Opinion/Analysis: Bill Nye’s View of Humanity Is Repulsive

Bill Nye has some detestable ideas about humanity. This shouldn’t surprise anyone. Many environmental doomsdayers share his totalitarian impulses (he has toyed with the idea of criminalizing speech he dislikes) and soft spot for eugenics. In his Netflix series, Bill Nye Saves the World, the former children’s-television host supplies viewers with various trendy notions to adorn his ideological positions with the sheen of science. In the final episode, Nye and his guests contemplate a thorny “scientific” question: How can the state stop people from having “extra kids”? All of this was pretty familiar to me, and not only because the panel sounded like a ChiCom planning meeting. The Nye segment, it turns out, was just a repetition of a 2016 NPR article on overpopulation featuring Travis Rieder. “Should we have policies that penalize people for having extra kids in the developed world?” asked Reider and others who were pondering the “ethics of procreation.” The article is titled “Should We Be Having Kids in the Age of Climate Change?” In it, Rieder, a philosopher with the Berman Institute of Bioethics at Johns Hopkins University, scaremongers a class of college students about The End of Days and the immorality of having children. NPR describes: “The room is quiet. No one fidgets. Later, a few students say they had no idea the situation was so bad.” (It’s not.) “Here’s a provocative thought,” Rieder says. “Maybe we should protect our kids by not having them.” This is provocative in the way a stoner wondering why airplanes don’t run on hemp is provocative. That’s because the entire case for capping the number of children rests on assumptions entirely devoid of scientific or historical basis. In 1798, Thomas Malthus wrote that “the power of population is indefinitely greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man.” At that point, there were maybe a billion humans on Earth, so we might forgive him for worrying. In 1800, the life expectancy of the average British citizen — Britain then being the leading light of the world — was 39 years. Most humans lived in pitiless poverty that is increasingly rare in most parts of the contemporary world. Now, had Nye been around in the early 19th century, he’d almost surely have been smearing anyone skeptical of the miasma theory of disease. The problem is he lacks imagination; he’s unable to understand that science is here to help humanity adapt and overcome, not constrict it. Anyway, 7-plus billion people later, extreme poverty was projected to fall below 10 percent for the first time ever in 2015. Most of those gains have been made in the midst of the world’s largest population explosion. Additionally, it is reported that, because of trade, technological advances, and plentiful fossil fuels, fewer people are hungry than ever; fewer die in conflicts over resources; and deaths owing to extreme weather have been dramatically declining for a century. Over the past 40 years, our water and air have become cleaner, despite a huge spike in population growth. Some of the Earth’s richest people live in some of its densest cities. It’s worth remembering not only that early progressivism was steeped in eugenics, but also that early-’70s abortion politics was played out in the shadow of Paul Ehrlich’s population-bomb theory. Former vice president Al Gore has already broached the idea of “fertility management.” Supreme Court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said, a few years ago: “Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” You thought right. Today, abortion is used as a means of exterminating a class of humans deemed unworthy of life — those with Down syndrome. We live in a world where Ehrlich protégé John Holdren — who, like his mentor, made a career of offering memorably erroneous predictions (not out of the ordinary for alarmists) — was able to become a science czar in the Obama administration. Holdren co-authored a book in the late 1970s called “Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment,” which waded into theoretical talk about mass sterilizations and forced abortions in an effort to save hundreds of millions from sure death. Nye is a fellow denier of one of the most irrefutable facts about mankind: Human ingenuity overcomes demand. Now, the fact that something hasn’t happened yet doesn’t mean it can’t happen in the future. But the evidence against Malthusianism is stronger now than it has ever been. And, of course, not everything about human existence can be quantified. This is the point. Talking about humans as if they were a malady that needs to be cured is, at its core, immoral. And listening to a man who has three residences lecture potential parents about their responsibilities to Mother Earth is particularly galling. Although many thousands of incredibly smart and talented people engage in real scientific inquiry and discovery, “science” is often used as a cudgel to browbeat people into accepting progressive policies. Just look at the coverage of the March for Science last week. The biggest clue that it was nothing more than another political event is that Nye was a speaker. “We are marching today to remind people everywhere, our lawmakers especially,” he told the crowd, “of the significance of science for our health and prosperity.” Fortunately, our health and prosperity have blossomed despite the work of Nye and his ideological ancestors.

