Why We Eat and Breathe

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

Editors’ Note: The following essay is the basic and real science about the absolute role of carbon dioxide in the existence of both plant and animal life on this planet. The radical environmental left (think John Kerry, Al Gore, WEF, et al) has used climate and CO2 disinformation (think lies, myths, fraud) to push a socialist agenda to control the lives of all citizens in the must fundamental aspects. It is a path to tyranny. The miracle of life and the true science of life on this beautiful and bountiful earth should not and cannot be despoiled by an elite, powerful class of politicians and globalists claiming ‘settled science’ (there is no such thing as settled science) for their agenda of ever increasing power. Consider the following fact: today the earth’s atmospheric CO2 in parts per million (PPM) is approximately 400. In the age of dinosaurs, it was 6,400 PPM, 16 times as much. The earth was incredibly verdant, warmer than the temperatures today with many cooling periods and ice ages to follow over many millions of years and the dinosaurs evolved into weighing many tons because of the enormous food supply. There were no automobiles, trucks, planes, burning of fossil fuels or annual meetings at Davos. Gosh!

Spring and summer is the time of growth, with blossoms everywhere we look. Leaves and fruit on the trees, grass in the yard and pastures, vegetables in the garden, and crops in the field.

Did you know that all of this lush abundance is almost entirely composed of just two things? These are carbon dioxide and water. There are tiny bits of other stuff but basically, it is all carbon dioxide and water. This is the true miracle of life. Every living thing we see is made from air and water. So are we.

Have you ever wondered why we eat and breathe? Here is how it works, the miracle of life.

We eat and breathe because the cells that make up our body eat and breathe. All cells eat and breathe. Yes, plants inhale and exhale just as we do. They also consume food and water.

Our breathing and eating actually go together. We are part of what is called the carbon cycle, which is the cycle of life. Plants come first, then us.

The plants use sunlight to convert carbon dioxide and water into big organic molecules. These molecules are circulated to every cell in the plant’s body, where they do two things. If the plant is growing then some become the building materials for that growth. In any case, they are also combined with oxygen to release the energy that came from the sun. All living cells need the energy to live.

The plants basically eat the carbon dioxide and water, while breathing in the oxygen. When the organic molecules combine with oxygen to produce energy, the byproduct is carbon dioxide and water, which are then exhaled. We are back where we started so this completes the cycle. Carbon dioxide + water –> life –> carbon dioxide + water.

When we eat the plants, or animals that ate the plants, we join and lengthen the cycle. Our digestive system converts the food molecules into organic molecules that we can use. Then our circulatory blood system distributes these molecules to all of our cells. There are trillions of cells in your body so that is a lot of mouths to feed, as it were.

We also inhale oxygen, which goes to our cells as well. Then just as in the plants, our cells use some of the molecules to grow with and combine some of them with the oxygen to extract the solar energy that the plants originally stored.

When things combine with oxygen it is called oxidation and the product is an oxide. The “di” in carbon dioxide is because it is a carbon atom combined with two oxygen atoms and di means two. This is why carbon dioxide is also called CO2. (Water is actually di-hydrogen oxide but we do not call it that.)

Oxidation releases energy. You can see and feel this with fire, which is very fast oxidation. Rust is very slow oxidation so you do not feel the energy coming off. When our cells oxidize carbon and hydrogen it is faster than rust but slower than fire.

The result is water and carbon dioxide which we exhale. And that water and carbon dioxide is again available to feed and power plants, so the cycle is complete.

Where do your carbon atoms come from? Given the carbon cycle, it is fun to wonder where the carbon in your body comes from? There are really two questions here.

First, where was the plant that started the cycle? Given our global trade that can be a lot of places. For example, my kitchen has orange juice from Florida, grapes from California, blueberries from Chile, bananas from Honduras, Coffee from Brazil, etc. I routinely eat this stuff so definitely have some carbon from each. Since I am not growing it is mostly used for energy, so I get some solar energy from each place. I like that idea a lot.

Second, where did the carbon dioxide come from before these plants ate it? Carbon dioxide circulates globally so it could be from anywhere. Some might have come from the plant’s own exhalation or the plant next door, or from thousands of miles away. Also, some might come from fossil fuel use or limestone weathering, making it millions of years old.

Speaking of circulation, the input and output of plants is so great that about a quarter of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is replaced every year. So when people say that our emissions are building up in the atmosphere, that is just wrong. Our emissions from burning fossil fuels may or may not be causing the carbon dioxide to increase, but in no case is that increase composed of a build-up of these emissions. Plants eat our emissions.

In conclusion, carbon dioxide is feeding a growing world. More CO2 is a blessing. If you hear someone call carbon dioxide “pollution” just say “That is our food you are talking about.”

Think about your place in the miraculous carbon cycle and enjoy the carbon dioxide.


This article was published by CFACT, Committee for A Constructive Tomorrow and is reproduced with permission.

Gas Prices Hit Record High Every Day for Past Two Weeks

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

Gas prices have soared to new heights this month with the price of unleaded regular gas hitting a record high every day for the past two weeks. With Memorial Day weekend approaching, motorists face steep costs if they plan to travel.

According to AAA, the national average regular unleaded gas price Tuesday came in at $4.60, a record high. Diesel gasoline is at $5.55 per gallon, just below the record set last week.

“The national average for a gallon of gas has not fallen for nearly a month. Gasoline has either remained flat or risen every day since April 24 and has set a new record daily since May 10,” the group said. “That was the day gas eclipsed the previous record high of $4.33, set earlier this year on March 11. The national average for a gallon of gasoline is now $4.59 and all 50 states are above $4 per gallon.”

In the Midwest, Illinois stands apart with gas at an average of $4.97 a gallon. Motorists in Illinois neighbors Iowa and Missouri are paying $4.16 a gallon.

These prices have been a pain point for Americans, many of whom are struggling to make ends meet. The rise has also drawn fresh criticism for the Biden administration’s energy policies, which include stopping new oil leases and pipeline development.

