Heat wave warms political rhetoric and motivation

 

It’s been a bit warm lately in most of the U.S., and very hot in some places. Another climate crisis is upon us, and we are told to act soon.

Why is it that virtually each and every time an “out-of-the-ordinary” weather event occurs, the climate mania folks cry “It’s the end of humanity if we don’t do radical things immediately?” Too many hurricanes in a year: the end is nearing. Above normal heat and dry conditions: we must stop using fossil fuels.

However, if you look back at the history of catastrophic climate warnings over the last 50-plus years, they were embarrassingly wrong. In this space on June 28th, there were listed seven examples of incorrect predictions of climate doom dating from 1974 through 2018.

Yet, a couple of additional hurricanes, a dry spell, or today’s heat wave sends the eco-mania left into another round of catastrophic predictions of imminent doom

Last week, Fox Business Network’s Larry Kudlow featured theoretical physicist Dr. Steven E. Koonin on his 4:00 p.m. program. Koonin is the author of the bestselling book “Unsettled: What climate science tells us, what it doesn’t, and why it matters.”  His credentials also include being former director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University, and he served as Undersecretary for Science in the US Department of Energy under President Barack Obama.

Koonin gets slammed by the pro-climate-catastrophe crowd due to his view that the world is not nearing its end because of CO2 and other climate threats. 

Discussing an official government report from 2018 on the Kudlow program, Koonin said, “The graphs are there; they show warmest temperatures are not greater than they were in 1900, nor are the heatwaves more common than they were in 1900.”

“What we see with heat waves is weather. It happens on time scales or changes of a few days. Heat waves are not going to last more than a few days, either in the US or in Europe. Whereas climate is the many-decade average of weather: temperature, winds, humidity, extreme events, and so on,” he continued. 

“And so, people have a tendency — the news media certainly does — to focus on what happens today. That’s news. But it’s kind of boring to say things have changed by x, y or z over the last 30 years.” 

Kudlow asked, “so what’s the real story here on climate change?” Koonin’s response: “We’ve seen heat — warming — since the 1600s. We had what’s called ‘the Little Ice Age,’ and [Earth’s temperatures have] gone up in the last century, let’s say, by about 2-degrees Fahrenheit. That’s globally averaged. It’s gotten warmer more rapidly in some places, in the poles, for example, and it tends to get warmer in the evening, compared to getting warmer in the daytime. There are changes. Nevertheless, it’s gotten warmer.”

“Now the real question is, are humans going to be able to, or will humans influence the climate enough so that the warming accelerates?”

“I think we understand that greenhouse gases, mostly CO2, exert a warming influence on the climate. Some human activities … exert a cooling influence on the climate. But on balance, we expect human influences to warm the climate somewhat. And the real issue is, how much is it going to warm, and the best estimate now is that it might warm another 2- or 3-degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. And then, of course, what can we do about it?”

So, Koonin, Obama’s former Undersecretary for Science, agrees that warming has occurred, and that it likely will continue to occur, but does not believe that the end of life on Earth as we know it is in the foreseeable future. Therefore, radical alterations are not called for.

Given the catastrophic predictions over the last half-century that were catastrophically wrong, perhaps Koonin’s forecast of the future is more on target.

The U.S. should reduce its burning of fossil fuels as the development of sources that can equal the demand filled by fossil fuels occurs. The U.S. should not try to force ending fossil fuels that the country’s needs, but be sensible enough to recognize that such transitions take time, and rushing the change only hurts the people, with little or no benefit.

Currently, so-called green sources, such as wind and solar, are incapable of not only matching the level of electricity and vehicle fuel currently needed, but also to do that at a cost that is commensurate with the costs — not the current high level — to which American consumers are accustomed.

President Biden and the rest of his administration would be well advised to focus on the immediate serious problems his policies have brought upon the American people. He should undo the restrictions he placed on domestic energy production, address the sky-high inflation under which people are suffering, and stop the ridiculous levels of dangerous illegal entry into the country that his foolish policies have created, for starters.

It was not an accident that the country was in far better shape under the previous administration than now, even with the scourge of Covid. Biden’s focus must be to help the American people, not to help the political left.

Will the far-left stop at nothing to impose its will on the U.S.?

July 19, 2022

We all heard, read and saw news items on the left’s riots in major cities such as Portland; Seattle; New York City; Chicago; Atlanta; Minneapolis; Richmond; Miami; Kenosha; and the District of Columbia during the summer of 2020. 

Government buildings and private property were damaged and burned, businesses were looted and vandalized. Damages reported totaled in the billions of dollars.

The U.S. edition of The Guardian reported that “At least 11 Americans have been killed while participating in political demonstrations this year and another 14 have died in other incidents linked to political unrest, according to new data from a non-profit monitoring political unrest in the United States.”

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., and his wife were threatened by a mob in Washington, DC following a visit to the White House in August, 2020, and fortunately were protected from injury by DC police.

Yet, little was done to the organizers and participants of these riots, and much of the reporting here at home was, shall we say, carefully worded. To wit: With a fire raging in a building in the background, a TV reporter termed the event “mostly peaceful,” and that was the usual coverage by the highly liberal media outlets, and was also the attitude of other liberals. Indeed, Vice-President-elect Kamala Harris even bailed out rioters who were arrested.

Then this year, a draft of a U.S. Supreme Court opinion dealing with the Roe v. Wade issue, written by Justice Samuel Alito, was leaked to Politico by someone working in the Court, and published last May. 

Taking from the draft opinion indicating that the Court would overturn Roe, the left again rose up. Protests were organized at the homes of some of the constitutional conservatives on the Court. While these protests were noisy and otherwise unpleasant, unlike the “mostly peaceful riots,” they were mostly peaceful.

However, just like the criminal behavior in the cities in 2020, protesting at the home of Supreme Court Justices is against federal law. Section 1507 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code clearly states that it is unlawful to protest near a ‘residence occupied or used by [a] judge, juror, witness, or court officer’ with the intent of influencing ‘the discharge of his duty,’ adding that anyone who ‘uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.’”

Yet, while the justices were being harassed and intimidated, federal law enforcement, the Department of Justice and the head of all of that, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, sat on their hands and did nothing. To selectively enforce federal law is not what Garland is supposed to do.

But, it gets worse. Much worse.

An armed California man was arrested in the early morning hours on June 8th outside the Maryland home of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. He was carrying a gun, ammunition, a knife, pepper spray, a screwdriver, zip ties, and other gear when he was arrested, not by federal agents protecting Kavanaugh, but by Montgomery County Police Department officers.

