The Weekly Sam: Sam Blumenfeld on YouTube
Camp Constitution has been converting Sam Blumenfeld’s audios from the Sam Blumenfeld Archives and converting them to YouTube videos and uploading them on Camp Constitution’s YouTube Channel. Please follow the link to the YouTube playlist, view, share and subscribe to the channel.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL7jnzBzBiNYCRCvx4MDuOrvsitDW2M3Ka
Call to Action: Sign Myron Ebell’s Letter to President Trump Urging the Creation of a President’s Commision on Climate Security
Dear Cooler Heads and Allies,
You are invited to sign the joint letter pasted below to President Trump urging him to appoint a President’s Commission on Climate Security. The details are explained in the letter. The deadline for signing is Thursday, 14th March by 12 noon EDT.
You may sign as an organization or as an individual. Organizations and the person signing on their behalf will be listed first and organization logos will appear on the left margin of the letter. Individuals will be listed after all organizations.
Please follow the instructions carefully. Just replying to me with “I’m on” will not do it.
Please send the information requested by hitting Reply All to this e-mail or, which is the same thing, by addressing Myron.Ebell@cei.org andRichard.Morrison@cei.org. You will receive confirmation by return e-mail within a day that your e-mail has been received and that you are listed on the letter.
The letter will be sent to President Trump at the White House, to several key staffers in the White House, and to the signers at the same time. It will then be released to the media and the public. All signers are invited to post the final joint letter on their web sites, send it around, and publicize it.
The deadline for signing is 12 Noon EDT on Thursday, 14th March.
Thanks, Myron.
For Organizations:
____Yes, please sign my organization to the joint letter to President Trump in support of creating a President’s Commission on Climate Security.
Name of Organization:
Name of person:
Title:
E-mail address:
For Individuals
____Yes, please sign me on to the joint letter.
____I understand that any affiliation listed will appear in parentheses. For example: Isaac Newton (Trinity College, Cambridge). There will be a note that affiliations are for identification purposes only. But if you don’t want to list an affiliation, then you may want to put something else like: Truth or Consequences, New Mexico;
Name:
Title or degree optional:
(For example: Professor, Ph. D., State Senator, former Member of Congress, etc.)
Affiliation or other ID:
E-mail address:
Deadline: 12 Noon EDT, 14th March 2019.
Send to: Myron.Ebell@cei.org and to Richard.Morrison@cei.org.
DRAFT
Dear President Trump,
The undersigned organizations and individuals write to express our strong support for the proposed President’s Commission on Climate Security. It is our understanding that this commission, which is being planned and would be directed by Dr. William Happer of the National Security Council staff, is currently being considered by your senior White House staff and relevant Cabinet secretaries and agency heads. The commission, consisting of a dozen or so leading atmospheric scientists, would be charged with conducting an independent, high-level review of the fourth National Climate Assessment, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fifth Assessment Report, and several other official reports on climate science and would be subject to the transparency requirements of the Federal Advisory Committees Act.
In our view, an independent review of these reports is long overdue. Serious problems and shortcomings have been raised repeatedly in the past by highly-qualified scientists only to be ignored or dismissed by the federal agencies in charge of producing the reports. Among major issues that have been raised and that we hope the commission will scrutinize: the models used have assumed climate sensitivities to CO2 concentrations significantly higher than recent research warrants; the models used have predicted much more warming than has actually occurred; predictions of the negative impacts of global warming have been made based on implausible high-end emissions scenarios; the positive impacts of warming have been ignored or minimized; and surface temperature data sets have been manipulated to show more rapid warming than has actually occurred. An underlying issue that we hope the commission will also address is the fact that so many of the scientific claims made in these reports and by many climate scientists are not falsifiable, that is, they cannot be tested by the scientific method.
The conclusions and predictions made by these reports are the basis for proposed energy policies that could cost trillions of dollars in less than a decade and tens of trillions of dollars over several decades. Given the magnitude of the potential costs involved, we think that taking the insular processes of official, consensus science on trust, as has been the case for the past three decades, is negligent and imprudent. In contrast, major engineering projects are regularly subjected to the most rigorous and exhaustive adversarial review. We suggest that climate science requires at least the same level of scrutiny as the engineering employed in building a bridge or a new airplane.
