Giggling at her Les Miserables-esque rise, political teacup poodle Kamala carries all the gravitas of a junior high cheerleader.

The best part—serious Democrats know they’ve committed a democrat capital offense and therefore signed on for political suicide. So, with two incapable top leaders and no obvious master plans, Dems must now offer a spectacle and pay for their sins by public expiation.

War of Beclowned Kamala:
Is any American secretly pleased with the new VP besides Kamala herself? An unreported war rages in the Dem Party over Harris’ utter unfitness for higher office. Can Unbearable Lightness of Kamala be trained? But isn’t that like asking an unskilled army draftee to learn anatomy during battle-field surgery? Or can Harris be embarrassed into resigning? Her appointment to head the catastrophic border crisis was all about forcing her to woman-up and lead or be outed. Spectacular fail! Deafening demands for the aged-coquette to resign now rebound off the walls of DC’s power centers, while she covers her ears, looking around, trembling wide-eyed—like the fawn in Bambi Meets Godzilla.

A VP Harris Talk on Border is Like a Crack Addled Mr. Roger’s Warnings on Drugs

Typhoid Kamala Must Be Sacrificed:
Like a one-legged kicker, the VP’s status is untenable. Her future presidency, unsurvivable. It’s obvious Harris must be dumped for the Party to have a prayer.

But, how will it play out? Kamala’s office is already in strum and drang chaos. Will she feign illness? Can Kamala resign without explanation? How would that look for proponents of race and gender politics? About her office, it’s reported:

Consider Kamala the Democrat’s Billy Budd, criticized, confronted, court-marshaled, and obliterated by Pelosi. Bon Voyage, giggling, ill-suited VP!!
———————————
Kelly O’Connell article shared by Canada Free Press.

Tags: Kelly O’Connell, Dem Civil War, Fukushima Kamala Glows, Democrat’s Fight For SurvivalTo share or post to your site, click on “Post Link”. Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and “Like” Facebook Page – Thanks!

by Kathleen Brush, Ph.D.: Professor Ibram X Kendi is the unremarkable, unapologetically racist “academic” who has become the go-to guy for guiding woke public sector leaders on how to recognize racism and the throughline between systemic racism yesterday and today.

In an environment where Kendi’s woke disciples initiate daily reports of racism everywhere, it is a useful skill to be able to recognize racism and any through lines.

Why not test your skills?

Keep in mind that racism is discrimination based on race, religion, or ethnicity.

Historical: 1700-2000
1. All North American slaves, excluding spoils of war, after 1700 were black. Was this racist?
2. Free Irish were used instead of black slaves for dangerous work because slaves were too valuable. Was that racist?
3. In 1863 slaves were freed. In 1864 a new immigration act was passed permitting indentured servitude for white ethnicities from southern and central Europe. Was this racist?
4. Were laws preventing Catholics and Jews from voting and holding office racist?
5. Jim Crow laws disproportionately disenfranchised black people. Were they racist?
6. The Ku Klux Klan used violence to make black people uncomfortable. Was this racist?
7. In the mid and late-1800s Irish-American citizens and legal residents were deported because they were poor. Was that racist?
8. Was the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act racist?
9. The 1924 Immigration Act aimed to halt immigration specifically against whites from Italy. Was it racist?
10. Were signs that said no colored people allowed racist?
11. Were signs that said Irish, or Filipino, or Jews prohibited racist?
12. In the 19th century, public schools taught anti-Catholicism. Was this racist?
13. In the early 20th century, the number of qualified Jews accepted into Ivy League universities was subjectively restricted. Was this racist?
14. During WWII, the U.S. government reluctantly agreed to accept 1,000 Jewish refugees trying to escape the Holocaust. Was this racist?
15. Historian Arthur Schlesinger (1888-1965) called the discrimination against Catholics “the deepest bias in the history of the American people.” Was this racist?
16. After WWII, Congress agreed that it was unfair to have American systems that encouraged or condoned preferences or discrimination based on race/religion/ethnicity. Systemic racism was made illegal in 1964. Was this racist?
17. Since 1964, American private and public institutions have succeeded in ending systemic discrimination by dismantling discriminatory laws, practices, and programs. In the 21st century, America has the most successful minority populations in the world. Some are more successful than White Protestants. Is this racist?