Nicholas John Roske, 26, of Simi Valley, California, told police that he was going to kill Kavanaugh because he was upset about the justice’s positions on Roe v. Wade and the Second Amendment.

Fortunately, while the AG and federal law enforcement were sitting on their hands, the local authorities were doing their job. 

More recently, a group of protesters gathered outside an upscale DC restaurant, harassing diners, including Justice Kavanaugh, forcing him and his wife to leave via the back door.

In addition to the Attorney General, other federal officials have done nothing to stop this illegal behavior and protect the justices from intimidation and potential harm.

White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki said. “I don’t have an official U.S. government position on where people protest.” She appeared unaware that the U.S. government has a law covering this.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-NY, threatened Justices Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, saying they will “pay the price” for their decisions.

After the Roe decision, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, in an email sent out to people, encouraged them to “RISE UP” against the “far-right extremists” of the Supreme Court.

And now there is this. Jonathan Turley, law professor at George Washington University, wrote the following on his website: “We recently discussed the Georgetown law professor who defended ‘more aggressive’ protests targeting the Supreme Court justices, but Harvard clinical instructor Alejandra Caraballo wants to guarantee that ‘The 6 justices who overturned Roe should never know peace again.’ Accordingly, Caraballo is calling for people to accost them every time they are in public.’” Apparently, she does not understand how the Court works.

Those on the left, whether they be elected or appointed federal officials, federal employees, biased journalists, or people trained in the law, and responsible for properly teaching students about the law, do not care about the law, or right and wrong. All they care about is getting their way, whatever methods are required to accomplish their goal.

What has happened to the concept of integrity and honor in one’s work?

Why do so many young people think America is a bad place?

July 12, 2022

One of the things that bothers many of the seasoned citizens among us is the high degree of discontentment that many in the younger generations feel about their country. Many of us were born and raised in a time when we learned at home, in school, and in church about our country. We learned to appreciate America for the freedoms it provided us that were unmatched anywhere on the planet.

And while we see and know that America is not perfect, and that not all members of those younger generations view their country as a bad place, it is still disturbing to see how many of them think that America is a bad place, and what they imagine would make America better.

They are cheered on and led by older folks, who ought to know better but, sadly, do not.

And then, magically, to make us feel better about this situation, a video by a member of a younger generation appears in an email.

The video is the senior speech by Julie Hartman, delivered in Harvard’s Memorial Chapel on May 3, 2022. 

Her speech begins, “Last Spring Break I went on a trip with a hundred other Harvard graduates to Israel. It was one of the most extraordinary experiences of my life. And I will always be grateful to Harvard for that.

“I recall the trip with awe and joy. But a certain moment rattled me” at a dinner her group attended at a Tel Aviv synagogue. “The Rabbi proclaimed, ‘Welcome to Israel. You are all here from America, the best country in the world.’ He paused. But not a single person clapped. The Israelis stared in disbelief.”

Like those of us who really know and understand our country, the Israelis were surprised at the lack of appreciation these youngsters showed.

Harvard grad Hartman then listed some of the things that have occurred that criticized America, and should have received pushback, but didn’t.

* “The New York Times won a Pulitzer Prize for reporting that the sole purpose of the American Revolution was to preserve slavery. And we remained silent.”

* “The Oregon Department of Education observed that showing your work and finding the right answer in math is white supremacist. And we remained silent.”

* “The American Medical Association has stated that the U.S. should remove gender from birth certificates. And we remained silent.”

* “Howard Zinn, author of the most widely read history text in American public schools, said that America has done “more bad than good.” And we remained silent.”

* “A huge percentage of the donations to the national Black Lives Matter organization have been spent on compensation and benefits, including several extravagant real estate purchases, and questionable consulting contracts. And we remained silent.”

* “On this campus we often hear how oppressive America is. Just outside of this church, there was a sign for Israeli Apartheid Week, of an upside-down faded America flag with painted bullet holes in it. And we remained silent.”

“We must not lie to ourselves, or to one another,” she said, “by denying that a large reason that we remain silent is that we see personal and professional advantages in doing so. We are ashamed to be American? The shame should be on us.”

“The people who excoriate religion live in a society where their freedoms are based on the Bible,” she said. “Many who say that the nuclear family is antiquated grew up in two-parent households. Those who condemn the police as oppressive still summon them when they are in danger. And too many use their right to free speech to advocate suspending it for all who disagree with them.” 

Reiterating that Americans are the freest, most privileged people on Earth, she said: “Yet many of us are ashamed to show any, even the tiniest trace of national pride. Why?”

 And then she explained: “Because we Americans of recent generations have been swaddled in prosperity and security, and in consequence have become ungrateful for the blessings we enjoy. It requires vigorous, athletic imagination for most of us to consider the basic brutal reality that much of the world experiences daily. Even worse, we have consumed a cultural diet that reduces America to its ugliest moments, and dismisses its noble ideals and accomplishments as jingoism.”

“What a litany of dishonesty. We are using our privilege to undermine the very system that has given us that privilege.”

In closing, she noted that despite its problems, America stands alone in its level of individual freedom, and it is therefore the last stronghold of individual freedom. 

“We must speak up against this now or our civilization will face a somber reckoning. As President Reagan said, ‘If not us, who? If not now, when?’” 

How refreshing to hear this message from one of those in the disturbed and oppositional generations. Especially one who attended and graduated from one of the most liberal and anti-American biased institutions in America.

Democrats are upset by recent decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court

“Conservative” justices are not political conservatives. They are Constitutional conservatives, originalists. The conservative view of the Constitution is that it means today and forever what it meant to the Framers when they wrote the Constitution.

Liberal/activist justices do not view the Constitution the same way as the originalists. They see the Constitution as a “living” document, the meaning of which changes with time and our culture.

This essentially means that we don’t really have a Constitution if its meaning can be determined differently at any time, depending upon the views of nine unelected justices.

The late and brilliant Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia had it right: “The Constitution is not a living organism. It’s a legal document, and it says what it says and doesn’t say what it doesn’t say.”

If the principles of the Constitution should ever turn out to be wrong, or hurtful, it can be changed through a process of amending it. But it should not — must not — be ignored or changed with the fickle winds of social “needs” or “wants.” The faithful allegiance of the conservatives/originalists is the great obstacle the left cannot conquer.

