Promise Not Kept: Trump’s Illegal Executive Amnesty

It takes some time for a successor to clean up the mess of his predecessor. But when a new president continues a patently illegal immigration program from his predecessor, at some point he must own that unconstitutional policy. For Obama’s illegal executive amnesty, Trump is rapidly approaching that moment.

Yesterday, White House spokesman Sean Spicer used all of the typical straw-man arguments to explain why the president has decided to keep Obama’s executive amnesty in place:

I think he’s been consistent about two things. One, that he has a heart. He wants to make sure that he does what’s in the interest of children in particular. But secondly, I think the President’s priorities since he took office have been very clear that the focus would be on folks who presented a danger to public safety. And that’s what it’s been, and that’s where it continues to be. And I think he is someone who understands the issue and the priorities that need to get laid out by this country. And so everything that he has done has been consistent with what he said from the get-go.

What about the legality – the fact that it is illegal to issue work permits and Social Security cards contrary to the most foundational sovereignty statutes?

I think that his comments that he made last week, that he understands that in a lot of cases this involves families and small children who have been here, and he has a heart…

And how does that address the legality, again?

Besides, it is wholly inconsistent with the policies and the talking points Trump harnessed during the campaign.

When Trump was campaigning in Phoenix last August, he spoke with true moral clarity on the issue of immigration in a way that shows “heart” first and foremost to the American people and, by extension, to those who make the dangerous trek across the southern border:

We will immediately terminate President Obama’s two illegal executive amnesties in which he defied federal law and the Constitution to give amnesty to approximately five million illegal immigrants, five million.

The president actually revealed what was in his “heart” when he said in the speech that Arizona held a special place in his heart. Arizona has been beleaguered by these very myopic policies that place the emotional arguments of foreign nationals in a vacuum ahead of the broad needs and concerns of Americans. Trump lambasted the media and Hillary at the time for focusing on “one thing and only one thing, the needs of people living here illegally.” He then spoke with moral clarity of how “the central issue is not the needs of the 11 million illegal immigrants” and that “anyone who tells you that the core issue is the needs of those living here illegally has simply spent too much time in Washington…. There is only one core issue in the immigration debate, and that issue is the well-being of the American people.”

As I’ve noted before, and demonstrated from the Rockville rape case, it is this very promise of amnesty for “families with children” that is solely responsible for the recent surge in migration from Central America that has cost taxpayers untold sums of funding, burdened schools, crushed hospitals, and, yes, has resulted in violent crime against Americans. And as we saw with a slew of violent incidents perpetrated by young illegal aliens, they usually have clean records … until they offend. The “vetting” of the Obama administration was a joke, because 96 percent of applicants were granted legal status.

Yet the Trump administration is likely issuing roughly 760 illegal cards to illegal aliens every day. Even Marco Rubio said he’d only honor those cards already handed out. For this administration to renew a flagrantly illegal policy demonstrates that the campaign rhetoric of the entire Republican Party when in opposition is an utter joke. It’s one thing to show recalcitrance to ending a legal, albeit odious, policy. But to continue an illegal policy, especially when illegal aliens are the sole beneficiaries of that policy, is a mockery of the rule of law. Trump could end this tomorrow with a simple display of inaction – refusing to renew any work permits.

As a man who always likes to project power and the image of a winner, there is a further need for Trump to eliminate Obama’s executive amnesty in light of the courts nullifying his own immigration orders. For this administration to sit idly as Trump’s completely legal immigration order is struck down (while refusing to negotiate it as part of the budget bill) and at the same time continue the illegal immigration order of an ex-president is the ultimate humiliation of the The Donald. Moreover, courts are treating Obama’s order as a legitimate “law” through which to force states to issue driver’s licenses for illegals.

