Day One Schedule – President Trump Delivers Opening Remarks – Davos, World Economic Forum – 5:30am Livestream…


President Trump traveled overnight to Davos-Klosters, Switzerland, to attend the World Economic Forum.  [Livestream Links and Daily Schedule Below] I found it veryinteresting that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was not on the Dec. delegation list.

The U.S. Delegation includes: Treasury Secretary, Steven Mnuchin; Commerce Secretary, Wilbur Ross; Labor Secretary, Eugene Scalia; Transportation Secretary, Elaine Chao; U.S. Trade Representative, Robert Lighthizer; Under Secretary for Growth, Energy and Environment (DoS), Keith Krach; Asst to the President, Ivanka Trump; Asst. to the President, Jared Kushner; and Asst. to the President / Deputy for Policy Coordination, Christopher Liddell.

The 2020 Davos economic conference will be a little more important to watch this year (as it was in 2017) due to the completed U.S. Trade Agreements (S Korea, Japan, Mexico, Canada, and China) and the predicted focus for the Trump administration to pivot from Asia to the EU and U.K. for the next critical phase of the ‘America-First’ global trade reset.

There will likely be a great deal of attention upon the opening remarks by President Trump scheduled to be delivered at 5:30am ET / 11:30am Switzerland.

UPDATE: Video Added

WH Livestream Link – CBS Livestream – NBC Livestream – Alternate Livestream

.

.

.

.

.

Day One Schedule:

♦ 2:25am EST / 8:25am Local – THE PRESIDENT arrives at Zurich Airport, Zurich, Switzerland

♦ 2:35am EST / 8:35am Local – THE PRESIDENT departs Zurich, Switzerland, en route to Davos, Switzerland, Zurich, Switzerland

♦ 3:20am EST / 9:20am Local – THE PRESIDENT arrives at InterContinental Davos Landing Zone, Davos, Switzerland

♦ 3:30am EST / 9:30am Local – THE PRESIDENT departs InterContinental Davos Landing Zone en route to InterContinental Davos, Davos, Switzerland

♦ 3:35am EST / 9:35am Local – THE PRESIDENT arrives at InterContinental Davos, Davos, Switzerland

♦ 5:10am EST / 11:10am Local – THE PRESIDENT departs InterContinental Davos en route to Davos Congress Centre, Davos, Switzerland

♦ 5:10am EST / 11:20am Local – THE PRESIDENT arrives at Davos Congress Centre, Davos, Switzerland

♦ 5:30am EST / 11:30am Local – THE PRESIDENT delivers opening remarks at the World Economic Forum, Davos, Switzerland

♦ 6:15am EST / 12:15pm Local – THE PRESIDENT participates in a pull-aside meeting with Klaus Schwab, the Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum, Davos, Switzerland

♦ 6:35am EST / 12:35pm Local – THE PRESIDENT participates in a reception with the International Business Council, Davos, Switzerland

♦ 8:30am EST / 2:30pm Local – THE PRESIDENT participates in a bilateral meeting with Ursula von der Leyen, the President of the European Commission, Davos, Switzerland

♦ 10:15am EST / 4:15pm Local – THE PRESIDENT participates in a bilateral meeting with Simonetta Sommaruga the President of the Swiss Confederation, Davos, Switzerland

♦ 11:20am EST / 5:20pm Local – THE PRESIDENT participates in a bilateral meeting with Imran Khan, the Prime Minister of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Davos, Switzerland

♦ 12:30pm EST / 6:30pm Local – THE PRESIDENT participates in a dinner with Global Chief Executive Officers, Davos, Switzerland

♦ 1:50pm EST / 7:50pm Local – THE PRESIDENT departs Davos Congress Centre en route to the RON Location, Davos, Switzerland

♦ 2:00pm EST / 8:00pm Local – THE PRESIDENT arrives at the RON Location, Davos, Switzerland

Day One Concludes ~

Previously Announced members of the Presidential Delegation:

1. The Honorable Steven Mnuchin, Secretary of the Treasury (Lead)
2. The Honorable Wilbur Ross, Secretary of Commerce
3. The Honorable Eugene Scalia, Secretary of Labor
4. The Honorable Elaine Chao, Secretary of Transportation
5. The Honorable Robert Lighthizer, United States Trade Representative
6. The Honorable Keith Krach, Under Secretary for Growth, Energy and the Environment, Department of State
7. The Honorable Ivanka Trump, Assistant to the President and Advisor to the President
8. The Honorable Jared Kushner, Assistant to the President and Senior Advisor to the President
9. The Honorable Christopher Liddell, Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Coordination.

As a result of the resounding conservative victory in the U.K. election, a pending Brexit, a favorable $7.5 billion WTO ruling and USTR Lighthizer’s new $2.4 billion EU targeted tariff program against France, and the administration has significant advantages going into a trade discussion with the EU in 2020.

Team USA has the world’s strongest economy, the largest market, legally bolstered tariff authority and a quiver full of powerful economic arrows.

Meanwhile Team EU has: (1) the UK leaving; (2) severe drops in German industrial manufacturing; (3) a shrinking French economy; (4) yellow-vests in the streets; and (5) demands for greater economic autonomy from many key member states.