Present
1. About 0.04% of white people are white supremacists. Is labeling white people white supremacists racist? How about white Republicans?
2. The media airs truncated and edited cell phone video encounters between black people and police, but not any other racial/ethnic group. Is that racist?
3. Americans were wrongly told it was racist to protect the southern border. Is it racist to condone practices that encourage the sex trafficking of Latino children and women? How about indentured Latino laborers?
4. Kamala Harris tied white supremacy to violent Asian hate crimes when the data shows that most violent Asian hate crimes are committed by blacks. Was that racist?
5. The successor nations of the white supremacist empires are America’s NATO allies. At the NATO collective security meeting, President Biden didn’t discuss white supremacy as the biggest security threat Americans face. Is his administration racist against white Americans?
6. Today, blacks and Latinos have preferences over whites and Asians in Ivy League and other universities. Is that racist?
7. Is centering the study of history on discriminatory practices against blacks, while excluding the same for white ethnicities racist?
8. Black Lives Matter (BLM) uses violence to make white people uncomfortable. Is this racist?
9. Is it racist to teach schoolchildren that whites are oppressors?
10. Is it racist for schools to teach ethnic studies but exclude white ethnicities?
11. Is it racist to have laws and policies that charge/convict whites and Asians for crimes when blacks and Latinos go free for the same crimes?
12. Is it racist for private and public sector institutions to have programs that make white people seek redemption for the 1.25% of Americans that had slaves in 1860?
13. Is a government racist when it gives preferences to BIPOC, a group that includes everyone but white people?
14. Is it racist for private and public sector institutions to pejoratively label white people as privileged because they are white?
15. When “progressive” legislators engage in anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist rhetoric that supercharges Jewish hate crimes, is this racist?
16. When Kendi said, “How can you hate a group of [white] people for who they are?” Was this racist?
17. When Kendi accused whites of creating AIDS to commit genocide on blacks, was this racist?
18. In 2020 and 2021 American educational, government, and private sector institutions/systems are creating laws, policies, and programs that mandate, encourage, or condone preferences or discrimination based on race/religion/ethnicity. Is this systemic racism?

If you answered yes to all questions but 16 and 17, you know more about racism than Kendi and his disciples. You also know there are no throughlines. Americans kiboshed that possibility in the 20th century.

Racism today is a product of power-seeking opportunists like Kendi, Project 1619’s Hannah-Jones/NY Times, BLM, CRT opportunists, the Left, and other wokerati. They try to fool people by calling racist policies/programs/laws anti-racist.

In history, this chapter will be called The American Era of Wokery. It will be remembered as America’s second regrettable peculiar institution that inferred and designated some people, based on race, as inferior. Unlike the first peculiar institution, this one isn’t legal or an accepted global practice for the period.

It is not the 0.04% white supremacist population that poses the biggest threat to a cohesive America — it is the peculiar institution of wokery.
——————————–
Kathleen Brush, Ph.D. writes for American Thinker

Tags: Kathleen Brush, American Thinker, Taking the Racism TestTo share or post to your site, click on “Post Link”. Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and “Like” Facebook Page – Thanks!

Ijeoma Oluo

by Daniel Greenfield: Ijeoma Oluo spends a lot of time complaining about her single white mother who took care of her when her black father returned to Nigeria and never came back.

Like Obama and Kamala, Ijeoma built a marketable identity by identifying with a father who abandoned her. But the author of such racist texts as So You Want to Talk About Race and Mediocre: The Dangerous Legacy of White Male America takes it even further by identifying as Nigerian-American. The Nigerian part is very hypothetical as she was born and raised in America, and her Nigerian father left when she was a year old and broke his promise to return.

White people are absolutely terrible, Ijeoma, who is half-white, insists.

“I have never been able to escape the fact that I am a black woman in a white supremacist country,” Oluo declaimed at the beginning of So You Want to Talk About Race. The ugly racialist book never broke through the way that Robin DiAngelo or Ibram X. Kendi did, but it was a modest success and is regularly featured at corporate critical race indoctrination sessions.

Like other pop critical race theory texts, Oluo began the book by berating the leftist white women who were its target audience. It’s a topic she had practiced with her mother.

The woman who raised her and her brother, when they were abandoned by their black father, is a favorite topic for both siblings. But where Ahamefule Oluo, a jazz player and comedian, has done shows honoring his mother while emphasizing the subjective nature of race as he found that people in Nigeria saw him as white, Ijeoma Oluo has taken the opposite approach.

Ijeoma’s mother is a popular topic and punching bag. In essays and books, she decries her mother’s ‘whiteness’. “Our mom never thought that our blackness would hold us back in life—she thought we could rule the world. But that optimism and starry-eyed love was, in fact, born from her whiteness,” she complains in So You Want to Talk About Race.

When her mother asks, “How come you never identify as white, too? I mean, you’re half white”, she retorts that “I did not feel that whiteness was something that any person with brown skin and kinky hair could inherit”. Lots of white people have kinky hair. Certainly plenty of half-white people, like Ijeoma, do. And Ijeoma is obsessed with white supremacy’s threat to her hair.

Touching her hair, she rants, “is a continuation of the lack of respect for the basic humanity and bodily autonomy of black Americans that is endemic throughout White Supremacy.”

Your average white supremacist probably doesn’t want to touch non-white people’s hair.

But for all the attention that Ijeoma lavishes on complaining about her mother’s insufficiently woke views on race, she never mentions her father in So You Want to Talk About Race. At one point she rants, “If our mothers were raped by white men and we were born with lighter skin, we could almost be seen as attractive.” But her mother was white and married an African student.

Ijeoma’s father was 53, but apparently told her mother he was 30 years old. After abandoning the mother of his children with a toddler and a one-month old baby, the African chief and doctoral student went back to his own country and promptly impregnated a woman there.

