From the foreign press, we learn that Honduras is struggling to reduce rampant crime. A week or so ago, Honduran leaders outlined a series of measures intended to “crackdown” on gang crimes. A state of emergency has existed in Honduras since 2022 — it’s time to build a mega-prison.
How Mega, you ask. Large enough for 20,000 prisoners. Honduras is following the example of neighboring El Salvador. Honduras President Xiomara Castro has directed security forces to implement urgent intervention nationwide. What is the extent of the problem? Gang-related crimes, murder for hire, drug and firearm trafficking, extortion, kidnapping, and money laundering. Castro said the new prison would double the capacity of the country’s current prison system. The government currently has some 21,000 inmates spread across 30 detention facilities.
Castro also said the penal code must be reformed to allow drug traffickers and members of criminal gangs who commit crimes like those listed by Castro to be designated as “terrorists.” This would mean they could face collective trials.
Security forces will also carry out operations targeting plantations where coca leaf — used in producing cocaine — and marijuana are grown, along with hubs where illegal drugs are processed. Currently, Honduras has a homicide rate almost six times the global average, with 34 people per 100,000 being killed in 2023.
Ninety percent of the Honduran people are Mestizo (mixed-race European/Indian). With a population of 9.5 million, the annual murder rate is 332,500 people. It’s almost as bad as Chicago, Illinois.
Our question should be, given the murder rate and current national prison population, what will a mega-prison do for Honduras? If the government intends to increase the national population above its current 21,000 inmates, how will an additional capacity of 20,000 help? Maybe I misread the report, but in case I haven’t, what is the cost of feeding and housing 41,000 criminals who have nothing to lose by creating a gangster land inside the prison – you know, like in every state prison in the United States?
It is a fantastic proposition. A murder rate of 332,500 people annually, even when 21,000 are already locked up — wow. Yet, according to Señor German McNeil of the National Penitentiary Institute, as published by the International Development Law Organization, “It is now obligatory for the penitentiary system to have doctors, legal counselors, social workers, and psychologists who directly contribute to the treatment of people deprived of their liberty.”
Let me translate the preceding information: Honduras’s crime problem is about to worsen. Suppose gang-related crimes, such as murder for hire, drug and firearm trafficking, extortion, kidnapping, and money laundering, are to be classified as domestic terrorism. What will doctors, lawyers, social workers, and psychologists do to remedy this problem? Over how many years? How able are the people of Honduras to pay in taxes what it will take to build and run this mega-prison?
Let me begin by encapsulating what the experts are drumming into our heads:
People have racist attitudes because they tend to take on the views of people around them.
We only hang out with people like us.
We’re too quick to judge others.
We tend to blame others for our problems.
There are no reasons or excuses for racism. It’s just wrong.
Historically, our understanding of racism has focused on individual psychology and how an individuals’ beliefs and behaviors drive it. Then we were told that the problem was that some people were quite intelligent, while others were dumb as rocks — the smart ones being white. Looking around, I have to say that white people have no claim on innate intelligence.
Modern researchers say this is all wrong. Instead, we must seek to understand racism through cultural psychology — that is, through practices and behavioral patterns embedded in culture. This is significant because the “researchers” now intend to focus on changing the behaviors of entire cultures. Good luck with that.
God forbid, I’m not saying the experts are wrong. I am saying, “Give me a break.”
The thing to know about these experts is that they develop their careers (and a gratifying income) by teaching, leading research teams, applying for and receiving research grants, publishing findings, paid lectures, etc., from racism. The longer this topic remains a hot-button issue, the more money they stand to make.
So, to ensure that their careers become and remain robust, the experts coordinate their efforts with people who can help them propagate their claims: journalists, activists, community organizers, and justice warriors. The buzzwords supporting their popular propositions include racism, racialism, white privilege, and so forth. One may recall something Vladimir Lenin told us back in 1923: the more you tell a lie, the more people believe it’s the unvarnished truth. Quite soon, before anyone realizes it, every white person is a racist, every successful white person, and every wealthy white person has gained an unfair advantage over his black brother or sister — all because of skin color.
