The Roots of Our Partisan Divide (via Imprimis)

The Roots of Our Partisan Divide

Christopher Caldwell
Senior Fellow, The Claremont Institute and Author, The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties

Christopher CaldwellChristopher Caldwell is a senior fellow at the Claremont Institute, a contributing editor at the Claremont Review of Books, and a contributing opinion writer for The New York Times. A graduate of Harvard College, he has been a senior editor at the Weekly Standard and a columnist for the Financial Times. He is the author of Reflections on the Revolution in Europe: Immigration, Islam, and the West and The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties.


The following is adapted from a talk delivered on January 28, 2020, at Hillsdale College’s Allan P. Kirby, Jr. Center for Constitutional Studies and Citizenship in Washington, D.C., as part of the AWC Family Foundation lecture series.

American society today is divided by party and by ideology in a way it has perhaps not been since the Civil War. I have just published a book that, among other things, suggests why this is. It is called The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties. It runs from the assassination of John F. Kennedy to the election of Donald J. Trump. You can get a good idea of the drift of the narrative from its chapter titles: 1963, Race, Sex, War, Debt, Diversity, Winners, and Losers.

I can end part of the suspense right now—Democrats are the winners. Their party won the 1960s—they gained money, power, and prestige. The GOP is the party of the people who lost those things.

One of the strands of this story involves the Vietnam War. The antiquated way the Army was mustered in the 1960s wound up creating a class system. What I’m referring to here is the so-called student deferment. In the old days, university-level education was rare. At the start of the First World War, only one in 30 American men was in a college or university, so student deferments were not culturally significant. By the time of Vietnam, almost half of American men were in a college or university, and student deferment remained in effect until well into the war. So if you were rich enough to study art history, you went to Woodstock and made love. If you worked in a garage, you went to Da Nang and made war. This produced a class division that many of the college-educated mistook for a moral division, particularly once we lost the war. The rich saw themselves as having avoided service in Vietnam not because they were more privileged or—heaven forbid—less brave, but because they were more decent.

Another strand of the story involves women. Today, there are two cultures of American womanhood—the culture of married women and the culture of single women. If you poll them on political issues, they tend to differ diametrically. It was feminism that produced this rupture. For women during the Kennedy administration, by contrast, there was one culture of femininity, and it united women from cradle to grave: Ninety percent of married women and 87 percent of unmarried women believed there was such a thing as “women’s intuition.” Only 16 percent of married women and only 15 percent of unmarried women thought it was excusable in some circumstances to have an extramarital affair. Ninety-nine percent of women, when asked the ideal age for marriage, said it was sometime before age 27. None answered “never.”

But it is a third strand of the story, running all the way down to our day, that is most important for explaining our partisan polarization. It concerns how the civil rights laws of the 1960s, and particularly the Civil Rights Act of 1964, divided the country. They did so by giving birth to what was, in effect, a second constitution, which would eventually cause Americans to peel off into two different and incompatible constitutional cultures. This became obvious only over time. It happened so slowly that many people did not notice.

Because conventional wisdom today holds that the Civil Rights Act brought the country together, my book’s suggestion that it pulled the country apart has been met with outrage. The outrage has been especially pronounced among those who have not read the book. So for their benefit I should make crystal clear that my book is not a defense of segregation or Jim Crow, and that when I criticize the long-term effects of the civil rights laws of the 1960s, I do not criticize the principle of equality in general, or the movement for black equality in particular.

What I am talking about are the emergency mechanisms that, in the name of ending segregation, were established under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These gave Washington the authority to override what Americans had traditionally thought of as their ordinary democratic institutions. It was widely assumed that the emergency mechanisms would be temporary and narrowly focused. But they soon escaped democratic control altogether, and they have now become the most powerful part of our governing system.

How Civil Rights Legislation Worked

There were two noteworthy things about the civil rights legislation of 1964 and 1965.

The first was its unprecedented concentration of power. It gave Washington tools it had never before had in peacetime. It created new crimes, outlawing discrimination in almost every walk of public and private life. It revoked—or repealed—the prevailing understanding of freedom of association as protected by the First Amendment. It established agencies to hunt down these new crimes—an expanded Civil Rights Commission, an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and various offices of civil rights in the different cabinet agencies. It gave government new prerogatives, such as laying out hiring practices for all companies with more than 15 employees, filing lawsuits, conducting investigations, and ordering redress. Above all, it exposed every corner of American social, economic, and political life to direction from bureaucrats and judges.

