The Biden administration has made plans to offer legal status to hundreds of thousands of immigrants who have been in the country for at least ten years.

CNN has released the rules agreed upon by both the Donald Trump and Joe Biden campaigns for the first presidential debate.

“After inviting millions of illegals into this country over three and a half years, the Alabama Secretary of State says he’s got evidence that the Biden Administration is working to now sign these people up to vote in his State.” “Color me shocked. “Saying Biden’s current federal policies mandate that anyone who comes into contact […] The post Evidence Biden Admin Is Signing Illegal ‘MIgrants’ Up to Vote appeared first on www.independentsentinel.com.

One school’s graduation video has the internet tearing up, and we totally get why! It’s all about how quickly kids grow up. Who can’t relate to that? Ohio’s Louisville City Schools shared the emotional video on Facebook, where it’s been getting a lot of attention. Even strangers who have no affiliation with the students in the video have literally wept while watching it! Of course, People reminds us that the high school seniors couldn’t have pulled off this beautiful graduation video without the help of kindergarteners from the same school district. The clip begins with the adorable little kids standing in a hallway. One of the young boys gets a running start, and then leaps toward the camera. As soon as he’s airborne, the scene changes to a grassy field. A high school senior in a cap and gown lands on the other side. In no time at all, the tiny kindergartner is all grown up! View this post on Instagram A post shared by Mr. Tausch (@principaltausch2.0) One by one, the entire group of kindergartners undergo the same metamorphosis. They each take a running jump into the camera, landing on the other side as a high school grad ready for college. “Blink and you’ll miss it… time flies!” reads the Facebook caption. We can thank Jenn Wilson for this beautiful graduation video. Communications coordinator Jenn Wilson got the idea for the graduation video from local parents. “Over the past few months, every parent I’ve spoken with has said the same thing: ‘In the blink of an eye, your kids are grown,'” she explained to TODAY.com. Screengrab from Instagram Jenn’s creative idea has touched thousands of hearts. It’s inspiring parents everywhere to treasure the time they have with their kids! “I am not the parents of these beautiful children and I am crying,” wrote one commenter on Facebook. “This is so cool and it’s so true time does fly so fast. Congratulations to you all! God bless! Love it!” “This is amazing!!!!” added another. “Bawling my eyes out for kids I don’t even know — Congratulations on your Graduation!!!!” Screengrab from Instagram As this graduation video points out, life moves pretty fast. What an excellent reminder to make the most of it while we can! You can find the source of this story’s featured images here. The post Kindergarteners & High School Seniors Team Up For The Most Creative Graduation Video Ever! appeared first on InspireMore.

Participants are also banned from using cheat sheets, which may pose a problem for Biden

Ever since the start of Joe Biden’s presidency, curbing climate change has been a fundamental component of his energy policy agenda. During the spring, for example, the Biden administration issued a power plant rule­­, imposing strict emissions reductions regarding the use of fossil-fuel power plants. There have been many other rules proposed as well, including regulating cars, stoves, dishwashers, water heaters, and even microwaves. All of these rules are predicated on concerns about the effects of greenhouse gas emissions on global temperatures and climate change. If greenhouse gas emissions drive climate change, then curbing the use of sources of energy that emit them (such as coal, oil, and natural gas) should in theory curb these increases in global temperature.  However, lawmakers often present policies aimed at curbing climate change only in terms of greenhouse-gas emissions reductions. For example, the recent rule the Biden administration issued on electric vehicles claims it will reduce greenhouse gases by 7.2 billion tons through 2055.  This figure sounds large, but it’s surprisingly deceptive: A key unanswered question is the actual temperature impact of these and other related policies.  The predicted temperature impact of these and other policies hinges on a number of assumptions that affect our ever-changing climate.  That’s why we have created The Heritage Foundation Climate Calculator, an online tool that enables the public to change some of the assumptions to simulate the climate effects of these policies to reduce carbon emissions. (The libertarian Cato Institute had a similar tool in the 2010s.) [Use The Heritage Foundation Climate Calculator] The calculator is based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Model for Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Induced Climate Change.    As the documentation illustrates, there are myriad assumptions regarding climate in this model. Our calculator focuses on allowing the user to play with two key assumptions: Climate sensitivity Level of emissions reduction  Scientists generally agree that the earth warms as carbon dioxide emissions increase. The real question, then, is to what degree (no pun intended).   Climate sensitivity measures how much the earth’s temperature will warm as a result of a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration. Climate scientists’ estimates of climate sensitivity vary greatly, partly because the physical interactions between carbon dioxide and temperatures are not fully understood. The level of emissions reductions is the percentage of CO2 emissions that lawmakers would seek to reduce with respect to current emissions. The methodology explained below contains full details.  The simulations presented in this calculator allow user-selected climate sensitivities between 2? and 5?, stated as the “very likely” range of climate sensitivity, according the IPCC’s Sixth Assessment Report, encompassing the “likely” range of 2.5? to 4?.  Although empirical evidence comparing observations to predictions suggests that sensitivities toward the lower end of these ranges may indeed be more plausible, The Heritage Foundation Climate Calculator allows users to decide which climate sensitivity they would like to assume and how steep the reductions in fossil fuel use they’d like to see. For example, what if lawmakers wanted to reduce carbon emissions by 40% starting this year?   Assuming a 3-degree sensitivity (the middle of the IPCC’s range of sensitivities), there would be about a 0.036 degree Celsius reduction by 2050 and 0.070 degree Celsius decline by 2100. What about the European Union, again assuming 3.5 degree Celsius sensitivity and 40% reductions? It’s even more trifling—less than 0.019 degree Celsius temperature reduction by 2050 and 0.037 degree Celsius temperature decline in 2100. Even assuming the most aggressive policy imaginable (100% reductions) and the IPCC’s worst-case scenario regarding climate sensitivity (5 degrees sensitivity), The Heritage Foundation Climate Calculator shows that if the U.S. were to completely eliminate use of fossil fuels, there would be less than 0.23 degree Celsius global temperature reduction by 2100.  If the EU were to do so, the impact would be even more trifling—less than 0.13 degree Celsius global temperature reduction. These are just a few of the scenarios that one can simulate using The Heritage Foundation Climate Calculator.   [Use The Heritage Foundation Climate Calculator] We encourage you to play with the calculator and tweak assumptions yourself. The results will speak for themselves: Regardless of the assumptions made using this government model, the climate effects of carbon reduction policies are slim to none.  Don’t be deceived: Emissions reductions that lawmakers claim to be large in quantity will fail to produce meaningful temperature reductions and strengthen China, while Beijing continues to pump out greenhouse gases in much larger quantities than the rest of the world.  The post See for Yourself: Interactive Calculator Shows How Cutting Carbon Emissions Would Barely Budge Temperatures appeared first on The Daily Signal.