All of the preceding propositions are generalizations — and, as with all such claims, they are oversimplifications. Of course, there is some truth to what they say, but no cigar. Why? Because most people (regardless of skin color) are not racists. There are plenty of reasons for blacks to resent whites that have nothing to do with skin color — and the same is true about whites not having much interest in black culture.
Look — people are not racist simply because they don’t have any “different-skinned” neighbors or because they don’t bowl on Tuesday night with minority members of society. Racism is a peculiar psychological dysfunction, and it is patently stupid to accuse everyone of being a racist. The problem is that all these experts and their journalist/activist co-conspirators are making matters worse — and profiting from it.
Here’s my contention: People who make outlandish claims about white privilege are exhibiting racist behaviors. Blaming white people for their whiteness, their social position, their educational attainments, and the size of their bank accounts — is not only racist but also unfounded. So what we have here is a condition where the experts have become racists to help society deal with racism.
How bizarre is this — ?
A journalist was speaking about the concept of white privilege, the belief that being white comes with unearned advantages. He asked a white retiree if he believed in white privilege, and the man said no, but he did believe in black privilege. Aghast, the black journalist demanded to know one perk that a black man enjoyed that the retiree didn’t. The man answered, “Black History Month.” The journalist observed that this proves whites are becoming the new blacks in America.
Need more proof? Black people can belong to clubs and organizations that cater specifically to blacks; white people can’t do that. Moreover, there is no such thing as a National Association for the Advancement of White People. That would be racist. Any white person suggesting the observance of white history month would be skewered by every federal bureaucrat and community organizer north of the Mason-Dixon line. Black people can refer to whites as Honky and an expletive with the abbreviation M. F., but if a white person uses the word nigger, Katie Bar the Door.
What this is — is stupid. In such cases as I’ve described, there is no sign of mutual respect, and yet the experts on racism claim that this is all the fault of white society. The word for such conclusions is dumb.
Yes, there are racial and ethnic disparities in our society. It may even be true that the wealth of white households is thirteen times the median wealth of black households — but whose fault is that?
Fact: Leaving school before graduation dramatically affects future employment, earnings, health, and overall well-being. According to the U.S. Department of Labor (2018), high school dropouts are over three times more likely unemployed than college graduates.
Fact: Even when employed, high school dropouts earn about $10,500 a year less than high school graduates and approximately $35,000 less than college graduates (U.S. Department of Labor, 2017).
Fact: In some locations, the dropout rate among black students remains steady at just under 10%. Nationally, black children represent around 18% of preschool enrollments and around 50% of children with multiple suspensions from school. Why is that? How is this a white-people problem? How is it a white-people problem when dozens of blacks descend on a department store and mob rob it?
And maybe the statistics, as horrible as they are, do not reflect any inherent racism at all. Do members of the black community strive to assimilate mainstream culture, or are they happy to remain within the margins of society? If education is the pathway to success in life, why aren’t black communities embracing it? Why aren’t black fathers staying home with their children and modeling for them what it is to be a good man?
I agree that we have a lot of work to do to improve our society. We were better off in that regard before Bobo Obama came along with his racist rhetoric and programs, but that’s water over the dam. But if we need to restart race relations, let’s stop calling each other silly names.
According to Stephen Hobbs, a writer at the Sacramento Bee, California Democrats are set to spend millions of dollars on black reparations programs. This is the ultimate result of California Governor Gavin Newsom’s efforts to express his sorrow for slavery. Of course, California was never a slave state, but facts do not seem to matter in California. Democrats spend other people’s money — it’s what they do.
My opinion about this is that working hard to give blacks someone else’s money, people who never had anything to do with slavery, is how Mr. Newsom ended his aspirations to one day become President of the United States. No one in normal America thinks that modern-day blacks, given their access to massive welfare spending programs, deserve another cent of other people’s money.
The spending bill might also trigger the largest black diaspora in American history as millions of po’ black folk surge toward the Golden State for their piece of the white boy’s pie.
