PART SIX: Bill Gates is the man what wants to be the ruler of the world and being the evil man that he is he will go to no ends to achieve his goal of world domination no matter how many Billions he has to kill!


Sometime around the turn of the century Bill Gates got involved with Al Gore and the Climate Change movement. Gates took this very seriously and decided to try and stop the destruction of the planet; not realizing that it wasn’t a real threat.  The Reason I can say that is I have been studying the problem for well over 20 years now and although the climate does change, it always has so there is nothing new here.  The problem is that some of the changes that are in the range of a few degrees up or down are related to decade long movements driven primarily by the 11 year solar cycle.  If the reader is interested in that subject check out my monthly climate update posted here in MY Climate research.

Gates lacking a college education doesn’t have the proper background in economics, math, statistics, physics and Climate so he was unduly influenced by others that had a different agenda.  The group I am referring to is those that have embraced a version of Marxism that has morphed into a version of Marxism where the leaders of the government are the very educated ones in society.  Those are the ones that have graduated from the best schools like Harvard, MIT Sanford, Yale, etc. etc.  Read the book Technology Rising written by Patrick M. Wood for all the details. These are the “Best and the Brightest” and they want to change the system of government in the United States so that they can save us from ourselves. After all they are our “betters!”

This group of Technologists was infiltrated by the Progressives (just another name for a Marxist) in the country in the early 90’s after the collapse of the old U.S.S.R. and then they got into the Green movement.  This collision comprised of the Technologists, the Environmentalists, and the Marxists is now the group that is orchestrating what is going on in the country today i.e. demonstrations, mob violence, looting, arson and mayhem.  The bottom line is that the following groups and organizations are all in bed together and they are being controlled by Bill Gates through his web of global investments using his almost unlimited money!

The Democrat party

The Green movement

The Major news organizations

The Open Boarders movement

The Social Justice Movement

The Bill and Missal Gates Foundation

In 20010 Bill Gates did a TED presentation that started the ball rolling. Here are a couple of samples.

Roger More we need more carbon not less. Roger More is the credible counter to the insane Gates!

Bill Gates a good Summary

 

 

Champions of violent Cultural Marxism, ANTIFA and BLM, are destroying, burning, looting Our Society


Societal Degradation and Cultural Marxism

Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh image

Re-Posted from the Canada Free Press By  —— Bio and ArchivesJune 21, 2020

Champions of violent Cultural Marxism, ANTIFA and BLM,  are destroying, burning, looting Our Society

Over the last four decades, political correctness promoted strongly by academia and the MSM has gained steam and unprecedented momentum. The “progressive” wing of society exploited the rest by using their money, power, and influence to install Cultural Marxism.

The nuclear family, Christianity, traditional morality, race, gender, and sexual identity were attacked one by one to achieve this goal. All were depicted as tyranny of the “evil white man” who benefited from “white privilege” at the expense of the “black and oppressed man.”

“Cultural Marxism is a Marxist dialectic infused with Freudian theory and applied to identity and culture.” People are divided into groups, each with their own narrative of historical oppression. These groups are given the status of victimhood and thus all its members must fight together against the predetermined oppressors. The members then transform the perceived wrongs and resentments into full-blown hatred for Caucasians, resulting in protests, riots, and cultural revolution.

The Italian socialist Antonio Gramsci wrote that Christianity, the bedrock of Western European cultures, stands in the way of socialism. The fifth column inside these countries should be used to destroy the foundations of the Western culture, he wrote, thus enabling the advance of socialism at all levels of society.

The Marxist scholars of the Frankfurter School at the Institute for Social Research in Frankfurt, Germany, picked up Gramsci’s idea and, when they fled Hitler’s Germany, they brought it to New York where they started training Doctors of Education and Doctors of Philosophy.

They then indoctrinated Marxist teachers who influenced every generation of students in our public schools and universities, immersed in Marxist theory, with hate and disdain for their own country, its symbols, heroes, its Judeo-Christian roots, and its history.

Their ultimate goals were to seek power and to resolve the manufactured injustices, created by Cultural Marxist activists, with radical social engineering projects that will fundamentally and irreversibly change our society.

The celebrated hero of the radical left is Karl Marx, who, in collaboration with his friend Friedrich Engels, wrote that the history of all societies is a history of class struggles between two basic classes of people, the owners of the means of production (the exploiters) and those who sell their physical labor to survive (the exploited).

Marx was an intellectual bum who was allergic to work, content to be supported by his rich friends

In socialist countries the means of production were owned by the omnipotent Communist Party-ruled government (the exploiters) and those who sold their labor for pennies a day, the proletariat (the exploited). A powerful force which enabled the tyrannical government to stay in power, was composed of police, military, and hundreds of thousands of paid snitches, Karens.

Marx was an intellectual bum who was allergic to work, content to be supported by his rich friends, while his large family suffered from his neglect and his lack of willingness to work in order to provide food and a decent existence. As the communist apparatchiks often repeated to each other, “hard work is for the tractors.”

Marx and Engels saw the oppressors and the oppressed in constant struggle and …”in a revolutionary reconstruction of society at large or in the common ruin of the contending classes.”

The duo believed that one day there will be peace instead of war and unity instead of opposition. Never mind that this statement “violated their own theory of dialectics which says nothing in nature can be at rest—everything is a unity of opposing forces.” (W. Cleon Skousen, The Naked Communist, 2014, p. 49)

And the root of all this class struggle, they said, is private property which must be abolished at all costs. There is no coincidence that U.N. Agenda 21/2030 states that private property is not sustainable and must be dispensed with to fulfill its 17 sustainable development goals.

Engels wrote that class hatred rose from private property. In the absence of private property there will be no greed, pride, selfishness, imperialism, and war. “Private property also had led to the necessity of creating the State.”

Having lived under the boot of socialism dictated by the Communist Party, I know firsthand that classes do exist, the communist party elites with their followers, and the poor proletariat whose private property had been confiscated by the Communist Party and distributed to the communist elites and their sycophants.

Karl Marx was the founder of “scientific socialism,” whose ideas, launched decades of pain, suffering, famine, killings, tortures,  forced labor camps for those whose ideas were divergent from communism

Karl Marx was the founder of “scientific socialism,” whose ideas, in collaboration with his benefactor Friedrich Engels, launched decades of pain, suffering, famine, killings, tortures, and forced labor camps for those whose ideas were divergent from communism. They were punished and sent to reeducation camps in the infamous gulags where many perished. The Marxist philosophy caused more than a century of oppression of people struggling to survive day bay day under the communist utopian boot.

Teen Vogue presented Karl Marx in 2018 in a rosy light, as the “anti-capitalist scholar and economist.” There is no mention at all how Marx’s dangerous ideas, applied in many Soviet satellite countries, have resulted in the death of 100 million innocents at the hands of the Communist Party totalitarian regimes.