To put it bluntly, the effect of these civil rights laws was to take a lot of decisions that had been made in the democratic parts of American government and relocate them to the bureaucracy or the judiciary. Only with that kind of arsenal, Lyndon Johnson and the drafters thought, would it be possible to root out insidious racism.

The second noteworthy thing about the civil rights legislation of the 1960s is that it was kind of a fudge. It sat uneasily not only with the First Amendment, but with the Constitution as a whole. The Voting Rights Act of 1965, passed largely to give teeth to the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal rights for all citizens, did so by creating different levels of rights for citizens of southern states like Alabama and citizens of northern states like Michigan when it came to election laws.

The goal of the civil rights laws was to bring the sham democracies of the American South into conformity with the Constitution. But nobody’s democracy is perfect, and it turned out to be much harder than anticipated to distinguish between democracy in the South and democracy elsewhere in the country. If the spirit of the law was to humiliate Southern bigots, the letter of the law put the entire country—all its institutions—under the threat of lawsuits and prosecutions for discrimination.

Still, no one was too worried about that. It is clear in retrospect that Americans outside the South understood segregation as a regional problem. As far as we can tell from polls, 70-90 percent of Americans outside the South thought that blacks in their part of the country were treated just fine, the same as anyone else. In practice, non-Southerners did not expect the new laws to be turned back on themselves.

The Broadening of Civil Rights

The problem is that when the work of the civil rights legislation was done—when de jure segregation was stopped—these new powers were not suspended or scaled back or reassessed. On the contrary, they intensified. The ability to set racial quotas for public schools was not in the original Civil Rights Act, but offices of civil rights started doing it, and there was no one strong enough to resist. Busing of schoolchildren had not been in the original plan, either, but once schools started to fall short of targets established by the bureaucracy, judges ordered it.

Affirmative action was a vague notion in the Civil Rights Act. But by the time of the Supreme Court’s 1978 Bakke decision, it was an outright system of racial preference for non-whites. In that case, the plaintiff, Alan Bakke, who had been a U.S. Marine captain in Vietnam, saw his application for medical school rejected, even though his test scores were in the 96th, 94th, 97th, and 72nd percentiles. Minority applicants, meanwhile, were admitted with, on average, scores in the 34th, 30th, 37th, and 18th percentiles. And although the Court decided that Bakke himself deserved admission, it did not do away with the affirmative action programs that kept him out. In fact, it institutionalized them, mandating “diversity”—a new concept at the time—as the law of the land.

Meanwhile other groups, many of them not even envisioned in the original legislation, got the hang of using civil rights law. Immigrant advocates, for instance: Americans never voted for bilingual education, but when the Supreme Court upheld the idea in 1974, rule writers in the offices of civil rights simply established it, and it exists to this day. Women, too: the EEOC battled Sears, Roebuck & Co. from 1973 to 1986 with every weapon at its disposal, trying to prove it guilty of sexism—ultimately failing to prove even a single instance of it.

Finally, civil rights came to dominate—and even overrule—legislation that had nothing to do with it. The most traumatic example of this was the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. This legislation was supposed to be the grand compromise on which our modern immigration policy would be built. On the one hand, about three million illegal immigrants who had mostly come north from Mexico would be given citizenship. On the other hand, draconian laws would ensure that the amnesty would not be an incentive to future migrants, and that illegal immigration would never get out of control again. So there were harsh “employer sanctions” for anyone who hired a non-citizen. But once the law passed, what happened? Illegal immigrants got their amnesty. But the penalties on illegal hiring turned out to be fake—because, to simplify just a bit, asking an employee who “looks Mexican” where he was born or about his citizenship status was held to be a violation of his civil rights. Civil rights law had made it impossible for Americans to get what they’d voted for through their representatives, leading to decades of political strife over immigration policy that continues to this day.

A more recent manifestation of the broadening of civil rights laws is the “Dear Colleague” letter sent by the Obama Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights in 2011, which sought to dictate sexual harassment policy to every college and university in the country. Another is the overturning by judges of a temporary ban on entry from certain countries linked to terrorism in the first months of the Trump administration in 2017.

