YubNub Social YubNub Social
    #astronomy #astrophysics #cosmology #blackhole #keckobservatory #plasma #galaxy #keckcosmicwebimager #kcwi #vv340a #jetprecession #radiojet
    Advanced Search
  • Login
  • Register

  • Night mode
  • © 2026 YubNub Social
    About • Directory • Contact Us • Developers • Privacy Policy • Terms of Use • shareasale • FB Webview Detected • Android • Apple iOS • Get Our App

    Select Language

  • English
Install our *FREE* WEB APP! (PWA)
Night mode toggle
Community
New Posts (Home) ChatBox Popular Posts Reels Game Zone Top PodCasts
Explore
Explore
© 2026 YubNub Social
  • English
About • Directory • Contact Us • Developers • Privacy Policy • Terms of Use • shareasale • FB Webview Detected • Android • Apple iOS • Get Our App
Advertisement
Stop Seeing These Ads

Discover posts

Posts

Users

Pages

Blog

Market

Events

Games

Forum

Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
6 w

Favicon 
spectator.org

Trump Critics Unintentionally Elevate His Successor

By continuously vilifying him, Trump’s critics elevate his successor by default. Their intensifying and increasingly irrational attacks make them look extreme. Solely focusing on Trump also eclipses the development of any positive agenda to counter his. Finally, their continuing attacks will make his successor look good in comparison to the caricature they have created. Donald Trump’s critics have attacked him relentlessly for a decade. Increasing in intensity and virulence during his first term, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tore up her copy of his State of the Union address on the podium behind him; his administration was investigated continuously, and he was impeached twice. By 2024, Trump was being called a fascist — not just by backbencher attack dogs, but by President Biden and then seconded by Kamala Harris when she became the Democrats’ nominee. Still only in his second term’s first year, Trump is the object of “No Kings” rallies and calls from congressional Democrats to members of the military for disobedience to the orders of their commander in chief. Recently, the New York Times ran a piece about Trump’s age and its impact on his schedule: This from the flagship of establishment media that ignored the obvious frailties of the older Joe Biden, until these could no longer be denied, and now fall over themselves confessing they knew about Biden’s failures all along. (RELATED: ‘Don’t Give Up The Ship’? Seriously?) As Trump’s critics spiral ever deeper into their invectives, they court mounting collateral damage from their exercises in self-gratification. For one, Trump’s critics give increasing credence to charges of “Trump Derangement Syndrome.” Ever more emulating their accusation of extremism, histrionics cast them as ideologues with only a single goal in mind: Destroy Trump. Voters want to know more than where you are not going; they want to know your intended destination. For another, excessive focus on Trump eclipses focus on anything else — including formulating a positive agenda. Recent gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey showed Democrats running more against the president in Washington than their opponents in the state. However, running exclusively against Trump — as they undoubtedly will in 2026 and 2028 — means not articulating what his critics are for. National races, especially the presidency, are about steering the ship of state. Voters want to know more than where you are not going; they want to know your intended destination. Absent that, they are unlikely to get on board. For Trump’s critics, their attacks’ most important fallout is the most unintended: the de facto elevation of Trump’s successor. By demonizing Trump down to caricature, they make anyone else look good in comparison. Having made “not Trump” the standard, any Trump successor will meet that, solving the primary problem Trump’s critics have defined. Trump’s critics fail to realize that the president’s successor is more important to their future than Trump is. (RELATED: The Curious Candidacy of JD Vance) Trump’s successor has a good chance to appeal to a wider group of voters than Trump does now. In 2024, Trump’s divisiveness cost him 9 percent of conservatives, 40 percent of moderates, and 49 percent of Independents. Trump’s successor has ample room to grow in all three groups, adding significantly to Trump’s 2024 vote total — a vote total that swamped Harris in the electoral college. If victorious in 2028, Trump’s successor could also hold the presidency for two consecutive terms, taking Republican presidencies into 2037. Such a scenario is hardly unusual. Elected presidents winning second terms are the historical norm: Between 1933 and 2024, Carter (1976), George H.W. Bush (1992), and Trump (2020) are the only elected presidents to lose reelection. And holding the presidency for three consecutive terms is not out of the question; in the last century, both parties have done so: Republicans twice (1920, 1924, and 1928; 1980, 1984, and 1988) and Democrats once (1932-1948). The animosity of Trump’s critics prevents them from seeing Trump’s comparatively high floor of support. According to Real Clear Politics’ December 1 average of national polling, Trump’s 42.6 percent job approval is higher than Obama’s in 2013 (40.1 percent) and George W. Bush’s in 2005 (40.4 percent). Yes, Trump’s favorability rating is just 43.2 percent; however, the Democrat Party’s is just 34 percent. The upshot is: Trump’s successor could have an even higher ceiling of support.  Trump critics’ virulent attacks only enhance that potential. If Trump’s critics succeed in establishing “anyone but Trump” as the acceptable standard — something they are well on the way to doing — with Trump constitutionally term-limited, Republicans are guaranteed to meet it. Republicans can also do so with a policy agenda that got Trump elected in 2024, so long as Democrats refuse to go beyond their visceral anti-Trump opposition. And Republicans can do so as they look more moderate than Trump critics and Democrats, who now look like extremists in their blind pursuit of Trump. READ MORE from J.T. Young: The Price of Democrats’ Extremism What Did Professional Sports Expect? A Time for War and a Time for Peace J.T. Young is the author of the recent book, Unprecedented Assault: How Big Government Unleashed America’s Socialist Left, from RealClear Publishing. Follow him on Substack.
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
6 w

