In 1990, 32 years ago, on the heels of more than a decade of global warming, CO2 was convicted, on the basis of conjecture and circumstantial evidence, as being “guilty”1 of causing the relatively high rate of global warming being experienced during the last decade. Worldwide, calls to cut CO2 emissions began. The calls spread and intensified and an obsession with “carbon footprint” and “climate change” ensued. Despite no verification of the claim, no compelling evidence to support a CO2 conviction, and a blind eye turned to the previous 34-year period of global cooling while CO2 emissions quadrupled, billions of dollars were spent, millions of jobs were created, thousands of articles written, legions of activists emerged and 27 international conferences were held, all devoted to cutting CO2 emissions. Did all of that effort result in reduced CO2 emissions?
Surprise! The answer is: NO, not at all! CO2 emissions grew worldwide. Substantially!
Also surprisingly, despite ever-increasing annual CO2 emissions and much higher atmospheric CO2, the global warming rate moderated after the 1979-1998 period of high global warming. Here are the relevant facts and information.
From 1990 to 2021 annual worldwide energy and industrial CO2 emissions increased by 157% from 21.4 to 36.3 billion tonnes/year2. And 800 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions were added to the atmosphere over the period. The CO2 atmospheric concentration rose from 0.000354 to 0.000416, that is from 354ppm to 416ppm3. Many countries doubled their CO2 emissions, and China’s CO2 emissions rose by 430%, (1990 to 2018). The United States, however had lower CO2 emissions in 2021 than in 19904. All the exhortations, energy and money put into cutting CO2 emissions was futile. Should, we be worried? No! Not about the CO2 anyway. Here are what the actual data and facts reveal.
FACTS: (1) We are in an interglacial period of global warming that began about 1750, (end: Little Ice Age Period and start: Current Warm Period). (2) Fossil fuels do pollute the air with particulates, CO, NO2, and SO2 and more. (3) CO2 is not a pollutant, it is what we exhale, it is what plants take in to grow and it is a minor, but critically important greenhouse gas. At its low atmospheric concentrations (<250 ppm) it is essential for plant growth and for warming that makes the planet habitable. However, amazingly, this miracle molecule’s greenhouse effect asymptotically decreases so as to produce little added warming as its atmospheric concentration (ppm) goes higher4. (4) A review of the readily available empirical evidence, NASA5, post 1850, clearly reveals that CO2 emissions were, “not guilty” of causing the global warming. Thus, CO2 can now justly, and fairly be exonerated to continue its important job of fostering plant life. OPINION: The prosecutors of CO2, for 32 years mocked dissent, and suppressed the evidence. The defense was excluded and denied a voice. Two of the key pieces of evidence for acquittal, is as follows:
From 1929 to 1944 when CO2 emissions were minor, and the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was low (307-310 ppm), global temperatures rose at a rate of +0.370C/decade3. This 1929-1944 warming rate was greater than the (+0.320C/decade) rate that occurred from 1976-1998, during the next episode of high global warming, 50 years later. Even though CO2 emissions in the 1979-1998 period were 4.5 times greater than in the 1929-1944 period and the atmospheric concentration of CO2 was considerably higher (332-367ppm). The later episode, although with a lesser warming rate than the earlier interval, spawned the 1990 Global Warming “alarm” and its hasty link to CO2 emissions that led to the UN’s call for CO2 emission’s reduction and now for their eradication.
Remarkably, global temperatures were lower for an extended period after 1944 and stayed below the 1944 level until 1979. This cooler period occurred despite CO2 emissions increasing 4-fold, from 5 to 20 billion tonnes / year and the atmospheric concentration of CO2 rising to 337ppm. The max drop in temperature from the 1944 level was -0.40C, in 1964. The lower temperatures lasted for 34 years during the time CO2 emissions were accelerating post WWII. Clearly, refuting the alleged correlation between CO2 emissions and global warming that was the cornerstone of its prosecution in 1990.
This readily available historical evidence, that was missed or intentionally overlooked in the rush to judgement of CO2 emissions in 1990, clearly illustrates that climate influencing factors, other than CO2 emissions, drove global warming post 1850, as they had since 1750. Indeed, these factors have been affecting global temperatures and climate for millennia. This very relevant global temperature history and its relationship to CO2 emissions was and still is ignored by those pushing CO2 emissions culpability. Global temperature changes during our current + 15,000-year interglacial period shows similar periods of warming (e.g. Roman Warm Period, Medieval Warm Period), followed by periods of cooling (e.g. Little Ice Age) since the last glaciation.
Post 1998 empirical evidence also exonerates CO2 emissions. In 1998 CO2 emissions were 23.4 billion tonnes/yr. They reached 33.5 billion tonnes/yr. by 2011, and atmospheric CO2 reached 392ppm. If CO2 were to blame for global warming, then temperatures should have continued to rise and at an increasing rate. But over that 13-year period (1998-2011) global temperatures were flat. NASA’s 2011 reading5 matched that of 1998 and 5 of the 13 years had temperatures lower than 1998’s. The UAH satellite lower atmosphere data showed lower temperatures for 16 years. These data further demonstrate that CO2 emissions are not driving global warming.
Conclusion –After 32 years the IPCC and CO2 “climate change” promoters have lost their credibility! There has been no actual evidence produced that shows reducing CO2 emissions will have any significant impact on reducing global temperatures, so all the current efforts are a fool’s errand. Mathematical models with subjective inputs do not serve as evidence.
The massive undertaking to reduce CO2 emissions has been a dismal flop, mathematical climate model projections have been routinely overstated, there was no apparent effort to verify, or investigate the original CO2 culpability hypothesis nor to monitor and adjust to observations of the ongoing data (e.g. a trillion tonnes of emissions have been added since 1979 with no increase in the overall global warming rate), and lacking any progress, the latest tactic of the IPCC is to instill fear of planetary demise in the population as a means to maintain status and control.
