Ever since Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-Venezuela) first revealed that she believed the world would end in just 12 years due to climate change, she has been on the receiving end of merciless mockery. Considering just how idiotic such a rhetoric is, and considering it’s already been used time after time by moronic Leftists decrying that climate change was going to kill us (a practice dating back to the 60s… the 1860s, that is), I’d say the mockery is rather justified.
 
But I think AOC had enough of the mockery and has decided to backtrack on that apocalyptic claim altogether. On Sunday, she tweeted: “This is a technique of the GOP, to take dry humor + sarcasm literally and ‘fact check’ it. Like the ‘world ending in 12 years’ thing, you’d have to have the social intelligence of a sea sponge to think it’s literal. But the GOP is basically Dwight from The Office so who knows.”
 
I absolutely love this tweet right here. Despite the fact that she first delivered this warning back in January to a crowd who applauded, not laughed, and the context surrounding it was very serious, she is trying to call it “dry humor” mixed with “sarcasm”.
 
That’s like saying something seriously messed up and then backtracking by saying “it was just a joke”. It’s a really funny copout.
 
Just FYI, AOC delivered that warning alongside the idea that climate change was “our World War II”, insisting that we fight climate change like we would a world war. That, too, received some mockery, but not as much as the doomsday warning.
 
She said: “I think the part of it that is generational is that millennials and people, in Gen Z, and all these folks that come after us are looking up and we’re like, the world is gonna end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change. And your biggest issue, your biggest issue is how are [we] going to pay for it? – and like this is the war, this is our World War II.”
 
Now, had she said it was just a joke (or even just an exaggeration) soon after the mockery ensued, that would’ve been fine and understandable. Granted, charging that the world was going to end in 12 years is a little different from exaggerating about how much time something else would take to occur, but it would’ve been a little bit better. Her problem, however, is the fact that she doubled-down time after time with that specific number of years.
 
Just last month, she created a video (which was also mocked) charging that the world would end in just 12 years due to climate change. She even captioned the video (which was shared on Twitter) with: “Climate change is here + we’ve got a deadline: 12 years left to cut emissions in half…”
 
The video itself shares that same deadline of specifically twelve years to act on climate change.
 
Last month, she held an Instagram live-stream where one of her viewers mocked her doomsday clock, which triggered the lunatic socialist and replied: “We have twelve years left to cut emissions by at least 50 percent if not more. For everyone who wants to make a joke about that, you may laugh but your grandkids will not, so understand that the internet documents everything.”
 
A little ironic considering she is now claiming she was joking about that, and she’s certainly right: the internet does document everything, especially the words of a moron like her.
 
But what is perhaps the funniest thing about this entire situation is the fact that those who applauded her for her doomsday warning back in January and continued to applaud it as it was relentlessly mocked very clearly took it literally. They honestly were brought to the belief that the world would end in only twelve years. After all, it prompted a bunch of children to try to scold Sen. Diane Feinstein (D-China) about climate change and the deadline of 12 years.
 
So the people that she mostly insults here are not Republicans or conservatives who took her literally (because she was being literal up until now, I suppose), but rather, her own constituents, who were convinced the world would end by the 2030s if we didn’t implement the Red… erm, I mean, Green New Deal, totally uprooting our entire economic system over the heavily misguided belief that we are killing our own planet due to our capitalism (honestly, I don’t understand how one comes to believe such a dumb rhetoric).
 
It’s her own constituents, some of which were in that January MLK forum in New York City, that came to believe her and apparently have the intellect of a sea sponge (which I think is insulting to SpongeBob SquarePants considering even he understands the value of employment and considering he has something many socialist Millennials don’t: his own house). They are the ones who took the doomsday warning very literally and very seriously (as she intended), so are they the ones who have the intellectual capabilities of an aquatic sponge? AOC seems to think so.
 
And that’s the beautiful irony of this entire situation. While pretty much everyone took her warning literally, only those who actually believe we are killing our planet took it seriously. And they are the ones who are actually targeted, if inadvertently, by AOC’s insult.
 
Those of us who understand ACTUAL science understand that the climate, while changing, is not even close to being heavily affected by humans. Matter of fact, according to a recent study, the Tropical Atlantic was 7.5° C WARMER 10 to 15 thousand years ago, when CO2 levels hovered around 220 ppm (roughly half of what they are now).
 
“Evidence from the tropical Atlantic indicates today’s regional temperatures (15.5°C) are 7.5°C colder than peak temperatures (23°C) between 15,000 to 10,000 years ago, when CO2 hovered around 220 ppm.”
 
What’s funny is that in simply looking up what “ppm” means, I came across multiple articles talking about how CO2 levels are the highest they’ve ever been, hitting 415 ppm, and talking about how bad that is. As we just demonstrated, CO2 levels mean absolutely nothing to the overall climate of the planet, but these people are convinced (by people like AOC) that we are killing our planet with CO2 and if CO2 levels are the highest they’ve ever been, that is a terrible thing.
 
The Left are the ones who promulgate the belief that we are killing our planet, as evidenced by the literal climate hysteria the Left seems to cycle through themselves. So it stands to reason that those who lean more towards the Left will take AOC’s climate doomsday warning of 12 years, max, to be quite literal, serious and alarming. The whole POINT of such a doomsday clock is to get people scared and riled up about climate change so that they would vote into office those who would pass and apply socialist policies like the Green New Deal which would effectively kill the United States economy almost immediately and legitimately ruin millions of people’s very way of life if they even come to survive at all.
 
Food shortages would be very, very common with the outlawing of fossil fuels as farming equipment largely, if not exclusively, rely on fossil fuels. The Green New Deal would effectively kill the country, not just economically, but very literally for millions of people, but you’re not supposed to know that. “It’s all to fight climate change”, is what they say. And considering how much of an emphasis climate change is for these people to go so far as to compare it with a WORLD WAR, you’re supposed to back up any “solution” offered by the Left even if it literally kills people (and considering the Left’s efforts to dehumanize people and some college professors’ insistence that the planet would be far better off without humans living in it, I’d say their efforts to devalue human life are well on their way for this sort of action to take place and be viewed as something acceptable).
 
Although we’ll have to see where things go from here now that AOC has backtracked with her doomsday warning. I’d say that “twelve years before we die” rhetoric was much of the driving force behind the GND. Ironically, she might flip-flop once again in the near future to say we only have a certain amount of time before we all die, once again leading people to be scared enough to pass the cyanide pill of a legislation that is the GND.
 
But as it stands, I will laugh merrily at the fact that AOC was largely calling her own constituents idiots more so than conservatives, even if she did not mean to.
 
Romans 1:22
“Claiming to be wise, they became fools.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

This is something anyone with a functioning brain can figure out, but it is always good to have a study backing up such thoughts. Common sense and logic dictate that the Green New Deal, even if it worked as advertised, would do nothing to combat climate change considering it would only apply to the U.S. and there are other countries that pollute even more than we do.
 
But a study from the American Enterprise Institute looked into this sort of thing and found the same results: the GND, even if it worked exactly as advertised, doing everything it did financially effectively, would do next to nothing to combat climate change.
 
The study, written by Benjamin Zycher, begins by saying that the GND’s central goal is to implement policies that would “reduce US greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to zero, or to ‘net zero’, by 2050 in some formulations,” and that the way it would go about it is by “reducing sharply the economic value of some substantial part of the US resource base and the energy-producing and energy-consuming capital stock,” which the proposal claims would “increase the size of the economy in real terms, increase employment, improve environmental quality, and improve distributional equity.”
 
To Zycher, that is a “’broken windows’ argument: The destruction of resources increases aggregate wealth. It is not to be taken seriously.”
 
Zycher then notes that “the future temperature impacts of the zero-emissions objective would be barely distinguishable from zero: 0.173° by 2100, under the maximum Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change parameter… Under the assumption consistent with the findings reported in the recent peer-reviewed literature, the effect would be 0.083° by 2100, a policy impact not measurable against normal variation in temperatures.”
 
In other words, the impact of the GND on climate change would be pretty much unnoticeable even in 80 years. And considering we only have 12 years to live, according to the brilliant AOC, I’d say that’s not a good thing.
 
But Zycher does not simply end there. He also recognizes what the GND’s TRUE purpose is. It is not about fighting climate change, despite what the people supporting it will claim. It’s such a ridiculous and not-at-all well-thought-out proposal that one glance is all anyone needs to tell this wouldn’t work.
 