Overlay Germany, France and Italy large economy challenges such as: their promise to meet NATO obligations on defense spending; their attachment to the strangling Paris Climate Treaty; growing dependence on Russia for energy; looming 5G issues from German contracts with Huawei; and the EU’s collective economic position is precarious at best.

Yeah, they are all going to be paying attention.

 

A Technical Study in the Relationships of Solar Flux, Water, Carbon Dioxide and Global Temperatures, December 2019 Data


From the attached report on climate change for December 2019 Data we have the two charts showing how much the global temperature has actually gone up since we started to measure CO2 in the atmosphere? To show this graphically Chart 8 was constructed by plotting CO2 as a percent increase from when it was first measured in 1958, the Black plot, the scale is on the left and it shows CO2 going up a bit over 30.0% from 1958 to December of 2019. That is a very large change as anyone would have to agree.  Now how about temperature, well when we look at the percentage change in temperature from 1958, using Kelvin (which does measure the change in heat), we find that the changes in global temperature (heat) are almost un-measurable. The scale on the right side had to be expanded 10 times (the range is 40 % on the left and 4% on the right) to be able to see the plot in the same chart in any detail. The red plot, starting in 1958, shows that the thermal energy in the earth’s atmosphere increased by .30%; while CO2 has increased by 30.0% which is 100 times that of the increase in temperature. So is there really a meaningful link between them that would give as a major problem? The numbers tell us no there isn’t.

The next chart is Chart 8a which is the same as Chart 8 except for the scales which are the same for both CO2 and Temperature. As you see the increase in energy, heat, is not visually observably in this chart hence the need for the previous chart 8 to show the minuscule increase in thermal energy shown by NASA in relationship to the change in CO2. Based to these trends, determined by excel not me, in 2028 CO2 will be 428 ppm and temperatures will be 15.0o Celsius and in 2038 CO2 will be 458 ppm and temperatures will be 15.6O Celsius. This is what the data shows no matter what the reasons are, so I have no idea how the IPCC gets to predict that the world will end in ten or even twenty years.

The full 40 page report explains how these charts were developed and why using NASA and NOAA data that are used without change to prove that The New Green Deal is not required and any attempt to complete that plan will be a worldwide disaster.

Click on the link below for the full report that you can download.

BLACKBODY TEMPERATURE 2019-12

 

2020-D Chess!!


CHECKMATE!

Trump is good at 3-D chess, but the year 2020 has brought another complication—impeachment—so I decided to draw a cartoon showing our president playing 2020-D chess.

Led by Nancy Pelosi, the House Democrats have impeached our president and they did it without proper procedure, evidence or fairness.

The Democrats wanted Trump removed even before he was inaugurated. Their expensive Russia collusion hoax dragged on for several years before it finally collapsed. They then immediately moved on to another lie. If they can focus a perpetual laser beam of negativity onto Trump, it will hurt his chances of reelection. Or so they think.

Pelosi was on a recent episode of Bill Maher’s show and she used the word “Constitution” with every other breath. It was meant to distract us from what the House Democrats actually did. They trampled on our Constitution.

BEN GARRISON ORIGINAL TRUMP ART AVAILABLE

Our country has many important issues that deserve our attention. Instead we’ll be focused on an impeachment trial in the Senate, thanks to the Democrats’ all-consuming Trump Derangement Syndrome. If the case can’t be thrown out right away, then the trial needs to end quickly.

You lose, Pelosi. Checkmate!

—Ben Garrison

Davos Today


QUESTION: Marty, you are not in Davos?

KS

ANSWER: No, too cold right now. I have people there who provide anything critical from behind the curtain. There is nothing I can say that would be important that anyone would actually do more than listen. I have said many times, there is NOTHING we can do to prevent what is coming. World leaders will ONLY take action when the economy begins to Crash & Burn. The climate activists there will ensure they will destroy the economy and they are socialists who want people to be punished for driving cars and heating their homes.

Here is the face of Global Warming in Newfoundland. Just a small snowstorm.

Hillary Refuses to Support Bernie & Dark Secrets of the Past


COMMENT: Marty, your writings are always ahead of the curve and your sources are amazing. Just read today Hillary gave an interview and she is obviously trying to stay in the mix. She came out and said about Bernie Sanders: ”He was in Congress for years. He had one senator support him. Nobody likes him, nobody wants to work with him, he got nothing done. He was a career politician. It’s all just baloney and I feel so bad that people got sucked into it.”

HB

REPLY: She wants to be the first woman president and that has always been her goal. It was the reason she married Bill. All my sources have always made it very clear she has been the driving force behind Bill. She has tolerated his countless women because she is really a lesbian and it has been all about power. Some younger women hate her. They call her a “feminine nazi” who has hated men. It was Madeline Albright who had the audacity to say there was a “special place in hell” for women who don’t support Clinton. She expects women to vote for her just because she is a woman regardless of her political positions.

