Students destroy pro-life memorial at Pepperdine University

Pepperdine University was found as a Christian college.  Today it is a secular, hat filled campus, with the Administration, by its silence, approving of the murder of babies.

“Spencer Lindquist, the Pepperdine College Republicans president told Campus Reform that the pro-life display was meant to honor the 62 million lives lost to abortions since Roe v. Wade.

“After we used crosses on our Christian campus to memorialize the loss of 62 million lives, we were met with a vitriolic response; people tore down crosses, turned them upside down, covered our memorial, and posed for pictures smiling in front of the representation of 62 million aborted babies,” Lindquist said.

Lindquist also told Campus Reform that he hopes the university will take action and condemn “the suppression of Christian and conservative student voices and thereby reassure concerned students, alumni, families, and donors who fear that Pepperdine is abandoning its Christian ethic and founding mission.” 

Forget this is a place calling itself a Christian college.  Instead think about the Gestapo tactics of those who promote and applaud the murder of 62 million babies—a genocide.  Those involved need to be expelled and criminal charges brought against them.  Unlike then, Pepperdine can not claim to be Christian.

Students destroy pro-life memorial at Pepperdine University

A pro-life display set up by the Pepperdine University College Republicans was destroyed by pro-choice students.

The College Republicans chapter president told Campus Reform that he hopes the university takes action.

Campus Reform,  10/7/21 

A pro-life display set up by the Pepperdine University College Republicans was destroyed by pro-choice students who covered the bulletin board display with posters reading “No Uterus, No Opinion,” “My Body, My Choice,” and other messages.

On Tuesday, Sept. 28, Pepperdine College Republicans placed 620 crosses, one for every 100,000 of 62 million lives taken to abortion since Roe v Wade was enacted, according to Fox News. 

The crosses were placed on the Christian university’s Freedom Wall, which is a designatedbulletin board for students to exercise their right to free expression.

The protesters also modified the College Republicans poster which originally read “Lives Taken by Abortion since Roe V Wade” = “62 million” to read “62 million women saved by abortion since Roe V Wade.”

“God does NOT support the legislation of women’s bodies,” “don’t speak if you don’t have a uterus,” and “why not get a vasectomy” were among the other phrases placed over the pro-life display.

In a video provided to Campus Reform, one student asked the protester “Why are you taking down crosses at a Christian school?”

“Because I’m not a Christian,” she responded.

Spencer Lindquist, the Pepperdine College Republicans president told Campus Reform that the pro-life display was meant to honor the 62 million lives lost to abortions since Roe v. Wade.

“After we used crosses on our Christian campus to memorialize the loss of 62 million lives, we were met with a vitriolic response; people tore down crosses, turned them upside down, covered our memorial, and posed for pictures smiling in front of the representation of 62 million aborted babies,” Lindquist said.

Lindquist also told Campus Reform that he hopes the university will take action and condemn “the suppression of Christian and conservative student voices and thereby reassure concerned students, alumni, families, and donors who fear that Pepperdine is abandoning its Christian ethic and founding mission.” 

William Thompson, a freshman at Pepperdine University, told Campus Reform that the university is sending a message by their inaction on the situation.

“As a freshman, I have been appalled by the school’s utter passivity towards such blasphemous demonstrations. The right to uphold basic Christian ethics and morals should be respected on this campus, not sabotaged,” Thompson said.

Pepperdine University released a statement to Fox Newsbut did not directly address the incident.

“Pepperdine University is committed to free, open, and respectful speech on our campus, a commitment that is rooted in our Christian mission and ethos. We affirm that truth has nothing to fear from investigation. Thus, we believe that public debate on topics important to a free society is enhanced when members of our community freely and respectfully express their viewpoints,” Pepperdine said in a statement to Fox.

Cherise Trump, the executive director of Speech First, a pro-campus free speech organization, told Campus Reform that “It is disappointing to see students having such disregard for each other’s freedom of expression.

Pepperdine University is a Christian university located in Malibu, California. According to the university’s website, “Pepperdine is a Christian university committed to the highest standards of academic excellence and Christian values, where students are strengthened for lives of purpose, service, and leadership.”

Pepperdine University did not respond to a request for comment from Campus Reform.

WSJ: Men appear to be giving up on college

This is all you need to know:

“So what’s the reason young men are falling behind? The rest of the story offers several possibilities including impact from the pandemic and a sense that men really aren’t sure what their career path should be. But part of the problem may also be that the idea of helping men, particularly white men, is off limits at most colleges and universities which are geared toward helping minority students. Men, especially white men, are seen as privileged and therefore the least in need of help, even if the numbers above suggest that’s not the case.

Current education is geared toward everyone, but straight, white, males—so why waste the time and money to learn you are scum, do not deserve a job and should pay reparations for living?  So, watch as white males become the innovators, entrepreneurs and successes—by NOT attending college.  Those that do attend will learn hate, bigotry, bullying and rioting—enough to get them a job filling taco shells.  Racism is alive and well in American colleges, sad.

WSJ: Men appear to be giving up on college

John Sexton, HotAir,   9/6/21    

There’s an interesting story in the Wall Street Journal today about the declining enrollment of men in 2 and 4-year colleges. This gender enrollment disparity is a trend that has been happening for a while now, but at this point the divergence between men and women is becoming pretty dramatic.

At the close of the 2020-21 academic year, women made up 59.5% of college students, an all-time high, and men 40.5%, according to a Wall Street Journal analysis of enrollment data from the National Student Clearinghouse, a nonprofit research group. U.S. colleges and universities had 1.5 million fewer students compared with five years ago, and men accounted for 71% of the decline, the Journal analysis found.

This education gap, which holds at both two- and four-year colleges, has been slowly widening for 40 years. The divergence increases at graduation: After six years of college, 65% of women in the U.S. who started a four-year university in 2012 received diplomas by 2018 compared with 59% of men during the same period, according to the U.S. Department of Education.

In the next few years, two women will earn a college degree for every man, if the trend continues, said Douglas Shapiro, executive director of the research center at the National Student Clearinghouse.

The situation has become bad enough that some colleges are already offering more slots for boys in an attempt to bring the enrollment back into parity. The WSJ says this is “higher education’s dirty little secret,” i.e. schools are now practicing a kind of affirmative action for men.

There’s a chart included in the story which breaks down the admittance of men and women by both race and income. What the chart shows is that white men come in near the bottom at every income level.

