Month: June 2019

Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas is, once again, under attack.

And, once again, the attacks are from liberals who cannot tolerate Thomas’ consistent, unyielding and faithful commitment to America’s founding principles.

The latest concerns Thomas’ 20-page opinion offered up in Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, recently considered by the Supreme Court.

Planned Parenthood challenged Indiana law prohibiting abortion for reasons of sex, race or non-life threatening deformity. 

The challenge was upheld in district court and the law overturned. However, the Supreme Court chose not to rule on the matter for procedural reasons, turning it back to be heard on appeal at the district level.

But Justice Thomas used the occasion to write an extended opinion on this important abortion case because the principles involved are too important to ignore for America’s present and for our future.

According to the Indiana law as enacted, doctors must inform women that “Indiana does not allow a fetus to be aborted solely because the fetus’s race, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, or diagnosis or potential diagnosis of the fetus having Down syndrome or any other disability.”

What liberal would ever tolerate American law protecting this type of discrimination?

Yet these same liberals are adamant that abortion for these same reasons is just fine.

Thomas seized on what is obvious, writing, “Enshrining a constitutional right to an abortion based solely on the race, sex, or disability of an unborn child, as Planned Parenthood advocates, would constitutionalize the views of the 20th- century eugenics movement.”

The eugenics movement advocated public policies to manipulate the population to produce what is deemed to be a public that is genetically superior.

In other words, bureaucrats decide the value of human beings — who’s worthwhile to have around and who’s not.

You would think that such ideas would produce outcries from liberals.

But what is producing outcries from them is that Clarence Thomas suggests that abortion based on these criteria makes abortion a tool for eugenics.

Thomas documents the sympathies of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, for the eugenics movement. And although Thomas notes that Sanger’s sympathies for abortion were less clear, he points out that the sympathies of later Planned Parenthood President Alan Guttmacher for abortion as a eugenics policy tool were clear.

And he gets to the heart of the matter at the conclusion of his opinion: “Although the court declines to wade into these issues today, we cannot avoid them forever. Having created the constitutional right to abortion, this Court is dutybound to address its scope. … The constitution itself is silent on abortion.”

The nation’s founders explained in the preamble to the Constitution that we “do ordain and establish this Constitution” to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”

Our Constitution was conceived to protect our liberty, not invent it.

In his dissenting opinion in the Obergefell v. Hodges case in which the Supreme Court legalized same sex marriage, Thomas wrote: “Since well before 1787, liberty has been understood as freedom from government action, not entitlement to government benefits. … the majority … rejects the idea — captured in the Declaration of Independence — that human dignity is innate and suggests instead that it comes from the Government.”

Liberals cried “foul” when Thomas rightly observed that abortion based on race, sex or disability amounts to giving constitutional protection to the eugenics movement because he struck the highly sensitive note that liberals want to stand in God’s place.

Liberals defining life inevitably leads to them deciding who lives and who dies.

America’s founders were more humble. They saw the source of our right to life, liberty and property as God.  

This strikes at the core of what divides our nation today.

Are we a nation under God, as Clarence Thomas believes, or a nation defined and run by liberals and bureaucrats?

COPYRIGHT 2019 CREATORS.COM

The post Clarence Thomas Shows Left’s Hypocrisy on Discrimination 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/

This past weekend, Americans learned of another mass shooting, this time by an employee who decided to murder as many of the people he had worked with for years as possible. As of this writing, the murder toll is 12 people.

Every American asks why. What was the killer’s motive? When we read there is “no known motive,” we are frustrated. Human beings want to make sense of life, especially of evil.

Liberals (in this regard, liberals’ views are essentially as the same as leftists’) are virtually united in ascribing these shootings to guns. Just this past weekend, in a speech in Brazil, former President Barack Obama told an audience:

“Our gun laws in the United States don’t make much sense. Anybody can buy any weapon any time — without much, if any, regulation. They can buy (guns) over the internet. They can buy machine guns.”