“They’re causing you pain at the pump because it’s all part of their radical agenda,” Republican Whip Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La., said.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine helped propel the rise of prices, but energy prices had already been on a significant rise long before the February invasion.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics tracks energy prices as part of inflation and has reported a steady rise since before the inflation. The most recent federal data on the consumer price index, a leading measure of inflation, showed energy prices soared in the past year.

“The all items index increased 8.3 percent for the 12 months ending April, a smaller increase than the 8.5-percent figure for the period ending in March,” BLS said. “The all items less food and energy index rose 6.2 percent over the last 12 months. The energy index rose 30.3 percent over the last year, and the food index increased 9.4 percent, the largest 12-month increase since the period ending April 1981.”

“When it comes to the gas prices, we’re going through an incredible transition that is taking place that, God willing, when it’s over we’ll be stronger, and the world will be stronger and less reliant on fossil fuels when this is over,” Biden said. “It’s bad. The price of gas at the pump … it’s affecting a lot of families.”

But those comments sparked blowback from critics who said Biden seemed to be saying these prices are a new normal and necessary part of transitioning away from fossil fuels.

“Joe Biden finally said the truth out loud: the record high gas prices crippling America right now are on purpose,” Power The Future Founder and Executive Director Daniel Turner said in a Tuesday statement. “President Biden’s ability to bring our country to its knees in less than two years has been nothing short of extraordinary. Joe Biden knows that only by crippling the fossil fuel industry will he usher in the radical green agenda he so desires, and if that means causing incredible pain to American families and the overall economy, it’s a casualty he can live with.”

With the start of the summer travel season this weekend, analysts say prices aren’t coming down anytime soon.

“As Americans struggle to make ends meet thanks to his raging inflation, [President Joe Biden] celebrates their suffering,” U.S. Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., said. “Biden is incompetent and incoherent, but he’s made one thing very clear: he couldn’t care less about the problems he’s caused for your family.”


This article was published by The Center Square and is reproduced with permission.




75% Of Americans Think The Country Under Biden Is Headed In The Wrong Direction

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

A large majority of Americans think the country is headed in the wrong direction, and much of their blame for the nation’s woes rests on President Joe Biden and the worsening economic crisis.

A new poll from NBC News found that 75 percent of U.S. adults think the nation is on the wrong track. That’s the highest number of unsatisfied Americans since the nation’s last notable recession in 2008. It’s also up nearly 20 percentage points since this time last year and up two percentage points from January 2021 when Biden was inaugurated.

Most of these Americans’ concerns can be traced to federal spending and lockdown-induced economic problems such as inflation, which is taking a far greater toll on Americans than what’s reflected in the 8 percent figure, and record-high gas prices, which recently reached a $4.48 per gallon national average.

Since Biden assumed office, the financial toll these crises have taken on pocketbooks has only worsened and made it difficult for hardworking Americans to keep up.

In the NBC poll, 65 percent of U.S. adults claimed their current paychecks are falling behind their rapidly rising costs of living. Only 6 percent said their family’s income is “going up faster than the cost of living.”

That’s one of the many reasons why, according to NBC, Biden’s approval among U.S. adults recently sank to 39 percent. His disapproval rose to a whopping 56 percent.

A recent Federalist and Susquehanna poll found that 56 percent of U.S. adults specifically disapproved of Biden’s handling of record-high gas prices, and 61 percent disapproved of Biden’s handling of inflation.

As the midterms quickly approach, the country’s economic state and Biden’s flailing track record are a cause for concern for Democrats who were 10 points behind Republicans in The Federalist poll’s generic ballot test. Yet despite significant evidence that the Biden administration and Democrats’ excessive spending has exacerbated inflation, the White House and legislators are still hyperfocused on passing expensive legislation to send aid to Ukraine and other causes.

All the while, Biden is refusing to take responsibility for his role in the nation’s intensifying crisis and instead repeatedly blames Russia’s Vladimir Putin for problems that started long before the Russia-Ukraine war began.

This article was published by The Federalist and is reproduced with permission.

Federal Appeals Court Upholds Stop to Rosemont Mine in Arizona

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

Editors’ Note: As the reader will note, the court held the mining claims were invalid because no valuable minerals were found.  It is certainly not common for mining companies to dig large holes costing millions just for the fun of it. Let’s suppose rich mineral deposits were found? Would environmental groups still oppose the mine? How does that square with the Green agenda that posits a complete change over in our energy grid and transportation system, which requires extensive exploitation of minerals like copper, nickel, lithium, and cobalt? You can’t get the quantities of minerals out of the ground for the Green revolution without disturbing ocelots. It is either that or let the dirty mining be done in China, leaving us as dependent on them for minerals as we are on Middle East dictatorships for oil. All economic decisions have trade-offs and you can’t back the “Green Agenda” on the one hand, and block the mining of necessary minerals on the other. Not unless your intention is to destroy the economy, that is.


A federal appeals court upheld a ruling to invalidate the U.S. Forest Service’s approval of an open-pit copper mine in southern Arizona.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 against Toronto-based Hudbay Minerals’ plans for the $1.9 billion Rosemont Mine in the Coronado National Forest.

The court said Thursday that Hudbay’s mining claims were baseless. “Because no valuable minerals have been found, the claims are necessarily invalid,” the court’s decision read. “The district court was therefore correct in holding that the Service improperly assumed their validity.”

The Center for Biological Diversity was pleased to see the court uphold a previous ruling in this one.

“This momentous decision makes it clear that Hudbay’s plan to destroy the beautiful Rosemont Valley is not only a terrible idea, it’s illegal,” Allison Melton, an attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, said in a press release. “The Santa Rita Mountains are critically important for Tucson’s water supply, jaguars, ocelots, and many other species of rare plants and animals. We won’t let them be sacrificed for mining company profits.”

Hudbay wants to blast a mile-wide, half-mile deep pit in the Santa Rita Mountains. The environmentalist organizations say that this would have harmed more than 5,000 acres of land.

Hudbay issued a statement on Thursday reiterating that it isn’t giving up on the project yet, and will seek other avenues to get it done.

“In the Decision, the Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court’s ruling that the U.S. Forest Service relied on incorrect assumptions regarding its legal authority and the validity of Rosemont’s unpatented mining claims in the issuance of Rosemont’s Final Environmental Impact Statement,” the company said in a statement. “While Hudbay reviews the Decision, in any event, the company will continue to pursue its alternative plan to advance its Copper World project.”


