Let's Atone for United States Elections, shall we?
Why have we allowed Presidential Elections to become so expensive? The costs are expressed in million U.S. Dollars:
1984: Republicans paid 77.25 Million while Democrats 149.2
Above costs are what candidates spent. 1984 US population was 235.8 million, therefore the combined expenditure was 226.45 or barely $1 for every person
2020: The population of the USA increased to 329.5 million
Republicans paid 828.68 Million while Democrats 3,155.01 The combined expenditure 3,983.69 or $12 per person
The most expensive Election ever was the 2020 election with a total cost of $14.4 Billion dollars
US election 2020: How much did it cost and who paid for it?
The 2020 US election campaigns smashed all records - with presidential and congressional candidates spending a total of almost $14bn - more than double the price tag for 2016.
This year the campaigns had to contend with the coronavirus pandemic, but what explains the huge increase?
BBC Reality Check breaks down some of the spending and who paid for it.
Motion graphics by Jacqueline Galvin
Narrated by Marianna Brady
Written and produced by Jake Horton, Soraya Auer and Sarah Glatte
Media Advertisement / Digital Advertising / Social Media
Campaign Salaries expenditures by candidate
$7 Billion 4 Congressional Seats in 2020... and all this money comes from campaign donations! Diners for wealthy donors
These wealthy donors dinners raise $10 million in one night
Since 2010 independent groups can raise unlimited funds from companies and individuals through political activities... Political Action Campaigns - Super PACs
The rules are strict with only Americans allowed to donate to campaigns but there are no limits as to how much can be spent on political campaigns... what does this trend do?
If a job that pays $400,000 per year costs Billions to obtain, then CORRUPTION is evident in our political system. In order to obtain the necessary funds, a candidate has to sell him/herself to special interests, if not a wealthy person, the likelihood of winning is minimal at best and we, the people, are getting sick and tired of the myriad of text messages, robot calls, advertisements, emails, web pages, TV / Radio to influence the election and to get us to give money during elections... WE MUST DEVICE A SYSTEM THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR ANY AMERICAN TO RUN FOR OFFICE
STANLEY KRIEGER SHARES THE NEWS:
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is suing Virginia over its voter roll maintenance program, alleging that the state is illegally removing voters from the rolls too close to the 2024 general election.
The complaint alleges that the state Board of Elections and Virginia Commissioner of Elections Susan Beals are violating the federal National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), which mandates that states must complete their maintenance program no later than 90 days before an election under a clause known as the Quiet Period Provision.
Virginia allegedly violated this provision when Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin announced an executive order on Aug. 7 — 90 days before the Nov. 5 election — requiring the elections commissioner to regularly update the state’s voter lists to remove individuals who’ve been “identified as non-citizens” and haven’t responded to a request to verify their citizenship in 14 days.?
“The Executive Order formalized the Program and announced that 6,303 individuals had been removed from the rolls pursuant to the same process between January 2022 and July 2024,” the complaint says.
The complaint says voters are identified as possible noncitizens under the program if they responded “no” to questions about their citizenship status on certain forms submitted to the state Department of Motor Vehicles. “Voters who chose ‘No’ are identified as possible noncitizens even if they have previously submitted voter registration forms where they have affirmed that they are U.S. citizens.”
Attorneys with the DOJ are asking a federal court to restore active voter status to U.S. citizens whose registration was canceled under the program during the quiet period. They also want the court to compel Virginia officials to pause the program until after the election.
The lawsuit comes days after pro-voting groups also sued Beals and the state election board over the Aug. 7 order. In response to that complaint, a spokesperson for Young told NBC 4 that the state is complying with state and federal law.
“Every step in the established list maintenance process is mandated by Virginia law and begins after an individual indicates they are not a citizen,” Christian Martinez told the local NBC affiliate. “Anyone spreading misinformation about it is either ignoring Virginia law or is trying to undermine it because they want noncitizens to vote.”
