No, Senator Gillibrand. Republicans do not want to "cut" your Social Security. They want to END it. And before you clutch your pearls — let me explain the difference between cutting a thing and FREEING you from it, because judging by this graphic, that distinction ran right past you like a deer across the interstate. Here is what you are actually defending. Take an average American. Started work in 1981. Earned the national average wage every single year of his life. Over 46 years, he and his employer were FORCED to surrender 12.4 percent of every paycheck — roughly $250,000 — into your beloved system. What does he get back? Maybe $2,100 a month, IF he lives long enough to collect it. And when he dies, there is no account with his name on it. No balance. No nest egg. Nothing for his kids. Nothing for his grandkids. The money does not pass down. It evaporates. Now run that EXACT same money — same dollars, same 46 years — into a Thrift Savings Plan invested in an S&P 500 index fund. The same TSP our military uses. Through the 2008 crash, the 2022 downturn, every ugly year included. That same worker retires with somewhere north of TWO MILLION DOLLARS. He could draw more than four times what your check pays him, every single month — and the balance keeps GROWING. And when he dies? His children inherit the rest. Generational wealth. A head start. A family that climbs instead of starting from zero every single generation. So let us put your two parties side by side, since you were kind enough to bring a map. You brought the map; you just skipped the math, which tracks. What Democrats leave your kids when you die: $0. What Republicans — starting with George W. Bush in 2005, when he proposed personal retirement accounts and your party, running on dial-up in a fiber-optic world, shrieked that letting people OWN their own money was "destroying Social Security" — want your kids to inherit: a MILLION dollars and then some. Read that twice. Bush tried to let working Americans build wealth their families could KEEP. Your side called it an attack on the elderly. Quinn's First Law of Liberalism: liberalism always produces the exact OPPOSITE of its stated intent. You named it "Security." You engineered a machine that guarantees your kids start broke. Mission accomplished. And here is the part that should make every working family furious. A system that leaves your children NOTHING is not a bug to your party. It is the product. A population with no inherited wealth is a population that needs the next government check, and the one after that, and votes accordingly. The antebellum South understood the value of a permanent dependent class. So does your fundraising team. Different century, same arithmetic. This is not complicated, Senator. It is grade-school compound interest — which I realize is weapons-grade material in your caucus. And spare me the lecture from someone who wrote her own pension. You and your colleagues draw a FERS pension on TOP of the Social Security the rest of us are chained to, so forgive me if I do not take retirement advice from a woman who made certain she would never have to live on the thing she is fundraising to "protect." What is next? You ask me to flip four Senate seats to "protect" the very system quietly looting my grandkids' future... wait. You already did that. That IS the post. But what do I know. I am only a science teacher who can run a compound-interest calculation without a staffer holding the crayons. @catturd2 @GuntherEagleman @JoJoFromJerz #MAGA #Veterans #Trump

Take a moment to read this - it's from someone I regularly interact with on here. Someone who consistently has funny and thoughtful takes. Oh, and she's a black woman.

This article was written by a 26 yr old college student by the name of Alyssa Ahlgren, who's in grad school for her MBA. What a GREAT perspecitve..👍🏽 My Generation Is Blind to the Prosperity Around Us! I'm sitting in a small coffee shop near Nokomis (Florida) trying to think of what to write about. I scroll through my newsfeed on my phone looking at the latest headlines of presidential candidates calling for policies to "fix" the so-called injustices of capitalism. I put my phone down and continue to look around. I see people talking freely, working on their MacBook's, ordering food they get in an instant, seeing cars go by outside, and it dawned on me. We live in the most privileged time in the most prosperous nation and we've become completely blind to it. Vehicles, food, technology, freedom to associate with whom we choose.These things are so ingrained in our American way of life we don't give them a second thought. We are so well off here in the United States that our poverty line begins 31 times above the global average. Thirty One Times!!! Virtually no one in the United States is considered poor by global standards. Yet, in a time where we can order a product off Amazon with one click and have it at our doorstep the next day, we are unappreciative, unsatisfied, and ungrateful. ?? Our unappreciation is evident as the popularity of socialist policies among my generation continues to grow. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently said to Newsweek talking about the millennial generation, "An entire generation, which is now becoming one of the largest electorates in America, came of age and never saw American prosperity." Never saw American prosperity! Let that sink in. When I first read that statement, I thought to myself, that was quite literally the most entitled and factually illiterate thing I've ever heard in my 26 years on this earth. Many young people agree with her, which is entirely misguided. My generation is being indoctrinated by a mainstream narrative to actually believe we have never seen prosperity. I know this first hand, I went to college, let's just say I didn't have the popular opinion, but I digress. Why then, with all of the overwhelming evidence around us, evidence that I can even see sitting at a coffee shop, do we not view this as prosperity? We have people who are dying to get into our country. People around the world destitute and truly impoverished. Yet, we have a young generation convinced they've never seen prosperity, and as a result, we elect some politicians who are dead set on taking steps towards abolishing capitalism. Why? The answer is this,?? my generation has only seen prosperity. We have no contrast. We didn't live in the great depression, or live through two world wars, the Korean War, The Vietnam War or we didn't see the rise and fall of socialism and communism. We don't know what it's like to live without the internet, without cars, without smartphones. We don't have a lack of prosperity problem. We have an entitlement problem, an ungratefulness problem, and it's spreading like a plague."