It takes a while to really make sense of this chart. Each horizontal line represents a different income level. Each color represents a race. Colored dots are men and circles with white centers are women. So, again, the solid red dots are near the bottom in every case. Also, you’ll notice that Asian men and women outperform everyone else by a lot at every income level (the medium blue dots to the far right). In fact, the low income Asian men are doing about as well as men of other races in the top income category. Also, there is nearly no gap between Asian men and women. Both groups do extremely well getting into college. This chart is going to be bad news for people pushing the “model minority myth” nonsense. Clearly, Asians are doing something that other groups, especially whites, are not doing as well.

So what’s the reason young men are falling behind? The rest of the story offers several possibilities including impact from the pandemic and a sense that men really aren’t sure what their career path should be. But part of the problem may also be that the idea of helping men, particularly white men, is off limits at most colleges and universities which are geared toward helping minority students. Men, especially white men, are seen as privileged and therefore the least in need of help, even if the numbers above suggest that’s not the case.

All of this makes me worry about the future. Having CRT enter public classrooms and emphasize the idea of white supremacy and male privilege at a point where white males are already struggling with education seems like a perfect storm of bad ideas. Based on the data above, we don’t need to be telling boys that they need to check their privilege from the time they can first read and write, we need to be helping them do as well as girls. I wonder how many years it will take for teacher’s unions to figure this out.

Black mother files complaint against Atlanta elementary school for racial segregation: ‘disbelief’

Some California college dorms are segregated.  Some study halls, classes and tutorial programs are segregated in California.  None of this is done by Republicans—all the segregation is being done by Democrats.  Now a Georgia school is being segregated—by a black racist principal.

“Posey explained that Black students were put in two classes with two different teachers, while White students were put in six classes with six different teachers. 

She found out about the segregation when she asked Briscoe to place her child with a teacher who she thought would be a good fit, she recalled to the news outlet. 

“She said that’s not one of the Black classes, and I immediately said, ‘What does that mean?’ I was confused. I asked for more clarification. I was like, ‘We have those in the school?’ And she proceeded to say, ‘Yes. I have decided that I’m going to place all of the Black students in two classes,’” Posey recounted of her conversation with Briscoe. 

The principal reportedly told the mother that her child would be isolated if they were put in a White class. 

Now the Democrat Party is no longer hiding its historic role as the Racist American Political Party.

Dr. Martin Luther King died to oppose segregation—and th Democrats have brought it back.  Based on the facts, the State of Georgia needs to take over this racist school—and school district.  Racism has no place in America—even if the Democrats want it.

Black mother files complaint against Atlanta elementary school for racial segregation: disbelief’

Atlanta mother says a school principal implemented a plan to segregate students based on race

By Emma Colton | Fox News, 8/11/21   

Fox News Flash top headlines are here. Check out what’s clicking on Foxnews.com.

A mother in Atlanta filed a federal discrimination complaint against an elementary school, alleging the school segregated students based on race. 

“We’ve lost sleep like trying to figure out why would a person do this,” mother Kila Posey, who is Black, told WSB-TV. “First, it was just disbelief that I was having this conversation in 2020 with a person that looks just like me — a Black woman. It’s segregating classrooms. You cannot segregate classrooms. You can’t do it.”

“My community, had they known about this, would probably be extremely upset. Not just the Black parents but also White parents,” Posey added. 

Posey said that the practice was put in place last year at Mary Lin Elementary School by principal Sharyn Briscoe, who is also Black. 

Posey explained that Black students were put in two classes with two different teachers, while White students were put in six classes with six different teachers. 

She found out about the segregation when she asked Briscoe to place her child with a teacher who she thought would be a good fit, she recalled to the news outlet. 

“She said that’s not one of the Black classes, and I immediately said, ‘What does that mean?’ I was confused. I asked for more clarification. I was like, ‘We have those in the school?’ And she proceeded to say, ‘Yes. I have decided that I’m going to place all of the Black students in two classes,’” Posey recounted of her conversation with Briscoe. 

The principal reportedly told the mother that her child would be isolated if they were put in a White class. 

“I explained to her she shouldn’t be isolated or punished because I’m unwilling to go along with your illegal and unethical practice,” Posey said.

Posey also recorded a conversation with an assistant principal, who confirmed it was Briscoe’s decision to implement the segregated classes. 

“I just wish we had more Black kids, and then some of them are in a class because of the services that they need,” the administrator said on the recording.

The school now faces a discrimination complaint, which was filed with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights. And Posey added that she wants the principal and her administration removed from their positions for the segregation. 

“Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 says that you cannot treat one group of people differently based upon race, and that is what is going on at Mary Lin,” Posey’s lawyer, Sharese Shields said.

The Atlanta Public Schools said it conducted and wrapped up an investigation into the concerns of segregation, adding that “appropriate actions” were taken in the matter. 

“Atlanta public schools does not condone the assigning of students to classrooms based on race. The district conducted a review of the allegations. Appropriate actions were taken to address the issue and the matter was closed.”

Atlanta Public Schools did not immediately respond to Fox News’s request for comment on what specific actions were taken. 

Briscoe also didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment on the matter.

Venice Beach Doesn’t Have a Homelessness Crisis

It has a quality-of-life enforcement crisis.

Last weekend, the New York Times Magazine ran an article on homelessness in Los Angeles. The article framed the problem of street vagrancy as almost entirely a result of insufficient housing. “The state needs to create 1.2 million more homes for low-income residents and those experiencing homelessness—which would cost roughly $17.9 billion annually,” the author, Jaime Lowe, reports. California needs to be smarter about building houses and apartments, but the facts Lowe uncovers don’t point to new housing as a solution to street homelessness.

The article zeroes in on Venice Beach, part of the Venice area of Los Angeles. Venice Beach is a once-gritty area that’s now “gentrified.” Except: it wasn’t that gritty. Twenty-five years ago, Lowe reports, the going rate for a house was $300,000. In 1996, the median home price in the U.S. was $112,000. If Venice Beach was ever the itinerant artist’s paradise that nostalgists depict it as, that was a long time ago. Today, the same house in Venice Beach goes for $2 million—a sign that its residents ought to consider some well-planned construction so that theirs doesn’t become a stagnant community.