What so many do not understand, or prefer to ignore, is that what the Supreme Court did regarding Roe v. Wade was merely to undo a previous wrong action by the Court. It did not deny women a Constitutional right. There is no Constitutional right to abortion. Freedom of speech, religion, and the press, and the right to due process are among those specifically mentioned in the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. But the word “abortion” does not appear in the document, and stretching the meaning of privacy to include abortion was a gross error 49 years ago.

The Court’s action simply returned the decision about if there can be legal abortions and what the rules are regarding abortion to the states, where it belongs.

The concept of federalism, upon which the United States of America is based, holds that the states have certain authority over how they do things, and are not always at the mercy of the federal government. Laws on abortion, if there are such laws, belong in the states, not the federal government.

The radicals among the Democrats and liberals are ready to totally rebuild the United States so that their un-American ideas can become the norm.

They want to do crazy things to shove their ideas down the throats of every American. Such things as:

* Packing the Supreme Court with activist/liberal justices so that they can push their ideas through the legal system 

* Getting rid of the Senate filibuster that protects the rights of the minority so that their majority can easily have its way 

* Making the District of Columbia and/or Puerto Rico a state, so that they will have additional electoral power; 

* And even trashing the Electoral College, which protects the smaller and less populated states against the tyranny of a few states with large populations

These are some of their radical solutions to their inability to convince a majority of Americans to support those ideas.

Two recent decisions by the Court last Thursday provided fodder for more Court criticizing, one on the “Remain in Mexico” policy, and the other on the EPA’s actions.

The latter focuses on the fundamental structure of our government as established in the Constitution. That structure established three branches of government: the legislative, executive and judicial branches. Each one has its specific function, and the Constitution imposes a separation of powers, meaning that each branch must not stray into the given area of another branch.

The legislative branch makes the nation’s laws. The executive branch has the power to enforce or carry out those laws. The judicial branch has the power to apply and interpret the laws.

In recent decades the departments of the executive branch have taken on power, making rules with the power of law. But laws are to be made by the legislative branch, not the executive branch. The EPA ruling puts the brakes on the executive branch’s straying into the legislative branch’s area.

Justice Elena Kagan, in a dissent from the majority opinion, paints a picture of environmental catastrophe if the EPA is not allowed to continue its growing control of things that produce pollution.

Accusing the conservative/originalist justices of making themselves the "decision maker on climate policy," she wrote, "Whatever else this Court may know about, it does not have a clue about how to address climate change."

Well of course not. The justices are not supposed to know about climate change, or any other such topic. They are supposed to know about and rule on laws and the Constitution.

How wonderful and helpful it would be if people would understand that our government is never going to do only those things that everyone agrees on, because there is little or nothing that everyone agrees on. The government is charged to do things that benefit the people as a whole, not any specific segment.

How nice it would be if we all understood what a wonderful, if imperfect, place America is, and how fortunate we all are to be able to live here.

New book takes a broader, more realistic view of fossil fuel use

June 28, 2022

In his new book, Fossil Future: Why Global Human Flourishing Requires More Oil, Coal, and Natural Gas — Not Less, Alex Epstein agrees that fossil fuels’ CO2 emissions are impacting our climate, and wrote that “I totally acknowledge that they have contributed to the 1ºC warming we’ve experienced over the last one-hundred-plus years, and they will contribute to further warming going forward.”

However, he contends that “the negative climate impacts of fossil fuels will be far, far outweighed by the unique benefits of fossil fuels,” that their impact “would not be catastrophic but rather continue to be ‘masterable’ by ingenious human beings empowered by fossil-fueled machines.”

The advantages of fossil fuels, he wrote, is that their abundance and relatively low cost make them useful so that eventually they will benefit the billions of people who have little or no access to energy. “Fossil Fuels,” he wrote, are “providing four times more energy than all alternatives combined.”

Because of their low cost and reliability they have transformed our environment into “one that is unnaturally clean and unnaturally safe from climate danger.” And while their use did increase the CO2 level, that would be offset by the fossil-fueled machines that provide benefits, like irrigation equipment that counter drought, air-conditioning machines that help us live in very warm climates, and heating units for cold climates.

While conceding that fossil fuels do contribute CO2 to the environment, he called our attention to the excessive and often flat-out incorrect predictions of gloom and doom that have influenced how we do things.

Grossly incorrect predictions of climate doom have been put forth over the years. Highlighting some of these mistakes in not-too-distant history, Epstein provided examples of trusted news institutions wrongly warning us back in the 1970s:

* The Guardian, in 1974: “Space satellites show new ice age coming fast.”

* Newsweek, in 1975: “The cooling world: Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects.”

* The New York Times, in 1978: “International team of specialists finds no end in sight to 30-year cooling trend in northern hemisphere.”

More recent predictions that are not included in Fossil Future have been just as wrong, and in the opposite direction, promising death and destruction from a warming world.

* In 2004, the U.S. edition of The Guardian reported that the U.S. Defense Department had told President George W. Bush that European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a “Siberian” climate, triggering nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting across the world.

* In 2008, then-presidential candidate Al Gore predicted that within five years the North Polar Ice Cap would be completely free of ice.

* In 2009, Great Britain’s Charles, Prince of Wales, said that capitalism and consumerism have brought the world to the brink of economic and environmental collapse, and we have only 96 months to straighten things out.

* In 2014, French foreign minister Laurent Fabius, appearing with then-Secretary of State John Kerry, warned that "we have 500 days to avoid climate chaos." 

Even if you are not a senior citizen that has lived through all these false warnings, you probably realize that none of them has come to pass.

In fact, some positive things have occurred. Even though there has been an increase in atmospheric CO2, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. air emissions — including carbon monoxide, ammonia, nitrous oxides, Sulphur dioxide, and particulate matter — have been reduced from 300 million tons in 1970 to approximately 125 million tons in 2020, despite the increased use of fossil fuels.

This is because the currently used fossil fuels are cleaner than those used many years ago such as wood and animal dung, which were often burned indoors, and we have cleaner methods for using them.

Two other energy sources are not used very much: nuclear and hydroelectric, which Epstein says are discouraged because of the harm they do to the environment. But, he noted that the “radiation in the case of nuclear is trivial, and the waste has been safely managed for generations.” And for hydroelectric, arguing against those projects “in the name of free-flowing rivers … is clearly not focused on human flourishing” that it will provide.

Essentially, he suggests that these arguments greatly exaggerate the dangers of nuclear and hydroelectric, and essentially ignore the positive aspects they provide that will benefit humanity. 

