2017-01 January

People for the West -Tucson

PO Box 86868, Tucson, AZ 85754-6868 pfw-tucson@cox.net

Newsletter, January, 2017


Did Trump win because of a backlash to Political Correctness?

By Jonathan DuHamel

Donald Trump may have tapped into a cultural issue that was flying under the radar during the campaign: Political Correctness.

What is Political Correctness?

“The segment of the electorate who flocked to Trump because he positioned himself as ‘an icon of irreverent

resistance to political correctness’ think it means this: smug, entitled, elitist, privileged leftists jumping down the throats of ordinary folks who aren’t up-to-date on the latest requirements of progressive society.” (Robby Soave, Reason Magazine)

As I wrote in the April issue of this newsletter:

“Political correctness is destroying our culture by making us all victims too afraid to hear an opinion contrary to our own beliefs, by making us monitor our thoughts and speech lest we commit a ‘“micro-aggression’ against a tender soul, by turning us into children who must be protected from the real world.”

Following the election there was much turmoil on some college campuses.

Economist Dr. Walter E. Williams opines:

“Whether you are a liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, you should be disturbed and frightened for the future of our nation based on the response of so many of our young people to an election outcome. We should also be disturbed by college administrators and professors who sanction the coddling of our youth.”

Williams goes on to write, in an article titled “Trump and College Chaos” that If one needed more evidence of the steep decay in academia, Donald Trump’s victory provided it. Let’s begin by examining the responses to his win, not only among our wet-behind-the-ears college students, many of whom act like kindergarteners, but also among college professors and administrators.

The University of Michigan’s distressed students were provided with Play-Doh and coloring books, as they sought comfort and distraction. A University of Michigan professor postponed an exam after many students complained about their “serious stress” over the election results. Cornell University held a campuswide “cry-in,” with officials handing out tissues and hot chocolate. Read more

We saw during the campaign that Donald Trump is not afraid to speak his mind. That infuriated some and resonated with others.

Here are some recent examples of political correctness excesses:

University of Wisconsin to Offer Class on ‘The Problem of Whiteness’

The University of Wisconsin-Madison will offer a spring semester class examining “the problem of whiteness” and “what it means to be #woke,”[sic] Campus Reform reports.

The course is being offered by the university’s African Cultural Studies department. According to an online description, students will be asked to examine “what it really means to be white,” and consider “how race is experienced by white people” in the United States and abroad.

“Critical Whiteness Studies aims to understand how whiteness is socially constructed and experienced in order to help dismantle white supremacy,” the description reads. “In this class, we will ask what an ethical white identity entails, what it means to be #woke[sic], and consider the journal Race Traitor’s motto, ‘treason to whiteness is loyalty to humanity.'”

The course will satisfy the university’s “ethnic studies” requirement for graduation, and will be taught by an associate professor whose course load includes a class on “Global Hiphop and Social Justice.” (Source)

College Removes American Flag, Calls it “Symbol of Fear”

by Todd Starnes

A private college in Massachusetts has announced it will no longer fly Old Glory because it has become a “heated symbol” in the aftermath of the presidential election — in an “environment of escalating hate-based violence.”

“There were a range of views on campus, including people whose experience growing up have made the flag a symbol of fear, which was strengthened by the toxic language during the campaign, and people for whom the flag is the symbol of all that’s best throughout the country,” said Hampshire College president Jonathan Lash told WBZ.

The Hampshire College Board of Trustees initially agreed to fly the flag at half-staff on Veterans Day — but not necessarily to honor our veterans.

“This was meant as an expression of grief over the violent deaths being suffered in this country and globally, including many U.S. service members who have lost their lives,” Lash wrote in a Facebook post.

So Hampshire College basically insulted every member of the Armed Forces — men and women who sacrifice their lives for a bunch of ungrateful over-educated brats. Read more

Univ. of Northern Colorado students forced to use ‘mandatory’ gender-neutral language

By Jillian Kay Melchior

More colleges around the country are launching “inclusive language” campaigns that encourage students to avoid everyday words and phrases that could possibly offend someone, somewhere—”hey guys,” “mankind” and “man-made” are just a few of the terms now frowned upon.