We note that defenders of the climate consensus have already mounted a public campaign against the proposed commission. We find this opposition curious. If the defenders are confident that the science contained in official reports is robust, then they should welcome a review that would finally put to rest the doubts that have been raised. On the other hand, their opposition could be taken as evidence that the scientific basis of the climate consensus is in fact highly suspect and cannot withstand critical review.
We further note that opponents of the proposed commission have already stooped to making personal attacks on Dr. Happer. Many signers of this letter know Dr. Happer personally and are familiar with his scientific career. We know him to be a man of high capabilities, high achievements, and the highest integrity.
It has been reported that some officials within your administration have proposed an internal working group as an alternative to an independent commission subject to FACA. Insofar as an internal working group would consist of federal career scientists reviewing their own work, we think this alternative would be worse than doing nothing.
Although an independent commission of distinguished scientists would have high credibility, we do not mean to imply that its report should be the end of the matter. We therefore suggest that the National Academies of Science and Engineering would be appropriate bodies to conduct an initial review of the commission’s report.
Mr. President, you have made a number of comments in recent years expressing doubts about the global warming consensus. Many of the signers of this letter have been similarly skeptical. Without prejudging the results, we think that a review of climate science produced by an independent, high-level commission would be a fair test for your views (and ours): either it would provide a sound basis for revising your views or it would confirm your views and confound your critics.
For these reasons, we urge you to create by Executive Order a President’s Commission on Climate Security. Thank you for considering our views.
Sincerely,
Myron Ebell
Director, Center for Energy and Environment
Competitive Enterprise Institute
1310 L Street, N. W., Seventh Floor
Washington, DC 20005, USA
Tel direct: (202) 331-2256
Tel mobile: (202) 320-6685
E-mail: Myron.Ebell@cei.org
Stop continental drift!
The Weekly Sam: Should Christians Support Education Without God? by Sam Blumenfeld
Back in 1849, when the organized Protestants of Massachusetts
debated whether or not to support the public school movement, which was
then being heavily promoted by the Unitarians, they decided in favor of
support, but with well-expressed conditions. They wrote:
“The benefits of this system, in offering instruction to all, are so many and so great
that its religious deficiencies,–especially since they can be otherwise supplied, do not
seem to be a sufficient reason for abandoning it, and adopting in place of it, a system
of denominational parochial schools ….It is however a great evil to withdraw from the established system of common
schools, the interest and influence of the religious part of the community. On the
whole, it seems to be the wisest course, at least for the present, to do all in our power
to perfect as far as it can be done, not only its intellectual, but also its moral and
religious character.
“If after a full and faithful experiment, it should at last be seen that fidelity to the
religious interests of our children forbids a further patronage of the system, we can
unite with the Evangelical Christians in the establishment of private schools, in which
more full doctrinal religious instruction may be possibleBut, until we are forced to this results, it seems to us desirable that the religious community do all in their power to give an opportunity for a full and fair experiment of
the existing system, including not only the common schools, but also the Normal
Schools and the Board of Education”.
I don’t believe that any Christian can doubt that there has been a “full
and fair experiment” of public education for the last 150 years and that its
fidelity to the religious interests of Christian children has been proven to be
decidedly negative. In fact, thousands of Christian parents, without
knowledge of what was written in 1849, have already taken their children
out of the public schools and either decided to homeschool them or place
them in Christian schools. Their responsibilities as Christian parents have
led them to make the necessary decision for the sake of their children’s
spiritual well being.
But what is disturbing is that most Christians still patronize a system
that is undermining the religious beliefs of their children. One wonders what
must happen before these parents realize the harm they are doing to their
children by keeping them in the public schools.
The simple fact is that the present government education system has
as its foundation an anti-Christian philosophy known as secular humanism.
All one has to do is read the Humanist Manifestos I and II to confirm the
truth of this assertion. Humanist Manifesto I was written in 1933 by young
Unitarian ministers who believed that the spiritual power of orthodox
religion was in decline and should be replaced by a rational, man-centered,
non-theistic religion. They wrote:
“Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science
makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values ….
Religious humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the
end of man’s life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now. .. .