Virginia isn’t the only state under scrutiny over its voter roll maintenance. Last month, the Justice Department sued the state of Alabama and Secretary of State Wes Allen (R) over the state’s voter purge program that targeted noncitizen voters.?
United States of America, Plaintiff
v.
Commonwealth of Virginia, Virginia State Board of Elections and Susan Beals, in her official capacity as Commissioner of Elections, Defendants
https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/12024-10-11-Complaint.pdf Case 1:24-cv-01807 Document 1 - Filed 10-11-2024 Page 1 of 12
Election Integrity... Kamala's DOJ -Department of Justice- is suing the State of Virginia because they removed NON-CITIZENS from the voter rolls... what? Yes, this is real! Kamala's DOJ is suing Virginia because Glenn Youngkin removed people from the rolls who are legally BARRED from voting in American Elections
The Justice Department announced today that it has filed a?lawsuit?against the State of Virginia, Virginia State Board of Elections and Virginia Commissioner of Elections to challenge a systematic state program aimed at removing voters from its election rolls too close to the Nov. 5 general election in violation of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA).
Section 8(c)(2) of the NVRA, also known as the Quiet Period Provision, requires states to complete?systematic programs aimed at removing the names of ineligible voters from voter registration lists no later than 90 days before federal elections. The Quiet Period Provision applies to certain systematic programs carried out by states that are aimed at striking names from voter registration lists based on a perceived failure to meet initial eligibility requirements — including citizenship — at the time of registration.
“As the National Voter Registration Act mandates, officials across the country should take heed of the law’s crystal clear and unequivocal restrictions on systematic list maintenance efforts that fall within 90 days of an election,” said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “By cancelling voter registrations within 90 days of Election Day, Virginia places qualified voters in jeopardy of being removed from the rolls and creates the risk of confusion for the electorate.
Congress adopted the National Voter Registration Act’s quiet period restriction to prevent error-prone, eleventh hour efforts that all too often disenfranchise qualified voters.
The right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy and the Justice Department will continue to ensure that the rights of qualified voters are protected.”
The Quiet Period is an important protection for voters, because systematic removal programs may be error-ridden, cause voter confusion and remove eligible voters days or weeks before Election Day who may be unable to correct the State’s errors in time to vote or may be dissuaded from voting at all. States may remove names from official lists of voters in various ways and for various reasons, but they may not carry-on this kind of systematic removal program so close to a federal election.
On Aug. 7, the governor of Virginia signed an executive order requiring among other things that the commissioner of the Department of Elections certify that the Department of Elections was conducting “Daily Updates to the Voter List.”
These updates included “compar[ing] the list of individuals who have been identified as non-citizens” by the State Department of Motor Vehicles “to the list of existing registered voters.” Local registrars were then required to “notify any matches of their pending cancellation unless they affirm their citizenship within 14 days.”
The letter directs recipients who are in fact U.S. citizens and eligible to vote to complete and return an Affirmation of Citizenship form. The notice informs voters that, if they do not respond to the notice within 14 days, they will be removed from the list of registered voters. This process has led to U.S. citizens having their voter registrations cancelled.?
The process laid out in the executive order formalized an ongoing list maintenance procedure that has been carried out into the quiet period, including at least as recently as late September. This systematic voter removal program, which the State is conducting within 90 days of the upcoming federal election, violates the Quiet Period Provision.
The Justice Department seeks injunctive relief that would restore the ability of impacted eligible voters to vote unimpeded on Election Day and would prohibit future quiet period violations. The department also seeks remedial mailings to educate eligible voters concerning the restoration of their rights and adequate training of local officials and poll workers to address confusion and distrust among eligible voters accused of being noncitizens.
Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, U.S. Attorney Jessica Aber for the Eastern District of Virginia and U.S. Attorney Christopher R. Kavanaugh for the Western District of Virginia made the announcement.