This article was published by The Center Square and is reproduced with permission.

Where Is Global Warming’s Missing Heat Coming From? Part 2

Estimated Reading Time: 6 minutes

Editors’ Note: We found this information fascinating. And, while we consider ourselves reasonably well-read, we were not familiar with this information. It is certainly not the information you get from Hollywood elites about “global warming” based on man’s activities, is it? It would seem reasonable before the Biden Administration commits to spending trillions of dollars to force all of us to change our way of life, that this kind of information is more thoroughly explored. If this information is even halfway correct, we could wreck our economy and starve millions, and wind up having really no influence on the final outcome.

In Part-1 of this three-part series, we presented the latest findings and data that show how the Earth’s internal nuclear furnace may play a very significant role in the Earth’s climate change. In This Part-2, we will closely examine a recently published article, “Nature’s Response To 500 Years of Cooling,” download the complete report from https://www.academia.edu/s/d21a7b4a34?source=work to get an appreciation of the power and heat generated by one such underwater volcano. In Part 3, we put all the climate change pieces together and provide our climate change projection for the next 50 years.

The Axial Seamount Global Warming? Under Sea Volcanos, The Axial Seamount. Thousands More Like It—a special report By Jim LeMaistre, copyright 2020.

Figure-1 shows us three hundred kilometers off Oregon’s coast; there is an undersea volcano, “The Axial Seamount.” It erupted in 1982, 1998, 2011, and 2015. New Scientist July 9, 2007, suggests that there are roughly 3 million volcanoes under the world’s oceans. This one is the only undersea volcano ever regularly studied. It is estimated that about 80% of all volcanic activity on Earth occurs under the oceans. Yet, almost nothing is known about these volcanoes. Where is global warming's missing heat coming from? Part 2 1Scientists do not even have a scale to measure the power, heat, and effects of volcanoes that erupt under the sea, like the above land systems rating.

But what is going on in the deep, out of sight, and out of instrument range? Quote “The volcanoes erupt, the water it touches instantly boils and turns to 700o C steam. The steam has up to 1,000 times more atmospheric pressure applied to it than it would at sea level. That steam is pushed, screaming to the surface where it evaporates. That hot steam rises 24 hours a day until the lava stops flowing. Meanwhile, the rising steam acts to change the patterns of the Jetstream, hence, causing major disruptions in ‘typical’ weather patterns. See west coast North America, Summer 2015, by example. It is not just the water that gets warmer. The air, the weather, and even the Jet streams above are dramatically affected as well…”

In another section, the article goes on to say, Quote: “On July 18, 2011, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), an agency of the United States Government, declared, in Scientific American i and also in Nature Geoscience on July 17, 2011, that more than 1/2 of all the heat that keeps planet Earth from freezing in the cosmos comes from the fission reactor at the Earth’s core. The other half of the heat that keeps life possible on Earth comes from the Sun. The Earth’s core is said to be 6,230 degrees centigrade… Equal to the temperature of the surface of the Sun. Scientists described the core of the Earth as a Fission Reactor producing more than one half of all the heat needed to survive in the Universe as we careen through space at 107,000 kilometers per hour circling around the Sun.”

Yet, neither NASA/NOAA, the UN/IPCC, or any of the hundred-plus climate change models consider this enormous source of heat in calculating the Earth’s Energy Budget. They simply measure the Sun’s TSI (Total Solar Irradiance) arriving on Earth and consider it the only heat source, totally ignoring the Earth’s internal nuclear furnace. But the truth is finally starting to leak out.

  • On January 15, 2014, the Journal Nature published an astounding article, with the title “Climate change: The case of the missing heat. Sixteen years into the mysterious ‘global-warming hiatus,’ scientists are piecing together an explanation”.ii
  • Science Magazine jumps into the fray: Quote “Call it the climate change conundrum: Even though humans are pumping more greenhouse gases than ever into the atmosphere, the world’s average air temperature isn’t rising as quickly1 as it once did. Some scientists have proposed that the missing heat is actually being trapped deep underwater by the Pacific Ocean”.iii

These articles and dozens of other “news outlets” seem bent on distracting us with more babbling about CO2,iv the greenhouse effect, high altitude balloon temperatures readings, and how the Sun’s heat somehow finds its way to heating the coldest waters in the deepest oceans. Meanwhile, lower troposphere tempeWhere is global warming's missing heat coming from? Part 2 2ratures continue to drop, as dramatically seen in the last 4-year in the lower part of Figure-2 (solid green arrow trend). In the upper part of Figure 2, we see a dramatic correlation between El Nino and La Nina cycles and the satellite temperature record. Is this a mere coincidence? Let’s not get distracted by what NASA/NOAA and their accommodating press/media tell us about possible causes of the missing heat. – It’s the Underwater Volcanoes, Stupid!

The Earth’s core! The entire premise of their Earth’s Energy Budget is based on the false belief that the Sun provides 100% of the planet’s heat. Yet 30% of the Earth’s mass is molten iron, fueled by uranium, thorium, and sulfur at temperatures upwards of 12,000 degrees F. How can they dismiss this enormous heat and the stochastic kinetic energy from its Coriolus effect with differential speeds of hundreds of miles per hour as they push around the massive continental plates and releasing untold tons of lava? It’s estimated that around 80% of all volcanic activities occur at these tectonic plates’ boundaries.viWhere is global warming's missing heat coming from? Part 2 4

As early as 2007, evidence emergedvii that millions of volcanoes and vents are located all along the estimated 90,000 kilometer long tectonic boundaries. As of the 2007 period, satellites could not detect underwater volcanoes that were less than 1,500 meters high. More recent research indicates that as many as 39,000 underwater volcanoes exist less than 1,500 meters high. In addition, there are untold numbers of volcanic vents with little height through which heat and CO2 escape, warming up the waters and releasing CO2 and other gasses into the atmosphere. The articleviii goes on to say: “Hiller says he was surprised to find that the density of small volcanoes dropped in the area around Iceland, as Iceland is known to be a hotspot for volcanic activity. Another surprise was that he found fewer volcanoes on the seabed around Hawaii, another volcanic hotspot. He says his findings may mean that researchers need to re-assess their understanding of how submarine volcanoes are formed.”

