EU Blamed Muslim Jihadis’ Genocide of Nigerian Christians on Climate Change thumbnail

EU Blamed Muslim Jihadis’ Genocide of Nigerian Christians on Climate Change

By Catherine Salgado

The European Union (EU) Parliament finally acknowledged the horror of the genocide against Nigerian Christians—but blamed the fake climate crisis instead of the very real Islamic terrorists.

Islamic scriptures approve and encourage the killing of non-Muslims and militants in Nigeria have zealously carried out a decades-long genocide against Christians that has left over 60,000 dead and many more kidnapped or displaced. In fact, Nigeria is the most dangerous nation in the world to be Christian. The West usually ignores the violence against Christians in multiple African nations, but even when the EU recently took notice, its wokeness led to an utterly preposterous diagnosis of the genocide’s cause.

“The European Parliament has condemned the Christmas Eve massacre of Christians in Nigeria but attributed the violence to climate change and environmental degradation instead of Sharia law, Islamic extremist groups, and the dangers of blasphemy accusations,” the Christian Post reported on Feb. 11. Fulani (Muslim) jihadis massacred at least 195 Christians from more than 20 different communities in Nigeria’s violence-plagued Plateau state throughout the 2023 Christmas season. The militants also burned eight churches, inflicted over 300 injuries, devastated homes, and displaced 15,000 people. Approximately 14 Nigerian Christians are killed daily for their faith, Christian Post stated.

Fortunately, the ever-brilliant EU discovered the root cause! Its motion pontificated that “the conflict is increasingly described in religious terms, while the perpetrators are yet to be identified and several factors are to be taken into account such as competition for land fueled by rapid climate change and the failure of authorities to hold to account those responsible for violence.”

The conflict is religious, you elitist buffoons. Muslims have been slaughtering Jews and Christians under orders from their holy texts since the 7th century—this isn’t exactly new. Furthermore, the “climate crisis” is an unscientific hoax, with plenty of evidence to contradict it and not a single accurate climate alarmist prediction in well over 50 years. Yet the EU lectured Nigerian authorities “to take meaningful steps to identify and address all root causes of the violence in Plateau state, such as competition for scarce resources, environmental degradation and the disappearance of effective mediation schemes.”

It’s a joke, but not a funny one for the unfortunate Nigerian Christians bereft of any meaningful Western aid as Islamic jihadis continue to burn, kidnap, and massacre.


Catherine Salgado is an accomplished writer and investigative reporter who publishes daily in her Substack column, Pro Deo et Libertate (For God and Liberty). This superb column provides news and opinion pieces from an honest, common-sense perspective in the spheres of culture, politics, liberal arts, and religion. The Prickly Pear is grateful for her permission to reproduce her public writings and recommends that our readers subscribe to Catherine’s superb Substack column. Please consider a paid subscription for full access to all of her excellent and informative writings.

Image Credit: YouTube Screenshot Fox News


The Prickly Pear’s TAKE ACTION focus this year is to help achieve a winning 2024 national and state November 5th election with the removal of the Biden/Obama leftist executive branch disaster, win one U.S. Senate seat, maintain and win strong majorities in all Arizona state offices on the ballot and to insure that unrestricted abortion is not constitutionally embedded in our laws and culture.

Please click the TAKE ACTION link to learn to do’s and don’ts for voting in 2024. Our state and national elections are at great risk from the very aggressive and radical leftist Democrat operatives with documented rigging, mail-in voter fraud and illegals voting across the country (yes, with illegals voting across the country) in the last several election cycles.

Read Part 1 and Part 2 of The Prickly Pear essays entitled How NOT to Vote in the November 5, 2024 Election in Arizona to be well informed of the above issues and to vote in a way to ensure the most likely chance your vote will be counted and counted as you intend.

Please click the following link to learn more.

Bogus ‘ESG’ Group Rates China’s Slave-Fueled Energy Firms Better Than U.S. Oil And Gas Companies thumbnail

Bogus ‘ESG’ Group Rates China’s Slave-Fueled Energy Firms Better Than U.S. Oil And Gas Companies

By Chuck Devore

Editors’ Note: Either by accident or design (your choice), the environmental movement and its subsidiary the ESG movement, always seems to tilt the scales towards benefiting China and hurting the US. Whether making us dependent on Chinese-dominated solar panels and windmills, weakening our electrical grid, willfully overlooking the massive use of coal in China, or ignoring Chinese depredations against human rights and the environment, China always seems to get a free pass while US companies are condemned and starved of capital. We tend to feel this tilt to the Chinese is deliberate. One reason to think so is that the CCP is actively involved in funding the environmental movement.

Investment support services firm MSCI’s corporate leadership should be ashamed of continuing to shill for China.

From June 28, 2022, to Feb. 8, 2024, two of China’s most well-known stock indices, the Shanghai Stock Exchange Index and Hong Kong’s Hang Sang Index, have lost 20 percent and 28 percent of their value, respectively. And this is after the Chinese Communist Party completed $278 billion in stock purchases to stem the recent rout.

There is a consensus among experts that China is in deep economic difficulty. Paramount leader Xi Jinping has centralized power and curbed capitalistic freedom in China. It’s difficult to know anything with certainty about the nation’s economic stagnation since China recently outlawed the release of corporate or economic information and stopped releasing basic economic reports.

Even so, there is one sector of the international financial analyst community that still confidently issues opinions on publicly traded Chinese stocks: the environmental, social, and governance (ESG) ratings firms — to their everlasting shame and embarrassment.

warned about the false picture that ESG ratings provide regarding corporations in June 2022, by comparing a publicly traded American firm, a Texas-based oil and gas royalties company known as Brigham Minerals and, since a merger, now known as Sitio (NYSE:STR), with three Chinese stocks in the energy sector.

The Chinese securities — not stocks in the U.S. sense as they don’t provide legal ownership of the Chinese companies, which are merely vehicles for China to attract foreign capital — were Xinyi Solar Holdings (OTC: XISHY), China Resources Gas Group (OTC: CGASY), and China Coal Energy Company (OTC: CCOZF).

How Are These Chinese Firms Rated Now?

MSCI is an investment support services firm with $2.1 billion in revenue that provides ESG ratings of corporations. Even though China requires every firm with 50 or more employees operating in China to employ at least one Communist Party political commissar, true independent audits don’t happen, and information about a firm’s financial health can now be considered national security information, MSCI rates Chinese firms anyway.

In 2022, MSCI rated the three Chinese energy stocks higher than the U.S. energy stock, with Brigham scoring 2 out of 10 ESG points overall. This compared to China Coal Energy, a firm majority owned by the Chinese government, with an overall ESG rating of 3.1; China Resources Gas Group, a natural gas pipeline operator and a subsidiary of a state-owned company, with an ESG score of 6.3; and Xinyi Solar Holdings — a firm that uses slave labor in its supply chain — with an ESG score of 6.1.

With ESG getting pushback from Texas and other states’ pension funds, I wanted to check back in on whether MSCI still rated these Chinese firms highly.

ESG investing has become a big driver in steering capital to corporations deemed to be good stewards of subjective principles. By 2025, financial management firms that claim to invest with ESG principles are projected to account for $50 trillion of a total global value of $140.5 trillion — more than a third of managed investments.

American Depositary Receipts in Xinyi Solar Holdings have declined from $30.64 in June 2022 to $8.87 in February 2024; China Resources Gas Group last traded on Sept. 12, 2023, at $27.27, down from $58.93, and is no longer listed; and China Coal Energy Company last traded on Jan. 8, 2024.

MSCI continues to helpfully rate all three firms, making one wonder if a real person does the analytical work or an AI on loan from previously writing stories at Sports Illustrated. Xinyi’s ratings are up a bit overall, and China Gas is up a bit too. Only China coal has seen its ESG ratings dip, mostly due to the downgrade of corporate governance from 2.2 out of 10 to 0.9.

Meanwhile, Sitio Royalties, the U.S. firm that resulted from a merger between Brigham Minerals and Sitio Royalties in December 2022, has an ESG rating of 0 out of 10 for the environment, 2.8 out of 10 for social, and 6.8 out of 10 for governance. Thus, in 20 months, Sitio has seen its environmental rating decline to 0.0 from 0.8, its social rating decline from 3.5 to 2.8, and its governance rating increase slightly from 6.4 to 6.8 — meaning, Sitio’s overall rating has declined, while environmentally dirty, slave-labor using, Chinese Communist Party-controlled, and likely insolvent Chinese stocks have seen their composite ESG rating increase over the same span.

What an absolute crock. MSCI’s corporate leadership should be ashamed of continuing to shill for China even as Jinping breathes threats of war and bullies his neighbors. MSCI ESG scores are no more valid than the daily horoscope.


This article was published by The Federalist and is reproduced with permission.


The Prickly Pear’s TAKE ACTION focus this year is to help achieve a winning 2024 national and state November 5th election with the removal of the Biden/Obama leftist executive branch disaster, win one U.S. Senate seat, maintain and win strong majorities in all Arizona state offices on the ballot and to insure that unrestricted abortion is not constitutionally embedded in our laws and culture.

Please click the TAKE ACTION link to learn to do’s and don’ts for voting in 2024. Our state and national elections are at great risk from the very aggressive and radical leftist Democrat operatives with documented rigging, mail-in voter fraud and illegals voting across the country (yes, with illegals voting across the country) in the last several election cycles.

Read Part 1 and Part 2 of The Prickly Pear essays entitled How NOT to Vote in the November 5, 2024 Election in Arizona to be well informed of the above issues and to vote in a way to ensure the most likely chance your vote will be counted and counted as you intend.

Please click the following link to learn more.

Mercedes-Benz Walks Back On Huge Electric Vehicle Commitment Amid Slowing Demand thumbnail

Mercedes-Benz Walks Back On Huge Electric Vehicle Commitment Amid Slowing Demand

By The Daily Caller

Mercedes-Benz on Thursday walked back plans to have an all-electric line-up by 2030 as consumers decline to adopt electric vehicles (EV) at the rate automakers expected.

The company has changed its expectations to have only 50% of its sales be EVs by 2030, announcing that it will be updating its current line-up featuring the internal combustion engine into the next decade, according to Mercedes-Benz in its fourth quarter report. EV sales grew 21% year-over-year in 2023, but total car sales remained relatively the same, bucking hopes that EVs would fuel growth as the automaker pushes electric models.

“It is almost like we will have a new lineup in 2027 that will take us well into the 2030s,” Ola Kaellenius, CEO of Mercedes, said following the report, according to Reuters. Kaellenius noted near the end of last year that even European markets, which are more likely to adopt EVs, might not be able to reach the 2030 all-electric goal due to consumer reservations about issues like lack of charging infrastructure and appealing models.

We just released our 2023 full year results.
For all details:

— Mercedes-Benz (@MercedesBenz) February 22, 2024

The Biden administration has sought to ease charging concerns as the president pushes for an EV transition, allocating $7.5 billion for charging infrastructure. Despite the huge investment, lack of demand, regulations and union requirements have stalled construction, with only two charging stations having been built as of December 2023.

Mercedes-Benz also posted its fourth quarter results, with revenue declining a disappointing 1.8% year-over-year but up slightly by 2.1% comparing 2023 to 2022, according to a release from the company. Net profit was down 21.5% in the quarter year-over-year and 1.9% for 2023.

The company also announced a 3 billion euro stock buyback in an effort to boost its stock price, according to the fourth quarter report.

Other automakers have also had to cut EV goals, including Ford, which announced that it would be reducing production volume of its F-150 lighting as of January after losing a total of $4.7 billion on EVs in 2023. General Motors reported a $1.7 billion loss in the fourth quarter in the production and sale of its EV line, despite being profitable otherwise.

“Our overall goal remain unchanged: Our Ambition 2039,” Mercedes-Benz said in a statement to the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Thereby, the ambition is to make our entire fleet of new vehicles net carbon-neutral along the entire value chain and over the vehicles’ entire life cycle by 2039. Therefore, we continue to put our company in a position to go all electric.”




