Scott Stringer Burdens New York City Taxpayers With His Woke Ways By Rupert Darwall

https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2020/07/08/scott_stringer_burdens_new_york_city_taxpayers_with_his_woke_ways_498355.html

New York City comptroller Scott Stringer is at again. Last Wednesday, the man responsible for the New York City Employees’ Retirement System’s (NYCERS) five pension funds wrote to the CEOs of 67 companies demandingthat they disclose the demographics of their employees by race, gender, and ethnicity—including in their leadership and senior management. “Creating a national movement on the green economy. That’s what Sunrise has been all about,” Stringer earlier declared at a virtual People’s Assembly on BlackRock in May. It’s one thing to have Sunrise Movement activists agitating for a far left Green New Deal that Congress is highly unlikely to pass. It’s quite another to have a climate activist running the $150bn of the city’s pension funds—the nation’s fourth largest.

According to a March report by the City’s Independent Budget Office, the Covid market meltdown, causing a 20% decline in asset values, would require an extra $412m in employer contributions for 15 years. The city’s pension funds were already in poor shape. Three years ago, a realistic estimate of NYCERS pension liabilities implied an average funded ratio of 47%, meaning that the NYCERS pension funds had less than half the money needed to pay promised benefits.

Putting a longtime climate activist in charge of running city pension money has turned out to be financially disastrous.

An Open Letter On Canceling Cancel Culture From The Greatest Living American Writer By Neal Pollack

https://thefederalist.com/2020/07/08/an-open-letter-on-canceling-cancel-culture-from-the-greatest-living-american-writer/
For those of you unfamiliar with cancel culture, it’s speech that speaks out against other speech that may be speaking speakings that other speakers find offensive.

The organizers of the recent Harper’s Magazine letter against cancel culture didn’t ask me to participate in their project, despite the fact that my Uncle, T. Gore Pollack III, was that magazine’s founding editor. They neglected to include me because they’re afraid of my ideas. Also, I’ve either divorced, broken up with, or participated in a conscious friendship uncoupling with at least a dozen of the signatories. Such is the price of profligacy and greatness.

Nevertheless, as the leading American thinker of my time, or any time, I feel a burning erotic need to speak out against cancel culture right now. For those of you unfamiliar with cancel culture, it’s speech that speaks out against other speech that may be speaking speakings that other speakers find offensive. Though I’m as immune to cancellation as I am to COVID-19, I’ve still felt the hot breath of the culture on my neck in recent years.

The Internet has met certain recent ideas of mine, such as the fact that Black men are actually white women, The Virus Is From Space, and Tom Brady is a TERF denier, with a fury usually reserved for people who are less handsome than I am. Emily Wallace-Wells, a staff writer from Voxios, released a three-paragraph statement that said my words decrying the desecration of the Dr. Seuss sculpture garden in Springfield, Massachusetts, made her feel “unsafe”, despite the fact that I’ve never met her and also the fact that she doesn’t actually exist. These are the sorts of nightmares that cancel culture has created.

Year Zero By Victor Davis Hanson

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/07/cultural-revolutions-start-year-zero/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=featured-content-trending&utm_term=first

E very cultural revolution starts at year zero, whether explicitly or implicitly. The French Revolution recalibrated the calendar to begin anew, and the genocidal Pol Pot declared his own Cambodian revolutionary ascension as the beginning of time.

Somewhere after May 25, 2020, the death of George Floyd, while in police custody, sparked demonstrations, protests, and riots. And they in turn ushered in a new revolutionary moment. Or at least we were told that — in part by Black Lives Matter, in part by Antifa, in part by terrified enablers in the corporate world, the new Democratic Party, the military, the universities, and the media.

What was uniquely different about this cultural revolution was how willing and quickly the entire progressive establishment — elected officials, celebrities, media, universities, foundations, retired military — was either on the side of the revolution or saw it as useful in aborting the Trump presidency, or was terrified it would be targeted and so wished to appease the Jacobins.

This reborn America was to end all of the old that had come before and supposedly pay penance for George Floyd’s death and, by symbolic extension, America’s inherent evil since 1619. As in all cultural revolutions, the protestors claimed at first at that they wanted only to erase supposedly reactionary elements: Confederate statues, movies such as Gone with the Wind, some hurtful cartoons, and a few cranky conservative professors and what not.

But soon such recalibration steam rolled, fueled by acquiescence, fright, and timidity. Drunk with ego and power, it moved on to attack almost anything connected with the past or present of the United States itself.

Soon statues of General Grant, and presidents including George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Andrew Jackson were either toppled or defaced. The message was that their crimes were being white and privileged — in the way that today’s white and privileged should meet a similar fate. Or, as the marchers, who tried to storm Beverly Hills, put it: “Eat the Rich.” They were met by tear gas, and not a single retired general double-downed on his outrage at law enforcement for using tear gas against civilians. Did the BLM idea of cannibalizing the billionaires include LeBron James, Beyoncé, Oprah Winfrey, and likely soon-to-be billionaire Barack Obama?