These policies, qua policies, have their defenders and their detractors. The important thing for our purposes is how they were established and enforced. More and more areas of American life have been withdrawn from voters’ democratic control and delivered up to the bureaucratic and judicial emergency mechanisms of civil rights law. Civil rights law has become a second constitution, with powers that can be used to override the Constitution of 1787.

The New Constitution

In explaining the constitutional order that we see today, I’d like to focus on just two of its characteristics.

First, it has a moral element, almost a metaphysical element, that is usually more typical of theocracies than of secular republics. As we’ve discussed, civil rights law gave bureaucrats and judges emergency powers to override the normal constitutional order, bypassing democracy. But the key question is: Under what conditions is the government authorized to activate these emergency powers? It is a question that has been much studied by political thinkers in Europe. Usually when European governments of the past bypassed their constitutions by declaring emergencies, it was on the grounds of a military threat or a threat to public order. But in America, as our way of governing has evolved since 1964, emergencies are declared on a moral basis: people are suffering; their newly discovered rights are being denied. America can’t wait anymore for the ordinary democratic process to take its course.

A moral ground for invoking emergencies sounds more humane than a military one. It is not. That is because, in order to justify its special powers, the government must create a class of officially designated malefactors. With the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the justification of this strong medicine was that there was a collection of Southern politicians who were so wily and devious, and a collection of Southern sheriffs so ruthless and depraved, that one could not, and was not morally obliged to, fight fair with them.

That pattern has perpetuated itself, even as the focus of civil rights has moved to American institutions less obviously objectionable than segregation. Every intervention in the name of rights requires the identification of a malefactor. So very early on in the gay marriage debate, those who believed in traditional marriage were likened to segregationists or to those who had opposed interracial marriage.

Joe Biden recently said: “Let’s be clear: Transgender equality is the civil rights issue of our time. There is no room for compromise when it comes to basic human rights.” Now, most Americans, probably including Joe Biden, know very little about transgenderism. But this is an assertion that Americans are not going to be permitted to advance their knowledge by discussing the issue in public or to work out their differences at the ballot box. As civil rights laws have been extended by analogy into other areas of American life, the imputation of moral non-personhood has been aimed at a growing number of people who have committed no sin more grievous than believing the same things they did two years ago, and therefore standing in the way of the progressive juggernaut.

The second characteristic of the new civil rights constitution is what we can call intersectionality. This is a sociological development. As long as civil rights law was limited to protecting the rights of Southern blacks, it was a stable system. It had the logic of history behind it, which both justified and focused its application. But if other groups could be given the privilege of advancing their causes by bureaucratic fiat and judicial decree, there was the possibility of a gradual building up of vast new coalitions, maybe even electoral majorities. This was made possible because almost anyone who was not a white heterosexual male could benefit from civil rights law in some way.

Seventy years ago, India produced the first modern minority-rights based constitution with a long, enumerated list of so-called “scheduled tribes and castes.” Eventually, inter-group horse trading took up so much of the country’s attention that there emerged a grumbling group of “everyone else,” of “ordinary Indians.” These account for many of the people behind the present prime minister, Narendra Modi. Indians who like Modi say he’s the candidate of average citizens. Those who don’t like him, as most of the international media do not, call him a “Hindu nationalist.”

We have a version of the same thing happening in America. By the mid-1980s, the “intersectional” coalition of civil rights activists started using the term “people of color” to describe itself. Now, logically, if there really is such a thing as “people of color,” and if they are demanding a larger share of society’s rewards, they are ipso facto demanding that “non–people of color” get a smaller share. In the same way that the Indian constitution called forth the idea of a generic “Hindu,” the new civil rights constitution created a group of “non–people of color.” It made white people a political reality in the United States in a way they had never been.

Now we can apply this insight to parties. So overpowering is the hegemony of the civil rights constitution of 1964 over the Constitution of 1787, that the country naturally sorts itself into a party of those who have benefitted by it and a party of those who have been harmed by it.