Individuals who are eligible voters and believe that they may have been removed from the voter rolls as a result of Virginia’s systematic removal process should contact the Civil Rights Division’s Voting Section through the internet reporting portal at civilrights.justice.gov or by telephone at 1-800-253-3931.?
More information about voting and elections, including guidance documents and other resources, is available at?www.justice.gov/voting.?More information about the NVRA and other federal voting laws is available at?www.justice.gov/crt/voting-section.
The department recently?announced?a new?guidance document?addressing limits on when and how jurisdictions may remove voters from their voter lists.
Complaints about discriminatory voting practices may be reported to the Civil Rights Division’s Voting Section through the internet reporting portal at?civilrights.justice.gov?or by telephone at 1-800-253-3931.?
Eduardo Vidal
Eduardo Vidal is a lawyer and political activist. His family brought him when he was nine years old from Cuba to the USA, but now the rule of law has been eroded in the USA as well, and we are turning into Cuba and the rest of Latin America.
Article: https://miamiindependent.com/liberty-authoritys-voter-guide-to-general-elections-in-november/
Doral, Florida - The Liberty Authority of Miami-Dade County is an alliance of local grassroots conservative groups. These groups are made up of registered Republican voters who operate independently of the official Republican party.
Now this group has produced a Voter Guide for the upcoming general elections on Tuesday, November 5, as set forth below. The preferred candidates are mostly Republicans in Miami-Dade County and its environs:
Below are the recommended votes for the six Florida Constitutional Amendments and the Miami-Dade County referendum. A full explanation of the pros and cons follows:
Amendment 1 – Recommend Vote Yes
Amendment 2 – Recommend Vote Yes
Amendment 3 – Recommend Vote No
Amendment 4 – Recommend Vote No
Amendment 5 – Recommend Vote Yes
Amendment 6 – Recommend Vote No
Miami-Dade Referendum – Recommended Vote No
##
#1: Florida Constitutional Amendment 1 proposes making school board elections partisan, meaning candidates would run under a political party affiliation (Republican, Democrat, etc.). Currently, school board elections in Florida are nonpartisan.
RECOMMEND VOTE YES
Pros:
1. Increased Transparency: Proponents argue that adding party labels gives voters more information about a candidate's political ideology, helping them make more informed decisions. They claim that partisan views already influence school board elections, so it would be clearer to make these affiliations explicit.
2. Higher Voter Engagement: Supporters believe that partisan elections could boost voter participation by aligning school board races with more prominent political issues, thus drawing more interest and debate.
Cons:
1. Politicization of Education: Opponents argue that making school board elections partisan could increase political division, shifting the focus from what is best for students to party politics. This could make school boards more contentious, mirroring the polarization seen in state and national politics.
##??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ##??????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ##
#2: Florida Constitutional Amendment 2, proposes adding the right to hunt and fish to the state constitution, declaring these activities as the preferred means of managing wildlife.
RECOMMEND VOTE YES
Pros:
1. Preserves Tradition: Supporters argue that hunting and fishing are integral parts of Florida’s cultural heritage and economy. This amendment would protect them from potential future bans or restrictions.
2. Wildlife Management: Advocates claim that regulated hunting and fishing help control wildlife populations, contributing to sustainable conservation practices. The amendment would protect the use of traditional methods for managing wildlife, ensuring that these activities continue in the future.
?
Cons:
1. Unnecessary: Opponents, including the Sierra Club and the Humane Society, argue that hunting and fishing are already protected under existing state law, making the amendment redundant. They fear it may prioritize hunting over non-lethal management methods.
##??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ##??????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ##
#3: Florida Constitutional Amendment 3, seeks to legalize the recreational use of marijuana for adults aged 21 and older in Florida. This amendment would allow individuals to possess marijuana for personal use and would legalize the sale of marijuana.
领英推荐
RECOMMEND VOTE NO
Pros:
1. Economic Benefits: Supporters argue that legalization could generate substantial tax revenue, potentially $200 million annually for the state and local governments.