Favicon 
spectator.org

Bad Presidents or Bad Government?

No matter where one looks these days, there is an explosion of anger over the decline in political ethics and the dominant role now played by moral relativism in American governance. Consider two of today’s more serious commentators. Rahm Emanuel is a former White House chief of staff, ambassador to Japan, congressman, Chicago mayor, and is a reasonably moderate Democrat. Still, in assessing President Donald Trump and his administration today, he perceives a “permissive culture of self-dealing in public and private-sector finance” that is absolutely “nefarious.” To him, Trump’s friends and family “simply use the president’s time in office to enrich themselves.” On policy, he finds that Trump has been “peevish and nasty — a man driven by a revenge” that “looks, from a distance, a lot like graft.” One “can quibble over whether smoking guns tie the president personally to any corrupt act,” he concludes, but he “cannot hide” “the enrichment of the president’s family and friends while he’s in office.” Emanuel concedes that earlier scandals have occurred, but they were subjected to “pounding” congressional and media scrutiny. “That’s no longer the case” in this “scandal-a-day environment” when it is not necessary “to convince the public that there is corruption” but only requires the opposition to make the political case for a return to earlier standards. Or consider an analysis from the other side of the political spectrum by Gerard Baker, a 30-year journalist who was editor-in-chief and now is a weekly columnist for The Wall Street Journal and writer for some of the world’s most pre-eminent news organizations. He chides his own Republican party, which “once liked to think of itself as committed to values and principles” but now has become the most cynical exponent of the “idea that everything is relative.” When confronted with evidence of “some new infamy by their president,” many Republicans choose to “avoid the unrewarding path of moral consistency.” Such moral relativism allows one to establish the moral value of everything by “judging not on the basis of whether they are intrinsically right or wrong, but by the lesser standard of whether someone in a similar position might have done something similar.” And this allows allies to avoid censure for not criticizing one of their own. “Over time it dulls the conscience to any moral hierarchy” of values, which is “never a legal defense and shouldn’t be a moral one.” Moral relativism by public figures “is as old as time itself,” Baker concedes, but when it becomes “the controlling ethical architecture of public behavior, we are in serious trouble.” Just consider the so-called justice system, “in which the president essentially gets to decide who should be in prison. If you’re a political enemy, we’ll come up with a crime to fit your punishment. If you’re a friend, we will annul you.” How high up the moral hierarchy are today’s actions? Emanuel specifically charged: 1) “some” among “Trump’s friends, family and acquaintances “enrich themselves.” 2) Retribution determines who Trump will “sic the Justice Department” upon. 3) Trump’s actions generally support what looks “from a distance a lot like graft.”4) His presidential pardons free influential people, from crypto to foreign sources who can “gift” him and his family in return. (RELATED: Karma Comes Calling for John Bolton) Baker is more concerned with the general relativism of Trump supporters’ moral equivalence, the “influentials” who make excuses for their party and friends. He specifically mentions the Binance chief executive’s pardon, followed by a “lucrative financial partnership for the president and his family.” He is concerned with the president “selling” the East Wing of the White House and the president “making personal laws and dispensing arbitrary justice.” (RELATED: Burisma, Meet Your Brother Binance) How do these charges compare