COP25: Another reason to get out of the UN

COP25: Another reason to get out of the UN by Peter Burrows elburropete@gmai.com – silvercityburro.com 12/20/19 

What would you think if Congress sent everybody in Grant County to Madrid for two weeks to solve the world’s climate “crisis,” and the most significant thing we agreed upon was that we’d do it all over again next year in Glasco, Scotland?  A waste of money, ya think? 

I’m alluding to a United Nations climate conference that just concluded, called COP25, officially known as “the 25th Session of the Conference of the Parties (COP25) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),” which took place in Madrid, Spain, December 2-15.  

OK, I cheated a little, because the conference had “only” 27,000 attendees and Grant County has about 29,000 people. If I had said, “able-bodied adult Grant Countians,” it would have been closer. Regardless, you get the idea.  

Some of you really smart folks are thinking, “OMG, Burro, does COP ‘25’ mean they have been doing this for TWENTY-FIVE years!?!?”   

Actually, a little longer. The first UN climate conference was in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, 27 years ago. The Conference of the Parties (COP) nomenclature began in 1995, and refers to the 165 nations -– the parties — that signed on to the UNFCCC. That leaves 28 UN member nations that didn’t sign, probably because they couldn’t afford to send delegations off to party-down someplace new every year. 

That’s being a little unfair to those attendees who sincerely believe the UN can do something to curb global greenhouse gas emissions, but, after 27 years of failing to do that, a cynic could be forgiven for thinking the word “exhausted” in the following BBC summary of COP25 is just a euphemism for “hung over.” The following is slightly edited, my caps:  

“COP25: Longest climate talks end with compromise deal By Matt McGrath, BBC Environment correspondent, Madrid, 15 December 2019: Difficult issues proved impossible to resolve in Madrid. The longest UN climate talks on record ended in Madrid with a compromise dealExhausted delegates reached agreement on the key question of increasing the global response to curbing carbon. All countries will need to put new climate PLEDGES on the table by the time of the NEXT major conference in Glasgow NEXT YEAR. Divisions over other questions – including carbon markets – were delayed until the NEXT gathering. —After two extra days and nights of negotiations, delegates finally agreed a deal that will see new, improved carbon cutting plans on the table by the time of the Glasgow conference NEXT YEAR.”  

I can confidently predict next year’s COP will have similar results.  This is because, even if the climate alarmists are correct, it will still be in the developing nations’ best interest to expand electricity production as fast as possible by the cheapest means possible, which means burning more and more coal.  If you are an Indian without electricity, you really don’t give a damn about Greta Thunberg’s feelings, do you? Or, for that matter, do you care if Manhattan is under water?  

To put the matter into perspective, India is the world’s fourth largest CO2 emitter, at about 7% of global emissions.  (China is about 30%, the U.S. 15%, and the EU 9%.)  India emits about half of what the U.S. emits, but India has four times the population.  To get to only one-half the per capita level of the U.S. would be an increase equal to 150% of today’s total U.S emissions.  We couldn’t offset India’s growth even if we wanted to.  Add China, Africa, and Southeast Asia and you get the picture. 

Some of you may be thinking, “But Burro, we can institute a world-wide ‘cap-and-trade’ policy that would give developed nations incentives to reduce their per capita CO2 emissions.” In fact, cap-and-trade has been part of the UN effort since COP3 in Kyoto, way back in 1997.  Developed nations were given Assigned Amount Units, AAUs, representing allowed CO2 emissions, and Certified Emission Reductions, CERs, were created as marketable certificates representing CO2 reductions achieved. Real simple, right?                                                                                                                                                                        Here’s a blurb I got from CFACT on COP25: “The big COP breakdown was over something called “Article 6” which deals with international carbon markets.  Australia refused to give up past carbon credits and was joined by Brazil which shut the whole thing down.” The “past carbon credits” referred to Kyoto-era CERs and AAUs. The bottom line is that the UN has been trying to figure out how to make cap-and-trade work since 1997, to no avail.                                                                                                                                                     

Here’s a headline that sums it up: “The Cap and Trade Market Is Going Global—If Politics Are Put Aside By Renae Reints Fortune Magazine December 14, 2019.”  IF politics can be put aside??  That’s kind of like saying you can fly off the top of the Empire State Building if you can get your arms to move up-and-down fast enough. For those of you who want to get into the weeds on the problems with the UN cap-and-trade, here’s another interesting article:  

https://www.carbonbrief.org/cop25-key-outcomes-agreed-at-the-un-climate-talks-in-madrid 

All this COP nonsense proves that government bureaucracies are, as Ronald Reagan said, “the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.” What’s especially outrageous is that almost everybody knows that COP’s mission is impossible to achieve.  The idea was that nations would agree to cut carbon emissions enough to prevent global temperatures from rising by 1.5 -2 degrees centigrade by 2100.    

