Needed:  A National Paradigm Shift

A paradigm is a widely accepted belief or concept based on a set of assumptions. The current global warming (climate change) paradigm in the United States, persistently aired by the media, relentlessly pushed by progressive politicians (recently by President Biden), pervasively taught in public schools and universities and accepted as reality by many in the United States, is the belief, primarily based on assumptions and climate model projections using subjective inputs, that:

(1) The United States, by sharply decreasing its CO2 emissions, will avert an existential climate crisis.

Imbedded in and forming the basis of this paradigm are two other paradigms, also based on assumptions, not verified by facts, that are widely accepted as true, are:

(2) That CO2 is the main / primary driver of the global warming currently being experienced and,

(3) That reducing / cutting / eliminating human produced CO2 emissions will control / eliminate the global warming being experienced.

A “Paradigm Shift” occurs when one gains knowledge and factual information that invalidates the assumptions of the existing paradigm.   One of the most famous paradigm shifts resulted from Copernicus’s findings, based on his astronomical calculations, that the Earth revolved around the Sun rather than the widely accepted belief in his time, that the Sun revolved around the Earth.  Copernicus’s work and the factual proof was not published until he was on his deathbed because he was afraid of the potential consequences.  Even then his book was banned by the Catholic church and remained banned for almost three hundred years before the “incorrect paradigm” was shifted to the truth.  We do not have three hundred years to shift the above paradigms. Debilitating policies based on these invalid assumptions are already in the works and severely cripplingly climate change “mandates” could be imposed in the near future.

 We, the American people, as well as the rest of the world, urgently need to experience paradigm shifts that will prevent potential devastating consequences that would result from the impending formulation, imposition and enforcement of ill founded, misguided polices, restrictions and controls on CO2 emissions.  Readily available facts* and information clearly refute each of the existing paradigms cited above.

  *on Wikipedia for example

First Paradigm to shift

Let’s examine the first paradigm in need of shifting – i.e. – The general belief of the populous – based on statements, assertions, and declarations from the IPCC, the main stream media, environmental groups and most recently by the United States Government, that: —–The United States by drastically cutting its CO2 emissions will avert an existential climate crisis. (Biden’s announced plan is to cut United States CO2 emissions by 50-52% of their 2005 levels by 2030.)

Yes, there is ongoing global warming. The current, interglacial, cycle of warming began around 1750 when global temperatures of the “Little Ice Age” reached their minimums.  Yes, the burning of fossil fuels pollutes the air, putting carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, and hydrocarbon particulates in the air. And the oceans are being fouled with plastic waste. Some actions to address these realities have been taken but more can and should be done. However, these environmental needs are barely attended to with all the attention on reducing CO2 emissions.

But, is it true that — drastically cutting United States CO2 emissions will really avert a climate crisis? Here are some relevant facts and information that answer that question and hopefully can, with broad dissemination, nationally shift this first paradigm which focuses on the United States response and ability to allay the purported climate crisis.

(1) In 2018, the US produced 14% of the total annual worldwide CO2 emissions, a total of 4,800 MMT (million metric tons). The US has been cutting their CO2 emissions since 2000. The United States now emits less CO2 than it did in 1990, when calls for CO2 reduction began. The use of natural gas in lieu of coal has made the greatest contribution to this reduction in United States CO2 emissions.

(2) But, while the US has been cutting CO2 emissions, most countries since 1990 (see Figure 1) have been steadily increasing their CO2 emissions, some greatly so. For example, China’s CO2 emissions rose from 2,397MT to 10,313MT (1990 to 2018), a 430% increase. China’s per capita CO2 emissions also grew, increasing by 533% from 1980 to 2018. As can be seen by examining the graph , most countries (other than the US and the EU) have roughly doubled their emissions. Developing countries, as expected, are just beginning to ramp up their CO2 emissions.

(3) In contrast to China and most other countries, the US and the EU have cut per capita emissions. US per capita CO2 emissions have declined by 22.5% since 1980.

(4) From an overall outlook, that really puts the situation in perspective, worldwide annual CO2 emissions from 1990 to 2018 increased 164%, (from 22,000 MMT to 36,000 MMT). The US did not contribute at all to that 164% increase, actually, the US helped it from being an even greater increase.   Most importantly, with respect to the implication of the “critical role” and importance attached to what the US must do, is that: Even if the US had produced zero CO2 emissions in 2018, there still would have been a worldwide increase of 141% in carbon dioxide emissions between 1990 and 2018.**  So it is evident that:

What the US has done to cut carbon dioxide emissions (emissions in 2018 were cut by 20% over 2005 levels), is continuing to do (the United States achieved the largest absolute reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of any country in 2019 – IEA), and is being tasked to do over the next 8 years (meet the objective of a 50-52% cut in emissions by 2030) would hardly make a ripple in the essentially unabated, continuing increase in world-wide carbon dioxide emissions. The steady increase in worldwide CO2 emissions is clearly displayed in Figure 1.

Figure 1 – CO2 Emissions by Major Economies and by Region, Source –Our World in Data

**(An example of the fallacy, and inconsistency in implying that US actions are able to reduce overall global CO2 emissions was the Biden Administration’s shutting down the US Keystone pipeline construction, ostensibly to reduce fossil fuel consumption, and then (1) lifting the sanctions on the Nord Stream 2 Russian oil pipeline delivering oil to Germany and (2) asking OPEC to increase its oil production to help reduce gas prices (that immediately rose when the US Keystone pipeline was shut down).

So as is evident from Figure 1 and the statistics presented above, that:

Despite the IPCC warnings to reduce CO2 emissions since 1990 – AND

Despite the periodic “climate accords” among nations,

The annual rate of increase of CO2 emissions has essentially continued unabated.

So, if indeed CO2 emissions presented an existential threat to the planet, the pleas and plans for the United States to drastically reduce CO2 emissions would not even come close to dealing with that threat.

Thus, the looming plans to impose CO2 emission restrictions on the people of the United States and the impassioned pleas for cutting US CO2 emissions based on fears of a doomed planet and our children’s futures, with inference that such cuts, by the people of the United States, will avert a climate crisis, are disingenuous, misleading, and raise false hopes.  It is clear from the data and from the evident lack of worldwide response that such actions would be unproductive and ineffective and would uselessly impose great suffering and undue burdens on Americans.  It is evident that this first paradigm: “The United States, by drastically cutting CO2, will avert a climate crisis.”, should “shift” to the now informed understanding that if indeed CO2 emissions were producing global warming and an impending crisis: 

The NEW PADIGIGM should be:

Imposing harsh CO2 emission controls on the US would not avert a “climate crisis” even if the US cut its CO2 emissions to zero.,

So, the answer to the question: Will drastically cutting United States CO2 emissions really avert a climate crisis?” is NO IT WON’T !!!, because based on the evidence, the rest of the world’s CO2 emissions will continue to rise more than making up for the US declining contribution. For example, China plans on continuing to increase emissions, (ostensibly reaching a peak in 2030), and developing countries, [i.e. in Africa, etc.] are in the CO2 emissions expansion stage as would be expected as they are indeed “developing” countries.   

The above paradigm shift does not imply that we should stop reducing our fossil fuel emissions, because they indeed produce air pollution. The US action to reduce emissions has been great and helps set an example to the world. The point is to correct the widely held misconception that our (the US ) actions can effect a “substantive change” and to avoid imposition of draconic measures in the US to achieve that alleged change.

Does it seem hopeless? Will worldwide CO2 emissions result in fulfilling the claimed “existential threat” (of ending our very existence).   Good News! – It isn’t hopeless.   Because that emphasized if, indicated above, is a really big IF.  Recall there are two more Paradigms to shift, namely:

(2) That CO2 is a main/primary driver of the global warming being experienced and,

(3) That reducing / cutting / eliminating CO2 emissions will control / eliminate global warming.

Second Paradigm to Shift

The examination of the second paradigm uses the actual empirical global temperature data record and the record of C02 emissions over more than 100 years. These data are readily available and provide the basis for shifting the second paradigm. Simply by juxtaposing the NASA global temperature data and the CO2 emissions data since 1880, clearly illustrates that CO2 is not the main driver of global warming. These data, as explained below, refute Paradigm 2 and the corollary to that finding refutes Paradigm 3, (i.e.  if CO2 emissions are not the primary cause of global warming, eliminating them will not stop the currently ongoing global warming cycle that began in 1750 (as the natural variation will still be controlling).  Here are the key, relevant graphs of empirical data that allow Paradigm 2 to be refuted.

Figure 2 – NASA global surface temperature data plot– (NASA Headquarters release No. 12-020 – now archived)

Figure 3 – Global Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 1850–2030 – Source – Center for Climate and Energy

It can be seen in Figure 3 that annual worldwide CO2 emissions slowly and gradually increased from 1850 to around 1945. They started to rise sharply around 1945. Since then, the annual rate of increase has essentially continued at nearly the same rate of rise. Interestingly, and very relevant with respect to determining whether CO2 drives global warming, Figure 2 shows that beginning about 1945 and continuing through 1978, precisely the period that CO2 emissions were rapidly increasing, global temperatures decreased.  There was no increase in global warming due to that significant and rapid rise in annual CO2 emissions and the attendant atmospheric accumulation that resulted from them. That is the science! The real empirical, factual, science that has been ignored by the climate alarmists. Global temperatures over the entire period from 1945-1978 were lower than they were in 1944 despite sharply, continuously increasing CO2 emissions.  Global cooling, rather than global warming, occurred during a 4-fold increase in annual carbon emissions, from 5000 MMT to 20,000 MMT during that period.  Natural climate / temperature controlling parameters, other than CO2 emissions, produced this 34-year period of lower global temperatures, just as they had produced lower global temperatures from roughly 1900 to 1910 (see figure 2) and higher temperatures (global warming) from 1917 to 1944.

Now, as can be seen in figures 2 and 3, around 1979 global temperatures began to rise above the 1944 level while CO2 emissions continued to increase at roughly the same annual rate. Global temperatures increased relatively rapidly post 1978. So it can be seen that there were two periods (1944-1978) and (1979-1998) with similarly increasing carbon emission rates, but two distinctly different global temperature responses. However, the post 1979 increase was attributed to the CO2 emissions, essentially on the basis that both temperature and emissions were increasing concurrently and that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (albeit a minor one). The previous period during which the opposite effect was observed is overlooked or intentionally ignored in attributing the post 1979 global warming to the effect of CO2 emissions.

There is more empirical data evident in these graphs to clearly discredit the CO2 emissions / global warming correlation. Look at the period 1917 to 1944 on each graph compared to the period 1979 to 1998. The data reveal another empirical record comparison which refutes the correlation of CO2 emissions with global temperature rise.  During the period 1917 to 1944, carbon emissions were quite low. Emissions were yet to be significant and were undergoing little change from year to year. By contrast global temperatures rose sharply during that period. In fact, the annual rate of global temperature rise during that period (1917-1944 -see Table 1), with small carbon dioxide emissions, matches the rate of global temperature rise experienced during the 1979 to 1998 period.  The latter period experienced 5 times greater annual carbon dioxide emissions.  Two time periods, experiencing extremely different CO2 annual emissions as well as atmospheric CO2 concentrations, having nearly identical global warming rates of rise, clearly discredits a finding of any significant influence of CO2 emissions and supports the concept that the natural variations producing warming were apparently similar and were controlling. Notably, the rate of rise in global temperatures post 1979 (which as was shown is similar to the post 1917 rate of rise) was an important contributing factor to the global warming CO2 emissions “alarm” raised post 1979 on the heels of the “global cooling” predictions and alarms that were sounded just a few years prior.   

Table 1 – Change in global warming vs cumulative amount of CO2 emitted (1917-2015) in Million Metric Tons -MMT

   Period           CO2 emitted        CO2 emitted in        Accumulated CO2   Temp. change   Temp. rise /

                        Annually – MMT   the period MMT      emissions MMT          + or –                  year  

1917-1944       3,500 -5000              114,750                      114,750              + 0.68 deg C      +0.025

1944-1979       5,000-20,000           287,500                      402,205                – 0.05 deg C

1979-1998      20,000-24,000          462,000                      864,205               + 0.47 deg C       +0.025

1998-2013      24,000-32,000          420,000                   1,284,000               – 0.06 deg C

1998 -2015     24,000-32,000          476,000                   1,350,000              – 0.30 deg C   UAH satellite data

The conclusion, based on the actual empirical data presented above, which shows no consistent, discernable correlation between annual CO2 emissions and global temperatures, is very clear, namely that the current second paradigm that “CO2 is driving global warming and climate change”, should undergo a Paradigm Shift to:  New Second Paradigm:

********** CO2 is not a main driver of the global warming currently being experienced. ***********

The atmospheric concentration of CO2 is believed to be critically important in warming the planet, up to an atmospheric concentration of CO2 of about 180 ppm. It is a fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and thus it makes sense that some contribution to global warming is ongoing from the great increase in CO2 emissions.  However, at the larger concentrations existing in the atmosphere from 1880 to the present (approximately 280 ppm to currently 415 ppm) the contribution to Global Warming from CO2 is not able to be successfully discerned when the empirical global temperature data record is juxtaposed with CO2 emissions. Because global temperatures were warming post 1979 and carbon emissions were continuing to steadily rise, the IPCC and others assumed a direct correlation and selectively used the empirical records post the late 1970’s to illustrate a direct correlation and an assumed causation between CO2 emissions and global warming.  They evidently essentially ignored the previous years with substantial evidence of the absence of correlation and causation.

Third Paradigm to Shift

There are 3 considerations that illustrate that the third “current paradigm”, which is that “cutting / eliminating CO2 emissions will control/eliminate global warming”, is an invalid assumption. While this paradigm is prolific in its proclamation and promotion, with literally thousands of people studying about, writing about and taking steps to try to fulfill its pledge, this paradigm is actually an empty promise, an assumption/supposition not supported by any material, demonstrative evidence. It is an assumption that, on a global scale, is untested, and unproven. It remains an unverified conjecture, devoid of experimental or experiential basis or any empirical global temperature data to support its postulation.

The following three considerations rebut the third paradigm’s validity and expose its foundational weaknesses. 

  1. The fundamental rebuttal, as illustrated by the data presented above that refuted Paradigm 2, is this: “Because CO2 is not a main, or even a discernable driver of the global warming being experienced, then cutting / eliminating CO2 emissions would likewise not be able to control, substantially reduce or eliminate global warming”.
  2. Figure 3 shows that CO2 annual emissions have been on the rise since 1850 and that they began increasing substantially after 1950. Thus, since 1850 there has never been a period of time to observe / quantify what the global effect of cutting or lowering CO2 emissions has been or would be. Further, not only have annual CO2 emissions increased year over year, the portion of the CO2 emissions that reach the atmosphere, (roughly 40-60%), stay for very long periods of time (10s to 100s of years), thus CO2 emissions have produced a gradual, continuous build-up of atmospheric concentrations of CO2 since 1850.  So, there has been no opportunity to scientifically measure, test or quantify the hypothesis that “cutting / eliminating CO2 emissions will control/eliminate global warming”.   Therefore, there has been no material scientific evidence or confirmation that could show the degree to which global temperatures would decrease if CO2 emissions are cut or are eliminated or even to establish that any decrease at all could be discerned. However, since the empirical data, as a whole, over the period 1880 to present, are not able to show a discernable or repeatable effect on the rate of increase in global temperate rise as a function of increase in CO2 emissions and or atmospheric concentration of CO2 (e.g.- recall there have even been extended periods where CO2 increased substantially and global temperatures reduced or did not increase), then by inference, reducing CO2 emissions would not be expected to show a discernable or repeatable effect on reducing the rate of global temperature rise (or causing it to fall).   
  3. On the other hand, the empirical temperature record since 1880, with its varying periods of global warming and cooling, does provide data that countermands the current third paradigm.   Namely, the evidence shows that global cooling occurred during substantial periods of increasing CO2 emissions and higher atmospheric concentrations of CO2.  The moderate global cooling post 1900 and post 1998 (see Figure 4) under increasing CO2 emissions and higher atmospheric concentrations of CO2 is, of course, not attributed to more CO2, but the empirical observations support the fact that the planetary global warming influence of CO2 greenhouse gas emissions was too small to override the natural variations that resulted in these periods of global cooling.  These several examples of global cooling (or lack of warming) under increasing levels of CO2 emissions and significantly cumulatively increased atmospheric concentrations of CO2 in the recent historic record is consistent with the observation and conclusion that there is an absence of any discernable effect of CO2 emissions on global temperatures.  This conclusion is likewise supported by the observation of periods time cited above with similar rates of global warming but with very different amounts of annual CO2 emissions and with substantially different atmospheric CO2 concentrations.

The above empirical, observational facts along with the absence of any material evidence supporting the assumption that cutting / eliminating CO2 emissions will control/eliminate global warming clearly refute the third existing paradigm. Thus, the paradigm should shift to one that states:

New Third Paradigm

******* To date there is no material or empirical evidence that demonstrates that reducing / cutting / eliminating CO2 emissions will control / eliminate the current global warming.” *******

Figure 4 –Global temperatures since 1979 from UAH Satellite Data

Future Considerations – without National Paradigm Shifts

Despite the scientific evidence to the contrary, including the empirical records of the last century and the history of cycles of global cooling and global warming to global temperatures higher than presently being experienced, CO2 emissions continue to be touted as the primary driver of the current global warming.  Notwithstanding the dire warnings delivered since 1990, the worldwide rate of rise in CO2 emissions has continued unabated. Undeterred by the reality of the impotent response to CO2 emission reduction to date (in fact there has been a steady rise),*** (see appendix) the purveyors of planetary calamity, trumpet a worldwide plan for about a 45% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2030 and net zero CO2 emissions by 2050. These goals are presented and discussed extensively as though they will actually be achieved. Little is presented or discussed concerning (1) how this would be achieved (2) what the consequences and impacts would be on people and (3) how mandates would be imposed / enforced to ensure compliance in developed and developing countries and whether they would be different.  Also, of course, if the CO2 emissions (that have entered the atmosphere) were really the cause of the global warming being experienced, those “escaped” emissions would have to be recovered from then atmosphere in order to eliminate the hypothesized CO2 emission global warming effect. The years 2030 and 2050 are not that far away!!

The IPCC established a maximum acceptable global temperature increase of 1.50 C over the 1850-1900 level by 2050. Reaching this limit of increase is shown (see Figure 5) coincident with the reaching of zero CO2 emissions (2050). (There would have to be, as discussed above, some plan for removal of the added atmospheric CO2 for this plan to work according to their hypotheses).  Achieving this 1.50 C goal, as revealed in Figure 5, in perhaps the most egregious and outrageous assertion yet by the IPCC, implies that humans can actually “shut off” global warming (and by extension, all of nature’s natural variations on global temperature change) just by eliminating our CO2 emissions. This shut off is only a reality in their subjective climate modeling. Apparently, the IPCC forgot that planetary temperatures have been varying as a function of natural variation for thousands of years (in the current interglacial) and for hundreds of thousands of years during the glacial cycles. In reality, if we indeed got rid of our CO2 emissions we would revert to natural variation and if we were still in the current interglacial warming cycle which began around 1750, temperatures would continue to increase until the next interglacial cooling cycle began.  The IPCC left this reality out of their idealized forecast. 

Figure 4 – IPCC plot of future global temperatures if warming held to 1.50C

It is astonishing to think how disruptive, how impractical, how inequitable and how irrational the idea and plan to reach zero emissions by 2050 would be if it were to be put in place or attempted to be put in place. It is inconceivable that:

  1. The bulk of our universe of energy that the world runs on (electricity production, transportation, construction equipment, heating of homes and offices, and manufacturing, and more) and all of the facilities and jobs that support that universe of energy would be eliminated and discarded. The result, if forcefully effected, would be mammoth human suffering and a catastrophic environmental solid waste pile to be “fully” replaced by weather dependent renewables that now supply only a few percent of the planet’s total energy, under significant subsidies.
  2. All of this would be sanctioned and allowed to be done without any concrete, physical, empirical, experimental evidence that it (a) was needed or (b) that elimination and removal of CO2 emissions would have any significant effect on global warming. 
  3.  To satisfy the conceptual / theoretical role of CO2 in global warming not only would CO2 emissions need to be zeroed out, but massive amounts of CO2 would have to be extracted from the atmosphere to return to the conditions when CO2 emissions were “ostensibly” not controlling global warming, as explained below. 

