Syte Reitz

The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world…….

Election Chaos: What Can EACH AMERICAN Do?

 

Climbing Walls

We are all climbing walls from this miserable extension of Election Day into Election Week, Election Month, and probably Election More than One Month.
The outcome of this election is not likely to be determined quickly.  
For conservatives like me, mercifully there is something we can do– not only praying, which is of top importance, but also there is  simple, well-directed political action possible. 

Fraud Plagues This Election

Fraud plagues this election.
All of the pivotal states have Democrat Governors and extensive Democrat Deep States which permitted, and even planned the fraud that brought us to this point. 

Recounting Ballots

Recounting will not suffice, since the fraudsters have thrown away the envelopes, existent or non-existent, signed or not signed, dated or not dated, and so recounting the paper ballots alone, without validating whether they were legal, will not help to bring justice.  Also, comparison needs to be made between computer stored ballots and paper ballots, to determine whether paper ballots had been run through scanners multiple times, or if the computer algorithms were manipulated after scans were complete.  
So recounts alone are not sufficient.
Anyone living in the contested States can sign up as volunteers to supervise recounts. 

Examining Software

Another solution rests in proving that fraud existed in the software which was used in the States where suspicion of fraud is high.  Companies which provided the software are associated with powerful Progressives like Nancy Pelosi, the Clintons, and George Soros, and this type of fraud is being alleged. 
For example, statistical analysts have shown from voting data distributions that  fraud must have occurred. In some Michigan counties, the number of votes reported by computers for President Trump were lower than the number of ballots marked for a straight Republican vote.  This result in not possible without some type of gross error in the software, accidental or intentional.    
Challenging software algorithms is an option open only to the President and his lawyers, and the solution will rest in the hands of the courts, particularly the Supreme Court. 

The BOTTLENECK Where WE Can Help

The other solution is one in which each American can participate, investing just a few minutes of their time–

If and when the election fraud is proven and the results of some States are declared invalid, the Constitution places the choice of electors in the hands of the State Legislatures.

                                         IN ALL CONTESTED STATES,
      THE STATE LEGISLATURES ARE HELD BY REPUBLICAN MAJORITIES.

*****

That means that if our state legislators can summon up the courage to assign our votes to President Trump, President Trump will win the election. 
So it is our job, with emails and phone calls, to persuade our State Legislators of what the citizens of our States really want.

*****

Act Simply, ACT NOW:

  • Go to the American Majority Action website, and send a pre-made email to scores of your State Legislators with one email.

  •  Be sure to add your name, address and phone, because Legislators ignore messages without that information.

  • You can customize, or not customize your message as you wish.

  • Do it right now! 

 

CLICK HERE TO E-MAIL!

 

If you want a copy yourself, put yourself in the cc or “to” list.  

 

 

 

 

PATRIOTISM

No comments

PATRIOTISM

Archbishop Fulton Sheen was  Bishop in New York City during my childhood there.  He was famous as a theologian, and also for his radio and television evangelization.  My grandma used to love watching his program during the 1950’s and 1960’s in New York.  

He has long been a favorite of mine, and below, his thoughts on PATRIOTISM are as timeless and eerily applicable right now today, during this American election, as they were during Bishop Sheen’s time in New York. 

Archbishop Sheen’s dramatic flair and humor made his presentations very popular and enjoyable, and drew record crowds and viewers, in addition to being simply brilliant and sublime.

*********

                   St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City

Archishop Sheen’s sermons routinely drew 6,000 people to St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York, and his television appearances competed with Milton Berle and Frank Sinatra.  On Good Friday, his sermons were broadcast outdoors to the thousands standing outside St. Patrick’s, since there was not enough room for all in the Cathedral. 

***************** 

Enjoy Archbishop Fulton Sheen on PATRIOTISM:

SCIENCE has Spoken— and Goodbye Lockdowns!

Science Versus Politics

The torturous debate over COVID policy has now plagued us in the United States, plagued us almost as much as the virus itself has, for close to 8 months.

Even the two United States Presidential Candidates have opposing strategies for future handling of the COVID pandemic.  One insists on ending lockdowns immediately, the other intends to extend lockdowns indefinitely.  

Now, consensus has been reached by over 43,000 global non-partisan medical professionals, assessing how much threat COVID actually presents to us, and recommending the best strategy to combat it.

Medical Consensus

The consensus effort was headed by a Professor of Medicine at Stanford University, Dr. Bhattacharya, who co-authored the resulting Great Barrington Declaration, signed by over 43,000 Medical professionals, which was based on 82 seroprevalence studies from around the world, which show that the fatality rate of COVID has been MUCH lower than the initial reports which caused such global panic. 

How Could We Have Miscalculated So Badly?

Apparently the majority of people who are infected by COVID have very mild symptoms or no symptoms at all.  These people are “invisible” at the beginning of the pandemic, they are not counted, and the death rate becomes artificially inflated to a scary level when these people are not counted. 

The seroprevalence studies, which measure antibodies in the blood of large population groups, can tell us how many people had the disease without even knowing it, with few or nonexistent symptoms.  These seroprevalence tests can only be developed and carried out later in the pandemic, and results cannot be known early on.  

The ACTUAL Numbers for COVID

So COVID has a fatality rate, when all ages are included, of 0.2%, or one out of 500 people who get it.
COVID is less dangerous to young children than the seasonal flu.
More children have died from the seasonal flu than from COVID by a factor of 2 or 3.
For people over 70 years old, the fatality rate is 4%, or one out of 25 people who get it, as opposed to one in 500 for the general population.  
President Trump, who is just barely over 70, got over COVID in a week. 

LOCKDOWNS are Actually Bad and Dangerous

LOCKDOWNS are FAR more dangerous than we ever anticipated.  
The economic effects of lockdowns are obvious to most of us, but what most fail to realize is that economic troubles translate into much more than dollars — they translate so far into an estimated 130 million more people starving, 80 million children at risk for diphtheria, pertussis and polio because they missed their vaccinations, and people skipping screenings and treatments because they are more afraid of COVID than of cancer or diabetes.  

Most Shocking

According to the 43,000 medical health professionals, mental health problems are the most shocking of all the effects of lockdowns.  The CDC has just found this June that one out of four young adults between 18 and 24 had seriously considered suicide.  

Recommendations

Based on the scientific data now available, the medical experts recommend ending lockdowns, opening schools and restaurants, allowing young people to live normal lives, focusing protection on the vulnerable, like those in nursing homes, and reducing the exposure of retired people to large group situations. Masks are not mentioned, and simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone.  

I Want To Know More

For those who want to know more, the text and links to Dr. Bhattacharya’s article and the Great Barrington Declaration are provided below.  
Finally, provided below, is a short video outlining some of the legal and political aspects and origin of COVID that some may find both interesting and shocking.  

*****     *****     *****     *****    *****     *****     

Dr. Bhattacharya’s article: 

A Sensible and Compassionate Anti-COVID Strategy

Jay Bhattacharya
Stanford University


Jay BhattacharyaJay Bhattacharya is a Professor of Medicine at Stanford University, where he received both an M.D. and a Ph.D. in economics. He is also a research associate at the National Bureau of Economics Research, a senior fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research and at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, and director of the Stanford Center on the Demography and Economics of Health and Aging. A co-author of the Great Barrington Declaration, his research has been published in economics, statistics, legal, medical, public health, and health policy journals.


The following is adapted from a panel presentation on October 9, 2020, in Omaha, Nebraska, at a Hillsdale College Free Market Forum.

My goal today is, first, to present the facts about how deadly COVID-19 actually is; second, to present the facts about who is at risk from COVID; third, to present some facts about how deadly the widespread lockdowns have been; and fourth, to recommend a shift in public policy.

1. The COVID-19 Fatality Rate

In discussing the deadliness of COVID, we need to distinguish COVID cases from COVID infections. A lot of fear and confusion has resulted from failing to understand the difference.

We have heard much this year about the “case fatality rate” of COVID. In early March, the case fatality rate in the U.S. was roughly three percent—nearly three out of every hundred people who were identified as “cases” of COVID in early March died from it. Compare that to today, when the fatality rate of COVID is known to be less than one half of one percent.

In other words, when the World Health Organization said back in early March that three percent of people who get COVID die from it, they were wrong by at least one order of magnitude. The COVID fatality rate is much closer to 0.2 or 0.3 percent. The reason for the highly inaccurate early estimates is simple: in early March, we were not identifying most of the people who had been infected by COVID.

“Case fatality rate” is computed by dividing the number of deaths by the total number of confirmed cases. But to obtain an accurate COVID fatality rate, the number in the denominator should be the number of people who have been infected—the number of people who have actually had the disease—rather than the number of confirmed cases.

In March, only the small fraction of infected people who got sick and went to the hospital were identified as cases. But the majority of people who are infected by COVID have very mild symptoms or no symptoms at all. These people weren’t identified in the early days, which resulted in a highly misleading fatality rate. And that is what drove public policy. Even worse, it continues to sow fear and panic, because the perception of too many people about COVID is frozen in the misleading data from March.

So how do we get an accurate fatality rate? To use a technical term, we test for seroprevalence—in other words, we test to find out how many people have evidence in their bloodstream of having had COVID.

This is easy with some viruses. Anyone who has had chickenpox, for instance, still has that virus living in them—it stays in the body forever. COVID, on the other hand, like other coronaviruses, doesn’t stay in the body. Someone who is infected with COVID and then clears it will be immune from it, but it won’t still be living in them.

What we need to test for, then, are antibodies or other evidence that someone has had COVID. And even antibodies fade over time, so testing for them still results in an underestimate of total infections.

Seroprevalence is what I worked on in the early days of the epidemic. In April, I ran a series of studies, using antibody tests, to see how many people in California’s Santa Clara County, where I live, had been infected. At the time, there were about 1,000 COVID cases that had been identified in the county, but our antibody tests found that 50,000 people had been infected—i.e., there were 50 times more infections than identified cases. This was enormously important, because it meant that the fatality rate was not three percent, but closer to 0.2 percent; not three in 100, but two in 1,000.

When it came out, this Santa Clara study was controversial. But science is like that, and the way science tests controversial studies is to see if they can be replicated. And indeed, there are now 82 similar seroprevalence studies from around the world, and the median result of these 82 studies is a fatality rate of about 0.2 percent—exactly what we found in Santa Clara County.

In some places, of course, the fatality rate was higher: in New York City it was more like 0.5 percent. In other places it was lower: the rate in Idaho was 0.13 percent. What this variation shows is that the fatality rate is not simply a function of how deadly a virus is. It is also a function of who gets infected and of the quality of the health care system. In the early days of the virus, our health care systems managed COVID poorly. Part of this was due to ignorance: we pursued very aggressive treatments, for instance, such as the use of ventilators, that in retrospect might have been counterproductive. And part of it was due to negligence: in some places, we needlessly allowed a lot of people in nursing homes to get infected.

But the bottom line is that the COVID fatality rate is in the neighborhood of 0.2 percent.

2. Who Is at Risk?

The single most important fact about the COVID pandemic—in terms of deciding how to respond to it on both an individual and a governmental basis—is that it is not equally dangerous for everybody. This became clear very early on, but for some reason our public health messaging failed to get this fact out to the public.

It still seems to be a common perception that COVID is equally dangerous to everybody, but this couldn’t be further from the truth. There is a thousand-fold difference between the mortality rate in older people, 70 and up, and the mortality rate in children. In some sense, this is a great blessing. If it was a disease that killed children preferentially, I for one would react very differently. But the fact is that for young children, this disease is less dangerous than the seasonal flu. This year, in the United States, more children have died from the seasonal flu than from COVID by a factor of two or three.

Whereas COVID is not deadly for children, for older people it is much more deadly than the seasonal flu. If you look at studies worldwide, the COVID fatality rate for people 70 and up is about four percent—four in 100 among those 70 and older, as opposed to two in 1,000 in the overall population.

Again, this huge difference between the danger of COVID to the young and the danger of COVID to the old is the most important fact about the virus. Yet it has not been sufficiently emphasized in public health messaging or taken into account by most policymakers.

3. Deadliness of the Lockdowns

The widespread lockdowns that have been adopted in response to COVID are unprecedented—lockdowns have never before been tried as a method of disease control. Nor were these lockdowns part of the original plan. The initial rationale for lockdowns was that slowing the spread of the disease would prevent hospitals from being overwhelmed. It became clear before long that this was not a worry: in the U.S. and in most of the world, hospitals were never at risk of being overwhelmed. Yet the lockdowns were kept in place, and this is turning out to have deadly effects.

Those who dare to talk about the tremendous economic harms that have followed from the lockdowns are accused of heartlessness. Economic considerations are nothing compared to saving lives, they are told. So I’m not going to talk about the economic effects—I’m going to talk about the deadly effects on health, beginning with the fact that the U.N. has estimated that 130 million additional people will starve this year as a result of the economic damage resulting from the lockdowns.

