The Case for Trump – Part Two
You’ll often hear the Democrat Socialist politicians use a political catch-phrase, “we believe in science,” concerning climate change, and this year, the Wuhan coronavirus.
Of course, “we believe in science” is a code phrase that means if you’re a conservative, you don’t believe in science. At a subliminal level, it’s an attempt to connect conservatives to religious absolutism on the evolution issue, or the question of the earth’s age.
The meme is rooted deeply now, so you’ll even see signs in yards and bumper stickers that proudly state, “We Believe Science.” The Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), uses the phrase more often than “extra Botox, please.” It’s absurd, of course, but they’re socialists, what else would you expect?
But it remains remarkable that the folks who invoke science as though it is “settled” certainties instead of the continual investigation of probabilities do so only for political reasons. And for nearly 70 years, the scientific “industry” in and out of academia has learned to play the game for unlimited federal funding and profit.
Of course, in the case of the COVID-19 virus – deliberately kept secret by the communist Chinese government for at least a month and a half while infected travelers were allowed to fly across the world, lest we forget – the science was collectively wrong at virtually every step.
The science was problematic from the beginning as the Chinese would not allow western nations to access their virus laboratory in Wuhan. However, the worst broken science came from the epidemiological computer “modeling” used to predict the new coronavirus’s behavior and lethality.
The World Health Organization first startled the world into a panic by its modeling, forecasting a 3.4 fatality rate. It was preposterous on its face based on any known virus, but very few in the mainline media or Washington seemed to question the predictions.
Then in March, the Imperial College of London, and it’s primary author, Neil Ferguson, gained overnight fame predicting that 2.2 million Americans and 500,000 million British would die in the pandemic without “intervention.” The projections were the “hard science” used by Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Deborah Birx to advise President Trump in an Oval Office meeting to implement sheltering-in-place recommendations and economic lockdowns, which themselves are scientifically debatable. (Subsequently, other scientists found that the Imperial College outcomes could not be duplicated using the same data. But, the damage was done.)
President Trump’s performance during the pandemic is hotly debated as the elections near. The radical socialists and religious left have made the epidemic a central issue, claiming the American response was fumbled from the start.
He “ignored the science” is the mantra from Speaker Pelosi and other House and Senate radicals. “He didn’t act from the beginning,” the Speaker intoned without saying exactly when the beginning was.
Yet when the President banned flights from China on January 31 he was called a “racist” by Democratic Socialist leadership. The day after the WHO declared the Wuhan virus a worldwide pandemic on March 11, the President imposed travel restrictions on Europe and other countries. Speaker Pelosi and Joe Biden, among many others, publically criticized that decision also.
The record shows that the President followed the collective advice of the CDC and other medical advisors. He activated emergency powers under four separate statutes; a public health emergency under the Public Health Service Act on January 31, followed by two national emergency declarations under the Stafford Act and the National Emergencies Act on March 13, and invoked emergency powers under an Executive Order and the Defense Production Act on March 18.
After writing ten articles since March 16 (here) about the Wuhan virus, and investigating hundreds of sources, the sequence remains clear for all but the willingly blind. President Trump followed the “science” presented to him by the experts as the basis for a decision. Dr. Anthony Fauci and Dr. Deborah Birx have repeatedly said in public – and Congressional testimony – that the President did everything asked of him at every step. And that advice, even in February through April, varied considerably. There were plenty of opinions and minimal certainty.
Perhaps the most consistent criticism is that there was no “national response.” That is a curious complaint. The U.S. is a Republic where each of the 50 states is responsible for its citizens’ immediate health and welfare. And no two states have the same issues. President Trump wisely allowed each state to follow their own designated emergency powers and provided unquestioned federal aid at every step, even according to his most vociferous critics, such as Gov. Andrew Cuomo of New York. One can only imagine the uproar (“See, he’s a dictator!”) had the President implemented a national one-size-fits-all solution.
In war, you always fight with the army you have at the moment. The President has done just that and done it well.
The same wildly inaccurate “scientific” computer modeling is at the heart of the climate change debate as well. The claims of man-made climate change are many decades old now, based primarily on computer models. (Like the virus model, numerous models in Great Britain and the U.S. have been found to be manipulated for a specific outcome on future warming.)
First, when climate cooling didn’t prevail, it became climate warming. When it too failed to happen, it became “climate change.”
The wild projections, such as Manhattan would be underwater by 2010, have come and gone. And yet every year, there are new dire predictions and further calls for dramatic, life-altering programs – that affect Americans primarily.
In 2014 then-President Obama said, “The debate is settled, climate change is a fact.” It was the public notice that there is no room, zero tolerance, for discussion. Who knew science could be so intolerant?
Most of us didn’t know there was even a debate because we know that climates have always changed throughout the centuries. In the last thousand years alone, the world has seen hot and very cold epochs of climate patterns, from the medieval warming period to the “little ice age” that only ended 150 years ago.
Patterns of major climate extremes can be charted back through the millennia and the migration of Homo sapiens across the maps of antiquity, trying to adjust to changing climates, reminding us that we live in a vast world – at its pleasure.
But, none of that matters. Being a skeptic of man-made macro-climate change will brand individuals as “science deniers.” Politicians and academics are demanding censorship and worse for anyone who questions the “settled science,” or suggesting that the climate hoax is a political and financial scam.
It is the worst kind of manipulation. When political and religious leaders, and hordes of self-interested public policy groups and scientists – most of whom have a direct financial incentive to drive public opinion one way or the other – merge into a weapon against average citizens, and their well being, then nothing is safe.
When President Trump came to office, he took immediate action to reverse the billions of tons of coal locked out of the energy grid and ended the federal war on oil and natural gas. Selectively opening federal leasing, pipeline construction, and fracking, President Trump in just three years, set in motion policies that have turned the United States into the largest energy producer in the world, with proven reserves that could last for centuries.
Meanwhile, the “green” alternatives have proved wanting and very expensive. California’s recent power brown-outs have demonstrated that wind and solar have limited use in their current form. A recent study showed California’s power grid could not meet the demand if even half of the state’s a mandate for all-electric autos went into effect.
Is this the future America wants?
The President kept his promise and withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement. This agreement would penalize the West and the U.S. specifically while allowing the world’s largest polluters like China and Indian to maintain their growth. The agreement would have required the U.S. alone to spend trillions of dollars in hard costs and much higher energy bills, to “contain” the global average temperature to 2°C above pre-industrial levels – all based on, you guessed it, computer modeling.
Lost in all of this, of course, is that the U.S. is one of the cleanest countries on earth, and becoming more so, at an astounding rate.
The Biden-Haris ticket has promised to rejoin the Paris Accords – and double down with the Green New Deal, which in Mr. Biden’s own words, “will end the use of oil and natural gas.”
Perhaps in the future, the free market will make alternative power fit the mechanical and financial needs of a first-world economy. But, until that day, we can be thankful for the enormous energy resources we have.
President Donald J. Trump has kept his promises. He has placed America, at least for now, in control of her own destiny. He has made the second American century a possibility.
All of this makes President Trump an easy choice.