historically? Chester Arthur was a president known for reforming a spoils system that sold governmental appointments to political and financial allies. In judging the moral hierarchy for presidents then and today, his biographer Zachary Karabell noted that in the Gilded Age, what has been charged against Trump today seems qualified or even relatively tame, mostly then considered legal, and was considered “honest graft.” Today, he says, the “bulk” of the Trump money “appears to have come from various cryptocurrency enterprises launched mostly by his sons” and “hundreds of products — Bibles, guitars, perfume and more — for sale at the Trump Store and other outlets.” A jumbo jet gift to the presidency from the Qatari government and “allegations” about pardons would fit right into the early-day picture. What about more recent history? Lyndon Johnson’s closest assistant was caught in a “Bobby Baker Scandal.” Richard Nixon had a Watergate scandal that led to his own resignation. George H.W. Bush had several sons and a brother accused of improper family business dealings. Bill Clinton had his Whitewater, Lewinsky, Travelgate, Filegate, and Impeachment scandals. George W. Bush had his Halliburton, Blackwater, and attorney general resignation scandals. Barack Obama had Internal Revenue Service actions against conservative political organizations. Admittedly, there were also the relatively straight Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, but even the former had an out-of-control brother and the latter a largely divided White House. It is now simply impossible to keep private parties out of government decision-making. Gerard Baker is certainly correct that government should be judged by objective rather than relativist standards. But government is also different, especially today’s nationalized, centralized, bureaucratized, complex system that dominates any major private social activity. It is now simply impossible to keep private parties out of government decision-making. No one can fully understand what the enormous bureaucracy does, including other bureaucrats. The only internal government oversight process is an appraisal system that does not and cannot work. And any employee can go to the media to undermine their political superiors. Even Trump critic Fareed Zakaria concedes that the “finely tuned mechanism” of the Constitutional separation of powers and the limited presidency “had seized up” “by the 1960s,” culminating in “the constitutional crises of the Vietnam War and Watergate.” “Wars, economic crises and the media’s tendency to nationalize and centralize attention created a one-way ratchet for increasing, unchecked presidential power.” So, should one not conclude that the problem today is not President Trump, but the apparatus handed over to him by decades of progressive policies? The real solution today is to go back to the Founders and limit what the national government does. Government today basically influences every major business and social act. As long as this is so, there will be deals and favoritism and power. The only solution is the Founders’ one, for the government to do less, which will result in better decentralized government decisions and their greater moral consistency. One might start with the Constitution’s Article 1, Section 8. READ MORE from Donald Devine: What Does the Great Gold Spike Signify for the World Economy? Artificial Intelligence Requires Human Understanding Trump on Tariffs, Trade, and Pragmatic Populism Donald Devine is a senior scholar at the Fund for American Studies in Washington, D.C. He served as President Ronald Reagan’s civil service director during his first term in office. A former professor, he is the author of 11 books, including his most recent, The Enduring Tension: Capitalism and the Moral Order, and Ronald Reagan’s Enduring Principles, and is a frequent contributor to The American Spectator.
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
6 w