That may have seemed feasible in 1992, not so today. In fact, greenhouse gas emissions are actually increasing at an accelerating rate, according to the climate alarmist in the video below, Dr. Peter Carter. (A medical type of doctor.)  He is confident this will lead to a “biosphere collapse,” which will mean the “destruction of the earth” and “the end of humanity.”  

I strongly recommend you watch the 23-minute video. I enjoyed it very much and agree with Dr. Carter that “nothing good is ever going to come out of these COPs,” and that we will never reduce emissions enough to make a difference. Trump had the good sense to pull the U.S. out of the agreements reached at COP21, held in Paris, the “Paris agreement” we hear so much about.  

I think it’s all nonsense, but what if Dr. Carter is right? Then there is nothing we can do. If he is wrong, there is nothing we should do.  What if he is right, but off by 50-100 years? Then there are two things we can do: research CO2 sequestration and develop cheap, safe nuclear power.  That makes a lot more sense than subsidizing wind mills, solar panels and Tesla cars.  

12/18/19 You Tube, 23-min, Dr. Peter Carter at COP25 = we are doomed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa13KrOvE2s 

This article supports the above and also gives a good summary of new coal projects = we are doomed:  https://www.counterpunch.org/2019/12/19/biosphere-collapse/ 

A You Tube minimum wage tutorial

A You Tube minimum wage tutorial 12/3/19 by Peter Burrows elburropete@gmail.com – silvercityburro.com 

Milton Friedman, Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams have been my favorite economists for many decades. If you watch them on You Tube, you’ll see why.  

Here are three brief You Tubes on the minimum wage by my gurus. If they don’t come through, just go to You Tube and search by name and “minimum wage” and look for those with about the times of those below.  

The first, by Walter Williams, is the longest at almost teminutes.  Well worth the time. The next, featuring Thomas Sowell, is from a 1981 Firing Line show and is less than three minutes. (His latest You Tube appearances show how well he has aged. Still writing, still incisive at 89.) The final is Milton Friedman and is less than three minutes. There are many more by these three on the minimum wage, and on many other topics as well.   

I don’t care if you are a Republican or a Democrat, if after watching these you still believe that minimum wage laws are a good idea, you are either stupid, a union toady or a racist. Strong letter to follow.  

 

WEW 9:58 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8uz3uafMe0&t=65s Dr. Williams gives a little economics lesson getting to his point.  

TS 2:50 –https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4SIEl1j8e4 To say the lib woman is invincibly stupid is perhaps redundant, but it feels good to say it.   

Milt 2:31 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTLwANVtnkA Dr. Friedman addresses both lousy schools and minimum wage laws as causes of poverty. He was a treasure.  

Take the “Who’s a racist?” quiz!

Take the “Who’s a racist?” quiz! By Peter Burrows 12/2/19 elburropete@gmail.com – silvercityburro.com

The political left in America worships at the altar of racism. In the Church of Racism, the original sin is to be white, which makes you a racist, whether you know it or not.  Also, in the Church of Racism, Republicans, especially MAGA Republicans, are all racists. This mindless belief could have tragic consequences.

Voltaire, the eighteenth-Century libertarian, had it right when he said, “He who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”

Ironically, the political left is the real home of racism, and what is ALMOST humorous is that THEY are the ones who don’t even know it. You libs out there are thinking, “That’s outrageous, Burro! We are morally superior people who fight against racism in all its forms!”

If that’s so, then you should be able to pass my little quiz: “Who’s a racist?” It’s only three yes-or-no questions.  For the purposes of the quiz, a racist is someone who supports policies that have proven to be very harmful to our black brothers and sisters, whether you know it or not.

1) Do you support minimum wage laws?