In any case, though, such new housing won’t fix the homeless crisis. Nowhere in her 6,000-word article does Lowe find an example of the archetypal homeless person of casual understanding: a down-on-his luck, working-class man or woman who had a house in Venice Beach—whether rented or owned—and lost it after getting fired, having a spouse die, or suffering a disability or illness. That’s not to say that such cases don’t exist, but they’re certainly not the norm for the hundreds of people who have pitched tents and cardboard boxes or built plywood shanties along the beach, boardwalk, and sidewalks.

The homeless individuals featured in the article are all long-term transients afflicted with substance addiction, mental illness, or both. One young man tells Lowe that he came to Venice Beach from Washington State last year, “hoping for a new life apart from his estranged wife and children.” He appears to have no disability preventing him from working; he paints artwork to sell. He’s less a romantic artist than (likely) a child-support deadbeat who left someone else with the burden of making a living for his offspring. An older man, 64, says he’s been homeless for three decades, after “his family banished him because of his alcoholism.” The star of the story is a 19-year-old woman who goes by the name of “Angel.” She was recently arrested for weapons possession and recently refused government shelter inland, preferring the beach.

The story characterizes efforts to build housing for such individuals as facing a “fierce NIMBY pushback,” but it’s no mystery why Venice residents would oppose such measures as a 140-unit shelter building along the area’s main boulevard. It would be one thing if local officials could promise that after the area accepted the building, no one would ever sleep, defecate, or urinate on public property again. But nowhere does the article acknowledge that 140 new units—or 500, 1,000, or 10,000—in a resort town of 40,000 housed residents would not solve the problem. A beachfront community is by definition isolated from large employers in diverse industries. There’s little mass transit. This is a place where people buy property to relax or retire, not to invest in factories, warehouses, white-collar office buildings, or large-scale retail stores. Venice Beach is thus not the best place for a person with a short or nonexistent employment history and limited education to find an entry-level job and start to move up.

Venice Beach, then, faces not a displaced-persons problem but a transient problem. Owing to its nice weather, well-meaning volunteers who give out food and clothing, and Los Angeles’s lax approach to encampments, addicts and other lost souls are drawn there from around the country.

What kind of market housing could Venice Beach build that would be affordable to a 19-year-old woman with no job? The Times article is striking in its lack of curiosity about Angel’s background. A 19-year-old was a minor child not long ago. Where did she come from? If she could not live with her parents or guardians because of severe abuse, didn’t that town, city, or state have social services that would have put her into foster care or young-adult supportive housing and subsidize her college education or vocational training? Does her hometown have the same supposed severe housing shortage as Venice Beach does?

It’s dishonest to blame NIMBYs for this crisis or to paint local residents who don’t want to be harassed by vagrant men as somehow privileged. If Los Angeles does build subsidized, below-market housing around Venice Beach, why should that housing not go to people who already have stable jobs in the area, or who are interested in finding one—with a small fraction reserved for people who, at the very least, agree to start weaning themselves from alcohol and drugs, to learn skills needed for employment, and to pass each part of a mandated multistep program?

Rather than attempt to spend tens of billions of dollars a year to house the nation’s transients, California would be better off using limited resources to attempt to connect and re-integrate people like Angel into their home communities until they have the resources to start a new life by themselves. But to embark on such a strategy, Los Angeles would need a stick to go with the carrot. That could go something like this: the city will put you into temporary shelter if you have no other place to go, and it will get you inpatient mental-health and addiction treatment if warranted, but it will not offer transients with no long-term ties to the community any long-term housing—and no, you can’t live in a tent on a beach.

Nicole Gelinas is a City Journal contributing editor, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, and the author of After the Fall: Saving Capitalism from Wall Street—and Washington.

This article was originally published by City Journal Online.

California Attorney General Sees State Moving Away From Death Penalty

As a legislator, Rob Bonta co-sponsored a proposed ballot measure that would have given Californians another chance to discard the death penalty, a repeal they narrowly rejected in 2012 and 2016.

As California’s attorney general, Bonta still opposes capital punishment, and he believes the state is moving in the same direction.

“I think the death penalty is inhumane. It does not deter. Studies show it’s long had a disparate impact on defendants of color, especially when the victim is white,” Bonta said in an interview. Three weeks earlier, his former legislative colleagues had confirmed the Alameda Democrat’s nomination by Gov. Gavin Newsom to succeed Attorney General Xavier Becerra, now U.S. secretary of Health and Human Services.

Bonta said the death penalty is also both irreversible and “fallible,” citing the exoneration and release of numerous Death Row inmates nationwide — 185 since 1973, including five in California, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. The nonprofit organization says it has also found “strong evidence” that at least 20 prisoners who have been executed since 1989, all in Southern states, were actually innocent. …

Click here to read the full article from the San Francisco Chronicle.

The CDC and Mask Mandates: Unmasking the Truth

A mask is as useless as Joe Biden.  The CDC has proven that belief.  In Kansas     , the State ended the mask mandate.  24 counties continued the mandate—81 counties did not.  The CDC used these counties to prove that wearing a mask was healthier.  Instead they found that wearing a mask or not wearing a mask made no difference in the virus.

“Many counties did opt-out, but the larger metropolitan areas did not. Overall, twenty-four counties implemented a mask mandate, and eighty-one opted out.

The CDC paper argues that the mandates were a success. In particular, the paper claims that “the increasing trend in COVID-19 incidence reversed” in the Kansas counties with mask mandates.

We noticed, however, that this conclusion is incorrect. As our paper shows, the trend did not reverse in those counties. Moreover, the growth in reported case incidence (and mortality) was, overall, virtually indistinguishable in counties with and without mask mandates.

It turns out that the CDC paper made an incorrect assertion because the authors used data that was later updated. As statistical studies go, this sort of mistake is surely forgivable.

However, the CDC’s refusal to publicly acknowledge this incorrect assertionwe corresponded with the main author, as well as several editors and an Associate Director for Policy at the CDCis inexcusable. There simply is no room in legitimate scientific study for refusal to admit mistakes.”

Note that they misrepresented the facts and when caught—they refused to publically admit it—masks are as useful as Joe Biden.  Trust the CDC—not with my life depending on them—they lie and cheat.  And get caught doing both.

The CDC and Mask Mandates: Unmasking the Truth

Norbert J. Michel, Ph.D,, Doug Badger , 5/1/21  Heritage Foundation,

The growth in reported case incidence (and mortality) was, overall, virtually indistinguishable in counties with and without mask mandates.