Favicon 
spectator.org

America’s Universities: A Multi-Generational Perspective

I recently passed my 85th birthday, having been born on a now constitutionally prohibited event in American history (the Election Day victory of FDR to a third term) in 1940. Old age can be annoying, filled with aches, pains, and memory loss, but it does confer a sometimes useful longish historical perspective. I have now passed two-thirds of a century directly involved in America’s colleges and universities, first as a student, then as a professor, and even as a public policy guru offering commentary on the state of higher education at the bequest of politically powerful potentates. I was teaching class the day John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, and participated in a PhD in history final examination very recently. What are the big changes over my career (which was preceded by growing up in the shadow of a major research university, the University of Illinois, in the 1940s and 1950s)? Learning has declined per student even as the number of them has grown. Actually, this proposition is a bit hard to prove, since universities, in the business of disseminating information, try hard to keep the public from being informed on how much their students actually learn. Government time use data suggests the typical student spends perhaps 30 percent less time on academic activities today than in the Golden Age when I was in college, mid-last century. (RELATED: The Outrageous Scandal That Should Be Rocking Higher Education) Grade inflation. The declining work effort of students reflects the fact that at most schools today, including virtually all the elite ones, grades below “B” are rare, and a large percentage of students get an “A.” Personally, typically in a big principles of economics class in the 1960s, maybe 5 to 10 percent of my students got A grades, the most common grade was “C,” and large numbers (at least 20 percent, often more) got “D” or “F” grades. Today, an untenured professor giving those grades might lose her job — we can’t damage the delicate self-esteem of today’s youth. (RELATED: The Poisonous Fruit of Youth Worship) The faculty, always moderately liberal, has become more so, and generally less tolerant of divergent points of view, jeopardizing robust civil debate of issues of the day. Conservative faculty and students increasingly self-censor, worried about negative effects of expressing views that are actually in sync with those of a majority of the American populace. The pronounced leftish orientation of campuses has probably contributed importantly to a radicalization of American politics, including such phenomena as New York City electing a hard-left socialist as mayor. (RELATED: Bowdoin College: Finishing School for a Socialist) Frenetic growth has been replaced by enrollment stagnation or even decline, and additionally reflects a flight to quality by students. New or rapidly growing state universities of modest reputation booming in the mid-20th century are usually now facing falling or precariously stable enrollments, while the top schools, especially private ones, have record numbers of attendees, although perceived excesses of the past few years have significantly hurt some elite schools, especially in the Ivy League. Administrative bloat has become very real, very expensive, and very disruptive to promoting an atmosphere devoted to learning and discovery. The faculty can be loony and impractical, but they are mostly scholars primarily devoted to teaching and research, typically worrying at least somewhat less about, say, the racial composition of their students, or campus efforts to promote climate change or sustainability than their own research and teaching. In many schools, the faculty has declined in its influence in determining the priorities and resource allocation of the university. An often highly leftish jihad of administrators has gained increased clout. Partially to counteract that, faculty unionization has shown some increase. (RELATED: Higher Education’s Triple Crisis: Finances, Integrity, Leadership) College has become more costly, one of the very few things financially more burdensome on family budgets than two generations ago. Buying a new car, taking a week-long cruise, or buying a loaf of bread or a bottle of beer takes far less work effort today than six decades ago because of rising productivity in the general economy. But it takes more, not fewer, employees to educate a college student today than in the middle of the last century (implying college productivity may have fallen), and, despite some recent moderation, tuition fees have soared. Residential campuses have become more upscale, with better facilities than prevailed during the mid-20th century. As living standards have generally risen, they have improved for students too, with somewhat nicer living facilities, more recreational options (e.g., climbing walls, even lazy rivers). North Carolina’s High Point University, for example, has a booming enrollment, and lets its students occasionally take their dates to a filet mignon dinner in a university owned gourmet restaurant. (RELATED: The Spectator P.M. Ep. 168: University Prioritizes Hot Tubs, Steak House, and ‘Life Skills’ Over Traditional Academics) The vocational advantages of a college degree, which generally rose