The University of Northern Colorado has also jumped on the “inclusive language” bandwagon. But at the Greeley, Colo., university, there’s an extra wrinkle: In at least five classes in the last year, the new, ultra-inclusive lexicon wasn’t optional—it was required. Read more

University of Florida offers counseling for students offended by Halloween costumes

By Brittany Loggins

The University of Florida wants students to know that counseling is available for students hoping to work past any offense taken from Halloween costumes.

“Some Halloween costumes reinforce stereotypes of particular races, genders, cultures, or religions. Regardless of intent, these costumes can perpetuate negative stereotypes, causing harm and offense to groups of people,” the school administration wrote in a blog post. “If you are troubled by an incident that does occur, please know that there are many resources available.” Read more

Duke University: Combating “Toxic Masculinity”

by David L. Hunter

Rather than classically educating the mind and developing the character, Duke University has officially joined the academic cult of politically correct social engineering.

The estimated cost to attend North Carolina’s Duke University this year is $70,092. For all those greenbacks—some $280,000 for a 4-year degree—any male offspring can look forward to being demonized for inherent “toxic masculinities” due to his gender. To that end The Men’s Project is creating a “safe space” so young men can, in essence, ‘make healthier choices while critiquing their own masculinity’—and fretting over their “male privilege”. Thus, by design, young men should feel deficient solely for the expression of their manliness? What complete hogwash! Read more

Some political correctness is not new:

“Everybody is in favor of free speech. Hardly a day passes without its being extolled, but some people’s idea of it is that they are free to say what they like, but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage.” —Winston Churchill (1874-1965) ☼


Obama bars future oil leases in swaths of Atlantic, Arctic oceans

Fox News

President Obama ordered U.S.-owned waters in the Arctic Ocean and certain areas in the Atlantic Ocean placed “indefinitely” off-limits for future oil and gas leases, in a final fossil-fuel crackdown before he leaves office.

The move, intended to protect the area’s ecosystem, is a final push by Obama to seal his environmental legacy, and a possible way to bind the hands of his successor. Read more

5 Things Americans Should Know About the Renewable Fuel Standard

by Quinn Beeson and Katie Tubb, Daily Signal

Two separate reports by the Government Accountability Office were released last week that called into question the viability of the Renewable Fuel Standard, otherwise known as the ethanol mandate. Three days later, Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., highlighted the reports in a hearing and called the Renewable Fuel Standard a “deeply flawed program.”

Here are five basic things that Americans should know about the Renewable Fuel Standard:

1. It will be years before advanced biofuels are cost effective.

2. The Renewable Fuel Standard has done next to nothing to achieve U.S. energy independence.

3. Biofuels have raised food prices.

4. Biofuels are not actually reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

5. If the fuel standard were repealed, Americans would still use lots of biofuel—and fuel prices would be cheaper. Read more    ☼

Final wind-turbine rule permits thousands of eagle deaths

The Obama administration on Wednesday finalized a rule that lets wind-energy companies operate high-speed turbines for up to 30 years — even if it means killing or injuring thousands of federally protected bald and golden eagles.

Under the new rule, wind companies and other power providers will not face a penalty if they kill or injure up to 4,200 bald eagles, nearly four times the current limit. Deaths of the more rare golden eagles would be allowed without penalty so long as companies minimize losses by taking steps such as retrofitting power poles to reduce the risk of electrocution. Read more

The $3.5 Trillion Fracking Economy Is About To Get A Lot Bigger

by Andrew Follett, Daily Caller

Hydraulic fracturing generated $3.5 trillion in new wealth between 2012 and 2014 in spite of falling oil prices, according to a new study, but today’s rising prices could be even better for the U.S. economy.

