Since returning to the States from a trip abroad, I’ve had this weird feeling things aren’t right. Instead of people acting rationally, the opposite is true. Take the recent inflation victory party on the White House lawn. While the administration was lauding the passage of “The Inflation Reduction Act,” we saw split-screen evidence inflation is still going strong. The market was dropping a whopping 1,200+ points in anticipation that the Federal Reserve had no choice but to jack interest much higher or lose control.
What were the revelers celebrating? There’s the $300+ billion in programs and subsidies for the “Green New Deal” that, as others have pointed out, don’t do anything to lower the earth’s temperature. The bill caps some medical costs, but price controls always end up costing more down the road. Neutral observers have noted the law does not reduce our present inflation problem.
In the face of hard evidence, some believe we must spend these vast sums to save the planet. They claim to see doom if we don’t accept all their proposals. But this argument rings hollow. If you thought the earth was in immediate danger and things might not move fast enough to stave off disaster, wouldn’t you be looking for a plan B? After all, we’re facing extinction. What if temperatures start quickly rising as they predict? Shouldn’t we be looking for a backup action?
Some people think this would be prudent. Solar geoengineering creating a planetary sunshade isn’t a new idea. A team of Harvard Researchers wanted to experiment with calcium carbonate over a Swedish Space facility. A decade earlier, British Researchers wished to do a similar experiment. Neither got off the ground due to massive opposition from the green crowd. What could [ossibly arouse such hostility? Some dust in the atmosphere can provide cooling at a very reasonable price. If we’re about to become extinct, entertaining some ideas that might save us is a good idea.
The objections don’t add up. Either we face an existential threat requiring all solutions on the table, or we don’t. The Greens can’t have it both ways. We plan nuclear-tipped missiles to knock meteors away from us. Global warming, they tell us, is a more significant threat. We should leave no stone unturned to meet the threat.
In the recent past, I pointed out that the $300+ billion the bill devotes to renewables could buy us a fleet of nuclear subs to fend off Chinese aggression. It turns out that our sub-fleet is only three-fifths of what it should be due to delayed maintenance. I didn’t know then how bad off our sub fleet is. We’re spending billions on a Green New Deal that makes no difference. Billions more go to forgive doctors, lawyers, and MBAs’ debts so they can use their subsidies to buy Teslas. Yet, vital ships can’t go to sea to defend our friends and us.
In response to Ukraine’s stunning gains, Russia, violating International Law, has attacked civilian areas and infrastructure. Many of these attacks come from bases in Russia. Ukraine is unable to attack these military installations because the U. S. refuses to give it longer-range weapons. The administration worries rangier equipment would be an escalation. How can just returning fire be a big jump? Returning fire is simply defense.
As an Arizona Resident, I’m well aware of the border crisis. The problem has been growing daily. Human trafficking, deaths on the journey, and drugs are daily news. Texas and Arizona have borne the brunt of these invasions. The rest of the country has remained unfazed by the problems. The media has ignored them while the administration does nothing to stem the tide. Nothing will get done till we get on the same page.
To broaden awareness, the governors of Texas and Arizona have sent some of the thousands of migrant entering their states to cities claiming to want them. Towns identifying as “Sanctuary Cities” have received a small percentage of the entrants. If Sanctuary has any meaning, it’s welcome.
The contrast with what Texas and Arizona contend with and their response couldn’t be more apparent. Instead of embracing the arrivals, New York, Washington D.C., and Chicago claim to be overwhelmed. The latter even dumped some on an unsuspecting neighboring suburb.
The culmination of these flights came when Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, in support of Arizona and Texas, flew fifty Venesuelains to the “Sanctuary Island” of Martha’s Vineyard. The reaction tells us all we need to know about the divisions on the border issues.
The liberal media melted down, claiming DeSantis duped the migrants. They didn’t know where they were going and didn’t want to be on Martha’s Vineyard. However, the residents were warmly welcoming the migrants. All agreed that DeSantis’ actions were despicable. Famed documentarian Ken Burns compared it to the Holocaust.
However, a Telemundo reporter, Cristina Londoño Rooney, on the scene interviewing the migrants in Spanish, told a different story. De Santis didn’t trick them. They felt they were the “lucky ones.”
Rather than embracing the migrants, calling in the natioal guard resulted in hustling them off to a military base on Cape Cod.
Could two narratives be more different? Who do you believe, the New York Times and Washinton Post or the Telemundo reporter on the scene? The welcoming Islanders or migrants quickly ended up on a military base where they finally received aid.
Could media misdirection explain how Texas and Arizona see the border crisis differently than many other parts of the nation? Maybe this explains why the Governors shipped migrants to the previously uninvolved “Sanctuaries.” It highlights the situation to the rest of an unaware country. What happened on Martha’s Vineyard tells us where the truth lies.
News of a Democratic resurgence in the media shows the party could retain control of both houses of Congress. Could the most inept administration since Buccanan be rewarded with victory in the November election?
I look at all this craziness and wonder if I’ll wake up in the middle of the night and find the ghost of Rod Serling welcoming me to the Twilight Zone.