A Party of Bigots and a Party of Totalitarians

Let’s say you’re a progressive. In fact, let’s say you are a progressive gay man in a gay marriage, with two adopted children. The civil rights version of the country is everything to you. Your whole way of life depends on it. How can you back a party or a politician who even wavers on it? Quite likely, your whole moral idea of yourself depends on it, too. You may have marched in gay pride parades carrying signs reading “Stop the Hate,” and you believe that people who opposed the campaign that made possible your way of life, your marriage, and your children, can only have done so for terrible reasons. You are on the side of the glorious marchers of Birmingham, and they are on the side of Bull Connor. To you, the other party is a party of bigots.

But say you’re a conservative person who goes to church, and your seven-year-old son is being taught about “gender fluidity” in first grade. There is no avenue for you to complain about this. You’ll be called a bigot at the very least. In fact, although you’re not a lawyer, you have a vague sense that you might get fired from your job, or fined, or that something else bad will happen. You also feel that this business has something to do with gay rights. “Sorry,” you ask, “when did I vote for this?” You begin to suspect that taking your voice away from you and taking your vote away from you is the main goal of these rights movements. To you, the other party is a party of totalitarians.

And that’s our current party system: the bigots versus the totalitarians.

If either of these constitutions were totally devoid of merit, we wouldn’t have a problem. We could be confident that the wiser of the two would win out in the end. But each of our two constitutions contains, for its adherents, a great deal worth defending to the bitter end. And unfortunately, each constitution must increasingly defend itself against the other.

When gay marriage was being advanced over the past 20 years, one of the common sayings of activists was: “The sky didn’t fall.” People would say: “Look, we’ve had gay marriage in Massachusetts for three weeks, and I’ve got news for you! The sky didn’t fall!” They were right in the short term. But I think they forgot how delicate a system a democratic constitutional republic is, how difficult it is to get the formula right, and how hard it is to see when a government begins—slowly, very slowly—to veer off course in a way that can take decades to become evident.

Then one day we discover that, although we still deny the sky is falling, we do so with a lot less confidence.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Are battle lines being drawn?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Do you want to be a victim?

Why should I or any other person want to pay for foodstamps for other able-bodied adults of the age of the majority? That is USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue’s argument, and he hails from a small farming town in Georgia.  Mine is, what are you going to do when you run out of other people’s money? If you cannot build an independent life for yourself on Molokai, or wherever, then you must go to a place where you can make it without being dependent on others. Usually that place is a state of mind. When you reach that state of mind, and not until then, you will be able to make it anywhere you would want to go. But first, you must give up victimhood and dependence. That is the only way out of your gulag.

You can work on the government’s plantation.  Or you can own your own plantation and pay taxes.

Hawaii’s AG, others file suit over food stamps rule

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The global warming scam

ABSTRACT: “The Global Warming Scam has been perpetrated in order to support the Environmentalist belief that the earth is being harmed by the emission of greenhouse gases from the combustion of fossil fuels. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was set up to provide evidence for this belief. They have published four major Reports which are widely considered to have proved it to be true. This paper examines the evidence in detail and shows that none of the evidence presented confirms a relationship between emissions of greenhouse gases and any harmful effect on the climate. It is the result of 18 years of scrutiny and comment on IPCC Reports and of a study of the scientific literature associated with it.” ~ Vincent Gray, PhD. physical chemistry, Cambridge University.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

On going genocidal.  In memory of the Jewish Holocaust.

One of the most successful strategies of leftists and totalitarians is erasing history. Absent history, young people grow up believing life was always as good as they have it today, as they fiddle with an e-toy invented only yesterday.  When atrocities are not taught and intentionally remembered, students lose any chance of historical perspective against which to measure their own lives, thus they are easily triggered and con-trolled…like poor Greta…they open the gates of Rome to certain disaster.

Genocidal atrocities are rarely taught.  The German holocaust against the Jews is one of the most remembered genocides, these anniversaries celebrated today, thanks to active work by heroes who  keep the Holocaust memory alive. Genocidal atrocities will continue if students are not taught and instead are “protected” in safe places from thinking about the human capacity for inhumanity against their fellow man.  Genocides and wars are almost always driven by an ideology pushed by those seeking power and control.  Not much has changed about that down through human history, but so-called educators rarely teach that.  Hitler’s NAZI extermination of the Jews, his “final solution,” at the time was supported by Muslims and still today is actively denied by Muslims, but unfortunately that Holocaust is only one of many such genocides.