No kidding!!  That outstanding op/ed was written by author David Harsanyi.  Bill Nye (who is NOT a real “science” guy) is just a liberal activist who puts himself out there as some science authority.  He got his BS in Mechanical Engineering.  Big deal.  My dad got his from West Point, and then his Masters…and so on.  Nye is a fraud and a fool.  Kudos to David for calling him out like this.  Excellent!!   🙂

Trump signs executive order aimed at expanding drilling in Arctic, Atlantic oceans

President Trump signed an executive order Friday that could lead to the expansion of drilling in the Arctic and Atlantic oceans, saying it will reverse his predecessor’s Arctic leasing ban and create “great jobs and great wealth” for the country. Trump said the executive order, titled “Implementing an America-First Offshore Energy Strategy,” will direct a “review of the locations available for off-shore oil and gas exploration” and related regulations. “Today we’re unleashing American energy and clearing the way for thousands and thousands of high-paying American energy jobs,” Trump said in his announcement. “Our country is blessed with incredible natural resources, including abundant offshore oil and natural gas reserves,” he said. “But the federal government has kept 94 percent of these offshore areas closed for exploration and production.” “This deprives our country of potentially thousands and thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in wealth,” Trump said. Trump, with the order, is directing his interior secretary to review an Obama-era plan that dictates which locations are open to offshore drilling, with the goal of the new administration to expand operations. The announcement Friday is part of Trump’s promise to unleash the nation’s energy reserves in an effort to reduce reliance on foreign oil and to spur jobs, regardless of fierce opposition from environmental activists who say offshore drilling harms whales, walruses and other wildlife and exacerbates global warming. The executive order will reverse part of a December effort by President Obama to deem the bulk of U.S.-owned waters in the Arctic Ocean and certain areas in the Atlantic as indefinitely off limits to oil and gas leasing. It will also direct Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to conduct a review of the locations available for offshore drilling under a five-year plan signed by Obama in November. The plan blocked new oil and gas drilling in the Atlantic and Arctic oceans. It also blocked the planned sale of new oil and gas drilling rights in the Chukchi and Beaufort seas north of Alaska, but allowed drilling to go forward in Alaska’s Cook Inlet southwest of Anchorage. Trump’s order could open to oil and gas exploration areas off Virginia and North and South Carolina, where drilling has been blocked for decades. “This executive order starts the process of opening offshore areas to job creating energy exploration,” Trump said. “It reverses the previous administration’s Arctic leasing ban and directs Secretary Zinke to allow responsible development of offshore areas that will bring revenue to our Treasury and jobs to our workers.” The president also said it will allow for Zinke to reconsider “burdensome regulations” that Trump said “slow job creation.”

Yes!!!  This is great news!!  🙂

British military interested in ‘Iron Man’ flying suit

Flying soldiers have been historically confined to science fiction or comic books, but a British inventor may be about to change the course of warfare. Richard Browning, who has been dubbed the ‘Iron Man’ of Wiltshire, has constructed a personal flight suit and amazed delegates at this year’s TED Conference when he lifted off from the short of Vancouver Harbour. Mr Browning, a Royal marine reserve, said a member the British military had already displayed interest in the suit, and had told him that the Ministry of Defense had given up on the idea of flying soldiers until they saw his design. Although the MoD told the Telegraph they were unaware of the conversation, they said they are currently looking for ‘innovative military solutions’..

Indeed..  Actually, the Brits aren’t the only ones developing “Iron Man” type suits.  The U.S. military has something up their sleeve as well..  Anyway, to see some photo’s of Mr. Browning’s suit, and read the rest of this article, click on the text above.

Rand: Congress ‘Should Think About’ Whether It Should Send Money to Universities ‘That Only Have One Set of Speech’

