History Facts: Predictions on Climate Change proven False; Global Warming Hoax has Origin in Nazi Germany

History Facts:

Predictions on Climate Change proven False; Global Warming Hoax has Origin in Nazi Germany

O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times? A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it. ~Jesus Christ, Matthew 16:3-4

 

Here’s How Wrong Past Predictions on Climate Change Have Been

Walter E. Williams

Daily Signal, Heritage Foundation

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.

Earth Day  Predictions in 1970: Death of 100-200 Million People

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.

1975: New Ice Age Predicted

Thanks to A.F. Branco at Legal Insurrection.com for his great cartoon

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 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.

2000: Earth will burn up from Global Warming

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.

Extinction of Animal Life

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.”

” Gold and Silver to Disappear”

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.

” Oil and Natural Gas Depleted”

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.

Dishonesty—the End Justifies the Means

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.

Global Warming Hoax has Origin in Nazi Germany

Revealed – How Renewables and the Global Warming Industry Are Literally Hitler

James Delingpole

Nazi vision of windmill

Have you ever wondered what kind of sadistic, totalitarian mentality you might need to want to carpet the countryside with bat-chomping, bird-slicing eco crucifixes in order to save the planet from an imaginary problem?

This book, unearthed by David Archibald at American Thinker, offers a clue: Unfortunately, Archibald reports, the scheme foundered for practical reasons. Just one of these towers would have required 27,500 tons of steel – “approaching the amount used in the Scharnhorst.” So the Germans put their renewable energy drive on hold in 1936. It was, of course, revived five decades later in their Energiewende – an ingenious scheme to replace fossil fuels with energy powered by wind and the sun in which Germany is so abundant sometimes for as many as two or three days each year.

But Nazi Germany’s contributions to the modern climate change industry did not stop with gigantic wind turbines. No. One of the earliest proponents of man-made global warming theory was none other than the Luftwaffe High Command’s chief meteorologist Hermann Flohn.

To be fair, some of us have been well aware for quite some time of the green movement’s connections with Nazi Germany: Himmler’s embrace of organic food; Hitler’s partial vegetarianism; Goering threatening to send animal abusers to the death camps; agricultural minister Richard Darre’s obsession with “Blood and Soil”; the ban on smoking on public transport; the Reich Nature Protection Law; etc. (I wrote about this in Watermelons)

Who the Real Nazis Are

After all, people on the conservative/skeptical side of the argument are far too often being accused by ignorant leftists of being literally Hitler. And I do think it’s important, every now and again, to remind these historical illiterates who the real Nazis are.

Delingpole: Revealed – How Renewables and the Global Warming Industry Are Literally Hitler

 

Heritage Foundation Report: Exit from Paris Climate Agreement good for America

Heritage Foundation Report:

Exit from Paris Climate Agreement good for America

4 Reasons Trump Was Right to Pull Out of the Paris Agreement

Nicolas Loris, Katie Tubb

President Donald Trump has fulfilled a key campaign pledge, announcing that the U.S. will withdraw from the Paris climate agreement.

The Paris Agreement, which committed the U.S. to drastically reducing greenhouse gas emissions, was a truly bad deal—bad for American taxpayers, American energy companies, and every single American who depends on affordable, reliable energy.

It was also bad for the countries that remain in the agreement. Here are four reasons Trump was right to withdraw.

1. The Paris Agreement was costly and ineffective.

The Paris Agreement is highly costly and would do close to nil to address climate change.

If carried out, the energy regulations agreed to in Paris by the Obama administration would kill hundreds of thousands of jobs, harm American manufacturing, and destroy $2.5 trillion in gross domestic product by the year 2035.

In withdrawing from the agreement, Trump removed a massive barrier to achieving the 3 percent economic growth rates America is accustomed to.

Simply rolling back the Paris regulations isn’t enough. The Paris Agreement would have extended long beyond the Trump administration, so remaining in the agreement would have kept the U.S. subject to its terms.

