Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. I deal with evidence and not with frightening computer models because the seeker after truth does not put his faith in any consensus. The road to the truth is long and hard, but this is the road we must follow. People who describe the unprecedented comfort and ease of modern life as a climate disaster, in my opinion have no idea what a real problem is.
Consider exaggerating natural weather to the point of fanaticism. It is about control. Most Americans will simply say, ” Live the life the way you want. Most leftists say you have to live your life the way I want, because I am right, and for the good of the whole, you must obey. The other part is the people who eventually get overrun, who are just trying to live their lives and don’t care about the whole issue, whatever it is.
Atmospheric Mood and Emotional Concept Background Collection.
Consider exaggerating natural weather to the point of fanaticism. It is about control. Most Americans will simply say, ” Live the life the way you want. Most leftists say you have to live your life the way I want, because I am right, and for the good of the whole, you must obey. The other part is the people who eventually get overrun, who are just trying to live their lives and don’t care about the whole issue, whatever it is.
Realizing this, the left weaponized climate as a tool for control. If you have enough religious zealots, backed up by money, knowing darn well they will be the ruling class, then if you can limit a person’s freedom by making energy more costly and less accessible, then you can overwhelm the system. It’s a Cloward-Piven philosophy of overwhelming the system. Knowing that the average American is complacent and comfortable, you must then sow seeds of discord and desperation, which will pull more people into your way of thinking. And while we all were patting ourselves on the back that once POTUS Trump took over, we would win, nothing is further from the truth. In the world of zealots, if you survive, you simply live to fight another day, when the left takes back over.
You are seeing it now in the climate, with some of the one-sided bias pushed headline-grabbing things coming out. In the Senate, Sheldon Whitehouse is shameless and is still all-in on portraying natural weather as the “worst ever.”
Some examples:
Never mind the same climate change has 100 million MORE people in Europe with unseasonable cold.
Or, as so often happens, the pattern flips next week:
And the portrayal of the bowels of Hades color schemes:
How about this:
What about the record for the date of cold in the Arctic right now?
Will that be smashed on the cold side? Which is more important? A week of hot weather in Europe or the fact that at the time of the year when ice can melt temperatures are not going above the average in the summer which is near 0C. The warming is all in the winter, courtesy of water vapor, which impacts temperatures more when it’s very cold and dry, not CO2.
Or the heat hysteria in India, where May is the hottest month of the year before the monsoon sets in. It’s about a wash as far as warm vs cold goes.
So, how is that portrayed by people pushing this?
The monsoon is a bit late in Southeast Asia, so it’s hotter, but next week it flips again:
I won’t even get into the Super Nino hype, which can be countered here in something I wrote a few weeks ago, which explains why the very thing they lament and mislabel as man-made, the overall oceanic warming, can blunt the impact of this event.
They also conveniently do not even look at the MEI, which is the cold standard for forecasters, as it isn’t just water temps but actual reactions in the atmosphere, or the longest-running measure of the El Niño – the SOI. (Those are talked about above.)
Why? Because the key zealot-based deception is to tell elements of the truth while simply eliminating the parts that negate it. Let the horse out of the barn, and then no one can catch it.
To advance, a society must produce. If the means of production are handicapped, it cannot, which takes away incentive and the ability to elevate oneself. It makes someone more susceptible to the false of safety at the hands of others, rather than a master of your own fate. The entire leftist agenda on energy is based on control via limiting the ability of the individual to reach beyond their grasp.
The climate agenda has precious little to do with climate or weather, but instead in a realm that is almost otherworldly in its evil roots
They tried it with CLIMATE. They tried it with COVID. It’s all about CONTROL.
Now, they’re coming for PLASTIC.
Plastic is the great equalizer that made affordable goods available to all. Plastic is so ubiquitous, however, that the Left determined that if they can get a piece of it, they control everything.
In a statement, Uthmeier said, “Environmental groups are pressuring corporations to abandon free market principles and raise prices on consumers for products they don’t want.”
“Contrary to what green activists would like the public to believe,” Mooney reports, “plastics come with significant benefits as a direct result of human innovation. They keep food fresh, alleviate waste, make products lighter and therefore more affordable. They also contribute to life-saving medical devices.
“If environmental activists turned government bureaucrats were genuinely interested in environmental improvements, they would focus on more efficient waste management, enhanced recycling infrastructure, and biodegradable innovations. But none of those solutions are on the table. Instead, the radicals push a top-down policy approach that suffocates the free market.”
Mooney quotes CFACT’s own Bonner Cohen saying, “What needs to be understood about ‘sustainable development’ is that what is being peddled is itself unsustainable. Absent government mandates, industry collusion, and interminable lawsuits, the alternatives to plastics could not stand on their own two feet. The marketplace, which reflects consumer preferences, is the best place to separate the sheep from the goats. Just as the PC vanquished the electric typewriter, and internet transmissions quashed the fax machine, superior products prevail over inferior ones. But this is an arena the anti-plastics lobby does not dare to enter. They know they will lose. Florida’s attorney general sees this game for what it is and is to be applauded for taking appropriate action. May other state AGs follow his example.”
CFACT’s Melanie Collette concludes that, “The message to the environmental, social, and governance establishment is becoming clear: If your “voluntary” frameworks function as mechanisms for coordinating market behavior and suppressing competition, then state attorneys general are prepared to treat them that way.”
Public officials such as AG Uthmeier have had enough of false flag Green operations designed to accomplish nothing except the expansion of left-wing funding and control.
People cannot afford another phony Green crusade.
CFACT has been pushing back against the Left’s moves to control business through schemes such as climate, DEI, and ESG. CFACT’s Nate Myers just nailed three big energy companies during their annual shareholder meetings and demanded answers. Here’s the full story.
“Launching AI into Orbit” is a hot topic in 2026, referring to the rapidly accelerating efforts to deploy artificial intelligence computing capabilities — especially AI data centers, GPUs, and inference workloads — directly in space (primarily Low Earth Orbit, or LEO).
AI generated by Grok
“Launching AI into Orbit” is a hot topic in 2026, referring to the rapidly accelerating efforts to deploy artificial intelligence computing capabilities — especially AI data centers, GPUs, and inference workloads — directly in space (primarily Low Earth Orbit, or LEO).
This isn’t science fiction anymore. Multiple companies and initiatives are actively testing or planning to put powerful AI hardware in orbit, driven by the massive energy and cooling demands of modern AI (training and inference) that are straining terrestrial data centers.
“Launching AI into Orbit” is the exact title of a timely April 2026 commentary (published April 20 in RealClearDefense and April 23 in the Orlando Sentinel) that frames Low Earth Orbit (LEO) as the new strategic chokepoint — analogous to the Strait of Hormuz — where AI will determine dominance in space.
It’s also the broader rallying cry for the fast-moving race to deploy AI compute directly in space — orbital data centers, GPU clusters, and inference engines powered by unlimited solar energy and cooled for free in the vacuum of space.
