Screen Shot 2019-03-25 at 12.30.52 PM

By Nancy Thorner – 

Most people in America don’t even realize that tentacles of a dangerous United Nations program are being enacted in our nation’s cities and certainly our country, with the full cooperation of those in our highest positions of authority. It is so complicated and difficult to believe that many simply dismiss it, considering it just a conspiracy theory. But even a cursory investigation reveals it is very real and the evidence is easily attained.

This intrusive, all-encompassing plan that could eventually affect every aspect of our lives is known as “United Nations Agenda 21.”  It’s pure communistic in nature. We all must fight against it if we are to remain a free people and nation. The Green New Deal happens to represent the boldest tactic yet toward the full implementation of Agenda 21 here in this nation.

The specific plan, United Nations Agenda 21 Sustainable Development, was a product of The Rio Conference held at Rio de Janeiro from June 3 – 14, 1992.   It was to be implemented worldwide in order to inventory and control all land, all water, all minerals, all plants, all animals, all construction, all means of production, all energy, all education, all information, and all human beings in the world.  As such Agenda 21 marked a new beginning for the U.N., a decisive point of departure for the world organization.

Project 21 contained twenty-seven principles warning against a mode of growth that was leading to the extinction of life on earth.  Based on two fundamental ideas, development and environment, Project 21 was introduced as a cooperative task and challenge for world nations toward this goal: to establish the basic principles that must govern the conduct of nations and peoples towards each other and the Earth to ensure a secure and sustainable future.

U.S. signs on to Agenda 21

One hundred nations attended the 1992 Rio Education on Environment and Development.  According to the UN information Center, all nations in attendance agreed to the document.  Representing the U.S.A. was President George H. Bush (1989 – 1993), who allowed an outside entity (the U.N.) to collaborate and dictate an agenda which is already affecting our entire country and our citizens.  In a news conference given in Rio de Janeiro on June 13, 1992, Bush’s opening statement included the following remarks prior to questions taken from reporters:

“Let’s me be clear on one fundamental point.  The United States fully intends to be the world’s preeminent leader in protecting the global environment.  We have been that for many years.  We will remain so.  We believe that environment and development, the two subjects of this Conference, can and should go hand in hand.  A growing economy creates the resources necessary for environmental protection and environmental protection makes growth sustainable over the long term.”

First called a “suggestion” for “voluntary action”, not long after its introduction at The Rio Conference (also known as the “Earth Summit”), Nancy Pelosi introduced a resolution of support for the plan in Congress calling it a “comprehensive blueprint for the reorganization of human society.”

Presidents Clinton and Obama promote Agenda 21

With the defeat of G.H. Bush, newly elected Bill Clinton in 1993 ordered the establishment of the President’s Council for Sustainable Development, with the express purpose of enforcing the Agenda 21 blueprint into nearly every agency of the federal government to assure it became the law of the land.  A year later in 1994, the American Planning Association issued a newsletter supporting Agenda 21’s ideas as a “comprehensive blueprint” for local planning.

The main weapon used by Clinton for his call for action was the threat of Environmental Armageddon, particularly manifested through the charge of manmade global warming, later to becoming “climate change.” It didn’t matter if true science refused to cooperate in the scheme, as actual global temperatures are not rising and there continues to be no evidence of any appreciable manmade effects on the climate.  But has truth ever been important to scare mongers?  Paul Watson of Green Peace declared: “It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”

President Barack Obama endorsed Clinton’s efforts to have what was originally a voluntary effort for world leaders to comply to Agenda 21.  Obama, believing climate change constituted an economic and security threat to the nation, signed on to the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015 which pledged its nearly 200 participants to work to stem global warming.  Accordingly, on Sept. 21, 2016, Obama instructed federal agencies to consider climate change when drawing up their national security plans. On the same day the National Intelligence Council (NIC) backed Obama with a report saying climate change is “almost certain to have significant direct and indirect social, economic, political, and security implications [and] pose significant national security challenges for the United States over the next two decades.”