Those terms require countries to update their commitments every five years to make them more ambitious, starting in 2020. Staying in the agreement would have prevented the U.S. from backsliding or even maintaining the Obama administration’s initial commitment of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent.

The Obama administration made clear in its commitment that these cuts were only incremental, leading up to an eventual 80 percent cut in the future.

In terms of climate benefits produced by Paris, there are practically none.

Even if every country met its commitments—a big “if” considering China has already underreported its carbon dioxide emissions, and there are no repercussions for failing to meet the pledges—the changes in the earth’s temperature would be almost undetectable.

2. The agreement wasted taxpayer money.

In climate negotiations leading up to the Paris conference, participants called for a Green Climate Fund that would collect $100 billion per year by 2020.

The goal of this fund would be to subsidize green energy and pay for other climate adaptation and mitigation programs in poorer nations—and to get buy-in (literally) from those poorer nations for the final Paris Agreement.

The Obama administration ended up shipping $1 billion in taxpayer dollars to this fund without authorization from Congress.

Some of the top recipients of these government-funded climate programs have in the past been some of the most corrupt, which means corrupt governments collect the funds, not those who actually need it.

No amount of transparency negotiated in the Paris Agreement is going to change this.

Free enterprise, the rule of law, and private property are the key ingredients for prosperity. These are the principles that actually will help people in developing countries prepare for and cope with a changing climate and natural disasters, whether or not they are caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

3. Withdrawal is a demonstration of leadership.

The media is making a big to-do about the fact that the only countries not participating in the Paris Agreement are Syria and Nicaragua.

But that doesn’t change the fact that it’s still a bad deal. Misery loves company, including North Korea and Iran, who are signatories of the deal.

Some have argued that it is an embarrassment for the U.S. to cede leadership on global warming to countries like China. But to draw a moral equivalency between the U.S. and China on this issue is absurd.

China has serious air quality issues (not from carbon dioxide), and Beijing has repeatedly falsified its coal consumption and air monitoring data, even as it participated in the Paris Agreement. There is no environmental comparison between the U.S. and China.

Other countries have a multitude of security, economic, and diplomatic reasons to work with America to address issues of mutual concern. Withdrawal from the agreement will not change that.

Certainly, withdrawing from the Paris Agreement will be met with consternation from foreign leaders, as was the case when the U.S. withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol.

However, it could very well help future negotiations if other governments know that the U.S. is willing and able to resist diplomatic pressure in order to protect American interests.

4. Withdrawal is good for American energy competitiveness.

Some proponents of the Paris Agreement are saying that withdrawing presents a missed opportunity for energy companies. Others are saying that it doesn’t matter what Trump does because the momentum of green energy is too strong.

Neither argument is a compelling case for remaining in the agreement.

Whether it is conventional fuel companies or renewable ones, the best way for American energy companies to be competitive is to be innovative and competitive in the marketplace, not build their business models around international agreements.

There is nothing about leaving the agreement that prevents Americans from continuing to invest in new energy technologies.

The market for energy is $6 trillion and projected to grow by a third by 2040. Roughly 1.3 billion people do not yet have access to electricity, let alone reliable, affordable energy.

That’s a big market incentive for the private sector to pursue the next energy technology without the aid of taxpayer money.

The U.S. federal government and the international community should stop using other peoples’ money to subsidize energy technologies while regulating affordable, reliable energy sources out of existence.

The Paris Agreement was an open door for future U.S. administrations to regulate and spend hundreds of millions of dollars on international climate programs, just as the Obama administration did without any input from Congress.

Now, that door has thankfully been shut.

Culture Wars: Liberal Lies about Mass Murderers and Communism for Kids, and What You Can Do About It

Culture Wars:  

Liberal Lies about Mass Murderers and ‘Communism for Kids’, and What You Can Do About It

‘Communism for Kids’ Turns Deadly Ideology Into a Fairy Tale

Average review rating of 123 reviews on Amazon: 2 stars

For behold, they do study at this time that they may destroy the liberty of thy people. ~Alma 8:17

Jarrett Stepman

Heritage Foundation Daily Signal

In order to make the deadliest ideology of the 20th century palatable to young Americans, “Communism for Kids” is coming to a bookstore near you.