From 2012 to 2014, the shale oil industry generated 4.6 million new jobs due to an energy boom and the resulting low gas prices, according to a study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER). Expensive energy could be a huge net positive for the U.S. fracking economy because rising oil prices mean more drilling.

The NBER study concluded the vast majority of new oil development occurred on privately held land, because getting permission to drill on federal land was exceedingly difficult during the study period. Read more

Nuclear Power Is ‘Most Sustainable Energy Source,’ According To UN Official

by Andrew Follett, Daily Caller

Nuclear power plants have far less environmental impacts than any other energy source, according to top International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) officials.

IAEA officials also said nuclear power is more sustainable than wind or solar because waste is fully accounted for and plans to decommission plants exist before reactors are even built. Read more

The Trump Administration’s Energy Plan

(This may be another reason Trump won. It means jobs.)

Withdrawing from the Paris Agreement. The Paris Agreement is in deep trouble. President-elect Trump has promised to cancel the agreement and stop spending taxpayer dollars on wasteful U.N. climate programs. Even if the Trump administration does nothing, this means there will be massive defections from the agreement. Any prior commitments to emissions reductions or taxpayer funding for the Green Climate Fund should be seen as null at this point.

Increasing federal oil and natural gas leasing. Less than 3 percent of federal offshore areas are currently leased for energy development. In particular, this will increase in the Chukchi and Beaufort Sea and the mid and south Atlantic. Onshore, there will be more leasing, especially in places like the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska and on federal lands in the west.

Lifting the coal lease moratorium. The Obama administration’s coal leasing moratorium on federal lands—a part of their “keep it in the ground” strategy—will likely be terminated and royalty rates will likely be kept at current levels.

Giving the states greater say on energy leases on federal lands within their borders. Here’s what the Trump campaign wrote in response to the American Energy Alliance’s Presidential candidate questionnaire:

“The federal government does have stewardship of millions of acres of land. Rather than selling the land to states and private enterprises, the first step should be establishing a shared governance structure with the states. This first step would allow for maintaining the aesthetics of the land while finding ways to gain revenue that would benefit both the federal and state governments.”

Expediting approvals of LNG export terminals. The Obama administration has slow-walked the review of LNG export terminals. Under the Trump administration, approvals will be expedited.

Hitting reset on the Clean Power Plan. This regulatory rule is currently before the D.C. Circuit Court. Even if the regulation is upheld, the Trump administration will issue a new regulation withdrawing the Clean Power Plan. Also, the seldom-talked about regulation of carbon dioxide emissions from new power plants will also be withdrawn.

Reconsidering the “endangerment finding.” In response to Massachusetts v. EPA, the Obama administration found that greenhouse gas emissions harmed human health and welfare. This is the regulatory predicate to the Obama administration’s Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) mandates and Clean Power Plan and greatly expanded EPA’s power. This finding will be reconsidered and possibly revoked, marking a major blow to underpinning for many climate regulations.

Moving forward with pipeline infrastructure. The Obama administration slow-walked the Keystone XL pipeline, making it a political issue, and has done the same with the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL). The Trump administration will likely work to streamline and expedite pipeline permitting.

Taking a closer look at the environmental impacts of wind energy. Trump has been concerned about the harms to wildlife from wind turbines such as bird and bat deaths. Unlike before, wind energy will rightfully face increasing scrutiny from the federal government.

Reducing energy subsidies. Here’s what the Trump campaign wrote in response to the Presidential candidate questionnaire from the American Energy Alliance:

“This is an issue for Congress and the people they represent. Subsidies distort markets and should be used only when national security is at stake. Eventually, all subsidies should end so that the demand for energy will set prices, allow consumers access to the best values and encourage all facets of the energy industry to do all they can to keep their particular source competitive.”☼

Amending the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS). Trump has expressed support of the RFS as a way to increase domestic energy production. The RFS will be amended to reduce EPA’s discretionary authority to set the biofuel levels, especially after 2022.