I have known women politicians like Maggie Thatcher. NEVER was there any emphasis that she was qualified because she was a woman. It was always about the issues – NEVER about gender. Hillary has NEVER gotten beyond the ’60s. She relives it every day in her world. It is well known that Bill Clinton lives in New York and Hilliary Clinton lives in DC where they collectively own separate residences. Now they only appear together in official capacities because the Clinton’s have a political partnership, not a marriage. Gennifer Flowers revealed in an interview that would ONLY be published in London, that she and Bill would have been together now if it wasn’t for Chelsea. She reported that Bill confided in her that Hillary was bisexual.

When they first got in the White House, a friend of mine who was the former chairman of the Republicans for Ronald Regan in a state, called me to tell me that a Secret Service agent had walked in on the second floor in the White House and caught Hillary in bed with another woman. She picked up an ashtray and threw it at him hitting him in the head. It was just a few weeks in the White House. I did not believe it and asked if this was what I was going to have to listen to for the next 4 years? He said this came directly from the Secret Service. I still did not believe it. Then I read a small piece on the incident. Hillary’s conduct with other women in the White House was indeed coming from the Secret Service and the rumor mill was overflowing so much that the Secret Service was warned to keep their mouths shut.

The interesting aspect is that these stories would make the print, but typically OUTSIDE the USA – not within.

Thomas Jefferson, Human Rights, Racism, and Slavery


By James D. Agresti and Amanda Read Sheik

June 6, 2018

Thomas Jefferson was the primary author of the Declaration of Independence and the third president of the United States. Until recently, he was also one of the most widely revered people in U.S. history. Now, he is often spurned and reviled for racism, but the charges against him are highly misleading.

Abruptly Changing Views of Jefferson

For more than two centuries, the Democratic Party proudly traced its roots to Jefferson. In 2008, Wesley Clark, a former Democratic candidate for President of the United States, wrote: “Every year in most states, Democrats flock to their annual Jefferson-Jackson dinners. The emphasis is on Thomas Jefferson, of course, considered the founding father of the Democratic Party.”

From their very beginnings, Republicans also laid claim to Jefferson. The Republican Party, which was formed for the purpose of opposing slavery, was so-named because its founders considered their principles to be aligned with that of Jefferson and the party he formed, which was called the “Republicans.” and later the “Democratic Republicans.” The first Republican platform called for “restoring the action of the Federal Government to the principles of Washington and Jefferson….”

“All honor to Jefferson,” wrote Abraham Lincoln, for having “the coolness, forecast, and capacity, to introduce into” the Declaration of Independence the “truth” that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

The 2007 World Book Encyclopedia contains an article by Ph.D. historian Noble E. Cunningham that states: “Jefferson molded the American spirit and mind. Every later generation has turned to him for inspiration.”

A mere decade later, longstanding and widespread admiration for Jefferson has turned to rejection and scorn in some major segments of society. Jefferson is now under blistering attack from professors, students, and others who say he was a racist. In April, some of these people even vandalized a statue of Jefferson at the University of Virginia, the school that he founded.

As recently as 2007, the history page of the Democratic Party touted Jefferson as “the first Democratic President.” This page has since been scrubbed of any reference to Jefferson. Now, the earliest president it mentions is Woodrow Wilson, a staunch segregationist and supporter of the Ku Klux Klan.

In 2017, the Democratic Party of Louisiana renamed its largest annual fundraiser from the “Jefferson-Jackson Dinner” to the “True Blue Gala” to “reflect the progress of the party and the changing times.” Likewise, the Democratic Parties of ConnecticutArkansasIowaVirginiaMissouri, and Colorado have all struck the names of Jefferson and Jackson from their major fundraising events since 2015.

In 2016, hundreds of professors and students at the University of Virginia condemned the university’s president, Teresa Sullivan, for quoting Jefferson while calling for “cooperation and civility” after the election of Donald Trump. This group of scholars and pupils wrote that they were “deeply offended” and “incredibly disappointed” that Sullivan used Jefferson “as a moral compass,” because he “owned hundreds of slaves” and said that blacks are “as incapable as children of taking care of themselves” and are “inferior to the whites in the endowments of body and mind.”

Those snippets from Jefferson reveal far more about the people who quoted them than they do about Jefferson, because they grossly misrepresent him.

“Incapable as Children”

Regarding the claim that Jefferson said black people are “as incapable as children of taking care of themselves,” his actual words, written in an 1814 letter, say something very different in context:

For men probably of any color, but of this color we know, brought from their infancy without necessity for thought or forecast, are by their habits rendered as incapable as children of taking care of themselves, and are extinguished promptly wherever industry is necessary for raising young.

In a nutshell, Jefferson wrote that people of all races would likely be reduced to dependency by being raised in slavery. In a 1789 letter, Jefferson detailed why he thought this:

  • “A man’s moral sense must be unusually strong, if slavery does not make him a thief. He who is permitted by law to have no property of his own, can with difficulty conceive that property is founded in any thing but force.”
  • “Many Quakers in Virginia seated their slaves on their lands as tenants. … These slaves chose to steal from their neighbors rather than work. They became public nuisances, and in most instances were reduced to slavery again.”