The latest discoveries tell us that the last half-century’s increased temperatures may have been primarily caused by heat from untold numbers of deep ocean volcanic activities worldwide. Deep ocean water is frigid. As such, it holds immeasurable amounts of dissolved CO2 and other gasses. When the lava warms these waters, it releases gazillion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, thus also explaining the rapid rise in global CO2 levels during this same period. This deep ocean warming may also be the heat pump that pumps up the surface temperatures and powers engines like the El Nino and other oceanic oscillators. This deep ocean warming also explains other phenomena worldwide, like the melting of coastal glaciers and sea ice. In contrast, the land-based ice sheets on Antarctica and Greenland continue to grow. Then add to that the expansion of water as it warms may also explain the small increase in sea levels.

There have also been several discoveries of major volcanoes hidden beneath glaciers, causing them to melt locally. One prime example is confirmed under West Antarctic Ice Sheet at Pine Island Glacier. This is where the dramatic videos of the glacial cliffs crash into the Antarctic sea are taken. The potential effects of these volcanic warming on ice-sheet melting and sea-level rise are still to be determined.ix

Summary of Energy budget deficiencies. In Figure-4, we see the popularized NASA /UN-IPCC Earth’s Energy Budget, and we will now discuss its significant shortcomings.

1. Incoming solar energy 100% and outgoing 70% (64 +6) fails to mention and adjust for the variable heat contributed by the Earth’s volcanic, vent, and tectonic activities.

2. Fails to adjust for heat contributed by earthbound heat sources like biomass fermentation, wildfires, animal respiration, human combustion of fossil fuels and nuclear plants, and Urban Heat Island Effects.

3. Reflected energy to space is set at a static 30% (6+20+4%). Fails to adjust for increased/decreased cloud cover made by the galactic cosmic rays and ash/gasses from volcanoes.

In this Part -2, we highlighted the latest developments in how the Earth’s internal nuclear furnace needs to be considered in the Earth’s energy budget, especially after noting the high El Nino/La Nina correlation with atmospheric temperatures. In Part-3, we will put together all the pieces into a unified theory of Earth’s global warming and present our climate projection for the next 50 years.


This article was published by CFACT, Committee for A Constructive Tomorrow and is reproduced with permission.

Lifting Title 42 Will Mean Fewer Border Patrol Agents in Field

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

Border security experts expect the nation will bear the consequences of more illegal immigration whether the Biden administration ends a key public health measure by the end of the month or does it later.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced last month that the policy, known as Title 42, would expire May 23. Biden’s Department of Homeland Security has estimated that could mean an influx of 18,000 migrants a day who cross the border illegally.

“There are too many Democrats pushing back, too many Democrats terrified of the consequences, because the [Department of Homeland Security] itself, Biden’s DHS, was predicting a doubling or more of the flow across the border if they lifted Title 42,” Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, told The Daily Signal in a recent interview.

“But it is going to be lifted at some point,” Krikorian said of Title 42.

Sens. Gary Peters, D-Mich., and Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., are among the most vocal Democrats calling for the Biden administration to keep the public health policy in place.

Title 42 is a provision of a 1944 law meant to stop the spread of communicable diseases. The provision allowed the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to take emergency action in March 2020, during the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, to authorize border authorities to quickly expel illegal immigrants and deny entry to asylum-seekers.

Although the measure hasn’t stopped huge numbers of illegal immigrants from crossing the southern border and immediately claiming asylum, it has made it easier for the Border Patrol to send back illegal aliens.

‘Enormous Pressure From Left’

Once Title 42 is gone, unlawful border crossers will have the right to have their asylum claims adjudicated on American soil.

“Unless Congress intervenes and passes a law saying they can keep it in place and the president signs it, it just seems to me it’s going to have to be lifted at some point because the president is also getting enormous pressure from this hard left,” Krikorian told The Daily Signal.

“When they do that,” he added, “it’s going to be bad news on the border and it’s going to be worse news for the Democratic Party, because the more they keep delaying it, the closer and closer it gets to the election.”

The Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates strict enforcement of the nation’s immigration laws and opposes amnesty for illegal immigrants, organized a visit to the border in South Texas last month that The Daily Signal joined.

Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas met Tuesday in Washington with Mexican Foreign Minister Marcelo Ebrard.

Mayorkas “spoke of the United States’ whole-of-government strategy to prepare for the CDC’s announced May 23, 2022, end to the exercise of its Title 42 authority,” according to the department’s readout of the meeting.

Expulsions Under Title 42

After the CDC invoked Title 42, the Border Patrol had about 2.9 million encounters with illegal immigrants at the U.S.-Mexico border between April 2020 and March 2022, according to a study by Pew Research. March is the most recent month for which such data is available.

About 1.8 million of those encounters, or 61%, resulted in illegal immigrants being expelled under Title 42, according to Pew. The 1.1 million remaining encounters ended with illegal immigrants being detained, at least temporarily, rather than sent back.

Expulsions were based largely on whether the migrants came as families and whether children were involved.

Under the Biden administration, about 88% of the 1.8 million expulsions since 2020 under Title 42 were of single adults, while 11% were families and 1% were unaccompanied minors.

About 60% of those expelled came from Mexico, 15% came from Guatemala, 14% from Honduras, 5% from El Salvador, and 6% from other countries, according to Pew.

COVID-19 isn’t the only public health concern to consider, said Chris Cabrera, spokesman for the union National Border Patrol Council Local 3307, which represents nonsupervisory Border Patrol employees who work in the Rio Grande Valley.

“It’s to the point where everybody I work with, every single person, has had COVID,” Cabrera told a group gathered in Texas for the border tour sponsored by the Center for Immigration Studies.

But, the union spokesman said, some Border Patrol agents have contracted communicable diseases while policing the border that doctors have had trouble diagnosing.

‘Spinning Your Wheels’

If Title 42 ends, it will bring more chaos to the southern border, said Michael Salinas, a retired Border Patrol agent who was on the front lines for 34 years.