One reason Joe Biden’s presidential prospects are wilting before our eyes: angry voters disgusted by the worst inflation in more than 40 years. As of Wednesday’s CPI report, the cumulative increase in overall prices since Biden took office has been a crushing 20%, but the jump in the cost of gasoline has been twice as bad. In January 2021, the average price at the pump was $2.39 a gallon; as of yesterday (June 15), it’s at $3.45, an increase of 44%. But these upsetting prices would have been even worse if liberal journalists had their way, as reporters repeatedly lobbied in favor of massive increases to the already-high federal gas taxes. Right now, the average motorist pays roughly 51 cents a gallon in combined federal (18.4 cents) and state taxes (32.44 cents), or about 15% of the total cost of $3.45/gallon. That’s far higher than the tax on other consumer products, even in the states with the highest rates (most states have sales tax rates between 4% and 7%). Yet the liberal media have long advocated even higher prices for gasoline, seeing it as a potential cash windfall for the federal government, and as a club to punish drivers who insist on using fossil fuels. Back in 1989, for example, Time magazine demanded a 50 cent/gallon increase in the federal gas tax, which would put today’s prices at nearly $4.00/gallon. One of their writers, Andrew Tobias, was even more extreme, suggesting in 1993 that a proposed onetime 4.3 cent/gallon increase be made “per year,” and “forever.” If the government had listened to Tobias back then, today’s gas prices would be more than $1.10/gallon higher. Time’s advocacy in the 1980s and 1990s was so pronounced, the MRC’s MediaWatch newsletter awarded the magazine its “Janet Cooke Award” in February 1993 for demanding higher gas taxes a whopping 24 times in just four years. The media’s appetite for high fuel taxes has continued in recent years. In 2007, CNN’s Frank Sesno equated leadership on climate change with “a tax on carbon emissions to spur investment and move the marketplace. Expensive? You bet. Trillions and trillions.” In 2011, veteran reporter Carl Bernstein mouthed the media’s conventional wisdom on this topic on MSNBC’s Morning Joe: “Have a gas tax in this country. We could solve a lot of economic problems if we raised the gas tax.” Most preposterously, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman reacted to the deadly Boston Marathon bombing with a tone-deaf pitch for higher taxes: “We need to redouble our efforts to make America stronger and healthier....And the best place to start is with a carbon tax.” Obviously, one reason liberal journalists like the idea of tax increases is their allergy to any cuts in federal spending (or even smaller-than-planned increases), invariably painting them as heartless and an attack on poor people. But their remedy of higher gasoline/carbon taxes would also hit lower-income families especially hard, because fuel costs account for a significantly higher percentage of their budget. The media’s ardor for higher gas taxes has been less evident since the public’s revolt against the high gas prices of the Biden era, but expect it to resurface when it the political climate shifts. After all, journalists have been determined advocates for higher taxes and higher pump prices for many decades, as these quotes from the MRC archives demonstrate: ■ “Raising the federal gasoline tax by 50 cents per gallon, from 9 cents to 59 cents, over the next five years would renew drivers’ interest in fuel conservation.”— One of Time magazine’s recommendations on how to save the Earth, in January 2, 1989 “Planet of the Year” issue. ■ “The federal gasoline tax should be increased substantially — to at least 60 cents per gal., from the current 9 cents per gal., over the next four years. At the same time, the government could begin setting up a program to tax the use of all fossil fuels.”— Correspondent Eugene Linden in the December 18, 1989 edition of Time magazine. ■ “It’s time we got smart....This latest threat [Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait] makes it clearer than ever that American must finally kick the habit, freeing us from this awful dependency. There are several cures, but the fastest and surest is a 50-cent federal tax on every gallon of gas at the pump, phased in over five years.”