throughout the late 20th century, have now stabilized and are probably now in decline. Whereas the technological advances of the Industrial Revolution two centuries ago hurt the uneducated and unskilled who were replaced by machines, the AI Revolution could well lead to educated college grads losing their jobs to a new generation of machines. The vocational attractiveness of, say, being a plumber or welder compared with a math, finance, science, or computer-oriented college major, declined in the late 20th century, but seems to be rising lately. (RELATED: The AI Employment Apocalypse Is Only a Few Years Away) The Federal role in education has dramatically increased, reducing the institutional autonomy of universities. Affirmative action programs and federal rules about using humans in research projects became part of 1970s campus life, and regulation continued to grow after the creation of the U.S. Department of Education in the 1980s, culminating in decrees such as the 2011 “Dear Colleague letter” mandating harsh Star Chamber justice for males accused of sexual misconduct. Increasingly, until very recently, college resource allocation decisions seemed often to be more determined by “diversity” criteria reflecting national and campus identity politics than pure academic merit. Federal student financial aid was modest in the mid-20th century but exploded with new student loan and grant programs. These programs have had profound and often profoundly negative unintended consequences, including sharp increases in tuition fees and an actual probable decline in the proportion of college graduates coming from lower-income groups, frightened by soaring tuition fees. Although initially slow to evolve, new approaches to computer-based distance learning gained acceptance in a dramatic way after the COVID epidemic erupted in 2020. More students now rarely personally interact with a professor. Mass forms of lecturing at low tuition fees to students using superstar professors through MOOCs (massive open online courses), which 15 years ago was thought to hold great promise, has not become dominant. And the COVID crisis showed both the possibilities but also the grave limitations of online learning. (RELATED: Timeless Education in an AI World) A traditional emphasis on the humanities, social sciences, as well as education training has waned, while some vocational-oriented areas such as business, communications, and some STEM disciplines have grown in importance. (RELATED: Academia’s Most Lucrative Con) The list above is far from exhaustive. For example, college sports have become big business at many schools, with increasingly tenuous ties to higher education. Even at smaller liberal arts colleges, collegiate athletic opportunities are considered a major student recruiting device.  Medical education has also changed a good deal, with dozens of schools operating vast clinical and hospital facilities at which student training itself sometimes seems to be a distinctly second-tier emphasis. For a long time, federal research funding was growing rapidly, again increasing campus dependence on federal support. New PhD programs were also abundant, but now doctoral enrollment is in decline at some schools. On balance, international interactions have grown over time, with foreign student enrollments generally growing and study abroad programs more popular for U.S. students. Closer to home, campuses were heavily dominated by white males when I started teaching, while today that is definitely not the case, even to the point that perhaps there is a strong anti-male bias on some campuses today. (RELATED: Reclaiming America’s Graduate Pipeline) As the French say, the more things change, the more they remain the same. Change is the norm. In some ways, however, things have not changed too radically. Classes today still bear considerable resemblance to those in the mid-20th (or even 18th or 19th) century, with students listening to professors lecturing much of the time, although today’s students do far less reading of supplemental materials or textbooks. The social life of students has evolved and expanded, with social media today playing a role non-existent even a generation ago, although there is also some very recent evidence of a decline in the once growing, more hedonistic forms of campus social life, with less drinking and even more church attendance at some schools. Is the “bottom line” one of continual improvement? As a practitioner of what one sage once called the “dismal science” of economics, I am highly skeptical. I long posted in my office a saying inspired by Winston Churchill: “Never have so many spent so much for so long learning so little.” Perhaps, however, another Churchill-inspired plagiarism is more appropriate: “American universities are the worst form of higher education, except for all the others.” You be the judge. READ MORE from Richard K. Vedder: Aristotle on a Balanced Budget Amendment Promoting Campus Viewpoint Diversity: A Modest Proposal Concierge Service for Favored Universities? Richard Vedder is distinguished professor emeritus of economics at Ohio University, senior fellow at Unleash Prosperity and the Independent Institute, and author of Let Colleges Fail: The Power of Creative Destruction in Higher Education.
Like
Comment
Share
Conservative Voices
Conservative Voices
6 w