RELATED ARTICLE: Upscale Rideshare Platform Abandons Commitment To All-Electric Fleet After Missing Mark


Joe Biden’s EV Mandate “Vision” For America Is In Full Collapse

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) February 23, 2024

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact

Mr. Bean Was Right About EVs And So Was Toyota thumbnail

Mr. Bean Was Right About EVs And So Was Toyota

By Duggan Flanakin

When auto (even EV driving) enthusiast Rowan Atkinson – Mr. Bean to his fans – last June wrote in The Guardian that there are “sound environmental reasons” why “keeping your old petrol car may be better than buying an EV,” he was vilified as an eco-traitor.

Atkinson had added, “We’re realizing that a wider range of options need to be explored if we’re going to properly address the very serious environmental problems that our use of the motor car has created.” These include, he said, hydrogen fuel cells and synthetic fuels that would extend the lives of older vehicles long after governments are demanding they be scrapped.

Atkinson, who has a bachelor’s in electrical and electronic engineering and a master’s in control systems, urged Britons to “look at a bigger picture” to include greenhouse gas emissions during the manufacture of electric vehicles and to evaluate the whole life cycle of motor vehicles.

Relying on a dash of common sense, Atkinson noted that pushing so heavily so soon for EVs that have major flaws will result in “millions of overweight electric cars with rapidly obsolescing batteries.” Technological developments with hydrogen and synthetic fuels, which can power existing internal combustion engines, may prove a better long-term solution. For one reason, the owners of the world’s 1.5 billion ICE vehicles could continue enjoying them.

For sharing his insights, Atkinson was immediately smacked around by snarky reporters and EV “experts”. Simon Evans, deputy editor at Carbon Brief, slammed Atkinson for not adhering to Carbon Brief’s own “evidence” from years back stating that EVs cut “planet-warming emissions” by two-thirds on a life cycle basis and calling EVs “an essential part of tackling the climate emergency.”

How dare he?

Michael Coren, writing in the Washington Post, portrayed Atkinson as an iconoclast clinging to his petrol car, lampooned hydrogen and synthetic fuels as expensive and impractical, and compared ICE vehicles to hobby horses. Coren argued that “making every car burn [hydrogen] is not a good idea,” yet implied that forcing every driver to buy an EV is a very good idea.

Eight months later, though, the detractors who had hoped to make Atkinson an example of a troglodyte were singing a different tune in the wake of a collapse in the British EV market.

Mr. Bean was condemned in the House of Lords by the Green Alliance as “partly at fault for ‘damaging’ public perceptions” of EVs and as a dangerous enemy of Britain’s drive to Net Zero. The Guardian, which published Atkinson’s tome, was accused indirectly of failing to adhere to “high editorial standards around the Net Zero transition.”

[Translation: ONLY glowing reports on EVs are acceptable public speech.]

It couldn’t have been the exorbitant cost of auto insurance for EVs, their tendency to catch fire and burn for days, or the high cost and long wait times for parts and repairs – or the long waits at charging stations to plug in and wait for enough charge at least to reach the next destination. Nor could it be that people are uncomfortable enriching China as their own auto companies face bankruptcy.  No – it was allowing someone to publicly question the rush to electrification.

Halfway around the world, Toyota, which “lagged behind” its major competitors in ditching their ICE vehicle fleets for all-EV production lines, “is riding a windfall of hybrid vehicle sales on its way to posting projected net profits of more than $30  billion.” While Ford lost $4.7 billion trying to create an EV market, dropping its net profit to just $4.2 billion, Toyota now appears to be in better financial shape than its American and European competitors.

Over a year ago, then-Toyota CEO Akio Toyoda had cautioned that the EV transition would “take longer than the media would like us to believe.” Ford, GM, Stellantis, and many other automakers worldwide played nice with the political and financial giants while Toyota’s management stepped away from the rhetoric, looked at the numbers, and chose a commonsense approach to the evolving world auto marketplace.

The company did sell 15,000 pure EVs in the U.S. in 2023, but they also sold 40,000 plug-in hybrids and more than 600,000 non-rechargeable hybrids out of total U.S. sales of 2,248,477 vehicles, a 6% increase from 2022 levels. Ford fell short of its goal to produce 300,000 EVs a year by 2023 and has revised its earlier forecast of 2 million EVs by 2026. Worse, Ford now expects to lose as much as $5.5 billion on EVs in 2024.

Over in Europe, Volvo just announced it is withdrawing support for its marquee electric vehicle Polestar and hopes to sell its 48% stake, possibly to a Chinese buyer. Just days earlier, Polestar had cut 450 jobs, about 15% of its workforce.

Elsewhere in Europe, EV sales are expected to decline in 2024 in Germany, Europe’s largest auto market, and Renault just scrapped plans to spin off its Ampere EVs, blaming a lack of interest from investors and a slowdown in sales.

EV sales in the United Kingdom also flatlined in 2023, and prices for used EVs fell sharply, raising questions about their residual value. Even EV-friendly Switzerland admits it will take at least 20 years to fully electrify its fleet; while EVs and hybrids today comprise about 30% of Swiss new car sales, these vehicles amount to less than 4% of the total national fleet.

Oil and gas companies are getting the message, too. BP, which once billed itself as “Beyond Petroleum,” has been encouraged by an activist investor to reduce its investments in renewables and recommit to oil and gas. A major reason – oil and gas investments in recent years have boomed while investments in renewables have faltered. Bluebell Capital Partners asserted that BP’s commitment to renewable has left its stock price undervalued by 50% compared to ExxonMobil and Chevron.

President Biden’s demand that the U.S. comply with his EV mandates was dealt a major blow last month when auto rental giant Hertz, heretofore the nation’s largest fleet operator of electric vehicles, announced it was selling all 20,000 of its EVs and not buying any more. The company cited high repair costs and weak demand for EV rentals. Karl Bauer of, noting that mainstream consumers were already hesitant to buy an EV, said, “The larger impact of the Hertz EV fire sale is the perception hit to the technology.”

The fictional Mr. Bean is known (and revered) for his original and often absurd solutions to problems and, his total disregard for others while solving them, and his pettiness and occasional malevolence. Had the British press mocked Mr. Atkinson for a Bean-like performance, the climate emergency propagandists might have laughed him off successfully.

But they are not able to laugh without derision.

The real Mr. Atkinson, like the decision makers at Toyota, is espousing commonsense wisdom such as “don’t put all of your eggs in one basket.” Extending the lifespan of existing vehicles, even with currently high-cost hydrogen or synthetic fuels, is far better for the environment than junking them for electric vehicles that require diesel fuel to power charging stations.

If, as we are told, EV batteries will soon be smaller, cheaper, and stronger, that day has not yet come. Just as likely, the cost of hydrogen and synthetics will also drop significantly, and those fuels can power existing ICE vehicles. Most of all, if there truly were a “climate emergency,” diplomats would be quicker to end military conflicts and end the rush by China and India to build more and more coal-fired power plants (needed, of course, to charge EV batteries).

What Mr. Bean and Toyota are truly saying to the world is that mandates – the government deciding what can and cannot go to market – and the huge subsidies that go along with them (which would be unnecessary in a true emergency) are at war with the wisdom of the market, which relies on true public opinion as to what is best for the consumer.


This article was published by CFACT, Committee For a Constructive Tomorrow, and is reproduced with permission.

Image Credit: YouTube Screenshot


The Prickly Pear’s TAKE ACTION focus this year is to help achieve a winning 2024 national and state November 5th election with the removal of the Biden/Obama leftist executive branch disaster, win one U.S. Senate seat, maintain and win strong majorities in all Arizona state offices on the ballot and to insure that unrestricted abortion is not constitutionally embedded in our laws and culture.

Please click the TAKE ACTION link to learn to do’s and don’ts for voting in 2024. Our state and national elections are at great risk from the very aggressive and radical leftist Democrat operatives with documented rigging, mail-in voter fraud and illegals voting across the country (yes, with illegals voting across the country) in the last several election cycles.

Read Part 1 and Part 2 of The Prickly Pear essays entitled How NOT to Vote in the November 5, 2024 Election in Arizona to be well informed of the above issues and to vote in a way to ensure the most likely chance your vote will be counted and counted as you intend.

Please click the following link to learn more.

Read The Lie Filled Letter I Got From Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. thumbnail

Read The Lie Filled Letter I Got From Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.

By Dr. Rich Swier

I received a letter, below, from Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. in response to my concern about the rising cost of energy in America.

After reading his letter I didn’t know if I should laugh or cry. It was so filled with myths, lies and propaganda.

Here are some of the lies in the letter below:

  1. Biden blames Russia for our energy crisis, when in fact it is due to his green energy policies, which are anti-fossil fuels, anti-drilling and anti-building new pipelines to deliver oil and natural gas nationwide.
  2. It claims that by releasing millions of barrels of oil from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve it brought prices down at the pump. The truth is that prices at the pump in some areas keep rising and that robbing oil from our Strategic Petroleum Reserve and don’t drill policies are making the U.S. energy dependent on foreign oil and natural gas.
  3. Biden wrote, “When I signed the Inflation Reduction Act into law, we made a historic move to transition America to a clean energy economy and create millions of good-paying jobs in the process.” This statement is false as many of the “green companies” that Biden sent our hard earned tax dollars to have either gone bankrupt or are losing billions in revenue a year. These green companies are barely staying afloat only because they are being subsidized with billions of our tax dollars.
  4. Biden claims that the Inflation Reduction Act, “It will make it easier for families to install energy efficient appliances and make home upgrades so they can save on household energy costs. ”  This is a lie because now were are seeing this act used to eliminate certain appliances and the use of things like natural gas stoves, home heating and cooling units and even gasoline driven lawn mowers.
  5. Finally Biden wrote, “And it [the Inflation Reduction Act] will make it easier to buy electric vehicles so that more Americans never have to pay at the gas pump again.” This again is a lie in that many of Biden’s charging stations are either not working or are being provided electricity from diesel generators. In fact, there are NO EV charging stations at Interstate rest stops because of Biden’s policies. On August 16th, 2023 even Newsweek wrote an article titled “One Year Later, President Biden’s ‘Inflation Reduction Act’ Is a Total Flop.” One paragraph states, “The legislation mostly consisted of green energy subsidies, healthcare subsidies, tax increases, and more funding for the Internal Revenue Service. Yet the President sold it to the public as a way to bring down the crushing inflation that continues to bankrupt the American people. (The typical U.S. family spent $709 more on monthly expenses last month, July 2023, than it did in July two years ago.)”
  6. Biden ended his letter with the BIG LIE! He wrote, “At this critical inflection point, we are finally taking historic steps to break our reliance on foreign energy, lower energy costs for American families, and protect our children’s futures from the impacts of climate change.  And we’re bringing true energy security to America, making us stronger and cleaner than ever before.” Since January 20th, 2021 America has become less and less energy secure. Biden has take historic steps to see that we are not energy secure via his Green New Deal policies. Never before have I feared that the future of our son, his wife and our two grandchildren is in such great peril. Finally, I don’t give a damn about climate change because mankind cannot control the weather let alone the climate. Climate change is a hoax and a myth to take control of all of our choices on what cars we buy, how to heat and cool our homes and made everything more expensive all at the same time.

America is going bankrupt, its people are deeper in debt and our nation is no longer safe. Put that in you pipe and smoke it.

Letter from Joseph Robinette Biden, Jr. I reply to my dissent to his energy policies:

I received this letter from Joseph Robinett Biden, Jr. that is filled with lies. First it blames Russia for our energy crisis when it’s Biden’s policies that are the cause. It also states the Biden is depleting our Strategic Petroleum Reserve, rather than drilling for more oil.

— Dr. Rich Swier (@drrichswier) February 22, 2024

On November 5th, 2024 we have a choice between Biden’s failed energy policies or Trump’s drill baby drill and make American truly energy independent policies.

Chose wisely.

©2024. Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.