“Pretty much, there’s going to be nobody out in the field,” Salinas told The Daily Signal.

“The Border Patrol knows where they’re at,” the veteran agent said of these so-called got-aways. “But if they don’t have access to it because they’re stuck processing or prepping people for transport to processing centers, it takes away from all that. So you’re just spinning your wheels.”

The Center for Immigration Studies’ Krikorian said he expects that Biden and congressional Democrats will try to kick the can down the road, but that it can’t go on forever.

Events may depend on what faction in the Biden administration prevails, he said:

There are two factions in the administration on this immigration issue. They both believe the same thing. In other words, everybody in the administration wants basically amnesty for all the illegals and unlimited immigration in the future, and all that stuff. It’s not really at all a policy dispute, it’s a political dispute.

Krikorian said White House chief of staff Ron Klain and Susan Rice, director of the Domestic Policy Council, are trying to take a more politically acceptable approach to illegal immigration in the short term.

“The people like Ron Klain and Susan Rice, who are at least a little bit more in touch with reality … the point is they’re more cautious politically,” Krikorian said. “But then everybody who’s in charge of immigration policy are radicals. They’re anti-borders radicals.”


This article was published by The Daily Signal and is reproduced with permission.

The Renewed Politicization of the Federal Reserve

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

Economic research shows that monetary policy works best when conducted by an independent central bank. After Fed chairs in the 1960s and ‘70s caved to pressure from American Presidents, those who followed sought, at least to some degree, to reestablish the Fed’s independence. Until now, that is.

Since 2019, the Fed has politicized its activities in virtually every way: through its monetary policy goals, the use of its enhanced balance sheet, its regulatory actions, and its emergency lending activities. Each of these changes has pushed the Fed further from being an effective and independent central bank toward becoming a purely political institution, which prevents it from choosing the best policies for Americans and the US economy.

Monetary Policy: “Inclusive” Employment and (Flexible) Average Inflation Targeting

Fed officials, including current Chair Jerome Powell, have acknowledged that monetary policy is a broad tool that cannot be used to address the problems of racial and income inequality. Despite this admission, however, the Fed has injected the issue of inequality into its monetary policy goals.

In August of 2020, the Fed rewrote its statement of goals and strategy to emphasize employment ahead of inflation. The new language described the maximum employment goal as “a broad-based and inclusive goal that is not directly measurable.” Chair Powell cited racial differences in unemployment rates as a motivation for the change. This shifted the Fed’s goal from focusing on the best outcome for most Americans to a purely discretionary target, which the Fed admits is impossible to measure.

At the same time, the new objectives stated that the Fed would target a rate of two percent inflation averaged over time, giving Fed officials greater ability to deviate from the prescribed rate of two percent annual inflation. Moreover, Fed officials have since revealed that they only intend to seek an average of two percent when it has previously been below target. When inflation is above target, in contrast, the Fed will allow it to remain so and will not bring it down enough to return to the previous price-level trend.

Taken together, these two changes relax the traditional constraints on the Fed’s ability to engage in overly-expansionary monetary policy. When warned that the policy is too loose, they can point to their expanded employment goal to justify the policy. Then, when inflation rises above two percent, they can claim that it is temporary and will not affect the average rate of inflation in the future.

The irony is that such an approach would likely produce exactly the opposite of what is intended. To the extent that emphasizing maximum employment (in the broader sense) and ignoring temporary periods of above-average inflation results in overly-expansionary monetary policy, it risks recessionary corrections and even lower employment than would have occurred had the Fed stuck with its previous policy.

In early 2021, for example, Chairman Powell testified that the Fed planned to keep its interest rate targets near zero until the economy reached maximum employment, a policy it maintained throughout 2021 despite record inflation. Powell now says the US labor market is “unsustainably hot,” but the Fed has taken only minimal action to calm the labor market or bring down inflation. Many commentators are already expressing concerns about a looming recession.

Balance Sheet Activities: Fiscal Accommodation

Through the use of large-scale asset purchases (LSAPs), also known as quantitative easing (QE), the Fed has massively expanded its balance sheet from less than $1 trillion in 2008 to almost $9 trillion today. While the federal government increased fiscal spending by $5 trillion in response to the Coronavirus pandemic, the Fed bought up more than $3.4 trillion in Treasury securities since 2019, effectively monetizing a large portion of the fiscal deficit.

While some economists applauded the Fed’s fiscal accommodation, debt monetization is not a prudent action of a responsible central bank. Those that engage in such activities encourage profligate spending by their fiscal authorities, which often ends up in fiscal default. Such massive purchases of Treasury securities were enabled by the Fed’s enlarged balance sheet and would not have been possible in the pre-2008 system.

Emergency lending: Everyone Gets a bailout!

One traditional function of central banks is that they act as emergency lenders in times of financial crises. Although the Fed’s 2008 emergency lending deviated from the rules of the classical lender of last resort, former Fed Chairs Bernanke and Yellen respected the limits of the Fed’s authority as understood by economists and stated in the Federal Reserve Act.

Not so for Jerome Powell. Despite the fact that 2019 was not a case of “unusual and exigent” circumstances in terms of bank failures or shortages of financial liquidity, the Fed initiated a variety of emergency lending facilities beyond those of the 2008 crisis. The Fed lent to non-financial companies and state and local governments, which former Fed chairs said it should never do.

These actions disturb the efficient allocation of capital in the financial system and further heighten the Fed’s political profile.

Regulation: Climate and Industrial Policies

Bank regulators have increasingly used their regulatory powers to discourage banks from supporting politically unpopular industries, such as oil and gas, firearms, and medical marijuana. These punitive measures often take the form of discretionary enforcement actions, which lack the transparency and immutability of rules passed through the regulatory process.

Fed regulators have now turned their sights to climate change and the supposed threat it poses to US banks. The Fed subjects banks to “climate stress tests” and has joined international central banks’ Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS), whose stated goal is to “support the transition toward a sustainable economy.” While these changes are ostensibly made in the name of limiting banks’ risk exposure, their result in practice will be to harm the US economy by preventing banks from lending for specific purposes such as the production of energy and fossil fuels.