On Thursday’s broadcast of “The Laura Ingraham Show,” Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) said, “I think that Congress, and the people who appropriate the money, we should think about whether or not we should be sending money to universities that only have one set of speech.” When asked if he thought the “federal government, Donald Trump” could “impound” funds that would go a place like UC-Berkeley, Rand answered, “I think if it were a liberal president, and they were shutting down speech, they could probably do it. I don’t think that — I don’t think impounding funds is probably going to pass muster, but I think that Congress, and the people who appropriate the money, we should think about whether or not we should be sending money to universities that only have one set of speech.”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is right to raise the question.  And, we oftentimes agree with the libertarian Republican Senator..   But, he’s such a wuss!  When challenged, as he was here by Laura, he backs off and starts to do the Texas two-step.  But, then again that’s one of the downsides to libertarian-ism..  They really don’t stand for anything or have any real core beliefs.  They just hate government.  Well, we can appreciate that…and agree that government is WAY out of control and bloated.  BUT..  That in and of itself isn’t a belief system or a solution.  It’s just two-dimensional, knee-jerk reaction to three and four dimensional problems.  I’m sure Sen. Paul (who IS an MD) is a heck of a doctor.  But, he’s not the brightest bulb on the Christmas tree, and doesn’t have much backbone.  Of COURSE we should be denying federal funding to colleges and universities who refuse to enforce the first amendment rights of ALL students and allow for free speech of ALL varieties…including those of conservatives.  That’s a no-brainer.  The fact that a legislator (and ostensibly a Republican one at that!) is dancing around that kind of common sense is offensive.

Trump supporters headline free speech rally at University of California, Berkeley

Trump supporters descended upon the University of California, Berkeley on Thursday to reaffirm the principles of free speech and robust debate after the school canceled a scheduled lecture by conservative author Ann Coulter. Canadian contrarians Gavin McInnes and Lauren Southern headlined a free speech rally at MLK Park and read an excerpt from Ms. Coulter’s planned speech in her stead. “They may be able to stop us from speaking on the campus, they may be able to throw punches, to spray pepper spray, throw bricks at us, but they can’t stop an idea,” Ms. Southern said. “They can’t stop the history of this nation and the determination to defend free speech and protect God-given rights.” Berkeley officials canceled Ms. Coulter’s speech last week citing security concerns and the possibility of violence, but quickly reversed course after a backlash ensued. Despite the university’s assurance that she was welcome, Ms. Coulter said she had to cancel the speech Wednesday after losing the backing of the student group that invited her, Young Americans for Freedom. The free speech rally was mostly peaceful, with protesters and hecklers only sparsely populated in the surrounding area. Among the hundreds of attendees were representatives from Oath Keepers and Bikers for Trump, who said they were there to ensure the event remained peaceful. Many of the participants were clad in black and wore motorcycle helmets. The excerpt from Ms. Coulter’s speech argued against accepting Muslim immigrants and those in need of government assistance. “When Trump merely proposed we stop importing people whose religion teaches them to kill us, the media called him a racist,” Mr. McInnes read. “Republicans said that’s not who we are. They know us so well. There are 7 billion people in the world; we don’t have to take any of them. There’s no constitutional right for the rest of the world to move here. “Immigrants are showing up with a lot of needs and a lot of grievances,” he continued. “Why do we owe them? If you have grievances, go home and address the perpetrators. We owe you nothing. By my reckoning, they owe us.”

Exactly!!!  No foreign national has a U.S. constitutional right to come to America.  It is a privilege!!  And these snotty, entitlement-minded, liberal, tender snowflakes who shout down the likes of Ann Coulter and others who have the nerve to say such basic common sense truths are the real fascists.  Kudos to Gavin and Lauren for picking up the baton for Ann and carrying it forward.

Cartel Smuggling Tunnel Discovered under Mexican Border

U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers discovered an abandoned tunnel on a tip. Tucson Sector Border Patrol agents located a collapsed tunnel after receiving a report about a suspicious opening near the Raul Hector Castro Port of Entry, according to a statement from CBP Arizona. Although the tunnel collapsed roughly 25 feet from its opening, agents confirmed that it extended into the United States by 60 yards. It was located near a sewer line and apparently cut through a tunnel that was previously dug in the same location. Transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) use tunnels like the one found in Arizona to smuggle humans and narcotics into the United States. There have been well over 200 tunnels discovered along the U.S.-Mexico Border used for illicit purposes since 1990..

And those are just the ones discovered…  As many of you know, we’ve been calling for the Obama, and now Trump, Administration to BUILD THE WALL NOW!!!...and to build it above, and below ground to prevent tunneling.  Securing our southern border should be our federal government’s #1 domestic national security priority.  Period!  To read the rest of this story, click on the text above.

