Illinois Democrat State Lawmaker Simulates Assassination Attempt of President Trump in Political Fundraiser

This is the left.

A political fundraiser for a Democrat state lawmaker in Illinois simulated an assassination attempt of a ‘mock’ Donald Trump.

Attendees to Illinois State Senator Martin Sandoval’s political fundraiser were able to carry out their Trump assassination porn fantasies this week.

“A political fundraiser for Senator Sandoval simulates an assassination attempt against a mock Donald Trump decked out in Mexican garb. Looks like a man pointed a fake assault weapon at the fake President to pose for a picture,” WCIA3 reporter, Mark Maxwell said in a Twitter post.

Sandoval later ‘apologized’ after outcry from social media users.

Social media users tagged Secret Service to alert them to what they perceived as a threat to President Trump.

“The incident that took place is unacceptable. I don’t condone violence toward the President or anyone else. I apologize that something like this happened at my event,” Sandoval said.

The post Illinois Democrat State Lawmaker Simulates Assassination Attempt of President Trump in Political Fundraiser appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com

HUGE!… MUELLER TEAM LIED! Attorney for Joseph Mifsud Confirms He is Western Intelligence Operative — And NOT a Russian Operative (VIDEO)

Investigative reporter John Solomon from The Hill joined Maria Bartiromo on Sunday Morning Futures this morning.

The two discussed John Solomon’s latest interview with CIA operative Joseph Mifsud’s attorneys.

According to Mr. Mifsud’s attorneys their client was working for the CIA and was NOT a Russian operative as reported by the Mueller witch hunt team of liars.

Maria Bartiromo: We know that there were informants thrown at certain Trump campaign people, like George Papadopoulos. George Papadopoulos was on this show and he told me directly on this show that Mifsud was the guy they wanted him to meet in Italy… That is the individual who told him that Russia has emails on Hillary Clinton. Why is that important, John?

John Solomon: Well, I interviewed Mr. Mifsud’s lawyer the other day, Stefan Rowe, and he told me and also provided me some deposition evidence to both Congress and myself that his client was being directed and long worked with Western intelligence. And he was being directed specifically, he was asked to connect George Papadopoulos to Russia, meaning it was an operation, some form of intelligence operation. That was the lawyer’s own words for this. If that’s the case that means the flash point the started the whole investigation was in fact manufactured from the beginning.

This is a HUGE development. ROBERT MUELLER and his band of angry Democrats lied in their final report on operative Joseph Mifsud.

Mifsud was NOT a Russian operative as the Mueller report claimed he was.
Mifsud worked for Western intelligence — and now his attorney has confirmed this!

Via Sunday Morning Futures:

The post HUGE!… MUELLER TEAM LIED! Attorney for Joseph Mifsud Confirms He is Western Intelligence Operative — And NOT a Russian Operative (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com

This Group Is Educating Young Americans About the Ills of Socialism

President Donald Trump has repeatedly promised, “America will never be a socialist country.”

Since Franklin Roosevelt began expanding government in the 1930s, the United States has increasingly adopted big-state policies associated with socialism.

We may not be at the stage Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., would advocate, but more millennials appear to favor a system under which they have never lived. Free stuff is appealing until one realizes its costs.

In an attempt to reach Generation Z—those in their teens and 20s—a new organization is starting this month to combat socialism’s appeal.

It’s called Young Americans Against Socialism (yaas.org), according to its site, a nonpartisan nonprofit “dedicated to exposing socialism’s failures to young Americans by creating viral educational videos for social media.”

Its founder, Morgan Zegers, worries that “more than half of young people believe socialism should be implemented in America.” The reason, she says, is because many of them know little about it.

Her campaign will be largely on social media where she notes young people spend hours every day.

“YAAS is taking the left’s tactics of injecting emotion into everything,” she says, “and throwing it right back in their faces.”

One YAAS video includes statements by two men. One, Raydel Armas, says he escaped Cuba by “windsurfing for 10 hours.” The other, Daniel Di Martino, a Venezuelan, challenges Sanders’ promotion of socialism.

Sanders is shown in a video from the ’70s in which he calls food lines in some countries “a good thing,” presumably referring to non-socialist countries. “The rich,” he claims, “get the food and the poor starve to death.”

Di Martino responds, “It wasn’t that I was rich; it was because politicians like him destroyed my country.”

Armas suggests young people who wear Che Guevara T-shirts are ignorant of history and of the number of people Guevara killed during and after the Cuban revolution.

Surveys back him up.

In a 2017 opinion column for The New York Post, Karol Markowicz cited a 2014 report by the National Assessment of Educational Progress that showed “an abysmal 18 percent of American high school kids were proficient in U.S. history. When colleges such as Stanford decline to require Western Civilization classes or high schools propose changing their curriculum so that history is taught only from 1877 onward … it’s merely a blip in our news cycle.”

