Tales from the Uni-Potty: The Morning Constitutional - Cartoon by Ed Newmann (c) 2024
Our February issue provides stories, information, data, and timelines, in the spirit of traditional journalism. Thanks goes to the authors' commitment to rational dissemination of facts instead of emotion-triggering, unproductive opining sans relative details necessary to actually inform the articles, let alone reliable sources for what little factual information might be sprinkled here and there.
Consumers of mainstream and social-media news might want to return to the nonnegotiable signals for discerning whether stories via print articles, television/radio broadcasts, or social-media posts contain actual factual news versus propaganda created for a desired response that advances a specific agenda.
The best evidence for news versus propaganda continues to be whether authors include verifiable data by providing precise sources for audience verification. You know, the way it used to be when such veracity was required by our news organizations before the 2013 Smith-Mundt Modernization Act repealed the original 1946 Smith-Mundt Act, during the Obama Administration, that strictly prohibited government and media from propagandizing Americans.
It is important to remind Americans that broadcast and radio news use publicly owned airwaves to deliver their content, not the other way around. Before 2013, if news agencies delivered propaganda and/or fake news, they risked losing their broadcasting licenses. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) used to monitor and hold accountable the thousands of news providers on behalf of the American people.
Today, however, news agencies have consolidated down to just six primary owners and holders of those licenses, ultimately capturing the FCC, especially along politically partisan lines, corrupting the communications apparatus. Similar to Big Pharma (e.g. Pfizer, Moderna) capturing public health (NIH, CDC, FDA et al) and Big Ag (e.g. Monsanto, Dupont) capturing the USDA , unholy alliances between the public sector (government agencies and NGOs) and the private sector monopoly and oligopoly corporations are created to advance their own narrow interests for greater power and profits. Regulatory capture is often in the form of competition-limiting regulations that directly conflict with American interests as defined in our Constitutional Republic, thereby violating the law and individual oaths of office.
The so-called “Deep State” is nothing more than a rogue administrative state that includes cooperation with legislators and compromised national security, intelligence, law enforcement, and judicial components of government to ultimately dismantle domestic constitutional protections, such as free speech, due process, presumption of innocence, and individual primacy including privacy and property rights, to name a few. This planned demolition is not a novel agenda. It is centuries-old, an ongoing global strategy orchestrated to consolidate power and transfer the world's wealth to a handful of legacy billionaire and self-entitled elites – or as I like to refer to this cabal of megalomaniacal perps and pervs, the Precious.
Climate Crisis Facilitates Massive Transfer of Wealth to the Precious
We can use the 21st-century “climate crisis" to illustrate how it facilitates the transfer of enormous wealth to the very culprits who have been causing it in the first place, for decades, with all their indiscriminate polluting, carbon emitting, and eco-destruction. While climate activists believe they are fighting the good fight for hearts and minds to save humanity from an existential threat due to climate change, the Precious have created an all new revenue stream in the form of a Carbon Credit Exchange (CCE) to trade “carbon credits,” having convinced the world that this CCE will act as a governor on carbon emissions. As if!
What trading carbon credits really does, besides enrich the Precious exponentially, is allow carbon emitting polluters to literally offset their carbon emissions via a mere paper calculation, resulting in no discernible reduction in their respective carbon emissions, let alone cooler temperatures to prevent existential global warming. (NewYorker.com/magazine/2023/10/23/the-great-cash-for-carbon-hustle)
It is a spectacular scam, brilliant in its execution, that included indoctrinating a huge population of well-meaning millennials and Zoomers. These generations' collective education successfully common-cored socioeconomic fundamentals that might have otherwise triggered deeper curiosity and inquiry about what is actually occurring in direct opposition to the epically false benefits promised in the “green steal” currently in progress and threatening those same generations' future.
It bears noting that climate science is based on computer modeling, nothing more. Outcomes that predict climate catastrophes are the result of modelers' assumptions and inputs, making the possibility of manufactured outcomes in pursuit of undisclosed agendas a real possibility.
Contesting climate change as the result of man-made carbon emissions becomes increasingly bizarre when not a single prediction endorsed by the United Nation's International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has actually come to pass. Of the extensive computer modeling pursued by climate scientists worldwide over the past two decades, funded by at least $3 billion annually, none have produced a successful prediction.
The U.N.'s IPCC candidly admits not one of these predictions has been realized. But the world-at-large would never know it by the ever-increasing fanning of climate-crisis flames (pun intended) to destabilize populations using scripted propaganda placing blame for hazardous climate events on anthropomorphic carbon emissions, regardless of the compelling counterarguments for their causes.