The fixation on CO2 emissions should be dropped and efforts should be refocused on addressing what actions can be taken to deal with the effects of global warming (e.g., locally rising sea levels) till the end of this interglacial warming period, and on making green energy alternatives environmentally sound safe and economically competitive in order to legitimately reduce fossil fuel consumption.
References
1 IPCC First Assessment Report, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_First_Assessment_Report
5 CO2 Coalition, Fact #2, The warming effect of each molecule of CO2 declines as its concentration Increases, co2coalition.org/facts, Facts Archive – CO2 Coalition
6 Global Temperature, NASA, Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index, climate.nasa.gov/climate_resources/127/global-temperature/
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 ifindeed 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 implythat 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.
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”.
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).
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:
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.
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.
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:
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’
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.
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
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:
The Democrat Party leadership
Mainstream Media and Cable Channels
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
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.
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.
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 schemesof 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:
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.
Support local, regional and national independent newspaper, radio and television outlets that fully and honestly report the news and information.
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.
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:
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.
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:
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 dismantling of the true meaning and intent of the first amendment – the last episode but not the final say
This is the story of Freedom of Religion in the United States and the subsequent attempt at its subjugation by the concept of “Separation of Church and State”
The fundamental right of Religious Freedom struggles against the imposition of the concept of “Separation of Church and State”. The latter concept as it was and is invoked in the conduct of our lives and in our societal affairs is a falsehood, a misrepresentation, that spread throughout the nation before the truth got its boots on, and is now regarded by most as a factual truth. Paradoxically, neither the term, nor the concept of “Separation of Church and State” appears in the U.S. Constitution. Yet, the overreaching, misguided and zealous invoking of the concept of Separation of Church and State, as if it were the law of the land, has effectively served to diminish the actual free exercise of religion specifically provided for in our Constitution’s Bill of Rights.
We left Episode 5 of the Freedom of Religion series in the mid 1940’s. Having helped liberate Europe, Americans were ready to again enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. We were still under the protection of the First Amendment and able to enjoy the free exercise of the Christian religion as they had for over 150 years. The bible and prayer were still commonly used in our schools. The Courts had declared that we were a Christian nation. Christmas was celebrated in the public square, there was prayer to open public meetings and the Ten Commandments were engraved in the Supreme Court Building and in court houses around the nation. And then came:
A radical turn by the Supreme Court
Recall the initial words of first amendment as they pertain to freedom of religion: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Also recall the Colonial history of there being “state” churches and how it was clearly described in Episode 3 that the first phrase in the First Amendment, “the establishment clause”, pertained specifically to restricting the Federal Government from establishing a “state” church. That intent was clear. That understanding and the free exercise of religion flourished from the time the Bill of Rights was written (1789) until 1947.
In 1947, the U.S. Supreme Court made a 180-degree turn from past history and precedent. Without citing a single precedent, and ignoring 150 years of historically consistent rulings, the Court decided that the First Amendment “establishment clause” had a much broader meaning than not establishing a state church and announced that; “The wall of separation between church and state must be kept high and impregnable”. Invoking this concept was a radical departure from the past. With that statement by Justice Hugo Black, the myth of separation between church and state was born. Before that time the phrase “separation of church and state” was hardly know, it did not even appear in the World Book Encyclopedia until 1967.
So exactly what happened. How did this change come about?
The genesis of the change resulted, rather innocuously, from a Supreme Court case that actually came down on the side of religious freedom. In Everson vs. Board of Education, Arch Everson, challenged a 1941 New Jersey Law that allowed local school districts to provide students transportation to school. In Everson’s township both public and private (parochial) students were provided transportation. A total of $357 for the year was allocated by the township toward the transportation of parochial students. Everson alleged that this indirect aid to religion violated the New Jersey Constitution and the First Amendment. Everson’s lost the case in the highest New Jersey State court and then was taken on to the U. S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled against Everson, on the basis of the majority opinion, written by Justice Hugo Black, that: “ … the state bill was constitutionally permissible because the reimbursements were offered to all students regardless of religion and because the payments were made to parents and not any religious institution.” Sounds reasonable and in accord with the First Amendment, right? – What was being authorized certainly could not be considered as the Federal Government establishing a state religion.
But Wait!! In the write up of the majority opinion, Justice Black stated that:
“ —-The ‘establishment of religion’ clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance.”
So far so good. These statements follow the true intent of the two Freedom of Religion clauses of the First Amendment, the “establishment clause” and the “free exercise clause”. But Justice Black then added this statement, perhaps without contemplation of the future expanding reach of the government or the devious interpretation that would be made linking “tax” and “funding”.
No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion.
This statement, followed by Black’s closing statement in the majority opinion that “the wall of separation between church and state must be kept high and impregnable”, opened a pathway for future courts to rule against allowing any religious expression to be associated with activities that had any government funding. But the separation concept was just plain made up. There is nothing in the First Amendment clauses that suggest separation or a wall or taxes and nothing in the conduct of our country for 150 years that suggested separation. The separation of church and state was not conceived of or established by the founders, nor was it part of our national heritage.
In 1962, the innocuous seeds of the Everson case burst into full bloom and began their invasive attack on America’s Christian population. Black’s words became controlling precedent for Engle v. Vitale–the case that removed prayer in public education by ruling voluntary and denominationally neutral prayer unconstitutional. The actual prayer that was ruled on was rather benign: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon thee and we beg thy blessings upon us and our parents, our teachers, and our country.” Tragically, Engle v. Vitale started a domino effect of court rulings that threatened to remove our religious heritage from the public arena, especially from education.
In the 1963 decision of Abington v. Schempp, the Court removed Bible reading from public education. The Court’s justification? “If portions of the New Testament were read without explanation, they could be and have been psychologically harmful to a child.” Simply amazing!! Suddenly, the best- selling book of all time and the most quoted source by the founding fathers was unconstitutional and psychologically harmful. The honorable court certainly didn’t share the religious values of the founders nor the sustainers of the Republic. Abraham Lincoln said, “But for the Bible we would not know right from wrong.” Exactly. One of the reasons moral bearings have been lost in the country is that the objective values of right and wrong have been removed from children’s education.