Trump is clearly a man who desires to check off his list of promises. Getting rid of Obama’s executive amnesty must make its way back onto that list. (For more from the author of “Promise Not Kept: Trump’s Illegal Executive Amnesty” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Scientists Take Big Step Toward ‘Artificial Womb’ to Save Premature Babies

Doctors could use “artificial wombs” to save premature babies, according to new research published by scientists with the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

The study, published Tuesday, successfully kept unborn lambs alive in an artificial womb with nutrient-rich liquids. Lambs raised using the artificial wombs were normal in every way scientists could measure. Baby lambs developed to the age equivalent of 23-week-old human babies.

Scientists say the technology can be used to keep more premature babies alive. Scientists plan to begin trials on human babies within three to five years.

“This system is potentially far superior to what hospitals can currently do for a 23-week-old baby born at the cusp of viability,” Dr. Alan Flake, a fetal surgeon at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia who led the study, said in a press statement.

“These infants have an urgent need for a bridge between the mother’s womb and the outside world. If we can develop an extra-uterine system to support growth and organ maturation for only a few weeks, we can dramatically improve outcomes for extremely premature babies,” Flake said. (Read more from “Scientists Take Big Step Toward ‘Artificial Womb’ to Save Premature Babies” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


The Police vs. The PC Police

As is almost always the case, signs of trouble preceded the latest shooting in Paris, which left one police officer dead and wounded two bystanders before police killed the gunman, later identified as French national Karim Cheurfi, a known criminal with a long, violent record. ISIS claimed to be behind the attack. According to police, a note praising ISIS fell out of Cheurfi’s pocket when he fell.

Cheurfi was of Algerian descent, born in a Paris suburb. The Washington Post reported he had a criminal record and was known to authorities. His rap sheet included four arrests and convictions since 2003. He had spent nearly 14 years in prison for crimes that included burglary, theft and attempted murder.

When Cheurfi attempted to buy weapons French authorities took notice, especially when he made statements about wishing to kill police officers. After he traveled to Algeria earlier this year, Paris prosecutor Francois Molins said Cheurfi was interviewed, but a judge refused to revoke his probation. It makes one question not only France’s probation laws, but the types of background checks in place that ought to have prevented Cheurfi from legally acquiring any firearm (if he bought it legally), much less the Kalashnikov rifle he allegedly used.

French and other European politicians immediately expressed concern over what effect the shooting and the terrorist attacks that preceded it might have on France’s choice of a new president. Rightist candidates immediately tried to exploit the issue, but it has been a subject on the minds of French voters, particularly in Paris, where a major enclave of immigrants from Muslim countries continue to be seen by many as a threat to the French way of life.

Cheurfi should have been back in jail for parole violations. Given his record, his statements and the trip to Algeria, enough red flags were raised to warrant action.

A side note. While Algeria has not been a main source of terrorism in the world, the human rights agency Algeria Watch has noted: “Although Algerian nationals were not among the suicide bombers of 11 September 2001, they have featured prominently in subsequent investigations into al-Qaida activities in North America and Europe.

In the UK, where an Algerian community has grown as a largely unknown minority in recent years, several dozen Algerians have been arrested since mid-2001 in localities as widely spread as Leicester, Glasgow, Edinburgh, London and Manchester. Arrests in London in January 2003 uncovered a cell producing ricin, while in Manchester, one of the Algerian detainees, 27-year-old Kamel Bourgass, was responsible for killing a police officer — the first victim in the UK’s post-11 September anti-terrorist campaign.”

In the United States and other countries in the West, most often someone has to actually break the law before they can be arrested. Given the tactics of terrorists, it might be worth discussing whether to invoke a doctrine of pre-emption, which is sometimes employed when an enemy nation appears to be an imminent threat. If that is an option to prevent death and destruction from countries, why can’t we impose something similar for people who have violent criminal records and who openly state, as Cheurfi did, that he intends to kill police?

Western reluctance to adapt such a practice shows there is one force more powerful than the uniformed police. It is the “PC police.” These are people who care more about how they feel than for the innocent people gunned down in our streets.

