China
CCP Dictator Daniel Andrews is playing the China virus for all he can. Now, ‘Pre-covid, a State of Emergency could only be declared for a maximum of six months. This extension will bring the total to one year and nine months.
Daniel Andrews won the vote after reaching backroom deals with Greens leader Samantha Ratnam, Reason Party MP Fiona Patten and Andy Meddick from the Animal Justice Party.
About 100 protesters gathered outside to voice their opposition to extending the declared State of Emergency.
The State of Emergency gives the government and police unprecedented powers to lock down the city, enter homes, detain citizens, enforce masks and much more.
During the rally outside parliament, police threatened to arrest protesters when the group reached more than 100.
Monica Smit from Reignite Democracy said she wasn’t afraid anymore and that no matter what, the group were not leaving.
Another organiser, Morgan C Jonas told Tom Elliot that the State of Emergency is “an extraordinary consolidation of power by the Victorian government”.
Member of Parliament, Dr Catherine Cumming joined the crowd outside, telling them that she voted against the extension.’https://www.rebelnews.com/this_is_what_happened_at_the_state_of_emergency_protest_in_melbourne?utm_campaign=ay_emergency_3_3_21&utm_medium=email&utm_source=therebel
Jeremiah 5:31 The prophets prophesy falsely…
‘The Washington Post turns loose its fact-checkers on John Kerry’s claim that we have just nine years to save the planet, which he arrived at by saying we had 12 years three years ago and doing the math. But um he’s not a climate scientist, and to their credit and our surprise, the Post gives him two Pinocchios (out of a possible four) for “Significant omissions and/or exaggerations.” Along with a dressing down for not realizing that in the IPCC’s 2018 Special Report, “the key date was 2050, when the gain in emissions needs to be halted” although contradictorily, “The report’s key finding was that action needed to be taken immediately — not in 12 years.” Thus “With the ‘12-year’ fixation, he [Kerry] somehow managed to both make the task seem less urgent and also more hyperbolic.” Sadly the fact checkers themselves deserve at least two Pinocchios because their finding is quite reasonable but their explanation interlaces sensible points with hyperbole about extreme weather, bad math about warming, and scare stories.
The piece starts fairly well, warning that “Kerry is using a figure that is frequently cited but often misused. It’s a good example of how scientists may write a long and complex report, and then it’s interpreted by the news media, pundits and politicians in ways that make the scientists frustrated that their nuanced conclusions have been twisted into a talking point.” But lest they should get cancelled, they immediately add “If anything, scientists say, Kerry’s phrasing understates the problem facing the planet.”
Oh, scientists say, do they? Which scientists? You know. Them. The scientists. “The question of whether humans have contributed to climate change may still be a subject of debate in the political sphere, but it has been a settled issue among climate scientists for years.” Which they bolster by citing Anderegg et al.’s infamous 2009 paper that looked at people who published a lot of papers saying there was a climate crisis and found that they said there was a climate crisis.
The fact-checkers also cite without fact-checking it that the 2018 IPCC report “said the planet — which has already warmed 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels (approximately 1850 to 1890) — would warm 1.5 degrees (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) between 2030 and 2052 unless significant steps were taken to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.” As we’ve pointed out, the idea that we can determine to a decimal place the change in temperature between the Great Exhibition and the election of Donald Trump is silly, and the fact that it always comes out to a round number is highly suspicious.
Now speaking of round numbers, about which yes we told you so, in one of its stronger passages the fact-check quotes Drew Shindell of Duke University, a lead author of that IPCC’s “mitigation chapter”, that “To save computer time, the research community typically evaluates future climate scenarios every decade rather than every year, choosing multiples of 10. So when we wrote the IPCC report in 2018, we could examine possibilities for 2020, 2030, etc., going forward. There really wasn’t enough time to make changes in economic systems by 2020 starting from 2018, so the first time at which we could see major changes was 2030, and that’s why we could draw conclusions about how much our emissions needed to be cut by 2030 to have much chance of meeting our climate targets…. the point of all this is that there is nothing at all special about 12 years or 2030. If we cut emissions by 2029 or 2031, the necessary cuts would be similar, but we only had years that were even multiples of 10 to look at.”
So saying well, it was 12 years in 2018 so it’s now nine means you have no idea what the scientists were actually doing. It’s pseudo-precision along the lines of saying the planet has warmed by 0.8C since 1880 with 2/3 of it since 1975, which implies we know it warmed 0.26C in the century after 1880. Without having measured the temperature in about 99% of it in 1880 or, come to think of it, 1975 either. Or 2016.