Hitting reset on the Obama administration’s unconstitutional definition of “Waters of the United States”. This rule is currently in the courts. The Trump administration could revise the regulation to work cooperatively with the states. An expansive definition of “waters of the United States” under the Clean Water Act tramples on the prerogatives of the states to regulate water.

Relaxing the federal fuel economy standards. Under the Obama administration’s CAFE standards, light-duty vehicles must achieve 54.5 mpg by 2025. This regulation will be significantly relaxed. It will either be completely withdrawn or revised and phased out to be closer to the current levels of fuel economy.

Ending the use of the social cost of carbon in federal rulemakings. The Obama administration aggressively used the social cost of carbon (SCC) to help justify their regulations. During the Trump Administration the SCC will likely be reviewed and the latest science brought to bear. If the SCC were subjected to the latest science, it would certainly be much lower than what the Obama administration has been using. (Source) ☼


Obama’s Dakota Pipeline Decision Creates A ‘Serious Moral Hazard’

by Michael Bastasch, Daily Caller

Legal experts say the Obama administration’s decision to block the Dakota Access oil pipeline Sunday creates a “serious moral hazard” allowing activists to shut down projects that have already been approved.

New York University law school professor Richard Epstein said the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ decision to not grant the pipeline an easement to cross under a man-made lake a “serious moral hazard.”

Epstein said the Corps is basically arguing it can revoke a previously approved easement in the face of public pressure. That has huge legal implications for how federal agencies handle future projects. Read more



REPORT: Fighting Global Warming Is WAY More Expensive Than Letting It Happen

by Andrew Follett

Simply letting global warming happen and dealing with its effects may be a lot cheaper than decarbonizing the global economy, according to a new report by the Manhattan Institute.

The study found the Obama administration’s long-running projection for the cost of global warming is about 0.1 percent of the U.S. economy per year. Government economic estimates claim that, without global warming, global gross domestic product (GDP) would have grown from $76 trillion in 2015 to $510 trillion in 2100.

Under some of the worst global warming scenarios, however, global GDP still grew to about $490 trillion in 2100. This is a $20 trillion cost, but the world is still 6.5 times wealthier than today.

Even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assumes in its various scenarios that the people of 2100 will be between three and 20 times wealthier than people of today, despite assuming the worst possible impacts of global warming. Reducing emissions today for the benefit of people in 2100 is transferring money from the poor to the rich.

The Paris global warming agreement would likely cost as much as $16.5 trillion between 2016 and 2030, according to projections from the International Energy Agency.Read more

The Most Comprehensive Assault On ‘Global Warming’ Ever

By Mike Van Biezen

Here are 10 of the many scientific problems with the assumption human activity is causing “global warming” or “climate change” (headers only, read full post for explanation):

1. Temperature records from around the world do not support the assumption that today’s temperatures are unusual.

2. Satellite temperature data does not support the assumption that temperatures are rising rapidly.

3. Current temperatures are always compared to the temperatures of the 1980’s, but for many parts of the world the 1980’s was the coldest decade of the last 100+ years.

4. The world experienced a significant cooling trend between 1940 and 1980.

5. Urban heat island effect skews the temperature data of a significant number of weather stations.

6. There is a natural inverse relationship between global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels.

7. The CO2 cannot, from a scientific perspective, be the cause of significant global temperature changes.

8. There have been many periods during our recent history that a warmer climate was prevalent long before the industrial revolution.

9. Glaciers have been melting for more than 150 years.

10. “Data adjustment” is used to continue the perception of global warming. ☼

National Weather Service’s Multi-Billion Dollar Models Fail …Totally Botched Forecasts!

By P Gosselin

If President-elect Donald Trump is looking for places to cut costs, he might want to take a look at the National Weather Service’s seasonal forecasting unit.

At the Daily Update over at Weatherbell Analytics, veteran meteorologist Joe Bastardi looked at the season forecasts, generated by billion dollar super-computers, recently put out by NCEP. Turns out they were totally wrong. You have to pity the poor persons who placed their bets on them.

So what’s wrong?