Markowicz also noted a 2012 story in Perspectives on History magazine by University of North Carolina professor Bruce VanSledright, who found that “88% of elementary school teachers considered teaching history a low priority.”

While the reasons are varied, she says, “VanSledright
found that teachers didn’t focus on history because students aren’t tested on
it at the state level. Why teach something you can’t test?”

When history is taught, especially at many liberal universities, there is often a bias against America because of slavery and the “invasion” of white Europeans who killed and displaced Native Americans.

Markowicz concluded, “We talk often about how fractured our country has become. That our division increases while school kids are taught less and less about our shared history should come as no surprise.”

In her video, Zegers says, “Capitalism has lifted more
people out of poverty than any other economic system.” Even China, though
still officially communist and socialist, has had to adopt more of the
principles characteristic of capitalism to lift large numbers of people from
poverty.

Socialism has long needed pushback in America from those opposed to it. Trump has begun pointing out how harmful it is elsewhere.

Zegers hopes to target young Americans with testimonies from people who have lived under the reality of socialism.

(c) 2019 Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

The post This Group Is Educating Young Americans About the Ills of Socialism appeared first on The Daily Signal.

via The Daily Signal

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailysignal.com/

Student Group Flags Top 5 Instances of Campus Censorship of Conservatives

Why bother with a liberal arts education? Some students at a Washington university wanted to know, but their school administrators canceled a panel scheduled to debate the question. 

The cancellation, with no reason given, was one of the five biggest incidents of censorship of conservatives on college campuses in the past 12 months, Charlie Copeland, president of Intercollegiate Studies Institute, told The Daily Signal in a recent phone interview.

Here are the top five identified by Copeland as contrary to free speech and other First Amendment rights: 

1. Liberal Arts, but Not Liberal Discussion

Students affiliated with ISI at Gonzaga University in Spokane, Washington, which says it celebrates “a proud Jesuit liberal arts tradition,” planned a debate for last November on the importance of a liberal arts education.

Intercollegiate Studies Institute, a nonprofit organization that seeks to educate conservatives to become eloquent defenders of liberty, invited three professors to speak on a panel on the topic “Why Bother With a Liberal Arts Education?” 

ISI said George Mason University’s Bryan Caplan would argue that the study of liberal arts isn’t important, and Clemson University’s Brookes Brown would argue that it is important. Utah State University’s Harrison Kleiner was set as moderator. 

“This wasn’t a panel discussion where we had one opinion; it was going to be a discussion of the value, good or bad, of a liberal arts education,” Copeland, who also is a veteran Republican activist in Delaware, told The Daily Signal.

Yet, on Nov. 5, about three weeks before the scheduled event, the university informed ISI that it couldn’t approve the debate, without citing a reason. 

“We don’t have any idea why they didn’t want the debate to proceed,” Copeland said in a phone interview. “And then they further asked for the names of the students and faculty involved, which we perceived as a blacklist, so we didn’t give them that information.” 

On Nov. 6, the university told ISI that another, more high-profile event sponsored by Gonzaga’s dean was scheduled the same night, and the school didn’t want such conflicts. 

The university wouldn’t permit ISI to advertise on campus and didn’t provide any information on the conflicting event, Copeland said.

The students put on their panel discussion at a nearby hotel instead.

The censorship was “ironic,” Copeland said, given the university’s liberal arts background. 

A few months later, he said, Gonzaga allowed a student-hosted campaign event for Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., to take place, with no issues raised by the administration. 

Gonzaga provided this statement in response to an inquiry from The Daily Signal:

Gonzaga University hosts an array of speakers representing various political, religious and social perspectives each year.

With respect to the event proposed by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, our academic leadership reached out to ISI regarding the event to learn more about their plans. No acknowledgement or response was received.

As an independent, faith-based and nonprofit institution, Gonzaga University works every day to provide students with a broad range of intellectual thought, ideas and debate opportunities. We encourage our faculty and students to discuss the value of a liberal arts education–and they are well-prepared to do so.

Gonzaga also emphasized that the Sanders event was an informal, students-only gathering that occurred under conditions set by the school’s Student Development Division.

“Gonzaga University’s decision to host any speaker—past and future—does not imply endorsement of the speaker’s views,” spokeswoman Mary Joan Hahn said in an email.

2. Woke at Wake Forest 

When some perceived a fake campus campaign poster at Wake Forest University to be racist, student Jordan Lancaster called out fellow collegiates on Twitter for overreacting. 

Then she received death threats.

The phony poster in the campaign for student body president, the work of an unknown person or persons, read: “Build a wall between Wake Forest and Winston-Salem College.” 

Salem College, Wake Forest’s rival, also in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, traditionally has had a larger percentage of blacks in the student body. 

Wake Forest President Nathan O. Hatch sent a campus-wide email March 23 condemning the fake poster and announcing that a team led by the dean of students would investigate.