2. Personal Freedom: Proponents claim that legalizing marijuana enhances personal freedom, allowing adults to make their own decisions without fear of criminal penalties.
3. Regulation and Safety: Legalization would regulate the marijuana market, ensuring that products are free from harmful chemicals and provide a safer alternative to illegal purchases.
4. Reduction in Criminal Justice Costs: Legalizing marijuana would reduce the number of arrests and prosecutions for marijuana-related offenses.
Cons:
1. Health Risks: Opponents argue that marijuana use could pose public health risks, particularly in terms of respiratory issues from smoking and the potential for marijuana use to impair cognitive function. Regular use of marijuana has been linked to mental health issues like anxiety, depression, and, in some cases, psychosis.
2. Increase in Use by Minors: Increased availability and normalization could eventually lead to higher rates of use among minors. Governor DeSantis and others have expressed concerns about the potential for marijuana products to become more accessible to underage users despite regulatory measures.
3. Gateway to Other Drugs: Marijuana use might lead to the consumption of more dangerous substances. Marijuana increased exposure, and the normalization of drug use could lead to the use of more harmful drugs.
4. Public Health Concerns: Opponents argue that legalization could lead to increased public exposure to marijuana, with concerns about the impact on community health, such as secondhand smoke and higher rates of usage.
5. Federal Legal Issues: While Amendment 3 would legalize marijuana at the state level, it remains illegal under federal law, which could create legal conflicts and enforcement challenges.
##??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ##??????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ##
#4: Florida Constitutional Amendment 4. Amendment to Limit Government Interference with Abortion
RECOMMEND – VOTE NO
Pros:
1. Restores Abortion Access: Supporters argue that the amendment would safeguard abortion access in Florida.
2. Consistent with National Trends: Many proponents believe that this amendment aligns Florida with other states that have protected abortion rights following the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
Cons:
1. Moral and Ethical Concerns: Opponents, including Florida's Governor, argue that this amendment could lead to late-term abortions and weaken existing laws, such as parental consent for minors seeking abortions. They claim it could be interpreted broadly to allow more expansive access than currently intended.
2. Goes beyond Roe v. Wade. This amendment would allow abortions in cases where gestation of the fetus is further advanced.
3. Impact on State Regulation: Critics worry that the amendment could limit the state's ability to regulate abortions, reducing protections necessary to safeguard both maternal and fetal health.
?
##??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ##??????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ##
#5: Florida Constitutional Amendment 5, proposes to adjust the value of homestead exemptions annually based on inflation. This adjustment would apply to non-school property taxes, helping to ensure the homestead exemption keeps pace with rising costs.
RECOMMEND - VOTE YES
Pros:
1. Protects Homeowners from Inflation: By adjusting the homestead exemption for inflation, homeowners would continue to benefit from tax relief as the cost of living increases. Most helpful to seniors and low-income homeowners who face rising property values and taxes.
2. Encourages Home Ownership: Supports homeownership by reducing the property tax burden over time, making it more affordable to maintain our homes.
Cons:
1.????? Revenue Loss for Local Governments: Reduces revenue to local governments by an estimated $22.8 million in 2025, growing to around $112 million by 2028. This could lead to cuts in services or shifts in the tax burden to other property owners, such as renters or businesses.
##??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ##??????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ##
#6: Florida's Constitutional Amendment 6 proposes to repeal public financing for statewide campaign candidates, including those running for governor and cabinet offices. RECOMMEND: VOTE NO.
Pros of Repeal:
Cons of Repeal:
Cost Over the Last 8 Years:
Between 2010 and 2022, public financing for campaigns cost Florida approximately $33 million. In the 2022 election, the state spent over $13 million, with major candidates such as Gov. Ron DeSantis and Charlie Crist using the funding.
?