Consider the accounting of CO2 emissions in the atmosphere. If indeed CO2 were the primary driver of the global warming currently being experienced, then CO2 emissions had to, at some particular point in time or over a particular period of time, have taken over control of global temperature change from all the natural solar and planetary system parameters /variations producing changes in global temperature prior to human produced CO2 emissions, as they have for thousands of years. It is well known and well documented that significant changes (increases and decreases) in global temperature took place during glacial periods (+ 10OC), during interglacial periods (+ 1-2OC) and even during periods of a general rising or falling of global temperature trend within an interglacial period (+ 0.2OC). This latter is the case with our current rising global temperature trend which began following the nadir of the Little Ice Age around 1750. Figure 2 shows a portion of that general rising trend (since 1880).

Examination of the empirical record of CO2 annual emissions since 1850 (Fig. 3) would suggest that that a logical point in time to consider that CO2 emissions could have begun to dominate/control global warming was around 1950 when CO2 emissions began to accelerate. However, that date obviously does not work since global cooling rather than warming occurred for over 30 years despite the higher CO2 emissions.  The next logical date to consider for a CO2 emission “take over” would be around 1979 when global temperatures began to rise above 1944 levels and at a relatively rapid rate.  Any later date would not make sense.  Table 1 shows that by 1979 about 400,000 million metric tons (MMT) of CO2 had been emitted world-wide since 1917 (Annual carbon dioxide emissions prior to 1917 were small and were omitted in this tabulation of cumulative totals). The atmospheric concentration of CO2 in 1979 was approximately 330 Parts per million up from about 295 in 1917. Currently the world is emitting about 36,000 MMT annually (up from 20,000 MMT in 1979) and has emitted a total of about 1,550,000 MMT since 1917.  The total CO2 emissions added since 1979 is about 1,100,00 MMT. Atmospheric concentration of CO2 now (2021) is approximately 413 Parts per million.

It follows logically that if annual CO2 emission levels and/or atmospheric CO2 concentration levels initiated a state of primary “global warming” control over natural variation then a return to these levels would be required to “just begin” to return global temperature control to natural variation.  Cutting / eliminating CO2 emissions to affect a return to 1979 conditions would thus require immediately (1) cutting emissions to 20,000 MMT and (2) extracting 500 billion tons of CO2 from the atmosphere. To return to natural variation in control of global warming would theoretically require returning to at least the 1944 CO2 emission levels (which would mean cutting emissions to 5,000 MT and extracting 750 billion tons of CO2 from the atmosphere). It is irresponsible and disingenuous to promote the idea that either of these objectives can and will be accomplished.  Annual CO2 emissions are still rising in most countries, so the actual removal figures would be greater than shown above. Extraction of CO2 from the atmosphere in the quantities that would be required is clearly impractical and cost prohibitive. Most importantly it would be foolish to even consider carrying out these efforts with no proof that they would be successful.

It is recognized that the increased atmospheric CO2 has been steadily increasing crop yields and greening our planet. There are a few installations that have been built around the world that are capturing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere – and what are they doing with it when captured? – paradoxically they are selling it to growers to increase crop yields, exactly what it was doing in our atmosphere

Next, consider that there would be a terrific economic cost (due to physical retrofitting) and environmental havoc that would result in the process of trying to achieve zero emissions.  Many common aspects of people’s lives (beyond breathing) involve CO2 emissions such as heating and lighting homes, offices, factories and schools, raising crops to feed the populous, producing goods in factories and construction of homes, airports, roads, office buildings and transportation in cars, planes, busses, and trains. The percentage breakdown of CO2 emissions by sector in the US is (1) 13% Commercial and Residential, (2) 29% Transportation, (3) 10% Agriculture, (4) 25% Electricity Generation and (5) 23% Industry.  It is estimated that there are about 1.5 billion cars on the planet, 300 million in China and 268 million in the US.  The questions abound – what happens to all the abandoned cars? Where does the energy come from to produce reliable electricity for homes?,  for charging electric cars?, for operating factories? Will home heating systems have to be renovated? How will heavy construction be done?   What is the energy source and environmental cost of generating new materials to replace transportation elements?, to build batteries?, to make wind turbines currently with a life span of only 20 years?,  What is the impact on developing countries? 

The currently advertised IPCC projection for future conditions by limiting global warming to 1.50 C (Fig.4 ) is that:

Zero emissions are to be reached by 2050 and then ……   woosh global warming will end – the paradigm shift needed is that:

The currently advertised IPCC paradigm presents an unrealistic, concocted scenario (an idea or plan that is impossible or very unlikely to happen) based on conjecture (a postulation and a vain hope that has not been proven, tested or verified).

What about the Future?  Based on what is known, what should be done?

The analysis of the CO2 emissions / global warming relationship above illustrated what  CO2 emissions are not doing, but the fact is that over 1,700 billion tons, of human produced CO2 has been emitted since 1900, a sizeable percentage of that CO2 (40-60%) entered our atmosphere and because of its longevity most of it is still there.  So, there is a need to investigate and evaluate the effects of the roughly 1,000 billion tons of CO2 that we have put into the atmosphere and to which we are adding about 20 billion more tons each year. The presence of this added CO2 is evident in the measured concentration of CO2 increasing from about 300 ppm around the turn of the century, to 315 ppm around 1944, to about 330 ppm around 1979, to nearly 420 ppm currently (2021). The atmospheric concentration due to human emissions is rising at a rate of about 45 ppm per decade.  The amount of our CO2 emissions in the atmosphere constitutes about 0.014 %  of the atmosphere.

What does the existence of this large, “non-natural” modification to our atmosphere, that has been developing in earnest since 1944, and has been “substantially” developed for the last 40 years tell us?  And what should we be doing to investigate and document its effects?

What it tells us and what needs doing:

While the notion that the multiple parameters that have influenced and controlled the natural cyclic and intracyclic variations in global temperature, (warming and cooling), that are evident in the historic record were essentially overtaken and usurped by the influence of emissions of one minor greenhouse (CO2 ), such that these other influences on global temperature (warming)  became inconsequential, seems unfathomable, but assume for the moment that it did occur as presently declared and propagated.  If so, the obvious questions are: (1) At what atmospheric concentration did CO2 emissions become the primary influencer of global temperature change?, and (2) Under what circumstances (e.g. atmospheric concentration of CO2) will global temperature change, (warming and cooling) return to the control of natural variables (non human influenced) conditions.

The only reasonable answer to the first question is around the period 1975 -1979 when the atmospheric concentration of CO2 reached about 330 ppm (and annual emissions were 20,000 MMT). This is because prior to that time (1945-1979) there was planetary cooling (global temperatures remaining below the 1944 level), and after that time a rapid warming took place until 1998 (followed by a period of lower global temperatures). The logical answer to the second question is that the atmospheric concentration of CO2 would need to return to at least below the 330 ppm CO2 “triggering” level to return global temperature variation to “natural variation parameters” if the prevailing conjecture were indeed valid? Since CO2 emissions continued (and at an ever increasing rate post 1979) this means that a “reservoir” or surplus of added CO2 above the level of  “CO2 emissions becoming the primary driver of global warming” developed. That surplus is currently about 750 billon tons of CO2. Thus:

  1. To remove CO2 emissions from their alleged primacy role in driving warming would not only require eliminating CO2 emissions but also extracting roughly at least 750 billion tons of CO2 from the atmosphere.
  • If indeed CO2 emissions “took over” control of global tempatures, and thus “the ongoing, current global warming” at around an atmosphic CO2 concentration of 330 ppm (circa 1979) and that resulted in the 0.470 C rise in global temperature by 1998, (a 0.250C rate of increase per decade – see table 1), then it would certainly be expected that the ever increasing amount of CO2 emissions entering the atmosphere following 1998 would have produced an accelerated, ever increasing rate of global temperature rise. However, as evidenced in Figure 4, not only was there not an acceleration of global warming “under the ever increasing amount of CO2 emissions post 1998” but essential there was a substantial number of years after 1998 with lower global temperatures and through 2021 there has been little increase in overall warming at all.  In fact, right now, January 2022, the global temperature is about 0.40C less than the global temperatures recorded in early 1998.

This is not to say that the current overall global warming cycle has ceased, not at all, rather it illustrates that the natural variation with periods of greater and lesser warming (and some periods of cooling or little change) that has occurred historically is still taking place (see figure 2), but most importantly it illustrates that a continuous, ever increasing rate of rise in global temperatures is not occurring due to the greatly increased atmospheric CO2 concentration. That would be the expectation under the paradigm of CO2 emissions being the primary driver of global warming and that is not occurring.  

  • The IPCC endorsed paradigm promulgating CO2 emissions as having primary responsibity for the global warming being experienced (circa 1990) was an assumption based on observation of the post 1979 concurrent rise in global temperatures and the ongoing increase in CO2 emissions. This hypothesis was essentially accepted as a fact and was not subjected to rigorous independent examimation and proof based on the scientific method. Rather, it was buoyed and reinforced using subjective climate modeling, endorsed and sustained by the positive spin off / by products of what the paradigm called for, (such as cutting pollution from fossil fuels and enhancing/greening the environment) and anecdotally reinforced by the ongoing “expected” outcomes of the ongoing cycle of global warming (e.g. glaciers melting).  Subsequently, this misconception (that the primary cause of the global warming being experienced is anthropogenic global warming due to CO2 emissions), was given the pseudonym “climate change” and became a cause celebre and spread to every sector of society – including economic, academia, media, and political. Further, despite the lack of a reasonably rigorous scientific investigation to support it, debate/discussion of the issue was shut down with claims that it was “settled science” and that anyone questioning the claim was a “denier”.  The classical error of  assuming “correlation proved causation” was made by the purveyors of the paradigm that CO2 emissions were primarily responsible for the current global warming and this error was all the more egregious due to basing the correlation on only a small portion (post 1979) of the global temperature record. But now, once examined by the full extent of the empirical evidence,  it is evident that the increasing CO2 emissions did not, during formative stages (1945-1975), and do not presently have the dominate effect on global temperatures that was assumed.

So in light of the fact that the actual effects of the burgeoning CO2 emissions going into the atmosphere (which have now reached 1000 billion tons) were not rigorously and scientifically examined, what should be done now? It is imperative that the possible effects of the large quantity of CO2 emissions that have been added to the atmosphere need to be identified/brainstormed and then monitored and investigated. The efforts required include:

  • Brainstorm what positive and negative effects may be occurring, so as to identify and monitor the effects due to the presence of CO2 added to the atmosphere,
  • Scientifically examine the possible effects hypothesized with particular attention to observing increasing effects with time in concert with the accelerating rate of CO2 emissions since about 1945. (Note that the increased greening of the planet, which is consistent with a fundamental effect of atmospheric CO2, has already been demonstrated and documented.)
  • Establish realistic goals for reduction of fossil fuel use, not because of CO2 but to reduce pollution and develop alternative energy supplies.
  • Convert as many futile CO2 “climate change” study efforts as possible to the above efforts in order to determine what, if any, adverse effects of the increased atmospheric CO2 are and how they should be addressed.

Conclusion

National Global Warming Paradigm Shifts are badly needed as are investigations of what if any are the real identifiable effects of the increased atmospheric CO2.

***Appendix 

 Chill out about global warming
The evidence doesn’t establish that it’s ‘the existential threat’

by Clifford May
The Washington Times
November 10, 2021

 

At the United Nations Climate Summit (aka COP26) in Glasgow last week, President Biden declared that climate change is “the existential threat to human existence as we know it.”

Based on that judgment, he plans to implement policies that will weaken America’s national security and economy, as well as slow development in poor countries. Perhaps this question occurs to you: Is Mr. Biden’s judgement, correct?

Those arguing that it is not include Steven E. Koonin, who served as the senior scientist in the Department of Energy under President Obama. Mr. Koonin does not “deny” that the climate is changing or that human activity is influencing that change.

But in articles and a book published this year, “Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters,” he makes a persuasive case that the computer models that predict climate apocalypse are deficient and unreliable.

He provides data showing that heat waves in the U.S. “are now no more common than they were in 1900,” that “the warmest temperatures in the US have not risen in the past fifty years,” and that “Greenland’s ice sheet isn’t shrinking any more rapidly today than it was eighty years ago.”

If you’ve been led to believe otherwise, that’s probably because activists have been “exaggerating and distorting” the evidence to make the case that “we are facing the ‘last, best chance’ to save the planet from a hellish future.”

He notes that the most recent report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change “deems its highest-emissions scenarios of the future unlikely, even though those are the ones you’re mostly likely to hear about in media reports.”

Since the late 1800s, he points out, the world has warmed by about 1 degree Celsius without significantly adverse consequences. He postulates that “even 1.5 degrees of additional warming by 2100 will have minimal net economic impact.” He scolds commentators who fail to grasp the difference between weather and climate.

Bjorn Lomborg, who heads the Copenhagen Consensus Center, contends that policies aimed at cooling the planet quickly are bound to fail. Even if the U.S. went “entirely net zero” on carbon emissions tomorrow, he has calculated, that “would only cut temperatures by the end of the century by 0.3 degree Fahrenheit” – barely measurable.

That’s because “most of the emissions in the 21st century will come from China, India, Africa, the rest of Southeast Asia, Latin America – countries that are now trying to lift their populations out of poverty and obviously have much greater priorities than cutting carbon emissions.” Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni recently wrote: “Africa can’t sacrifice its future prosperity for Western climate goals.”

Mr. Lomborg urges a different approach: increased investment in “green energy research” to develop sources of power cheaper than fossil fuels. And, of course, we could cut carbon emissions immediately by switching from coal to natural gas and bringing online nuclear power facilities such as those France utilizes. Why those options are rejected by most activists we’ll leave for another discussion.

Mr. Lomborg emphasizes the human ability to adapt to climate change. Farmers will switch crops. Levees and dikes can protect low-lying areas near oceans as is already the case in below-sea-level Holland and New Orleans. Since trees ingest carbon dioxide, boosting re-afforestation can be helpful. Keeping free markets free spurs innovation.

By contrast, “climate summits” – 26 of them since 1992 – where politicians arrive on private jets, virtue signal, spew hot air, and make promises they can’t or won’t keep bring no progress. Perhaps you noticed that, just before COP26, Mr. Biden was pressuring OPEC to produce more oil.

Another shortcoming of the current approach is that “renewable” sources of energy are less renewable than advertised. The Manhattan Institute’s Mark P. Mills has noted: “Wind and solar machines and batteries are built from nonrenewable materials. And they wear out. Old equipment must be decommissioned, generating millions of tons of waste.”

“Building enough wind turbines to supply half the world’s electricity would require nearly two billion tons of coal to produce the concrete and steel, along with two billion barrels of oil to make the composite blades,” he added. “More than 90% of the world’s solar panels are built in Asia on coal-heavy electric grids.”

As for electric cars: “A single electric-car battery weighs about 1,000 pounds,” Mr. Mills wrote. “Fabricating one requires digging up, moving and processing more than 500,000 pounds of raw materials somewhere on the planet.”

Other drawbacks include the need for rare-earth metals and other materials that will be mined “in nations with oppressive labor practices. The Democratic Republic of the Congo produces 70 percent of the world’s raw cobalt, and China controls 90 percent of the cobalt refining.” Perhaps you’re aware, too, that Chinese President Xi Jinping, who didn’t attend COP26, is building new coal-powered plants.

Last month, Mr. Xi tested a nuclear-capable hypersonic missile that could be used to launch a first strike against the U.S. Also last month, Nicolas Chaillan, a senior cybersecurity official at the Defense Department, resigned, explaining that because the Pentagon is not prioritizing cybersecurity and artificial intelligence, successfully competing with China in those strategic areas will be impossible anytime soon. Ignoring such warnings, the Defense Department last week announced plans to name a “senior person” to – perhaps you guessed – “prioritize” climate change.

Almost three years ago, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, declared that “the world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.” Based on that judgment, she’s determined to implement her “Green New Deal,” ignoring the perspectives of experts such as those quoted above. Perhaps it occurs to you that Mr. Biden and others who are following her lead are not following the science.

Conclusion:  National Global Warming Paradigm Shifts Are Badly Needed and Inve

Going Electric – Understanding the use and production of Electric Vehicles

John Muir, naturalist and noted environmental advocate said, “When we try to pick out anything by itself, we find it hitched to everything else in the Universe.”, and so it is with electric vehicles and especially with the production of their very hefty batteries. 

Just how “Green” are Electric Vehicles (EV), that is: Are they good for the environment? Do they combat “climate change” by using renewable energy? To answer those questions, one needs to know: (1) What is the actual energy source for EV batteries? (2) What are the energy expenditures and natural resource costs in producing the very heavy electric batteries used in Electric Vehicles? (3) What would the potential environmental, economic and social effects related to replacing all combustion engine cars, trucks, construction vehicles with electric vehicles be, if done within the time frames being proposed? (4) And finally, where and how is electric vehicle operation especially good for the environment?

The short answers to each of the first three questions are given below and the fourth on electric vehicle environmental benefits deserves and has its own section:

  1. An electric vehicle is only as “green” as the fuel source used to generate the electricity that charges its battery. The majority (84%) of the electricity in the electricity grids used to charge electric vehicle batteries in the US is produced from fossil fuels and nuclear energy, (64% -natural gas and coal fired power plants and 20%-nuclear plants).  Similarly, in the World the majority of electricity (84%) is produced from coal (34%), natural gas (23%), hydroelectricity (17%) and nuclear energy (10%). In a few countries, (e.g. Albania, Norway, Paraguay, the DRC), the electricity grid is powered by all or mostly hydroelectricity so in those locales electric vehicle operation is truly “green”.
  2. According to the World Economic Forum producing an electric vehicle contributes, on average, twice as much to “global warming potential”1 and uses double the amount of energy than does producing an internal combustion engine (ICE) car, mainly because of the electrical vehicle  battery. A 1000-pound EV battery contains 25 pounds of lithium, 60 pounds of nickel, 44 pounds of manganese, 30 pounds of cobalt, and 200 pounds of copper. (Note: A Tesla Model S battery weighs 1200 lbs., A GMC Hummer battery weighs 9000 lbs.) To get these metals for just one battery requires processing 25,000 pounds of brine for the lithium, 30,000 pounds of ore for the cobalt, 5,000 pounds of ore for the nickel, and 25,000 pounds of ore for copper. In all 250 tons (500,000 lbs.) of rock and soil are excavated and processed for one battery. Even to supply the current limited production of electric vehicle batteries, obtaining the toxic cobalt and lithium is problematic, not only from a resource availability standpoint (The Democratic Republic of the Congo holds 70% of the Cobalt reserves), but also from health, safety and social perspectives.

1 Global Warming Potential is based on model studies that subjectively attribute global warming to CO2 emissions. However, the available empirical evidence (NASA temp. record and CO2 emissions records), for the period 1880 to the present shows that global temperatures do not corelate with CO2.

3. There are now (2022) about 1.5 billion vehicles in the world and roughly just 10 million are electric vehicles (less than 1%). Annual new car production is projected to grow from about 84 million in 2022 to 127 million by 2035 with still only a small percentage projected to be electric battery vehicles (2-4%). To meet the stated/planned objective of zero CO2 emissions by 2050 would mean (1) mass disposal of the stock of still functional gas fueled vehicles, (2) a huge expansion of the production of electric vehicle batteries, and (3) development of non-fossil fuel electric generating capacity to reliably charge the electric batteries. Each of those activities would in turn have enormous adverse social, economic and environmental (e.g. solid waste) consequences. And, paradoxically as noted, this replacement would not directly reduce emissions as the replaced vehicles would have to be charged by the electricity grid. So only if the grid is 100% fueled by renewables would the zero CO2 emissions goal be met and accomplishing that creates another set of environmental and practical dilemmas. 

It should be reasonably clear, from the short explanations above, that the operation of Electric Vehicles does not significantly add or detract to global CO2 emissions.  But the “embedded energy costs”, and thus the associated emissions, from production of an electric vehicle and their batteries exceed those of producing a gas engine vehicle. Therefore, the statements2, claims, and assertions coming from the current administration and other “experts” that “climate change” is being addressed by going to electric vehicles and by the charging stations and electric grid network being funded by the Infrastructure Bill are either disingenuous, promotional hyperbole or are made from a lack of understanding of the actual, true environmental benefits, merits and costs of electrical vehicles (and especially the practicality of a complete transition to electric vehicles). 