“Scientific socialism” was an actual course taught yearly to both high school and college students in socialist Soviet satellite countries. The U.S. advisor, who looked at my transcript in 1980, laughed when he saw such a course. He said that they do not give college credit for Marxist indoctrination. Today I would probably get six hours credit and a trophy.

There is nothing scientific about socialism and it does not take care of people as the name implies. (socius, Latin for comrade, ally) Just as there is nothing “shared” under communism except misery, pain, and suffering. (communis, Latin for shared)

There are many overtly declared socialists and communists today in Congress and in state and local governments, yet they live under and profit from the capitalist market economy.

The World Workers Party, a self-defined “revolutionary Marxist Leninist communist party in the United States,” celebrated in May 2018 in New York 200 years since the birth of their guru, Karl Marx. The theme was Marx@200, the Class Struggle in the Age of Trump.

Never before has a sitting U.S. President been so vilified, disrespected, insulted, and maligned continuously by the radical left like President Trump has, a man who gave up a lot to help our country and to create a thriving economy for all until the Corona-19 virus plan-demic hit.

There is an insufferable, bizarre, and constant hateful rhetoric coming from the left and their Democrat Party’s divisive and anti-American platform which glorifies criminals, rioters, and looters.

Communism has been tried in 1620 in the Pilgrim Colony at Plymouth. This communist society of religious men and women was determined, due to their isolation, to succeed—they had to work to survive.

Governor William Bradford wrote that young single men resented having to work to sustain those less able to work, and for other men’s wives and children. Men’s wives did not want to be slaves to those who were not married, i.e., “dressing their meat, washing their clothes, etc., they deemed it a kind of slavery.”

The production of this communist colony was so low that “the colonists were faced with starvation.” The moral of this actual event was that the taking away of property and bringing it into a commonwealth was a huge mistake. Communism was abandoned in favor of free enterprise capitalism and the colony prospered.

Skousen wrote, “The Pilgrim Fathers had discovered the great human secret that a man will compel himself to go over so much further than he will permit anyone else to compel him to go.” (W. Cleon Skousen, The Naked Communist, 2014, p. 137)

Skousen continued, “Governor Bradford concluded that Communism is not only inefficient but that it is unnatural and in violation of the laws of God.”

A man named John Reed, a journalist, freshly returned from Moscow in March 1919, encouraged left wing socialists to form a communist party (a Third International copied after Marx’s First International to promote world revolution) in this country and to use “revolutionary activity to Sovietize America.”

And the violence and bombings (caused by communist activists) that followed are well documented by historical records but are certainly not taught in public schools, only Howard Zinn’s revisionist history.
Through young and brainwashed activists, talking points in support of communism were established. They are easily debunked:

Activists want to get rid of capitalism to save the planet

The planet does not need saving, Mother Nature is doing a fine job of coping and renewing itself with help from conservationists. Capitalism creates jobs and opportunities to succeed for all, while communist utopia crates slaves beholden to the omnipotent technocratic government.

Activists fight against war

Activists specializing in community organizing, agitation of the weak-minded, and indoctrination of the young compass-less would be better served to look for a real job and to contribute to the improvement of their fellow Americans of all races by volunteering instead of protesting for pay, building instead of burning neighborhoods and businesses that serve such neighborhoods, donating to needy families instead of looting, and cleaning instead of leaving tons of trash and destruction behind when they are done with the protest d’jour.

Liberation movements done in the name of fake problems and invented constructs

Everybody is free to work, to behave properly in polite society, when stopped by police, and to follow the rule of law. Apply yourselves, show up for work every day, don’t complain, renounce violence, stop being a protected minority, it is insulting to your intelligence and ability, pay taxes, use your time and money to study a meaningful subject matter that would result in employment, pursue useful skills that society needs instead of useless propaganda fluff majors, and integrate in society in a meaningful way. Social justice, racial justice, and environmental justice may seem like lofty goals, but jobs are scarce and temporary.

At the end of the day, young Americans are manipulated by the government, academia, and the media to gain control of society and to move it in the direction of socialism.  Cultural Marxism with its political correctness, multiculturalism, and anti-racism will degrade civilization and society for a long time.

The champions of violent Cultural Marxism, ANTIFA and BLM, are taking the country on a downward spiral with the blessing of federal, state, and local politicians who give them space to destroy, burn, and loot our once successful country, the envy of the world.

Eastern European countries are still trying to recover economically and emotionally after decades of Marxist oppressive rule by the violent Communist Party and their apparatchiks. Cultural Marxism will completely hamper their recovery and produce serious setbacks morally, economically, and financially.

The International Energy Agency has Joined the Conspiracy Against the World


The International Energy Agency has joined the conspiracy outlining a $3 trillion plan to restart the global economy while cutting greenhouse gas emissions, saying that governments have a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity” to create jobs while decarbonizing infrastructure. Their highly questionable economist Fatih Birol has suddenly come out and proclaimed that the world has six months to avert a climate crisis. He has warned of the need to prevent post-lockdown surge in emissions.  This is complete nonsense for this elitist consortium has already shut down the world economy to the point that in Britain, they have not produced any electricity by coal in two months. He spouts out statements with NO SUPPORTING scientific evidence and is pretending the world will end in 6 months if we allow people to use energy again.

You can Google Faith Birol and he is an economist with no background in climate. For decades his forecasts have been all about the rise and fall of energy – not climate change. It is made up of  30 member countries, 8 association countries, and 2 accession countries all of which must be a member of OECD. You will find that the IEA accepts also private donations and Birol is also now linked to Gates.

The IEA is an autonomous intergovernmental organization within the OECD framework, headed by its Executive Director. The strange part is that its Governing Board is the main decision-making body and it is composed of energy ministers or their senior representatives from each member country. For the IEA’s chief economist to come out of the blue with climate change forecasts are against the self-interests of member states that produce energy

The IEA operates under the financial framework of the OECD. Countries and other energy stakeholders make “voluntary contributions” to support IEA programs. About a third of the IEA’s spending is financed by “voluntary contributions”, most of which are from government sources.

Besides health, Gates has been also involved in buying into energy companies. He has put together a consortium of investors into Breakthrough Energy. While this operation has been funding thermal energy development in Japan, they are pushing for the elimination of fossil fuels in Europe as well. He has been funding many other secretive energy operations all of which will benefit by shutting down fossil fuels. He and his consortium have major stakes in alternative energy and stand to financially gain massively by keeping the world economy closed and the people locked in their houses.

Kayleigh McEnany White House Press Briefing – Video and Transcript…


Earlier today White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany held a press briefing with the press pool. [Video and Transcript Below]

.