In 1969, it became unconstitutional to erect a war memorial in the shape of a cross (Lowe v. City of Eugene, 1969). The Court carried that same religious intolerance into a 1994 case in which a cross in a San Diego park had to be removed.
In 1976, it became unconstitutional for a board of education to use or refer to the word God in any official writings (State of Ohio v. Whisner). In 1979, it became unconstitutional for a kindergarten class to ask whose birthday was being celebrated in a Christmas assembly (Florey v. Sioux Falls School District).
By 1980 this incredibly twisted approach made it unconstitutional to post the Ten Commandments on school walls. According to Stone v. Graham, “If posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at all it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps venerate and obey the commandments; this is not a permissible objective.” James Madison, the man most responsible for the U.S. Constitution said “[We] have staked the future of all of our political Constitutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”20 Once again, the honorable Court is completely out of step with the founding fathers. Madison was absolutely right–the pathetic condition of our culture reflects the inability of individuals to control themselves. While the Ten Commandments hang above the chief justice of the Supreme Court, they are hypocritically censored from the halls of our schools. George Washington said that apart from religion, there can be no morality.
In 1985, Wallace v. Jaffree, the Supreme Court in the ultimate absurdity outlawed allowing a “moment of silence” in Alabama schools. Ruling a state law, providing for a moment of silence, as unconstitutional. Several states had gone this route in response to the outlawing of school prayer. The reach of the Federal Government now being taken to extremes. The rationale for the ruling was that any bill (even those which are constitutionally acceptable) is unconstitutional if the author of the bill had a religious activity in mind when the bill was written. In this case the Court carried the separation of church and state concept beyond belief. In addition to applying to religious activities, words, and symbols, along with anything else that might cause someone to think about God, now the mythological wall may be brought to bear on an author’s thoughts while penning a bill.
Why did the Courts make such a drastic departure from our roots? The answer is two-fold, on the one hand there are mean spirited, anti-Christian, intolerant individuals who use the freedom’s granted in the Bill of Rights for their purpose of hurting others and secondly there are the social activist judges who have a complete disregard for the Constitution’s intent. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes illustrated his personal contempt for the original intent of the Constitution when he said, “We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what judges say it is.” The words of Supreme Court Justice Brennan are more inflammatory: “It is arrogant to use the Constitution as the founding fathers intended, it must be interpreted in light of current problems and current needs.”
The arrogance really lies in these liberal judges not interpreting the Constitution as the founding fathers intended but, rather, in reinterpreting the Constitution to meet their personal ideas. It takes brazen audacity to ignore the intentions of the founding fathers and to turn one’s back on the Constitution / Bill of Rights and 150 years of American history that faithfully followed it.
In a 2014 speech Justice Antonin Scalia criticized members of the Court who champion a more evolving, “living” view of the Constitution — a judicial philosophy he has previously said only an “idiot” could believe. “Our {the Supreme Court’s} latest take on the subject, which is quite different from previous takes, is that the state must be neutral, not only between religions, but between religion and non-religion,”. “That’s just a lie. Where do you get the notion that this is all unconstitutional? You can only believe that if you believe in a morphing Constitution.”
If Americans want a more secular political system that guarantees those distinctions, they can “enact that by statute,” Scalia said, “but to say that’s what the Constitution requires is utterly absurd.”
Progression of the Myth of Separation from the Courts to Daily Life
The court case rulings cited above and the associated thought metastasized rapidly. With the aid of a liberal media eager to publicize the demise of traditional values and an increasingly liberal educational system, the vast majority of the US population became convinced that the concept of separation of church and state was a fixture of the Constitution. Further, many school administrators, teachers and municipal leaders considered that mentioning or observing anything to do with Christianity was off limits. Thus, celebration of Christian holidays or even mentioning God in public schools could result in law suits or discipline. The country was literally traumatized. But paradoxically, while the free exercise of religion relative to Christianity was being drastically curtailed, tolerance as an ethic was being pushed. Open mindedness toward others religions was being advanced by social justice activists. No problem with discussing Islam in the schools.
Likewise, evidence of Christianity in the public square was being shut down. Boycotts, dismissals, and protests would occur against companies and individuals who dared to publically express / display their Christian beliefs. Businesses and employers removed any references related to Christianity and adopted non-descript substitute greetings to avoid offending no-believers. This change was: (1) being driven by protests from atheist individual or groups bringing, (2) being supported by those who were now being taught the validity of the concept of “separation of church and state” and (3) being accepted by people of faith who now believed (incorrectly) that “separation of church and state” was part of our heritage.
But all is not lost – truth is on the side of the real meaning of the First Amendment!
Fighting Back to regain the Free Exercise of (Christian) Religion
Although he was in the minority in the “silent prayer” decision in 1985, Justice William H. Rehnquist, penned a bitter dissent to the case in which he attacked the reasoning in the 1962 Everson case. “There is simply no historical foundation,” Rehnquist wrote, “for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the ‘wall of separation’ that was constitutionalized in Everson.” Rehnquist called Everson’s lofty rhetoric “useless as a guide to sound constitutional adjudication” and labeled Jefferson’s wall metaphor “useless as a guide to judging.” Other high court justices, notably Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, have since joined the attack.
In general, the Supreme Court began to become more conservative with the appoints by Presidents Reagan and President Bush (the elder) so the extremely liberal decisions under Justice Earl Warren’s Court (1953-1969) did not continue. A list of decisions that are more favorable to religious freedom are listed below covering the period 1984 -2014. However, there were many others that were not favorable as the Court has continued to follow the precedents and tests that had been established during the Warren years.