I’m betting that 100% of you racist liberals voted “yes.”  Back in 1966, the economist Milton Friedman wrote in a Newsweek op-ed, “I am convinced that the minimum-wage law is the most anti-Negro law on our statute books.” The term “disparate impact” wasn’t used back then, but it fits, then and now.

Before minimum wage laws began to be raised in the early 1950’s, black teenage unemployment was LOWER than white teenage unemployment.  It soon rose to twice white teen unemployment, where it has remained for over 50 years.

There is no excuse for this. At the very least, minimum wage laws should not apply to teenagers.  Democrats won’t fight for that because their union masters won’t allow it. Republicans won’t fight for it because they are either ignorant or cowardly, maybe both.

2) Do you support school vouchers that would allow parents to choose their children’s school?

I bet 90% of you racist liberals voted “no” on that one. This is not 100% because many of you have had experience with lousy public schools, and some of you may have had the ability to send your kids to private schools, which is what Barrack and Michell Obama did when they were in the White House.

Given the horrendous results of ghetto schools today, school choice should be an option overwhelmingly supported by Democrats, but, alas, once again union power trumps racial justice.  And the Republicans? Sigh.

As in the case of minimum wage laws, the issue of inner-city school choice has been around a long time.  If you go to You Tube, you can find a 1981 Firing Line show hosted by William Buckley which featured the economist Thomas Sowell.  Toward the end of the show, Buckley invites a liberal lady “examiner” to ask Dr. Sowell some questions, one of which was about school choice.

Starting at about minute 39, you can see that the white lady just cannot accept the idea that uneducated inner-city mothers can make better school choices for their children than the education bureaucracy. I remember thinking to myself when I first saw this, “You hypocritical liberal elitist racist piece of shit,” or something to that effect. (In my youth, I was occasionally intemperate. Today, in my mellow old age, I would say, “piece of crap.”)

3) Do you support affirmative action?

I’m betting that you racist liberals are back to 100% “yes” on that one. You just can’t see that affirmative action is INHERENTLY racist, can you?  A cynic would say you want affirmative action in education to make sure that any black kid who manages to get a decent SAT score is put into a school where he or she will fail. You can then recruit another “victim” of racial discrimination.

It is tragic, for example, that a black kid in the 90th percentile SAT is recruited by a prestigious college Harvard, Yale, etc. to “token out” the enrollment numbers. They immediately plunge to the 10th percentile or lower of the student body. Then they flunk out, embittered and feeling like a victim, which in fact they ARE!

Those kids would have been perfectly happy and successful if they had joined me at Michigan State, or for that matter, enrolled at Western New Mexico.  After California voters, in a rare instance of common sense, banned affirmative action at California universities in 1998, minority graduation rates, THE important statistic, went UP! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_California_Proposition_209)

To summarize: the Democrat Party supports minimum wage laws, affirmative action and denying black mothers school choice for their children. If you vote for a Democrat, just look in the mirror to see “Who’s a Racist?”

New Mexico’s Climate Follies

New Mexico’s Climate Follies by Peter Burrows 11/24/19 elburropete@gmail.com – silvercityburro.com

Ten months ago, Governor Lujan Grisham created a “Climate Change Task Force” to come up with proposals to reduce New Mexico’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.  The initial recommendations were released last week in a 28-page report you can find at www.climateaction.state.nm.us/

When I read the report, I quickly came to the conclusion that the whole thing was a huge waste of time. The authors simply hadn’t done their homework and their recommendations, if implemented, will be a disaster for New Mexico as well as a huge waste of money.  This is true even if adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is as harmful as the climate alarmists claim.

Some of you are thinking, “Carbon dioxide IS the problem, Burro, you climate denier troglodyte, and New Mexico has a moral obligation to join the climate battle to save humanity!”

That’s just what New Mexico is poised to do, but before manning the ramparts, don’t you think it would be wise to survey the battlefield?  The task force report says that New Mexico produced about 66.7 million metric tons of greenhouse gas in 2018, a little over 1% of total U.S. GHG emissions.  Let’s repeat that: New Mexico produces ONE PERCENT of total U.S. GHG emissions.

On a global scale, 2018 GHG emissions were estimated at 37.1 billion metric tons, which puts New Mexico’s global contribution at about one-fifth of one percent.  Furthermore, the Energy Information Administration estimates that by 2040 global GHG emissions will grow 6 billion tons to about 43 billion tons. This means that even if New Mexico eliminated 100% of its GHG emissions by then, we will have reduced the total amount of ADDITIONAL GHG emissions by only about 1%.