In the last 20 years we’ve lifted one billion people worldwide out of poverty. This year we are reversing that progress to the extent—it bears repeating—that an estimated 130 million more people will starve.

Another result of the lockdowns is that people stopped bringing their children in for immunizations against diseases like diphtheria, pertussis (whooping cough), and polio, because they had been led to fear COVID more than they feared these more deadly diseases. This wasn’t only true in the U.S. Eighty million children worldwide are now at risk of these diseases. We had made substantial progress in slowing them down, but now they are going to come back.

Large numbers of Americans, even though they had cancer and needed chemotherapy, didn’t come in for treatment because they were more afraid of COVID than cancer. Others have skipped recommended cancer screenings. We’re going to see a rise in cancer and cancer death rates as a consequence. Indeed, this is already starting to show up in the data. We’re also going to see a higher number of deaths from diabetes due to people missing their diabetic monitoring.

Mental health problems are in a way the most shocking thing. In June of this year, a CDC survey found that one in four young adults between 18 and 24 had seriously considered suicide. Human beings are not, after all, designed to live alone. We’re meant to be in company with one another. It is unsurprising that the lockdowns have had the psychological effects that they’ve had, especially among young adults and children, who have been denied much-needed socialization.

In effect, what we’ve been doing is requiring young people to bear the burden of controlling a disease from which they face little to no risk. This is entirely backward from the right approach.

4. Where to Go from Here

Last week I met with two other epidemiologists—Dr. Sunetra Gupta of Oxford University and Dr. Martin Kulldorff of Harvard University—in Great Barrington, Massachusetts. The three of us come from very different disciplinary backgrounds and from very different parts of the political spectrum. Yet we had arrived at the same view—the view that the widespread lockdown policy has been a devastating public health mistake. In response, we wrote and issued the Great Barrington Declaration, which can be viewed—along with explanatory videos, answers to frequently asked questions, a list of co-signers, etc.—online at www.gbdeclaration.org.  

(Great Barrington Declaration text included here)

I should say something in conclusion about the idea of herd immunity, which some people mischaracterize as a strategy of letting people die. First, herd immunity is not a strategy—it is a biological fact that applies to most infectious diseases. Even when we come up with a vaccine, we will be relying on herd immunity as an end-point for this epidemic. The vaccine will help, but herd immunity is what will bring it to an end. And second, our strategy is not to let people die, but to protect the vulnerable. We know the people who are vulnerable, and we know the people who are not vulnerable. To continue to act as if we do not know these things makes no sense.

My final point is about science. When scientists have spoken up against the lockdown policy, there has been enormous pushback: “You’re endangering lives.” Science cannot operate in an environment like that. I don’t know all the answers to COVID; no one does. Science ought to be able to clarify the answers. But science can’t do its job in an environment where anyone who challenges the status quo gets shut down or cancelled.

To date, the Great Barrington Declaration has been signed by over 43,000 medical and public health scientists and medical practitioners. The Declaration thus does not represent a fringe view within the scientific community. This is a central part of the scientific debate, and it belongs in the debate. Members of the general public can also sign the Declaration.

Together, I think we can get on the other side of this pandemic. But we have to fight back. We’re at a place where our civilization is at risk, where the bonds that unite us are at risk of being torn. We shouldn’t be afraid. We should respond to the COVID virus rationally: protect the vulnerable, treat the people who get infected compassionately, develop a vaccine. And while doing these things we should bring back the civilization that we had so that the cure does not end up being worse than the disease.

*****     *****     *****     *****    *****     *****     

 

The Great Barrington Declaration: 

As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.

Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings, and deteriorating mental health—leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.

Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.

Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.

As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all—including the vulnerable—falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity—i.e., the point at which the rate of new infections is stable—and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.

The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.

Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent PCR testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals.

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sports, and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.

*****     *****     *****     *****    *****     *****     

ORIGINS OF COVID 19 MOVIE:

 

 

https://sytereitz.com/origins-of-covid-19-10/

What the Appointment of a Supreme Court Justice Means

 

In the light of Amy Coney Barrett’s appointment as Justice of the Supreme Court yesterday, two very profound statements must be shared —

  • U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s remarks on the Senate floor immediately preceeding the Senate vote to confirm Judge Barrett, and

  • Justice Barrett’s remarks immediately after being sworn in:

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s remarks before Senate confirms Judge Barrett:

The Senate will render one of the most consequential judgements it can ever deliver.

We will approve a lifetime appointment to our nation’s highest court.

Since the ink dried on the Constitution, only 114 men and women have been entrusted to uphold the separation of powers, protect people’s rights, and dispense impartial justice on the Supreme Court.

In a few minutes, Judge Amy Coney Barrett of Indiana will join their ranks.

This body has spent weeks studying the nominee’s record. We’ve examined fifteen years of scholarly writings. About one hundred opinions from the Seventh Circuit. And testimonials from legal experts running the gambit from close colleagues, to total strangers.

There have been one on one meetings for every Senator who wanted one. And a week of intensive hearings.

All of it has pointed to one conclusion: this is one of the most brilliant, admired, and well-qualified nominees in our lifetime. Intellectually, Judge Barrett is an absolute all-star.

She graduated number one in her class at Notre Dame Law School. She clerked on the second highest federal court and the Supreme Court. Then she returned to her alma mater and became an award-winning academic.

Judge Barrett’s mastery of the Constitution gives her a firm grasp on the judicial role.

Constitution of America, We the People.

She has pledged to ‘apply the law as written, not as she wishes it were.’ Her testimony, her writings, and her reputation confirm a total commitment to impartiality.

And the nominee’s personal integrity and strength of character are literally beyond reproach.

She earned the highest rating from the left leaning American Bar Association.

They marveled at the, quote, ‘breadth, diversity, and strength of the positive feedback [they] received from judges and lawyers of all political persuasions.’

If confirmed, this daughter of Louisiana and Indiana will become the only current justice with a law degree from any school not named Harvard or Yale.

She’d be the first mother of school-aged children to ever sit on the Court. By every account, the Supreme Court is getting not just a talented lawyer, but a fantastic person.

We’ve heard moving testimony from former students whom Judge Barrett went out of her way to help and to mentor. Her past clerks describe an exemplary boss. Her fellow scholars describe a winsome, respectful colleague who is tailor made for the collaborative atmosphere of the Court.

By any objective standard, Judge Barrett deserves to be confirmed to the Supreme Court.

The American people agree. In just a few minutes, she’ll be on the Supreme Court.

Two weeks ago, a CNN journalist made this observation. ‘Let’s be honest — in another [political] age… Judge Amy Coney Barrett would be getting 70 votes or more in the U.S. Senate because of her qualifications.’

Now, we know that’s not going to happen.

These are not the days when Justice Scalia was confirmed 98-0 and Justice Ginsburg was confirmed 96-3. And by the way, I voted for both Ginsburg and Breyer. It seems like a long time ago now.

We spent a lot of energy in recent weeks debating this matter. I think we can all acknowledge that both sides in the Senate have parallel oral histories about the last thirty or so years.

Each side feels the other side struck first — and struck worst – and has done more to electrify the atmosphere around here about confirmations.

Now, predictably enough, I think our account is based off what actually happened. I was there, I know what happened.

I’ve laid it out earlier, and I’ll talk about it again so the American people understand how we got to where we are.

It was the Senate Democrats who spent the early 2000s boasting about their brand new strategy of filibustering qualified nominees from a Republican president.

They were proud of it. They found a new way to halt the process. Stop those crazy right wing judges that Bush 43 was going to send up.

They pioneered it because they knew what the precedent was at that point. At that point as we discussed before, it just wasn’t done. Or you could do it, but you didn’t.

And the best evidence that you shouldn’t do it was the Clarence Thomas nomination, confirmed 52-48. And all of us know that any one of us in this body has a lot of power to object. So, if any one of the 100 senators at that time – including people who were opposed to Justice Thomas, like Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy – could have made us get 60 votes and Clarence Thomas would not have been on the Supreme Court.

That’s how strong the tradition was, until the Democratic Leader led the effort in the early 2000s to establish the new standard.

Well, after establishing the new standard, they got weary of it. And in 2013 the so-called nuclear option was implemented because Republicans were holding President Obama’s nominee’s to the same standard that they themselves had created.

So, when the shoe got on the other foot they didn’t like it too much. It was too tight.

Senate Democrats, both in 1992 and 2007, helpfully volunteered how they would have dealt with a nominee like we did in 2016.

The then-Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Joe Biden, helpfully volunteered in 1992 when Bush 41 was running for re-election, that had a vacancy occurred, they wouldn’t have filled it.

There wasn’t a vacancy, but he just helpfully volunteered how they would deal if it if they had one.

Well, to one-up him, Leader Harry Reid and his friend the Democratic Leader said 18 months before the end of the Bush 43 period, if a vacancy on the Supreme Court occurred they wouldn’t fill it. That’s a fact.

What we’re talking about here are the facts of how we got to where we are,

I understand my Democratic friends seem to be terribly persuaded by their version of all of this. All I can tell you is: I was there, I know what happened. And my version is totally accurate.

The truth is, on all of this, we owe the country a broader discussion.

Competing claims about Senate customs cannot fully explain where we are.

Procedural finger pointing does not explain the torrent of outrage and threats which this nomination and many previous ones have provoked from the political left.

There are deeper reasons why these loud voices insist it is a national crisis.

It’s a national crisis when a Republican president makes a nominee for the Supreme Court.

Catastrophe looms right around the corner. The country will be fundamentally changed forever. When a Republican president makes a Supreme Court nominee.

They have hauled out the very same tactics for fifty years. Some of the opposition’s more intense, but the doomsday predictions about the outcome of nominating these extremists like John Paul Stevens, David Souter?

Why, somehow, everyone knows in advance that nominations like Bork, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett are certain to whip up national frenzies… while nominations like Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan are calm events by comparison.

This blaring asymmetry predates our recent disputes. And it comes, my colleagues, from a fundamental disagreement on the role of a judge in our republic.

We just have a fundamental difference of opinion. We just heard the Democratic Leader name all of these things that are threatened by this nominee. It sounds very similar to the tunes we’ve heard before.

We, like many Americans, want judges to fulfill a limited role the Constitution assigns to them: Stick to text, resolve cases impartially, and leave policymaking to the people and their representatives, which is what we do here.

We just spent four years confirming brilliant, qualified constitutionalists to the Supreme Court and lower courts who understand their roles.

53 circuit judges, over 200 judges in total, and we’re about to confirm the third Supreme Court Justice. What they all have in common — brilliant, smart, and know what a judge is supposed to be.

But the left thinks the framers of our country got this all wrong. They botched the job. 

The people who wrote the Constitution didn’t understand what a judge ought to be. As several Senate Democrats have reaffirmed in recent days, they find it quaint and naive to think a judge would simply follow the law.

Scalia used to say if you want to make policy, why don’t you run for office? That’s not what we do here.

Gorsuch said we don’t wear red robes or blue robes. We wear black robes. What they want is activist judges. They’ve made it quite clear. The Democratic Leader just a few minutes ago made it quite clear.

So what they are looking for is a small panel of lawyers with elite educations to reason backward from outcomes and enlighten all the rest of us with their morals and political judgment. Whether the Constitution speaks to the issue or not. They know best what’s for us. No matter what the Constitution or the law may say.

And for the last several decades, in many cases, that’s what they have gotten. One activist decision after another, giving us subjective preferences of one side of the force of law.

Across a wide variety of social, moral, and policy matters that a healthy society would leave to democratic debate, the personal opinions of judges have superseded the will of the people.

Now, they call that a success, and they want more of it.

President Obama actually was refreshingly honest about this. He said he wanted to appoint judges who had empathy. Think about that for a minute. What if you are the litigant before the judge — for whom the judge does not have empathy? You’re in tough shape. So, you give them credit for being pretty honest about this. That’s what they’re looking for. The smartest, leftist people they can put to make all the decisions for the rest of us, rather than leaving it to the messy democratic process to sort these things out the way the framers intended.

And that is clearly why we have taken on such an outsized, combative atmosphere with regard to these confirmations. That’s why they have become so contentious, because they want to control not only the legislative body but the judicial decisions as well. 

Let me just say this — there is nothing innate about legal training that equips people to be moral philosophers.

And incidentally, as I just said, that’s why these confirmations have taken on such an outsized, unhealthy significance. The remarks we just heard from across the aisle show exactly why the framers wanted to stop the courts from becoming clumsy, indirect battlefields for subjective debates that belong in this chamber and over in the House and in state legislatures around the country.

The left does not rage and panic at every constitutionalist judge because they will simply enact our party’s policy preferences. Any number of recent rulings make that very clear.

Their problem is that every judicial seat occupied by a constitutionalist is one fewer opportunity for the far left to go on offense.

At the end of the day, this is a valid debate. 