Whatever Democrats Say, Trust the Opposite is True

American Food Spending As Portion Of Income Hits More Than 30-Year High

State Department Warns Staffers against ‘Misgendering’

Biden has nothing to offer but empty gestures and lefty boondoggles

California Budget Deficit Projected To Skyrocket To Record Levels Under Newsom, State Watchdog Warns

Woke Investment Managers Pull $15.7 Trillion from Climate Activism Pact thumbnail

Woke Investment Managers Pull $15.7 Trillion from Climate Activism Pact

By Family Research Council

BlackRock and other U.S.-based investment management conglomerates have chosen to withdraw from a controversial initiative, Climate Action 100+ (CA100+), that pressured companies to “reduce greenhouse gas emissions” to “net-zero emissions by 2050 [or] sooner,” in pursuit of “limiting global average temperature increase” to 1.5 degrees above “pre-industrial levels.” The withdrawals follow financial and legal pressure from U.S. state officials, as well a new phase of cooperation for CA100+ that would move “from words to action.”

As of last June, more than 700 firms had joined CA100+, controlling a breathtaking $68 trillion, or nearly 2.5 times the U.S.A.’s annual GDP.

However, last week, Reuters reported that some of the world’s largest investment managers had withdrawn from CA100+. BlackRock, the world’s largest investment firm with $9 trillion assets under management (AUM), withdrew its U.S. arm, worth $6.6 trillion. State Street (4th largest with $4.1 trillion AUM), J.P. Morgan (6th largest with $3.1 trillion AUM), and PIMCO (14th largest with $1.9 trillion AUM) all withdrew entirely. However, Fidelity Investments, Goldman Sachs, Invesco, and Franklin Templeton (U.S. firms among the world’s 20 largest asset managers) are still signatories.

With the withdrawal of these four firms, CA100+ lost influence over the $15.7 trillion in assets they managed, cutting its influence by 23%.

At least in part, the withdrawals were triggered last summer, when the Steering Committee for CA100+ announced a “Phase Two” for their campaign of corporate climate activism, expected to last until 2030. “In phase two, the overarching goal is to go from words to action,” explained CA100+ Steering Committee Chairman Francois Humbert. The new phase would mean “more accountability, more transparency, more seniority.” The new guidelines would require investment managers to disclose how they vote on climate-related motions at shareholder meetings, as well as how often they lobby corporations and policymakers with their climate agenda.

When CA100+ upped the ante, several major U.S. investment firms promptly folded. BlackRock and State Street cited independence concerns, J.P. Morgan said it had developed “its own climate risk engagement framework,” while PIMCO claimed it “operates its own portfolio-relevant engagement activities with issuers on sustainability.”

In other words, these investment managers do not object to leveraging their fiduciary trust to pursue climate activism. All four of them are still doing climate activism on their own. They did object to the loss of independence of having an international organization micromanage their climate activism — how very American.

However, independence concerns over CA100+’s move to “Phase Two” does not fully explain the abrupt withdrawal of these investment management firms. After all, they still basically share CA100+’s goal of leveraging the investments they manage to advance their climate activism agenda. And these firms did decide to join CA100+ in the first place, knowing that it might inevitably lead to phases that required more action and accountability. Here, grasping the full picture requires viewing the scenery from more than one vantage point.

On March 30, 2023, 21 state attorneys general wrote a letter to the largest U.S.-based asset managers, expressing concern over their political activism and warning that such behavior could violate federal securities laws. The letter, led by Montana AG Austin Knudsen (R), specifically highlighted the CA100+ agenda as “potential unlawful coordination” to “push policies through the financial system that cannot be achieved at the ballot box.” It put investment managers on notice that “ongoing investigations” would “continue to evaluate” whether the firms were engaged in “potential unlawful coordination and other violations … as part of Climate Action 100+, Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative [NZAM], or the like.”

Woke asset managers have sustained considerable pressure from state governments in recent years, as the vast scale of their political activism became known. State officials have issued opinions declaring political activism with public funds illegal, published blacklists of politicized corporations the state won’t do business with, opposed woke companies’ purchases of public utility shares, and demonstrated the public support for doing so by winning subsequent elections.

Asset management firms are wilting before the ire of these state officials. Last summer, after 11 state governments pulled more than $5 billion in assets from his firm’s management, BlackRock CEO Larry Fink declared he was abandoning the acronym “ESG” (for left-wing “environmental, social, and governance causes) — but not the spirit. In December 2022, Vanguard (the world’s second largest asset manager, with approximately $7 trillion AUM) announced plans to withdraw from the NZAM after pressure from state governments.

The mini-exodus from CA100+ seems to be undertaken with the same goal in mind. The firms withdrawing from the climate pact haven’t abandoned their commitment to climate activism, but they would prefer not to become the next Bud Light in doing so. Re-asserting their “independence” from CA100+ frees them to evaluate the political or legal costs of any particular deed of climate activism and avoid provoking uncomfortable investigations or costly lawsuits. Even without changing their behavior, distancing themselves from the climate organization can help them avoid charges of “unlawful coordination” without distancing themselves from the climate agenda.

The backdrop to this performative calculus is that much left-wing corporate activism is neither essential nor profitable. In a 2022 survey of top executives, 59% of CEOs said they would “plan to pause or reconsider their organization’s ESG efforts” in response to a recession. That’s the sort of numbers you would expect from an optional extra — like a soft-serve machine in the breakroom. It might keep the workforce happy, and it might help mute outside criticism, but it doesn’t help a business achieve its core mission — to produce, move, or sell a product, or to provide certain services.

In the case of asset management firms, they provide the service of managing assets, in hopes of providing a better return for investors than they could obtain on their own. Climate activism is not relevant to the goal of asset management. In fact, climate activism can hamper an asset manager’s goal (obtaining the best return for his client) by forcing a company to adopt costly “green” policies that reduce its profitability and thus the profitability of assets invested in that company.

“Broadly, [federal securities] laws require you to act as a fiduciary, in the best interests of your clients and exercising due care and loyalty,” the attorneys general wrote the asset management firms. “Simply put, you are not the same as political or social activists and you should not be allowing the vast savings entrusted to you to be commandeered by activists to advance non-financial goals.” Asset management firms aren’t yet convinced of this argument and continue to pursue climate activism, but changes in their behavior indicate the pressure is having an effect.


Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a senior writer at The Washington Stand.

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. ©2024 Family Research Council.

The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.

The Four Corners of Environmental Opinion thumbnail

The Four Corners of Environmental Opinion

By Neland Nobel

After the experience of Covid lockdowns, the manipulation of Federal Agencies and online platforms, the invasion of privacy, the suppression of free speech and assembly, and then the wild spending and debt burden undertaken to address problems caused by the government itself many Americans are left wondering if we could see a repeat of such tyranny on even a broader scale.

Unfortunately, this atrocity on liberty has a close cousin that has the potential to do even greater harm – the environmental movement. Specifically, the elites and their lemmings claiming that man’s CO2 emissions are causing global warming are the most concerning.

Remarkably, they were able to convince courts that CO2 and carbon generally, is a pollutant, which has opened the door to administrative agencies taking over our lives. 

Since humans exhale about two pounds of CO2 daily, just by breathing, then logically, human breathing should be regulated.  Our bodies are powered at the cellular level by glucose, a carbon-based sugar resulting from plant photosynthesis. To live anywhere in the vast animal kingdom is to have a carbon footprint.

Just as they incorrectly alleged that mask-wearing and vaccination were not a violation of liberty because they affected others, so too they will argue that your “carbon footprint” so endangers others, that your liberty will be of necessity, stripped from you.  You are not free to gravely harm others.

You must give up your liberty and prosperity to save the earth from man’s depredations, or so it is asserted.

That this assertion can be expanded to dictatorial lengths is evident.  Like COVID-19, those who disagree are getting banned from social media and academia. 

Grant hustling academics also do not like the challenge from skeptics.

The deep state agencies are mandating what kind of cars you will be able to buy, what kind of dishwasher, home heating system, and even how you cook your food.  Now they even want to tell us what kind of leaf blower we can have. Where is the limit to their control of our lives?

Speaking of food, because all animals breathe and emit methane, there has been a wholesale attempt to regulate agriculture in Europe and Sri Lanka, which in both cases, has been so onerous it has led to open rebellion.  By controlling fertilizer, farm equipment, and fuel, the government can completely regulate the production of food.

A government that controls your speech and assembly, your energy sources, and your food supply, is a government that can completely control you.

By controlling energy and its use, the government now has a broad writ to regulate all kinds of personal and business activities, even beyond those seen in the Covid crisis.  A crisis, we might add, that was caused by our own government subsidizing dangerous “gain of function” research in Chinese laboratories.

There seem to be four positions on environmental questions, and three of them can be occupied by Conservatives and Libertarians, but one cannot.

In the first corner, is the liberal/progressive position.  In Europe, the Green Movement is an openly socialist/communist movement.  In the US, it is a bit more constrained, likely for political reasons.

Man’s actions, specifically his use of so-called fossil fuels, are causing an increase in CO2 levels, which leads to global warming, which leads to the “destruction” of the environment.  This destruction, which includes erratic severe weather, rising sea levels, etc., is blamed for everything from reduced sea ice to shifting polar bear populations to Muslims killing Christians in Africa. 

The latter contention shows just how far advocates of climate change are willing to take their argument.  Anything and everything is caused by climate change.

They even have attempted to widen the argument from global warming to “climate change”, which then can accommodate severe cold or anything else they want to throw into the hopper.

To fight climate change, we must relinquish our freedom and prosperity to governmental agencies, and most particularly, to international organizations like the World Economic Forum and UN agencies.

Notice that power is shifted from the people and their local government, largely to unelected national and international bureaucrats who are not elected and cannot be held accountable by the populace.

To have most decisions in life determined by force inflicted by those not democratically chosen seems a good working definition of tyranny.

As early as the 1970s, this was recognized, as some environmentalists were described as watermelons: green on the outside and red on the inside. 

Unfortunately, that metaphor has proven to be largely true.

But like other trends, the left position has become dominant in our culture and we now have several generations that think Al Gore is a climate scientist.

In another opposing corner, are those that believe there is no connection whatsoever between CO2, no discernable increase in temperature, and hence no crisis of global warming. 

This position suggests much of the data has been distorted. 

The fact is there is no “ideal” CO2 level or “ideal” temperature to be mandated.  CO2 levels are actually near a historic low and so are temperatures.  Lots of animals, indeed huge animals, lived in a higher CO2 world.  Why is our short snapshot in time the standard?

The fact is the earth was much warmer in earlier periods and largely ice-free.  That was well before man started burning fossil fuels.  This proves to a reasonable mind that there must be other powerful variables at work beyond your leaf blower.

Some contend that temperatures that were once recorded in rural areas decades ago, but now because of urban growth, are recorded in concrete cities, simply are measuring a “heat island” distortion of temperatures.  There have also been differences between land observations and satellite data. They generally feel the whole temperature record is too short and the data too unreliable to draw firm conclusions between CO2 and temperatures. Computer modeling has proven quite wrong on some occasions. They contend there is no connection between the two, and hence do not agree this is a man-caused crisis that requires centralized authority to deny freedom because of a non-existent “existential threat.”

In a third corner, is a more nuanced position, mostly occupied by Bjorn Lomborg and the Copenhagen Consensus. He contends there is warming, that it is largely man-caused, but that the correct response is to use freedom and common sense in addressing the problems of climate change.  If indeed sea levels are rising, build sea walls.  Cut emissions by using nuclear power.  In short, mitigate particular problems with warming trends by addressing specific issues, rather than attempting an arrogant and expensive attempt to change the climate of the earth.

This can be done within the free-market system making rational economic decisions and involving modest expenditures to address particular needs.  No gigantic international socialist cabal is needed to address the problems.

In the last corner, you have those that combine a number of the previous positions. They believe the earth is warming, but largely for reasons unrelated to man’s activities.  They will cite independent variables outside of man’s control, and to some extent, even our understanding.  This includes but is not limited to,  such phenomena as the role of solar storms, cloud formation and its reflection of sunlight, the fluctuations in the sun itself, the influence of our planetary system on orbit paths, the tilt of the earth’s axis, volcanoes, and ocean currents.  Largely unobserved and particularly important undersea volcanoes can lead to warming sea temperatures.

In short, they do acknowledge some warming but do not attribute much of the trend to either CO2 or man’s activities.  Climate has never been static.  We have had warming periods, and cooling periods before, long before man started using a leaf blower.