President Trump as a stumbling block

President Trump momentarily stymied the U.N movement to advance Agenda 21 worldwide in a White House Rose Garden event on June 2, 2017, and was harshly condemned, when pulling out of the Paris Accords.  President Trump has many times spoken of climate change as “a total and very expensive hoax.”  On March 28, 2017 Trump declared the costs of complying with government regulations designed to limit climate change posed a greater threat to national security than did the changes themselves. Additionally, Trump rescindedObama’s 2016 national security memorandum and many of Obama’s other climate-related directives. Trump’s aim was to end “regulatory burdens that unnecessarily encumber energy production, constrain economic growth and prevent job creation.”

As to the Paris Accords, Dr. Bjorn Lomberg had the following to say in an article by Ed Hiserodt in the March 4, 2019 edition of New American:

“Even if we assume all promises (determined contributions of those signing on to the Paris Accords) are fulfilled by 2030, and continue to fulfill them until the end of the century, and there is non ‘CO2 leakage’ to non-committed nations, the entirety of the Paris promises will reduce temperature rise by just 0.7 degree C (0.306 degrees F) by 2100.

And even if Americans did stop producing CO2, Earth’s CO2 levels would continue to rise because China, India, and other countries are building coal-fired plants by the dozen, which will like more than offset any reductions Americans make.”

Green New Deal of AOC

Enter the Green New Deal, the boldest tactic yet, as proposed by AOC when the Democrat Socialists took control of the House in the 2018 midterms.  The origins and the purpose of the Green New Deal are not unlike the positive-sounding objectives of Agenda 21: to protect the environment and make a better life for all of us.

In that the forces behind Agenda 21 were becoming both impatient and scared because after 27 years Agenda 21 had not yet been realized, coupled with growing apprehensive that people around the world were starting to wise up to the real nature of Agenda 21, permitted the clock of deception to be removed to reveal the true goals of the Green New Deal, socialism and global control as a way to advance Agenda 21.  Still undetermined, however, is whether through congressional action the Green New Deal could be enacted into law.  Presently the most ambitious climate change and clean energy policies are coming from states.

If Illinoisans like the Green New Deal championed by Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortex, they will like what Illinoisans have in store for them.  Illinois’s general assembly is weighing a bill — the Clean Energy Jobs Act (SB 2132/ HB 3624) — that sets an aggressive target of decarbonizing the state’s energy by 2030 and running the state completely on renewable energy by 2050. That includes deploying more than 40 million solar panels and 2,500 wind turbines alongside $20 billion in new infrastructure over the next decade. Its central goals are 100 percent carbon-free electricity production by 2030 and 100 percent renewable everything across the state by 2050. That means the 2050 goal also precludes nuclear energy!

Broadly, the Green Energy Jobs Act aligns with the Green New Deal. While the Green New Deal resolution is just that — a resolution — in Illinois the rubber might actually meet the road. According to Emily Melbye, chief of staff for State Rep. Ann Williams, a sponsor of the Clean Energy Jobs Act, “This bill is far more comprehensive [than the Green New Deal] and positions Illinois as a leader in the clean energy economy.”

Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, New Jersey, Washington State, Massachusetts, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, and Washington, DC, have commitments or are considering legislation that would put them on a path toward 100 percent clean energy.

Local community sustainable and energy policies

It isn’t only states who are determined to convert to 100 percent renewable energy. There is a direct link between U.N. Agenda 21, as introduced to the world at the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992, and groups who are trying to gain control over local development and energy policies, perhaps even in your community or city?  As far back as 1994 the American Planning Association issued a newsletter supporting Agenda 21’s ideas as a “comprehensive blueprint” for local planning.

In this recent article by Steve Goreham, a policy advisor to The Heartland Institute, a speaker, author, and researcher on environmental issues as well as an engineer and business executive, he writes: 100% percent renewable by 2050 – Is the Mayor of Porkopolis Smarter than a fifth Grader?, Goreham writes:

“Mayors in more than 100 US cities have announced plans to transition their electrical power systems to 100 percent renewable by 2050. They propose replacement of traditional coal, natural gas, and nuclear generating stations with wind, solar, and wood-fired stations. But none of these mayors has a plausible idea of how to meet their commitment.”

Words of Wisdom

Friedrich August von Hayek (1899-1992) Nobel Laureate of Economic Sciences, left this warning for humanity:

“Ever since the beginning of modern science, the best minds have recognized that “the range of acknowledged ignorance will grow with the advance of science.” Unfortunately, the popular effect of this scientific advance has been a belief, seemingly shared by many scientists, that the range of our ignorance is steadily diminishing and that we can therefore aim at more comprehensive and deliberate control of all human activities. It is for this reason that those intoxicated by the advance of knowledge so often become the enemies of freedom.”

