin with a brief journey through the early history of American education to see when, why, and how the American people gave up their unalienable right to educate their children and turned it over to government officials.

Early America’s System of Education

For almost 250 years, the education of children, first in England’s North American colonies and then in the United States of America up until the Civil War, was almost an entirely private affair. Parents had the freedom to choose the education, ideas, and values that they wanted for their children. The government was not involved in educating children. This is the great forgotten story of American history.

During this quarter millennium, children were typically educated in one of four ways. They were either homeschooled or they attended one of three different kinds of schools: 1) tuition-charging private schools; 2) charitable or “free” private schools established by philanthropists and religious societies; or 3) semi-public “district” schools (later known in the nineteenth century as “common schools”).

The so-called “district” schools of the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries are held up today by proponents of government schooling to suggest that government-run education has existed in America since the seventeenth century. But this is not true.

Existing mostly in New England, these “district” schools were what we might call “neighborhood” schools that were built and monitored by the parents of the children who attended them, and they were financed by a combination of tuition charges, local taxes, and mutual-aid societies. These neighborhood schools were controlled entirely by parents, who chose and supplied the textbooks and who hired and fired teachers. Though partially funded by local taxes, these neighborhood schools were not government schools in any meaningful way. The government did not determine who was hired, nor did it determine what was taught.

In all instances, schooling in America until the twentieth century was highly decentralized. Many if not most of the tuition-charging or “free” schools, particularly those in more populous areas, were run by individual men or women who simply hung out a shingle, advertised for students, and ran a school out of their home. Some of these schools taught only the Three R’s, while others offered classical curricula where students were taught classical Greek and Latin. It was in one of these “home” schools that John Adams first learned the ancient languages.

This decentralized, parent-driven form of schooling was how the generation of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Hamilton, and Madison was educated. Not a single one of America’s founding fathers attended a government school. The very idea is and was anathema to a free society.

It is therefore imperative that we understand why government schools were ever established in the United States.

One thing is certain: America’s system of government schooling was not established because the extant system of private schooling was failing to educate America’s children. Quite the opposite.

American schooling in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was highly democratic, in the sense that virtually all children received some kind or degree of education. They did so because that’s what their parents wanted for them, thereby dispelling the calumny that parents won’t do whatever it takes to make sure their children are educated in a free-market system of education or schooling. In economic terms, the supply met the demand.

Not surprisingly, Americans educated their children to a very high degree—indeed, to such a high degree that America had the highest literacy rates of any country in the world!  European visitors to the United States were astonished by the levels of education achieved in the United States. In his National Education in the United States (1812) published forty years before the introduction of government schooling, Pierre Samuel Du Pont de Nemours expressed his astonishment at the extraordinary literacy rate he saw amongst ordinary Americans.

Likewise, Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in Democracy in America that the Americans were “the most enlightened people on earth.” Even on the frontier where schools and libraries were in short supply, Tocqueville noted that one-room cabins hidden deep in the woods typically contained a copy of the Bible and multiple newspapers.

All of this was achieved without government schools.

And then, everything changed.

Government Schooling Comes to America

America’s experiment with universal compulsory education (i.e., government schooling), which began in earnest in the years immediately before the Civil War and picked up steam in the postbellum period, was created with different purposes in mind than just teaching children the Three R’s and a body of historical, moral, and literary knowledge to help them live productive, self-governing lives.

The early proponents of government schooling in nineteenth-century America imagined new and different goals for educating children. The advocates for forced schooling took the highly authoritarian, nineteenth-century Prussian model as their beau idéal.

The leading proponent of government schooling in Prussia and the man from whom the Americans learned the most was the philosopher Johann Fichte (1762-1814), who, in his Addresses to the German Nation (1807), called for “a total change of the existing system of education” in order to preserve “the existence of the German nation.” The goal of this new education system was to “mould the Germans into a corporate body, which shall be stimulated and animated in all its individual members by the same interest.” This new national system of education, Fichte argued, must apply “to every German without exception” and every child must be taken from parents and “separated altogether from the community.” Fichte recommended that the German schools “must fashion [the student], and fashion him in such a way that he simply cannot will otherwise than you wish him to will,” so that the pupil might go “forth at the proper time as a fixed and unchangeable machine.” Children should therefore be taught “a love of order” and the “system of government must be arranged in such a way that the individual must . . . work and act, for the sake of the community.”

The highest purpose of Prussian education was summed up by one of its later proponents, Franz de Hovre:

The prime fundamental of German education is that it is based on a national principle. Kulture is the great capital of the German nation. . . . A fundamental feature of German education; Education to the State, Education for the State, Education by the State. The Volkschule is a direct result of a national principle aimed at the national unity. The State is the supreme end in view.

This kind of education was virtually unknown to Americans until the nineteenth century, and it was anathema to everything that the founders’ liberalism stood for.