Not to get themselves in trouble, the fact-checkers then cite the IPCC that “Coral reefs, for example, are projected to decline by a further 70-90% at 1.5°C (high confidence) with larger losses (>99%) at 2°C (very high confidence).” Which they rightly say means there’s a continuum or, as Judith Curry bluntly put it in advocating more realism in both science and adaptation, “1.5C is a made up problem.” Not that the fact-checkers are taking her view.
Instead the piece warns that the continuum thing means “the damage would have already started before 1.5 degrees was breached.” Which also means that if it hasn’t, including the corals not dying, there’s a bit of an issue here with the whole scary picture. As with their subsequent claim that “the world is heating unevenly. A Pulitzer Prize-winning Washington Post series showed that, despite an average global increase of 1 degree Celsius, in several parts of the world the 2 degree threshold has already been reached. In those regions, this has resulted in major weather changes that have upended livelihoods and cultures. More than 1 in 10 Americans — 34 million people — are living in rapidly heating regions, including New York City and Los Angeles.”
Curious that the fastest-warming places are either (a) wherever the journalist lives or (b) a giant metropolitan agglomeration with a major Urban Heat Island effect. That one they did not fact check. Or the idea that weather has upended livelihoods and cultures in New York and LA.
Finally, they quote someone telling Kerry to stop talking about specifics and scare people with vagueness, recommending this formulation: “The scientists have been telling us for decades that we need to act as fast as possible to avert the worst consequences of climate change. Despite that, substantive action has been delayed so long that we’re now bearing witness to the harm caused by warming that has already occurred in communities around the world. It is still well within our power to turn the tide, slowing and eventually halting global warming by bringing our net carbon emissions to zero. But we have to act now to prevent ever greater societal harm and disruption in the coming years and decades.”
The trouble, of course, is that if you talk that way people might ask who the scientists are, what the worst consequences might be, what harm you have in mind and what you want us to do. And then you’ll be back to specifics some fool might fact-check. Like that one about the polar bears dying out, which Facebook may still slap your wrist for pointing out is untrue.
Man, there are a lot of Pinocchios out there.’https://climatediscussionnexus.com/2021/03/03/speaking-of-predictions-2/
‘William Happer Professor of Physics Emeritus, Princeton University This speech was given at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar on February 19, 2021, in Phoenix, Arizona.’ https://www.hillsdale.edu/
If you perchance do not believe the UN and the World Economic Forum (WEF) are not committed communist, socialist Leftist’s working to destroy freedom loving capitalist’s this video should prove it to you! This video is the WEF’s favorite man, the CCP’s Xi Jinping speaking at the WEF’s most recent Davos love fest!
If you cannot stomach watching the whole thing I understand.
The Great Reset is the Great Communist Socialist Con to take your freedoms and the standard of living we in the West have come to enjoy. Biden along with many or most of the leaders in the free world have fallen for this communist propaganda using so-called climate change and the China virus as two of their hooks. The WEF says ‘The pandemic has radically changed the world as we know it, and the actions we take today, as we work to recover, will define our generation. It’s why the World Economic Forum is calling for a new form of capitalism, one that puts people and planet first, as we come together to rebuild the world after COVID-19.’ https://www.weforum.org/
Dr. Boys’ is my senior by several years and has insight into many areas which are well worth sharing. I trust you will read the entire article.
‘Our culture is now under attack and must be defended. While there were many failures of Western Civilization, there is much more that honors us than horrifies us. Western Civilization is a product of hundreds of years of trial and error, resulting in advanced and free nations.
The developing culture started going downhill when Cain killed his brother with a rock. From that day, man would struggle with divine revelation and his conscience when making choices—good and bad. That is man’s story down through the millennia, as his choices become the culture, morphing into a civilization.
Western Civilization gave us individual freedom, democracy, personal responsibility, advanced agriculture, the Reformation, the Renaissance, the Industrial Revolution, ease of travel, organ transplants, space exploration, etc., and yes, vulgar rap music, the woke culture, sleazy entertainment, and the drug culture.
Civilization is always a mixed bag with progression and retrogression. With passing centuries, the hope is that the good will be appreciated, accepted, and applauded while the bad will be recognized, repudiated, and finally rejected.
For sure, all cultures are not the same and are always changing.
Did the first Europeans in the early days of America think they were superior (more advanced) than native Americans who sometimes graciously greeted them and sometimes fiercely fought them? Of course, the white Europeans thought they were superior because they were superior! The Indians in North America had no written language, had no knowledge of the wheel, scalped their enemies, kept other Indians as slaves, eating them during bad times, and basically lived in a Stone Age.
