Patrick Moore and the Agenda of Fear

From American Thinker.com (Mar. 22):

Politically motivated climate alarmists are using fear to gain control of human behavior and environmental resources and undermine free, prosperous societies. Dr. Patrick Moore, an ecologist and disillusioned cofounder of Greenpeace, exposes their agendas and false claims in his recent book Fake Invisible Catastrophes and Threats of Doom.

As a young scientist, Moore was committed to promoting conservation -- the responsible use of the earth’s resources -- and participated in Greenpeace’s initial campaigns against underground H-bomb testing, whale hunting, and polar bear culling. The disillusionment was gradual. Face to face with activists ostensibly seeking a balance between environmental, social, and economic priorities (“sustainable development”), he was struck by how the then-nascent concept took no consideration of any impact on humankind, and also by how it fiercely inculpated normal human activity. He parted ways with Greenpeace when it promoted “sustainable development” with a fear-mongering, anti-science, anti-human ideology designed to maximize fundraising. In a previous book, Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist, he explains how the coup de grace came over Greenpeace’s fight for a ban on chlorine. Moore views chlorination of water as the biggest advance in public health.

His latest book gives example after example to demonstrate that the “climate crisis” is fake news driven more by ideology than real science. He demolishes fallacious doomsday prophesies one by one. A chief characteristic of these scares is that they conveniently use data related to invisible (CO₂, radiation) or remote (coral reefs, polar bears, walruses) entities that average citizens cannot validate through independent observation. For explication, the public is forced to rely on activists, the media, scientists, and politicians -- all of whom have huge financial or professional stakes in propping up dubious catastrophic scenarios.

…………….

Moore explains that purveyors of global warming deliberately ignore the fact that the Earth is at the tail-end of a 50-million-year cooling period, which means temperature is bound to go up. They instead focus on the last 300 years, too brief and irrelevant a time-frame from the evolutionary-adaptation perspective. He posits that the climate has never stopped changing and that it has never been proven that carbon dioxide controls temperature.  In fact, temperatures rise before carbon dioxide increases, with a significant lag time in between. The basic fallacy, he says, is the belief that humans are emitting too much CO₂ and this will result in a planet too hot to sustain life.

Moore asserts that CO₂ level should be celebrated as a critical life force: for 150 million years, CO₂ level had been declining, and a rise in CO₂ had had markedly beneficial effects on the growth of food crops, trees, and many wild environments because higher CO₂ levels result in less water loss and cause plants to become more efficient in their use of water. As for “global warming,” he presents two counterpoints: life flourished during warmer as opposed to colder times; and in the past 50 million years, the Earth has in fact been cooling steadily, and is colder than it has been during most of life’s existence. The serious problem isn’t CO₂, it is the environmentalists’ push for wind and solar energy, the maligning of the most economical source of reliable energy, and the jeopardizing of poor populations impacted by carbon reduction programs. [read more]

Other articles on climate change:

• The Social Cost of Carbon and Climate Sensitivity Is Model Manipulation at Its Finest
• 12 States Sue Biden Administration Over Climate Policies, ‘Massive Expansion’ of Regulations
• Climate Change for Christians

Massive Protests Erupt In Cuba As Citizens Demand End To Communist Dictatorship: ‘We Want Freedom!’

From Daily Wire.com (July 11):

Massive protests erupted on Sunday in Cuba as citizens of the island nation demanded an end to the communist dictatorship as they suffer in poverty while having limited freedom.

“In a country known for repressive crackdowns on dissent, the rallies were widely viewed as astonishing,” The New York Times reported. “Activists and analysts called it the first time that so many people had openly protested against the Communist government since the so-called Maleconazo uprising, which exploded in the summer of 1994 into a huge wave of Cubans leaving the country by sea.”

The report noted that numerous videos that were posted online that showed the protests had “suddenly disappeared.” “The people are dying of hunger!” one woman shouted during a protest highlighted by the Times, “Our children are dying of hunger!” Other chants included “We want freedom” and “We want vaccines.”

“Never seen images from #Havana,” Alexandre Krauss, Senior Advisor EU Parliament, tweeted. “Thousands are mobilizing across #Cuba demanding the end of the communist dictatorship while screaming ‘we are not afraid…we are not afraid.'” [read more]

Like President Donald Trump, I stand with the protestors too. They want liberty like everyone else.

Other articles on the protest:

• Long-Suffering Cuban People Yearn for Economic Freedom
• Unprecedented Protests in Cuba Deserve America’s Support
• Why we MUST stand with Cuba during protests for freedom [video]
• Cuba’s Communism is Cracking
• Cuban Protests Are Reminders of Communism’s Evils—and of Why America Is Land of Hope
• Democrats Blame Cuban Protests On Anything But Socialism
• U.S Warns Cubans Away From Sea Crossings Amid Protests, But Most Cross On Land

Energy secretary says adversaries have capability of shutting down US power grid

From CNN.com (June 6):

Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm on Sunday warned in stark terms that the US power grid is vulnerable to attacks.

Asked By CNN's Jake Tapper on "State of the Union" whether the nation's adversaries have the capability of shutting it down, Granholm said: "Yeah, they do."

"There are thousands of attacks on all aspects of the energy sector and the private sector generally," she said, adding, "It's happening all the time. This is why the private sector and the public sector have to work together."

The secretary's warning comes amid a rise in ransomware attacks in America's public and private sectors in the recent weeks, creating a sense of urgency in the Biden administration on how to confront cyber vulnerabilities. The issue will take an outsized role during President Joe Biden's first foreign trip this week, during which he is set to talk with European leaders and meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Geneva, Switzerland.

Last week, the White House issued a letter to companies calling on them to take the threat of ransomware attacks more seriously, following back-to-back attacks by Russian hackers against the Colonial Pipeline Company last month and the JBS meatpacking plant.

Asked Sunday on NBC if the US government is better prepared to deal with another potential ransomware attack on a gasoline pipeline, Granholm said new regulations from the Transportation Security Administration, which regulates pipelines, now require companies to report when attacks are happening in real time.