— U.S. News & World Report Editor-at-Large David Gergen, August 27/September 3, 1990 issue. ■ “Increase taxes on gasoline and other fuels....Each penny-per-gallon increase in the gas tax would generate $1 billion in new revenues — and would also encourage energy conservation, cut down pollution and traffic congestion, and reduce the U.S. trade deficit. A good start would be an increase of 25 cents per gal. — less than the amount by which prices rose during the Gulf War — with further increases of five cents a year.”— One of Time’s suggestions for a tax package, December 9, 1991. ■ “A 12-cent additional tax on gasoline would yield $54.8 billion in five years. (It would have the added benefits of discouraging auto use and cleaning the air.)”— Time Washington Bureau Chief Stanley Cloud, June 22, 1992. ■ “Norway has an admirable environmental record in other respects. The U.S., for instance, might follow its example and implement a carbon tax, which encourages efficiency and the use of cleaner fuels....If there is anything positive in this pastiche of cumbersome, expensive, and irrelevant initiatives, it is the trend championed by the Republican predecessors to move away from regulations and toward market incentives (hint: a gas tax!) to achieve environmental goals.”— Time Senior Writer Eugene Linden, February 1, 1993. ■ “While jacking up the gas tax might make good economic and ecological sense, it is unlikely to happen anytime soon.”— Time Associate Editor John Greenwald, February 15, 1993 issue. ■ “The real story is the proposed gas tax is far too low...There’s only one problem with the 4.3 cents-per-gal. gas tax the Senate has proposed: it’s too little...Where it says 4.3 cents, they should add two words: a year. And maybe a third word: forever.”— Time “Money Angles” columnist Andrew Tobias, July 26, 1993 issue. ■ “You also have said that we have to have bold ideas for energy independence, and your theme is ‘courage to change.’ Just about every expert on energy says the best way to become energy independent is to raise the price of oil and gas, to have a serious energy tax. Why not call for it?...Couldn’t we become independent much more quickly if we had the kind of energy tax you see in Europe?”— ABC’s George Stephanopoulos to Democratic presidential candidate Tom Vilsack on This Week, December 3, 2006. ■ “What if the world took climate change seriously?...Leaders would have to lead, and make some unpopular decisions — incentives, subsidies and, yes, taxes, including a tax on carbon emissions, probably, to spur investment and move the marketplace. Expensive? You bet. Trillions and trillions.”— CNN’s Frank Sesno on The Situation Room, May 10, 2007. ■ “Have a gas tax in this country. We could solve a lot of economic problems if we raised the gas tax....We’re not serious as a country...because, again, you’d have a gas tax if we were.”— Author and ex-Washington Post reporter Carl Bernstein on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, March 9, 2011. ■ “Until we fully understand what turned two brothers [Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev] who allegedly perpetrated the Boston Marathon bombings into murderers, it is hard to make any policy recommendation other than this: We need to redouble our efforts to make America stronger and healthier so it remains a vibrant counterexample to whatever bigoted ideology may have gripped these young men....And the best place to start is with a carbon tax.”— New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, April 21, 2013, talking about the Boston Marathon bombing that killed three people and injured more than 200. ■ “If I got to ask one question of the presidential aspirants at Thursday’s Fox Republican debate, it would be...‘Would you agree to raise the gasoline tax by 5 cents a gallon today so we can pay for our highway bill?’...It cuts to the core of what is undermining the Republican Party today and, indirectly, our country: There is no longer a Republican center-right that would have no problem raising the gas tax for something as fundamental as infrastructure.”— New York Times writer Thomas Friedman in an August 5, 2015 column, “My G.O.P. Debate Question.” ■ “One of our political parties is completely insane and it’s the party that, when we have mine disasters, blocks mine regulations. It’s the party that says, when we want to fix our roads, you can’t have an infrastructure bill, you can’t raise the gas tax.”— Esquire’s Charles Pierce on MSNBC’s The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell, October 1, 2015. You can read more examples from our flashback series, the NewsBusters Time Machine, here.