While many facts were unknown when the disease first took hold in the United States, a great deal of the evidence was quite clear by May.

As the public health emergency abates, Congress, the media, and the American public should heavily scrutinize the agency’s procedures and practices.

Copied

How reliable are government declarations that mask mandates prevent the spread of the coronavirus?

Our recent experience with researchers from the U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention has left us less than confident that the public should trust the CDC’s published research, much less any pronouncements based on that research.

Our problem involves a paper that the CDC published in November. The paper studies mask mandates in Kansas because, in July, Gov. Laura Kelly issued an optional mask mandate. Counties could decide whether to enforce the mandate or opt-out.

Many counties did opt-out, but the larger metropolitan areas did not. Overall, twenty-four counties implemented a mask mandate, and eighty-one opted out.

The CDC paper argues that the mandates were a success. In particular, the paper claims that “the increasing trend in COVID-19 incidence reversed” in the Kansas counties with mask mandates.

We noticed, however, that this conclusion is incorrect. As our paper shows, the trend did not reverse in those counties. Moreover, the growth in reported case incidence (and mortality) was, overall, virtually indistinguishable in counties with and without mask mandates.

It turns out that the CDC paper made an incorrect assertion because the authors used data that was later updated. As statistical studies go, this sort of mistake is surely forgivable.

However, the CDC’s refusal to publicly acknowledge this incorrect assertionwe corresponded with the main author, as well as several editors and an Associate Director for Policy at the CDCis inexcusable. There simply is no room in legitimate scientific study for refusal to admit mistakes.

Our experience, sadly, is not unique. Even in those rare instances where government public health officials yield to scientific evidence and revise their recommendations, they seldom admit error.

On March 19, for example, the CDC abruptly changed its guidance for classrooms, saying that desks need only be separated by three feet, rather than six. The agency’s new “science brief” on the subject does not cite a single classroom-based study that found desks should be kept six feet apart, but lists numerous studies supporting the one-meter (3.3 feet) standard long favored by the World Health Organization and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

The agency brief did not cite a preprint study posted earlier in March that found, based on a review of numerous studies of classroom transmission, “no significant difference in student or staff case rates between schools with ≥3 versus ≥6 feet of distancing with a large sample size.”

The CDC changed its policy, but without acknowledging the damage its earlier recommendation inflicted on children, much less admitting error.

Unfortunately, throughout the pandemic, scientific facts have meant little. While many facts were unknown when the disease first took hold in the United States, a great deal of the evidence was quite clear by May.

Many facts are even clearer now.

For instance, most people who contract the coronavirus do recover, with the elderly and the sick, by far, the most vulnerable. Even ignoring the fact that many asymptomatic cases have gone unreported, the survival rate for anyone between ages 40 and 49 without regard to pre-existing health problemsis in the neighborhood of 99.7 percent. It’s even higher for younger people.

We also now know that lockdowns didn’t deliver on their promised health benefits. States that adhered to stringent lockdown strategies, like California and New York, report similar numbers of cases on a population-adjusted basis as those that imposed fewer restrictions, like Florida and Texas. Indeed, California’s overall rate of what epidemiologists call “excess mortality”the total number of deaths in a given period of time compared to historic trendis well above the national average and considerably higher than Florida’s, particularly among young adults.

The coronavirus retrospective must include a thorough evaluation of why, even after these facts were evident, so many government officials stuck to indiscriminate lockdown and mitigation policies. This kind of assessment will not be possible, though, without honest, legitimate scientific study.

recent op-ed written by Martin Kulldorff and Jay Bhattacharya does not bode well for such scientific rigor. It details how five prominent scientists “faced the modern-day inquisition” over their coronavirus-related work, and it is difficult to judge which of these cases is the most disheartening.

It is rather sad, for example, that the Journal of the American Medical Association published an opinion piece attacking Dr. Scott Atlas without engaging in his ideas.

Still, it’s difficult to judge if that case is worse than the one of epidemiologist Carl Heneghan, the head of the University of Oxford’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. UK officials attacked Heneghan after he publicized serious errors in official UK coronavirus statistics, and an article in the Guardian implied that Heneghan is part of “the anti-science lobby” after he pointed out that the only published randomized study on mask-wearing suggests that masks may not be effective in protecting against a coronavirus infection.

Government officials and the American people depend on legitimate scientific study, and they have shown extraordinary deference to the CDC throughout the past year. This deference rests on the presumption that the agency’s recommendations to shutter businesses, close schools, restrict public worship, and enforce mask mandates have a solid basis in science.

That confidence, in many instances, appears to have been misplaced. As the public health emergency abates, Congress, the media, and the American public should heavily scrutinize the agency’s procedures and practices.

This piece originally appeared in The National Interest https://nationalinterest.org/blog/coronavirus/cdc-and-mask-mandates-unmasking-truth-183755

Suicides on the rise amid stay-at-home order, Bay Area medical professionals say

Which kills more: the virus or the results of government action?  In the Bay Area, it could be that shelter in place has been the cause of numerous suicides—maybe more deaths by suicide than the virus.

“– Doctors at John Muir Medical Center in Walnut Creek say they have seen more deaths by suicide during this quarantine period than deaths from the COVID-19 virus.

The head of the trauma in the department believes mental health is suffering so much, it is time to end the shelter-in-place order.


“Personally I think it’s time,” said Dr. Mike deBoisblanc. “I think, originally, this (the shelter-in-place order) was put in place to flatten the curve and to make sure hospitals have the resources to take care of COVID patients. We have the current resources to do that and our other community health is suffering.”
There is a long term problem.  Government actions and the fear tactics have caused long term mental illness, a fear of others and people afraid to go out of their homes.  Children not only lost six months of education, so far, but are told by adults that other people will give them a deadly disease.  There are three winners of this virus:  1) Big government  2) attorneys getting to sue everybody  3) therapists who now have millions of new patients for a generation.  The big loser?  Freedom, honesty, trust, respect.

Suicides on the rise amid stay-at-home order, Bay Area medical professionals say

By Amy Hollyfield, ABC7,  5/21/20 

Doctors at John Muir Medical Center in Walnut Creek say they have seen more deaths by suicide during this quarantine period than deaths from the COVID-19 virus.

WALNUT CREEK, Calif. (KGO) — Doctors at John Muir Medical Center in Walnut Creek say they have seen more deaths by suicide during this quarantine period than deaths from the COVID-19 virus.