Her brother describes him as a “selfish and contemptible man”. Ijeoma instead wrote her second book, Mediocre: The Dangerous Legacy of White Male America. Her first book is full of shots at her present mother while her second book attacks an imaginary white father.

Mediocre was released by a Hachette imprint, alongside such critical race theory rants as Vicky Osterweil’s In Defense of Looting (The French publishing giant also suppressed Julie Burchill’s Welcome to the Woke Trials and fired Kate Hartson who had published pro-Trump books.)

An imprint named after a 19th century upstart French leftist publisher, Louis Hachette, a white man, released a mediocre book claiming that there was a crisis of white male mediocrity.

The incredible mediocrity of Moses, Hippocrates, Leonardo da Vinci, Christopher Columbus, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Edison, and Albert Einstein might give some people pause, but Ijeoma explains that, “when I talk about mediocrity, I talk about success that is measured only by how much better white men are faring than people who aren’t white men”.

Success becomes mediocrity, and mediocrity becomes success.

Sadly for Ijeoma, Mediocre was mediocre and failed to match the success of So You Want to Talk About Race. Ijeoma had gambled that there was an audience of white leftist women who wanted to hear that white men were awful without enduring attacks on themselves.

Ijeoma had underestimated the masochistic tendencies of the average white leftist woman.

Mediocre’s author imagines that she’s an “exceptional talent”, writing that, “most women and people of color have to claw their way to any chance at success or power, have to work twice as hard as white men and prove themselves to be exceptional talents before we begin to entertain discussions of truly equal representation in our workplaces or government.”

What exceptional talents has Ijeoma shown beyond bashing white people on the internet?

Mediocre is a random mess of intersectional clichés and historical sketches from periods that she clearly doesn’t understand as tries to roll them into her argument. “Stalin ended up being another white man who would distort entire movements to serve his purposes,” she insists.

That’s almost coherent compared to chapters where Ijeoma leaps from attacks on cowboys to complaining about Bernie Sanders supporters on Facebook. None of this has much to do with the book’s supposed theme of white male mediocrity. The only common thread is that white men are terrible because they’re white and they’re men.

White male conservatives are evil, but so are white male leftists who only join causes to maintain their power. White men are locked “into cycles of fear and violence” and the “white male glorification of violence has saturated our action films”. It’s a curious claim for a woman whose African father wrote his thesis on the Biafra-Nigerian Civil War and whose country, which she identifies with, has been in the middle of one kind of civil war or another for generations.

Women have to “divorce ourselves from the lure of proximity to white male power” even “when those white men are our friends, our husbands, our fathers, or our sons,” Ijeoma Oluo argues.

And yet Ijeoma followed her father, the “Honorable Chief Dr. Sam Oluo”, into political science. While her brother courted her father’s disapproval by playing music, she tried to imitate her absent father. And has spent her life making excuses for him and his culture.

When as a teenager she contacted Nigerians on the internet and they began to scam her, she processed it as the “legacy of colonialism” so that “every white person scammed out of their life savings felt, in a way, like a bit of retribution for the ravages of colonization and slavery.”

Except that the Nigerian scam artists were just as happy to scam her as they were anyone else.

“My Nigerian father was Catholic for the same reason why he spoke with a British accent,” Ijeoma snapped on Twitter. “Because his oppressors forced him to.”

Why did he abandon her? Probably because of those white oppressors. Like her mother.

There’s a story there about racial identity and hatred, gratitude and ingratitude, and the primal way that children can identify with a father who isn’t there while hating the mother who is.

But it’s not a story that Hachette would publish or Ijeoma Olou would be likely to write.

Last year, Ijeoma posted a tribute to the white grandfather who had not abandoned her when her black father had. “My father returned to Nigeria when I was two and was more of a story than an actual person in my life. But my grandfather, my Bob Bob, loved me so completely that I never felt lacking.”

The photo that came with it showed an older white man holding a young black girl in his arms.

Later that year, she published Mediocre: The Dangerous Legacy of White Male America.
————————————-
Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.

Tags: Daniel Greenfield, White Men are Terrible, Insists Author Abandoned, by Her Black FatherTo share or post to your site, click on “Post Link”. Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and “Like” Facebook Page – Thanks!

The military is not yet a revolutionary people’s army overseen by commissars. But it is getting there.

Victor Davis Hanson

by Victor Davis Hanson: Traditionalist and conservative America once was the U.S. military’s greatest defender.

Bipartisan conservatives in Congress ensured generous Pentagon budgets. When generals, active or retired, became controversial, conservative America usually could be counted on to stick with them.

Flyover country supported marquee officers such as Gen. Michael Hayden, Gen. James Mattis, Gen. Barry McCaffrey, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, Gen. David Petraeus, and a host of others when the media went after them for alleged unethical conduct, financial improprieties, spats with the Obama administration, or accusations of using undue force or hiding torture.

When Democrats railed in Congress about the “revolving door” of generals and admirals leaving the Pentagon to land lucrative board memberships with corporate defense contractors, Middle America, rightly or wrongly, mostly yawned.