Religious humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the
fulfillment of human life. The intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and
direction of such associations and institutions with a view to the enhancement of
human life is the purpose and program of humanism. Certainly religious institutions,
their ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be
reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows, in order to function effectively in the
modern world.”
Humanism is the only religion in America that has as its purpose and
program the reconstitution of the institutions, rituals, and ecclesiastical
methods of other religions. This is an overt declaration of war against
Biblical religion. Forty years later, Humanist Manifesto II states:
As non-theists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity. [W]e can
discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species …. No deity will save
us; we must save ourselves.
In the January/February 1983 issue of The Humanist magazine, a
young scholar by the name of John J. Dunphy expressed exactly what the
aim of humanists is in education:
“I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in
the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the
proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the
spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must
embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for
they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey
humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of educational level-
preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an
arena of conflict between the old and the new–the rotting corpse of Christianity,
together with its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism, resplendent
in its promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian ideal of “love thy
neighbor” will finally be achieved.”
The humanist war against Christianity is going on everyday in the
classrooms of America. But the real battle is being fought in the courtrooms
of the nation. In March 1987, U.S. District Judge W. Brevard Hand ruled in
Smith v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County. Alabama that
the public school curriculum was based on the tenets of secular humanism,
and he thereby ordered that humanist textbooks to be removed from the
schools. Five months later this ruling was overturned by the Eleventh
Circuit Court which stated that “none of these books convey a message of
government approval of secular humanism.”
In other words, humanists are free to teach their dogma in the public
schools as long as the government does not convey a message of
approval. But that is the argument used to keep Christianity out. It is said
that the mere inclusion of anything Christian in a public school curriculum
automatically implies government approval.
The notion that public schools are neutral when it comes to religion is
belied by the strong prejudice against Christianity as openly expressed by
such humanists as John Dunphy. What we have is not neutrality but
warfare. Until Christians recognize that the government schools are
establishments of religion, and that education is fundamentally a religious
activity, we shall not be able to deal realistically with our educational crisis.
The message for Christian parents must be loud and clear: putting a
child in a public school violates God’s commandment as given in
Deuteronomy 6 to educate a child in the love and admonition of the Lord.
There is no substitute for a godly education. In place of God, the public
schools offer evolution, sex education, death education, multiculturalism,
transcendental meditation, situational ethics, drug education, and other
forms of humanist teachings. These are the programs that are creating the
new nihilist, amoral barbarians that are devastating the lives of thousands
of parents. There is hardly a Christian family that has not lost a child to the
satanic culture that grows in the public school environment.
If Christians wish to restore America as a nation under God, they shall
have to educate their children in schools that revere Him .•
(This was a speech made by Sam in the late 1980s. Please visit his archives https://campconstitution.net/sam-blumenfeld-archive/
And please consider a donation to Camp Constitution to help keep Sam’s archive on line and expand its reach. Donations can be made via our PayPal account accessed via our homepage www.campconstution.net
Camp Constitution’s YouTube Channel Reaches Over One Million Views
Camp Constitution’s YouTube Channel recently reached over one million views. We started the channel in July of 2010, and despite the excellent content, we received a modest amount of views over the years. But that changed in the summer of 2016 when we were able to dedicate more time promoting the channel. Within a short time, we were averaging well over 1,000 views a day.
Our most viewed videos are Professor Willie Soon’s first class at the 2017 camp, close to 150,000, several by Mrs. KrisAnne Hall, and the class conducted by Debbie Bacigalupi at last year’s camp which has received close to 50,000 views. Our content includes classes, and activities at our annual camps, presentations of our speakers at various events, Camp Constitution Radio shows, on the spot interviews, and events which we attend. We have created playlists of our instructors, our annual camps, and topics such as Agenda 21, and the U.S. Constitution.
My thanks to all of you who have helped us reach this milestone. Please continue to introduce our channel to your friends, neighbors, fellow Liberty activists. One of the most effective ways to introduce out channel to new potential viewers is to copy and paste links to our various videos in the comments sections of on-line articles.
Here is a link to our channel: https://www.youtube.com/user/CampConstitution If you haven’t already, please subscribe, view, share, and promote our channel.