Don’t innocents have the right to be protected from fanatics who so often claim to be doing God’s work? With ongoing investigations by the Department of Homeland Security into radical terrorists in every state, it’s long past time to get them before they get any more of us. (For more from the author of “The Police vs. The PC Police” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

bible-873315_960_720 (1)

College Sued for Banning Student’s Preaching as ‘Disorderly Conduct’

Sure, you can preach here, Georgia Gwinnett College told an evangelical student, right over there — on two spots making up just 0.0015 percent of the campus. Oh, also, the “public forum areas” are only open 18 hours a week and not on the weekends. And you have to ask permission three days in advance. Which we don’t have to grant.

Forced Out

Chike Uzuegbunam complied. Then the administration told him to stop doing it at all. A campus law enforcement officer told him that “people are calling us because their peace and tranquility is being disturbed.” His witnessing was “disorderly conduct.” That’s any expression “which disturbs the peace and/or comfort of person(s).” That means almost anything someone wants to complain about and the Student Affairs office wants to ban.

The college’s Freedom of Expression Policy says “the Student Affairs official must not consider or impose restrictions based on the content or viewpoint of the expression.” But the college doesn’t seem to mean it when the content or viewpoint are Christian.

The officer told him to stop preaching. He said Uzuegbunam could only speak one on one with students. He told him to use the methods of other religious denominations to relay his message. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (“LDS”) regularly get approval to visit the GGC campus.

There was no claim that that Uzuegbunam caused any damage or behaved violently. He did not block anyone passing by or cause congestion. He did not use a microphone or carry a sign.

After he was told to stop preaching, Uzuegbunam went to speak with Aileen Dowell, GGC’s Director of the Office of Student Integrity. She said that it is a violation of GGC policy for anyone to express a “fire and brimstone message” on campus, even within the free speech zones.

The Lawsuit

The Alliance Defending Freedom sent a letter to GGC objecting to its policy three years ago. GGC never responded, so the ADF filed a lawsuit last December on Uzuegbunam’s behalf against the college. The complaint contends that the policy discriminates against religion, because non-religious students are accommodated. The ADF is asking the court to suspend the policies.

Handing out tracts and evangelizing is part of Uzuegbunam’s Christian faith, the ADF asserts. The school has “created and enforced a heckler’s veto.” Anyone who is offended or discomforted by students engaging in free speech can use the college’s policy to silence them. The school’s disorderly conduct policy is overly broad.

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of religion. It applies to public places, including public colleges like Georgia Gwinnett College. The ADF lawsuit contends that Uzuegbunam is engaging in religious speech, protected by at least two clauses in the Constitution.

ADF Legal Counsel Travis Barham said, “a state college … has the duty to protect and promote those freedoms.” He went on, “Students don’t check their constitutionally protected free speech at the campus gate.” He ridiculed the school for hypocritically “touting commitments to ‘diversity’ and ‘open communications.”

The U.S. has a rich history of street preachers. It’s doubtful the college will prevail in ending this tradition, especially if the case makes it up all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote on the court, tends to side in favor of religious freedom. (For more from the author of “College Sued for Banning Student’s Preaching as ‘Disorderly Conduct'” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Supreme Court Flickr (1)

The Supreme Court Has a Chance to Right a Long Standing Wrong

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Trinity Lutheran Church v. Comer. The case stems directly from religious bigotry in the mid-1800s.

In 2012 Trinity Lutheran Church in Missouri applied for a state grant to resurface their playground to make it safer. The church’s pre-school uses the playground and it’s also available to the local community. Most of the children in the pre-school and neighborhood do not attend the church.

Missouri denied the funds. They claimed state law prohibited them from aiding “any church, sect, or denomination of religion.”

And so on to court and now to the U. S. Supreme Court. The case offers the Court the chance put right the wrong imposed on religious believers in Missouri 140 years ago.

That wrong is called the Blaine Amendment.

Catholic Immigrants Found Catholic Schools

By the mid-1800s, in the wake of the Second Great Awakening, the religion of the American people was for the most part lowest-common-denominator (LCD) Protestantism. Charles Finney, the most prominent evangelist during the awakening, summed it up:

Persons of all denominations, forgetting their differences, gave themselves to the work. They all preached the same thing, the same simple Gospel. They held out substantially the same truth: Christ died to save souls; you may be saved; you are a sinner and need to be saved; now, will you come to Christ and submit yourself to God? This was about the amount of instruction.