What Epstein accomplishes is something not really complicated, but it is something rather rare; instead of taking one side or the other and pushing it, he accepts the strong points of both sides, and presents both of them. He makes the case that ought to be more broadly presented to us; that we must keep at the top of our thinking how we best serve the needs of the billions of people on Earth by making the most of fossil fuels, and in doing that we also manage the negatives of fossil fuels to prevent them from doing serious harm.

Texas Congressman Chip Roy terms this approach a “humanity-centric alternative to the anti-fossil fuel climate hysteria” so prevalent today.

Protecting the judiciary from illegal influences is critical

When someone at the United States Supreme Court leaked a draft of an opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito regarding the possible overturning of Roe v. Wade, abortion supporters flew into a rage.

The Huffington Post reported, “Activists protesting against the Supreme Court’s expected ruling gutting Roe v. Wade gathered outside the homes of two conservative justices over the weekend and plan to do so again later this week. 

Close to 100 protesters chanted and waved signs Saturday evening outside the Maryland house of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, then marched to the nearby home of Chief Justice John Roberts.”

Some who support this disgraceful activity remind us that peaceful protests are a guaranteed right, and that is true, to a point. 

The obvious intent of these gatherings is to intimidate the justices into changing their position on the constitutional question before them, and allow Roe to stand.

According to an article on the American Enterprise Institute’s (AEI) website, “Protesters outside Brett M. Kavanaugh’s house warned the Supreme Court justice this weekend, ‘If you take away our choices, we will riot.’ They marched on Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.’s home chanting ‘Abort the court!’ and stood outside the home of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. (who apparently did not vote to overturn Roe v. Wade) yelling ‘The whole world is watching!’”

This outlandish behavior smacks of attempts at “vigilante justice,” or mob rule on what is a matter of constitutional law. And, more importantly, these “protests,” however peaceful they may or may not be, are against the law.

The AEI article continues: “This is not just noxious behavior; it is illegal. Federal law — Section 1507 of Title 18 of the U.S. Code — clearly states that it is unlawful to protest near a ‘residence occupied or used by [a] judge, juror, witness, or court officer’ with the intent of influencing ‘the discharge of his duty,’ adding that anyone who ‘uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.’”

If people want to protest on behalf of some cause on which the Court is going to rule, they may peacefully protest legally outside the Supreme Court building.

Protests in front of the homes of judges, justices, and others involved in legal decisions is expressly outlawed because of the need for these people to make their decisions absent intimidation. Further, this chaos is also a problem for neighbors, who are unfairly subjected to unwanted noise, and other negative aspects of these illegal gatherings.

So, while both federal law and some state laws forbid this behavior, why is it still going on? And more importantly, why has there been no law enforcement action to arrest these criminals? Why is the Department of Justice failing to respond to these illegal activities? 

After all, an attempted assassination of Justice Brett Kavanaugh was recently discovered and stopped. And, a former judge was recently killed in his home by a person he sent to prison years earlier. These illegal gatherings are threats to the safety of the justices and their families.

Yet, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland sits complacently in his office more worried about the non-whipping of people illegally crossing the southern border, and the actions of parents concerned about the education of their children in tax-supported schools at boards of education meetings.

And President Joe Biden has been strangely quiet about this development. Biden has said publicly that we need to “stop treating our opponents as our enemy.” And in his inaugural address, he vowed to “end this uncivil war,” and bring America together. And yet, he has said and done nothing about this disgraceful development.

This failure on the part of the Attorney General, the Department of Justice, and others with authority to act against this illegal behavior seems to be part of the recent epidemic of so-called “progressive” thought on justice and the law.

There has been a rash of district attorneys and prosecutors across the country who were elected or appointed to enforce laws and who somehow believe they have the authority to ignore whichever laws they so choose. In doing this, they place the rights and concerns of criminals above the rights and concerns of their victims, and of innocent Americans.

Criminals are not prosecuted to the fullest, or sometimes hardly at all, and they often commit additional crimes. Two Los Angeles police officers were recently ambushed and killed by a career criminal who was given light treatment by District Attorney George Gascon. The killer should have been in jail, and would have been if he had been treated appropriately by Gascon.

People are plainly breaking the law in protesting at justices’ homes, trying to intimidate them to rule a certain way, and no one is doing anything about it. That is not acceptable.

Are gas prices too high for you? Just get an electric vehicle!

June 14, 2022

As the national average for a gallon of regular unleaded gas crosses the $5.00 mark, drivers across the country are finding it more and more difficult to keep gas in their cars. Those with diesel vehicles are in even worse shape.

In somewhat of a “let them eat cake” moment, U.S. Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg said recently that people struggling with rising gas prices should just get an electric car. 

Forget buying gas, the price of which has more than doubled in the past year or so. You can just stick your nose in the air as you drive by the gas stations in your new EV.

However, as with every idea, there is a reality that accompanies it, and reality is most often more difficult. 

For example, Kelley Blue Book tells us the average price of an EV was $56,437 in November 2021, and the average price jumped 6.2 percent from the same month a year earlier. The average price of a new compact car, however, was $25,240, less than half the price of an EV.

For an inside look at actually owning and traveling in an EV, we have stories from two people, Wall Street Journal reporter Rachel Wolfe, who described a trip from New Orleans to Chicago, and Emily Dreibelbis, a graduate student at Northwestern’s Medill School of Journalism, who took a road trip from Princeton, New Jersey, to Arlington, Virginia and back.

Wolfe said at the beginning that she “thought it would be fun,” and plotted “a meticulous route” using an app that showed public chargers along the 2,000-mile round-trip route she selected.

Most of the chargers on her route, it turned out, were only Level 2. Those take eight hours for a full charge. Fast chargers give an 80 percent charge in about a half-hour, she noted. “Longer than stopping for gas — but good for a bite or bathroom break,” she reported.

 “Over four days, we spent $175 on charging. We estimated the equivalent cost for gas in a Kia Forte would have been $275, based on the AAA average national gas price for May 19. That $100 savings cost us many hours in waiting time,” she wrote.

She also noted that the Kia EV6 she drove had lower range than advertised, that the charging stations had slower speeds than advertised, that many charging stations had problematic cords, and that lots of the country had almost no fast-charging stations at all.

For the entire trip, Wolfe wrote, she spent 16 hours sleeping during the trip and 18 hours waiting to charge the vehicle, spread over 14 charges.

