Search This Blog

De Omnibus Dubitandum - Lux Veritas

Wednesday, May 22, 2019

Comey Was a Commie?

No wonder he felt right at home with Brennan and Obama.

by Paul Kengor May 21, 2019

In college, I was left of center,” explained James Comey in an interview with New York magazine, “and through a gradual process I found myself more comfortable with a lot of the ideas and approaches the Republicans were using.” Comey voted for Jimmy Carter in 1980, but says that four years later, in 1984, “I voted for Reagan — I’d moved from Communist to whatever I am now. I’m not even sure how to characterize myself politically. Maybe at some point, I’ll have to figure it out.”

Comey was once a communist. And look deeper at his statement: “I’d moved from Communist to whatever I am now. I’m not even sure how to characterize myself politically. Maybe at some point, I’ll have to figure it out.”..............Kudos to Tyler Durden of Zero Hedge for unearthing this gem from an interview Comey gave to New York magazine back in 2003 when he first arrived in Washington...............But the Brennan aspect sheds light on something still more troubling about this scenario. This means that President Barack Obama had not only the first CIA director who had been a communist but, simultaneously, the first FBI director who had been one. Leave it to Obama.

And worse, Barack Obama himself was probably a communist in 1980. I laid this out at length in my book on Obama’s mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, which was appropriately short-titled, The Communist...........To Read More....

Information slowly emerging about pipe-wielding mob of Somali 'youths' who attacked people waiting for light rail train in Minneapolis last Friday

May 21, 2019 By Thomas Lifson

My hometown of Minneapolis has been totally transformed by the arrival of tens of thousands of refugees from Somalis, one of whom now represents the city and a few suburbs in Congress. Nobody there was asked if such a makeover was desired by the residents; State Department officials decided that the generous welfare benefits available in Minnesota were reason enough to send people whose native land is tropical to the coldest major city in the United States.

But now that the old 97%-plus Caucasian city has been made into a multicultural exemplar, the local establishment, including the newspapers and broadcasters, is ultra-protective of its prized diversity-endowing Somali community.

That might explain why the news of a horrific attack on people waiting for a light rail train at the University of Minnesota has been so slow to emerge. A mob of "youths" — it now turns out they are juveniles, so their identities are being protected — believed to be of Somali extraction attacked innocent people waiting for a light rail train at the East Bank University of Minnesota station. They were wielding either hammers or pipes..................Read more

Golden Rice, part 1: The story of a GMO crop that could benefit two billion children a year

| May 15, 2019

Research was initiated in the early 1990s which led in 2000 to the publication of the technology behind what came to be known as Golden Rice. From the outset, the intention was to create a source of vitamin A in the endosperm of rice, as an additional intervention for vitamin A deficiency. Philanthropy and the public sector funded the research. In 2001, the inventors, Professor Ingo Potrykus and Dr. (now Professor) Peter Beyer, assigned their patents to Syngenta for commercial exploitation as part of a transaction which obliged the company to assist the inventors’ humanitarian and altruistic objectives.

At the same time, the nutritional technology was donated by its inventors for use in developing countries. The inventors licensed a network of Asian government-owned rice research institutes to deliver their objectives. Product development was initiated through the International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) and the network. The whole network, including IRRI, worked to a common set of goals defined in licences each institution signed with the inventors. The terms included that there would be no charge for the nutritional technology and it would only be introduced to publicly owned rice varieties........To Read More....

Abortion Bans: Let’s Have the Fight

The Alabama abortion ban is the pro-life side’s call to arms, and good for them.

by May 21, 2019

Since last week, when Alabama joined several other states — Georgia, Mississippi, and Ohio among them — in passing a bill seeking to greatly restrict legal abortions within its borders, the Left has gone almost completely berserk in protest.