Tout le monde pense que le monde libre a gagné en 1989, à la chute du mur de Berlin. C'est faux. Et c'est exactement pour ça que le monde est aujourd'hui en feu. Ce qui est tombé le 9 novembre 1989, c'est un appareil. Une économie planifiée, un empire militaire, un mur de béton. Ce qui n'est pas tombé, c'est l'idée. L'idée que le monde se divise en oppresseurs et en opprimés. L'idée qu'il existe une égalité finale à atteindre, par tous les moyens. L'idée que tout ce qui existe (la famille, la nation, le mérite, l'héritage) est une structure de domination à abattre. Cette idée-là n'était plus dans le bâtiment quand le bâtiment s'est effondré. Il faut reprendre la chronologie, parce que tout est dans la chronologie : Le communisme économique avait un défaut fatal : il était réfutable. Il promettait l'abondance, il produisait des famines. Il promettait l'émancipation, il produisait des barbelés. Budapest 1956, Prague 1968, L'Archipel du Goulag publié à Paris en 1973, les boat people de 1979 : à chaque décennie, le réel envoyait sa réfutation. Les boat people étaient une réfutation flottante, visible depuis les plages. Alors l'idéologie a fait ce que fait tout organisme menacé : elle a muté. La mutation a un nom, et j'en ai raconté la généalogie ici : la French Theory. Foucault a déplacé la guerre du terrain des faits, où le communisme perdait à chaque fois, vers le terrain du savoir lui-même. S'il n'y a pas de vérité, s'il n'y a que des rapports de pouvoir déguisés en savoir, alors plus aucune famine, plus aucun mur, plus aucun goulag ne peut réfuter quoi que ce soit. La French Theory n'a pas enterré le marxisme. Elle l'a rendu irréfutable. Et la mutation a des dates. Toutes antérieures à 1989. 1934 : l'École de Francfort, chassée d'Allemagne, s'installe à Columbia. La critique de l'économie devient critique de la culture. 1964-1965 : Marcuse, exilé allemand devenu professeur américain, remplace le prolétariat défaillant par un nouveau sujet révolutionnaire (les minorités, les étudiants, les marginaux) et écrit noir sur blanc que la tolérance doit être accordée aux mouvements de gauche et refusée à ceux de droite. Octobre 1966 : le débarquement a une date précise. Université Johns Hopkins, Baltimore. Derrida, Barthes, Lacan présentent la pensée française aux campus américains. 1967 : Rudi Dutschke lance le mot d'ordre, la longue marche à travers les institutions. 1968 : les révolutions de rue échouent partout. Qu'importe. La révolution ne passera plus par la rue, elle passera par la salle de classe. 1975-1985 : Yale, Berkeley, Columbia absorbent la théorie, qui devient le système d'exploitation des humanités. 1987 : Allan Bloom publie The Closing of the American Mind pour donner l'alerte. Un million d'exemplaires vendus. L'université le traite de réactionnaire et passe à autre chose. L'Amérique avait son Aron, elle en a fait la même chose que nous du nôtre. Puis arrive le 9 novembre 1989. Le Mur tombe. L'Occident célèbre. Fukuyama avait déclaré la fin de l'Histoire dès l'été, avant même la chute. On démantèle les missiles, on encaisse les dividendes de la paix, on déclare le match terminé. Nous avons célébré notre victoire sur une adresse vide. L'idéologie avait déménagé vingt ans plus tôt. Nous avons gagné contre les chars et perdu contre les chaires. Pendant ce temps, l'autre empire communiste faisait la lecture inverse. Pékin avait écrasé Tian'anmen dans le sang cinq mois avant Berlin. Sinistre, mais lucide sur un point : la Chine savait que la guerre était idéologique. Elle a choisi : abandonner l'économie marxiste, garder le contrôle du récit. L'Occident a fait l'exact opposé : il a gardé le marché et absorbé l'idéologie. Trente-cinq ans plus tard, regardez qui construit des centrales et qui déboulonne ses statues. Vous voulez la preuve que c'est le même logiciel ? Faites la table de correspondance. La lutte des classes est devenue la lutte des identités. Les koulaks sont devenus les privilégiés. L'autocritique maoïste est devenue le privilege checking. Les commissaires politiques sont devenus les DEI officers. Le samizdat est devenu le compte shadowbanné. La nomenklatura a quitté Moscou pour Davos et Bruxelles. Et le paradis ne s'appelle plus la société sans classes : il s'appelle l'équité, l'égalité des résultats. Exactement ce que je décrivais ici il y a quelques semaines. On me dira : il n'y a pas de Goulag. C'est vrai. C'est même tout le génie de la version 2.0. Le communisme dur devait briser les corps parce qu'il ne tenait pas les esprits. Le communisme mou tient les esprits : il lui suffit de briser les carrières. Pas de camps, des services RH. Pas de procès de Moscou, des excuses publiques. Pas de Sibérie, la mort sociale. Demandez aux émigrés du bloc de l'Est installés en Occident ce qu'ils ressentent en traversant une université américaine en 2026. Ils reconnaissent l'odeur. Et voilà pourquoi le monde est en feu. Une civilisation a passé trente-cinq ans à enseigner à ses propres enfants qu'elle était le problème. Résultat : elle ne sait plus défendre ses frontières, transmettre son héritage, ni même nommer ses ennemis. Quand la présidente de Harvard, devant le Congrès, répond que condamner un appel au génocide « dépend du contexte », vous voyez le logiciel tourner en production. Et les prédateurs du dehors lisent cette faiblesse comme un livre ouvert : Moscou teste, Pékin patiente, l'islamisme avance dans les rues de nos capitales. Le feu extérieur n'est que la conséquence du désarmement intérieur. On ne brûle bien que les maisons qui se sont vidées de leurs défenseurs. Le Mur n'est pas tombé. Il s'est déplacé. Il ne sépare plus l'Est de l'Ouest : il passe désormais à l'intérieur de chaque institution occidentale, entre ceux qui construisent et ceux qui déconstruisent. La première guerre froide s'est gagnée avec des missiles et du PIB. La seconde se gagnera avec des écoles, des médias libres et des modèles d'IA. Celui qui écrit les valeurs dans les machines écrira le prochain 1989. Cette fois, ne nous trompons pas de victoire. Au travail.