Hobbs tells us in his article that Democrats celebrated the win, especially within California’s Black Caucus. Caucus chair Lori Wilson explained that it was precisely what Black lawmakers asked for — in a year when California faces a $47 million expenditure shortfall.
Finally, Newsom’s actions, shepherding the bill through the legislature, seem to prove Bernoulli’s Law: “Vacuums are places where no matter exists, or places of shallow pressure, where existing particles don’t affect processes,” such as inside Newsom’s brain-housing-group.
What does the government gain by confusing people? We may find out by examining the southern border and US immigration policies. The terms immigrant and migrant are simply labels with no profound legal status. Migrants are people “on the move” in their home countries or across international borders. They may have no intention of permanent relocation. Immigrants, on the other hand, have the intention of permanent relocation to a new country. And while we’re at it, an Emigrant is someone leaving their country; an Immigrant describes someone entering a new country.
Immigration terms such as Refugee, Asylum-Seeker, Parolee, Temporary Protected Status Recipient, Human Trafficking, and Unaccompanied Children are not just labels, but legal statuses that carry significant implications. These terms are defined by the reasons for arriving at the US border and the specific rights and protections they are entitled to once they arrive. Understanding these terms is key to comprehending the legal landscape of immigration.
Refugees are people who leave their homes and are unable or unwilling to return because of well-founded fears of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, or social or political affiliation. A refugee is seeking “refuge.” A refugee may be someone seeking to escape the effects of a natural disaster. Refugees are protected under international law, meaning they can live, work, and receive “life-saving” support from government agencies and public funding. Refugees are entitled to a “pathway” for citizenship.
Asylum seekers leave their homes with the hope of obtaining the same protections as refugees, albeit based on political persecution. They must prove that they have suffered persecution or fear that they will suffer persecution based on religion, race, nationality, or their affiliation with a particular social group or political association. Asylees are entitled to work in the US while their cases are under review. If granted a green card, they are on the path to citizenship.
Temporary Protected Status Recipients (TPSRs) are foreign-born persons granted temporary authorization to remain in the US for as long as it is deemed unsafe to return to their home country. These people may be seeking refuge from a war or natural disaster. The main difference between TPSRs and Refugees is that TPSRs do not have an inherent right to a pathway to citizenship. They can, however, petition the US government for a change in their status, from TPSR to Refugee or Asylee.
Parolees are granted temporary access to the US, usually for humanitarian reasons, and generally for one year at a time.
Victims of human trafficking are people who are subjected to force, fraud, or coercion for commercial sex, debt bondage, or involuntary labor. In essence, they are forced out of their home country to another for reasons of illegal bondage.
Unaccompanied Children are people younger than 18 who enter the US independently of a parent or legal guardian and for whom no parent or legal guardian in the US can provide care and physical custody.
The US recognizes a newly created immigrant status: Climate Disaster Displaced Person. Even though “climate change” is a natural occurrence, the US government has decided to grant this special status to foreign-born persons who are forced to leave their homes because of violence, human rights violations, or natural disasters relating to climate change.
This provision makes no sense to any sensible person, but it is a way for government officials to manipulate the US Immigration System to partisan advantage.
Why is this important? The blogger at The Lone Cactus recently suggested that the US government should gut the entire immigration system and start over. I tend to agree with this argument, but I have one important question: if the US government ignores current federal law, what makes anyone think that government bureaucrats will follow a new set of laws?
Developing economics is a branch of economics that focuses its attention on improving fiscal, economic, and social conditions in developing countries. It considers such factors as health, education, working conditions, domestic and international policies, and market conditions with a stated interest in improving conditions in the world’s worst-off countries. One problem with this is that most theoretical economists have never worked in any field and base all their arguments on unproven hypotheses.
Absent here, in the rush to judge how great their ideas are, economists lose sight of how the scientific method of investigation is supposed to work. It’s pretty simple, actually. First, one establishes facts through long-term observation of behavior, forming a hypothesis, predicting the likely outcome of that hypothesis, validating the hypothesis through experimentation, and carefully analyzing the results of one’s work. Skipping over steps or accelerating the process only damages the process of intelligent investigation.