Only a fool, a liar, or one looking to win the trophy for being the most politically correct wacko on the planet would say otherwise. Of course, as far as God is concerned, each person has worth and is part of His plan on an equal basis with everyone else. But of course, the Whites were far superior to the Indians, and the Indians often emulated the worst of the Whites they met.
Other Indians were impressed with some of the white culture and learned from them. Of course, the white people also learned some basic survival techniques from the Indians, proving that many circumstances impact a culture. Both the Indian and white cultures changed—some for the good, some for the bad.
Cultures have slowly changed over hundreds of years to civilizations. Men, even kings, realized that sleeping around was irresponsible, even vile; women realized that sex was not acceptable for acquiring or advancing their profession—it was, in fact, slutty to do so.
Obviously, modern entertainers’ culture has not caught up with our civilization.
Over time it was unacceptable, even shameful, to have babies out of wedlock. It was normal when I was a teen for a pregnant, unmarried girl to be sent to “visit a relative” for a few months. I didn’t know one personally. Today, unmarried pregnancy is often planned and discussed without shame, and the most admired personalities are often, too often, the most slutty.
Young men finally realized that everyone should contribute to society and should, therefore, work even if family status did not require it. In the late Middle Ages, knives, forks, and spoons were invented, and civilized people stopped using their fingers. Changes came slowly.
Over the centuries, all cultures changed, primarily for the better, but many societies are still undisciplined, unprincipled, and uncontrolled. And some of the better cultures have streams of uncouth, unkind, and unlawful behavior. Even in our day, probably half the citizens are fornicators or adulterers; however, in a moment of honesty, I think most of them would agree what they are doing is wrong, but most have no plans to change. That has always been true.
I’m still embarrassed when I see the legislative bodies in South Africa brawl while the Speaker yells, “This honorable body will come to order. This honorable body will come to order.” And the mêlée continues, and one honorable member throws a punch at another honorable member. The same thing happened in the South Korean legislature in 2015.
Such actions are disgraceful, and those who defend such behavior are part of the culture clash.
It was also disgraceful last year when politicians in Taiwan threw punches, pig guts, and water balloons during a legislative session. It was the third brawl in that parliament in two weeks.
U.S. culture would never permit that; however, we will permit adulterers, sodomites, thieves, drunks, and consummate liars in our Congress and the Oval Office.
And too often in our classrooms and pulpits.
I was embarrassed when South Sudan’s ambassador to the U.S., Gordon Buay, in an eight-man video conference, urinated during a live zoom discussion panel! The seven other African leaders found it impossible not to laugh as the world watched him using the potty. At least he did not use a typical hole in the ground, so I suppose one could say that some progress has been made.
I’m embarrassed when rappers use filthy language to perform their gutter rap “music” and am shocked that they are considered distinguished and courted by the public and are considered musicians. No, not in the same class as Nat King Cole and Perry Como.
I was embarrassed when a hillbilly in West Virginia, in the presence of my wife, unbuckled his belt, unzipped his pants, and tucked in his shirt as he spewed numerous four-letter words—not in anger but as if it was the normal thing to do. That was acceptable to him and his clan in that area, but my culture was far above his, although I had lived in a log cabin 20 miles from that location.
I’m embarrassed when professing Christians act, talk, and dress in vain, vile, and vicious ways. I see athletes, politicians, and entertainers wearing a decorative cross around their necks as they dishonor the real meaning of that cross. One prominent black entertainer promised that his wife would no longer prance around in her underwear (that she designed), yet she often appears almost naked as a jaybird (as my dad would say.)
Evidently, that husband has no problem permitting his wife to degrade herself, disgrace Christianity, and deprecate his authority as the family leader. Of course, she always wore a silver cross around her neck. That family is now divorced.
Yes, some cultures are better than others are, and every society has a vast mixture of various levels of culture in the mix.
Radicals don’t want you to be comfortable with your values. They will call you self-righteous and bigoted as they do me. They will get you to question your superior values, and then they will try to convince you that your values are not superior. They demand that all values have equal value; then, they will move on to cultural domination when they have the upper hand and acceptance. They are determined to make you approve of their vile habits to give them comfort in their vileness. Radical leftists tolerate deviant behavior while they condemn Western Civilization.
So, yes, I think America’s conservative values are better than others are, although the BLM, Antifa, and the LGBTQ crowds will consider that the ultimate crime.
A lesser offense would be if I were caught wearing a dirty MAGA cap while sexually molesting autistic three-year-old girls during a Nazi torch rally.’ http://donboys.cstnews.com/our-culture-is-under-attack-and-must-be-defended
‘Students in public schools have no chance to hear the reasons why life cannot “emerge” from rocks and water.