[Transcript] – MS. MCENANY: Good afternoon, everyone. Great to join you today. So, five years ago today, nine innocent parishioners of a historically black church were killed during an evening Bible study in Charleston, South Carolina. We all remember that tragedy, and this was a despicable act of evil that happened five years ago today. So we remember that somber day at that Charleston church, as our hearts still break for the victims and our prayers go out to the families.

Yesterday, President Trump led and brought our nation together behind real, meaningful, substantial change to ensure that we have safe streets and safe policing. Part of that was having an incentive structure to implement the highest professional standards in our police departments through an accreditation process.

This accreditation entails making sure you have de-escalation practices in place, use of force tactics in place. Part of that is prohibiting chokehold, except in the event where lethal force is used. It also incentivizes information sharing and makes sure that if they have an officer who’s had multiple uses of excessive force, that that information is sent to a national database.

And then, finally, another prong of this was having co-responders, who are experts in mental health, going alongside law enforcement, because we know law enforcement officials often have to deal with mental health, homelessness, and addiction. And having a co-responder, who is an expert in this process, will go a long way.

This is project — progress. It’s tangible action. And it’s solutions.

And today, Senator Tim Scott said this is “not a binary choice” between supporting police officers and between supporting victims of grave injustices, like George Floyd. It’s not a binary choice. There are not sides here. This is about America coming together. This is about human decency. And this is about justice. And when we see injustices, we recognize them.

As President Trump said yesterday, all children deserve equal opportunity because we are all made equal by God. That is so true.

First, let me point out that I have sat across from a police officer family that lost their loved one. I saw a little girl named Charlie, who will forever grow up without a father; who will forever grow up without a father for prom, for the father-daughter dance. And it was heartbreaking to know that she lost her father, who was a valiant hero.

But yesterday, I sat across from families who lost their loved ones in mass instances of injustice. And it was heartbreaking to hear their stories. It was a real tragedy. It was a tearful moment. It was an emotional moment. And it’s one that the President, when I asked him in the Oval Office about it afterwards, he said this: “I love those families. I want to help those families.” And President Trump means that. Because this is about humanity. That is ultimately what this is about.

And Senator Scott shared a very beautiful Bible verse with those families yesterday, and I just want to read it here, to close. Romans 8:28: “And we know that in all things, God works for the good of those who love Him, who have been called according to his purpose.” He shared that Bible verse with those families, and it was particularly meaningful to me and, I think, to the families, as well.

And, with that, I’ll take questions. Yes.

Q First of all, you did a great job dealing with that feedback. I know that’s not — that’s not —

MS. MCENANY: Mix-minus.

Q Mix-minus — it’s the worst.

MS. MCENANY: Yes. Thank you.

Q All right. So the Trump administration — the Trump Justice Department has appointment six U.S. attorneys to examine the actions of the President’s political adversaries, but they’ve only opened one federal investigation into systemic bias in policing. So my question to you is: Why are so many resources being allocated to make sure the President and his allies were treated fairly by law enforcement and not the same for millions of black Americans?

MS. MCENANY: So I think you’re comparing two things that it’s not accurate to compare on the level of the number of —

Q They’re Justice Department investigations.

MS. MCENANY: — attorneys looking into.

First, we all know that this administration was dragged four years through a bogus investigation founded upon a dossier full of lies, funded by Hillary Clinton and the Democrats. It was an injustice to the American people who elected President Trump as President of the United States, who was then bogged down by an investigation, which ended up with two words: no collusion.

That’s one —

Q But there were convictions. There were guilty pleas.

MS. MCENANY: That’s the first part of your question.

But as to the second part, this President has taken real, tangible, concrete action on the issue of policing. We saw that yesterday. Guess who hasn’t led? Democrats. They’ve engaged in meaningless symbolism as we saw them, you know, kneeling for minutes on end. But this President isn’t about gestures. It’s not about symbolism. It’s about action. It’s about making sure someone like George Floyd never dies in that manner ever again in this country.

Q He did not mention racial bias yesterday, nor does that executive order.

MS. MCENANY: This — first of all, this executive order addresses the issue at hand. And I thought my colleague Ja’Ron Smith handled this really well yesterday when he said this about the executive order on this very question from you. He said, “A lot of people want to make it about race, but it’s about communities and individuals. You’re trying to fix something that — you can’t really fix the heart of people, but you can fix individual pieces that deal with the real problem, which is access [to] opportunity.”

You can fix schools and remedy the disparities we see in schooling. You can fix policing to the degree we can, at the federal level, to incentivize good behavior and fair practices. You can fix the economy, as President Trump has done. He brought about the lowest economic unemployment rate for African American individuals, and paychecks going up prior to this pandemic when we had to artificially shut down the economy. You can fix the individual pieces, but it’s up to our country to change hearts.

Yeah.

Q Does the President — the President talked about chokeholds yesterday. The bill that’s been unveiled by the Republican Senator Scott and other Republicans does not ban chokeholds. Does he think it should?

MS. MCENANY: The President is fully in support of the Scott bill. They are working closely on that. And our EO puts an end to that, or incentivizes through the accreditation process to put an end to chokeholds in the — unless there’s lethal force used. We fully support the Scott bill and every element of it.

And one thing I would note about the Scott bill is: For years, we’ve tried to make lynching a federal crime in this country, and the Scott bill does it. It’s a great bill. It’s more great action from Republicans, and we hope we can have bipartisan support on that.

Q But to be clear, the executive order does not ban chokeholds. I mean, you can’t actually do that, I don’t believe, through an executive order. And this bill does not ban chokeholds. Do you think, does the President think that chokeholds simply should be banned?

MS. MCENANY: So what I have from the Justice Act here is that this will also end the practice of utilizing chokeholds. And I would underscore the executive order does that through an incentivizing process. So we’ve done what we can, and we’ll continue to do more and we’ll continue to work with the Scott bill. And there might be amendments to it, there might not. But we want to see this come to fruition.

Yes.

Q Because it does incentives; it doesn’t actually ban the practice? It encourages, but it doesn’t not actually ban the practice?

MS. MCENANY: Yes. Well, that is —

Q (Inaudible) Democrats (inaudible).

MS. MCENANY: We’re incentivizing to ban chokeholds and lessen the case of where lethal force is used. That’s the process that we’re using, and I’ll tell you this: It’s a much better process than the Democrats who, so far, have offered zero — nothing — except a lot of bad ideas about this that would ultimately, I would note, defund the police department.

Yes.

Q Kayleigh, in the last day, 96 people in Tulsa have contracted the coronavirus. I’m wondering about this rally coming up on Saturday. Will the President or the White House take responsibility if people get sick and catch the coronavirus at this rally on Saturday?