Many other atrocities are buried. For example, the Turkish genocide against Armenians, and the Turks including their leader today are still in denial.  Russians killed their entire military officer ranks, after they killed Poland’s officers… for the communist ideology, not in war time.  Subsequently, tens of millions of Russians died when Germans attacked Russia and Stalin had almost no experienced military leadership to defend the country.  Nevertheless, the next generation of Russian generals rolled their tanks into Prague, Czechoslovakia.

Muslim generals of the Islamic caliphate slaughtered millions of Hindu by the method taught by Muhammed (PBUH).  Mountains were made of bones. In what is called ‘The bloodiest period in human history,’ historian Koenard Elst in Negationism in India gives an estimate of 80 million Hindus killed in the jihad against India. [Koenard Elst, Negationism in India, Voice of India, New Delhi, 2002, pg. 34.  Mountains in India are called the Hindu Kush, meaning the “funeral pyre of the Hindus.” According to reports from 1899 in a statement made by Indian religious leader Swami Vivekananda quoting Muslim historian Firistha, Muslims slaughtered over 400 million Hindus during an 800 year Muslim rule, bringing the Indian population down from 600 million to 200 million at the time.  Firishta wrote the Tarikh-i Firishta and the Gulshan-i Ibrahim. If Muslims indeed slaughtered over 400 million people in India, the Muslim genocide around the world would exceed 890 million victims, still ongoing.

“When the Mohammedans first came we were said – I think on the authority of Ferishta, the oldest Mohammedan historian – to have been six hundred millions of Hindus. Now we are about two hundred millions.” — An interview of Swami Vivekananda, published in Prabuddha Bharat. April, 1899 and compiled under heading ‘On the Bounds of Hinduism’.  400 million Hindus dead.

The number of Christians martyred by Islam is 9 million [David B. Barrett, Todd M. Johnson, World Christian Trends, William Carey Library, 2001, p. 230, table 4-10].

Renowned British missionary-explorer David Livingstone estimated that for every slave who reached a plantation, five others were killed in the initial raid or died of illness and privation on the forced march.  [Woman’s Presbyterian Board of Missions, David Livingstone, p. 62, 1888] “Those who were left behind were the very young, the weak, the sick and the old. These soon died since the main providers had been killed or enslaved. So, for 25 million slaves delivered to the market, we have an estimated death of about 120 million people. Islam ran the wholesale slave trade in Africa.”

Jihad killed the Buddhists in Turkey, Afghanistan, along the Silk Route, and in India. The total is roughly 10 million killed. [David B. Barrett, Todd M. Johnson, World Christian Trends AD 30-AD 2200, William Carey Library, 2001, p. 230, table 4-1.]  10 million Buddhists murdered.

Islamic jihadists have all but wiped out the long dominant 4000-year-old monotheist religion of Zoroaster, or Zarathustra in ancient Persian, and jihadists today still destroy its relics and temples.

Yet Americans and other countries have elected Muslims to their congresses and governments and political leaders and media demand that citizens tolerate Islam’s cultural jihad and its intolerable, medieval practices.  Muslims, the archetype for hypocrisy and intolerance, demand and are foolishly rewarded hate crime laws to prosecute those who speak these historical facts against their death cult, meanwhile they flagellate themselves, march in their infamous streets shouting death to America and Israel, and their religious leaders endorse stoning, beheading, mutilation of women, brainwashing of children and suicide bombing.  Is there a word for conscious genocide of your own people and culture?       

Millions of Chinese died in China, not in war, but by starvation due to policies of their revered Chairman Mao Zedong.  Starvation got so bad that the government put up propaganda posters to convince people not to eat their children.  The 3-year famine, recorded as the worst in history, was caused by Chairman Mao’s “Great Leap Forward” wherein thousands of years of Chinese culture was destroyed and replaced by communist ideology.  Historian Frank Dikotter estimated that there were 45 million premature deaths from 1958 to 1962. Yet today Chinese still celebrate Chairman Mao.  And Americans allow these brainwashed Chinese to buy and steal research, media, from universities like Harvard and the government.  No doubt Chinese have also infiltrated other countries.

There was the Rwandan genocide remembered in the well-done movie Hotel Rwanda.  A similar atrocity is happening today in Nigeria.