Reporting Renewable Energy Risks Paul Driessen

https://townhall.com/columnists/pauldriessen/2020/07/07/reporting-renewable-ener

Joe Biden has drifted far to the left and made it clear that, if elected president, he would restrict or ban fracking, pipelines, federal onshore and offshore drilling, and use of oil, coal and even natural gas. He’s selected Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as his climate and energy advisor and is expected to choose an equally “progressive” woman of color as his running mate (and president-in-reality).

He may also employ federal financial regulations to slow or strangle fossil fuel companies’ access to low-cost capital, further preventing them from producing oil, gas and coal. His official climate plan promises to require “public companies to disclose climate risks and the greenhouse gas emissions in their operations and supply chains.” By compelling them to present a litany of climate and weather risks supposedly caused or worsened by fossil fuel emissions, the rules could sharply reduce lender and investor interest in those fuels and hasten the transition to wind, solar, battery and biofuel technologies.

Those risks exist primarily in highly unlikely worst-case scenarios generated by computer models that reflect claims that manmade carbon dioxide has replaced the sun and other powerful natural forces that have always driven Earth’s climate (including multiple ice ages) and extreme weather. Actual data are often“homogenized” or otherwise manipulated to make the models appear more accurate than they are.

Models consistently predict average global temperatures0.5 degrees C (0.9 F) higher than measured. The12-year absence of Category 3-5US-landfalling hurricanes is consistently ignored, as are the absence of any increase in tropical cyclones, the unprecedented absence of any violent tornadoes in 2018 – and the fact that violent twisters were far fewer during the last 35 years than during the 35 years before that.

However, pressure group mob politics and the refusal of climate alarmists to discuss model failures and contradictory scientific evidence would likely make these realities irrelevant in a Biden administration. That would have devastating consequences for a US economy struggling to recover from Covid-19 and compete in a world where Asian, African and other countries are not going to stop using fossil fuels to improve living standards, while they mine the raw materials and manufacture the wind turbines, solar panels, batteries and biofuel equipment the USA would have to import under a Green New Deal (since no mining and virtually no manufacturing would be permitted or possible under Biden era regulations).

Lin-Manuel Miranda responds to critics calling to cancel ‘Hamilton’ By Zachary Kussin

https://nypost.com/2020/07/07/lin-manuel-miranda-responds-to-hamilton-criticism/

In the wake of recent Black Lives Matter protests, Lin-Manuel Miranda’s multi-Tony-winning “Hamilton” has fallen under scrutiny over its glorification of slave owners.

Miranda, 40, took to Twitter on Monday to respond to those critics.

This wave of criticism stems from the buzzy July 3 release of the show’s movie version on the streaming service Disney+, more than a year ahead of schedule, bringing with it a much wider audience.

On Sunday, Tracy Clayton — host of the Netflix podcast “Strong Black Legends” — tweeted that “ ’Hamilton’ the play and the movie were given to us in two different worlds & our willingness to interrogate things in this way feels like a clear sign of change.” In her thread, which earned 32,000 likes, she goes on to say that “ ’Hamilton’ is a flawed play about flawed people written by an imperfect person that gave my flawed and imperfect little life a big boost when i needed it most … but i do appreciate the change this illustrates & will be following the convo’s evolution.”

An environmentalist’s apology: ‘I was guilty of alarmism’ ‘I feel an obligation to apologize for how badly we environmentalists have misled the public’ Michael Shellenberger

https://spectator.us/an-environmentalists-apology-i-was-guilty-of-alarmism/

This article was originally published on Forbes website, but subsequently taken down. It has been republished on The Spectator’s UK website. Read the UK version here. 

On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologize for the climate scare we created over the last 30 years. Climate change is happening, it’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem.

I have been a climate activist for 20 years and an environmentalist for 30, so I may seem like a strange person to be saying this.

But as an energy expert asked by the US Congress to provide objective expert testimony and invited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to serve as an Expert Reviewer of its next Assessment Report, I feel an obligation to apologize for how badly we environmentalists have misled the public.

Here are some facts few people know:

Humans are not causing a ‘sixth mass extinction’
The Amazon is not ‘the lungs of the world’
Climate change is not definitively making natural disasters worse
Fires have declined 25% around the world since 2003
The amount of land we use for meat — humankind’s biggest use of land — has declined by an area nearly as large as Alaska
Carbon emissions are declining in most rich nations and have declined in Britain, Germany, and France from the mid-1970s
Netherlands is becoming richer, not poorer while adapting to life below sea level
We produce 25 per cent more food than we need and food surpluses will continue to rise as the world gets hotter
Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are potentially larger threats to species than climate change
Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels
Preventing future pandemics requires more not less ‘industrial’ agriculture

CDC: COVID-19 Deaths Peaked in Mid-April; Down 86% by Week Ending June 20 Susan Jones, 

www.cnsnews.com/index.php/article/national/susan-jones/cdc-official-us-covid-death-count-has-plunged-88-mid-april

(Note: This story, originally published on July 7, was updated on July 8 to reflect the numbers reported by the CDC as of that date.)