It is also disconcerting to learn that various climate experts claim that, in all the computer modeling pursued these past 20 years, none have accounted for cloud coverage, one of the most significant, consequential elements impacting temperature. How is that even possible? Worse yet, values for the sun's warming of Earth's atmosphere were also excluded in the modeling, which would suggest to even the newest newbie on this subject that the model is severely compromised without this systemic climate element so obviously essential in measuring the planet's temperature.
And finally, in the very first IPCC report, the modelers could not devise a representative calculation to account for the curvature of Earth's lower atmosphere, so a constant variable was used to plug into the formula for curvature where applicable. Again, this workaround seems unreliable for accurately predicting climate events; kind of a garbage-in/garbage-out scenario, perhaps evidenced by these predictions consistently failing.
There are legitimate reasons climate change as an existential threat is not accepted by a growing community of stakeholders, especially climate change as the result of man-made carbon emissions. But instead of debating the controversies, inconsistencies, and contradictions, the climate-science community colludes with mainstream and social media to suppress opposition, and to politicize the issue by dividing the public along irrational partisan lines, per usual.
By discrediting skeptics as “climate deniers” in classic rumpus-room form, a huge percentage of the public has no idea fatal flaws exist throughout climate science that deserve resolution, one way or the other. Especially considering the obscene amounts of money being appropriated for it's management (typically between 50-80 percent of the appropriation for administration). Simultaneously these accounts are being looted and laundered for the enrichment of the administrators and corporate partners, who between them consume the lion's share of the funding as administrators and providers of services, respectively.
Julian Assange's Final Extradition Hearing This Month Will Determine the Press Freedom's Future
Julian Assange's final hearing on whether he will be extradited to the U.S. for further persecution will take place February 20-21, 2024, simultaneously either upholding or further degrading First Amendment protections of free speech and freedom of the press, as well as protected privacy and property rights.
The Obama Administration showed unusual wisdom in dropping all charges against Assange, only to have the ungrateful Trump Administration reopen Assange's case, largely on the say-so of Mike Pompeo the former CIA Director who Trump appointed Secretary of State. Pompeo is another ungrateful globalist looking for revenge against Assange for revealing U.S. war crimes and myriad intelligence failures to further diminish Americans' privacy and property rights by strengthening the U.S. Patriot Act with greater immunity to domestically surveil and spy on Americans.
Americans can participate in freeing Assange, who has suffered enough, imprisoned in solitary confinement for more than a decade in Belmarsh Prison in the U.K. He was charged with a single misdemeanor offense years ago, and had it ever been properly adjudicated, time served has come and gone one hundredfold.
We can pressure our congressmen to sign on to House Resolution 934 in support of releasing Assange and finally getting the hell off his back, while stopping Pompeo's lowly vengeance that goes far beyond hurting just Assange, advancing the Administrative State and violating all Americans' individual rights in the bargain. (Govtrack.us/congress/bills/118/hres934/text)
Demand That Iowa Senator Jason Shultz, Chair of Senate State Government Committee, Bring SF 2078 and SF 2079 to the Floor for Consideration.
SF 2079, introduced by Senator Sandy Salmon, would make the use of voting machines optional in Iowa. She also introduced SF 2078 summarized in her outreach to Iowans as follows:
“Electronic voting systems in Iowa are not safe and secure. State and county government officials are not being transparent. Requested information is not being provided to the public. Since the 2020 general election, the Iowa Secretary of State and every county auditor, except one, have declined to release cast vote records from electronic voting systems manufactured by Dominion, ES&S, and Unisyn. These vendors have not allowed the public to inspect their hardware or software in order to adequately evaluate the safety and security of their equipment.
“Let Senator Schultz know you support hand-counted serialized paper ballots, election day a holiday, same day results, no machines. We want the use of electronic voting systems to be eliminated. (Do not need to mention Voter ID since that is already in the law).
“Let Senator Schultz know that you are anticipating his election bill, which we have heard will include Cleaning up the voter rolls periodically using a credit bureau database; No Ranked Choice Voting; No Drop Boxes; and Consistency across all counties in vote recounts.
“Let Senator Schultz know that you are anticipating a bill from Senator Sandy Salmon requiring the Participation File and Ballot Logs (cast vote records).”
To date, Senator Shultz has prevented this legislation from moving forward to the full Senate Committee for a vote. Iowans must hold him to account for this refusal to allow Iowans to choose how they want to conduct elections in their respective counties. Senator Shultz can be reached at (515)281-3371 and at jason.schulrz@legis.iowa.gov.
Also review Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate's bill HSB 638, arguably the polar opposite of Salmon's proposed bill that would expand Iowans' choices for election administration, by restricting choices by Iowans in support of greater control given exclusively to the SOS for administration, uniformity, and electronic processing of elections. (Legis.iowa.gov/legislation/BillBook?ga=90&ba=HSB628)