Wind and solar aren't the future - they are a high-maintenance, low-yield, asset-degrading collection of unreliable gadgetry. Ultimately, the actual physics makes them exceptionally intermittent and they fail to deliver a true net profit to everyone who was forced to subsidise them. We are told wind and solar are the limitless, romantic future of energy. But when you strip away the romance, they are not pristine monuments to progress. The reality is, they are complex jumbles of electronics, specialised glass, composite blades and concrete foundations. Like any domestic appliance, they degrade, malfunction and eventually they just wear out, sooner rather than later. Whether it is a 'minor rural block' or a massive multi-million-dollar commercial farm, the financial equation is plagued by intermittency. Because these technologies only work sometimes, they require trillions in redundant grid infrastructure, backup gas plants, or toxic, short-lived battery arrays just to keep the lights on. The narrative promises clean, free power from the sky. But both wind and solar are bound by physical barriers that guarantee they can never deliver the promised utopian returns. A wind turbine cannot simply absorb all the energy passing through it. In 1919, physicist Albert Betz proved that if a turbine extracted 100% of the wind’s kinetic energy, the air behind the blades would stop moving entirely, blocking any new wind from entering. The absolute mathematical maximum efficiency for any open-airflow turbine is 59.3%. Because of this physical wall, real-world utility turbines max out at around 45% efficiency in perfect conditions. But because the wind rarely blows at perfect speeds, their actual annual average output (capacity factor) globally sits at a dismal 25% to 40% depending on location. They aren't magical power plants; they are mechanical bottlenecks. Solar panels face an equally rigid thermodynamic wall. Standard silicon panels have a maximum theoretical efficiency of roughly 33% because nearly half of all incoming solar energy is simply too powerful to be captured and is instantly lost as heat, while another chunk of photons passes right through the material like a ghost. Millions of homeowners who bought into rooftop solar since the late 2000s are discovering the financial math didn't hold up. As early subsidies and high buy-back tariffs evaporated, owners were left with creeping daily grid supply charges and degrading panels. After only 10 to 15 years, the costly inverters fail, leaving properties with expensive, non-functioning roof clutter.