Let’s investigate this further by looking at government subsidies: A subsidy is a benefit given to an individual, business, or institution — usually by the government. It can be direct (such as cash payments) or indirect (such as tax breaks). The subsidy is typically given to remove some burden, and it is often considered to be in the overall interest of the public, given to promote a social good or an economic policy.
There are many forms of government subsidies, the most common of which are welfare payments and unemployment benefits. Presumably, these types of subsidies aim to help people temporarily suffering economically. However, This argument fails when many people are permanently enrolled in such programs and their socio-economic situation remains perpetually unchanged. Another example of government subsidy is the subsidized interest rates on student loans. These are offered to people to further their education. The word education may only partially describe what goes on in institutions of higher education. It makes the casual observer wonder, “What, exactly, are we subsidizing?” People graduating with degrees in gender studies do not contribute to the American economy — and if that’s true, then why does the government (taxpayers) subsidize clownishness?
The argument supporting government subsidies to businesses is that some businesses struggle against unfair competition in domestic and international markets — so the government steps in to level the playing field. This has always been a slippery slope because what happens, from a practical standpoint, is that the government picks and chooses who the “winners” are. Black-owned businesses and those owned and operated by women (of any color) receive government assistance, while those operated by white people, particularly white males, do not. How fair is this? It isn’t fair, and it’s un-American, and some people will argue that if a business needs a government subsidy, it shouldn’t be in business in the first place.
To take the issue of subsidy to the next level, certain politicians propose canceling all student loans. Free education — and we all know the value of something we didn’t pay for or work for. I do not understand the thinking that supports “free college education.”
Democrats (and other communists) are now arguing that government intervention is justified (and necessary) because some (for whom higher education is productive) are unable to finance education loans because of imperfections in private credit markets. Alternatively, owing $60,000 (or more) for a degree in African or gender studies may have been a colossally dumb move. It is time for people to make better decisions for their future by thinking through the problem before leaping into a financial abyss.
We know from practical experience that subsidies encourage the wrong kinds of excesses. Anyone seeking a degree in a field of study without jobs makes no sense. None. We might even ask universities that offer such degrees to explain why they offer them. We may find out, after further investigation, that the government subsidizes universities to offer such degrees. I have no problem with “gender studies” at the graduate level, so long as there is no government subsidy to pay for them.
Why is the government offering to forgive and pay for these loans (at the taxpayer’s expense)? It is entirely political — which means patently dishonest. The federal government has no legitimate role in the educational loan business. Indeed, the federal government has no legitimate role in most subsidies. My conclusion is subjective, of course. No one has provided any scientific justification for choosing winners and losers in a society that used to and should again, exist on merit.
Are there people who are intellectually gifted but economically challenged? Of course. And there are already in place programs that address these people. Student loans are possible, along with educational grants and scholarships. These must be awarded based on merit, not skin color or gender. No person should have a college degree because of an athletic skill set. They shouldn’t be in college if they cannot be accepted into a college or university because of their intellectual ability.
Otherwise, college degrees are worthless no matter how much the government subsidizes them. We all know this — even Democratic politicians (and other communists). In the United States, this topic is all about getting young people to vote for Democrats — and this is a bad idea because even people with degrees in African pottery know that Democrats have never had an idea that advanced Americanism.
What is the fraud of educational subsidies? It is that the government picks and chooses winners and losers. This is not the business of government. Not in America, anyway, and it is time for Democrats to stop treating the American people as if they are living in a developing economy.
Dysphoria is a mental state in which a person develops a profound sense of unease, dissatisfaction, or detachment. Rather than a diagnosis, it is a symptom associated with a number and variety of mental illnesses, some of which include stress, anxiety, depression, and substance use disorders.
There are, in addition, different types of dysphoria, including gender and racial, both of which involve unease caused by confusion about an individual’s gender or racial identity.