Opinion/Analysis: Insulting Ivanka: Why the media are turning on the first daughter

Why is there suddenly so much media hostility toward Ivanka Trump? Her visit to Germany has unleashed a wave of insults and snarkiness that seems wildly out of proportion to what actually happened on the trip. The short answer, of course, is that she is a target of animosity that is really aimed at her father. But it goes deeper than that. Some pundits seem to blame her for not transforming the president’s policies, despite the fact that he’s the one who got elected. Even more strangely, some blame her for not speaking out against her dad. During the campaign, when I happened to chat with her a few times, Ivanka was getting pretty good press. And why not? She is a poised and accomplished entrepreneur who handles herself with grace. I get that it’s strange for Ivanka Trump to be a top White House aide, and that some people can’t accept that. She originally just wanted to be an informal adviser. But with critics raising conflict questions about her business, Ivanka decided to relinquish that role and take an office in the White House, working with her husband, Jared Kushner, whose role in the administration keeps expanding. (Neither is drawing a salary.) I understand that her detractors say Ivanka owes her business opportunities, and now her political opportunity, to her dad. Fine. The president knew he would face nepotism charges when he made the appointments. And she had to know she was putting herself in the line of fire when she took an official title. But compare this to the situation faced by every first lady—and it’s an apt analogy because Ivanka’s high profile is partially due to Melania’s low-key role as she remains, for now, in New York. Each first lady gets a government staff and an international platform, simply by virtue of the fact that her husband won high office. And every first lady is widely admired, although there has been criticism of some (especially Hillary Clinton, who later sought the top job) for wading too deeply into policy. So is a first daughter really that different from a first lady? When Ivanka, noting that the president has employed thousands of women, drew some boos on the Berlin stage with Angela Merkel and Christine Lagarde, that opened the floodgates. Asked by NBC’s Hallie Jackson how she feels about being called an “accomplice” to her father, Ivanka said she didn’t like the word. “I think one of the things I value about my father as first a businessman and now as a leader of the country, is that he creates ideas and he likes to hear from people with divergent viewpoints. And that’s not always true in politics.” Still, we’re seeing headlines like this one in the liberal Huffington Post: “Trump’s White House Family Affair Looks A Lot Like The Most Corrupt Nations In The World.” CNN commentator and former Ted Cruz aide Amanda Carpenter said that “when I see Ivanka taking on this role, I really see her becoming like Hillary Clinton in the worst ways. She’s sort of becoming increasingly unlikable. She’s trying to get these jobs she’s not qualified for based on family connections.” MSNBC’s Chris Matthews compared the Trumps to “the Romanovs,” saying the president envisions a royal family and “it is un-American. It is untraditional. It’s somewhat weird.” Matthews wrote a book about JFK, who of course named his brother attorney general. Times have changed, but it’s not like Ivanka is running a major department. When Joe Scarborough brought up Bobby Kennedy and Mika Brzezinski asked whether he was comparing RFK to Ivanka, he accused her of being “snotty” and taking a “cheap shot.” The Guardian ran a snarky column saying that “Trump invoked her own impressive achievements as an example of her father’s commitment to equality. ..Trump is, indeed, a wonderful example of what women can achieve with just perseverance, tenacity and millions of inherited dollars.” Some of this is so personal that it’s obviously not really about Ivanka. She is clearly more moderate than her father and has been an advocate for women’s rights, family leave and child care. Yet her detractors had unrealistic expectations about her role and insist on holding her accountable for his past “Access Hollywood”-type comments about women. Maybe a truly feminist approach would be to judge Ivanka Trump on what she actually does in the White House, not on their distaste for her dad.

Agreed, Howard.  Veteran journalist Howard Kurtz is the author of that op/ed.  Howard is mostly right.  But, he’s overlooking some of the glaring elephants in the room..  Yes, these pathologically hypocritical liberal media pundits like Chris Matthews ARE taking shots at Ivanka because of their distaste for her father, and her thus far refusal to publicly criticize her father, or undermine his agenda.  Yes, there IS that.  True.  But, Ivanka is well educated (she, like her father, is a grad of the prestigious Wharton School at the Univ of PA; an ivy league school), hard working (she was wearing a hard-hat on construction sites at the age of 15 learning the ropes from Sups and foremen), clearly a great mom..and she’s stunningly good looking..as her former modeling career can attest.  She’s everything the left can’t stand; a good looking, conservative, working mom…who is well spoken/articulate, and frankly does it all with a smile.  And, as Howard rightfully notes, she nor her husband are taking a dime for their work in the White House.  Take THAT Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow and the rest of the losers at MSNBC!