Jefferson emphasized that his understanding of these events was “imperfect,” because they occurred at a distance from him. Thus, he said he would be making a trip to investigate the situation in person.

In the same letter, Jefferson stated he had “no doubt” that black people “brought up, as others are, in habits of property and foresight” would be “good citizens.” This directly refutes the accusation that Jefferson viewed black people as incapable. In fact, he was commenting upon the harmful effects of slavery.

“Inferior to Whites”

Regarding the claim that Jefferson said blacks are “inferior to the whites in the endowments of body and mind,” he actually said this was his “suspicion only.” In the same work, Jefferson did write degrading things about the “superior beauty” of whites, the “very strong and disagreeable odor” of blacks, and the “improvement of the blacks” when they mate with whites. However, he expressed skepticism about many of his conclusions and later wrote that he wished to see a “complete refutation” of them and find that black and white people are “on a par.” He then added:

My doubts were the result of personal observation on the limited sphere of my own State, where the opportunities for the development of their genius were not favorable, and those of exercising it still less so. I expressed them therefore with great hesitation; but whatever be their degree of talent it is no measure of their rights. Because Sir Isaac Newton was superior to others in understanding, he was not therefore lord of the person or property of others.

Looking at these and other writings by Jefferson about race, it is clear that he struggled to make sense of the limited science and observations available to him. Furthermore, he was keenly aware that his knowledge was restricted, and hence, he largely avoided firm conclusions. As he wrote in a 1791 letter to the Secretary of the French Academy of Sciences:

I am happy to be able to inform you that we have now in the United States a negro, the son of a black man born in Africa, and of a black woman born in the United States, who is a very respectable Mathematician. … I have seen very elegant solutions of Geometrical problems by him. Add to this that he is a very worthy and respectable member of society. He is a free man. I shall be delighted to see these instances of moral eminence so multiplied as to prove that the want of talents observed in them is merely the effect of their degraded condition, and not proceeding from any difference in the structure of the parts on which intellect depends.

Slavery

Some people are willing to look past Jefferson’s ownership of slaves, because he was a product of his time. This, however, does not tell the full story, because Jefferson was ahead of his time in this respect. In the world in which he lived, Jefferson and other founders of the U.S. were unique in that they opposed slavery, despite the fact that it was widely practiced throughout history and across cultures.

Barack Obama and many others say that slavery is America’s “original sin,” but there was nothing original about it. Per the Encyclopædia Britannica:

  • “Slavery is known to have existed as early as the Shang dynasty (18th–12th century [BC]) in China. … Slavery continued to be a feature of Chinese society down to the 20th century.”
  • “Slaves have been owned in black Africa throughout recorded history. In many areas there were large-scale slave societies, while in others there were slave-owning societies. Slavery was practiced everywhere even before the rise of Islam, and black slaves exported from Africa were widely traded throughout the Islamic world.”
  • “Slaves were owned in all Islamic societies, both sedentary and nomadic, ranging from Arabia in the center to North Africa in the west and to what is now Pakistan and Indonesia in the east.”
  • “Slavery existed in ancient India, where it is recorded in the Sanskrit Laws of Manu of the 1st century [BC]. The institution was little documented until the British colonials in the 19th century made it an object of study because of their desire to abolish it.”
  • “Slavery was widely practiced in other areas of Asia as well. A quarter to a third of the population of some areas of Thailand and Burma (Myanmar) were slaves in the 17th through the 19th centuries and in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, respectively.”
  • “Slaves were also prominent in Scandinavia during the Viking era, 800–1050 [AD], when slaves for use at home and for sale in the international slave markets were a major object of raids. Slaves also were present in significant numbers in Scandinavia both before and after the Viking era.”
  • “Slavery was much in evidence in the Middle East from the beginning of recorded history. It was treated as a prominent institution in the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi of about 750 [BC].”

As John Jay, president of the Continental Congress, wrote, “Prior to the great revolution, the great majority or rather the great body of our people had been so long accustomed to the practice and convenience of having slaves, that very few among them even doubted the propriety and rectitude of it.”

In stark contrast to most of the world, Jefferson and other founding fathers saw slavery as evil and began a process of eradicating it.

In his original draft of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson called the slave trade “a cruel war against human nature itself” that violated its “most sacred rights of life & liberty.” He accused the king of England of “suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce.” However, the Continental Congress removed Jefferson’s anti-slavery language to preserve enough unity among the northern and southern colonies to survive a war against Great Britain.

In the early 1780s, Jefferson supported a plan to end slavery in Virginia, even though he felt that the peaceful coexistence of blacks and whites was not practical there because of “deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites,” and “ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained.” Thus, he proposed to:

  • “emancipate all slaves born after passing the act.”
  • keep them “with their parents to a certain age, then be brought up, at the public expense, to tillage, arts or sciences, according to their geniuses.”
  • equip them “with arms, implements of household and of the handicraft arts, feeds, pairs of the useful domestic animals, etc.”
  • settle them in “such place as the circumstances of the time should render most proper.”
  • “extend to them our alliance and protection.”

In 1784, Jefferson drafted a law to prohibit slavery in all of the western states. It lost by one vote, and Jefferson wrote, “The voice of a single individual would have prevented this abominable crime from spreading itself over the new country.”