The difference of opinion on the judicial role is something the Senate and our system are built to handle. But there is something else our system cannot bear. As you have heard tonight, we now have one political faction essentially claiming they now see legitimate defeat as an oxymoron.

Our colleagues cannot point to a single Senate rule that’s been broken. They made one false claim about committee procedure which the parliamentarian dismissed.

The process comports entirely with the constitution.

We don’t have any doubt, do we, that if the shoe was on the other foot, they would be confirming this nominee. And have no doubt if the shoe was on the other foot in 2016, they would have done the same thing. Why? Because they had the elections that made those decisions possible. The reason we were able to make the decision we did in 2016 is because we had become the majority in 2014. 

The reason we were able to do what we did in 2016, 2018, and 2020 is because we had the majority. No rules were broken whatsoever. So all of these outlandish claims are utterly absurd, and the louder they scream, the more inaccurate they are.

You can always tell, just check the decibel level on the other side. The higher it goes up, the less accurate they are.

Our democratic colleagues keep repeating the word illegitimate as if repetition would make it true.

We’re a constitutional republic. Legitimacy does not flow from their feelings. Legitimacy is not the result of how they feel about it. You can’t win them all, and elections have consequences.

And what this Administration and this Republican Senate has done is exercise the power that was given to us by the American people in a manner that is entirely within the rules of the Senate and the Constitution of the United States.

The irony indeed. Think about how many times our Democratic friends have berated President Trump for allegedly refusing to accept legitimate outcomes he does not like. How many times have we heard that? ‘President Trump won’t accept outcomes he does not like.’

Well, they’re flunking that very test right before our eyes. That’s their problem. They don’t like the outcome. Well, the reason this outcome came about is because we had a series of successful elections. One of our two major political parties increasingly claims that any political system that deals them a setback is somehow illegitimate.

And this started actually long before this vacancy, as we all know. Over a year ago, Senate Democrats sent the Court an amicus brief that read like a note from a gangster film. They wrote: ‘The Supreme Court is not well… Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured’…’

In March, the Democratic Leader stood outside the Court and threatened multiple Justices by name. ‘You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions!’ ‘You will pay the price!’
*****

That’s the Democratic Leader of the Senate in front of the Supreme Court mentioning justices by name and in effect saying, if you rule the wrong way, bad things are going to happen.

For multiple years now, Democrats in this body and on the presidential campaign stump have sought to revive the discredited concept of court-packing.

Every high school student in America learns about Franklin Roosevelt’s unprincipled assault on judicial independence. Now the left wants to repeat it.

And former Vice President Biden, who spent decades condemning the idea here in the Senate, obediently says he’ll look into it.

Most importantly, the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg said last year: ‘nine is the right number.’

That’s the vacancy we’re filling right now. I don’t think any of them have quoted her on this issue lately, have you? Ruth Bader Ginsburg said ‘nine is the right number.’

These latest threats follow decades of subtler attempts to take independent judges and essentially put them on political probation.

How many consecutive nominees have Democrats and the media insisted would, quote, ‘tip the balance’ of the Court?

Has anyone tallied up how many hard right turns the courts have supposedly taken in our lifetimes?

All this ominous talk is a transparent attempt to apply improper pressure to impartial judges.

Rule how we want, or we’re coming after the Court. Vote how we want, or we’ll destroy the Senate.

These have been the Democratic demands. This is not about separation of powers. 

It’s a hostage situation.

Elections come and go. Political power is never permanent.

But the consequences could be cataclysmic if our colleagues across the aisle let partisan passions boil over and scorch the ground rules of our government.

The framers built the Senate to be the nation’s firewall.

Over and over, this institution has stood up to stop recklessness that could have damaged our country forever.

Tonight, we are called to do that again.

Tonight, we can place a woman of unparalleled ability and temperament on the Supreme Court.

We can take another historic step toward a judiciary that fulfills its role with excellence, but does not grasp after power that our constitutional system intentionally assigns somewhere else.

And we can stand loud and clear that the United States Senate does not bow to intemperate threats.

Voting to confirm this nominee should make every single Senator proud.

So I urge my colleagues to do just that.”

Justice Barrett’s remarks:

Thank you. Thank you so very much. Thank you all for being here tonight and thank you, President Trump for selecting me to serve as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. It’s a privilege to be asked to serve my country in this office, and I stand here tonight, truly honored and humbled.

Thanks also to the Senate for giving its consent to my appointment. I am grateful for the confidence you have expressed in me and I pledge to you and to the American people that I will discharge my duties to the very best of my ability. This was a rigorous confirmation process. And I thank all of you, especially Leader McConnell and Chairman Graham for helping me to navigate it. My heartfelt thanks go to the members of the White House staff and Department of Justice who worked tirelessly to support me through this process. Your stamina is remarkable, and I have been the beneficiary of it.

Jessie and I are also so grateful to the many people who have supported our family over these last several weeks. Through ways both tangible and intangible, you have made this day possible. Jesse and I have been truly awestruck by your generosity. I have spent a good amount of time over the last month at the Senate, both in meetings with individual senators and in days of hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

The confirmation process has made ever clearer to me one of the fundamental differences between the federal judiciary and the United States Senate. And perhaps the most acute is the role of policy preferences. It is the job of a Senator to pursue her policy preferences. In fact, it would be a dereliction of duty for her to put policy goals aside. By contrast, it is the job of a judge to resist her policy preferences. It would be a dereliction of duty for her to give into them. Federal judges don’t stand for election, thus they have no basis for claiming that their preferences reflect those of the people.

This separation of duty from political preference is what makes the judiciary distinct among the three branches of government. A judge declares independence, not only from Congress and the President, but also from the private beliefs that might otherwise move her. The Judicial Oath captures the essence of the judicial duty. The rule of law must always control.

My fellow Americans, even though we judges don’t face elections, we still work for you. It is your Constitution that establishes the rule of law and the judicial independence that is so central to it. The oath that I have solemnly taken tonight means at its core that I will do my job without any fear or favor and that I will do so independently of both the political branches and of my own preferences. I love the Constitution and the Democratic Republic that it establishes, and I will devote myself to preserving it. Thank you.

 
 

 

Australia’s Report on US Politics or How Our Politics Has Become Truly and Evilly Global

Enjoy the 22 minute enlightening video:

My education and my enlightenment sadly continue.  

Perspective 2020 or Dear Mrs. DUMP TRUMP

..
 
 

I live in a progressive sanctuary city, Madison, Wisconsin, a stone’s throw away from Kenosha, Wisconsin , among aggressive Democrats who ensure that not a single Trump-Pence sign dares to be displayed anywhere in the City.

This Blog article is dedicated to all my friends  and neighbors who oppose President Trump in the coming election, particularly the privileged suburban woman in my neighborhood who lives near our polling station, and is displaying an oversized DUMP TRUMP sign on her lawn. 
Below are some things she should consider before dumping President Trump on November 3rd. 

 

Before we embark on all the reasons why Mrs. DUMP TRUMP might not want to vote for the Democrats below, we list here (and also at the end of this article) President Trump’s  accomplishments. for which we should be thankful and for which we should all re-elect President Trump, no matter what our preferred politics may be —  President Trump does great things for ALL Americans, including for those who oppose him.  CLICK:

*****************

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION (more than 50) MAJOR ACCOMPISHMENTS + 2 Nobel Prize Nominations  

***

COMMON LIBERAL MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP  

*****************

Also,  Piers Morgan’s (a liberal newscaster’s) explanation for why liberals should vote for President Trump:

*****************

************

And now down to business, my pitch to my neighbors–

Dear Mrs. DUMP TRUMP:

************

Consensus

In the present explosively divisive 2020 political climate, amidst the global pandemic, political divisions and rioting, one source of universal agreement is that the present situation is disturbing, is significant, and that big national and global changes are impending. Events which at first seem unrelated are coming together now with apparent coordination, to produce uncertainty and chaos, and a possible threat to our previously stable way of life.   

Equilibrium

In order to assess accurately the extent of the impending changes, we have to check first our human inclination to anticipate extremes.  At times we tend to fear catastrophic conspiracies directed by global evil despots, from either side of the political spectrum. At other times, donning rose colored glasses we presume that all of humanity is fundamentally saintly,  is motivated by idealism, and that an appeal to everyone’s good nature will be sufficient to solve the problems of the world and to create paradise on earth. 

Where should we be standing today regarding recent events — are we in the grip of an evil global conspiracy that must be opposed, or will the current situation constitute a relatively small setback in the history of our nation?

Here, too, both sides seem to agree — that the present situation is pretty catastrophic and dangerous. 
However, each side places the source and the blame for our problems in a different place– on each other.  Each side is accusing their opponents of ill will, lies, and of conspiracies of global proportions. 
Which side is in the right, and which side is founding all their claims on lies?

Civility and Restraint

Regardless of today’s circumstances, however extreme, we still have to function with civility and restraint.  Even if our political opponents are truly heinous and evil liars, and even if the destructive actions of their leaders are intentional, we will still all have to coexist somehow, after the present crisis subsides. Winners cannot erase the opposing half of their nation, particularly where Christianity prevails.  Nor can winners realistically expect all opponents to see the light and to join their efforts. 

Fortunately, the roots of our culture, growing out of two thousand years of Christendom, give us some guidance on dealing with even the truly heinous and evil, with civility and restraint.  

Caution and Forgiveness

It is useful to recall the 1994 replacement of South Africa’s apartheid government by that of Nelson Mandela, who had the presence of mind to realize that his nation could not execute the entire previous government. Mandela realized that they needed the expertise of the previous administration, and the cooperation of the whites who had built that society, in order to avoid national collapse.  He issued a pardon, and tried to make a fresh start for his nation, based on forgiveness. When drawing parallels between Mandela’s South African situation and the current U.S. situation, it must be recognized that Mandela’s constituency was 2o times larger than the whites he was deposing.  In the U.S. today, the number of people Democrat extremists are trying to depose is quite different.  A few militants are trying to overthrow the majority.  

Incidentally, it must be pointed out that human nature is never perfect, and the change of administration has not ultimately brought prosperity, peace, or even political justice to South Africa, despite Nelson Mandela’s efforts.  Old politicians were replaced with new politicians, and human nature remained flawed regardless of the color of their political skins.  But at least the changes did not occur via massive bloodshed, and the transition was mostly civilized.  

So, too, today, we need to step back and try to get some perspective on what is going on, and to strive for peaceful change if at all possible. 

Nobody’s a Saint

Even the (deservedly) much admired  Nelson Mandela was not always a “saint,” and started his political career with terrorism and “necklacing” of opponents (execution and torture carried out by forcing a rubber tire filled with gasoline around a victim’s chest and arms, and setting it on fire).

Many heroes of history had a bad start, including St. Paul the Evangelist, St. Mary Magdalene and St. Augustine. 

We are not trying to justify the use of evil to achieve one’s ends —  neither present day rioting and violence, nor Nelson Mandela’s violent start.  The point to be made here is that even good wise leaders and historical figures may have had a flawed past that needs to be forgiven, and that everyone would be “cancelled” if our lives were examined closely enough.  

Everybody Must Forgive

Honesty demands that we admit that all humans and all cultures have sinned, and that we all are works in progress, striving for the goal of perfection. 
Christianity demands forgiveness, seventy times seven times, and an acknowledgement of our own failings.
These principles are not simply optional saintly goals that religious people should aspire to, but are very practical principles that help us avoid a perennial history of revenges and blood feuds, which result in primitive bloody chaos.
 
South Africa moved on after apartheid, Russia moved on after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and our own nation moved on after the Civil War. 
Everybody must forgive. 

Forgiveness of Sin Versus Proliferation of Error

Our task then becomes the very difficult balance between forgiveness and correction of serious and dangerous ideological error, which is pervading our society today.
To paraphrase Pope Pius X, we cannot accept any liberal ideas which, under the mask of good, pretend to reconcile justice with iniquity.  Sometimes compassion and toleration of extremely dangerous behavior is not virtuous at all.  

This is how we got into the mess we are in today– by spreading various forms of serious moral error, under the guise of compassion and tolerance.

Fundamentals

There are some fundamentals essential to the peaceful coexistence of humans, without which society descends into chaos.
They include truth, justice, compassion and order, among others. 
If this begins to sound like a list of religious virtues, there is a reason for this —  religion, like mathematics and physics, is based on reality and on truth. 
The rules given to us by God via religion are not stupid, they are wise fundamentals.
Violence is not among these fundamentals. 

Violence 

The idea that flawed governments can be overthrown by violating these principles, by violent rebellion involving the destruction of innocents, followed by a sudden return to fairness and morality by the new, previously violent rebellious regime, is naive.  The very people who riot, burn and kill today, will not rule with wisdom tomorrow.  

It did not work in the Bolshevik revolution, the French Revolution, nor in the more complicated and less violent takeovers of government by idealistic groups promising paradise to all. In every case, the new masters showed themselves to be just as bad as the old masters, and human frailty continued to surface as opportunists found their way to the top in new regimes.