Favicon 
spectator.org

Mark Carney’s Pseudo-Faith-Based War on CO2

Tariffs delivered a big blow to Canada’s economy this year, but they would be less of a problem if Canada weren’t squandering billions of dollars on Net Zero, which will not stop climate change. Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Budget 2025 passed first reading on Nov. 18 by a vote of 170-168, which spared Canadians a snap election. The second reading is in progress, and as of Nov. 28, the third reading had not yet been scheduled. Unsurprisingly, Mark Carney, former U.N. special envoy for climate action and finance, former chair of Brookfield Asset Management (deeply involved with green energy), and former co-chair and founder of the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero, lays out his “climate action” plan in the section titled “Canada’s Climate Competitiveness Strategy.” Those plans will undermine Canada’s competitiveness by increasing the debt (projected to reach $1.4 trillion by the end of 2024/2025), the cost of servicing that debt ($46.5 billion for 2024-25), the cost of production for industry, etc., all without averting climate change. (RELATED: Mark Carney Is Incredibly Dangerous) In this way, Mr. Carney hijacks religious faith to intimidate and silence anyone who speaks against his limited and flawed view of the complicated set of natural causes behind climate change. The section on climate begins with some rather ominous language: “Climate action is not just a moral obligation — it’s an economic necessity.” Moral obligation? Let those words stay with you for a moment to consider their implications. Mr. Carney is saying that anyone who doesn’t support his climate plan is immoral, irresponsible, and sinning against God. In this way, Mr. Carney hijacks religious faith to intimidate and silence anyone who speaks against his limited and flawed view of the complicated set of natural causes behind climate change. (RELATED: Elections Have Consequences for Canada) According to Dr. W. A. van Wijngaarden (York University, Dept of Physics and Astronomy, Canada), there are several natural causes and time frames associated with each one: a few thousand years: small variations in solar intensity; tens of thousands of years: Milankovitch cycles (variations of Earth’s orbit, angle of axis, etc.); tens of millions of years: tectonic plate movement, volcanoes, large meteorites; billions of years: evolution of the Sun. (RELATED: Bill Gates and the Redemption Racket) It doesn’t make sense to ignore such a powerful set of natural causes and to fixate on CO2 as if it were the “control knob” for climate. We’ve known since the 19th century that CO2 is a mild greenhouse gas. However, in the past 600 million years, there have been periods of high temperature and low CO2 concentration and vice versa. In other words, there is no direct link between temperature and CO2, and the physics that applied millions of years ago still apply today. In the past four hundred thousand years, Earth has had five interglacial periods (each one about 10,000 to 15,000 years long) and four glacial periods (each one about 100,000 years long), all due to natural causes. More recently, we had the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval warm periods, long before the second industrial revolution, when CO2 levels began to climb. The Medieval Warm Period was followed by the Little Ice Age, during which CO2 levels were higher than in previous warm periods! But it gets even more interesting. Vostok (Antarctica) ice cores reveal that temperature increases preceded increases in CO2 by 800 ±200 years around 240,000 years ago. Data from 1980-2010 indicates the same relationship. If temperature increases precede CO2 increases, then it is impossible for CO2 to be the primary driver of temperature