There are a number of groups that have formed to defend Freedom of Religion (Christianity) such as the Alliance Defending Freedom, the American Center for Law and Justice, and the Heritage Foundation. It is my understanding that these groups have overwhelmingly won the frivolous cases brought against schools where school principals have banned or atheist’s groups have challenged the singing of Christmas carols and against towns putting up displays.
There has been a fairly strong backlash against the efforts to remove Christ from Christmas and the nativity from Christmas displays. Progress has been made in recent years and religious freedom has even been a hot topic in the Republican presidential primaries. But the struggle for the free exercise of the Christian religion goes on. The dissent to this point of view is embedded in the myth that the founders intend there to be separation of church and state. That is wrong!
All the founders wanted to achieve by the first two clauses of the First Amendment was to ensure (1) that there would be no Federal Government specified religion for the nation (no specific Christian denomination) and (2) to allow everyone the freedom and privilege to choose and participate in their own denomination (or none art all) without interference or control by the Federal Government. That the first simple provision specifying that the Federal Government could not designate a state church could be twisted by the Courts in such a way that it generated blatant Federal Government interference and in so doing decimated the free exercise provision is unconscionable. The original and continued “reinterpretation” of the establishment clause of the First Amendment by the Supreme Court was and is an effrontery to the founders and is a great injustice to the American people.
Our job – Spread the Truth that the concept of “Separation of Church and State” is not part of the U. S. Constitution, is not a correct interpretation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment and its imposition on our lives and on the Right of the free exercise of religion is a travesty. Thanks for Reading – Larry Von Thun
Court Cases since 1984 which upheld Freedom of Religion for Christians
Lynch v. Donnelly (l984) The Court upheld a nativity display among other symbols in a public park “to celebrate the Christmas holiday and to depict the origins of that holiday.”
Board of Education of Westside Community Schools v. Mergens (1990) The 1990 Equal Access Act, which required that public schools give religious groups the same access to facilities that other extracurricular groups have, was upheld. Allowing religious clubs to meet did not violate the Establishment Clause.
Capitol Square Review and Advisory Board v. Pinette (1995) A cross placed by a private group in a traditional public forum adjoining the state house did not violate the Establishment Clause, as the space was open to all on equal terms.
Mitchell v. Helms (2000) The federal government could provide computer equipment to all schools—public, private and parochial—under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The aid was religiously neutral and did not violate the Establishment Clause.
Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2001) Religious clubs were allowed to meet in public schools after class hours as other clubs were permitted to do. Allowing religious clubs to meet did not violate the Establishment Clause.
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002) A government program providing tuition vouchers for Cleveland schoolchildren to attend a private school of their parents’ choosing was upheld. The vouchers were neutral towards religion and did not violate the Establishment Clause.
Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (2004) A father challenged the constitutionality of requiring public school teachers to lead the Pledge of Allegiance, which has included the phrase “under God” since 1954. The Court determined that Mr. Newdow, as a non-custodial parent, did not have standing to bring the case to court and therefore did not answer the constitutional question
Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2001) Religious clubs were allowed to meet in public schools after class hours as other clubs were permitted to do. Allowing religious clubs to meet did not violate the Establishment Clause.
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002) A government program providing tuition vouchers for Cleveland schoolchildren to attend a private school of their parents’ choosing was upheld. The vouchers were neutral towards religion and did not violate the Establishment Clause.
Van Orden v. Perry (2005) A six-foot monument displaying the Ten Commandments donated by a private group and placed with other monuments next to the Texas State Capitol had a secular purpose and would not lead an observer to conclude that the state endorsed the religious message, and therefore did not violate the Establishment Clause.
Hein v. Freedom from Religion Foundation (2007) After the Bush Administration created the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives for the purpose of allowing religious charity organizations to gain federal funding, the Court ruled that taxpayers cannot bring Establishment Clause challenges against programs funded by the executive office
Town of Greece vs Galloway (2014) Held that the New York town could continue opening legislative sessions with sectarian prayers.
Going into the 2nd Republican National Convention William H. Seward, former Governor of New York and two term United States Senator was the overwhelming favorite to win the presidential nomination. He had New York’s 70 delegates and a 100 or more from other states. In 1860, 233 delegates were needed for nomination. There were several other “favorite son” contenders including Ohio Governor Salmon P. Chase, Pennsylvanian Simon Cameron, Edward Bates from Missouri, and Abraham Lincoln from Illinois. None were considered strong challengers to Seward. On the first ballot it was Seward 173, Lincoln 102, Cameron 50, Chase 49 and Bates 48. Lincoln worked to become the “second choice” of many and detractors such as Horace Greeley had raised doubts about Seward’s electability – so on the second ballot it was Seward 184, Lincoln 181. And then on the third ballot many delegates shifted to Lincoln and he led Seward 231 ½ to 180. Ohio announced a shift of 4 delegates from Chase to Lincoln and Abraham Lincoln became the nominee and the rest is history. History also records the nomination of Democrat James K Polk that took until the 9th ballot to best the prohibitive favorite Martin Van Buren. History also records the 3rd ballot nomination of Thomas Dewey in 1948 over Taft and Stassen neither of whom would throw their support to the other and the leader coming in to the convention secured the nomination. There have been several other Conventions that took more than one ballot to nominate the party’s candidate. The term “contested” convention used when more than one ballot is required is misleading. It is the logical outcome under certain situations, such as this year when there are multiple candidates. The parallel to the current year’s situation with the Republican presidential candidates and the nomination process is evident and instructive.
However, as if clueless to history, math and reality – the twin charlatans, “sensationalism” and “story line”, have plagued the multitude of journalists, TV and radio commentators and political analysts this year. The media failed to keep things in perspective. The obsession of the news reporters focusing on the alluring narrative or “story line” of Donald Trump’s atypical campaign and its result ran the risk of becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. As it becomes the focus of attention an incessant narrative can lead, or more accurately mislead, the audience by omitting other information. Below is the history and current story of this year’s Republican candidate race put into true perspective. But this factual analysis is not intended to be about an evaluation of the candidate per se; it is about the nature and effect of the reporting.