2 Per the White House issued statement, “The bill invests $7.5 billion to build out the first-ever national network of EV chargers in the United States and is a critical element in the Biden-Harris Administration’s plan to accelerate the adoption of EVs to address the climate crisis…..”

Electrical Vehicle Benefits

If not a reduction in global CO2 emissions, what are the benefits of electric vehicles? The primary and very important benefit of electric vehicle use is environmental. Their use avoids the air pollutants (NO, N2O, NO2, SO2, particulates, etc.) from the burning of fossil fuels in gasoline engines. Their deployment and operation in densely populated areas can greatly help the air quality by reducing air pollution from Internal Combustion Engines. That is the key aspect of electric vehicles that should be capitalized on because that is where electric vehicles can do the most good.  Smaller batteries with less environmental impact from their production are required for the lesser range, local driving within cities and metropolitan areas. Further the electric batteries can be charged in homes or at work places using less costly charging stations and without the need for enhanced electrical grids. 

Rather than focusing on the metropolitan areas for deployment of electrical vehicles, where the most good can be done by any government assistance, the recently passed Infrastructure Bill proposes to use the $7.5 billion fund for charging stations in rural areas and to “strategically deploy EV charging stations to build out a national network along our nation’s highway system.” And to spend $65 billion on upgrading the electrical grid to ensure that these charging stations along our nation’s highways are functional.  This plan is flawed. (1) The Level 3 more rapid charging stations, which would be required to charge EV’s traveling highways, cost 50 to 100 times more than the Level 2 stations in use in homes and work places. (2) Electric vehicles are not as practical in rural areas and are more costly to buy and operate and thus less likely to be purchased by rural residents. The rural demand for electric vehicles will be less, and the need/rationale to go electric reduce air pollution is less. Thus, the need for charging stations in rural areas is lesser. (3) The batteries needed to operate the longer ranges associated with highway / rural travel would be much larger and much more expensive. And (4) As noted above the number of electric vehicles will still be relatively limited for a number of years especially in the areas where their use is less advantageous to the potential buyers.  Thus, while the Infrastructure Bill focus on expansion of electric vehicle access for rural and highway travel is proposed to broaden the scope of electric vehicle travel and make up for underserved areas, it is inconsistent with the actual need and benefit associated with electrical vehicles.          

Focusing on the development, production and use of electric vehicles and their batteries for use in metropolitan area settings makes a lot of sense and would help avoid the potential social, economic and political problems that would be confronted in trying to replace all existing vehicles with electric engines.

Social, Political and Environmental Aspects associated with transitioning to Electric Vehicles

The production of electric vehicles and their batteries is just in its formative stage. From 2010 to 2019 approximately 5 million electric vehicles were produced and currently 2-3 million new electric vehicles are being produced each year, making up about 3% of new car sales worldwide. While that proportion is projected to increase rapidly (to 10% by 2025 and 28% by 2030) it is relatively astonishing and disconcerting to observe the environmental and social problems, even at the current low level of 3% of all new cars, that are associated with the mining for the metals used in electric vehicle batteries.  The “metals in batteries … are scarce, expensive, or problematic because their mining carries harsh environmental and social costs”.3  Here are two situations that elucidate this assessment and expose a couple of the environmental and social concerns associated with obtaining the raw materials required for the making the currently used lithium-ion electric vehicle battery.

  1. About two-thirds of all the cobalt used for production of electric vehicle batteries currently comes from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). About 20%-35% of the cobalt supplied by the DRC comes from “artisanal” mining by families (fathers, mothers and children) who extract the toxic cobalt near surface, without protective equipment. Steps are being discussed to improve the situation for the 100,000 to 200,000 people whose livelihoods are derived from this “informal” gathering of cobalt but there is considerable visual documentation (e.g. in articles and u-tube videos) that shows the primitive “cobalt mining” and unhealthy conditions that constitute this “artisanal” mining of cobalt for electric vehicle batteries by the people in the DRC is ongoing. These families are literally scratching out a living (reported avg. daily earnings of about $2-3) in support of electric vehicle battery production.
  2. In the parched Atacama Desert of Chile about 34% of the lithium currently being used worldwide for electric vehicle batteries is produced. Enormous quantities of water are required to produce useable lithium. The water is used to form a subsurface lithium / water brine that is then pumped to the surface where the water evaporates. As noted above, the 25 lbs. of lithium required for a 1000-pound electric vehicle battery requires 25,000 lbs. of water to process it. Water is of course a precious commodity in this desert environment and its use to process the lithium (using nearly 65% of the water in the Salar de Atacama region) makes freshwater less accessible to the surrounding eighteen indigenous Atacameno communities.4 

What is particularly striking about these accounts is that the projections for increased needs for the electric vehicle battery production are huge (the IEA forecasts a 42 times increased need for lithium by 2040 over the 2020 output) and a similar increase in cobalt would be required. Reflecting on the problematic/strained status of environmental and social conditions in producing the “relatively minimal” 2020 supplies of the minerals required for electric vehicle battery production gives one great pause.

3 Electric cars and batteries: how will the world produce enough? Nature.com August 17,2021

4 “The rush to ‘go electric’ comes with a hidden cost: destructive lithium mining” by Thea Riofrancos in, The Guardian,  June 14, 2021

Summary

Electric vehicle operation, especially in densely populated areas, provides a huge environmental benefit to improvement of and maintenance of good air quality. The focus of expanding electric vehicle acquisition and use (as well as any government subsidy or assistance) should be directed towards electrical vehicle use in large metropolitan areas. Electric vehicle operation in cities is advantageous because of the shorter driving distances involved which in turn means smaller batteries are required and charging is more convenient.  Because electric vehicle batteries operate off the local / existing electrical grid by which they are charged, electric vehicles do not per se affect “climate change” via reducing global/regional carbon dioxide emissions. This is because the electrical grid is powered by whatever the local electrical power generating fuel is and at present that fuel is predominately fossil fuels. 

The extraction and processing of lithium and cobalt required for the current lithium-ion batteries, currently being produced for electric vehicles, is socially and environmentally problematic and is somewhat taxing the available resources even for the relatively small number of electric cars being produced currently (about 3% of new cars). Expansion of electric vehicle battery production to the levels currently being projected would seem to be much greater than is realistic. Further the social, economic and environmental aspects associated with the disposition / replacement of the tremendous numbers of gas engine vehicles is mind boggling. There are currently 1 billion 400 million gas engine vehicles operating world-wide, and on average over 100 million more per year will be produced from now till 2035. If according to current goals emissions are to be reduced by 50% by 2040 and 100% by 2050, replacement of the entire planets gas engine fleet by 2050 is not even close to being practical or equitable.

Finally, the typical discussion and projection of the transitioning to electric vehicles in the name of “emissions reduction” does not recognize that in the US, currently, 28% of greenhouse gas emissions are from transportation and 27% from electricity (industry, commercial/residential and agriculture contribute the rest). If the transportation sector converts from gas to all electric battery operation, then ostensibly the electricity sector would have to increase its capacity (and associated fuel usage) enough to supply the energy now used by transportation, so in rough terms the electricity sector would then contribute 50+% of the greenhouse gas emissions. The electric vehicles themselves do not cut global CO2 emissions.    

Larry Von Thun, Civil Engineer, Lakewood, Colorado

Exposing and Overcoming the Alliance of Bias – 12/31/2020

Preface

There are of course, in our very diverse country, differences of opinion on many issues (taxes, education, healthcare) and on the best way to deal with each issue, (state, federal, private). To various degrees that has always been the case.  There have also always been radical, extremist groups pushing their agendas. But I believe the vast majority of our population are good, patriotic, hardworking, caring people who support our country and are willing to work with others for the good of all.  My democrat friends are good people, my independent friends are good people, my republican friends are good people. So why is there now such a great divide in our land?

It is my contention that, in large part the divide in this country, has been created and is sustained by a dominant partisan media (television, newspapers, and social media conglomerates) that have forsaken their duty to be the “free press” guardians of truth against power hungry, social engineering tyrants, and have become their pawns. Restricting, distorting and falsifying news and information to intentionally influence and manipulate a significant block of public opinion.  As mercenaries for big tech and big media billionaires and sycophants and mouthpieces for politicians, the mainstream media news anchors and most especially cable News Anchors over the last four years have, with impunity, fostered the proliferation of false accusations, rumors and innuendo and brazenly spewed hate, vitriol and the vilest statements against the President of the United States while totally disregarding or distorting landmark accomplishments.  These deceptions worked, most people believe what they are told over and over. A large part of the population’s distrust and fears were fed and they were essentially kept in the dark concerning any good news or accomplishments. The divide intensified, as half the country heard hate and loathing against the president and the other half watched economic successes and foreign policy successes being achieved by the administration. Further, the “success” half were made aware of the constant condemnation being delivered by the mainstream media.  No wonder there is a big divide.  Is my assessment correct?

I prepared the article below to document a case of this media collusion as evidence to support my case. The recent case I am reporting on is one of intentional, suppression, obfuscation, and blocking/censoring of news and information from a significant portion of the American people.  I wrote this to ensure that this instance of societal control and manipulation by the powerful is recorded and not lost in the rapid evolution of news, in which yesterday’s bombshell falls into the waste can of oblivion.  I am sending it to all on either side of the current divide, who will read it, not to foster a political cause per se, (as that die was already cast), but as an on-going wake up call to the existence of “manipulative informational control” occurring in our country that is reminiscent of the absence of freedom of the press / state run media which has been employed in dictatorships, communist countries and famously in Orwell’s’ 1984.    Please read this, do what you can to counter this attack on our freedoms and please pass the article on to others especially those who may not be aware of the Alliance of Bias.  

       Exposing and Overcoming the Alliance of Bias – 12/30/2020

         Freedom will be “a short-lived possession” unless the people are informed. – Thomas Jefferson                  

A Ministry of Propaganda, Orwellian Newspeak, State Run Media, Mind Control

                                    Surely not here in the United States of America,

                      We have freedom of speech and freedom of the press –

                               It is in our Constitution – Right there in the Bill of Rights!!

However, an “Alliance of Bias” exists between:

  1. The Democrat Party leadership
  2. Mainstream Media and Cable Channels
  3. Big Tech (social media and internet giants)

This Alliance of Bias is making a mockery of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

The Alliance is intent on gaining the power to control and transform America. In so doing they are attacking our basic freedoms. These parties have been, are currently, and are poised to continue controlling the news and information flow to millions of Americans, to gain power and control the outcome of elections. Unless their nefarious actions are widely recognized, condemned and stopped America will remain under their control. 

Currently this “Alliance of Bias” is the dominant news and information influence for probably, on the order of 100 million or more Americans, who are (1) largely unwary followers of the Alliance messaging and (2) staunch defenders of one or more of the Alliance factions. These millions are unwittingly and unknowingly captured in their web of influence and are continually being propagandized in their network of deception, guile and pretense.

(1) Their trusting, incautious adherents are watching, reading, and passing on, only the news the Alliance of Bias wants these millions to see, hear and be conveyed in the way the Alliance desires,

(2) Their adherents are screened from and being denied knowledge of news the Alliance wants obscured, obfuscated, distorted or buried.

(3) These millions of Americans are unknowingly being blocked from and thus remain unaware of individual citizen posts and news from alternative sources that could reveal what the Alliance does not want known.

This Alliance of Bias exists and exerts control over the thoughts, minds and actions of millions of good, patriotic Americans. These are our friends, neighbors, and fellow church members. Many are life-long Democrats who as a matter of habit, family tradition, current or past employment representation, belief in a cause or principle that is (or always was) a mainstay of the Democrat Party and who commonly reject even considering alternative news sources because they have been told they are not trustworthy. Most of these adherents are largely or only peripherally aware they are not being fully and honestly informed and are thus being insulted and disrespected. The Alliance of Bias dare not trust them with the truth. Rather they subtly influence, manipulate and control millions of people. 

Control over Communication (selective dispensing of news, deceptive messaging, censoring, and blocking of information and opinion from conservatives) is not on the horizon  — It is here!  

If there was any question about this fact, just before the 2020 Presidential Election the Alliance of Bias, (Mainstream Media, the Democrat Party, Twitter, and Facebook), was clearly exposed by their suppression, obfuscation, and blocking, respectively, of the Hunter Biden laptop evidence that exposed Joe Biden’s lying about knowledge of and involvement in Hunter Biden’s China and Ukrainian business dealings.

These actions of news suppression, invoking of a false smokescreen, and social media account blocking were  not just acts of bias, they were contrived, intentional restrictions on the information, news and opinions that “their adherents” were “not allowed” to hear. Otherwise, their planned, and worked for election of Joe Biden would be adversely affected. The actions were intended to make people believe, think and, most importantly, vote as they were intending to, in the absence of this news, just as the Alliance wanted them to believe, think and vote.

It was an emergency! The 2020 election was on the line! The main stream news media (ABC, NBC, CBS), CNN, and MSNBC had to keep this critical news about Joe Biden knowing about Hunter Biden’s business dealings (which occurred in association with Joe’s China and Ukraine trips), off the air and out of the papers, and Facebook, and Twitter had to block sharing of this news.  This was such an emergency that the Alliance factions had to risk exposure of their information control and censoring.  Also, the Democrat Party leadership had to come up with a way to discredit, and obfuscate the story for those who might get wind of the evidence that Joe Biden knew of his son’s business dealings and was also to receive a payoff because of his “family name’s” positive impact on the business influence.  A three-pronged attack on the freedoms of the American people and on their right to know the truth of what was happening took place. Well, not all the American people, only the adherents under the Alliance of Bias’s “manipulative control”.  Only those that they had under their influence;

So, just what was this critical news and what was the response of the Alliance of Bias.  The important, breaking  news was published by the New York Post on October 14, 2020! It was that:

First:

  • Hunter Biden’s* laptop was left at a repair shop in April 2019 in Delaware and then abandoned. The laptop was seized by the FBI in December 2019.
  • E-mails on the laptop showed Joe Biden having been in meetings with Hunter’s business partners in his China deals and with his Ukraine Burisma Board associates.  Joe Biden had denied knowledge of Hunter’s business dealings or even of speaking to his son about them.
  • That Joe Biden, aka “The Big Guy”, would receive 10% of a multi-million dollar deal with a Chinese Company (the funds to be held by Hunter).

Then came a Three-Pronged Attack on Our Freedoms

  1. Twitter and Face Book shut down the New York Post’s accounts, preventing the story from being widely spread. And they shut down Kayleigh McEnany’s (Trump’s Press Secretary) account when she tried to share it on Twitter.
  2. The main stream TV media and cable channels (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC) concealed the story from its viewers.  As did the New York Times and the Washington Post.
  3. The Democrat Party put out a completely fabricated claim** that the Hunter Biden laptop and the discovery of e-mails verifying the Joe Biden had met with Hunter’s business contacts was Russian “disinformation”. 
  • ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC) concealed the story from its viewers.  As did the New York Times and the Washington Post.

The next breaking news was a compelling Fox TV interview of Hunter Biden’s business partner, Tony Bobulinski on Tucker Carlson Tonight that further exposed and fully documented Joe Biden’s involvement:

The truth was reported to an audience of 9 million people on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” by the CEO of Hunter Biden’s business.  But once again, this important news was not covered by the Democrat “mainstream media” alliance and all those who are captive to the Democrat sources did not really hear anything but the Russian disinformation story.  Joe Biden was employing “fiction over truth” and the media colluded in the masquerade.  

 *It was known and had been confirmed that Hunter Biden, Joe Biden’s son, had traveled with Joe to China and while there received a $1.5 Billion deal secured by the Bank of China in his equity firm, Rosemont Seneca Partners, LLC. (from Peter Schweizer’s book, Secret Empires and confirmed by the New York Times article in May 2019)

**Just in case any of their adherents heard of this the news (or it was brought up in the upcoming debate), the Democrat Party / Biden Campaign had to find a way to discredit the report. So, Adam Schiff (Democrat congressman) put out a statement that the Hunter Biden story was “Russian Disinformation”. This was picked up and repeated “as fact” over and over by the Main Stream Media, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times and the Washington Post – no matter that it was a totally made up, false claim, that all of these “journalists” accepted it without question and despite the claim being discredited by the Director of Intelligence.  To further the false deception about the whole Hunter Biden Story being Russian disinformation, someone in the Alliance of Bias “quickly” arranged for the “Deep State” in the form of “50 former intelligence officials”, to put out a supportive “cover” statement that said in effect– “although we have no evidence, we are suspicious that it could be Russian disinformation”. This whole obfuscation of the true story then became “the story” to be presented by the mainstream media to their adherents. The whole episode reveals how wide spread and “effective” the Alliance of Bias is in keeping the truth away from their followers.  A poll taken at the time showed that 51% of Americans believed that the Hunter Biden e-mail/laptop story and associated discrediting of Joe Biden was Russian Disinformation – and Russia had absolutely nothing to do with it!!! That claim was totally made, and quickly, as a ruse by the Democrat Congressional leadership to distract their voters from the truth. The ridiculous and contemptable statement quickly ginned up by the “50 former intelligence officials, including James Clapper and John Brennen, to provide Joe Biden with misdirection and cover and to give the Alliance of Bias a “fake news” talking point to spread to their unwitting supporters. This was a prime example of the power and influence of the alleged “Deep State”, and the alleged Fake News which clearly shows that neither are alleged, but active, powerful, and influential.     Joe Biden had not and still has not, (as of December 30, 2020), denied any of this Hunter Biden laptop e-mail information (as the evidence is rock solid so he cannot). But Joe Biden, making a mockery of the truth, did use the 50 Former Intelligence Official’s unsupportable, fluff statement as his response to the issue, in the presidential debate with Donald Trump, in a disgraceful but successful gambit to discredit the truth. That way he could discredit the story, without actually lying about it, in the debate and without denying it himself.  

So, was this “thought control” effort by the Alliance of Bias or “informal ministry of propaganda” – successful? Absolutely!!   The point was to keep this very damaging news of the Biden family cashing in on Joe Biden’s Vice Presidency from influencing Biden voters. Delay, confuse, lie, hide the information – keep the voters under their influence in the dark – this was/is the goal of the media / big tech / alliance with the Democrat Party.  

As noted, a poll showed that 51% of Americans believed that the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation. Thus, this incredible revelation concerning Joe Biden being aware of and being linked to Hunter Biden’s cashing in on his father’s Vice Presidency did not seem to be impactful on the election as primarily only the Trump voters at the rallies and those who watched Fox News and listened to conservative talk radio really knew about it.  Just imagine what the media coverage would have been if, instead of Hunter Biden’s laptop, it had been Eric Trumps and the “big guy” to receive the payout had been Donald Trump. There would have been non-stop news coverage and impeachment would have been immediately started. But no, the Alliance of Bias, the Mainstream Media Television Stations, CNN and MSNBC did not cover it except to say the story was Russian disinformation. 

They got away with it!    The election took place and millions remained uninformed.

Surveys of Biden voters a month after the election, in 6 of the swing states showed that 45% of the people who had voted for Biden, had not heard of the Hunter Biden laptop incident and 14% of these Biden voters said that they would have voted for Trump instead, if they had heard that news. That would have easily changed the election results.  The Alliance of Bias control, over what information their adherents heard — worked!! – the mis-information worked!! – the Alliance of Bias took the risk of being blatant exposed (which they were), but the gambit worked and these contemptable communication control actions by the Alliance of Bias changed the course of our country.

A free press is intended to hold the powerful accountable. Now, powerful billionaires control the “press” (TV, major newspapers and social media). The freedom to be guarded by a free press suffers.  We must regain journalistic integrity!  Freedom will be “a short-lived possession” unless the people are informed. -Thomas Jefferson

This incident was only one example of a great many over the last 4 years of (1) positive news and information related to Donald Trump that was not reported or distorted by the mainstream media, (2) of information and personal communication that has been blocked or censored by big tech and (3) of Democrat leadership and the mainstream media coordinating a manufactured narrative to discredit Donald Trump.  

This is not sour grapes or some conspiracy theory—This collusion in influencing / controlling a major portion of the American population has been happening in general for years, but has been on overdrive during the Trump presidency and last month it was clearly exposed!

So: Attention America!! 