The Strait of Hormuz reminds us that a single chokepoint can shape the global economy overnight. What most policymakers miss is that space has its own version of Hormuz—and we are rapidly losing control of it.
Multiple sectors of the global economy are dependent on access to the Strait of Hormuz, but nations are becoming ever more reliant upon access to space to drive their economies. Similar to the Strait, the key corridor in space is Low Earth Orbit (LEO). All space systems are dependent upon access to it (either directly or indirectly), and the security of LEO and freedom of maneuver in space will increasingly rely upon Artificial Intelligence (AI). Success will come from AI’s capabilities in advancing commercial space activity, responding to current and future threats in space, and ensuring AI dominance through American control of the AI supply chain.
AI is fundamental to maintaining U.S. advantages in commercial space activity. Many people still do not realize the extent of U.S. military involvement in all international space activity – both military and commercial. During my time standing up current operations at U.S. Space Command, we saw the volume and speed of activity in space explode beyond what human operators could effectively track in real time. That gap is only widening. The Space Force operates a Space Surveillance Network that monitors the space environment and tracks all artificial objects in Earth’s orbit. U.S. and foreign companies use this data to launch satellites, avoid debris, and ensure their systems do not conflict with other objects in space. The surveillance network has always relied upon complex algorithms, and as the volume and complexity of space-based activity increases, AI compute will be increasingly necessary.
Providing this surveillance and tracking service will also advance U.S. advantages in the development of the commercial space industry. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and its preceding organizations played a critical role in solidifying air commerce as an economic force in the 20th century. U.S. development of the FAA ensured control over the global air industry which has generated wealth, economic benefits, and advanced logistics for over 100 years. America is on track to have similar influence over the development of space commerce, but AI will be critical to ensuring the expansion of surveillance, tracking, and deconfliction of space assets. The country that successfully employs AI capabilities to accomplish these functions will have the most influence on the future of the space industry.
While AI will be critical to commercial space development, it is absolutely necessary to counter the quantity and capabilities of current threats, much less future ones. Existing threats to the space domain are significant and not well understood. The dominant adversary is China, which has over 1,300 satellites in orbit and maintains multiple systems (in space and on earth) that can target U.S. and allied space systems. China’s threats to space represent a range from destructive weapons to high-power laser weapons and powerful jammers. A coordinated Chinese effort to jam or blind satellites in LEO wouldn’t just affect military systems. It would disrupt GPS, financial transactions, logistics, and communications simultaneously. Much of China’s efforts to deter and defeat the U.S. rely heavily on their counter-space plans and capabilities. China could attempt to deploy those capabilities to hamper U.S. operations in LEO and thus disrupt the key “choke point” for space access.
Much of China’s efforts to deter and defeat the U.S. rely heavily on their counter-space plans and capabilities. If deployed, they could directly disrupt U.S. operations in LEO and threaten access to this critical choke point. The U.S. cannot rely on human operators alone to respond. AI will be essential for detection, tracking, threat analysis, and real-time response to adversary actions. It can also provide decision-makers with options at tactical, operational, and strategic levels. These are capabilities the U.S. must accelerate in the years ahead.
In space, AI is not an efficiency tool. It is the only way to maintain control. To realize these advantages, the United States must confront a harder truth: AI is only as strong as the supply chain behind it. If the U.S. does not control the AI stack—from chips to training data—it will not control the space domain. And today, that stack is globally fragmented and exposed.
U.S.-based Nvidia’s GPUs power much of the AI ecosystem but systems like the GB200 rely on hundreds of global suppliers. That creates real vulnerability but also reflects reality. The U.S. cannot retreat from global markets without ceding influence. Selling American AI abroad sets standards, builds dependence, and keeps U.S. companies at the center of the ecosystem. The challenge is not whether to engage, but how. The U.S. should protect its most advanced capabilities from adversaries like China while avoiding broad export controls that weaken its own industrial base.
The world has seen how a single chokepoint can shape the global economy. Space has its own chokepoint that it is becoming more critical by the year. AI will determine who can operate in that domain and who cannot. The country that builds and supplies that infrastructure will not just compete in space. It will define it.
Col Timothy Murphy (U.S. Air Force, ret.) is a former national security affairs fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. From 2019 to 2020, he served as the first Chief of Current Operations for U.S. Space Command.
This article was originally published by RealClearDefense and made available via RealClearWire.
Imagine this: You wake up to news that a conservative speaker — a man who spent his life advocating for faith, family, and freedom — has died under suspicious circumstances. Within hours, the radical left floods social media, not with condolences, but with celebrations. They mock his memory, sneer at his beliefs, and rejoice in his death. Some even openly say the world is better off without him.
Imagine this: You wake up to news that a conservative speaker — a man who spent his life advocating for faith, family, and freedom — has died under suspicious circumstances. Within hours, the radical left floods social media, not with condolences, but with celebrations. They mock his memory, sneer at his beliefs, and rejoice in his death. Some even openly say the world is better off without him.
What you’re witnessing isn’t just politics. It’s not disagreement. It’s not protest. It’s evil — and it’s rooted in the same godless, anti-human philosophy that animates much of today’s radical climate movement.
Make no mistake: the death of Charlie Kirk (or any similar figure, God forbid) and the violent celebration that follows aren’t isolated phenomena. They are symptoms of a deeper rot that’s infected the American left — a nihilistic worldview that despises God, America, truth, tradition, and life itself.
The Root of the Rot
Today’s climate radicals scream about “justice” and “equity” — but what they’re selling isn’t justice. It’s judgment. Not the righteous kind, either. It’s the judgment of man playing god, condemning the world as irredeemable and demanding its destruction so they can build their utopia — or more honestly, so they can wallow in its ruins.
These aren’t your granddad’s conservationists. These aren’t the folks who wanted to preserve hunting land or keep rivers clean. No, these are militant zealots who believe mankind is a virus and the Earth would be better off without us. And when they look at people like Charlie Kirk — Christian, conservative, pro-America — they see the enemy.
They don’t want to debate us. They don’t want to win us over. They want us erased.
That’s not hyperbole. That’s not partisan talk. That’s the worldview of radical environmentalism: that humans are the problem, Christianity is a myth, America is evil, and history is a crime scene.
The Shared Creed: Nihilism Dressed in Green
Let’s draw the connection plainly.
The radical left — whether climate anarchists, Antifa militants, or campus mobs — all spring from the same poisoned well: cultural Marxism with a green coat of paint. It’s the old religion of revolution and resentment, now disguised as “climate action” or “social equity.”
They don’t believe in God, so they worship the Earth. They don’t believe in salvation, so they demand reparation. They don’t believe in sin, so they invent crimes like “carbon privilege.” They don’t believe in forgiveness, only cancellation. They don’t believe in redemption, only rage.
What does that have to do with celebrating the death of a man like Charlie Kirk?
Everything.