That’ll save the world. Right. And at what cost? Ah, there’s the rub, Hamlet.  The task force doesn’t give any cost estimates! It talks about modernizing the grid, adding electricity storage, creating lots of electric vehicle recharging stations, encouraging public transit in cities (they never learn), monitoring methane emissions, passing cap-and-trade, imposing emission standards for cars and changing building codes, BUT THE REPORT NEVER MENTIONS WHAT ALL THIS IS GOING TO COST! 

I suspect they don’t care. They have a world to save, and if our electricity bills necessarily skyrocket, so be it.  That’s what President Obama said would happen, and now his prescient forecast is coming true, right here in The Land of Enchantment.

Proof that ideology trumps cost is the fact that the report never mentions adding nuclear power to the grid.  Nuclear power is the only way to reduce GHG emissions economically. Wind, solar, and storage can’t do it.  In fact, adding wind and solar to the electric grid has increased electricity costs all over the world, from Germany to California.  Those who claim otherwise haven’t looked at the evidence.

Similarly, the environmentalists who claim wind and/or solar are cheaper than coal or nuclear haven’t done the math.  Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft, did the math many years ago and has long been critical of wind and solar, advocating for nuclear power instead.

A recent convert to Gates’ point of view is the environmentalist Michael Shellenberger. He says wind and solar aren’t going to save the environment, and in fact we must save the environment FROM wind and solar. Both Gates and Shellenberger can be found making their case on numerous You Tube videos.

On one, Shellenberger is joined by James Hansen, the NASA scientist who testified before Congress in 1988 on the dangers of adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Hansen is often called “The father of global warming,” and he gives the argument against wind and solar huge credibility.

Can Gates, Shellenberger, Hansen and a growing army of people who actually understand renewable energy save New Mexico from itself? I doubt it. The Climate Crisis agenda is not driven by facts, it’s driven by emotion.  To a certain extent, it is also driven by a desire to tear down an ‘evil’ economic and social system that has created so much earth-destroying prosperity and in the process an unacceptable amount of inequality, too.

That’s why our salvation may come at the unlikely hands of Michael Moore. The old social justice warrior has produced a new documentary, Planet of the Humans, in which he documents Shellenberger’s claim: wind and solar do more harm than good, and  — GASP! — some evil-dirty bastard capitalists are making a PROFIT on those solar panels and wind mills.

I hope Moore’s documentary sparks enough fact-based emotionalism to counter the push for wind and solar. Lord knows, FACTS ALONE won’t do the job.

Unless sanity prevails, New Mexico is about to embark on a feel-good crusade to lower GHG emissions that will wreck our economy, be hugely expensive and have no effect on global temperatures.  This will occur just as the false promise of renewable energy is starting to be recognized around the world.

Unfortunately, if New Mexico’ recent history is any indication, e.g. The Rail Runner and the Spaceport, sanity has no chance to prevail.

FYI You Tube videos:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1EB1zsxW0k   Note what Gates says 11:20 to 11:45. I think he means the “renewables are the answer crowd” is more of a block to effective CO2 reduction then folks like moi.

Here’s a short one, well worth the time. Shellenberger’s conclusion is noteworthy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-yALPEpV4w&t=17s

 

Humpty Dumpty was a Democrat, Part Three

Humpty Dumpty was a Democrat, Part Three, by Peter Burrows 11/5/19 – elburropete@gmail.com – silvercityburro.com 

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.’ – ‘The question is,’ said Alice, whether you can make words mean so many different things.’ – ‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master, that’s all.”  (From ‘Alice Through the Looking Glass’ by Lewis Carroll.)

In part Two, I wrote about the Humpy Dumpty world of gender identity, a surreal world of so many genders that an old guy like myself is reminded of tennis great John McEnroe, who would look at the line judge and scream, “You can not be serious!”   

Five years ago, Facebook identified 58 different genders and somebody recently upped the number to 72.  Gee, 70 more than I thought there were. Shows how “unwoke” I am.  Furthermore, this nonsense is becoming a problem in the real world.    

I had no idea how big a problem until I read an article from the Connecticut Mirror: “Transgender sports polarizes women’s advocates,” by Kathleen Megan, 7/22/19. It was about the controversy surrounding the Connecticut Interscholastic Athletic Conference’s policy that allows high school boys to compete in girls’ athletic events.    