"The TSA actually just put out a series of regulations requiring pipelines to let us know if they have been the victim, and whenever in the real-time... where are these attacks happening, so that we know and we can coordinate with our intelligence community to determine not just how to respond in the long-term, but how to respond immediately. So to that extent, yes," Granholm said on "Meet The Press."

The energy secretary stressed that the private sector needs to work with the Biden administration to establish cyber standards for pipelines. [read more]

I wonder if strengthening the power grid is in the infrastructure bill? Probably not.

More articles on the subject:

• North Korean Cyberattacks Pose Threat to US
• Texas’ Winter Electrical Grid Failures Highlight Nation’s Vulnerability to EMP Attacks

Beijing’s Nebuchadnezzar Moment

From Break Point.org (June 7):

Increasingly threatened with a future of economic and cultural instability, the Chinese government is working hard to guarantee public safety and deliver the kind of “domestic tranquility” that only comes by limiting freedoms. For example, several sources are reporting that, yet again, Beijing has increased pressure on religious groups. Beginning this year, all “approved” religions must conform to its new Administrative Measures for Religious Institutions.

As Cameron Hilditch put it in National Review:

The Chinese Communists aren’t trying to extirpate every last trace of theism … Instead, they’re attempting to enervate religious opposition to the regime by taming and co-opting domestic religious belief, turning it into another thoroughfare for the regime’s agenda of social control.

Despite Beijing’s formal claims that “[c]itizens of China may freely choose and express their religious beliefs,” this isn’t freedom. It isn’t toleration. It cannot even be called benign neglect. This is the empty permission to obey. Going forward, religious groups and individuals will be “free” to practice their faith only if that faith actively conforms to and works under state authority.

Under these orders, not conspiring against the state or even passively complying with Beijing’s orders will not be enough to avoid trouble. Proactive support of tyranny is required. In no way will the precepts of heaven be allowed to challenge the mandates of the state.

Of course, Xi Jinping’s regime, like most totalitarian powers, likes to style itself as the frontline of innovation. In reality, he’s just the latest in a long line of tyrants who, down through the ages, tried and failed to unseat God by compromising the loyalties of His people. Think of Daniel’s friends refusing to bow before Nebuchadnezzar, to Daniel himself refusing to kowtow to a Persian emperor’s vanity, to Christians facing down Roman Caesars.

Like Xi, these tyrants didn’t care to whom or to what God’s people prayed, as long as that worship didn’t spoil their worship of the tyrant. In Rome, Christians only had to accommodate the state with a little incense offered to the empire alongside their loyalty to Christ. This was a line they would not cross. They would not subject the claim Christ had on their lives and on all of reality to the demands of Rome and the “gods” of their age.

To be clear, it’s not just in the ancient world or in Communist lands where Christians are called to conform. Recently, the French Minister of the Interior demanded the Church’s submission, saying of evangelicals, “We cannot discuss with people who refuse to write on paper that the law of the Republic is superior to the law of God.” In American history, pastors who refused to follow the pro-slavery or segregationist script often found themselves “cancelled,” if not worse. Today, Christians who do not conform to the new progressive sexual orthodoxy are threatened with dismissal from polite society, and maybe even their jobs.

Christians have faced cultural hostilities throughout history whenever there is a system or power that claims to be the absolute and final authority. It’s not that certain kings and dictators throughout history were bad men, and therefore acted badly towards the Church and other dissidents. Any ruler and any ideology that presumes the omniscience and omnipotence that only belongs to God will inevitably see Christianity’s claims to transcendent truth as an existential and intolerable threat.

As Francis Schaeffer put it, when describing the Roman-era persecution endured by the Early Church, “No totalitarian authority nor authoritarian state can tolerate those who have an absolute by which to judge that state and its actions.” This applied to the ancient world, it applies to Beijing, and it applies to Western ideologies that demand our absolute and total allegiance.

The good news is that God always strengthens, preserves, and sustains His people. He did it for Daniel and his friends. He did it for the Early Church, including the persecuted and the martyrs. He’s doing it for our brothers and sisters in China. And, we can be sure, He will do it for us. We must never bow our knee to false gods. [source]

8 Things to Know About Whether COVID-19 Leaked From Chinese Lab

From The Daily Signal.com (June 4):

The trove of newly public emails from Dr. Anthony Fauci only has intensified calls for more answers about the origins of COVID-19.

On some level, the executive branch and Congress are investigating the origins of the pandemic that has killed millions around the world and almost 600,000 in the United States.

The renewed attention comes amid mounting circumstantial evidence that the new coronavirus that causes the disease came from China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Fauci, director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told a Senate panel May 11 that the United States didn’t help fund research at the Wuhan lab that involved making the virus more contagious or otherwise more dangerous.

However, the surfacing of an email exchange from Feb. 1, 2020, between Fauci and his deputy and fellow immunologist Hugh Auchincloss seems to cast doubt on that point.

…………

The broad questions include: Did the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19 originate in a wet market near the Wuhan lab, as public health officials in both the United States and China insisted for more than a year? Or did the coronavirus originate in and somehow escape the Wuhan lab?

If the virus did originate in the Wuhan lab, did U.S. taxpayers help fund the related research? Are Fauci and other government officials shooting straight with Americans about what they know and don’t know?

Although the dominant media has just begun to express interest in getting answers, multiple avenues of inquiry have been opened by members of Congress, the intelligence community, and academia.

Here’s a guide to what’s next as more U.S. officials push for answers.

1. Single Party Interest in House

Several congressional Republicans have demanded an investigation of the origins of the virus, but House Democrats thus far have been fairly quiet. 

“The left-wing media and Democrats quickly dismissed the Wuhan lab COVID-19 origins theory as a ‘fringe conspiracy theory’ but it has been plausible from the start,” Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., ranking member of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, told The Daily Signal in an email interview.

The Daily Signal also sought comment on the need for an investigation from Oversight and Reform Chairwoman Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., but her office had not responded as of publication time.

………………

2. Intelligence Community Review

As pressure mounted on the question, Biden announced May 26 that he had ordered the investigation by U.S. intelligence agencies into the origins of COVID-19.