Replacing every single building in the country? Eliminating cow farts? Those two things alone are pretty darn impossible to pull off, let alone all the other junk in it.
 
No, its true purpose is to fundamentally change the United States into the definition of a socialist country: a country where the government owns the means of production. As Zycher puts it, the GND’s “real goal is wealth redistribution to favored political interests under the GND social-policy agenda and a dramatic increase in government control of resource allocation more generally.”
 
It is policy meant to give all the power to those in government while utterly decimating everyone else. Especially considering the GND’s electricity mandate, which would cost tax payers around $490.5 billion a year, and that’s a CONSERVATIVE estimate, or $3,845 per household. According to Zycher, this “impact would vary considerably across the states if the GND were financed through electricity rates rather than the federal budget. Under such a ratepayer finance assumption, the lowest household cost of $222 per year would be observed in Vermont. The highest would be observed in Wyoming: $17,103 per household per year.”
 
And just like that, Wyoming would lose pretty much all of its population. And considering they only have about 577,000 people in that entire state (I was honestly stunned at that number. There are more people in the city of Portland, Oregon than in all of Wyoming?), I’d say that state is particularly screwed by the GND.
 
But do you want to know what the cherry on top of all of that is? Not only would people be utterly financially screwed with an added tax to pay for this GND on top of everything else they need to pay, but this mandate alone would actually HARM the environment more than it would help it.
 
“Because of the need for conventional backup generation to avoid blackouts in a ‘100 percent renewable system’ and because those backup units would have to be cycled up and down depending on wind and sunlight conditions, one ironic effect would be GHG emissions from natural gas-fired backup generation 22 percent higher than those resulting in 2017 from all natural gas-fired power generation. And those backup emissions would be over 35 percent of the emissions from all power generation in 2017.”
 
In other words, because wind and solar are so unreliable when it comes to the energy they produce, the backup generators would actually heavily increase greenhouse emissions (you know, that naughty word?). It would actually be WORSE for the environment to switch to wind and/or solar, not to mention they also do not produce anywhere near the same amount of energy that fossil fuel does, so blackouts would be frequent almost regardless of conditions (depending on where you live).
 
So the GND literally cannot even TRY to work as advertised, that is, it cannot do anything favorable to fight climate change, as the electricity mandate alone would work against that goal, even if we could actually somehow afford it, which we definitely cannot.
 
The GND should be considered a complete and total joke, top to bottom, but there are some really stupid people out there who think this is a good idea. Well, once their homes stop having working electricity (and God knows the U.S. can’t literally replace all of its buildings even within a century), their supermarkets are emptied because the farming equipment we currently have would be outlawed so food production would severely decline, and you overall have massive famines and riots, then maybe people will stop thinking the GND is so great.
 
Seriously, the GND is national suicide. It would almost immediately destroy the country in every aspect. And all to perhaps help decrease global temperatures by virtually zero in 80 years.
 
What a great plan.
 
Proverbs 18:2
“A fool takes no pleasure in understanding, but only in expressing his opinion.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Shifting our focus away from more serious matters and looking towards something of entertainment and comedy, we can find a short video of an adorable 8-year-old girl who bears a striking resemblance to the female lunatic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, even going as far as to tie her hair in a knot, put on glasses and don some red lipstick.
 
The video, filmed by her father, who says that many in their family noted the resemblance the girl and the Congresswoman have, shows the girl talking about climate change and socialism in a hilarious video that greatly mocks the lunatic and at least relatively showcases the girl’s superior intelligence (at least in the fact she was more than happy to give a very good mocking of AOC).
 
The video begins with the girl saying: “Like, I’m Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez aka AOC, and like, I wanna talk about climate change…”, expertly mocking the fact that AOC talks like a teenage girl.
 
Continuing: “… because, like, there’s no doubt cow farts are making the climate change. Like, in July, the climate was 96 degrees and in February, the climate was 36 degrees. OMG, like that is a huge change in the climate in only…” she then proceeds to count using her fingers “four months! Like, at this rate, the world is gonna end in exactly 12 years, and, like, I’m only 29 years old now so the world will be over when I’m only…” again counts on her hand, “37 years old!” Obviously, the math is wrong, but that makes it all the funnier.
 
The girl mocks the type of climate alarmism cycle the media and the Left undergoes every six months. When it’s winter, they claim that it’s global cooling and it’s really cold because of climate change. When it’s summer, they claim it’s global warming and it’s really hot because of climate change. This is the same cycle we go through every single time we have summer and winter and it only highlights how unbelievably stupid these people are.
 
And not ignorant, but plain stupid. Ignorance would be not knowing that the Earth’s rotation around the Sun and on its own axis isn’t perfect, so we both get closer and farther away from the Sun and our planet moves between having the northern hemisphere receive more sunlight and having the southern hemisphere receive more sunlight. These are things that are taught (even if I didn’t explain them all that well) in elementary school. Even if I didn’t explain this very well, you know and can picture what I am talking about.
 
It’s hilarious that this little girl points out how unbelievably ridiculous it is for people to believe climate change has to do with the fact that it’s cold in the winter and hot in the summer. And for those who want to give the Left some leeway, yes, the Left largely talks about record highs and lows, not simply that it’s hot during summer and cold during winter, but considering there were far more record highs and lows a century ago than there are now, they ought to know just how little the climate is actually changing, at least in terms of drastic weather and temperature changes.
 
The girl then goes on to talk about socialism: “Like, I also wanna talk about socialism because socialism is so amazing! Like, socialism is actually short for ‘social media’. Did you know that? Like, I use social media, so I’m a socialist, and, like, three of the most successful countries in the world are socialist too. Venezuela, Facebook and Twitter are all very successful socialist countries. I have a lot of friends who moved to America from Facebook.”
 
Sadly, that is where the video ends, but it was brilliant through and through. I particularly loved the part where she mentions three successful countries that are socialist being Venezuela, Facebook and Twitter.
 
Apart from the fact that Facebook and Twitter are not actually countries (big shocker), I can’t help but think that she is right in as far as they are socialist. Ignoring the parts about power being centralized to one person or a small group of people because all businesses run that way, the companies are very socialist-leaning and employ censorship models that are very socialistic.
 
You can be put into Twitter or Facebook jail if you say something they don’t like or share something they disagree with. Exactly like the socialists and communists have done in the past and continue to do. I mean, remember when Jorge Ramos was detained by Venezuelan officials just because he dared show the evils that the Maduro regime was imposing on the Venezuelan people? Ramos is fairly close to Maduro in terms of political ideologies, but he showed him something he didn’t like and was treated like a criminal for it. How much worse off would a Venezuelan journalist have been in that situation? How much worse off would someone who is actually a capitalist have been?
 
And while Facebook and Twitter don’t physically put you in a jail to rot, they restrict your access and ability to exercise your first amendment rights to whomever you wish just because they disagree with what you are saying or sharing. Even if you are a feminist Leftist, if you dare criticize transgender women (men who claim to be women. Yes, it is sad that I understand the terminology and how it works) as not being actual women, you get put into Facebook or Twitter jail.
 
That’s socialism, or at least socialistic behavior.
 
Now, I don’t know if the girl had a script that was likely written by her parents, but there were parts that at least appeared like she was not reading from a script and was improvising. Like the part about telling people that socialism was short for “social media” sounded fairly improvised and something she thought up on the spot. Not to mention that even if it was all scripted, it’s clear to me that her parents are smart people, so there is good chance that the girl will turn out smart as well and recognize what she is saying here and find it funny too. Even if she doesn’t actually know what socialism is and was simply told by her parents to use that word in this context, she will know eventually and she at least has the potential to be smarter than the 29-year-old cartoon character of a Congresswoman.
 
According to the New York Post, the girl did not know who AOC was before she made the video, which is understandable considering I did not know or care about anyone of importance from the government when I was 8 apart from Argentina’s then-president Kirchner, and only then because my parents heavily disliked the guy and often talked about him. At that age, I did not care one wit about anything relating to the government or “adult” stuff and I only cared about cartoons, Power Rangers, my friends, and things kids care about. This also leads me to believe the kid does not, or at least did not, know about socialism, but again, her parents do know, so she has a good chance of being taught the right way and the right things about it and its horrors.
 
Still, the video is very funny and went viral on the internet, garnering over a million views. According to her step-father, the girl loves to act, so that might’ve been one of the reasons she went along with it.
 