This wasn’t a surprise, since to the Left abortion is akin to a religious sacrament and extremism in support of ending the lives of the unborn is no longer a vice (nor moderation a virtue) to them. When Planned Parenthood is exposed as running an underground marketplace for the chopped-up remains of aborted babies and the response is to kill, or at least arrest, the messenger, when a movie telling the true story of a Planned Parenthood manager who had a crisis of confidence surrounding the organization’s practices and became pro-life has to be deleted from theatres, when activists are running free on social media with hashtags like #ShoutYourAbortion… you would expect a normal political movement to hustle to rein itself in for fear of losing the high ground with the American people.

The pro-abort Left has done none of this. Instead, it celebrated a bill in New York that would functionally legalize abortion all the way through pregnancy — with that state’s governor lighting the Freedom Tower pink in tribute. And in Virginia a Democrat legislator, with the backing of that state’s horrifically inappropriate governor, brought a bill which would have essentially legalized infanticide. That one, thankfully, did not pass............To Read More.......

Tuesday, May 21, 2019

Message To My Readers Regarding National Review and William Barr

I received an e-mail yesterday from Rich Lowry, Editor of National Review, probably as did all the on-line subscribers to their daily reports, asking for financial support.

Here's the request:
Anyone interested in a tax-deductible contribution to support the work of National Review Institute, our charitable, 501(c)(3) non-profit sister organization that advances the conservative principles championed by our mutual founder, William F. Buckley Jr., should visit www.nrinstitute.org for more information.  (Note: Here's a link to the "Donate Now" button for those interested.  RK)
Good for them! That's how it has to be done in the news market today, especially for news magazines, however, on more than one occasion I've wondered if Bill Buckley would turn over in his grave for some of the views they've espoused these days.  But I've also often wondered just how conservative Bill Buckley would be considered these days, although I think he was brilliant and would have been where conservatives needed him in this battle.  When you read about Buckley you begin to realize he had unique relationships with some strange people, and it would be my bet he would have loved Trump.  But....who knows? 

However, in this case, National Review is driving on the "right" side of the road.  They've justified their request by citing their support of Attorney General William Barr, which is impressive.  As proof they've linked articles in their e-mail from May to December.   I've taken the liberty of posting them below.  Some of my favorite writers are listed.

I will not be donating as I have misgivings about National Review.  It appears to me they have too many people, like Jonah Goldberg, who remind me of George Will, and John McCain, all of whom have the tendency to define conservatism as they see fit.  Even if it means driving on the left side of the road and calling it a conservative position.

However, you should choose for yourself. 