Biden said the intelligence community had coalesced around two likely scenarios, “each with low or moderate confidence.”

“The majority of elements do not believe there is sufficient information to assess one to be more likely than the other,” the president said, referring to the government’s 16 separate intelligence agencies.

Those two scenarios involve either a lab accident or a natural emergence in China, National Intelligence Director Avril Haines told the House Intelligence Committee in testimony April 15.

Biden said intelligence agencies would redouble efforts to analyze information to “bring us closer to a definitive conclusion” and report back to him in 90 days. [read more]

The other things to know:

1. Senate Action
2. Looking Into NIH and WHO
3. EcoHealth Alliance
4. Wuhan Lab and Chinese Military
5. International Probes
6. A 9/11-Style Commission?

Other articles on the virus and the Wuhan Lab:

• Scientists Argue COVID-19 'Genetic Footprint' is Unnatural
• Mysterious Origins of COVID-19 Raise Alarming Possibilities
• COVID Began Far Earlier Than We Were Told
• Scientist on alleged CONFLICT OF INTERESTS when investigating COVID origin [video]
• Chinese Military Was Inside Wuhan Institute of Virology as Early as 2017, China Task Force Reports
• House Democrats Block Bill Declassifying The Origins Of COVID-19
  

Did Jesus Really Exist?

Commentary From John Stonestreet on Breakpoint.org:

Each year as Easter approaches, pseudo-scholars, newspapers, and cable networks make headlines claiming to offer the real story about Jesus. Their accounts assume that much of the Jesus story contained in the Gospels, especially anything miraculous is largely a myth created and propagated by, first, His followers, and later, Church leaders seeking to expand their power. Despite the skepticism, few suggest that Jesus never existed.

Online, of course, that is a different story. Though there are no serious scholars who question whether Jesus of Nazareth actually existed, it’s still a claim you might encounter, either on the internet or from someone who believes their internet source. So, what if you find yourself in a conversation with someone who says: “No one really knows whether Jesus existed or not.”

The latest video in our “What Would You Say?” series tackles this question: Here’s my colleague Shane Morris…

The next time someone says they don’t think we can be sure that Jesus ever existed, here are 3 things to remember:

Number 1: Several non-Christian historians of that period mention Jesus.

Josephus was a Jewish historian who had grown up in Jerusalem in the first century, the same city where Jesus was reported to have been crucified. Josephus’ father was a Jewish priest who would have been a contemporary of Jesus, and almost certainly would have seen him if he had existed. Josephus mentions Jesus on two occasions in his History of the Jews: In one he reports his crucifixion at the demand of the Jewish leaders and in the other, he mentions the execution of James, the brother of Jesus who is called Messiah.

Josephus would have known Jesus was a historical person and would have no reason to invent him if he didn’t.

Other non-Christian historians also mention Jesus, including the Roman historian Tacitus, the Greek satirist Lucian, and a prisoner named Mara bar Serapion.

Number 2: The apostle Paul, someone who persecuted the Christian Church, would have been a contemporary of Jesus and claims to have known Jesus’ brother James.

It is very unlikely that Paul would have given his life to a movement he had once persecuted if it had been based on a fictitious man who had supposedly traveled and preached in the same area in which Paul himself lived. Jesus would have been publicly crucified at a time and location where and when Paul would have been present, in response to demands made by Jewish authorities whom Paul would have known. Paul claimed to personally know Jesus’ brother James. Fictitious people tend not to have brothers who are personally known.

Number 3: Most contemporary scholars think that at least some of the Gospels are closely rooted in the eyewitness testimony of Jesus’ disciples.

Although modern scholars differ in their opinions about the historical accuracy of the Gospels, most think the Gospels of Mark and John are closely based on eyewitness testimony of two of Jesus’ disciples, who had traveled with him. It would have been easier to invent the existence of a mythical person that supposedly lived centuries prior to writing about them. It’s much harder to invent a person that supposedly existed within the memory of living eyewitnesses. The accounts of Jesus are eyewitness accounts.

[read more]

LETTER TO CONGRESS: How YOU can fight back against the Great Reset

From Glenn Beck.com (June 8):

Dear Rep. [or Sen.] XXXXXX,

The foundation of the American way of life is freedom from tyranny, which can only exist in a nation that defends the rights, powers, and property of individuals and families. Over the past two centuries, the greatest threats to liberty have come from governments, both foreign and domestic. And from the beaches of Normandy to the civil rights movement of the 1960s, Americans have repeatedly conquered the challenges placed before them by those seeking to extinguish or limit individual rights.

However, over the past few years, a new, potentially catastrophic danger has emerged, but not primarily from the halls of Congress or state capitols. This threat to freedom has largely emanated from the boardrooms of the world's wealthiest, most powerful corporations, large financial institutions, central banks, and international organizations like the United Nations and World Economic Forum.

In an attempt to secure vast amounts of wealth and influence over society, corporations, bankers, and investors, working closely with key government officials, have launched a unified effort to impose environmental, social, and governance (ESG) standards on most of the industrialized global economy. (ESG standards are also referred to as "sustainable investment" or "stakeholder capitalism.") According to a report by accounting firm KPMG, thousands of companies, located in more than 50 countries, already have ESG systems in place, including 82 percent of large companies in the United States. ¹

ESG standards are designed to create a "great reset of capitalism" and to "revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions." ² The way ESG supporters plan to enact these radical changes is by using ESG schemes to alter the way businesses and investments are evaluated, so that instead of focusing on the quality of goods and services, profits, and other traditional economic metrics, companies—including financial institutions—are evaluated largely on their commitment to social justice and environmental causes, and then assigned scores so that companies can be compared, rewarded, or potentially punished. [read more]

Another article on the Great Reset:

THIS is how recent cyber attacks could further the GREAT RESET [video]

7 Ways to Survive Cancel Culture

Commentary From Kay C. James on The Daily Signal.com (June 2):

As a black conservative for more than 40 years, I’m an expert on being canceled. I was canceled by the political left long before cancel culture was all the rage. If there’s one thing liberals and leftists dislike more than a conservative, it’s a black conservative.