That the former president fabricated a series of falsehoods about the United States — and maligned, on foreign soil, the country that twice elected him president — speaks to his character and to the character of the American news media that have been completely silent about these falsehoods. But the main point here is that, like other liberals and leftists, when Obama addresses the subject of mass shootings — in Brazil, he had been talking about the children murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary School in 2012 — he talks about guns.

Yet, America had plenty of guns when its mass murder rate was much lower. Grant Duwe, a Ph.D. in criminology and director of research and evaluation at the Minnesota Department of Corrections, gathered data going back 100 years in his 2007 book, “Mass Murder in the United States: A History.”

Duwe’s data reveal:

In the 20th century, every decade before the 1970s had fewer than 10 mass public shootings. In the 1950s, for example, there was one mass shooting. And then a steep rise began. In the 1960s, there were six mass shootings. In the 1970s, the number rose to 13. In the 1980s, the number increased 2 1/2 times, to 32. And it rose again in the 1990s, to 42. As for this century, The New York Times reported in 2014 that, according to the FBI, “Mass shootings have risen drastically in the past half-dozen years.”

Given the same ubiquity of guns, wouldn’t the most productive question be what, if anything, has changed since the 1960s and ’70s? Of course it would. And a great deal has changed. America is much more ethnically diverse, much less religious. Boys have far fewer male role models in their lives. Fewer men marry, and normal boy behavior is largely held in contempt by their feminist teachers, principals and therapists. Do any or all of those factors matter more than the availability of guns?

Let’s briefly investigate each factor.                

Regarding ethnic diversity, the countries that not only have the fewest mass murders but the lowest homicide rates as well are the least ethnically diverse — such as Japan and nearly all European countries. So, too, the American states that have homicide rates as low as Western European countries are the least ethnically and racially diverse (the four lowest are New Hampshire, North Dakota, Maine and Idaho). Now, America, being the most ethnically and racially diverse country in the world, could still have low homicide rates if a) Americans were Americanized, but the left has hyphenated — Balkanized, if you will — Americans, and b) most black males grew up with fathers.

Regarding religiosity, the left welcomes — indeed, seeks —
the end of Christianity in America (though not of Islam, whose robustness it
fosters). Why don’t we ask a simple question: What percentage of American
murderers attend church each week?

Regarding boys’ need for fathers, in 2008, then-Sen. Obama told an audience: “Children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools; and 20 times more likely to end up in prison.”

Yet, the Times has published columns and “studies” showing how relatively unimportant fathers are, and more and more educated women believe this dangerous nonsense.

Then there is marriage: Nearly all men who murder are single. And their number is increasing.

Finally, since the 1960s, we have been living in a culture of grievance. Whereas in the past people generally understood that life is hard and/or they have to work on themselves to improve their lives, for half a century, the left has drummed into Americans’ minds the belief that their difficulties are caused by American society — in particular, its sexism, racism and patriarchy. And the more aggrieved people are the more dulled their consciences.

When you don’t ask intelligent questions, you cannot come up with intelligent answers. So, then, with regard to murder in America, until Americans stop allowing the left to ask the questions, we will have no intelligent answers.

COPYRIGHT 2019 CREATORS.COM

The post Why So Many Mass Shootings? Ask the Right Questions and You Might Find Out 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/

Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., unleashed a scathing statement on the House floor on
May 22, in which she attacked conservatives and pro-life Americans, accusing
them of hypocrisy and inconsistency, among other things.

She was responding to the wave of pro-life bills that have
recently swept state legislatures. And she was wrong, point after point.

Here are threee ways she showed she doesn’t understand pro-life Americans and religious liberty.

1. Pro-Life Americans are not theocrats.

Omar began:

Religious fundamentalists are currently trying to manipulate state laws in order to impose their beliefs on an entire society, all with complete disregard for voices and the rights of American women. The recent efforts like those in Alabama and Georgia are only the latest in a long history of efforts to criminalize women for simply existing. To punish us, when we don’t confirm to their attempts to control us. But because it’s happening here, with the support of the ultra-conservative religious right, we call it religious freedom.