Joe seems to think that the NWS is relying too much on “computer model mathematics” and nowhere near enough on using analogues. Joe’s theory is that if you had very similar weather patterns in the past, then you can use them to help predict today’s weather patterns. I’ve been following Joe for a number of years, and it seems to work quite well for Weatherbell. Read post to see maps of forecasts vs reality. ☼

Why Nobody Needs To Freak Out Over The North Pole’s Higher Temps Right Now

By H. Sterling Burnett

While temperatures in the Arctic are relatively high, high temperatures, while not the norm, are also not unusual.

Much has been made about the well-above-average temperatures the Great White North has experienced this year and during the winter of 2015. For example, The Washington Post ran a story on December 20 titled “Pre-Christmas melt? North Pole forecast to warm 50 degrees above normal Thursday.”

The problem is, as a careful reading of The Washington Post story reveals, while temperatures in the Arctic are relatively high, high temperatures, while not the norm, are also not unusual. That’s because the kind of weather patterns that have caused the past two years of warmth have happened once or twice each decade at least since the 1950s, according to a recent paper that will appear in the influential journal Nature.

Low sea ice and high Arctic temperatures are not a consequence of human-caused global warming. They result from the same natural factors that have controlled weather in the Arctic and around the world since the beginning of time. Nature, not human-produced greenhouse-gas emissions, is responsible for the “melting” North Pole, as well as the deep freeze that has been occurring over the past month throughout much of Asia, Siberia, and even parts of the United States. Read more

The Hockey Stick Collapses: 50 New (2016) Scientific Papers Affirm Today’s Warming Isn’t Global, Unprecedented, Or Remarkable

The Hockey Stick Collapses: 50 New (2016) Scientific Papers Affirm Today’s Warming Isn’t Global, Unprecedented, Or Remarkable

By Kenneth Richard

Two fundamental tenets of the anthropogenic global warming narrative are (1) the globe is warming (i.e., it’s not just regional warming), and (2) the warming that has occurred since 1950 can be characterized as remarkable, unnatural, and largely unprecedented. In other words, today’s climate is substantially and alarmingly different than what it has been in the past….because the human impact has been profound.

Well, maybe. Scientists are increasingly finding that the two fundamental points cited above may not be supported by the evidence.

In 2016, an examination of the peer-reviewed scientific literature has uncovered dozens of paleoclimate reconstructions that reveal modern “global” warming has not actually been global in scale after all, as there are a large number of regions on the globe where it has been cooling for decades. Even if it was warming on a global scale, the paleoclimate evidence strongly suggests that the modern warm climate is neither unusual or profoundly different than it has been in the past. In fact, today’s regional warmth isn’t even close to approaching the Earth’s maximum temperatures achieved earlier in the Holocene, or as recently as 1,000 years ago (the Medieval Warm Period), when anthropogenic CO2 emissions could not have exerted a climate impact. Read more


Science Under President Trump: End the Bias in Government-Funded Research

by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

You might expect that my background in climate research would mean my suggestions to a Trump Administration would be all climate-related. And there’s no question that climate would be a primary focus, especially neutering the Endangerment Finding by the EPA which, if left unchecked, will weaken our economy and destroy jobs, with no measurable benefit to the climate system.

But there’s a bigger problem in U.S. government funded research of which the climate issue is just one example. It involves bias in the way that government agencies fund science.

Government funds science to support pre-determined policy outcomes.

The overarching goal of every regulatory agency is to write regulations. That’s their reason for existence.

It’s not to strengthen the economy. Or protect jobs. It’s to regulate.

As a result, the EPA continues the push to make the environment cleaner and cleaner, no matter the cost to society.

In my opinion, we are an over-regulated society. Over-regulation not only destroys prosperity and jobs, it ends up killing people. And political pressures in government to perform scientific research that favors biased policy outcomes is part of the problem.