Liberal America doesn’t want to hear from African American conservatives because we go counter to its narrative that black people needed liberal saviors, especially ones who come bearing gifts of more government.

But we weren’t just canceled by liberals. For decades, liberals worked to put a wedge between black conservatives and our own communities. As a result, many African American leaders wouldn’t invite us to the table and wouldn’t allow us to offer our ideas to help solve problems in our own communities. We weren’t considered “authentically black”—whatever that is.

And so it continues today.

Black liberals, but especially white ones, had the audacity to lecture me about being a traitor to my race when I started thinking for myself as a young woman in my 20s—when I started questioning why we thought government was always the answer to our social ills.

They called me a traitor when I became the national spokesperson for the National Right to Life Committee and talked about the tragic wrong of abortion, especially in the African American community. They really lost it when I started a crisis pregnancy center to help black women keep their babies.

And when I led the effort to reform welfare in Virginia in the 1990s—trying to reform a system that discouraged marriage and work, that weakened the black family, and that fostered perpetual dependence—they really hit the roof!

Apparently, I didn’t know my place.

As someone who has been a public figure now for four decades, I have learned to navigate both that kind of cancel culture and the “woke” cancel culture that pervades society today.

Here are seven lessons I’ve learned:

1. First and foremost, don’t give a damn about cancel culture. If you do, you’re giving small-minded people control over you that they don’t deserve. Realize that these are often people who want to silence your ideas because they’re afraid if others hear them, they might agree.

2. Always be honest. The best defense is always the truth. Moreover, make sure you have your facts straight before you speak and that you can back up what you say.

3. When you’re wrong, have the courage to admit you’re wrong. But when you’re right and taking a principled stand, have the courage to stand up for those principles, even in the face of withering criticism. Others will see your strength and be encouraged by it.

But if you’re right and you give in, you have only served to embolden cancel culture. You have fed its voracious appetite and made it stronger, giving it more energy to seek out its next victim. You have made it harder for others to stand up for the truth, and as a result, many will continue to cower in silence. [read more]

Good advice! The rest of the lessons:

1. Don’t try to cancel others.
2. Be principled and don’t be a hypocrite. Hypocrites make easy targets for canceling and are fun for everyone to take down a few pegs.
3. Expect that anything you write or anything that you say in front of a camera (even your friend’s cellphone) could end up trending on social media or landing on the front page of a newspaper. If you’re not OK with that, think twice about saying or doing it.
4. There are an awful lot of people who are willing to deliberately take things out of context to make other people look bad.

Other articles on cancel culture:

• Cancel Culture as a Religion
• Tulsi Gabbard: ‘You See The Final Expression Of Cancel Culture In Islamist Terrorist Groups’

Biden administration squeezing suburbs out of existence with zoning laws

From Washington Examiner.com (June 3):

A house with a white picket fence and a big backyard might have been a staple of the American dream once upon a time, but if the Biden administration gets its way, the dream could soon be out of reach for millions of people.

As part of his $2.3 trillion infrastructure plan, the Biden administration is pushing local governments to allow apartment buildings in neighborhoods that are restricted to single-family homes. The administration claims it's a way to ease a national affordable housing shortage and combat racial injustice in the housing market.

Current zoning laws that favor single-family homes, known as exclusionary zoning, have disproportionately hurt low-income people who can't afford to move to the suburbs, the administration said. Their only choice is living in crowded apartment buildings. Biden's proposal would incentivize local governments to get rid of exclusionary zoning by awarding grants and tax credits to cities that change their zoning regulations.

While the proposal has had some bipartisan support on Capitol Hill, not everyone is on board.

Critics claim the federal government's plan would change the landscape of towns and cities across the country and torpedo the American dream.

"The Biden plan’s backers are hypocrites," former New York Lt. Gov. Betsy McCaughey said. "Biden himself owns a four-acre lakefront home in upscale Greenville, Delaware, where there is absolutely no public housing, affordable housing, or rentals that accept housing vouchers. And don’t expect any to be built next door to the Bidens."

She added that Biden "has always had a passion for stately homes and swanky addresses, even buying a 10,000-square-foot mansion that once belonged to the DuPont family, of 19th-century gunpowder wealth. Not exactly the sort of housing setup you’d associate with 'Scranton Joe.'"

Regulating land use and zoning has largely been a function of local government. Critics claim that the Biden administration is now dangling millions of dollars in front of cash-strapped local governments in order to pressure them to change. [read more]

The bastard! And the Left and never-Trumpers call President Trump a dictator? Really? Trump would never do this. Then again the Left never cared for the Commoner.

DARPA Calling for AI Proposals to Measure How Authoritarian Regimes Control Information

From Next Gov.com (June 2):

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency is looking for innovative research concepts that can help foster an understanding of how authoritarian regimes control information.

For authoritarian regimes, maintaining control of information has always been imperative. But digital technologies are providing nations such as China—infamous for the surveillance of its own citizens—new tools for censorship.

DARPA, under a program called Measuring the Information Control Environment, or MICE, wants to develop artificial intelligence technology to “measure how digitally authoritarian regimes repress their populations at scale over the internet via censorship, blocking, or throttling,” according to a June 1 post on SAM.gov.

“MICE-developed technology will continuously and automatically update and feed into easily-understood dashboards in order to develop comprehensive, real-time ground truth understanding of how countries conduct domestic information control,” the post reads. [read more]

Interesting. Well, they could find people who escaped from N. Korea, China and Cuba and talk to them. Maybe read the novel 1984 by George Orwell. Talk to Gordan Change and Michael Pillsbury. They’re experts on China. They also wrote books on China too.

John Keats’s Concept of ‘Negative Capability’ Is Needed Now More Than Ever

From The Epoch Times.com (Mar. 8):

When John Keats died 200 years ago, on Feb. 23, 1821, he was just 25 years old. Despite his short life, he’s still considered one of the finest poets in the English language.