Yet traditional America also assumed its military leaders were largely apolitical and stayed out of politics. Brilliant World War II commanders Curtis LeMay, Douglas MacArthur, and George S. Patton did not fare well when they clumsily waded through the minefields of partisan national politics.

No longer.

The Pentagon’s current and past top echelon is seen as politically weaponized — and both careerist and opportunist. Generals and admirals are currently scanning enlistments for mythical white supremacists, in fear of left-wing pressure following the riot at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6. These military officials apparently have no commensurate concern about whether there are antifa-affiliated service members with records of past violence.

We are learning that much of what was reported about that unfortunate Capitol riot was untrue. There were no “armed” insurrectionists with guns, led by conspiracist kingpins. Capitol Police officer Brian Sicknick was not “murdered.” Medical examiner Francisco J. Diaz said the autopsy showed no evidence of internal or external injuries. The only violent death was that of an unarmed female military veteran who was shot by a mysteriously unnamed law enforcement officer while climbing through a window.

The tenure of highly decorated Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has proved a veritable train wreck of late. Under pressure from the left, last summer he renounced a photo appearance with then-President Donald Trump as unduly politicizing his service.

OK, but every recent chairman of the Joint Chiefs has routinely appeared with the president in photo ops, if sometimes reluctantly.

Milley was timidly reacting to media claims that Trump sicced federal law enforcement on disruptive protesters with tear gas to ensure calm for his photo op. The inspector general of the Department of the Interior recently exposed such reporting as a fable.

Equally untrue were complaints from Milley and a host of retired officers about Trump tyrannically using federal troops to maintain civic order. Such action has happened repeatedly in our history. For example, Gen. Colin Powell, former head of the Joints Chiefs, commanded the troops sent into Los Angeles in 1992 to quell the rioting that followed the acquittal of L.A. police officers charged in the beating of Rodney King.

Neither Milley nor any of the previously vocal top brass objected to the Biden administration’s militarization of Washington, D.C., after Jan. 6. There was not a word about miles of barbed wire and fencing. There was utter silence about the omnipresence of thousands of armed troops throughout the city. Such mobilization was the very scenario they had said would pose an existential threat to democracy.

Gen. Milley was incoherent and paradoxical when pressed about critical race theory — the belief that racial bias has been encoded in society — during congressional testimony last week. He bragged that he had read insurrectionary texts by Karl Marx and Mao Zedong to acquaint his open mind with supposed enemies — as if his inquisitive approach to those subversive authors was analogous to the teaching of critical race theory in the military.

Our top officers reveal inconsistent views on recommended readings, ideological indoctrination, and the use of federal troops during domestic crises. They are selective and partisan in their shrill criticism of particular presidents. Some blast political opponents with inflammatory comparisons to Nazis and fascists.

The military’s alienation of Middle America could not happen at a worse time. China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea watch in glee at our self-created discord, which threatens to tear apart the most lethal military in the world.

The military is not yet a revolutionary people’s army overseen by commissars. But it is getting there with politicized agendas that split the country in half and abandon the military’s traditional role of unifying in common purpose to defend America.
—————————————–
Victor Davis Hanson (@VDHanson) is a senior fellow, classicist and historian and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution where many of his articles are found; his focus is classics and military history. He has been a visiting professor at Hillsdale College since 2004. Hanson was awarded the National Humanities Medal in 2007 by President George W. Bush. H/T American Greatness.

Tags: Victor Davis Hanson, Has the Military, Lost Middle America?To share or post to your site, click on “Post Link”. Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and “Like” Facebook Page – Thanks!

Tony Perkins: Maybe if we claimed the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) fireworks and 100th anniversary celebrations were contributing to global warming (climate change), the Biden administration might see that the CCP poses a greater danger to global peace and security more so now than at any point in its history. This week, satellite images uncovered that China is constructing what appear to be over 100 new silos to house intercontinental ballistic missiles, which could deliver nuclear warheads to anywhere on the globe. According to China expert Gordon Chang, “there are 119 circular holes in Gansu province” and 26 “elsewhere in China,” for a total of 145. Unless the silos are a diversion, they represent a major expansion of the CCP’s nuclear capabilities, upgrading its land-based deterrent from mobile launchers to stationary sites. “These silos are going to be the most critical part of China’s deterrence or China’s offensive capability,” said Chang.

China’s nuclear upgrades come after years of globally aggressive foreign policy, including a massive military buildup, repeated violations of its neighbors’ airspace and territorial waters, and predatory lending practices to gain control of critical infrastructure in countries that control key resources. Last May, China killed 20 Indian soldiers in a gun-free border skirmish. The CCP still claims sovereignty over Taiwan, even though the regime has never ruled the island nation in its 100-year history, and repeatedly attempts to intimidate the country. Yet, despite his own regime’s constant bullying, in a speech this week Xi Jinping declared, “we will never allow any foreign force to bully, oppress or subjugate us.”

Xi also decried “sanctimonious preaching from those who feel they have the right to lecture us.” This manufactured outrage comes from the same man who has authorized the systematic campaign to destroy the Uyghur Muslim minority, imprisoning, sterilizing, and brainwashing literally millions of Uyghurs, who are subjected to harsh conditions and forced to work without pay (slavery, by definition) in modern-day concentration camps.