The recent landing of the Perseverance Rover has ramped up talk about life on Mars (17 Feb 2021). In all cases in secular media, the assumption is made that life (if it exists) would have made itself by chance. Another common assumption is that once simple life emerges, nothing stops it from proceeding all the way to intelligent brains because of the assumed creative power of Darwinian evolution.
Advocates of intelligent design and creation are always loaded for bear to address origin-of-life issues. They never get the chance to explain the reasons, though, because Big Science and Big Media and Big Education control the messaging to students.
Mars in a Minute: Why is Curiosity Looking for Organics? (NASA/JPL). The video aimed at children argues that finding organic molecules is equivalent to finding the conditions for life. See also the classroom activity “Looking for Life” aimed at grades 4-8.
Organics are carbon-based molecules – key ingredients to life. If Curiosity finds organics in ancient rocks, there’s a better chance Mars once had good conditions for small life forms called microbes.
Curious Kids: We have been trying to contact aliens – but do they want to contact us? (The Conversation). An eight-year-old student named Sai asks if aliens want to contact us. Jacco van Loon, astrophysicist and Director of Keele Observatory steps up to the microphone in the “Curious Kids” service of The Conversation to give the official Darwinian answer. He admits that nobody knows what aliens are thinking, but he never questions the existence of aliens, and why they must be there.
The question presumes that aliens do exist. And again, because we haven’t found any yet, we don’t know if they do. It is possible they may exist, for one simple reason: we exist. Whatever made the likes of bacteria evolve into complex bodies with intelligent brains on Earth may have also occurred on another planet.
He mentions “whatever” not “whoever.” The idea of a Creator with intelligence is completely ignored. Notice, too, that he assumes that “evolution” has the power to take life from bacteria to the human brain by “whatever” – the impersonal, chance-based Stuff Happens Law.
Time is the magic wand that lets miracles happen by chance, van Loon goes on to explain, but his answer is based on ignorance, not observation.
On Earth this transformation seems to have taken place quite suddenly some 700 million years ago. At that time the Earth was already almost 4 billion years old, and had been inhabited by simple lifeforms such as bacteria for much of that time. Why did it not happen sooner? And what made it happen? Until we find the answers to those questions we cannot tell how likely it is that it also occurred elsewhere.
It is fallacious to build a case on an example of one. van Loon speculates that since humans are curious and want companionship, aliens probably want that, too.
Some aliens might simply not be interested in life beyond their own world.
On the other hand, it may be that life such as ours is actually very common. With so many worlds and civilisations to choose from, we may simply not yet have caught their eye. If that is the case, we might soon detect alien life around nearby stars for ourselves.
Poor Sai never had a chance to hear an alternative view that life was created for a purpose. He was never taught that the requirements for life preclude a naturalistic origin. He will keep looking up to the silent stars waiting for ET to phone home.
Has life existed beyond Earth? (Purdue University). This is a piece about Briony Horgan, associate professor of Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences at Purdue University, who is a member of the NASA Perseverance Rover team, and how she is “going to great lengths” to find out if life ever existed on Mars. This piece is typical of NASA press releases that assume that if life ever existed on Mars, it evolved—it was not created. As for why Jezero Crater was selected for the rover’s landing site,
“… we think Jezero Crater is the best location to search for evidence that life existed on Mars, if it ever did. And what we find will help us learn more about whether or not we are alone in the universe.“
Students are inspired to be like Briony, growing up to be good evolutionists, and eventually, to become brainy scientists like Dr Horgan, who believe that water and rock are sufficient to produce living organisms and brains.
Life of a pure Martian design (University of Wien). Scientists at this university put earth life on soil from a Martian meteorite to see if it would grow. Fallacy alert: this has nothing to do with whether Mars life exists. At most, it shows how hardy Earth life is. They think it gives NASA a way to look for “biosignatures” on Mars to distinguish life from non-life. But what if Mars life (if it ever existed) is completely different from Earth life? (Fallacy alert #2).
Could game theory help discover intelligent alien life? (Phys.org). The answer is, naturally, “It could, and if pigs had wings, they could fly.” Like the previous example, this SETI article assumes what aliens are thinking.
“Soon we should have the first catalog of planets that may be inhabited by civilisations who already know something about our World. They may know just enough to be tempted to send a message. These are the worlds we really need to focus in on. If they know about game theory they’ll expect us to be listening.”