Regardless, again, it shows that the girl at least has the potential to be quite smart in the future, even if she doesn’t know what socialism is. Again, at that age, I did not know either. I was not paying attention to the world around me and was simply told stories and things from my parents, such as Argentina going into default and the government stealing people’s money (including my family’s). It was at that moment that I started to not like the government so much, at least the Argentine government.
 
But one can only hope that this girl will not grow up to be the dunderhead she is portraying in this short video. Here’s hoping and praying she will be properly educated (not indoctrinated) and will recognize the evils of socialism and the Left.
 
Proverbs 22:6
“Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

In a recent House Oversight Committee, socialist lunatic and less-popular-than-Trump-in-her-own-state Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez asked former Secretary of State John Kerry and former Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel if inaction or even delayed action on climate change could cost American lives, which both said “yes” to, which AOC agreed with.
 
Ignoring the fact that this is basically like asking your mom if you really are a “handsome boy” (of course she's going to say you are. SHE'S YOUR MOM), what all of these people are saying is flatly untrue.
 
In my previous article about climate change, specifically man-made climate change, I talked about how our CO2 emissions are completely unnoticeable in our climate and taking everyone out of the planet would not make any difference whatsoever in how warm or cold the planet would get for a variety of reasons, chief among which is that God is the one in control of the planet, not us.
 
So from that alone, we can see the falsehoods of AOC’s, John Kerry’s and Chuck Hagel’s statement and assumptions. There is no such thing as man-made climate change. We have no control over it, so no resolution will do anything to “remedy” the false problem.
 
And certainly, not acting on it or “delaying” action on it is not going to cost lives whatsoever. Climate change has not killed anyone ever. People can die from being too cold or too hot, no doubt, but the long-term change of the climate is not responsible for any deaths. It’d be like claiming that water slowly kills people because we all drink it and eventually die. People certainly do die, eventually, but water or the changing climate is not the culprit (unless someone drowns, of course).
 
However, I know of something that will 100% cause American deaths if applied: the Green New Deal.
 
While I’ve already talked extensively about it, I felt it necessary to mention this considering AOC’s chosen words of climate change inaction or delay-of-action would cost American lives.
 
We already are fairly familiar with the concept that the GND would cost nearly $100 TRILLION on American taxpayers, but one little article from RealClear Politics and one table in that article really helps put that massive number into perspective.
 
The article I am talking about is titled: “Why the Green New Deal is Financially Lethal”. Now, that is as obvious a statement to make as if one where to write an article saying: “Why Michael Jordan is a Basketball Legend.” Of course MJ is a basketball legend and of course the Green New Deal is financially lethal. The only difference here is that there are really stupid people out there (namely children who choose to skip school to yell at old ladies that they need to implement the GND) who think the GND is the greatest thing since sliced bread and will bring nothing but good things like a saved planet, unicorns, free money for everyone and not ever having to worry about anything ever.
 
So the writer of the article mentions in great detail just why the GND would be so disastrous for Americans.
 
The article says that “the top 50% of all earners account for about $8 trillion - $9 trillion in Americans’ income and produce somewhere between $1.5 trillion and $2 trillion in tax receipts (excluding Social Security and Medicare taxes). The top 10% account for only half of this income but 70% of the taxes. The lower half contribute a mere 2.7% of income taxes.”
 
In other words, not even the richest of the rich have the money to pay for even 10% of the estimated cost of the Green New Deal, even if you were to literally take all of their money. Which, of course, means that everyone else will be forced to contribute, so the GND is not only a “tax on the rich”. It’s a tax on everyone, which means those already at the bottom will suffer the most.
 
The article also shows a table that I will detail to you. The table is split into three categories: the “goal” or the planned portion of the GND, the estimated cost of that plan and the estimated cost per household, all for the first ten years of the GND were it to be applied starting in 2020.
 
The table reads as follows:
 
Goal: Low-Carbon Electricity Grid; Estimated cost: $5.4 trillion; Estimated cost per household: $39,000.
 
In other words, each household will be forced to pay an extra $39,000. Now, I don’t think this is per year, but a total cost, but keep in mind that that’s just for ONE aspect of the Green New Deal. Let’s keep going, shall we?
 
Goal: Net Zero Emissions Transport System; Estimated cost: $1.3 trillion to $2.7 trillion; estimated cost per household: $9,000 to $20,000.
 
Goal: Guaranteed Jobs; Estimated cost: $6.8 trillion to $44.6 trillion; cost per household: $49,000 to $322,000.
 
Goal: Universal Health Care; Estimated cost: $36 trillion; cost per household: $260,000.
 
Goal: Guaranteed Green Housing; Estimated cost: $1.6 trillion to $4.2 trillion; cost per household: $4,000 to $12,000.
 
Goal: Food Security; Estimated cost: $1.5 billion; cost per household: $10.
 
I also want you to keep in mind that this table is just for the first roughly 10 years of the Green New Deal (and this table also doesn’t include things like eliminating air travel and implementing a train system in its place, etc.). All of these costs are for the first 10 years of the resolution. Now, I don’t know about you, but I don’t think I can make at least $361,000 every ten years (and that’s using the low estimate costs) to pay in taxes AND STILL PAY THINGS LIKE RENT, WATER, FOOD AND TAXES OUTSIDE OF THIS PROPOSAL!
 
The average family income per year in the U.S. is around $56,000. Times ten, that’s $560,000, but that’s before tax. Those who make that much money per year are charged a 12% tax rate UNDER TRUMP’S TAX RATE WHICH THE LEFT WILL UNDOUBTEDLY JACK UP!
 
And that’s just income tax. With only that, people making the average for a household will be left with only $50,000 after income tax alone (roughly). So there is even less money to take from the pool to pay for any one of these items included in the Green New Deal, let alone all of it. My point here is that people simply can’t possibly afford paying the taxes from the Green New Deal AND afford to live even remotely comfortably.
 
And like I’ve said multiple times: socialism doesn’t create wealth, it destroys it. Those at the top are made poorer under socialism (unless they are in the government) and those who already were poor are made poorer still. Just look at Venezuela. They used to be one of, if not the richest nation in Latin America, but after years of socialism, the government is rationing ELECTRICITY!
 
And by the way, don’t think that just because we are not them that we can’t end up like them. Universal healthcare, which is supposed to be free, is notorious for having to ration its supplies. In Great Britain, for example, the elderly are forced to go blind because of rationing in their healthcare system. They can’t get surgeries to correct or even save their eyesight, so they go blind.
 
And in Venezuela, hospitals barely have the supplies to treat their patients, so you bet there’s a lot of rationing going around.
 
So those who really need healthcare, those at the bottom, are made to suffer the most. They are the most likely to get sick and/or hurt and are the most likely to need healthcare that is now made to serve the “greater good”, resulting in rationing and a lower standard of healthcare.
 
Proposals like the Green New Deal are truly what would bring about American deaths.
 
“But it’s supposed to help the environment,” I hear you say. Yeah, well, a whole lot of good that’s gonna do if we are the only ones stupid enough to do this. The GND, even if it could actually do what is advertised of it: save the planet, is still only an American proposal. The biggest carbon gas emitters in the world are India and China and you don’t see them give a single flying you-know-what about the environment. They are not going to implement something as stupid as the GND BECAUSE THEY DON’T NEED TO! India is already socialist enough. China is literally communist. They already have all the power they could want (of course, people always want more, but still).
 
The REAL point of the Green New Deal is to force America to make a hard turn towards socialism, where the government regulates everything (and I do mean everything, if California has considered text taxes and “drinking water” taxes). The REAL point of the GND is to fundamentally change America into an unrecognizable socialist monster, something it was never meant to be.
 
The REAL point of the GND is to give people like AOC as much control over you as they can get. As a result, not only are the people left without any freedom whatsoever, but they are left to never experience the benefits that were promised.
 
People are promised that the GND would “solve” climate change. It can’t for the reasons I stated in the beginning. People are promised that the GND would provide people with healthcare. Yeah, Venezuelan-style healthcare. People are promised that the GND would provide guaranteed jobs for everyone. It would literally terminate the vast majority of jobs today.
 
And it’s the same song and dance as it’s ever been. Lenin promised the people of Russia power. He gave himself all the power. All dictators promise people the world if they help them get into power. It always ends the same way: with the dictators living with all the power and the people left to be their worthless subjects.
 
