We all know Joe Biden is a gaffe-machine. We also know he was involved in many of the scandals and foul play that were littered throughout President Obama’s time in the White House. Now, we’re learning that Biden used his power as Vice President to pressure the Ukrainian government to fire a prosecutor who was investigating a firm that employed Biden’s own son, Hunter.

This didn’t come from a FOIA request or deep investigations into Biden’s past. It came from the clumsy presidential frontrunner’s own mouth. While speaking before the Council on Foreign Relations, Biden discussed his dealings with Ukraine, including the threats he made if the prosecutor wasn’t fired.

“If the prosecutor’s not fired, you’re not getting the money,” Biden said. “Well, son of a bitch, he got fired.”

Fox News host Jeanine Pirro and Representative Mark Meadows discussed it last night on her show:

It isn’t often that I disagree with assessments from my team, but this article claiming the media is done with Biden is wrong. He’s right that Biden’s campaign may be over, but progressive media will try to prevent it. There may be some far-left media outlets who were displeased with Biden from the beginning and are now using the Ukraine story to sink him further, but mainstream media is generally still in Biden’s corner. This story from the NY Times, an attempt to debunk the Trump administration’s claims that Biden played dirty to protect his son, lays out most of the facts while coming to completely wrong conclusions, as they’re wont to do.

There are two huge, gaping hole in the NY Times’ assessment that he was being pushed out by many in and out of the White House at the time. First, neither the U.S. government nor any other is likely to be concerned about corruption within a sovereign nation’s state prosecutor’s office. It’s just not something we do, and we especially wouldn’t hold a billion dollar loan guarantee back because we didn’t like a prosecutor.

But more importantly, the NY Times readily admits the prosecutor WAS investigating Hunter Biden’s company. His replacement looked into the matter and came to the quick, politically expedient conclusion that there was nothing to see here. That certainly sounds like political pressure being used to subvert an investigation into a company with deep financial ties to the son of a Vice President. It definitely doesn’t sound like the United States government’s sudden desire to end corruption in a prosecutor’s office for the sake of doing the right thing.

No, legacy media is not pushing the Ukraine scandal because they don’t like Joe Biden. They’re pushing the Ukraine scandal because they don’t like President Trump and they believe the American people are too stupid to connect the dots back to Biden. They believe their propaganda machine can offer Biden the cover he needs while pointing their fingers at a phone call, a whistleblower, and an exchange between world leaders that almost certainly did nothing to break any laws.

Democrats and the media are so desperate to push the unpopular impeachment narrative that they’ll take their chances with harming Biden along the way. They think we’re too dumb to see the truth. I, for one, refuse to believe their lies.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

The meteoric rise of teen climate activist Greta Thunberg has been latched onto by both sides of the political aisle. The left is trying to use her as a beacon of hope to compel other young people to buy into their climate change political plans. The right is using her as an example that indoctrination in schools by political scientists is pushing kids to embrace climate change alarmism like a new religion. But Thunberg has been surprisingly resistant to both attempts to use her.

In fact, she doesn’t seem to be a big fan of the Green New Deal, the Democrats’ economic plan covered in a facade of climate change “solutions.” For that, she deserves a great deal of credit. She has met with enough people and heard enough sales pitches to realize this is truly an economic piece of legislation, not one driven by science or solutions.

The way she characterized the Green New Deal was nothing short of “throwing shade,” but mainstream media generally ignored it:

“Wherever I go I seem to be surrounded by fairytales. Business leaders, elected officials all across the political spectrum spending their time making up and telling bedtime stories that soothe us, that make us go back to sleep. These are ‘feel-good’ stories about how we are going to fix everything. How wonderful everything is going to be when we have ‘solved’ everything. But the problem we are facing is not that we lack the ability to dream, or to imagine a better world. The problem now is that we need to wake up. It’s time to face the reality, the facts, the science. And the science doesn’t mainly speak of ‘great opportunities to create the society we always wanted’. It tells of unspoken human sufferings, which will get worse and worse the longer we delay action – unless we start to act now. And yes, of course a sustainable transformed world will include lots of new benefits. But you have to understand. This is not primarily an opportunity to create new green jobs, new businesses or green economic growth. This is above all an emergency, and not just any emergency. This is the biggest crisis humanity has ever faced.”

Granted, she didn’t seem to oppose the Green New Deal directly, but she clearly sees that it is not primarily focused on addressing climate change issues. It’s an economic proposal to fundamentally transform this nation into one dependent on Modern Monetary Theory, a true existential threat to the U.S. and world economies. Even one of its architects was so bold as to openly admit it was not a climate change plan.

One does not have to agree with Greta Thunberg’s activism to appreciate that she’s not buying into the political and economic side of the Green New Deal. She is discerning enough to see climate change being used as a political ploy by Democrats.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

The world is going to end in ten years. The world has been ten years away from ending for the last four decades. And yet, here we are.

I’m not one of those who denies we need to be better stewards of this world. We are trashing the planet that God gave us, oftentimes in ways that no longer make sense. Whether or not these actions are actively changing the climate is for smarter people than me to debate, but I’ve suffered through too many doomsday predictions to give any credence to hypothetical timetables. Invariably, these doomsdayers have been proven wrong as their predictions fail miserably.