Because when you teach a generation that truth is oppression, that tradition is hate, that gender is a construct, and that humans are the disease — what kind of fruit do you expect to grow?
They burn cities in the name of “justice.” They blockade roads and throw soup on paintings for “climate.” They vandalize churches and pro-life centers in the name of “rights.” And when someone dies who stood for what is good, true, and eternal — they laugh.
Why? Because their belief system is fundamentally anti-Christian and anti-human.
From Gaia Worship to Gulags
Let’s be honest: the radical climate movement isn’t about science. It’s about control.
They don’t want to reduce carbon — they want to reduce you. They want fewer people, fewer babies, fewer farms, fewer cars, fewer freedoms. They worship the Earth, but they hate the people God placed on it. They hate your truck, your house, your Bible, your job, your kids. Most of all, they hate your freedom — because it reminds them of a moral order they rejected long ago.
Think I’m exaggerating?
Climate activists openly call for “degrowth” — a euphemism for economic collapse.
They demand carbon reparations, forced migration, and wealth redistribution on a global scale.
They shut down power plants and pipelines while insisting we replace baseload generation with wind that dies when the sun sets and the wind calms.
And they tell us, straight-faced, that this is “progress.”
Meanwhile, they ignore the real pollution pouring from China, the slave labor in Congo digging up cobalt for their EVs, and the carbon footprint of their own private jets to Davos.
Why? Because it’s not about the environment. It’s about ideology — a green excuse for red revolution.
Climate Martyrs vs. Conservative Corpses
Now let’s circle back to the spiritual ugliness we saw when Charlie Kirk was killed — or, in the real world, when any conservative voice dies or suffers tragedy. The response is always the same:
When Rush Limbaugh died, they trended “#RestInPiss.”
When Antonin Scalia passed, they cheered.
When Steve Scalise was shot, they excused it.
Compare that to how they react when one of their own — a climate radical who chains himself to a pipeline or lights himself on fire in front of the Supreme Court — dies for the cause. He’s hailed as a martyr. His death is “tragic,” “heroic,” “a wake-up call.” They write poems. They start hashtags. They demand policy changes.
But if a Christian dies defending the unborn? Or a conservative dies defending the Constitution? Crickets. Or worse — mockery.
That’s the divide we’re living in: a spiritual war, not a political one.
Reclaiming the Moral Ground
We must be clear-eyed about what we face.
This isn’t a debate over emissions targets or energy portfolios. It’s a war of worldviews — and one side believes human life is sacred, while the other believes it’s disposable.
One side says man is made in the image of God. The other says man is a carbon-emitting parasite. One says America is a miracle worth preserving. The other says America is a cancer worth cutting out. One says the answer is faith, family, and hard work. The other says the answer is rage, retribution, and revolution.
And unless we reject that poison — boldly, publicly, and unapologetically — we will lose more than political debates. We will lose our country. We will lose our souls.
What We Must Do
Call it what it is. Stop pretending these people are just “passionate” or “misguided.” They are radicals with a godless agenda.
Defend truth without apology. We don’t need to moderate. We need to man up. Say the truth: fossil fuels built the modern world, and Christianity built Western civilization.
Raise our children to stand. Homeschool them if you can. Teach them the Constitution, the Gospel, and how to use their voice before the world silences it.
Build our own platforms. The mainstream media is lost. Universities are lost. Start Substacks. Build churches. Fund independent schools. Make noise.
Pray like warriors. This is not a political movement. This is a spiritual insurgency. Put on the full armor of God.
Conclusion: Choose This Day Whom You Will Serve
The same ideology that sends mobs to block traffic and vandalize statues also cheers when a conservative dies. The same spirit that demands you turn off your gas stove and bow to climate hysteria also demands you shut your mouth, abandon your faith, and surrender your country.
This isn’t about carbon. It’s about control. It’s about chaos. It’s about evil.
And it’s time we say no.
America will not be saved by moderates mumbling about bipartisanship. She will be saved by patriots who know what time it is — and who still believe in the God of the Bible, the power of the Constitution, and the sacredness of every human life.
Charlie Kirk knew that. And whatever your opinion of him — agree with his politics or not — his life stood as a rebuke to the darkness now rising.
The people who laughed at his death aren’t just tasteless. They are dangerous. And if we don’t drive them out of power and influence, they will make sure we’re next.
This is a moment of choosing.
Choose truth. Choose life. Choose America.
Before it’s too late.
Terry L. Headley, MBA, MA, for the American Coal Council.
The Hedley Company is an energy communications and research firm that helps clients tell the truth about power—clearly, credibly, and fast. We specialize in coal, natural gas, and grid reliability, producing message frameworks, data-driven reports, investor and policy decks, and earned-media programs that move opinion and outcomes. Founded by T. L. Headley—former communications director for the West Virginia Coal Association and the American Coal Council—the firm blends newsroom discipline with industry know-how, using county-level data, RTO dynamics, and policy analysis to inform decisions. From crisis response to long-form research, The Hedley Company turns facts into strategy and strategy into wins. Based in Ona, West Virginia.
This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.
The Politico lament titled “‘We’ve lost the culture war on climate’” offers a rare moment of clarity from within the echo chamber of environmental orthodoxy.
“There’s no way around it,” admits Jody Freeman, former climate advisor to Barack Obama. “We’ve lost the culture war on climate, and we have to figure out a way for it to not be a niche leftist movement”.
But she—and the authors—never pause to ask why the war was lost. The answer isn’t about political maneuvering or industry lobbying. It’s much simpler: the left sacrificed the last of its credibility during COVID, and no amount of apocalyptic climate branding can bring it back.
COVID: The Bonfire of the Authorities
The same people who now ask Americans to trust sweeping climate rules are the ones who insisted lockdowns would “stop the spread,” that cloth masks were life-saving talismans, and that vaccines prevented transmission. They suppressed dissent, gaslit the public, and rewrote yesterday’s lies into today’s mandates.
During COVID, the American public witnessed a catastrophic failure of expertise—not in science per se, but in institutional honesty. Bureaucrats contradicted themselves weekly, all while pretending infallibility. “The science” was less about the evidence and more about control. And when people began asking why, they were called dangerous.
Now those same voices return with charts, forecasts, and pleas for regulation, insisting that failing to curb CO2 will be a disaster.
“Failing to curb power plants’ pollution, scientists say, means temperatures will continue to rise and bring more of the floods, heat waves, wildfires, supply chain disruptions, food shortages and other shocks that cost the U.S. hundreds of billions of dollars each year in property damage, illness, death and lost productivity.”.
That narrative structure—the breathless projection of catastrophe, the rigid insistence on compliance, the moral castigation of skeptics—is precisely what Americans no longer believe. Because they’ve seen the machinery behind it. And they’re not going back.