They also point out an important fact: CO2 levels are not linked one-to-one with temperatures.  Increasing CO2 levels result in diminishing influence for CO2.  Water vapor, what we identify as clouds and humidity, is a vastly more important “greenhouse” gas.

Like the Lomborg and the Copenhagen Consensus, they feel whatever changes in the climate we are having can be mitigated with affordable options.

You can see those three corners of the square, do not agree with the progressive left’s description of the problem and hence will not agree to their statist solutions.

The earth may or may not be warming.  Warming may not be bad and higher CO2 levels are not bad either.  The earth is noticeably greening because higher CO2 levels are plant food. Based on geological history, current CO2 levels are among the lowest ever recorded.  We could use more of it and it will be beneficial.

This is the position of Dr. William Happer, who we recently interviewed.  Go to, and view our video, for much more information. Their position is summarized:

“The failure of computer models to reliably predict future temperatures has created a growing awareness that such models are fundamentally flawed—and have greatly exaggerated past and future anthropogenic (man-made) global warming. Indeed, there is good reason to believe that any future anthropogenic warming will be far smaller than projected by the IPCC’s models. The best available evidence suggests that the equilibrium doubling sensitivity, the final warming of the surface in response to doubling atmospheric CO2, is closer to 1 C than to the “most likely” 3 C of mainstream climate models.”

If we are talking maybe of 1-degree centigrade, note most people in the US are moving to the sun belt to get a change far larger than that.

Thus, conservatives and libertarians can argue their positions among themselves, but they cannot agree with either the underlying assumptions or the prescriptive solutions offered by the left.

This is not denying science, this is doing science. Aside from scientific considerations ( and there are other important considerations), it recognizes that our prosperity is linked closely with agricultural productivity and the availability of inexpensive energy to power the machines that give us a high standard of living.

In the spirit of the Founders, we must remember their elaborate efforts to control power and the tendency of humans to abuse it.  It is foolish to transfer power to unelected bureaucrats, who are largely unaccountable and untouchable, whatever the problem to be addressed.  In the past, such expansions of power were permitted only for war, and sometimes “national emergencies.” Absolute power corrupts, even if in the name of a good cause.

With “climate change”, the phenomenon can span decades or centuries, so for all reasonable purposes, the “emergency” and dictatorial powers, can last indefinitely.

Neither our liberty nor prosperity should be lost because of an unproven argument about climate change.  And if climate change is real, man-caused or not, we can adapt to these changes without destroying our standard of living or our Republic.  Progressives would have you think that only their political concentration of power in the hands of the few is an answer.

We have already seen what is happening in Germany.  It is deindustrializing to the point of almost national suicide through the use of dictates from centralized government.   We do not want to go down that road.

Within the rest of Europe, discontent with green policies has united farmers, truck drivers, railroad workers, and the general population.  February 20th through the 21st are planned the biggest demonstrations in Europe.

It will be interesting to see the political consequences.

One final thought.  Besides being bad for prosperity and liberty, there is a new, fifth corner, emerging argument that these Green policies are actually bad for the environment.  This is a relatively counterintuitive argument that has considerable substance behind it.  The unintended consequences of some policies were hard to know until “green energy” reached a threshold of use.  But now we are seeing them in all their ugliness. Green policies are killing whales, and birds, and polluting the earth.


The Prickly Pear’s TAKE ACTION focus this year is to help achieve a winning 2024 national and state November 5th election with the removal of the Biden/Obama leftist executive branch disaster, win one U.S. Senate seat, maintain and win strong majorities in all Arizona state offices on the ballot and to insure that unrestricted abortion is not constitutionally embedded in our laws and culture.

Please click the TAKE ACTION link to learn to do’s and don’ts for voting in 2024. Our state and national elections are at great risk from the very aggressive and radical leftist Democrat operatives with documented rigging, mail-in voter fraud and illegals voting across the country (yes, with illegals voting across the country) in the last several election cycles.

Read Part 1 and Part 2 of The Prickly Pear essays entitled How NOT to Vote in the November 5, 2024 Election in Arizona to be well informed of the above issues and to vote in a way to ensure the most likely chance your vote will be counted and counted as you intend.

Please click the following link to learn more.

Understanding Solar Flares and What They Can Do To Us thumbnail

Understanding Solar Flares and What They Can Do To Us

By Amil Imani

The sun, our life-giving star, is a dynamic ball of constantly changing plasma.  Among the most spectacular phenomena it produces are solar flares, intense bursts of light, and energetic radiation that erupt from its surface.  While these events capture our imagination, they also raise concerns.

Solar flares originate in the sun’s atmosphere, specifically in regions with intense magnetic activity.  These areas, known as “sunspots,” exhibit complex interactions among magnetic fields, leading to the sudden release of enormous amounts of energy.  This energy manifests as intense radiation across various wavelengths, including visible light, ultraviolet light, X-rays, and gamma rays.  Additionally, solar flares can propel streams of charged particles into space, known as coronal mass ejections (CMEs).

Fortunately, Earth possesses several natural barriers that protect us from the brunt of solar flares.  Our planet’s magnetic field acts as a shield, deflecting most harmful radiation and charged particles.  The atmosphere further filters out a significant portion of the remaining radiation.  However, this protection could be better, and the intensity of a solar flare can determine the extent of its impact.

Solar activity exhibits cyclical patterns, with periods of high and low activity.  The sun is in the rising phase of its 11-year cycle, which means that an increased frequency of solar flares can be expected in the coming years.  While most flares are relatively minor, large flares can trigger a cascade of effects on Earth.

Radio blackouts: Intense X-rays can temporarily disrupt radio communications, impacting air traffic control, navigation systems, and emergency services.

Power grid disruptions: Induced currents in power grids due to geomagnetic storms can cause transformer failures and widespread blackouts.

Satellite malfunctions: Energetic particles can damage sensitive electronics aboard satellites, impacting GPS navigation, communication networks, and scientific observations.

Aurora borealis and australis: Increased charged particles create stunning auroral displays but pose radiation risks to astronauts and high-altitude aircraft.

Solar flares are indeed powerful events.  However, while they are a natural phenomenon we should be aware of, it’s important to maintain perspective and not let fear overwhelm us.  Here are some key points to consider:

Solar superflares are rare: While observed on other stars, superflares from our sun are highly uncommon.  Evidence suggests that the sun experiences powerful flares roughly every 10,000 years, and even those may not be as devastating as the worst-case scenarios depict.

Scientific warning: Solar activity is closely monitored, and scientists would likely anticipate a superflare with some lead time.  This allows for potential mitigation measures like shutting down power grids to minimize damage.

How to prepare: Although complete protection might not be feasible, taking steps like hardening critical infrastructure, developing backup systems, and raising awareness can still significantly reduce the impact.

Not everything dies: Even in a worst-case scenario, the extent of the damage would depend on the characteristics of the flare and our preparedness.  Life might persist in sheltered areas, and the planet would eventually recover.

Focus on what you can control: Instead of dwelling on worst-case scenarios, let us focus on actions that empower.  Staying informed about solar activity is one; supporting efforts to improve preparedness is an extra step.  Advocating for resilient infrastructure should be a continuous effort.

Understanding and predicting solar flares is crucial for minimizing their impact.  International organizations like NOAA closely monitor solar activity and issue timely warnings of impending events.  This allows critical infrastructure operators to take precautionary measures, such as switching to backup power systems or shielding sensitive equipment.

Research into space weather forecasting and mitigation technologies is ongoing, aiming to better predict and defend against future solar storms.

From understanding their mechanisms to mitigating potential effects, proactive preparedness remains vital in confronting the challenges posed by solar flares.  This ensures a more resilient future where our planet and its technological infrastructure can weather these natural phenomena.

We should do everything to approach this issue with informed caution and proactive solutions.

As an end note, this post only briefly overviews solar flares and their effects.  Please refer to authoritative sources like NOAA’s Space Weather Prediction Center for the latest information and warnings.

Copyright 2024. Amil Imani. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: Bill Gates’ Dark Dream of Blocking Sunlight from the Earth is About to be Realized

Big Climate Tries to Censor Opponents — Block TV Ads Opposing Biden’s EV Mandate. thumbnail

Big Climate Tries to Censor Opponents — Block TV Ads Opposing Biden’s EV Mandate.

By The Geller Report

The objective of the climate complex is to remove as much of our freedom as possible.

JP Morgan Chase, BlackRock and State Street have confirmed they are exiting the world’s largest climate alliance which seeks to push investors away from funding the fossil fuel sector. It’s a hoax. So the truth must be crushed.

Big Climate Tries to Censor Opponents

Progressives move to block TV ads opposing the Biden EV mandate.

By The Editorial Board, Wall Street Journal, February 16, 2024:

If President Biden’s electric-vehicle mandate is as popular as progressives claim, why are they trying to censor critics who want to inform the public about the mandate’s costs?

That’s the story this week, after the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM) launched ads in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Nevada, Arizona, Ohio and Montana to educate Americans about the Administration’s back-door EV mandate. Mr. Biden is “rushing to ban new gas-powered cars” and wants “to force you into an electric vehicle,” one ad says.

The Biden team doth protest. “There is no EV mandate,” a Biden campaign official declared. No? The Environmental Protection Agency has proposed greenhouse gas emissions standards that would effectively require that EVs make up two-thirds of auto maker sales by 2032. The standards will “accelerate the transition to electric vehicles,” EPA said.

EPA’s proposed emissions rules are so stringent that auto makers will be able to comply only by producing an increasing number of “zero-emission vehicles” or by buying regulatory credits from EV manufacturers like Tesla
. Americans shopping for a new car will have no choice but to buy an EV or pay a fortune for the few gas-powered cars still available.

Yet Mr. Biden and his allies don’t want voters to know that banning gas-powered cars is their end game. That’s why the progressive umbrella group Climate Power on Tuesday shot off a missive to broadcasters demanding that they pull the AFPM ads—or else. These “advertisements include obvious lies aimed at deceiving the public and must be pulled from the air immediately,” Climate Power chief operating officer Jill Shesol wrote. But who’s actually trying to deceive the public?

The letter cites a PolitiFact report claiming it is “wrong to say there is a ‘Biden mandate’ to replace gasoline-powered cars with [electric vehicles].” PolitiFact is a liberal opinion operation. Was it also wrong for the New York Times
last May to report that EPA’s proposed rule is “designed to ramp up sales of electric vehicles while ending the use of gasoline-powered cars”?

“The EPA does not have the authority to demand such a mandate,” the Climate Power letter says. Correct, which is why the EPA is using regulation to impose the de facto mandate. The Obama Administration similarly tried to force a transition to renewable power by setting unfeasible emissions standards for fossil-fuel power plants.

Climate Power warns local broadcasters that the Federal Communications Commission could pull their licenses if they continue broadcasting the ads. “Failure to prevent the airing of ‘false and misleading advertising’ may be ‘probative of an underlying abdication of licensee responsibility’ that can be cause for the loss of a station’s license,’” the letter says.

EDF Action on Tuesday also sent stations a letter claiming that the AFPM ad “appears to be a deliberate attempt to tarnish the politicians . . . who may support policies that reduce air pollution and save lives.” But President Biden isn’t trying to reduce air pollution or save lives, and the EPA rule doesn’t aim to do either.

Opponents of “cleaner alternatives,” the letter adds, “do not have the right to mislead voters and spread disinformation on public airwaves.” But they do have a First Amendment right to critique public policies that damage their livelihoods.

Keep reading.


Pamela Geller


DAVID BLACKMON: The Billionaire Class Is Fueling The War Against Abundant American Energy

Biden Admin To Ease Electric Vehicle Goals In Bid For Union Support: REPORT


When America leads the world in producing and exporting energy, America’s economy, energy security, and allies all benefit. 

This week, the House passed Unlocking our Domestic LNG Potential Act to depoliticize the LNG approval process and unleash American energy producers from…

— Speaker Mike Johnson (@SpeakerJohnson) February 17, 2024

Ep. 75 The national security state is the main driver of censorship and election interference in the United States. “What I’m describing is military rule,” says Mike Benz. “It’s the inversion of democracy.”