Omar here is saying that people who advocate for the unborn through legislation (like the abortion bans passed in Alabama and Georgia) are simply religious people trying to impose their beliefs on society under the guise of religious freedom. It’s unclear if the attack here is mostly on pro-life advocates or religious liberty advocates.

While these groups overlap, they aren’t always one and the same.
I know pro-life folks who are pro-life because of science, not religion, and I
know religious freedom advocates who aren’t religious at all themselves.

What is clear is that
she was attacking religious freedom, smearing it as a crusade aimed at
discrimination and misogyny against women.

We’ve seen a bevy of cases in recent years stemming from religious liberty—whether it be a cake baker wishing to obey his conscience, or the effort to dismantle a WWI veteran’s memorial simply because it is shaped like a cross. These are hardly efforts to “control” women. Rather, they are rooted in the freedoms protected by the First Amendment.

Religious liberty is a hot topic today, but it is a core element of our nation’s founding. In fact, it’s why America began in the first place: because Puritans wanted a place to worship freely.

But Omar didn’t even see fit to give a nod to that heritage.

2. Pro-life Americans have a huge track record of caring for mothers and children.

Omar went on to impugn the motives of religious conservatives,
accusing them not only of not caring for the unborn, but for mothers and
children:

Let’s just be honest. For the religious right, this isn’t simply about their care or concern for life. If they cared about or were concerned about children, they would be concerned about the children who are being detained and dying in camps across our border, or the children who are languishing in hunger and facing homelessness.

This is a lie the left has perpetuated for decades. While it is
true that Roe v. Wade ignited a wave of activism that created optics centered
on defending the unborn, the fact is that pro-life Americans care about the
whole life—born and unborn. And the data prove it.

In 2018, 2 million women were served through pregnancy resource centers, according to the Charlotte Lozier Institute. These centers exist not just to keep a woman from aborting, but to help a woman should she decide to raise the baby or put the baby up for adoption.

When the Supreme Court heard NIFLA v. Becerralast year—a case dealing with pregnancy
resource centers—the Catholic Association filed a brief showing how the lives of 13 women had been
transformed because of the aid they received from pregnancy centers in
California.

As far as children “languishing in hunger and facing
homelessness” go, research shows that faith-based adoption
agencies “have been a cornerstone of the child welfare
system for decades.” Aid organizations like the Red Cross, Compassion International,
and Bethany Services all have religious roots, showing that religious people
have cared for the neediest, most helpless among us for decades.

Also, consider that Alabama—the state that just banned abortion—recently set a new record in adoptions.

3. Pro-life Americans are not forcing religion on anyone.

Finally, Omar accused religious liberty advocates of being
duplicitous.

I am frustrated every single time I hear
people speaking about their personal faith and pushing that onto other people
because we know those so-called religious politicians when it comes to their
life, their choices, they want to talk about freedom. But when it comes to
other people’s lives and other people’s choices, they want to talk about
religion.

People who passionately advocate for the unborn are often accused of trying to push their faith onto others, but nothing could be further from the truth.

Omar suggested pro-life legislators are passing six-week
abortion bans in the name of religious freedom. But this is also untrue. The
right to “free exercise” of religion is, of course, vitally important, but a
six-week abortion ban is not dependent upon religion. Science itself makes the
case against abortion. Life is a right, and if life begins at conception, these
unborn babies deserve legal protection afforded to them by the state.

Furthermore, Christian conservatives do not enter the political arena for selfish reasons. They don’t advocate for their own liberties and no one else’s, so that they can reap the benefits and pass down punitive measures to everyone else who isn’t religious. That’s simply not true, and it would be unchristian.