Market Reality, Not Mandates, Is Driving Change
Even Politico’s own article unwittingly undermines its narrative. It acknowledges that coal use has plummeted—from 48.5% of electricity in 2007 to just 15% in 2024—while emissions from power plants have dropped by 38%. These outcomes didn’t come from the Clean Power Plan, which never took effect. They came from natural gas abundance, fracking, and market evolution.
This makes Freeman’s despair particularly telling. It’s not that emissions aren’t falling. It’s that people no longer think we need the state to manage every molecule to make it happen.
The left didn’t just lose the policy fight. They lost control of the frame. And part of that collapse came from an unexpected source: the decensorship of Twitter.
When Elon Musk took the reins of the world’s most influential digital square, he didn’t just fire a few moderators. He exposed a vast censorship regime—one in which government agencies, NGOs, and media gatekeepers worked to suppress dissent. This included not just COVID heresies but also climate skepticism, criticism of electric vehicle mandates, and questions about energy grid reliability.
Suddenly, voices long deemed “dangerous” were heard again. Questions that were once unspeakable became unignorable.
It wasn’t just about free speech for its own sake. It was about breaking the illusion of consensus. Musk didn’t create a movement; he let the light in on one that already existed, long denied by a rigged system. And once people saw it, they couldn’t unsee it.
Control Versus Trust
The Politico piece is filled with laments over lost tools of control. Court rulings. Congressional gridlock. Executive rollback. But the unspoken truth is this: those tools only worked when they were shielded by trust. And trust died not with a bang, but with a thousand flip-flops—on masks, on mandates, on lockdowns, on model projections.
Now, climate advocates find themselves in the same boat, still peddling apocalyptic certainty while the public shrugs. They’ve been told the end is nigh for decades. They’ve watched the goalposts move. They’ve endured every hot day being labeled a harbinger of doom—only to see emissions fall and prosperity continue.
They’ve also noticed that every “solution” somehow involves more regulation, less choice, and more power for the people who got it wrong last time.
You Can’t Guilt People Who No Longer Trust You
Politico’s article ends by framing the next four years as potentially “lost” on climate. But that assumes something essential: that the public still wants to be led by the same cast of characters. They don’t.
The war is over not because people deny that climate changes, or that humans play a role. It’s over because they deny the credibility of those claiming to solve it. The culture war wasn’t lost in a courtroom. It was lost in the empty supermarket aisles of lockdown-era America, and in the liberated feed of a post-censorship Twitter.
You can’t guilt people who no longer trust you. You can’t control a culture that no longer listens. And you can’t regulate your way out of a credibility crisis.
The only way forward is honesty, humility, and a firm end to the presumption that “the experts” always know best. Until then, the war is not just lost—it’s unwinnable.
There has been a wicked price spike in cocoa beans which the usual suspects are blaming on “climate change” as if your air conditioner was ruining cocoa crops in West Africa. Instead, African governments have fixed the price of cocoa for decades, forcing poor farmers to work for a pittance, and keeping the big profits for themselves.
There has been a wicked price spike in cocoa beans which the usual suspects are blaming on “climate change” as if your air conditioner was ruining cocoa crops in West Africa. Instead, African governments have fixed the price of cocoa for decades, forcing poor farmers to work for a pittance, and keeping the big profits for themselves. Not surprisingly, even though there is a wild price spike, farmers in Ghana are leaving the industry, smuggling crops out (because they get a better price). They didn’t plant new trees, they ran out of money for fertilizer, and didn’t try new varieties. Their children don’t want to farm cocoa, and the yields are falling on old sickly plantations.
So, surprise, socialist government controls wrecked the industry, and they are now scrambling to put the pieces back together. Things are so desperate, the government of Ghana raised the price of cocoa by 58% last April and then raised the price of cocoa by another 45% last September, to try to reduce the smuggling. (The government was losing too much money). At one point last year it was estimated that a third of the national crop was lost to smugglers. A few months after this, the farmers were hoarding their beans in expectation the government would have to give them another price rise. Just chaos for everyone.
Meanwhile other socialists use these failures to tell us they have to fix the weather and we must give them lots of money to do it.
It’s always the way. Big Government creates a crisis and then beats us over the head with it, to demand more money and power. Greenies pretend to care about the poor, but they are happy to exploit the poor farmers of Ghana as fodder for press releases for their industrial “renewable” schemes, and banker friends.
Feel the pain of these farmers. Some of them have farmed for decades, yet they have nothing to show for it, saying “ It feels like we are working for other people’s benefit.”
Ghana has farmed cocoa for over 100 years. The country is the world’s second-largest producer, behind Côte d’Ivoire. The cocoa industry employs over a million people and contributes about $2 billion in foreign exchange annually. In recent times, prices of the commodity have increased exponentially, pushed by extreme climate events and supply chain crisis on fertilizers used by farmers.
Yet farmers like Anane and Holiata say they see little of this wealth. They point to the low prices set by the Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD), established in 1947. The board sets cocoa prices to regulate the industry and protect farmers from exploitation by European merchants, but farmers argue that these prices fail to reflect the crop’s true value on international markets.
The Cocobod traders were forward selling as much as 70% of the crop one year in advance. But when weather, disease, and a lack of fertilizer hit the crop, the bureaucrats couldn’t find the cocoa they’d already sold. They were caught short, forced to buy cocoa on the open market which sent the prices rocketing. (If only climate models worked, eh, they could have seen this coming?)
According to Oxfam, up to 90% of Ghanaian cocoa farmers do not earn a living income. Many of the 800,000 smallholder farmers who cultivate the crop survive on less than $2 a day, struggling to afford basic needs such as food, clothing, housing, and healthcare.
The cocoa industry is rife with human rights issues, like forced child labor, and slavery. When the environmentalists start to care about pain and suffering in the here and now, instead of theoretical storms in a hundred years time, we might think they give a damn about making the world a better place.
Apparently man-made climate change made it too wet, then too dry. Sure, we believe you…
The weather has been bad in Ghana in the last two years, first it was too wet which rotted the old sickly trees, and then it was too dry, but no climate model on Earth predicted both these extreme seasons correctly (the witchdoctors might as well use chicken entrails), and other countries nearby suffered bad weather too, yet they increased their crop yield. Nigeria’s cocoa exports saw a year-over-year increase of 15% in October 2024, and Cameroon’s cocoa crop is expected to rise 7% this year.
Price fixing, and regulation hurts the people it was supposed to protect
The Government of Ghana formed the price fixing board to try to protect farmers from volatile prices. Instead they trapped them in poverty and fed a bunch of bureaucrats that may destroy the local industry.
Under Ghanaian law, selling cocoa to anyone other than the Ghana Cocoa Board (COCOBOD) through its licensed buying companies (LBCs) is a crime. The market is tightly regulated, with prices set annually by the government through the Producer Price Review Committee (PPRC).
If the government had offered a service but not forced it upon the farmers, the Cocobod bureaucrats would have had to stay competitive, or the farmers would have abandoned it to make their own deals. But there were no brakes or accountability on the government. In the end, the farmers did abandon it, but years too late, because it was against the law to smuggle the cocoa out of the country — so the farmers had to be desperate before they would take the risk.