“The joke could certainly be argued as in poor taste,” ISI’s Copeland said, “but a student of ours [Lancaster] who wasn’t even in the United States at the time tweeted that the administration’s response was an overreaction.” He added:

Almost immediately, [Jordan] was doxed, she received death threats, one student said explicitly that she would have the girl’s head, basically because ‘the other school is not going to be played with.’ All of these are characteristically threatening, by any definition, and yet there was no response about that from the administration.

The College Fix reported that Winston-Salem students recommended on Twitter that Lancaster be “fired and expelled,” and called her employer and Wake Forest with complaints. 

Copeland said he thinks this outsized response was due to Wake Forest’s making a big deal out of the campaign poster in the first place.

“By the administration’s response at Wake Forest, creating a big racial incident out of that one comment, it all of a sudden became very touchy and polarized, and angry people started to respond,” Copeland said. “Whereas, had the administration just contacted the original student and told him it wasn’t funny, corrected his behavior, they likely could have solved the problem.”

“It’s an instance of when the adults in the room don’t act like adults. They allow angry members of society, on both the right and left, to overreact,” the ISI president said.

Wake Forest did not respond to The Daily Signal’s requests for comment.

3. Notre Whiteness

Copeland recalled how Notre Dame University held a panel discussion on “whiteness” during which faculty members expressed frustration with skin color as an “oppressive political condition.” 

The panel of four professors—three speakers and a moderator—was hosted in January by the mediation program of the Indiana university’s Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies. Copeland said he found this odd, since all speakers on the panel argued that whiteness is oppressive. 

“I’ve been in mediation before. It basically means you have one person on one side and one person on the other side, to reach common ground,” he said. “There was no mediation involved. Why the Kroc Institute for International Peace was involved in this, I don’t know.”

During the question-and-answer session, the ISI president said, a European man stood up to ask a question. 

“When he got to the microphone, one of the panelists, a faculty member, yelled out, ‘White power!’ and they took the microphone away,” Copeland said. “Now if you’re a white student at Notre Dame, how do you think that made you feel? Talk about oppressive.”

Copeland, who said some ISI students attended, said he found the premise of the panel of professors ironic:

Notre Dame is one of the most elite schools, and these people have reached the pinnacle of their career. They should be thankful, saying, ‘Look what I have achieved, it has allowed me to thrive.’ And instead we get moments like this, where they’re saying, ‘We are oppressed.’

Notre Dame did not respond to The Daily Signal’s requests for comment. 

4. Targeted at Michigan State 

When a student representative at Michigan State University included his student government position in his email signature, his fellow representatives tried to remove him from the elected position in February.

Copeland said that Sergei Kelly, a conservative student at MSU, had sent out an email to recruit more conservatives for student government, and included his position in the student legislature with his name. 

Some students said they were afraid Kelly’s use of that signature implied that the student government promoted conservative values at the school in East Lansing, Michigan. Copeland said:

He had in his email signature line that he is a member of student government, ASMSU [Associated Students of Michigan State University], which I imagine most students do. Well, some progressive students viewed this as him using it in an inappropriate way, and so they came up with a bill to get him removed from his elected position. Which would be a little bit like [House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi bringing a bill before Congress to get [Rep.] Mark Meadows kicked out of Congress.

Meadows, R-N.C., is chairman of the House Freedom Caucus, a group of conservative lawmakers.

Though the motion to remove Kelly did not succeed, the student assembly did pass a rules change. An inappropriate act now is defined as “physical violence, personal attacks of a severe and/or pervasive nature, harassment and discrimination,” or—in response to this flap—“the misrepresentation of a constituency.” 

Copeland pointed out that a student representative’s voting privileges already could be removed if the assembly finds that he or she has committed an inappropriate act.

“Because of the adding of that phrase, you’ve now equated physical violence—me punching you in the nose—as the same as my email saying I’m a member of student government,” Copeland said.

“The chamber defines that as a misrepresentation. It’s one thing to not hit somebody, but now I’m not even allowed to speak because the majority could say that in my speech I misrepresented my constituency.” 

This kind of censorship is what leads to “tyranny of the masses,” Copeland said.

“The rules are in place to protect the minority, because otherwise the majority could rule all the time,” he said. “It would be tyranny of the masses. Many of those people who fought those civil rights battles years ago are now in charge today, and they are reinstituting rules that allow for the tyranny of the majority, and that is a dangerous place for this country to go.”

In response to The Daily Signal’s request for comment, Michigan State University said it does not have a role in overseeing student government, and that the student government’s decisions are not subject to the university’s jurisdiction.

The Associated Students of Michigan State did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment.

5. Closed Doors at Pitzer

Pitzer College in Claremont, California, prohibited some student journalists from attending a student council vote that previously was to be open to the public, Copeland said.

The Pitzer College Council, composed of students and faculty, voted in March to suspend Pitzer’s only Israel study abroad program, in an effort to keep American money out of Israel in support of the pro-Palestinian BDS movement, which stands for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions. 