Best wishes,

Rich Kozlovich
    May 15
  1. Jonah Goldberg: Holding Barr in Contempt Is a Case of Dirty Politics
  2. May 10
  3. Michael McConnell: William Barr vs. Eric Holder: A Tale of Two Attorneys General
  4. Deroy Murdock: Democrats Bully Barr
  5. Rich Lowry: "Lock Them Up!"
  6. May 9
  7. Editorial: Constitutional Crisis as Absurdist Theater
  8. Victor Davis Hanson: Progressives Face a Bleak Post-Mueller Landscape
  9. David French: Against the Persecution of Bill Barr
  10. May 8
  11. The McCarthy Report podcast: Contempt and Contradiction
  12. John McCormack: On Contempt, It's Nadler versus Barr
  13. Ordered Liberty podcast: The Strange Hatred for Bill Barr
  14. May 7
  15. Rich Lowry â€Å“5 Points” Video: Why the Anti-Barr Campaign Is Ridiculous
  16. May 6
  17. Ordered Liberty podcast: From Biden to Barr to South Bend
  18. May 4
  19. Matthew Continetti: William Barr: The New Cheney
  20. May 3
  21. Andrew McCarthy: The Big Lie that Barr Lied
  22. Rich Lowry: The Farcical Bill Barr Scandal
  23. The Editors podcast: All Barr . . . What?
  24. May 2
  25. The McCarthy Report podcast: Apr's la Lettre
  26. May 1
  27. Rich Lowry: No, Bill Barr Didn't Lie or Mislead
  28. David French: Three Thoughts on Barrgate
  29. Editorial: The Incredibly Dumb Bill Barr Scandal
  30. April 25
  31. The McCarthy Report podcast: Let the Fighting Commence
  32. April 20
  33. Victor Davis Hanson: Why the Effort to Demonize Attorney General Barr?
  34. April 19
  35. Andrew McCarthy: The Mueller Report Vindicates Bill Barr
  36. April 18
  37. Andrew McCarthy: The Barr Press Conference: No Obstruction on the Facts of the Case
  38. Rich Lowry: The Worst Executed Cover-up of All Time
  39. April 16
  40. Conrad Black: A Reckoning Is in Store for Democrats
  41. April 12
  42. Editorial: The Anti-Bill Barr Smear Campaign
  43. Rich Lowry: Yes, Investigate the Investigators
  44. April 11
  45. The McCarthy Report podcast: Indictments, Testimonies, and Arrests
  46. April 5
  47. Andrew McCarthy: Court Ruling Implies that Barr Must Redact Grand-Jury Info from Mueller Report
  48. April 4
  49. Rich Lowry: Barr Has Done Nothing Wrong
  50. January 16
  51. Ramesh Ponnuru: Bullying Barr
  52. January 10
  53. Carrie Severino: Bill Barr: An Independent Voice and Bipartisan Choice for Attorney General
  54. December 23
  55. Andrew McCarthy: A Weak Attack on William Barr's Nomination to Be Attorney General
  56. December 8
  57. Andrew McCarthy: The Barr Nomination: A Home Run by Trump

 

America Doesn't Have an Anti-Semitism Problem. American Politics Does

Posted by Daniel Greenfield 4 Comments Sunday, May 19, 2019 @ Sultan Knish Blog

If anti-Semitism is thriving among Americans, there’s no sign of it in any of the latest polls. Americans are the least anti-Semitic people in the world. A 2017 poll, taken at the height of a spike in anti-Semitism, showed that 14% of Americans held anti-Semitic attitudes. That was up from 10% in 2015 and 12% in 2013. That’s not a great trend, but it also shows just how narrow the scope of the problem is.

It’s also dramatically different than the numbers from similar polls conducted in Europe.

How then can we explain the rise in anti-Semitic violence? What about the increased harassment of Jews on campuses and in major cities? And why is there a rise in anti-Semitic discourse?

There’s no climate of hatred in America. The rising anti-Semitic rhetoric and violence are the work of small but highly active political groups who have become disproportionately influential in public life.

The rise in anti-Semitism isn’t happening among ordinary Americans, but among a narrow group of influencers. An anti-Semitic cartoon in the New York Times isn’t representative of the country. Neither is Rep. Ilhan Omar. Nor are Richard Spencer or the alt-righters who tweet their own anti-Semitic memes.

Anti-Semitic violence is rising. But the total number of incidents remains small. The perpetrators represent a small segment of the population. The violent doesn’t come from ‘anywhere’. On campuses and in synagogues, it comes from a small radical population of the alt-left and the alt-right. In urban areas, it originates with a slightly larger, but still fairly small population, of neighborhood bigots.

Anti-Semitism is marginal among Americans, but it’s increasingly mainstream in political activism.

Anti-Semitic incidents on campuses have doubled for several years in a row. Growing numbers of Jewish students report feeling intimidated and threatened. But the intimidation is the work of a small minority motivated by political ideology. The number of students engaging in campus harassment through hate groups such as Students for Justice in Palestine remains tiny. The real problem is the complicity of identity politics groups in supporting campus hate groups and administrators in turning a blind eye to it.

The harassment is most intense at a handful of top, but not truly elite schools, in a few states. The situation is not representative of the country or even its average campus. Even in the most problematic schools, only a small politically active minority plays any role in the harassment. But that minority dominates campuses and the campuses provide much of the future leadership of the country.