Two years later, Jefferson lamented:

What a stupendous, what an incomprehensible machine is man! Who can endure toil, famine, stripes, imprisonment, & death itself in vindication of his own liberty, and the next moment be deaf to all those motives whose power supported him through his trial, and inflict on his fellow men a bondage, one hour of which is fraught with more misery than ages of that which he rose in rebellion to oppose.

As president in 1807, Jefferson signed into law an act “to prohibit the importation of slaves into any port or place within the jurisdiction of the United States.” The law also prohibited any U.S. citizen from building, fitting, equipping, loading, or otherwise preparing a slave ship.

Why, then, did Jefferson own slaves? He was born into a slaveholding family and inherited about 40 slaves when he was only 14 years old, because his father died. He later inherited slaves from his father-in-law and bought about 20 slaves in order to reunite families and fulfill labor needs. Jefferson owned about 600 slaves, freed two of them during his lifetime, freed five more in his will, and effectively freed three others by letting them escape.

Scholars have speculated as to why Jefferson did not free all of his slaves, but given what he heard about the ill fate of other freed slaves and his view that slavery robbed people of the self-reliance needed to survive in that era, it may have been that Jefferson felt trapped between his disdain for slavery and the hard realities of life at the time. To that effect, in 1820 he wrote:

I can say with conscious truth that there is not a man on earth who would sacrifice more than I would, to relieve us from this heavy reproach, in any practicable way.

Later Developments

A year before he died, Jefferson wrote that slavery was one of the “greatest anxieties” of his lifetime, but “the march of events has not been such” to end it “within the limits of time allotted to me.” Hence, he left this task to “the work of another generation.”

Four decades later, Jefferson’s vision became a reality when the U.S. Constitution was amended to prohibit slavery. The amendment, which banned “slavery” and “involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,” echoed the words that Jefferson drafted to ban slavery in the west:

That after the year 1800, there shall be neither slavery or involuntary servitude in any of the said states, otherwise than in punishment of a crime, whereof the party shall have been convicted to have been personally guilty.

Many years later, Jefferson’s desire to see a “complete refutation” of the view that there are fundamental biological differences between human races came to pass due to the advances of modern science:

  • The science of physiology proved that all races have the same coloring pigment in their skin (melanin), and differences in skin color stem merely from the quantity of it.
  • The science of genetics showed that there is more genetic variation among the people of any race than there is between one race and another.
  • Medical experience demonstrated that the “transplantation of organs across racial groups can be performed without fear of an additional problem occurring as a result of some inherent difference between the donor and recipient races.”
  • Nationally representative tests on the mental capacities of children found “only minor racial differences” that “disappear with the inclusion of a limited set of controls.”
  • Standardized tests revealed that people of all races excel intellectually when they have competent schooling.

Jefferson didn’t have this scientific data, but his words and deeds still moved the causes of universal freedom and racial equality forward. Ironically, the same factions of society that slander Jefferson revere others who came after him and set these causes backwards. A prime example is Charles Darwin and his early supporters, who routinely declared that blacks were evolutionarily inferior to whites. For example, in an 1871 book entitled The Descent of Man, Darwin wrote:

At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous [human-like] apes … will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

In the words of a Harvard University Press book written by Stephen Jay Gould, one of the leading evolutionary biologists of the 20th century:

Biological arguments for racism may have been common before 1859 [when Darwin’s Origin of Species was published], but they increased by orders of magnitude following the acceptance of evolutionary theory.

This continues to the current day. A 2015 serial work about academic theories on Africa describes “a significant body of modern scientific literature” from “comparative and evolutionary psychology” claiming that “sub-Saharan African populations have, on average, very low intelligence….” This book also:

  • states that it is “by no means outside the mainstream in some fields of scientific research to claim that Africans are cognitively and/or culturally inferior specimens of humanity not fully evolved from earlier forms or left behind in the course of recent and rapid biological and cultural evolution.”
  • cites six sources to document that the “evidentiary basis” of such conclusions are “extremely poor….”

Yet, the University of Virginia celebrates a “Darwin Day,” and the first 100 Google results for Darwin Day University of Virginia show no criticism of this event. This, in conjunction with professors’ and students’ deceitful attacks on Jefferson, beg the question of the real basis of these attacks.

Given the leftist and anti-U.S. attitudes that prevail on many college campuses and in other segments of the public, and given the facts that Jefferson “molded the American spirit and mind,” wrote that people’s rights don’t come from government but from “their Creator,” statedthat government should “not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned,” and declared that the U.S. Constitution does not allow the federal government to create social welfare programs, it is understandable how Jefferson would become the object of their hatred and slander.

Addendum (6/22/18): In addition to Jefferson’s anti-slavery actions listed above, in 1783, he drafted a constitution for the state of Virginia that would have immediately stopped “the introduction of any more slaves to reside in this state” and outlawed the enslavement of anyone born after December 31, 1800.