That LCD Protestantism influenced all of American public life including public education. Since Protestantism was part of what it meant to be a real American, public schools promoted it with enthusiasm.

During that same era, the country experienced great waves of Catholic immigrants. For Catholics, Mr. Finney’s “simple gospel” was true as far as it went. It just didn’t go far enough. In fact, they found it so inadequate and, in the public schools, so objectionable that they founded their own schools. These would promote Catholic faith, education, and identity.

Keeping “Sectarian” Catholic Schools at Bay

Protestant America was never very keen on Catholics, but this went beyond too far. There had to be a way to make it harder for poor Catholics to send their children to these new “sectarian” Catholic schools. How could Catholic children be forced into the public schools with their “non-sectarian” Protestant bias so that they could become good Americans — and good Protestants?

To save the Republic from rampant Catholicism, the Order of the Star Spangled Banner was formed in 1849. Their core issue was the abolition of slavery, an extremely good cause, but they fueled that good cause with anti-Catholic bigotry. The Order was a secret society. When asked about it, members were bound by oath to say, “I know nothing.” Hence, they were called “The Know-Nothings.” Politically they were the American Party.

Their idea of the First Amendment was to keep Catholic “sectarianism” at bay while strengthening “non-sectarian” LCD Protestantism.

This was nearly enshrined in the U. S. Constitution in 1879. President Ulysses S. Grant proposed an amendment banning “sectarian” religious instruction in public schools and the use of tax dollars to in any way support “sectarian” schools. The amendment was named for James G. Blaine who had been Speaker of the House.

Protestants and non-religious people loved the amendment. While it was never ratified, all but eleven states adopted and still have Blaine Amendments or similar legislation. Missouri is one of them.

Danger for All Religious Groups

What Grant, Blaine, the Know-Nothings, and the amendment’s other supporters didn’t take into account is that “sectarian” is in the eye of the beholder.

They thought they were safeguarding the republic from the dangers of “rum, Romanism, and rebellion.” Instead they created a legal trap for religious believers including the good folk at Trinity Lutheran. Today when all religion is regarded as “sectarian” it’s possible to exclude all religion from government benefits.

Now I know it’s a mistake to judge those in the past by our standards. It’s easy to second-guess a 140-year old decision with 20/20 hindsight. Still, the Blaine Amendments give states the power to discriminate against any or all religious groups. That exacts a steep tax on freedom as Trinity Lutheran and many others have discovered.

Those who observe the Supreme Court seem to think that the Court will find for Trinity Lutheran. Besides, the new governor of Missouri has changed the policy. One way or the other, Trinity Lutheran will receive their grant.

What the Court should do, if it can, is declare Blaine Amendments across the country unconstitutional. That would set right a long standing injustice. (For more from the author of “The Supreme Court Has a Chance to Right a Long Standing Wrong” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


The Real Threats to Science: Sloppiness, Bias and Fraud

I had dinner with a friend of mine in New York’s Cornelia St. Café. She told me about her Brooklyn neighborhood’s March for Science: “A neighbor child organized a parade around our block. It was adorable: kids made up their own signs and their own chants.”

It sounds adorable. Also vaguely creepy. Like this San Francisco restaurant owner announcing that “food is inherently political.” Her Middle Eastern eatery, she claims is the place where people will have open and honest conversations. Well, maybe some people.

The Brooklyn Children’s March for Science? It reminds me of when Soviet kids used to playact show trials of their peers. All to defend St. Vladimir Lenin’s glorious Revolution. Read The Whisperers if you want to see how creepy the politicization of everything can become. The essence of the totalitarian impulse is: Everything is political. Fortunately for us, that impulse isn’t backed by guns yet. Just tweets, marches and shoving matches in the street.

