They don't care if you die, they just want you to shut up and do what you're told

To paraphrase Jeff Goldblum, liberty finds a way.

Wealthier people are more able to cope with climate change and are overall less likely to die from all-natural causes than the very poor. Whatever the ill effects of climate change, the funds needed to keep people safe will be far more abundant in the future than they are now. //

Each of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports, that guide our understanding of climate change, account for large leaps in worldwide wealth between 2000 and 2100. Even the poorest in the world—sometimes called “the Bottom Billion”—will be four to eighteen times as wealthy as they are today, according to the IPCC.

Wealthier people are more able to cope with climate change and are overall less likely to die from all-natural causes than the very poor. Whatever the ill effects of climate change, the funds needed to keep people safe will be far more abundant in the future than they are now. In the short term, the resources AOC claims must be used to fight distant climate change have more pressing alternative uses because people are poorer now than anyone will be then, even by IPCC’s somewhat dire predictions.

To demand sacrifice from the residents of developing countries—like paying higher prices for scarce food so some of it can be burned as biofuel—will do far more damage than a potential flood in 50 years, when the risk of starvation will be small. //

Even in the IPCC’s worst-case scenarios, those facing the harms of climate change in 100 years will be many, many times more prepared to deal with those harms than we are currently equipped to sacrifice in hopes of preventing them.

Andrew Yang and Bill de Blasio are very concerned about robots taking people's jobs. Machines will replace humans. Artificial intelligence will outpace people. But is there any validity to it? 
Not really.

Announcing FEE President Lawrence W. Reed's new book: "Real Heroes: Inspiring True Stories of Courage, Character, and Conviction," featuring over 40 stories of heroic individuals who have changed the world.

What makes someone a hero?

Is it fame, power, money, creative talent, athletic ability, good looks?

Despite what our culture typically celebrates, none of those things makes a hero.

No, heroism springs from character, the critical element that defines a person. The good news is that character is something every one of us can mold; it is simply the sum of the choices we make as we face new challenges and opportunities.

And here’s even better news: this lively, accessible book gives you real, flesh-and-blood models of character, courage, and conviction—men and women you won’t just admire but also can emulate.

Author Lawrence W. Reed ranges far and wide in Real Heroes—from major historical figures to remarkable people you’ve never heard of; from the distant past to the present; from the United States, to Europe, to Asia; from statesmen to scientists, athletes to inventors, entrepreneurs to theologians, writers to teachers.

FEE's mission is to inspire, educate, and connect future leaders with the economic, ethical, and legal principles of a free society.

These principles include: individual liberty, free-market economics, entrepreneurship, private property, high moral character, and limited government.

The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) is a non-political, non-profit, tax-exempt educational foundation and has been trusted by parents and teachers since 1946 to captivate and inspire tomorrow’s leaders with sound economic principles and the entrepreneurial spirit with free online courses, top-rated in-person seminars, free books for classrooms, as well as relevant and worldly daily online content.

The Trump administration has welcomed, listened to, and defended faith communities like no other White House has before. //

Mark Green
@USAIDMarkGreen
Mark Green is the administrator of the United States Agency for International Development, or USAID.

For Americans, religious liberty is in our DNA. The pursuit of that freedom is what brought the Pilgrims to our shores nearly 400 years ago.

Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, believed so strongly in religious liberty that he authored Virginia’s Statute for Religious Freedom, and when it became law, he called for it to be translated into multiple languages and widely distributed.

We see that same spirit in the appearance of religious freedom in the very first line of our Constitution’s Bill of Rights—perhaps because our Founding Fathers saw religious liberty as giving meaning to all of our other freedoms.

That’s why the Trump administration has welcomed, listened to, and defended faith communities like no other White House has before. //

President Abraham Lincoln once said that he felt sorry for the man who can’t feel the whip when it is laid on another man’s back.

Thanks to President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence, the U.S. Agency for International Development and others are working to offer relief and assistance to those who have suffered so much

This isn't a camel's nose under the tent, this is the whole bloody beast //

This is one of those situations where the Trump administration has proven an adherence to constitutional protections and to individual freedom that no one would have anticipated in 2016.

There is no legal reason for this document as “incitement” and “conspiracy” are already crimes. While one may not agree with bizarre political manifestos, whether by Unabomber Ted Kaczynbski or by Christchurch shooter Brenton Tarrant, the idea that they should be forbidden from posting their thoughts because they are dangerous should scare the living hell out of anyone with a pair of firing synapses. The world is full of “dangerous” books. Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense” was one of them. Machiavelli’s The Prince and Milton’s Paradise Lost have been declared subversive and banned an one time or another. //

More to the point, you don’t defeat bad or stupid ideology by banning it and giving it a cachet of being counter-cultural. You defeat it by forcing it into the open, by debate and by convincing people that the ideas are wrong. But no one in this group cares about what the Christchurch shooter posted on line. Their objective is to be able to refuse to debate issues they’d rather avoid…like the impact of unfettered immigration…by declaring the very question to be hate speech produced by some phobia recently discovered by a leftwing sociology professor.