Yet in addition to masterpieces such as “Ode to a Nightingale” and “To Autumn,” Keats’s legacy includes a remarkable concept: what he called “negative capability.”

The idea—which centers on suspending judgment about something in order to learn more about it—remains as vital today as when he first wrote about it.

Keats lost most of his family members to an infectious disease, tuberculosis, that would take his own life. In the same way the COVID-19 pandemic turned the worlds of many people upside down, the poet had developed a deep sense of life’s uncertainties.

Keats was born in London in 1795. His father died in a horse-riding accident when Keats was 8 years old, and his mother died of tuberculosis when he was 14. As a teenager, he commenced medical studies, first as an apprentice to a local surgeon and later as a medical student at Guy’s Hospital, where he assisted with surgeries and cared for all kinds of people.

After completing his studies, however, Keats decided to pursue poetry. In 1819, he composed many of his greatest poems, though they didn’t receive widespread acclaim during his lifetime. By 1820, he had contracted tuberculosis and relocated to Rome, where he hoped the warmer climate would help him recover. He ended up dying a year later.

Keats coined the term negative capability in a letter he wrote to his brothers George and Tom in 1817. Inspired by Shakespeare’s work, he describes it as “being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable reaching after fact and reason.”

Negative here isn’t pejorative. Instead, it implies the ability to resist explaining away what we don’t understand.

Rather than coming to an immediate conclusion about an event, idea, or person, Keats advises resting in doubt and continuing to pay attention and probe in order to understand it more completely. In this, he anticipates the work of Nobel laureate economist Daniel Kahneman, who cautions against the naive view that “what you see is all there is.” [read more]

Appreciating life’s mysteries is what it is all about. You don’t always have to explain the mystery.

New Details Emerge On The "Highly Modified Drone" That Outran Police Helicopters Over Tucson

From The Drive.com (June 1):

Last month, The War Zone reported on a bizarre drone encounter that occurred in the skies above Tucson, Arizona. According to reports, on the evening of February 9, 2021 around 10:30 PM local time, a helicopter belonging to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, or CBP, encountered what has been described by KOLD's Dan Marries, who interviewed an FBI agent assigned to the case, as a “highly modified drone” in controlled airspace. Another helicopter operated by the Tucson Police Department’s Air Support Unit was called in to help track and potentially identify the drone alongside the one from CBP, but the drone was able to evade them both and remain unidentified. Shortly after the incident was disclosed, the FBI released a statement asking for help from the public regarding any information related to the encounter.

In the days since we first reported on the Tucson drone encounter, individuals have reached out with new information that adds further context to this still-developing story. A source with direct knowledge of the incident's details told The War Zone they believed the drone was highly unlikely to be battery-powered based on the altitude, distance, and speed at which it flew. The source also stated it seems as though the drone was equipped with an infrared camera based how it was able to dynamically maneuver, including in relation to the helicopters chasing it, despite the low level of ambient light at the time of the incident. They also added that it is "only logical that it was looking towards DM’s [Davis Monthan AFB] flight line" based on its location.

We can now also confirm that the CBP helicopter involved was indeed an Airbus AS350, commonly used by CBP’s Air and Marine Operations (AMO) branch for aerial patrol and surveillance missions. [read more]

Report: Hacking Group Linked to Chinese Government Penetrated New York Transit Agency’s Computer Systems

From The Gateway Pundit.com (June 2):

A hacking group with links to the Chinese government penetrated the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s computer systems in April, the New York Times reported.

The hackers did not gain access to the systems that control the trains, but it exposed vulnerabilities.

The Chinese government does not fear the US because they own Joe Biden.

……………

In the last month, ransomware hackers have targeted the Colonial Pipeline and the world’s largest meat supplier.

A few weeks ago ransomware hackers shut down the Colonial Pipeline, creating gas lines and shortages in Southeastern states.

JBS, the world’s largest beef supplier was hit with a ransomware attack on Sunday, threatening US meat supply.

One-fifth of US beef production was wiped out after JBS paused processing at five of its biggest beef plants which manage a total of 22,500 cattle per day.

The reality is our enemies do not fear feeble Joe Biden. [read more]

I don’t think any country fears note-card Joe.

Gitmo to Free Three Al Qaeda Operatives (“Forever Prisoners”) with 9/11, Bin Laden Ties

From Judicial Watch.org (June 2):

On the heels of approving a 9/11 Al Qaeda operative’s release, the Department of Defense (DOD) is freeing three more “forever prisoners” with similar credentials from the U.S. military jail in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In all four cases, the men were previously denied release by the Military Commission’s parole board, operated by the Obama-created Periodic Review Secretariat (PRS), because they were considered a threat to national security. The about face appears to be part of a Biden administration initiative to clear out the top security facility that houses the world’s most dangerous Islamic terrorists, including 9/11 masterminds Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali, and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi as well as USS Cole bomber Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. The prison has around 40 detainees, down from a peak of nearly 700 in 2003.

Judicial Watch covers all the PRS hearings live via satellite video feed at the Pentagon and has traveled repeatedly to Gitmo to observe the military tribunal trials of 9/11 terrorists and al-Nashiri, the USS Cole bomber. Here are the latest developments: Months after clearing Said Salih Said Nashir, the PRS’s Periodic Review Board (PRB) has endorsed the release of Abdul Rabbani Abu Rahmah, Uthman Abd Al Rahim Muhammad Uthman and Saifullah Paracha. Rahman operated safe houses and provided logistical support to most of the 9/11 hijackers, according to his DOD file. He was also directly involved with terrorist plans and operations directed by 9/11 mastermind KSM. “Detainee admitted working directly for Khalid Shaykh Muhammad ISN 010024DP (KU- 10024), as an al-Qaida facilitator from early 2000 to September 2002,” the military file reads. “Detainee’s duties included managing several Karachi, Pakistan (PK), safe houses. Detainee had direct access with many high-level al-Qaida members including Usama Bin Laden (UBL); Ayman al-Zawahiri; Muhammad Atef, aka (Abu Hafs al-Masri); and Nashwan Abd al-Razzaq Abd al-Baqi, aka (Abdul Hadi al-Iraqi).” In his final release determination the parole board writes that Rahmah’s “continued law of war detention is no longer necessary to protect against a continuing significant threat to the security of the United States.” [read more]

After all it’s unnamed white nationalists/white supremists who are the real threat to national security. Not to mention anyone who voted for President Trump. Which to the Left is the same thing.