There are multiple organizations peppered across the United States—the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, Alliance Defending Freedom, and First Liberty, to name a few—which go to bat for religious people in court, not because their rights are preeminent but because they are often marginalized and discriminated in our day (see the Masterpiece Cakeshop case).

In fact, here’s a comprehensive list from 2011-2017 of discrimination cases against religious people, not the other way around.

Omar has the right to represent her constituents in Minnesota,
but the arguments she made in this brief speech are horrendously flawed,
unsubstantiated, and for the most part, plain smears against conservatives
meant for show.

The post Here Are 3 Gaping Errors Ilhan Omar Made in Attacking Pro-Life Advocates and Religious Liberty 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/

A federal judge in Washington, D.C., on Monday ruled against House Democrats who tried to block the Trump administration from reallocating Defense Department funds for a border wall.

U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden said the House of Representatives does not have standing to bring the challenge, calling it a political fight between two branches.

“While the Constitution bestows upon members of the House many powers, it does not grant them standing to hale the executive branch into court claiming a dilution of Congress’s legislative authority,” McFadden’s decision reads.

President Donald Trump declared a national emergency at the southern border in February, and reprogrammed almost $6 billion to build a border wall. In addition to the $1.4 billion appropriation Congress authorized for border barriers, the administration sequentially reallocated $600 million from the Treasury Department’s forfeiture fund, $2.5 billion from Defense Department counter-narcotics activities, and $3.6 billion from military construction.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats challenged the latter two reallocations, saying the administration’s move harmed Congress’s institutional power. They accused Trump of violating the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Constitution’s appropriations clause, which gives Congress the power of the purse.

Though courts have allowed legislatures to bring cases alleging an institutional injury before, McFadden said those few instances involved episodes in which legislative power was effectively nullified. The judge said precedent, historical practice, and current conditions show Congress has many tools to block whatever steps the administration takes to reprogram money for the border wall.

First and foremost, McFadden noted, Congress could override Trump’s veto of a resolution overturning his national emergency declaration. Similarly, it could hold hearings on administration spending priorities, amend appropriations laws to prohibit the use of federal dollars for border wall construction, or expand remedies for private parties who sue the government to block the project. (RELATED: Supreme Court Turns Down Trump Administration Bid To Accelerate DACA Appeal)

“The availability of these institutional remedies shows that there is no ‘complete nullification’ of the House’s power,” McFadden wrote.

“Congress has several political arrows in its quiver to counter perceived threats to its sphere of power,” McFadden explained elsewhere in the decision. “These tools show that this lawsuit is not a last resort for the House. And this fact is also exemplified by the many other cases across the country challenging the administration’s planned construction of the border wall.”

Though Monday’s decision is a win for the Trump administration, a federal judge in California temporarily prohibited the government from shifting funds from other programs to pay for the border wall in May.

The Department of Justice welcomed Monday’s decision, and promised to vindicate the president’s efforts to secure the border.

“The court rightly ruled that the House of Representatives cannot ask the judiciary to take its side in political disputes and cannot use federal courts to accomplish through litigation what it cannot achieve using the tools the Constitution gives to Congress,” a DOJ spokesman said. “The Department looks forward to continuing to defend the administration’s lawful actions to address the crisis at the southern border.”

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 Federal Judge Rejects House Bid to Stop Trump’s Border Wall 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/

(Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

via CNS RSS Feed Navbar

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

(Photo by Giles Clarke/Getty Images)
What would you do if you were falsely accused and convicted of a brutal rape and murder you didn’t commit?
How would you handle a violent maximum-security prison, sentenced 16 years to life, at age 17?

via CNS RSS Feed Navbar

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

A Syrian refugee’s International Committee of the Red Cross travel papers. (Andrew Renneisen/Getty Images)

via CNS RSS Feed Navbar

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

via American Thinker Blog

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

Tuesday on the radio, LevinTV host Mark Levin gave the history of the Battle of Midway, fought during World War II almost entirely with aircraft, June 3-6, 1942. Midway, together with the Battle of Guadalcanal, ended the threat of Japanese invasion in the Pacific.