Like the devil, the Left promises people the whole world, but it’s always one massive lie. Satan promised Eve she would be like God, knowing good and evil. But that came at the cost of her and Adam being kicked out of literal paradise. The Left promises safety from a fictitious man-made change in climate, but at the cost of individual freedom.
 
Adam and Eve did not even become like God by eating of the forbidden fruit. The first thing they did upon eating the fruit is acknowledge their nakedness – not their sin against God, but their shameful nakedness. What knowledge of good and evil did they receive, then? Certainly not one akin to God’s.
 
Likewise, the American people would not receive the advertised benefits of this proposal. All they would receive is being kicked out of capitalist paradise.
 
These are promises that are meant to ensnare people, but will never actually come to fruition. Only Satan benefited from tricking Eve and only the government benefits from socialism.
 
But certainly, both Satan and socialists are eventually punished by God.
 
The Green New Deal, with its high-cost plans, is the only thing that would actually cost Americans their lives. It is financial suicide that could lead to actual suicide for many. One can only hope nothing close to the Green New Deal is ever made into law, for that would mark the official end of the United States of America.
 
Proverbs 29:2
“When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, but when the wicked rule, the people groan.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

One of the arguments the Left often makes about climate change, more specifically, man-made climate change, is that there is a consensus in the scientific field around the idea that man is causing harm to the planet and we need to take care of that.
 
Unsurprisingly, much like any other argument the Left ever makes, that is full of lies. Dr. Timothy Ball & Tom Harris, a climatologist and an Executive Director, respectively, at the International Climate Science Coalition in Ottowa, Canada, wrote a column on America Out Loud titled: “The Biggest Lie Ever Told – Man-made Global Warming”.
 
In this piece, they quickly establish some basic truths about our climate: it’s “well within the range of natural climate variability through Earth’s 4.5 billion-year history. In fact, it is within the range of the climate change of the last 10,000 years, a period known as the Holocene, 95% of which was warmer than today.”
 
They also establish the fact that CO2 does nothing to increase the global temperature, as there were substantial increases in the world’s temperature before CO2 became so known and used in things like airplanes, cars, etc. The only place where CO2 raises global temperatures is in the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s models.
 
They also quote Adolf Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels on what he said about lying to people (as a minister of propaganda naturally would do): “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the state can shield the people from the political, economic, and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the state to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the state.”
 
And one can’t help but to think of the countless times Leftists, be it elected Democrats or members of the media, have sought to silence those who would dare challenge the idea that man is causing global warming. I mean, Al Gore even suggested fairly recently to basically criminalize denying climate change hysteria. That tells you the sort of Nazi-like ideology that lives within the modern-day Left: the enemy of their reality is the truth, and those who speak the truth are, by extension, their enemies as well – enemies that cannot be allowed to speak the truth.
 
Dr. Ball and Mr. Harris also highlight a few of the lies perpetuated by a radical Left, which include: “It is warmer now than ever before; There is more severe weather now than before; CO2 levels are the highest ever; Arctic and Antarctic sea levels are the lowest ever; Extinction rates are the highest ever; Polar bear populations are in serious decline; Sea levels are rising at an increasing rate.”
 
They also mention the fact that Obama constantly perpetuated these lies, with the help of his EPA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
 
The biggest problem the Left faces in trying to sell this climate change hysteria is the fact that a state needs to constantly repeat the lie for people to believe it. Eight years of Obama helped the state lie to the people an awful lot, but elections are a thing in this country. Dictators have the advantage of either not having to run over and over or simply rigging elections to be constantly and eternally re-elected. However, the Electoral College affords Americans the opportunity to select their new President in a system that is, according to Obama, impossible to “hack” or “rig”.
 
We see this be the case considering that Trump is President and his EPA is not run by climate lunatics.
 
According to Dr. Ball and Mr. Harris: “The Trump Administration has proposed to establish a Presidential Commission on Climate Security, headed by former Princeton physicist Will Happer, to expose the climate lie by disclosing how the IPCC only examined human causes of climate change. They will show how natural climate change completely overwhelms any human effect. For example, human production of CO2 is less than the uncertainty in the measurement of the transfer of CO2 from two natural sources: the oceans, and the vegetation and land. In other words, if we removed all the people from the planet, a scientist left behind to measure the CO2 levels would not detect any difference.”
 
Which is really something to take into consideration in any climate change debate. HUMANS DO NOT HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO DESTROY THE PLANET WITHOUT NUKES! We simply do not output enough CO2 to make even a noticeable, much less significant, impact on the climate. Why else do you think we hear of stories of the Arctic or Antarctic seeing an increase in sheets of ice? Because whatever the Left claims we are doing to the climate is simply untrue.
 
We see this in the fact that they switched from saying “global warming” to simply calling it “climate change”, so as to cover the only two possible changes in the climate: warmth or cold. And somehow, people are alarmed by this? THIS IS HOW OUR PLANET WORKS! There are periods of extreme cold and extreme warmth and we are experiencing neither extreme. It makes as little sense to be worried about this as it would be to be worried about gravity.
 
This is NATURE. And guess what? Humanity has survived. Hot and cold, it’s survived.
 
And by the way, I find it absolutely hilarious that the “scientific community” as the Left calls them claims that the planet has never been warmer. Well, if my high school science class memory serves me right, there was a period of time before there was any life on Earth when the planet was literally a massive ball of magma and lava and fire after it was first formed (by something I don’t quite remember what the science class said, but definitely did not credit God) and went through a period of cooling down after that.
 
So it is an outright lie to say the planet’s never been warmer because we would all be swimming in lava right now if that were the case.
 
In any case, Dr. Ball and Mr. Harris return to Goebbels’ concept that a lie can be maintained as long as the state shields the people from political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. They note that in 1998, the Kyoto Protocol was established, which was essentially the same exact thing as the Paris Climate Agreement. The Kyoto Protocol, despite being a supposed “answer” for climate change (and Kyoto Protocol supporter Tom Wigley estimated that even if all the reduction targets were met, the temperature would lower only by 0.05° by 2050, so a completely unnoticeable change) would’ve done something similar to what the Paris Climate Agreement would’ve done: cripple the U.S. economy to fight an invisible enemy.
 
The U.S. Senate looked into the Kyoto Protocol but the Byrd/Hagel Resolution (the only thing I can give honest props to Robert Byrd for) stated that America should not be a signatory to “any agreement based on the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that would seriously damage the U.S. economy and didn’t include emissions reductions for developing countries that were similar to those imposed on the U.S.” That resolution passed unanimously, 95-0.
 
However, based on that, you can tell that Obama’s Democrat Party was considerably different. The Paris Climate Agreement was made to do exactly what the Kyoto Protocol was supposed to do: force the U.S. to comply to strict environmental regulations (which would cripple the economy) but other nations would not be forced to do much at all. And similarly to the Kyoto Protocol, someone estimated that even if all the requirements were met, the change would be entirely unnoticeable.
 
And as things stand today, the Stanford Energy Forum and the Asia Modelling Exercise estimate the Paris Climate Agreement to cost $1 – 2 trillion every YEAR.
 
But if you remember correctly, when Trump made the great choice of pulling the U.S. out of the deal, the Left cried as though it was the end of the world, with many actually claiming it would lead to the end of the world. No, it led to the end of the United States getting shafted by globalist organizations seeking to steal our money.
 
I can’t help but keep remembering that Goebbels quote and seeing the Left perfectly fitting the bill. They insist that “climate deniers” should not be given any platform to speak, essentially marking them as the enemy of the state, with some even actually wanting to criminalize and punish offering a different point of view.
 
Peter Buttigieg, the unholy hypocrite, said that to him, if people are faced with adversity, they are not free. In other words, he is not free if anyone were to offer a differing point of view from his own as he considers that to be adversity. And all of a sudden, that person is branded as an oppressor and someone who is taking away his freedom. That is the definition of irony right there: denying someone the freedom to speak while claiming he or she is denying someone else their freedom.
 
This is how a dictatorship starts. This is how an out of control government, led by a tyrant, starts. Insisting that someone will be free if they submit to slavery or servitude is a tale as old as time. A despot promising safety for the people in exchange for their freedom ultimately provides neither.
 
As Benjamin Franklin once said: “Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
 
And what the Left is offering is “safety” from man-made climate change in exchange for liberty. Of course, they don’t broadcast it, but that is what they are ultimately offering. The Green New Deal was going to get rid of planes, farting cows and ALL BUILDINGS AND VEHICLES THAT ARE NOT UP TO THEIR GREEN STANDARDS! If that is not forcing the people to give up their liberty, I don’t know what is.
 