In America, Women and Men Earn Equal Pay for Equal Work


Certain media outlets are giving fawning coverage to “Equal Pay Day,” a “public awareness event” invented by the National Committee on Pay Equity to “illustrate the gap between men’s and women’s wages.” This group claims that women earn much less than men because of “discrimination.”

Parroting that storyline, NBC News published an article entitled “What Is Equal Pay Day? Here’s Everything You Need to Know.” Penned by Shira Tarlo, this article states that:

  • women make “77 cents for every dollar that men earn.”
  • Republican Senators and Donald Trump have blocked measures to solve this problem.
  • “Equal Pay Day is a reminder that despite some progress, the wage gap persists, and women have ways to go when it comes to economic equality.”

Likewise, Brett Molina of USA Today reports: “On average, women are paid about 80% of what men are paid. To reach pay parity, women will have to wait until 2119, according to AAUW [American Association of University Women]. If you are a woman of color, that gap is even wider.”

Many other journalists, activists, celebrities, and politicians are making similar claims, but the facts are clear that women in the United States earn the same compensation as men for doing the same work. On average, full-time, year-round female workers earn about 20% less cash wages than males, but when four factors relating to equal work and pay are taken in account, all or nearly all of this gap disappears. These four factors are:

  • Full-time male workers average 6% more workdays per year and 5% more workhours per workday than full-time female workers.
  • Males typically have more work experience and are more likely to pursue technically demanding and higher-paying careers, such as computer science and finance.
  • More than 28% of U.S. workers are in physically challenging occupations (like construction), and most men have considerably more muscular strength than most women.
  • Women are more apt to take jobs that offer higher fringe benefits in exchange for less cash wages.

Various studies that have attempted to account for some—but not all—of these factors have found:

  • “Once we control for outside factors the wage gap between men and women shrinks considerably. Now women earn typical pay that is on average 98% of the typical pay for men by major. Occasionally, women may even earn more. Therefore, when looking at gender-specific pay by major for a controlled sample, the wage gap all but disappears.”
    – PayScale, 2009
  • “[A]fter we controlled for all the factors included in our analysis that we found to affect earnings, college-educated women working full time earned an unexplained 7 percent less than their male peers did one year out of college.”
    – American Association of University Women, 2012
  • “Our analysis of the gender pay gap is the first to include fringe benefits in a comprehensive measure of compensation for men and women. The results show that including fringe benefits makes a considerable difference in the analysis of earnings differentials. In fact, we conclude that any measure of earnings that excludes fringe benefits may produce misleading results as to the existence, magnitude, consequence, and source of market discrimination. For our sample of working men and women between the ages of 26 and 34 in 1990, the average female wage rate was 87.4% of the average male wage rate; but when an index of total compensation is used, the estimate rises to 96.4% of male compensation.”
    – Industrial Labor Relations Review, 1995

Per a 2009 analysis of gender wage studies conducted for the U.S. Department of Labor by CONSAD Research Corporation:

It is not possible to produce a reliable quantitative estimate of the aggregate portion of the raw gender wage gap for which the explanatory factors that have been identified account. Nevertheless, it can confidently be concluded that, collectively, those factors account for a major portion and, possibly, almost all of the raw gender wage gap.

Deceiving the Public

The National Committee on Pay Equity asserts that a 2003 study by U.S. General Accounting Office “found a 20 percent earnings gap between women and men that could not be explained, even when accounting for demographic and work-related factors such as occupation, industry, race, marital status and job tenure. This gap is attributable to discrimination; certain jobs pay less simply because they are held by women and people of color.” To the contrary, this study explicitly states:

Due to inherent limitations in the survey data and in statistical analysis, we cannot determine whether this remaining [wage] difference is due to discrimination or other factors that may affect earnings. For example, some experts said that some women trade off career advancement or higher earnings for a job that offers flexibility to manage work and family responsibilities.

The study goes on to detail that it does not account for:

  • “fringe benefits—most importantly, health insurance and pension coverage.”
  • “job characteristics such as flexibility that men and women may value differently.”
  • “education quality or field of study, such as college major.”
  • “cognitive ability or measures of social skills, all of which may affect earnings.”

The National Committee on Pay Equity does not even link to this study, which is unsurprising given how it distorts it. Yet, instead of exposing this deception, many media outlets are serving as mouthpieces to amplify it.

Stirring Up Racial Strife

The same reporters and media outlets are also echoing the rhetoric of the National Committee on Pay Equity about wages and race. For example, NBC News claims: “While women across all races and ethnicities lag behind those of white men, as well as men in their own racial or ethnic group, minority women face greater challenges in this regard. Data from a 2016 study illustrates that while white, non-Hispanic women make 83 cents for every dollar, Black women make 66 cents, and Hispanic women make 60 cents.”

Just as with gender, the facts are clear that people of all races in the United States earn the same compensation for doing the same work. Racial wage gaps can be traced to differences in work output due to factors like educationmarriagecareer choicesEnglish fluency, and skills in reading, writing and math.

People who falsely claim that discrimination is the cause of wage differences can stir up racial strife by fueling resentment and bitterness. Gallup polls conducted from 2001 to 2016 found that both blacks and whites felt that racial harmony reached an all-time modern low in 2015 and 2016.