DAY 5. National Gun Violence Awareness Month. And I am still here. Still at the chalkboard. Still with data. And today I have a story for you that I think about more than almost any other. I want you to imagine what six seconds feels like when it matters. Not six seconds waiting for a light to turn green. Not six seconds deciding which coffee to order. Six seconds in which two people you know — men you worshipped alongside, men whose handshakes you knew, whose kids you watched grow up in the same pews — are shot dead in front of you. And then the man who killed them turns toward the rest of the congregation with a loaded shotgun and there are two hundred and forty people in that room who have nowhere to go. Six seconds. That is the entire story of December 29, 2019, at the West Freeway Church of Christ in White Settlement, Texas. And I need you to know it, because the people who want your gun have been hoping you forgot it. His name is Jack Wilson. He was 71 years old on the morning it happened. A firearms instructor. A volunteer — VOLUNTEER — security team member at his church. A man with a wife of 51 years who raised their family in Hood County and who, by all accounts, was just a steady, quiet, prepared man living a decent life. Keith Thomas Kinnunen walked into that Sunday service in disguise. Fake beard. Fake wig. Long coat. He sat down in a pew like everyone else. He waited through communion. And then he stood up, walked toward a church official, pulled a sawed-off 12-gauge shotgun from under that coat, and fired. Richard White, 67, was a security volunteer. He was shot first. Tony Wallace, 64, was a deacon — he had just finished passing out communion to the people he loved, doing the most ordinary and sacred thing imaginable, when he was shot and killed. And then Kinnunen started walking toward the front of the sanctuary. Two hundred and forty people, Mike. Two hundred and forty. Jack Wilson said afterward that he had "eyes" on Kinnunen from the moment he walked in. Something about him. A gut that comes from years of paying attention. He was standing at the rear of the church. He drew his SIG Sauer P229. He had people still standing, still panicking, still in his line of fire. "I had to wait about half a second — or a second — to get my shot," he said. "I fired one round. The subject went down." One round. Forty-five to forty-seven feet. To the head. In a room full of panicking civilians between him and the target. The entire attack — from first shot to last — was over in SIX SECONDS. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said afterward: "This church responded in seconds and it saved the lives of potentially over 200 people. They are the model for what other churches and places of business should focus on." Jack Wilson said something else. Something that has stayed with me since the first time I read it. "God's hand was on mine when I pulled the trigger." He called himself "no hero." He said he was placed in a position he did not want to be in but HAD to respond because — his exact words — "evil exists." Evil exists. Three words that every gun control bill in the history of this republic cannot address, refute, negotiate with, or legislate into submission. Evil exists. Jack Wilson knew it. He was ready for it. Two hundred and forty people went home to their families on a Sunday afternoon in December because one 71-year-old volunteer had the tool, the training, and the will to respond to it in under a second. Now. Let us talk about the numbers behind why this story matters beyond White Settlement. The FBI — the same FBI that is supposed to be tracking these things — reported just three new incidents of armed civilians stopping active shooters between 2022 and 2024. Three. In three years. The Crime Prevention Research Center, using the FBI's own definition, documented 78 such cases over the same period. The FBI missed 75 of them. Not miscounted. MISSED. According to Dr. John Lott's October 2025 analysis, the FBI has been systematically undercounting armed citizen defensive stops by more than three times the actual rate — for over a decade. Why does that matter? Because policy gets written from those numbers. Laws get passed from those numbers. Senators cite those numbers in committee hearings while standing in front of the cameras in orange shirts and talking about awareness months. Here is a number they will not put on a billboard: in locations where citizens are legally permitted to carry — meaning not gun-free zones — armed citizens stopped 51.5 PERCENT of active shooters. HALF. Not one in ten. Not one in twenty. HALF of active shootings in carry-permitted locations are stopped by a legally armed civilian. Here is another one. Concealed carry permit holders in Florida committed violent crimes at a rate of 0.2 per 100,000. The general population rate? 4.0 per 100,000. The people the gun control crowd has been warning you about for thirty years are TWENTY TIMES SAFER than the average person walking the streets of your city. And here is one more, because I am a science teacher and I do not stop at one data point. Since 1987, studies and surveys consistently show between 1.4 million and 4.3 million defensive gun uses in the United States every year. The floor estimate — the absolute most conservative number from the National Crime Victimization Survey — is 65,000 per year. 65,000 times every year, at a bare minimum, a law-abiding American uses a firearm to stop or deter a violent crime against them or someone they love. And the FBI reports 3 in a three-year period. That is not a measurement gap. That is a deliberate editorial choice made at every level of the system, from the FBI to the nightly news to the June orange ribbon fundraising campaign, to make sure you see the cost of firearms and never see the benefit. Jack Wilson is 77 years old now. He is a county commissioner in Hood County, Texas. He still attends West Freeway Church of Christ. He still goes to that building where two of his friends were murdered and where God's hand was on his that morning. He said he hopes he never has to do it again. But he would. That is not a threat. That is the quiet, steady, uncelebrated reality of 102 million armed Americans who go about their lives every day prepared to be the last line between the people they love and the evil that exists in the world. The awareness campaign wants you focused on the 4 people who died that Sunday. I want you focused on the 240 who did not. Both facts are real. Only one of them justifies the policy the left is selling. Quinn's Law Number Six: facts are the enemy of liberalism. So every June, they make sure you only see half of them. But what do I know — I am only a medically retired combat medic, a science teacher who has built his entire career on the idea that evidence matters more than emotion, and a father of four who sleeps better at night knowing that Jack Wilson's kind of person exists in this country. IF you agree: LIKE this post so the algorithm shows it to people who need to read it. SHARE this. Jack Wilson deserves to be a household name. Make him one. COMMENT below. "Evil exists." Three words. Do you believe it? Tell me. And if you want MORE of this -- the data, the history, the science, the stories -- JOIN Bski's Classroom community on X or YouTube. #MAGA #Veterans #Trump @JoJoFromJerz @atrupar @catturd2