All the boys have to do is declare they are girls and they become transgenders, eligible to compete against real girls. (Tsk, tsk. How un-PC of me. KMA.) Adding to the surreal drama, one of the real girls, a high school junior who filed a complaint with the U.S. Dept. of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, thinks it is unfair that the athletic conference allows transgender girls who haven’t had hormone treatments to compete in girls’ sports.   

Pardon me, young lady, but there is no scientific proof that hormone treatments eliminate the physical advantage post-pubescent boys have over girls.  Reduce, maybe, but not eliminate.  The hormone argument is really quite silly. Do you think, for example, that women who want to be men, “transgender men,” could undergo hormone treatments and then be able to dominate in men’s shotput, weightlifting, or pole vault events, to name just a few? Of course not.   

Yet the NCAA and Olympic Committee try to pretend such domination won’t exist for men by requiring transgender women to receive hormone treatments for at least a year, and then be tested for testosterone levels, before they can compete at the college or international level against the ladies. Puts everybody on a level playing field, right?  Right.  

No matter, in Connecticut the boys can compete against the girls, sans hormones, with predictable results.  A transgender girl has been “smashing state records” and won the Hartford Courant’s girls’ indoor track and field “athlete of the year” award in 2019.  ‘She’, along with another transgender girl, also won the state’s sportswriters’ “courage award.”   

“Courage award?” Courage for what?  There should be a “Cowards’ Award” for all the fathers who stood by as their daughters were defeated by the make-believe girls.   As long as I’m passing out awards, the Hartford Courant and the Connecticut sportswriters can share the 2019 “Stupidest PC” award. They should be proud of that one. LOTS of competition.    

For example, in second place is the group of 16 Connecticut women’s rights/gender justice groups who signed a statement supporting “the full inclusion of transgender people in athletics.” That should incense every father with daughters, especially if their daughters are involved in sports. Have you ever seen a young lady cry because she came in second? I have, and my heart went out to her.  If she had come in second to a young man, my reaction would not have been sympathy, but OUTRAGE!        

The statement also said, “Transgender girls are girls and transgender women are women. They are not and should not be referred to as boys or men, biological or otherwise. We speak from experience when we say that nondiscrimination protections for transgender people, including women and girls who are transgender, advance women’s equality and well-being.”    

That utterly absurd Humpty Dumpty statement should outrage everybody, especially feminists.  Really ladies, how in Hell does getting your asses kicked in athletics by transgenders advance women’s equality?   

Having said that, I have no objection to transgenders competing against OTHER TRANSGENDERS, including separate competitions for those with hormone treatment and those without. That’s only fair.   

What isn’t fair is when special interest groups demand privileges that take away the rights of others. That’s the case with transgender girls in athletics, who take home the trophies that rightfully belong to the biological girls. This transgender PC bullshit will destroy women’s sports. I think the majority of feminists would agree with me, as well as the majority of transgender adults.  I know damn well you men with daughters agree.   

Finally, proof that Humpty was a Democrat came last June when the House of Representatives voted 243 to 183 to allow transgenders to serve openly in the military.  Only nine Republicans voted with the majority, and only one Democrat with the minority. (Colin Peterson, MN. Unsurprisingly, a 75 –year-old army vet.) Since 2016 the military has spent $8 million treating 1,100 service members diagnosed with gender dysphoria, including 161 sex change operations.  That’s with our money, folks.   

Even though I would have voted with the minority, I’m OK with transgenders serving at the invitation of the military, e.g. where special skills are needed.  For transgenders to serve at their discretion? Absolutely not. Military service is an obligation, not a right.  I would make the same argument for homosexuals.    

It’s time to stop this madness.  It’s time to tell Humpty who is ‘master’ and push him off the wall.  

 

Humpty Dumpty was a Democrat Part Two

Humpty Dumpty was a Democrat, Part Two, by Peter Burrows 11/3/19 – elburropete@gmail.com – silvercityburro.com 

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’  From ‘Alice Through the Looking Glass,’ by Lewis Carroll  

If a boy wants to be a girl and then declares he is a girl, does that make him a girl? Conversely, if a girl says she is henceforth a boy, does that make her a boy? 

Some of you are thinking, “Stupid questions! Burro is off his meds again.”   

If only. Those are questions being answered in the affirmative all too often today, and it’s time for the adults to put a stop to this Humpty Dumpty nonsense.  For those of you who are not yet “woke” to what I’m referring to, it’s the push to grant transgenders privileges that deny cisgenders their rights.  

O.K., what is a transgender and what is a cisgender?   

A transgender is a person who identifies with the opposite sex and wants to be the opposite sex.  This is not the same as being attracted to people of the same sex, which the dictionary defines as homosexuality. Sexual orientation is about who you’re attracted to, regardless of your sex.  

Cisgender is the antonym to transgender. A cisgender identifies with the gender they were born with. Both cisgenders and transgenders can be homosexuals.  Are you confused?  Me, too, and it gets worse. For example, a transgender man can get pregnant. You’re thinking, “A MAN can get pregnant?” Yup. You see, a “transgender man” is physically a woman and a “transgender woman” is physically a man.  

Political correctness requires that we address transgenders with the pronoun appropriate to whichever sex they are identifying with. Bruce Jenner, for example, now calls HERSELF Caitlyn Jenner.  I’m OK with that because it’s a harmless social courtesy, but prior to Jenner’s sex-change surgery, if Caitlyn had wanted to go to the ladies’ room with my daughter, HE would have been asked to wait outside.     

Ol’ Humpty is must be really yuking it up these days, and rather scornfully, too.  After all, those who worship at the altar of Political Correctness make such damn fools of themselves.  Why doesn’t society tell Humpty, “NO. A word does NOT mean what you choose it to mean. A boy is not a girl simply because he says he is. Truth is not subjective.” 

The whole thing reminds me of a story about Abraham Lincoln, probably apocryphal, but wonderfully appropriate.  Reputedly, someone asked Lincoln how many legs a dog would have if you called the tail a leg. He answered, “Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.” 

Today, Abe would be called a “transphobe,” which is the word the Left uses to intimidate anyone who opposes any part of the transgender agenda.  It goes on the same list as “homophobe” and “Islamophobe.”  

In part Three, we’ll look at what the transgender crowd is doing to athletics. Till then, you might enjoy Lucy and Linus, especially Linus:  

https://images.app.goo.gl/1kjqFpty6vsxpByC8 

Humpty Dumpty was a Democrat

Humpty Dumpty was a Democrat by Peter Burrows – 10/29/19 – elburropete@msn.com – silvercityburro.com

In Lewis Carroll’s Alice Through the Looking Glass, Alice and Humpty Dumpty have the following exchange:

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

‘The question is,’ said Alice, whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master — that’s all.”

I always think of good old Humpty whenever I hear a Democrat talk about taking “assault rifles” off the street. Beto O’Rourke, for example, was bursting with self-righteous fervor when he recently said, “Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47.”

Well, AR-15s and AK 47s are indeed assault rifles, which are defined as weapons that can be set for automatic or semiautomatic fire.  In the automatic mode, such guns are essentially machine guns, which have been illegal to own since the Tommy Gun was outlawed in the 1930s.

Consequently, there are no AR 15s or AK 47s for Beto to take.  The rifles he would like to confiscate are semiautomatic rifles that LOOK LIKE AR 15s and AK 47s.  Functionally, such rifles are no different from any semiautomatic rifle, many of which are used for hunting.

No matter. An “assault rifle” is what Beto and the Humpty Dumpty Democrats choose it to mean.  And since there is apparently no Republican with the knowledge, or perhaps the courage, to condemn the Democrats’ ignorance with the same fervor that Beto displays that ignorance, I guess the Democrats have also determined who is master.

The real tragedy of this “assault weapon” side-show is that it detracts from discussing some things that would actually reduce mass shootings. For example, laws that designate certain properties, such as schools, to be gun-free zones have proven to be counterproductive, as anybody with common sense would have guessed.  More importantly, schools where teachers are armed have had NO shootings, mass or otherwise.

I’ll bet a burrito that Beto favors gun-free zones and opposes arming teachers. That would be in keeping with someone who wants to confiscate assault rifles that don’t exist. I’m sure he doesn’t care. “Assault” is a useful Humpty Dumpty word for the gun control crusade,  as is “crisis” for the climate change crusade.

In part Two, we’ll  look at what I think is the most outrageous perversion of language and truth now in vogue, more outrageous than “Islam is peace.” Hint: It has to do with gender identity