Scandal

The brainwashing of kiwi kids


You can’t make this stuff up. Jacinda Ardern’s government will be introducing climate change into the 11-15yo curriculum in order to lock in the brainwashing early. A perfect reason not to ever have Jacinda as our PM. The Guardian noted,

Every school in New Zealand will this year have access to materials about the climate crisis written by the country’s leading science agencies – including tools for students to plan their own activism, and to process their feelings of “eco-anxiety” over global heating.

The curriculum will put New Zealand at the forefront of climate change education worldwide; governments in neighbouring Australia and the United Kingdom have both faced criticism for lack of cohesive teaching on the climate crisis. The New Zealand scheme, which will be offered to all schools that teach 11 to 15 year-old students, will not be compulsory, the government said.”

One imagines those students that don’t attend such classes will be made to feel isolated. Don’t bother to teach the kids to think critically and evaluate both sides of the argument. Just push a narrative and force kids to regurgitate this nonsense as they tap into their personal devices while plugged into a wall.

Maybe Jacinda Ardern could cut the Wellness Budget in half were she to tell kids that they will be ok rather than scare them witless into the nearest mental health service. Talk about creating a market for services based on misinformation. It is a disgrace and utterly irresponsible.

Bit by bit, the freedom of independent thought is being taken from us in front of our very eyes. The sad thing will be when economic reality smacks these kids who fell for the Kool-Aid. Their lives will be palpably worse buy all of the doomsaying they were spoon fed will never have eventuated. For people who can see through this, where is the pushback to accept this nonsense?

Analysing 37 anti-Trump Psychiatrists for glaring bias

On July 7, 2019, a video did the rounds on social media referring to a book titled, The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump,which contained the updated findings of 37 psychiatrists and mental health experts, led by Dr Bandy X. Lu, a forensic psychiatrist from Yale School of Medicine.  It followed on from a previous work published in October 2017, where only 26 other psychiatrists had joined forces with Lu at the time. 

Social media lapped up Dr. Lu’s claim that she was the President of the World Mental Health Coalition (WMHC).  If one throws ‘world‘ in a title it sounds more impressive, doesn’t it? Although Americans often struggle with the word “world”. For decades Americans hosted a baseball event called the “World Series” where no other nations played.

Still, we felt compelled to check how gargantuan the WMHC is to properly measure its global status. For reference, the American Psychiatric Association has c. 38,000 members. We could be easily led to believe the WMHC had multiples of that. Sadly not. It has a total of 37. Yes, thirty-seven. Given the World Psychiatric Association represents 200,000 members worldwide, we can get a fair idea of how much ‘pull’ WMHC hasn’t.

Turns out WHMC is an “all-volunteer organization, and donations are used for direct educational activities, to strengthen the fabric of society as we better our collective mental health.” with the following donation manifesto:

“We:

1. provide consultation to government bodies upon request;
2. organize public forums for discussion and education; and
3. alert, protect, and educate the public when when we see signs of imminent or lasting danger within the body politic or in its leaders.” [although there is a typo they might wish to address which we have highlighted for them]

Perhaps the most telling part of the bias in the updated version can be found in the Amazon summary of the latest book,

The prestigious mental health experts who have contributed to the revised and updated version of ‘The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump’ argue that their moral and civic “duty to warn” supersedes professional neutrality.

You don’t say? If these psychiatrists ever testify in court (as they proudly claim they often do), any attorney defending the accused should just dredge out this summary to prove they aren’t impartial by their own admission.

Lu proved once again that Trump Derangement Syndrome lives and breathes within the walls of elite tertiary institutions of America, just like Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan who admitted she crossed the road to avoid walking in front of a Trump building during her impeachment testimony. This is the level of maturity one gets for a $70,000pa education.