AOC says she's in therapy due to 'trauma' of Capitol riot

From Washington Examiner.com (May 24):

New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said she's in therapy following the "trauma" she incurred from being inside the Capitol complex during the Jan. 6 riot.

The congresswoman also faulted former President Donald Trump's administration's treatment of Latinos as another reason she has sought counseling.

“Yeah. Oh yeah. I’m doing therapy, but also, I’ve just slowed down," she told NPR's Maria Hinojosa on a podcast episode of Latino USA, which aired on Friday. "I think the Trump administration had a lot of us, especially the Latino communities, in a very reactive mode, and so I’ve been putting myself in a more proactive space."

The Democrat said Massachusetts Rep. Ayanna Pressley convinced her that she went through "trauma" in the beginning of the year.

“I think after [Jan. 6], I took some time — and it was really Ayanna Pressley. I explained to her what happened to me, like, the day of because I ran to her office, and she was like, ‘You need to recognize trauma,’” she said.

“If I take a couple months and just be really good, then I don’t have to live with this thing festering and lingering with me like a roommate in my apartment for years," she added.

In mid-January, Ocasio-Cortez hosted an event in Congress in which representatives recounted their experiences during the riot. The New York Democrat, one of the most liberal members of the House, remarked that she almost died. [read more]

AOC wasn’t even at the Capital building during the peaceful protest. So, why is she going into therapy for? Next she’ll go into therapy for breaking a finger nail.

Another AOC article:

AOC: We Can Reduce Violent Crime And Lower Incarceration Rates If We Stop Building Jails

Recognizing 3 Elements of True Learning

Commentary From ANNIE HOLMQUIST on The Epoch Times.com (Mar. 9):

A smile came to my face as I drove past a school this morning. No longer was it a desolate ghost town; instead, I had to navigate a long line of cars and buses waiting to turn into the parking lot to drop children off.

While it’s good to see kids going back to school, I can’t help but wonder what type of things those little ones will learn as they sit in class. How can parents who faithfully bring their children to school recognize whether a child is being educated and working toward becoming a successful adult, or is simply being steadily propagandized instead?

This is a question every parent should ask to evaluate the kind of school their child is enrolled in, whether that be public, private, virtual, or home. Unfortunately, the concept of a “good education” is often distorted these days, so we have no clue what the signs of true learning are.

It’s in this area that David Hicks’s “Norms and Nobility” comes to the rescue. As classical education expert Martin Cothran says, Hicks’s advice “won’t go over well at your local teachers’ college,” but that is actually a point in its favor!

Here are three markers by which parents can evaluate whether their child is experiencing “true learning.”

Well-Mannered

Learning isn’t measured in the number of degrees one has, Hicks explains, nor is it measured in the skills one has learned. Rather, “true learning is revealed in character.”

Said character manifests itself in good manners, Hicks goes on to say. A student who is the product of true learning will know how to behave appropriately and correctly in the circumstances he encounters. He will exhibit patience and will be “good-humored,” and “when good humor deserts the educated man, his good manners [will] sustain him.”

…………..

Avoiding Arrogance

“The educated man,” Hicks writes, “is never aggressive in his behavior or arrogant in his mood: these are marks of an ignoramus, or of the modern student, with a talent for ‘faking it.’”

Praise and recognition of a child’s achievements are good and necessary things. However, they must be carefully balanced with training in virtue, otherwise, a child will become an unbearable know-it-all. A child who is the product of true learning will be confident in his abilities, recognizing those who helped him reach such levels, and not flaunting his knowledge and talents in boastful ways.

Pursuing Truth

It’s popular in today’s world to blaze one’s own trail and create one’s own truth, a truth often based on feelings or emotions. This tack, however, is the opposite of true learning, for as Hicks writes, “True learning knows what is good, serves it above self, reproduces it, and recognizes that in knowledge lies this responsibility.”

In essence, true learning trains children not only to know truth, but to put it into practice in their daily lives and their interactions with others. [read more]

What teachers nowadays want is their students to become good little Marxists.

Time for Modern Masking Madness to Be Cast into the Dustbin of History

Commentary From William Sullivan on American Thinker.com (May 17):

Since last spring, many people, including dear friends, have been insisting that masks had suddenly become vital talismans that stop respiratory viral spread.

I’ve consistently argued the opposite throughout. (Here, here, here.)  And though I would constantly ask for evidence from anyone suggesting that masks work, rarely was it ever forthcoming.  Most often, I was told that there isn’t a lot of evidence suggesting that masks don’t work and that wearing a mask was better than nothing at all, so we should all just do it.

Early in the pandemic, mask mavens suggested that the lack of real-world evidence showing masks’ efficacy was due to not enough people wearing them.  In the rare event that real-world evidence was offered, it usually took the form of suggestions that places like Japan escaped the ravages of the pandemic because of their stalwart adherence to masking in public.

……………..

There’s still remarkably little or no real-world evidence that masks work, though such evidence has now had ample time to present itself.  As such, there are some impulses urging me to immediately go to all of those people who insisted that masks must repel coronaviruses like crosses repel vampires, and tell them “I told you so.”

But that would be an unjust act of vanity on my part.  I wasn’t right.  Science had been right, for a hundred-plus years.  I was simply able to recognize that the 100 years of scientific consensus (which accounts for much of the lifespan for modern germ theory, it should be noted) was very unlikely to have magically inverted in the months between Dr. Fauci telling us that masks do little or nothing to stop or slow the spread of a virus like COVID-19 and his later telling us that we should probably wear two masks as a matter of “common sense,” even if you’re vaccinated.