While the world tries to hold China accountable for genocide against its own ethnic and religious minorities, it must also hold China accountable for the COVID-19 pandemic, which “Xi Jinping, took steps to deliberately spread… beyond China’s borders,” said Chang. On Tuesday, he said a panel of experts gathered by House Republicans unanimously testified that “all the evidence pointed to the lab in Wuhan.” The two most compelling reasons are that the coronavirus contains genetic sequences that don’t appear in nature, and that researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology fell sick in November 2019. Chang said that CCP President Xi “feels he got away with killing 3.9 million people outside of China, which means there’ll be no inhibitions of spreading the next disease” if we can’t hold him accountable.

I’m far more concerned about the biological threat China poses than the nuclear threat. Nukes can be seen, countered, and deterred, but not a bioweapon. “A lot of material from China’s military itself talks about how World War Three will primarily be fought with biological weapons,” said Chang. He said China is even “working on pathogens that will attack specific ethnic genetic groups,” so that the next pathogen “could leave the Chinese immune but sicken and kill everybody else.” At the very least, the U.S. should immediately stop funding China’s bioweapons research program.

The U.S. has ignored China for too long, said Chang, and “now, the Pentagon is scrambling.” On its 100th anniversary, the CCP presents a graver nuclear and biological threat than ever before. Whether U.S. officials choose to ignore it or not, China is engaged in an arms race, in a bid to replace America as the world superpower for the next century. The future hangs in the balance.
—————————–
Tony Perkins writes for Family Research Council.

Tags: Tony Perkins, Family Research Council, China’s Threat-Bare Foreign PolicyTo share or post to your site, click on “Post Link”. Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and “Like” Facebook Page – Thanks!

by Daniel Nebert: An assistant professor of “environmental economics” recently published an article in the journal Climate Change. The article’s central question was: “How much evidence would it take to convince ‘skeptics’ they are wrong?” The study concluded that “Those who are strongly skeptical about climate change are unlikely to change their minds for many years to come.”

Both the author’s hypothesis (central question) and conclusion are absolute rubbish. This is like saying “those who are convinced that gravity is real,” or “those who are convinced that table salt comprises more than 60 percent chlorine,” or “those who are convinced that American astronauts really did land on the moon in 1969”—“are not easily persuaded to change their minds.”

In other words, these truths (gravity, chlorine in table salt, landing on the moon) are not beliefs; they are established facts. On the contrary, to be “convinced that human activity (CO2) is the fundamental cause of climate change in the 20th and 21st centuries” is a belief backed by no data-proven evidence.

College majors come in two flavors: “hard science” and “soft science.” “Hard” science includes the fields of mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, genetics, and, yes, climatology (also called “atmospheric science”). “Soft” science consists of everything else: e.g., literature, the humanities, art, theology, psychology, economics, sociology, politics (also called “political science”), and the emerging field of study known as “environmental science and policy.”

Hard science relies on quantitative data; soft science deals in qualitative opinions. By repetitive experimental findings, the former can be proven (truth, fact). The latter reflects opinions (beliefs, fiction), but nothing is proven with hard data—with the qualification that many questions in psychology, economics, and other social sciences (e.g., measurements of inflation, population demographics, the effects of voting rules on voting behavior) are often studied using statistical methods, including Bayesian analysis and random forest regression.

Skeptics know that, since Earth was formed more than 4.5 billion years ago, it has always undergone “climate change,” i.e., variations in regional weather measured in decades or centuries. This is not to be confused with “weather changes—measured in days, weeks, and months.” Based on ice-core data, climate is cyclical. More than a dozen cycles of varying lengths have been identified by climate scientists; this means there are cycles within cycles within cycles.

Examples of climate change include Milankovitch’s Glacial-Interglacial Cycles occur every 110,000-120,000 years; Precession Cycles (every ~26,000 years); Lunar Tidal Cycles (1,800 years); Sixty-Year Climate Cycles (e.g., the 1930s-40s and 1980s-90s were both warm, but the former was warmer than the latter); Solar Cycles (varying sunspot activity every 11-12 years); and the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO)—El Niño and its opposite La Niña occurring every 2-7 years).

Skeptics know that before thermometers were invented (1714), Earth experienced: The Minoan Warm Period (~1500-1000 BC); The Roman Warm Period (~250 BC-400 AD); and The Medieval Warm Period (~950-1250 AD). During the latter, Vikings colonized southwestern Greenland; grape-growing and wine-making occurred in England and even near Stockholm. This last warm period was followed by the Little Ice Age (~1550-1850), during which time the Thames River sometimes froze over.

What are the natural causes of these cycles? Solar activity; radiative forcing and insolation (amount of sunlight absorbed vs amount radiated back into space); cloud type and amount; Earth’s rotation and interplay between its atmosphere and oceans; variations in precession, eccentricity and axial tilt of our planet; gravitational pull of other planets of substantial mass (especially Jupiter); and volcanic eruptions both on land and underwater.