MS. MCENANY: So the campaign has taken certain measures to make sure this is a safe rally: temperature checks, hand sanitizers, and masks. So we are taking precautions.

Q But you’re not requiring people to wear masks.

MS. MCENANY: They will be given a mask. It’s up to them whether to make that decision. CDC guidelines are recommended but not required.

Q And the CDC guidelines suggest that people practice social distancing. You’re not going to be able to practice social distancing in a rally with thousands of people. So aren’t you, in essence, bringing people to a rally where they won’t be abiding by those guidelines, adhering to those guidelines?

MS. MCENANY: It’s the personal choice of individuals as to what to do. But if we want to talk about internal coherence, I believe that the media needs to work on internal coherence.

This wonderful New York Post story — I don’t think Steven Nelson is here, but good job to the New York Post — highlights the hypocrisy of the media where this is okay: protesting; this is not okay: Trump rallies.

It’s really remarkable, and I think the American people have taken notice when, for instance, NBC tweets at 4:05 p.m. on June 14th: “Rally for Black trans lives draws [packed] crowds,” in Brooklyn Museum Plaza, seeming to be lauding the protests. And then, less than an hour and a half later, they say, “President Trump plans to rally…but health experts are questioning that decision.” CBS had a similar logically inconsistent tweet.

Q Kayleigh, these are protesters protesting against injustice, against racism and police brutality. This is a rally — a political rally. They’re — they’re not going to be demonstrating for any kind of cause other than supporting the President. And I go back to my original question: Will the White House, will the President take responsibility if there are people who catch the coronavirus and get sick? As you know, you’ve been to these rallies.

MS. MCENANY: So have you, by the way.

Q Many of the people who go to the rallies — I’ve been to them too —

MS. MCENANY: Yes.

Q — are elderly. Probably half, preexisting conditions that put them at risk for serious complications if they catch this virus.

MS. MCENANY: So, first, let me note, you’ve been to rallies — these Trump rallies. We do rally in support of something. We rally in support of the President who got us the lowest number of black unemployment in the history of our country and paychecks going up. We rally that HBCU funding for historically black colleges and universities is permanent because of President Trump.

Q Right. But you’re not answering my question.

MS. MCENANY: We rally — but to say —

Q Will the President, will the White House take responsibility if people get sick?

MS. MCENANY: No, because you — Jim, you suggested —

Q Can you answer that question?

MS. MCENANY: You suggested that we don’t rally on behalf of anything. So let me note one more thing: We rally on behalf of —

Q I said you rally on behalf of the President. That’s why you’re going.

MS. MCENANY: We rally on behalf of criminal justice reform and the FIRST STEP Act, which President Obama and Vice President Biden talked about, but we did.

And I would note this: If we want to talk about the efficacy of what we’re doing, 1,300 health experts signed a letter about the protest, saying, “We do not condemn these gatherings. We support them as vital.” So you have the health experts on one side saying this, and then, all of a sudden, a Trump rally is different.

Q Okay. You’re dancing around — you’re dancing around the question. You’re holding up a newspaper headline. That’s very nice.

MS. MCENANY: And I’ve taken five of your questions. Work on your internal cohesion, and get back to me, Jim.

Yes, please.

Q Ms. McEnany, you have not answered the question. Will the President, will the White House —

MS. MCENANY: I answered five of your questions. And last —

Q But my first question has not been answered. Will the President, will the White House take responsibility —

MS. MCENANY: I said to you we are taking precautions.

Q — if people get sick?

MS. MCENANY: I said to you we are taking precautions: masks, hand sanitizer.

Q So you’re not going to take responsibility?

MS. MCENANY: Zeke.

Q Kayleigh, so for attendees at this rally, the campaign is requiring them to sign a waiver to waive them of liability, acknowledging that there’s an assumed risk with going to that rally. Does not the President have some responsibility himself to ensure — to set an example of for the nation to stop — you know, to prevent these larger gatherings or ensuring social distancing so that the American people — and people around the world, for that matter — follow his example and (inaudible) the most safe environment? Why is the President not following CDC guidance in doing that?

MS. MCENANY: We are doing temperature checks, hand sanitizers, masks. When you come to the rally, as with any event, you assume a personal risk. That is just what you do. When you go to a baseball game, you assume a risk. That’s part of life. It’s the personal decision of Americans as to whether to go to the rally or whether or not to go to the rally.

But I would note that this concern for the rallies has been largely absent when it came to the protesters. People really note when CBS says, “Thousands participate in a rally in a silent march for black trans lives,” and then less than — this more than an hour and a half later, “President Trump moving ahead with the rally. Serious risk of spreading coronavirus.” It’s really inconsistent. The media seems to not be interested in health so much as the ideology behind certain events.

So, you know, for instance, you go and the lockdown protesters were widely condemned by the media — who were protesting the lockdown — but then, all of a sudden, this protest for Black Lives Matter is lauded. It makes no sense. Ideology is driving the line of questioning in many of these cases, when it should be — if you’re focused on science, you should be out there asking these same questions about the protests.

Q Well, Kayleigh, public health officials here, local officials, mayors in large — many of the cities where there have been protests have encouraged those who attended those large gatherings and others to get tested four or five days after their attendance at the event. Does the President want attendees at his own rally on Saturday to get tested four or five days later to make sure that they didn’t get the virus there? And who should they inform if they do come down with the virus after the rally?

MS. MCENANY: It’s their personal decision as to whether they want to get tested after, but I’d note testing capability is, thanks to President Trump, 23.7 million people tested in this country so far. That’s an extraordinary number.

So, testing is out there and available if someone chooses to do that.

Jen.

Q Sorry, Kayleigh, just one more. Excuse me — sorry. Has the White House been monitoring this outbreak of violence between Indian and Chinese troops? And does the White House have any reaction? Is the President getting on the phone and talking to the relevant countries there?

MS. MCENANY: So the President is aware of it. We’re monitoring the situation between Indian and Chinese forces along the Line of Actual Control in eastern Ladakh.

So we’ve seen that the Indian Army statement that 20 Indian soldiers died as a result of the confrontation today, and we extend our deepest condolences on that.

Jen.

Q To follow up on Zeke, has the Coronavirus Task Force been consulted? Have they done any modeling on how many people could get sick at the Tulsa rally or die from the Tulsa rally? Have they even been consulted about the rally?

MS. MCENANY: The Coronavirus Task Force — they’re meeting today. I would first point that out. They meet regularly, and they monitor the whole country. So they don’t zone in on a Trump rally; they zone in on the whole country and analyze it through a database lens.

Q So they haven’t specifically done modeling on the rally?

MS. MCENANY: They look at the entirety of the country. That would include the state of Oklahoma, but they look at all 50 states in close consultation with governors.