It takes up to five years to grow new cocoa plants, so chocolate will be expensive until the free market solves itself, which it will, as long as the government gets out of the way.
Together the Ivory Coast and Ghana provide 60% of global cocoa, they have a nice little monopoly. But with these latest price spikes, many other countries are planting cocoa beans and soon there will be a lot more competition. The West African cartel have just wrecked their own competitive advantage.
“A free market in electricity would terminate the current provisions of landmark federal statutes, such as the Power Act of 1935, Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, Energy Policy Act of 1992, Energy Policy Act of 1995, and Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.”
“A free market in electricity would terminate the current provisions of landmark federal statutes, such as the Power Act of 1935, Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, Energy Policy Act of 1992, Energy Policy Act of 1995, and Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.”
My new AIER primer defines and applies the free-market classical liberal worldview to electricity. This is particularly important because this sound perspective has been both forgotten and misapplied.
Forgotten regarding the criticisms of traditional public utility regulation that emerged in the 1960s; misapplied regarding the current mandatory open access era involving central planning at the wholesale level with ISOs/RTOs.
My major points with quotations follow:
1. Electricity is a free-market product with a clear free market, classical liberal meaning: theseparation of government and electricity in all phases and in the whole.
“A free market in electricity is defined as the absence of government ownership, control, or regulation. Electricity and government are separate, apart from legal protection against force or fraud. Government neutrally upholds the enforceability of private contracts and other market norms under the rule of law.”
“… contra government direction and control, from municipal ownership to franchise protection and cost-based rate ceilings (public-utility regulation); to mandatory open access for outside parties (an uncompensated taking); to renewable requirements (the forced energy substitution of wind and solar).”
“Grid electricity was never considered a common-pool resource at odds with definable private property rights and efficient operation. The ‘commons’ theory of governmental organization arose only with the government-mandated open-access transmission, itself a clear violation of private property rights.”
2.Electricity, while having unique qualities, is subject to market forces and does not require government intervention or ownership. The US power sector has a clear free market history for empirical evaluation—and no demonstrable market failure.
“Highly coordinated multiphase operation, evident in petroleum and natural gas (in a free market), was required by the uniqueness of electricity. Governmental franchise protection was not necessary.”
“The market era was characterized by declining rates, expanding usage, and reliable service…. Market-directed integrated operations resulted in unprecedented affordability and continuous, coordinated service.”
3. Electricity is the second-most regulated sector of the U.S. economy today, next to money and banking (outside of the military industrial complex). It is an unholy mix of public utility regulation; government-enabled dilute, intermittent wind and solar; and mandatory open access.
“Today, a growing number of regions are subject to rising power rates, conservation appeals, and service interruptions.”
4. Mandatory open access has introduced its own problems under de facto socialism, particularly pricing for reliability.
“Economic calculation has bedeviled ISO/RTOs…. Some regions have implemented ‘capacity charges’ to reward generators for standby capacity. Others have banked on ‘energy only’ prices, betting that ample capacity would be incited by periodic price windfalls.”
“Consumer welfare and ‘the obligation to serve’ have been lost in the transition to central planning, as well as in the governmental quest for decarbonization. Worse, agency errors … have been protected by sovereign immunity.”
5. Public policy going forward begins with federal deregulation of electricity (state deregulation would need to follow).
“A free market in electricity would terminate the current provisions of landmark federal statutes, such as the Power Act of 1935, Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, Energy Policy Act of 1992, Energy Policy Act of 1995, and Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.”
“Competition could entail direct rivalry with duplicate facilities, or it could be a single firm maintaining a market against potential rivals. Either way, the private and public costs of government intervention could be bypassed and market signals established.”
This video compiles interviews conducted by investigative journalist Alex Newman, with astrophysicists, atmospheric physicists, geophysicists, climate scientists, meteorologists, and other leading experts from around the world. Together they share a simple message: the “climate change” movement is not about “saving the environment.” It is about control.
Below is a lightly edited transcript in italics with my bolds and added images. AN refers to Alex Newman talking, Other initials refer to interviewees.
Climate Meltdown
The climate narrative is the pretext for reorganizing all of human society based on principles of manufactured scarcity and international tyrannical control. Governments, big corporations and even religious leaders are all marching In lockstep. And yet it’s all based on lies as the scientists you’re about to meet will demonstrate.
As the US moves away from fossil fuels and embraces green energy, enemy countries like China have nearly 1,000 more operational coal powerered plants worldwide as of July 2023. In the graph you can see the CCP is marching forward with coal and fossil fuels as the US moves towards green energy making us weak, vulnerable and pathetic when it comes to energy.
Manufacturing is man-made global warming, a threat to humanity according to left-wing Progressive politicians, influencers and businesses. But their solution to climate change is always the expansion of the size and scope of government at the loss of individual and personal sovereignty, and the taking of the American taxpayer dollars to spend endless amounts on fruitless idiotic climate plans and agendas that lower efficiency and raise the cost of energy.
For example Kamala Harris endlessly talks about why climate change is one of the biggest threats to humanity.
“Well let me start by saying this climate change is the single greatest threat facing our world today. That’s why I am committed to passing a Green New Deal creating clean jobs and finally putting an end to fracking once and for all.”
“I’ve heard young leaders talk with me about a a term they’ve coined called climate anxiety. Which is fear of the future and the unknown. And whether it makes sense for you to even think about having children; whether it makes sense for you aspiring to buy a home. Because what will this climate be. But because people voted we have been able to put in place over a trillion dollars in investment in our country around things like climate resilience and adaptation, around focusing on issues like Environmental justice.”
But there’s another side to the story that is not often told. There are many scientists and experts that you will hear from in this video who claim that climatism or climate alarmism is nothing but a facade to increase the size and scope of government and to take away individual and personal sovereignty. And going from National sovereignty to giving power to entities like the United Nations, while taking billions of dollars from the American taxpayer. Investigative journalist Alex Newman has interviewed Senators, scientists and many more people on this very subject. In the following few interviews you’re about to see you’re going to hear the other side of the story, which Academia, Media and Hollywood have silenced, cancelled and destroyed. Please watch and share, and get this information out to your friends, neighbor, Pastor, co-workers and more.
Alex first caught up with Patrick Moore who’s one of the early founders of Greenpeace. That’s a non-governmental environmental organization (NGO) founded in Canada in the 1970s. Moore says in a shocking interview that the green new deal policies is a recipe for mass suicide. Check it out.
AN: There’s a lot of talk now in the United States about this green new deal. I don’t know if you’ve had an opportunity to look at that, butwhat are your thoughts. Is this a good idea or are we in trouble or what’s the plan?