The WMHC has no qualms publishing a question from a town hall which included an “…historic number of leading psychiatrists in our country felt the imperative to publish such a book because of their unprecedented fears about a President with such severe mental problems…”

Historic being 37…If 500 law professors can get their act together on co-signing a letter on articles of impeachment, surely the psychiatric community can achieve a higher watermark. May we suggest they take a leaf out of the 11,000 scientists who signed a letter on climate change which Mickey Mouse, Albus Dumbledore or Araminta Aardvark were among the co-signatories.

Back to the video. Lu’s opening statement was that Trump “failed every criterion for rational and reality-based decision-making capacity.”

Reading in a robotic style off an autocue, Dr. Lu said that Trump is unfit to be president based on the wealth of data gleaned from the 448-page Mueller Report (released to the public on April 18, 2019). So between April 18th to July 7th, the WMHC has absorbed all 448-pages with a thorough and impartial eye.

Forget that the Mueller said under oath that the report “did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated” with Russia.

Dr Lu said, “first and foremost, we want to remove Mr Trump’s access to nuclear weapons and war-making powers…we could offer many more, but given the urgency, we decided to focus on the two most important.”

Since when did 37 psychologists become experts in foreign policy?  In more than 1,000 days in office, no country has come close to being nuked by Trump. Unlike his predecessor, foreign powers realise he is not messing about. Cross a red line and there are consequences. Period. Are psychiatrists confusing unorthodoxy with mental illness?

Did the WMHC predict that Iran would end its retaliation so soon? It is a bit silly to believe that they won’t continue the 4-decade proxy war.

However CNN (which is in thorough need of psychiatric assessment alongside WaPo. NYT and other mainstream media outlets) indulged us with, “Iran’s strikes seem intended to avoid US deaths. Here’s why that might be the case.” Wow. That is a pretty darned expensive way to fire shots across a bow. We guess once in possession of Obama’s gift of billions, Iranian generals can afford the luxury of expending multiple $100,000 missiles instead of $1,000 shells.

Maybe the WMHC can tell us why CNN believes those thoughtful leaders of the Iranian regime were compassionate enough to spare the lives of an enemy they swear death to. Who knew?

Lu makes the audacious claim that, “Our work is not about Mr Trump who may not be a danger as a private citizen, but about protecting society against the powers of the presidency in a person who has not demonstrated the ability to handle them.

If the work isn’t about Trump, why does the WMHC have a section that also targets this administration’s border protection policies? It released a statement on refugees which said the following,

We write as mental health professionals who are deeply concerned about the psychological harm our nation’s current immigration practices inflict on asylum seekers, immigrant communities, and our society…We are alarmed that recent changes in executive policy and personnel show increasing cruelty with intent to inflict as much pain as the law allows.”

It is a safe assumption to think that the WMHC members aren’t staunch Republicans. Never mind that Obama first introduced kids in cages separation laws at the border, something confessed by the mainstream media late last year. Who needs facts on the psychiatrist’s couch?

Presumably, the next iteration of the book will suggest that the 63m that voted for Trump are equally in need of having their voting rights repealed for their inability to handle their democratic rights.

Lu proudly states she has testified in court cases with respect to forensic psychiatry but in this case feels that interviewing the subject is not important. She read out from the screen,

As the evidence was overwhelming, and since outside perspectives are more important in a functional exam than a personal interview, we did not feel we needed one…the wealth and quality of the report’s content made this possible…in fact we had more and better data under sworn testimony than we have ever had in our usual practice.

Psychiatrists are banned by law from diagnosing patients without examining them although Lu thinks this step is unnecessary to make a determination that he is unfit. Hmmm.

Also, we are not interested in a diagnosis of the president because he is not our patient.

Lu said her group offered the president to undergo an examination if he believed himself fit. His office acknowledged receipt of the request. Like any sane human being, a polite “p*ss off” was the only appropriate reply to a bunch of sanctimonious intellectuals who think they know better than all of us.

Force in numbers (even as tiny as 37) signing consensus-based documents like this are the latest weapons used by liberals. Albert Einstein once said to a scientist who claimed he’d get 100 scientists to prove him wrong replied, “it only takes one!

Of course, we can already hear the defenders of the WMHC ring loud on the basis of their academic credentials.

However, we hold a different view. Just because one holds qualifications in a particular field from a reputable institution, doesn’t mean they don’t carry biases or conflicts of interest. Schools with brand names often escape rigorous scrutiny because they are so revered and citing them is seen as adding credibility to one’s own arguments.

In 2015 a claim was made against Harvard for not disclosing financial conflicts of interest. A press release entitled ‘Clean air and health benefits of clean power plan hinge on key policy decisions’ constituted a gushing praise of a commentary entitled ‘US power plant carbon standards and clean air and health co-benefits’ by Charles T. Driscoll, Jonathan J. Buonocore, Jonathan I. Levy, Kathleen F. Lambert, Dallas Burtraw, Stephen B. Reid, Habibollah Fakhraei & Joel Schwartz, published on May 4, 2015, in Nature Climate Change.

The claim (a letter to the Dean) suggested that

“two of the co-authors of the commentary, Buonocore and Schwartz, are researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Your press release quotes Buonocore thus: “If EPA sets strong carbon standards, we can expect large public health benefits from cleaner air almost immediately after the standards are implemented.” Indeed, the commentary and the press release constitute little more than thinly-disguised partisan political advocacy for costly proposed EPA regulations supported by the “Democrat” administration but opposed by the Republicans. Harvard has apparently elected to adopt a narrowly partisan, anti-scientific stance…The commentary concludes with the words “Competing financial interests: The authors declare no competing financial interests”. Yet its co-authors have received these grants from the EPA: Driscoll $3,654,609; Levy $9,514,391; Burtraw $1,991,346; and Schwartz (Harvard) $31,176,575. The total is not far shy of $50 million…Would the School please explain why its press release described the commentary in Nature Climate Change by co-authors including these lavishly-funded four as “the first independent, peer-reviewed paper of its kind”? Would the School please explain why Mr Schwartz, a participant in projects grant-funded by the EPA in excess of $31 million, failed to disclose this material financial conflict of interest in the commentary? Would the School please explain the double standard by which Harvard institutions have joined a chorus of public condemnation of Dr Soon, a climate sceptic, for having failed to disclose a conflict of interest that he did not, in fact, possess, while not only indulging Mr Schwartz, a climate-extremist when he fails to declare a direct and substantial conflict of interest but also stating that the commentary he co-authored was “independent”?”

We don’t accuse the WMHC of committing crimes but we think this example shows that we shouldn’t blindly accept the findings from academics without heavier scrutiny.

Certainly, in the case of these 37 psychiatrists, even a deplorable uneducated Trump supporter can see through the heavy coats of bias and condescending rhetoric. The ultimate irony is these people have such confidence in their own intellectual superiority that they reckoned one would look under the hood.

Maybe when 200,000 global psychiatrists ascribe to the same view as WMHC, we may be inclined to lend more credibility to the suggestions of Trump being unfit for a role. At the moment the WMHC appears to be mentally unsuited to uphold the very high standards of the wonderful work done by the rest of the mental health community.

They needn’t worry. It is likely that more than 63 million Americans will make that determination in November 2020 on whether he is still fit to serve.

VIC CFA statistics – no wonder the UFU voted for Dan Andrews

VICCFA FTE.png

No wonder Premier Dan Andrews had the support of the United Firefighters Union in the 2014 election. Once put into office he pushed the Victorian Country Fire Authority (CFA) under its wing. Since elected, over 850 new FT jobs have been added to the CFA which stand at nearly 3x that of the NSW RFS. The CFA budget, according to the annual reports (here) has ballooned from $484mn to $657m over the same period.

VIC CFA Budget.png

CFA employee benefits have grown from 48.7% of the budget since Andrews took over to 56.7%. To put that in perspective, NSW RFS went from 30.4% to 22.3%. Average salaries at the CFA have also grown from $123,806 average to $134,435.

Employee costs Vic vs NSW.png

We also note that under Dan Andrews, the number of volunteers has fallen from 59,700 immediately before he took office to 54,621 today. Volunteers were none too impressed to be told their selfless service would be controlled by a union.

Volunteers NSWVIC.png

So do we immediately implore PM Scott Morrison to start splashing out the cash in Victoria? What has Victoria got for its money in terms of equipment?

Water Pumpers.png

In terms of fire trucks, the CFA has less than half the number that the NSW RFS has in its fleet. Only on water carriers does the CFA trump the RFS with 286 vs 63.

Fire Trucks.png

Unfortunately, the CFA has very limited data on controlled burn-offs and data that is useful in making a comparison. We will need to dig deeper into the bowels of the CFA statistics.

Within the annual reports, the CFA spends far more time discussing LGBT Pride, gender equality and diversity. Which probably goes some way in explaining why so much of the CFA budget is directed at jobs, not equipment.

Once again, FNF Media thinks the grounds for auditing the fire services is a necessary evil to get to the heart of how such devastating bushfires got out of control and burnt for so long. The data here simply throws up too many questions. As a consolation, the NSW RFS looks far more efficient than the CFA. Then again, in the Democratic People’s Republic of Victoria, this should surprise nobody.

Another good reason to rehash Thomas Sowell’s apt quote,

Those who cry out that the government should ‘do something’ never even ask for data on what has actually happened when the government did something, compared to what actually happened when the government did nothing.”

Dutch Supreme Court sets very dangerous precedent

No folks, this is not a joke. This is what happens when a judiciary drops impartiality and starts acting as an activist lawmaker instead of a law enforcer. The Dutch parliament is supposed to set legislation. Since when did the judiciary inherit such capabilities by a mandate from the people?

The Dutch Supreme Court has ruled the Dutch government must cut emissions by 25% by 2020 on 1990 levels on the grounds that not doing so is a violation of human rights.

To put that into context, on a per capita basis, Dutch GHG emissions have fallen 11.9% since 1990 to 9.5t per person. However, actual Dutch CO2 output in 1990 was 161,447kt CO2-e vs 162,290kt CO2e in 2017 based on. So a 25% cut vs. 1990 levels would mean the target would be 121,085kt CO2-e.

Let us not forget that the Dutch are responsible for 0.4% of global human-caused emissions. So to cut that by 25% on the latest numbers with growing emissions from China and India will mean the Dutch will be responsible for 0.3% of global emissions. Does the Dutch Supreme Court truly believe the lives of Dutch citizens will be remotely improved by knocking 0.1% off the global total?

Clearly, the Supreme Court didn’t need evidence. Which body did the Supreme Court base its verdict? On UN climate conventions. There is a problem in and of itself.

Never mind that the UN said this about the Netherlands in the past,

The WG2 IPCC climate bible noted, “The Netherlands is an example of a country highly susceptible to both sea-level rise and river flooding because 55% of its territory is below sea level”.

This sentence was provided by a Dutch government agency – the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, which published a correction stating that the sentence should have read “55 per cent of the Netherlands is at risk of flooding; 26 per cent of the country is below sea level, and 29 per cent is susceptible to river flooding.”

Never mind that the UN didn’t issue a retraction. Who needs to know correct facts?

It gets worse,

An IPCC report which investigated models showed 98% have overestimated warming.

The Twelfth Session of Working Group I (WGI-12) was held from 23 to 26 September 2013 in Stockholm, Sweden. At the Session, the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) of the Working Group I contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (WGI AR5) was approved and the underlying scientific and technical assessment accepted.

Everything in the Working Group II report depends entirely on Working Group I and Working Group I depends solely on the climate data of which 98% have proven wrong.

Chapter Nine “Evaluation of Climate Models” in WGI-12 notes:

Most, though not all, models overestimate the observed warming trend in the tropical troposphere over the last 30 years and tend to underestimate the long-term lower stratospheric cooling trend. {9.4.1, Box 9.2, Figure 9.8}

“…In tropical regions, the models are too dry in the lower troposphere and too moist in the upper troposphere,” (p763)

Most climate model simulations show a larger warming in the tropical troposphere than is found in observational data sets(e.g., McKitrick et al., 2010; Santer et al., 2013).

Does the Dutch Supreme Court believe it knows better than the scientists the UN rely upon who openly admit the data is wrong? So climate change could affect food supply?

We all know the Dutch love chocolate.

Half of the world’s chocolate is currently sourced from just two African countries: Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana. According to the IPCC, rising temperatures and a relative reduction in rainfall could make it less suitable for cocoa production in the future.

The research highlighted in the IPCC Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability report indicate that, under a “business as usual” scenario, those countries will experience a 3.8°F (2.1°C) increase in temperature by 2050 which could seriously impact cocoa production.

Claims that changes to the climate are also pushing cocoa-growing regions to higher altitudes in some parts of the world, which can make some crops unsustainable…production has more than doubled in the past 3 decades.

Dutch PM Mark Rutte was absolutely right to say this was a matter for politicians, not courts. What has been proven by this landmark decision is that the court is acting as a lawmaker which is NOT its role.

While some could argue that the Green Left took 9.1% of the vote in the 2017 Dutch election – its best-ever result – the latest polls for 2021 see the party ceding seats. It is hardly a mandate of the people to drastically cut emissions in such a ridiculous space of time.

Has the Dutch Supreme Court understood that c.20% of the economy is driven by industry – electronics, metal production, engineering – and agriculture? Should PM Rutte demand that it all be shut down? Will air traffic controllers at Schipol Airport be arrested and jailed if they let commercial aeroplanes circle for too long in low visibility conditions?

Dutch electricity generation is 75% powered by fossil fuels (natural gas and coal). Does the Supreme Court believe that cutting emissions 25% by 2020 is even remotely achievable without trashing the economy? Will cars be banned from the roads on weekends? Flights suspended on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays? How about Dutch citizens who don’t have a windmill bolted to their home get electricity rationed?

In conclusion, how on earth can the Dutch hit a 25% reduction target inside 12 months? Who will be charged and jailed for failing to meet these obligations in a country where no party has a mandate?

FNF Media sincerely hopes the Dutch government acquiesces the Supreme Court and watches the economy implode as it pushes energy austerity to hit targets that will reduce global emissions by 0.1%, or a 0.00000124% impact to all the CO2 in the atmosphere. All that pain for absolutely no gain.

We need a test case guinea pig to show the world just how ridiculously stupid climate alarmism is. At least the Dutch can self-medicate inside marijuana cafes in Amsterdam.

In all seriousness, the landmark decision of a Supreme Court dictating terms to the very body that sets laws is one that sets a dangerous precedent. Activism is now part and parcel of the Dutch judiciary.

The Battle of Lilliput

Quite a good summary of the best moments for the Democratic debate last night done by conservative Ben Shapiro. FNF Media awaits howls from the leftists who will justify the complete garbage these politicians spewed.

Grab some popcorn. Elizabeth “Fauxcahontas” Warren gets completely poleaxed by Pete Buttigieg who attacked her hypocrisy over her criticism of him schmoozing with billionaires (from the 31st minute).

Joe Biden happily said “yes” to the losses of 100,000s of blue-collar jobs for climate change.

Andrew Yang lamented he was the only candidate of colour on the stage and that he wished that Cory Booker would be back to boost the ranks! Identity politics! Yawn.

Amy Klobuchar looked the best on the night as she clocked Buttigieg over his record in winning elections. Buttigieg won in South Bend, Indiana with a total of 8,000 votes which he championed as a success because he was a gay man in the evil Mike Pence’s home state. Klobuchar slapped him over the fact he lost the bid to be state treasurer in Indiana in 2010 by 25 points.

Alas, the winner of the debate, yet again, was Donald Trump.

Note since the impeachment announcement (which embarrassingly is not official according to Harvard law professor Noah Feldman, one of the Democrat’s star witnesses from the hearings), Trump has seen a surge in political donations. You can’t make this stuff up.

If you don’t have enough time to watch the full video above, spend 30 seconds watching Nancy Pelosi sound like a town drunk explaining her decision. It is an incoherent rabble.

Mom forced to chastise her unruly kids

Don’t make Mom mad! Nancy Pelosi’s actions spoke much louder than her words today.

The Democrats have made such a farce of the impeachment proceedings – from Schiff’s parody, Democrat representatives wearing Batgirl costumes and streaming the Presidents Cup golf or bringing forward law professors who cross the road when passing a Trump building as key witnesses – that the Speaker of the House thought,  at the very least, she must lift decorum to reflect the solemn nature of the outcome rather than allow spontaneous rapturous applause.

One can only wonder what would have happened if Nancy’s children were able to let loose. Probably would have ended up taking selfies of the occasion.

What do you know? That is just what they did, including Democrat Rep Rashida Tlaib, of “impeach the MotherF*cker” fame, who live-streamed her glee at what she was about to do. All class.

Sadly Trump Derangement Syndrome leads to a lack of self-awareness, much like the Washington Post team tweeting “Merry Impeachmas” on the news.

This is getting too stupid now

Just when we thought Trump Derangement Syndrome had peaked, 750+ historians have signed a letter demanding the House impeach Trump.

Yet more liberal sanctimony trying to talk down to the minions that they know better. Further evidence as to why education should be free in America. It’s worth nothing. Voters can make their own determination and the polls suggest people don’t support impeachment. Ahh, but we are educated historians. Who are you to question our intelligence?!?

Who next? Parking Ticket Officers against Trump or Online Retailers for Impeachment? It is all too silly.

The historians’ letter is as follows:

We are American historians devoted to studying our nation’s past who have concluded that Donald J. Trump has violated his oath to “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States” and to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” His “attempts to subvert the Constitution,” as George Mason described impeachable offenses at the Constitutional Convention in 1787, urgently and justly require his impeachment.

President Trump’s numerous and flagrant abuses of power are precisely what the Framers had in mind as grounds for impeaching and removing a president. Among those most hurtful to the Constitution have been his attempts to coerce the country of Ukraine, under attack from Russia, an adversary power to the United States, by withholding essential military assistance in exchange for the fabrication and legitimization of false information in order to advance his own re-election.

President Trump’s lawless obstruction of the House of Representatives, which is rightly seeking documents and witness testimony in pursuit of its constitutionally-mandated oversight role, has demonstrated brazen contempt for representative government. So have his attempts to justify that obstruction on the grounds that the executive enjoys absolute immunity, a fictitious doctrine that, if tolerated, would turn the president into an elected monarch above the law.

As Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist, impeachment was designed to deal with “the misconduct of public men” which involves “the abuse or violation of some public trust.” Collectively, the President’s offenses, including his dereliction in protecting the integrity of the 2020 election from Russian disinformation and renewed interference, arouse once again the Framers’ most profound fears that powerful members of government would become, in Hamilton’s words, “the mercenary instruments of foreign corruption.”

It is our considered judgment that if President Trump’s misconduct does not rise to the level of impeachment, then virtually nothing does.

Hamilton understood, as he wrote in 1792, that the republic remained vulnerable to the rise of an unscrupulous demagogue, “unprincipled in private life, desperate in his fortune, bold in his temper, possessed of considerable talents…despotic in his ordinary demeanour.” That demagogue, Hamilton said, could easily enough manage “to mount the hobby horse of popularity — to join in the cry of danger to liberty — to take every opportunity of embarrassing the General Government & bringing it under suspicion — to flatter and fall in with all the non sense of the zealots of the day.” Such a figure, Hamilton wrote, would “throw things into confusion that he may ‘ride the storm and direct the whirlwind.’”

President Trump’s actions committed both before and during the House investigations fit Hamilton’s description and manifest utter and deliberate scorn for the rule of law and “repeated injuries” to constitutional democracy. That disregard continues and it constitutes a clear and present danger to the Constitution. We therefore strongly urge the House of Representatives to impeach the President.

Signed,*