The Fed’s Politics Threatens Its Independence

Fed officials have gone beyond policy discretion into overt political activism. President of the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank Neel Kashkari has been reprimanded by Senator Pat Toomey for his recent political actions. In 2020, former New York Fed President Bill Dudley argued that “Fed officials should consider how their decisions will affect the political outcome” by potentially withholding monetary accommodation in order to prevent the re-election of President Donald Trump. Such actions reveal these officials to be political opportunists rather than independent central bankers.

Independent central banks tend to deliver better monetary policy. But independence can only be maintained by focusing on the narrow goals assigned by Congress. By straying from its mandate, Fed officials have chosen to base their decisions on politics rather than on sound economics.


This article was published by AIER, American Institute for Economic Research, and is reproduced with permission.

The Homeless Election Battle

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

When I had the opportunity to engage one of the major candidates for Mayor of Los Angeles, I stated there are only two issues in the race.  The first being proper funding and use of the police and the second being the Homeless.  The candidate agreed with me and the issues for the June 7th election were defined.

Karen Bass announced her candidacy soon thereafter and took the lead in the polls.  She released with great fanfare her own detailed policy on Homelessness.  The policy is linked here https://karenbass.com/policies/homelessness/.  I contacted her campaign to query them on what they had proposed, but they were fearful of answering legitimate questions from journalists who were not from sycophantic press outlets.

Their proposed plan left open significant items, to which I asked the following questions:

  1. The city, county, and state have been spending extensively on this issue. How specifically does your plan differ from what has been done in the last few years?
  2. Mayor Garcetti committed close to a billion dollars for the current fiscal year. Can you tell us how much has been spent by the city on the homeless issue during the last four years of the Garcetti administration?
  3. Most if not all of us would like to know who Ms. Bass has in mind as the Homeless Chief since this is a critical issue in Los Angeles, so who would that be?
  4. The plan calls for ending street encampments in the first year of her term. How exactly are you planning to clear all the encampments which appear more like MASH units moving from property to property?
  5. I am working on a homeless issue that involves city, county, and state land. I am getting the runaround about who is responsible to do what.  Specifically, how do you plan to remedy this as residents do not care whose land it is within the city’s confines?  What is your response?
  6. You state that 50% of the homeless are either mentally ill or on drugs. How did you derive that figure?
  7. You cite that 59% of homelessness is because of economic issues. Where did you get that figure?
  8. Are you saying that these people are gainfully employed or employable and just cannot afford housing? If so, how many homeless are currently employed as a percentage?  How many go to work each day?
  9. I have had discussions with people on the front lines of the homeless issue and have been told a significant percentage of people who are homeless in the Los Angeles area are transplants. In other words, they moved here because of the weather and particularly the government benefits provided.  Your plan did not address this issue.  Did the studies you cited address this issue? Why should the residents of Los Angeles pay for the costs of extensive housing, medical and other benefits to homeless people who relocate from other urban areas?

The candidates talk about how they are going to cure the homeless problem, but rarely speak of the ongoing costs.  They certainly do not delve into how many of these people are not Los Angeles residents which brings to question why the people of Los Angeles are bearing the cost.  People do not realize that the current combined budget for Los Angeles City and County is about $1.5 billion.  That is a stunning figure which is enlarged by the amount the State of California is pouring into the problem.

The question the Bass Campaign does not want to answer is why they believe these figures — that 59% of homelessness is due to economic issues and not drugs or mental illness.  Multiple workers have told me most of the people they relocate off properties where the Homeless are squatting want to stay where they are.  In the case I dealt with in Studio City, some moved elsewhere while others just relocated to adjacent sites where their removal from the area was delayed for another few months.

Then Rick Caruso jumped in with his tough-guy campaign claiming he can solve the problem: https://carusocan.com/issues/homelessness/.  His plan does not answer the same questions — again how much he is spending of our money housing people who are not even from this area.  Building housing units without curing these people of their drug use and properly medicating them for mental health challenges is a waste.  At least Caruso’s campaign consultant who drafted his plan does not perpetuate the lie that these people are homeless due to economic issues, but even their figure of how many are on the streets because of economic issues is far too high.

One highly placed source tried to help me access where this money is being spent in the city of Los Angeles.  We found it was impossible to obtain the details even for highly placed city officials.

Candidates like Joe Buscaino, Kevin de Leon, and Mike Feuer need to tell us what their plans are and whether they are going to continue draining the wallets of local residents as elected officials have in the recent past with negative results.

We need answers unless you want the crime, harassment, squalor, and other despicable effects of this homeless issue to go on for another decade or more.


This article was published by FlashReport and is reproduced with permission from the author.






Biden’s Orwellian “Truth Ministry”

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

Challenging economic times are bringing out the worst in the Biden administration, which has turned desperate to the point of overtly undermining the First Amendment rights of those with whom they disagree. This pernicious trend has been acute in the climate change and Covid issues, and it is accelerating.

The Biden administration’s creation of a “Disinformation Governance Board” in the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has made a modern-day reality in the United States stranger than fiction. Indeed, this Board will serve as a real-life “Ministry of Truth” as described by author George Orwell in his famous book1984.

Incredibly, in a recent agency bulletin entitled, the Terrorism Threat to the U.S. Homeland, the DHS subjectively describes terrorism to include “an online environment filled with false or misleading narratives and conspiracy theories and other forms of mis- dis- and mal-information (MDM).”

Yes, Biden DHS bureaucrats really wrote that, including the “MDM” acronym that now belongs in the same category as the 911 attacks.

The new director of this Board, a woman named Nina Jankowicz, makes this story more bizarre to the point of parody. The Biden White House and DHS surely saw the same cringe-worthy videos we viewed, including the one of Ms. Jankowicz embarrassing herself by imitating “Mary Poppins” – yet they appointed her anyway. The fact that her recent past also has been one of partisan dishonesty in advancing the Russia collusion hoax and other false narratives confirms the whole initiative is a political farce and dangerous.

If President Joe Biden and his insidious bureaucracy prevail with this blatant assault on freedom of speech, the First Amendment will become a dead letter since this abridgment will not stop with expression.