It’s the same problem nationwide.

Americans don’t have an anti-Semitism problem. American politics has an anti-Semitism problem because, just like on college campuses, small groups are driving an anti-Semitic agenda.

American politics isn’t anti-Semitic. But its leadership is becoming complicit in anti-Semitism.

Anti-Semitism is a function of political radicalism. And very few Americans are political radicals. But the radicals are driving national politics by constantly shattering political norms and normalizing extremism. Hatred of Jews is just one of the radical ideas heading from the political margins into the mainstream. The mainstream of politics though is a very different thing than the mainstream of American values.

Polls show that most Americans still view anti-Semitism as disgusting. But that’s no longer the case among political activists and elites as anti-Semitism becomes embedded within political movements.

The anti-Semitic cartoon in the New York Times was not a sign that anti-Semitism had become normalized among Americans, but it had become so normalized in the media that it did not notice when its language of covert anti-Semitism slurred and crossed the red line into overt anti-Semitism.

America’s anti-Semitism problem is worst, not in small rural towns, but in urban media operations.

National politics was radicalized by media operations that took the marginal agendas of fringe groups and mainstreamed them. Anti-Semitism is just another one of those many radical agendas.

The media mainstreamed and normalized radicals like Tamika Mallory and Linda Sarsour while glossing over their hateful agendas. It celebrates and defends Rep. Omar’s bigotry. Rep. Omar is one of hundreds of members of the House. She’s a freshman with no notable accomplishments. The only reason that everyone in the country knows her name is because the media chose to turn her into a celebrity.

Rep. Omar’s displays of anti-Semitism aren’t surprising. The same ADL poll that found that only 14% of Americans held anti-Semitic beliefs, also found that 34% of Muslims in Americans held those beliefs.

Muslims make up around 1% of the country.

How did a woman who represents 34% of 1% of the country suddenly become the face of a political movement that claims to represent half the country?

And why did Democrats rally behind a bigot who represents a third of a percent of the country?

Most Democrats are not anti-Semitic. Even most of the radicals backing Rep. Omar are not explicitly anti-Semitic. But they’re willing to defend anti-Semitism as part of an alliance with that hateful third.

That’s also how the anti-Semitic cartoon showed up in the New York Times.

American politics isn’t anti-Semitic. But it’s full of politically active people who will defend anti-Semites against charges of anti-Semitism because they agree with them on the rest of their political agenda.

Anti-Semitism in American politics is a symptom of this mainstreaming of political radicals.

The media may not be trying to intentionally mainstream anti-Semitism. As in Omar’s case, it’s collateral damage from mainstreaming radicals. The New York Times editorial staff didn’t wake up one morning and decide on the best way to mainstream anti-Semitism by printing a cartoon of Trump in Jewish religious garb. The anti-Semitic cartoon was collateral damage from mainstreaming radicals like Rep. Omar and Linda Sarsour who blurred the line between hatred of Israel and hatred of Jews.

Once the media mainstreamed anti-Semitic radicals, it defended them against charges of anti-Semitism.

Anti-Semitism may not be growing, but tolerance for it is. And that can be just as dangerous. The things that you justify, whitewash and minimize, can become the things that you eventually get on board with.

Racial supremacism and obsessive hatred of Israel are radical views shared by few Americans. But they are the feverish obsessions of small, determined groups of activists who are defining national politics. As their activists gain traction, anti-Semitism leaks from the fringes and into movement organizations.

Radicals make up an even tinier percentage of the country than the campus. But anyone who reads, listens to and watches the media would think that a minority of radicals have become the majority.

This isn’t the Corbynization, but the ‘Campusization’ of American politics.

American politics have come to resemble the college campus with a small group of radicals calling the shot and a media that hardly anyone pays attention to defending them, while the majority doesn’t care.

Campus radicals are no longer just allotting student funds. They’re trying to run the country.