The head of the trauma in the department believes mental health is suffering so much, it is time to end the shelter-in-place order.


“Personally I think it’s time,” said Dr. Mike deBoisblanc. “I think, originally, this (the shelter-in-place order) was put in place to flatten the curve and to make sure hospitals have the resources to take care of COVID patients.We have the current resources to do that and our other community health is suffering.”

The numbers are unprecedented, he said.

“We’ve never seen numbers like this, in such a short period of time,” he said. “I mean we’ve seen a year’s worth of suicide attempts in the last four weeks.”

Kacey Hansen has worked as a trauma nurse at John Muir Medical Center in Walnut Creek for almost 33 years. She is worried because not only are they seeing more suicide attempts, she says they are not able to save as many patients as usual.

“What I have seen recently, I have never seen before,” Hansen said. “I have never seen so much intentional injury.”

The trauma team is speaking out because they want the community to be aware, for people to reach out and support each other and for those who are suffering to know they can get help.

John Muir Health provided a statement to ABC7 late Thursday, saying the organization as a whole is supportive of the shelter-in-place order in the Bay Area.

“John Muir Health has been, and continues to be, supportive of the Shelter-in-Place order put in place by Contra Costa County Health Services to prevent the spread of COVID-19. We realize there are a number of opinions on this topic, including within our medical staff, and John Muir Health encourages our physicians and staff to participate constructively in these discussions. We all share a concern for the health of our community whether that is COVID-19, mental health, intentional violence or other issues. We continue to actively work with our Behavioral Health Center, County Health and community organizations to increase awareness of mental health issues and provide resources to anyone in need. If you are in a crisis and need help immediately, please call 211 or 800-833-2900 or text ‘HOPE’ to 20121 now. We are all in this together, and ask the community to please reach out to anyone who you think might be in need during this challenging time. Thank you.”

The Contra Costa County Crisis Center has counselors available to answer their hotline 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The call is free and confidential.

The executive director says a call to the 1-800-273-TALK can make a huge difference.


“Generally speaking the vast majority of people say they feel better after they call and get the resources they need,” said Executive Director Tom Tamura. “With help comes hope. I think that there are people and organizations out there that you can contact that can get you the information you need and resources you need to get you through this tough time.”

He said calls to their hotline are up, but not dramatically.

He thinks that could be because people aren’t seeing their usual network of support. That is where the encouragement to make a phone call can come from.

“I think people have found themselves disconnected from the normal supportive networks that they have, churches and schools and book clubs, you name it,” Tamura said. “And that, coupled with the closure of some counseling services, people were maybe in a little bit of shock.They were trying to weather the storm a bit but as that isolation has grown people have come to realize this isn’t a sprint it is marathon.”

He says it’s important for all of us to be reaching out to people and making connections.

Hansen says in-person meetings are even OK if it will help mental health.

“Six feet away, wear a mask, wash your hands going in, don’t touch, you can see people socially distancing safely,” she said.


Hansen says a focus on mental health is very important right
“They intend to die,” Hansen said. “Sometimes, people will make what we call a ‘gesture’. It’s a cry for help.We’re just seeing something a little different than that right now. It’s upsetting.”

Hansen and deBoisblanc say they are seeing mostly young adults die by suicide.They are worried about the stress that isolation and job loss can bring as this quarantine continues.

If you or someone you know needs help, call 1-800-273-TALK. Or if you can’t remember that number, 211 can get you to the resource you need.

The shelter-in-place order is currently set to expire at 11:59 p.m. on May 31.

Contra Costa Health Services released a statement in response to the trauma team at John Muir Medical Center.

“We strongly encourage everyone in distress to seek help from mental health professionals and local resources such as 211 (the Crisis Center),” the statement read. “We understand that this is a very difficult time for many people and it can feel very isolating to practice social distancing. We want to stress that the shelter-in-place order is saving lives at the same time. It’s not uncommon for medical professionals can have differing opinions on courses of treatment for many health issues. The Shelter-in-Place order is no different. We will continue to look to the science of our identified indicators as we determine how best to move forward.”

SD City Council Moves Forward on $900 Million Affordable Housing Bond Measure

I hate when government lies.  Like most government, San Diego is refusing to tell the public that while “affordable housing” might get $900 million—it also means Wall Street will get another $90 million.  The real winners are the rich and greedy, the losers are the families of California.

“The San Diego City Council moved a step closer Tuesday to placing a $900 million bond measure on the November ballot in hopes of dramatically expanding affordable housing in the city to address homelessness.

On a 6-3 vote, the council approved a resolution clearing the way for its staff to craft a ballot measure and bring it back to the council for another vote in June. If approved again by two-thirds of the council, the bond issue would go before voters in November. It would also require approval from two-thirds of voters.

Will San Diego hack politicians tells the voters that in Los Angeles, that city built affordable housing at a cost of upwards of $700,000 per condo unit?  Or that in San Fran the average pay for a bureaucrat working on the homeless issue is $120,000 per year?  What is the plan to spend the money>  In the fine print you will note that only those that pay bribes to unions will be allowed to work—that means 15-20% payoff to the unions—money meant  to fix the problem, instead is used to payoff the political special interests.

City Council Moves Forward on $900 Million Affordable Housing Bond Measure

Times of San Diego,  1/14/20 

The San Diego City Council moved a step closer Tuesday to placing a $900 million bond measure on the November ballot in hopes of dramatically expanding affordable housing in the city to address homelessness.

On a 6-3 vote, the council approved a resolution clearing the way for its staff to craft a ballot measure and bring it back to the council for another vote in June. If approved again by two-thirds of the council, the bond issue would go before voters in November. It would also require approval from two-thirds of voters.

Council members Mark Kersey, Chris Cate and Scott Sherman cast the dissenting votes.

The idea of the housing bond was originally proposed two years ago by the San Diego Housing Federation. The bond is expected to fund roughly 7,500 affordable housing units. The bonds would be paid through an increase in property taxes of 19 cents per $1,000 of assessed valuation, or roughly $18 a year for the average homeowner.

“I live in a nice house in Bay Ho and this will cost me less than $18 a year, that’s $9 every six months,” Councilwoman Jennifer Campbell said. “I would pay $100 every six months. That’s affordable.”

She added, “We have to make up for past sins, and we’re going to do it.”