Dreibelbis, an avowed EV supporter, made a trip from Princeton, New Jersey, to Arlington, Virginia, and back. Traveling in her parents’ 2019 Chevrolet Volt, she experienced problems along the way, too.

During her 200-mile adventure, she experienced broken and slow vehicle charging stations, and also found not nearly enough of them. In Maryland, she found three chargers that didn’t work, and one that had an out-of-order sign on it that did work.

Of those that worked, the Level 3 “fast” charger takes about an hour for a charge that gives only 100 miles of range. Other chargers were slower. A Level 1 charger for home use can take up to 10 hours, and a Level 2 charger, like many found in public parking lots, may take up to four hours.

Dreibelbis Googled locations in Arlington and found one site was not accessible, as it was in a private complex, and the next one cost an $11 entry fee just to get to it. She wrote, “Frustrated, I surrendered the money. They only had Level Two chargers, so it took two and a half hours of reading a book in the cold until the car had enough power.”

In the manic drive to do away with fossil fuels, by 2030 the U.S. hopes for 50 percent of new cars sales to be EVs. Last year, EVs were only 4.5 percent of new car sales. 

To meet this goal, things will have to improve quickly. Charging times are long, and charging stations are far too few to service the number of EVs that is desired. Traveling long distances will take hours longer, given the charging times, and the potential waiting in line behind one, two or perhaps three  vehicles to get to the charger. And the price of EVs is often double that of conventionally fueled vehicles.

And then there is the reality of where the electricity comes from to recharge EVs: Much of it comes from fossil fuels: coal and natural gas. So, while driving an EV produces less pollution, generating the electricity to charge them will be producing lots more of it. And the more EVs there are, the more pollution will be required to keep them charged.

Further, the critical elements for EV batteries are being purchased largely from China.

When the time is right for EVs, we will transition naturally to them. That time is not yet, nor anytime soon. The biggest problem with the goals of the left is that they never want to wait until the time is right, but instead cause problems by rushing the issue.

The enigma of making schools safe, doing so sensibly and surely

June 7, 2022

More mass shootings at schools, and other events. Obviously, everyone wants a solution to this problem, particularly the shootings in schools, where young children are targeted by thugs and the mentally ill, who want to kill innocent and unprotected people.

There are lots of ideas being offered to solve this problem. Most of them are spawned by emotion, which is somewhat understandable under these circumstances. But emotional solutions are usually the wrong ones.

The first emotional response is against guns. Let’s ban guns, or certain guns, like “assault weapons” and “weapons of war,” and “large-capacity clips.” But are guns really the main problem?

When I was in high school a “few” years ago, it was not uncommon to see a rifle on a gun rack in a student’s or teacher’s or staff member’s vehicle in the parking lot. Yet, there was never a problem. None of these gun-owning people brought the gun into the school, shot at people, or even threatened anyone. This occurred across the United States. Some schools actually taught marksmanship and had rifle teams. 

That is perhaps the most obvious clue to what the problem with school shootings is. It’s not guns. It’s the mental state or mind-set of the perpetrator. And that is what must be addressed.

The first step is to secure school buildings. Schools must have just one entrance, with a security system that checks and clears everyone before they are allowed to enter the school. 

But making schools safe from maniacs with guns, knives, explosives or whatever, also requires armed personnel who will protect the school.

Having armed personnel in schools who are screened, trained and prepared to address a situation where someone manages to get through the school security system makes sense. That could include retired or no longer active military personnel, former law enforcement officers, and even teachers or staff members that volunteer for that duty.

It isn’t just about the guns, knives, pipe bombs or whatever some murderer incorporates to do his/her evil, it’s about the motivation to do it. It’s about the failure of our culture to teach young people about good and evil, and how to live a good, productive life, and also those with mental problems. In many or most cases, the killers have given signals on social media or elsewhere about their evil plans. These clues must be acted on.

Other factors are the defund the police movement, and the idiocy of prosecutors/DAs who refuse to adequately prosecute criminals and release the guilty to commit more crimes. These things encourage criminal behavior.

And the right of Americans to keep and bear arms for self-defense is also quite sensible. One example of this occurred last month in Charleston, West Virginia. A woman with a pistol and a concealed carry permit took down a crazed man spraying bullets at a graduation party there, as reported by WCHS-TV. The man drove up and started firing on the party with an AR15 when the woman, instead of running away, shot him dead. A good gal with a gun stopped a bad guy with a gun!

The “progressive” left thinks banning guns is the answer. If all guns are banned, criminals will have guns, but the law-abiding citizen will be undefended. That’s how it works: criminals don’t obey laws; but their targets mostly do.

The left sometimes backs off a bit and wants to ban only certain guns. But even that runs up against Second Amendment protections.

The most sensible idea is to make it illegal for anyone under the age of 21 to purchase guns or ammunition, with the exception of those who have served in the military and been properly trained in weapons handling. Background checks offer some level of safety, and red flag laws may also. But the red flag process often denies due process rights to the person targeted until after their weapons have been confiscated. That is unconstitutional. And they are open to fraudulent claims. 

“Who needs an AR-15, or a 30-round clip to hunt?” the left asks. Well, that is totally irrelevant. This is America. We are guaranteed certain rights, freedom of speech and the right to keep and bear arms, among them. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does not say, “the right to keep and bear muskets.” It also doesn’t say “the right to bear arms for hunting.” And, by the way, AR does NOT stand for “Assault Rifle.”

Taking a different tack on that idea, who needs a Rolls Royce, or a Bentley? Nobody really needs one, but we can have one if we choose to and can afford one. That same privilege applies to guns, and is constitutionally protected. With the exception of fully automatic weapons, law-abiding citizens can have pretty much any gun they want and can afford. And that proved to be a good thing in Charleston last month.

Punishing law-abiding Americans with gun bans because some thugs or mentally ill people want to kill innocent people really makes no sense. And, more to the point, it won’t help solve the problem. But it will help to make it easier for the radical leftists to take over the country and turn it into Venezuela. 

Predictions from the past are coming true right before our eyes

In 1965, Paul Harvey delivered a commentary titled “If I Were the Devil” that predicted the future spiritual condition of the United States. In 2020, the Washington Examiner ran a commentary by Gary Bauer titled “How to destroy America from within” that also predicted the future of the country.

Both of them did a good job of describing the current disorder in the United States and its continued movement in that direction.

A recent TikTok video is going viral. In it an unidentified woman expresses her concerns about what is wrong with our country, and how it has changed from when she was younger.