“I was never taught about these various wars, except at a surface level, when I was in public school, and that’s, you know, several decades ago,” Levin said. “And I suspect it’s even less significant today in the classroom. And when we lose our history, we’re going to lose our country.”

“This is American history: Battle after battle, hero after hero, defending this country, defending its people. And then I listen to the talk today, about people who’ve never served — some who have served, but most who haven’t — trashing our country from universities and colleges. Trashing our country in the pages of the Democrat party-press. Oh, they say they support the military, but they have a funny way of showing it. Kaepernick — and others — protesting. Protesting what? They haven’t sacrificed a damn thing.”

Listen:

Levin read from an article by BlazeTV congressional correspondent Nate Madden about how the brutality of Tiananmen Square continues in China today.

“Thirty years ago today: China. Midway: Seventy-seven years ago today. America. Two different systems, two different countries, two different governments. I just wish we appreciated ours a lot more.”

Don’t miss an episode of LevinTV. Sign up for your FREE 30-day trial now!

The MSM Can’t Help Themselves

Want to see more of Mark? Get LevinTV! https://t.co/PrBB9utwuZ pic.twitter.com/Dc1o4lDrH1

— LevinTV (@LevinTV) June 1, 2019

The post Levin: ‘When we lose our history, we’re going to lose our country’ appeared first on Conservative Review.

via Conservative Review

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

Trump derangement syndrome is reaching new levels of insanity. The left is increasingly frustrated over all things Trump, with the next three months set to be the Democrat’s summer of discontent.

From Trump’s rising poll numbers to the blatant idiocy of the “best and brightest” Democrat candidates dreaming of beating Trump in 2020. From Attorney General William Barr investigating the origins of the anti-Trump coup to the new tariffs on Mexico, essentially fulfilling Trump’s campaign promise of making Mexico pay for the wall.

Climate change will be another source of discontent for Democrats as their predictions once again get buried under a snowpack of reality.

My local paper, the left-wing Denver Post, reports: “Water content of Colorado’s snowpack raises flood concerns, with levels peaking at 728 percent in the San Juans.” Imagine that, snowpack over seven times more than normal. How can that be with global warming broiling the planet, with only a decade before Earth burns to a crisp, at least according to a former bartender from the Bronx.

Across the state in Aspen, there is also an abundance of snow. This headline doesn’t make much of a case for global warming, “Aspen Mountain bonus weekend returns Saturday, Sunday with solid snow coverage.” It’s rare for Aspen to reopen for Memorial Day weekend, but this year they are opening the following weekend as well.

Nearby Breckenridge also has more snow than they know what to do with. “Breckenridge Ski Resort announced yet another Ski Season extension! Bringing the total to three extensions this 2018/2019 Ski Season.” Most Colorado ski resorts close in mid-April, yet here we are in June with skiing now competing with golf and summer barbeques for weekend fun.

California is also sharing in the snow. “Mammoth Mountain on Friday announced it would be extending its ski and snowboard season into August.” If they reopen in October, that could mean a ten-month ski season, something one might see in Northern Canada or Siberia where it’s really cold. Yet this is California. And the planet is warming, or so we are told.

Does this give any on the left a moment of pause to scratch their heads and ponder the unthinkable, that perhaps global warming is not the catastrophe they thought it was? Nah.

It was only five years ago that the New York Times wrote about “The end of snow.” Don’t hold your breath waiting for their correction or clarification with snowpacks seven times more than usual.

Candidate Amy Klobuchar said, “I’m focused on the issues that matter to California. Focused on climate change, the number one thing that the president attacked me on.” Did any intrepid journalist ask her for a comment on snow skiing in August in California and her position on climate change?