But as far as these two guys go, that article is pretty great. It shows that (even though I already knew this) there is not absolute, unanimous consensus in the scientific field about climate change. Not everyone is willing to lie to the people of the world that we are killing our planet. We are making no noticeable contribution to it, one way or the other, so no need to fret about it.
 
God is the one in control of the world’s climate. Not us. The idea that we could wrestle control away from Him is ludicrous at best and outright blasphemous at worst.
 
1 Chronicles 29:11
“Yours, O Lord, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty, for all that is in the heavens and in the earth is yours. Yours is the kingdom, O Lord, and you are exalted as head above all.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Ever since the hoax that mankind has been destroying the earth with all our capitalism and our good livelihoods began, the Left has been trying to back up the farce with some evidence to prove their claims. And while they often TRY to cite evidence, all the evidence they show either is a prediction of what will happen in the next ten to fifty to one hundred years (with data made by men, of course) or the evidence points to actual weather patterns of hot and cold records, but do not tell the whole story surrounding them.

The latter is what AP reporter Seth Borenstein tried recently.
 
He wrote: “The AP looked at 424 weather stations throughout the Lower 48 states that had consistent temperature records since 1920 and counted how many times daily hot temperature records were tied or broken and how many daily cold records were set. In a stable climate, the numbers should be roughly equal. Since 1999, the ratio has been two warm records set or broken for every cold one. In 16 of the last 20 years, there have been more daily high-temperature records than low.”
 
Borenstein even cited some climate scientists: “The AP shared the data analysis with several climate and data scientists, who all said the conclusion was correct, consistent with scientific peer-reviewed literature and showed a clear sign of human-caused climate change. They pointed out that trends over decades are more robust than over single years.”
 
Finally, he concluded by saying: “The analysis stopped with data through 2018. However, the first two months of 2019 are showing twice as many cold records than hot ones.”
 
Gee, I wonder why, in the middle of winter, there appear to be more cold temperatures than hot ones.
 
Jokes aside, the climate scientists that Seth spoke with do not speak for ALL climate scientists.
 
Climatologist John Christy told The Daily Signal: “The occurrence of both record highs and record lows is declining. Record-low events are simply declining more rapidly than record highs. The drop in record lows is associated with development around the weather stations, which causes low temperatures to increase more than highs for a variety of reasons.”
 
He continued: “The AP… is spinning the story by only noting that record lows are fewer than highs now – but the real story is that in the U.S., both extremes are falling. This is consistent with the decline in number of days greater than 100 [degrees] Farenheit… The differential decline in record temps is inconsistent with [greenhouse gas] theory, which predicts an increase in record highs and higher TMax in general.”
 
According to the Daily Signal: “Most climate change activists cite the greenhouse gas theory – that man-made gases are causing changes to the Earth’s temperature. Christy noted that this theory predicts an increase in frequency of record-breaking temperatures. Yet the exact opposite is happening in the U.S. – the frequency of those temps is declining.”
 
Christy notes that the reason for this is likely “urbanization and natural variability.”
 
Christy says: “I’ve actually done this same analysis for the 682 [U.S. Historical Climatology Network] stations with at least 105 years of record since 1895. It is clear that the occurrence of both record high and record lows has declined since 1895, thanks to many records set from the 1920s to 1954.”
 
In other words, the greenhouse gas theory is wrong, plain and simple. It predicts that there will be more and more record-breaking temperatures, but the reality of the situation is that there has been a decent decline in the last 100 years.
 
Climatologist Roger Pielke Sr. also weighed in on the AP’s findings: “Without assessing the role of increased urbanization and other land-use changes… changes in atmospheric aerosols overhead, microclimate around observing site, changes in heights of observations, and concurrent trends in surface air humidity, it is not robust to attribute any changes in extreme temperatures to just human-added atmospheric CO2.”
 
In English, he’s saying that there are a lot of variables included in the calculating of the changing climate to simply attribute an overall change to “HUMANS ARE KILLING THE PLANET” paranoia.
 
Now, this is far from the first time this Seth Borenstein fellow has tried to pass off bogus or context-less data as proof of man-made climate change. However, this goes to show just how little the Left actually has in their efforts to prove something that is not there.
 
Unfortunately, despite how honest-to-God ridiculous this climate change hysteria is, around 20% of Americans blame global warming for this past cold winter, according to Gallup. I’m not joking.
 
43% of Americans surveyed “said temperatures where they live were colder than normal, with 19 percent blaming global warming for colder weather,” reported the Daily Caller.
 
I don’t know how often I have to point out the obvious ridiculousness of blaming global WARMING for colder temperatures.
 
But yet, the Left’s push to make everyone dependable morons is working well enough for them. I mean, they already have scared children half to death with talks about them not having a future all in an effort to steal away power and freedom from the American people.
 
I often say that it takes far more faith to believe in climate change than it does God. And since I talked about God and science yesterday, it makes sense to bring this up here: we see evidence of God’s existence EVERYWHERE. However, you can’t even come anywhere close to saying the same of climate change. All the evidence the Left protrudes, as I said earlier, is either a prediction of future temperatures (man-made data, in other words) and the noting of the fact that there are, indeed, record-highs and lows in temperatures, but ignoring completely the fact that such occurrences have been declining in the last century.
 
The matter of fact is this: as God is the one who created everything, including planet Earth, He is the one that is in control of what happens to it. If He decides that it will warm up heavily, it will warm up heavily. If He decides it will severely cool down, it will severely cool down.
 
For the fact that God is sovereign enough to verbally ordain light to exist and the entire universe to be created, I find it odd that so many think He is somehow unable to control the climate and that humanity has wrestled such control away from Him.
 
Genesis 1:1-3
“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face if the waters. And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

I always find amusing when one environmentalist wacko is attacked by another environmentalist wacko (although Patrick Moore, the man I am talking about here, seems to have strayed from the extremist environmentalism of Greenpeace for some time now, so I should call him an ex-environmentalist wacko).
 
And recently, Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore once again shredded Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez over her “Green New Deal” and, more specifically, her hypocrisy over using air travel, something she adamantly wants to eliminate according to her proposal.
 
I say he once again shredded AOC because he’s apparently destroyed her multiple times and this is the first time I’m hearing about it.
 
Before I get ahead of myself, let me tell you of the most recent attack from Moore to AOC. Ocasio-Cortez, according to the New York Post, adamantly uses air and car travel, both of which are supposed no-no’s for these wackos.
 
So Ocasio-Cortez, not believing she is a hypocrite because no hypocrite ever believes that’s what they are, mocked the NY Post article by tweeting: “I also fly & use A/C. Living in the world as it is isn’t an argument against working towards a better future. The Green New Deal is about putting a LOT of people to work in developing new technologies, building new infrastructure, and getting us to 100% renewable energy.”
 
I myself could destroy her argument, as I have with other hypocrites like Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio, but Patrick Moore does a pretty good job in my stead: “The ‘world as it is’ has the option of taking the subway rather than a taxi. Option of Amtrak rather than plane, option of opening windows rather than A/C. You’re just a garden-variety hypocrite like the others. And you have ZERO expertise at any of the things you pretend to know.”
 
And like I said previously, this is not the first time he’s obliterated her arguments.
 
Back when AOC tweeted about her being in charge and the rest of us “just shouting from the cheap seats”, he really laid into her: “Pompous little twit. You don’t have a plan to grow food for 8 billion people without fossil fuels, or get the food into the cities. Horses? If fossil fuels were banned every tree in the world would be cut down for fuel for cooking and heating. You would bring about mass death.”
 
That is a fantastic argument that I did not bring up in my article calling her out over this tweet (largely because that article focused on her corruption and belief she is everyone’s boss now instead of a public SERVANT, but still).
 
And indeed it is something that should be considered. Ban fossil fuel and the overwhelming majority of the world comes to a screeching halt. All fossil-fueled cars would be banned and all electric and hybrid cars would be made irrelevant because the vast majority of them require fossil fuels to charge them up from power grids.
 
As a result, most people are faced with a challenge in going to work, getting their kids to school (no school buses either), getting groceries, stores receiving groceries in the first place, farming equipment no longer being able to farm as much food, hospitals receiving new supplies, businesses failing to receive new inventory to sell… the entire structure of the modern world would come to a halt and forced to regress by CENTURIES, but with the added challenge of trying to feed nearly 8 billion people.
 