In most cases, too, the revolutions were not actually caused by discontent citizens who decided suddenly to turn violent. They were in each case incited surreptitiously by organized groups who were motivated to use a naive population to help unseat the previous regime and to help them gain power.  The naive population which was used did not benefit ultimately in any way.  In fact, they suffered tremendously.  

So when choosing our politics, approval and tolerance of violence is a clear indicator of erroneous philosophy.  

Eliminating Religion

Little known is the fact that the secret society of the Freemasons has claimed credit for inciting the Bolshevik revolution, which they claimed to be their first experiment in eliminating the power of religion over people.  The Bolshevik experiment ushered the concept of communism, a very flawed system of government, into modern life in the 20th century.  The first attempt at outlawing religion (translate replacing voluntary self-restraint by citizens with governmental restraint of citizens by force) led to the birth of communism.

Today, Freemasons are involved in the particularly draconian enforcement of Covid regulations in Victorian, Australia, where a police foundation is selling face masks with the Freemason logo.   

Communism

Communism is based on government controlling people from the top down with regulation and force, with no limits on governmental power. Government is permitted to do anything to achieve it’s lofty goals, including kill it’s citizens without trial, and is accountable to nobody. God is eliminated because totalitarian leaders do not want any restrictions on their power, which God and religion impose.  If there is any doubt of this, ask me about my innocent Lithuanian farmer relatives who spent decades in Siberian concentration camps after Lithuania was taken over by Soviet Russia after World War II, simply because the government wanted to repossess their tiny 1 acre farm or their workplace.

The Opposite of Communism

In contrast, the US system of government was based on people controlling government, restricting the powers of government, and enjoying a great deal of personal liberty.  It assumes a great deal of individual decency and voluntary self-restraint in it’s citizens.  The US government is very limited in it’s powers— limited by the Constitution (which is based on Judeo-Christian principles), limited by the division of powers in government, and limited by the will of it’s people, who vote.  If the people lose their voluntary self-restraint and their individual decency, our democracy will no longer work.  

But we digress.

Let us return to today’s explosive politics, and see why the DNC platform violates the US Constitution, and ushers in communism into our American future. Today’s Democrat policies pose the danger of  spreading various forms of serious moral error, under the guise of compassion and tolerance. 

The DNC Platform

Based on the new DNC platform, The Democrat party is poised to take us in the direction of communism. It contains a large number of edicts issued from the top, which regulate and control more and more the life of every American, precisely what our Constitution was trying to avoid.
  
The Constitution practices subsidiarity, a principle that holds that nothing should be done by a larger and more complex organization which can be done as well by a smaller and simpler organization. In other words, any activity which can be performed by a more decentralized entity should be. This principle is a bulwark of limited government and personal freedom. It conflicts with the passion for centralization and bureaucracy characteristic of the Welfare State.
 
Subsidiarity is the reason our American Revolution was fought, to escape the dictatorial control of King George III, and to return the control of their lives to the people after the government became too despotic.
The most recent DNC platform violates numerous principles of the Constitution and of subsidiarity, placing citizens at the mercy of edicts from government officials to which they never agreed. 
Today’s newest DNC platform seeks to restructure our US government into despotic draconian control of us, its citizens. 

Elements of the DNC & Biden Platform

  • The idea of MASSIVE INCREASES IN TAXATION (promised by Joe Biden upon his election) to fund all the items shown above in the DNC platform, illustrates a very high level of government control over local communities, akin to communism.  The idea that an American citizen is not free to pursue his own charitable priorities, but must sacrifice major portions of his income to fund the priorities of progressive people in Washington D.C. is dictatorship in gross violation of the Constitution of the United States. 
  • The guarantee of FREE ABORTION FOR ALL PROVISION, to be paid for by all Americans, including those who consider abortion to be murder, is a gross and dictatorial violation of  American freedoms. At least half of America is being forced to participate in murder against their wishes.
  • The SPONSORSHIP OF ABORTION BY GOVERNMENT is a dictatorial contradiction of the Bill of Rights — it engages our government in depriving future unborn citizens of Life before they were even born, ensuring that they never experience Liberty or the Pursuit of Happiness.  If the government can sponsor abortion now, what is to stop them from sponsoring euthanasia of senior citizens tomorrow?  Heaven knows the Democrat platform has changed radically in just the last 4 years!  People like MRS. DUMP TRUMP and myself will soon be on the government execution list. As well as anybody who is declared not sufficiently “woke” at any given moment.
  • In addition to extensive taxation and redistribution of American earnings, the DNC platform also describes the intention to CENSOR ALL INFORMATION OUTLETS that are available to American citizens.  See page 48 of the DNC platform.  We have already seen today that the progressive tech giant computer geeks running You Tube, Facebook and Twitter feel qualified to censor the medical opinions of medical doctors who are engaged in fighting the Covid epidemic. Their censorship is practiced strictly along political lines.  This censorship and manipulation of information and of the news is another hallmark of communism, and a violation of American rights.  
  • Although not specifically mentioned in the DNC platform, Joe Biden has made very clear his wish to decree MANDATORY MASK WEARING throughout the United States on his first day in office if elected.  
    Entire nations (such as Sweden), and numerous doctors (many of whom have been censored by our present tech giants and dishonest media outlets) question the severity of the Covid outbreak, and they debate the best means for reducing the catastrophe our nation suffers due to the release of this virus.  There is much evidence indicating that lockdowns and forced usage of masks is not the best way to go.
    Any unilateral decree by a President requiring all Americans to wear masks would be a clear and dangerous violation of not only American Constitutional rights, but also of common sense.  
    The fact that we can smell while wearing a mask hints at the fact that mask pore sizes do not exclude everything.  Mask pore sizes are typically much larger than 300 nanometers, while coronaviruses are about 100 nanometers, so they can clearly pass through the mask (molecules we smell are about 1 nanometer).  A hospital study has shown that homemade masks tested performed poorly, sometimes demonstrating as little as 1% filtration of viruses and bacteria.
    The compulsory use of masks either represents an attempt to pacify an excessively fearful population, or an attempt to instill fear in a population for the sake of political control (see Alinsky Tactics under Clashes Between Liberals and Conservatives ).  A masked and fearful population huddling in their locked down homes is clearly more prone to accepting “rescue” from even a despotic dictatorial government.  One of the oldest con games in human history involves convincing people they are in danger and offering a “cheap” solution.   
  • The  MASSIVE GREEN DEAL PROPOSAL in the DNC platform, is projected to cost $70 trillion, four times larger than our yearly gross national product.  This is a preposterous proposed expenditure, equivalent to a personal decision ourselves to spend 400% more this year on one item than we earn annually.  It would lead to instant and catastrophic debt and destruction of our economy.  This compulsory policy is particularly shocking when there is much very serious national debate among world class intellectuals over whether man-made global warming and “climate change” are a threat to us at all.  

The Democrat party seems to be poised to exchange our democratic form of government for communism, under which government taxes citizens oppressively, promises to redistribute the wealth equitably, and does everything by force.

Historically, every attempt at socialism has ended in inefficiency, degeneration of services, and autocratic control of the population. Taking away a person’s money for redistribution by someone who claims to be wiser is the greatest killer of motivation to work.  And the autocrats who promise to do this never distribute back much of what they collect to the people.  Most of what is collected is kept by the despots, and only insignificant crumbs (like free Obama-phones) are returned to the people.  Again, ask anyone who has had any contact with Venezuela, North Korea, Communist China, or Soviet Russia (me).  
Ask the Man Who Knew Communism Best, Bishop Fulton Sheen — watch him on You Tube.

Advocating Violence

Democrats are also advocating and approving the use of violence as a tool for change.   They are “CANCELING”  opponents instead of winning with debate, and they are advocating the elimination of police, thus eliminating law and order. This is clearly a recipe for disaster for our nation.

The cancellation of all law enforcement, of all leadership that does not subscribe to progressively defined political correctness, of any black voter who dares to think conservatively, and of our nation’s entire history, is a form of very dishonest political violence that is inexcusable. 

And the violence seems to just have begun, as Democrats threaten more and more.  House Democrats just recently blocked the condemnation of Defund the Police.   Kamala Harris, in her first solo speech as Democratic vice presidential nominee, stared down President Trump and said she stood with the protesters after riots in Kenosha, according to CBS News.  Moreover, evidence has recently surfaced for a Soros-backed coalition preparing to create post-election day chaos.   Is this the America we all want to live in? 

A Double Standard

There is also an amazing double standard where accountability is concerned.
Why are Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and every other high level progressive completely exempt both from prosecution and from “CANCELING”  by US citizens for their misdeeds and collusions with foreign governments?

Why is Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, exempt from canceling due to her very bigoted attitudes towards black Americans, of whom she had written  “We don’t want the word to get out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.”?

Why is the Democrat Party, historically responsible for supporting slavery in America, exempt from canceling?

Why is Joe Biden, who has been accused of sexual assault, exempt from “Me, Too” accountability, and why has Kamala Harris flip-flopped on her belief of these accusations against Joe Biden?

The REAL Candidate Who Will Actually Be President

The most likely future President & leader of the Democrat party, if Democrats were to win this election, is Kamala Harris.  Harris was the California attorney general who dismissed the case against Planned Parenthood for illegally selling  aborted baby parts and encouraging later and later term abortions in order to generate more lucrative and expensive dead baby parts.

  She then raided the pro-lilfe reporter’s David Daleiden’s  home for exposing Planned Parenthood.  She continued on a legal vendetta to destroy the life of David Daleiden, selectively using California’s video recording laws as a political weapon to silence disfavored speech. David Daleiden became the first journalist ever to be criminally prosecuted under California’s recording law.  Kamala Harris filed 15 felony charges against him, and now, four years later, David Daleiden is still trapped in Kamala Harris’ persecution

This is what Kamala Harris did, as Attorney General, to a young pro-life undercover reporter who unearthed Planned Parenthood’s blood-curdling criminal activities.  She protected the criminals and viciously attacked the whistleblower.  

Kamala Harris is also known to be the most extreme far left Democrat in the Senate.  She executed the most vicious and deceitful attacks both during Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination, and during her own presidential candidacy, when she attacked now presidential candidate Joe Biden viciously and untruthfully.  Kamala Harris is also inconsistent, flip-flopping at any politically favorable wind.  She  strongly supported Christine Blasey Ford’s fallacious accusations against Brett Kavanaugh, but now dismisses allegations of sexual misconduct towards women by Joe Biden. This “Me too” hypocrisy cannot go unmentioned.  

Like some American founding Presidents who owned slaves, whose statues are being  destroyed and whose history is being cancelled today by Democrats,  Kamala Harris also has ancestors who owned slaves in Jamaica.  Why is Kamala Harris immune from cancelling?

Why do Democrats selectively target white people for shaming and cancelling, when slave ownership in the early days of our nation was also practiced by black people and by Native Americans (American Indians), who owned thousands of slaves? 

Finally, if the Democrats win this election, Nancy Pelosi, who was duped by a hair salon, and is now third in line to the nuclear codes, could advance in her position to first place.  

Bottom Line

Unless Americans are willing to completely dismiss any attachment to democratic government and the Constitution if the United States, in favor of dictatorial socialist promises which have never materialized in the history of the world, the Democrat Party must be defeated in this election.

The Use of Fear

The use of FEAR, the present favored tool of the left,  is not a good tactic to see in one’s leadership. When lies are combined with fear mongering, a population has no access to reality, and is at the mercy of those who control the government and the media.

Current Fear Tactics

The present lockdowns, school closures, masked 5 year olds playing in the streets, and violent BLM activists hijacking and using our black population for their own acknowledged Marxist agenda, are all examples of the fear mongering being used by the left.  This is a long-ago acknowledged tactic of the left— the Alinsky tactics studied by Hillary Clinton and taught by Barack Obama, which emphasize “never letting a good crisis go to waste.” 

It works like this — you identify a crisis, exaggerate it, build it up with lies, panic the population, and now the population is ready for any savior, to whom they are happy to surrender their rights in return for protection, presuming good will in their saviors, and assuming that rights will be restored when the crisis passes.  

The rights are never restored, and there is never any shortage of new crises, to keep the population on shaky ground.  If there is a shortage of crises, you simply create a crisis.  Some accuse the global warming proponents of using this tactic to gain global control of governments.  

In recent decades, we have had global cooling crises and  global warming crises, which have nudged many well- intentioned nations to relinquish rights to globalists and to surrender control over their own destiny.
 
Now that we have a President who is returning  control of our nation back into the hands of our own people, and is foiling the plans of the globalists, they are finding new and more panicked crises to amplify artificially, to instill fear in the population and try to grasp control.  

These include the Covid pandemic, and the artificially created BLM unrest, which occurs, incidentally, only in Democratically controlled cities where Democrat Mayors tell police to stand down and where Democrat city councils defund and shackle the police.