Holding People Down

Another effect of false discrimination allegations is that they cultivate a victim mentality that prevents people from reaching their potential. A 2015 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences investigated people’s views about freewill, or “the belief that they are responsible for their actions.” The study found that:

  • “freewill beliefs are intricately linked to basic motor processes critical to effective self-control.”
  • “discouraging a belief in freewill decreases activation in brain regions associated with intentional—and arguably goal-directed—action.”
  • “belief in freewill appears critical to individuals’ ability to overcome the temptation to engage in self-detrimental and antisocial behavior.”
  • “hallmark indicators of self-control are the abilities for individuals to regulate their attention and to persist at challenging tasks.”

In sum, the facts show that much rhetoric surrounding Equal Pay Day slanders employers who have done no wrong, stokes gender and racial hostility, and hinders people from being successful.

West Virginia & the Separatist Movement


There is a new separatist movement forming in Virginia over the proposed gun laws. This new separatist movement taking place is in a state that already separated into two back in 1863 which some question whether it was lawfully carried out back then.

US Constitution: Article IV: Section 3
New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new State shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or Parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

The interesting question was that since Virginia moved and joined the Confederate States, was their consent still required if they did not regard themselves to still be a state of the union? Hence, West Virginia was formed during the American Civil War (1861–1865) and is actually the only state to form by seceding from a Confederate state. The western part of the state of Virginia (1776–1863), was deeply against the views of the rest of Virginia over slavery. The population of West Virginia moved to separate from Virginia and was formalized by admittance to the Union as a new state in 1863.

Today, we have yet another rising separatist movement within Virginia as a result of House Resolution 8 which was introduced on January 14, 2020. This provides for an election to be had, pending approval of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and a majority of qualified citizens voting upon the proposition prior to August 1, 2020, for the admission of certain counties and independent cities of the Commonwealth of Virginia to be admitted to the State of West Virginia as constituent counties, under the provisions of Article VI, Section 11 of the Constitution of West Virginia. The Legislature of West Virginia separated over the differences which had grown between the counties of Western Virginia and the government at Richmond, of the Commonwealth of Virginia. They concluded that they were irretrievably divided and therefore they formed a new State of West Virginia.

The Trans-Allegheny portions of Virginia perceived that they suffered under an inequitable measure of taxation by which they bore a disproportionate share of the tax burden in the state which is often a common complaint under socialism. They have argued that the Trans-Allegheny region has been denied its equitable share of representation in the government prejudiced by a large number of people demanding benefits from Richmond.

The realization that when the majority demands benefits from those who produce, much like Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, then the majority can impose tyranny upon the minority and thus government no longer becomes the unbiased arbitrator within society. The neglect for the interests of many of the remaining counties of the Commonwealth of Virginia is at the heart of this rising separatist movement.

More recently, the government at Richmond has adopted the restraint upon the rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution to the citizens of that Commonwealth. In the months since Democrats took control of Virginia’s government for the first time in over two decades, over 100 localities across Virginia have passed resolutions declaring themselves “Second Amendment Sanctuaries,” stating that they’re opposed to any bills which would restrict Second Amendment rights.

There is rising tension in Virginia ever since the Democrats took control of the State

Climate Change & the 2020 ECM Turning Point


The climate change propaganda has become a major economic factor which is undermining the global economy and lowering the standard of living for the average person. Governments have embraced it simply because it is the perfect excuse to raise taxes. It is causing separatist movements such as in Alberta, Canada to the civil unrest in France.

The entire agenda has been orchestrated by real fanatics who are against the Industrial Revolution. Both Greenpeace’s Jennifer Morgan and Al Gore have pushed a very distorted theory using unsupported facts from a pretend 97% consensus on down to attributing the cyclical swing back from the Little Ice Age since the early 1800s to exclusively humans refusing to look at the historical cyclical record of climate.

Their push to enforce their theories by imposing higher taxes and regulations has set in motion the collapse of the German economy which is dooming the Eurozone as a whole. Al Gore and Jennifer Morgan have helped to instigate shutting down any dissent against their movement when we need serious investigations. To dissent is reminiscent of the witchhunts of McCarthy against Hollywood.

The insolvency of numerous European automobile manufacturers is now openly predicted by industry observers. Everything has to be subordinate to the change towards e-mobility and self-driving cars. The fact that electric cars are still not competitive is neglected, as is the question of whether citizens want to drive in vehicles controlled by technology groups.

The turning point in 2020 will be a very profound event that will be viewed with hindsight as we now can see the importance of the change in trend at the top of the ECM — 2015.75.

NASA’s forecast for the next solar cycle reveals it will be the weakest of 200 years. Results show that the next cycle will start in 2020 and reach their maximum in 2025. It is very interesting how it has aligned with the ECM turning point on January 18th. If we begin to see a sharp rise in volcanic eruptions, two or three such eruptions of 6+ can create a volcanic winter that would feed into the commodity cycle sending food prices much higher.

Will Adam Schiff Lose in 2020? Will He be Compelled to Testify?