The Left craves a substitute for religion or morality. They want certain truths to be self-evident and unquestionable. So they yoke science to their ideology. The better to bash political opponents over the head.

What Would You Do to Get Your Paper Published?

Meanwhile there is a real, actual crisis in science taking place today: a massive failure to replicate major medical scientific findings.

Springer publishing last week retracted 107 papers from the journal Tumor Biology. Retraction Watch called it the most retractions from a single journal in history. The studies were pulled because the authors had compromised the peer review process. How? By getting editors to submit their paper to fake peer reviewers. In some cases, the authors submitted real scientists’ names but gave editors fake email addresses. That allowed them to review their own papers.

Think about it: So-called scientists risking the health of cancer patients to ensure that their precious papers get published. Like abusive clergy, they are a tiny minority. But they are bad apples who need to be tossed out fast.

This is the tip of the iceberg. A major review of landmark studies in cancer research found that “scientific findings were confirmed in only 6 (or 11 percent of) cases. Even knowing the limitations of preclinical research, this was a shocking result.”

Last week, Retraction Watch also published a letter from a biostatistician pointing out that many recent studies in ten major biology journals contained a basic and crucial omission: the sample size of the study was either unclear or unknown. In Cell, a major biology journal, 8 out of 10 recent articles published did not provide a clear sample size. Failing to report the sample size means it’s virtually impossible to replicate the finding. This is statistics 101. What better way to avoid scrutiny?

Scientific Progress Requires a Commitment to Truth

A similar problem plagues the psychological sciences. Here the pressures are mostly to produce the results pleasing to the social justice tribe (minus any justice for unborn babies).

Protecting science is enormously important. Marching in the streets just makes things worse.

Scientific progress requires scientists whose first and fearless commitment is to the truth, not to partisan visions of social justice. Scientists are of course also human beings. So they are tempted by the same things other people are tempted by: applause, money, status, fear of social exclusion.

Cleaning up science is a job for scientists with integrity. There is little you and I can do about it.

Well, there is one thing: taxpayers could insist that data from any government funded studies be posted online upon publication. President Trump, are you listening? (For more from the author of “The Real Threats to Science: Sloppiness, Bias and Fraud” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

4059183926_ae8febb35c_b (2)

Migrant Crimes up 52 Percent in Germany

Migrant crime “increased disproportionately” in Germany in 2016, according to a report released Monday by the Interior Ministry.

The number of migrant criminal suspects increased by 52.7 percent from 2015 to 2016. Migrants account for 8.6 percent of all crime suspects in Germany — up from 5.7 percent in 2015.

Politically or ideologically motivated crimes by foreigners went up by 66.5 percent, with 3,372 cases throughout the year.

“There is nothing there to sugarcoat,” Federal Minister of the Interior Thomas de Maiziere said of the statistics, according to Deutsche Welle. “There is an overall rise in disrespect, violence, and hate.”

Germany suffered a series of jihadi attacks in 2016 — including the truck massacre at a Christmas market in Berlin. Crimes motivated by Islam increased by 13.7 percent last year. (Read more from “Migrant Crimes up 52 Percent in Germany” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Mike Lee Warns Trump About Taxpayer Funding of Soros Groups Overseas

For eight years, U.S. foreign assistance was tied to a leftist political agenda rather than American interests, and it’s now up to President Donald Trump to correct that, Sen. Mike Lee said Tuesday.

Lee took particular aim at U.S. support during the Obama administration for the overseas work of nonprofits bankrolled by liberal billionaire George Soros.

“Whatever one’s views about abortion, energy regulation, alternative family structures, they are neither core international priorities of the American people, nor essential to American national security. They are domestic political controversies, pet causes of a sort of privileged, globalist elite,” Lee said in the speech at The Heritage Foundation.

“Yet for eight years under President Obama’s administration, they were the substance of a global reeducation campaign, funded by … American taxpayers,” the Utah Republican said.

Lee made the remarks, in which he specifically criticized the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, ahead of a panel discussion on U.S. foreign assistance at The Heritage Foundation.