Aside on the COVID Pandemic and on Global Warming and Climate Change 

More and more globally reputable scientists and statisticians are discrediting man-made global warming and climate change claims, and are discrediting the lockdown handling and exaggeration of the present Covid pandemic. 

Examples of seriously data-driven and intellectual man-made global warming skeptics include Tony Heller, and my husband, Rolf Reitz, who, as Editor of the International Journal of Engine Research co-authored an editorial with 37 globally renowned scientists explaining why the present drive to eliminate gasoline engines from your planet is exaggerated.  Rolf also gave a Princeton University and Georgia Tech-sponsored webinar in which he detailed the scientific arguments supporting skepticism of the man-made global warming alarmism that is rampant today, and is in danger of damaging the indigent populations of the world more than any of us.

There is no shortage of globally reputable scientists who assure us that there is no climate emergency. 
Recently, 500 such scientists , spearheaded by the Amsterdam-based Climate Intelligence Foundation (CLINTEL) issued the European Climate Declaration, describing the leading climate models as “unfit,” and warning that  “current climate policies pointlessly and grievously undermine the economic system, putting lives at risk in countries denied access to affordable, reliable electrical energy.”

Criticisim of the lockdown and mask handling of the recent COVID pandemic is also surfacing in the scientific world, now that we have seen some data on the pandemic. 
Ivor Cummins (a top health officer and technical leader from Dublin, Ireland) presents the most convincing data and conclusions in a very public-friendly 40 minute seminar which everybody should view before forming any opinions on the further handling of the COVID situation.  It’s called Our Viral Issue-Crucial Update

Basically, Cummins gives incontrovertible  evidence for the uselessness of both masks and of lockdowns in dealing with the COVID situation.  He exposes the erroneous modeling that predicted a pandemic of catastrophic proportions which never materialized.  (Incidentally, the Global Warming alarmism was also generated by erroneous modeling predictions which never materialized, and which today’s climate data are not supporting in the least.)

In the best case scenario, the scientists who try to model and predict nature, either weather or pandemics, with equations and computers are simply incompetent and unable to acknowledge the unreliability of their pathetic predictions.  In the worst case scenario, they are corrupt scientists who intentionally model and predict fallacious “chicken little” “the sky is falling” scenarios, to help their favored unprincipled political faction gain power by promising to rescue the panicked population from impending disaster.
  
In the case of global warming, the tragically exaggerated and inaccurate modeling was done and was promulgated by Al Gore and his political globalist friends.  In the case of COVID modeling, the modeling was done by people associated with Bill Gates and Dr. Anthony Fauci, who are both financially invested in producing COVID vaccines for global use.    

Conclusion

The extent to which we have all been hoodwinked by a colluding media, a rapidly shifting Democrat Party, and the deep pockets of  billionaire far left activists is only beginning to be apparent.

More and more globally reputable scientists  are exposing the lies that are being taught in our schools and in politically correct indoctrination programs which are all designed to instill fear and shame in our population and to discredit our aystem of government. 

So What Do We Do?

Clearly, whether you lean liberal or conservative, and whether you like President Donald Trump’s politics and policies or not, if you want democracy in the future of our nation, you must vote for President Trump on November 3rd.

Once democracy is preserved on November 3rd, you can advocate and work for any change you like in future elections, under the umbrella  And protection of the U.S.  Constitution.

The only other alternative for us today is the Democrat party platform. This would establish dictatorial rule, draconian control of citizens, lockdowns, California-like power shortages, elimination of most rights now guaranteed by the Constitution,  the alteration of the Constitution by appointed Supreme Court Justices, instead of the preservation of the Constitution by them, and, in short, a government resembling that of Communist China, the Old USSR, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela.  Venezuela is the most recent example of socialist destruction of a previously prosperous nation, where promises were made, and promises were not kept.

Not all Americans realize the power and brilliance of the US Constitution, which was designed to shackle the power of government leaders, and to introduce controls that would  limit potential despots.  The writers of the Constitution studied millennia of human history, and chose the best attributes from different forms of government.  They inserted the very Christian values of protecting the rights of the meek and of the poor from the powerful who may want to use and to control them.

Elect, and Super-Elect President Trump

Not only do we have to elect, but we have to super-elect President Trump in the coming election. Due to the acknowledged and enthusiastic use of a Alinsky tactics by the Democrat party, the election of President Trump will have to compensate for all the unprincipled devious tactics the left is planning to use.

The left has recruited most of the media to participate in the lies smearing President Trump, to the point where an assimilation of all the networks and reporters using identical phrases maligning President Trump on a given day has become obvious and even comical.

They are all clearly receiving identical instructions from a central source on a daily basis.  Whether that source is Barack Obama, the head of the “Resistance” in his alternate White House in Washington, or George Soros, or the secret Freemasons who have had a documented agenda since 1850 to destroy the power of religion over nations, and who have claimed credit for steering the Bolshevik Revolution, or whether that centralized source of evil is some other power-monger leftist like the tech giants of Google, Facebook and Twitter, the existence of that centralized command post is now blatantly obvious.
And the lies and manipulations of the left are not limited to the media— they are also now  engaged in escalating amounts of election fraud.

Since we on  the right practice  the voluntary self-restraint if Judeo- Christian Culture, and limit ourselves to what is lawful and constitutional, we must super-elect an over- elect this President.  We must get to the polls even if it means crawling over broken glass, we must advocate and work for this election, we must donate money, more that ever before, and most important of all, we must enlist the most powerful vote in the universe, we must enlist the support of God in this election, through the biggest avalanche of prayer that humanity has ever accomplished.  The Christian roots of our nation are in the balance.

Do the common man and his self evident  God given Rights win, or does totalitarian rule by  Marxists, accountable neither to God, nor to the citizenry, win?

For Everybody

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION (more than 50) MAJOR ACCOMPISHMENTS + 2 Nobel Prize Nominations  

For Catholics 

For those who have signed on to Catholicism as the best available guardian of God’s revelations to humanity over millennia, and the best source of guidance in matters of morality (as I have), there is an overriding moral reason to vote for President Trump. 

President Trump is the most pro-life President we have ever had, and Catholics  know that whether or not we kill our babies is the most pre-eminent moral issue in the 2020 Election. 
The US Bishops have reiterated this fact recently, providing guidance for Catholics.  

‘Abortion is an intrinsic evil, meaning that it is never permitted or morally justified, regardless of individual circumstances or intentions’ 

 A serious Catholic (or any other serious Christian, for that matter) cannot vote for a party that condones abortion, advocates the killing of a baby who survives abortion, advocates the killing of a baby right until the moment of birth, uses public funds to promote abortion at home and abroad, and helps organizations like Planned Parenthood, which engage in the grisly selling of aborted baby parts, as Kamala Harris has done. 

One Catholic priest, Fr. James Altman, has gone as far as to say that no Catholic can vote Democrat in this election.  “You cannot be Catholic & a Democrat. Period.”  Some US Catholic Bishops support him.  Others condemn the “tone” of his message. Evangelical Christians will probably love him, and they have already joined President Trump for his positions on abortion and on the Supreme Court.  

Another Catholic priest has condemned the masking and shutdown tactics pushed by Joe Biden as diabolically inspired and unnatural.  Father Robert Altier, a well known homilist, author, member of the board of Catholic Parents Online, and host of the DVD series Beauty, Truth, Goodness: The fundamentals of Catholicism, the parish priest of St. Raphael’s in Crystal, Minnesota says:

There’s nothing normal about it. It is not normal for human beings to be six feet apart from one another. It’s not normal for human beings to be covering their face when they try and talk to somebody.
It is not normal for us to be locking ourselves in the house for months at a time. It is not normal for us to be acting the way that we are because of what’s going on.
It has nothing to do with God, and it has nothing to do with humanity. Well, that doesn’t leave a whole lot of options then, does it? Where do we think it’s really coming from?
It is evil. Let’s be clear what it is. It is evil.

There is no question in this Catholic’s mind that abortion is the biggest overriding moral evil of the past century and that all decent people are obliged to take no part in it whatsoever, either personally, or as a nation.  In fact, we are obliged to warn our fellow citizens, whom we are obliged to love, against participating in this evil, too.  
I would go beyond just eliminating the use of Federal funds for any abortion-related purpose– I would include unborn babies in with the rest of us, who are guaranteed the right to LIFE.  

VOTE FOR PRESIDENT TRUMP on November 3rd!

 

 

 

 

Science & Global Warming

 

Basing global energy policy on truth would have major ramifications on our economy and on our prosperity. 
 
Rolf Reitz,
Wisconsin Distinguished Professor and
Editor of the International Journal of Engine Research,
has outlined the scientific argument AGAINST global warming alarmism, in a professional talk entitled
The Future of the Internal Combustion Engine. 
 
Presented through the Georgia Tech Combustion Webinar on June 20, 2020. 
 
Posted on YouTube June 22, 2020.  
See YouTube embedded below or at The Future of the Internal Combustion Engine.  
The main global warming discussion goes from minute 19:40 to minute 37:32 of the 1 hour talk.
 
The entire talk is very useful for anybody interested in an honest engineering assessment of  whether we can ban the internal combustion engine in our cities, or whether we even need to.
 

I will  post a simplified version of the arguments presented here for younger scientists, as soon as time permits.   Stay tuned. 

Division in Our Nation

When faced with the division so apparent in our nation between the left and the right, it is important to define the conflict in order to seek a remedy.  
Is the conflict between Democrats and Republicans, between liberals and conservatives, between left and right a result of a difference of opinion that can be sorted out or solved by debate and by compromise?
Or is the conflict so fundamental and central that we have reached the point of war, for which very different tactics must be used?  And, if so, who initiated the war, and is peace even possible?

Conservatives Trying to Understand

When faced with someone’s actions that mystify you, the best policy is to assume the best about them (practice forbearance), to try to put yourself into the other’s shoes (show empathy), and to search for rational explanations and good motivations that might possibly lead a person to do what you find so perplexing.
These are the fundamentals of decent Judeo-Christian behavior which I was taught by my parents and by the Sisters of Saint Joseph (who educated me in New York City at St. Benny’s Catholic School in Richmond Hill) during my elementary years.

This is generally the best way to approach life, and it’s what those of us who try not to be curmudgeons strive for most of the time. 

Even when people do that which for us conservatives is unthinkable, like killing their own babies in the womb, we try to drum up explanations explaining their choices and softening their intent.  They could not afford a baby.  They felt social stigma.  They assumed the child would have a miserable life. They wanted to avoid inconvenience and had no idea how serious their choice actually was. They fell for secular propaganda without thinking.

  

This works for explaining the motivations of many nice people who are liberals, particularly those who have not devoted much thought to the issues at hand, and who themselves innocently try to fit in with the new and sometimes shocking “social values” that are presented to them (and most recently demanded of them) by our “culture.”
 
That “culture” is now predominantly defined and then controlled by the left. 
With the help of the now primarily leftist media,  the left projects the “everybody thinks this way” image very successfully, whether that is accurate or not.  Their message actually goes beyond “everybody thinks this way,”  and is rather more like “you are scum (racist, …etc.ist) if you don’t think our way.” So, wanting to fit in and not make waves, nice liberal people buckle easily under pressure from the extreme left, and become increasingly more liberal, not realizing the trouble for which they are headed.   

No Longer Liberal

In this way, the previously nice liberals in our midst have slowly been replaced by a very forceful element of the radical far left, to whom the word “liberal” no longer applies. 
They are no longer “liberal” or “easy” or “permissive” about anything. They are now quite angry, dictatorial, and inflexible, and, despite their free use of the word “tolerance,” are not very tolerant about anything with which they themselves disagree.  In fact, they even no longer refer to themselves as “liberals,” but now prefer the word “progressives.”  They try to dictate to all of us where our culture and our values must “progress,” they intolerantly label us with hateful names when we don’t comply, and they use increasingly violent and even illegal tactics on anyone who dares to disobey their agenda or to resist. Examples of the weapons used are:

This consummation by hatred that we see in the modern left comes at a very heavy price.  It damages not only the progressive haters and their victims (the Trump supporters), but the entire nation.   
The term Trump derangement syndrome has even been coined —
Trump derangement syndrome (TDS) is a term for irrational criticism and negative reactions to President Donald Trump that have little regard towards Trump’s actual positions or actions taken, or even whether these positions or actions are clearly in the best interests of the country, and were positions held by Democrats recently.

 

Enough is Enough

When it comes to the leaders who are steering the new very radical and apparently very hateful left, our Christian attempts at understanding and overcoming disagreement, by practicing good will and forbearance, now fall short.

When faced with Antifa-like attacks, no amount of good will or forbearance will help.
You don’t approach Antifa-(oops, Attila)-the-Hun with good will and forbearance.
Efforts at logic, reason and debate simply enrage the radicals further.   