This newly released book from MIT Press “proposes a different kind of communism, one that is true to its ideals and free from authoritarianism.”

The death toll from communist regimes in the 20th century is well-documented. One study found that more people were killed under communism than homicide and genocide combined, and only 9 million more people were killed in World War I and World War II combined than under governments of this ideology.

Another study showed how the mass killings of civilians by their own governments took an immediate nosedive after the collapse of the Soviet Union and international communism.

According to the Amazon synopsis, the book weaves a fairy tale of “jealous princesses, fancy swords, displaced peasants, mean bosses, and tired workers.”

It is bewildering why MIT Press would publish a book that cutesies up the political creed that gave the world Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Fidel Castro, and many more of the world’s most prolific mass murderers. None of these brutal dictators are mentioned in the book, according to The Washington Free Beacon.

Communism seemingly gets a pass to be re-imagined as a sweet fable while it’s inconceivable that a book called “Fascism for Kids” would ever be printed by a reputable publisher. (Fascism is very similar to communism, with a slightly different label. ~C.D.)

Marion Smith of the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation wrote, according to The Washington Free Beacon:

While I can imagine a book so titled that would make a valuable contribution to a reader’s understanding of the truth about communism, the book MIT Press published is not it. ‘Communism for Kids’ whitewashes and infantilizes ideas that, when put into action, have cost more than 100 million lives.

This odd attempt to get kids into communism is unlikely to spawn a new generation of true believers on its own, but it does highlight the growing problem for younger Americans who are generally clueless about even recent history.

As The Daily Signal previously reported, a study from the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation found that millennials, in particular, are stunningly ignorant about what occurred under the Soviet Union and other communist regimes just a generation ago.

Liberal Lies—

One-third of millennials surveyed actually believe that more people were killed under former President George W. Bush than under Soviet dictator Stalin.

If one truly wants to teach young Americans what communism is really about, it would be better to hand them a copy of the classic “Animal Farm,” by George Orwell.

The book is an allegory—using farm animals as stand-ins—about the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia a century ago. The revolutionary promise of “all animals are equal” is used to overthrow farmers, but quickly turns into a new, even more oppressive tyranny under animal overlords

A reign of forced labor, intimidation, and terror puts the animals under the thumb of their new masters—their ideals used to prop up an all-powerful regime. The refashioned creed becomes “all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” In the end, human, or rather “animal,” nature proved to be more powerful than any ideology.

As the Roman poet Horace once said: “You can drive out nature with a pitchfork, but she will ever hurry back.”

This lesson from Orwell would be a much better way to teach young people about destructive ideology than a fanciful account of how “true” communism—minus the mean authoritarian stuff and mass murder—would be truly grand.

Under communism, tyranny is a feature, not a bug.

Excerpt from Birthright, Critical Thinking: Defining Communism, Socialism, and Fascism

Chapter 53—At the Memorial

                Darcy Lipscomb makes the following comment to her father: “Don’t you know that Nazism is the German word for National Socialism? Nazism, socialism, communism, fascism—they’re all the same. You know, the old tyranny thing—controlling people’s lives and stifling freedom of speech …”

Comment: In today’s society, many people think that Nazism (or fascism) is the opposite of socialism. This is incorrect. Don’t allow yourself to be confused. Darcy is right. These four “isms” are simply variations of the same thing.

Communism and socialism—all property and businesses are owned and controlled by a large bureaucratic government; the government controls the nation’s economy. Karl Marx, founder of communism, encouraged war between the rich and poor, or “class warfare”.

                Fascism (formerly Nazism)—although big businesses may be owned by individuals, they are controlled by the government, which is led by a strong dictator. In addition to class warfare, fascism includes racial strife. Fascist tyrants enforce their demands with groups of bullies, which under Nazism were called the Gestapo.