“President Trump and his team must change the culture of American diplomacy towards one that prioritizes American interests and respects the sovereignty and self-determination of other peoples,” Lee said.

Trump’s fiscal year 2018 budget proposal would cut funding for the State Department and USAID by 28 percent.

The senator noted that Eastern European countries are more socially conservative than Western European countries because of the influence of Catholic and Orthodox churches. He said they also are more economically conservative because of their past suffering under communism.

The citizens of countries such as Macedonia, Poland, and Albania see the U.S. government spending money on progressive political causes as a “well-funded external political activism that undermines legitimate governments and long-held cultural norms of their nations with leftist policies and leftist politicians,” Lee said, adding:

And who can question their concerns, when the State Department and USAID have provided millions of American taxpayer dollars to organizations in Eastern Europe associated with well-known progressive advocates like George Soros and his Open Society Foundations, who make no secrets about the kinds of politics they support?

The mission of USAID, which has a $22.7 billion annual budget, is to fight poverty and promote democracy abroad.

A State Department spokesman told The Daily Signal in a written statement that USAID money is properly accounted for.

“USAID is committed to accountability and transparency and to the oversight of U.S. government funds to ensure they are not subject to waste, fraud, or abuse,” the spokesman said in an email. “USAID regularly conducts rigorous reviews and audits of programs implemented by partner organizations. These reviews are conducted to measure the programs’ effectiveness and efficiency and to ensure their compliance with applicable statutes, regulations, and policies.”

Lee’s chief example was Macedonia:

Macedonia today is embroiled in a governing crisis that has been brought about largely by external interference in domestic issues and political processes. The crisis has deepened the political divide in the country and threatens to inflame ethnic tensions.

Such unrest is like an engraved invitation to an opportunist like [Russian President] Vladimir Putin, who can inflame divisions and actively court populations who feel that they have been betrayed by the United States.

From 2012 through 2016, USAID gave $4.8 million to Foundation Open Society-Macedonia, a division of the Soros-funded nonprofit, “in partnership with four local civil society organizations,” according to the agency’s website.

The conservative government watchdog Judicial Watch has sued the State Department and USAID for detailed information about funding for Foundation Open Society-Macedonia.

Open Society Foundations spokesman Maxim Tucker disputed much of Lee’s comments about the Soros-funded groups in a statement to The Daily Signal. Tucker said in an email:

Senator Lee must know that since 1973, U.S. law prohibits USAID from funding groups that support abortion as a method of family planning–it’s simply false to suggest that the Open Society Foundations or its affiliated organizations use USAID funding to promote abortion rights abroad.

Indeed, we administer only a fraction of USAID funding and that money goes on to local organizations working on local issues–such as health care, infrastructure, education, community activism, and journalism. We do spend nearly a billion dollars of our own money each year funding a wide range of groups that promote human rights, democracy, and good governance.

In central and Eastern Europe, these groups are increasingly attacked or smeared by corrupt and authoritarian governments seeking to deflect legitimate criticism of their leadership.

Lee and five other Republican senators last month wrote Secretary of State Rex Tillerson asking for a review of USAID dollars going to fund political causes, including Soros’ Open Society Foundations.

“The department’s initial response was dismissive of our concerns, and refused to promise any such review,” Lee said during his remarks Tuesday, which may be seen in their entirety here:

“The immediate priority for the Trump administration is to get the right appointees into key positions at the State Department and USAID,” Lee said later, adding:

President Trump, Secretary Tillerson, and other administration officials must also clarify the position of the United States on a number of foreign policy issues, especially in areas where the Obama administration left a damaging impact or caused confusion about U.S. priorities.

USAID doesn’t have a presence in Ireland, for example, according to James Walsh, a former member of Ireland’s senate. Walsh spoke at Heritage’s forum about how the State Department has backed progressive causes in Ireland, including abortion and same-sex marriage.

Walsh said “the most prominent support for so-called progressive causes” has come from U.S.-based nonprofits.