Dysphoria may accompany other signs of mental health or psychotic behavior, such as uncontrolled crying, loss of interest in pleasurable activities, and disturbances in appetite or sleep, and some may include:
Apathy
Fatigue
Sadness
Unease
Worry
Inability to relax
General dissatisfaction
Irritability
According to a 2019 study, people who experience dysphoria think differently from ordinary people; they harbor negative thoughts, develop unrealistic or implausible expectations about future outcomes, and develop anger issues.
Our Story
According to writer Vivek Saxena at BPR on February 14, 2024, Nkechi Amare Diallo (born Rachel Anne Dolezal) now teaches elementary children at Catalina Foothills School District, Tucson, Arizona. One may recall the attention Diallo/Dolezal received while serving as a chapter president of the NAACP organization in Washington State — odd because despite her claims to be a black female, she is as white as the center of a classic Oreo cookie.
The bruhaha has died down since her 2015 exposure as a fraud, and it seems as though she had repaid the fraudulent welfare benefits totaling just under $10,000 in 2017, but still — according to some, the ignominy continues. No one with a brain wants their child taught by or exposed to Diallo/Dolezal. The icing on this case may not be racial, however. Saxena revealed that Diallo/Dolezal is running a sexual website to augment her salary as a public school teacher.
Well, a girl has to eat — and according to Saxena, creating a sexually implicit website at OnlyFan (a subscription site) earns her up to an additional $1,268.73 (or more) monthly to her (estimated) $60,000.00 annual teaching salary. In exchange for the subscription, Saxena tells us that people can access nude pictures and instructional videos for those interested in self-love.
So far, no one has come forward to express any concerns about this arrangement — that is, having a mentally unbalanced person with severe identity issues and a penchant for voyeurism and pay-a-you-go-eroticism — teaching their children or working within the school district. But then, maybe such an odd arrangement no longer offends the sensitivities of parents whose taxes pay teachers’ salaries.
Chris Mooney, the author of four books and an environmental journalist for The Washington Post, is one of those privileged young people who, having been born with a silver spoon stuffed in his gob, attended all the proper schools. Both parents are English professors; he was born in upper-class New Orleans society, attended the Isadore Newman college-preparatory school, and graduated from Yale with a degree in English. One of his books is titled The Republican War on Science. He, himself, does not appear to have a background in science — so the genesis of his concern for the environment might be somewhat reminiscent of all the self-loathing Jews who jumped aboard the Obama-Biden Train.
Chris and three of his cohorts, equally excited about making a name for themselves, recently published an article in The Washington Post (Source). The headline was:
A HIDDEN FORCE SUPERCHARGED THIS ALABAMA FLOOD –
AND THREATENS THE AMERICAN SOUTH
The Post article offers excellent photographs from the Mobile, Alabama, area following a major rain storm on April 19th. Mooney and his team reported considerable flooding. According to the authors, the massive flooding was caused by unusually high tides from the Gulf of Mexico. These tides slowed down the flow of floodwaters as they progressed downstream, increasing the water’s depth and flooding a wide expanse of land.
Mooney wrote, “These supercharged floods are one of the most pernicious impacts of an unexpected surge in sea levels across the U.S. Gulf and southeast coasts — with the ocean rising an average of 6 inches since 2010, one of the fastest such changes in the world, according to a Washington Post examination of how sea level rise is affecting the region. The Post’s analysis,” he wrote, “found that sea levels at a tide gauge near the Fowl River rose four times fasterin 2010 to 2023 than over the previous four decades.
Of course, Mr. Mooney loves his job, and to keep it, he always gives his editors what they want. Otherwise, Chris would be out of a job and eventually end up working for Salon. However, Chris needs to be more honest with his readership. True, readers of The Washington Post are well known for their superior education, but not necessarily for their intelligence. No one seems to have asked, “Why was there unusually high tides?”