The right to hear the truth, to hear the objective facts concerning every issue of importance to their lives, their health, their welfare and, most importantly, to their contribution to the future of their nation has been gradually, steadily and intentionally usurped and taken from a substantial portion of the American Public.  Why? To give Democrat leadership power and control of the government, which unfortunately, and dangerously now includes a strong leftist contingent.  What is the Justification for these surreptitious, devious, unconstitutional actions?  The justification is that the desired end (to fundamentally transform America), justifies the means (universities fostering anti-Americanism and socialism, teaching our youth to hate American ideals and past leaders, lying, cheating, hiding the truth, false accustions) – and that Desired End is — Big Government run by either very Progressive Democrats or worse yet socialist or Marxist Leftists. These leaders, want to fundamentally change America, politically and economically, because they believe they know what is best for us – the American People. Keeping information from many in order to put themselves in power is, they believe, really in our best interest –you their adherents don’t need to know everything. Just trust them! 

                                                  WHAT CAN BE DONE NOW?

We are all faced with a series of great opportunities – brilliantly disguised as insoluble problems.John W. Gardner

Like the proverbial “frog in a pot of tepid water that is gradually heated, hotter and hotter, and the frog doesn’t jump out” we, the country, let this communication control cabal, the Alliance of Bias, develop gradually, unabated and essentially unchallenged for years. Oscillating between “essentially a state run media” during the Bill Clinton and Barack Obama presidencies and Designated Detractors during the George W. Bush presidency, the Alliance of Bias, (especially the Media Component) then over the last 4 years became a blatantly partisan mouthpiece for the Democrat leadership and disgusting, reprehensible, disrespectful, assailants against President Trump. The challenge now is how to overcome this Orwellian prophesied menace.  That charge is on the backs of those of us who recognize and have caught on to the perverse schemes of the Alliance of Bias. This alliance, and their disrespect for the truth was, strikingly displayed in the Hunter Biden laptop cover-up, the absence of covering President Trumps 3 Noble Peace Prize nominations, any recognition for the elimination of the ISIS Caliphate, (recall the ever present atrocities being committed by ISIS during 2016 just before Trump took over), and so much more.  All who care about our freedoms – Independents, Libertarians, Republicans, Democrats (who have suspected for some time that something untoward is going on), all of us must scratch and claw our way, by every means of communication at our disposal, through the web of deceit insulating our fellow Americans, in order to give them a chance to hear and see the true, full picture and then decide as they choose. If after getting all the information people chose to support socialist polices – fine – it is a free country. But now content in the Alliance of Bias bubble and saddled with the picture painted expressly for them adherents to the mainstream media will ride along as the Alliance of Bias praises all that will be done by the incoming Administration and hides any ills.   To effect a change in the course of events, we must launch a grass roots effort that will:

  1.  Strive to help make the large portion of the American population, over whom the Alliance of Bias, has a dominant influence, aware of the nefarious intent of the network of bias in so that they will seek and receive additional /alternate sources of information, and then decide via a paradigm shift what is correct on their own. This will not be easy, it must be done with care and without a “holier than thou attitude”. There should be no condemnation or criticism of the people themselves.
  2. Support local, regional and national independent newspaper, radio and television outlets that fully and honestly report the news and information.
  3. Pass on information (in a clear, factual unbiased, non-condemning way) in our local communities and to all whom we know, that is otherwise hidden, disregarded, or distorted by the mainstream media.  This can be done through writing letters to the editor of local papers, posting information on social media and through personal communication to friends, neighbors, acquaintances.

One way to get communication going on sensitive issues like this one is to bring up the subject through asking questions.  Trey Goudy has written a book on this : Doesn’t Hurt to Ask: Using the Power of Questions to Communicate, Connect, and Persuade and my son-in-law uses question asking very effectively to open up debate on any number of issues.

The challenge is all the more urgent, difficult and critical because this already entrenched Alliance of Bias, has now enhanced its capability to maintain control of communication by gaining the U.S. Presidency. But each of us who knows and sees the obvious, troubling state of affairs, (in government, in schools in general and universities in particular, and in big tech / social media censoring), needs to act. 

Frankly as I set about to answer “What can be done now?–  to take on the Alliance of Bias  – I was at a loss. I know that something must be done, but I really did not know what I could advise that would be meaningful.  My attempt is written above, and for its closing I wanted to use a statement from an editorial I carried around for years, encouraging action when the nation was suffering some of its darkest days: The statement was : “We each must do what we can to save the nation”. – I could not, at first, recall who wrote the article and made that statement, just the words. But, in a real blow against Alzheimer’s, I recalled the name of the author of the article, it was John W. Gardner (American – Educator, 1912 –  2002 ).  Check out Gardner’s quotes – they are marvelous.    Then, I googled the above statement and it led me to an article from which I have reproduced some excerpts below, that provide some of the kind of advice / suggestions for action I was hoping to provide.  The ideas do not directly action to address the problem of the Alliance of Bias, rather just about taking action in general – but they hopefully can generate some possible approaches in overcoming the Alliance of Bias peril.

Thanks for reading my write up to document, expose, confront, and lessen the impact and control of the Alliance of Bias. As a first step of action please pass this article on to as many people as you can, especially to those who may not have known about the blatant coverup of Hunter Biden’s laptop discovery – that exposed Hunter’s business deals and his father’s awareness of them. These deals stemmed out of his trips with then Vice President Joe Biden to China and the Ukraine.   And paradoxically clearly exposed the three pronged attack on freedoms by the Alliance of Bias.

Yours Truly,  Larry Von Thun

Excerpts from: Citizen’s Toolbox: What You Can Do to Save America (2020) By John Whitehead

Where do we fit in? Do we have any say in what happens in our nation? Can we write our own ending? Or are we nothing more than actors in a play whose ending has already been determined? I, for one, believe that as long as there is a spark of freedom left, there is hope.

There is no better time to act than the present. Fear, apathy and escapism will not carry the day. It is within our power to make a difference and seek corrective measures. Yet it is not merely that we should make a difference. Rather, we are compelled—required, if you will—to attempt in a nonviolent way to make a difference. We must be willing, if need be, to stand and fight.

What Can You Do?
 
While there is no “how to” book for taking a stand against the loss of our freedoms and effectively resisting authoritarianism, there are certain things that are common to every successful struggle.

1. Get educated. Before you can stand and fight, you must understand what you’re fighting for and what you will be going up against. Without knowledge, very little can be accomplished. Thus, you must know your rights. Take time to read the Constitution, something very few Americans have ever done. Study and understand history because the tales of those who seek power and those who resist them, as you will see, is an age-old one. The Declaration of Independence is a testament to this struggle and the revolutionary spirit that overcame tyranny. Understand the vital issues of the day so that you can be cognizant of the threats to freedom. Stay informed about current events and legislation by way of television, the Internet and a variety of newspapers.

2. Get involved. One of the most important contributions an individual citizen can make is to become actively involved in local community affairs, politics and legal battles. As the adage goes, “Think globally, act locally.” America was meant to be primarily a system of local governments, which is a far cry from the colossal federal bureaucracy we have today. Yet if our freedoms are to be restored, understanding what is transpiring practically in your own backyard—in one’s home, neighborhood, school district, town council—and taking action at that local level must be the starting point.

Call, write letters, sign petitions, visit their offices—do whatever it takes to get their attention and remind them that they are your representative and, thus, accountable to you. In all my years of working with various members of Congress, it has never ceased to amaze me how little input these men and women receive from the average citizen before casting their vote on legislation that will inevitably impact their constituents. One of the most powerful tools available to the individual, and individuals organized as a group, is the ballot box. If your representatives do not heed your advice on the central issues, then work to unseat them. This may involve running your own candidate. In this way, the ordinary citizen can affect the political process. Do not, however, make the mistake of thinking that politics is the only avenue for enacting change. Sometimes, you will need to take direct action rather than waiting on the bureaucrats to make a move.

3. Get organized. In going up against a more powerful adversary, it is critical that you understand your strengths and weaknesses and tap into your resources. Remember the analogy of the elephant and the ant: you can overcome the behemoth with enough cunning, skill and organization. Play to your strengths and assets. Conduct strategy sessions to develop both the methods and ways to attack the elephant. Prioritize your issues and battles. Don’t limit yourself to protests and paper petitions. Think outside the box. Time is short, and resources are limited, so use your resources in the way they count the most.

4. Be creative. Be bold and imaginative, for this is guerilla warfare—not to be fought with tanks and guns but through creative methods of dissent and resistance. Creatively responding to circumstances will often be one of your few resources if you are to be an effective agent of change. Every creative effort, no matter how small, is significant. As Jason Salzman points out in his book Making the News, “you need to nurture a war-room attitude, infused with creativity.” Salzman asks,

Would you dress in a pink ostrich costume and tell politicians to get their heads out of the sand? You might be hesitant to do such things, but others, as you will see, were not. They succeeded in getting their point across when more traditional methods might have been less effective. This is what it means to think outside of the box. Even with limited resources, such creative acts will not only get people’s attention, they will also attract the media’s attention and help you get your message to a larger audience. “The most imaginative and theatrical people are going to win,” remarked Colin Covert, a feature reporter at the Star Tribune in Minneapolis. “Don’t expect good intentions to get you space. The fact that you’re trying to fight cancer is great, but it’s not news. If you do something interesting, we’ll write about it.”

5. Use the media. Effective use of the media is essential. Attracting media coverage not only enhances and magnifies your efforts, it is also a valuable education tool. It publicizes your message to a much wider audience. It is through the media—television, newspapers, Internet sites, bloggers and so on—that people find out about your growing resistance movement. Media coverage also alerts the people to many issues they may not otherwise know about. As Salzman notes, “Successful media campaigns are, above all else, entertaining. That doesn’t necessarily mean amusing. In fact, some successful media campaigns are disgusting. But whether amusing or disgusting—they are engaging, and that is the key synonym for entertainment in the news business.”

6. Start brushfires for freedom. Take heart that you are not alone. You come from a long, historic line of individuals who have put their beliefs and lives on the line to keep freedom alive. What’s more, recognize that you don’t have to go it alone. Engage those around you in discussions about issues of importance. Challenge them to be part of a national dialogue. As I have often said, one person at a city planning meeting with a protest sign is an irritant. Three individuals at the same meeting with the same sign are a movement. You will find that those in power fear and respect numbers. This is not to say that lone crusaders are not important. There are times when you will find yourself totally alone in the stand you take. However, an army of ants creates the impression that not only are you not alone, but that something bigger is involved. There is power in numbers. Politicians understand this. So get out there and start drumming up support for your cause.

7. Take action. Be prepared to mobilize at a moment’s notice. It doesn’t matter who you are, where you’re located or what resources are at your disposal. What matters is that you recognize the problems and care enough to do something about them. Whether you’re 8, 28 or 88 years old, you have something unique to contribute. Radford Lyons certainly did his part to raise awareness about contaminated well water in Pike County, Kentucky. Appearing at a public hearing where a debate was underway over extending water lines out to homes in an area of contaminated wells, the 8-year-old pressed the point home when he offered hearing officials free lemonade made from the contaminated well water. By the end of the hearing, one official had promised to have the lines constructed. As young Radford proved, you don’t have to be a hero. You just have to show up and be ready to take action.

8. Be forward-looking. Beware of being so “in the moment” that you neglect to think of the bigger picture. Develop a vision for the future. Is what you’re hoping to achieve enduring? Have you developed a plan to continue to educate others about the problems you’re hoping to tackle and ensure that others will continue in your stead? Take the time to impart the value of freedom to younger generations, for they will be at the vanguard of these battles someday.

9. Develop fortitude. What is it that led to the successful protest movements of the past headed by people such as Martin Luther King? Resolve. King refused to be put off. And when the time came, he was willing to take to the streets for what he believed and even go to jail if necessary. King risked having an arrest record by committing acts of nonviolent civil disobedience. That’s how much Martin Luther King cared about his fellow human beings. He was willing to sacrifice himself. But first, he had to develop the intestinal fortitude to give him the strength to stand and fight. If you decide that you don’t have the requisite fortitude, find someone who does and back them. A caveat is appropriate here. Before resorting to nonviolent civil disobedience, all reasonable alternatives should be exhausted. If there is an opportunity to alter the course of events through normal channels (for example, negotiation, legal action or legislation), they should be attempted.

10. Be selfless and sacrificial. Freedom is not free—there is always a price to be paid and a sacrifice to be made. If any movement is to be truly successful, it must be manned by individuals who seek a greater good and do not waver from their purposes. It will take boldness, courage and great sacrifice. Rarely will fame, power and riches be found at the end of this particular road. Those who travel it inevitably find the way marked by hardship, persecution and strife. Yet there is no easy way. As the abolitionist Frederick Douglass remarked in an 1857 speech:

The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims have been born of earnest struggle. The conflict has been exciting, agitating, all-absorbing, and for the time being, putting all other tumults to silence. It must do this or it does nothing. If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet deprecate agitation are men who want crops without plowing up the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.

11. Remain optimistic and keep hope alive.  Although our rights are increasingly coming under attack, we still have certain freedoms. We can still fight back. We have the right to dissent, to protest and even to vigorously criticize or oppose the government and its laws. The Constitution guarantees us these rights. In a country such as the United States, a citizen armed with a knowledge of the Bill of Rights and the fortitude to stand and fight can be that single ant that overcomes the elephant. But it will mean speaking out when others are silent.

It won’t be easy, but take heart. And don’t give up. Practice persistence, along with perseverance, and the possibilities are endless. You can be the voice of reason. Use your voice to encourage others. Much can be accomplished by merely speaking out. Oftentimes, all it takes is one lone voice to get things started. So if you really care and you’re serious and want to help change things for the better, dust off your First Amendment tools and take a stand—even if it means being ostracized by those who would otherwise support you.

What the Democrat Party Offers in the 2020 Election

An evidentiary analysis.

A great deal of the focus on the November 3, 2020 presidential election is on two things (1) the personalities and physical and mental capabilities of the two candidates, President Donald Trump and Joe Biden and (2) blaming or not blaming Donald Trump for the Coronavirus. (A menace whose spread is apparently no respecter of political persuasion, predictions by scientists or health experts, masking or not masking, lockdown mandates or no lockdown mandates, and hot weather or cold weather.)

But this election is not really about Donald Trump   or   Joe Biden . 

This election is really about what the consequences of implementing the policies of each party will be:  The Democrat Party is reportedly about- fundamentally transforming America!!  Couldthat really be true?  To answer that question it is necessary to look at (1) what players constitute and have a say in what will happen should the Democrat Party gain control in 2020 and (2) what the Democrat Party is saying officially (“Unity Task Forces” plan) and unofficially (television ads for Joe Biden) about what they plan to do if they gain control. (see companion post on What the Republicans Offer in the 2020 election)

Democrat Party Players – Policies, Plans, Intended Outcomes

The policies, plans and desired outcomes that would result from a victory in the 2020 election by the Democrat Party requires study to discern and specify as (1) the messaging comes from several different sources, (2) the messages of intent delivered depend on the audience, and (3) identifying who among the influencing forces and contributing entities will dictate the policies and plans.   Thus, to assess what might be the outcome of a Democratic victory requires identification of the various forces influencing / controlling the Democratic Party and then an assessment of the degree to which and how each of the forces are liable to affect the countries near and long-term future if Joe Biden is elected president and Democrats gain one or both houses of Congress.

The Democrat Party is now funded, led, supported and directed by an incongruous, alliance of powerful, disparate forces that have coalesced to take control of the Federal Government beginning in 2021. The stated plans and objectives to be implemented, if that control is achieved, and the influence of the parties working on behalf of the Democrat Party have intended effects that go well beyond this election.  The promised changes could dismantle our economy and our economic system, diminish individual freedoms and result in greater Federal Government control of our, and our children’s lives in perpetuity.  It is evident, by their words, actions, and or funding that these various entities are in league with and support/fund/protect the Democratic Party.

So, who are the players and what are the forces working in league with Democrat Party to put and keep the Democrats in power and influence America’s future.

  1. The Giant Social Media / Internet Companies —Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, and Google.  These four companies comprise 4 out of the 5 largest companies in the United States.  They are now controlling, to a large extent, what information people see and hear on social media platforms, thereby directly and subliminally influencing behaviors including how people will vote. It is well documented that these companies are subverting free speech – suppressing information and blocking commentary by conservative individuals and conservative sites that are favorable to Republicans and unfavorable to Democrats.  Most recently Facebook and Twitter taking down the news story on the New York Post’s discovery of Hunter Biden’s laptop with information connecting Joe Biden to Hunter’s Burisma and China contacts and taking down the President’s press secretary’s account for passing the information on. This action caught national attention. However, behind the scenes thousands of conservative voices and many sites relaying conservative views are being silenced on social media. 

Why all these companies support the Democrat Party is speculative but one reason may have to do with the Republican Party’s efforts/pledge to take away the special immunity granted to the Social Media Giants by Congress – Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act – that has resulted in censoring of conservative speech and news unfavorable to the Democrats and  allows them to censor / block what they wish without being sued.

The future outcome, if the Democratic Party wins, and these companies are not reined in from censoring and blocking communication, is that these companies will continue shutting down conservative views and thus greatly influence/control future elections (as they claimed they did in 2016) and thus keep the Democrat Party in power as they get better and bolder at it.  

2. Academia and the Teaching of American History (Primarily universities but their Anti-American and progressive reach now extends through high school, middle school, elementary school and even into kindergarten.) The Democrat Party plan for free college will result in exposing more and more young voters to the activist / progressive mentality on University Campuses. Liberal University Administrators outnumber conservative Administrators by a ratio of 12 to 1, which is twice as high an imbalance as the next most liberal profession (legal).  The list of endorsements by Academia on Wikipedia shows 127 endorsements for Biden and 0 for Trump.

3. Anarchist / revolution indoctrinated youth (mostly college age students and recent university graduates over the last 15 years or so) who have been indoctrinated in anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-capitalism, socialist ideology (This age group is ripe for joining rioting and protesting, as has been seen in the summer of 2020). The influence this group of people may have on the Democrat Party in the future is unknown, but if the 2020 protests are any indication if “promised” progressive policies are not enacted this group may be a force for the Democrat Party to recon with and eventually succumb to.

4. Left Leaning Mainstream Media and Cable Networks and Newspapers -Owned, and directed by just a few media billionaires who control what news and information is disseminated from their newspapers and television outlets and how the information that is disseminated is biased/skewed to (1) promote the Democrat Party, (2) Condemn conservative thought and (3) vilify President Trump and help remove him from office. (Evidence for this approach has been fully and unapologetically on display for the last 4 years). Although “Love Trumps Hate” was a 2016 Election slogan used by Democrats, when Trump won, hate for Trump became widespread and visceral and was shamefully cultivated, and enhanced by the mainstream and cable media who have non-stop denigrated the President. “Hate Trump and all his Supporters” has been the in vogue rule of the media since 2016.

Journalistic honesty, independence, and diligence in investigation to determine the truth has clearly been absent.  Linkage in message between the Democrat Party and their sycophant media has been clearly on display.  With a large majority (70% – pew research) of listeners accepting what is presented as factual gives great power to the media / and in turn concomitant allegiance to voting for the Democratic Party is ingrained. This current lock step setup between the media and the Democrat Party promises, if the Democrat Party wins in 2020, to keep the Democrats, with control of the media, in control of the country politically for a long time to come.

5. Billionaires and Wall Street, are now major contributors to the Democrat Party and to Democrat candidates (e.g. George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Tom Steyer, Dustin Moskovitz). According to Forbes, 36 billionaires gave six-figure plus amounts to Joe Biden (1.24 million to $100,000) and, as of June 30, 109 billionaires had contributed to Joe Biden. Wall Street donations for Joe Biden outpace those to Trump by 5 to 1. The accepted “conventional wisdom” that the Republicans are for the rich and the rich are for Republicans is no longer true.  Despite Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren railing against billionaires and Wall Street, the billionaires, millionaires and Wall Street tycoons are funding the Democrats in droves and Senator Sanders doesn’t seem to object since it might put him in the driver’s seat for instituting his brand of socialism via a top spot in a Biden presidency.

6. Late night television hosts and Hollywood celebrities – In addition to the liberal news media, these celebrities flagrantly promote the Democrat Party and mock and condemn President Trump and conservatives.