We know America’s earliest proponents of government schooling were enamored with the Prussian model because they were explicit in saying so. Some of them went to Germany to see exactly what the Germans were doing, and they became advocates of Prussian schooling when they returned to America.

Continue reading “”

What Did She Say? Here’s the Braindead Remarks DC Offered About the Latest Fatal Carjacking in the City

What did DC Mayor Muriel Bowser just say? I had to do a double-take. The recent carjacking in Washington DC that left a man dead was…not intentional. The killing wasn’t on purpose. That’s the line here? It doesn’t matter, Bowser. It really doesn’t. You can still be charged and sent to jail for accidentally killing people. What reality are Democrats living in here? Soft on crime has rotten the Left’s brains where they think if a crime was committed by accident, then it’s not a crime. Nope. It’s a crime. In the real world with real people and real laws, committing a crime is bad and people get sent to jail for it. At times, probation and penalties are involved. In severe cases, the state puts the perpetrator to death. This is not deep stuff, mayor.

Here’s the backstory that prompted this heinous remark from the mayor (via Fox5DC): MedStar doctor is dead after police say he was struck and killed by his own vehicle that had just been stolen from him in Northwest D.C. That MedStar Doctor has been identified as 33-year-old Rakesh Patel, of Silver Spring. His parents drove from Ohio to identify his body.

The incident began a little after 8 p.m. Tuesday in the 1800 block of Vernon Street NW. Officers say Patel’s vehicle was left running in that area. A close friend of the victim’s girlfriend, Kristine Froeba, told FOX 5 Patel went to drop off something to his girlfriend that night. The two were hugging goodbye when Froeba said the couple saw Patel’s vehicle start to move.

Police say an unknown suspect entered the Mercedes and drove off east on Vernon St. Patel apparently pursued his stolen car.

He “probably didn’t intend to kill anybody,” Bowser said regarding the incident.

How have we come to this? Mayor, this may be hard for a liberal Democrat like yourself to understand, but criminals are bad people. This car thief is a murderer. He should be sent away for a long time if caught. How is this hard? He didn’t mean to kill anyone. That is beyond irrelevant in this case. He stole a car and killed someone. This person is criminal trash. End of story.

There’s this addiction among liberals that seeks to refrain from calling criminals out for who they are in society.

This red tape right here:

Biden’s U.S. Oil Embargo
His assault on domestic energy works against his ban on Russian imports.

President Biden made the right decision Tuesday in banning Russian oil and natural gas imports. Yet at the same time he declared full-steam ahead on his green energy “transition” that includes an assault on U.S. fossil fuels. The contradiction is maddening.
Banning Russian energy imports is fine as far as it goes, which isn’t very. The U.S. imports only 3% of its petroleum supply and less than 1% of coal from Russia. About 70% of Russian oil currently can’t find buyers because of sanctions risk. That’s the main reason crude prices have shot up to $130 per barrel.
Once uncertainty about the scope of sanctions clears up, Russia will probably find global buyers for its energy at a discount. Imposing so-called secondary U.S. sanctions on institutions that finance Russia’s energy trade would be more effective. But the White House won’t do that because it fears it could drive gasoline prices even higher.
If that’s the worry, then here’s a better idea: Stand at the White House and declare that his Administration will support the development of U.S. oil and gas. Rescind all regulations designed to curb production, development and consumption. Announce a moratorium on new ones. Expedite permits, and encourage investment. Our guess is the price of Brent crude would fall $20 a barrel in anticipation of higher production.
Yet Mr. Biden is doing precisely the opposite. On Tuesday he even blamed U.S. companies—not his policies—for not producing more. There are 9,000 available unused drilling permits, he claimed, and only 10% of onshore oil production takes place on federal land. Talk about a misdirection play.
First, companies have to obtain additional permits for rights of way to access leases and build pipelines to transport fuel. This has become harder under the Biden Administration. Second, companies must build up a sufficient inventory of permits before they can contract rigs because of the regulatory difficulties of operating on federal land.

Continue reading “”

I don’t agree with her original premise, primarily because the Senate, with its 60 vote cloture barrier to stop ‘debate’ quite often kills legislation proposed from both sides of the aisle, and the Senate and the House also have to have a super majority to override a veto from an adversarial President.
And anything passed by a convention would still need to be ratified by 3/4 (that’s 38) of the states.

However this is still an important question about the proposal for a constitutional convention.

If Conservatives Can’t Get Good Laws, How Can They Run An Article V Convention?

A conservative movement that cannot elect good lawmakers is unlikely to control an Article V Convention of the States.

Recently in The Federalist, I asked, “Why is the Right Betting the Constitution on an Article V Convention?” Mark Meckler, who heads the Convention of States (CoS) Project, wrote a countering essay, arguing that an Article V Convention of the States must be a good idea because left-wing groups oppose it.