Opponents of the proposal said the cost is too high and the government is too incompetent to effectively handle the crisis.

“Government caused this crisis,” Kersey said. “The government made it too expensive to build.”

Kersey, Cate and Sherman contended that raising the cost of living for their constituents was fundamentally unfair.

“We have low-income housing and we have luxury housing,” Sherman said. “And nothing in-between. We should be incentivizing developers. We have the solution, it’s so easy to do.”

In last year’s homeless point-in-time count, San Diego identified 5,082 people as homeless, including 572 chronically homeless. Of those, more than half were unsheltered, a significantly higher proportion than the national average of 24.6%, according to the National Alliance to End Homelessness. Of those numbers, 13% are veterans, 2% are families and 11% are youths.

Kathleen Ferrier, policy director for Council District 3, said San Diego “lags behind our peer cities” in providing affordable housing.

The 2018 Housing Inventory Annual Report found San Diego had 0.38 housing units per person, compared to Denver and Seattle, which came in at 0.45 and 0.48 units per person, respectively.

Stephen Russell, executive director of the San Diego Housing Federation, said the city needs the bond measure to address the humanitarian crisis, but also because it was losing money by simply not acting. He said the $900 million in municipal bonds would be paid with property tax revenue and a significant portion could be matched with state funds — a fact which has not escaped other California cities.

“San Francisco and Los Angeles are literally eating our lunch,” he said before imploring the council to vote to pass the resolution. “Give citizens of San Diego a chance. … We need solutions to respond to the scale of the problem.”

Councilwoman Vivian Moreno said passing a bond with local funding would be the first step in securing state funding and housing credits, and without the bond, San Diego is at a significant disadvantage compared to other large Californian cities.

Russell and Ferrier showed initial polling numbers indicating 71% of likely voters would support the ballot measure. The same poll showed that 83% of respondents considered homelessness to be a top issue in their community.

Jim Vargas, president/CEO of Father Joe’s Villages, praised the council for advancing the issue.

“The lack of affordable housing is the largest crisis facing our city and is a key barrier to ending homelessness,” Vargas said.

When Shelters Are Full, Can Cities Herd Homeless People Into Jails?

On Monday, the Supreme Court declined to take on a case about how the city of Boise, Idaho, treats its homeless citizens, leaving in place a ruling that says it’s unconstitutional to punish people for sleeping outdoors if the city lacks alternatives.

The justices turned away Martin v. Boise, a case where a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled that Boise’s practice of citing homeless people for camping outdoors violated the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishments since these people did not have alternative shelter options.

This doesn’t mean that people can just choose to sleep on sidewalks and in parks if they want to, but rather that a city cannot punish homeless people for camping in public space if the city has not provided enough shelter for them. It’s a ruling about shelters and housing, not an acknowledgment of some sort of right to live on public land.

The city of Boise has since changed its ordinances to state that they won’t be enforced against homeless people when shelters are full. But the Supreme Court’s refusal to take the case leaves big cities with large homeless populations along the West Coast (where the Ninth Circuit rules) with a clear message that they can’t use the law to try to run their homeless population out of town—the only way out is to build.

That’s a problem in places like Los Angeles and San Francisco, where overly meddlesome regulations and demands from the state and the cities make it very, very hard (if not impossible) for private developers to build any housing at all, let alone affordable housing for the poor. Expensive labor requirements drive up costs, and unions threaten environmental lawsuits against developers who don’t contract with them. There’s also the issue of homeowners who will lobby their local council members and city planners to block new housing or businesses (or turn to California’s overly broad environmental law to sue them, if lobbying fails).

It’s particularly telling that the Los Angeles Times describes this outcome as a “setback” for city officials in Los Angeles and elsewhere for getting rid of homeless encampments. Even though the city has committed more than $1 billion to build housing for its massive homeless population, resistance from within neighborhoods themselves have made it nearly impossible, and even where it is possible, regulatory and bureaucratic hurdles have made it absurdly expensive, approaching $700,000 a unit. …

Click here to read the full article from Reason.com

Canfield: Glossary: The Green Regime’s Eco-Speak.

Real words no longer have the meanings we have been taught in school or are listed in a dictionary.  The “woke” crowd have changed the meaning of words, to make the words less threatening.  Or then making new definitions for the words—so that educated people do not know what is really being said.  For instance:

“Biodiversity. Biodiversity Excludes Humans. Biodiversity seeks a large, unchanging, and static number of biological species except for one species, human beings. Biodiversity seeks to minimize human presence, habitat, mobility, health and existence. Advocates of biodiversity ban killing mosquitoes, expand species populations, limit family sizes, and control human populations–abortion, infanticide, gendercide.

Manmade biodiversity, horticulture, animal breeding, hybrid plants, Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), e.g. productive agriculture feeding billions of human beings, is bad.”

You read that right—the killing of mosquito’s is bad based on biodiversity—but killing babies is OK.  Bet you never knew Democrats are protective of mosquito s and hateful toward babies.

Glossary: The Green Regime’s Eco-Speak.

By Dr. Roger B. Canfield, 12/17.19 

excerpt from Death by Ecology; Killing California, America Next  (https://www.amazon.com/author/rogercanfield 

)

The Green Regime has its own language, a politically correct distortion of language and reality to fit its ideological war on western civilization and capitalism. It is a language of ignorance and deceit, just like Orwellian Doublespeak and Newspeak. In Doublespeak, language is deliberately euphemistic, ambiguous, or obscure. Newspeak is doublespeak carrying political propaganda. In Orwell’s 1984, the Ministry of Truth promoted lies. Orwell’s ruling one party state declared War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength. Dissenting ideas were thought crimes.

Similarly, the language of the Green Regime strays far from logic, facts and reality. Ordinary words take on new meanings. Criticisms of the ideology rise to the level of thought crimes, religious heresy, disaster denials, or even hate speech (Environmental justice).

Below an alphabetical sample of eco-speak.

***

Access. Freedom is Mobility Denied.Access to high-density, high-rise (Soviet style) housing and public transit is virtuous. Actual access to cars, parking, single-family homes, commuting and designated “public” areas is prohibited, restricted or limited. Environmentally correct access abhors excessive mobility, freedom, and automobiles. Promoters of “access” routinely deny humans access to the safe spaces and habitat of other species in public forests, parks, monuments, wildernesses and scenic areas.