##??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ##??????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ##
Referendum Question:
Miami-Dade County election, there is a non-binding referendum question asking voters whether the county should expand free public Wi-Fi access countywide.
RECOMMEND: VOTE NO because they should give the projected costs. Having voters approve services without advising of the costs
Infrastructure and Maintenance Costs: Expanding Wi-Fi infrastructure countywide could be expensive, involving significant investment in hardware, installation, and ongoing maintenance. If the county proceeds with the plan, it would likely require substantial financial resources, potentially involving taxpayer funding.
Vote no when no costs are provided for proposed services. We all want extra services until we find out what their cost is. Tell the voters the costs of what they are voting for.?
General Election Sample Ballot:
Early Voting in Miami Lakes at:
Miami Lakes Community Center: (Mary Collins)
15151 NW 82nd Avenue Miami Lakes, FL 33016
If no one wins by more than 50%...
November 26 (Registration Closing Oct. 28)
A Message from Bonnie Cintron:
Hi Hope: I have not taken the time to read all of this information carefully and I think some of it seems a bit too "dismissing" of the global warming reality. But, much of what I heard so far seems to be on target. When it talks about the "greening" of the sub-Sahara region, I am not sure if that is really the case, I will try to pay closer attention to this but it seemed full of support for the belief that global warming is a natural and not a man-made trend.
I thought it might give you food for thought. (?)
Bonnie, click below
Click next for article: https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/10/03/fact-check-is-climate-change-making-hurricanes-worse/
With flood waters still high in parts of the southeast from Hurricane Helene, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Ohio Sen. JD Vance took to the debate stage on Tuesday for the only vice presidential debate of the 2024 campaign season.
Early on in the debate, moderator Norah O’Donnell said, “Scientists say climate change makes these hurricanes larger, stronger, and more deadly because of the historic rainfall,” and proceeded to ask each candidate about their position on climate change.
Executive Director of CO2 Coalition Gregory Wrightstone says O’Donnell is wrong, and joins “The Daily Signal Podcast” to explain why.
Virginia Allen: On Tuesday night, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Ohio Sen. JD Vance faced off on the debate stage, and one of the topics that came up early on during the debate was that of climate change, and what happened recently in North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, as Hurricane Helene just devastated multiple areas in the Southeast. And what Norah O’Donnell, one of the debate moderators, asked both vice presidential candidates, she said, “Scientists say that climate change makes these hurricanes larger, stronger, and more deadly because of the historic rainfall.”
Well, Gregory Wrightstone is the executive director of the CO2 Coalition. He joins us now to discuss. Gregory, thanks for being with us.
Gregory Wrightstone: Well, good to be on with you again. Norah O’Donnell could not be more wrong about this. …
Allen:?Well, I wanted to ask you because you yourself are a scientist. She says, “Scientists are saying that climate change is making hurricanes larger, stronger, and more deadly.” You say you disagree, why?
Wrightstone: Well, it’s not just me that’s saying that. I’m using data from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, from NASA, even the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change disagrees with her. They all say that there’s been no increase in the big hurricanes.
And I have personal experience here, I weathered the storm from my home in Florida. Actually, we bailed out inland a little bit, but our home at Apollo Beach, we weathered the storm and it was strange where we were, there was very little rainfall, high winds, and it was the storm surge that really was devastating for a lot of the areas. When it made landfall, it was large amounts of rainfall.
But Norah was wrong about that, about climate change, and intensification. Again, NASA, NOAA, IPCC, all would disagree with that.
The best way to look at a long-term record of hurricanes for the United States is land-falling hurricanes. We have confidence going back to 1850, we know every single hurricane that’s made landfall since 1850, because they’re hard to miss. And land-falling hurricanes in the United States have been declining. I’ve looked at that data myself. In fact, the only state that’s had an increase in land-falling hurricanes is Mississippi, and that was just barely.