Hal Shurtleff, Director
Camp Constitution
Camp Constitution Offering Free Resource to Help Expose Agenda 21
Camp Constitution has made Rescue Mission Planet Earth A Children’s Edition of Agenda 21 available in a PDF format to help expose Agenda 21. This book was published in 1994 when it was still fashionable to use the term “Agenda 21.” Written by “the children of the World” with a little help from the United Nations, it is nothing more than blatant propaganda.
Here are a few excerpts:
“The greatest challenge of both our time and the next century is to save the planet from destruction. It will require changing the very foundations of modern civilization-the relationship of humans to nature.” Mikhail Gorbachev (pg 7)
This is the same man who said “I am a Communist, a convinced Communist! For some that may be a fantasy. But to me it is my main goal.”
And next to Comrade Gorbachev’s quote, we find this from Citizen Al Gore:
“As chairman of the Space Sub-committee in the Senate, I strongly urged a Mission to Planet Earth, a worldwide monitoring system staffed by children…designed to rescue the global environment”
Evidence of Agenda 21’s hostility to the family:
“Q There’s a lot in Agenda 21 about women playing a critical role in population, but aren’t men usually the problem?
A Yes – there’s a lot of male authority but not much male responsibility in relation to child bearing. Men are not burdened with the problem of giving birth, they tend to exploit children – sending them to work instead of investing in their education. What can children do? They should challenge their parents not to have any more children until they can look after them properly.
Dr Nafi, Sadik, Executive Director, UN Population (pg. 32)
On the same page we find this quote from the lyrics of a song written by Paul Simon:
“The earth groans every time it registers another birth.”
“Q Agenda 21 chapter 5 on population is very weak. How did this happen?
A It happened because very powerful lobbies did not allow the Summit to talk about the population. There was a coming together of views of the Vatican with the anti-abortion lobby in the US and some other developed countries who did not want to talk about the other side of population which is consumption.” Shridath Ramphal, co-chair, Commission on Global Governance (pg. 33)
Hostility to the American Rancher:
“LESS MEAT Soil degradation is sometimes caused by overgrazing. In the USA, 85 %’of the soil lost is directly attributed to the creation of livestock for consumption. In addition, 50% of the fresh water resources is used to irrigate pasture and food crops for cattle. Switching to a vegetarian or reduced meat diet would definitely bring environmental advantages. (pg. 54)
The use of Non-Government Organizations to implement Agenda 21:
“NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) are charities and pressure groups formed by ordinary people, independent of governments and political parties, e.g. Greenpeace, World Wild Life Fund and Amnesty International. They have a wealth of expertise and energy vital to the making the agenda work. We hope that many will work with young people on the Rescue Mission. (pg. 66)
Implementation of Agenda 21 locally:
“LOCAL POLITICS Local authorities, as the level of government closest to people, have a vital role in educating and mobilizing the public to get behind the goals of Agenda 21. Agenda 21, chapter 28 Every local authority should prepare a Local Agenda 21 to link the interests of local people in business, public services and ordinary citizens”. (pg. 69)
The Mass Media’s involvement in the promotion of Agenda 21:
“Congratulations on a first-rate job …. As a result of your work, thousands of young people and adults will learn about Agenda 21 and understand our commitment to sustainable development. ” Vice President Al Gore “Rescue Mission, which is both marvelously illustrated and impressively written by children, is a positive step …. It breaks down Agenda 21, an extremely complicated subject, into language and images that children can. understand and that parents can appreciate.” The Nature Conservancy ” … explains in clear language the nuts and bolts of the global agreement… includes wonderful drawings, poems, and stories … It’s full of solid information that is easy and fun reading. ” USA Today
Here is a link to the book on Camp Constitution’s website: https://campconstitution.net/files/2019/rescue-mission-planet-earth-agenda-21.pdf
Camp Constitution is offering this book as a free resource but would appreciate donations that would be used to help us expose, and defeat Agenda 21. Donations, monthly or one-time, may be made via our PayPal account accessed from our website’s homepage https://www.campconstitution.net
Camp Constitution Hosts Climate Change Refuted Press Conference at the Massachusetts State House
| Camp Constitution recently hosted a press conference at the Massachusetts State House to refute the climate change narrative. The local corporate media, a.k.a. fake news, was given plenty of advanced notice of the event. E-mails, phone calls, and paper copies of the news release were hand-delivered to the members of the state house press. We had two of the nation’s, if not the world’s, leading expert on the subject on hand: Professor Willie Soon, and Joe D’Aleo , co-founder of the Weather Channel. While we had local independent press, Ted Tripp of the Boston Broadside, and Dianna Ploss of WSMN-AM who did a live feed, not one member of the corporate press would walk down two flights of stairs to our conference. As the conference was going on, I went up to the press room to remind the members of the press conference who we had downstairs and that they should be attending the conference. But they failed to show. So, after the conference, we visited them.