Here’s the answer. When intense storms move onto land from the sea, they create tidal surges. This happens frequently. The stronger the storm, the stronger the tidal surge. This, combined with significant amounts of rainfall, produces floods — and, as Mr. Mooney tells us, the tidal surges interfere with rainwater runoff — the result of flooding.
But Mr. Mooney was intellectually dishonest—to himself, his co-workers, and his reading public—when he stated that sea levels had risen an average of six inches (annually) since 2010. That, I’m afraid, is pure poppycock. I know this because I checked and have as much credibility in earth science as Mr. Mooney.
According to the Florida Climate Center, “Historical trends in Sea Levels, Satellite altimetry data indicate that the average rate of sea level rise in the Southeast U.S. region has been about 3.0 mm (0.12 inches) per year since the early 1990s, which is roughly equal to the global rate of sea level rise.”
Since hardly anyone living in the United States knows what a millimeter looks like and struggles to envision 12/100ths of an inch, here’s what that looks like on a ruler: note the red dot.
If the Florida Climate Center reports factual scientific data, Mr. Mooney (and The Washington Post) are lying. Sea levels have not risen (an average of) six inches since 2010. At most, they’ve risen 1.68 inches. But that was the argument offered by the man who wrote a book titled The Republican War on Science. I’d be willing to bet three things: first, Mr. Mooney isn’t a conservative. Second, conservatives aren’t at war with science. Third, no true conservative can stomach junk science. Mr. Mooney and his small band of myna birds are perpetuating junk science.
On behalf of the citizens of the world, I beg your pardon. We, the people, seem unable to help ourselves in the accumulation of idiocy because we are, after all, mere human beings. Most of the things we know aren’t true, yet we continue propagating what the Navy calls “bum scoop.” Since much of what we don’t know affects the environment (or not), you’ll understand my embarrassment. Although I beg you to understand — our lunacy isn’t entirely our fault because even the U.S. government knows things that aren’t true and rewards us when we repeat it ad nauseam.
In past years, the United States government has joined hands with far-left globalists and hand-wringing fascists who embrace environmentalism as a primary method to transfrm citizens into thoughtlessly compliant morons. For example, the government told us that the greatest threat to Planet Earth is CO2 emissions. Since the 1960s, industries have developed promising methods to reduce these elements from our atmosphere and carbon footprint. Yes, I know. CO2 is plant food, not a pollutant. And yes, I know it is impossible to achieve what the government says is necessary — that is, sequestering carbon. We are, as I said, brainwashed dopes, but at least you understand why.
While I’m on this topic, let me say that I know full well that this brainwashing begins in kindergarten and continues unabated through college, but I hesitate to use that as an excuse. After all, we have brains; some people claim that brains enable humans to think for themselves. This could be a rumor, though, since thinking is no longer politically correct.
I am writing an apology because most people no longer know what is real and what is made up for political purposes — and even though Earth is the primary victim, I just wanted to let you know we’re trying. Or at least some of us are. Some of us, for example, know that climate change cycles last around 120,000 years — so whatever happens in a hundred decades doesn’t matter, and there’s no reason to commit suicide simply because the dopes over at the Weather Channel say so.
I’ve also discovered that we live in the Holocene Epoch, the youngest of two previously recognized epochs that together constitute the Quaternary Period in the latest interval of geologic time. For the benefit of any couch potatoes, we’re living in a period that began around 11,700 years ago. We can establish specific historical facts by studying and analyzing the Holocene period sedimentation from continental and marine formations.
From this data, we can scientifically conclude that interglacial periods are subject to short warming periods, which some call “mini-summers.” Science identifies such periods as Minoan (1,500 – 1,200 B.C.), Roman (250 B.C. – A.D. 400), and Medieval (A.D. 900 – 1,300). Our present warming period began at the end of the Little Ice Age (1300 – 1850). Here’s what else science tells us: our present “mini-summer” is colder than all previous such events over the last 8,500 years.