  All these “isms” engage in thought control, stifling freedom of speech, press, and religion, and persecuting dissenters, to the point of imprisonment or death. In Birthright, these tyrannical systems are called the Order of Kohor. As you study current events, history, and foreign affairs, just keep it simple by remembering that all these systems enforce their ideology with the sword, or violence.

Why the truth is not taught in Public Schools

More about Birthright

Buy Birthright here   and teach your kids critical thinking in an engaging way

 

 

Heritage Foundation Report: President Trump and Syria Attack

Heritage Foundation Report:

President Trump and Syria Attack

Thanks to A.F. Branco at Legal Insurrection for another great cartoon

 

Trump’s powerful message to the world.

The focused and punitive strike in Syria last week sent a powerful message to the world that Bashar Assad’s behavior was unacceptable. It’s clear there is now a decisive leader in the White House. But this message alone is not a solution to the Syrian civil war. Russia and Iran must stop enabling Assad’s brutality. The main focus of U.S. operations must remain the defeat of ISIS and helping Iraq stabilize and secure its borders.

James Phillips, senior research fellow for Middle Eastern affairs at Heritage, says the Trump administration “should remain focused on the key problem at hand—Assad’s chemical weapons threat—and not seek to expand the military mission to include regime change. That kind of mission creep would bog down U.S. military forces in Syria for years, fighting not only the Assad regime, but Hezbollah, Iran, and possibly Russia. Regime change is a bridge too far.” Read more from Phillips on the recent strike and his report on how to improve U.S.-Syria policy.

Teach your family the Key to Survival in a Difficult World

Heritage Foundation Report: Conservative victories during Lame Duck Session

Heritage Foundation Report:

Conservative victories during Lame Duck Session 

obama-lame-duckConservative victories during the final months of Congress

 

obama-rejected-aCongress wrapped up its final legislative week just in time for the holidays. With no more votes scheduled in the waning days of 2016, that means the lame-duck session is officially over.

Conservatives rallied behind the message that legislating during a lame-duck session is dangerous for the American people, and Congress took notice.

Thanks to your activism here’s some of the top lame duck victories:

supreme-courtNo Obama Supreme Court Nominations

Ensuring that no Obama Supreme Court nominee was confirmed during his final year in office was a huge victory for conservatives.

Moving forward into 2017, President-elect Trump will have the opportunity to nominate a true conservative who will uphold and defend the Constitution to replace Justice Scalia.

Don’t “Draft our Daughters”

In the final version of the National Defense Authorization Act, the “Draft our Daughters” provision that would have required America’s young women to sign up for the Selective Service was not included.

This is a major success for Congress to hear the voices of grassroots America and ultimately defeat President Obama’s attempt at social engineering.

Stopped a Massive Spending Bill

govwasteabounds.Congress passed a short-term spending bill instead of a massive omnibus. The continuing resolution wasn’t perfect, but by pushing the funding fight until April Congress is positioned to take on a conservative budget under a Trump Administration.

No Obamacare Bailouts

The outgoing Obama Administration and Democrats in Congress are hoping to prop up Obamacare by using taxpayer dollars to bailout insurance companies. While none of these bailouts happened during the Lame Duck, Republicans must be vigilant to ensure that no backdoor payments are made to the insurance companies between now and January 20th, 2017.

No Internet Sales Tax

Under the guise of the “Marketplace Fairness Act,” an internet sales tax would have added another burden for consumers and businesses. This type of sales tax is a cronyist handout to big businesses, and it’s a good thing lawmakers didn’t let it happen.

repeal-obamacareNow Congress must get ready to have a full repeal of Obamacare ready for Donald Trump’s signature on day one.