Q And on Jay Powell — this morning, the Fed chairman, Jay Powell, this morning said that he thinks it would be appropriate for there to be more federal stimulus. Does the White House have any comment on his comments?

MS. MCENANY: You know, it’s something that’s being looked at, of course — a phase four. And no announcements on what those elements be, and wouldn’t want to get out ahead of the President. But I would note that this economy is robust and growing and coming back stronger than anyone could think from this because of the President.

I mean, you look at retail sales surging, 17.7 percent; unemployment insurance weekly claims falling. We have the fastest growth rate in American history in the third quarter.

So we artificially shut down the economy, but we have a robust recovery happening and taking place, and that’s thanks to President Trump. And there are a lot of good metrics, like new business applications skyrocketing, small businesses now opening at about 80 percent, Apple mobility index that’s practically pre-pandemic levels.

So there’s more work to be done, and phase four will address that, should it take place.

But we are encouraged by what we’re seeing, that the Donald Trump economy is coming back, because ultimately, investors and business owners have faith in this President.

Yes, Jeff.

Q Thank you, Kayleigh. You mentioned testing just now. The President has also both been tweeting and saying publicly, on Monday, that if the country just stopped testing, that there would be no — or virtually no cases left. That doesn’t make sense. Can you explain what he means by that?

MS. MCENANY: Yeah, it’s entirely logical. When you do more testing, you identify more cases. Countries that don’t do as much testing don’t identify the same number of cases. I mean, it’s pretty logical exactly what he said.

Q Okay, so it’s about identifying them. Because he seemed to suggest that if we weren’t testing, then those cases wouldn’t exist. Is that — is that just a misunderstanding?

MS. MCENANY: No, that — that wasn’t — that was not at all what he was saying. He was saying, when you test, you end up identifying more cases. And we’ve tested 23.7 million people; positivity rate of 5.9 percent. So we are in a good place when it comes to testing.

Yes.

Q And just along those same lines, the Vice President today wrote an op-ed — I believe in the Wall Street Journal — playing down the prospects of a second wave. Does the White House — is the White House just confident that there’s not going to be a second wave of the coronavirus?

MS. MCENANY: The White House is confident that we have enough testing to identify asymptomatic individuals; that we have therapeutics that are promising; that we are working on a vaccine with Project Warp Speed that we hope will be there by the end of the year and we think will be. And we have a robust public-private partnership that has shored up America’s supply chain.

So we are in a good place, and that’s what the Vice President was noting.

Jon.

Q Thanks a lot, Kayleigh. Two subjects. The first question has to do with the lawsuit that was filed against John Bolton, the former National Security Advisor, by the Department of Justice yesterday. The DOJ did not file a lawsuit against Simon & Schuster, nor did it file an injunction against the publisher. Why not? Do you still expect this book to hit bookstores, to be on Amazon, to be available for people to read on the 23rd of this month?

MS. MCENANY: So that — as to why they went down that particular path, that’s a question for DOJ. But what I would note is this book is full of classified information, which is inexcusable. Former National Security Advisor John Bolton should know all too well that it’s unacceptable to have highly classified information from the government of the United States in a book that will be published. It’s unacceptable. It has not gone through the review process, and that’s where we currently stand.

And I’d refer you back to Barr’s comment on this, which is, “We don’t believe that Bolton went through that process.” It hasn’t been completed, the process, and therefore he “is in violation of that agreement.” That was part of his quote from Monday.

Q Then, on the other subject, the executive order the President signed yesterday. During that event, in his comments, he acknowledged that there are, indeed, bad police officers. Is the President opposed to the idea of removing qualified immunity for police officers, even bad police officers?

MS. MCENANY: Yeah, so qualified immunity, let me note, is a total and complete non-starter. What qualified immunity would do is it would really enable the police in this country to do their job. That’s in the Democrat bill.

And I’d argue this: You know, Democrats, they say, “Defund the police, defund the police.” We hear that from Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez and Congresswoman Omar and others. Well, what does the Democrat bill do? By removing qualified immunity, what you’re essentially doing is not allowing police to do their job. There would be a decrease in policing in this country. Our streets would not be safe.

What President Trump has done is worked with the law enforcement to improve law enforcement, to ensure that the bad cops that exist are pushed out of the system. The overwhelming majority of cops are good, so we’ve got to address the handful that are bad, and that’s what the President’s order has done.

But taking away qualified immunity would make the streets of this country a whole lot less secure. Just look at what happened when we didn’t have ample law enforcement out on Lafayette Square: A church burned and multiple officers injured.

Q So how do you handle the situation, Kayleigh, of a bad police officer hiding behind the shield of qualified immunity?

MS. MCENANY: Look, I would note that also the court has litigated this pretty strongly. It’s been adjudicated. The Harlow court — in that decision, Harlow, the Supreme Court talked about achieving a balance between allowing victims to hold officials accountable while also minimizing the social cost to the whole — the cost of police officers, for example, pulling back.

So the Supreme Court has litigated this for decades and has approached what they think is the appropriate balance with qualified immunity.

And I think it would go a long way just doing what the President did yesterday: having that national database of offenders so we ensure that a police officer doesn’t leave one department and then go to another.

Francesca.

Q Thank you, Kayleigh. You outlined the White House’s position on qualified immunity, defunding the police. But you also said earlier that the Democratic bill is full of bad ideas. What are the other “bad” ideas, besides those two, that the President would not sign a policing bill if they wound up in the final version?

MS. MCENANY: So, one of the things the bill does is it undermines due process. The Democrat bill would undermine the due process rights of every officer by making pending and unsubstantial allegations available to the public, causing reputationable [sic] — reputational damage based on allegations alone. That’s a really good example, because what our database does is once a claim has been adjudicated, we know something was done wrong, it goes into a database that remains private. It protects privacy of the officers, but it is utilized to ensure that officer does not get to go to another department.

What the Democrat bill would do is: If someone submits an allegation, well, we’re going to violate the due process rights of this officer and put it into a system.

We have to balance everything in this situation, making sure our good, hardworking, overwhelmingly good police officers are able to do their job, but ensuring that we do not have victims like the victims I heard about yesterday in the excruciating, painful, devastating stories of their sisters, of their mothers and of their fathers.

Q So, sorry, one other question on that and something else. So you’re saying those are the three? That’s it?

MS. MCENANY: There’s a number of things, but those are the ones that I’ve listed out so far. There’s a number of problems in the bill.

Q And on the President’s rallies, he has also said that he has rallies on the books in North Carolina and also Florida, two states that have seen recent spikes in coronavirus. Who told the President that it would be safe to have rallies in states that are seeing spikes right now?