As more American city, county, and state governments are duped by the global warming fanatics (alarmists) into initiating new harsh laws and removing individual freedoms, the public can no longer afford to yawn and ignore U.N. Agenda 21 and all its tentacles into our lives.

Thorner: Restricting Fossil Fuels leads to Fool’s Paradise


By Nancy Thorner – 

On March 5, 2019 The Heartland Institute, one of the world’s leading free-market think tanks, published an important and very timely Policy Brief by senior fellow for environment and energy policy, James Taylor, titled Global Warming Energy Restrictions Threaten U.S. National Security, with guidance from Admiral Thomas B. Hayward, U.S. Navy (retired), former chief of Naval Operations and commander-in-chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

Key findings of the policy brief follow:

  • Economic strength is vital to supporting a strong military,
  • Carbon dioxide restrictions raise energy prices, which weakens the economy,
  • America can leverage its dominant conventional energy sources for geopolitical advantages,
  • Nations such as China and Russia dominate the market for rare earth minerals necessary for renewable power generation,
  • Global warming is a threat reducer, as asserted threat multipliers like crop output, drought, and extreme weather events are becoming more benign as Earth warms.

It is imperative that Mr. Taylor’s article be read and passed along to as many individuals as possible, given the potential formation of a Presidential climate change panel which is being countered by a letter authored by John Kerry and Chuck Hagel — co-signed by 58 national security or military backgrounds — pushing back against the formation of the Presidential panel.

For Nancy Thorner, who believes global warming is a hoax, the need to reduce CO2 rings hollow and would destroy this nation, its economy, and its military readiness.

President Trump stated many times that climate change was “a total, and very expensive, hoax.”  On March 28, 2017 Trump declared the costs of complying with government regulations designed to limit climate change pose a greater threat to national security than do the changes themselves.  Trump rescinded Obama’s 2016 national security memorandum and many of Obama’s other climate-related directives. Trump’s aim was to end “regulatory burdens that unnecessarily encumber energy production, constrain economic growth and prevent job creation.”

 AOC’s Green New Deal

The greatest threat to national security would be forcing our economy into an expensive renewable-power trajectory, such as was proposed by AOC in her Green New Deal.  Imagine what would happen to this nation’s wealth and military readiness if banning planes, cars, oil, gas, and even cows ever became reality?   AOC’s Green New Deal is but a Trojan Horse for Socialism, in that it would create a massive government program to combat climate change by moving the American economy toward renewable energy and reduced carbon emissions

In An Open Letter to Alexandria Ocasio Cortez by Ed Hiserodt, published in the March 4, 2019 issue of the New American, Hiserodt informs readers about some “back of the matchbook” calculations AOC is advancing which are as unrealistic as they are stupid.

According to Hiserodt:

“We are being asked to give up our standard of living for the unproven theory that an insignificant increase in carbon dioxide from its current 0.04 percent of our atmosphere would cause Earth’s temperature to rise to a deadly level.  Meanwhile all the computer models relied on by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have predicted temperature increases much higher than satellite and ocean buoys have shown, which indicate a pause in temperature rise.”

Paris Climate Agreement 

President Barack Obama believed climate change constituted an economic and security threat to the nation. In 2015 Obama signed the Paris Climate Agreement which pledged its nearly 200 participants to work to stem global warming.  Accordingly, on Sept. 21, 2016, Obama instructed federal agencies to consider climate change when drawing up their national security plans. On the same day the National Intelligence Council (NIC) backed Obama with a report saying climate change is “almost certain to have significant direct and indirect social, economic, political, and security implications [and] pose significant national security challenges for the United States over the next two decades.”

In a White House Rose Garden event on June 2, 2017, Trump was harshly condemned when he pulled out of the Paris Accords, proclaiming that remaining in the Paris Accords would undermine the economy and put this nation at permanent disadvantages.