Donald Trump in mid-June, 2015 announced his candidacy, slamming our lack of immigration control, promising to build a wall and brashly condemning the capabilities of the current leaders in the U.S. with respect to making economic and foreign policy agreements. He immediately garnered great support for “telling it like it is” on several high profile issues (immigration, trade, Iran). Fine. In a very crowded field of 17 candidates he surged to the front with about 21% of potential Republican voters supporting him*. Trump leading the field was a story. A real story!! A valid story. Not mentioned, and legitimately so at this point, was that 79% of the potential voters supported other candidates.
But after his initial issue based pyrotechnics and generic condemnation of leaders, Donald Trump began personally insulting and demeaning fellow candidates. Including their physical appearance. As his personal attacks continued Trump’s base stayed firm, even grew, but most people (including a majority of potential Republican voters) appeared dismayed at these personal attacks. (Just as they did later with Rubio). Trump’s belittling of Carly Fiorina’s appearance was reflected in the September polls. And after Trump’s persistent, (patently non-presidential), behavior in Sept. the reality was clear that the voting now represented not only a choice among the many candidates, but also a “Trump” and a “not Trump” vote. See representative month by month percentages below:
Trump – July: 21% Aug: 26% Sep: 23% Oct: 27% Nov: 29% Dec: 36% 2016 Jan: 36% Feb: 35% Not Trump – N/A N/A Sep: 77% Oct: 73% Nov: 71% Dec: 74% 2016 Jan: 64% Feb: 65% The disdain was also evident in national polls where Trump had a 60% unfavorable rating among voters, the largest un-favorability rating among any presidential candidate ever.
But in the media Trump’s poll leading position and insult ridden sensationalism dominated the Republican presidential race news. With three consequences; (1) Trump dominated the airways (with the other 12 or so candidates relegated to sharing any leftover time), (2) the “story line” that Trump was the poll leader, that he was the presumptive nominee, and that there was no way to stop him, continued ad infinitum, and (3) that Republicans and conservatives in general were being painted with a Trump’s position brush. The reality, and ultimate importance with respect to the nomination process, that about 2/3 of Republicans supported other candidates than Trump never seemed to register among the media and was rarely mentioned until the last debate.
As primary voting and caucusing began to take place “wins” – and not delegate distribution became the focus, and “sensationalist” narratives continued. The purveyors of news and commentary were focused on: (1) continuing their (non-mathematically supportable) narrative of predicting / declaring the early leader (Trump) as the eventual nominee, (2) postulating when and how some hypothetical “establishment” force would step in and forestall Trump’s “rightful” victory, (the non-descript term “establishment” was being used in nearly every sentence by the political analysts.), and (3) predicting chaos at the convention. From personal “grass root” experience, I can report that at my Colorado precinct caucus (made up of neighbors, the majority of whom had never been to a caucus) everyone voted in our straw poll for either Ben Carson or Macro Rubio. This is a micro-anecdotal experience but it supports my contention that the sentiment discussed above is a “common conservative” sentiment not an “establishment” imposed sentiment. In fact, it has been stated by the Republican Party leadership that no untoward attempt to influence the nomination outcome would take place and further it is recognized by nearly everyone that any such attempt would be counterproductive.
The news reporters and analysts should be explaining and educating the populous on how an actual, legitimate and necessary nomination process is intended to work when there are several candidates with delegates and none with a majority. This year’s nomination contest is unique and will require patience and understanding to be resolved. Eventually the news reporters will catch on that like Seward’s 41% of the delegates in the year of Lincoln’s nomination, that 43% of delegates (Trump’s current (March 8, 2016) percentage) is not a majority and is not a dominate lead over the 34% that Cruz now holds. Further the Convention has a rules committee made up of one man and one woman from each state delegation (plus 12 other members). Any proposed nomination procedure rule changes must be made before the convention starts and must be approved at the start by the convention delegates. Changes may need to be made due to the unique character of this race. Currently Rule 40 (made in 2012) requires that only candidates with the majority of delegates in 8 states can be placed in nomination. Because of the number of candidates and the split in support, right now no candidate has the majority of delegates in any state. So to recognize reality and also to give the delegates the chance to select who they think would ultimately be the best for the party, that rule is likely to be changed. Each state has its own rules about when their delegates, can vote for any candidate after the first ballot.
Objective, reality based reporting with respect to the nomination process has been lacking. News reporters, commentators and analysts have been caught up in a very unusual phenomenon and “pushed” a story line” that early on lost perspective. Not only can a lack of proper perspective have the potential to unduly influence the outcome by excessive media attention to a single narrative, it also can build false expectations. At the last debate, all the candidates (who all must indeed recognize the likelihood of a multi-ballot convention) selflessly and wisely pledged to support whoever the nominee will be. It is my hope that the media can put out enough clear and unbiased education to allow people to understand and accept the process that will take place. There is still time to do that. The hand writing of the need for that is on the wall. Maybe even tonight they will start to figure it out.
Thanks for reading this — Larry Von Thun
*The percentages given are taken from polls, and while poll numbers are recognized as variable and inaccurate, for the purposes of this analysis that is not important because it was polls on which the reporting being discussed was based.
There!! – I have finished my Tax Plan, my True Caring for Veterans Plan, my Balanced Budget Plan, my Armed Services Restoration Plan and my plan for Free College Tuition for Seniors — now I am ready to tell the American public what I will deliver as their President. The Tax Foundation (taxfoundation.org), the Tax Policy Center (taxpolicycenter.org) and the Heritage Foundation have all graded my tax plans as they have done for the other 24 candidates, and mine ranks right up there.
We are on the debate stage now and my head is swirling, every candidate has just announced what they will do. I start, just as they have, making promises of what will happen under my Presidency with regard to taxes and it suddenly dawns on me that:
The “Ways and Means Committee” in the House of representatives and the “Joint Committee on Taxation” must write the actual legislation.