The Democrat establishment is not letting this opportunity go to waste, “The Democratic National Committee is fundraising on the issue, including with an email Wednesday asking for help electing Democrats who are fighting to put a stop to climate chaos.” Such chaos. Californians in the dog days of summer having to decide whether to swim or ski?

When summer skiing becomes as inconvenient as Joe Biden whispering sweet nothings into the ears of ten year old girls, Democrats pivot to “extreme weather.” Colorado skiing in June seems pretty extreme, but not in a useful way for Democrats.

Instead it’s tornadoes, floods, and soon, hurricanes that will be the new evidence of climate change. “Climate scientists say this is only the beginning of what will be decades of increasingly dangerous and damaging extreme weather – and there’s no question that much of it’s being driven by global warming.”

That sounds familiar because it is. In 2005 in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, we heard similar predictions of gloom and doom. This was a talking point in 2005: “Sea level rise and increasing storm surge risk are the clearest links between climate change and more destructive coastal storms.”

Last year I wrote about hurricanes over the past 170 years and discovered that the number and severity of hurricanes are actually trending slightly downward, not increasing as the media like to claim. What about tornadoes?

Climate scientist Roy Spencer recently explained why we have seen a rash in severe tornadoes. Yes, climate change is playing a role, but not in the way the media and the left wants you to believe.

Tornadoes require wind shear. “These conditions exist only when a cool air mass collides with a warm air mass.” Where are these “cool air masses” coming from? Think summer skiing this year, “The perfect conditions for this have existed this year as winter has refused to lose its grip on the western United States.”

The same cooler temperatures creating massive snowpacks and June skiing are causing tornadoes, “So far for the month of May 2019, the average temperature across the U.S. is close to 2 degrees Fahrenheit below normal.” Global cooling anyone?

The climate is indeed changing, but not in the way the left proclaims. The Democrats and their media comrades are “stuck on stupid” like a skipping record player, playing the same notes over and over again despite contradictory evidence. Never mentioned is the sun and sunspot activity.

We are entering a solar minimum, with reduced sunspot activity and resulting cooling, and some predicting a mini-ice age. This would certainly explain summer skiing and violent tornadoes. Honest scientists would take this new data into account, adjusting their hypotheses accordingly, not ignoring the obvious so as to not disturb their preconceived notions and political agendas.

Unless Bernie, Mayor Pete, and Alexandria know how to control sunspot activity, there are no deals, new, green, or otherwise, that will make a whit of difference controlling future climate. As the weather throws sand on their political proclamations, expect Democrats to have a summer of increasing discontent.

 

Brian C. Joondeph, MD, MPS, is a Denver-based physician and writer. Follow him on Facebook,  LinkedIn and Twitter.

Image credit: Les James, via Flickr // CC BY-SA 2.0

Trump derangement syndrome is reaching new levels of insanity. The left is increasingly frustrated over all things Trump, with the next three months set to be the Democrat’s summer of discontent.

From Trump’s rising poll numbers to the blatant idiocy of the “best and brightest” Democrat candidates dreaming of beating Trump in 2020. From Attorney General William Barr investigating the origins of the anti-Trump coup to the new tariffs on Mexico, essentially fulfilling Trump’s campaign promise of making Mexico pay for the wall.

Climate change will be another source of discontent for Democrats as their predictions once again get buried under a snowpack of reality.

My local paper, the left-wing Denver Post, reports: “Water content of Colorado’s snowpack raises flood concerns, with levels peaking at 728 percent in the San Juans.” Imagine that, snowpack over seven times more than normal. How can that be with global warming broiling the planet, with only a decade before Earth burns to a crisp, at least according to a former bartender from the Bronx.

Across the state in Aspen, there is also an abundance of snow. This headline doesn’t make much of a case for global warming, “Aspen Mountain bonus weekend returns Saturday, Sunday with solid snow coverage.” It’s rare for Aspen to reopen for Memorial Day weekend, but this year they are opening the following weekend as well.