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) February 16, 2024

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

Bill Gates’ Dark Dream of Blocking Sunlight from the Earth is About to be Realized thumbnail

Bill Gates’ Dark Dream of Blocking Sunlight from the Earth is About to be Realized

By Leo Hohmann

“And that You should reward Your servants the prophets and the saints, And those who fear Your name, small and great, And should destroy those who destroy the Earth.” -Rev. 11:18

Bill Gates, ever the demented snake oil salesman, has long argued in favor of a bizarre plan to fight global warming by using experimental geoengineering to partially block the sun’s rays from reaching Earth.

Well, he’s apparently about to get his wish.

Scientists plan to begin pumping chemicals into the sky over the next few weeks and months from several countries around the globe, including the U.S., Australia and Israel.

The idea, promoted by Gates and leftist billionaire George Soros, involves pumping manmade white clouds containing chalk dust and other chemicals into the atmosphere to reflect sunlight away from the Earth’s surface.

Blocking the sun’s light would allegedly lower the planet’s temperature enough to reverse global warming.

Never mind that fruit trees and vegetables require sunlight in order to grow and produce food for the masses. Not to mention, sunlight is the primary source of critical Vitamin D, an essential nutrient for human immunity. Gates, a known eugenicist who goes around giving talks about how we need to reduce the global population, likely sees these dark possibilities as exciting side effects of the nefarious sun-blocking plan.

Soros is similarly excited about the plan. He says the technology will help to prevent ice from melting in Greenland, which he claims could doom human civilization.

How ironic that the very globalists who are doing everything in their power to destroy human civilization claim to be worried that global warming might speed up the process.

Globalists like Bill Gates and George Soros are doing harm to the environment through their genocidal climate agenda on multiple levels. They advocate blanketing our fertile farmland with toxic solar panels, while filling more acres of farmland with wind turbines that kill birds and other wildlife. They also push electric cars which run on toxic lithium batteries that are going to create an environmental nightmare in the years ahead because, like with the solar panels, there’s no way to safely dispose of them.

Chloe Aiello of Inc. magazine reported on February 13, 2024, that a Bill Gates-Backed Startup Just Raised $145 Million to Source Lithium-Ion Batteries for Electric VehiclesMuch of the lithium mined in the world today is done on the backs of child labor in poor countries of Africa and Asia. But don’t tell that to Bill Gates, George Soros, Larry Fink and their buddies at the World Economic Forum.

Despite their destructive plans, these globalists insist they are our saviors and we should look to them for answers on how to live a sustainable lifestyle. Please.

About the devious sun-blocking formula, Soros said: “Our civilization is in danger of collapsing because of the inexorable advance of climate change. The melting of the Greenland ice sheet would increase the level of the oceans by 7 meters. That poses a threat to the survival of our civilization.”

Of course this is all nonsense meant to stoke fear. A fearful population will beg for solutions to the imaginary problem, inviting their own enslavement. More than 20 years ago, Al Gore made the exact same dire predictions about ice melting, polar bears dying, hurricanes increasing, and whole cities being submerged in water. None of these apocalyptic predictions have materialized.

According to a report by Slay News, the tactics advocated by Bill Gates involve spraying aerosol concentrations into the stratosphere to reflect solar radiation away from the Earth.

Gates has been funding a major project at Harvard using balloons to deploy aerosols. The Harvard project was shut down following public backlash.

But now, the Wall Street Journal is reporting that another group of scientists has been advancing Gates’ idiotic and, frankly, dangerous plan.

Marine Cloud Brightening is a research project led by Southern Cross University as part of the $64.55 million, or 100 million Australian dollars, Reef Restoration and Adaptation Program.

The program involves modifying clouds to make them reflect sunlight away from the Earth to supposedly stop global warming.

Slay News reports:

“This week, researchers aboard a ship off the northeastern coast of Australia near the Whitsunday Islands started spraying a briny mixture through high-pressure nozzles into the air in an attempt to brighten low-altitude clouds that form over the ocean.

“Scientists hope bigger, brighter clouds will reflect sunlight away from the Earth, shade the ocean surface, and cool the waters around the Great Barrier Reef.”

In Israel, another startup called Stardust Solutions has begun testing a system to disperse a cloud of tiny reflective particles about 60,000 feet in altitude.

These geoengineered clouds reflect sunlight away from Earth to cool the atmosphere in a concept known as solar radiation management.

And, in Massachusetts, researchers at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution are preparing to pour 6,000 gallons of a liquid solution of sodium hydroxide, a component of lye, into the ocean 10 miles south of Martha’s Vineyard this summer.

Some would argue that “cloud seeding” has been going on for years. Take a look at this shot I took of the sky above my house a few weeks ago.

Does the sky in the photo above look normal?

With all these chemicals being sprayed above us, what could possibly go wrong?

Let’s pray this ill-advised experiment fizzles out before it can do too much damage.

Copyright 2024. All rights reserved. is 100 percent reader supported, not beholden to any, ads, sponsorships or other streams of income form government, corporate or nonprofit entities. If you appreciate my reporting and analyzing of the most important news and would like to support my efforts, you may send a donation of any size c/o Leo Hohmann, P.O. Box 291, Newnan, GA 30264, or via credit card.

Kill Them All — O’Biden/Globalist Net Zero Agenda thumbnail

Kill Them All — O’Biden/Globalist Net Zero Agenda

By Karen Schoen

Let’s start out with a little humor. Remember this: Humor

What a week this was I hardly know where to start. One thing we should have learned is that when we call our legislators and conduct oversight it works. Because of our efforts the non-border border bill was killed. But fear not the RINOS and the Communists/Globalists in the Senate will twist enough arms, threaten enough people so that they will offer another bill with aid for Ukraine again. Think about how important Ukraine is to these criminals. Are they getting paid off? Do they need to give their lobbyist contractor friends money? Need to continue their human sex trafficking? Need to continue their drug pipeline? One thing is true they will never stop. We have to make sure that we never stop either. We have to continue our calls or emails to our legislators.

We can see clearly now that thugs/grifters are running this government and they will do anything to maintain control. But the people are smarter. We now see when we act we take back our power. The shift of power makes them crazy. We must make sure this election is overwhelmingly crushing against the globalist. We’re off to a good start. Nikki Haley lost to none of the above in Nevada. Trump won with an overwhelming majority and the US Virgin Islands . We have to see that in every state.

If you have not seen the report from Special Council Richard Hur on dementia Joe he proves what we already knew. Hur said even tough Joe committed multiple felonies, his is a “well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory.” No, sorry if he is well enough to be President and destroy the county, he is well enough to be prosecuted.   In the meanwhile  Trump gets all the wrath because he is mean MAGA man who committed no crimes. seniors if you commit a crime or get in trouble remember you new defense “I am well-meaning, elderly man/woman with a poor memory.”

The government favors the globalists. Joe has dementia and is pathetic. So what do we do about it? We need to call the House and Senate oversight committees and tell them that  Obiden is a compromised leader and if he is not well enough to be prosecuted for a felonies which he committed by taking classified material as a vice president when he had no right to classify material, then how can he be in charge of negotiation for anything good for Americans. Part of dementia is illusion and that’s what he is living under while forcing it upon us. Sadly the alternative will be Affirmative Action Graduate Kamala who maybe worse. But I think not because Joe was never really running the country anyway.  The question is: Will the lying DNC take Joe out themselves or make him go through article 25? Or impeachment? Or leave him in office without ability to make any America killing policies.  But regardless it is a disgrace to see what the leadership thinks of America. Remember Trump can not do this alone. We must vet candidates to get him support in both houses.

Another lie this week was the Bureau of Labor Statistics.  BLS reported that we had the biggest job growth beating all expectations. Zero Hedge said it was the most ridiculous jobs report in recent history. Why would they say that? Was BLS lying? They weren’t really lying, they just manipulated the numbers. Does that count?  Basically they changed the amount of hours they reported so it looked like more people had jobs and got higher wages.

This is the way the new economy works. The Feds print money out of thin air. The Feds give the money to the government, who gives the money to the UN, who gives the money to the NGO’s, who gives the money to illegals to invade our country, who then buy things to support the donors of the Globalists, who gives the money back to the Globalists.  Then the lying media and globalist government reports that the economy is doing great as another trillion is added to the debt that the American people must pay.  And the rich 1% get richer.  That is modern day fascism aka slavery.  If you want to see the theft in action see: The Great Taking

Globalists tell us it is our fault for eating too much meat, using to much fossil fuel, turning on the air conditioning. They dream up programs to force us to live in 15 minute cities so they can monitor our every move. And once again they get richer. Read what is going on in South Florida since DeSantis sold the state to his developer friends. Then you will know what to look for in your state. This is the Great Reset or the destruction of the American Dream.

Let’s tackle the greatest lie which we have been told over and over again.  No it’s not China.  No it’s not illegals.  No it’s not Iran, or the Middle East. No it’s not Russia.  Can you guess?  It’s climate change. The farmers are rising up in Europe and the truckers are rising up in America as people all over the world reject world wide slavery and hunger. We must peacefully protest.  They want civil war so they can declare a national emergency and stop the election. Too many western countries are having elections in 2024. Too many nationalists are running for office. This is the big threat. It’s numbers that count,. We must vote. Remember every time they tell you net zero, to get rid of CO2, to get rid of nitrogen, to stop farming or that agriculture is bad they want us dead.  Globalists are putting in place a plan that will kill humanity. CO2 is one of the most necessary gases to sustain life. The biggest emitter of CO2 is water vapor. The Earth is 75% water.  Humans have no control over the weather.

Great video to share with your friends.


Everything is connected. Nothing is random, Everything has a plan. All plans are lies. All Globalists want is MONEY, POWER, CONTROL Don’t give them yours. Challenge them with the truth. Doing Nothing is affirmation.


The Crime of Breathing

TIK History: The Cult many are in but don’t realize (explaining Hegelian dialectics)

Copyright 2024. Karen Schoen. All rights reserved.

CONSERVATION NATION VIDEO: The Biden Threat to Alaskan Mining thumbnail

CONSERVATION NATION VIDEO: The Biden Threat to Alaskan Mining

By Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow

We just released a new episode of our “wildly” popular original video series, Conservation Nation.

Please watch our Conservation Nation videos.

In this latest program, host Gabriella Hoffman (who also serves as a CFACT senior policy analyst) journeys to Alaska to look into how mining operations are carried out in this beautiful, yet remote state.

As CFACT supporters know, Alaska is chock full of critical minerals needed to run our modern society. Gold, silver, copper, zinc, graphite, cobalt, lead, and rare earth elements are all found in abundance up there. That’s why domestic mining in the region is necessary for supplying America’s technological and electricity generation needs.

Sadly, our ability to get these minerals is being hampered by the Biden Administration and radical Greens. In fact, as the latest episode points out, the Biden administration is actively blocking new Alaska mining projects in the name of fighting climate change. One of these being targeted is known as Ambler Road –an infrastructure project supported by Alaskans to reach the Ambler Mining District.

If the Green radicals succeed in taking this project down it would be bad news for all of us.

Alaskan mining is a big positive.  Viewers will learn that the Alaskan mining industry supports 10,800 total direct and indirect jobs, paying an average annual wage of $118,000—more than any other sector of the state’s economy.

And, of course, there’s also a little fun added in.  You’ll get to see Gabby attempt to pan for a little gold and land a wild Alaska salmon.

Make sure you don’t miss this program.

EDITORS NOTE: This CFACT column is republished with permission. All rights reserved.

An Insurance Scam that Affects Us All thumbnail

An Insurance Scam that Affects Us All

By John Droz, Jr.

We are being fleeced by film-flam artists.

The absurdity of a requested 100% rate increase for some North Carolina property owners got my attention. (Note that insurance PR people knew that 100% might sound unreasonable, so they adjusted it to be 99.4%!). Let’s back up a bit to see what’s going on here…

Every one of us pays for insurance, one way or another. Some of the most common types of insurance related to property are: homeowners, flood, wind, earthquake, umbrella, tenant, etc. Since what we pay is supposedly related to such matters as actuarial calculations, most of us believe that there is little we can do to complain about our premiums — as what would be the business basis of our argument?