Here are some facts to consider as cited in the before-mentioned article by Ed Hiserodt, An Open Letter to Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, upon referencing a peer-reviewed paper by Dr. Bjorn Lomberg published in the March 4, 2019 edition of New American:

According to Dr. Lomberg:

“Even if we assume all promises (determined contributions of those signing on to the Paris Accords) are fulfilled by 2030, and continue to fulfill them until the end of the century, and there is non ‘CO2 leakage’ to non-committed nations, the entirety of the Paris promises will reduce temperature rise by just 0.7 degree C (0.306 degrees F) by 2100.

And even if Americans did stop producing CO2, Earth’s CO2 levels would continue to rise because China, India, and other countries are building coal-fired plants by the dozen, which will like more than offset any reductions Americans make.”

Unhappy with Trump’s decision, individual states foolishly took it upon themselves to form the U.S. Climate Alliance to cut carbon dioxide emissions to advance the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement, in part, by reducing greenhouse gas emissions to at least 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.

Illinois’ Governor J.B. Pritzker signed an executive order committing Illinois to join 17 other states in the United States Climate Alliance (USCA).  Already a failed state, such a move will make Illinois even more economically uncompetitive with other states.

Military preparedness  

In July of 2018 the House approved an amendment to the fiscal 2018 defense authorization bill calling climate change “a direct threat to the national security of the United States.” Sponsored by Rep. Jim Langevin, D-R.I., it would require the secretary of Defense to submit to Congress within one year “a report on vulnerabilities to military installations and combatant commander requirements resulting from climate change over the next 20 years.   Although 97 forty-six Republicans joined 188 Democrats in voting for the amendment,185 Republicans did vote “no”. If acted upon, this amendment to the fiscal 2918 defense authorization bill would be a grave threat to our military preparedness.

This article appearing in Forbes on Nov. l5, 2018 by Loren Thompson  should be very troubling:  If America’s Military Loses World War III, Low Readiness Will Likely Be The Reason.  In the article Thompson relates how the Congressionally-chartered commission on defense strategy released its call for increased military spending. The commission further warns that America might lose a multi-front war in the future, arguing that Russia and China are striving for hegemony in their regions.

Recently on Fox cable TV a retired general spoken of the same fear. While China continues to ramp up its military, our military preparedness was depleted under the Bush and Obama administrations, leaving this nation with much catching up to do to achieve military prowess over China in case of conflict.


Those who wish to impose Global Warming Energy restrictions are demanding ever-greater government control over energy markets, resources, and infrastructure, wrongly believing the best thing governments can do with fossil energy is “keep it in the ground.”

Theirs is a “fool’s paradise” as set forth by Marlo Lewis, Jr., a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.  Mr. Lewis explains “how so” in his article of July 1, 2018: Climate Change, Fossil Fuels, and Human Well Being.  Have individuals who believe we can meet our energy needs through wind and sun ever paused to consider the improving state of the world since the introduction of fossil fuel?

Here are some gems from Lewis’ article worth considering, which should cause any reasonable person to conclude that restricting sources of fossil fuel for green energy sources would put this nation’s security at risk and influence unnecessarily the quality of your life and mine and all of humanity.

  • Climate campaigners hype the risks of global warming and belittle, ignore, or deny the benefits of fossil fuels. Would their so-called climate solutions—carbon taxes, cap-and-trade, renewable energy quota, fracking bans—make us safer or the reverse?
  • Since 1950, fossil fuel consumption increased by 550 percent, annual global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions increased by 500 percent, atmospheric CO2 concentrations increased by about one-third, and the world warmed about 0.65 degrees Celsius.
  • Because global temperatures are not spinning out of control, it is not surprising there have been no long-term trends in the frequency and severity of droughts and floods, in the frequency and strength of land-falling hurricanes, or in measures of total hurricane strength.
  • As fossil fuel consumption increased, the environment became more livable and human civilization more sustainable. That’s not a coincidence. Energy scholar Alex Epsteinexplains: Human beings using fossil fuels did not take a safe climate and make it dangerous; they took a dangerous climate and made it safe.

Screen Shot 2019-03-08 at 11.32.46 AM

By Nancy Thorner – 

In an essay of January 15, 2015, Can the West Stand Up for Free Speech?, Victor Davis Hanson, a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, opened his article with these thoughts:

Western civilization’s creed is free thought and expression, the lubricant of everything from democracy to human rights.

Even a simpleton in the West accepts that protecting free expression is not the easy task of ensuring the right to read Homer’s Iliad or do the New York Times crossword puzzle. It entails instead the unpleasant duty of allowing offensive expression.