Big. Big is Evil. In environmental usage Big is a euphemism for evil as in Big Business, particularly Big Oil, Big Chemical, Big Pharma, Big Pesticide, Big Lumber, Big Diaper, Big Beverage, etc. Big is synonymous with corporate, capitalist, e.g. corporate agriculture. Big is the code name for the most evil thing, capitalism.  

Biodiversity. Biodiversity Excludes Humans. Biodiversity seeks a large, unchanging, and static number of biological species except for one species, human beings. Biodiversity seeks to minimize human presence, habitat, mobility, health and existence. Advocates of biodiversity ban killing mosquitoes, expand species populations, limit family sizes, and control human populations–abortion, infanticide, gendercide.

Manmade biodiversity, horticulture, animal breeding, hybrid plants, Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs), e.g. productive agriculture feeding billions of human beings, is bad.   

Capitalism. Freedom is Slavery. Capitalism is a stale and stagnant thing poisoning air, water, land and species for profit at the expense of the common good. Key elements of capitalism, individual freedom, private property and profits ought to be limited, confiscated, fined and taxed. 

Eco-speak turns upside down the wisdom of Frederick Douglass, to whom individual freedom was the answer to the real stagnant thing, slavery.  

CARB. All There is to Fear is Air Itself. California Air Resources Board is an Air Force, militantly exercising extreme prejudice against industrialization, manufacturing, irrigation, and small business. Carbon, methane, ozone, and just plain dust make virtually all air dirty and subject to CARB regulation.

Air is no longer free. It must be paid for in taxes, fees, property and regulations. 

CED. Tyranny is Democracy. Campaign for Economic Democracy is socialism by another name advanced by reducing capitalist plunder on the planet. Eco-tyranny will replace capitalist imperialism.

Clean. Green is Clean. Clean is no detectable level of any suspect mineral, chemical or substance in parts per trillion. Clean is cleaner than nature’s own river or spring water. Sewage water is cleaner than municipal drinking water. Summarily convicting corporations for poisoning clean air and clean water generates fear, hysteria and a straight path to political power of the accuser.

Climate. Weather is Bad. Manmade climate change causes undesirable dynamic changes in temperature, sunshine, wind, precipitation. See also the old school term extreme weather

Conservation. Less is More.Scarcity is Good. In California, conservation turned abundance resources into scarcity by prohibiting, reducing or rationing water, timber, minerals, e.g.  California’s 55 gallon a day ration of residential water use. Growing food wastes water. Conservation justifies stopping the building of roads, bridges, dams aqueducts, and suburban housing.

Diversion. Diversion is Theft. Diversion is the illegitimate excess human use of water that might otherwise rightfully passing through the gills of fish or the intestines of other wildlife. Humans divert water from suckerfish, salmon and Delta smelt.

It is considered an outrage that in some years, 90 percent of the Tuolumne River is diverted [to San Francisco], leaving only 10 percent for salmon and the Bay-Delta.

Equity. Some Are More Equal Than Others. Equity is dividing water equally, half to 40 million human beings, half to a few protected fish species. Trillions of gallons of “scarce” precious water equivalent to billions of dollars, are flushed past human uses to save handfuls of Delta Smelt. It would be far cheaper to construct fish hatcheries for all DNA varieties of salmon and smelt.

ESA. TheEndangered Species Act(s) of California and the USA are absolutist laws demanding the preservation of hundreds of species and their habitat from humans accused (with scant science) of threatening or endangering them. Environmental researchers typically down play the impacts of such forces of nature as weather and predators upon species and their habitats.  By law, the economic impact of the ESA upon human well-being or property rights may not be used in species preservation decisions.   

Facilitator. Censored Speech is Free Speech. A facilitator is a well-paid manipulator of stakeholder discussions toward a preconceived consensus.

Gas Tax. Grand Theft Auto. A highway user fee collected from those promised to benefit from spending the collected revenue on roads and bridges. Yet over some decades, California, has spent 80% of gas taxes, tolls, sales taxes on gasoline on “public” transit, bike paths, pedestrian crossings, curb cuts all benefiting very few at the expense of the many.  

Green House Gases (GHG). Deadly Vapors.Gases allegedly destroy the ozone layer subjecting human beings to sunburns or skin cancer (over a lifetime). The State of California has “determined” the guilty “greenhouse gases” are Carbon dioxide (CO2), Methane (CH4), Nitrous oxide (N2O), Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), Perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).

Regulators have left no suspects, from manufacturers to farmers, bakers, and hair salons, free from conviction by accusation. 

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). Food is Unsafe. Man’s domestication of wheat, corn. rice, potatoes, fruits, vegetables and cattle, has modified them genetically. The war on GMOs is actually a war on Big Food and Big Chemical. To sow discord, the Russians have widely disseminated anti-GMO propaganda in the USA.

Green. Red is Green. Humpty Dumpty said, “When I use a word ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.” What’s now called green was once openly authoritarian socialist, communist party red, and Nazi red and black. The Old Left red remains under green camouflage.

Irrespective of facts, the green regime arbitrarily defines what is green and what is not. Hence, the low emissions of natural gas compared to coal or oil and the actual zero emissions of nuclear power and of hydroelectric power are arbitrarily rejected as green or clean by the Green Regime. Facts do not matter. 

Habitat. Private Property is Theft. Air, land and sea is set aside for species to insure their protection from human beings. Designated species, given habitat, receive it from human housing, farming, lumbering, mining, and recreation. Habitat for humanity is condemned and limited

Housing. Do Not build It and They Will Go Away. Human housing is an unfortunate human desecration of soil, land and wildlife habitat. Suburban housing also violates the most enlightened aesthetic and enlightened sensibilities– e.g. ticky-tacky suburban housing tracts. Further, no growth, low growth and slow growth, and restrictive zoning have spectacularly succeeded in reducing housing supplies, making housing unaffordable for most Californians and stimulated mass evacuations.

Management. The Memo is Everything. The administration of processes and people contemplating problems, solutions and alternatives, but doing little about them, e.g. flood management displaces the actual building of flood control projects. No dams, levees, weirs, or flood plains, protecting human life and property, are built. Ideally, human habitat is prohibited or people are relocated from low ground where water flows. Human civilization has long been located close to water on flat ground and swamps were drained and filled in accommodate human habitation.

Forest management does little to manage the forest except to lecture and blame others for how little is done. 