Heritage Foundation Report: History Facts on Electoral College

Heritage Foundation Report:

History Facts on Electoral College

Why We Use Electoral College, Not Popular Vote

Jarrett Stepman

key

America’s presidential election system was designed to empower the states, not just the American people as an undifferentiated mass. If the president were elected by unfiltered national vote, small and rural states would become irrelevant, and campaigns would spend their time in large, populous districts. ~Jarrett Stepman

Think what a shame it would be if the president could be elected from 10 pockets of population, they’d be like capitals, maybe like in the Hunger Games, and the rest of us would be like colonies, right?  So it matters where people live in America.  And the whole country gets represented.. ~Dr. Larry Arnn, President, Hillsdale College

 

America’s presidential election system was designed to empower the states, not just the American people as an undifferentiated mass.

America’s presidential election system was designed to empower the states, not just the American people as an undifferentiated mass.

The Electoral College remains in place over two centuries after the framers of the Constitution empowered it to select presidents. Though occasionally maligned, this system of electing a chief executive has been incredibly successful for the American people.

Many modern voters might be surprised to learn that when they step into a ballot box to select their candidate for president, they actually are casting a vote for fellow Americans called electors. These electors, appointed by the states, are pledged to support the presidential candidate the voters have supported. The Electoral College holds its vote the Monday after the second Wednesday in December following the election.

The Founding Fathers created the Electoral College after much debate and compromise, but it has provided stability to the process of picking presidents. Though the winner of the national popular vote typically takes the presidency, that vote failed to determine the winner in four elections: 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000.

Some see the Electoral College as a peculiar and mystifying institution that ensures only a few, select individuals will ever cast a direct vote for president in the United States. Others complain that the system rewards smaller states with more proportional power than the large ones.

Every four years, around election time, there are murmurs about revamping the system and moving toward a direct, national popular vote.

The Founders’ College

signers3As one of The Heritage Foundations legal experts, Hans von Spakovsky, noted in a paper on the Electoral College: “In creating the basic architecture of the American government, the Founders struggled to satisfy each state’s demand for greater representation while attempting to balance popular sovereignty against the risk posed to the minority from majoritarian rule.”

Some elements of the Electoral College, such as the indirect vote through intermediaries, were hotly debated at the 1787 Constitutional Convention. It was eventually justified in part as a stopgap to potentially reverse the vote if the people elected a criminal, traitor, or similar kind of heinous person. The Founders wanted to empower democratic elements in the American system, but they feared a kind of pure, unrestrained democracy that had brought down great republics of the past.

The product of the Founders’ compromise has been well balanced and enduring, and we would be wise to leave it intact.

cartoon-electoral-collegeAlexander Hamilton defended the Electoral College in Federalist 68. He argued that it was important for the people as a whole to have a great deal of power in choosing their president, but it was also “desirable” that “the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”

Hamilton also wrote that this system of intermediaries would produce a greater amount of stability, and that an “ … intermediate body of electors will be much less apt to convulse the community with any extraordinary or violent movements, than the choice of one who was himself to be the final object of the public wishes.”

As students of ancient history, the Founders feared the destructive passions of direct democracy, and as recent subjects of an overreaching monarch, they equally feared the rule of an elite unresponsive to the will of the people. The Electoral College was a compromise, neither fully democratic nor aristocratic.

The Constitution states:

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to which the state may be entitled in the Congress.

constitution1In addition to balancing the protection of individual rights and majority rule, the Founding Fathers attempted to create a “federalist” system that would keep most of  policymaking power reserved to states and localities. America’s presidential election system also was designed to empower the states, not just the American people as an undifferentiated mass.

The total number of electors and thus electoral votes across all states and the District of Columbia—included after the passage of the 23rd Amendment—adds up to 538. The winner must receive a majority, or 270, of these votes to become president.

The system empowers states, especially smaller ones, because it incentivizes presidential candidates to appeal to places that may be far away from population centers. Farmers in Iowa may have very different concerns than bankers in New York. A more federalist system of electing presidents takes that into account.

The states are free to select the method in which they choose their electors. In the early days of the republic, most states chose to have their legislatures pick electors, rather than the people. But, over time, the states shifted to choosing electors via the state’s popular vote instead. Every state has opted for popular election at least since the Civil War.