Meckler’s Exhibit A is an amusing video of Hillary Clinton, America’s mistress of deceit, and a list of leftist groups said to oppose the CoS project. Of course, leftists object to anything conservatives propose. Witness Kamala Harris saying she would not take a Covid-19 vaccine if President Trump said to take it. They also don’t tell the truth, so it’s unclear if their real goals differ from their stated desires.

Meckler quibbles about whether he is promoting an Article V “Convention of the States” or a “Constitutional Convention”—usually called “Con-Con.” That no-difference distinction does not change language in your pocket Constitution: “The Congress . . . on the application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments . . .” Article V specifies that three-fourths of the states must ratify amendments, but it says nothing about operating procedures for the convention.

For the sake of discussion, I’ll concede that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi won’t take control of the convention, even though she violated congressional rules when setting up her January 6 commission. I’ll also concede that Republicans control 31 legislatures at this time.

Whether political dynamics like these will remain static until 34 states file convention applications with Congress is a matter of speculation. Meckler should concede that the 50 states are independent sovereign political entities, both red and blue, and not monolithic. All would act in their politicians’ interests.

Even in red states, Republicans may not have the will, power, or votes to appoint or elect only conservatives. That is already the case with many elected Republican officials. Most delegates also likely would be politicians appointed by the same politicians who keep accepting budget-busting federal grants and, in 2020, allowed state officials to change or override election procedures.

Meckler claims there are historical precedents for convention procedures, citing previous state or regional conventions. None of these was an Article V event. A search of the WestLaw legal database reveals no federal court decisions addressing procedures for an Article V Convention of the States.

Delegates to an unprecedented convention of both red and blue states would horse-trade and compete for power to decide credentials, rules, agenda, and possible amendments. This is what conventions do.

Conservatives should be wary. Regardless of how an Article V convention of the states is called or who promises what, optimistic expectations cannot be guaranteed. Progressive delegates could easily dominate the proceedings from beginning to end, including ratifications.

Given the pre-election shenanigans seen in 2020, why wouldn’t they? The concern here is not about a “runaway” convention, but an event that does exactly what progressive state delegates want.

Meckler promises that a Convention of the States would only consider amendments within the broad scope of issues mentioned in the application language. Once the gavel drops, however, convention delegates could propose “amendments” with radical, unexpected consequences.

For example, it is not difficult to imagine the language of a proposed Human Life Amendment being gutted to codify Roe v. Wade. Law Professor Emeritus William A. Woodruff explains how with a thought-provoking point:

Amendments can be used to accomplish something way beyond the original proposal. Consider how we got the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). In 2009 the House passed a military housing bill (HR 3590) and sent it to the Senate. Democrats needed to quickly pass Obamacare while they still held a Senate super majority. They amended HR 3590 by erasing everything except the bill number and substituting the Affordable Care Act legislation.

The ‘amended’ bill, which looked nothing like the House-approved HR 3590, passed the Senate 60-39 and was sent back to the House for a 219-212 favorable vote. Only majority votes would prevent similar unpleasant surprises at a Convention of the States.

Someone could propose limitation of the Supreme Court to nine justices, but the convention could substitute an amendment specifying 18-year, staggered terms for Supreme Court justices. One of three Progressive, Libertarian, and Conservative Draft Constitutions set forth by the Constitution Drafting Project already proposed this. The same Draft Constitution recommended reducing the number of senators to one per state, chosen by each state legislature and limited to nine years, and a single six-year term for presidents.

The revised Second Amendment would ban infringement on the right to keep and bear arms of the sort ordinarily used for self-defense or recreational purposes . . .” and the States may “. . . enact and enforce reasonable regulations on the bearing of arms, and the keeping of arms by persons determined, with due process, to be dangerous to themselves or others.”

The excerpt is from the Conservative Draft Constitution, not the Progressive one. Some concepts make sense and others are unacceptable, but sober debate and guaranteed outcomes in a convention of both red and blue states would not be possible.

Meckler promises conservatives that the ratification process would prevent harmful consequences, but the argument concedes that a convention could produce bad amendments. Show me a conservative movement that cannot elect good lawmakers to pass good laws, and I’ll show you a conservative movement unlikely to control the delegates, rules, or outcome of an Article V Convention of the States.

Three-fourths of the states could block progressive amendments, but huge costs will have been wasted on a multi-stage constitutional crisis that produces nothing worthwhile. Time, money, and energy would be better spent electing good people and working for sound policies that might restore confidence in government.

We are talking about the U.S. Constitution, the splendid document that underlies our republic if—as Benjamin Franklin said—we can keep it. My initial question remains unanswered: what justifies a high-stakes gamble with the Constitution? If this risky wager is lost, conservatives will ask the saddest question of all: Where do we go to get our Constitution back?