At least back when manual labor and primitive farming tools were more widely used, populations were far smaller. Part of the population booms we’ve had in recent time is due to the ability to afford to have such booms in terms of food production (and you should already know I don’t subscribe to the lunatic Malthusian theory).
 
But as Moore suggests, humanity wouldn’t stand for such a grinding halt in progress. It would try to replace the productivity of fossil fuels with something else, namely trees, causing mass deforestations as a NECESSITY.
 
You can’t ban fossil fuels without first having a good alternative that is JUST AS GOOD AND EFFICIENT as fossil fuels, and nothing comes remotely close right now.
 
But returning to Moore, he also attacked her for comparing climate change to World War II.
 
Responding to another user who also complained about AOC saying the world is going to end if we don’t do the Green New Deal (which sounds to me like the tell-tale signs of a huge scam, like a Nigerian prince promising you millions of dollars if you send them your social security number and other private information), Moore replied: “Isn’t AOC a bit young to talk about WW2? It was Hell & more than 60 million died. It’s her GND that would be worse than WW2. Imagine no fuel for cars, trucks, tractors, combines, harvesters, power-plants, ships, aircraft, etc. Transport of people & goods would grind to a halt.”
 
Moore also attacked the Paris Climate Accord, calling it a “total sham”, wherein countries like China, India and Russia, which comprise 40% of the global population and are some of the most egregious polluters of the climate (which is why I would argue the GND wouldn’t even make a dent in what it supposedly seeks to do, even if we could afford it and there were no economic repercussions at all). The U.S.’s carbon dioxide emissions back in 2017 sat at around 5 billion metric tons. Asia Pacific, which includes China, India, and a few other countries reached north of 16 billion metric tons and is “responsible for nearly 50% of global dioxide emissions,” according to Forbes.
 
China also contributes, by a massive margin, the most ocean pollution, with 8.80 million metric tons of plastic waste per YEAR according to a Statista graph that was generated in 2010 (most recent I could find, so it’s probably a bit different now, but no doubt with China still ahead. They have no qualms with pollution).
 
According to the graph, the second leading ocean polluter is Indonesia at 3.20 million metric tons a year. It also makes sense that the top 5 leading ocean polluters in the world are from the Asia Pacific region, with the Philippines, Vietnam and Sri Lanka, respectively, being the world leaders in this. By comparison, the U.S. isn’t even in the top 10, with just 0.30 million metric tons of ocean pollution (though I’m sure the wackos in California have saved us all by banning plastic straws, the heroes).
 
So the Green New Deal, even if it were actually possible to implement without causing a massive market and economic collapse the likes we’ve never seen before, wouldn’t actually accomplish anywhere close to what it supposedly wants to accomplish. It would hardly help the environment because the U.S. hardly harms it.
 
In any case, it is always good to see someone who used to be blind to reality seeing the light. Patrick Moore, who has a PhD in Ecology, co-founded Greenpeace and eventually walked away from it (even making a video about it for PragerU) knows that whatever climate change is occurring is 1) not caused by us and 2) cannot be fixed by us.
 
It is also always good to see someone the Left would greatly accredit (he does have a PhD in Ecology, after all) utterly destroying them and their arguments using facts and logic, as always tends to happen.
 
Not that they’ll learn a darn little thing from all of this. After all, the point of the climate change movement isn’t to actually “save” the planet (well, maybe not for AOC, who adamantly believes in the crap the Left has been selling for decades). The point is to amass as much power as possible for the Democrats under the guise of “fighting” something.
 
This much is clear in China, who are just as Leftist, if not more Leftist, than the American Left but couldn’t care one wit about climate change or their own CO2 emissions and ocean pollution. They already have the power they want and were not elected with the promise of doing something about climate change (not that the Left does much of that in America anyway, given that CO2 emissions were pretty high in America under Obama).
 
But again, it is always good to see people who were in the dark coming to the light. Regardless of topic, it is always good to see people recognizing the error of their ways and finding out the truth. Of course, I also hope that apart from the ecological truth, Moore has also found the Truth of the Gospel, but this is definitely a good start.
 
Not to mention that knowing the Truth of the Gospel can be key to knowing just how little power man has, especially in comparison to God. We have absolutely no power by comparison, so there is not much we can do to ourselves if God does not permit it.
 
Colossians 1:16
“For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities – all things were created through him and for him.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

It is not often that I even care to write about anything with relations to animals. For the most part, I care more about matters of God, or matters of humans than I do about matters of animals. Usually, the lowest creation I will consider talking about is the actual planet whenever I discuss climate change. But I suppose this article sort of connects to climate change as well in some ways, at least with the fictitious notion that we are killing our planet.
 
Recently, two previously-thought extinct creatures were discovered. On the Galapagos Island of Fernandina, a giant tortoise, which was last seen more than 100 years ago (1906, more specifically) was discovered.
 
This tortoise was found to be a female tortoise, is believed to be more than 100 years old (roughly the life expectancy of a giant tortoise) and other tracks and scents were also found near her, which might belong to other members of her species, indicating she may not be alone.
 
The other creature that was recently found is perhaps the only creature I would be willing to advocate for its extinction. The Wallace’s Giant Bee (the nightmarish creature is seen right below), named after Alfred Russel Wallace, who discovered the species in 1958 and was last seen in 1981 also was found in Indonesia.
 
The Wallace’s Giant Bee, according to CBS News, is around 1.5 inches long and has a 2.5 inch wingspan. Unsurprisingly, LiveScience dubbed this bee a “nightmare bee”.

​The giant tortoise was discovered by an expedition by the Giant Tortoise Restoration Initiative (GTRI) and Satan’s bee (as I shall call it henceforth) was discovered, oddly enough, by a conservation photographer who had been trying to find this bee for 20 years.
 
I don’t know about you, but the only way I’d be willing to spend 20 years looking for a nightmare bee is if my mission were to, upon finding it alive, kill it with fire. Just bring a flamethrower with me and burn the nightmare fuel of a creature along with the nest it was found in, collateral damage be damned.
 
Of course, since it is a bee, it might not necessarily be immediately hostile like wasps are, but still. One look at this thing and I can’t help but want to kill it off.
 
In any case, let’s get down to the reason I am even talking about this at all. As the title suggests, I am adamant in explaining the simple fact that nature always finds a way.
 
Beyond the fact-less narratives of the Left when it comes to climate change, it is simply a ludicrous thought that humanity could cause harm to the climate this much, even when it “tries” to do the opposite (I put that word in quotation marks because it’s clear to me countries still participating in the Paris Climate Accord don’t actually care about the environment if their CO2 emissions are still as bad as they are).
 
Man has the power to do a lot of evil and a lot of damage, but not this much, not without nuclear weapons.
 
In a previous article, I talked about how if you tasked me with destroying the planet without nuclear weapons, I would not be able to. Despite however much gas we may be emitting, the polar ice caps aren’t melting like Al Gore and the other idiots are telling us. You need only think of the time when TWO ships were stranded in the South Pole back in 2014 to see how bogus of an argument that is. Those ships were stranded because the assumption was that there was less ice in the area than there actually was.
 
Not to mention that if you look at an image of the planet in a time lapse, you can see the ice caps GROWING not receding.
 
So whatever damage the Left says we are doing to the planet is simply not true. Which is why I would not be able to destroy the planet without nukes. What is thought to be destroying the planet now is certainly not doing it, so how else would I be able to?
 
But even if you do want to continue with the notion that we are destroying the planet, or at least not doing our best to help it, the fact is that nature still finds a way to survive.
 
Look at Chernobyl as an example. The Chernobyl disaster occurred on April 26th, 1986, with subsequent evacuations happening over the next few days (not immediately because communism).
 
I won’t go into detail about the level of radiation that was released by the accident because it’s a lot of technical words that might confuse some people, but there was a lot of radiation that was released.
 
All that we really need to know about this is that Live Science says that the region surrounding the nuclear power plant won’t be habitable for humans for at least 20,000 years. Which, I honestly find odd because they also say that “thriving populations of wolves, deer, lynx, beaver, eagles, boar, elk, bears and other animals have been documented in the dense woodlands that now surround the silent plant.”
 