Many may not agree with some things she says, or any of it. And it is certain to have been banned or earned a warning label on Twitter or Facebook for its “inappropriate” opinions. 

But the concept of free speech makes things like this important for distribution on social media platforms, despite its unpopularity with social media oligarchs. Having a broad array of ideas to consider is critical to our future.

“I never dreamed that I would have to face the prospect of not living in the United States of America,” she began. “At least not the one I’ve known all my life. I’ve never wished to live anywhere else. This is my home, and I was privileged to be born here. 

“But today I woke up and when I had my morning coffee I realized that everything is about to change. No matter how I vote, no matter what. Something evil has invaded our nation. Our lives are never going to be the same.”

She then began listing things that trouble her. The hostility of people, including family and friends, who now agree with opinions they never would have expressed as their own before.

The “insanity” of men pretending to be women and women pretending to be men, along with the requirement that everyone accept that.

Making 18 the legal voting age, but being 21 to buy alcohol. The idea that people who never went to college, or who managed to pay their acquired college loan debt, now having their tax dollars pay the huge debts of some college graduates who are not able, or don’t want to do it.

The crazy situation where people like doctors and engineers from other countries have to endure a long, arduous process to immigrate here. But literally anyone can walk or sneak across the southern border, and be welcomed with open arms, whether they be gang members, drug dealers, or infected with Covid, or other horrible diseases.

And yet, spending $5 billion dollars for border security is too expensive, but spending $1.5 trillion for free healthcare is good. And, as a few folks recently discovered, if you cheat to get your kid into college, you go to prison, but if you cheat to get into the country, you may go to college for free.

Suddenly, the rights of criminals are more important than those of law-abiding citizens. After being arrested for a crime, they must be released to commit more crimes. And if you complain about this, you are called a racist.

“People who say there is no such thing as gender are demanding a female president,” she said. “We see other countries going socialist and collapsing, but it seems like a great plan to us. Some people are held responsible for things that happened before they were born, and other people are not held responsible for what they are doing right now.”

“Nothing makes sense anymore. No values, no morals, and no civility, “she said, as she began her conclusion. “We’re clearly living in an upside-down world where right is wrong, and wrong is right. Where moral is immoral, and immoral is moral. Where good is evil and evil is good. Where killing murderers is evil, but killing unborn babies is A-OK.

“Wake up, America. The great unsinkable ship, Titanic America, has hit an iceberg, is taking on water, and is sinking fast. Speak up.”

So much of what our Founders created and enabled America to do so well for so long, is crumbling beneath our feet. Those who don’t know that, don’t understand how good they have it, or just dislike what America is, are working so hard to transform the country into one more failed socialist state.

Harvey said that the Devil’s plan was to attack and destroy religion in the country as the first step in taking the nation down. While we still have several religions, the results of the anti-religion movement can be seen in the moral decay of our culture. 

Weakening the education system, changing how and what children are taught, is the way Bauer’s column begins. And today, many teachers, schools and school systems have been caught red-handed doing just that.

Defunding the police and the military were mentioned, as well as a news media that is largely ideologically driven, rather than honorably doing its vital job of presenting all the news without political or ideological bias.

Younger generations have not been taught why maintaining the “old ways” is important, and now the great country we grew up in is in peril.

Democrats can’t achieve their extremist goals with system our Founders created

May 24, 2022

A recent newspaper column did a wonderful job of illustrating the lengths to which the Left will go in trying to achieve its goals. The writer’s name is not important, because the writer is not the topic here. The topic is the dreadful thought process used by the writer in creating this misrepresentation of U.S. Senator Steve Daines’ comment. 

Such shenanigans are pretty common. The Left often does similar things to shift the focus away from actual issues.

The column began: “Sen. Steve Daines from Montana compared women to reptiles, pregnant sea turtles to be exact. No, seriously.”

Quoting Daines, the writer continued. “’Why do we have laws in place to protect the eggs of sea turtles, or the eggs of eagles?’ he thundered. ‘Because when you destroy an egg, you’re killing a pre-born baby sea turtle.’”

The writer then explains the process sea turtles follow to travel to the proper place to lay their eggs, where they will mature and hatch in 60 days. The writer then noted that women do not have to go through such a protracted process, as if that has anything to do with Daines’ point.

The writer exhibits several significant issues. First and foremost, he/she missed — or more likely, deliberately avoided — Daines’ point, then spent a lot of time writing about the wrong topic. 

Daines did not compare women to reptiles. He contrasted the degree to which turtle and other animal progeny are protected by law with the lack of that protection for not-yet-born human babies.

What Daines did do was pose the matter of why unborn sea turtles are protected by law from interference by people, but unborn children are not.

The writer most likely could not provide a sensible defense of the concern Daines’ brought up, so he/she spent time trying to focus readers’ attention away from that issue. The true purpose of this article was nothing more than to ridicule Daines’ defense of the unborn. Shameful.

                                                                   * * *

What we often find as tools of the Left are such things as outrage; claims of racism, white privilege, and/or white supremacy; defensiveness; and threats of protest or violence. These tactics are designed to affect the emotions of those on both sides of an issue, and they deliberately avoid using logic.

The white 18-year-old accused killer of 10 people at a mostly black retail outlet was termed a “racist.” That is totally appropriate in this case. He was also called a “white supremacist” by the President of the United States, and others.

What is a “white supremacist?”  “A person who believes that the white race is inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other races,” according to Merriam-Webster. And recent stories about the accused murderer show that he actually holds white supremacist views. 

No doubt he is not the only such person in the country. But is white supremacy really a threat? Or, is that just a Leftist effort to fire up their crowd by exaggerating a relatively small number of people into a real threat?

Calling someone a racist works. It often arouses negative emotions toward that person, as well as others who look like or hold similar beliefs as the targeted person. Throwing around the term “white supremacy” serves the same purpose.

Some of the far Left’s tactics are extremely radical, and some even un-American. That’s because they are unable to easily achieve their extremist goals using the system our Founders created. Because they can’t muster enough support to get their nation transforming goals accomplished through proper methods, they are forced to use other means.

They want to stack the Supreme Court with like-thinking justices so that the Court will support their agenda. The “stacking” process will put the current conservative — or non-activist — justices in the minority. They want to end the Senate filibuster so that the minority party — in this case, Republicans — will no longer have a way to protect the country from their radical ideas.

Speaking of the Supreme Court, when Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion regarding Roe v. Wade was improperly leaked, the Left immediately flew into a rage. They believed that if the Court voted to overturn this previous decision, it would mean the end of abortions in America. 