Their radical demands keep shifting to the extreme, demanding more and more”rights” which now routinely trample the real rights of the majority.  For instance:

  • Democrats now demand the “right” to kill an unwanted baby after “accidental” birth.
  • Democrats demand that America’s borders be simply removed, and that anyone from anywhere who walks into our country must be openly accepted and given all “rights” that previously had to be earned through comprehensive citizenship scrutiny and eligibility.
  • Regarding support for declining moral standards, Democrats demand the “right” of AIDS patients to engage in promiscuous behavior without warning the other party, thus infecting others. (Half a million young men died unnecessarily during the AIDs crisis because facts about the transmission of AIDs were concealed.)
  • And Democrats demand the “right” to change modesty standards in restrooms for the entire nation. 
  • In attempts to garner control of the country, Democrats even advocate eradication of the Constitution’s Electoral College in favor of a popular vote, thus disenfranchising rural America.  Rural America is then expected to feed and support left-wing urban America, while the urban left gets to control government and law and free-load off rural areas. 
  • And the list goes on…..

When a squeaky wheel begins to demand too much, and tramples the rights of others with their excessive demands, the time comes for reasonable people to declare that “enough is enough.”
The left now demands such a fundamental compromise of core values that no reasonable Christian could or should agree to compromise any longer.  

Even the Left Jumps Ship

The left has become too radical even for the left.
 
David Horowitz is one example of a devoted left wing activist of the 1960’s, who realized by the 1980’s that the left had migrated too far in its “ends justify the means” philosophy– in his case, going too far meant the murder of Horowitz’s friend by left wing activists.   
David Horowitz then abandoned the left, and for the next 30 years applied his intellect and talent  to opposing the left. 
David Horowitz has now been a leading conservative thinker and writer for several decades, until his death in early 2019.   

According to David Horowitz, progressive leaders of the left have declared war on America and its constitutional system, and are even willing to collaborate with America’s enemies abroad, and with criminals at home, to bring America down. He does not portray them as people who can be reasoned with, or people who are capable of compromise.  He does not even believe that they want the best for our nation — something that I had assumed all along.  In my naïveté, I have always assumed that the left wants the best for our country, but disagrees with me on the best route by which to achieve it.
 
Horowitz’s contention that the radical left hates America and the principles upon which it was built, and wants to destroy all that our nation stands for, is a game changing concept.  We can no longer hope to reason with and “convert” the left; instead we must expect escalating attacks and learn how to protect ourselves from them.       

Surely, This is Paranoia?

I would never have believed until very recently that leaders of the left (Pelosi, Biden, Hillary, Barack…) had direct intentions to damage America, as Horowitz suggests.

 
But extreme events have come to light during the past three years.  It has been reported that certain members of the leadership in the previously trusted and respected FBI, DOJ, CIA, FISA court and DNC, have colluded with Fusion GPS, Yahoo news and other main stream media, to produce false accusations against President Trump, in an effort to depose him, effectively initiating a coup.  The extent and lawlessness of this apparent subversive “deep state,” coordinating secret lies and violating laws to reverse an American election, have convinced me that there is, indeed, a conspiracy on the part of the left in our country. 

That conspiracy sought to unseat President Trump unjustly.  It is now widely known that:

  • Numerous leftist government officials prioritized unseating a sitting President over the welfare of the nation. 
  • In setting up their open “resistance movement,” numerous Democrat leaders refuse to support projects under President Trump which they previously supported under President Obama (such as building of a wall, or restrictions on immigration).  
  • Democrats oppose work needed for the safety of the American people by our law enforcement officers just to “resist” President Trump.
  • Many left-leaning politicians, also supported by the hostile press, place priority on damaging the President over protecting our citizenry and over maintaining our nation’s credibility abroad.  

For 3 years now, the Democrats have behaved like a child who rips the head off the favorite doll of a sibling rather than see that sibling enjoy (and possibly share) the precious doll.
  
The spitefulness of the left has now risen to the level that they side with Iran and with sadistic mastermind Qassem Soleimani, rather than acknowledge the accomplishments of President Trump in stemming terror directed at the US.
 
And their spitefulness has most recently risen to the level that they tried to convict the President of false manufactured accusations and “Impeachment” without allowing him due process or defense.  

Vast Left Wing Conspiracy?

So yes, now it seems we have to to acknowledge the existence of a vast left wing conspiracy aimed at bringing down America and the (Christian-based) constitutional government that supports our success.
David Horowitz, who suggests this, is probably right, and his view and his warnings should not be dismissed.  
He knows our opponents, he used to be one of them. 

When Hillary Clinton was accusing us of a “vast right wing conspiracy” over 20 years ago in 1998, we thought she was crazy.  But knowing what we know now, her accusations were probably based on a projection of her own plans, an assumption that we on the right are doing what the she and the left were already engaged in back then — their own “vast left wing conspiracy.”  

Accusations Backfire

Now, after the left has repeatedly attacked President Trump with falsehoods which actually turn out to be reflections of their own behavior, we are beginning to learn:

  • President Trump was accused in the Mueller investigation of colluding with Russia, but in actual fact it was found that it was the FBI and Hillary Clinton who were colluding with Russia, trying to obtain false dossiers with which to undermine President Trump’s election.
  •  President Trump was accused of bribing the Ukraine in a phone call with “quid pro quo” demands, when actually it was Vice President Biden who was bribing the Ukraine with a  billion dollar “quid pro quo.”
  •  President Trump was subjected to over 3 years of investigation trying to unearth election manipulation by President Trump, followed by a failed impeachment effort to prevent his reelection in 2020.  In actual fact, the impeachment plan, which started on the day of the President’s inauguration, and involved a fruitless 3 year search for a crime, was the ultimate election manipulation effort by the left, attempting to overturn the 2016 election and to damage the President’s chances in the 2020 election.  100% of the election manipulation was on the Democrat side, not on President Trump’s.

The Mueller investigation backfired,  accusations of “quid pro quo” backfired, and the impeachment attempt backfired. 

How Much Damage Has Been Done?

Now, following impeachment, a Rasmussen poll finds that 55% of voters say impeachment made President Trump stronger politically, while only 16% say that it weakened him.   

So, the efforts of the left to unseat our President have not only backfired, but have actually strengthened President Trump.
Americans seem to be well aware of the war that is being waged against them and their values.   
What does not kill you makes you stronger.  

What Have We Learned?

So now we have learned:  if the Left accuses the Right of some shocking behavior, that behavior will actually be found on the Left, and not on the Right. 
 
Why should that be surprising?
The left has been using Alinsky tactics now for decades— tactics described in a book by Saul Alinsky, a book dedicated to Lucifer, the Father of Lies. 

So we have learned that the Left lies, attacks, and distracts.  But most importantly, the Left HATES, and the Left is out to destroy – destroy conservatives, destroy the constitution, and destroy religion, on which all of this is based.
 
The Left does not plan to play by the rules, to use the legal tools our Constitution has made available to us.
Yet Conservatives are expected to stick to the rules to preserve all we believe in. 
For millenia, such battles against evil have been faced by good men who rolled up their sleeves, risked their necks, prayed to God, and took great courageous risks to protect all they believe in.  They even left their homelands, and founded new lands, including America, to escape injustice.
These men were tough, they were courageous, and they were unafraid to call out and face the enemy. 
Enter Donald Trump. 

Enter Donald Trump

***

Donald Trump has identified our problems, called out our enemies foreign and domestic, does not shrink from confrontation, and can play global poker brutally and successfully.  
He manages to remain devoted to America, the constitution, our history, our flag, our Christian roots, and our babies.  
He has taken on the Alinsky left, the European Union, China, ISIS, false attacks and counterfeit impeachments without flinching, all the while fixing our economy, returning jobs to America, repairing our government through the appointment of just judges, defending our unborn future citizens, and inspiring everyday Americans to join him in the hard work of restoring the America most of us believe in — a united America where all groups are included, and no group is played politically or excluded from the prosperity.  

Toxic Masculinity

What is the Trump Haters’ biggest complaint against President Trump?

The gripes vary around various aspects of the President’s behavior– his twitter lashings in response to attacks, his outside-the-box responses to attacks on his policy, his humor which takes the form of theatrical grandstanding, and some decade old locker room talk he was caught using.  Oh, yes, and he does not hold back when his attacker is a minority, like a woman.  This President can be very equal opportunity with dishing back to those who attack him.  

In short, the aggressiveness and unpredictability of President Trump’s (primarily Twitter) behavior offends the left, and even offends some in his own party.  The New  York Times calls this “toxic masculinity,” which they define as including bullying, catcalling, suppressing emotions and masking distress, maintaining an appearance of hardness, and “tough-guy” behavior.
 
According to the New York Times, “Toxic masculinity is what can come of teaching boys that they can’t express emotion openly; that they have to be “tough all the time”; that anything other than that makes them “feminine” or weak.”
The left actually has psychologists working with boys and men who “have been socialized to conform to traditional masculinity ideology.”

 When a President faces serious global and domestic opponents, then aggressiveness, cunning strategy, brutal honesty, willingness to take intelligently calculated risks, and in general, many qualities defined by the New York Times and by the left as “toxic masculinity,” not only become useful, but become essential. 

Aside: There is actually nothing toxic about masculinity. Masculinity offends only the radical left, who wants everyone to become weak, malleable, and subservient to them.  Thus they define masculine virtues such as strength, courage, honor, honesty and any form of resistance to the leftist agenda, as toxic.

 

Is This a Debate or Are We at War?
And What Are the Stakes? 

Once we realize that we are engaging in a war with the left, not a debate, it becomes clear that all the qualities President Trump is displaying are most useful and essential.

In war, you cannot broadcast your plans openly to everyone, you must be aware of potential spies, you must use red herrings and diversionary tactics,  smoke screening, infiltration, information warfare, and covert operations. 
These are masculine military tactics, and President Trump attended a military academy, where he excelled. 
Incidentally, the left has been using these tactics clandestinely for years, way before President Trump’s election and the left’s official declaration of “Resistance.”

It’s time we face reality and stand behind this President.
 
And the stakes?
Unborn children and our nations’ future. 

What President Trump Does

President Trump identifies threats, prioritizes wisely, tackles problems simultaneously on many fronts, rallies the troops, creates diversions and never foolishly shows his cards to the enemy. 
President Trump is a warrior and Commander in Chief on a par with any of our greatest Presidents and generals of the past. 
We should make no mistake about the seriousness of the threats our nation is facing today, whether they are internal or global. 

And do not be distracted by his Twitter rants.  Through them he broadcasts the truth, which the media will not do, and he throws many red herrings to the enemy.  He always has a plan!

President Trump has the courage to face enemies like China, Russia, North Vietnam, ISIS, and our domestic radical left, while still having the heart to defend unborn babies, worry about prisoners who were unjustly sentenced, and work hard for the welfare of everyday Americans.

And President Trump has the moral fortitude and intelligence to negotiate all this within the confines of the law, unlike his enemies, who do not limit themselves to lawful combat, but who flagrantly trample the laws of decency.
 
Following more than three years of investigation by his unprincipled opponents in the “swamp,” President Trump still remains guiltless and righteous.      

    

Back to David Horowitz

David Horowitz was a prolific author, and has much to teach us about the left. 
His latest book, published just after his death, Dark Agenda- The War to Destroy Christian America, outlines many of the tactics and goals adopted by the left. 

Horowitz claims that Radical infiltrators have been quietly transforming America’s societal, cultural, and political institutions for more than a generation. Now, backed by Billionaire George Soros, they are ready to make their move. These “progressive” extremists have gained control over a once-respectable but now desperate and dangerous political party. From their perches in the Democratic hierarchy, they seek to undermine the war on terror, destabilize the nation, and effect radical “regime change” in America, all in an attempt to usurp power for themselves.

Horowitz claims that progressives are “self-appointed social redeemers,” whose every tactic, particularly their “community organizing,” is designed to gain power.  Their weapons include provoking the public to anger, which generates publicity, and makes people more prone to tolerate the adoption of totalitarian tactics by government under the guise of protecting the public. Progressives claim to be dissatisfied with the status quo, but offer no concrete suggestions on how to effect change and improvement in our society.   

Horowitz claims that numerous groups and programs have been hijacked by the left as ways of recruiting bodies for their revolution.  If you can claim to offer any discontented group promises or sympathy, you will have their votes.  If citizens are not discontent, progressives invent ways to convince them to be discontented. Once they have their votes, progressives forget about these poor slobs, they only needed them to acquire power, so now they don’t have to deliver.  

The Progressive Umbrella of Discontent

.A partial list of activities and issues that now fall under the progressive umbrella of discontent, and are used and controlled by progressives to get votes, but are never solved or overcome, include: 
(Organizations taken from David Horowitz’s very comprehensive Freedom Center Discover the (Leftist) Networks Website): 

 

According to one Students for Democratic Society (SDS) radical, for progressives, “the issue is never the issue.  The issue is always the revolution.”  No solutions are ever offered.
Many of the issues, like Global Warming aka Climate Change, are manufactured (another blog article coming soon), and probably do not even exist.