Of course, this isn’t to say that people literally can’t go there, since my 8th grade science professor actually went there but literally had to burn the clothes he wore on his trip. Still, I don’t suggest anyone try and live in the area any time soon.
 
In any case, my point is that Chernobyl currently has “thriving populations” of different kinds of animals with minimal signs of radiation effects apart from a few stunted trees. Aside from that, if you look at pictures of Chernobyl, you will find a lot of areas where nature is growing even inside some buildings.
 
So despite the terrible radioactive accident of Chernobyl, nature found a way to survive the radioactive area. Despite our CO2 emissions, nature finds a way to get HEALTHIER. And despite whatever else we may be doing to nature, long-thought-extinct creatures can pop up again.
 
Now, I doubt we’ll ever see a dodo bird again, much as I would love to see one, but nature always finds a way to survive because nature’s God is the one in control. He gets to decide what animal survives, what animal thrives and what animal dies.
 
He gets to decide what happens to the polar ice caps. He gets to decide what happens in the event of nuclear accidents (or even nuclear war).
 
The thought that man can destroy the planet stems from unbelief in God, who controls the planet and the universe. This particularly is among the reasons I seriously doubt Pope Francis’ faith. He supposedly believes in God, who created the universe, but does not believe God is currently in control of the climate of the planet? He believes man can do anything to override whatever God does or wants?
 
What sort of faith is that?
 
God is the one who decides that the giant tortoise is still around. He is the one that decides that Wallace’s Giant Bee is still around (for a reason that currently escapes me, but I won’t question Him).
 
So nature always finds a way solely because God is the one who dictates what happens in nature and the way it works. It is asinine to claim we are killing the planet when A) there’s no actual evidence to support that and B) we don’t have the power to override God’s work.
 
Again, the only way I can see to destroy the planet (and even then, the planet would still be around, but most humans and animals likely wouldn’t be) is through the use of nuclear weapons. And like I said, God still dictates what would happen even if humanity foolishly were to destroy itself.
 
1 Chronicles 29:11
“Yours, O Lord, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty, for all that is in the heavens and in the earth is yours. Yours is the kingdom, O Lord, and you are exalted as head above all.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

Last week, socialist nut-job Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, alongside Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA), released the outline for what the Green New Deal will try to achieve in the next ten years.
 
And boy, oh boy, does it read worse than the worst essay I’ve ever written for school.
 
Since this was released last week, I imagine many of you know some of the details of the proposed Green New Deal, but allow me to go over some of them just in case you haven’t desired risking IQ points reading through it.
 
The beginning really just talks about how we’re destroying our climate (no evidence to point to, of course) and we need to do make severe changes (note how it’s only because of us that the climate is being destroyed. We’re reducing CO2 emissions, while France, China and other socialist countries increase theirs, but WE’RE the problem).
 
The first objective of the Green New Deal is “to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers…”
 
Okay, a few things. First, it’s pretty much impossible to do that (a recurring theme you will see as I go through this laughable-if-people-weren’t-so-serious-about-it proposition) without nuclear power. And the Green New Deal is adamant about MOVING AWAY from nuclear power, so the chances of managing to do that in the next 50 years, let alone 10, are zero.
 
Second, what exactly does it mean by “fair” and “just”? Definitely not what we think as fair and just. The plan, of course, is to have the government pay for all of this. The government gets paid by We the People. Sure, the rich pay the vast majority of it, but, as I’ve said in multiple articles, the threshold for what is considered rich always gets lowered when you take away rich people’s money. So how is it fair (under the assumption this is even doable) to have upper middle-class, and then middle-class and then lower middle-class and then lower-class people pay for it? (Side note: the country would collapse way before they get to the lower class, but they are still made to suffer the most by massive nation-wide layoffs before they are stuck with the bill).
 
Let’s move on to what immediately follows that idiotic proposal: “to create millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States.”
 
Again, a couple of things. First, we’re already managing to do the first part with the Trump economy, which Ms. Ocasio-Cortez is “resisting”. Second, what she proposes would do literally the opposite of that. Third, economic prosperity and security should not be a guarantee. No one is entitled to living well. People have to earn it. When people feel entitled to it, they get bitter and will refuse to work (and we’ll get to that in a moment). The Declaration of Independence grants certain inalienable rights to life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness. No one is entitled to happiness, but they are entitled the right to pursue it (which would be taken away by the implementation of this pile of dog-crap).
 
Skipping some other items, we get to some more “guarantees”: “to secure for all people of the United States for generations to come – clean air and water; climate and community resiliency (what does that even mean?); healthy food; access to nature (apparently, people can’t go outside); and a sustainable environment; and to promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this resolution as ‘frontline and vulnerable communities’)…”
 
Okay, that was a whole lot of stupid to compile into one paragraph and a whole lot of things to cover. Now, I don’t want to make this article too long (the Green New Deal is more than 10 pages long), so I will get to the most important bits (although the whole thing is a compilation of socialist lunacy and a saddening lack of any kind of intelligence).
 
Of course, the Green New Deal just has to include reparations not just for black people, but all people who have been “oppressed” historically. Because you see, the mere fact that there was slavery at all is disqualifying of the entire country. Never mind that every other country in existence, with few exceptions, have also allowed slavery (some still allow for slavery to this very day) and heavily benefited from slavery. No, it’s just the U.S. that’s bad.
 
Let me remind you just who it was that FOUGHT for slavery. America is the only country in the world that actually had to go to war to end slavery. On one side, you had the Republican North, led by Abraham Lincoln, who wanted to abolish slavery. On the other, you had the Democrat South, led by Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis, who wanted to keep their “right” to keep slaves.
 
Let me remind you that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a hot-button issue for the Democrat Party, with about half voting for it and the other half voting against it, while the Republican Party was almost entirely unified in their support of the bill.
 
The only people that continually oppress people is the Left. How do we go about abolishing them?
 
In any case, let’s move on. The Green New Deal also proposes “upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximum energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification.”
 
Again, a few things to talk about. First, there are about 127 million residential buildings in the country. That doesn’t include commercial buildings (good luck trying to literally rebuild all of Manhattan), industrial buildings, hospitals, schools, government buildings, etc. I don’t see this happening in the next 100 years, let alone 10.
 
Second, what do you mean doing this “including through electrification”? Powering them up? Makes sense. But how exactly would that be accomplished? The power grid relies almost entirely on fossil fuels (the GND also proposes upgrading the power grid, of course, just doesn’t mention exactly how). Batteries, even if they could actually power up whole buildings (which they can’t), need to be recharged BY FOSSIL FUELS.
 
The GND also proposes building high-speed rails across the country to make air travel obsolete (and even Sen. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) had issues with that, given it would really screw Hawaii over).
 
It also proposes “guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States.” That, on top of guaranteeing a free college education, as well as ensuring there are “high-quality union jobs” and guaranteeing everyone “economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work”, “build charging stations everywhere” (yes, everywhere), “replace every combustion-engine vehicle”, and try to “get rid of farting cows” (not a joke, that part was included verbatum) and other emitters of pollution is a recipe for economic disaster.
 
Let me ask these nut-jobs a question: if people are guaranteed economic security, even if they refuse to work, then who in the world is going to build those cross-country railroads? Who is going to renovate and rebuild literally every single building in the country to be environmentally friendly? Who is going to build charging stations “everywhere”? Who is going to produce the necessary materials to even try to do all that? And who is going to be qualified to do all of that and willing to do it as well?
 
Who is going to run the electrical plants (that are somehow free of gas emissions) to power up anything?
 
And most importantly, where is the money to do all of this going to come from?
 
When people are GUARANTEED free stuff, such as money, they will largely be unwilling to do work that helps everyone. I’ve made this argument before, but it’s just as relevant as ever: no one is going to do manual labor if they are guaranteed an income and economic security. The only jobs that people will do are things relating to the arts. Only works of passion will be done. But then again, who is going to run the cameras for shows? Who is going to put the make-up on the actors? Who is going to do anything that has nothing to do with a passionate job?
 
If everyone is guaranteed an income, who is going to tear down the buildings to renovate them in the first place? And if the money is only guaranteed after either the buildings are torn down (which in itself would take ages) or when the new buildings are up (which would take far longer) how are the workers going to live? They won’t be getting that guaranteed money everyone else is getting, so why would they bother to do anything?
 
This ENTIRE proposal is lacking in so much common sense, I think I would’ve come up with something better while I was in preschool. Even back then, I understood the concept of money. If something couldn’t be paid for, I understood the concept of doing something else.
 
