The war isn't against 'fossil fuels,' but rather the people

Every day, the political and media elites hammer the public with articles, rhetoric, and broadcasts about the existential threat of fossil fuels and climate change.

Democrats in Congress just passed a slush fund — also known as the Inflation Reduction Act — which gives massive amounts of money to their political interests who claim they can control temperatures, sea levels, and storm activity forever.

Politicians are waging a war against the people, made manifest in their attempts to force everyone to get rid of their cars, trucks, lawnmowers, and everything else powered by gas combustion engines, based on the unproven theory that they cause rising temperatures, storms, floods, and droughts.  They want the poor and middle class to be forced to buy inefficient, impractical, and unaffordable options or go without.

What they don't put limits on are private jets, yachts, or the number and size of mansions that emit massive amounts of carbon compared to the rest of us.  Those elites in Martha's Vineyard and elsewhere are special, and therefore exempt.

On September 15, Congress held a hearing on climate change, and as you might expect, there was a consensus that humans and fossil fuel use contribute to climate change.  However, what you wouldn't expect is one expert witness who supported that claim but didn't argue for an irrational and immediate transition to "renewable" energy so characteristic of Congress and the Biden regime.

The expert witness had many great bullet points advocating for the continued use of fossil fuels and recognized that storm activity is not up, that natural gas is good, and that carbon pollution is down over the last decades despite increased use. 

Here are some of the points the media clearly don't want us to see:

  1. The U.S. is failing to produce sufficient quantities of natural gas and oil for ourselves and our allies. The result is the worst energy crisis in 50 years, continuing inflation, and harm to workers and consumers in the U.S. and the Western world.
  2. U.S. carbon emissions declined 22% between 2005 and 2020, global emissions were flat over the last decade, and weather-related disasters have declined since the beginning of this century.
  3. The Biden administration claims to be doing all it can to increase oil and natural gas production but it's not. It has issued fewer leases for oil and gas production on federal lands than any other administration since World War II. It blocked the expansion of oil refining. It is using environmental regulations to reduce liquified natural gas production and exports. It has encouraged greater production by Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and other OPEC nations, rather than in the U.S. And its representatives continue to emphasize that their goal is to end the use of fossil fuels, including the cleanest one[.] ...
  4. Efforts by the Biden administration and Congress to increase reliance on weather dependent renewable energies and electric vehicles (EVs) risk undermining American industries and helping China. China has more global market share of the production of renewables, EVs, and their material components than OPEC has over global oil production. It would be a grave error for the U.S. to sacrifice its hard-won energy security for dependence on China for energy.
  5. While I support the repatriation of those industries to the U.S., doing so will take decades, not years. Increased costs tied to higher U.S. labor and environmental standards could further impede their development. There are also significant underlying physical problems with renewables, stemming from their energy-dilute, material-intensive nature, that may not be surmountable.

What we never see in testimonies, articles, and news programs is any direct correlation connecting crude oil consumption, coal consumption, methane emissions, CO2 content, and temperatures because there is none.  The temperature has fluctuated the last 160 years cyclically and naturally, as it always has.

Instead of seeing hearings on climate change — an issue continuously cited as a justification for the creation of burdensome policy and economic destruction — we see endless theatrical productions of the January 6 committee. 

There is nothing illegal, immoral, or threatening to our "democracy" because anyone questioned an election.  Otherwise, many Democrats would be wrapped up in the "investigation," too.

The media and Democrats never cared when other Democrats challenged elections in 2000, 2004, and 2016.  They participated.  The Justice Department didn't have mass arrests and raid homes after violent riots in 2016.  They were too busy targeting Trump and his associates.

There is something immoral and unjust about a committee that is the judge, jury, and executioner of a kangaroo court. 

To the media and other Democrats, the greatest existential threat is not climate change, nor is it people questioning the integrity of elections; it is people like Trump and DeSantis who threaten to take away their power and give it back to "We the People" as the Founders envisioned.

Image: Free image from Pixabay, no attribution required.

If you experience technical problems, please write to