The college advertised the March 14 vote as an open meeting, and when the Claremont Independent initially called the college’s Office of Communications, it welcomed the student journalists to attend, Copeland said. 

“And then, when [the office] realized later it was a conservative student newspaper, they called back and said, ‘No, you cannot attend, it’s only for faculty, staff, and members of The Student Life staff,’” he said.

The Student Life is a publication funded by the student government. 

The Claremont Independent published a story March 13, the day before the meeting, saying that the college had prohibited its editors from attending. 

“They wanted to make certain that no external media attended. But [the Claremont Independent] is not external media—it’s an official club of the Claremont College Institute,” Copeland said.

The ISI leader suggested the student-faculty council actually withdrew the Claremont Independent’s invitation because it didn’t want a more conservative perspective in the room during the vote. 

“They didn’t want somebody in there that would say, ‘This is a bad idea,’ and force these brilliant faculty members to defend their position,” Copeland said.

The Pitzer Faculty Executive Committee offered this explanation: 

Due to limited seating for College Council, the Faculty Executive Committee (FEC) requested that attendance be limited to Pitzer faculty, staff and current students, and that reporters be limited to the official 5C paper, The Student Life. The Claremont Independent (CI) is privately funded. 

FEC also excluded the LA Times and other papers that have inquired about attendance to the meeting, along with Pitzer alumni who have asked to attend. If there were any current Pitzer student-reporters for the CI, they were welcome as members of our community. 

Pitzer’s senior director of communications and media relations, Anna Chang, said the Claremont Independent was informed after publishing the article that it could cover the meeting using reporters who were Pitzer students.

Both the Claremont Independent and The Student Life are staffed by students from all five Claremont colleges. 

“As far as the claim that our student editors were invited to attend, I can only go off what our student editors told me, and that was that they were banned from attending,” Copeland said. 

The post Student Group Flags Top 5 Instances of Campus Censorship of Conservatives appeared first on The Daily Signal.

via The Daily Signal

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailysignal.com/

Renewable Energy Hits the Wall

If the official definitions of renewable energy were logical, renewable energy would be defined as energy that does not emit CO2 and that is not using a resource in danger of running out anytime soon.  But the definitions written into the laws of many states are not logical.  Hydroelectric energy is mostly banned because the environmental movement hates dams.  Nuclear is banned because a hysterical fear of nuclear energy was created by environmental groups.  Both nuclear and hydro don’t emit CO2.  Hydro doesn’t need fuel.  Nuclear fuel is cheap and plentiful.  A large number of prominent global warming activists, such as James Hansen, Michael Shellenberger, and Stewart Brand have declared that nuclear is the only solution for the crisis that they imagine is approaching.

For those of us who don’t take global warming seriously, there is nothing wrong with using coal and natural gas to generate electricity.  The CO2 emitted helps plants to grow better with less water, a great help to agriculture.

In approximately thirty states that mandate renewable energy, the only scalable forms of renewable energy allowed are wind and solar.  California mandates that 60% of its electricity come from renewable energy by 2030.  Nevada mandates 50% by 2030.  There are other types of official renewable energy, but they can’t be easily scaled up.  Examples are geothermal energy, wave energy, and garbage dump methane.

Wind and solar are erratic sources of energy.  The output depends on the weather.  Solar doesn’t work at night.  Because they are erratic, there have to be backup plants, generally natural gas plants, that balance the erratic flow of electricity from wind or solar.  The backup plants increase output when renewable energy output declines and vice versa.  Because both wind and solar are subjected to periods of near zero output, the backup system has to be able to carry the entire load of the electric grid without the wind or solar.  Neither wind nor solar can replace conventional plants.  If you hear that a utility is replacing fossil fuel plants with wind or solar, that can’t happen.  The most that can happen is that the fossil fuel plants will use less fuel when the wind or solar is generating electricity.  For a natural gas plant, the gas to generate a megawatt-hour of electricity costs about $20.  That $20 is the economic value of each megawatt-hour generated by wind or solar.  Unsubsidized, wind or solar electricity, either one, costs about $80 a megawatt-hour to generate.  The difference between $80 and $20 is the subsidy that has to be paid in order to use wind or solar.

As long as the percentage of electricity that comes from wind or solar is small, the grid can handle the erratic nature of that electricity.  But if the penetration becomes large, severe problems start to emerge.  Solar power is strongest in the middle of the day and weakens toward the end of the day.  But the late afternoon and early evening, when solar is dying, are when power usage peaks in many locations.  The graph below shows how the sun’s strength varied in Las Vegas for July 2018.

The output of wind farms varies rapidly.  The graph below is for the Texas wind system, with thousands of wind turbines.  In one hour, the output can change by more than 3,000 megawatts.