However, Walsh said, the U.S. Embassy in Dublin provided financial help to set up the LGBT group Shout Out. He said that group had “a very prominent role” in Ireland’s 2015 referendum that legalized same-sex marriage.

Walsh added:

The known support from the official U.S. government sources may be relatively modest, but it contributes greatly to an impression which the rhetoric of the Obama administration strongly underlined. And that is that the U.S. government is actively and vigorously promoting these euphemistically called progressive causes around the world and is prepared to interfere in what many people would regard as a matter exclusively for the domain of the people of that particular country.

The State Department did not have an immediate answer for The Daily Signal about whether the embassy financially supported the new lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender group in Ireland. (For more from the author of “Mike Lee Warns Trump About Taxpayer Funding of Soros Groups Overseas” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Here’s How Wrong Past Environmental Predictions Have Been

Each year, Earth Day is accompanied by predictions of doom.

Let’s take a look at past predictions to determine just how much confidence we can have in today’s environmentalists’ predictions.

In 1970, when Earth Day was conceived, the late George Wald, a Nobel laureate biology professor at Harvard University, predicted, “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

Also in 1970, Paul Ehrlich, a Stanford University biologist and best-selling author of “The Population Bomb,” declared that the world’s population would soon outstrip food supplies.

In an article for The Progressive, he predicted, “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next 10 years.”

He gave this warning in 1969 to Britain’s Institute of Biology: “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”

On the first Earth Day, Ehrlich warned, “In 10 years, all important animal life in the sea will be extinct.”

Despite such predictions, Ehrlich has won no fewer than 16 awards, including the 1990 Crafoord Prize, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences’ highest award.

In International Wildlife (July 1975), Nigel Calder warned, “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.”

In Science News (1975), C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization is reported as saying, “The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.”

In 2000, climate researcher David Viner told The Independent, a British newspaper, that within “a few years,” snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event” in Britain. “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said. “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.”

In the following years, the U.K. saw some of its largest snowfalls and lowest temperatures since records started being kept in 1914.

In 1970, ecologist Kenneth Watt told a Swarthmore College audience:

The world has been chilling sharply for about 20 years. If present trends continue, the world will be about 4 degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990 but 11 degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.

Also in 1970, Sen. Gaylord Nelson, D-Wis., wrote in Look magazine: “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian (Institution), believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

Scientist Harrison Brown published a chart in Scientific American that year estimating that mankind would run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver were to disappear before 1990.

Erroneous predictions didn’t start with Earth Day.

In 1939, the U.S. Department of the Interior said American oil supplies would last for only another 13 years. In 1949, the secretary of the interior said the end of U.S. oil supplies was in sight.

Having learned nothing from its earlier erroneous claims, in 1974 the U.S. Geological Survey said the U.S. had only a 10-year supply of natural gas.

The fact of the matter, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, is that as of 2014, we had 2.47 quadrillion cubic feet of natural gas, which should last about a century.

Hoodwinking Americans is part of the environmentalist agenda. Environmental activist Stephen Schneider told Discover magazine in 1989:

We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. … Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.

In 1988, then-Sen. Timothy Wirth, D-Colo., said: “We’ve got to … try to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong … we will be doing the right thing anyway in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.”

Americans have paid a steep price for buying into environmental deception and lies. (For more from the author of “Here’s How Wrong Past Environmental Predictions Have Been” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


First Round of French Presidential Election a Blow to the Establishment

France held a presidential election Sunday under the looming threat of Islamist terrorism, and winnowed the field to two candidates at opposite ends of what has become the new ideological battle line of our era: nationalism vs. globalism, for lack of better terms.

One candidate, Marine Le Pen, hails from the pitchfork end of European blood-and-soil nationalism. The other candidate, Emmanuel Macron, is a We-Are-The-World internationalist cut in the mold of Barack Obama and Justin Trudeau.

According to initial results, Macron won 23.7 percent of the vote, while Le Pen won 21.7 percent in what was the first round of this election. They will face off in the second runoff round of elections on May 7. None of the other nine candidates running Sunday got above 20 percent support. Le Pen wants to end immigration to France, saying the country is full.