Calls to Abolish

cartoon-trump-protesters

Thanks to A.F. Branco at Legal Insurrection for another great cartoon

Modern opponents of the Electoral College argue against what they call antidemocratic aspects of the institution, criticizing both the intermediary electors and the state-by-state system of voting.

Calls to fundamentally change the Electoral College reached a peak after Republican George W. Bush defeated Democrat Al Gore in the tightly contested 2000 election. Gore narrowly won the national popular vote, and many of  his supporters howled that the system—even without the Supreme Court stepping in—was unfair.

One organization, National Popular Vote, has worked toward eliminating the Electoral College through an amendment to the Constitution or a state compact. National Popular Vote argues that the current system encourages presidential candidates to spend most of their time in “swing states” rather than campaigning for votes across the entire country.

2014electmapThis plan for a national popular vote has received a moderate level of support, but Heritage’s von Spakovsky has called it bad policy, based on mistaken assumptions. Swing states, he wrote, “can change from election to election, and many states that are today considered to be reliably ‘blue’ or ‘red’ in the presidential race were recently unpredictable.”

Many states have signed on to a bill that essentially would tie a state’s electoral votes to the national popular vote. Those states will pledge to swing all of their electoral votes to the winner of the national vote.

But this is because the incentives would be to appeal only to the biggest population centers. Swing states change over time, and the 2016 election could be a prime example of swing-state unpredictability and erosion of the traditional partisan political map.

Additionally, if the president were elected by unfiltered national vote, small and rural states would become irrelevant, and campaigns would spend their time in large, populous districts.

Over 200 Years of Success

Unneeded tinkering with a process that is over two centuries old could destabilize one on the steadiest political systems in the world.

As author and Texas lawyer Tara Ross wrote in a Heritage Foundation memorandum:

America’s election systems have operated smoothly for more than 200 years because the Electoral College accomplishes its intended purposes.

AMERICA’S PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION PROCESS PRESERVES FEDERALISM, PREVENTS CHAOS, GRANTS DEFINITIVE ELECTORAL OUTCOMES, AND PREVENTS TYRANNICAL OR UNREASONABLE RULE.

On Election Day, Americans should appreciate the great and long-lasting constitutional tradition bequeathed to them—including the quirky Electoral College system created by the nation’s Founders.

 

Why We Use Electoral College, Not Popular Vote

Heritage Foundation Report: Science Facts Reveal Dangers in 3 Parent Baby Mitochondria Disease

Heritage Foundation Report:

Science Facts Reveal  Dangers in 3 Parent Baby Mitochondria Disease

A Baby With 3 Parents Has Been Born. These Are the Dangers You Should Know About.

Anna Higgins

baby-eugenicsThe first baby with three parents has been born this year, raising troubling questions about our culture’s dedication to human dignity.

The U.S. Constitution is predicated on the principle of the inherent worth and dignity of the human individual. Fundamental rights do not depend on any other fact than that each of us is a unique human being. Thus, any proposed legal action or scientific endeavor is subordinate to those rights.

Often, however, we find that proposed scientific “advances”—particularly in areas like genetic engineering—trample on the rights and dignity of the individual.

Genetic manipulation resulting in embryos that incorporate DNA from three adults has been in laboratory experimentation phases since the 1990s, but now the first birth of a baby with genetic material from three parents has been reported. Multiple methods of creating three-parent embryos exist (a detailed explanation can be found here).

In this case, New York City fertility specialist Dr. John Zhang used a method called “maternal spindle transfer” to create five such human embryos—one of which was transferred to a womb and resulted in live birth. While the baby is now a few months old, New Scientist didn’t break the news until September.

The overall goal, sometimes called “mitochondrial replacement technique (MRT),” is to replace genetically defective mitochondria—the organelles responsible for generating energy and metabolic function of the cell—in a woman’s egg with healthy mitochondria using a female donor egg.

abortion-embryoGenetically defective mitochondria can cause serious, even lethal, health problems. But MRT procedures actually transfer a nucleus, repository of the majority of the cell’s genetic material (which means they use human cloning technology), into the presence of genetically different mitochondria.