I’ll try to answer that key question…

Note: this issue can get very complicated quite quickly, so this is a layperson’s overview. (FYI: when discussing rates, obfuscation is often a tactic purposefully employed by the insurance industry.) For simplicity, I’ll primarily talk about flood insurance. For those readers who have joined recently, you may have missed an earlier commentary I published on the flood insurance fiasco. Please reread that. I’m writing this update to focus on one unappreciated major development.

A profoundly significant change has happened in the property insurance business over the last decade or so — and almost no one is discussing it! The most fundamental property insurance question is: how is future risk calculated?

Traditionally (i.e., for as long as property insurance has been offered), future risk has always been primarily calculated based on PRIOR HISTORY.

For example, if your property is located near the ocean, river, etc., the insurance company’s estimate of the likelihood of your property flooding in the next year, was based on the average prior history. In other words, if your property was flooded once in the last hundred years, the future estimate for flooding risk would be 1/100 (1%) per year going forward.

All things being equal, that not only makes logical sense, it was also the basis for almost all insurance companies being profitable. That, in turn, resulted in FEMA et al being careless regarding underwriting policy conditions, actuarial flood rates, etc.

So along came a perfect storm: climate alarmism (and their government enablers) plus Katrina. Insurance companies saw this motley pairing as an exceptional opportunity to increase their profits: they scrapped historical data as being the basis for our rates.

NOW, future risk is calculated based on a computer program. Worse, this program incorporates some undeclaredundocumented, and unproven assumptions!

This is a revolutionary change, that is ripe for self-serving manipulations by the insurance industry. For example, using the traditional methodology, a homeowner could always choose to research prior history. They would then know for certain whether it was accurately reflected in calculations of future projections.

With the current methodology of everything done by a computer (and operated by men behind the screen), no homeowner (or anyone else — including watchdogs) has even a remote chance of double-checking hardly anything.

Insurance regulators wouldn’t normally allow such a change simply to make insurance companies more profitable. So the insurance industry shed crocodile tears while using Katrina and Climate Change as a double-barreled shotgun, to blast away any semblance of actuarial sensibility or accountability.

Rather than fix the multiple serious deficiencies with the FEMA flood insurance program, it’s much easier just to charge everyone more. (Again, I’m just using flood insurance as an example.) Consider that NC homeowners are being targeted with an average of 42% rate increase, for homeowners insurance (NOT flood insurance).

It’s all traceable to the same issue: calculating rates based on historical results is old school. Now, an unaccountable computer program is used to project future risk.

Critical-thinking citizens should be strenuously objecting to their state and federal representatives about this greedy and unaccountable sleight-of-hand.

Some articles of interest:

Copyright. John Droz, Jr.. All rights reserved.

The New Fear Weather thumbnail

The New Fear Weather

By Bruce Bialosky

Life-threatening’ storm to slam Southern California beginning Sunday, last for days

Monster storm bears down on California: The danger zones, the forecast, the warnings

Sunday’s ‘Pineapple Express’ expected to wallop Southern California

Forecasters say a second storm fueled by an atmospheric river will hit California next week, roughly doubling the amount of rain falling Thursday in Los Angeles and surrounding areas.

These are some of the headlines that we have been faced with recently regarding what is considered by most people in the world to be a normal part of life, but a strange phenomenon to people in Southern California – weather. We are so accustomed to “75 degrees and sunny” that when we actually must drive in the rain, it is a psychological experience for many. It seems that the press these days has nothing better to do than scare people.

I have been noticing this development recently that has followed on the heels of the mass evacuations occurring in areas where there were hurricanes. I have written previously about the fear tactics elected officials now use surrounding weather events ever since a governor received a tremendous backlash because some people died in his state.

The journalism students now running our publications have latched onto a new term – “atmospheric river.” It is the new cool term for a storm. It was developed in 1994 by a couple of researchers at MIT. The term describes the phenomenon’s characteristic of narrow bands of concentrated water vapor transport, similar to how a river carries water across land. This phenomenon has been around forever, but they developed this term for what we formerly knew as a “rainstorm.” As the storm rolled in it became a severe atmospheric river or a mega atmospheric river. It is the ‘in’ term with which to scare readers.

Let me be clear, the loss of life from these events should never be taken lightly. But the hysteria has escalated to a level where it has begun to have people shrugging their shoulders.

Right on cue, Governor Gavin Newsom declared a state of emergency so as to make it seem he cares and to elicit federal funding. He ignores the day-to-day state of emergency he and his party have created in his once glorious state.

The biggest issue has been the national (or should I say international) delirium over the rising deaths from heat (you know, Climate Change). I will state that an internationally known climate scientist and former director of the Danish government’s Environmental Assessment Institute in Copenhagen, Bjorn Lomborg, has debunked this numerous times, showing how many more people die from cold weather than hot weather.

What really brought total clarity to me was reading Eric Larson’s Isaac’s Storm. If you have not read Mr. Larson’s books, they are all a delight, and he is an outstanding author. This one was about the 1900 hurricane that destroyed Galveston, Texas. It was arguably the deadliest hurricane in history.

Larson lays out two important points in the prelude to the actual event. He describes the development of the U.S. Weather Bureau in the 1880’s which became official in 1890. It is now known as the National Weather Service (NWS). When you are told that this is the hottest year in whatever long period of time picked (by the journalism students) – 300 years, 1,000 years, or 100,000 years – the start day of the NWS provides some perspective about how long actual records have been being maintained. And how accurate do you think they were in 1882?

Larson then listed a litany of weather events that killed masses of people.

There was a cyclone in 1864 that killed 40,000 in Calcutta. There was another one in Backergunge in 1876 that killed over 100,000. In 1780 there was a series of hurricanes in the Caribbean that killed 22,000. In 2023, there was a category 5 hurricane that crossed Florida and created a national frenzy. I looked and looked but could not find a single death directly caused by the hurricane.

At 11 P.M. on Saturday night, the Beautiful Wife and I were finishing an episode of the Sopranos (yes, we decided with the 25th anniversary to watch it for a third time and are loving it) when Darling Daughter calls. She had just received a text that she should evacuate her condo in Toluca Lake in anticipation of a mandatory evacuation at 8 A.M. She was asking our advice.

We gave her some pointers though neither of us had ever been evacuated for any reason, let alone a weather event. I went to bed at 1:00 a.m. and woke up at 7:00 a.m. We had not received a phone call from DD asking for help. I looked out our front window. The street was bone dry. At 10 a.m. it was still bone dry. Called DD, she was still snoozing.

There are serious weather events that endanger people and sometimes people die from them and that is unfortunate and sad. But it is life. And we should be grateful for how improved our lives are today versus 200, 300 or 500 years ago when a lot many more people died with a significantly smaller world population.

We have had a lot of rain and some people have suffered. As of now, nine people have died which has been attributed to this massive pineapple express, mega super atmospheric river. That is one out of every 4.33 million Californians. Sadly, many more Californians died from drug overdoses in the same period.

In California, last year we were told we could delay filing our tax returns because of a few days of rain. How soon will it be before the delay is invoked for 2024? Our leaders, who I personally believe are a bunch of wimps, are trying to turn us into a bunch of wimps. I for one am not joining the wimp train. Just going to do the normal, common-sense things to stay safe.


This article appeared in FlashReport and is reproduced with permission from the author.


The Prickly Pear’s TAKE ACTION focus this year is to help achieve a winning 2024 national and state November 5th election with the removal of the Biden/Obama leftist executive branch disaster, win one U.S. Senate seat, maintain and win strong majorities in all Arizona state offices on the ballot and to insure that unrestricted abortion is not constitutionally embedded in our laws and culture.

Please click the TAKE ACTION link to learn to do’s and don’ts for voting in 2024. Our state and national elections are at great risk from the very aggressive and radical leftist Democrat operatives with documented rigging, mail-in voter fraud and illegals voting across the country (yes, with illegals voting across the country) in the last several election cycles.

Read Part 1 and Part 2 of The Prickly Pear essays entitled How NOT to Vote in the November 5, 2024 Election in Arizona to be well informed of the above issues and to vote in a way to ensure the most likely chance your vote will be counted and counted as you intend.

Please click the following link to learn more.

A House Divided [Thoughts for the 2024 Election] thumbnail

A House Divided [Thoughts for the 2024 Election]

By Ken Veit

It is alarming that such an important election coming in November may be decided by people who think that the only issue that matters is the “correct“ use of pronouns according to their personal preferences.

Rather, there are a lot more important issues that voters should consider and unfortunately, the country is deeply divided on these positions and the rift continues to widen.  We will attempt to make some generalizations for consideration, recognizing the hazards of making generalizations.

Here are some the the major national issues more important than the narcissism of a small minority of disturbed people:

National security: Those on the left historically have tended to focus on preventing World War III through treaties and international institutions.  Those on the right believe in the old Maxim that the only way to deal with bullies is to punch them in the face and national independence is critical. Those on the left usually have been on the side of the philosophy of “can’t we all just get along“ school of diplomacy, while those on the right favor, what used to be called “gunboat diplomacy”.  However, of late the left seems eager to promote endless wars of “nation building” while the right is becoming increasingly non-interventionist and isolationist.  In some cases, the two sides seem to have traded places.  The left now advocates the wide use of war powers by the President while the right increasingly believes broader consensus is needed by either a declaration of war or at minimum, and war powers resolution by Congress.

Immigration: Democrats focus on humanitarian questions. Republicans feel strongly that without border security, the whole concept of a nation disintegrates. Both sides see the other side as using this issue to “play politics”. This is true, but it is driving a wedge between opposing positions that are becoming more and more difficult to reconcile reasonably.  The left has degraded the idea of nationhood to the point it is disappearing while the right believes in the nation-state and secure borders.

Inflation: The left seems to have lost their fear of inflation and adopted Modern Monetary Theory.  However, they are sensitive to its political ramifications because the public does not like inflation. The public seems content to let the Federal Reserve deal with this problem and not vote against their local Congress member. The downside is the public does not fully understand the ramifications of Fed policy and its limitations. Both Republicans and Democrats seem to feel that the only way to curb inflation is to eliminate programs that the other party wants and increase spending on the programs that it wants. Therefore, the issue of deficit spending has become a truly bi-partisan failure with no real support for fiscal prudence.  The traditional position of “sound money” has virtually no voice.

Crime: Those on the left (particularly the extreme left) seem to feel that racism is the main cause of poverty and crime. Their solution seems to be greater tolerance towards crime and criminals.  They even seem to condone open theft of other people’s property as some form of justified income re-distribution.  It is as if reparations must come at the expense of Walgreens and Macy and that there are no social costs involved with this passive view of law enforcement. Those on the right believe that leftist welfare policies have destroyed the incentive to work, the family, and fatherhood and that throwing more money at problems like homelessness will only make more people more dependent on welfare.  External conditions are not responsible for people’s behavior rather it is people’s behavior that is responsible for their conditions.  Those on the right want to hold people accountable for their behavior while those on the left want us to understand and appreciate their behavior.

Education: The woke wing of the Democratic Party is devoted to critical race theory, the Black Lives Matter movement, and the spreading of identity politics. The Republicans are marshaling their forces and strong opposition to this, but far-left ideology is far more prevalent than most people want to admit.  The left has a firm grip on most of our public and even private institutions.

Energy: The Democrats see climate change as an “existential threat “focused on eliminating fossil fuels. The Republicans accept climate change as real but do not believe the problem is caused entirely by people.  In any event, the threat is insufficient to want to wreck the economy. A richer nation can afford sea walls, air conditioning, nuclear-powered desalinization, and other specific solutions to climate change rather than an attempt to change the entire climate of the earth when many variables are not under man’s control or even completely understood.  The left proceeds from a position of scientific hubris while the right entertains climate skeptics.  In either case, a nation that can’t cure drug addiction will have a hard time changing the climate with volcanoes, the tilt of the earth on its axis, ocean currents, variations of the sun, and unclear interplanetary influences completely out of man’s control or present understanding.

Abortion: This is not strictly a Republican versus Democrat issue. Yet, it is the number one issue for many of those who either see abortion as murder (and therefore a moral issue) or those who see it primarily as a question of individual liberty and female independence. The left says a woman has the right to control her body and is thus essential to feminist independence.  The right argues the baby is an independent life created by the mother and a father (who is never consulted) and is not part of her body. A life should not be taken for matters of convenience or advancement when other non-lethal alternatives are available.