@kylegriffin1 Oh, look. A blatherskite with a blue checkmark and a copy-paste subscription to the New York Times "narrative department." Let me fix your math problem for you, since apparently neither you nor the NYT editorial board can count past the number that helps your argument. You wrote "at least seven Navy officers." The actual number reported across multiple outlets — NYT, WSJ, ABC — is SEVEN TO NINE. Of that group, the breakdown is roughly: two women, two Black men, and THREE OR MORE WHITE MEN. So the group "disproportionately targeted" includes... the majority being white men. Congratulations. You have accidentally argued that Pete Hegseth is waging a war on white men. I am sure that is not the narrative you were reaching for. Here is the part that really earns you the "has delusions of adequacy" award for today: the NYT framing — which you swallowed whole without chewing — states the decision was "driven by his anti-diversity stance RATHER THAN based on merit." That is not a fact. That is an opinion dressed in a reporter's blazer. The Pentagon's ACTUAL stated reason — which requires only the ability to read — is that these officers were flagged for participation in DEI programs, diversity recruitment events, and ideological training that critics argue lowered readiness standards and passed over more qualified candidates to hit demographic quotas. So the question is not whether women and minorities were on the list. The question is whether past DEI advocacy constitutes a professional demerit. You can disagree with Hegseth's answer. But calling it "anti-diversity rather than merit" is precisely backwards. His ARGUMENT is that the prior DEI framework was ANTI-MERIT. You do not get to assume your conclusion and call it reporting. Quinn's Law Number Six applies here with almost surgical precision: FACTS ARE THE ENEMY OF LIBERALISM. The moment actual numbers entered this conversation, your entire framing collapsed. Seven to nine removed. More than half white males. Reason stated publicly by the Pentagon. None of that appears in your tweet. The Pentagon statement reads: "Military promotions are given to those who have earned them. The Department will never consider the color of a servicemember's skin or their gender as a factor in promotions. Under President Trump and Secretary Hegseth, MERITOCRACY REIGNS SUPREME." Now I have a genuine question for you: which of these three things is true? You did not read the source material before posting and are just following what the left wants you to amplify despite your constituents — I mean, your followers — deserving better. You read it and lack the cognitive horsepower to understand the distinction between removing people FOR DEI advocacy versus removing people BECAUSE OF their race or sex. Or you understood it perfectly and just do not mind deceiving the people who trust you. Pick one. Because one of the three must be true. Civilian control of the military is real. The Secretary of Defense — confirmed by the Senate — has authority over promotion lists. This is not a secret. This is Article II and decades of DoD policy. The boards RECOMMEND. Civilian leadership DECIDES. That is the constitutional structure you are apparently upset about, which is a fascinating position for someone who spent four years demanding that Trump "listen to the generals." Somewhere out there a tree is tirelessly producing oxygen for this tweet. It deserves an apology. But what do I know — I am only a science teacher who actually looked up the source reporting before commenting on it, which apparently puts me ahead of the entire MSNBC news desk. @JoJoFromJerz @GuntherEagleman @catturd2 #MAGA #Veterans #Trump

