Has CEI ever considered the possibility that few people have heard the CEI message because of the banishment of non-leftist viewpoints by FB, Twitter, CNN, NYT, WaPo, AP, government schools, etc.?
CEI has stated, "CDA section 230 is rooted in an eminently sound, common-law theory of justice: that people are responsible for their own acts and not those of others."
That would be a laudable principle to uphold if it were not for the fact that you will never see your vision effected because those people made ignorant, and in fact been indoctrinated by lies, by those sources of information have the unfortunate legal right to take your freedom away at the ballot box. The growth of the power held by government over the past 100 years has proved this.
Do you believe that you have the moral right to physically harm a person who has broken into your house, despite the fact that such action on your part is predicated by your fear of what he MAY do, not based upon what he HAS done?
A response to a burglar that consists only of a stern warning that he is ethically wrong is not a sufficient response to his actions. But that weak and ineffective response is essentially what you advocate in your recommendations per Section 230. Can't we at least treat FB and Twitter just as other sources of information are treated currently by using our power at the ballot box? Or do you believe that those other sources should ALSO be released from libel laws?
Has CEI ever wondered why few people have heard of them?
Since the 1960’s the world was going to end through global freezing, and then global warming . Over and over again. We keep falling for it because it comes from scientists and political leaders. Think about WHY they do it. What’s in it for them?
The Los Angeles Times
Myron Ebell • February 14, 2019
The Green New Deal sounds really good. But as the details start to come out, it looks worse and worse.
In fact, the costs would be stupendous, and the damage done by its policies would be catastrophic.
First, how much will it cost? One of the main promoters of the Green New Deal, freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, said recently that paying for it may require raising the top tax rate on incomes above $10 million to 70 percent.
The experts developing the Green New Deal openly admit that it will cost not billions, but rather trillions of dollars. Although how many trillions is open to debate, the fact is that the money will have to come from somewhere.
Progressive economists have argued that the federal government can print as much money as it needs and that spending so much will fully mobilize the economy and thereby create growth. How has that worked out in Venezuela?
Second, what are these policies that will cost so much? According to Ocasio-Cortez, the plan within 10 years must transition "the U.S. economy to become greenhouse gas emissions neutral."
This would likely require replacing all coal, oil and natural gas used for electricity generation and transportation with renewable energy, upgrading all buildings to state-of-the-art energy efficiency and a whole lot more.
However, turning our energy economy upside down in a decade is only part of the Green New Deal.
Income redistribution and social justice must be accomplished at the same time. Thus the federal government must create a "job guarantee program to assure a living wage job to every person who wants one."
It must also mitigate "deeply entrenched racial, regional and gender-based inequalities in income and wealth" and "ensure a 'just transition' for all workers, low-income communities, indigenous communities," etc.
The obstacle to achieving these dubious goals is that moving to 100 percent renewable energy within 10 (or many more) years is impossible.
About 80 percent of America's energy comes from coal, oil and natural gas.
After decades of multi-billion dollar subsidies, wind and solar accounted for 9 percent of electricity produced in 2017.
From 9 percent to 100 percent is a long way to go, and replacing all the gasoline and diesel cars, trucks and tractors with electric vehicles will require much more renewable power.
This not only won't happen; it can't happen. That's because the electric grid becomes unstable and unmanageable as the percentage of power produced by intermittent and variable sources increases.
Twenty percent wind and solar poses problems; 50 percent threatens blackouts and collapse. But what about battery storage?
Alas, the technology available for the foreseeable future can provide minutes of expensive backup power, not hours or days.
The Green New Dealers reply that the climate crisis is so dire that we must do whatever it takes to stop it. But even a green leap backwards will not stop global greenhouse gas levels from increasing.
Chinese emissions are now higher than the U.S. and Europe combined and still growing. And Indian emissions are increasing rapidly as hundreds of millions of people start to climb out of energy poverty.
The good news is that although global warming may present long-term challenges, it's not an immediate crisis, despite the dire warnings of politicized scientists.
The rate of warming over the past 40 years has been modest, and the demonstrable impacts have been mild. The experts predicting doom ignore the data and rely on discredited computer models.
What would cause a real, immediate crisis is for Congress to enact the back-to-the-Dark-Ages policies of the Green New Deal.
CON: Green New Deal Will be All Pain and No Gain
So basically Democrats hate Trump because He is exercising the power Obama and Democrats have put into place themselves to control every bill regulation and aspect of our life. Why because they were sure Hillary Clinton was going to win and They would own Majority in Congress and the White House. Now they are being Trumped and do not like it.
When listening to advice from experts predicting future events isn’t it wise to look at their past predictions to determine accuracy. When they are wrong many more time than they are right why should we continue to listen.
Hi, I've read your article about light bulbs at
Nice touch putting the Consumer Product Safety Commission's logo on Angela Logomasini's nasty attack on Sen. Udall and support of Nancy Beck. Its a great way to mislead your readers into thinking you could care less about product safety, consumers, or the 70+ deaths associated with methylene chloride. But then again, you are not even an institute. You're a Libertarian think tank. That's fine-its a free country----as long as you're honest about who you are. Luckily consumers like me know better. And will continue to oppose Nancy Beck until she either gets rejected or fired.
You’d think the academics would know enough to do their own research before... ie Guelph —sit down and recent Chancellor resigning!!
Excellent movie revealing the truth about the illusions of green energy. Zero population is necessary. Mother Nature is fighting back right now.
Should be required viewing!