MS. MCENANY: Well, we are confident that there are embers out there that exist, that we’ll be able to put out those embers. Florida has a great governor. He’s done a great job so far. We work closely with Governor DeSantis, and we believe that we will be at a safe place.

Yes.

Q But who said it was safe?

Q Kayleigh, Justice Gorsuch’s decision from the Supreme Court this week against anti-LGBT discrimination was focused on employment civil rights law, but also had implications on housing, healthcare. How does the President want this implemented? Does he wanted it implemented as extensively or as narrowly as possible?

MS. MCENANY: So what the President says is he’s read the decision, they’ve ruled; we live with the decision, and we live with the decision of the Supreme Court. So that’s where he stands currently. And in terms of how it’s implemented, DOJ will lead the multi-agency effort to help provide certainty to the regulated parties.

Q I understand DOJ’s rule, but the President also has the opportunity to express his opinion and to lead, much like President Obama, in 2013, who said he hoped the marriage decision from the Supreme Court would be implemented as extensively as possible. What is President Trump’s view on the appropriate scope of the Court’s decision?

MS. MCENANY: So DOJ will be guiding that entirely, so I will leave that to DOJ.

Q And, finally, has the President — will the President have any conversations with DOJ about the implementation about the Court’s decision?

MS. MCENANY: Not that I’m aware of. He might have had one I don’t know about, but not that I’m aware of.

Q And one more question. Does the President think that the Gorsuch decision is a win for civil rights?

MS. MCENANY: Sorry?

Q Does the President think the Gorsuch decision is a win for civil rights?

MS. MCENANY: So one thing I would say — I have not talked to the President about that personally, but one thing I wanted to read was from the Kavanaugh dissent. There are some real concerns that this was a complete distortion of how we do statutory interpretation, and Kavanaugh lays that out very nicely.

But one thing Justice Kavanaugh did say, and I thought it was a very powerful quote, is: “Notwithstanding my concern about the Court’s transgression of the Constitution’s separation of powers…” — which was a grave concern as the separation of powers point that the DOJ argued in court — “it is appropriate to acknowledge the important victory achieved today by gay and lesbian Americans.”

So I thought that that was a very good quote from Justice Kavanaugh.

Yes. Alexandra.

Q Thank you. On the plans to reduce U.S. troops in Germany, is there a timeline you can share with us? And could this decision, this plan, be changed or softened if Berlin agreed to increase its defense spending?

MS. MCENANY: So the President addressed our presence — American troop presence in Germany, and he said we’re bringing that number down from 52,000 — about what it’s at now — to 25,000. And the rationale for that, he articulated, was that Germany is very delinquent in their payments to NATO. They’re paying 1 percent. They’re supposed to be at 2 percent, and even 2 percent is low. It should be much more than that.

Q Would he change his plan if Germany agreed to increased (inaudible)?

MS. MCENANY: I wouldn’t get ahead of the President on making that decision.

Michael.

Q Hi. Thanks, Kayleigh. I have one question, and then I have two quick questions from colleagues who have sent to me as the pool person.

So, on my question, back when two White House officials tested positive for COVID, we all reported on an email that went out to West Wing employees instructing them that masks were mandatory to be worn in the West Wing at all times, with the exception of being when they were sitting at their desks, alone. Obviously, none of the White House people that I’ve seen today have been wearing masks at all.

Has that been rescinded? Has that instruction to West Wing employees been rescinded formally, or is it just still in place but nobody is paying attention to it? Or —

MS. MCENANY: So, masks are recommended, but not requi- –required. Excuse me. As I said.

Q Okay. And two quick questions.

MS. MCENANY: Could I — I want to get to everyone in the room, so —

Q Well, these are from people who can’t be in the room because of the restrictions.

MS. MCENANY: I understand. But I want to make sure I get to everyone in the room, and then we can come back.

Q Okay.

MS. MCENANY: So, Rob.

Q Can I just get a clarification on your equivalence between protests in the streets and this rally on Saturday? Is it the White House position that outdoor events carry the same risk as indoor events?

MS. MCENANY: It’s our position that the media should not be making decisions about their guidelines to us about social distancing based on political ideology or what they think is the worthiness of the cause.

Q But my point is, there a good scientific reasons for treating the two events different. One is outdoors and one is indoors.

MS. MCENANY: Right. And there’s not a good logical reason for this, so that’s the one thing I would keep going back to.

And can I also ask — can you tell us anything —

MS. MCENANY: Yes, Owen.

Q — about the Secretary of State’s trip to Hawaii to meet his Chinese counterpart?

MS. MCENANY: So, I have no information on that.

Owen. Yes.

Q Blake. Different mask.

MS. MCENANY: Oh, sorry. Blake. They subbed you in.

Q No worries. No worries.

MS. MCENANY: Good to see you Blake.

Q You too. A couple on the economic front. Earlier this month in Maine, the President was talking about Maine lobster, and he said the following: He said, “If the European Union doesn’t drop that tariff immediately, we’re going to put a tariff on their cars, which will be equivalent.” Can you give us an update on that? What is “immediately”? What is the status of potential tariffs on EU autos?

MS. MCENANY: I haven’t inquired about that today, but I will inquire about that, and I’ll try to get back to you before five, if that works.

Q And secondly, an infrastructure bill — can you just sort of give us a broad outline of what the administration wants to see? Is that a reauthorization of the highway bill that comes up at the end of the year? Is that added on to a potential phase four stimulus? What is the administration — what does the White House want as it relates to infrastructure?

MS. MCENANY: Yeah, I don’t want to get ahead of the administration on our official plans for that. Infrastructure is something we’ve talked about for a long time, and it’s something that we think that we could find common ground on. But it’s up to Democrats to really come to us and make that happen. It’s been mentioned as potentially a phase four, but that’s not in stone, but that has been mentioned. No formalized plans, though, on where infrastructure stands.

Q Is that a trillion dollars? Is it a trillion dollars? Up to it?

MS. MCENANY: We don’t have a number on that right now.

Yes.

Q On the Tulsa rally, can you give us a sense of which health experts the campaign and the White House consulted before deciding to hold it? Did anyone talk to the CDC about whether it be a good idea?

MS. MCENANY: Look, we are taking every single safety precaution that we can. And again, I would note this is probably question number 10 on rallies. And while we appreciate the great concern for our rally goers, you should exhibit that same concern for the protesters who are out there who are not socially distancing, in many cases, and not wearing masks.

Chanel.

Q Thank you, Kayleigh. Going back to the international front on China and India, you just mentioned that the administration is monitoring the situation, but the President has mentioned that he would be willing to mediate the conflict between China and India. Now, if he were to do so, what does that look like? Does that mean — does that look like a one-on-one conversation? Does that mean bringing the two leaders together? Has the President indicated what mediation looks like for China and India?

