Do Brainwashed Fanatics On College Campuses And Terrorists Have Something In Common?

As I have mentioned in some recent posts, 21st Century civilization (if I may call it that, regardless of how uncivilized it is) now has to deal with a rise in actual aggression in the name of fighting “microaggression.” And there is the “Islamist threat,” such as it is. I think that both phenomena are related.

And it isn’t just because so many among the world’s population are poisoning their brains with Big Pharma drugs, Big Agra’s corn-poison and other chemicals as well. People world-wide, in developed countries and those not-so-developed, are so heavily intoxicated on propaganda, religious and political, they are really brainwashed and acting in a very threatening manner toward others, and I don’t like it.

For starters, the new Orwellian culture we are enduring and suffering in Amerika now seems to consist of young people who feel “traumatized” and “triggered” by the slightest word or phrase uttered, or the most innocent picture, video, or symbol that causes them so much anguish they call the police or 911. Or worse, they shout and disrupt, or physically assault, other young people who are minding their own business as a way to get attention. Even college administrators and faculty members are kowtowing and defending the aggressions and disturbances of other people’s peace. University staff who don’t play along will be shown the door by the kooks in control.

But not all the young people are in college, thank God. There are those roughly 35% of the young people who either decided to delay college or opt out entirely, or those who were in college but dropped out, who actually work to provide for themselves. And some of those are married and have families already at a young age. But I digress.

But what is it now that’s causing all these young people to need a “safe place” or a safe room, as though everywhere else is unsafe? Why are they so terrified of just about everything (or say they are)? And why are those who are activists behaving so angrily and behaving so uncivilly and belligerently toward others?

And I ask myself, what was it that my generation (I’m in my 50s) did to these young people? But then, I look at my generation and I see many among them acting irrationally as well.

One thing I have observed is that 9/11 really did change things. The college-aged young people at age 18-24 (or in their later 20s) were born from 1991-1997. That means that they were between age 4 and 10 when the September 11th attacks of 2001 occurred. So, all the post-9/11 government and media propaganda and fear-mongering not only had a lasting effect on many adults, but must have really affected those who were little kids at that time. No wonder some of them have an irrational need for a “safe room.” The little ones must have had nightmares, not really as much because of the actual events of 9/11 but more because of the 2001-2003 repeated reminders of the 9/11 events and the constant scare tactics of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and all their mainstream media minions in propagandizing Americans to support another new war against Iraq in 2003. Many of the younger supporters of war at that time probably didn’t even know there was a previous U.S. government war on Iraq in 1991, the “Persian Gulf War.”

Add to that bit of terrorism inflicted by the Washington bureaucrats the “global warming” propaganda and fear-mongering of the Al Gore activists (who are still at it!). I clearly remember during the 2000s how the schools were implementing the global warming fanaticism into their everyday school curricula and imposing all that on impressionable little kids who were already terrorized by their society’s constant Islam this and Saddam that bunch of stuff. And I recall news articles on how school kids were waking up at night having nightmares because of the in-school global warming terror that was being foisted on them.

So I can understand what particular factors might be influencing the young people of college age now, in their irrational feelings of paranoia, their feeling traumatized by every little thing and their need for a “safe place.” They have been not only conditioned to react to every little thing and fear this or that, but they have also been brainwashed by years of the government and media’s fear mongering following 9/11 and associated with global warming. Their brainwashing causes them to act in an unthinking and irrational way, combined with the ideologies being instilled in them by their school teachers and college professors (such as “black lives matter but white lives don’t,” and “microaggressions,” etc., etc.), as well as their pop culture icons and idols, many of whom are on the Left.

But since 9/11, many of the “adults” were also in some ways brainwashed, by hours and hours of post-9/11 government propaganda TV-watching, day after day, and for years. No wonder the South Carolina debate-goers were booing Ron Paul when he mentioned the Golden Rule. “Christian” America no longer believes in the Golden Rule, that if you don’t want people breaking into or bombing your home then you shouldn’t do it to them. And when Dr. Paul or others brought up the history of pre-9/11 U.S. government interventionism, invasions and occupations of foreign countries, that makes people very uncomfortable. It’s difficult for people who love their country to acknowledge their own government’s criminal acts against foreigners which had done nothing but provoke the foreigners. But denial of the truth is much more unhealthy.

Besides the teen and 20-something young people in America who had grown up being bombarded with fear-mongering and propaganda by the government and media after 9/11, there are the young people in the Middle East who have been terrorized by actual bombs and bullets, as well as being propagandized by years of supposedly “Islamic” ideology. Many of them also were little kids during and after 9/11.

Many of those young Middle Easterners had suffered during their own growing up years, not as much at the hands of their “Islamic” authoritarian elders raising them, but being terrorized by all the bombs, invasions, occupations, murders and assassinations, renditions, torture at the hands of U.S. government forces and other Western government war criminals. So those Middle Eastern young people, now in their teens and 20s, grew up in fear and terror of when the next drone will pass over them, when the next bomb will be dropped in their neighborhood, when the invaders would break into their home, rape their mothers and shoot their fathers, and if they will actually survive all that criminality. I don’t think that many Americans can understand or empathize with them, being such narcissistic “Exceptionalists,” and also being so propagandized by the U.S. government and media. (But I could be wrong.)

And no, I am NOT defending “Islamic terrorists,” but one reason many Americans don’t have an understanding of what it’s like from the perspective of those whose lives are terrorized and tortured by invading armies is that most Americans have never experienced such violence against them. (Except those victims of American police violence, of course.) Another reason why most Americans actually don’t care to understand the perspective of their government’s foreign victims is that most Americans are ignorant and go by the propaganda fed to them by their government’s well-trained media sycophants. Most Americans are also ignorant of what their own government had done to those Middle Eastern foreigners prior to 9/11.

So traveling from Middle Eastern countries to Europe now, there are thousands of young people, many of them Muslim and male, who grew up being either the victims of or in fear and terror of the U.S. government’s massive campaigns of violence. And now they supposedly fear ISIS.

Now, I know that a lot of commentators and talk radio crusaders are expressing concern that many of those migrants or refugees might be Islamic jihadists who want to do more of what was done to Paris, and might come here to the U.S. and commit jihadist violence. But supposedly, many of them are not unmarried but actually do have wives and kids they left behind, assuming that the rest of their families will be welcomed when these new arrivals settle somewhere in Europe. Apparently, such a travel is very difficult, grueling and dangerous, and a good reason why females and children might not be able to endure such a trip.

To me, the refugees’ expecting to settle somewhere in Europe isn’t very realistic. European countries are welfare states, with massive redistribution of wealth schemes just like in America, which negatively affect productivity, housing and employment. Eventually, they will probably have to go back to Syria, Iraq, and so on (and I have heard that many of them are from other countries as well, not currently being victimized by so-called ISIS).

But just what will be left in Syria and Iraq after the so-called ISIS takeover? How will the ruling forces of Islamic State rebuild what they and others destroyed? And also, the “fanatics” are destroying many historic buildings as well. And I’ve been hearing that some insiders and disgruntled “former ISIS” participants are saying that with the higher-ups of ISIS, it really isn’t a fanatical imposition of Islam into society and culture there, but “it’s all about money.” In other words, they are really just criminals, stealing wealth and property from others not any different from the typical gang, or the mafia, or, more like a typical government racket in most countries. But given the history of U.S. government bureaucrats in those three-letter agencies, I think we can guess the answers to the questions as to who is breeding the jihadists, who is training them, and so on (besides the Saudis, that is).

But I think that there really are Middle Eastern Muslims who really are brainwashed to follow Islam in the same kind of zombie-like way as the American youngins seem to be brainwashed, propagandized and terrorized to believe in global warming, to believe ideologies such as “hate white people” and “hate males,” “rape culture,” “black lives matter,” and act like destructive, uncivilized creeps. Those college campuses are now breeding grounds for future culture jihadists who will see their violence against others as justified, in the name of this or that ideology.

So who are the world’s worst terrorists? In my view, government bureaucrats, government worshipers,government fanatics and jihadists. And if there are any identifiable culprits in breeding all the aforementioned creatures, I would say it’s mainly the bureaucrats of the U.S. government, their enforcers and soldiers, and all the little minions who obediently follow them.

This article originally appeared at Scott’s blog

On Climate Change, Catholic Leaders Must Believe In Miracles

For the first time, “Catholic leaders representing all regional and national bishops conferences” have come together in a “joint appeal.” According to reporting in the New York Times, Cardinal Oswald Gracias, archbishop of Mumbai, India, called the October 26 meeting at the Vatican a “historic occasion.”

What brought all these Catholic leaders together for the first time? Not the refugee crisis in Europe. Not the plight of Christians in the Middle East. Not a prayer meeting or a Bible study. It was climate change.

The leaders drafted a ten-point specific policy proposal for, as the document says, “those negotiating the COP 21 [United Nations climate conference] in Paris,” November 30December 11. Saying they are looking out for “the poorest and most vulnerable,” these church leaders want “a fair, legally binding and truly transformational climate agreement.” They call for “a drastic reduction on the emissions of carbon dioxide.”

Within the ten points of the “joint appeal,” number four demands a goal of “complete decarbonisation by mid-century.”

Point five addresses bringing people out of poverty and calls for putting “an end to the fossil fuel era, phasing out fossil fuel emissions, including emissions from military aviation and shipping and providing affordable, reliable and safe renewable energy access for all.”

Calling climate change a “moral issue,” Thomas G. Wenski, archbishop of Miami, acknowledged: “We’re pastors and we’re not scientists.”

So, what do the “scientists” say about their proposal to phase out fossil fuel emissions and provide affordable renewable energy access for all?

With a similar goal, Google launched a project in 2007 known as RE<C (Renewable Energy Cheaper than Coal)—which “aimed to develop renewable energy sources that would generate electricity more cheaply than coal-fired power plants do.” The two scientists responsible for Google’s effort, Ross Koningstein & David Fork, both Stanford PhDs, state: “At the start of RE<C, we had shared the attitude of many stalwart environmentalists: We felt that with steady improvements to today’s renewable technologies, our society could stave off catastrophic climate change. We now know that to be a false hope.”

More recently, Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, made a similar acknowledgement. In an interview with The Atlantic magazine, he said wind has “grown super-fast, on a very subsidized basis” and that solar “has been growing even faster—again on a highly subsidized basis,” yet solar photovoltaics are “still not economical.” Gates admitted: “we need energy 24 hours a day,” but “the primary new zero-CO2 sources are intermittent.” He says that due to “the self-defeating claims of some clean-energy enthusiasts” that are often “misleadingly meaningless statements,” the public underestimates how difficult moving beyond fossil fuels really is—saying it will take an “energy miracle.”

Surely the Catholic leaders really do care about “the poorest and most vulnerable.” If they do, rather than calling for the unrealistic “end of the fossil fuel era,” they’d call on the “climate aid” to be spent on “improved public health, education and economic development,” as recommended by noted economist Bjorn Lomborg.

Lomborg, in the Wall Street Journalstates: “In a world in which malnourishment continues to claim at least 1.4 million children’s lives each year, 1.2 billion people live in extreme poverty, and 2.6 billion lack clean drinking water and sanitation, this growing emphasis on climate aid is immoral.” Yet, the Catholic leaders call climate change “a moral issue.”

Ghanaian Cardinal Peter Turkson, who advised Pope Francis’ encyclical on the environment, has called for the church’s influence on public policy to be “grounded in realities, not ideas”—yet clearly what the church leaders are calling for will require not reality, but a miracle.

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). She hosts a weekly radio program: America’s Voice for Energy—which expands on the content of her weekly column. Follow her @EnergyRabbit.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

Keystone Decision Is About Obama’s Position On The World Stage

On Friday, in finally denying the Keystone pipeline, President Obama showed his true colors. We now know, as we’ve long believed, that those colors are the green of the anti-fossil fuel crowd, rather than the color of jobs resulting in economic growth in the hard-hit heartland of the United States. For seven years, he has tried to appease both his union supporters who want the good jobs Keystone would have provided, and his environmental allies who declared it a “dirty” project that would add to global CO2 emissions. Now, before the United Nations climate conference, he can wave his green credentials and claim to be a world leader in the fight against global warming—which, I believe, was the whole purpose of the decision and subsequent announcement.

Obama’s statement was less about the Keystone pipeline and more of a brag session on America’s supposed conversion to a clean energy economy. He stated: “Thanks, in part, to the investments we’ve made, there are already parts of America where clean power from the wind or the sun is finally cheaper than dirty conventional power.” Yet, his climate change ally Bill Gates, in the November issue of The Atlantic magazine, makes clear that this is a “misleadingly mindless statement.” Addressing the “self-defeating claims of some clean-energy enthusiasts,” Gates says: “What they mean is that at noon in Arizona, the cost of that kilowatt-hour is the same as a hydrocarbon kilowatt-hour. But it doesn’t come at night, it doesn’t come after the sun hasn’t shone, so the fact that in that one moment you reach parity, so what?” Additionally, Gates calls the growth in wind “very subsidized,” and solar “highly subsidized.”

During the announcement, Obama said the clean energy economy is “booming.” He’s conveniently ignored Abengoa—the Spanish solar company that received the biggest single award from his 2009 stimulus package, yet today is under investigation from several federal agencies and is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy after stock prices plunged more than 30 percent..

The President also made the “misleading” statement that the growth in wind and solar will help America’s “energy security”—when in fact, wind and solar produce electricity, while oil powers America’s transportation fleet. America is already, and has been, electricity secure. Wind and solar do nothing to reduce our need for oil.

His closing comment: “America’s prepared to show the rest of the world the way forward,” proves that his position on the world stage is more important than policy positions that would provide jobs for Americans.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

An Open Letter To Bill Gates

Dear Mr. Gates,

Thank you for your candid interview urging the human species to do something really big: let government push and pull the private sector to change earth’s temperature by two degrees. But, with all due respect, you’re thinking way too small.

Please accept this letter as my urging that you seize the opportunity to do something much bigger: prove beyond doubt that government is less inept than the private sector for all decision-making.

My idea is sparked by your mind-blowing, albeit brusque, reply to the journalist:

Yes, the government will be somewhat inept. But the private sector is in general inept.

Along with those venture capital missteps, you were probably thinking of your Zune mp3 player. Yup, we businessmen sure make a lot of inept decisions, don’t we? And the financial losses are certainly not as fun as profits!

I like to think of myself as level-headed and had always known that humans in the private sector can be inept. And I knew that government can be inept too. But I had never considered that, compared to government, the private sector is more inept.  But you are not just any level-headed businessman. Far from it.

And it got me thinking: what if government took over more of the decision-making from the private sector? Wouldn’t it be a great and logical leap forward for humans and the earth alike to experience more “somewhat ineptitude” and less “general ineptitude”? Free from the shackles of profit and loss, government might indeed make better decisions than the private sector everywhere. Maybe they could bring back the Zune as a huge success!

You are a great philanthropist, Mr. Gates. You have a great theory about private sector ineptitude. But unfortunately, there are many stubborn deniers still out there. They are still skeptical and want to see positive proof of your theory. This is your moment.  Here is how you can prove beyond all doubt that government should be making all decisions — not just about controlling the weather.

Take out a full page ad in the New York Times announcing that controlling shareholders have granted the government the exclusive right to make all Microsoft investment, operational and marketing decisions for a period of five years. Think of the incredible Microsoft innovations that those skeptics will be forced to acknowledge as this bold experiment unfolds. As a petty private sector member, I can only speculate. But I can imagine a Microsoft CO2-free Cloud …Nokia rotary-dial smartphone …Microsoft X-Ray Box for airport scanning. Perhaps even thoughtful Microsoft Windows updates — more frequently. And the list goes on.

I am not suggesting that you give up ownership of your valuable Microsoft shares as part of this grand experiment. As you would expect, the value of Microsoft will move dramatically during the five years; and you, Mr. Gates, should reap your full share. Many will say that you are handing over the reins of your company for this experiment to selfishly enjoy the bonanza of government decision-making. But I urge you to ignore these small-minded critics. As your wealth multiplies by some untold factor over the five years, think of the number of other experiments you will be able to undertake in the future and how humans might benefit.

And these future gifts will be icing on the giant cake you will already have baked and served to human kind: proof about inept government versus the inept private sector. And how ironic that this bold, surely ept, theory comes from a private sector businessman (government patent protections aside). How you teach us new and amazing things. How amazing it is to contemplate that the inept government only survives by extracting money from the more inept private sector in the form of taxes and currency debasement. Clearly such an organization is less inept! Let your experiment unfold. Bravo Mr. Gates!

Yours truly,

Arthur Krolman

Arthur Martin McCannell Krolman [send him mail] is the founder and president of a medical device company based in Boston, MA. Visit his website. He is also the author of The Scary Story of the Three Little Pigs and the Big Bad Box of Free Money.

This commentary originally appeared at and is reprinted here under a Creative Commons license

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

The March To Paris Has Begun

Less than one month from now, the nations of the world will meet in Paris for the 21st United Nations Convention on Climate Change (COP21).

President Obama is “cautiously optimistic” that a global climate agreement will finally be reached. As stated during the October 11 edition of 60 Minutes, he sees this as more important than fighting ISIS: “My definition of leadership would be leading on climate change, an international accord that potentially we’ll get in Paris.”

This “accord” will not be an enforceable “treaty” as was The Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change negotiated in 1997 and signed by President Clinton but never ratified by the U.S. Congress. The Kyoto Protocol expired at the end of 2012. Supporters have since been scrambling to reach a new deal. Once again, however, Congress will not ratify any such agreement—leaving the President to “lead by example” through executive and regulatory actions that have little chance of Congressional success.

The Clean Power Plan (CPP) is, as stated by NPR: “the centerpiece of President Obama’s broader climate agenda.” NPR continues: “he’s urging other big countries to take similarly aggressive action in advance of an international climate summit in Paris.”

CPP—in case you haven’t been following the process that introduced draft rules in 2014, with finalized rules released in August and then, after more than three times the usual lag time, the 2000-page regulation was published in the Federal Register on October 23—“orders states to reorganize their energy systems from power plants to electric outlets,” says the Wall Street Journal (WSJ). It requires a cut in power-plant carbon emissions of 32 percent below 2005 levels by 2030.

Less than 12 hours after publication in the Federal Register, CPP became “the most heavily litigated environmental regulation ever”—with more than 15 separate cases from 26 states and countless industry groups filed against it in just two days. All the lawsuits have been consolidated into one case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

It is widely expected to, ultimately, be heard before the Supreme Court—which may not hear the case until 2018. By the time a final ruling is made, the Obama administration believes that, as was the case with the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards, industry will have already done so much to comply with the rule that the high court’s decision will be almost irrelevant.

It is this timeline that prompted lawsuits to not only overturn CPP, but to also ask for a stay of the rule while the court decides on the case. The Environmental Protection Agency offered its recommendations for scheduling legal arguments—which the federal appeals court signed off on.

Effectively kicking the can down the road, the last day for arguments will be December 23. So, no decision on whether to block implementation of the standards while the litigation plays out will be made until early 2016—saving Obama embarrassment in Paris.

The court’s decision won’t be made before COP21, but Congress’ will be.

Both chambers of Congress are working on resolutions of disapproval aimed at blocking the rule. The Congressional Review Act (CRA), according to WSJ, “allows Congress to nullify regulations within 60 days of their publication into the Federal Register with a simple majority of members.” The CRA resolutions of disapproval are not subject to a filibuster in the Senate—though they are subject to presidential veto. While the expected passage of the resolutions will not ultimately block CPP, it will send a signal to international negotiators that whatever agreement is reached in Paris will not receive support at home.


The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens’ Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). She hosts a weekly radio program: America’s Voice for Energy—which expands on the content of her weekly column. Follow her @EnergyRabbit.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by