Here is a link to the press conference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9c_qjBJxLXM&t=153s And a link to our visit to the press room: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ar6QZXTJuqk |
During Joe D”Aleo’s presentation, he showed the results of a worldwide poll taken which listed the participants major concerns. Climate change was on the bottom of the list. That is due to the efforts of the likes of Professor Soon, Joe D’Aleo, and countless others that have the courage to speak the truth. It is our job to help these men, and their colleagues by introducing people to their work. Please share our videos far and wide. Post them on the Facebook pages of the newspapers, TV and radio stations and on the pages of local and national politicians. Host presentations on this subject in your community.
Finally, help Camp Constitution continue to grow. Consider a monthly or one-time donation which can be done via our PayPal account accessed from our website’s homepage: http://www.campconstitition.net
The Weekly Sam: The War Against Christianity in America
In his January 1987 newsletter, Sam traces the history of the war against Christianity in America. Here is a link to this important and timeless article:
http://blumenfeld.campconstitution.net/1987/BEL%2002-01%20198701.pdf
Camp Constitution hosts the Blumenfeld archives. Donations to help promote Sam’s important work can be made via our PayPal account from our homepage https://www.campconstitution.net
Camp Constitution Honors the Memory of George Washington
George Washington
| February 22, 2019 marks the 287th anniversary of the birth of George Washington, who, in this writer’s opinion, was the greatest man born in America. While there are numerous biographies written about this great and good man, I recommend two short books and his “Farewell Address”
“Washington’s 110 Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior” He wrote these 110 rules when he was 16 years old from a set of rules established by French Jesuits in 1595. Here is a sampling of those rules: “When in Company, put not your Hands to any Part of the Body, not usually Discovered.” |
| “Show Nothing to your Friend that may affright him.” |
| “In the Presence of Others Sing not to yourself with a humming Noise, nor Drum with your Fingers or Feet.”
“The Bullet Proof George Washington”: An account of George Washington’s part in the July 9th, 1755, battle during the French and Indian War. During the two-hour battle, the 23-year-old Colonel Washington had ridden on the battlefield, delivering the general’s orders to other officers and troops. The officers had been a special target for the Indians. Of the eighty-six British and American officers, sixty-three were casualties. Washington was the only officer on horseback not shot down. Following the battle, Washington wrote a letter to his brother in which he readily and openly acknowledged: “By the all-powerful dispensations of Providence, I have been protected beyond all human probability or expectation; for I had four bullets through my coat, and two horses shot under me, yet escaped unhurt, although death was leveling my companions on every side of me!” Fifteen years later, an old, respected Indian chief sought out Washington. The chief, explaining that he had led the Indians against them in the battle fifteen years earlier, revealed to Washington what had occurred behind the scenes during the conflict: “I called to my young men and said, mark yon tall and daring warrior. Quick, let your aim be certain, and he dies. Our rifles were leveled, rifles which, but for you, knew not how to miss–’twas all in vain, a power mightier far than we shielded you. Seeing you were under the special guardianship of the Great Spirit, we immediately ceased to fire at you…I am come to pay homage to the man who is the particular favorite of Heaven, and who can never die in battle.”