In Cambodia,  remembered in the movie The Killing Fields, more than a million Cambodians were killed by the Cambodian communist Khmer Rouge regime 1975 to 1979.  And similar atrocities by communist ideologues occurred in the other countries in Southeast Asia, Vietnam, and Laos AFTER Americans and America’s allies pulled out of Vietnam.  But communists like Bernie Sanders sit in the U.S. Senate, are candidates for U.S. President, thousands of them teach our children and grandchildren, are talking heads on mainstream news, and sit today as Secretary General of the United Nations.  What are “We” thinking?

British Prime Minister Tony Blair said on November 20, 2003, that as many as 400,000 Iraqis died and were buried in Saddam Hussein’s and his Baathist party’s mass graves in Iraq. “They are Kurds, killed because of their ethnicity. They are Shiites, killed because of their religion. They are Sunnis, killed for their political views. They are Egyptians, Kuwaitis, and Iranians, killed because their lives meant nothing to Saddam Hussein, his sons, and their followers.” [quote: Andrew Natsios, Administrator U.S. Agency for International Development January 2004.]

There are many more of these atrocities.  But these days who knows these things?  Who cares?  Keeping the Holocaust memory alive – as done by many Jews – should be our example, the example for the world, of teaching these atrocities so that they are remembered and never repeated.  But instead people ignore or erase bad history, tear down statues, defile the symbols of the culture we inherited and instead elect or allow election of mayors, attorneys general, governors, prime ministers, presidents, and legislators and watch media talking heads covertly or actively supporting the ideologies that caused these atrocities.  Experience speaking through millennia of human history says what will hurt you is what you don’t know and what you think you know.   That hasn’t changed.  Caveat Emptor [Latin, Let the buyer beware.] Here’s looking at you, kiddo.

“For fools rush in where angels fear to tread,”  (1)

Though the one looking at you t’is to dread

Mine’s name is Alexander Pope.

What’s yours?  Lest I give up hope.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

800 scientists to World Economic Forum: “There is NO climate emergency.”

CLINTEL – the Climate Intelligence group of more than 800 international scientists and professionals – have sent a letter to the World Economic Forum to inform them that there is NO Climate Emergency, and that’s good news for Greta Thunberg and her followers, many of whom are scared about climate change.  [As an epilogue, they prepared an message to their grandchildren, which is copied and linked below.  Share widely!]  Present day climate change turns out to be well within natural variability of the past. Dr. Guus Berkhout, president of CLINTEL, has issued a new plain language climate science essay that shows how computer simulated models have been mistaken for ‘reality’ and why they are unsuitable for setting climate policy. Some people wonder why the WEF business community and Al Gore claim there is a climate crisis, but the CLINTEL scientists and professionals don’t… the answer is found in a Forbes story where Roger Pielke, Jr. reveals that two green billionaires sponsored a very influential climate risk report that used the most extreme and least likely scenario. That document and that thinking became embedded as if fact in science, when it is pure speculation. Dr. Berhout explains things in his own words, here:

Dr. Berkhout’s excellent and succinct video address here:                                

and the link to the technical climate science essay is down below.

Here is the letter to the World Economic Forum

To: Borge Brende
President World Economic Forum

Professor Guus Berkhout
President of CLINTEL

January 20, 2020
Your Excellency,

Despite global warming, the past 150± years has resulted in an unprecedented increase in the quality and duration of human life all over our planet. For example, poverty was never as low as today. And statistics tell us that – thanks to intelligent adaptation policies – the number of deaths from natural disasters has sharply decreased.

There is no planetary emergency, climate or otherwise. The climate crisis only exists in computer models. Yes we can, and will, continue to strive to do better for all people, on multiple fronts — including understanding climate and knowing how to adapt to changes.

One dire consequence of current model-induced panic is that we are abandoning key elements of our successful, low-cost and reliable energy systems. These are the basis for the quality and duration of human lives! The energy erosion will inevitably result in economic decline and increased poverty, particularly in non-OECD countries.

Therefore, the so-called ‘climate mitigation’ is an irresponsible policy. The fundament of social and economic development is adaptation to the climate evolution.

Despite heated political rhetoric, we urge all world leaders to accept the reality that there is no climate emergency. There is ample time to use scientific advances to continue improving our society. Meanwhile, we should go for adaptation; it works whatever the causes are.