Recently (3/4/2019) Victor David Hanson appeared as a guest  on Tucker Carlson’s TV Fox cable show, at which time he spoke about Trump’s free speech push for colleges given at CPAC on Saturday, March 2nd, 2018.   As Trump told the conservatives in the audience, Williams “took a hard punch in the face for all of us.”  “If they want our dollars, and we give it to them by the billions, they’ve got to allow people like Hayden and many other great young people, and old people, to speak, and if they don’t, it will be very costly.” Through this declaration at CPAC, President Donald Trump transformed Hayden Williams from a victim to a conservative folk hero.

Tucker Carlson, in introducing Hanson, spoke of American universities and colleges as once having the freest speech in the world. . . “Now American higher education is increasingly dominated fascist who tolerate but a single set of ideas.”

Hanson, in his remarks, enumerated ways in which Democrats were going to attempt to square the circle with Trump’s free speech proposal to align with their hatred of Trump.

According to Hanson, Democrats are going to attempt to do so by using Orwellian language such as:

  • Free speech is called “hate speech”
  • Censorship is called “trigger warnings”
  • Segregation is called “safe spaces”
  • Skepticism of man-made global warming is called “creationism” or “denialism”.

Hanson doesn’t believe this ploy will work, but the effort must be made as federal support for higher education amounts to 26 billion dollars.  As Hanson said:  “There will be free speech, just not what you and I call free speech”

89.7% of colleges restrict free speech

According to a report from the “Foundation for Individual Rights in Education,” the vast majority of students at America’s top colleges and universities (9 in 10) surrender their free speech rights the moment they step onto campus.  A report released on Dec. 11, 2018 by the  Spotlight on Speech Codes 2019: The State of Free Speech on Our Nation’s Campuses analyzes the written policies at 466 of America’s top colleges and universities for their protection of free speech. The report finds that 89.7 percent of American colleges maintain policies that restrict — or too easily could restrict — student and faculty expression.  The analyzed policies are accessible in FIRE’s Spotlight Database. FIRE rates schools as “red light,” “yellow light,” or “green light” based on how much, if any, speech protected by the First Amendment their policies restrict.  When asking students, however, many college students support free speech unless it offends them.

President Donald Trump’s proposed executive order to protect free speech on college campuses follows a growing chorus of complaints from conservatives that the nation’s universities are attempting to silence their voices when they’re heckled, disinvited or their presence on campus is otherwise discouraged.

Critics counter that conservatives are turning the shared goal of protecting free speech into a partisan fight. Trump’s proposed executive order has drawn criticism from some higher education leaders.

The University of California system issued a statement Monday, March 4, 2019 calling Trump’s proposal “misguided and unnecessary.”

“Free speech is a fundamental value of the University of California and we already have strong policies in place that protect the free expression of ideas, regardless of political persuasion,” said Janet Napolitano, the system’s president. “We do not need the federal government to mandate free speech on college campuses — that tradition is alive and thriving.”

Joseph A. Morris shares his free speech insights

Joseph A. Morris, a partner in the law firm of Morris & De La Rosa with offices in Chicago and London, maintains an active practice conducting trials and appeals in the areas of constitutional, business, labor and international law.

In an e-mail dated March 4, 2019, Morris had the following interesting take on President Trump’s executive free speech proposal with this further intriguing reference in the subject line: “President Trump vs. President Zimmer?  Should the “Chicago Principles” Be Mandated on Every Campus?”:

President Trump has spoken in recent days of issuing an executive order to address efforts to suppress free speech on campus.

I certainly support the goal of protecting the freedom of speech, and associated freedoms of religion, the press, and association and assembly generally.

Generally speaking, government intervention to address rudeness, unfairness, untruthfulness, and other bothersome aspects of robust speech is not a good idea, whether the offenses take place on radio, television, the internet or campuses.  The Reagan Administration’s FCC was right to repeal the Fairness Doctrine; deciding what’s “fair” in public discourse is not the job of government.

Government’s duty is to protect everyone against violence, including violence directed at curtailing the exercise by people of speech, religious, associational, and other freedoms.

To the extent that the Federal Government, inadvertently or otherwise, has by past actions contributed to threats to free speech on campus and in the academy generally, it may be wise to redress them.  Several ham-handed interventions by the Obama Administration, with odious consequences, come to mind.