That’s wrong. It would not end abortion, it would merely move the decisions on abortion to the individual states, where it belongs, and away from the Supreme Court, where it does not belong.

Nevertheless, the Left then decided to try to “persuade” those justices who were expected to vote to overturn a faulty ruling to change their minds by having organized protests at their homes. 

It is highly improper to attempt to influence a Supreme Court justice or a judge in doing his/her job. But more importantly, it is against federal law. 

Yet, those with the authority and responsibility to enforce the laws against intimidating the justices, such as U. S. Attorney General Merrick Garland and the Department of Justice, have failed to do the job.

There is a great deal of failure to enforce laws these days. And that, too, is a feature of Leftist/“progressive” politics.  

How is Biden’s “Build Back Better” plan working out for you?

May 17, 2022

The administration of President Joe Biden continues to rack up mistake after mistake, leaving him with approval ratings well below 50 percent.

Earlier missteps include the debacle in rushing out of Afghanistan, leaving 183 people dead, including 13 American military personnel, abandoning thousands of Afghani allies and Americans trapped there, and leaving behind a fortune in military equipment, which is now in the hands of the Taliban. 

Then there is the situation at the southern border allowing tens of thousands of illegal immigrants to enter the country, and the federal government going after parents who dare to speak up about their children’s education.

As Russia announced its intention to invade Ukraine without provocation, and then did it, the United States twiddled its thumbs and gave only weak support to Ukraine. Now we find Russia destroying parts of that nation and killing civilians with abandon, and many countries are still buying their oil and gas from Russia. 

This obviously helps Russian President Vladimir Putin at a time when hurting him is in order. And the U.S., as a net exporter of energy, could have helped in this effort by supplanting Russia as the preferred provider of energy sources to those countries.

But Biden, as one of the first acts he performed after taking the oath of office, undid the acts of Donald Trump that made the U.S. a net exporter of energy after years of being dependent upon other countries.

The economy is still struggling, and the struggle is getting more difficult.  The Bureau of Economic Analysis estimated that real GDP declined at an annual rate of 1.4 percent for the first quarter of 2022. Columnist Cal Thomas wrote last week that “Today the inflation rate is 8.5 percent, up from 7.9 percent in February and the largest year-over-year rise since 1982.”

Thomas continued, “On Tuesday, President Biden was in Ohio to announce his plan to fight inflation. His remarks were like blaming your credit card for excessive spending.”

He also noted that Biden claimed that the deficit has been reduced by his administration, although the $30 trillion debt has not been reduced. This claim, Thomas said, “has been fact-checked by several news organizations and the Congressional Budget Office and found to be mostly untrue.”

“And just as with the current widespread inflation in prices of food, energy, and other essentials,” wrote Rep. Morgan Griffith, R-Va., “lower-income households can be hit hardest by surging formula prices. The U.S. Surgeon General’s office estimates that families typically spend $1,200 to $1,500 on infant formula in the first year.”

Griffith noted that the acute formula shortage was not unexpected. “Out-of-stock rates have been climbing for months. Furthermore, the formula manufacturer Abbott Nutrition shut down its factory in Sturgis, Michigan, and recalled some of its products in February after reports of hospitalizations and deaths of infants. These actions reduced supply.”

Yet, “the Biden Administration appears to have been taken by surprise, just as it has with most of the other crises taking place under its watch,” he continued.

While mothers struggle to find formula available at their normal retail locations, pallets of baby formula are being sent to the Mexican border, according to a Facebook video posted by Rep. Kat Cammack, R-Fla.

“Empty shelves in America but full shelves at the border. Biden is sending pallets of baby formula to the border. This is what ‘America last’ looks like,” Cammack said. A photo she said was sent to her by a Border Patrol agent at the Ursula processing facility in Texas showed what the agent said was baby formula provided for illegal immigrants. The agent’s comment about this “disgusting” development was, “you will not believe this.”

And now that one social media platform is perhaps on its way to restoring uncensored speech, we have the federal government creating a department to focus on “disinformation” named the “Disinformation Governance Board” (DGB) within the Department of Homeland Security. Knowing whose administration created this and who will run the DGB makes one wonder if its name indicates it will be responsible for the creation and distribution of disinformation, or for finding and correcting disinformation.

Either way, this is not a proper function of a government agency in a country where speech — both favored speech and unfavored speech — is constitutionally protected.

What better way to overcome the freeing up of material posted on Twitter than to have a “respected” government agency labeling “unfavored speech” as “disinformation?”

Each of us is, and must be, responsible to collect ideas on matters of importance, consider all ideas, select those we believe and support them, without the “help” of the government, unless government actually helps by guaranteeing that all ideas are available to us.

As author and professor Jordan Peterson has said, “Free speech is not just another value. It’s the foundation of western civilization.”

And, how can the White House and the Department of Justice ignore the illegal mob rule attempts to intimidate Justices of the Supreme Court?

Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., commented, "I don't mean to be uncharitable but sometimes I think President Biden just doesn't eat enough fiber" … “after 14 months, nothing is built, nothing is back, and nothing is better.”

Will the United States Supreme Court correct a previous error?

 

May 10, 2022

The United States Supreme Court is currently reviewing a case that may reverse Roe v. Wade, which the History website explains “was a landmark legal decision issued on January 22, 1973, in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas statute banning abortion, effectively legalizing the procedure across the United States. The court held that a woman’s right to an abortion was implicit in the right to privacy protected by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.”

The History website also explains that “In May 2022, the nation's highest court agreed to hear Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, regarding the constitutionality of a Mississippi law banning most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The case presents a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade.”

The news broke when a draft opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito was leaked to and published by Politico. This draft opinion, secretly and wrongly provided by someone associated with the Court, has started two huge reactions. 

One reaction is outrage that the decision beloved by abortion supporters may be reversed. The other is disgust and anger that the leak has damaged the integrity of the Court as never before in its history, and that it was done by someone on the inside.

"We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Alito wrote. “It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives."

He also wrote that while defenders of Roe point to the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to justify the decision, they are mistaken, CNN reported.

“In the draft, Alito batted away arguments that other provisions of the Constitution dealing with privacy or liberty might be relied upon to uphold a right to an abortion,” the network’s story continued.

“That's because, according to Alito, while the Due Process Clause might guarantee some rights that aren't mentioned explicitly in [the] Constitution, such rights have to be ‘deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition. The right to abortion does not fall within this category,’ he said.”