That Article 1, Section VII of the U. S. Constitution, declares “All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives”
That the Revenue Bill must pass both the House and the Senate and then go through a resolution committee before it takes its final form and comes to me to sign.
What was I thinking?? I cannot promise that my tax plan will go into effect.
So I make a decision right on the spot. I will give it to the people straight. I will tell them the principles for which I stand and what I will work to get accomplished through Congress**.
I will tell them that as President, I will lead the country with the principles of truth and virtue,
I will, as the head of the Executive arm of the government see that the laws of the country are carried out,
I will, as Commander in Chief provide for the common defense and,
If elected I will not have the power of a king or dictator and thus, unlike the other candidates here, I cannot and will not make illusory promises and misleading claims regarding legislation over which I do not have direct control. Our country is to be governed by a clearly defined and balanced separation of powers as per Montesquieu’s* guidance.
The debate moderators gasp and the audience sits in stone silence – then gradually as reality seeps in, a few start clapping and eventually all in the auditorium are standing and cheering. The reporters do some fact checking and find out that sure enough we do have three branches of government and all the questions that they have been asking about the details of the various tax plans were an exercise in futility. The next day the TV newscasters proclaim and the headlines state:
WAKE UP AMERICA! —– ASK NOT WHAT YOUR CANDIDATE PROMISES YOU, ASK FOR WHAT YOUR CANDIDATE STANDS!
I wish!!
Every four years for the last several decades I have been amazed by the fact that the presidential candidates emphasize in their campaign rhetoric all the things that they are going to do, and, this year as well, what they are going to give away. So much of the debate and so much of what people beg to hear does not relate to the President’s actual functions and roles. Even more surprising is that for years on end the television anchors, reporters, political commentators and the debate moderators do not question the reality of these assertions but rather buy into them entirely and guilelessly – gleefully pitting one’s set of promises against another’s – as though one or the others plan will be the reality depending on who is elected. And then the most distressing thing of all is that the vast majority of the voters listening or receiving their information from the news, neighbors, or others sources accept what is said by a candidate as a fait accompli. As though, if their candidate is elected, or if their opposition is elected, that that is what would actually happen. It is no wonder that so many campaign promises go unfulfilled.
I selected the tax plan offerings to illustrate the miss-portrayal of reality offered to us every four years.
However, this is not to say that the messages delivered by the candidates are absent relevant information with respect to how they would lead and for what principles that they stand, far from it. There are indeed many matters that are under the President’s direct “Executive” or “Administrative” control. For example, the assertions related to rescinding or extending executive actions and getting rid of or adding regulations are realistic for a candidate to make. Also, declarations on the manner in which the Commander in Chief’s duties (i.e. those not requiring legislative action) would be carried out are legitimate. This year, for example, with such things as the terrorist threat at home and abroad and the discussions on the impact of regulations on the economy there is indeed considerable basis for candidate statement and voter discernment.
So what is required of us (and should be expected of our news organizations and debate moderators) is keen judgment on whether what is promised by candidates as an outcome that they will produce is realistically within their function as President. If this were consistently demanded, then candidates may learn to speak to fundamentals and reality and our country could elect Presidents on the basis of Principle, Character, and Competence rather than on politically expedient but imprudent promises.
Thanks Larry Von Thun
* Montesquieu’s writings were a major influence on the formation of the American governmental system. His works were cited by the founders in pre-revolutionary literature on government and politics more than any source save the Bible. Montesquieu’s philosophy that “government should be set up so that no man need be afraid of another” reminded James Madison, “The Father of the Constitution,” and others that a free and stable foundation for their new national government required a clearly defined and balanced separation of powers. (adapted from Wikipedia)
** The book “The Quiet Man” by John Sununu relates the work done by a Republican President (George H.W. Bush) in working with a Democratic Congress in getting important legislation passed in a bi-partisan manner.
Global Warming 102 – Global Temperatures – Past, Present and Future
Background — After a sustained period of cooler global temperatures from 1944 to 1980, the earth began to steadily warm again in accordance with the current long term warming trend (since 1650 and a matter of NASA record since 1880). As we moved into the late 1980’s the earth’s temperature was getting increasingly warm, reaching temperature levels nearing the high temperature peaks indicated in the earth’s previous cooling/warming cycles (see figure 1). People were beginning to get concerned. It was known that manmade emissions of CO2 had been increasing greatly (since about 1945) and it was known that the CO2 in the atmosphere is a contributor (albeit a minor one) to keeping heat from escaping the earth. Thus, it was reasonable to hypothesize that the large increase in CO2 emissions by human activities was increasing the rate of global warming. This was a hypothesis and like any hypothesis it needed to be examined, tested, and verified before it is accepted as fact. The hypothesis was challenged in Global Warming 101 based on empirical records showing extended periods of global temperature cooling concurrent with steadily rising emissions of CO2.
In Global Warming 101 using a graph showing the avg. annual global temperatures since 1880 and a second showing the rates of increase in human source carbon dioxide emissions, three basic conclusions were reached: (1) the earth is in a period of global warming and has been warming for a very long time, (2) though there is overall warming there are long periods (tens of years) of cooling or of relative stability in global temperatures, and (3) the existence and rate of global warming is not being significantly influenced by human source CO2.
In Global Warming 102 you will be provided with four basics relative to the global warming and “climate change” discussions. These factual data will give you a foundation to help you read, understand, interpret and evaluate the truth or lack of it in the rhetoric heard and in the articles written on this subject. Most of such communication commonly seen is to persuade for political or advocacy purposes. However, there have been, since the late 1980’s, a plethora of technical articles on the subject written supporting the theory that CO2 emissions are responsible for global warming. The articles of this bent that I have reviewed tend to be narrowly focused and very analytical, or they have been written to specifically counter some aspect of the technical opposition to this prevailing theory. Similarly, the articles opposed to the human caused argument for global warming present their viewpoint and are biased toward that point of view. Thus, it becomes difficult to assess the situation. My objective is to provide you with easily understood factual data that helps in this regard.