Washington’s plan to retire from office would come to be known as his “Farewell Address.” In 1792, when Washington considered leaving office, he had James Madison write a draft. In 1796, Alexander Hamilton did a rewrite and Washington edited it. The “American Daily Advertiser,” a paper in Philadelphia, the seat of the nation’s capital at the time, published it on September 19, 1796. Here are a few of the points that have stood the test of time: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain, would man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness” “It is important, likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should inspire caution in those entrusted with its administration to confine themselves within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding the exercise of the power of one department to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments into one, and thus create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism” and “The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible.” May this generation of Compatriots endeavor to keep George Washington’s legacy alive for generations yet unborn. Hal Shurtleff, Member of the Boston Chapter of the MASSAR, and co-founder and director of Camp Constituti
|
His “Farewell Address”:
AOC says America should lead the world In committing national economic suicide and sending living standards back to 19th century by Paul Driessen
29-year old ex-bartender and freshman U.S. Representative (D-NY) Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez received thunderous environmentalist and media acclaim when she introduced her Green New Deal resolution in the House and Ed Markey (D-MA) submitted it in the Senate. It was quickly endorsed or cosponsored by scores of House and Senate Dems, including many who want to run against President Trump in 2020.
But within days the GND was subjected to rigorous analysis (and ridicule) by energy experts, President Trump, Republicans, conservative pundits and even some Democrats. Their disdain is well-founded.
Asserting yet again that “manmade climate change” poses an “existential threat” to people and planet – with only a dozen years before total disaster strikes – the Green New Deal demands that the United States convert to 100% “renewable” energy within ten years. It also proclaims an equally urgent need to abandon free enterprise capitalism in favor of 100% socialist economic and “social justice” policies.
In the energy arena, AOC’s GND requires that fossil fuels, nuclear power and even waste-to-energy and large-scale hydroelectric facilities be eliminated from the US energy mix. Coal, oil and natural gas leasing and development on federally controlled Western lands would be banned, as would exports of those fuels.
Internal combustion cars, trucks, buses, trains and boats would be replaced with electric versions, or eradicated. Airplanes would be replaced by high-speed rail. And every house and building in America would be gutted, rebuilt or retrofitted with “state of the art efficiency” technologies. That’s for starters.
The original “draft” resolution (since replaced on AOC’s website) even called for getting rid of “farting cows” – to prevent methane from increasing above its current minuscule 0.0017% of the atmosphere. So “bugs not beef” in our diets – and no more cheese, milk, yogurt or Baskin Robbins.
In the “social justice and fairness” arena, the Cortez-Markey GND provides that every American would get government-guaranteed jobs, with “family-sustaining” wages and pensions; free college or trade school; “healthy organic” food; “safe, affordable, adequate” and energy-efficient homes; and support for ethnic and economic “communities” that “historically” were harmed “first and most” by “dirty energy.”
Saturday Night Live could not have crafted a better parody of energy, economic and scientific reality.
But Ms. Cortez is determined to have her GND brought up for a vote in the House, where Speaker Pelosi (D-CA) worries about the spectacle that would ensue. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is equally determined to have a vote. Mr. Markey is outraged; he claims Republicans just want to sow discord within the Democratic party, portray Dems as favoring extremist policies and sabotage the plan.
Meanwhile, Senator Bob Menendez (D-NJ) threatened to call police on a reporter who was “harassing” him merely by asking for his views about the Green New Deal.
Ms. Cortez has no such qualms. When asked whether implementing her GND would require “massive government intervention,” she replied: “It does. Yeah. I have no problem saying that.” Moreover, she added, we shouldn’t point fingers and say China or India or Russia isn’t doing anything like this. We shouldn’t “hold ourselves to a lower bar.” We should “choose to lead” the world in this transition.
Lead the world in economic suicide, environmental degradation, plummeting living standards, shorter life spans and societal upheaval would be a more accurate description of her GND.
But at least Democrats and environmentalists have now made clear what they will do to America’s energy, economy, jobs, transportation, infrastructure and society if they regain control of the House, Senate, White House, Deep State and courts.
What they are not doing, discussing or even thinking about is how they intend to get achieve their energy-climate-socialist nirvana … how many trillions of dollars it would cost … how many millions of good jobs would be eliminated before their promised job-creation programs theoretically kick in … and exactly how they plan to deal with the enormous human and environmental impacts.
AOC says don’t worry about the price tag. Just tax the rich more and borrow trillions more. Whether the cost is $1 trillion per year or $40 to $100 trillion in total, that is an ignorant, cavalier response. Either way, she must provide the numbers, calculations and wherewithal – transparently and with full debate.
But on environmental matters, Ms. Cortez and her cosponsors have no clue what they are talking about.