Long before Fauci’s ridiculous reversal from consensus toward the limits of absurdity, uncountable numbers of American scientists correctly concluded, having the benefit of decades of data mounting for over a century, that wearing a mask for the benefit of feeling safe from viral spread was useless. [read more]

Another article on mask wearing: Stockholm Syndrome over Mask Wearing

Pentagon reportedly running secret army of 60,000 around the world

From NY Post.com (May 18):

The Pentagon is running a 60,000-strong secret army made up of soldiers, civilians and contractors, who travel the world under false identities embedded in consultancies and name-brand companies — without the knowledge of the American people or most of Congress — according to a report.

The top-secret army was created by the Pentagon over the past 10 years as part of a program called “signature reduction,” and operates both domestically and internationally using a low-profile force of clandestine warriors who sometimes wear civilian clothes as they carry out their assignments, Newsweek reported.

The force is 10 times the size of the covert elements of the CIA, comes with a cost of more than $900 million, and engages about 130 private companies in operations in locales like the Middle East and Africa, the report said.

Despite the undercover army’s size and budget, Congress has never held a hearing on it.

About half of the “signature reduction” force is made up of special forces, the highly trained commandos who pursue terrorists around the world, including in Iran and North Korea.

Military intelligence specialists comprise the second-largest element inside the force. [read more]

Kamala Harris can't keep staff

From American Thinker.com (May 19):

Steven Hayward at Power Line has a prescient observation about the unflattering exposé of Kamala Harris that ran in The Atlantic two days ago:

[P]erhaps the most revealing tidbit in the whole article, though it may not be evident to the casual reader:

Harris has been an elected official for 18 years straight, but she has only a few senior aides on staff who have worked for her for more than a few months. Turf battles have been a recurring feature of Harris offices over the years, but her newest circle believes it is finally getting her on track after years of past staffers not serving her well. Some have been surprised at how much work there is to be done, whether that's briefing her on certain policy issues or helping her improve her sparring-with-journalists skills.

The problem isn't "turf battles." It is always a bad sign when a politician can't good keep staff (or any staff), and Harris has long been known for being a terrible boss, going back to her time as California Attorney General. When you can't keep eager political staff ...

Briefing her on policy issues?  Hard to do when she's such a lazy person, interested only in wokester posturing, talking about her "story," posing for Vogue photo spreads, thrilling the crochet circles, or whining about her home decorating dilemmas.  Policy to Kamala is for the birds.

Hayward is right about politicians who can't keep good staff on hand and that being a bad reflection on their capacity to lead.  Eric Hoffer once noted that the reason Stalin was able to best Trotsky for the supreme leadership of the Soviet dictatorship was because of his capacity to retain the loyalty of a group of able lieutenants.  Kamala, while certainly wanting to be dictator of a vast left-wing empire, same as Stalin, hasn't grasped that critical element that allows such things to happen to whoever eventually ends up being the most equal animal.  Biden has — he has some very long-serving lieutenants, such as secretary of state Tony Blinken, and he seems to have forged some kind of closeness to far-left Susan Rice from the Obama administration days, too.  There are plenty of others.  Kamala, though, seems to be poison to staff, and apparently, they flee when they get a chance to flee.  She's got a big staff — 184 people, based on this listing from Legistorm, a site about politicians. [read more]

And just think, the lame-stream-press made fun of President Trumps turnovers.

Another article about Harris:

Woman mistaken for Univision reporter asks question at Harris press conference

How Covid Put an End to Your Right to Due Process

Commentary From Daren A. Wiseley on Mises.org (May 18):

Over a year ago, the covid panic shook the world. We were told it would only be “15 days to flatten the curve” as businesses were locked down, “nonessential” employees were forced out of work (I’ve written about the myth of the nonessential employee here), masks were mandated, and individuals were not allowed to gather in groups or attend religious services.

In typical fashion, a government-mandated “temporary” usurpation of liberty turned into an indefinite infringement, as shown by the fact that we’re still under covid orders four hundred days later. Regardless of the length of time, the question remains that few have asked: What authority does the government have to lock us down and force us out of work?

This brings us to the issue of due process, which at minimum requires the right to appear in front of a judge and represent oneself to a jury of his peers before being stripped of essential liberty. Did the thousands of businesses closed and millions put out of work get this opportunity? Of course not. They were unilaterally stripped of their ability to put food on the table and pay their bills without any opportunity to object.

Sick until Proven Healthy

The concept of “quarantine” has been well established in American jurisprudence for well over one hundred years. When an individual is sick, and at risk of infecting others, the individual could be put in quarantine or isolation by a court until they are no longer infectious. Quarantine still requires basic due process. The individual subject to potential quarantine is still entitled to a court proceeding and evidence must be established of the individual’s risk to public health.

The past year has placed the entirety of the United States in de facto quarantine under the perceived threat of spreading covid. While quarantine is for the sick, most of those subject to the long list of restrictions have been healthy. Not a single person affected has had the opportunity to get in court and object. These blanket measures have denied every single citizen the constitutional right to due process they supposedly possess. Deemed sick until proven healthy, unfortunately, no one has had the opportunity to even prove their health. Governments have argued that “stay-at-home” orders are not quarantine as a way to end-run the issue. If that is the case, where do they get their authority? Neither the US Constitution nor that of any of the states provides an exception to due process in the case of a pandemic. Many states have relied on ambiguous statutes meant for use in a foreign invasion to justify these actions, but anyone who looks at the scenario objectively can see that there are no “pandemic exceptions” to due process of law. These powers were made up out of thin air, with absolutely no authority to grant itself this power. [read more]

Happy Birthday, America!

An article about American Exceptionalism by Kim Holmes on The Daily Signal (Sept. 28, 2020):

Why American Exceptionalism Is Different From Other Countries’ ‘Nationalisms’

Mobs are toppling statues of American heroes. America and America’s past are on trial. People are protesting and rioting over the very ideas of what America stands for.

The future of the country depends on what Americans do next.

It depends on how Americans answer some direct, but not so simple, questions: Who are we as Americans? What does it mean to be American?