7. Violent, militant Antifa, Black Lives Matter and other left-wing militant organizations. These organizations have terrorized conservative students and speakers on college campuses and have self-identified as Communist or , Marxist, Anti-American organizations bent on overthrowing America and/ or American institutions (e.g. one of Black Lives Matter core values is that they are: “committed to disrupting the Western prescribed nuclear family structure”. While Antifa is not specifically endorsed by the Democrat Party, neither have they been condemned by the Democrat Party for their violent attacks on conservative individuals and groups nor were they called out for their well-documented looting and rioting and attacks on police in the 2020 riots. (That is until after the DNC convention when it no longer looked politically expedient to remain mum.)  The logical, apparent influence / role of these groups if the Democrat Party gains power would be to lobby and or protest (perhaps violently) for more progressive policies. Or to unleash their bullying, protesting tactics on any resistance to such policies by conservatives or Christian based groups.  These groups are not an idle threat.

8. Democrat Party official, “mainstream” leadership (the DNC, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi) and Democrat Congressional Representatives. The “mainstream” Democrat Party “default platform” for the last four years was essentially “Hate Trump -Russian Collusion- Impeach Trump and Block all Republican Initiatives they reasonably could that would give Trump any credit”. That was the essence of the Democrat plan and primarily what they stood for and accomplished for the last 4 years. They have worked continuously to disrupt and delegitimize the Trump presidency. However, the Democrat Party, wisely in the months prior to the 2018 mid-term congressional elections put the “impeach trump activity” into dormancy (on hold) and a 2018 Mid-term Democrat platform emphasizing the fostering of  healthcare improvements was adopted in its stead.   This messaging to its faithful Democrat rank and file base was successful and the Democrat Party regained control of the House of Representatives and attendant committee leadership.  Under pressure from the far left “thought leaders” of the Party the “Impeach Trump” platform immediately resurfaced and the promised Healthcare Focus on which Democrat candidates were elected was not heard from again.  

Now Presidential candidate Joe Biden and his far to the left running mate Kamala Harris (ranked most liberal Senator by GovTrack) join Pelosi and Schumer as the Democrat Party official leadership and ostensibly would formulate and guide the plans, policies, and outcomes to be pursued if the Democrat Party prevails in the 2020 election.

 Although Joe Biden is being shrewdly portrayed as a moderate / non radical Presidential candidate (representative of the Democrat Party of old) in actuality the plans and polices to be pursued if Joe Biden is elected are not moderate at all.   These plans were formulated, apparently with Joe Biden’s blessing, by Bernie Sanders and the DNC into the 110 page “Unity Task Forces” Democrat Party Platform and this plan is what Joe Biden has signed onto.

Despite Biden’s claim that “I am the Democrat Party” it is readily evident that he is not. Joe Biden limped out of the first 3 Democrat Primaries with 14%, 8% and 19% of the vote, garnering him 2 distant 4th place finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire and a poor second in Nevada to Bernie Sanders 40%. The DNC, Congressman James Clyburn and the Democrat Party Leadership , recognizing the countries inherent animas toward a “socialist” candidate and the difficulty such a candidate would have in defeating President Trump coalesced around the more acceptable but less dynamic and less inspiring, “converted moderate”, Joe Biden.  Biden, was then propped up for the nomination but the radical polices were maintained and in fact were ostensibly authored or greatly influenced by Bernie Sanders.

The DNC’s “gambit” on Joe Biden as the presidential nominee took place at the end of February before the Coronavirus menace began to dominate and the Democratic Party leaped on fear mongering the virus via the media and blaming President Trump for mis-handling the Coronavirus as a potential political advantage. However, the Democrat leadership at that primary time (late February) was involved with impeaching the President. Actually at the time the Coronavirus arose in the US they discounted the President’s worries/actions on Coronavirus (Speaker Pelosi was in San Francisco’s China Town encouraging patronage on Feb 24th and New York City Mayor DeBlasio was encouraging New Yorkers to “get out and live their lives” on March 2nd).  President Trump had issued the China travel ban on Jan. 31st (which Joe Biden criticized as xenophobic) and Trump initiated the “slow the spread” orders on March 16, when there were just 3,000 U.S. cases and 60 deaths. Now, despite the factual history on the US response, Joe Biden blames Trump for being too slow and causing “all 200,000 US deaths”, thereby weaponizing, with the aid of the media, the Coronavirus tragedy for political advantage. The condemnation of Trump’s handling of the intractable Coronavirus (which has baffled scientists and carried out its malevolence with impunity) is a total red herring, a ploy, unfairly, inaccurately, and shamefully thrown in by the Democrat Party to distract from their extremely progressive plans and policies dictating the country’s future.

9. The far to the left “unofficial leaders” of the Democratic Party, are much more radical and outspoken, they include: (1) the well- publicized, media promoted, avowed socialists (Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the squad), (2) most of the Democrat Presidential primary candidates, and (3) a 100 member progressive caucus in the House of Representatives (includes Bernie Sanders from the Senate).  These individuals, before, during and after the primary debates identified what are generally regarded as the true plans, policies, and outcomes being proposed by the Democrat Party, including: M

Socialized medicine/Medicare for all, elimination of fossil fuels / fracking and the end of our recently achieved energy independence, dismantling of border protections and support for sanctuary cities, elimination of charter schools, abortion up to the point of birth, free health care for illegal aliens, gun confiscation, free college tuition, defunding the police and eliminating ICE, repeal of the recent tax cuts /child credits,  and re-imposition of the regulations removed by the Trump administration, etc.  These and other progressive plans   are incorporated in the Biden -Sanders Plan – the “Unity Task Forces” document. Further, the outspoken proponents of these policies have already been announced as the leads for implementation in the Biden Cabinet – Sanders on Healthcare policy, Ocasio-Cortez – co-chair of a climate task force, Beto O’Rourke – in charge of Gun Control.

Expected Outcomes

All of the above entities are in league with the “modern” Democratic Party. They, symbolically form the Hydra, a 9-headed, prodigious, colossus, that works toward putting and keeping the Democrat Party in power.

After examination of the role and influence that each play, the expected outcomes if the Democrat Party gains control of the Presidency and both house of Congress in the near term and long term seems clear. Namely (1) adoption of the big government / socialistic plans and policies identified above under the analysis of the official and unofficial leadership of the Democrat Party which will fundamentally transform our society and (2) continued and further control/selective presentation of news and information by the media and further restriction of conservative speech on social media, college campuses and elsewhere thereby deceptively controlling the electorate and the elections.  

The ties and agreements these entities arrangements are in descript and are generally veiled, ignored, denied or rejected as Republican propaganda. The policies being promoted are, to a large degree, kept from being acknowledged/emphasized to the rank and file Democrat voter (but are well known and promoted by the progressive / left wing faction of the Democrat Party which dominated the Democrat Presidential primary voting).  

The extreme, progressive leftist platform of the Democrat Party, that was clearly evident in the Democrat Primary Debates, are not include in or focused on in the current TV ads for Joe Biden for president. Now that the primaries are over and the national election season is in full swing, not only has Joe Biden been “hidin” so has the true agenda of the Democrat Party.  Rather the messaging orchestrated by the Democratic Party and the Media to the American people shows Joe Biden as a moderate, calming force who loves America, who will not raise taxes on anyone making less than 400,000, will improve education, and improve healthcare. This non-descript, non-specific messaging being used is similar to the tactic used by the Democrat Party in the 2018 mid-terms and disguises the true agenda of Democrat party after the 2020 election to the rank and file Democrat voter.  The Joe Biden for President ads do not tout or even discuss the any of the progressive, transforming, and potentially economically devastating platform agenda items in the “Unity Task Forces” Democrat Party Platform.  Rather, Joe Biden is shown making non-descript, non-specific promises of better education, better healthcare and maintaining social security along with an anti-Trump mantra inexplicably, and illogically criticizing and blaming Trump for the Coronavirus plague.  That is what is heard by the American public. Dismantling border protections, allowing sanctuary cites, ending use of fossil fuels and fracking, defunding police, taking away private health care plans covering 180 million Americans and going to “Public Healthcare Option run by the Federal Government (socialized medicine), eliminating bail requirements for criminals, elimination of charter schools, funding of abortions, getting rid of the Trump tax cuts and increased child credits and the other progressive/radical plans promoted by the Democrat Presidential Primary Candidates and included in the Democrat Party platform are not mentioned as the Democrat Party objectives in the Joe Biden for President ads.

So, back to the original question – Can and will the Democrat Party do as they claim and fundamentally transform America if they gain control in 2020? Looks as if the answer is yes.

Thanks for reading.

What the Republicans Offer in the 2020 Election

A great deal of the focus on the November 3, 2020 presidential election is on two things (1) the personalities and physical and mental capabilities of the two candidates, President Donald Trump and Joe Biden and (2) blaming or not blaming Donald Trump for the Coronavirus. (A menace whose spread is apparently no respecter of political persuasion, predictions by scientists or health experts, masking or not masking, lockdown mandates or no lockdown mandates, and hot weather or cold weather.)

But this election is not really about Donald Trump   or   Joe Biden . 

This election is really about what the consequences of  implementing the policies of each party will be: 

The Republican Party plans and policies are about: preserving America!!

The Democrat Party and their media / big tech / radical left-wing allies are about: fundamentally transforming America!!  (See the Biden/Sanders “Unity Task Forces” plan ) 

The Republican Policies, Plans, Intended Outcomes

The policies, plans and desired outcomes that are expected to be associated with a victory in the 2020 election by the Republican Party (as asserted by the Republican Party and President Donald Trump, and as understood by the Republican rank and file voters), are primarily about:

  1. Preserving America, our Country, as we know it and have known it for almost 250 years.  Protecting our Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court and our System of Checks and Balances, our Democratic Institutions, and the Electoral System.
  • Eradicating the Covid19 scourge through development of effective therapeutics and an effective vaccine while rebuilding the economy and reestablishing record setting employment and wage growth for all Americans, bringing back jobs to America and ensuring critical health and safety goods are produced in America, keeping taxes low, maintaining common sense regulations and establishing trade agreements favorable to the United States. Working for school choice and unbiased teaching of our American History in the schools.
  • Ensuring nomination of Constitutional Judges to the Supreme Court, and actively defending freedom of religion, protecting the unborn and defending the 2nd amendment. If the Affordable Care Act is deemed unconstitutional, getting a better healthcare plan passed, including protecting people with pre-existing conditions.
  • Maintaining a strong military (peace through strength), securing our borders against drugs, human trafficking and illegal immigration and supporting our first responders (health and safety) and the police and also ensuring meaningful police reform (this was attempted following George Floyd’s killing via the “Justice Act” introduced by Senator Tim Scott but kept from advancing (60 vote requirement) for consideration by Democrat Senators).
  • Supporting Israel, while fostering Peace in the middle East and around the world and keeping the United States out of Foreign conflicts.

The above items are not just rhetoric or artificial, good sounding Republican “talking points”. They are specifics, able to be readily discerned and listed based on (1) the fully transparent statements of intent by Republican leadership, by the President and by the presenters at the Republican National Convention and (2) by observation of the actual record of efforts, actions and accomplishments toward these outcomes which have been on-going for the last 4 years and have been promised to be pursued/continued in the next term).  

Rank and file Republicans / Conservatives / and attentive Independents appear to be fully aware of and in complete accord with these off stated, clearly transparent plans, policies and intended outcomes. As far as can be discerned there are no Republican Party hidden agendas being kept from the Republican base of support or from the American people. 

A vote for Donald Trump and Republican Congressmen and Senators is basically a vote for:  Preserving America!!  

(see the companion post) – What Democrats offer in the 2020 election.

The 2020 Presidential Election – America’s Future Is On the Ballot

Evidentiary Analysis of the Projected Consequences Depending on Which Party Wins the Presidency and the Congress

A great deal of the focus on the November 3, 2020 presidential election is on two things (1) the depiction of the character, demeanor, and physical and mental capability of the two candidates, President Donald Trump and Joe Biden and (2) blame for the Coronavirus, a menace which whose spread is apparently no respecter of political persuasion, predictions by scientists or health experts, masking or not masking, lockdown mandates or no lockdown mandates, and hot weather or cold weather. Only one thing seems very clear, the threat to the elderly, especially those with underlying comorbidities (e.g. hypertension, asthma, type 2-diabetes, obesity) is much greater and thus the elderly need to be protected from exposure until a vaccine is produced.

But these two issues, as relevant, emotional and attention capturing as they are, THEY ARE NOT what this election is really about and what the consequences of it will be.

What the election is really about is preserving or ostensibly fundamentally transforming America!!

See the Biden / Sanders “Unity Task Forces” document.  What our votes are really about is what are the policies, plans and intended outcomes to be implemented or carried forward depending on which Party prevails.

Republican Policies, Plans, Intended Outcomes

The policies, plans and desired outcomes that are expected to be associated with a victory in the 2020 election by the Republican Party (as asserted by the Republican Party and President Donald Trump, and as understood by the Republican rank and file voters), are primarily about:

  1. Preserving America, our Country, as we know it and have known it for almost 250 years.  Protecting our Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the Supreme Court and our System of Checks and Balances, our Democratic Institutions, and the Electoral System.
  2. Eradicating the Covid19 scourge through development of effective therapeutics and an effective vaccine while rebuilding the economy and reestablishing record setting employment and wage growth for all Americans, bringing back jobs to America and ensuring critical health and safety goods are produced in America, keeping taxes low, maintaining common sense regulations and establishing trade agreements favorable to the United States. Working for school choice and unbiased teaching of our American History in the schools.
  3. Ensuring nomination of Constitutional Judges to the Supreme Court, and actively defending freedom of religion, protecting the unborn and defending the 2nd amendment. If the Affordable Care Act is deemed unconstitutional, getting a better healthcare plan passed, including protecting people with pre-existing conditions.
  4. Maintaining a strong military (peace through strength), securing our borders against drugs, human trafficking and illegal immigration and supporting our first responders (health and safety) and the police and also ensuring meaningful police reform (this was attempted following George Floyd’s killing via the “Justice Act” introduced by Senator Tim Scott but kept from advancing (60 vote requirement) for consideration by Democrat Senators).
  5. Supporting Israel, while fostering Peace in the middle East and around the world and keeping the United States out of Foreign conflicts.

The above items are not just rhetoric or artificial, good sounding Republican “talking points”. They are specifics, able to be readily discerned and listed based on (1) the fully transparent statements of intent by Republican leadership, by the President and by the presenters at the Republican National Convention and (2) by observation of the actual record of efforts, actions and accomplishments toward these outcomes which have been on-going for the last 4 years and have been promised to be pursued/continued in the next term).  

Rank and file Republicans appear to be fully aware of and in complete accord with these off stated, clearly transparent plans, policies and intended outcomes. As far as can be discerned there are no Republican Party hidden agendas being  kept from the Republican base of support or from the American people.

 Democrat Policies, Plans, Intended Outcomes

The policies, plans and desired outcomes that would result from a victory in the 2020 election by the Democrat Party are more difficult to discern and specify as (1) the messaging comes from several different sources, (2) the messages of intent delivered depend on the audience, and (3) identifying who among the influencing forces and contributing entities will dictate the policies and plans.   Thus, to assess what might be the outcome of a Democratic victory requires identification of the various forces influencing / controlling the Democratic Party and then an assessment of the degree to which and how each of the forces are liable to affect the countries near and long-term future if Joe Biden is elected president and Democrats gain one or both houses of Congress.

The Democrat Party is now funded, led, supported and directed by an incongruous, alliance of powerful, disparate forces that have coalesced to take control of the Federal Government beginning in 2021. The stated plans and objectives to be implemented, if that control is achieved, could dismantle our economy and our economic system, diminish our individual freedoms and result in much greater Federal Government control of our lives, and our children’s lives in perpetuity.  It is evident, by their words, actions, and or funding that these various entities are in league with and support/fund/protect the Democratic Party.

 It is fairly evident that the current Democratic Party leadership’s is in alliance with various entities (e.g. media, big tech, billionaire donors), and that they are working on behalf of Democrat Party to gain and keep control of the Federal Government. These in descript arrangements are generally veiled, ignored, denied or rejected as Republican propaganda and are, to a large degree, kept from being emphasized to the rank and file Democrat voter (but are well known and promoted by the progressive / left wing faction of the Democrat Party which dominated the Democrat Presidential primary voting).  

The disparate forces, each for their own reasons, that are now and have been working to put the Democrat Party into power (i.e. gain control of Congress and the Presidency) are enumerated below along with what their impact might be on the future of America.

  1. The Giant Social Media / Internet Companies —Microsoft, Facebook, Amazon, and Google.  These four companies comprise 4 out of the 5 largest companies in the United States.  They are now controlling, to a large extent, what information people see and hear on social media platforms, thereby directly and subliminally influencing behaviors including how people will vote. It is well documented that these companies are subverting free speech – suppressing information and blocking commentary by conservative individuals and conservative sites that are favorable to Republicans and unfavorable to Democrats.  (Most recently Facebook and Twitter taking down the news story on the New York Post’s discovery of Hunter Biden’s laptop with information connecting Joe Biden to Hunter’s Burisma contacts and the President’s press secretary’s account for passing it on. This action caught national attention. However, behind the scenes thousands of conservative voices and many sites on the internet are being silenced.) 

Why all these companies support the Democrat Party is speculative but one reason may have to do with the Republican Party’s efforts/pledge to take away the special immunity granted to the Social Media Giants by Congress – Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act – that has resulted in / allows them to censor / block what they wish without being sued.

The future outcome, if the Democratic Party wins, and these companies are not reined in from censoring and blocking, is that these companies will continue shutting down conservative views and thus greatly influence/control future elections (as was documented that they did in 2016) and thus keep the Democrat Party in power in the future as they get better and better at it.  

  • Academia and the Teaching of American History (Primarily universities but their Anti-American and progressive reach now extends through high school, middle school, elementary school and even into kindergarten.) The Democrat Party plan for free college will result in exposing more and more young voters to the activist / progressive mentality on University Campuses. Liberal University Administrators outnumber conservative Administrators by a ratio of 12 to 1, which is twice as high an imbalance as the next most liberal profession (legal).  The list of endorsements by Academia on Wikipedia shows 127 endorsements for Biden and 0 for Trump.
  • Anarchist / revolution indoctrinated youth (mostlycollege age students and recent university graduates over the last 15 years or so) who have been indoctrinated in anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-capitalism, socialist ideology (and ripe for joining rioting and protesting, as has been seen in the summer of 2020). The influence this group of people may have on the Democrat Party in the future is unknown, but if the 2020 protests are any indication if “promised” progressive policies are not enacted this group may be a force for the Democrat Party to recon with and eventually succumb to.
  • Left Leaning Mainstream Media and Cable Networks and Newspapers -Owned, and directed by just a few media billionaires who control what news and information is disseminated from their newspapers and television outlets and how the information that is disseminated is biased/skewed to (1) promote the Democrat Party, (2) Condemn conservative thought and (3) vilify President Trump and help remove him from office. (Evidence for this approach has been fully and unapologetically on display for the last 4 years). Although “Love Trumps Hate” was a 2016 Election slogan used by Democrats, when Trump won hate for Trump became widespread and visceral and was shamefully cultivated, and enhanced by the media who have non-stop denigrated the President.

Journalistic honesty, independence, and diligence in investigation to determine the truth has been clearly absent.  Linkage in message between the Democrat Party and their sycophant media has been clearly on display.  With a large majority (70% – pew research) of listeners accepting what is presented as factual gives great power to the media / and in turn concomitant allegiance to voting for the Democratic Party is ingrained. This current lock step setup between the media and the Democrat Party promises, if the Democrat Party wins in 2020, to keep the Democrats, with control of the media, in control of the country politically for a long time to come.