PML Well it’s a recipe for mass suicide. It’s just quite amazing that someone that is in government, actually elected to the government of the United States of America would propose that we eliminate all fossil fuels in 12 years. If we did that on a global level it would result in the decimation of the human population from some 7 billion down to who knows how few people. It would basically begin a process of cannibalization amongst the human species because the food could not be delivered to the stores in the middle of the cities anymore. How would this even work is just one point.
What bothers me the most is this: If you eliminated fossil fuels, every tree in the world would be cut for fuel. There’s no other source of heating and cooking once you eliminate fossil fuels. You can use animal dung if there were any animals left. But the animals would all die too, because first off they would all get eaten. Any that survived would be have to go wild because there’d be nobody left to look after them.
I mean it’s the most ridiculous scenario I’ve ever heard. People recognize when something is preposterous and I think that’s the best word for it. Well the best term for it is actually Mass Suicide. But why would anyone vote for something that was going to result in the death of nearly all humans on Earth.
AN: We’re here at the Heartland institute’s climate conference in Orlando. I’m with Dr William Happer who is a professor of physics emeritus at Princeton University. For a time he served as adviser on climate issues to Donald Trump. Dr. Happer thank you so much for joining us today. Now one of the things you’re going to be addressing at this event is carbon taxes. Let’s start with your thoughts on that: Does the world need carbon taxes?
WH: No, of course the world doesn’t need a carbon tax. They’re talking about a CO2 tax and CO2 is actually good for the world. So people ought to be encouraged to make more of it.
AN: So why why do you think they’re pushing this idea of a CO2 tax if CO2 is good for the world?
WH: Well it’s a combination of people who’ve been badly misinformed; people who need to feel virtuous. They don’t believe in anything anymore so now they’ve got something to believe in, to save the planet. And then there’s the opportunists who are making a good living out of frightening everybody and sucking money out of the common man to push idiotic Energy Solutions on them. That makes everyone poorer and provides less reliable energy, less affordable energy. So there’s nothing good about it. It’s more of the same evil fanaticism that’s plagued mankind since we began.
AN: This conversation is with Dr. Richard Lindzen who is an American atmospheric physicist who is well known for his great work at Harvard and also at MIT. He talks about how scientists and the science institutionally has become hungry for power and politics, and how true science and true discovery has been trampled underfoot. How do you get more scientists to speak out because as you know the scientists who are saying that this is wrong are in a very small minority. How do you get other members of the scientific Community to come out and say something if if they know, or if they don’t know how do you get them to understand?
RL: Well I don’t know the answer answer to that. Because starting in the early ’90s, a young scientist could neither get promoted, published or funded if he said or did that. So if you wanted to get active scientists to go along it’s asking them to commit professional suicide. On the positive side there are a lot of modeling efforts that are showing it’s not a problem. But whether they can say that out loud is another story.
AN: Right before started this interview you were talking to Lord Monckton, who we just interviewed a moment ago. And you mentioned something I thought was hilarious. You said that science is the only thing that you could add a “the” in front of it, and it becomes the opposite. What did you mean by that?
RL: Well “the science” contradicts the whole notion of science, which is a mode of inquiry. “The science” is a mode of authority. Those are two very different things.
AN: So how did science go so awry? Any thoughts on this process: How did we get to where we are now in terms of the scientific Community?
RL: I think the vast majority of the public has no idea what science is and that certainly includes the political class. So as politicians, they know that people don’t give them a lot of authority. They see that people quote and trust sciencists, and so they think science is a source of authority that they would like to co-opt. But in doing so they show they have no idea what science is.
AN: We are standing here by the Baltic Sea in Stockholm with Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner who is the retired head of the Paleo geophysics department and geodynamics department at Stockholm University. Also he was a sea level reviewer for the UNIPCC United Nations intergovernmental panel on climate change back in 2000. Dr. Mörner thank you so much for being with us. Please tell us about this whole sea level issue. I just came from the COP 24 in Poland where over and over again we heard that our cities are going to be flooded. I’m from Miami and they say my city’s going to be flooded. Are we all doomed from sea levels changing?
NAM: Absolutely not. I mean there is no big rapid sea level rise going on today and there will not be. On the contrary if anything happens it’s sea will go down a little bit. But also there is nothing which is called Global sea level. it is different in different parts of the of the world.
In this interview Alex talks with Dr willly Soon who spent time as a researcher at the solar and Stellar physics division of the Harvard Smithsonian Center for astrophysics and is arguably maybe the best astrophysicist on the planet. Soon in this interview talks about the intergovernmental panel on climate change which is an outfit of the United Nations and how IPCC data on climate science is built.
AN: So you guys just published three papers in well established peer-reviewed journals. Before we get into the reaction of the papers, give us an overview what did you guys find and how does that differ from say the narrative that the media and the United Nations are promoting.
WS: We are Scientists so we we set out to seek the truth and nothing but the truth. So it’s been puzzling to everyone, I would say every scientist on this topic wonders what are the best thermometer data to use if you want to study temperature change. And then if you want to study what is causing the climate to change, you want to know what are the best solar activity estimates.
So it turns out that IPCC has been wrong and biased for 30 years, that’s the kindest word I can use. And they’ve been in some sense hoodwinking everyone.
AN: There was a poll released several months ago by AP-NORC Center for public affairs research. They found that less than half of Americans even believe that human activity is causing climate change. About a third are willing to pay even a single additional Dollar on their electric bill each month to deal with climate change With the very real Prospect of Trump coming back to the White House in 2024, how is the US government planning to make credible commitments on funding and on these other issues that you guys are talking about.
Senator Coons who chairs that committee: That was part of why I spoke to both the structure of the Inflation Reduction Act which has directed tens of billions of dollars already to construction projects in predominantly red States or politically conservative States. And to the way that we’ve been able to get out of my subcommittee and pass through the full committee an additional billion and a half dollars in investment in combating climate change predominantly in the global South with an overwhelming bipartisan margin.
So am I suggesting that were the former president to be our next president everything would be fine? Not at all. But I’m saying there is a broad enough and deep enough support for continuing Investments to combat climate change and for the inflation reduction act, and bipartisan infrastructure law in particular, that we will continue we’ll continue to move forward regardless.
AN: A lot of this environmental question I think depends on a very flawed fundamental presupposition. It depends on the idea that carbon dioxide is pollution. And after interviewing hundreds of scientists including many who’ve worked for the UNIPCC, many of the leading scientists in the world, I would argue that the notion that CO2 is pollution is absolutely Preposterous. We exhale about two pounds of it every single day. The the proportion of greenhouse gases made up of human CO2 emissions is a fraction of a fraction of 1%. The idea that those are going to destroy the planet or change the temperature of the earth is frankly in my opinion totally ludicrous. But from a totalitarian perspective if you can convince people that CO2 is pollution, there’s no human activity that doesn’t result in CO2 emissions. That includes living, includes dying, turning on a light switch.
If we submit to the idea that CO2 is pollution, then every single aspect of your life comes under the regulatory control of the people who claim to be saving us from pollution. When they do these Environmental Studies they say your CO2 footprint will be smaller if you eat bugs or you do this or that, or you drive an electric car. That doesn’t show anything about whether that’s going to benefit the environment or not.