So, she says a lot of things that are wrong. She says about increasing extreme weather. The U.N. disagrees with her. If you look at the U.N. data, go right to the source, and they show clearly that extreme or natural disasters have been declining by 10% since 2000. So, she had only a few seconds to talk, but she got a lot wrong.
Allen: So, Mr. Wrightstone, if the numbers are declining, what about the severity? Is the severity heating up more?
Wrightstone: Yeah, that’s false. In fact, one of the top scientists, until he quit NOAA, was Christopher Lancey, he estimated that perhaps, he gave them the benefit of the doubt, intensity of hurricanes have increased maybe 1%. OK, let’s just say for the sake of argument that he’s correct. Is anybody going to know the difference between 130 miles an hour and 131? I don’t think so. It’s not going to make one whit of difference.
And again, these are the main administrative organizations that look at things like hurricanes. We know that actually deaths from severe weather have been in decline more than 90% since 1900. Now, bear in mind, that’s a lot to do with better forecasting. If you’re in Galveston and they say, “There’s a Category 5 hurricane that’s going to make landfall in two days, you better get out of there.” So, it’s better reporting. But it just flies in the face of these claims of increasing extreme weather.
What they do is they take every single thing that they can use to tie to climate change and they go, “See, see, see, climate change.”
A great example, I was in the Netherlands in June, the American media at that same time I was in the Netherlands, they were reporting about extreme heat waves in Europe, in Italy, and Spain. Well, I was there for eight days and I had to wear a winter coat every day in the Netherlands. That’s just one example.
They report the hot weather down south, they didn’t report this unusually cold weather to the north. And that’s what they do, they’re trying to link every single unusual, and these things really probably aren’t unusual, event to man’s emissions of carbon dioxide.
In fact, what we find at the CO2 Coalition in my new book, we find that not only is there not a climate crisis, contrary to that we find that Earth’s ecosystems are thriving and prospering, and humanity is benefiting from modest warming and more CO2. Just the opposite of what you’re being told.
And people like me and my colleagues at the CO2 Coalition are regularly silenced. We’re not allowed to present the facts that contradict this notion of a man-made climate crisis. If we were, we could tell a compelling narrative that’s fact- and science-based, and it would be game over for this climate-industrial complex crowd, because we have the science of facts and the data to back us up.
Allen: You refer to mild warming. What would mild warming, what does mild warming do to hurricane season? Does it do anything? Does it have any effect on the severity of hurricanes?
Wrightstone: Yeah, we have not seen that. The data do not support that there’s been any increase. And again, it’s not me, it’s NASA, NOAA, and other scientific organizations saying “no.”
Allen: OK.
Wrightstone: And what we’re doing is, when we talk about modest warming, we’ve increased the temperature using the HadCRUT dataset, which is global. Since about 1850, it’s warmed about 1.2 degrees Celsius.
Now, bear in mind, they’re telling us we dare not let it get to 1.5 degrees Celsius. Well, we’ve already warmed 1.2, so that means that what they’re doing is they’re telling you, “Oh, we can’t let it warm another three-tenths of a degree Celsius, that’s half a degree Fahrenheit.” Think about that. It’s probably changed half a degree in your studio where you’re sitting since we began this interview. A change that small that they’re warning about wouldn’t trigger your thermostats on or off, and if you’re that worried about it, move 17 miles further north and your average global temperature, your average temperature would decrease by half a degree Fahrenheit.
When you look at it in that context, these claims of catastrophe and a tipping point of 1.5 degrees Celsius, it’s ludicrous. And we would normally warm more than that between 10 a.m. and noon on any given day.
So, what they’re doing is they’re grasping onto all of these different things. If a tornado hits, it’s man-made climate change. If a Cat 3 hurricane hits, it’s climate change. If it’s a heat wave in Texas in the summer, it’s climate change.
And so, what they did, NOAA predicted that this would be one of the most intense hurricane seasons ever, despite what we’ve just looked at with Helene, they’ve a long ways to go with a lot more hurricanes to get to where they were predicting.