MS. MCENANY: So, again, no formal plans on that beyond what I already said in expressing our absolute condolences to the Indian soldiers that died as a result of today’s confrontation. We extend our deepest condolences there.

And I would note just that during the phone call on June 2nd of this year that President Trump had with Prime Minister Modi, they did discuss the situation on the India-China border.

Q On the relationship between President Trump and President Xi, the Chinese forces have been moving thousands of troops to that region that — it doesn’t seem like that region is going to see de-escalation anytime soon. If you were to characterize President Trump’s relationship with President Xi today, would you —

MS. MCENANY: Yeah, I —

Q Would you venture into that realm?

MS. MCENANY: I would just say what the President has said before: that he is really appalled at the fact that the coronavirus came out of China. They weren’t allowing flights into China but were allowing flights out. They slow-walked information. The WHO seemed to partner with China in slow-walking that information about asymptomatic spread.

So that is an appalling state of events, and the President is very upset by that action of China — or inaction, in some cases, I should say.

Thank you all very much. I hope you have a great rest of the day, and I hope we start seeing more consistent headlines. Thanks very much.

END 1:45 P.M. EDT

The Battle in Methodology


COMMENT: Marty; Your report on the cyclical methodology v academic is excellent. You should put that out as a book on Amazon. Your examples of this absurdity are numerous yet nobody in the media would dare publish this.

Thank you for being the voice in a world that is becoming darker by the day

KD

REPLY: The Dark Age was marked by a lack of knowledge. The term “Dark Ages” was coined by an Italian scholar named Francesco Petrarch. He applied the term as a designation for the lack of cultural advancement in Europe during the medieval period. We have certainly entered a new Dark Age where the media seeks to keep us blind to the truth. I tried to provide the source of all our problems. I highlighted these crazy forecasts from the one that stated we had five years left to live to 3 million Americans would die from a virus they may have even created. Not a single forecast has EVER been correct, yet the press continues to use them as scare tactics to terrorize the people, ensuring they lose their jobs while patting each other on the back for an excellent job of FAKE NEWS. I have tried to provide a report that goes into detail on the methodology being used so I priced it at just $4.95.

Right Must Apply TRAGIC VISION To Beat COVID-LIBS In 2020


If we don’t fight back against the lazy tyranny of mindless leftist governors, we will be destroyed financially

Kelly OConnell image

Re-By from the Canada Free Press  —— Bio and ArchivesMay 25, 2020

Right Must Apply TRAGIC VISION To Beat COVID-LIBS In 2020

While America is caught in an existential crisis, terrified of coronavirus, Dems continue expanding no-contact orders hoping to parlay dysfunction into presidential victory.

The Tragic Vision is opposed to Utopianism and directs us to be prepared to manage both success and disaster. Republicans must stand up and teach a new generation the tough love of the Tragic Vision of authentic Conservatism.

This is how the GOP can assert their authority, remind America who has a real vision, and instruct a currently lost generation about the meaning of life.

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (MI-D) panicked, ordering stores to stop selling paint, carpets and home improvement items, shuttered lawn care services, barred meetings of families not living together, forbade resident travel to cottages, halting motor boating. A moratorium on garden seeds, bizarre given low-risk, high-value homegrown vegetables, and said, “All public & private gatherings of any size are prohibited.” Furious armed residents marched on the capital.

Mayor Lori Lightfoot

Chicago’s pugnacious mayor, Lori Lightfoot, was exposed for sneaking a lockdown haircut, blamed on TV appearances. The pint-sized Mayor warned she’d arrest scofflaws. Meanwhile, Ill Gov JB Pritzker, gravely warned residents to shelter-in-place, then admitted his family illegally vacationed in FL.

LA, CA Mayor Garcetti

LA, CA Mayor Garcetti claims dry sand dangerous, wet sand safe. Wait, where’s the “science”? Leftists pretend only they are “scientific.” So, why do so many COVID orders defy logic?

Do these leaders mean well? Does it matter? Maybe they lack common sense, or truly hate Trump, hoping to harm his reelection chances at the cost of their own residents. But, without wisdom, a crisis of leadership festers. Better would be quick meetings of state congress to vote on laws where all people are represented. Further, legislation is qualitatively superior to anecdotal choices of self-satisfied, overly-ambitious politicians.

III. PC Virus Management

In the midst of battling a new disease, details are sketchy and some facts remain obscure. But whether the lockdown must be continued is an exceptionally important question. As shutting down the economy is like restricting oxygen to the brain, to continue means business deaths are certain.

So a pompous attitude and diffident posture developed where liberal governors and mayors, aping POTUS, took on a role of public law giver. But these leaders usually went off instincts which often proved false. Democrat leaders are overly cautious, and businesses and churches suffer. A false dichotomy arose, a Politically Correct leftist question was asked: Why are you trading money for human lives?

IV. TRAGIC VISION

Economist Thomas Sowell, in Vision of the Anointed, claims that in human society there is a Utopian Vision versus the Tragic Vision. One is realistic, the other a fantasy of how life should be. One is constrained, the other, unconstrained, described here:

Q: What is the Tragic Vision vs. the Utopian Vision?

A: They are the different visions of human nature that underlie left-wing and right-wing ideologies. The distinction comes from the economist Thomas Sowell in his wonderful book “A Conflict of Visions.” According to the Tragic Vision, humans are inherently limited in virtue, wisdom, and knowledge, and social arrangements must acknowledge those limits. According to the Utopian vision, these limits are products of our social arrangements, and we should strive to overcome them in a better society of the future.

 

V. Lead by Taking Sane but Smart Risks

Hiding during stay-home orders may be the biggest failure in US history. We do not have to live in fear or as pawns of the deified state. Instead, we take risks since we know danger is inherent in human life and will always exist. And absolute security is a mirage As wealth can be lost in an instant, but is necessary to serve others, we do not wantonly destroy trillions of dollars because of bad leadership. We can conduct ourselves safely by taking precautions against COVID but still be responsible and reasonable in our other duties.

If we don’t fight back against the lazy tyranny of mindless leftist governors, we will be destroyed financially. Our special privilege as the world’s defender of liberty, faith and capitalism will end. Evil will flourish globally as never before. So, don’t be afraid, but put faith in a higher kingdom while standing up for your American constitutional rights!

We are Headed into War


There is clearly a new Cold War that has begun between China and the United States which is not going to end nicely. This is the direct result of this Politically Manipulated Virus. Western politicians have so abused their power in locking down society and in the United States the Democrats have nothing to stand on but the virus for the 2020 election. They used the Russians for the 2016 election and this time they are using China. They seem hell-bent on creating World War III simply for political gain which they may think will not come to blows – in that they are wrong!