  • Billionaires and Wall Street, are now major contributors to the Democrat Party and to Democrat candidates (e.g. George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, Tom Steyer, Dustin Moskovitz). According to Forbes, 36 billionaires gave six-figure plus amounts to Joe Biden (1.24 million to $100,000) and, as of June 30, 109 billionaires had contributed to Joe Biden. Wall Street donations for Joe Biden outpace those to Trump by 5 to 1. The accepted “conventional wisdom” that the Republicans are for the rich and the rich are for Republicans is no longer true.  Despite Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren railing against billionaires and Wall Street, the billionaires, millionaires and Wall Street tycoons are funding the Democrats in droves and Senator Sanders doesn’t seem to object since it might put him in the driver’s seat for instituting his brand of socialism via a top spot in a Biden presidency. 
  • Late night television hosts and Hollywood celebrities – In addition to the liberal news media, these celebrities flagrantly promote the Democrat Party and mock and condemn President Trump and conservatives.
  • Violent, militant Antifa, Black Lives Matter and other left-wing militant organizations. These organizations have terrorized conservative students and speakers on college campuses and have self-identified as Communist, Marxist, Anti-American organizations bent on overthrowing America and/ or American institutions (e.g. one of Black Lives Matter core values is that they are: “committed to disrupting the Western prescribed nuclear family structure”. While Antifa is not specifically endorsed by the Democrat Party, neither have they been condemned by the Party for their violent attacks on conservative individuals and groups nor were they called -out for their well-documented looting, and rioting and attacks on police in the 2020 riots. (Until after the DNC convention when it no longer looked politically expedient to remain mum.)  The logical, apparent influence / role of these groups if the Democrat Party gains power would be to lobby and or protest (perhaps violently) for more progressive policies. Or to unleash their bullying, protesting tactics on any resistance to such policies by conservatives or Christian based groups.  These groups are not an idle threat.
  • Democrat Party official, “mainstream” leadership (the DNC, Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi) and Democrat Congressional representatives. The “mainstream” Democrat Party “default platform” for the last four years was essentially “Hate Trump -Russian Collusion- Impeach Trump and Block all Republican Initiatives they reasonably could that would give Trump any credit”. That was the essence of the Democrat plan and primarily what they stood for. They have worked continuously to disrupt and delegitimize the Trump presidency. However, the Democrat Party, wisely in the months prior to the 2018 mid-term congressional elections put the “impeach trump activity” into dormancy (on hold) and a Democrat platform emphasizing fostering healthcare improvements was adopted in its stead.   This messaging to its faithful Democrat rank and file base was successful and the Democrat Party regained control of the House of Representatives and attendant committee leadership.  Under pressure from the far left “thought leaders” of the Party the “Impeach Trump” platform immediately resurfaced and the promised Healthcare Focus on which Democrat candidates were elected was not heard from again.  

Now Presidential candidate Joe Biden and his far to the left running mate Kamala Harris (ranked most liberal Senator by GovTrack) join Pelosi and Schumer as the Democrat Party official leadership and ostensibly would formulate and guide the plans, policies, and outcomes to be pursued if the Democrat Party prevails in the 2020 election. Although Joe Biden is being shrewdly portrayed as a moderate / non radical Presidential candidate (representative of the Democrat Party of old) in actuality the plans and polices to be pursued if Joe Biden is elected are not moderate at all.   These plans were formulated, apparently with Joe Biden’s blessing, by Bernie Sanders and the DNC into the 110 page “Unity Task Forces” Democrat Platform and this plan is what Joe Biden has signed onto.

Despite Biden’s claim that “I am the Democrat Party” it is readily evident that he is not. Joe Biden limped out of the first 3 Democrat Primaries with 14%, 8% and 19% of the vote, garnering him 2 distant 4th place finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire and a poor second in Nevada to Bernie Sanders 40%. The DNC, Congressman James Clyburn and the Democrat Party Leadership , recognizing the countries inherent animas toward a “socialist” candidate and the difficulty such a candidate would have in defeating President Trump coalesced around the more acceptable but less dynamic and less inspiring, “converted moderate”, Joe Biden.  Biden, was then propped up for the nomination but the radical polices were maintained and in fact were ostensibly authored or greatly influenced by Bernie Sanders. The DNC’s “gambit” on Joe Biden as the presidential nominee took place at the end of February before the Coronavirus menace began to dominate and the Democratic Party leaped on it as a potential political advantage. The Democrat leadership at the time was involved with impeaching the President at the time the Coronavirus arose and they discounted the President’s worries/actions on Coronavirus (Speaker Pelosi was in San Francisco’s China Town encouraging patronage on Feb 24th and New York City Mayor DeBlasio was encouraging New Yorkers to “get out and live their lives” on March 2nd).  President Trump issued the China travel ban on Jan. 31st (which Joe Biden criticized as xenophobic) and Trump initiated the “slow the spread” orders on March 16, when there were just 3,000 U.S. cases and 60 deaths. Now, despite the factual history Joe Biden blames Trump for being too slow and causing “all 200,000 US deaths”, thereby weaponizing, with the aid of the media, the Coronavirus tragedy for political advantage. The condemnation of Trump’s handling of the intractable Coronavirus (which has baffled scientists and carried out its malevolence with impunity) is a total red herring, a ploy, unfairly, inaccurately, and shamefully thrown in by the Democrat Party to distract from their extremely progressive plans and policies dictating the country’s future.  

None of the extreme, progressive leftist platform items seem to be covered or focused on or emphasized in the current TV ads for Joe Biden for president. Now that the primaries are over and the national election season is in full swing, not only has Joe Biden been “hidin” so has the true agenda of the Democrat Party, that was clearly evident in the Democrat Primary Debates. ‘Rather the messaging orchestrated by the Democratic Party and the Media to the American people, veils the extreme progressive plans for the country. This messaging tactic is similar to the tactic used by the Democrat Party in the 2018 mid-terms and is being used to disguise the true agenda of Democrat party after the 2020 election.  The Joe Biden for President ads do not tout or even discuss the any of the progressive, transforming, and potentially economically devastating platform agenda items in the “Unity Task Forces” Democrat Party Platform.  Rather, Joe Biden is shown making non-descript, non-specific promises of better education, better healthcare and maintaining social security along with an anti-Trump mantra inexplicably, and illogically criticizing and blaming Trump for the Coronavirus plague.  That is what is heard by the American public. Dismantling border protections, allowing sanctuary cites, ending use of fossil fuels and fracking, defunding police, taking away private health care plans covering 180 million Americans and going to “Public Healthcare Option run by the Federal Government (socialized medicine), eliminating bail requirements for criminals, elimination of charter schools, funding of abortions, getting rid of the Trump tax cuts and increased child credits and the other progressive/radical plans promoted by the Democrat Presidential Primary Candidates and included in the Democrat Party platform are not mentioned as the Democrat Party objectives in the Joe Biden for President ads.   

  • The far to the left “unofficial leaders” of the Democratic Party, are much more radical and outspoken, they include (1) the well- publicized, media promoted, avowed socialists (Bernie Sanders, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the squad), (2) most of the Democrat Presidential primary candidates, and a 100 member progressive caucus in the House of Representatives (includes Bernie Sanders from the Senate).  These individuals, before, during and after the primary debates identified what are generally regarded as the true plans, policies, and outcomes being proposed by the Democrat Party, including – Medicare for all, elimination of fossil fuels / fracking and the end of our recently achieved energy independence, dismantling of border protections and support for sanctuary cities, abortion up to the point of birth, free health care for illegal aliens, gun confiscation, free college tuition, repeal of tax cuts and re-imposition of the regulations removed by the Trump administration, etc. Most of these and other progressive plans are incorporated in the Biden Plan / “Unity Task Forces” and the outspoken proponents of these policies have already been announced as the leads for implementation in the Biden Cabinet – Sanders on Healthcare policy, Ocasio-Cortez – chair of a climate task force, Beto O’Rourke – in charge of Gun Control.

All of these organizations and entities are supporting the Democratic Party, forming a Hydra, a 9-headed, prodigious, colossus, that has worked toward putting and keeping the Democrat Party in power. After examination of the role and influence that each plays, the expected outcomes if the Democrat Party gains control of the Presidency and both house of Congress in the near term and long term seems clear.

Namely (1) adoption of the big government / socialistic plans and policies identified above under the analysis of the official and unofficial leadership of the Democrat Party which will fundamentally transform our society and (2) continued and further control/selective presentation of news and information by the media and further restriction of conservative speech on social media, college campuses and elsewhere thereby deceptively controlling the electorate and the elections.  

So now it is up to the Voters – Democrats – Republicans – Independents

It seems like in recent years the candidates for President and the Congressional Offices always claim that the current election is the most important election that our country has ever had. Well, this one really is, and if President Trump wins so will the next one be and the one after that, etc.  Why is that?

  • Well first it is so that: “this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.  (Abraham Lincoln – Gettysburg address

Could our nation effectively “perish from the earth” if the Democrats gain, the Presidency, the Senate and keep the House of Representatives in the 2020 election?  The evidence that that may be the case is quite compelling, because:

  • The changing demographics in our country, the stranglehold on communication / messaging by Big Media and the censoring / speech control by Big Tech, the anti-American ideology that has been and is now being taught by Academia to our younger generation, the potential of universal amnesty and citizenship to millions of illegal aliens and the threatened change in makeup of the House and Senate (adding two more states that vote with the Democrats) and packing the Supreme Court with liberals could keep the “progressive Democrat Party regime” in control of the country for the foreseeable future.   

Traditionally Democrat Voters

However, before the plans and goals of the Democrat Party can be put into place in the country, the most important participants of the 2020 election– the voters – must put them into power.  Despite the radical shift that the Democrat party has undergone, the Democrat Party still want and need the votes of their long time, party faithful. People who have voted for Democrat candidates for years may or not be aware of the real plans, policies and intend outcomes of the Democrat Party should they gain control.   The rank and file Democrat voters, the party faithful, may not realize that (1) there have been major role reversals in the two major political parties, and (2) they may have been kept unaware of any positive accomplishments of the Trump Administration (energy independence, low unemployment, ISIS Caliphate removal, border control, higher wages and lowest unemployment for all demographics pre-Covid, mid -East peace agreements, etc. ). Further the non-stop “hate Trump” and “Trump condemnation” messaging of the last 4 years may have been sufficient to keep Democrat voters in the fold without the Democrat Party ever broadcasting the major progressive platform agenda items that could transform their America.

Republican Voters – Fiscal Conservatives – Evangelicals – Blue collar workers

The situation with voter projection for the traditional, conservative Republican voters including the vast majority of Christian Evangelicals is relatively straight forward.  In 2016 the raucous, politically inexperienced, neophyte Donald Trump was an unknown quantity to conservatives and only a “promise maker” to evangelicals on such things as Supreme Court nominations, pro-life actions, and religious freedom defense and likewise to workers on bringing back American factories and jobs. Four years later, with most promises diligently worked on and kept, the unknown quantity, Trump, is now a known quantity and those voters are aware of what has been done and are enthusiastically on board for re-election. Few if any of those offended by his character in the “never Trump” camp and those threatened individuals who still reside in the Deep State will be voting for Trump. The degree to which the facts of what was done by the Trump Administration pre-Covid for all demographics (especially Opportunity Zones, reduced unemployment, Historical Black Colleges) belie the constant racism charges but whether it will override the emotion and messaging associated with the rioting and increase minority vote for Trump is unknown. Likewise, the traditional Jewish votes for the Democrats may be swayed by his efforts on Israel. Certainly, the attendance and enthusiasm at the Trump rallies would indicate incredible grass root / common people support for Trump.  However, the visceral hate / bullying / violence against Trump supporters continues such that people are afraid (in my neighborhood) to even put up a yard sign for Trump. One 95-year old ladies yard sign was taken away twice and when her son requested a reprieve on Nextdoor – he was answered by a slew of hate Trump vitriol. “Love trumps Hate” was turned into “Lets Hate Trump” when he won the election.

Independents

      As has been the case for many elections those who vote as Independents will determine the outcome of the election.  Hopefully, the Independents have been diligent in sorting through the messaging and rhetoric and are able to discern the real issue what the true projected outcome for the United States of America will be depending on whether the Republican Party or the Democrat Party is put into power.  

May God Bless and Protect America’s Future in this election.

Thanks for reading – Larry Von Thun

The Party Has Been Crashed

America’s Democratic Party of the past supported America, the working class and the poor. That Party has been crashed.  The 1996 Democratic Platform stated:

 In 1996, America will choose the President who will lead us from the millennium which saw the birth of our nation, and into a future that has all the potential to be even greater than our magnificent past. Today’s Democratic Party is ready for that future….We want an America that gives all Americans the chance to live out their dreams and achieve their God-given potential. We want an America that is still the world’s strongest force for peace and freedom …Today’s (1996) Democratic Party is determined to renew America’s most basic bargain: Opportunity to every American, and responsibility from every American.”

These words typify what the loving, caring, and patriotic Democrats that I know, work with, go to church with and may still believe people will be ushering in to our country if they vote the Democratic ticket in 2020. 

But now, the Democratic Party strikes out “magnificent past”, freedom “to live out their dreams”, and “God” from their platform. .  

News Flash! …..One that will not be on the nightly news – the Democratic Party has been crashed and taken over by Socialist Ideologs (Sanders, Talib, AOC, Ilan Omar), Hedge Fund and Media Billionaires (Bloomberg, Steyer, Soros, Simons, Sussman and 127 more billionaires), and Tech Giant censors (Google, Twitter, Facebook). Further, while not strictly part of the Democratic party, Antifa, the militant anti-America, fascist group is commonly known and recognized as the “militant arm” of the Democratic Party.    Antifa members have violently attacked Conservative students and student groups like Turning Point USA and have attacked, protested and had canceled speakers, like Conservative Ben Shapiro, who have come to the colleges to provide a pro- America message on college campuses. Now this opportunistic hate America group, who stand for the violent overthrow of America, has participated in the looting, rioting and burning our major cities.  Antifa is not being called out or condemned by our current Democratic Party. 

Do not be fooled by the DNC rescuing and the propping up of the once moderate Joe Biden as the party standard bearer – their platform was written incorporating the radical concepts being promoted by the far left.  Joe Biden has accepted that platform and claimed that his will be the most “progressive administration” in the history of the country.   Joe Biden will be putty in the hands of the radicals who have fundamentally transformed the Democratic Party and who want to fundamentally transform America into a strong centralized state where the government controls all and our individual freedoms are curtailed.

Mainstream Media, MSNBC and CNN only present the “news” they want you to hear.  Branch out!!.  As John Stuart Mill said “He who only knows one side of a story knows little of that.”   Become aware and be aware, Democrats, Independents and those Republicans who do not like Trumps personality or tweets — the Democratic Party of old has been crashed.

Media Divide

If we all, in the United States of America, got the same information, and that information was presented fully, factually and fairly, our country would be much more united. However, that is not what we get.  A recent Gallup poll showed that 84% of Americans blame the media for how divided the country is. 

 A plurality of people (Group 1) who get their news and information from television (about 22 million nightly ), watch the once common, reliable and accepted way to get the news, from television channels ABC, NBC, and CBS.  Those outlets are now left leaning (Pew Research, allsides.com, media bias chart) and those watching, unsuspectingly, get a restricted version of news and information from these main stream outlets.  Along with the news comes a thinly veiled, subtly biased, commentary on that information from anchors and guests designed to promulgate a narrative that demeans President Trump and is meant to undermine the Trump Administration. The echo chamber parody of headline assertions among the newscasts that time and time again occurs, shows that there is a match between those network headline words assertions and the talking points of the Democratic Party leadership in contemporaneous interviews. This message commonality, which I have seen portrayed many times over the last 4 years, reveals an apparently well-coordinated effort among these networks and between them and the democratic party. The apparent ultimate aim of these skewed news presentations is: (1) to harm the Trump Presidency and (2) to help the Democrats politically. That has been the pattern for the last 4 years. The news and information presented is stripped and honed to foster anti-President Trump narrative.  Not only is about 90% of the political / national / international news and information that is presented related to the present administration relayed with a negative connotation, typically and most importantly, news, information and events that would or could give a favorable view of this President is not presented. The lack of presentation of favorable news, of what has been accomplished, is the most distressing and most impactful aspect of the news bias. Listeners who only hear troubling news and blame for it put on President Trump will certainly be disposed to think poorly of the job the president is doing.

The instances that positive information concerning what has been accomplished under the Trump Administration has not been relayed to the listener over the last 4 years are numerous. Most recently the President was nominated for a Noble Peace Prize for the work he and his administration did in getting the Middle East accord between Israel, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain. And a few days later he received a second Nobel Peace Prize nomination for the economic normalization agreement reached between Kosovo and Serbia. Neither of these nominations were even mentioned on the nightly news on ABC, NBC, and CBS.  Another example was that Donald Trump’s Patriotic 2020 Independence Day speech, on the eve of July 4th at Mt. Rushmore, was not carried by any of the major TV networks. But the next day the network anchors and the anti-Trump newspapers ubiquitously called this fundamentally patriotic speech, which showed respect for America, recognized a diverse array of America’s legends and honored each of the Presidents on Mt. Rushmore, as “divisive”. So, the vast majority of the US population did not get to hear the speech and only heard the headline “Trump makes divisive speech at Mt. Rushmore” which was not in the least the case, unless you consider celebrating your country and a very broad, diverse cross section of its outstanding citizens on July 4 as divisive.  Of course, what was truly divisive and intentionally so was that following day’s mainstream media news coverage.

The persistent negative portrayal of President Trump by ABC, CBS and NBC and the lack of or minimal presentation of the numerous positive results that his administration has achieved for the country economically and in foreign relations (or the false characterization of them) stands in stark contrast to the nature of coverage received by President Obama on these networks. For 8 years, the fawning, flattering, reverential coverage given to all that President Obama said and did, closely resembled the concept we have of “State Run News”. The contrast could not have been more distinct nor the evidence of motive and bias more evident.

The other participants in the “Group 1” United States television news audience are those who watch CNN and MSNBC (a combined total of about 2.5 million people nightly).  These blatantly hate-trump, left, and far left outlets respectively feature anchors who continually, viciously demean, ridicule, mock and deride the President. They cast any news related to President Trump in the most unfavorable light possible, routinely present anti-Trump conjectures from unverified sources as truth and do not present favorable information or any good news that might give some credit to the President.  Their vitriol, rudeness and disrespect toward this president is disgraceful in the extreme. Total rejecting the 2016 Democrat campaign slogans of “Love Trumps Hate” and “When They Go Low We Go High” these two cable news networks have non-stop slandered the President and fed and fostered hate of President Trump. Like some in the democratic party leadership in Congress, (e.g. Adam Schiff) these outlets ascribe to the current “say anything” , the “make any outlandish claim you wish”, and the “any means to the desired end” philosophy of journalism regardless of the truth and do not apologize or correct their claims when evidence to the contrary is exposed. That way they keep people believing the deception that they previously conveyed. A couple of good examples of this perpetuation of a manufactured claim are (1) the mischaracterization of 16 year old Nick Sandman’s benign, passive response to March disruptors at the March for Life and (2) the mischaracterization of Donald Trumps “very fine people” statement at Charlottesville (described subsequently).

By contrast, a second smaller, “Group 2” of television news viewers (about 3 million) get another, completely different version and perspective on the news and information from the conservative leaning outlet, Fox news. Fox’s evening news programs (Special Report with Brett Baier and The Story with Martha MacCallum) do an excellent job of bringing on and interviewing representatives from both parties and experts on either side of the issues.  I find that Fox actually is indeed “fair and balanced” and Fox covers all the relevant news on an issue including that which the news the other media apparently does not want us to hear or see. Like, for example the Middle East accord presentations and signings that were brokered by Jared Kushner and the Trump administration, Trump’s Nobel Peace Prize nominations, the massive crowds at Trump’s rallies and his speeches. 

Both Group1 and Group 2 listeners generally accept what is presented as the truth. ********* No wonder the country is divided.   ********* People in our country hear, believe and defend two different realities. Group 1 can’t see how Group 2 (Trump following deplorables) can possibly think the way they do. Group 2 people see Group 1 people as being manipulated and kept uninformed to help Democrats, to stoke hate and to generate chaos and keep anti-Trump fervor going. The polls show that 70 % of Fox news watchers believe Trump has done an excellent job for our country with respect to the Corona virus. While overall only 23% of Americans considered he did an excellent job. (Of course the other TV outlets convey that Trump has done a terrible job with managing the Corona virus.

News and information transmission is not just obtained from a single television outlet. Some people hear both versions of the news, some get neither, some only hear or see the “negative headlines” and many get their information from social media or word of mouth. Buta good share of these other various news dispersal pipelines likely have television news as their original source.  