@kenmartin73 Oh, THIS is rich. Ken Martin — a few watts short of a full bulb — is out here clutching his pearls over a Supreme Court ruling on Alabama's congressional map while citing Justice Sotomayor like she is the final word on constitutional law. Let me slow this down for you. The Supreme Court — the same Court that has struck DOWN racial gerrymanders for decades — ruled that Alabama's 6R-1D map can stand. And your argument is that this "takes away Black and Brown voices." Do you know WHO invented racial gerrymandering to silence Black voters? Your party. DEMOCRATS. Southern white Democrats in the 1870s-1960s literally invented "packing" and "cracking" to dilute Black voting power. South Carolina's 1882 "Boa Constrictor" District. Mississippi's "Shoestring" District. Virginia's 1883 charter amendments. These were DEMOCRAT operations designed to neutralize the 15th Amendment that REPUBLICANS passed. The Republican Party was FOUNDED March 20, 1854 — specifically to oppose slavery. Republicans passed the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. Republicans elected the FIRST Black U.S. Senator (Hiram Rhodes Revels, Mississippi, 1870). Democrats filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for 75 days. Senator Robert Byrd — Democrat, lauded by his party until his DEATH in 2010 — was a former KKK RECRUITER. And you have the AUDACITY to accuse Republicans of "taking away Black voices." Quinn's Law Number Two applies perfectly here: "If you want to know what liberals are up to, pay attention to what they accuse conservatives of doing." Your party spent a century LITERALLY designing maps to silence Black voters, and now you WAIL when a Republican-drawn map survives judicial review. The Court's ruling, per Louisiana v. Callais (2026), clarified that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not require racial gerrymandering to create majority-minority districts — and that using race as the PREDOMINANT factor in drawing districts is itself unconstitutional. That means drawing districts BY RACE — which you seem to want — is a constitutional violation. You cannot DEMAND racial engineering in maps and then lecture anyone about democratic values. One more thing: Black voter TURNOUT has matched or exceeded white turnout in two of the last five presidential elections. The premise that Black voices are being silenced is not supported by the data. It is a fundraising narrative dressed as civil rights. But what do I know — I am only someone who actually reads Supreme Court decisions instead of getting my constitutional education from a party that spent a century building a new plantation out of government programs. @JoJoFromJerz @GuntherEagleman @catturd2 #MAGA #Veterans #Trump

Since the 1980s, the Sahara has shrunk by roughly 8%. Satellite data show widespread greening, a pattern that is playing out across the planet. Around 50% of Earth's vegetated land has become significantly greener, an area roughly three times the size of the United States. The dominant driver is not rainfall or land use change, it is rising atmospheric CO2. Higher CO2 lets plants photosynthesize more efficiently, they lose less water, they tolerate heat and dryness better. The effect is strongest along desert margins, across the Sahel, the Middle East, Australia's interior and the southern edge of the Sahara. Rising CO2 is making the deserts, and the planet as a whole, greener.

Anyone with dual citizenship should be prohibited from holding federal appointed or elected office or any role in the U.S. government inside the United States.

I spent half of my 20s as a brainwashed climate activist. This is the story of how I changed my mind and became a climate realist.

TWO LEADING PRINCETON, MIT SCIENTISTS SAY EPA CLIMATE REGULATIONS BASED ON A ‘HOAX’: "William Happer, Professor Emeritus in physics at Princeton University, and Richard Lindzen, Professor Emeritus of atmospheric science at MIT: “The unscientific method of analysis, relying on consensus, peer review, government opinion, models that do not work, cherry-picking data and omitting voluminous contradictory data, is commonly employed in these studies and by the EPA in the Proposed Rule. All of the models that predict catastrophic global warming fail the key test of the scientific method: they grossly overpredict the warming versus actual data. The scientific method proves there is no risk that fossil fuels and carbon dioxide will cause catastrophic warming and extreme weather. Climate models such as the ones that the EPA is using have been consistently wrong for decades in predicting actual outcomes. To illustrate his point, he presented the EPA with a table showing the difference between those models’ predictions and the observed data." The Epoch Times