The problem with increasing the penetration of wind or solar to 50% or 60% of electricity generation is that there will be periods when there is too much electricity from wind or solar.  In that case, the grid operator will order that the wind or solar power be curtailed.  If you cut the output of a wind or solar plant, the power not generated is lost forever.  Further, curtailing the renewable energy works against meeting the mandate of 50% or 60% renewable energy.  For various technical reasons, it is increasingly difficult to utilize erratic renewable energy as the penetration increases.  Backup fossil fuel plants have trouble rapidly changing their output.  The geographical distribution of sources of generation impacts the capability of the transmission network.  The network has to have spinning reserve capability so that the sudden failure of a plant doesn’t create a blackout.

In Nevada, the Gemini project is in the approval process.  It is a 700-megawatt (nameplate) solar plant with an associated battery system that can store 1,400 megawatt-hours of electricity, allowing electricity to be moved from midday, when there may be too much solar electricity, to the late afternoon, early evening, when it is needed.  The problem is that batteries are very costly for moving electricity.  A megawatt-hour of solar electricity that costs, unsubsidized, $80 during the day ends up costing $270 when moved to the early evening via a battery, based on costs from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.  The $270 includes the cost of replacing the battery every five years.  The batteries have to be air-conditioned; otherwise, they will wear out even faster than in five years.  If the day is cloudy, there will be no solar energy, and the battery can’t be charged.  Backup plants will take care of supplying electricity on cloudy days.  Use of batteries with wind is more difficult because there are long periods with too much or not enough electricity.

The renewable energy industry is asking its friends in Congress to extend subsidies for another five years and to add new subsidies for energy storage (batteries).  Producing CO2-free electricity for $270 a megawatt-hour that needs a duplicate set of backup plants makes no sense because nuclear could supply CO2-free electricity for $80 without needing backup plants.  Battery electricity demands large subsidies.

Another side-effect of increasing the penetration of wind and solar is that backup natural gas generating plants generate only half as much electricity if the penetration of renewables is increased to 50%.  The cost of electricity from a natural gas plant mainly consists of the capital cost of the plant spread over the megawatt-hours generated during the life of the plant and the cost of the fuel to generate each megawatt-hour.  Typical combined cycle natural gas plants operate at a capacity factor of about 50%.  That means they generate 50% of what they could generate if they ran at full power 100% all the time.  At 50%, the cost of the electricity is about half capital cost and half fuel cost.  If the capacity factor is cut in half, the capital cost doubles, increasing the cost of the electricity from underutilized plants.  Roughly, the cost of gas electricity will increase from $50 to $70 per megawatt-hour if renewable penetration increases to 50%.

Wind and solar are basically a waste of money.  The subsidies can be justified only as a payment for reducing CO2 emissions.  But wind and solar are expensive devices for reducing emissions.  It cost about $140 in subsidies per metric ton of CO2 emissions avoided.  Using nuclear or buying carbon offsets is a much cheaper solution.

Norman Rogers writes often about energy.  He has a website: Nevada Solar Scam.  He is the author of the book Dumb Energy: A Critique of Wind and Solar Energy.

If the official definitions of renewable energy were logical, renewable energy would be defined as energy that does not emit CO2 and that is not using a resource in danger of running out anytime soon.  But the definitions written into the laws of many states are not logical.  Hydroelectric energy is mostly banned because the environmental movement hates dams.  Nuclear is banned because a hysterical fear of nuclear energy was created by environmental groups.  Both nuclear and hydro don’t emit CO2.  Hydro doesn’t need fuel.  Nuclear fuel is cheap and plentiful.  A large number of prominent global warming activists, such as James Hansen, Michael Shellenberger, and Stewart Brand have declared that nuclear is the only solution for the crisis that they imagine is approaching.

For those of us who don’t take global warming seriously, there is nothing wrong with using coal and natural gas to generate electricity.  The CO2 emitted helps plants to grow better with less water, a great help to agriculture.

In approximately thirty states that mandate renewable energy, the only scalable forms of renewable energy allowed are wind and solar.  California mandates that 60% of its electricity come from renewable energy by 2030.  Nevada mandates 50% by 2030.  There are other types of official renewable energy, but they can’t be easily scaled up.  Examples are geothermal energy, wave energy, and garbage dump methane.

Wind and solar are erratic sources of energy.  The output depends on the weather.  Solar doesn’t work at night.  Because they are erratic, there have to be backup plants, generally natural gas plants, that balance the erratic flow of electricity from wind or solar.  The backup plants increase output when renewable energy output declines and vice versa.  Because both wind and solar are subjected to periods of near zero output, the backup system has to be able to carry the entire load of the electric grid without the wind or solar.  Neither wind nor solar can replace conventional plants.  If you hear that a utility is replacing fossil fuel plants with wind or solar, that can’t happen.  The most that can happen is that the fossil fuel plants will use less fuel when the wind or solar is generating electricity.  For a natural gas plant, the gas to generate a megawatt-hour of electricity costs about $20.  That $20 is the economic value of each megawatt-hour generated by wind or solar.  Unsubsidized, wind or solar electricity, either one, costs about $80 a megawatt-hour to generate.  The difference between $80 and $20 is the subsidy that has to be paid in order to use wind or solar.