Here is the dilemma: believers think that, since the Industrial Revolution began (1760), a human-caused rise in CO2levels is the source of “global warming” (aka “climate change”). This is their religion based on “soft” science. Skeptics agree that recent global warming has occurred; however, this reflects natural causes of climate cycles. Skeptics also agree that rising CO2 is occurring, in part by the Industrial Revolution, but that this is beneficial to plant growth. Doesn’t anyone—from grade-school biology—remember that plant photosynthesis involves the taking in CO2 while expelling O2, whereas all animals inhale O2 and exhale CO2? Life on this planet is carbon-based—these data represent “hard” science.

Skeptics also know that, in past ages, geological data suggest CO2 levels have been as high as ~10,000-15,000 parts-per-million (ppm). This was before mammals evolved, and plant life flourished. In recent times, “normal” CO2 has ranged between ~150-180 ppm during Glacial Periods and ~280-310 ppm during Inter-Glacial Periods. Earth came out of its last Glacial Period ~11,500 years ago.

Today’s global atmospheric CO2 levels are ~415 ppm. At these CO2 levels, plants are still currently “at least 25% CO2-starved.” In fact, commercial greenhouse growers commonly elevate CO2 to 800­-1200 ppm; this enhances growth and yield by ~20-50%. Indoor air routinely ranges between 500 and 2,000 ppm of CO2. Submarines regularly operate with ambient CO2 levels between 2,000 and 5,000 ppm.

The atmospheric effect of CO2 on climate is highly exaggerated. Since the end of the Little Ice Age (1850), our planet has been warming naturally (thankfully)! Industrialization during the past 2½ centuries has perhaps increased global atmospheric CO2 levels by ~100 ppm, which has improved crop growth.

As planetary temperatures rise, skeptics know that CO2 in the liquid phase (oceans) moves to the gaseous phase (air)—we learn this in introductory chemistry. Hence, rising global atmospheric temperatures cause CO2 to increase, not the other way around.

CO2 levels in our lungs reach ~40,000-50,000 ppm, which causes us to inhale our next breath. One of the first things medical students learn in respiratory physiology is that the carotid body (clusters of chemoreceptor cells located in the neck) detects changes in arterial blood flow pO2 (partial pressure of oxygen), pCO2, blood pH, and temperature. When the blood pCO2 reaches a critical level, the carotid body quickly sends this message to the brainstem, which then sends signals to the diaphragm to breathe. The body needs more O2, and therefore exhales the excess CO2.

“Carbon emissions” and “carbon footprint” as causes of “global warming” are nothing more than scaremongering buzzwords created by global warming alarmists, insincere environmentalists, certain dishonest politicians and “scientists” who need their salary, misinformed journalists, and “environmental economists.”

Skeptics know that CO2 is an odorless, tasteless, invisible, non-polluting gas on which all life on Earth depends. “Smoke” from factory chimneys represents mostly water vapor, not CO2 (a common error in the media every day). Dirty industrial fossil-fuel pollution is, of course, undesirable and causes health problems. However, many scientific lines of evidence—including geological history and fundamental radiation-transfer physics—show that human-made CO2 emissions have a negligible influence on climate in comparison to the natural factors listed above.

Conclusion: The hypothesis and conclusion described at start of this article are complete nonsense. Climate alarmists, your fearmongering isn’t cool anymore.
———————————
Daniel Nebert shared this article at Minding the Campus. He is Professor Emeritus at the University of Cincinnati and Affiliate Faculty at Oregon State University. He is a member of the CO2 Coalition, based in Washington, D.C., and the National Association of Scholars.

Tags: Daniel Nebert, article, Dear Climate Alarmists, Your fearmongering, isn’t cool anymoreTo share or post to your site, click on “Post Link”. Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and “Like” Facebook Page – Thanks!

Tags: AF Branco, editorial cartoon, bombshellsTo share or post to your site, click on “Post Link”. Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and “Like” Facebook Page – Thanks!

Gary Bauer

by Gary Bauer: A Good Day
We won two big victories at the Supreme Court today, and both have big implications for the future.

In the first case, the Supreme Court upheld Arizona’s voting rights law. In recent years, state legislators took steps to improve election integrity by banning ballot harvesting and voting in a precinct other than the one in which you are registered. The left claimed these commonsense reforms were gross violations of civil rights.

The justices disagreed. In a 6-to-3 opinion, Justice Samuel Alito declared:

“One strong and entirely legitimate state interest is the prevention of fraud. Fraud can affect the outcome of a close election, and fraudulent votes dilute the right of citizens to cast ballots that carry appropriate weight. Fraud can also undermine public confidence in the fairness of elections and the perceived legitimacy of the announced outcome.”

The future implications for this case are enormous, as the Biden Administration announced that it is suing the state of Georgia to overturn its recently enacted voter integrity law. (Presumably, Biden also plans to challenge similar new laws in other states.)

Constitutional law Professor Jonathan Turley said that the Biden lawsuit could likely backfire with the Supreme Court ultimately upholding Georgia’s law. Based on today’s ruling, I’d say he’s right.