Freedom of the press has long become mostly a joke, with the major networks and media outlets willingly transforming themselves into propaganda arms of the Biden administration (and Obama’s previously). That’s not just the malicious Joy Reid or buffoonish Brian Stelter on cable news. That also means you, Nora O’Donnell, David Muir, and Lester Holt; the New York Times, Jeff Bezos’ Washington Post, and other once-serious news journals. They willingly manipulate objective news and science to favor the Biden agenda in Washington, especially by skewing climate change realities – or ignoring facts and science that question that agenda.

There remains a substantial non-conformist media and Internet presence of alternative news and opinion. But for how long when a federal department with “security” in its title takes aim? And what of the other First Amendment freedoms of assembly and religion?

If the Biden administration’s overt attack on freedom of speech is not defunded and stopped, other freedoms will fall like dominos. Already, houses of worship across the country were forcibly closed under the guise of public health during the height of Covid-19. It can happen again.

Politicians and their government speech police trying to curtail the rights and freedom of individuals as a means of preserving and increasing their own power. Perpetuating a false climate change narrative – that humanity itself faces an imminent and existential threat – is a primary way government officials expand their power to direct the economy and society.

Accordingly, dissenters of the man-made global warming narratives must be censored and silenced, especially as the economy spirals downward.

The Biden policies to raise the cost of energy at the gas pump and to heat and cool your home were deliberate and designed to force the nation onto so-called “renewable” wind and solar projects and electric vehicles. But the public is increasingly fed up with higher gas prices and their ripple effect on skyrocketing grocery bills and every other commodity and service.

With inflation running at 8.5 percent in the last 12 months and likely climbing to double-digits, the Biden administration’s climate narrative and accompanying anti-energy policies are becoming way more difficult to inflict on the public.

Rather than take concrete steps to ease inflation by expanding domestic energy production and scaling back on massive new government spending, the administration is raising the stakes by making unprecedented attempts at societal control with the creation of its own Truth Ministry.

Never mind that the President of the United States has the largest bully pulpit in the world. Except, our 79-year-old chief executive can barely read what is scrolled in front of him, much less articulate a coherent response to a simple question, including from pliant media.

And forget the fact that the president’s spokespersons, including daily fabulist Jen Psaki and every cabinet member, can advance a political and media narrative.

Evidently, they’ve determined that their own speech is not enough for them to retain government power to fulfill socialist fantasies for the nation. Contrary narratives and pushback from the public – especially on climate policy – must be combatted by any means necessary.

President Biden’s Disinformation Governance Board is anathema to the U.S. Constitution and has no place in a free society with guaranteed inalienable rights. The Board’s brazen existence and purpose to censor opposing voices and squash dissent make it a threat to the liberty of all Americans, regardless of one’s views of climate change or any other political issue.


This article was published by CFACT, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow and is reproduced with permission.

The Impact of CO2 Is Overstated So Why Dismantle Society? Part 1

Estimated Reading Time: 5 minutes

That is a great question, and yes, there is a chance that it could happen. But it would not be meaningfully caused by humans burning fossil fuels and producing more carbon dioxide (CO2).

Additional CO2 in our atmosphere stopped having a meaningful role in the earth’s temperature when it reached 300 parts per million (PPM), and that portion of our atmosphere that absorbs CO2 was all used up. Seriously, that is a fact. So today, adding any amount of more CO2 has no impact on climate whatever. If CO2 doubled from the present 420 PPM to 840 PPM, the earth would just get greener, and crops would increase their yields on every farm and every forest. There would be no negative impacts at all. Atomic submarines travel the world underwater with an average CO2 content of over 5,000 PPM. Yes, that is a 5, followed by 3 zeros, and no sailor has ever gotten ill. If you doubt us, it is because you have been conned by the left and its control of the media to scare you needlessly.

Carbon Dioxide has less to do with global warming, global cooling, or global temperature remaining constant than we have been told. But attempts to reduce or eliminate fossil fuels will bring untold misery and deaths to a considerable portion of humanity. And the saddest part is that it will have been done for no scientific climate change reason. Instead, it would be a repeat of the insanity of the Salem Witch Trials of four hundred years ago, during the last Grand Solar Minimum.

Many well-intentioned “scientists” have become dependent on the US Government’s political grants for their lifestyles, tenures, and fortunes. So maybe they console their guilt by telling themselves that nobody would be foolish enough to actually try to decarburize the planet. And in fact, that may be true as it is impossible.

But clearly, governments are trying to do it. Unfortunately, the decarbonizing effort is inflicting damage in the two years it has been tried. Fuel shortages are occurring, energy costs are rising, and inflation can be seen everywhere. All the while, CO2 continues to increase anyway.

We will make a strong effort in this two-part series to convince you why we must stop this nonsense that CO2 and the greenhouse effect cause global warming and the end of life as we know it. Instead, we should resume and accelerate our discovery and recovery of more fossil fuels such as oil and gas, and yes, even coal.

For ease of understanding, we will forgo the complex scientific explanations and present an easy-to-understand record of temperatures and related climate and weather events as evidence. But if you wish to get more into the mathematical, scientific arguments, check out the endnotes and start with the first one. [a][A].

From Figure-1, taken from endnote [b][B], we see the UAH (University of Alabama Huntsville) global satellite temperature since 1979, when we launched our first weather satellites. We use this data set because it contains the temperatures recorded by very accurate satellite instruments. NASA/NOAA prefers to use their surface temperatures because they are easy to manipulate, which is done to support the government’s CO2 global warming position. NOAA is constantly doing it. [c][C].

To the primary UAH temperature record, we have added additional information that makes significant contributions to the causes and extent of the global temperature record. There is a great deal of information presented here, but you will find it easy to understand. We will explain Figure-1 step by step. Give us a few minutes, and you will see it is not complicated once you get a feel for the various activities at work in our solar system. Believe us; they dwarf the insignificant role of our CO2 emissions in our earth’s temperature.

The light blue vertical lines with the small circles on their ends are the temperatures recorded each month. The dark red line is a running 13-month average of these temperatures, and there is a horizontal line which is the average of all the recorded temperatures. Each temperature is recorded as a deviation from this zero baseline.