As long as the percentage of electricity that comes from wind or solar is small, the grid can handle the erratic nature of that electricity.  But if the penetration becomes large, severe problems start to emerge.  Solar power is strongest in the middle of the day and weakens toward the end of the day.  But the late afternoon and early evening, when solar is dying, are when power usage peaks in many locations.  The graph below shows how the sun’s strength varied in Las Vegas for July 2018.

The output of wind farms varies rapidly.  The graph below is for the Texas wind system, with thousands of wind turbines.  In one hour, the output can change by more than 3,000 megawatts.

The problem with increasing the penetration of wind or solar to 50% or 60% of electricity generation is that there will be periods when there is too much electricity from wind or solar.  In that case, the grid operator will order that the wind or solar power be curtailed.  If you cut the output of a wind or solar plant, the power not generated is lost forever.  Further, curtailing the renewable energy works against meeting the mandate of 50% or 60% renewable energy.  For various technical reasons, it is increasingly difficult to utilize erratic renewable energy as the penetration increases.  Backup fossil fuel plants have trouble rapidly changing their output.  The geographical distribution of sources of generation impacts the capability of the transmission network.  The network has to have spinning reserve capability so that the sudden failure of a plant doesn’t create a blackout.

In Nevada, the Gemini project is in the approval process.  It is a 700-megawatt (nameplate) solar plant with an associated battery system that can store 1,400 megawatt-hours of electricity, allowing electricity to be moved from midday, when there may be too much solar electricity, to the late afternoon, early evening, when it is needed.  The problem is that batteries are very costly for moving electricity.  A megawatt-hour of solar electricity that costs, unsubsidized, $80 during the day ends up costing $270 when moved to the early evening via a battery, based on costs from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.  The $270 includes the cost of replacing the battery every five years.  The batteries have to be air-conditioned; otherwise, they will wear out even faster than in five years.  If the day is cloudy, there will be no solar energy, and the battery can’t be charged.  Backup plants will take care of supplying electricity on cloudy days.  Use of batteries with wind is more difficult because there are long periods with too much or not enough electricity.

The renewable energy industry is asking its friends in Congress to extend subsidies for another five years and to add new subsidies for energy storage (batteries).  Producing CO2-free electricity for $270 a megawatt-hour that needs a duplicate set of backup plants makes no sense because nuclear could supply CO2-free electricity for $80 without needing backup plants.  Battery electricity demands large subsidies.

Another side-effect of increasing the penetration of wind and solar is that backup natural gas generating plants generate only half as much electricity if the penetration of renewables is increased to 50%.  The cost of electricity from a natural gas plant mainly consists of the capital cost of the plant spread over the megawatt-hours generated during the life of the plant and the cost of the fuel to generate each megawatt-hour.  Typical combined cycle natural gas plants operate at a capacity factor of about 50%.  That means they generate 50% of what they could generate if they ran at full power 100% all the time.  At 50%, the cost of the electricity is about half capital cost and half fuel cost.  If the capacity factor is cut in half, the capital cost doubles, increasing the cost of the electricity from underutilized plants.  Roughly, the cost of gas electricity will increase from $50 to $70 per megawatt-hour if renewable penetration increases to 50%.

Wind and solar are basically a waste of money.  The subsidies can be justified only as a payment for reducing CO2 emissions.  But wind and solar are expensive devices for reducing emissions.  It cost about $140 in subsidies per metric ton of CO2 emissions avoided.  Using nuclear or buying carbon offsets is a much cheaper solution.

Norman Rogers writes often about energy.  He has a website: Nevada Solar Scam.  He is the author of the book Dumb Energy: A Critique of Wind and Solar Energy.

via American Thinker

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/

Parental Nightmares in Public Schools

Via Newsbusters: Public schools are reopening for business across America, meaning it’s time to get back to reading, writing, arithmetic….and revolution. As usual in matters such as these, California is leading the way. On the first day of classes at Denair Middle School near Modesto science teacher Luis Davila Alvarado handed out worksheets from a […]

via Weasel Zippers

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.weaselzippers.us

Greenland Deserves the Attention Trump Is Giving It

The recent media reports that President Donald Trump is interested in purchasing Greenland for the United States has brought the unlikely country into the world’s headlines.

Taking advantage of the limelight, Greenland’s government tweeted, “We’re open for business, not for sale.”

Buying options aside, this newfound attention—however short-lived—can only be positive for Greenland.

Greenland is a very important U.S. partner with a long and rich history. It was first discovered by Vikings in the 10th century, and was ruled by the Kingdom of Denmark and Norway until 1814. That year, the Treaty of Kiel transferred ownership to the Kingdom of Denmark after the union between Norway and Denmark ended.