Many of these issues are items all decent people are concerned with, like environmentalism, immigration and social justice.  Progressives do not acknowledge that conservatives, including President Trump, have always worked on and care about justice and decency, have accomplished more in these areas than has the left, and should not be villainized by the progressives.   
 

Light at the End of the Tunnel

Now that we have had 3 years of a President who pushes back on the progressive agenda of the left, and who has actually made some progress on some of these issues without divisive tactics, we can appreciate better how groups of Americans had been splintered and pitted against each other in the past, paralyzing our nation and impeding accomplishment, progress, and prosperity.  

If David Horowitz is correct, and we are indeed in a war with the Left, we must realize this now.  We urgently need to abandon our “Marquis of Queensbury” rules, join in the battle, and become great supporters of President Trump’s fight against the warriors on the Left.  No room for criticism, even for the President’s tweets, which represent his brilliant circumvention of the media that has been corrupted by the left, and which show his transparency and accountability to the people who elected him. 

The Left is Particularly Vulnerable Right Now

One of the unintended consequences of the progressive strategy of collecting the votes of numerous malcontent groups and sowing division, is that one of those malcontent groups just might gain enough momentum to hijack the Democrat Party which pretended to care about them. 

At this very moment, Democrats are panicking about just such a crisis takeover by the angry old socialist Bernie Sanders.  Bernie’s grumbling agenda is gaining momentum with its promises of handouts which only someone who is mathematics-impaired could possibly believe, and the Democrat Party is in danger of being taken over by this socialist.   His supporters include many of our young people who have recently graduated from the politically altered, arithmetic-sparse and history-sparse curriculum imposed by the left in our schools.

Desperate Democrat attempts to regain control of their own party include not only misappropriating their limited energies into continuous yet unproductive attacks on President Trump, which leave their own list of accomplishments anemic, but now also include an attempt to purchase leadership of the party by Michael Bloomberg, the very type of aging white billionaire male, and previous Republican to boot, that Democrats have publicly consumed themselves with hatred for in the past. 

Needless to say, the left is in very poor condition at the moment to pose any threat to the focused, organized, and accomplished administration that President Trump heads.    

.
What Are Our Options?

This is not the first time our nation has suffered internal conflict and division, and it will not be the last.  
We are not limited to the unattractive option of digging in and  “fighting it out to the death” with our brother and sister progressives;  we can use our brains and our brotherly love to find alternate solutions. 

As with any human dispute, sometimes a good “deal” or compromise can be found. 

First of all, we need to ascertain just how many of our citizens are on board with the radical agenda– is it truly half, as the press would have us think, or has the left conned us all into thinking that more Americans are behind them than actually are?
  
The coming 2020 election should help us to find out.  We need every single vote, so let’s make sure we don’t slack!
  
As we come to realize (and defuse) some of the radical left tactics used in the past, such as voter fraud and media manipulation, a better assessment can be made of where Americans actually stand with reduced Alinsky rigging of elections. 

The Best Solution

Then, one general solution to issues on which we Americans have sharp division, is deregulation and decentralization of control over issues on which Americans disagree.  The concept of Federalism, on which our nation was founded, allows the combining of a central “federal” government with regional state and city governments in a single political system.  Most major areas of disagreement can be delegated to the States for more local resolution.  This can ease many of the national tensions that arise when the people of one region disagree strongly with those of another.

Just as family disputes can be eased by allowing family members more freedom and space in their own rooms, so also national disputes can be eased by getting rid of those regulations that Americans disagree on (see the list above, in the areas of Affirmative Action, Animal Rights, Anti-Americanism, Climate Change, Communism, Globalization…….) and allowing States to pass whatever regulations their majorities wish to pass on these contentious issues.  Fundamentally, we all back off of imposing our will on the fellow citizens who disagree with us. Then those who are discontent can find a State to live in that suits their desired lifestyle better.  

Guess What?

The previous section on What Are Our Options?, which concluded that deregulation and decentralization can provide some solutions, is precisely what President Trump has already been doing. 
President Trump is WAY ahead of the game.
And as he lifts regulations that have been crippling our economy, lifts health care requirements for the Little Sisters of the Poor so they do not have to pay for contraception, and reclaims our ability to say “Merry Christmas,” our nation is beginning to prosper.  

Why We Need President Trump

President Trump is a far sighted leader who has been able to identify many of our enemies and problems, and has energetically pursued finding solutions against great odds. He has a wonderful ability to discern what Americans want and need, as opposed to what career politicians want and need.  
Almost miraculously (assisted by the prayer of millions of Americans), President Trump has managed to rise above the assaults he has suffered, and continues to look for win-win solutions for all Americans.
President Trump is the “deal-maker” of the century, and he will be able to continue finding us win-win deals that solve our nation’s problems with fairness and justice. 
As a previously reluctant Trumper, I am now completely on board with our President, and so should you be.

 

 

 

Impeachment: Desperate False Accusations, trying to take down a righteous man

.
As we approach tonight, the vote of the United States House of Representatives, in which the extreme “progressive” left will try to defame one of our best Presidents through false accusations and impeachment, let us remember to put these events in God’s hands with prayer. Heaven will be stormed with prayer, as is appropriate.   

We don’t (as the left does) lash out, lie, don black masks, or riot. 
Instead, we support our President with letters, donations and prayers, and prepare quietly for the next election, knowing that this good and wonderful man is in God’s very capable hands.  

President Donald J. Trump’s letter to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (who is heading these proceedings) outlines the injustice and false accusations, and is printed below.

But first, a few quotations from the Holy Bible that many of us try to live by: 

Exodus 20:16:

You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

Psalm 109:1-5

For the leader. A psalm of David.

O God, whom I praise, do not be silent, for wicked and treacherous mouths attack me.
They speak against me with lying tongues; with hateful words they surround me, attacking me without cause.
In return for my love they slander me, even though I prayed for them.
They repay me evil for good, hatred for my love.

Psalm 109:29-30:

Clothe my accusers with disgrace; make them wear their shame like a mantle.
I will give fervent thanks to the LORD; before a crowd I will praise him.

Deuteronomy 19: 19-20

The judges must investigate it thoroughly. If the witness is a false witness and has falsely accused the other, you shall do to the false witness just as that false witness planned to do to the other. Thus shall you purge the evil from your midst.
The rest shall hear and be afraid, and never again do such an evil thing as this in your midst.

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Madam Speaker:

I write to express my strongest and most powerful protest against the partisan impeachment crusade being pursued by the Democrats in the House of Representatives.  This impeachment represents an unprecedented and unconstitutional abuse of power by Democrat Lawmakers, unequaled in nearly two and a half centuries of American legislative history.

The Articles of Impeachment introduced by the House Judiciary Committee are not recognizable under any standard of Constitutional theory, interpretation, or jurisprudence.  They include no crimes, no misdemeanors, and no offenses whatsoever.  You have cheapened the importance of the very ugly word, impeachment!

By proceeding with your invalid impeachment, you are violating your oaths of office, you are breaking your allegiance to the Constitution, and you are declaring open war on American Democracy.  You dare to invoke the Founding Fathers in pursuit of this election-nullification scheme—yet your spiteful actions display unfettered contempt for America’s founding and your egregious conduct threatens to destroy that which our Founders pledged their very lives to build.  Even worse than offending the Founding Fathers, you are offending Americans of faith by continually saying “I pray for the President,” when you know this statement is not true, unless it is meant in a negative sense.  It is a terrible thing you are doing, but you will have to live with it, not I!

Your first claim, “Abuse of Power,” is a completely disingenuous, meritless, and baseless invention of your imagination.  You know that I had a totally innocent conversation with the President of Ukraine.  I then had a second conversation that has been misquoted, mischaracterized, and fraudulently misrepresented.  Fortunately, there was a transcript of the conversation taken, and you know from the transcript (which was immediately made available) that the paragraph in question was perfect.  I said to President Zelensky:  “I would like you to do us a favor, though, because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it.”  I said do us a favor, not me, and our country, not a campaign.  I then mentioned the Attorney General of the United States.  Every time I talk with a foreign leader, I put America’s interests first, just as I did with President Zelensky.

You are turning a policy disagreement between two branches of government into an impeachable offense—it is no more legitimate than the Executive Branch charging members of Congress with crimes for the lawful exercise of legislative power.

You know full well that Vice President Biden used his office and $1 billion dollars of U.S. aid money to coerce Ukraine into firing the prosecutor who was digging into the company paying his son millions of dollars.  You know this because Biden bragged about it on video.  Biden openly stated:  “I said, ‘I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars’…I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours.  If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’  Well, son of a bitch.  He got fired.”  Even Joe Biden admitted just days ago in an interview with NPR that it “looked bad.”  Now you are trying to impeach me by falsely accusing me of doing what Joe Biden has admitted he actually did.

President Zelensky has repeatedly declared that I did nothing wrong, and that there was No Pressure.  He further emphasized that it was a “good phone call,” that “I don’t feel pressure,” and explicitly stressed that “nobody pushed me.”  The Ukrainian Foreign Minister stated very clearly:  “I have never seen a direct link between investigations and security assistance.”  He also said there was “No Pressure.”   Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, a supporter of Ukraine who met privately with President Zelensky, has said: “At no time during this meeting…was there any mention by Zelensky or any Ukrainian that they were feeling pressure to do anything in return for the military aid.”  Many meetings have been held between representatives of Ukraine and our country.  Never once did Ukraine complain about pressure being applied—not once!  Ambassador Sondland testified that I told him: “No quid pro quo.  I want nothing.  I want nothing.  I want President Zelensky to do the right thing, do what he ran on.”

The second claim, so-called “Obstruction of Congress,” is preposterous and dangerous.  House Democrats are trying to impeach the duly elected President of the United States for asserting Constitutionally based privileges that have been asserted on a bipartisan basis by administrations of both political parties throughout our Nation’s history.  Under that standard, every American president would have been impeached many times over.  As liberal law professor Jonathan Turley warned when addressing Congressional Democrats: “I can’t emphasize this enough…if you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power.  It’s your abuse of power.  You’re doing precisely what you’re criticizing the President for doing.”

Everyone, you included, knows what is really happening.  Your chosen candidate lost the election in 2016, in an Electoral College landslide (306-227), and you and your party have never recovered from this defeat.  You have developed a full-fledged case of what many in the media call Trump Derangement Syndrome and sadly, you will never get over it!  You are unwilling and unable to accept the verdict issued at the ballot box during the great Election of 2016.  So you have spent three straight years attempting to overturn the will of the American people and nullify their votes.  You view democracy as your enemy!

Speaker Pelosi, you admitted just last week at a public forum that your party’s impeachment effort has been going on for “two and a half years,” long before you ever heard about a phone call with Ukraine.  Nineteen minutes after I took the oath of office, the Washington Post published a story headlined, “The Campaign to Impeach President Trump Has Begun.”  Less than three months after my inauguration, Representative Maxine Waters stated, “I’m going to fight every day until he’s impeached.”  House Democrats introduced the first impeachment resolution against me within months of my inauguration, for what will be regarded as one of our country’s best decisions, the firing of James Comey (see Inspector General Reports)—who the world now knows is one of the dirtiest cops our Nation has ever seen.  A ranting and raving Congresswoman, Rashida Tlaib, declared just hours after she was sworn into office, “We’re gonna go in there and we’re gonna impeach the motherf****r.”  Representative Al Green said in May, “I’m concerned that if we don’t impeach this president, he will get re-elected.”  Again, you and your allies said, and did, all of these things long before you ever heard of President Zelensky or anything related to Ukraine.  As you know very well, this impeachment drive has nothing to do with Ukraine, or the totally appropriate conversation I had with its new president.  It only has to do with your attempt to undo the election of 2016 and steal the election of 2020!

Congressman Adam Schiff cheated and lied all the way up to the present day, even going so far as to fraudulently make up, out of thin air, my conversation with President Zelensky of Ukraine and read this fantasy language to Congress as though it were said by me.  His shameless lies and deceptions, dating all the way back to the Russia Hoax, is one of the main reasons we are here today.