Biden‘s approval ratings are among the lowest of any sitting president. The Democrats are extremely vulnerable, and they know it. However, the Republicans have proven in the past that they are perfectly capable of throwing away elections that the polls suggest they should have won, simply by nominating candidates, so extreme in their positions that they turn off voters who would otherwise be inclined to support them.

It is evident that diplomacy without hard military power has failed, and made us seem weak to the bullies of the world. Consequently, I support Israel’s approach.

On immigration, a nation has the right to exclude “foreigners“ and a very limited obligation to allow asylum seekers to demand many of the benefits of citizenship. As sanctuary cities are learning, when you have a large influx of aliens, someone has to pay with a reduction in their own standard of living. In this case, we reduce the standard of living of those living and contributing to our country while subsidizing foreigners who have not been contributing. Taxing “someone else“ inevitably runs into practical limits and political blowback.

Inflation is down, but not out. There are many causes of inflation, but what we have experienced over the last few years is mostly the result of too much money splashing around the economy, largely as a result of massive deficit spending and a Fed too accommodating to Congress and the Presidency.

While the Covid crisis hit some people especially hard financially, the government’s effort to alleviate suffering, while well-intentioned, largely substituted one type of suffering for another. A fundamental problem of many government programs is that they must send money to categories of people, rather than only to those truly in need. The term “truly in need” is a subjective one that can be manipulated for political purposes, and therefore, the government sends money to everybody in specific categories. That is why so many people got tax refunds during COVID-19 even though they were not truly needy.

The alarming increase in illegal immigration has been exacerbated by the absurd concept of “sanctuary cities“. My definition of a sanctuary city has officially decided that it does not have to obey the law if it doesn’t like it. This is the beginning of chaos, wherein we see cities where thieves, steal with impunity, and those being stolen from are to unable protect themselves. I wish I could decide not to pay my taxes because I don’t like what the government is doing with the money!

Education is an extremely important political issue. Authoritarian governments have long recognized that controlling the schools is the best way to spread ideologies. I believe that what is taught to our children should be controlled by parents locally.

I am not convinced that climate change is the existential threat to civilization that Biden claims. There is far too much suppression of anyone with opposing views. Destroying the energy industry is a sure way to turn us from a powerhouse nation into a second-rate nation. Too many “scientists” automatically endorse every study that supports Biden, and are living off grants that are only given to those whose “research” supports the government line. My feeling is that we would be smarter to spend money on the mitigation of climate change rather than wasting billions pursuing the impossible dream of a carbon-free world.

While I understand the sentiments of pro-lifers, I believe that this is a moral issue, rather than a political issue. Of course, the protection of citizens is a fundamental duty of government, however, it is also my opinion that moral questions should be decided by individuals and their religious beliefs, not by governments or by popular vote where good versus evil is decided by majority vote.  Government should not subsidize or promote abortions but also should not prohibit them.


As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Europe’s Farmers Protest Climate Alarmist Idiocy thumbnail

Europe’s Farmers Protest Climate Alarmist Idiocy

By Catherine Salgado

Farmers in several European countries have engaged in mass protests against the agriculture-wrecking, society-destroying, unscientific “green” agenda.

Climate alarmists have been wrong for 50+ years, and there’s plenty of evidence to expose the climate hoax. Yet elites around the world continue to tout the fake climate crisis as an excuse to transform society and increase their power. Farmers in Europe, facing land grabs and burdensome regulations in the name of climate change, are fed up.

Swedish journalist Peter Imanuelsen posted on Twitter/X, “The Belgian farmers have now joined the protests against tyrannical climate policies.” He also tweeted, “The French taxi drivers have joined the farmer’s protest. All of Europe is standing up against Climate Communism.”

Dutch political commentator Eva Vlaardingerbroek also tweeted information about the protests on Jan. 29:

French Farmers are currently blocking highways all over the country and are currently working on a ‘beseige of Paris’.

German Farmers have brought the city of Hamburg and its harbor to a standstill.

Belgian Farmers are out blocking highways and are dumping imported Ukrainian food that’s been exempted from EU regulations.

Of course, as Vlaardingerbroek noted, the global mainstream media is trying its hardest to pretend the protests aren’t happening. 15,000 extra police have reportedly been called in against the French farmers.

Let’s hope the freedom enthusiasm galvanizes more American farmers too.

Breitbart reported last week:

“French farmers have vowed to continue their tractor protests ‘for as long as necessary’ while laying the blame for growing rural anger at the feet of the European Union’s green agenda and the globalist government of President Emmanuel Macron.

Building off the momentum of the political gains from farmers in the Netherlands last year and the recent uprisings seen across Germany — not to mention decades of tractor protests already seen in France — French farmers said that they plan to continue shutting down motorways with their tractors at least until the end of the week and maybe even longer if the government fails to heed their demands…

Principally, the farmers are calling for their way of life to be respected by elites in Paris and Brussels. However, in terms of concrete measures, they have called for a reduction in onerous green regulations from the EU and from their government, which recently raised taxes on agricultural fuel.”

The French farmers do have other complaints, but the climate nonsense is number one. From Germany to France to Belgium, farmers are leading the way in standing for freedom and common sense against Marxist, woke ideology.


Catherine Salgado is an accomplished writer and investigative reporter who publishes daily in her Substack column, Pro Deo et Libertate (For God and Liberty). This superb column provides news and opinion pieces from an honest, common-sense perspective in the spheres of culture, politics, liberal arts, and religion. The Prickly Pear is grateful for her permission to reproduce her public writings and recommends that our readers subscribe to Catherine’s superb Substack column. Please consider a paid subscription for full access to all of her excellent and informative writings.

Image Credit: YouTube screenshot from The Guardian

This additional video is from a Jordan Peterson interview on the subject produced by Daily Wire and available on Rumble.


As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

What is ‘The Fifth Crime Ecocide?’ Is Ecocide coming to America or is it already here? thumbnail

What is ‘The Fifth Crime Ecocide?’ Is Ecocide coming to America or is it already here?

By Dr. Rich Swier

Marc Morano, founder of Climate Depot, appeared on the Glazov Gang to warn about Ecocide coming to America.

WATCH: ‘Ecocide’ Charges – on the Horizon

In a January 17th, 2024 Breibart article titled “Davos Speaker Demands International Criminal Court Prosecute ‘Ecocide’, Punish Farmers Alongside War CriminalsKurt Zindulka reported,

The International Criminal Court should add “ecocide” to its brief alongside genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes to criminalise the side effects of farming, fishing and energy production, a green activist argued during the annual World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland.

Greta Thunberg ally and CEO of Stop Ecocide International Jojo Mehta demanded during a WEF Davos panel dubbed “Where Nature Meets Conflict” on Tuesday that a new international criminal category of “ecocide” to prevent the “mass damage and destruction of nature”.

Mehta, who co-founded Stop Ecocide in 2017 alongside the late green legal activist Polly Higgins, said at the globalist World Economic Forum meeting: “What our organisation and other collaborators aim to do is to have this recognised legally as a serious crime because one of the issues that pervades this discussion is that we have a culturally engrained habit of not taking damage to nature as seriously as we take damage to people and property.”

While proponents of the legislation have often pointed to disasters such as oil spills and nuclear meltdowns, Mehta suggested that ecocide could be extended to include necessary functions of humanity such as agriculture and energy production.

“If you are campaigning for human rights, at least you know mass murder, torture all of these things are serious crimes, but there is no equivalent in environmental space. Unlike an international crime like genocide that involves a specific intent, with ecocide what we see is what people are trying to do is business, is to farm, is fish, is produce energy, but what is missing is the awareness and the conscience of the side effects, around the collateral damage that happens with that,” the green activist said.

Mehta argued that creating the criminal category of “ecocide” would “steer” individuals, businesses, and governments around the world in a “healthier direction”, presumably out of concern of facing prosecution at the International Criminal Court and potentially lengthy prison sentences.

The green activist has previously explained: “One can envisage, for example, once the law is in place, that a decision that leads to a new coal mine or a decision that leads to the opening of new fossil fuel projects will potentially have to be really seriously rethought.”

Jojo Mehta, founder of Stop Ecocide Now and an ally of Greta Thunberg, tells a WEF panel about her desire to criminalize the side effects of making money from farming, fishing, and creating energy.

— Rebel News (@RebelNewsOnline) January 16, 2024

Read more.

The Bottom Line

There is no crime of Ecocide, rather there is a war going on between those who want to “save the plant” by eliminating us humans. You see these humans see us humans as evil and worthy of punishment.

Punishments like:

  • Taking away all fossil fuels, including liquid hydrogen.
  • Taking away your food, like meat and poultry,  and replacing them with eating bugs.
  • Taking away all of your freedoms to life, liberty and happiness.
  • Farmers can be classified as “war criminals” if Ecocide laws are enacted.
  • Finally, those who are pushing Ecocide are now pushing extending “personhood”, the rights of people, to plants, animals, trees, rivers, lakes and even robots and AI programs.

They want nothing other than total control of how you live, what you purchase, what you eat and what you drive.

This is the definition to totalitarianism.

©2024. All rights reserved.


“Ecocide” may be another $hakedown of the U.S.A.

As the Climate Crisis Grows, a Movement Gathers to Make ‘Ecocide’ an International Crime Against the Environment

Ecocide: Should Destruction of the Planet Be a Crime?


Farmers could face criminal prosecution for doing their jobs.

Some might soon be labeled as guilty of “ecocide,” which was among the more controversial positions that came from the 2024 WEF conference in Davos.

— EpochTV (@EpochTV) January 31, 2024

.@monicalennon7 is consulting on a proposed Member’s Bill to protect the environment in Scotland and deter environmental damage by introducing the crime of ecocide into Scots law.

Share your views before the consultation closes on 9 February 2024:

— Scottish Parliament (@ScotParl) February 2, 2024

Already, there is a growing movement to grant human rights to plants, animals, rivers, and even artificial intelligence.

This is raising concerns over what it means for the value of human life if everything is treated on the same value as a human life.

— EpochTV (@EpochTV) January 31, 2024

Deterring Mass-Migration Is Not Difficult thumbnail

Deterring Mass-Migration Is Not Difficult

By Sumantra Maitra

State of the Union: There must be an overhaul of any post-1945 human rights framework and refugee conventions that oppose any deportation or martial action to deter migration.

As my colleague Jude Russo recently wrote, the most interesting and important news is not being covered much: the letter from the governor of Texas to the U.S. government declaring that the social compact between the federal government and the states is now broken. At least rhetorically, it appears that around fifteen or so states agree, and some of them have sent material and men to assist Texas in enforcing border control.

The issue isn’t complicated. This was the original idea of the United States: a union with no standing army but equal states helping each other during an invasion, with the federal government’s sole purpose being to come to the aid of the states. The United States is an entity where the states are supreme and decide their own destiny, especially during invasion and war. 

Yet the idea of the social compact being broken is an interesting one, and is now being echoed across the waters in Europe as well. Consider that the head of Frontex, the European Union border security and coast guard force that was created from the ashes of idealism post-2015, is now saying that there is no way to stop migrants. Hans Leijtens, a Dutchman who was recently appointed executive director of Frontex, recently declared that borders are obsolete, and that Europe should accept the fate and pivot away from the “narrative” of “stopping people.”

“Nothing can stop people from crossing a border, no wall, no fence, no sea, no river,” said Leijtens, whose solution was a managerial paean to “more openness.”

This sort of gives the game away. When both the U.S. federal government or Frontex in the E.U. demand more money, it is not to deter mass migration; it is to process illegal immigrants in a smooth, orderly fashion. They do not want to deter mass migration. They desire mass migration both ideologically, and, as recent reports go, materially.

Contrary to consensus wisdom, mass migration can actually be easily deterred.

The powers that be should be willing to sink the boats in the Mediterranean, target the human traffickers and cartels in both North Africa and Latin America, target the financing and processing of migrants by NGOs and other entities willing to aid and abet mass migration, and mass-deport the millions who came illegally after 2015. It can be done.