Geographically, and to a certain extent culturally,
Greenland is part of North America—although much of its economic and historical
links are with Europe.

Today, Greenland is an autonomous
constituent
country of the Kingdom of Denmark. Greenland was granted home rule
in 1979 and self-government
in 2009.
It has competency over most policy areas, with the big exceptions
being foreign affairs, defense, and monetary policy—all of which are still
controlled by Copenhagen.

A Danish warship patrols Greenland’s waters. (Photo: Luke Coffey)

There is a strong desire in Greenland for full
independence—especially among Greenland’s political elite. Only one political
party does not support independence (and that party holds only one seat in the
31-seat parliament).

For Greenland, the question is not if it will become
independent, but when and how.

Few inside Greenland’s government think it is ready now,
but Denmark’s official position is that Greenland can become independent
whenever it pleases.

After Germany invaded Denmark in 1940, the U.S. quickly
deployed forces to protect Greenland from Nazi Germany. Ever since, the U.S.
has maintained a military presence on the island.

In 1946, the Truman administration tried, unsuccessfully,
to
buy the entire island
from Denmark for $100 million. The U.S. was, however,
granted long-term access to important military sites.

Today, the main U.S. military presence is at Thule Air Base
in the north of the country. Thule also serves as a very important early
warning radar and satellite tracking station for the protection of the U.S.
homeland.

So while the U.S.-Greenland security relationship is already
good, U.S. policymakers should use the president’s newfound interest in
Greenland to advance closer economic relations with the country and expand
America’s diplomatic presence there.

Greenland has surprisingly few economic links with North America, given its geographical proximity.

For instance, there are currently no direct flights from
the U.S. to Greenland. The few direct flights that existed in the past were not
profitable. The fishing industry accounts for 95% of Greenland’s exports, but
only 1% of that goes to the U.S.

The container port at Sikuki Nuuk Harbor in Greenland. (Photo: Luke Coffey)

Greenland is making a conscious effort to change this
lack of connection with North America. Greenland’s national sea carrier, Royal
Arctic Line, will be starting
a weekly shipping service
to Portland, Maine, later this year, and
Greenland’s government has been meeting with Maine government officials about
increasing economic links.

The only way to fly commercially to Greenland is from Iceland or Denmark, but that could change in the coming years. Greenland is set to begin construction on three new airports this year, to be finished in 2023 (in Qaqortoq, in the south; in Nuuk, the capital; and in Ilulissat, in the north).

Greenland’s government hopes the new airports will allow direct flights from North America and open up new opportunities for business and tourism.

The U.S. is also making new initiatives.

After years of putting it on the back burner, the Trump administration recently announced that the U.S. will maintain a part-time diplomatic presence in Greenland. This is something The Heritage Foundation has been calling for. While this is a very welcome first step, over time this should become an enduring and permanent presence.

The U.S. once had a consulate in Greenland, from 1940 to the early 1950s. Greenland is in America’s backyard and a critical part of America’s security architecture.

The building that served as the U.S. Consulate in Greenland from 1940 to 1953 still stands today. (Photo: Luke Coffey)

An expanded U.S. diplomatic presence would demonstrate
that the U.S. takes Greenland at a level of seriousness proportionate to its
role in America’s security. It would also give the U.S. government a depth of
situational awareness not possible without a consulate.

In all the hubbub over whether or not Trump really wants
to buy Greenland, there’s been very little discussion about whether that would
be a good idea even if it were possible. In particular, nobody is discussing the
financial burden that being responsible for Greenland would place on the U.S.

Approximately 55% of the Greenlandic government’s budget currently comes from Denmark in the form of a block grant. Moreover, no two cities or towns in Greenland are connected by a road, making travel and economic activity very difficult and expensive. And, many of the same social problems found in similar remote communities in Alaska are also found in Greenland, such as alcoholism and high suicide rates.

As things currently stand, none of these costs could be
offset by the profitable exploitation of natural resources as some suggest. The
harsh environmental conditions and the lack of transport infrastructure limits
the ability to take advantage of Greenland’s natural resources.

While there’s been much talk of Greenland’s mineral and
natural resources, the fact is that there are currently only two active mines
in Greenland: the Aappaluttoq ruby mine and the Qaqortorsuaq anorthosite mine.
Neither are swimming in profit.  

To put it simply, the U.S. doesn’t need to buy Greenland. A country like ours that is drowning in $22.5 trillion in national debt must prioritize its spending.

The U.S. is already able to leverage its great relationship with Greenland and Denmark, and the U.S. enjoys access to Thule Air Base. Our strategic interests can be met without “purchasing” Greenland. 

Downtown Nuuk, the largest and capital city of Greenland. (Photo: Luke Coffey)

It is impossible to know what Trump’s true opinion is on
Greenland one way or the other, but with his upcoming trip to Denmark, I am
sure this matter will be raised.