Once one has listened to, watched and gained a fuller understanding of all the information concerning any issue or situation and knows the actual facts, it is easy to see the duplicity and intentional bias in the presentation of the scripted / selective news by “mainstream and cable news” outlet anchors. One recent example is the persistent claim/presentation by the mainstream media over the recent weeks / months of rioting, arson, looting, wanton destruction of businesses and injury to hundreds of police officers in several major US cites.  For months the ongoing violence and destruction was labeled and presented as “mostly peaceful protests” by the news media and the democratic leadership. The Republican Party leaders and Fox news were derided and accused of presenting a false narrative. The real facts of the situation were kept from the public.  Then just after the democratic convention, during which the riots and disruption was not mentioned at all, the news media acknowledged the rioting and blamed it on the Trump administration. However, what is most disconcerting and reprehensible is that, unlike most or many of their listeners, the anchors and the “journalists” feeding them information, certainly know all the news and background information and what the truth really is (like for example they knew that there was no Russia collusion by Trump’s team) but they become actors each day, continuing to convey known false narratives and keeping the full truth that they know from their viewers. These anchors are actors, especially those on CNN and MSNBC. They are daily putting on a show of outrage, and condemnation of the President or the Republicans or Fox news, all the while knowing the full story but only presenting a portion of the news and putting forward false narratives that they are instructed to convey each day.

This deception and manipulation of the people of our country in news and information presentation has gone on for almost four years in an effort to damage Donald Trump and the Trump presidency. One of the most damaging, most persistent and most egregious deceptions (because the truth was known right away and Trump’s actual words were recorded), was the deceptions that President Trump called “the white supremacists/Neo-Nazis’ marching at Charlottesville “very fine people” and the companion claim that “Trump has never condemned the white supremacists who support him”. The “very fine people on both sides” was actually a reference to those debating the retention of a Robert E. Lee statue and the condemnation of the white supremacists came in his remarks shortly after.  These incorrect characterizations of what he said have been used to condemn and accuse Trump hundreds of times by celebrities, by the Democratic Congressional leadership and Democratic presidential candidates, and by media anchors. And they knew it all to be false!!  Inexplicably host Chris Wallace, who should of know better, brought up the accusation in the September 29th debate and Joe Biden in a remarkable bit of theatre and drama had Trump saying it as well. (and he was not challenged)  The article by Steven Cortes on March 21, 2019 in the centrist outlet Real Clear Politics, copied below (Trumps words from the transcript in bold) provides a record of what was actually said:

************************************************************************

Trump Didn’t Call Neo-Nazis ‘Fine People.’ Here’s Proof.

COMMENTARY     By Steve Cortes      March 21, 2019

News anchors and pundits have repeated lies about Donald Trump and race so often that some of these narratives seem true, even to Americans who embrace the fruits of the president’s policies.  The most pernicious and pervasive of these lies is the “Charlottesville Hoax,” the fake-news fabrication that he described the neo-Nazis who rallied in Charlottesville, Va., in August 2017 as “fine people.”  Just last week I exposed this falsehood, yet again, when CNN contributor Keith Boykin falsely stated, “When violent people were marching with tiki torches in Charlottesville, the president said they were ‘very fine people.’” When I objected and detailed that Trump’s “fine people on both sides” observation clearly related to those on both sides of the Confederate monument debate, and specifically excluded the violent supremacists, anchor Erin Burnett interjected, “He [Trump] didn’t say it was on the monument debate at all.  No, they didn’t even try to use that defense. It’s a good one, but no one’s even tried to use it, so you just used it now.” 

My colleagues seem prepared to dispute our own network’s correct contemporaneous reporting and the very clear transcripts of the now-infamous Trump Tower presser on the tragic events of Charlottesville.  Here are the unambiguous actual words of President Trump:   “Excuse me, they didn’t put themselves down as neo-Nazis, and you had some very bad people in that group.  But you also had people that were very fine people on both sides.  You had people in that group – excuse me, excuse me, I saw the same pictures you did.  You had people in that group that were there to protest the taking down of, to them, a very, very important statue and the renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.”                                                  After another question at that press conference, Trump became even more explicit: “I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and white nationalists because they should be condemned totally.”          As a man charged with publicly explaining Donald Trump’s often meandering and colloquial vernacular in highly adversarial TV settings, I appreciate more than most the sometimes-murky nature of his off-script commentaries.  But these Charlottesville statements leave little room for interpretation.  For any honest person, therefore, to conclude that the president somehow praised the very people he actually derided, reveals a blatant and blinding level of bias.  Nonetheless, countless so-called journalists have furthered this damnable lie.  For example, MSNBC’s Nicolle Wallace responded that Trump had “given safe harbor to Nazis, to white supremacists.”  Her NBC colleague Chuck Todd claimed Trump “gave me the wrong kind of chills. Honestly, I’m a bit shaken from what I just heard.” Not to be outdone, print also got in on the act, with the New York Times spewing the blatantly propagandist headline: “Trump Gives White Supremacists Unequivocal Boost.” How could the Times possibly reconcile that Trump, who admonished that the supremacists should be “condemned totally” somehow also delivered an “unequivocal boost” to those very same miscreants? But like many fake news narratives, repetition has helped cement this one into a reasonably plausible storyline for all but the most skeptical consumers of news.  In fact, over the weekend, Fox News host Chris Wallace pressed White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney on why Trump has not given a speech “condemning … white supremacist bigotry.”  Well, Chris, he has, and more than once.  The most powerful version was from the White House following Charlottesville and the heartbreaking death of Heather Heyer.  President Trump’s succinct and direct words: “Racism is evil, and those who cause violence in its name are criminals and thugs, including the KKK, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other hate groups that are repugnant to everything we hold dear as Americans.”

************************************************************************

In summary, a snapshot estimate of primetime TV news listeners provides a glimpse on the size of the two groups receiving alternative versions of the news. About 22 million people watch liberal leaning ABC, CBS, and NBC and 2.5 million follow the blatantly hate filled rhetoric against our country’s President from CNN and MSNBC.  About 3 million people get news and opinion from the much-maligned conservative leaning Fox. A 24.5 million to 3 million advantage. Despite that advantage the more complete picture of reality as presented on Fox must help truth and good news get out. Trump’s crowds and the nearly even split in polling in the battle ground states show that to be the case.

For many years, being busy with work and family and only catching a bit of the headline news on TV and in the Denver Post I now realize I was minimally informed, (I primarily looked at the sports pages).  My awakening came when I heard President Obama’s comment, in March of 2012, on the challenge being made to the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act , as reported on mainstream TV channels.  His comment which the anchor slavishly touted was: “Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.  Claiming, in effect, that the Supreme Court had never overturned any laws passed by Congress, which was clearly wrong.  I knew that statement not to be true, (the first instance was as early as 1803 in Marbury vs Madison), so I went to the Denver Post the next day to see what had been said about this Obama misstatement. Nothing!  Not a word, (even though by then his error had been exposed).  What was in the Denver Post editorial page, was an extensive article that excoriated Speaker of the House, Republican Paul Ryan’s proposed budget to cut Federal spending – accusing him of wanting to “throw granny under the bus”.    

I realized then, and have been observing it ever since, that the left leaning outlets only give you the news that they want you to hear. That is why we are divided, more than half the people watching Television newscasts (and subsequently relay to their friends and family) only part of the news and only part of the stories they do get to here. Further the part they get is skewed to enhance one political party, the Democrats.   

So, it became clear to me after watching Fox news and comparing their coverage to what was being broadcast on mainstream TV and especially on CNN and MSNBC , that if anyone wants to find out what and how much they have been missing they need to watch Fox news. As their slogan says: We Report You Decide. I am quite sure if our country’s citizens all had the benefit of fair, honest, unbiased and complete reporting of the facts of what is going on with respect to every domestic and international issue they would become more knowledgeable and informed about the issues of the day, they would know the truth and the truth would unite the country. 

The Electoral System, Important in 1787 and Still Essential

Part I – The Electoral System provided for in the United States Constitution

In 1787, when US Constitution was written there were just 13 states. State’s Rights versus a Strong Central Government was one of the major issues that had to be accounted for in all the deliberations related to balance of power between those competing concepts. In the formation of our government, states with smaller populations did not want to be “run over” or inordinately controlled by states with larger populations. Conversely, states with large populations representing greater numbers of people considered that they should have more say on governance and in the election process. From the standpoint of legislation (passing laws, authorizing spending, etc.), the allocation of influence in accordance with larger and smaller populations among the states was solved by the Framers of our Constitution via establishing a bicameral legislature, i.e. two houses comprising the Congress.  The House of Representatives, in which the number of representatives for a state was based on population and the Senate in which each state had an equal number of representatives (2). That arrangement was agreed-upon and has worked out very well. It avoided the potential, at that time, of two or three of the most populous states (with larger number of representatives) getting together and controlling the outcome on an issue for the entire country.

With respect to the election of the President of the United States, the Framers likewise devised a unique way, the Electoral System, to help ensure that the will of the entire country and not just a highly populated state or region would control the outcome of the National Election for the President. The Framers could have used a “One State – One Vote” option or they could have opted for a total popular vote option “One Person-One Vote”. The first option would have respected the distinctiveness and importance of each state but would have not accounted for states with much larger populations.  The second option would have provided the more populous states with the potential to unduly control the outcome of the Presidential election and essentially neglect the input from smaller states.  The Framers solution was a third option, the Electoral System.  Under the Electoral System, States were allotted “electors” to vote for their choice of President in accordance with their population. More populous states were given more electoral votes to cast for President than were the less populated states. Each state received the same number of electors as the number of Congressional Representatives they had. One for each member they had in the House of Representatives and the Senate. Thereby the Framers ensured that the number of votes each State had in the Presidential election was in proportion to the State’s population*.   The use of an Electoral System allows the greater population of the larger states to be fairly and appropriately accounted for in the election.  The “saving grace” for the smaller populous states under the electoral system was that a huge “margin of victory” in the popular vote in a given state or states (specifically the very large populous states), for what ever reason, did not cancel out the vote from smaller populous states and thus dictate the overall outcome.  Here are two examples that show how the Electoral System  fairly accounts  for the larger population states but protects the input from the states with smaller populations through exclusion of the “margin of victory” in the popular vote in a state. 

Example 1 – Looking at the state populations in 1790 and the associated electoral votes assigned and applied in the 1792 election, it can be seen that the population of Massachusetts (1790 census) was 378,000, with 16 electoral votes which was comparable to the total 16 electoral votes from the combined populations of Vermont- 85,000,  New Hampshire -142,000, Delaware 59,000 and Rhode Island 69,000.  If, for example, the popular vote for a particular candidate that year was overwhelming in Massachusetts (say 90% for one Candidate), but was just over 50% in the other 4 states cited for the same candidate. That Candidate would receive 16 electoral votes from Massachusetts and 16 electoral votes from the other 4 states.  No “extra credit” would be given toward the candidate’s overwhelming victory in Massachusetts.                                                            * A minimum of 3 electoral votes was assigned to States with small populations (one Representative plus two Senators).

Example 2 – At present, in the year 2020, California will receive 55 electoral votes while Delaware will receive 3.   In fact because of its large population, California receives as many electoral votes as the combined total of Vermont , Wyoming, West Virginia, Utah, South Dakota, Rhode Island, North Dakota, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Nebraska, Montana, Idaho, Delaware, Alaska and Hawaii combined (as many electoral votes as 15 other states ).  Thus, it can be seen that the Electoral System fairly accounts for the voting power of the greater population of California.

However, as indicated above and described below there was (and is) a subtle but important difference associated with the “the margin” of a popular vote victory in any given state and the provision for proportionally crediting states with larger populations.  The provision, put in place by the Framers of the Constitution, was to use electors in proportion with a state’s population, rather than summing  popular vote totals from each state.  Note that typically (48 out of 50 states**), use a winner take all system to decide how their electors will cast their ballots for President.

So, to illustrate how the “margin of popular vote victory” in a state is kept from unduly controlling the overall election” in the electoral system consider the following example.  Assume (relatively reasonably based on the 2010 census) that the population of California and the population of the sum of the 15 States cited above both equal 40 million and that everyone in all of the 16 states vote, for either Candidate A, a conservative from Texas, or Candidate B, a liberal (favorite son) from California.  Now let’s assume that Candidate A wins the popular vote in each of the 15 states cited above, fairly decisively, by an average margin of 55% to 45%, thus receiving 22,000,000 votes while Candidate B receives 18,000,000 votes.  However, in California Candidate B wins overwhelmingly taking 75% of the popular vote, 30,000,000 votes to 10,000,000 votes.  Under the Constitutions’s Electoral System Candidate B wins California, and gets 55 electoral votes and Candidate A wins 15 states and also gets 55 electoral votes.

However, under a popular vote system, there would be 48,000,000 votes for Candidate B and 32,000,000 votes for Candidate A.  The preference of the 15 states for Candidate A would have been completely overwhelmed by the much larger popular vote winning differential in California of 20,000,000 for Candidate B vs the total winning differential of 4,000,000 for Candidate A in the other  15 states. The net outcome toward the Presidential Election of these 16  states (without the electoral system) would be a popular vote lead of 16,000,000 votes for Candidate B – easily nullifying the democratically chosen preference of 15 States for Candidate A.   This is what the electoral system was established to avoid – potential dominance from the popular “margin of victory” in very high population states!

Clearly such a situation as the Presidential Candidate being from a very large population state, such as used in the example could swell the margin of victory in an individual state. That well could have been one of the factors that the Framers considered.  For example the population of Virginia in 1790 was nearly ten times that of Delaware and the margin of popular vote victory of a “favorite son” in Virginia could well have overwhelmed the popular votes cast in Delaware (and several other smaller population states).

The above example is not far fetched.  In our current political and demographic  landscape , without the electoral system the majority choice of 15 states could have (and would have in recent elections) been overwhelmed by the vote differential of the population in a single state based on that populations characteristics, vagaries and preferences.  The Framers likely recognized the significant disparities that could occur between the states, the potential for large variations in the popular vote differentials and the potential for large swings in the population.  For example, between the 1790 census and the 1860 census the population of New York state increased 10-fold up to 4,000,000 while Delaware’s population only increased from 69,000 to 100,000.  The Framers wanted each States choice (democratically chosen in that state) to be given its due.

The Electoral System in our Constitution accommodates the importance and individuality of the Separate States while equitably providing for the larger states to have their just share of votes for the President in accordance with their population. The Electoral Process prevented the differential in popular vote in a given state from dismissing the preferences of other states and having undue influence on the outcome of the Presidential election. The Framers instituted the Electoral System for a good reason.   The one person-one vote principal is often the right approach but in order to value each states autonomy and in order to give each state a viable say in the Presidential Election the Electoral System was needed.  The electoral system for our country, made up of individual states, was insightful, fair, brilliant and necessary.  Fortuitously the electoral system is still functioning remarkably well given the radical  change in the country’s demography  from rural to urban.                                                                                                  ** Maine and Nebraska allow for splitting their electoral votes if congressional districts are won by different candidates.

Part II – The Electoral System and the Mega City/County Effect

The inclusion of the electoral system in our constitution was fortuitous, as we will see, because now and for the foreseeable future, the electoral system is absolutely essential in maintaining a semblance of balance between the voters representing the width and breadth of the country versus mega city voters.  Without the electoral system, the popular vote dominance in major metropolitan cities and counties would control Presidential Elections henceforth.

Without a complete understanding of the underlying functioning and intent of the electoral system, people tend to consider that the electoral system is taking away their vote, especially if they voted differently than the majority of the people in their State. They hearken back to the one person – one vote dictum, without recognition that their one vote, was indeed already appropriately cast for the candidate of their choice in the “democratic” election in their State. In any event there is a natural, underlying sentiment for a National Popular vote that is easily tapped into.  However,  beyond that inherent sentiment, there is now realization by the leadership of the political parties of how important and what a critical role the Electoral System now plays in the Presidential elections.  This realization is what is driving the recent calls by Democratic Presidential candidates for the electoral system to be abolished and by the Republicans to maintain it. Further this realization has  prompted legislative actions by States currently under Democrat control to pass laws hitching their State electors to the national popular vote in the future regardless of the outcome of the vote in their State.   Clearly the political winds and demographic changes have revealed the trend that shows that the Democrat party would now profoundly benefit, for the foreseeable future, in the removal of the electoral system and the adoption of a national popular vote. The evidence for this assertion is illustrated subsequently.

One Person – One Vote – Why there are exceptions to this “rule”

Despite our inherent tendency to endorse the fairness  in the “one person-one vote” standard, there are extenuating circumstances and/or particular situations where an alternative to that customary approach is necessary to achieve an equitable, and just representation. This was, and is the case for the disparate, independent and vastly different areal populations of these Untied States in voting for the Chief Executive. It is also the case for all legislative action in each state and for the country as a whole.  The United States is a Republic, which  means that The United States operates in terms of a representative form of government.   Likewise, States, Counties and Cities elect representatives to make the decisions on all manner of issues.  A popular vote is not used to decide on each decision and each law. Only occasionally is there a referendum where an issue is put to a direct popular vote.   The Framers recognized that an exception to the one person -one vote was necessary to achieve and equitable means of selection of the President of our country in order to recognize the differences and the autonomy of each of the participating States in the voting and prevent inadvertent control or nomination of the election process.

Here is a simple example to illustrate where an adjustment of the one person-one vote dictum makes sense:    Consider a community comprised of 50 homes and associated households.  These 50 households, through taxes on their property and through home owner association fees fund the community’s amenities.  Now suppose that the 50 households are quite diverse in their family situations, as follows:  There are 10 retired couples with homes, 5 homes owned by widows, 20 households with young children (5 of which are single parent) , 10 with an average of 2 adult children (over 18) still living with them and 5 homes occupied with multi-generational families with 6 adults in the home (parents, grandparents and 2 older siblings – 6 in all). In all, in this community scenario there are 130 persons, over 18,  who would be eligible to vote under the one person-one vote rule. However, under a one vote per household rule (typical for community settings) there would be 50 votes. To elucidate the potential voting disparity a bit further, lets imagine a proposal was made to close the community pool in order to reduce homeowner fees (the pool was part of the originally advertised amenities for the homes). The pool is looked on favorably by the young families, and also by the retired couples and the widows, (not only for their use but also it results in an increase in visits from their grandchildren).  The multi-generational families and the families with adult children at home basically do not use the pool and are in favor of closing it.  So, the popular vote under “one person-one vote” would come out, 60 for and 70 against keeping the pool operational.  However, under one vote per household the result would be 35 for and 15 against. Certainly, the one vote per household is the fairest option in this scenario.  Although, this example is not an exact comparison of the Electoral System vs the National Popular vote, the inclusion of the factors related to influence of population and diversity of circumstances help provide an understanding of why there was the need for the Electoral System in the United States Presidential Elections.

Another example of the non-use of the one person-one vote, ironically, is that used in the both the Republican and Democrat Party Primaries to select the Presidential Candidate.  The Democrat Party, for example, uses a type of electoral system (delegate selection) in their primaries. Within each state, just as in the national elections, each person gets to vote for a specific candidate.  The total number of delegates (electors) a state receives are apportioned to each state in accordance with the total population of the State just as does the U.S. Constitutional Electoral System. The sum of the popular vote received by each candidate in the primaries is not tracked on the basis of the popular vote in each state directly.  The ultimate process is further adjusted (away from a direct popular vote)  via a redistribution (addition) of delegates to primary candidates who achieve more than 15% of the popular vote to account for the votes cast for candidates that did not reach 15% of the total popular vote (essentially disregarding those “popular” votes).  Finally, the Democrat Party’s primary process goes one step further in superseding a direct popular vote by invoking “super delegates” with extra voting power.

The current importance and role of the electoral system is illustrated not only by the fact that it has come into play in 2 of the last 5 Presidential elections but also in the much greater differentials in electoral votes to popular vote margin in the 2016 election than in any of the other 4 instances in the countries history when the electoral vote result and the popular vote result were different. This reflects the increase in the country’s major population centers along with the increased domination of the political persuasion of the electorate in those major metropolitan areas.

The U. S. Census shows that in 1800, 6% of the population was considered urban and 94% rural. By 1900, 40 % of the population was urban and 60% rural and by 1950 those percentages were reversed.  Fast forward to 1990 and we find that 75% were considered urban and only 25% rural.  In 2010, the census classed 19.3% as rural and 80.7% urban.  While these numbers are very telling in terms of general population shift, the definition of “urban” has changed and what is really important from the standpoint of examining the current value and importance of the electoral system is: (1) The huge populations of major metropolitan areas (cities and counties) and (2) The evolution of the populations of these very large cities and counties toward a much more uniform party preference. Thus, given these two factors, if the electoral system were to be eliminated, it would result, as shown below, in the virtual exclusion of the influence of a major portion of the country in the Presidential elections under the current political framework.