They may get to the lower end of what was predicted at the beginning of the year, but they don’t want you to remember what their predictions were, or for unprecedented number of hurricanes. What have we had now? Two?
I’m not going to dispute—again, we have tragedy and experienced, just even our own community, death and destruction. I’m not going to disparage that. But what they’re doing is glomming onto this and promoting this false climate crisis, using the deaths of a hundred and something people.
And plus, she said it was unprecedented, one of the largest hurricanes in history. It doesn’t even meet the top 30 of hurricanes. Now, it was tragic. A lot of people died. But if you look in the United States, the largest was the Galveston. I believe there were 120 people killed in Helene here. Again, tragedy, but Galveston killed between 8,000 and 12,000 people. A number of other hurricanes, you’ve got the top 10 I just looked at, there were significantly larger deaths than this.
And again, I don’t want to discount the tragedy and the deaths that we’ve experienced, but what she’s doing is politicizing those deaths in order to promote this false climate agenda.
Allen: Why do you think that so much of the media and really the world has grasped onto that language around climate change? And now there’s a lot of fear, especially, I would say, among young people, around climate change and this almost compulsive, “We need to do something,” because of that fear.
Wrightstone: Yeah, well, they need to instill fear in the minds of the population. And the reason they do is because what they’re doing, they’re proposals, aren’t they? It’s going to be controlling every aspect of our lives. Stripping away our freedoms of choice.
They talk about, “We’re in favor of choice.” Well, they’re not. They don’t want you to choose what kind of vehicle to drive. They don’t want to allow you to choose how to heat or cool your home. They don’t want you to choose what temperature to set it this summer, or the winter …
Allen: And when you say “they,” Mr. Wrightstone, who is “they”?
Wrightstone: Yeah, that’s a good question. I call it the climate-industrial complex, and there’s a lot of people that are involved in this. There’s a lot of people—if your salary depends on promoting a certain agenda, you’re probably going to promote that agenda. And there’s a lot of money to be made in this.
And you’re going to ask me, “Well, why are they doing it?” I can show you very clearly the science disputes most of this radical view, but I can’t see inside men’s and women’s souls to see what their motivation is.
I’ve been told, “Is it money?” Yeah, we know that your funding will be cut off, if you’re in the university. If you promote a scientific study that would in any way dispute man-made climate crisis agenda, you’re not going to get funded. It’s just a fact. And you might just lose your job. We’ve seen that occurring time and time again, people being stripped of their jobs.
Many several members of our CO2 Coalition were professors that were given the ax, and so it’s they need to instill a climate of fear. Why else would we voluntarily give up our freedoms? Again, these freedoms to choose all these things. Why would we do that? Well, we would do it if there’s a true existential threat. There isn’t, and we can show that by, boy, by almost every metric we look at.
Earth’s ecosystems are thriving and prospering, and it’s because of more CO2 and modest warming. The best way to look at is from agriculture. Agriculture production is breaking records year after year after year, and it’s because partly due to warming, we have a longer growing season, which is hugely beneficial.
In fact, in the continental United States, growing season has lengthened more than two weeks since 1900. That’s a good thing. CO2 is turbocharging plant growth. And again, we look from the coldest countries to the hottest, like India, and they’re seeing huge increases in breaking crop growth records year after year after year, and we should celebrate that, not demonize it.
Allen:?So, you would argue that CO2 is actually helping the planet?
Wrightstone: Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. And again, the greatest way we can look at that is through agriculture, but we actually see vegetation. It’s called the greening of the earth. We see that from every ecological niche, from the near polar regions to the equator, we’re seeing a huge increase in vegetation, and it’s from increasing carbon dioxide. Again, that’s a very good thing.
We see that, for example, the southern Sahara, the Sahel, some 200,000 square kilometers has turned from desert into a lush grassland. They’re growing crops, and plants are growing there, where there just 50 years ago was a desert. And again, it’s attributed mainly to more carbon dioxide. And carbon dioxide also has the benefit of moderating the effects of drought. I won’t go into the scientific reasons why that’s so.