Moreover, it undermines the left’s push for H.R. 1, nationalizing all election laws. The Supreme Court was clear today that states have a right to set their own election laws.

In the second case, the Supreme Court overturned absurd disclosure rules mandated by the state of California that would have forced non-profit organizations, and potentially even churches, to publicly disclose their donors. The lawsuit against the California rule was triggered by a 2013 order from then-California Attorney General Kamala Harris.

In the court’s opinion for the 6-to-3 majority, Chief Justice John Roberts declared:

“When it comes to a person’s beliefs and associations, broad and sweeping state inquiries into these protected areas discourage citizens from exercising rights protected by the Constitution.”

Roberts got it right this time. The whole reason the left invented “doxing” was to “discourage [conservative] citizens from exercising rights protected by the Constitution.”

Communist China Celebrates
China’s communist rulers are celebrating today, marking the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party. As today’s Wall Street Journal notes, “it is no occasion for joy.” Once the communists seized power, they did in China what communists always do:

“What followed were the bloodiest decades in world history, rivaled only by Stalin’s purges. The Great Leap Forward led to mass famine. In the Cultural Revolution, Mao unleashed the Red Guards to torment anyone suspected of disloyalty or bourgeois tendencies. . . Over the Mao years unknown millions of Chinese died.”

Of course, we’re celebrating the anniversary of our independence this weekend. I can’t help but notice the juxtaposition that the future of the world will be determined by the struggle between this great country that started in 1776 and the Chinese Communist Party that started in 1921.

America was founded on the idea that liberty came from God, and that all men have dignity and worth because we are made in His image. The Chinese Communist Party is overtly and enthusiastically atheistic. It is dedicated to the proposition that all men must serve the Chinese Communist Party.

This nation has broken the chains of tyranny and liberated more people than any other nation in the history of the world. Communist China is doing the opposite. The Chinese people are being held in bondage to the gods of communism and totalitarianism.

I wish the prognosis in this great struggle for the future of freedom was brighter. China has a strong, confident, forward-looking leader. We have the “whisperer-in-chief,’ hesitant and sleepy, a throwback to another era.

By every measure, Chinese youth are burning with patriotic fervor, believing the world is theirs and that Communist China’s time has come. At the same time, their government is committing genocide against minorities. Where are the marches in Beijing declaring, “Uyghur Lives Matter”?

Of course, there aren’t any such marches because communist China is a deeply racist society (here and here). Sadly, it is propped up and promoted by supposedly “woke” American corporations and sports franchises. (Hey, Lebron, call your office!)

But the most disturbing thing of all is what’s happening here in America.

Losing Faith
While China’s youth are on fire for their country, our youth have the lowest levels of patriotism in history. A new Fox News poll asked a simple question: “Do you think the United States is the best country in the world to live in?” Ten years ago, 84% said “Yes.” Today, just 69% say “Yes.”

The biggest declines occurred in younger voters and Democrats – the AOC, Gwen Berry, Colin Kaepernick, critical race theory crowd. That’s not surprising.

The left is all about tearing America down, and our youth are being taught that they are citizens of an evil country that should apologize for its very existence.

The Fox poll also asked if voters believed America’s best days are still ahead.

Ronald Reagan believed they were, and it wasn’t just because of his sunny disposition. He knew Americans loved their country and could overcome any challenge, including the Soviet Union. He was right. Donald Trump understood we were in trouble. His goal was to “make America great again.”

But according to the Fox poll, faith in America’s future has plummeted, down 11 points in nine years to just 52%. The decline is greatest among Republicans, and I suspect Christians.

To me the reason is clear: They know that a growing percentage of Americans are rejecting the very idea of America. As AOC, Gwen Berry and Colin Kaepernick would say, “America was never that great.”

So short of a revival, it’s hard to imagine our best days being ahead when our educational institutions are teaching future generations that their country is evil.

By the way, the entire communist Chinese establishment – every teacher, every judge, every official, every entertainer – is telling their youth, “Look at what we’ve accomplished. Better days are ahead.”

We must reverse these trends. We must defeat critical race theory. We must defend our values!

This is why I spend so much time on these issues in my work here in Washington and in my communications with you. America has overcome great challenges before. But this is the first time we’re confronting a major enemy when many of our own youth are filled with doubt and growing cold in their love for America.

Ronald Reagan famously said, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. . . It must be fought for, protected and handed on.” He was right then, and his words still ring true today.

Good News

• Earlier this week, the Supreme Court ruled 6-to-3 that illegal aliens who are repeatedly caught crossing the border are not entitled to bail hearings. The ruling is a victory for President Trump’s commonsense border security measures.
• A new lawsuit was filed challenging the legality of ballot harvesting and drop boxes in Wisconsin.
• The Texas Supreme Court ruled that Facebook is not immune from civil liability lawsuits involving human trafficking on its platform.
• People are returning to work much faster in the GOP-led states that ended extra unemployment payments to people who were not working.
• Twenty Republican governors warned President Biden against packing the Supreme Court.
• Idaho Gov. Brad Little, Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds and South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem announced that they are also sending state law enforcement officers to the Texas border.
• Several Texas counties are using part of the state budget bailout money that Democrats jammed into the last COVID relief bill to help fund portions of the border wall that Gov. Greg Abbott plans to build.