There has been an interesting cyclical movement back and forth in The California 28th District from which Adam Schiff resides. While he represents West Hollywood, Burbank,
Glendale, Northeastern Los Angeles suburbs, as well as parts of Central Los Angeles, Schiff has held that position since 2013 and the Democrats have held that district since 2003.

There has been a swing back and forth between the Democrats and Republicans. The year 2020 will be the 17th election year. There should be a change this time around. The Republicans held that district from 1952 until 1975 for 23 years. It was the Nixon resignation that led to the backlash and the flip to the Democrats which lasted for 18 years until 1993.

The Republicans then took the district back in 1993 and held it until 2003 for 10 years. We are now approaching another 18-year run which means there is a risk that Schiff may lose here in 2020, but absolutely in 2022.

His personal animosity toward Trump really should disqualify him from being a prosecutor. The real risk for Schiff will be if he is compelled to answer questions himself by the Chief Justice. These will be tough questions about his involvement with a White House whistleblower. A prosecutor cannot preside in a case any more than a judge if he is himself a witness to any portion of the case on trial. Senators should be able to question Schiff about the House case and his role in starting the impeachment effort. It was revealed in October that Mr. Schiff’s staff met with the whistleblower before he even filed his complaint that is the basis of the impeachment charges was filed.

Mr. Schiff spearheaded the impeachment inquiry. He repeatedly denied knowledge of the whistleblower and worked to keep the whistleblower’s identity secret. Behind the curtain, the story goes that this whistleblower had personal contacts with Biden and was a supporter. Because of the law, I cannot even repeat his name.

Schiff told the senators that the president abused his power by coercing Ukraine to interfere in the election this year by investigating former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, a top contender for the Democratic presidential nomination. However, the very same charges could be made about the FBI and Obama no less Biden for spying like Watergate on Trump during the 2016 election. The hypocrisy is so openly blatant they assume the American people are just too stupid to pay attention.

Schiff went as far as to say that Mr. Trump “demonstrated he will remain a threat to national security and the Constitution if he is allowed to remain in office.”

Many assume that Trump is all but guaranteed acquittal in the Republican-majority Senate, where it would take a supermajority of 67 votes in the 100-member chamber to convict and remove him from office. These charges seem to fail since he only asked Ukraine to investigate, not falsely swear that Biden did anything at all.

The House impeachment inquiry was simply a party-line vote to impeach Trump whereas the motion to impeach Clinton was bipartisan as was the case with Richard Nixon, which is why he resigned instead. The damage of pushing this to the limit of Congressional power is that it may only further divide the country beyond any possible hope of returning to civility.

The rules will most likely follow the same course as the 1999 impeachment trial of President Clinton, meaning they will be established by a majority vote. The Democrats have been demanding more witness testimony for the trial, but that could actually backfire. I for one would be calling Biden and his son to put them on trial demonstrating that there was probable cause to investigate what they had pulled off in Ukraine.

The question of calling witnesses will most likely not surface until after the first phase of the trial is complete. That will include arguments from the House impeachment managers prosecuting Trump and then arguments from Mr. Trump’s legal team responding to the charges. That alone should be good for some wild headlines going into the end of the month.

If the Clinton rules prevail, which the Democrats object to, it would mean that the senators will be able to submit written questions to the House impeachment managers and the president’s legal team through Chief Justice Roberts. Schiff would have to explain himself under oath about his contacts with the whistleblower and the appearance that he or his staff told him what to include in the complaint.

Democrats in the House managed to protect the whistleblower preventing him from testifying. They have even protected his identity, which is really against Due Process of Law since you have a right to confront your accuser. That means in a Senate trial, the whistleblower can be called. Between calling the whistleblower and Schiff, this could turn into a real historical circus.

Schiff’s office has refused to comment on him having to answer questions he has refused to answer previously. If the whistleblower is compelled to testify and he was coached in any way, this is going to become a real constitutional crisis.

A whistleblower, who is said to be a CIA official assigned to the White House, accused the president of abusing his power for personal gain on the call, including withholding $391 million of U.S. military aid from Ukraine as leverage.

The preliminary transcript of the call center to this affair did not show the president presenting a quid pro quo deal for the investigations. The entire case of the Democrats rests on their claim that the threat was IMPLIED. Even the evidence that House Democrats have obtained since the two articles of impeachment were passed concerning Giuliani’s activities in Ukraine has not changed the absence of a direct threat.

Mr. Trump has acknowledged that he wanted an investigation into suspected corruption involving the Bidens and Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election.

The prosecutor Biden demanded to be fired or he would not release funds for Ukraine was looking into corruption allegations against Burisma and Mykola Zlochevsky, the Ukrainian oligarch running the company which had hired Biden’s son.

Trump also was asking for Ukraine to look into a missing Democratic National Committee server that was hacked by Russia during the 2016 presidential campaign. The Democrats refused to turn over the server to the FBI and instead hired the American cybersecurity company called CrowdStrike to examine the server who then claimed it was hacked by Russia with no independent proof.

To say that these Impeachment Proceedings can go either way is an understatement. It appears that we are fighting the 2020 election in the Senate Chamber for that is the objective at this point – score points for the election