increase. This is the exact opposite of the assumption driving Mr. Carney’s climate activism. He wants Canada to achieve Net Zero by 2050, but if Net Zero were achieved globally, that would avert a mere 0.070 ℃. Earth’s atmosphere is warming at 0.16℃/decade. Canada produces 1.4 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. If we assume that all of the warming is due to CO2, Canada contributes 0.0002 ℃/year to global warming (0.016 x 0.014≃0.0002). According to Dr. William Happer, a physics professor at Princeton University, a good case can be made that only about 1/2 — perhaps as low as 1/4 — of the warming is from increasing CO2. The remainder is from a continued natural recovery from the Little Ice Age, which ended around the year 1800. In other words, Canada contributes at most one ten thousands of one degree Celsius per year to global warming. And for that, Mr. Carney wants to impose new industrial carbon taxes, expand carbon markets, deploy at scale carbon capture technologies such as the Pathways Alliance project, etc. The Pathways project reportedly will cost $17 billion to build and $1 billion per year to operate. Over 10 years of operation, it will cost Canadians $27 billion to avert less than 0.001 ℃ of global warming. (RELATED: Carbon Capture: The Scam Agreed Upon) On Nov. 27, Prime Minister Carney and Alberta Premier Smith signed a memorandum of understanding that requires methane to be reduced by 75 percent relative to 2014 emission levels. What will happen to the agricultural sector, given that 1/3 of Canada’s methane comes from it? (RELATED: Is Climate Change Destroying the Environment?) Methane is often referred to as a “potent greenhouse gas,” but all of the methane (CH4) in the atmosphere causes 0.00085 ℃/year of warming. Since Canada emits about 1 percent of global methane, that means that Canada’s methane contributes 0.000009 ℃/year to global warming, a trivial amount (0.00085 x 0.01 ≃ 0.000009). Why would Mr. Carney be concerned with that? Curiously, nitrous oxide (N2O) isn’t mentioned in either document, even though the warming power of a molecule of N2O is almost eight times more than the warming power of a molecule of CH4. However, all of the N2O in the atmosphere causes 0.00064 ℃/year of global warming. Since Canada produces about 1.4 percent of global N2O, that means that Canadian N2O contributes about 0.000009 ℃/year to global warming (0.00064 x 0.014≃0.000009). Not that he ought to be, but to be consistent, shouldn’t Mr. Carney be concerned about N2O as well? According to a City of Toronto report, the total cost for all levels of government and business to achieve Net Zero in Toronto will be $145 billion. Given that Toronto represents about 8 percent of Canada’s population, a rough estimate for the total cost of Net Zero for all of Canada would be about $1.8 trillion. All of that money will be spent to avert 0.0001 ℃/year of global warming. What a waste. And let’s not forget that Canada’s winters are brutally cold. Canadians need cheap and reliable heat energy as a matter of survival. Driving up the cost of heating our homes is anti-Canadian as far as I’m concerned. Mr. Carney’s budget is seriously flawed and will harm Canada’s economy because of his ill-advised, unscientific, and pseudo-faith-based war on CO2. Canadians should learn the facts about CO2 from a reliable source such as the CO2 Coalition, and then demand that his Canada’s Climate Competitiveness Strategy be scrapped entirely. Fabiano has written articles on the futility of Net Zero based on leading-edge science. He lives in Toronto, Canada. READ MORE: Bill Gates Has Discovered Something More Profitable Than the Climate Apocalypse Has the Left Moved on From Climate Change? The Church of Climate Panic
Like
Comment
Share
Intel Uncensored
Intel Uncensored
6 w