Long Term Cyclic Temperature Record – The first essential is to understand the context of the current discussion with respect to the very long term and the extremely long term temperature record of the planet. We all know about glaciers and how they advanced and retreated. The last glacial period started about 110,000 years ago and ended about 15,000 years ago. During that time period there were about 8 advances and retreats of the glaciers as the earth alternately cooled and heated within the last glacial period. Now, looking at the very long term there are extended periods or cycles of warming followed by extended periods of cooling. Figure 1 shows how those cycles look based on ice core data from Antarctica. Note how the cooling trends last for a very long time and how the warming trends tend to shoot up rapidly (speaking in terms of geologic time). Also note how the past 3 peaks were much sharper and higher than the current peak. The reason for this is not known.
Figure 1 – Temperature changes over a period of 400,000 as derived from Antarctica ice core ( Note: similar data has been derived from ocean sediments)
Many people with knowledge of glaciation and of this long term cyclic record of the earth’s temperatures, which goes back 800,000 years, did and still do question the man caused global warming assertion promulgated by the United Nations Climate Committee in the late 1980’s.
Terminology –The second piece of basic information to understand is the relationship of the term Global Warming to the now popular but imprecise term “Climate Change” and the “non-obvious” implication of this term and, as an important detail, the ways the average global temperature is determined.
Global Warming means the year to year increase in the “average” global temperature. This “average” temperature is now measured in two ways. (1) The first, and oldest, means of establishing this average is via a land – ocean array of sites. It is the one used in the NASA Global Temperature Index for Land & Ocean shown in Global Warming 101. (2) The second, is the average temperature of the lower troposphere (near surface layer) obtained from satellites passing over the array of measuring locations around the globe twice a day. The satellite array (established in 1978) has the intended advantage of removing the effects of the “urban heat sinks” present in the land-ocean array. The satellite data, are interpreted and published by two different groups that are referred to as RSS and UAH. The UAH plot is by the University of Alabama at Huntsville and the RSS data is from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS), a scientific research company located in Northern California, specializing in satellite microwave remote sensing of the Earth. Although the analysis techniques for interpretation of the data are different the results are quite similar. Figure 2 shows the history of the average global temperature record since 1979 from the UAH source. As in the land-ocean record there was a peak in 1998, however in the satellite data the peak was very sharp and since that time the satellite data show that that the 1998 average global temperature peak has not been exceeded. That is why you will hear it reported that the “earth has been cooling for the last 18 years” and at the same time hear reports, (like President Obama’s statement in the 2014 State of the Union address), that 2014 was hottest year on record. Both statements were true, they are using different data sets. According to the satellite data, 1998 is the hottest year on record, 2010 is next and then 2015. According to the land-ocean data the 1998 temperature represented a local peak and since then the trend is slowly creeping upward, however there was a big increase in 2015 and that might be seen in 2016 as well as it is another El Nino year.
(1) Figure 2 – Global temperatures from satellite data since 1979 (UAH_LT_1979 Through Dec 2014) A global temperature high (as measured from satellite data in the lower troposphere) was reached in 1998 and since that time (17 years and counting) global temperatures have been at or below that peak level.
“Climate Change” — This term is now used as a euphemism for “anthropogenic global warming” – i.e. global warming being caused by humans. The term appears to have been intentionally adopted as a means to focus attention on and engender concern about the recognized adverse physical effects of global warming – glaciers retreating, polar ice diminishing, and the range of plants and animals being impacted, and at the same time shrewdly imply or infer that the cause of these physical effects is human source CO2, as though the question was settled. It is an imprecise term technically, that has obscured the real question of whether the current warming is “anthropogenic”, or is due to natural forces. Use of the term effectively discredits, in the public eye, the many climatologists scientists and technical people who challenge the CO2 – anthropogenic global warming assertion. This public media discrediting is easy because it infers that the “skeptics” or “deniers” are arguing that the “climate change” physical effects are not occurring and it makes them look totally unrealistic and out of touch.
Climate Models – The United Nations established the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988. The IPCC was charged to obtain, “scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change.” Notice that it appears that the IPCC was not charged with investigating the hypothesis of whether or not global warming was being influenced by human source CO2, but rather to start with that assumption and show the risks. And as it turns out the IPCC is fulfilling their charge by conveying that there is considerable risk. The IPCC panel concluded in their first assessment report in 1990 that: “anthropogenic climate change will persist for many centuries “. The IPCC funded an abundance of studies, resulting papers and climate models that supported their initial conclusion and a positive feedback loop developed that led to the IPCC’s subsequent assertion that human generated carbon dioxide emissions are the major cause of global warming. The global warming models sponsored / paid for by the IPCC typically integrated or incorporated in their analytics a very adverse effect due to rising CO2 levels. As can be seen in Figure 3, the models greatly overestimated the actual global warming that has occurred since 1998. The results of these models were a primary rationale for the IPCC’s ominous warnings to the international community on the expected increases in global warming and associated adverse impacts (e.g. rising ocean levels). These results were a prime driver of the global efforts to take action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions such as the Kyoto Protocol. Now clearly seen as overestimates, IPCC models are still being used to justify warnings. Note that although these models clearly appear to be inaccurate because of their emphasis on incorporating assumptions about the dramatic effects of CO2, this is not to say that there will not be another sharp rise in global temperatures as there was post 1933 and post 1976. The pattern of relative stable global temperatures since 1998 could well change in future years due to natural forces.
Figure 3- Climate models under IPCC auspices give projections of warming far exceeding the actual level of global warming as recorded post 1998 by the two official interpretations of the lower atmosphere temperatures based on satellite data (RSS – Remote Sensing Systems and UAH – University of Alabama at Huntsville).