It is June. National Gun Violence Awareness Month. And I have a story the media buried the moment it happened — exactly one year ago this month. June 22, 2025. CrossPointe Community Church. Wayne, Michigan. Sunday morning service. About 150 people inside, including CHILDREN attending Vacation Bible School. Brian Browning, 31, pulled into that parking lot wearing camouflage and a tactical vest. He got out of his silver SUV. He had an AR-15-style rifle, a semi-automatic handgun with an extended magazine, MORE THAN A DOZEN fully loaded magazines, and HUNDREDS of rounds of ammunition. Let me let that sink in. Hundreds of rounds. Children in that building. He opened fire. Here is where the story changes. Deacon Richard Pryor was running late and pulled into the parking lot. He saw Browning walking toward the entrance. He made a decision — and he drove his truck directly into the shooter, stopping his advance and alerting the security team inside. Simultaneously, Jay Trombley — a volunteer. Not a cop. A VOLUNTEER — heard "AR-15" from a fleeing woman inside, and he moved TOWARD the sound instead of away from it. The security team locked the front doors, engaged Browning, and shot him dead. One security guard took a non-fatal round to the leg. That is it. No children died. Nobody in that sanctuary died. 150 people went home to their families. Wayne Police Chief Ryan Strong said it plainly: "We are grateful for the heroic actions of the church's staff members, who UNDOUBTEDLY SAVED MANY LIVES and prevented a LARGE-SCALE MASS SHOOTING." Now. Where was CNN? Where was MSNBC? Where was the hand-wringing, breathless, 48-hour wall-to-wall coverage that we get every single time a gun is used to harm someone? I will tell you where it was. It was nowhere. Because nobody died — outside of the attacker who chose that outcome for himself. And a story where an armed citizen STOPS a massacre does not fit the June narrative. It never does. This is Quinn's Law Number One in neon lights: LIBERALISM PRODUCES THE OPPOSITE OF ITS STATED INTENT. They say they want to stop gun violence. They suppress the single most important data point — that armed, prepared, TRAINED citizens stop gun violence MORE OFTEN than they create it. The Gun Violence Archive tracked over 18,000 documented defensive gun uses between 2014 and 2025. A JAMA Network Open study published in March 2025 estimated 489,000 defensive gun uses annually in which a firearm was DISCHARGED. Not brandished. Discharged. The National Crime Victimization Survey puts the floor at 65,000 per year on the conservative end. But the media covers approximately zero of them with any consistency, because zero dead bodies at a Sunday service does not generate the donations and the outrage clicks that their editorial model depends on. 74% of convicted felons in a National Institute of Justice survey said they AVOIDED homes they believed were occupied by armed residents. SEVENTY-FOUR PERCENT. The deterrence is real and the data is not ambiguous. But they need you not to know that. I want to be clear about something. I am not some glib armchair observer making abstract policy arguments. I am a medically retired Army combat medic. I have seen what happens when the people who need protection have none. I have packed wounds that should have been fatal. I have held men together with my hands. I have put consequences of violence into black bags. And I am telling you with every ounce of authority that experience gives me: DISARMING THE LAW-ABIDING DOES NOT PROTECT ANYONE. It only changes who holds the power in the moment that power matters most. CrossPointe Community Church had a trained, armed security team because they took responsibility for the people in their care. They went to training THREE DAYS before the shooting. Three days. The Supreme Court has ruled — twice — that the government has NO legal obligation to protect you. DeShaney v. Winnebago County (1989). Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005). You are your own first responder. Jay Trombley said those exact words after he survived. You want to do something meaningful this June? Share this story. The one they will not tell you. Then go get your carry permit and your training, because the police will do their absolute best — and they will still arrive after. That is not a criticism. That is physics. But what do I know — I am only a combat medic, a science teacher, a published textbook author, and a father of four who has spent his entire adult life trying to reduce human suffering, and who read the actual data instead of watching the June fundraising cycle. IF you agree: LIKE this post so the algorithm shows it to people who need to read it. SHARE this. COMMENT below with your take. Did you hear about CrossPointe Church? Or did the media hide it from you? Tell me. And if you want MORE of this -- the data, the history, the science, the stories -- JOIN Bski's Classroom community on X or YouTube. #MAGA #Veterans #Trump @JoJoFromJerz @atrupar @catturd2

A new study reconstructs the abrupt warming events of the last ice age. Between 57,000 and 29,000 years ago, Greenland experienced 11 sharp temperature bursts, warming 10 to 16C in a matter of just 50 to 200 years. CO2 levels remained low and broadly stable during this time. Researchers analyzed 279 fossil pollen records worldwide and reconstructed land temperatures. They found the strongest warming occurred across the northern extratropics, especially Eurasia. Winter temperatures here were found to rise more than summer temperatures, which sharply reduced seasonality. The historical record is clear. Earth's climate has shifted far more violently and rapidly in the past, even when CO2 stayed steady.