Western politicians in following Bill Gates helping him to redesign the world economy with his Climate Change/Socialistic Agenda, have so angered the people around the world that they will need a scapegoat and that is to blame their stupid actions in destroying the global economy on China. In turn, this is creating a recession in China which in turn will only anger their people against the United States and as tensions rise, so does the prospects for war.

Make no mistake about it, this will not be just a war with China – but also against Russia.

 

Bill Gates will get his wish. He will be able to reduce the population by 10%-15% by the age-old method of creating war.

Risk of Making Gold Illegal


 

We must understand one thing. This is an absolutely all-out major assault upon capitalism being led by the Socialists in union with the Climate Change and the Gates Foundation which has also been pushing the democratization of paper money. This means they are no about to allow any alternative to their agenda. This goes beyond the massive voter fraud we see coming for the 2020 election in the USA. As mentioned, Pelosi has snuck in the creation of a digital dollar, which Trump removed. They are out to remove Trump for their Socialist-Climate Change Agenda and Bill Gates will create a tracking system as he openly admits the government will know where you are are all times.

They are out to eliminate what they consider the black-economy. Look at places like Australia which have embraced Bill Gates. He just donated $10 million to launch a vaccine in Australia. They have made it a criminal act to even pat with $10,000 or more in cash. In Europe, it should come as no surprise that people are buying gold against the Euro democratization which is coming for that is the ONLY way out for the ECB which is trapped in this insane negative interest rate position.

It was Bill Gates that advised India to cancel its currency. Gates has used India and Africa as his Guinea Pig for his vaccines and his New Green World Order. Bill Gates already has 1 billion Indians already tagged biologically and they can be tracked even if they move. He is hell-bent on tracking every person on the planet. What’s next? Permits to have children?

The EU authorities will attempt at some point to demonetize gold, making it illegal to own as a private individual similar to that of what Roosevelt did in 1934 to Americans. They will do this to remove any path of resistance to their socialistic agenda.

Seizing the Moment – Mandating New Green World Order Manipulating the Press


The Gates Promotional PR Team is out in full force lobbying the press to now support the redesign of the economy to end Climate Change. The strategy behind Gates is to use the media to put pressure on the politicians who will do whatever they think the people want and the way to get that is to manipulate the press. This has been the behind-the-curtain objective. The Economist used its front cover to sell the Gates hidden agenda calling for a global effort to tackle climate change. Covid-19 creates a unique chance to steer the economy away from carbon.

They go on to say that low energy prices make it easier to cut subsidies and introduce a carbon tax. Oil and gas firms, steel producers, and carmakers are already going through the agony of shrinking. Getting economies back on their feet requires a climate-friendly investment that, thanks to low-interest rates, will be more affordable. The world should seize the moment.

This is the greatest propaganda scheme in history. I am very disappointed in the Economist for they are just mouthing the Gates Agenda. They offer no actual analysis of how such a to restructure would unfold and imposing taxes now in the middle of an economic depression is NO WAY to restore the economy. If anything, the Economist, without any real analysis whatsoever, is suggesting that the world economy will remain in an economic depression for 13 years minimum and that in the process they will NOT restore jobs but destroy more and unleash the dogs of war.

We are witnessing the takeover of the world by the Climate Change Activists backed with unlimited funds from what ABC News called – our SUPER RICH FRIENDS. Gates has successfully manipulated the press into creating a global lockdown with a minimal virus for the sole objective of shutting down fossil fuel use. It is amazing how blind the majority really are – just outright willfully ignorant of sacrificing their own future and employment. There has NEVER been any evidence put forth to prove that CO2 is even the sole factor as they maintain in creating Climate Change when they refuse to address any data before 1850.

Calls to add ‘climate change’ to death certificates – New study demands ‘climate change’ be added as ‘pre-existing condition’


More Crazy Climate Nonsense!

Marc Morano image

Re-posted from the Canada Free Press By  —— Bio and ArchivesMay 22, 2020

Adding climate change’ to death certificates

Professors in academia are touting a new study that is being used to call for “climate change” to be added as a cause of death on death certificates. “Climate change is a killer, but we don’t acknowledge it on death certificates,” co-author Dr. Arnagretta Hunter, from The Australian National University (ANU) Medical School, said. The study was published May 20, 2020 in The Lancet Planetary Health.

Given the focus on COVID-19 infection rates and death tolls, it appears the climate activists in academia may want in on the scary and emotional death toll counts in order to draw attention back to their climate cause.

Hunter explained: “There is second component on a death certificate which allows for pre-existing conditions and other factors. “If you have an asthma attack and die during heavy smoke exposure from bushfires, the death certificate should include that information.”

“Climate change is a killer, but we don’t acknowledge it on death certificates,” co-author Dr Arnagretta Hunter, from The Australian National University (ANU) Medical School, said. “There is second component on a death certificate which allows for pre-existing conditions and other factors.

“If you have an asthma attack and die during heavy smoke exposure from bushfires, the death certificate should include that information. We can make a diagnosis of disease like coronavirus, but we are less literate in environmental determinants like hot weather or bushfire smoke.” … 

“Climate change is the single greatest health threat that we face globally even after we recover from coronavirus,” Dr. Hunter said.

“We can make a diagnosis of disease like coronavirus, but we are less literate in environmental determinants like hot weather or bushfire smoke.” …  “Climate change is the single greatest health threat that we face globally even after we recover from coronavirus,” Dr. Hunter said.The study claims: “Death certification needs to be modernized, indirect causes should be reported, with all death certification prompting for external factors contributing to death, and these death data must be coupled with large-scale environmental datasets so that impact assessments can be done.”

Statistician Dr. Matt Briggs reacted this way: “They discovered a way to boost fear and keep control!” Briggs added, “Daily body counts blasted from the evil media, ‘Over 100 people died from climate change today, raising questions about … blah blah…’”

But the climate skeptic blog Tallbloke was not receptive to claims that “climate change” should be added to death certificates. “Climate alarmists yet again strain credulity to the limit, no doubt hoping to stir up guilt in the populace about energy use,” the blog noted.

A comment on the Tallbloke blog also ridiculed the study’s claims, noting: “Australia must have a lot of health threats if the ‘single greatest’ one accounts for 2% of the mortality rate.”

Climate fueled Cannibalism?

If “climate change” becomes a cause of death listed on birth certificates, it could result in some interesting reading. Many climate activists have claimed that “global warming” will lead to cannibalism. See: Warnings of climate cannibalism are nothing new: Ted Turner in 2008 warned that AGW survivors ‘will be cannibals’ & Paul Ehrlich warned in 2014 that ‘climate change’ will force humans to ‘eat bodies of dead’