The lessons of the battle against anti-Semitism on campuses will need to be applied to national politics. Jewish groups failed to fight the problem on college campuses. The graduates from many of these institutions went on to bigger and better things. And now the problem has gone nationwide.

Anti-Semitism isn’t an American problem. It’s a radical problem.

The Campusization’ of American politics is the challenge of fighting to prevent a tiny minority of extremists from doing to the country what they have already done to the college campus.








Daniel Greenfield is a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center. This article originally appeared at Front Page Magazine.

Click here to subscribe to my articles. And thank you for reading.

Cartoon of the Day


He Did It, Not Me!

By | May 19th, 2019

There is something Kafkaesque about the current round of investigating possible FBI, CIA, National Security Agency, Justice Department, and National Security Council wrongdoing during the 2016 election, Trump transition, and early presidency.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller had been permitted to range well beyond his mandate of “Russian collusion.” He outsourced much of the selection of his “dream team” and “all-star” staff of attorneys to his deputy, Andrew Weissman. In turn, Weissman—who commiserated with Hillary Clinton at her ill-fated “victory” party on the evening of her defeat—stocked the team with Trump-haters, liberals and progressives, Clinton donors, a few who had previously served as attorneys for the Clinton Foundation, and Clinton or Obama aides. Most of these were themselves briefed during the early dissemination of the fraudulent Steele dossier.

Yet after all the bias, prosecutorial leveraging, the process crimes, the perjury traps, and after 22 months, $34 million, and a 440-plus page report, Mueller’s “hunter-killer” team did not establish that President Trump colluded with the Russians to warp the 2016 election.

In fact, Mueller could not find prosecutable “obstruction” of justice by Trump to impair the investigation of what Mueller concluded was not a crime........To Read More....

For Bernie Sanders, Union Bosses Matter More than Poor Kids

May 19, 2019 by Dan Mitchell @ International Liberty
Bernie Sanders is a delusional hard-core statist, but that’s part of what makes him attractive for some voters. Simply stated, they think he’s authentic rather than a finger-in-the-wind politician.


But I’m not so sure that’s true.

I pointed out in 2015 that he’s not even true to his socialist ideology. Rather than promoting government ownership, central planning, and price controls, he has behaved like a conventional left-wing politician. Indeed, there was almost no difference between his voting record and those of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Whether that’s good or bad is a matter of judgement, of course.

Today, though, I want to highlight something that’s unambiguously bad. He’s decided that currying favor with union bosses at the National Education Association is so important that it’s okay to trap kids from poor families in failing schools. And that, to me, makes him a political hack rather than an honest leftist.

Check out these excerpts from a story in the New York Times.
Senator Bernie Sanders took aim at charter schools on Saturday… In a 10-point plan, Mr. Sanders…said that, if elected, he would…forbid…federal spending on new charter schools as well as…ban…for-profit charter schools — which account for a small proportion of existing charters. “The proliferation of charter schools has disproportionately affected communities of color,” Mr. Sanders wrote… Mr. Sanders of Vermont would also require that charter schools be subject to the same oversight as public schools… Parts of the plan focused on educators, declaring Mr. Sanders’s support for a $60,000 baseline for teachers’ starting salaries as well as unionization efforts by charter schoolteachers.
By the way, I’m not a big fan of charter schools. It would be far better to have true school choice and allow parents to pick high-performing private schools.


But charter schools are definitely a better option if the only other choice is a failing government school. Especially since pouring more money into a broken system doesn’t work. Regardless of whether it’s a Democrat plan to waste money or a Republican plan to waste money.

This assumes, however, that the goal is to help children get a good education so they have a better chance for a good life.

That’s not what motivates Bernie Sanders. Like many Democrats, his main goal is to appease the teacher unions. And that means protecting and preserving the privileges and perks of union members and the government’s education monopoly.
Disgusting.