The Meaning of the American Founding

To answer these questions, we have to start with the American founding. It gave America its ethos, its characteristic spirit and culture.

The American ethos has a firm philosophical foundation. It comprises a set of philosophical ideas on which the American Founders relied to create the system of government that we enjoy to this day.

The Founders had a very distinct idea of the moral order. They believed that morality and government should be in accordance with what they called “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” Natural law is universal and thus morally binding on all mankind.

Since natural law was universal, to go against it was to go against human nature itself. The purpose or “end state” of nature was what the Founders broadly understood as happiness, and in order to be truly happy, one had to be good. Happiness was understood as living a virtuous life.

Washington, Adams, and other Founders said repeatedly that freedom could not be enjoyed without virtue. Without it, one would get nothing but tyranny based on power and selfishness. Governments must be instituted to protect the natural rights and liberties of their people.

This is where the idea of limited government comes from. Governments must be limited, and their powers constitutionally enumerated, as they are in the Constitution, to protect liberties and rights.

That’s why the Founders used checks and balances in government—to stave off tyranny.

Also key is the American idea of equality before the law. They did not think about social equality as we often do today, where everyone is supposed to be equal in income and in social status. The Founders assumed that individuals had different talents and opportunities, and wanted to ensure that, to the extent possible, the law treated everyone equally.

What, Then, Is American Exceptionalism?

That brings me to the idea of American exceptionalism, which is, I believe, the answer to the question of what America’s national identity is and should remain.

It’s grounded in America’s founding principles: natural law, liberty, limited government, individual rights, the checks and balances of government, popular sovereignty, the civilizing role of religion in society, and the crucial role of civil society and civil institutions in grounding and mediating our democracy and our freedom.

We as Americans believe these principles are right and true for all peoples, not just for us.

But if the principles are universal, how are Americans different? How are we exceptional?

We believe that Americans are different because our creed is both universal and exceptional at the same time. We are exceptional in the unique way we apply these universal principles.

There is no other country in the world that embodied the blend of classical philosophy, Christianity, and even Enlightenment ideas in the unique way America did in the founding of the republic from 1776 to 1789. It was an exceptional (meaning uncommon) mix of liberty, limited government, natural rights, and religious liberty that made the American founding unique. [read more]

HERE are the six principles of freedom-loving Americans

I want to raise six principled points everyone on the right should be forced to consider in the run-up to 2024.

1 - Understanding American Exceptionalism

FACT: America is an exceptional nation. If you read enough of world history, you will find ample evidence that America acted in ways that made it unique and significantly different from other countries in the past and modern times. These reasons must be understood and promoted through the culture and body politic.

One of those reasons is the layout of your Declaration of Independence. If you look around politics today, you will see people on all political sides telling you what they hate, why the other side is the enemy, and how they must be defeated.

In the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson also made that case against the English when he listed 27 grievances against the King. So how is the layout key? It took Jefferson 357 words to get to those grievances. Your Declaration is your mission statement: it tells everyone in the world what America aspires to be. It states the belief that all were created equal, all had certain rights that come directly from God, and that it is the government's job to protect rights – not give people rights.

The left is successfully painting everyone on the right to be a terrorist who enjoyed the Capitol Hill riots. If you ever want to win another election, it will be critical to explain what you stand for to the American people.

After all, ask yourself which makes you the most passionate to vote - removing someone from office or voting for a vision and change you believe in?

2 - The Constitution

Is there a better place to start this vision than the Constitution? Yes, it is mostly ignored today

by those in power and is only referenced by politicians and media when it fits a narrative.

The Constitution is a beautiful and complex document but is primarily based on a straightforward principle. The government should be extremely limited in its power, but it should be as close to the people as possible where there is a clear need for government. Who can argue with this principle?

Who wants someone they have never met, dictating how they live their life?

This is why the Constitution grants the President no real power, and gives Congress 18 clauses of power, listed under Article 1, Section 8. Any and every power not mentioned there belongs at the state level. [read more]

FAUCI AND THE FED: AMERICA'S TECHNOCRATIC FRAUDS

From Mises.org (May 18):

This past March, Dr. Anthony Fauci sparred with Dr. Rand Paul over any public health benefit that came from wearing a mask if one had developed immunity to the virus. In dealing with both a democratically elected senator and a medical doctor, Dr. Fauci was dismissive and condescending. He demonstrated the degree to which he held himself higher than the Senate.

Dr. Fauci was also wrong.

A medical expert in Dr. Fauci’s position losing a debate on the science to an ophthalmologist—even one of Dr. Paul’s great reputation—would itself be enough to declare them a fraud.

But Dr. Fauci is much worse than a fraud; he is a technocrat. He doesn’t see himself as simply someone to explain “the science” of the virus but appointed himself a covid czar. He leveraged the corporate press’s personality cult and used it to manipulate the public to behave the way he wanted them to behave.

He prioritized control over presenting the science.

He also has no shame in doing this. He has repeatedly boasted about it to his devoted followers in the media.

For example, this morning, Fauci explained on ABC that his wearing masks indoors was about optics—not science. [read more]

The characterization of Fauci is right on.

The Fauci saga continues….

• Fauci wears mask outside two days in a row, despite telling vaccinated people to ‘put aside your mask’
• Fauci Privately Advised Obama Staffers To NOT Wear Masks: ‘Not Effective’.
• Dr. Fauci is Finally Unmasked
• 11 Takeaways From Fauci’s Emails About COVID-19
• Fauci's Emails Expose His Lies About Masks in Stunning Fashion
• Anthony Fauci: Email About China Covering Up Coronavirus Death Rate Was ’Too Long’ to Read
• FAUCI EMAILS: Masks are 'not really effective,' advocated for school closures, knew virus could have been 'engineered'
• Fauci’s emails should put an end to the cult media built around him
• FAUCI GOES TO HOLLYWOOD: How Fauci Ensured His Life Legacy Was Documented While You Lost Yours
• It’s Clear Now Anthony Fauci Isn’t A Fool, He’s A Villain
• Anthony Fauci: Guilty Bureaucrat Extraordinaire