Otherwise, it seems to me that it is a field in which broad-gauge Federal action, whether legislative or executive, may not have much help to offer.

No one has consulted me on the draft of a putative executive order.  I heard the President’s references to one in his remarks on Saturday at CPAC, the annual Conservative Political Action Conference, but they were short on detail.  It will be important to see the actual text.

Meanwhile, I note that Robert J. Zimmer, the President of The University of Chicago, my alma mater, this morning sent an e-mail message to the entire University community pre-emptively criticizing the prospect of such an executive order.

Joseph A. Morris shares Robert J. Zimmer’s message

Because of the length of Mr. Zimmer’s message, only an excerpt is shared below:

“There are two related features of potential federal engagement on this issue that would threaten the mission of institutions of higher education. They would do so by creating the specter of less rather than more free expression, and by deeply chilling the environment for discourse and intellectual challenge. The first feature is the precedent of the federal government establishing its own standing to interfere in the issue of speech on campuses. This opens the door to any number of troubling policies over time that the federal government, whatever the political party involved, might adopt on such matters. It makes the government, with all its power and authority, a party to defining the very nature of discussion on campus.”

“The second feature is the inevitable establishment of a bureaucracy to enforce any governmental position. A committee in Washington passing judgment on the speech policies and activities of educational institutions, judgments that may change according to who is in power and what policies they wish to promulgate, would be a profound threat to open discourse on campus. In fact, it would reproduce in Washington exactly the type of on-campus ‘speech committee’ that would be a natural and dangerous consequence of the position taken by many advocating for the limitation of discourse on campuses.”

Morris’s thinking in sync with University of Chicago law faculty member

This pixyish thought crossed the mind of Joe Morris upon reading Mr. Zimmer’s statement. Said Morris:

“What if the President’s executive order sought to condition Federal funding to academic institutions upon their adoption of the Chicago Principles?”

Joe Morris, however, was not alone, for later in the morning John Banzhaf, law professor at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. issued a BUT PRESIDENT ZIMMER public reply.  Excerpts follow:

“It appears that the genesis for Trump’s new proposal was an organization with great influence with his current administration – the American Enterprise Institute [AEI] – which produced two separate detailed proposals for using threats to funding as a weapon to require colleges to protect academic freedom.

A feature which distinguishes it from other federal policies to cut off university funding – such as President Obama’s Title IX enforcement policies, and the threat to cut off funding from universities which bar military recruiters from campus – is that it applies only to research funds.

Under the AEI proposals, which are likely to influence Trump’s final executive order, “colleges should be required to offer assurances that their policies do not restrict constitutionally protected speech or expression and that they will commit to safeguarding open inquiry to the best of their ability. . . . Colleges that receive research grants should be required to establish formal processes for investigating and appealing allegations of speech suppression or intellectual intimidation” – i.e., similar to those for rape complaints.”  (The same goes for college presidents, many of whom have found it easier to placate the radical fringe than to defend free inquiry. With federal research funds on the line, they would suddenly face a new financial and political calculus.”

John Banzhaf further wrote about precedent for Trump’s proposed new free speech application, as the AEI did suggest using the University of Chicago’s free speech principles as a model for protecting free speech on university campuses, principles which grew out of a letter Chicago’s Dean of Students wrote to the class of 2020 about the importance of free speech which stated among other things:

“The University’s “commitment to academic freedom means that we do not support so-called ‘trigger warnings,’ we do not cancel invited speakers because their topics might prove controversial, and we do not condone the creation of intellectual ‘safe spaces’ where individuals can retreat from ideas and perspectives at odds with their own.”

Morris advances a simple mandate solution

Joseph A. Morris concludes his March 4, 2019 email by stating how extremely proud he is of “the stance that The University of Chicago has taken consistently over the years, and that has been reinforced and reconfirmed repeatedly in recent years.  The University of Chicago has been a beacon to others, as many other academic leaders have recognized, notably Mitch Daniels, the President of Purdue University, in many recent public statements”, as in this report of February 28, 2019, Purdue president and students join forces for free speech on campus.

On February 28, 2019, Forbes magazine likewise ran an essay by Tom Lindsay supportive of the Chicago Principles, “35 Universities Adopt ‘The Chicago Statement’ On Free Speech — 1,606 To Go”.