Nearby Breckenridge also has more snow than they know what to do with. “Breckenridge Ski Resort announced yet another Ski Season extension! Bringing the total to three extensions this 2018/2019 Ski Season.” Most Colorado ski resorts close in mid-April, yet here we are in June with skiing now competing with golf and summer barbeques for weekend fun.

California is also sharing in the snow. “Mammoth Mountain on Friday announced it would be extending its ski and snowboard season into August.” If they reopen in October, that could mean a ten-month ski season, something one might see in Northern Canada or Siberia where it’s really cold. Yet this is California. And the planet is warming, or so we are told.

Does this give any on the left a moment of pause to scratch their heads and ponder the unthinkable, that perhaps global warming is not the catastrophe they thought it was? Nah.

It was only five years ago that the New York Times wrote about “The end of snow.” Don’t hold your breath waiting for their correction or clarification with snowpacks seven times more than usual.

Candidate Amy Klobuchar said, “I’m focused on the issues that matter to California. Focused on climate change, the number one thing that the president attacked me on.” Did any intrepid journalist ask her for a comment on snow skiing in August in California and her position on climate change?

The Democrat establishment is not letting this opportunity go to waste, “The Democratic National Committee is fundraising on the issue, including with an email Wednesday asking for help electing Democrats who are fighting to put a stop to climate chaos.” Such chaos. Californians in the dog days of summer having to decide whether to swim or ski?

When summer skiing becomes as inconvenient as Joe Biden whispering sweet nothings into the ears of ten year old girls, Democrats pivot to “extreme weather.” Colorado skiing in June seems pretty extreme, but not in a useful way for Democrats.

Instead it’s tornadoes, floods, and soon, hurricanes that will be the new evidence of climate change. “Climate scientists say this is only the beginning of what will be decades of increasingly dangerous and damaging extreme weather – and there’s no question that much of it’s being driven by global warming.”

That sounds familiar because it is. In 2005 in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, we heard similar predictions of gloom and doom. This was a talking point in 2005: “Sea level rise and increasing storm surge risk are the clearest links between climate change and more destructive coastal storms.”

Last year I wrote about hurricanes over the past 170 years and discovered that the number and severity of hurricanes are actually trending slightly downward, not increasing as the media like to claim. What about tornadoes?

Climate scientist Roy Spencer recently explained why we have seen a rash in severe tornadoes. Yes, climate change is playing a role, but not in the way the media and the left wants you to believe.

Tornadoes require wind shear. “These conditions exist only when a cool air mass collides with a warm air mass.” Where are these “cool air masses” coming from? Think summer skiing this year, “The perfect conditions for this have existed this year as winter has refused to lose its grip on the western United States.”

The same cooler temperatures creating massive snowpacks and June skiing are causing tornadoes, “So far for the month of May 2019, the average temperature across the U.S. is close to 2 degrees Fahrenheit below normal.” Global cooling anyone?

The climate is indeed changing, but not in the way the left proclaims. The Democrats and their media comrades are “stuck on stupid” like a skipping record player, playing the same notes over and over again despite contradictory evidence. Never mentioned is the sun and sunspot activity.

We are entering a solar minimum, with reduced sunspot activity and resulting cooling, and some predicting a mini-ice age. This would certainly explain summer skiing and violent tornadoes. Honest scientists would take this new data into account, adjusting their hypotheses accordingly, not ignoring the obvious so as to not disturb their preconceived notions and political agendas.

Unless Bernie, Mayor Pete, and Alexandria know how to control sunspot activity, there are no deals, new, green, or otherwise, that will make a whit of difference controlling future climate. As the weather throws sand on their political proclamations, expect Democrats to have a summer of increasing discontent.

 

Brian C. Joondeph, MD, MPS, is a Denver-based physician and writer. Follow him on Facebook,  LinkedIn and Twitter.

Image credit: Les James, via Flickr // CC BY-SA 2.0

via American Thinker

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