Again, these are really good things, but we’re not allowed to talk about them in public. We must be silenced, and they’re doing a very effective job of silencing, again, me and my colleagues here at the CO2 Coalition.
Allen: In conversations that I’ve had with yourself, with climatologist David Legates, and others that work on this issue, one of my greatest takeaways and understandings has been that there are these natural cycles of warming and cooling that the earth goes through, and there’s indicators of why that might be, but at the end of the day, science is still not 100% sure why those cycles occur in the timeline. Is that a fair analysis?
Wrightstone: Yeah, it is. I like to look back over the last 5,000 or so years of temperature history and human history, and we find that there were three other great warming periods similar to what we’re in right now, but all ended up being much warmer than today. And the key takeaway I want you and your viewers to learn and listen to is that each of those previous warming periods were hugely beneficial. Great civilizations and empires rose up during the really warm periods.
For example, the first was the Minoan Warm Period, the Bronze Age, the Hittites, the Babylonians, the Assyrians, the Harappan Empire in the Indus River Valley all thrived and survived. Life was good, food was bountiful, and then it started getting cold, and things were horrific. What we found, it was called the Late Bronze Age collapse. In as short of a period as 50 to 100 years, all of those empires and civilizations collapsed and led to the Greek Dark Age, it was a very horrible time.
So, each warming period, the Roman Warm Period, Medieval Warm Period, just think life is good, food is bountiful, empires arose, and then it got cold and things did not end up too well.
And so, the warming that we’re in right now, the blessed warming, is lifting us out of the death-dealing cold of what was the Little Ice Age, which was probably the coldest period of the last 10,000 years. Remember, recall Valley Forge and George Washington, that was in the depths of the Little Ice Age, and it was much colder.
For example, if you go down to George and Martha Washington’s home at Mount Vernon, they have an icehouse you can visit. Well, they would send their slaves down to the Potomac every year to cut the thick ice. Well, you’re in that area, you know that the Potomac doesn’t freeze over, and it did, I think, in the 1980s, but it happened every single year. So, that’s one historic fact that we can use to confirm that it was a lot colder at that point.
Allen: Wow. Fascinating. Mr. Wrightstone, I know that you address many of these things, go into detail in them in your books. If you would, share with us, how can we follow your work and get your books?
Wrightstone: Well, my latest book was just published this year a few months ago. It’s called “A Very Convenient Warming: How Modest Warming and More CO2 Are Benefiting Humanity.” So, in this book, I’ve gone beyond there is no climate crisis, and there isn’t, and we can prove that categorically, but we’ve gone beyond that to say that not only that, is life is good and getting better.
I call it the greatest untold story of the 21st century, that of a thriving earth, and a thriving and improvement of the human condition. It’s something, again, I like to use the word celebrate. It’s something we should celebrate the facts, and so you can get those facts at “Convenient Warming.” Search for that. Or go to co2coalition.org to learn the facts about climate change.
Allen: Excellent. Gregory Wrightstone of the CO2 Coalition, thank you so much for your time.
Wrightstone: Thank you.
Virginia Allen is a senior news producer for The Daily Signal and Host of 'The Daily Signal Podcast' and 'Problematic Women'
We are sick and tired of Biden blaming Trump for all the mistakes of his Administration, of blaming Trump for Border issues, the economy, all the hoaxes imaginable and... the worse sin of all is to have Kamala Harris promise to do many things to resolve our problems when we then must ask;
WHY HAVE Biden / Kamala FAILED TO DO WHAT THEY NOW SAY THEY WILL DO NEXT TERM? WHY NOT DONE IT DURING THEIR TIME IN THE WHITE HOUSE?
We leave you today with a true work of art, Planet Earth Butterflies UNITE to Change the World!