Despite Mr. Morris’s pride in his alma mater, he questions free speech principles as to limitations on government powers, knowing that power is seductive as was in the case of the Department of Education, a monstrosity created during Jimmy Carter’s administration.

It is the hope of Mr. Morris that the Trump administration may not be content simply to defuse the Obama abuses and let the powers fall dormant or die, but instead to resist temptation of using the same powers to push extraconstitutionally toward their own goals.

In the end, however, Mr. Morris believes that a simple mandate for academic institutions to adopt the Chicago principles as a condition of continued Federal funding would trigger a debate very much worth having.

Screen Shot 2019-03-04 at 10.02.49 AM

By Nancy Thorner & Bonnie O’Neil – 

One can only imagine how the constant attacks and negativity spewed against our President by so many Democrat officials and Leftist media sources have influenced opinions about our nation throughout the World?  Democrats, especially those in high positions of power, give media sources plenty of negative fodder with which to malign our President. It was a national disgrace that on the eve of historic peace talks between the USA & North Korea, the Democrats in the House orchestrated a clown show hearing featuring the soon to be jailed Michael Cohen, going to jail for three years for a series of tax fraud and lying charges. Is it any wonder that according to a Rasmussen Report dated March 2, 2019, Democrats still see Trump as a bigger threat than Kim Jong Un?

While rhetoric and unprincipled actions may help Democrats in the short run, serious and unintended consequences to our nation, and ultimately our people, are likely to happen no matter political affiliation.

As for the Democrat Party, the 2018 mid-term elections propelled into office a number of socialist-leaning members, among them congresswomen AOC, a 29 year-old New Yorker who with no experience already believes she is in charge of the Democrat Party and Ilhan Omar, an extremely vocal anti-Israel Muslim from Minnesota.

Democrats veer to extreme Left

It is evident that the Democrat Party is being pulled way to the left as the new crop of Democrat Congress members “feel their oats” by insisting what their constituents desire of them back home are Socialist leaning policies such as healthcare for all, the Green New Deal, reparations for past sins of this nation, redistribution of wealth, and confiscation of guns, with a further pressing goal of impeaching Donald Trump to clear the way for a Democratic-Socialist president to implement their wish list in 2020 — one that promotes polities that are akin in many ways to the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engel.

What makes the situation so frightening and extremely serious for the American people is that the mainstream media continues to cast its lot with the Democrat Party (as an extension of the Party), as it did throughout Obama’s eight years in office, while the same media takes every opportunity to cast all Trump says or does in an unfavorable light and is also not adverse to making stories up.

During President Obama’s most problematic times, the mainstream media was careful not to sully the Obama administration here at home or abroad. Perhaps the most grievous issue during the Obama years was the mistakes both he and Hillary made in Benghazi that resulted in the assassination of our Ambassador Stephens.

“All politics is personal” is a phrase often heard, but ironically not even those who have been credited with originating that phrase want to claim they authored it. The phrase was popularized by the publication of a 1969 essay by feminist Carol Hanisch under the title “The Personal is Political” in 1970.  She later disavowed authorship of the phrase.

Why might those who popularized the phrase wish to embrace the coining of it?  It is likely that most politicians, politically active citizens, and America’s media sources would prefer to think of themselves as altruistic and for their actions to be perceived as such by citizens, when they are far more likely to be self-focused than doing what is best for those they serve. Mark Twain once observed that if you didn’t read a newspaper, you’d be ill-informed; whereas if you did read one, you’d be misinformed.  So many news sources seem to be in the business of intentionally misinforming the public when the public deserves honesty, whether from a politician or a reporter.  Is it any wonder why many Americans have come to regard sources of news as fallible, when they report altruistic interpretations of what the media determines the public needs to know and hear?

Can honesty exist in this era of polarization?

Today total honesty when dealing with political matters is as hard to come by as when a person donates money wishing to remain anonymous.  Many politicians — although more likely in the Democrat Party — vote according to the “Party line” rather than their own convictions, fearful of displeasing their party leaders. Courageous officials who express their own opinion are often minimized and/or abused by their political party leaders, as what happened when House members broke ranks with Speaker Pelosi over a gun control measure on Wednesday, February 27, 2019.  In a procedural vote on gun sales, when Republicans moved to amend the bill to require Immigration and Customs Enforcement be told of any undocumented immigrant who tries to buy a gun, 26 Democrats voted with the GOP. The language was added to the gun bill, spoiling an important Democratic legislative achievement.  In a caucus meeting Nancy Pelosi took a hard line saying:

“This is not a day at the beach. This is the Congress of the United States,” Pelosi said, according to two sources.