World Wide CO2 Emissions – The fourth essential to be aware of is the worldwide distribution of CO2 emissions. For a variety of reasons US and European human source CO2 emissions have increased only marginally since 1965 and since about 2007 are declining (see Figure 4). Emissions from Asia-Pacific countries (primarily China) have been greatly increasing, keeping the overall global human source CO2 emissions advancing at the steady, high rate observed in the graph presented in global warming 101. This illustrates the irrational efforts to restrict United States CO2 emissions to effect “climate change” when such restrictions, (1) are based only on theory and have no verifiable evidence of a positive effect, (2) are offset many fold by the emissions being produced by Asian countries, and (3) can adversely impact the U. S. economy and people’s livelihoods. The first point, that there is no demonstrable empirical evidence that CO2 restrictions can have a meaningful effect on reducing average global temperature appears to me to be irrefutable. This is because CO2 emissions are on the rise and have been on the rise for more than a hundred years. Thus, there has never been a sustained time period with reduced CO2 emissions to allow such evidence to be obtained. Of course the fact that there has not been the chance to really test a global reduction in CO2 does not prove that it would not have an effect, it simply illustrates that such evidence is lacking. Further, it does not preclude cutting CO2 based on a confident belief or hope that it would have a positive effect. However, evidence does exist that while human source CO2 emissions were increasing 4 fold over a period of 24 years (1944-1978), global temperatures decreased. Such evidence casts serious doubts about the efficacy of cutting CO2 to reduce global temperatures. Regulations that would cut CO2 emissions would make only a small reduction in the US contribution and as can be seen from the rate of rise in Asia Pacific emissions the US cuts would pale in comparison to the increases by the developing countries on which restrictions are not being placed.
Figure 4 – Emissions of CO2 since 1965 – in the United States, Europe and the Asia Pacific
Based on what is known and can be observed from the historic temperature records, the long term trend of global warming will continue for an unknown time period. The trigger or triggers that have caused the global temperature cycles to reverse direction (see figure 1) are not known. Based on actual empirical evidence there is no reasonable expectation that reducing CO2 emissions will have any significant effect on global warming, even if it could be accomplished, which appears very unlikely based on the emissions of developing nations.
The bottom line is that global warming is continuing at an irregular pace and does not appear to be significantly influenced, positively or negatively, by human produced CO2 emissions based on empirical evidence. Thus, with respect to global warming our nation’s efforts should be directed toward assessing and addressing the potential adverse impacts of global warming. The burning of fossil fuels should not be discounted as a problem but rather be addressed relative to the actual pollutants released by that activity. Alternative energy sources should continue to be developed because it makes sense to do so.
Human caused global warming and the reduction of CO2 emissions to slow or reverse global warming were and still are hypotheses. These hypotheses can be countered and shown to be doubtful using empirical data. An impending, human induced “climate change” calamity continues to be presented to the American people and the world as if it were absolute reality, and as if something meaningful could be done to abate it. There are apparently many in the scientific and technical community who belief this to be true. In future episodes we will examine the rationale for that belief. There are many who simply accept that what most in the technical community believe must be true. And there are some who use their belief in the “climate change” scenario for socio-political and personal economic purposes. For my part, I see the empirical evidence painting a different picture. I am trying to provide what I believe to be the factual information related to this subject. So many in the public eye talk about this topic but have no idea what the basic facts are. I invite you to join Global Warming 103, where with this foundation of factual data as a base we will begin to trace the history of the rise of the global warming concerns and learn about the Al Gore’s “convenient omission” that led so many astray on a very important point. Thanks, Larry Von Thun
The title of this blog is derived from the saying: ‘A lie will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on.’This saying was attributed (in 1919) to Mark Twain. However, a quick search shows that there are numerous variations on this “proverb” that go all the back to 1710. In 1840 Thomas Jefferson was credited with saying: “falsehood will travel over the country, while truth is pulling on its boots”, and in an 1855 sermon, Charles Spurgeon a London preacher said, “If you want truth to go round the world you must hire an express train to pull it; but if you want a lie to go round the world, it will fly; it is as light as a feather, and a breath will carry it. It is well said in the old Proverb, ‘A lie will go round the world while truth is pulling its boots on.’
Regardless of the origin, the reality of this premise has been observed by many. I have witnessed this phenomenon numerous times, including several instances just in the last few years. Misconceptions, misunderstandings, falsehoods, and downright intentional lies are spread rapidly by several means and there a number of reasons why that happens. Acceptance, based on emotion and misplaced trust in the source, rather than on rational study and evaluation, is the root cause. A misconception or lie can spread due to fear, excitement, worry, gossip, or misrepresentation (intentional or unintentional). Once it is individually or globally endorsed or accepted the false narrative becomes “conventional wisdom”. Overturning the error and correcting a falsely imbedded impression is a challenge but it can and has been done, but not necessarily with 100% success.
For example, in the 1700 hundreds a false narrative was spread that blacks were intellectually inferior to whites and that “fact” became well known and well accepted. It took a long time for that assertion to be recognized by almost everyone as invalid. In the last century in the United States the “idea” of separation of Church and State, has supplanted the actual, documented “first amendment right to free exercise of religion”. This misconception has via judicial autocracy and “conventional wisdom” become an accepted fact by the greater part of the populous.
My goal in the missives of this blog is to set the record straight – to put the boots on the truth and get it out ! Complex topics, where history and details are important will come in short installments. Hopefully, each installment of these more complex topics will put you on the edge of your seat – eager for the next episode.
Getting and verifying the facts surrounding a topic leads down many roads and often those roads are filled with interesting information that I yearn to share – but may make the story too long. Thus, I have attempted to provide two choices on some of the topics – a more concise version for those who like that and a “full” version for those wanting more detail. Thanks for joining with me in this effort to PUT THE BOOTS ON THE Truth!! Larry Von Thun
Truth has its boots on! 