The number of deaths involving COVID-19 in the United States peaked at 16,394 in the week ending on April 18, 2020, according to the provisional COVID-19 death counts published by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), which is a part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

By the week ending on June 20, deaths involving COVID-19 had dropped to 2,287–a decline of 86 percent from the peak of 16,394.

WHERE ARE THE LIBERALS?

https://mailchi.mp/peaceandtolerance/when-did-the-left-first-go-woke-when-they-betrayed-black-slaves?e=c4e6370125

On this very day in 1997, Dr. Charles Jacobs, then the president of the American Anti-Slavery Group, an organization at the forefront of the war against modern-day black slavery in Africa, published a biting op-ed in The Boston Globe: “Where are the liberals?”

Back then, the world was slowly coming to grips with a stinging fact: that Arabs and Muslims own black men, women, and children as chattel property in Mauritania and Sudan — today.

The problem, however, was that all of the activist and media elements which one would think would jump to free modern-day black slaves — including the anti-apartheid coalition of the 1980s — simply weren’t there. Even worse, organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch — the people who had produced the original reports of slavery which alerted Dr. Jacobs and others to its horrors — simply refused to help.

Furthermore, so-called black “leaders” like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, world-famous figures with massive community and media clout, either directly rebuffed efforts to help tell the world, or backed off at the behest of actively hostile parties such as Louis Farrakhan (who preferred to blame the Jews).

Though a few brave and decent people in the mainstream media, such as at Dateline NBC and even The New York Times, did do their part in broadcasting the images and accounts of slavery, such instances of righteousness were few and far between — and today, are just about extinct.

Frederick Douglass would stand up for the Jefferson Memorial Jimmy  Sengenberger

www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/frederick-douglass-would-stand-up-for-the-jefferson-memorial

Lucian Truscott is the sixth-generation great-grandson of Thomas Jefferson. Truscott seems to think his family history (being a direct descendant of the author of the Declaration of Independence and the third U.S. president) gives him all credibility to call for the Jefferson Memorial to be removed.

Truscott contends “we don’t need” the monument. Monticello is enough because it emphasizes “his moral failings in full.” The Jefferson Memorial, by contrast, stands as a false “shrine to freedom.” And Truscott, as a descendant of Jefferson, clearly thinks he has full and unique authority to call for its removal.

What Truscott, writing in Monday’s New York Times, seems not to understand is that Jefferson and his memory do not belong to him and his family. He actually belongs to the United States. After all, Jefferson penned the words to what my radio colleague George Brauchler calls “the world’s greatest Dear John Letter.”

Indeed, the Declaration of Independence is essentially America’s breakup letter with the world’s most powerful empire, explaining why, try as we might, it’s really just not working anymore, and we can’t keep going like this. But the Declaration of Independence is much more than that. It is a profound statement of timeless and genuinely revolutionary principles of human liberty. For the first time in history, the ideas of “consent of the governed” and “unalienable rights” were proclaimed unequivocally.

Supreme Court Upholds Trump Exemptions to Obamacare Contraceptive Mandate . . . for Now By Andrew C. McCarthy

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/07/supreme-court-upholds-trump-exemptions-to-obamacare-contraceptive-mandate-for-now/

A victory for the Little Sisters of the Poor, but the case will drag on.

The Supreme Court has upheld the Trump administration’s exemptions to mandatory contraception coverage under Obamacare for employers with sincerely held objections. The ruling is welcome, particularly in its recognition that First Amendment religious liberty is not confined to identifiably religious organizations, such as churches, but to all Americans. Regrettably, however, the justices stopped short of a definitive ruling that would end the litigation, which the Little Sisters of the Poor have had to pursue for seven long years.

That explains the seemingly lopsided 7–2 decision in Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania. In his opinion for the Court, Justice Clarence Thomas concluded that the Trump administration had the authority under the Affordable Care Act (ACA or Obamacare) to issue the exemptions. Justice Thomas rejected the objecting states’ claims that the exemptions were not permitted under the ACA; and that, even if they were permitted, the administration had failed to comply with technical notice-and-commentary requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. (Interestingly, such technical APA flaws were Chief Justice John Roberts’s rationale for joining the Court’s four-justice left-wing bloc to invalidate the administration’s rescission of the Obama DACA decree — notwithstanding that the Obama administration had not complied with the APA in promulgating DACA.)

The Court’s ruling is fine as far as it goes. Nevertheless, Thomas reasoned that because the case could be decided based on the terms of the Obamacare statute itself, the Court need not reach the closely related question of whether the contraceptive mandate violated the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores (2014), the Court had held that the contraceptive mandate unduly burdened the free exercise rights of closely held corporations with sincerely held religious objections.