The above is a string of empty speculations held together by the word “may.” But if the assumption is wrong, the conclusions are completely bogus.’https://crev.info/2021/02/nasa-indoctrinates-kids-to-expect-aliens/
Big Tech is out to shut down those who do not agree with them totally. Why? ‘Dr. Simone Gold is one of the Frontline Doctors who has been speaking the truth about COVID-19, the treatment options such as hydroxychloroquine, and the newly released vaccines. This video was just pulled from YouTube and Vimeo for violating their terms of service.’
‘I have a question. When did politicians and federal employees start calling themselves “public servants”? Even more importantly, why are we letting them? It’s almost as if they’re trying to claim the mantle of nobility for making a sacrifice in the public interest. But I don’t understand what that sacrifice is. They’re paid better and have better benefits than most private-sector employees. They’re rarely held accountable for their performance. Why do we treat them as if they’re serving a higher calling than any other profession in the country?
Take Joe Biden, for example. He claims to have been in public service for over 50 years. But what has he done in that time? He was the first senator to initiate a personal attack on a Supreme Court nominee. His attack on Robert Bork was shameful, and helped create the current environment of Supreme Court politicization. He also used the power of his office to enrich his family members. Exactly how did lunch-bucket Joe become a multimillionaire on the salary of a politician? I fail to see how that has been a service to the country.
Joe certainly isn’t alone. Was Nancy Pelosi serving the public interests when she withheld COVID-19 relief for months — just to deny President Trump a win? Was she also serving her constituents when she bought stock in Tesla just days before President Asterisk signed an order directing all agencies to switch to electric cars? There’s a term for that — “insider trading.” Being the civic-minded public servant she is, I’m sure she’ll be sharing her windfall with her constituents.
It’s not all about money. Some politicians have a completely different idea of providing service. Eric Swalwell placed himself in servitude to a Chinese spy. Exactly what “service” did Eric provide? Was it anything that would allow him to claim nobility? I mean in the U.S. — not in China.
Let’s not forget the bureaucrats that “serve” our nation. Look at the EPA. They’re good at two things — choking the life out of commerce, and polluting rivers.
In the name of serving the public interest, the IRS targeted the Tea Party, thus silencing their voice in the midst of a presidential campaign. They also leaked confidential tax records to the press, and provided tax records to the FBI without a warrant. Isn’t it noble of them to poke us in the eye while taking our money? Perhaps the next time you’re at the grocery store checkout, the clerk should send your shopping list to child protective services rather than thank you. It would be the “public servant” thing to do.
Don’t forget the FBI. It’s in a class all by itself. Our sworn law enforcement agents initiated a coup attempt against a duly elected president. They set a perjury trap for his national security advisor. They even falsified evidence to a FISA court.
I’ve heard the arguments that the FBI rank and file are honest and professional. We shouldn’t blame the whole FBI for a “few bad apples.” What complete balderdash! If most of them were honest, where were the whistleblowers during the investigation of President Trump? As far as being professional, how did they fail to prevent the Boston Marathon bombing — even after they’d received a tip that the Tsarnaevs were up to something? I have the same question about the Pulse Nightclub massacre. Was it also just a “few bad apples” that tried to frame Richard Jewell for the Atlanta Olympics bombing? The FBI even had warnings about the 9/11 attack, yet failed to act.
Of course, our highly professional FBI agents were able to determine that a noose was really a garage-door pull. It only required 15 agents and five days to make that determination. That is some cunning police work! It appears that the FBI is either using their badges to target political enemies, or they’re just a modern-day version of the Keystone Cops in tailored suits. But sacrificing for the public interest — I’m not seeing it.
These are just a few examples. The other alphabet soup agencies aren’t any better. Employees across all federal agencies formed the “resistance” to fight all things Trump. They gave us four years of leaks and unconfirmed anonymous sources undermining anything Donald Trump tried to accomplish. They did it all because they decided we needed something other than what we voted for. How would you rate a waiter that brings you want they want to serve you, not what you ordered?
Spare me the claims of nobility. Who’s really laboring to benefit the country? Is it politicians and bureaucrats whose only focus seems to be amassing power and choking commerce? Or is it the nameless workers who get up at dawn every day to keep this country running. The real nobility belongs to the farmers who put meals on our tables, the truckers who ensure supplies arrive on time, and the linemen that keep the lights on. As for our self-proclaimed federal “public servants,” — they’re overpaid employees with lifetime job security, at best. At worst, they’re parasites on society with aspirations to become our rulers.
The next time a politician or bureaucrat says they’re “serving” me — I have one thing to say: I want my tip back.’https://genzconservative.com/public-servants-or-parasites/?utm_source=mailpoet&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=gen-z-conservative-daily-newsletter_1
whatyareckon 