Alito went on to say that Roe was "egregiously wrong" from the start and its reasoning is "exceptionally weak," CNN reported.

His conclusion was that the issue must be decided by the states, not the Supreme Court. "That is what the Constitution and the rule of law demand," he wrote. "Our Nation's historical understanding of ordered liberty does not prevent the people's elected representatives from deciding how abortion should be regulated," he added.

Paul Stark, writing for Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (mccl.org) on Jan 20, 2017, provided three reasons why Roe was an improper ruling.

“First, and most importantly, the outcome of Roe is harmful and unjust. Why? The facts of embryology show that the human embryo or fetus (the being whose life is ended in abortion) is a distinct and living human organism at the earliest stages of development. ‘Human development begins at fertilization when a sperm fuses with an oocyte to form a single cell, a zygote,’ explains a leading embryology textbook. ‘This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.’"

“The second problem with Roe is that it is an epic constitutional mistake. Justice Harry Blackmun's majority opinion claimed that the ‘right of privacy’ found in the ‘liberty’ protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is ‘broad enough to encompass’ a fundamental right to abortion. There is no reason to think that's true.”

“Third, Roe is undemocratic. Roe and Doe v. Bolton together struck down the democratically decided abortion laws of all 50 states and replaced them with a nationwide policy of abortion-for-any-reason, whether the people like it or not. Of course, the Court may properly invalidate statutes that are inconsistent with the Constitution (which is the highest law). But Roe lacked any such justification.”

A National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) factsheet estimates that if Roe v. Wade is overturned, "18 states would protect unborn children immediately." This is due to laws implemented prior to the Roe ruling, or “trigger” laws that would go into effect upon Roe’s reversal, or both.

The NRLC also estimates that action to “allow abortion either through legislatively-enacted statute or a court ruling interpreting the state constitution to convey the right to abortion” would occur in 23 states. 

The leaked document predictably has liberals and conservatives blaming each other. PBS online said, “Republican members of Congress are suggesting a sinister left-wing plot to derail the outcome of the final decision. Liberals are alleging machinations from the right to lock the justices into their preliminary vote.”

Regardless of who leaked the opinion and why, this is a serious problem for the Court, which has been immune to such scurrilous behavior, thus far.

Chief Justice John Roberts called the act “absolutely appalling.” Appearing at the 11th Circuit Judicial Conference in Atlanta, Roberts said he hoped “one bad apple” would not affect “people’s perception” of the Court, adding that “the person” or “people” who leaked the document are “foolish” if they think it will affect the courts work.

Put abortion in the hands of the states, and punish the leaker accordingly.

Elon Musk buys Twitter, pledging to provide free speech for all

May 3, 2022

Another comment labeled it “racist” for Musk to own Twitter. And 16 “stars” of various types have said they will leave Twitter. Many of these are among those who said they were moving to Canada when Donald Trump was elected President.

On MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” prior to Musk’s offer for Twitter being accepted, co-anchor Mika Brzezinski called his attempted takeover a "very dangerous precedent." On that same program, Business Insider columnist Linette Lopez’ column was mentioned, the title of which is, “Elon Musk's attempt to buy Twitter represents a chilling new threat: Billionaire trolls taking over social media."

Perhaps Lopez is unaware that the co-founder and former CEO of Twitter, Jack Dorsey, who is apparently not disliked or feared, is himself a billionaire, as is Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. 

Interesting that the Twitterites are so afraid of Musk opening their former platform to actual free speech — which Musk has declared he will do — as opposed to the “free speech” as determined and restricted by the Twitter Lefties.

On the brighter side of this event, it was reported on Facebook Messenger by “Chicks on the Right” that “Donald Trump Jr. and many other conservatives noticed they gained a massive number of new followers on Twitter shortly after Musk’s takeover of the company.” Apparently, when Twitter employees knew their work of hassling and censoring conservatives was done, they removed restrictions on these accounts, and hundreds of thousands of people desiring connections were able to connect.

The “Chicks” reported that “Trump Jr. gained 87,296 new followers by Tuesday and another 119,022 by Wednesday morning.” “Conservative radio host Dana Loesch gained 22,163 followers. Tucker Carlson gained more than 141,000. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene saw her followers grow by more than 130,000. Podcast host Joe Rogan’s follower count exploded by nearly 135,000 and Texas Senator Ted Cruz gained more than 112,000.”

Let's keep in mind that Musk has said he will open Twitter up to comments from all political elements, and will not censor any particular perspective, unlike the previous Twitter operators, who claimed to remove misinformation and disinformation while actually providing it.

Twitter permanently suspended still-President Donald Trump in early January of 2021. And in October of 2020, Twitter censored the New York Post. The Post is one of the oldest newspapers in the nation, founded by Alexander Hamilton in 1801. Twitter censored its exposés about Hunter Biden’s emails, baselessly charging that “hacked materials” were used. The Post story has been confirmed to have been accurate, not misinformation.

In a supportive comment about the Twitter sale that surprised many of us, former CEO Dorsey commented that "Twitter as a company has always been my sole issue and my biggest regret. It has been owned by Wall Street and the ad model. Taking it back from Wall Street is the correct first step."

In earlier comments, Musk has been outspoken about his desire to promote free speech on Twitter, saying that he is “against censorship that goes far beyond the law.”

He said, free speech is essential for a democracy. “Twitter has become kind of the de facto town square. So, it’s just really important that people have both the reality and the perception that they’re able to speak freely within the bounds of the law.”

According to UK’s The Guardian, Musk commented, “For Twitter to deserve public trust it must be politically neutral, which effectively means upsetting the far right and the far left equally.” 

And Musk has argued that his changes would affect all users. “Attacks are coming thick and fast, primarily from the left, which is no surprise,” he said. “However, I should be clear that the right will probably be a little unhappy, too. My goal is to maximize area under the curve of total human happiness, which means the [roughly] 80 percent of people in the middle.”

The First Amendment was first for a reason: because all of what follows depends upon what is in it. And, as African-American social reformer, abolitionist, orator, writer, and statesman Frederick Douglass said, “To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.”

This piece of common sense, and the founding principle of free speech, is poison to the success of the Left’s pursuit of socialist goals.

What the Left doesn’t know — or just doesn’t like — is that a free state depends upon the people having differing opinions about what is going on. But the goals of the Left are quite difficult to achieve when their arguments are forced to stand up against contrary opinions.

Only with a completely open dialogue can the American people be adequately informed to understand what is happening and make sound decisions about critical issues.