You and your party are desperate to distract from America’s extraordinary economy, incredible jobs boom, record stock market, soaring confidence, and flourishing citizens.  Your party simply cannot compete with our record: 7 million new jobs; the lowest-ever unemployment for African Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Asian Americans; a rebuilt military; a completely reformed VA with Choice and Accountability for our great veterans; more than 170 new federal judges and two Supreme Court Justices; historic tax and regulation cuts; the elimination of the individual mandate; the first decline in prescription drug prices in half a century; the first new branch of the United States Military since 1947, the Space Force; strong protection of the Second Amendment; criminal justice reform; a defeated ISIS caliphate and the killing of the world’s number one terrorist leader, al-Baghdadi; the replacement of the disastrous NAFTA trade deal with the wonderful USMCA (Mexico and Canada); a breakthrough Phase One trade deal with China; massive new trade deals with Japan and South Korea; withdrawal from the terrible Iran Nuclear Deal; cancellation of the unfair and costly Paris Climate Accord; becoming the world’s top energy producer; recognition of Israel’s capital, opening the American Embassy in Jerusalem, and recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights; a colossal reduction in illegal border crossings, the ending of Catch-and-Release, and the building of the Southern Border Wall—and that is just the beginning, there is so much more.  You cannot defend your extreme policies—open borders, mass migration, high crime, crippling taxes, socialized healthcare, destruction of American energy, late-term taxpayer-funded abortion, elimination of the Second Amendment, radical far-left theories of law and justice, and constant partisan obstruction of both common sense and common good.

There is nothing I would rather do than stop referring to your party as the Do-Nothing Democrats.  Unfortunately, I don’t know that you will ever give me a chance to do so.

After three years of unfair and unwarranted investigations, 45 million dollars spent, 18 angry Democrat prosecutors, the entire force of the FBI, headed by leadership now proven to be totally incompetent and corrupt, you have found NOTHING!  Few people in high position could have endured or passed this test.  You do not know, nor do you care, the great damage and hurt you have inflicted upon wonderful and loving members of my family.  You conducted a fake investigation upon the democratically elected President of the United States, and you are doing it yet again.

There are not many people who could have taken the punishment inflicted during this period of time, and yet done so much for the success of America and its citizens.  But instead of putting our country first, you have decided to disgrace our country still further.  You completely failed with the Mueller report because there was nothing to find, so you decided to take the next hoax that came along, the phone call with Ukraine—even though it was a perfect call.  And by the way, when I speak to foreign countries, there are many people, with permission, listening to the call on both sides of the conversation.

You are the ones interfering in America’s elections.  You are the ones subverting America’s Democracy.  You are the ones Obstructing Justice.  You are the ones bringing pain and suffering to our Republic for your own selfish personal, political, and partisan gain.

Before the Impeachment Hoax, it was the Russian Witch Hunt.  Against all evidence, and regardless of the truth, you and your deputies claimed that my campaign colluded with the Russians—a grave, malicious, and slanderous lie, a falsehood like no other.  You forced our Nation through turmoil and torment over a wholly fabricated story, illegally purchased from a foreign spy by Hillary Clinton and the DNC in order to assault our democracy.  Yet, when the monstrous lie was debunked and this Democrat conspiracy dissolved into dust, you did not apologize.  You did not recant.  You did not ask to be forgiven.  You showed no remorse, no capacity for self-reflection.  Instead, you pursued your next libelous and vicious crusade—you engineered an attempt to frame and defame an innocent person.  All of this was motivated by personal political calculation.  Your Speakership and your party are held hostage by your most deranged and radical representatives of the far left.  Each one of your members lives in fear of a socialist primary challenger—this is what is driving impeachment.  Look at Congressman Nadler’s challenger.  Look at yourself and others.  Do not take our country down with your party.

If you truly cared about freedom and liberty for our Nation, then you would be devoting your vast investigative resources to exposing the full truth concerning the FBI’s horrifying abuses of power before, during, and after the 2016 election—including the use of spies against my campaign, the submission of false evidence to a FISA court, and the concealment of exculpatory evidence in order to frame the innocent.  The FBI has great and honorable people, but the leadership was inept and corrupt.  I would think that you would personally be appalled by these revelations, because in your press conference the day you announced impeachment, you tied the impeachment effort directly to the completely discredited Russia Hoax, declaring twice that “all roads lead to Putin,” when you know that is an abject lie.  I have been far tougher on Russia than President Obama ever even thought to be.

Any member of Congress who votes in support of impeachment—against every shred of truth, fact, evidence, and legal principle—is showing how deeply they revile the voters and how truly they detest America’s Constitutional order.  Our Founders feared the tribalization of partisan politics, and you are bringing their worst fears to life.

Worse still, I have been deprived of basic Constitutional Due Process from the beginning of this impeachment scam right up until the present.  I have been denied the most fundamental rights afforded by the Constitution, including the right to present evidence, to have my own counsel present, to confront accusers, and to call and cross-examine witnesses, like the so-called whistleblower who started this entire hoax with a false report of the phone call that bears no relationship to the actual phone call that was made.  Once I presented the transcribed call, which surprised and shocked the fraudsters (they never thought that such evidence would be presented), the so-called whistleblower, and the second whistleblower, disappeared because they got caught, their report was a fraud, and they were no longer going to be made available to us.  In other words, once the phone call was made public, your whole plot blew up, but that didn’t stop you from continuing.

More due process was afforded to those accused in the Salem Witch Trials.

You and others on your committees have long said impeachment must be bipartisan—it is not.  You said it was very divisive—it certainly is, even far more than you ever thought possible—and it will only get worse!

This is nothing more than an illegal, partisan attempted coup that will, based on recent sentiment, badly fail at the voting booth.  You are not just after me, as President, you are after the entire Republican Party.  But because of this colossal injustice, our party is more united than it has ever been before.  History will judge you harshly as you proceed with this impeachment charade.  Your legacy will be that of turning the House of Representatives from a revered legislative body into a Star Chamber of partisan persecution.

Perhaps most insulting of all is your false display of solemnity.  You apparently have so little respect for the American People that you expect them to believe that you are approaching this impeachment somberly, reservedly, and reluctantly.  No intelligent person believes what you are saying.  Since the moment I won the election, the Democrat Party has been possessed by Impeachment Fever.  There is no reticence.  This is not a somber affair.  You are making a mockery of impeachment and you are scarcely concealing your hatred of me, of the Republican Party, and tens of millions of patriotic Americans.  The voters are wise, and they are seeing straight through this empty, hollow, and dangerous game you are playing.

I have no doubt the American people will hold you and the Democrats fully responsible in the upcoming 2020 election.  They will not soon forgive your perversion of justice and abuse of power.

There is far too much that needs to be done to improve the lives of our citizens.  It is time for you and the highly partisan Democrats in Congress to immediately cease this impeachment fantasy and get back to work for the American People.  While I have no expectation that you will do so, I write this letter to you for the purpose of history and to put my thoughts on a permanent and indelible record.

One hundred years from now, when people look back at this affair, I want them to understand it, and learn from it, so that it can never happen to another President again.

Sincerely yours,

DONALD J. TRUMP
President of the United States of America

cc:       United States Senate
United States House of Representatives

 

 

Herculean Effort, Real Science

SOooooooo proud of my husband Rolf– he initiated & put together an editorial,  collecting input from 37 of the world’s most prominent engine engineers (his field) on the impact of the internal combustion (IC) engine on global warming, and on the future of IC engines. 
Real and honest science, with recommendations for future directions. See the full editorial in the International Journal of Engine Research entitled The Future of the Internal Combustion Engine
After only a short time up online, the editorial has already had thousands of downloads.  It comes out in print in the January 2020 issue of the Journal.  

In a Hurry?

The “Executive Summary” and “Closure” at the end of the editorial are great for those in a hurry, and are posted just below. The rest of the article supplies enough details and data to satisfy the most discerning of scientists.

Oh No! Not Politics? 

The article is not at all political, and does not take sides with climate “alarmists” or climate “deniers,” as the opposing political camps have often been called.
It simply presents pertinent powerful facts, which lead logical people to make their own inescapable conclusions.
For example, IC engines provide 25% of global power, while producing only 10% of greenhouse gas emissions. Also, research of the last several decades has reduced pollution by IC engines by a thousand fold.
We are now at the point where more pollution is caused by the wear of automobile tires on the road than by the vehicle’s emissions. This makes the modern day IC engine vehicle equivalent to electric vehicles in terms of pollution. In fact, vehicles with catalytic air cleaners will actually exhaust cleaner air than they take in, in cities such as Los Angeles.

Enjoy! 

IJER editorial: The future of the internal combustion engine

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1468087419877990 

Below is the Executive Summary and the Closure — 
(Entire Editorial at: 

IJER editorial: The future of the internal combustion engine )

 

Internal combustion (IC) engines operating on fossil fuel oil provide about 25% of the world’s power (about 3000 out of 13,000 million tons oil equivalent per year—see Figure 1), and in doing so, they produce about 10% of the world’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (Figure 2). Reducing fuel consumption and emissions has been the goal of engine researchers and manufacturers for years, as can be seen in the two decades of ground-breaking peer-reviewed articles published in this International Journal of Engine Research (IJER). Indeed, major advances have been made, making today’s IC engine a technological marvel. However, recently, the reputation of IC engines has been dealt a severe blow by emission scandals that threaten the ability of this technology to make significant and further contributions to the reduction of transportation sector emissions. In response, there have been proposals to replace vehicle IC engines with electric-drives with the intended goals of further reducing fuel consumption and emissions, and to decrease vehicle GHG emissions.

Figure 1. World energy consumption by source (millions of petroleum equivalent) in the last 25 years.1 About 70% of fossil oil (i.e. about 3000 Mtoe) is consumed in IC engines.

 figure

Figure 2. Global warming potential (GWP) in CO2 equivalent tons by sector.2 Transportation contributes about 10%.

Indeed, some potential students and researchers are being dissuaded from seeking careers in IC engine research due to disparaging statements made in the popular press and elsewhere that disproportionately blame IC engines for increasing atmospheric GHGs. Without a continuous influx of enthusiastic, well-trained engineers into the profession, the potential further benefits that improved IC engines can still provide will not be realized. As responsible automotive engineers and as stewards of the environment for future generations, it is up to our community to make an honest assessment of the progress made in the development of IC engines over the past century, with their almost universal adoption to meet the world’s mobility and power generation needs. Considering that the maturity of IC engine technology is something that many other technologies/possibilities do not have, we also need to assess the potential for future progress, as well as to assess the benefits offered by competitor technologies, in order to make responsible recommendations for future directions.

Factors impacting that future are discussed in this editorial and include the following:

  • - The fact that affordable energy has been instrumental in raising the standard of living in the world dramatically, particularly in poor countries, and the fact that so far in the history of humanity, the burning of fossil or bio-derived fuels has been the only reliable source of energy;
  • - The fact that the entire planet is linked by a massive transportation infrastructure that is largely based on the IC engine and that would require decades and tremendous expense to replace;
  • - The dramatic advancements in IC engine technology that have brought pollutant levels down a 1000-fold in past decades, and which now make particulate emissions from tire and brake wear a larger problem than engine emissions (in both IC engine powered and electric vehicles);
  • - The obstacles still faced by proposed alternatives, such as electric vehicles powered by batteries, which have tremendous cost, weight and other limitations, and which are hoped to be fuelled by renewables, such as wind and solar that currently represent only a miniscule fraction of the world’s energy supply;
  • - And the fact that concerns about the impact of IC engines on climate change have become politically charged, even as they need to be assessed impartially. There is need for informed, data and science-driven government policies that promote a managed, realistic transition to sustainable future energy systems.

The vast majority of automotive engineers, including IJER editorial board members, are optimistic about the continuing importance of the IC engine to meet the world’s mobility and power generation needs. Certainly, exploring new and competing engine technologies, as well as new fuels, is important for a sustainable future for our planet. The inescapable conclusion reached in this editorial is that, for the foreseeable future, road and off-road transport will be characterized by a mix of solutions involving internal combustion engines (ICEs), battery and hybrid powertrains, as well as conventional vehicles powered by IC engines. Thus, there is a pressing need for recruiting the brightest young minds to engage in this effort.

(Aside: Here we skip the bulk of the detailed article and skip to “Closure;”  for the entire article, go to The Future of the Internal Combustion Engine )

In summary, the ICE, and IC engine research have a bright future, in contrast with some widely distributed media reports (e.g. The Economist19). The power generation and the vehicle and fuel industries are huge, representing trillions of dollars (US) per year in turnover, with a massive infrastructure. We are certainly in revolutionary times, but it is clear that power generation sources will not become fully renewable and transport will not become fully electric for several decades, if ever. However, research to improve efficiency and methods to reduce dependence on fossil fuels are exciting directions for future IC engine research. It is very likely that highly efficient “fully flexible” engines with hybridized solutions will be a big part of sought-after efficiency improvements, as well as emission/GHG reductions.20 Finally, it must be acknowledged that, in practice, people select their choice of powertrain based on numerous factors, including cost. Consumer preference is not decided by politicians, nor by car-makers, nor academia. Policy unilaterally favoring one technology solution may be deeply inefficient and perhaps even the wrong eventual solution. A better approach is to use real-world data to allow competing technologies to flourish; if they evidence efficiency improvements and emission reductions, and they then need to be delivered as soon as possible. Continued progress requires that we recruit the brightest young minds to engage in this effort to deliver a vibrant and sustainable future for the ICE.

(Entire Editorial at: 

IJER editorial: The future of the internal combustion engine )

All Posts