Mitigation. Theft is Justice.Those presumed guilty of damaging theenvironment are required to mitigation, make amends, for their alleged violations of the environment. Mitigation is usually takes the form of taking cash or property in the form of extortions of high fines, fees and taxes and the taking of private property often without due process or compensation. 

Natural. Nature Good, Chemicals Bad. Environmentalists have a static, fixed view of nature whether it climate, species, foods and human bodies. Human modifications of climate, species and foods are dangerous.

“Natural” foods are free of chemicals and processing. Yet natural foods are not nutritionally different from other foods. Of course, all food preparation is some form of processing—washing, slicing, dicing, spicing, culturing, fermenting, cooking etc. Because foods are mostly safe and nutritious, the Food and Drug Administration sees no need for health standards for foods with tiny traces of chemicals.

Organic. Safe Food is Chemical Free. All things, animal, vegetable and mineral are chemical. There is no such thing as inorganic food. Lifeless dirt in inedible. All food is organic. Food designated organic is largely a consumer fraud detrimental not only to one’s pocketbook, but also to the health and nutrition of people terrified of safe food. Heavy regulations born, like Rosemary’s Baby, out of the anti-pesticide hysteria campaigns insured fresh fruits and vegetables became too expensive for poor people to buy.

Planning. The Plan is Final. Environmental planning is typicallyconsumed inthe writing of massive environmental reports, process memos, and the building of bureaucracies to achieve some ideal of things seldom possible or lethargically done, e.g. super fund cleanups, supposedly presenting great dangers to human health, take decades to cleanup, but provided long careers for a few bureaucrats.   

Progress. Progress is Moving Backwards.Progress demands halting industrialization, manufacturing, mining and farming and limiting growth, automobiles, suburban housing, water, and electricity. Going nowhere really slow is progress, a bullet train from Bakersfield to Merced.

Public Transportation. Neither Public Nor Transit. The public writ large avoids it and it transports close to no one.   

“Pure Water.” The Pure Water program recycles toilet water, both to replace water from Carmel River to save species and as an alternative to desalination polluting the salty Pacific Ocean. 

School Bond. Grand Theft Schooling. Money, collected and promised to build or repair student classrooms for schools with declining enrollments, is used instead to pay and office bureaucrats and to fund bankrupted teacher retirement systems. California has the best-paid teachers and administrators and the worst schools dedicated to environmental and progressive indoctrination.

Science. Science is Religious Orthodoxy. Science is whatever research governments, NGOs and foundations decide to fund. The 99% science occurs where the money goes. The Green regime deems, declares, denier and capitalist scientific research is just heresy. 

Smart. Stupid is Smart. Smart on crime means releasing all criminals or redefining down, decriminalizing, murder, rape, assaults and theft. Similarly, smart environmentalism opposes housing, the automobile, dams, aqueducts, roads, bridges. The smart environmentalist deplores all the advances of human civilization from agriculture to logging, trade, money, mining, industrialization and manufacturing.

Stakeholder. Crony Consensus. A stakeholder is a person or an organization selectively invited to participate in amicable rule making and in administrative law decisions. Those who might object, ordinary citizens or their elected representatives, are not informed of or not invited to help decide. Tight agendas and long meetings discourage and exhaust those who show up uninvited.

Sustainable. Sustainable is the Unattainable. To sustain a thing is to keep it static, the same. Neither Nature nor economics follow the doctrine of sustainability. Environmentalists dismiss dynamic natural forces such as the sun, earthquakes, and floods.  The dynamics of economic growth and technological innovations are often condemned.

The purest environmentalism is a utopian end state of no species extinctions and the absence of bad weather. The sustainability of species does not include the well-being of human species. The human species is only tolerated living and working at subsistence levels as low- income baristas, maids, chauffeurs, cooks. Such creatures are privileged to serve a leisure class usually given access to nature off limits to most others.

Sustainability was originally a compromise concept allowing “good development” of third world countries, while the rest of the world wound down growth, industrialization, and population.   

Takings. We Shall Steal is the first environmental commandment:. Environmentalists are very concerned with the taking of the lives and habitats of protected species. Such takings of species are ruthlessly prosecuted through the taking of private property with minimal due process under the 14th Amendment and without just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. Radical losses of the value of private property are routine.

Transportation. Going Nowhere Slow with High Costs and Low Benefits. “Public” transit is moving proportionately small numbers of persons short distances by all manner of trains, buses and bicycles, but not automobiles.

The best transportation for the environment is the most primitive for humans–hiking, biking, walking, and busing. California Republican leader Ross Johnson once said he was willing to spend billions on roads and bridges, but not a nickel on “transportation.”

The principal exception is billions spent on a bullet train, if ever built, going very, very fast from nowhere to nowhere, Bakersfield to Modesto.

Visionary. Fantasies are Visionary. The description the California Coastal Commission gave to San Diego’s no parking plan was “visionary,” a delusional fantasy. San Diego is over budgets for bikeways.

Vehicles Miles Traveled. VTM. Have Car Cannot Travel. The ideal is zero vehicle miles traveled. Dense housing, public transit, bike paths and pedestrian walkways replace car miles traveled.

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). Evil Vapors Are Everywhere, particularly in gas stations, body shops, hair salons and bakeries. VOCsare gases, smells, scents, often formaldehyde, emitted in paints, resins and coatings. Exposure is irritating to the senses and ought to be avoided.

Yet enviros have stimulated medieval fears of unseen things, vapors, as imaginary causes of multiple diseases usually by mere statistical association and over hum,an lifetimes during which other things can happen including nothing at all. 

Water Bond. Grand Theft Water. A promise to build new water storage, with only 12% of bond funds borrowed actually used to store water during wet years and to move water from the wet north to the dry south of California.   

Weather. Old school term used to describe changes in temperature, precipitation, wind speeds etc replaced by “climate” usually modified by cooling, warming or changing. Overlooking sun spot cycles, magnetic fields, volcanos, earthquakes and ocean currents, climate alarmists explain naturally occurring extremes in weather as entirely the result of manmade changes in climate.

Zero Emission Vehicles. ZEV. The Future of Mobility is Immobility. Many are led to believe electric cars are run by “clean” electricity produced by the sun and wind. In fact, electricity generated from natural gas, coal, oil, nuclear and hydroelectric power plants charge most car batteries. Generating electricity from burning fuels produces emissions. There is no such thing as a “zero” emission vehicle, until ancient sailing skills are returned.