Part III – Major City/County Populations and their Current Dominance in the National Popular Vote

In the 2016 Presidential Election, Donald Trump won the vote in 30 States and garnered 306 electoral votes, Hillary Clinton won 20 States and received 232 electoral votes.  There are, depending on how they are named and counted, 3,142 counties in the United States.  Donald Trump won 2,655 of those counties and Hillary Clinton won 487.  Figure 1 illustrates the  dominance of Trump’s victory in terms of the area of country as a whole.

election-2016-county-map

Figure 1 – 2016 Election – Counties in Red won by Donald Trump – Counties in Blue won by Hillary Clinton

Despite the “country wide” dominance of Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by almost 3 million votes, roughly 66 million to 63 million.  The reason — Hillary Clinton won the 100 most populated counties in the country, (the major metropolitan areas) by 12.6 million votes.

Thus, outside of the major metropolitan areas, Donald Trump won the popular vote by almost 10 million votes.  (source The Atlantic, Nov 16, 2016, How the Election Revealed the Divide Between City and Country, Ronald Brownstein)

The fundamental reason that Hillary Clinton lost the electoral vote but won the popular vote was because, just as illustrated in the examples above, “the Margin of Victory” in the highest populated areas was quite large.  And just as illustrated in the examples, the differential margin of victory that occurred in the major cities, if not for the electoral system would have easily overwhelmed the democratically determined preference of the clear majority of the States in the country.  There are three critical sub-points evident in these results:

  1. Unlike, the diversity in opinion and relatively close percentage margin between Democrat and Republican Presidential Candidates that occurs in general throughout the country, the vote in major city/county areas is predominately for the Democrat Candidate. (e.g. the Democrat vote percentage in 2016 was, 93% in the District of Columbia, approaching 90% in the counties of Bronx, Manhattan, and Prince George (Maryland), 85% in San Francisco, and near or above 80% in Philadelphia, Atlanta and Los Angeles).  These large margins of victory, combined with the huge populations of these counties, amass (at present and for the foreseeable future) an insurmountable Democrat Party advantage in the national popular vote.  This was evident in the 2012 and 2016 elections and the population and political trends indicate this will be the case for the foreseeable future.
  2. As noted above Hillary Clinton gained a 12.6 million popular vote advantage from the most populous 100 counties. Her ultimate 3 million popular vote advantage, can readily be seen by simple math and examination of the voting results, be accounted for by the margin of victory in only a few of the most populous cities/counties in America. (Los Angeles county alone provided 1.25 million of the 3 million differential). So, without the Electoral System, in spite of the vigorous policy debates among the Candidates that may pervade the entire country, the Presidential Election popular vote would now appear to be controlled/decided by the distinct margin of victory in the very high populous counties and cites.
  3. The population of the 25 most populous cities/counties was 64,500,000 as of 2010 and accounted for 21% of the total US population. When one or more of the major metropolises exist in a state, the likelihood of the State’s electoral vote going to a Democrat vs a Republican is quite high. Thus with few exceptions, the very high population in the major cities typically dictate the electoral votes in the states in which they exist.

Part IV – Past, Present and Future Outlook of the Rural vs City Divide

My observation and interest in this Rural vs City Divide contrast, actually arose as I was observing the results of the Republican Primary voting in Ohio in 2008.  Senator Rick Santorum ran on very conservative social and political values and positions.  His primary opponent in the Ohio Primary was Governor Mitt Romney who, although an avowed Republican, was regarded as somewhat less conservative.

230px-Ohio_Republican_Presidential_Primary_Election_Results_by_County,_2012.svg

Figure 2 – Results by County from the 2012 Republican Primary Election                      Orange (lighter)– Mitt Romney          Green (darker) — Rick Santorum

As the results came in, more quickly from the rural counties, it appeared that Senator Santorum was going to easily win.  However, there are three large metropolitan areas in Ohio: (1) Cleveland – Akron, (2) Columbus and (3) Cincinnati. The Republicans in and around these cities, being more liberal than their rural cousins, all went for Mitt Romney, equaling Santorum’s total. The fact that the “city” influence could so clearly affect the outcome in a Republican primary was astonishing. It was then that I began looking at how increasingly influential highly populous major cities were in state and national elections. The trend is clear, Democrats are winning fewer and fewer rural counties while at the same time more consistently winning the popular vote. In 1992 and 1996 there was nearly an even Democrat/Republican spilt among US counties, but in 2000 Presidential Candidate Al Gore won the popular vote (narrowly) and did that by winning less than 700 of the 3142 counties.  In 2012 President Obama won the 100 largest counties by 12 million votes but lost the remaining 3,042 counties popular vote by nearly 7 million votes. Then in 2016, as reported above, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million votes by winning only 487 US Counties.

The Democrat Party’s strength is consolidated in an increasingly monolithic electorate in major US population centers.  There are a number of reasons that a greater and greater portion of the electorate in major cities votes for the Democrat Party Candidate for President and other national offices, but suffice to say: that is the case  In is not an expectation that the  Republican Party will make any significant inroads on affecting that trend.  Thus, as major metropolises continue to grow and the electorate divide in those cities continues to expand, the popular vote will almost certainly continue to be won by the Democrats. However, at present, the electoral system, provided for in the US Constitution, is able to preserve our country as the United States of America and prevent it from becoming “The United Cities of America”.

Colorado has joined 11 other states in passing a law in their states that usurps the intent of the US Constitution and the electoral system as previously described.   These States would cast their electoral votes for the Candidate who wins the national popular vote regardless of the preference of the voters in their states.  (The law in Colorado would only go into effect if enough states pass similar laws such that a total of all states with the popular vote law reaches 270 electoral votes, the number necessary to win the presidency.)   This “end around” approach of passing state laws to usurp the intent of the constitution is being employed because  a Constitutional Amendment to change to a presidential election using the Popular Vote would require ratification by 3/4 of the states which is not a realistic possibility as the smaller states would not support it. This is because a National Popular Vote system would in essence eliminate their influence on future elections.     The Colorado legislature and those of the other states  passing this law *** are, (1) In effect, relinquishing the sovereignty of their state henceforth and saying , we do not care what the people in our state want, we will go along with the population as a whole. and saying (2) We do not care that,  in effect we are eliminating the influence smaller, rural states  may have on future National Presidential Elections, and thus defying the intent of the U. S. Constitution.

Why would they do that?  Simple!  Because if enough states sign on to this popular vote dictate, it will ensure a Democrat is in the White House for the foreseeable future, for the reasons documented in the above discussions.  Namely, the “Margin of Victory” in the Democrat strongholds in the major metropolises will overwhelm the popular vote totals in the rest of the country.  To wit, the 12 million plus popular vote advantage reaped in the 100 most populous counties in the United States gave Hillary Clinton in 2016 and Barack Obama in 2012 the popular vote win by 3 million and 6 million votes respectively. This occurred despite these two Candidates soundly losing the popular vote in the rest of the United States (the other 3000 counties) by 9 million and 6 million votes respectively. The demography and political leaning of the 100 most populous counties is not likely to change, that’s why the states with Democrat control in their states are pushing for the popular vote and demeaning the Electoral System.  It is no surprise that all the states signed on thus far in favor of a popular vote option voted for Hillary Clinton in the last election.

However, the above rationale is not presented to the populous pushing for a National Popular vote. The concept is promoted under the very appealing “One Person – One Vote” and “Every Vote Should Count” banners. Certainly, these are good concepts, and certainly the Framers were aware of their value.  But the truth is that it is all about gaining political power and undoing what has proven to be an equitable and fair system that was put in place to recognize the individuality and autonomy of the States, large and small.  And now we see that through its inherent intent of recognizing the individuality and independence of each state, the Electoral  System has also provided for protecting the influence of the voters in both city and country. Thank goodness for the wisdom of the Framers and for the Electoral System placed in the U. S. Constitution

*** The bill in Colorado will only take effect if the law is passed by states representing at least 270 electoral college votes, which is the amount needed to win the presidency. With the addition of Colorado, that number now sits at 181. Other jurisdictions that have enacted the legislation include Rhode Island, Vermont, Hawaii, Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, Washington, New Jersey, New York, Illinois, California and the District of Columbia. New Mexico.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Starting Somewhere

Starting Somewhere –  great accomplishments emerging from modest beginnings

“ …we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness …”
This was a majestic declaration that led and continues to lead to a noble and wonderful spirit in people and to many brave, astonishing, unselfish acts that give the gift of the knowledge and of the reality of these rights to millions of people and their progeny.
History provides us with many valuable and important lessons. Understanding the background and subsequent historic record behind the development of concepts like the “self-evident” truth of certain unalienable rights”, teaches the lesson that in accomplishing reforms: A start, even if modest and imperfect, is very important, you might even say essential. Such a lesson comes from the Magna Carta.
The Magna Carta could be described as a self-serving tool of the rich and titled. Namely – Barons, Lords and Nobles. The Magna Carta was only in effect for a few months before being rendered invalid by the King who had agreed to it and signed it. But, despite the above valid characterization and abrupt dissolution it was a start of something great. The legacy of the Magna Carta is acclaimed and venerated in Britain and the United States. It is still held up as a beacon of liberty and has been cited by the Supreme Court over 100 times. Let’s examine its history and the lesson taught.
The Genesis of the Magna Carta
The middle ages in Europe is well known for its social, economic, and governmental system of feudalism. In simple terms feudalism was a class system. Serfs, peasants, and villeins resided at the bottom of this class system. These people worked the land for Nobles (Earls, Lords, Barons, etc.), who were given lands by a King to whom they promised allegiance (and a lot more). In addition to providing food and materials to the King, the Lords were required to raise and equip an army for the King when called upon (like for the Crusades), obey and fulfill a plethora of royal demands, pay general and special taxes, and pay large sums of money for “royal permission” to carry out common ordinary activities, like getting married or inheriting property from their relations. In turn, the Nobles, in exchange for providing land and protection for their serfs, exploited their serfs, taxed them heavily, restricted their freedoms, forced them to labor, and required them to serve when an army was to be raised.
Also, it is well known that often the Kings in the middle ages were notoriously bad. They were self-serving, excessively greedy, ruled capriciously, and often got into wars that cost their country and its people dearly. Nobles and peasants alike lost their lives and lands. One such “bad” King was King John of England, the brother of Richard I, (the Lionhearted) whom he succeeded in 1199, when Richard was killed in battle. King John was an abysmal King by just about any measure, (economically, militarily, and morally). The one thing he was good at was administration (i.e. raising funds for his use). He made excessive demands and squeezed every cent he could out of the Church and out of the Nobility. And his foreign policy was a disaster as he gave up lands to arch enemy France for essentially nothing. So it was that in January of 1215, after 16 years of pathetic Kingship, a number of the Earls, Lord’s and Baron’s as well as the Catholic Church Bishops in England got fed up with King John’s greedy despotism and submitted oral and written demands for reforms. This collection of Nobles banded together to ensure the demands were met by force if necessary. They formed “The Army of the Lord” to go up against the King and the King’s forces. The King’s forces were paid foreign mercenaries and some powerful nobles who remained loyal to King John in order to retain his favor.
The role of the Church in this match up and especially that of the Archbishop of Canterbury was quite significant. A very powerful and influential pope, Innocent III, had laid an interdict on England in 1208. An interdict was a directive or ruling from the Pope on religious matters. This interdict took away the English people’s access to the Sacraments and their rights to a Christian burial. The punishment came about because King John wanted to and did appoint his own English Bishops. But Pope Innocent III would not approve them and King John ignored the pope. Can you imagine how devastating the Pope’s decree would be to believers? Further, the Pope subsequently, in 1209, excommunicated King John when John would not accept the Pope’s appointment of Stephen Langton as the Archbishop of Canterbury. The opportunistic King, during this falling out with the Pope, proceeded to appropriate the Church’s considerable wealth and property throughout Great Britain. However, later in 1213 when John was in dire straits financially and was being badgered for concessions by his Nobles he pulled a rabbit out of his hat, duplicitously claiming that he was; “returning to obedience to the church”, and “taking up the cross” (that is pledging to the Pope to lead an army on a crusade). This pledge to the Pope resulted in the Pope relieving King John from his debts, giving him a 3-year grace period to fulfill any obligations he may promise the Nobles and promising his favor in the King’s current dispute with the Nobles. The King’s gambit worked, the unethical, adaptable, political Pope was so focused on mounting another Crusade, that he endorsed the avaricious, duplicitous King John in his dispute with the Barons and the English Bishops. Pope Innocent III even threw Archbishop of Canterbury Stephen Langton under the bus, telling Langton and the other English Bishops, whom John had ransacked, to now accede to this malevolent King’s wishes. Oh, and by the way, King John never did “return to obedience” and lead that promised crusade.
But the English Bishops and especially Archbishop of Canterbury Stephen Langton, also pretty much ignored the Pope and worked towards negotiating concessions from the King. In fact, Arch-Bishop Stephen Langton negotiated the whole affair. So, with this peek of the Church’s role in the event, let us return to the clash between the King and his Nobles that lead to the signing of the Magna Carta.
After giving the King a written set of demands (limitation of his powers) during the winter of 1214-15 and subsequently chasing the King and his entourage around great Britain trying to pin him down and gain some concessions, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Stephen Langton and the force led by the discontented Lords (the “Army of the Lord”) cornered the King just outside London. The set of demands that had been given to the to the King in 1214 was the forerunner of the actual Magna Carta, it was known as the “Unknown Charter” because what was in it was “unknown” until it was located in France in 1863. Once pinned down and facing the pursuing Army, the King agreed to meet the discontented Barons and Lords at a large open meadow called Runnymede. There, in 1215 at a meeting convened and lead by Stephen Langton, the King and his advisors read and assented to a newly prepared set of demands from the Nobles, which became known as the Magna Carta (the Great Charter). ——– That is how the Magna Carta came to be. —–So what was in it?
Content of the Magna Carta
Just what was in the Magna Carta that has made it such a revered document with respect to promoting individual liberty? Well, surprisingly it was primarily a “Benefit Package” for the Nobility. But there were a couple of seeds of hope for the rights of common man scattered among these concessions to the privileged class.  These nascent steps toward individual rights is what historians source as credence to the Magna Carta’s weighty role in promoting individual rights.
The Magna Carta consisted of 63 articles covering such matters as limits on payments to the King, inheritance law, policing of the royal forest, controls on military service required of the Nobles, and “respect” for independence of the Church. Almost all of these 63 articles related to the pecuniary relationship between the Nobility and the king, (e.g., how much money the King was to be paid when land was passed to an heir). Many of the demands dealt with very mundane activities, which revealed how the King had been imposing his will arbitrarily and capriciously on the Nobles (e.g. the taking of timber from their lands, seizing horses and carts for transportation, imposing arbitrary fines, requiring a bridge to be built, etc.).
The point to grasp here, is that the Magna Carta, a document now recognized as a forerunner to establishing the concept of the individual’s liberties and rights under a government, was chiefly an agreement between one extremely powerful, very rich King and a bunch of other influential rich guys. Further, within a few months the King reneged on the whole thing and war broke out between the Barons and the King’s Army comprised chiefly of the King’s Foreign mercenaries. The Magna Carta agreement had little to do with the common person who tilled the land, fought and died in the ill-conceived wars, and lived from hand to mouth. Viewed in the light of what we now all believe, understand, and demand today with respect to individual rights and freedoms it could have been relegated to an after thought. And you can be assured, that the contents of this agreement, (if put out in advance of its signature for “public comment”) would have been ridiculed and “raked over the coals” by the surplus of “political” critics and the modern media if there had been such entities in those days.
But wait!! As we will see it was a start!! Buried within that plethora of Royal vs Noble fiscal finagling, there were two clauses that were indeed monumental precursors to the later granting of “freedoms and individual rights”. Articles 38 and 39 were substantive with respect to the future of individual liberties. One article required that “accusations alone were not adequate to “put a man to law” (convict). Trustworthy witnesses were required. And the second of these important articles demanded that a “legal judgment of peers” was required for conviction of a “free man”.
These two articles were preserved though later charters and they formed the foundation of the need for witnesses (rather than being found guilty just on the basis of an accusation) and of the right of trial by a jury of your peers.
With regard to respecting the independence of the Church from the King, the very first article of the Magna Carta stated that: “The English Church should be free and have its rights in full and its liberties intact”. This article illustrated the strong influence that the Archbishop of Canterbury Stephen Langton, who negotiated the proceedings, had on the outcome.
Despite the fact that this specific agreement, the actual Magna Carta, was discarded and voided by the extremely powerful king two months after it had been made, it is credited with being the foundation of the development of our country’s declaration of individual rights and a government of the people by the people and for the people. The principle of individual rights is now a nearly universally accepted norm among nations with non-totalitarian governments. Why! Because once the idea of negotiating for fair treatment and insisting on liberties was started and some of those liberties were put in writing, they were able to resurface, be referenced, added to, and strengthened in future negotiations with rulers, both authoritarian and fair-minded.
Reflecting on the history of the Magna Carta and its ultimate significance, two realities are evident.
The first reality is that societal advancements, (as well as advancements in every aspect of human endeavor), do not generally appear complete and in their fully developed state. It takes time, sometimes centuries, to build on the idea, for advancements to be made and for a reform/concept to come to full fruition. Further, there may be setbacks along the way that have to be overcome. The origination and implementation of the concept that: “……we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, can be traced from citizenship in the Roman Empire to the Magna Carta (1215) to John Locke’s (1690) treatise, to the Declaration of Independence (1776) and then to the Civil War (1865) and it continues today. Reforms / improvements typically start somewhere and build on the underlying concept or principle.
The second reality, very much in evidence in our current litigious and partisan culture, is that when a good or potentially great idea or concept is introduced (in its incomplete or yet to be fully developed state) it becomes a target, ripe for being condemned, criticized and even mocked. Condemnation and criticism is in vogue – if there is something that can be singled out as a potential problem or something can be claimed as an ulterior motive for the idea – that is what gets the attention – not the potential value or good in the idea. I can just imagine the critique (mocking, condemning and belittling), that the Magna Carta would have gotten by the equivalent of our current media. The headline would likely have been: “King grants Millions in concessions to rich, greedy Nobles and Barons”. A comparable act in our day might read: “Government grants Billions in tax concessions to Wall Street and big money Corporations.” A parallel in our society could be the “all” powerful commissioner of the NFL meeting with the rich and influential owners of the NFL teams and announcing a new agreement that included Television Revenues being increased by 50% as “really important in the annals of history”. That effort would be mocked and ridiculed. But what if, like the Magna Carta the agreement also initiated an important reform, (e.g. – kicking off an independent player health and safety evaluation in each organization) and that nascent health and safety reform ultimately lead to a comprehensive protocol that reduced long term injury rates by 200%.)
The net result of a “hypercritical”, highly partisan environment is that any idea must  overcome a legion of obnoxious, illogical, objections that are raised. So, there may be challenges, constraints, and hurdles to leap, but without starting somewhere the likelihood is that nothing will get done. In our complex society making a change almost certainly will not be equally favorable for everyone. Demeaning nascent attempts of improvement because they are inadequate, incomplete or flawed is easy but shortsighted. So the lesson from history is START – put your idea forward and stick with it and if it doesn’t fully blossom right away – don’t worry, future generations may pick it up and run with it!
There are many examples of “reforms” or “changes” that began with modest beginnings here is perhaps the most significant modest beginning ever the birth of the Christian Religion.

Christianity – When I give the children in our church an overview of the history of Christianity – Old Testament – New Testament and on to the Present Day – I always ask how many Christians there were just after Jesus died on the Cross and rose again 3 days later. The answer, of course was only 2 or 3 – or perhaps a maximum of about 14. That is because, a Christian is, by definition, one who believes that Christ died on the cross for their sins. So those few followers who had paid attention to Jesus when He told them of God’s plan for salvation, (a person just needs to believe that Jesus died on the cross for their sins), became the first Christians. Because when Jesus arose on Easter morning, by golly they believed what He had said. Within a few weeks after Jesus appeared to a number of people the ranks of Christians had “swelled” to perhaps 20 or 30. A very modest start. Further the Gospel message “of grace” – you did not have to earn your salvation it was a free gift, was regarded as “folly” to Jew and Gentile alike. Regardless from this meager start Christianity spread throughout the World and now has 2.4 Billion adherents.