P.S. It’s even more nauseating that the NAACP has betrayed the interests of black people by rejecting school choice (I much prefer the views of Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell).

P.P.S. Just like it’s disgusting that Obama’s Secretary of Education chose private schools for his kids (as did Obama) while fighting against school choice for poor families.

P.P.S. On an uplifting note, Fran Tarkenton, the former Georgia Bulldog (he also played a bit in the NFL) used a sports analogy to explain the benefits of school choice.

P.P.P.S. It’s also uplifting to see very successful school choice systems operate in nations such as Canada, Sweden, Chile, and the Netherlands. And India doesn’t have school choice, but it’s a remarkable example of how private schools are the only good option for poor families that want upward mobility.

P.P.P.P.S. The Washington Post provides an example of honest and decent leftism, having editorialized in favor of poor children over teacher unions.

Costly Wind Power Menaces Man and Nature

The true costs of wind energy are too often (deliberately?) ignored or underestimated

Dr. Jay Lehr and Tom Harris

Wind energy can never replace fossil fuels, despite claims of environmentalists and advocates of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal (GND). It’s not environment-friendly either. Indeed, wind power is hampered by many limitations, including:
  • its intermittent and inefficient nature
  • insufficient sites with adequate, reliable wind
  • acreage required to erect turbines and harness wind
  • excessive expenses, many of them rarely mentioned
  • dangers to bird and bat populations
  • dangers to human health from light flicker and low frequency throbbing noise (infrasound).
  • costs, limitations, and health and environmental impacts of batteries and other back-up systems
Wind turbines are highly inefficient. Large industrial wind turbines (IWT) typically produce about 2.5 megawatts of power when wind speed is between about 8 and 25 miles per hour. However, most of the time it’s not, even at the best locations.

Today’s wind farms have a 30–40% average “capacity factor.” That means their average annual output is only 30–40% of “nameplate” capacity, or what they would produce if the wind were blowing 8–25 mph 24/7/365. As we erect more turbines, they must be placed in less optimal locations, and capacity numbers will drop, perhaps dramatically. And no one can predict when they will generate electricity.

When the wind isn’t blowing, the electricity grid cannot provide the energy we need to operate and maintain our standard of living. Today fossil fuels stand ready to step in when wind speeds decline. But under the GND, virtually all fossil fuels would be eliminated, making it impossible to keep the lights on without a major increase in nuclear power, which environmental activists hate even more than fossil fuels.

To generate significant wind energy, facilities must be located where there is steady wind most of the time. Such areas exist along the West Coast of the United States and a strip of the Midwest from the Dakotas to Texas. But 75% of the conterminous 48 states have only half the wind of these locations. Offshore areas have higher wind potential but are be at least three times more expensive to develop.

Perhaps the biggest drawback to relying on wind power is the immense amount of land required. IWTs must be placed far apart so they don’t interfere with each turbine’s “wind capture area.”

In his keynote address at the 2018 America First Energy Conference , Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry explained that generating enough electricity to power just the Houston metropolitan area would require almost 900 square miles of wind turbines. This is six-times more land than an equivalent solar farm of photovoltaic cells, assuming they operate at full efficiency 24/7/365; dozens of times the land required for an equivalent nuclear power plant; and 16 times the size of Washington, DC.

Wind is also much more expensive than existing conventional energy sources. The US Energy Information Administration (EIA) claims that wind power can generate electricity for 8¢ per kilowatt-hour (kWh). However, this is based on poor assumptions and glossing over important realities.

It assumes average wind turbine lifetime is 30 years, the same as a conventional fossil fuel power plant. In reality, most turbines last only 15 years, and less offshore. It ignores the cost of backup power. It includes no cost for transmission lines from wind farms to distant cities. Most significantly, it omits subsidies.