This Forbidden Topic Is Finally Breaking Into The Mainstream And They Can’t Stop It
Favicon 
www.sgtreport.com

This Forbidden Topic Is Finally Breaking Into The Mainstream And They Can’t Stop It

from Mark Dice: TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
Like
Comment
Share
Intel Uncensored
Intel Uncensored
6 w

Russian-US Contacts to Take Place in Moscow on December 2 – Kremlin
Favicon 
www.sgtreport.com

Russian-US Contacts to Take Place in Moscow on December 2 – Kremlin

from Sputnik News: MOSCOW (Sputnik) – Earlier, US President Donald Trump said that his special envoy Steve Witkoff planned to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin in the coming days. Russian President Vladimir Putin’s meeting with US special envoy Steve Witkoff is scheduled for the afternoon of December 2, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said. “No, […]
Like
Comment
Share
100 Percent Fed Up Feed
100 Percent Fed Up Feed
6 w

Republican Senator Born Outside United States Proposes Legislation To Prohibit Americans From Holding Dual Citizenship
Favicon 
100percentfedup.com

Republican Senator Born Outside United States Proposes Legislation To Prohibit Americans From Holding Dual Citizenship

Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-OH) has introduced legislation to prohibit Americans from holding dual citizenship. The Ohio Republican’s bill, called the Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025, would require any U.S. citizen who has foreign citizenship to choose between the two countries. Moreno was born in Colombia and renounced his Colombian citizenship. “One of the greatest honors of my life was when I became an American citizen at 18, the first opportunity I could do so,” Moreno said. “It was an honor to pledge an Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America and ONLY to the United States of America! Being an American citizen is an honor and a privilege—and if you want to be an American, it’s all or nothing. It’s time to end dual citizenship for good,” he continued. Senator Bernie Moreno (R-OH) introduced a bill that bans Americans from holding dual citizenship. It’s called the “Exclusive Citizenship Act of 2025” pic.twitter.com/unE8jm4hQG — Politics & Poll Tracker (@PollTracker2024) December 1, 2025 Fox News has more: The legislation would require that the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) create databases and rules to track and enforce the change in citizenship law. It would give Americans with dual citizenship one year after its enactment to either write to the secretary of state for a renunciation of their foreign citizenship or notify DHS of their intent to denounce their U.S. citizenship. If a person does not comply with the change within the year, they will automatically be considered to have relinquished their U.S. citizenship. And for those who do give up their U.S. citizenship, voluntarily or involuntarily, the DHS and attorney general will be required to ensure that those people are “appropriately recorded in Federal systems and treated as an alien for purposes of the immigration laws,” according to the bill text. “America First and America Only,” Moreno wrote on X. It was an honor to pledge an Oath of Allegiance to the United States of America and ONLY to the United States of America. America First and America Only. It's time to end dual citizenship for good.https://t.co/acSU52BrAs — Bernie Moreno (@berniemoreno) December 1, 2025 WKBN noted: If passed, the bill would take effect 180 days after enactment. Multiple Supreme Court cases have been instrumental in establishing dual citizenship as a constitutional right, including Talbot v. Jansen (1795), which ruled that U.S. citizens who acquire foreign citizenship do not have to waive their U.S. citizenship, and Afroyim v. Rusk (1967), which ruled that a U.S. citizen cannot lose their citizenship unless they willingly surrender it. While the U.S. government doesn’t keep statistics on dual citizens, it’s estimated that over 40 million Americans, many of whom are Mexican-Americans, are eligible for dual citizenship, according to International Living. Read the full bill below:
Like
Comment
Share
The First - News Feed
The First - News Feed
6 w ·Youtube News & Oppinion

YouTube
Will the US Go to War with Venezuela?
Like
Comment
Share
NEWSMAX Feed
NEWSMAX Feed
6 w

Minnesota's 'complex Somali scam' explained: Rob Schmitt
Favicon 
www.youtube.com

Minnesota's 'complex Somali scam' explained: Rob Schmitt

Minnesota's 'complex Somali scam' explained: Rob Schmitt
Like
Comment
Share
NEWSMAX Feed
NEWSMAX Feed
6 w ·Youtube News & Oppinion

YouTube
‘No one except Donald Trump is willing to say’ this out loud: Rob Finnerty
Like
Comment
Share
Showing 5159 out of 106098
  • 5155
  • 5156
  • 5157
  • 5158
  • 5159
  • 5160
  • 5161
  • 5162
  • 5163
  • 5164
  • 5165
  • 5166
  • 5167
  • 5168
  • 5169
  • 5170
  • 5171
  • 5172
  • 5173
  • 5174
Advertisement
Stop Seeing These Ads

Edit Offer

Add tier








Select an image
Delete your tier
Are you sure you want to delete this tier?

Reviews

In order to sell your content and posts, start by creating a few packages. Monetization

Pay By Wallet

Payment Alert

You are about to purchase the items, do you want to proceed?

Request a Refund