Science is being misused, prostituted if you wish. Read full post

Scientists: Greenland Is Now Much Colder With More Advanced Ice Sheet Margins Than 90% Of The Last 7,500 Years

By Kenneth Richard

Fifteen international scientists recently collaborated to assemble one of the most comprehensive analyses of temperature and ice sheet changes for Greenland and the Canadian Arctic ever produced. The results are not good news for those who wish to maintain that today’s Greenland Ice Sheet is losing ice area at an unprecedentedly accelerated rate, or that modern temperature values for the Arctic region are dangerously high. Greenland’s Ice Sheet has a larger ice extent now than it has had for most of the last 7,500 years; only the Little Ice Age period (~1300-1900 A.D.) had more ice mass. And both regions (Canadian Arctic and Greenland) are still 1 to 2°C colder now than they were just a few thousand years ago. Read more

About $350 Million In Global Warming Foreign Aid Mysteriously Vanishes

by Andrew Follett

Britain’s government handed out $347 million in foreign aid to a global warming fund without tracking where the money actually went.

The United Kingdom gave taxpayer funds to the Strategic Climate Fund (SCF), but when The Times asked how the cash was spent, the government said it “does not hold the information relevant to your request” and instructed interested parties to visit the SCF’s website. (Source) ☼


Study: The Obama Recovery Is A Myth

by Terry Jones, Investors Business Daily

President Obama has staked a great part of his legacy on the idea that he skillfully engineered a great recovery from the financial crisis. The Obama-friendly media routinely parrot the idea. But in fact, as a shocking new study from the nonpartisan U.S. Council on Competitiveness and the Gallup organization suggests, the so-called recovery doesn’t exist.

As recently as Oct. 11, less than a month before the election, the online publication The Hill ran this headline: “Obama’s economic legacy ensures Democrats decades of success.” No kidding. But it’s a bit unfair to single them out: Others have run with similar themes. The point is, it’s not true.

The reason Obama’s chosen successor, Hillary Clinton, didn’t win a third straight presidential term for the Democrats was that they actually seemed to believe their own propaganda, while Middle America didn’t. For most Americans, the much-hoped-for recovery has been nonexistent. That’s why they voted in droves for Donald Trump in normally Democratic strongholds.

The new study, “No Recovery — An Analysis of Long-Term Productivity Decline,” provides strong clues as to why that is. Read more

* * *

The Double Standard on Election Acceptance

by Brent Bozell, TownHall

Two months ago, the liberal media erupted in horror after the third presidential debate. Fox’s Chris Wallace challenged Donald Trump on whether he would accept the result of the election, and Trump said he would wait and see. NBC described a “flood of condemnation” and cited President Obama accusing Trump of “(undermining) our democracy.” “Today” co-host Savannah Guthrie called it an “earthquake.”

Guthrie turned to retired anchorman Tom Brokaw to denounce Trump. He said: “This is not a banana republic. We’ve got more than 200 years of presidential elections and graceful and peaceful transitions to the new administration. As you saw, even Richard Nixon, Al Gore, the people who were caught up in very close races, said, ‘I accept that this is the new president.'”

Trump won the election handily with 304 electoral votes, and Democrats flip-flopped, sullenly refusing to accept the results. And so did the “objective” media. On Dec. 18, there was no “earthquake” at NBC when Hillary Clinton aide John Podesta refused to say that President-elect Trump won a free and fair election. He said instead that it was rigged by the Russians. Read more

“Newspaper editors separate the wheat from the chaff — and print the chaff.” —Adlai E. Stevenson (1900-1965)

* * *


Newsletters can be viewed online on Jonathan’s Wryheat Blog:



See my essay on climate change:


The Constitution is the real contract with America.

* * *

People for the West – Tucson, Inc.

PO Box 86868

Tucson, AZ 85754-6868


Jonathan DuHamel, President & Editor

Dr. John Forrester, Vice President

Lonni Lees, Associate Editor

People for the West – Tucson, Inc. is an Arizona tax-exempt, 501(c)(3) corporation. Newsletter subscriptions are free.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only.