Those who say we need to take radical action to preserve the environment are making empty, political threats whether they realize it or not. Most are indoctrinated. Some are fully aware they’re using the politics of climate change to advance their economic and power-grabbing agenda.

Those who say we need to find solutions to improve conditions in the world for humans, animals, and plants are correct. There are old practices that need to change, new practices that need to be adopted, and problems that need to be solved. We need to address these issues in a systematic way. But not because of climate change. Not because of the doomsdayers.

Advancing human society, protecting vulnerable aspects of the environment, and making the world a cleaner place for all to live are righteous goals that are being subverted by climate change alarmists. Instead of a systematic, pragmatic approach to improving conditions, they want to force-feed sweeping authoritarian changes into the world. The indoctrinated masses are behind the climate change puppetmasters like sheep being led to the slaughter.

Before I get into the real agenda of the climate change puppetmasters, let’s look at actual solutions for protecting the environment that should be implemented through the proper course of an advancing society.

Clean energy that makes sense

I am very much in favor of expanding research into renewable energy sources that will EVENTUALLY replace fossil fuels when it makes fiscal sense. Today, that’s not the case. Solar, wind, geothermal, and hydroelectric energy collection are all still terribly inefficient. Moreover, they require resources such as large swaths of land for wind, expensive projects for geothermal and hydroelectric, and rare components for solar that could be used better.

We know we can collect and store energy. We just haven’t figured out how to do it efficiently yet. Trying to force the issue before it’s time is silly. The problems of finite fossil fuels have been identified and we must move towards solutions that will ween us off their use. But we must do so in a way that makes sense. We must be practical. Setting arbitrary time limits based on false doomsday predictions is idiotic.

Instead of expensive projects to prematurely collect renewable energy inefficiently, we should be focusing on improving the collection process. Why are we building massive wind farms and solar arrays using stage-one technology? We know we can do it better if we have the patience to let the technology blossom. But the technology isn’t ready. It’s too expensive. It’s inefficient at best, ineffective at worst. Much of the renewable energy infrastructure will have to be replaced once better technology is discovered and developed.

Pushing for mass clean energy initiatives now is like picking fruit before it’s ripe. We need to let the technology guide the politics, not the other way around.

Potable water is shockingly ignored

The biggest environmental problem we face is the one few climate activists ever address. Clean drinking water is genuinely difficult to find in many populated areas of the world. If there’s a reason to sound an environmental alarm, this is the one. Unfortunately, the alarm bells over fossil fuels, cows, and carbon emissions drown out the real challenges people are facing today with potable water.

Eliminating plastic straws will not give water to those who need it in Africa. Replacing ten million SUVs with Priuses will not end the drought in southeast Asia. It’s the ultimate con-job that climate alarmists point to people needing water as a reason for their alarms while they do absolutely nothing to help these people get the water they need. Keep in mind, the problem with potable water existed long before climate change became an issue, which is why the alarmists do nothing to address the issue.

More people will die today from lack of potable water than any of the alleged climate change catastrophes that happen this year. Yet the problem is ignored. It’s just not politically expedient for the doomsdayers to address an issue that preexisted their doomsday claims.

Again, we must turn to technology. But this time it’s not a matter of technology needing to be created through research. The technology exists. Instead, we need to apply funding to make the technology readily available to those who need it. The money spent promoting climate change propaganda would go a long way towards a desalination and filtration infrastructure that would bring clean drinking water to the billions who need it. The solutions are staring us in the face, but we’re too busy trying to cut carbon emissions.

Cleaner world through federalism

I’ve long called for the Environmental Protection Agency to be abolished. It’s a regulatory nightmare that stands in the way of progress so virtue-signalling bureaucrats can say they’re doing something. Instead of an EPA, we need to turn to local communities. States, counties, cities, and communities can go a long way towards cleaning up the mess we humans are making of this world if the challenge is presented at those levels rather than at a national level.

Instead of wasting billions of dollars on an environmental nanny, we should empower and encourage communities to go to work for themselves. Imagine if the money spent on studies about the delta smelt’s habitat was instead spent on building local efforts to promote recycling. We could kill two birds with one stone by helping homeless people. In Little Rock, Arkansas, the city is paying homeless people to pick up trash.

Let’s eliminate the federal virtue-signaling agency and replace it with localized efforts. Empower the lower governments to experiment with ways to make our nation cleaner. This would yield real results instead of obtuse and unnecessary regulations.

The truth about climate change alarmists

Climate change actions such as the Green New Deal are all about transforming the economic and governmental systems of this nation and the world. Climate change itself is simply the engine these Marxists are using to get the masses riled up.

It’s a powerful vehicle for them because we have years of indoctrination in schools, propaganda in the media, and an array of false (political) science studies that have been tilted for nefarious reasons. They use fear to promote their agenda, and frankly I’m extremely concerned we may be beyond the point of no return. Too many Americans have fallen for the ruse. But the clock is ticking. As long as we continue fighting their agenda, the false claims will be proven to be nothing more than doomsday political machinations of forces bent on our nation’s destruction.

There are two types of climate change alarmists: The indoctrinated Americans, such as those in the #ClimateStrike, and the authoritarian puppetmasters using climate change as a pedestal to push their political agenda. They must be exposed.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.