We also invite you to organize with us a constructive, open meeting between world-class scientists on both sides of the climate debate. Such an event complies with the sound and ancient principle that all pertinent parties should be fully heard: Audiatur et altera pars.

Letter to the WEF as pdf
Essay Guus Berkhout as pdf

Yours sincerely, ambassadors of CLINTEL,

Nobel Laureate Professor Ivar Giaever, Norway
Professor Guus Berkhout, The Netherlands
Professor Reynald Du Berger, French speaking Canada
John Droz jr, USA
Terry Dunleavy, New Zealand
Viv Forbes, Australia
Professor Jeffrey Foss, English speaking Canada
Jens Morton, Hansen Denmark
Morten Jødal, Norway
Professor Demetris Koutsoyiannes, Greece
Rob Lemeire, Dutch speaking Belgium
Professor Richard Lindzen, USA
Dr. Thiago Maia, Brazil
Dr. Henri A. Masson, French speaking Belgium
Professor Ingemar Nordin, Sweden
Jim O’Brien, Republic of Ireland
Professor Ian Plimer, Australia
Douglas Pollock, Chile
Professor Alberto Prestininzi, Italy
Professor Benoît Rittaud, France
Professor Fritz Vahrenholt, Germany
The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, United Kingdom

online link to letter to the the World Economic Forum:   

Epilogue, a message to our grandchildren

The young generation, with Swedish Greta Thunberg as their hero, were repeatedly told by climate alarmists that their parents and grandparents are leaving a big mess behind. The result being catastrophic global warming (CAGW). If the youngsters would not reverse what the selfish older generation has brought about, our planet will collapse soon. No time to lose, we are in the middle of a climate crisis!

However, is this scaremongering story true? Let us look at the facts first. Hard facts show that the climate system is one of the most complex systems humankind tries to understand. Many Nobel Prizes will be awarded before we will celebrate that model predictions and real measurements appear in agreement. Keeping this in mind, how can students claim that they already know the answer? But there is more. Hard facts also show that the youngster’s parents and grandparents worked extremely hard to built-up a society with an impressive high standard of living.The abundance of hardship of the older generation is unknown to the young people. Actually, the young generation starts in an unprecedented favorable position to further raise the quality of life on our planet. The opportunities for them have never been as positive as today. Yes, all thanks to their hardworking parents and grandparents.

Does this mean that the older generation has not made mistakes? Of course, they have made many wrong decisions, but that will undoubtedly happen to the new generation as well. Hopefully the new generation will learn from the past mistakes and hopefully they will do better than ever before. Such an ambitious intention is welcomed by all creatures great and small.

Continuing in this positive spirit, the author has a message for all young people who blame their parents and their grandparents for the ’emerging doom and gloom’. Don’t behave like a parrot. Be critical against the many false prophets who try to misuse you and try to turn you against your parents. The information they tell you is one-sided and misleading.

Please, deepen your climate knowledge. By doing so, you will find out that there is NO empirical evidence that points at any climate crisis. And, in particular, don’t confuse global warming with environmental pollution! They are two entirely different issues. Global warming is largely nature-driven and environmental pollution is largely humandriven. By the way, have schoolteachers ever told you that CO2 is a blessing for everything that lives on our planet?

The author would like to end this special message with an advice to all youngsters:
1. Climate change exists and is of all times, but don’t worry, the current global warming period is gentle and only brought us prosperity: ‘There is NO climate emergency’.
2. Global warming is best taken care of by adaptation. In nature ‘adaptation to change’ has always been the best strategy to survive, whatever the cause of change is.
3. Environmental pollution must be and can be stopped by establishing a circular and clean economy. Creativity, ingenuity and innovation are required from the new generation.

Finally, for all youngsters who were poisoned with fear for the future, forget about the preachers of doom and gloom and consider the above challenges as your mission in life.

Online link to epilogue to the grandchildren:

Link to pdf of the technical essay:


Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Good on ya, sir (President Trump.