It is not done for two reasons. One, the post-1945 refugee convention and human rights laws, a relic of a different time, handicaps governments to take drastic actions. Two, the powers that be are ideologically aligned to promote mass-migration. To reverse that, there must be an overhaul of any post-1945 human rights framework and refugee conventions that oppose any deportation or martial action to deter migration. And there must be those willing to take action.

International law is practically a fantasy that states either can follow or disregard. India mass-deported Rohingya migrants. As did Pakistan with millions of Afghans. Israel has started to crack down on African mass migration. As has Saudi Arabia, which has gone as far as to shoot migrants. 

Deterrence needs force. Texas is right. It is up to the rest of the U.S. and Europe to follow.


This article was published by The American Conservative and is reproduced with permission.

Image Credit: Shutterstock


As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Globalists Are Using ‘Green Energy’ to Destroy Our Way of Life thumbnail

Globalists Are Using ‘Green Energy’ to Destroy Our Way of Life

By Ronald Stein

In 10 years before the proverbial 2035 date when many mandated transitions to “green electricity” occur to reduce or eliminate the usage of fossil fuels, most of today’s elected officials, policy advisers, and policymakers are:

  • Mostly NOT trained in engineering.
  • Only from wealthy countries.
  • Unaware of the engineering reality that without the petrochemicals manufactured from crude oil, those 6,000 products that entered society after the 1800s, started to disappear, the same products that have been the basis of the world populating over the last 200 years, after the discovery of crude oil, from 1 to 8 billion.
  • Unwilling to engage in conversations about where and how the world is going to replace the fossil fuels that are now providing the basis of all the “PRODUCTS” in society that did not exist before the 1800s.

Petrochemicals manufactured from crude oil:

  • Are key ingredients in manufacturing wind turbine blades and solar panels.
  • Are widely used in healthcare as feedstock for pharmaceuticals, medical equipment, and plastic medical supplies.
  • Are the key ingredients for construction materials to décor and kitchen necessities.
  • Are the basis of tires and asphalt used in transportation infrastructures.
  • Provide the fuels to move the heavy-weight and long-range needs of jets moving people and products, the merchant ships for global trade flows, and the military and space programs.

Those policymakers only focus on “just weather” dependent electricity generated from wind turbines and solar panels, i.e. “green electricity” that only exists because of subsidies from governments. They fail to understand that it’s the PRODUCTS that run this world, not just electricity. They also fail to comprehend that wind turbines and solar panels CANNOT make any products needed to support humanity.

Not being able to comprehend simple engineering principles, they fail to understand that all the components needed to make wind turbines and solar panels are made from petrochemicals manufactured from crude oil, the same crude oil that they want to rid the world of!

By 2035 most of today’s elected government officials and policymakers will be termed out of office, and either be retired or deceased, leaving their policies for today’s teenagers and grade school kids to pay for the implementation of those dictates from today’s “leaders” in wealthy country dictates!

The other 90+ percent of the world’s developing countries continue with unabated emissions for their dismal economies!

Today’s policy advisers, policymakers, and the news media, also mostly NOT trained in engineering, constantly refer to all climate changes being caused by humanity, but they never identify where most of that emission-generating humanity is located!

The healthy and wealthy countries of Germany, Australia, Great Britain, New Zealand, Canada, Japan, all the EU, and the USA representing about one of the eight billion of the world’s population could literally shut down, and cease to exist, and the opposite of what the media tells us and believes will take place.

Emissions will be exploding from those poorer developing countries, i.e., the other seven billion on this planet. Unlike the wealthy countries that have huge economies that can subsidize any delusionally obsessed idea, these poorer countries’ dismal economies cannot subsidize themselves out of a paper bag!

Simply put, in these healthy and wealthy countries, every person, animal, or anything that causes emissions to harmfully rise could vanish off the face of the earth, or even die off, and global emissions will still explode in the coming years and decades ahead over the population and economic growth of India, Nigeria, China, Pakistan, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Indonesia, Ethiopia, Egypt, and Tanzania. 

When Thomas Edison and his researchers at Menlo Park came onto the lighting scene, they focused on improving the filament — first testing carbon, then platinum, before finally returning to a carbon filament. By October 1879, Edison’s team had produced a light bulb with a carbonized filament of uncoated cotton thread that could last for 14.5 hours. They continued to experiment with the filament until settling on one made from bamboo that gave Edison’s lamps a lifetime of up to 1,200 hours.

Thomas Edison (1847-1931) is widely credited as the inventor of the incandescent light bulb, but the more accurate telling is that he improved on a technology that already existed. Many of Edison’s 1,093 patents were the product of teamwork, with a large team of researchers working out of his laboratory in Menlo Park, New Jersey. Their research also played a key role in the development of sound recording and motion picture technology.

One of his biggest achievements was opening the first power plant in New York City in 1882, the Pearl Street Station. He also installed the first electric streetlights in Roselle, New Jersey, marking the beginning of the end of gas lighting in American cities.

Eventually, Edison’s companies evolved into the General Electric brand, which is known for its washing machines, refrigerators, and electric light bulbs, which all utilize parts and components made from crude oil.

Looking back at the history of the petroleum industry, it illustrates that the black cruddy looking crude oil was virtually useless unless it could be manufactured (refineries) into oil derivatives that are now the basis of chemical products, such as plastics, solvents, and medications, that are essential for supporting modern lifestyles. The more than 6,000 products that are based on oil are being used for the health and well-being of humanity and the generation of electricity did not exist a few short centuries ago.

Today, we have more than 50,000 merchant ships,more than 20,000 commercial aircraft, and more than 50,000 military aircraftthat use the fuels manufactured from crude oil.

For aircraft and ships, just like that for the diverse options for the generation of electricity, they all utilize parts and components, i.e., the “PRODUCTS” made from the oil derivatives manufactured from raw crude oil.

When will our policymakers engage in conversations to identify the new source that will replace crude oil that is the basis of all the “Products” for today’s humanity of the 8 billion on this planet?


This article was published by the Heartland Institute and is reproduced with permission.

Image credit: Pixabay


As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Here Are Three Unanswered Questions About Biden EPA’s Massive Green ‘Slush Fund’ thumbnail

Here Are Three Unanswered Questions About Biden EPA’s Massive Green ‘Slush Fund’

By The Daily Caller

As Republican lawmakers prepare to grill a senior Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) official about one of President Joe Biden’s massive green grantmaking programs, several questions about the program’s structure and potential beneficiaries remain unanswered.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is sitting on a $27 billion fund known as the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), a program established by the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), Biden’s landmark climate bill. The House Energy and Commerce Committee is holding an oversight hearing on the program featuring Senior Advisor to the EPA Administrator Zealan Hoover on Tuesday in Washington, D.C., with Republican lawmakers describing the program as possibly spawning “the next big government boondoggle.”

The GGRF intends “to mobilize financing and private capital to address the climate crisis” using several subprograms, according to the EPA. The program’s expeditious timeline, as well as the connections that several of those groups share to the administration and the broader Democratic party apparatus, have attracted the scrutiny of government watchdog groups and elected Republicans alike in recent months.

House Passes EPA Spending Bill That Defunds Several Biden Climate Initiatives

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) November 3, 2023

How is the EPA ensuring that political connections do not interfere with selecting grantees?

Up to $14 billion of GGRF cash could go to so-called “green banks,” or financial institutions that provide financing specifically for climate-related investments, according to the EPA. Three of the five “green bank” consortiums reportedly on the shortlist to potentially receive multi-billion dollar payouts from the GGRF have considerable ties to the Biden administration or the wider Democratic Party and its allies. The coalitions are variously composed of environmental groups, nonprofits and smaller “green banks” that would distribute the awarded funds to projects they deem worthy of the material support.

“Many prospective recipients and sub-recipients are chock full of political operatives as well as individuals and organizations with ties to the current administration and its Democratic predecessors,” Michael Chamberlain, the executive director of Protect the Public’s Trust, a watchdog organization that has closely monitored the GGRF, told the DCNF. “This raises serious questions about the likelihood of the GGRF being used to advance partisan interests or reward former political appointees and those who helped elect the President or create the program.”

For example, the board of directors for the Coalition for Green Capital — one of the groups reportedly in contention for a major payday — includes David Hayes, a senior fellow for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) and formerly a climate adviser for Biden; Cecilia Martinez, who is now the Bezos Earth Fund’s chief of environmental and climate justice after a stint in the Biden White House Council on Environmental Quality; and Julie Greene Collier, chief of staff for the American Federation of Labor-Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO).

The committee could choose to dig into these connections and call on Hoover to provide a detailed description of internal EPA safeguards to ensure a competitive grantmaking process on Tuesday, as well as whether the agency is concerned about potential appearances of ethical impropriety or political patronage with its award decisions.

Why did the agency meet with major green groups about the program in November 2022?

The EPA met with several organizations connected to officials in the agency and the wider administration behind closed doors to discuss the fund in November 2022, about 11 months before the application window closed in October 2023. The meeting served as a chance for groups like the NRDC and the Center for American Progress to “provide early feedback” and “ask clarifying questions” about the GGRF process.

“Holding a chummy meeting with special interest organizations with deep connections to political leadership isn’t a good look,” Chamberlain said at the time.

Protect the Public’s Trust described the meeting as “highly irregular” back in September 2023, and Republican lawmakers could test his theory by asking Hoover to explain why this meeting was held, what specific issues were discussed and whether it is standard EPA practice to meet with activist organizations about major programs like the GGRF behind closed doors before the application window has closed.

How is EPA ensuring due diligence while also rushing to get funds out by September 2024?

The agency is endeavoring to shell out the bulk of the GGRF money by September 2024 per the terms of the IRA, but elected Republicans have suggested that this timeline significantly raises the risks of inadequate oversight. Watchdog groups that have previously raised the alarm on the program concur.

“Haste really does make waste, as we should have learned from the government’s COVID response. When federal programs are fast tracked at the expense of appropriate oversight, they’re vulnerable to waste, fraud, and abuse,” Pete McGinnis, the spokesman for the Functional Government Initiative, told the DCNF. “The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund sure looks like a taxpayer-financed $27 billion slush fund for Biden administration insiders pushing unproven technologies.”

Other similar government programs designed to boost green energy development with taxpayer-funded cash infusions have also shelled out money with a sense of urgency, leading to potential lapses in the due diligence process. the Department of Energy’s (DOE) Loan Programs Office (LPO), one such program reportedly trying to move funds quickly, agreed to provide one fledgling company a $375 million loan package while it was allegedly defrauding its investors, and another $3 billion package to another company that reportedly exploited elderly customers by having them sign long-term, expensive solar panel installation contracts.

Given the relatively quick timeline and the fact that GGRF grantees may serve as functional grantmakers outside of typical agency controls, Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee could press Hoover for detailed plans that demonstrate the agency is prepared to give out the money in a way that appropriately mitigates the inherent risks.

“While we are heartened to see the GGRF on the radar of Congressional overseers, we are equally disturbed about the reasons it has come to their attention. Members of the committee have expressed similar concerns as ours about the tremendous potential for abuse, conflicts, and cronyism inherent in this massive program,” Chamberlain told the DCNF. “The more details that emerge about the $27 billion GGRF, the more disturbed we become of the possibility this could turn out to be a colossal Greendoggle, or worse.”

For its part, the EPA has expressed to the DCNF that it is administering the program by the book.

“All applications submitted to the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund competitions are being put through a rigorous evaluation and selection process in line with the high standards of EPA’s Competition Policy, which ensures that the competitive process for EPA funds remains fair, impartial and free of undue influence,” an EPA spokesperson previously told the DCNF.

There are several key questions about the program that remain unanswered, and the House Energy and Commerce Committee has a chance to address the underlying risk factors when they convene Tuesday morning on Capitol Hill to hold a hearing examining the program.





Dem Lawmakers Want To Earmark $1,000,000 For Activists To Build ‘Environmental Justice’ Center

Dems’ Energy Permitting Reform Bill Includes Billions For Eco-Activist Groups

California Solar Companies Hit The Skids After Receiving Huge Handouts From Biden, Dems

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact