It’s Climate Week at the United Nations in New York, and the U.N. General Assembly on Sunday voted to phase out fossil fuels, at the same time abandoning its sustainable development goals of eliminating poverty and hunger. That’s because no nation has ever eliminated poverty and hunger without fossil fuels. Vice President Kamala Harris hasn’t commented on phasing out fossil fuels, but President Joe Biden is all in favor. On Monday, just after bragging about progress with the U.N.’s sustainable development goals before the General Assembly in New York, he said, “We’ve taken the most ambitious climate actions. We’ve moved to rejoin the 2015 Paris Agreement on Day One. And today, my country is finally on track to cut emissions in half by 2030 … .” His goal is to decarbonize the electricity grid by 2035 and achieve net zero by 2050. But those plans, if achieved, are incompatible with the U.N. sustainable development goals. Eliminating poverty is the first goal, while dealing with climate change is goal 13. After poverty elimination, in order, come zero hunger; good health and well-being; quality education; gender equality; clean water and sanitation; affordable and clean energy; decent work and economic growth; industry, innovation and infrastructure; and reduced inequalities. All of those require affordable energy. Modern industrialized societies have not only begun to demand affordable, reliable energy, but also to use it to operate everything from transportation and refrigeration to air conditioning and internet access. Advanced societies use energy to diminish poverty, increase agricultural productivity, decrease child mortality, and allow the generation of wealth needed to address pollution concerns. Conversely, lack of affordable and reliable energy is associated with a lack of access to clean water, adequate medical care, affordable transportation, and economic opportunities, all of which stall human advancement, especially in the most vulnerable countries. Access to food requires fertilizer and refrigeration. A blackout for a small grocery store owner means a loss of refrigeration, which means some food either has to be sold at fire-sale prices or left to spoil. Hospitals need energy, and in developed economies—and some emerging economies—many have backup generators. Gender equality requires technology to power water systems and machines that do away with the drudgery of household labor, such as clothes washers and dryers, dishwashers, and vacuum cleaners. Even hair-dryers help women look their best while walking out to the coffee shop or to a job. The Biden-Harris net zero agenda would result in a loss of at least $7.7 trillion in gross domestic product through 2040. Moreover, this income loss would come without any changes in global temperatures. Even completely eliminating all fossil fuels from the United States would result in less than 0.2 of a degree Celsius in temperature mitigation by the year 2100. UnsustainableCostsDownload A 2023 Heritage Foundation report, “Powering Human Advancement,” shows that impoverished countries that use only about 500 kWh of energy per capita often have subsistence-level production and incomes of about $1,000 per year. When energy consumption eclipses 10,000 kWh per capita, there is a drastic decline in poverty, with a virtual eradication at about 100,000 kWh per capita. This relationship between economic development and energy use is so strong that there isn’t a single nation with a high per capita income and low per capita energy usage. Conversely, there isn’t a single country with high energy use per capita and low per capita income. Climate change is a future risk to be managed, but poverty is today’s global problem. An estimated 3 billion to 6 billion people lack electricity or running water, and they can’t get them with renewables. The U.N. General Assembly and the Biden-Harris administration should decide if they want to achieve their sustainable development goals of reducing poverty and hunger or if they want to eliminate fossil fuels. They can’t do both. The post Phasing Out Fossil Fuels Will Leave the Globe Poor, Hungry, and Sick appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Efforts to End Affirmative Action Could Take a While

Kamala to Finally Answer Questions ... From Reporter Who Didn't Want to Ask

New research could have a solution for two mysteries of Mars.

A congressional committee advanced a much-talked-about bill that seeks to protect children from potentially harmful online content after a long battle over Sen. Richard Blumenthal’s (D-CT) version that many suggested would have increased online censorship. The House Energy and Commerce Committee passed the Kids Online Safety Act during a committee markup hearing on Sept. 18 led by Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA). The recently approved legislation stripped the controversial “duty of care” provisions that Democrats support and would have forced Big Tech companies to potentially censor even constitutionally protected free speech, critics suggested. Media Research Center President Brent Bozell applauded the House bill but cautioned conservatives. "Protecting children is extremely important, but we should not fall into the trap of allowing Big Tech to censor us, which we know will happen on issues like gender ideology and abortion,” Bozell said. “I support the current House bill. If the Senate’s censorship provisions are added to the bill under the cloak of darkness, conservatives will have to oppose it.” Dan Schneider, the vice president of MRC Free Speech America, echoed Bozell’s remarks in a separate statement. “Big Tech companies have used and abused children in really terrible ways. It is long overdue for Congress to take action against yet another of tech’s reprehensible practices,” he stated.  Schneider also pointed out the complexities of the battle as it related to potential threats to the U.S. Constitution. “Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Gus Bilirakis deserve a lot of praise, not only for taking on the tech titans but doing so in a way that also protects free speech rights,” he added. “Chuck Schumer and Richard Blumenthal’s Senate bill included provisions to coerce Big Tech to censor conservatives even more than they are already prone to do. The House must never allow a bill to advance to the House floor if Democrats put back in those censorship provisions.” Rodgers hailed the committee for advancing the proposed legislation in a statement, saying, “In the nearly 230-year history of this Committee, we have established a rich tradition of taking on the hard problems and delivering solutions for the American people. Today we will continue to build on that record of success.” Despite the bill’s bipartisan support—it passed in the Senate with a 91-3 vote— questions remain about whether Democrats will successfully influence Republicans to reinstate the “duty of care” censorship provisions during debates on the House Committee on Rules. During the markup hearing, several Democrats and Republicans appeared to hint at potential amendments. “We have continued to take a significant amount of feedback on this bill, and I've offered the Nays that I believe substantively respond to many concerns about speech regulation, censorship and overreach,” Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL) said, before urging his colleagues to vote for the bill for now. Rep. Morgan Griffith (R-VA) echoed Bilirakis’s remarks later in the hearing. “I think this is a good bill. Can it be improved? Absolutely. I've already spoken with Mr. Bilirakis about an amendment that, as I was reading through it, I realized there's a little amendment that needs to be made.” Read the House Energy and Commerce-approved legislation below: H R 7891 Kids Online Safety... by Luis Cornelio   Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

Federal Communications Commissioner Brendan Carr echoed the Media Research Center in a warning shared with Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck that the federal government is poised to do a massive and unprecedented favor to leftist billionaire George Soros.  On Tuesday’s edition of The Glenn Beck Program, Carr sounded the alarm that the FCC is about to help Soros snatch up hundreds of radio stations owned by Audacy. Carr made clear that Soros’s foreign-backed purchase of Audacy, America’s second-biggest radio company, would normally require a review process that could take over a year, far past the 2024 election. However, Carr disturbingly told Beck that the FCC has “for the very first time ever, has skipped that process.” George Soros is buying up HUNDREDS of radio stations before the election and @BrendanCarrFCC confirms the FCC is HELPING him: "We have a very clear process... to review the foreign ownership at issue here... the FCC Commission, for the very first time ever, has SKIPPED that… pic.twitter.com/E3gJ7hWMjI — Glenn Beck (@glennbeck) September 24, 2024 Earlier this year, Soros Fund Management purchased $400 million of Audacy’s debt or about a 40% stake in the company, taking over 16 50,000-watt radio stations that Audacy features or streams. In April 2024, Media Research Center President Brent Bozell admonished the FCC for failing to comply with its rules.  Bozell first petitioned the FCC not to give preferential treatment to Soros by granting his request to skip a required “public interest” review of his purchase. Following Audacy’s rebuttal to the MRC petition, Bozell wrote, “The Communications Act does not contain a special Soros shortcut,” while bringing up additional concerns about the negative impact on local radio stations. Carr agreed that such a move would be special treatment, telling Beck that the FCC had determined to make its first exception in history for Soros. “We have a very clear process set up at the FCC; it could take six months, it could take a year to review the foreign ownership at issue here. But for reasons that are not sort-of plain to me, the FCC commission, for the very first time ever, has skipped that process,” he warned. The FCC has apparently ignored precedent and the devastating case put together by Bozell in April. “The Soros filings fail to demonstrate that in this case any interest in the reasonably efficient emergence from bankruptcy cannot be accommodated while also assessing the foreign ownership interests at the same time,” Bozell stated then, before warning: “There is no question that George Soros and his affiliated businesses are looking to control these radio stations to advance their particular brand of activism.”  In his petition, the MRC president noted that Soros would be taking over “225 local radio stations in 46 markets," which makes it even more important for the FCC to conduct a thorough review.  Soros’s Audacy purchase follows years of heavily investing in media. As previously reported by MRC Business, Soros “gave $131,111,250 to journalism and media organizations around the globe” to push leftist positions on a range of issues between 2016 and 2020 alone.  Soros has also donated $492,000 to the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) from 2017 to 2019. The IFCN coordinates with a vast network of fact-checkers, including The Associated Press, FactCheck.org, The Dispatch, The Washington Post and PolitiFact.  Beyond this, Soros has ties to 34 legacy and leftist media personalities, detailed extensively in a Media Research Center report “George Soros: Propaganda Powerhouse.” Conservatives are under attack! Contact ABC News (818) 460-7477, CBS News (212) 975-3247 and NBC News (212) 664-6192 and demand they report on Soros’ ties to American and global media.

MSNBC’s Jose Diaz-Balart was greatly confused on his Wednesday show why a growing number of Latinos are supporting Donald Trump. To help him find an answer, he welcomed contributor Paola Ramos to promote her new book on the subject, which boils down to some Latinos are also be anti-Latino racists. Diaz-Balart set the table, “Let's talk about Defectors: The Rise of the Latino Far Right and What It Means for America. So, among the things that you highlight in this book, which I agree with Stuart on, everybody’s got to get, is the growing number of Latinos, many immigrants or children of immigrants who oppose unrestricted immigration. Explain how that apparent dichotomy exists.”     Folks on the left often like to claim that the idea that they support “unrestricted immigration” is a strawman, but here is Diaz-Balart lamenting that a “growing number of Latinos” don’t support it. As for Ramos, she immediately began by ringing the alarm bells, “I think, just as a bottom line, and I think we should be alarmed at the idea that someone like Donald Trump, in a state like Arizona, is polling close to 40 percent with Latino voters.” In seeking to explain why, Ramos toyed with the idea that they are race traitors, “Part of that is because there is a small, but growing group of Latino voters that are warming up to the idea of mass deportation, and just to be very brief, I think what Trumpism is betting on is this idea that there's a segment of Latinos that have become so Americanized and so assimilated that they, too, can, sort of, tap into the nativism and they too can tap into the otherizing and the, sort of, us versus them game.” She also tried to claim that these Trump-supporting Latinos are just trying to appease the racists that also support Trump in hopes that they can avoid the hate: There's research out there to ground us in the fear that some Latinos are feeling in this moment. When you look at the way anti-Latino hate crimes have been rising over the last eight years, you know when it really spikes, when mainstream media, when Donald Trump, when politicians pay so much attention to this idea of an “invasion” at the Southern border, this idea of chaos, of immigrants being criminals and there are some Latinos that don't want to be lumped with immigrants, that want to protect themselves from that type of discrimination and hatred, and so that explains why some Latinos in the quest to prove they too are American would find something appealing in Trumpism. The unspoken assumption is that Latinos who immigrated legally are supposed to view themselves as analogues to people who rush the border or that they are supposed to be unconcerned with crime because the criminal is of the same race. That’s obviously ridiculous, and if Ramos truly believes that, she should be prepared to be “alarmed” far more frequently. Here is a transcript for the September 25 show: MSNBC Jose Diaz-Balart Reports 9/25/2024 11:53 PM ET JOSE DIAZ-BALART: Let's talk about Defectors: The Rise of the Latino Far Right and What It Means for America. So, among the things that you highlight in this book, which I agree with Stuart on, everybody’s got to get, is the growing number of Latinos, many immigrants or children of immigrants who oppose unrestricted immigration. Explain how that apparent dichotomy exists. PAOLA RAMOS: Look, I think, just as a bottom line, and I think we should be alarmed at the idea that someone like Donald Trump, in a state like Arizona, is polling close to 40 percent with Latino voters and part of that is because there is a small, but growing group of Latino voters that are warming up to the idea of mass deportation, and just to be very brief, I think what Trumpism is betting on is this idea that there's a segment of Latinos that have become so Americanized and so assimilated that they, too, can, sort of, tap into the nativism and they too can tap into the otherizing and the, sort of, us versus them game.  There's research out there to ground us in the fear that some Latinos are feeling in this moment. When you look at the way anti-Latino hate crimes have been rising over the last eight years, you know when it really spikes, when mainstream media, when Donald Trump, when politicians pay so much attention to this idea of an “invasion” at the Southern border, this idea of chaos, of immigrants being criminals and there are some Latinos that don't want to be lumped with immigrants, that want to protect themselves from that type of discrimination and hatred, and so that explains why some Latinos in the quest to prove they too are American would find something appealing in Trumpism.

On a recent episode of “Real Time with Bill Maher,” guests Stephanie Ruhle of MSNBC and Bret Stephens, who Dave Rubin says is the “New York Times’ quote unquote conservative but will not support Trump,” sparred over Kamala Harris’ complete avoidance of interviews and wishy-washy positions on policy. - YouTube www.youtube.com “If I’m an undecided voter, I’m never going to vote for Trump, but I’m not sure I want to vote for Kamala, and my fear is that she doesn’t really have a very good command of what she wants to do as president,” said Stephens, adding that it would be “great for her to sit down with [Maher] or George Stephanopoulos or Stephanie.” “As if she’d sit down with me,” Maher scoffed as the audience howled in laughter. “George W. Bush 25 years ago was asked if he could name the president of Pakistan and other people. He had no idea, and people said this guy has no command of foreign policy, and it turned out to be a prescient set of questions. It’s not too much to ask Kamala, say, are you for a Palestinian state if Hamas is going to run that state?” Stephens continued. “Okay, and let’s say you don’t like her answer. Are you going to vote for Donald Trump? Kamala Harris is not running for perfect; she’s running against Trump. We have two choices, and so there are some things you might not know her answer to. And in 2024, unlike 2016, for a lot of the American people, we know exactly what Trump will do, who he is, and the kind of threat he is to democracy,” Ruhle said. “The problem that a lot of people have with Kamala is we don't know her answer to anything,” Stephens countered. “But you know [Trump’s] answer to everything!” Ruhle fired back. “And that's why I would never vote for him and people shouldn't vote for him, but people also are expected to have some idea of what the program is of the person you're supposed to vote for,” Stephens concluded. Dave and special co-host Clay Travis laugh at the idea that Stephens is labeled as “conservative.” “He will not vote for Trump under any circumstances but in essence could vote for [Kamala],” says Dave, asking, “How is it possible you could be remotely conservative, believe in capitalism, believe that boys and girls are different, believe that you should have a border ... and perhaps vote for Kamala Harris?” “I don’t even understand what the fear of Trump is,” says Travis, who’s interacted with Trump on multiple occasions. “The idea that he is Hitler is the most ridiculously absurd argument ever. ... He wants to have a more secure border; he wants lower crime; he wants to avoid war all around the world and keep our soldiers safe.” “And there's a track record of him doing it,” adds Dave. To hear more of the conversation, watch the clip above. Want more from Dave Rubin?To enjoy more honest conversations, free speech, and big ideas with Dave Rubin, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The Haitian Bridge Alliance filed criminal charges against Republican presidential nominee and former President Donald Trump and his running mate, Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio), on Tuesday over claims they made that Haitian nationals in Springfield, Ohio, are eating locals’ pets and wildlife.The group has reportedly received funding in the past from George Soros’ Open Society Foundation, according to a 2021 press release from the grant-making network.'President Trump is rightfully highlighting the failed immigration system.'The HBA is calling for the arrest of Trump and Vance “stemming from the baseless and malicious comments made against our Haitian community,” the group stated in a Tuesday press release about the filed charges.“Both Trump and Vance led an effort to vilify and threaten the Haitian community in Springfield. Together, they spread and amplified the debunked claim that Haitian immigrants in Springfield are eating pets including cats, dogs, and wildlife,” HBA claimed.According to the group, Trump and Vance “committed multiple crimes,” and it is asking the court to affirm probable cause and issue arrest warrants.Guerline Jozef, executive director of HBA, accused Trump and Vance of inflicting “devastating harm” against the Haitian community in Springfield.The HBA blamed the politicians for recent bomb threats and “racially charged threats” in the Springfield area. “Thirty-three bomb threats have been alleged across Springfield within the last two weeks. Hospitals, schools, universities, and government offices were all evacuated after receiving racially charged threats. Springfield government officials and their families received threats. Trump and Vance’s lies have harmed the Springfield community, and their lies have violated criminal law,” Jozef stated.“HBA is non-partisan, this is not about one candidate or political party,” Jozef continued. “This is about confronting white supremacy, anti-Black rhetoric, and hate speech that seems to be a constant in U.S. politics and that continues to cause suffering. No one is above the law.”Subodh Chandra, lead counsel in the lawsuit, said, “The Haitian community is suffering in fear because of Trump and Vance’s relentless, irresponsible, false alarms, and public services have been disrupted.”Chandra called for Trump and Vance to be “held accountable.”“Anyone else who wreaked havoc the way they did would have been arrested by now,” Chandra claimed.Vance has previously told reporters that many locals reached out to him, claiming that Haitian nationals have been swiping up wildlife and pets. During recent city meetings, several residents have raised concerns about the approximately 20,000 immigrant arrivals, with the majority expressing frustrations over the uptick in traffic accidents caused by unlicensed Haitian drivers.Karoline Leavitt, Trump campaign spokeswoman, told the Daily Caller News Foundation, “President Trump is rightfully highlighting the failed immigration system that Kamala Harris has overseen, bringing thousands of illegal immigrants pouring into communities like Springfield and many others across the country.”“President Trump will secure our border and put an end to the chaos that illegal immigration brings to our communities,” Leavitt added.The HBA cited Ohio law, R.C. 2935.09, which permits private citizens to file an affidavit for criminal charges. However, a hearing must take place before such affidavits can proceed.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Republican former President Donald Trump revealed that the Iranian government has allegedly tried to assassinate him, and security has been increased as a result. Trump made the revelation from his social media accounts on Tuesday. 'An attack on a former President is a Death Wish for the attacker!' "Big threats on my life by Iran. The entire U.S. Military is watching and waiting. Moves were already made by Iran that didn’t work out, but they will try again," he wrote. "Not a good situation for anyone," he added. "I am surrounded by more men, guns, and weapons than I have ever seen before." He went on to thank Congress for passing a motion to increase security for him with no votes against the proposal. "Nice to see Republicans and Democrats get together on something. An attack on a former President is a Death Wish for the attacker!" he added. The Trump campaign also said in a statement that the former president had been briefed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence about the threat meant to "destabilize and sow chaos in the United States." The campaign went on to say that the threat had "heightened in the past few months." There has been no evidence of Iranian involvement in either of the two assassination attempts on Trump's life. Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina used the revelation to press for action against the regime in Iran. "Iran is the largest state sponsor of terrorism in the eyes of a bipartisan majority in the U.S.," said Graham on social media. "President Biden and Vice President Harris are doing nothing to respond to this outrage. I will act because if we don’t act now, this will become the norm against American democracy."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!