——————————
Gary Bauer (@GaryLBauer)  is a conservative family values advocate and serves as president of American Values and chairman of the Campaign for Working Families

Tags: Gary Bauer, Campaign for Working Families, A Good Day, Communist China Celebrates, Losing FaithTo share or post to your site, click on “Post Link”. Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and “Like” Facebook Page – Thanks!

by Kerby Anderson: Are single-parent families just as good for children as two-parent families? Some of the headlines recently in newspapers and news magazines seem to say so. But all you have to do is look back at academic studies to see that, in nearly every case, two parents are better than one.

One older family study deserves renewed attention. Dr. Patrick Fagan, using data from the National Survey of Children’s Health, found two important factors. Children who grow up in an intact family and attend religious services do better than children who do not.

There is a significant discrepancy between children who grew up in intact, two-parent families and those who came from broken homes. They also found a similar discrepancy between those who attend religious services weekly and those who worship less frequently. They found that children in the former groups were five times less likely to repeat a grade, less likely to have behavior problems at home and school, and more likely to be cooperative and understanding of others’ feelings.

They also found that these differences held true even after controlling for family income and poverty as well as for the parents’ education level, race, and ethnicity. In essence, the study suggests that the best prescription for society is a stable family and family worship. In this environment, children thrive emotionally and achieve academically.

In a sense, this study is the flip side of studies that were published years ago about the impact of divorce on children. In my book, Christian Ethics in Plain Language, I document the three E’s of the negative impact of divorce (emotional impact, educational impact, and economic impact). Whether you look at these positive studies or the earlier negative studies, you can see the importance of family and worship.
————————————-
Kerby Anderson (@KerbyAnderson) is an author, lecturer, visiting professor and radio host and contributor on nationally syndicated Point of View and the “Probe” radio programs.

Tags: Kerby Anderson, Viewpoints, Point of View, Intact FamiliesTo share or post to your site, click on “Post Link”. Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and “Like” Facebook Page – Thanks!

by Bill Donohue: Orthodox Jews, Muslims, Mormons, and many other faith communities, have all sorts of internal strictures governing modesty provisions (especially for women), sexual practices, and dietary rules that others may find disagreeable. But the media rarely say a word about them. Nor should they—it’s none of their business. However, their reticence does not apply to Catholics.

In its July 1 editorial, the Houston Chronicle lectures the bishops about matters that they should leave alone. Not to be misunderstood, when the Catholic Church takes a public policy stand on any issue, it is fair game for criticism. But when it comes to internal matters, such as the sacraments, it is no more the business of a newspaper than it would be the business of the bishops to opine on the hiring practices of a newspaper.

The editorial tells the bishops they are wrong to even consider denying President Biden Holy Communion. “Biden, who attends Mass and says he personally opposes abortion,” the editorial says, “has nevertheless throughout his political career supported the legal right for women to decide for themselves to have one.”

If a Catholic president attended Mass and was personally opposed to racial discrimination, but nonetheless felt it was good public policy to support it, would the Houston Chronicle consider that acceptable? Of course not. The difference is that the paper is opposed to racial discrimination but not abortion. The Catholic Church opposes both.

The paper is factually wrong to say that Biden has been a champion of abortion rights “throughout his political career.” In 1974, a year after Roe v. Wade legalized abortion, Biden said the ruling went “too far” and that a woman seeking an abortion should not have the “sole right to say what should happen to her body.”

In 1976, Biden voted for the “Hyde Amendment” which bans federal funding of abortions. In 1981, he introduced the “Biden Amendment” which prohibits foreign-aid funding of biomedical research involving abortion. In 1982, he voted for a constitutional amendment allowing states to overturn Roe v. Wade. In other words, in the decade following Roe, he had a mostly pro-life record.

In 1983, however, he reversed himself and voted against a constitutional amendment allowing states to overturn Roe. That was the beginning of his pro-abortion stance.

After telling the bishops they are wrong to consider denying Biden the Eucharist, the editorial then contradicts itself when it admits that “what the bishops decide about who may take part in sacraments is their decision. If lay Catholics don’t like it, they can leave the church or press the bishops to reconsider.” Well said. Why, then, did it violate these precepts in the remarks that preceded this concession?

Even more baffling, why did the newspaper then pivot and start lecturing the bishops again? It immediately said that “we’d like to remind the bishops of the words of Pope Francis.” Next, they opine that if the bishops are going “to begin excluding politicians from communion on the basis of just one of those morale crusades,” it is guilty of “cherry-picking.”

What happened to the dictum that “what the bishops decide about who may take part in sacraments is their business”?

The editorial is a mess, from top to bottom.

Contact Houston Chronicle Editorial Board: Raj.Mankad@chron.com.
—————————
Bill Donohue is President of Catholic League.

Tags: Bill Donohue, Catholic League, Houston Chronicle, Showcases Its HubrisTo share or post to your site, click on “Post Link”. Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service and “Like” Facebook Page – Thanks!