America has over a century of coal, oil and natural gas that we should use. We have vast quantities of limestone, copper, iron, and rare earth and other strategic metals that would be essential for the wind turbines, solar panels, biofuel operations, massive backup battery arrays, and thousands of miles of new electricity transmission lines that their Green New Deal envisions. Is there a snowball’s chance in Hell that they would open highly mineralized Western and Alaskan lands for exploration and mining?
Their intransigence on those resources means giving up bonuses, rents, royalties, taxes and millions of high-paying jobs. Billions of dollars in revenues to government will be replaced by billions of dollars in subsidies from government. America won’t even be able to manufacture GND energy systems because we will not have either the reliable, affordable fuels to operate factories nor the necessary raw materials.
Meanwhile, the rest of the world will continue to use fossil fuels, emit greenhouse gases, surge ahead of us economically – and sell us trillions of dollars of Green New Deal energy systems. Those that come from China might even have grid-hacker-friendly portals built right into their motherboards.
Shuttering nuclear and hydro power plants – and converting our transportation and shipping systems from gasoline and diesel – would mean the USA will need twice as much electricity as it generates today. Closing waste-to-energy facilities would add to those demands – and to landfill requirements.
Energy journalist Ron Bailey estimates that the GND would require installing some 154,000 offshore wind turbines, 335,000 onshore wind turbines, 75 million residential photovoltaic systems, 2.75 million commercial solar systems, and 46,000 utility-scale solar facilities sprawling across millions of acres. My guess is that it would require a lot more than that – plus millions of Tesla-style battery arrays.
Manufacturing and installing all those units … and the transmission lines to connect them … would require removing hundreds of billions of tons of rock, to reach and extract tens of billions of tons of ores, to create billions of tons of metals, concrete and other materials. That would be expensive, fossil fuel-intensive and habitat destructive. If it is done overseas, as most of it is today, it would involve virtually no health, safety, environmental, human rights, child labor or fair-pay protections. That is not acceptable.
One would hope their commitment to environmental protection and “social justice” would make GND supporters stalwart advocates for reform. Amendments to the GND or stand-alone bills should require that that all future wind turbine, solar panel and battery components and raw materials be “responsibly sourced” under tough US standards addressing all these issues – or we don’t import them.
There’s more. Contrary to claims by GND advocates, electricity rates would likely skyrocket – to at least the 38¢ per kWh families and businesses are already paying in Germany and Denmark. That’s four times as much as Americans now pay in states where coal, gas, nuclear and hydro generate most of the electricity. Those rates are job killers for factories, hospitals, schools and businesses.
They also literally kill people, by making it hard for poor families and pensioners to afford adequate heat in wintertime. And just imagine countless stranded electric cars, trucks and buses clogging highways, especially during snow storms, as their batteries go dead … and hundreds of people die of exposure.
GND advocates seek a total, virtually totalitarian transformation of the US energy and transportation system, economy, buildings, industries, employment base, living standards and individual freedoms. They are using American citizens as guinea pigs in this grand experiment.
They need to tell us what resources will be required … how and where they will get them … how this scheme will work. That’s not likely to happen – because they don’t have a clue, and don’t care. They also can’t prove climate fluctuations and weather events are unprecedented and caused by fossil fuels.
So let’s have those House and Senate votes on the Green New Deal. Let’s see who stands where on this.
Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT) and author of articles and books on energy, environmental and human rights issues.
The Weekly Sam: A Review of Sam’s Book “The New Illiterates”
The latest phonics reading program promises to make a reader out of
your child. All you need is the program ($199 plus tax: plus shipping and
handling), various manuals and workbooks, a blackboard, flashcards, a record
player, a cassette player, a VCR, a computer, and a nuclear reactor. Well, okay,
so I exaggerate a bit–but we do have a tendency to make simple things rather
difficult.
A good antidote to this irksome tendency is The New first
issued in 1973, and every bit as relevant in this 1988 edition [The Paradigm
Company, Box 45161, Boise, Idaho 83711]. No one knows as much about
America’s reading problems, or the solution, as Sam Blumenfeld. With skill and
erudition, he has devastated the “look-say” reading establishment. And he has
produced a true phonics program without all the distractions and frivolities
which characterize some of the products on the market. (I have taught, and am
teaching, my children to read using Mr. Blumenfeld’s so I am
not exactly an unbiased observer when it comes to praising his works.)