This is germline (heritable) genetic modification, which means that the modification affects not only the new manufactured individual but also will be passed on to future generations.

The risks potentially associated with this procedure are borne by the resulting child, not the parents.

eugenics3Zhang performed the transfer of the genetically manipulated embryo to a woman’s womb in Mexico because it is currently illegal in the United States. Rather than pause to debate the potential consequences of such manipulation, American scientists are pushing to make this procedure legal in the U.S., touting its “glorious potential.”

In 2015, Congress passed an amendment to the omnibus spending bill, sponsored by Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Ala., which prohibits the Food and Drug Administration from entertaining any submission that proposes “research in which a human embryo is intentionally created or modified to include heritable genetic modification.”

Thus, Zhang, unable to get approval to proceed with genetic manufacture of embryos in the U.S. and unwilling to debate the consequences of these human experiments, fled the country to do his experiments.

Note, however, that the Aderholt amendment does not prohibit human gene editing on born individuals. Congressional prohibition of the practice highlights the importance of the dignity of the human person and gives us a chance to consider all the potential ramifications of forging ahead with practices that amount to irreversible genetic modifications of human beings without their consent.

The United Kingdom has approved creation of three-parent embryos, and a U.S. National Academy of Sciences committee recently recommended that the FDA approve three-parent techniques for in vitro fertilization.

anti-cloningThe caveats included with the recommendations do little to assuage concerns. The committee recommends that this genetic engineering be 1) used only for women with serious, life-threatening mitochondrial disease; 2) require long-term medical follow-up for children born with genetic material from three parents; and 3) that only male embryos be transferred to the mother’s uterus.

First of all, risks potentially associated with this procedure are borne by the resulting child, not the parents. Parents are looking to this procedure because they wish to have a biological child, but do not wish to pass on a genetic disease. This prompts the question: Is the wish for biologically-related offspring sufficient to justify germline genetically modified children?

Eugenics, again?

eugenics1-margaret-sangerConcern that these procedures will eventually give rise to full-blown eugenics practices is valid. Where do we draw the ethical line when we take the next step of using mitochondrial genetic engineering—or other genetic manipulation techniques—to create people with other “desirable” characteristics?

Second, the potential health risks for these genetically modified children and their offspring are unknown. If the past failure of embryonic research and experimentation in the areas of disease treatment or vaccine development is any indication, there are far-reaching health consequences to be considered.

The National Academy of Sciences committee tacitly admits to the potential for long-term harmful effects by recommending long-term follow-up and male embryo transfer only. Recently, the Charlotte Lozier Institute published a paper highlighting the problem of sex-selective abortion in the U.S. and abroad. The selection of male-only embryos for transfer only exacerbates that problem, as the female embryos will be either immediately destroyed or used in further embryo-destructive experimentation.

If these are aborted or genetically altered?

If these are aborted or genetically altered?

Each embryo is biologically a unique human individual. Despite the “glorious potential” of genetic manipulation of human embryos, we must never lose sight of the preeminent consideration of human dignity and ethical practice.

This is an issue of Human Rights

In the end, this is an issue of human rights—not of harmless scientific experimentation. Congress was right to hold the dignity of the person above the impulses of scientific experimentation, and robust public debate on the ethics of this practice and the potential alternatives to it should follow.

 

The Dangers of 3-Parent Babies

Gallery

Heritage Foundation Report: Millennial Incompetence, Ignorance of History, Communism, Socialism is shocking

This gallery contains 1 photo.

Heritage Foundation Report: Millennial Incompetence, Ignorance of History, Communism, Socialism is shocking, AND SAD Therefore my people are gone into captivity, because they have no knowledge.~ Isaiah 5:13 If we don’t teach our children and youth true doctrine—and teach it … Continue reading