Not 1°C of warming has been reduced. Not one life was saved. Not 1 ppm of CO₂ has been avoided. The total climate price tag by 2050 will be $275 trillion—amounting to $9.2 trillion every single year (McKinsey, 2022). That staggering total is roughly 2.5 times the entire annual GDP of the world. Not one life has been saved from a changing climate that could have been better protected by leaving cheap, reliable, traditional energy in place. This is the ultimate belief gap, and it's staggering. While the UN chased a global wealth redistribution bonanza, the cost to our future has been colossal. Imagine a world we could have built if that capital hadn't been poured into a failed ideology. The UN wealth redistribution scheme didn't save the planet, it funded a new, fabulously wealthy, bureaucratic class. Reality is finally calling in the debt.

We live in the Cenozoic - the Age of Mammals - and we call ourselves Homo Sapiens, or Wise Man: Are we? As a recent species, our entire body of cultural achievement took place in only the last 5,000 years. How should we manage the intellectual roadblock of climate, without failing? The real threat to our industrial, high-tech civilisation isn't necessarily a natural reversion to nomadism, but rather the deliberate dismantling of reliable energy architectures by central planners. Climate should not be so complex. This sharply blue-green planet was designed for us. We evolved to live here. We've had the benefit of 11,700 years of ideal climate during the warm Holocene interglacial. During the most recent glacial period, life was incredibly harsh and brutal, but we survived - while our roughhouse closest cousins, the Neanderthals, went extinct. Glaciers up to two miles deep covered much of north America and Eurasia and glacier movements deeply eroded the landscape. Survival was incredibly difficult. Yet one thing should now be abundantly clear from the geological record, the climate never stands still. It never has. The Quaternary ice ages of alternating glacial and warm cycles mirror the orbital anomalies of earth's orbital journey around the sun, known as the Milankovitch cycles. Throughout these cycles temperatures fluctuate by 5–6°C warming every 100,000 or so years. Most scientists agree that these cycles are driven by orbital variations. However, the way CO₂ amplifies this effect remains an open question. This raises deeper questions about if we really understand the full role of CO₂ in the climate. Is it simply beyond us to forecast future climates? Much of the climate narrative is based around the role of so-called fossil fuels, the pace of modern changes in temperatures and CO₂ levels, and the analogy of a greenhouse effect. The contributions of the oceans, water vapour and cloud cover albedo together dominate Earth's greenhouse effect, accounting for the vast majority of atmospheric heat retention and moderation in all parts of the world. Yet this interplay seems obscure in public statements from the UN. The Milankovitch orbital cycles set patterns of glaciation, followed by ice-sheet retreat, falling albedo and changes to ocean circulation. Only after the oceans - especially the Southern Ocean - have warmed for centuries does dissolved CO₂ outgas from the deep oceans. Earth has warmed by roughly 1.4°C since the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850. By any geological standard, a 1.4-degree recovery from a multi-century cold snap is modest. During the Eemian interglacial, temperatures were 2°C warmer than today, yet CO₂ remained steady at 280-290 ppm. Today, our global average temperature sits at around 15°C - this is more than 6°C cooler than the long-term Phanerozoic average of 18-26°C that sustained the explosion of terrestrial life. Yet, the UN-driven climate agenda labels historical perspective as disinformation, even claiming to 'own the science'. The cost of this narrative is staggering. Some $147 trillion has been funneled into intermittent wind and solar infrastructure. We have deployed 1.3 million turbines and billions of panels, yet hydrocarbons still supply roughly 81% of global primary energy. The sheer physical scale of the required mining for copper, lithium, and graphite faces inevitable, severe supply logjams. The baffling green transition is far more resource and mining intensive than any traditional energy system it seeks to replace. Image: The heavy industrial reality behind renewable energy infrastructure: Source tifonimages / Getty Images