Macron is heavily favored to win in the second round, though. Of course, polls have been wrong in the past.

The two are archetypes of the new global struggle that has replaced the old left-right paradigm. Their reactions to a terrorist attack on Thursday on France’s main boulevard, the Champs Elysees, for which ISIS claimed responsibility, epitomized their outlooks.

Following the attack, Macron wondered on French Radio whether terrorism is a new normal to which the French must become accustomed.

“This threat, this imponderable problem, is part of our daily lives for the years to come,” Macron said.

Le Pen said she would deport everyone on the terror watch list, even those born in France, shut down all Islamist mosques, and close French borders.

Le Pen leads the far-right National Front, founded by her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, whom she ousted as leader to “de-demonize” the party after years of anti-Semitic and racist statements by him.

Macron founded his own movement, En Marche!, after serving as economy minister for the current Socialist president, Francois Hollande.

Their victory amounted to a complete collapse of the two parties that have mostly alternated in power since Gen. Charles de Gaulle created France’s Fifth Republic in 1958, the right-of-center Gaullists and the leftist Socialists. The only exception to this two-party system was the election of centrist President Valerie Giscard d’Estaing in the 1970s.

Because Macron and Le Pen come from parties without large political bases, it is unlikely that either will benefit from a legislative majority that will emerge after elections on June 11 and 18. Macron, however, is widely expected to be able to cobble together a supportive coalition should he win the presidential election in May.

There’s no question that Le Pen’s suite of policies and stances fit much better with President Donald Trump’s outlook. Trump predicted two days ago that she would benefit from the terrorist attack.

Le Pen, 48, wants to pull France out of the “Schengen Area” of 26 European countries that have dissolved external borders, and out of the European Union’s common currency, the euro.

But she is also close to Russian President Vladimir Putin, from whom the Trump administration is now trying to put some distance. Le Pen said she would consider lifting economic sanctions on Russia if elected. Her campaign has benefited from Russian bank loans and the support of Putin’s vast propaganda empire.

Macron, 39, is the candidate that best fits the style of Angela Merkel, Germany’s powerful chancellor. Of the 11 candidates who ran on Sunday, Macron most closely echoes Merkel’s staunch support for a strong and expanding European Union, her pro-immigration policies, and her desire to keep in place economic sanctions on Russia. His promises to introduce economic reforms also please Berlin.

Merkel’s aversion to Le Pen is so strong—and so richly reciprocated—that The Economist remarked on Sunday, using the name of the German foreign ministry, that “There is no file sitting in a locked drawer somewhere in the Auswärtiges Amt with contingency plans for a Le Pen win.”

But even a Macron-led France can work with the Trump administration. In Africa, for example, Paris can make the case to the White House that its troops fight terrorism every day in a place that seems to be next front line for ISIS and al-Qaeda. It is likely that the administration would see even a Macron-led France as a partner in this endeavor.

Despite their differences, Le Pen and Macron have distinct similarities. They are both big government types.

Le Pen is a champion of public services, would tax companies that outsource manufacturing, and would not touch France’s economically nefarious 35-hour workweek. She also refuses to cut down France’s bloated civil servant rolls.

Macron says he wants “flexibility” for young Frenchmen when it comes to the workweek. But he can see reducing the workweek for people above 50 to 32 hours or even 30 hours. “Why not?” he asks.

Macron also wants to spend an additional 50 billion euros during the upcoming five-year presidential term. He wants a eurozone budget and finance minister. He would not raise France’s low retirement age of 62, but at least he would not lower it even further to 60, which is what Le Pen promises to do.

And there’s no question that in choosing these two candidates, French voters have snubbed the political establishment. If the election of Trump was American voters throwing a brick through the window of the East Coast establishment, this was the French voters hurling a Molotov Cocktail into the still smoke-filled rooms of France’s political class. (For more from the author of “First Round of French Presidential Election a Blow to the Establishment” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.