Here’s something else we know: significant differences exist between scientific hypotheses, theories, and facts. Late in life, a mathematician and physicist, Jean-Baptiste Joseph Fourier (1768 – 1830), initiated investigations and analysis of heat transfer and vibration. We have the Fourier Transform and the Fourier Law of Conduction today from these efforts. Fourier is generally credited with the discovery of the greenhouse effect. But wait — in 1859, John Tyndall (1820 – 1893) conducted investigations into diamagnetism (the study of magnetic fields). His discovery of infrared radiation and analysis of the physical properties of air led him to connect atmospheric CO2 and the greenhouse effect.
Ah — but we have a problem. Modern physicists assure us that these gentlemen did no more than establish individual hypotheses. Tyndall’s only achievement was to take Fourier’s effort and his hypothesis and merge them, putting forth a theory that cannot be proven. Why? Because to establish such a theory, the ceiling in the scientific laboratory would have to be six miles high. In this area, we are left with only a theory.
Then, in 1896, Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius proposed that warming is proportional to the logarithm of CO2 concentration. Between 1975 and 1981, Wallace Broecker and James Hansen (Columbia University) began writing articles for Science Magazine that (unfortunately) over-stated the perils of CO2 as a cause of global warming — and they accomplished this without any scientific proof that what they wrote was true. Today, there remains NO PROOF that CO2 causes global warming or climate change.
Greenhouse gases (also GHGs) trap heat in the earth’s atmosphere. During the day, the sun shines through the atmosphere, warming the earth’s surface. The earth’s surface cools at night, releasing heat into the air. However, some of the heat is trapped by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That keeps the earth’s temperature at an average of 57˚ Fahrenheit. We certainly wouldn’t want the average to fall below that. Without GHGs, the earth’s surface temperature would drop below a point that it could no longer support life on Earth. CO2 is released through natural processes, such as volcanic eruptions, plant respiration, and animal and human breathing.
We know that most of Earth’s energy comes from the sun and that absorption of sunlight causes molecules of objects or surfaces to vibrate faster, which increases their temperature. This energy is transformed into longwave, infrared radiation (heat). Physicist Will Happer (Princeton University) tells us that a GHG absorbs negligible income sunlight but captures a substantial fraction of thermal radiation as it is re-radiated back into space. Important GHGs include water (as high as 7% in humid tropics and as little as 1% in frigid climates), CO2 (0.042% or 420 parts per million, by volume), methane (0.00017%), and nitrous oxide (0.0000334% or 334 ppm). Water vapor (clouds) has at least a hundred times greater warming effect on Earth’s temperature than all other GHGs combined.
This means that as atmospheric CO2 increases, its GHG effect decreases. The warming effect of CO2 is 1.5°C (between zero and 20 ppm), 0.3°C (between 20 and 40 ppm), and 0.15°C (between 40 and 60 ppm). So, every doubling of atmospheric CO2 from today’s levels decreases radiation back into space by a mere 1%. Thus, for the past 800,000 years, Earth’s atmospheric CO2 has ranged between 180 ppm and 320 ppm. Note: below 150 ppm, Earth’s plants could not exist, and all life on the planet would be extinguished.
Today’s global atmospheric CO2 levels are ~420 ppm. Botanists tell us that even at these levels, Earth’s plants are partially “starved for CO2.” Commercial greenhouse growers argue we should elevate CO2 levels to 800 – 1,200 ppm. Is this what we’re doing? No. We have globalists without a clue running around trying to find ways to reduce plant production — presumably to starve human populations into extinction — to save the Earth.
Here’s another scientific fact: Between 550 and 450 million years ago, the CO2 levels of the earth were around 5,000 to 9,000 ppm. It is what caused plant life to flourish on earth. What does it all mean, then? It means that when people tell you the atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased by 50% since the beginning of the Industrial Age and that burning fossil fuels is increasing the abundance of CO2, they’re full of animal dookie. CO2 is NOT the leading cause of climate change. Earth’s rotational cycle is. I encourage readers to determine the integrity of the preceding information for themselves — but remain aware that in researching, skeptics will not find more than 20% of Internet websites with truthful information.