In the end, who knows how much truth is in these media reports? After all, August is a slow month for media outlets. They could have been scrounging for “clicks.”

This is not the 19th century, and Greenland is not for sale. Regardless what the Greenlanders choose—either remaining with Denmark, or becoming an independent nation—the U.S. should respect Greenland’s right to self-determination and continue to deepen relations.

Ultimately, it is up to the people of Greenland to
determine how and by whom they wish to be governed.

The post Greenland Deserves the Attention Trump Is Giving It appeared first on The Daily Signal.

via The Daily Signal

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailysignal.com/

Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar’s Botched Israel Trip Was Sponsored by Terror-Linked Organization

Reps. Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar’s cancelled trip to Israel was sponsored by a Palestinian-based organization whose members have expressed sympathy for terrorist activities and support the BDS movement.

The Israeli government announced Thursday it would not allow Tlaib, D-Mich., and Omar, D-Minn., to enter its borders for a planned trip into Palestinian territory, citing the two lawmakers’ support for the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. Under Israeli law, anyone who supports the boycott of Israel may be banned from the country.

dailycallerlogo

“The decision has been made, the decision is not to allow them to enter,” Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely said to Israel’s Reshet Radio Thursday.

Tlaib had been planning the congressional delegation since at least December 2018, according to an invitation sent to other U.S. lawmakers that year. The trip to the West Bank and Jerusalem was intended to last from Aug. 17 to 22, and act as an alternative to the AIPAC-led delegations for lawmakers who are friendlier to Israel.

The trip was sponsored by the Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Dialogue and Democracy, better known as MIFTAH.

Despite billing itself as a peaceful organization dedicated to promoting Palestine’s democratic institutions, MIFTAH for years has carried notable ties to terrorist sympathizers, has openly accused Israel of atrocities, and supports the boycott of Israeli products.

Hanan Ashrawi, the founder and chair of the MIFTAH board of directors, brushed off Palestinian terrorist attacks during a January 2017 interview by saying they are “seen by the people as resistance. And you cannot somehow adopt the language of either the international community or the occupier by describing anybody who resists as terrorists.”

MIFTAH’s own website describes Wafa Idrees, a female suicide bomber, as one of a few young women who chose to “join the ranks of the resistance movement.” Idrees detonated herself in January 2002, killing an 81-year-old and wounding another 150 Israelis.

MIFTAH was forced to retract and apologize in 2013 for an article published on its website that accused the Jewish people of using “the blood of Christians in the Jewish Passover.” The Ramallah-based organization had originally defended the writing, but reversed course amid massive outcry.

The Palestinian group holds membership with the Aman Coalition, which has accused Israel of “stealing” and having “racist goals,” according to the NGO Monitor. MIFTAH is also a member of the Palestinian NGO Network, which has refused to add its signature to the anti-terror clause, a condition for U.S. government funding.

These details were not lost on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“[T]he itinerary of the two Congresswomen reveals that the sole purpose of their visit is to harm Israel and increase incitement against it,” the prime minister wrote in a statement published Thursday. “In addition, the organization that is funding their trip is MIFTAH, which is an avid supporter of BDS, and among whose members are those who have expressed support for terrorism against Israel.”

“Therefore, the minister of interior has decided not to allow their visit, and I, as prime minister, support his decision,” Netanyahu continued.

Sponsorship of Omar and Tlaib’s now-botched trip was not the first for MIFTAH. The organization sponsored a trip for a group of Democratic lawmakers in 2016, where they met with an alleged member of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a terrorist organization.

MIFTAH did not respond to a request for comment regarding this article, nor did spokesmen for Tlaib’s and Omar’s offices.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities for this original content, email licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

The post Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar’s Botched Israel Trip Was Sponsored by Terror-Linked Organization appeared first on The Daily Signal.

via The Daily Signal

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailysignal.com/

Good Guy With Gun Comes To Rescue Of Female Store Clerk Being Attacked By Robber

Another one of those stories that Democrats claims doesn’t happen. Watch as Man Who Viciously Beat Female Store Clerk Is Held at Gunpoint By an Armed Bystander; This Occurred on August 8th In Wenatchee, Washington #2A pic.twitter.com/mKmxweDoMT — GrantB911 (@GrantB911) August 15, 2019

via Weasel Zippers

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.weaselzippers.us

Epstein’s Own Lawyers Revolt, Move to Challenge Autopsy Conclusion

Lawyers for late financier Jeffrey Epstein are not happy with the autopsy conclusion of the New York City medical examiner’s office and have issued a challenge demanding answers and accountability. The chief medical examiner concluded that Epstein hung himself in his own jail cell, ending his life. Several question marks still hover over the controversial…

The post Epstein’s Own Lawyers Revolt, Move to Challenge Autopsy Conclusion appeared first on Conservative Tribune.

via Conservative Tribune

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.westernjournal.com/ct