There are some 25 or 30 million functional illiterates in our fair land,
and, as Mr. Blumenfeld notes, “no professional educator has stepped forward to
accept responsibility for having helped create this state of affairs. It is assumed
by virtually everyone that all of this ‘just happened’ and that no one’s to blame.
Certainly none of the educational leaders of the last fifty years is to blame. After
all, no one’s been fired.” (preface) The powers that be among the educrats
would like us to believe that these folks are illiterate because they have minimal
brain damage, perceptual retardation, and a host of various and sundry learning
disabilities. Rather than attributing illiteracy to genetic deficiency in the
learner, Mr. Blumenfeld identifies it as “the inability of about half the children
taught to read via Dick and Jane to acquire an adequate sight vocabulary that can
take them beyond the controlled reading materials of the third or fourth
grades.” (pg. 72) Even the dread “dyslexia” is simply “a fancy medical term
coined especially to describe the perfectly normal, intelligent youngster who
can’t learn how to read by the whole-word method.” (pg. 108)
One of the strengths of Mr. Blumenfeld’s book is that he does not just
describe the current Situation, but he places it in its historical context. Present
problems are traced back to such scoundrels as Horace Mann in the 19th
century and John Dewey in the 20th. We learn that in the 1830’s in Boston was
a major philosophical battle concerning the nature and methods of teaching.
Mann and his disciples opposed the traditional and conservative educational
practices of the Boston schoolmasters. Mann is quoted as saying, “I am satisfied
that our greatest error in teaching children to read, lies in beginning with the
alphabet.” (pg. 147) Thus, Mann declared that the alphabetic method, which
had been used for thousands of years in cultures which had an alphabetic
language, was in error, and English, an alphabetic language, should be taught as
if it were an hieroglyphic language. This ranks as one of the worst educational
decisions ever made in America. Mr. Blumenfeld comments that in Mann’s
time, there “was a climate of revolt against traditional academic discIpline, and
for many refonners the alphabet seemed to symbolize that discipline.” (pgs.
142-143)
Despite the labors of Mann and his cronies, most American children were
taught to read via McGuffey’s readers and Webster’s spellers. Thus, throughout
the 19th century, most American children were not intellectually crippled by
the “look-say, whole-word” method. It was not until the 20th century that the
“second wave” of proponents made this method virtually universal, led by the
terrible trio of Francis Parker, G. Stanley Hall and Dewey. For these champions
of progressive education, the look-say method was perfect. It kept the students
sufficiently passive so that they could work toward their real goal, a new social
order. “The theory behind progressive education was that life adjustment, or
the development of the proper social spirit, was really the primary purpose of
education and that the traditional academiC approach in which the tools of
learning were first mastered was not appropriate for the new age of social
consciousness.” (pg. 156)
Thus, a foreign method of the teaching of reading was thrust upon the
children of America–“we have forced millions of children to read as if the
alphabet had never been invented. And we have seen an entire educational
system perverted to accommodate the illogic and confUSion of a defective
teaching method.” (pg. 214) The second half of this book is a phonics primer,
so that parents can teach their children how to read. It’s short, it’s simple, and
it works.
A final word from Mr. Blumenfeld. “When one begins to think of the
incalculable damage done to the young minds of America through defective
teaching techniques, one can scarcely contain one’s anger. (Rudolph) Flesch
was accused of writing in anger by his critics. as if anger were an inappropriate
reaction to gross pedagogical malpractice which has had a ruinous effect on the
literacy of millions of children … If it bothers you to see children suffering and
failing needlessly because of defective teaching methods obstinately adhered to
against all criticism. you will become angry … While researching this book I
have been amazed at the coolness of the leading members of the sight
vocabulary establishment, the detached way in which they have been able to
catalog and discuss all of the things that were wrong with normal children who
couldn’t learn to read by way of an outmoded method discarded by the deaf. If
there is one thing these teachers have lacked it is humility. and a teacher
without humility is no teacher at all. Their stupidity has only been excelled by
their pride and their greed.” (pg. 21)