A 2016 Utah State University study shows the following extra costs omitted or miscalculated by the EIA for wind power: 15-years not 30-year life expectancies (US 7¢ per kWh), backup power (at least 2.3¢ cents if the back-up is natural gas), transmission costs (2.7¢), government subsidies (23¢). All that means the real cost of wind power is a staggering 43¢ per kilowatt hour! That’s seven times the cost of natural gas-generated electricity! What family, factory, hospital, office, church or school can afford this?

GND promoters would like wind farms everywhere, but even the most supposedly environmentally friendly communities often do not want wind turbines in their own neighborhoods: they spoil the landscape and cause serious environmental impacts, such as killing many birds and bats each year.

In 2013, Loss, Will and Marra estimated that 140,000 to 328,000 birds are killed each year in the contiguous United States by wind turbines. The Audubon Society says that makes wind “the most threatening form of green energy.” Other sources say the death tolls are far higher.

Bat deaths are even worse and potentially more threatening to human health and welfare. Spain’s Save the Eagles International says industrial wind turbines “kill millions of bats & birds, worsening an environmental and epidemiological crisis.” The 2016 study “Multiple mortality events in bats: A global review” reports that since 2000 industrial wind turbines have overtaken all other causes of mass mortality for bats in North America and Europe.

A conservative estimate of bat mortality in the USA is that at least 4 million bats have been killed by wind turbines since 2012. Bats are our primary natural defense in keeping mosquito and crop-damaging insect populations in check. One bat can eat between 500 and 1,000 mosquitoes and other insects in just one hour, or about 6,000 per night.

Fish and wildlife specialists were stunned at the number of dead bats they found at industrial wind turbines in the eastern US. About half were due to barotrauma: a bat only has to come close to a spinning blade, and the pressure change bursts the blood vessels in its lungs.

Save the Eagles explains that killing millions of bats results in billions of extra mosquitoes. It is no coincidence that mosquito populations have increased up to tenfold over the last 50 years, according to long-term mosquito monitoring programs, which also note that increased urbanization and reduced use of insecticides were the main drivers of this change.

Finally, noise generated by wind turbines is akin to that of a helicopter, affecting quality of life and causing serious health problems for people living within a quarter-mile of a turbine. A 2013 Canadian paper reported, “People who live or work in close proximity to IWTs have experienced symptoms that include decreased quality of life, annoyance, stress, sleep disturbance, headache, anxiety, depression and cognitive dysfunction.” Other studies report the same problems.

A woman who was forced out of her Ontario, Canada home said “the problem is not just cyclical audible noise keeping people awake, but also low frequency infrasound, which can travel many kilometres.” The former operator of the Wind Victims Ontario website added, “Infrasound goes right through walls. It pummels your body.” Sherri Lange, CEO of North American Platform Against Wind, says she has “personally received hundreds of phone calls from distressed people who need to vacate their homes.”

Across the world, governments have received tens of thousands of complaints. They rarely even try to address the problems raised. “It is my experience from talking to doctors, researchers and other high-level professionals, that governments seem to be [under the influence of] the industry,” Lange says.

Less frequent but more serious are 192 deaths over the past decade, primarily from massive failures of turbine blades. The deaths have prompted Finland, Bavaria and Scotland to propose legislation that no wind farm be allowed within 1.2 miles (2 kilometers) of any housing.

Many Americans think wind energy is cheap, eco-friendly and wonderful. But that’s because few are ever exposed to the real human, animal, scenic and environmental costs. Green New Deal supporters are counting on people to remain in the dark about these serious problems, to turn their plans into law.

We all need to do more to get the truth out, and confront activists, legislators, regulators and journalists with tough questions and hard realities.
 
Dr. Jay Lehr is Senior Policy Analyst for the Ottawa-based International Climate Science Coalition. Tom Harris is Executive Director of the ICSC. (Some of the information for this article was derived from the 2018 book The Mythology of Global Warming by Bruce Bunker PhD, published by Moonshine Cove. The authors recommend this book as an excellent source of information on the climate change debate.)