In fact CO2 has actually been very beneficial for the environment. In interviewing Trump’s climate adviser Dr William Happer, physics professor at Princeton University, he said the Earth is starving for more CO2. And since we’ve had a little bit of an increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last 100 years or so plants have gotten much Greener, agricultural yields have improved.
II think we need to also talk about the fundamental presupposition here: Is CO2 really pollution? if it’s not then all these alleged environmental benefits are completely fictional.
The fundamental fight over enacting effective energy policies is between lobbyists and the public. A parallel perspective is that it is a contest between real Science and political science.
“A key problem with the ‘All of the Above’ policy is that it purposefully bypasses the scientific assessment part. Why? Because lobbyists are acutely aware that their clients’ energy products will fail such an evaluation.”
The fundamental fight over enacting effective energy policies is between lobbyists and the public. A parallel perspective is that it is a contest between real Science and political science.
Lobbyists are paid to represent their clients’ economic interests or political agendas. The public consists of citizens, businesses, and the military.
Lobbyists are professionals who spend most of their time soliciting legislators on their client’s behalf. (See the The Wolves of K Street: The Secret History of How Big Money Took Over Big Government). The obvious question is: Who is balancing out this one-sided influence by competently and aggressively representing the public’s interests on energy policies (and other important issues)? The unfortunate answer is almost no one.
The result of this striking imbalance is that most energy policies are essentially written by lobbyists — which means they are permeated with benefits for their clients, and then conveyed with carefully orchestrated marketing propaganda.
To keep their control, lobbyists full well know that they must maintain the impression that their self-serving policies are actually in the public interest — so they leave no stone unturned to creatively maintain that illusion.
Despite lobbyists’ carefully massaged messages, it is totally accidental if any parts of their policies actually happen to be advantageous to the public. A classic example of this is the well-known “All of the Above” energy mantra. This is saying that ALL energy sources should not only be allowed on the Grid but should also be supported. On the surface (especially to non-technical parties) it sounds reasonable, as who wouldn’t be in favor of investigating alternative energy options?
However, allowing an energy source on the Grid is a privilege, not an entitlement! Sound energy policies (i.e., those that would actually benefit the public) would ensure that the only energy alternatives that are permitted on the Grid would be those that have scientific proof that they are a netsocietal benefit.
Phrased another way, that would mean the only alternative energy sources that should be approved and supported are those that are: a) reliable, b) low cost, and c) environmentally friendly. [Note: Wind and solar are none of these!]
How do we do that? Well, it’s certainly not by taking a salesperson’s (lobbyist’s) word about their product! We assess the real qualifications of proposed alternative energy sources by conducting a scientific assessment.
A key problem with the “All of the Above” policy is that it purposefullybypasses the scientific assessment part… Why? Because lobbyists are acutely aware that their clients’ energy products will fail such an evaluation.
To avoid that exposé, they devised a clever end-run around the facts: no scientific assessment is needed if all options are pre-approved as acceptable!
If we buy the lobbyists’ energy mantra, we accept everything. These marketers have cleverly switched the focus from the actual merits of alternative energy sources, to such subjective intangibles as energy “diversity” and “security”…
On the surface, the “All of the Above” slogan sounds innocent enough and even has a ring of reasonableness to it. But, of course, that is the lobbyists’ raison d’etre: to subtly get preferential treatment for third-rate energy sources that otherwise would fall by the wayside.
We need to do some critical thinking about lobbyists’ sales pitches. In this example: does an “All of the Above” policy really make sense?
#1 – When we include ALL options, that would mean that unreliable alternative sources of energy would be put on the Grid.
#2 – When we include ALL options, that would mean very expensive alternative sources of energy would be put on the Grid.
#3 – When we include ALL options, that would mean environmentally destructive alternative sources of energy would be put on the Grid.
Do ANY of those make sense? How do we advance our economy and our society, by allowing unreliable, expensive, and environmentally ruinous alternative power sources on the Grid?
This is a 100% predictable result when political science replaces real Science.
Conclusion
Who benefits from an “All of the Above” energy policy? It certainly is not taxpayers, ratepayers, most businesses, the military, or the environment. Major beneficiaries would be foreign conglomerates who supply us with inferior energy sources, our enemies who are anxious to see our Grid and economy crippled, plus China to whom we will owe an even larger debt.
There is a BETTER path, and one that is in the public’s best interest…
An “All of the Sensible” energy slogan would go a LONG way towards putting some balance in the energy policy fight, plus it would send the message that citizens, businesses, and the environment are a top priority for legislators.
What are our “sensible” energy choices? Well, that is exactly the conversation we should be having. I would posit that “sensible” alternative electrical energy sources are those that are proven to have a net societal benefit — so let the discussion begin!
Most Americans today tend to think of private property simply as a home – the place where the family resides, stores their belongings, and finds shelter and safety from the elements. It’s where you live. It’s yours because you pay the mortgage and the taxes. Most people don’t give property ownership much more thought than that.
Most Americans today tend to think of private property simply as a home – the place where the family resides, stores their belongings, and finds shelter and safety from the elements. It’s where you live. It’s yours because you pay the mortgage and the taxes. Most people don’t give property ownership much more thought than that.
There was a time when property ownership was considered to be much more. Property, and the ability to own and control it, was life itself. The great economist John Locke, whose writings and ideas had a major influence on our nation’s founders, believed that “life and liberty are secure only so long as the right of property is secure.”
John Locke advocated that if property rights did not exist, then the incentive for an industrious person to develop and improve property would be destroyed; that the industrious person would be deprived of the fruits of his labor; that marauding bands would confiscate by force the goods produced by others; and that mankind would be compelled to remain on a bare-subsistence level of hand to mouth survival because the accumulation of anything of value would invite attack.
In short, human civilization would be reduced to the level of a pack of wolves and eventually cease to exist because a lack of control over your own actions would cause fear and insecurity. Private property ownership, Locke argued, brought stability and wealth to individuals, leading to a prosperous society of man.
From the very beginning, the United States was guided by the idea of private property ownership. It was written into our governing documents. Property and freedom – one cannot live without the other. James Madison said, “As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights.” John Adams argued, “The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence.”
America, be aware, private property is quickly being destroyed across the nation, and note the growing lawlessness beginning to surround you. The fear of climate change has become the excuse for government to grow and dictate how every strip of land will be used.
Have you ever wondered why government now focuses so hard on the environment? That’s because the environment does not recognize political boundaries. The environment crosses rivers, fields, and mountains, all of which cross over national borders, state borders, county borders, city borders, and the boundary lines of your yard! That fact has given massive new power to those forces that seek to change our way of life and system of government. Who can stand in the way with a climate crisis at hand? So goes the argument.