Pelosi also said vulnerable Democrats who had the “courage” to vote against the Republican motions to recommit would become a higher priority for the party leadership and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

Pelosi wants the words and actions of her members to promote the Democratic Party’s agenda, rather than members voting for what is best for the American people.

Democrats and Republicans alike often put their personal politics and careers first, not what may or may not be the best choice for America’s citizens. While professing views that align with many of their constituents, especially during the campaign season, their voting practices once elected are usually self-serving.

In assessing the Republican Party, former House Majority leader Paul Ryan and many House members who won seats, or who were re-elected in 2016, campaigned on fixing health care and dealing with the out-of-control illegal immigration problem. When in power, however, the Republican Congress failed on both counts, which most likely resulted in the transfer of the House leadership to the Democrats in the November 2019 mid-term elections.

The pretend game

Most everyone connected with politics is guilty of pretending they think for themselves, but too often they “toe their Party line and vote accordingly. Not only is this dishonest, it is dangerous and cries out for a way to hold every politician accountable for what he says rather than what he does.  We are reminded of “The Emperor’s New Clothes”, a short tale written by Danish author Hans Christian Andersen about two weavers who promise an emperor a new suit of clothes that they say is invisible to those who are unfit for their positions, stupid, or incompetent – while in reality, they make no clothes at all, making everyone believe the clothes are invisible to them. When the emperor parades before his subjects in his new “clothes”, no one dares to say that they do not see any suit of clothes on him for fear that they will be seen as stupid. Finally a child cries out, “But he isn’t wearing anything at all!”

What is a citizen to do?

Citizens deserve the truth if our nation is to prosper. The average American citizen does not have the means or time to sort out facts from fiction about every political situation, argument, or potential problem; they have historically relied upon media sources for facts they can trust. The public wants to believe their representatives in Congress put political party preferences aside in order to protect them.  This conundrum is substantiated by the views of constituents themselves. When Americans are asked how they rate Congress, a very low rating is given to Congress as a whole, but their own legislator is given high marks.

What should most concern everyone in positions of power is doing what is best for this nation, without personal prejudice, but might this be an altruistic dream which can never be realized?  When politicians do put country before personal ambitions we must highlight them by giving them credit when credit is due.

In that the public is eager for good news, unity, and words of encouragement was exemplified with the election of Donald J. Trump as president with his patriotic slogan, “Make America Great Again.”  The public elected this NON-politician largely because he wasn’t a politician.  Trump was someone who deserved recognition for what he had accomplished in the private sector, but most of all it was because Trump gave voice to what many Americans were realizing and feared: that our best days were behind us and America was on the decline morally and fiscally.  By touching a hot spot many American citizens feared was true, Trump inspired renewed hope and patriotism which has resulted in a further mission of Keeping America Great in 2010.

It is unfortunate and dangerous that many in the media and Democrat Party are pushing another agenda, a radical one, under the guise that Donald Trump’s presidency has been a disaster and a complete failure in every way and must be replaced in 2020 by the proposed Democratic Socialist revolutionary agenda.

As to moving this nation forward toward prosperity — health care for all and the Green New Deal — are not financially feasible or within the realm of possibility for this nation. The sweeping “Green New Deal” proposed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez could cost as much as $93 trillion or approximately $600,000 per household — according to a new study co-authored by the former director of the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office — while Universal health care would tally roughly $36 trillion.  As to the cost on the Green New Deal and “Medicare-for-all, Kamala Harris, in refusing to place a price tag on these said, “it’s not about a cost,” but rather return on investment.

It is unlikely the media will change its stripes, so what is the voting public to do?  One thing is certain, unless the American people wake up by election day in 2020, their Constitutional Republic, as designated by our Constitution that provides the legal and governmental framework for the United States, will cease to exist and will be replaced by Socialism, which has never worked wherever or whenever in the world it has been tried, as is now being played out in Venezuela.

Friday, March 01, 2019