One may recall that the EcoHealth Alliance (EHA) is an American-based non-governmental organization (NGO) with a mission of protecting people, animals, and the environment from emerging infectious diseases. The NGO focuses on research to prevent pandemics and promote conservation in some areas of the world — notably the effects of deforestation (and increased interaction between humans and wildlife). The EcoHealth Alliance has researched the emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS), Nipah Virus, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), Rift Valley Fever, Ebola Virus, and COVID-19.
EHA also advises several notable international organizations (such as the World Organization for Animal Health). Following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, EHA’s ties with the Wuhan Institute of Virology were questioned by investigators looking into the origin of COVID-19. Citing these concerns, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) withdrew federal funding to EHA in April 2020. By then, nearly 400,000 victims had already perished. Interestingly, in a joint letter signed by 77 Nobel Laureates and 31 scientific societies, NIH was criticized for halting this funding — and eventually, the funding was restored.
In 2022, NIH terminated the EHA grant, claiming the alliance refused to hand over lab notebooks and other records of controversial experiments involving modified bat viruses from its Wuhan partner despite numerous requests. One might assume that EHA decided not to release information for which it held a proprietary interest.
In December 2023, the Inspector-General of the Department of Health and Human Services (H&HS) found that NIH needed to effectively monitor and take timely action to address compliance issues with EHA. Later in the year, EHA denied allegations that it double-billed NIH and the US Agency for International Development to research in China.
From this information, one wonders what the American people should conclude. What should the entire world conclude? What should the families of between 7.3 to 33.0 million COVID-19 victims conclude?
The President of EHA is Peter Daszak (since 2014). Dr. Daszak is a zoologist whose professional background includes the School of Life Sciences, Kingston University, Surrey, England; the Institute of Ecology at the University of Georgia; the National Center for Infectious Diseases, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, the Consortium for Conservation Medicine, and in 2014, he became the principal investigator of a six-year NIH project awarded to EHA which focused on the emergence of novel zoonotic coronaviruses with a bat origin.
Dr. Daszak is no shrinking violet. Yet, one does wonder about the risks associated with his line of work to millions of innocents.
The 7th Military World Games (shortened to Wuhan 2019) was the first international military, multisport event held in Red China. The event was also the nation’s largest military sports event — ever — with 9,308 athletes from 109 countries competing in 329 events over 27 sporting disciplines. The games took place between October 18 – 29, 2019. Some have suggested that the 9,308 competitors from 109 countries would have been an excellent way to spread the COVID-19 virus worldwide in record time.
No one is suggesting that Dr. Daszak, a man with impeccable scientific credentials, was in any way helping spread this deadly virus throughout the world. However, one might also think about President Barack Obama’s Director of Science and Technology Policy, Dr. John Paul Holdren — a man who also has impeccable credentials and who never-the-less made outlandish proposals that were in keeping with the finest traditions of Nazi Germany.
Holdren taught at Harvard University for 13 years and at the University of California for over two decades. His work focused on the causes and consequences of global environmental changes, population control, energy technology, and policies. In 1969, Dr. Holdren, with Paul Ehrlich, argued, “ … if population control measures are not initiated immediately and effectively, all the technology man can bring to bear will not fend off the misery to come.” In 1973, he encouraged a decline in fertility to well below replacement in the United States because “210 million now is too many, and 280 million in 2040 is likely to be much too many.” Notably, Holdren suggested that if people were unwilling to reduce their offspring, they could be made to do so through government action and oversight.
It is not too far removed from the Wokeism we are experiencing in the United States in 2024 — and it is something the American voter should consider before selecting their next president. Who selected Holdren to serve in the White House? Bill Clinton (1994 to 2001) and Barack Obama (2009 to 2017). During his confirmation hearings in the U.S. Senate, Holdren denied that he ever endorsed forced sterilization. Of course, that is precisely what we might expect Dr. Holdren to say if he wanted a job in the Obama White House. Though, there are lingering questions: Was Holdren one of America’s first “woke” scientists? Is this the sort of thing we can expect from future generations of eggheads?