As a result, the pack of wolves is quickly raiding every foot of this nation. Lawlessness controls our society as incentive, ingenuity, and entrepreneurship give way to fear of a government tyranny that drives for control, regardless of clear constitutional rights and the legal system that was designed to protect them.
Step by step, freedom dies, leaving shattered dreams, as tyranny grows.
The Biden cabal issued Executive Order 14008 at the beginning of its hold on America. The order, titled America the Beautiful, established a plan to lock away 30 percent of American land by 2030, under the pretext of protecting the planet. The federal government already has 270 million acres under its control, now under 30×30 it’s driving for another 680 million to be locked away from private use.
Eminent domain land grabs are turning millions of acres of vital farmland over to corporations like Blackrock and Vanguard – to feed their own vision of how human society must function. As more and more farmland disappears under wind turbines and solar panels, which produce next to nothing for our power grid, there’s little room to grow the food we need to survive. As a result, thousands of farmers are forced to just give up.
Other property owners in rural America are facing a new challenge – the elimination of vital dams that have controlled the flow of water, opening new land for productive use. But, says the climate change mantra, those dams aren’t natural, so they are a danger to the environment. They must go. Gone is more private property, a reliable water source, and the individual’s ability to thrive for their own goals.
In our once-vibrant cities, chaos is taking control. Private property ownership is under attack. In the name of Smart Growth your dream home could soon be banned as the space is being taken over by public housing projects.
Small businesses, the very foundation of our free market economy, are under attack. It’s bad enough that small retail businesses must now contend with the growing anarchy of thieves simply rushing in and grabbing any items they choose, as law enforcement is forced to stand by and do nothing. But what about the local restaurant that has always featured your favorite meal? Now, in the name of climate change, the government is moving to ban the stoves on which they cook the meals. And what would they be able to cook now that government is driving to ban beef and dairy? We used to have pesticides to get rid of bugs; now they are destined to be our next dinner!
However, as the federal government continues to rush ahead, state and local governments, designed by our Founders to be the first line of defense against tyranny, are now blindly falling in lockstep with the powermongers.
City councils across the nation are joining non-elected regional councils, which create a one-size-fits-all system of control, ignoring local differences. The regional councils delete the will of the local citizens by piling on federal grants and the federal regulations that come with them. Local elections become meaningless as their city council members surrender to the rule of the regional council and explain there is nothing they can do about it. So why elect them?
Fourteen major American cities are part of a globalist climate NGO known as the “C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group.” The goal of the group is “0” meat and dairy consumption by 2030. Also included in the goals are “0” private vehicles owned by citizens, only “1” short-haul air flight per person every 3 years, and “3” new clothing items per person per year. The group is funded mainly by Democrat billionaire Mike Bloomberg, and nearly 100 cities across the world are members. In the U.S., members include Austin, Boston, Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New Orleans, New Your City, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Portland, San Francisco, Washington, D.C. and Seattle. Now as the plan is exposed, the group denies these are “not policy recommendations,” but rather just “different emission-reduction alternatives and long-term urban visions.” But we’re watching them unfold daily. Own nothing and be happy!
In Belmont County, Ohio, the Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) established the Egypt Valley Wildlife Refuge. It encompasses over 28,000 acres of land that cannot be used for private enterprise or homes. As it was being put in place, the ODNR promised local citizens that tourism, lakes, trails, hunting, fishing, etc., would be developed to assist the local economy. None of those promises were fulfilled. And the ODNR pays no taxes or provides services. As a result, the county is in major financial difficulty. The average tax income loss for the county is $8,932,000 that would have gone to pay for schools, roads, law enforcement and public services. Citizens of the country suffer from a lack of local businesses, food services, and products.
In Pataskala, Ohio, a small rural community of about 17,000, a massive solar panel assembly plant is being built. It will employ over 800 people to assemble solar panels with material from China. Why is this a problem? Well, that’s in the details. You see, the lead company in the project, called Illuminate USA, isn’t really a company. It’s a shell designed to get around any future US regulations that would prevent a foreign company from owning property. 49% of Illuminate USA is owned by LONGI, a partner with Invenergy – a Chinese corporation. It’s all a shill designed to pretend these solar panels are “American Made.” Of course, the mayor and city council of Pataskala see dollar signs and are allowing this plant to move forward, in spite of the fact that a huge number of local citizens oppose the plan, fearing that it will drastically change the entire atmosphere of their rural community. The mayor is calling such citizen opponents “Radicals.”
In Michigan, Governor Gretchen Whitmer has signed HB271 into law as part of her drive to enforce ambitious climate change goals for the state. On the same day, she signed HB5120 to take power over green energy projects from the local community government and give it to the Michigan Public Service Commission. Essentially, these two bills have removed local control over land use. Again, state regulations are being used to eliminate local control.
Many parents are now beginning to understand that the public-school curriculum is little more than propaganda for climate change. Students have really become victims of this sinister plot to change society. As a result, all over the world, young people are being radicalized and encouraged to take drastic action against our entire way of life.
“STOP OIL” is a major nongovernmental organization (NGO) training students to lay on highways and block cars from passing. The goal, of course, is to make driving more difficult, resulting in people abandoning their gas-powered cars.
Even worse, in museums around the world, another NGO called “DECLARE EMERGENCY” is leading attacks on precious art, claiming we spend money worshipping the past rather than focusing on stopping climate change. In the past year, climate change radicals have defaced DaVinci’s “Mona Lisa,” Degas’ “Little Dancer,” and Monet’s “Haystacks.” Hate of our society, free enterprise, and private property are at the root of the demonstrations.
Most recently, two activists of DECLARE EMERGENCY charged into the United States National Archives, where the original copies of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution are on display. They smeared red powder on the glass covering the constitution and declared, “We are determined to foment a rebellion. We all deserve clean air, water, food and a livable climate.”
And finally, there is this situation. In a Washington, D.C. court a major case was heard and the decision could seriously affect anyone who would speak out in opposition to the climate propaganda that now surrounds us. Michael Mann, a climate scientist who is one of the major promoters of the questionable climate change fear tactics, filed suit against two scientists who had openly questioned Mann’s credibility. A jury awarded Mann a million dollars in damages. This is an absolute attack on free speech and the ability for anyone to question scientific findings.
Is it then a surprise that Senator Ted Cruz is probing ongoing efforts to quietly train federal judges on the Left’s climate change agenda? The Environmental Law Institute’s Climate Judiciary Project, funded by left-wing nonprofits, is quietly training judges nationwide on climate change litigation. So, don’t you dare question any of their policies, or it may be jail for you!
History has shown not a single success from top-down government control, whether socialist, communist, or today’s drive for a global Great Reset. All we’ve gained are a legacy of broken promises, poverty, misery, and the inevitable tyranny that follows. Yet, the Siren’s Song continues to draw its desperate believers. Today’s drive to eliminate free enterprise, individuality, and private property will not lead to an environmental paradise; rather, it will result in shattered American dreams.
You must be logged in to post a comment.