For example, the blue line temperature for 1979 was about -0.4°C colder than the average zero baselines. For 1998, the little blue line/circle shows a temperature of about +0.6°C above the baseline temperature. Thus by 1998, the temperature increase was about 1.0°C warmer than in 1979. For 1979, the red running temperature average was about -0.35°C, and for 2000 about -0.20°C, giving us a temperature increase of about 0.15°C, which means that the temperature for 2000 was essentially the same as it was in 1979. Therefore, there was no global warming during that period.

Now let us look at the big picture. The first thing to note is the red arrow trend that we added shows a global temperature increase from 1979 until 1998 of about 0.6°C. (0.3 + 0.3). [d][D] Now solar scientists know why this increase happened as it corresponds to a period of powerful solar magnetic activities, and the scientific explanation is two-fold. First, during periods of high solar activities, as we had from 1979 to 1998, the earth received a tiny bit more solar energy called Total Solar Irradiance (TSI). But during this same period, the sun also sent toward the earth, and all the planets in our solar system, with powerful solar winds and additional magnetic fields.

In Figure-2, we see a conceptual image of these powerful solar winds’ effects and how they shield the earth from much of the Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR) approaching the earth. This is important because it is known that an increase in GCR entering the earth results in increased cloud formation. [e][E] So, during periods of high solar activities, fewer GCR enter the earth, and cloud cover decreases, allowing the earth to receive more TSI and thus warming the earth. But the exact opposite happens during periods of reduced solar activities, as shown by the green arrow trend line in Figure-1 from 1999 to March 2022. More GCR entered the earth, forming more cloud cover, and the earth cooled a bit.

We have only added a couple of terms to consider TSI (Total Solar Irradiance) and GCR (Galactic Cosmic Rays). So next time you go out with friends, you can dazzle them with your knowledge of the solar system and concurrently attempt to eradicate in their minds the arrogant idea that we humans have control of the earth’s thermostat.

In Part 2 of this series of articles, we will write about the sunspots you have heard of but do not really understand, along with the role of El Niño and La Niña, which have long confused you. If you don’t know that volcanoes at the ocean bottom are way more important than us, we will let you know that as well.



Sources and references: (we have cited all references here for both Parts 1 and 2, so not all references will be cited in part 2)

A[a] Read why CO2 and greenhouse effect do not cause global warming.” https://www.academia.edu/76652255/Revised_Why_cant_CO2_and_greenhouse_effect_cause_global_warming

B [b] UAH Satellite global temperature see details at https://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

C [c] NASA/NOAA adjusting/fudging global climate record. This article provides evidence of the fudging and adjustments made by NOAA to the surface temperatures. The paper argues that absent these adjustments. We may already be a climate pause or possibly even a decline since the 1930s. https://electroverse.net/u-s-has-been-cooling-since-the-1930s/

D[d] TSI record last 50 years https://www.reddit.com/r/climateskeptics/comments/9ft7s2/do_you_know_why_solar_irradiance_has_diverged/

E[e] Read the article Geomagnetic Reversal: The Svensmark Effect Revealing the Impact of Cosmic Rays on the Earth,” Friday, July 5, 2019. https://www.ineffableisland.com/2019/07/geomagnetic-reversal-svensmark-effect.html#:~:text=Geomagnetic%20Reversal%3A%20The%20Svensmark%20Effect%20Revealing%20the%20Impact,by%20increasing%20cloud%20cover%2C%20causing%20an%20%E2%80%9Cumbrella%20effect%E2%80%9D.

F[f] “Modern Grand Solar Minimum will lead to terrestrial cooling,” by Valentina Zharkova https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7575229/

G[g] El Niño/La Niña years 1990 -Jan 2022, source https://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm

H[h] El Niño-La Niña are caused by the earth’s geologic activities and not changes in heat circulation patterns. See http://www.plateclimatology.com/why-el-nio-and-la-nia-are-one-continuous-geological-event/. Also, see this article describing their cyclic nature. See paper titled Seafloor Volcano Pulses May Alter Climate,” February 5, 2015, https://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/3231

[I] [i] https://oceantoday.noaa.gov/deepoceanvolcanoes/

J [j] Read paper titled “Underwater thermal activities –an overlooked factor in climate change” https://www.academia.edu/45639543/Underwater_thermal_activities_an_overlooked_factor_in_climate_change.

And article “Tracking down hydrothermal vents,” https://schmidtocean.org/cruise-log-post/tracking-down-hydrothermal-vents/. Also, read the report on volcanic activities under the ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica, https://naturalworldisasters.com/antarctica-volcanoes/ and https://phys.org/news/2020-12-newly-greenland-plume-thermal-arctic.html. Read the article Scientists Discover 91 Volcanoes in Antarctica,” https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/news/2017/08/scientists-discover-91-volcanoes-in-antarctica/

K [k] See the article Greenland‘s ice is melting from the bottom up – and far faster than previously thought, study shows” by Isabelle Jani-Friend, CNN, February 22, 2022, https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/22/world/greenland-ice-melting-sea-level-rise-climate-intl-scli-scn/index.html

L [l] See articles, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_Seamount and https://www.academia.edu/49442870/The_Axial_Seamount_Nature_s_Response_To_500_Years_of_Cooling

MN[m, n] Figure-5 chart from the Smithsonian Institute, https://volcano.si.edu/faq/index.cfm?question=historicalactivity.

[O][o] See the book by Peter Langdon Ward, What Really Causes Global Warming?” And his detailed video presentation, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPH7HPaNHTg&t=1922s

[P][p] See the paper Planetary Core and Surface Temperatures,” by Douglas Cotton, https://www.linkedin.com/posts/douglas-cotton-b794a871_planetary-core-and-surface-temperatures-activity-6607066373015379968-WcRW/

[Q][q] See the paper New Insights on the Physical Nature of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect Deduced from an Empirical Planetary Temperature Model,” https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/New-Insights-on-the-Physical-Nature-of-the-Atmospheric-Greenhouse-Effect-Deduced-from-an-Empirical-Planetary-Temperature-Model.pdf


This article was published by CFACT, Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and is reproduced with permission.