One of my earliest memories is hearing the news that the Argentine government was confiscating people’s money in their bank accounts, causing millions of Argentines to go below the poverty line overnight (and don’t think that can’t happen here, particularly with what these lunatics are proposing).
 
I remember because my family was also affected by this (thankfully, my parents, or at least my mother, had a good job so we’d be okay, but not many people were so lucky) and it got me to realize some basic truths in life: money is limited.
 
Of course, as I grew up, I understood the concept of printing money (which is probably how these whackos will try and pay for all of this, because it WILL have to be paid somehow and the rich don’t have enough money to pay for it) and the concept of inflation created by doing such a thing.
 
It’s basic economics, basic supply and demand, that should tell these idiots that you can’t just print unlimited money and pay for everything. The more there is of an item, i.e. money, the less valuable it is. So that multi-trillion dollar price-tag for even ONE of these items gets increased exponentially.
 
Now, the reason I say that this is bad satire, is because I could hardly believe anyone would be stupid enough to suggest these things and anyone would be stupid enough to back these things. Kamala Harris supports it, but I don’t think she read it. I might be giving her too much credit, but I don’t think she’s all that dumb.
 
Nancy Pelosi, being that she’s actually politically smart (even if she says dumb partisan things like the GOP tax cuts will cause the apocalypse) actively avoids this Green New Deal. She doesn’t flat-out reject it, but she is not taking it seriously and likely doesn’t want to put this piece that might as well have been written in crayon on the House floor.
 
This entire proposal highlights what the Left wants to do: replace capitalism with socialism. In the name of fighting climate change, of course.
 
I would laugh at this proposal if people weren’t so serious about this. They legitimately think these things can be done. They completely ignore reality – the reality that even trying to implement ONE of these things would destroy us economically and everyone would be living in abject poverty as the rest of the world did before capitalism became a thing. The reality that the U.S. is lowering its CO2 levels while China cares nothing for the climate. And why would they? The communists already have total power. They didn’t need to run on fighting climate change. They were helped by the Soviets to establish a communist state.
 
The good news about this is that it’s become very easy to counter all of these points. The bad news is that people might just be getting dumber and dumber. The fact that this proposal, alongside AOC and Markey, aren’t being laughed out of Washington speaks volumes.
 
Just 5 to 10 years ago, these proposals, as they are written, would’ve caused laughing fits. Of course, the actual proposals are nothing new. The Left has been trying to accomplish these things, such as eliminating combustion engines and air travel for decades now. But the language of it all is very blunt. It spells out exactly what they want, which is something they previously had to hide.
 
The problem then is that this is not being met by mock and ridicule, but applause and cheers. People in California will read this and think it’s a brilliant masterpiece, as if written by the great Karl Marx himself. They won’t stop to think “this is ludicrous and actually impossible to accomplish in the next century, let alone decade”. They see the goals and don’t care about how to accomplish them as long as they just try.
 
This is the culmination of the participation trophy generation. As long as we try, it’s okay. It doesn’t matter if millions are starving to death, are homeless and there is absolutely no hope for anyone to live better lives (and we all know Christianity would be rejected and persecuted), as long as we tried, that’s all that matters.
 
It’s not just sickening and idiotic, it’s actually insanely dangerous. This is the sort of mindset that will set humanity back thousands of years. Nothing good can come of even trying to implement all of this (and that’s all there is: trying. There is no accomplishing any of this because it’s uniquely impossible to do any of this, especially in just a decade).
 
I just hope that God will spare us of this mess and Rapture comes before these people attempt to implement these things.
 
Titus 3:5
“He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.

For many people in the United States, it is hard to ignore the polar vortex that struck the U.S. this past week. Many in the northern and mid-western states are facing record-lows in temperature.
 
And just as quickly as the polar vortex hit, climate “experts” and believers chocked it all up to man-made climate change.
 
However, this is one massive and ridiculous copout and I will explain momentarily.
 
First, let me tell you that the reason for me writing this is the fact that I was looking through articles to give me some inspiration to write and came across one that contains an excerpt from the book “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change.”
 
I was originally going to write about this topic yesterday, but the whole issue of debating whether or not a baby is a baby and should be allowed to live OUTSIDE the womb came up and I really needed to address that.
 
However, now we shall discuss this climate topic because it’s still relevant.
 
This is the excerpt of the book around which I am basing this article:
 
“Predictions of less snow were ubiquitous by global warming scientists. But once that prediction failed to come true, the opposite of what they predicted instead became – what they expected. How did global warming scientists explain record snow after predicting less snow? Easy. More snow is now caused by global warming. ‘Snow is consistent with global warming, say scientists’ blared a UK Telegraph headline in 2009. The Financial Times tried to explain ‘Why global warming means… more snow’ in 2012… So no matter what happens, the activists can claim with confidence the event was a predicted consequence of global warming. There is now no way to ever falsify global warming claims.”
 
A very interesting excerpt from that book. However, I would like to disagree with the final argument that there is no way to falsify global warming claims now. There is.
 
This is precisely the reason I call this sort of thing a copout. Scientists and “experts” were predicting less snow. When that prediction turned out to be false, and the opposite happened – more snow – they said that that was also global warming.
 
Even though it literally makes no sense to chock up snow and cold temperatures to global WARMING (and even that Financial Times headline alludes to this ridiculous notion) that’s what they were saying. And that’s why they switched from “global warming” to “climate change”, so they would never be wrong about predictions (except, of course, they still are).
 
But it’s a complete and total copout. Every time they use “climate change” instead of “global warming” that’s a copout.
 
At least global warming was trying to predict something specific. But using “climate change” just so they can be right about the climate getting warmer or colder is basically the same as saying: “I predict the stock market will end higher by the end of the year… or lower… or about the same. I’m an financial genius!”
 
As it turns out, the climate will either get colder after a certain amount of time, get hotter, or stay about the same with next to no change.
 
THOSE ARE THE ONLY OPTIONS! So of course they are never wrong in their predictions. They don’t have to be specific about this sort of thing anymore.
 
Notice how the whole argument of “our kids will not get to experience snow unless they see it in movies or the internet” is no longer used? That’s because they have no actual way of telling whether or not that will actually be the case, so their predictions get broader and vaguer, or they are predictions about things that won’t happen for a very long time when no one will remember such predictions.
 
Of course, people like AOC still make short-term predictions just because, but it really doesn’t matter. No one’s going to hold her accountable for it, even when she turns out to be wrong in 12 years.
 
I’ve often said that the point of climate change is not so the Left would be right about anything. They don’t care about being right. They only care about making people be afraid of this climate change and make people think only Democrats can ever come up with “solutions” to this “problem”.
 
It’s almost like the mafia demanding “protection” money. The Democrats are the ones that make people be afraid and thus, they make people “pay” them by electing them into power.
 
But at the same time, the Democrats need to be able to seem somewhat reasonable as far as climate change goes. What I mean by that is that they can’t keep making predictions of less snow when there’s more snow, can’t make predictions about an impending apocalypse set to occur in a decade or so, and can’t keep suggesting the climate is only getting warmer, when it could also get colder.
 
Their credibility would take some serious hits if they are constantly wrong about every single thing.
 
Granted, they have no credibility with conservatives, but I’m also talking about credibility with just about anyone.
 
Are people more likely to believe someone who is constantly wrong about something or someone who cops out and makes general and broad predictions that will turn out to be true only because they cover the only possible options?
 
It’s because of this that they switched to “climate change”. They saw they were dead wrong about pretty much everything they were selling to people, so they started to say that cold weather is also because of global warming. Only that makes zero sense to anyone with half a brain, so they decided to start calling it climate change. The focus was that the climate was still getting warmer but they leave themselves the room to claim that the climate can also get colder.
 
It’s a massive copout, but it’s necessary to retain their credibility (however little they may have) and to retain the narrative’s usefulness to elect Democrats.
 
These people are completely shameless in their pursuit of power, opting to constantly lie and deceive people to attain it. Workers of deceit is what they are.
 
Proverbs 29:2
“When the righteous increase, the people rejoice, but when the wicked rule, the people groan.”
 
And please make sure to check out our free weekly newsletter. As the name suggests, it is a newsletter that comes completely free of charge. What you get is a compilation of the week’s articles sent right into your inbox. So make sure to check it out today!
 
Author: Freddie Marinelli.