Speaking at the annual conference of the oilgarchy in Davos, Switzerland, U.S. President Donald Trump rejects their pervasive climate-caused doom. Good on ya sir.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The buttresses of the deep state swamp

The Administration Procedures Act of 1946 and The Espionage Act are the buttresses of the corrupt federal administrative state. The former enables Congress (unconstitutionally) to delegate its main function (legislation) to the Executive branch and the myriad and vast agencies of the Executive branch. Regulation without representation.  Very unfortunately, so far, the Supreme Court and lower courts have been supporting the ability of the unelected bureaucracy to legislate, that is, to create regulations which are enforced as if they were laws.  Almost all of the federal administration is part of the Executive branch.  That is an infringement of the separation of powers enshrined throughout the U.S. Constitution. That Act was passed immediately after winning WWII when the U.S. was on a high of confidence in its government. The Act should be repealed or replaced.

The Espionage Act prevents any whistleblowing on anything substantive. For example, Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, Kevin Shipp and many others cannot disclose serious crimes known to them, even murders and false flags, without revealing how they knew about it…unless they become fugitives…due to the Espionage Act. Without submitting the source of the information about the crime the testimony by the federal whistleblower would be hearsay and not admitted into court’s evidence. Even standing before a judge, the federal employee can be immediately arrested for treason, followed by no due legal processes, potentially held without bail forever with no legal advice, and potentially subjected to a death sentence. It is not simply a matter of losing a job and pension. The Espionage Act (which all senior federal employees sign) means that revealing a classified source of information and how they knew it subjects them to exactly the same laws as applied to a foreign spy during wartime, even if they reveal it as evidence in a court of law. The law providing protection for federal whistleblowers is a joke, political window dressing, in any serious case. But the decision on whether to enforce the Espionage Act is made by a bureaucrat who is protecting the deep state and its corruption. Enforcement is not equally applied. General Flynn, Shipp, Assange, Snowden do not receive the same justice or decisions as Comey, Clinton and Brennan.

The ultimate protection for the deep state, the swamp and corrupt federal government employees is that national security is enforced by the government to take precedence over courts of law and the Constitutional…and that is dead wrong. It is a giant hole in the U.S. justice system large enough to drive an aircraft carrier through, yet federal employees can be pursued and arrested if they publicly acknowledge the hole exists.

Secrecy and classification in government are vastly overused; ultimately they protect federal corruption, and only rarely protect citizens. The government does not want citizens to know that they are being spied on, that ALL their electronic transactions are copied by the government all the time, and that their personal information could be used against them at any time for any reason. That has already been done multiple times during the Obama administration.

A whistleblower can be removed from court or arrested just by submitting classified evidence, and then the case at hand would be replaced by an espionage case against the federal employee (or federal contractor). The real case dissappears. Yet, the federal government pays contractors to evesdrop on citizens by social media, impersonate friends, unmasks and leaks names and information for political purposes, and uses supposedly confidential IRS submissions to target political enemies.

The Espionage Act enables the federal government to behave extra-judically, outside of the justice system, usually in secret, as if they were Mafia…exactly as the spying happened to candidate and now President Trump and his campaign staff. That was happening BEFORE the Steele dosier and before the Obama FBI and DOJ requested a warrant from the FISA court.

Of course there are many good people in the FBI, CIA, NSA, State Department, White House, DOD, DOJ, IRS, FDA, EPA etc who would be willing and able to testify and submit evidence about the many federal crimes committed by fellow federal employees like Comey, Clinton, Brennan, Bush etc. But they cannot testify or submit evidence without being arrested and dissappear under the Espionage Act; it is the major enabler of continuing and growing federal corruption and crimes against humanity.

@WhiteHouse @RealDonaldTrump

~ By Bud Bromley

Attached below is an excellent article. Please read and share.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Iranian American activist outraged by propaganda machine glorifying Soleimani

Iranian American activist Saghar Erica Kasraie says many Iranians have been celebrating Soleimani’s death by giving out cakes and cookies in the streets in Iran, contrary to what many mourning videos that came out of Iran are depicting.
Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

2015: “Obamas Iran deal has just granted an amnesty to the world’s leading terrorist mastermind” ~ UK’s The Telegraph

“As head of the Quds Force in Iran’s Revolutionary Guards, Qassem Suleimani is widely regarded as one of the world’s leading terrorists. Now Barack Obama has effectively granted him an amnesty.” …

Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of U.S. House of Representatives, Democrat of San Francisco, 9 Jan 2020: “We are no more safer today than we were yesterday.”

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment