Rudyard Kipling

Owning Yourself

By Evelyn Pyburn

Few quotations strike closer to home during the current era than this, especially as it pertains to speaking truth as we see it.

I understand the reasons. In my youth I used to feel quite intimidated at having to speak in a public setting of any sort. I doubt that I was unusual in that. But as with so many things in life, I learned that the more you do it the better you get at it and the more confident you become.

Speaking up when it is the right thing to do makes you feel better about yourself, even if you find out you are wrong in what you say – you learn something new and the world does not end. It’s a challenge that encourages being well informed and requires a lot of thought, so you know why you come to the decisions that you do.

So why should one find it necessary to speak up at times? Because untruths must be challenged. Truth must be recognized even when we don’t like it. Wrong information, deceit, or mistakes often harm others. One cannot build a civilized society on untruths, maintain peace or have justice with falsehoods, and falsehoods cannot stand if they are challenged by the truth. Also, whether in your personal life or in society in general, one cannot change or improve what hasn’t been accurately identified, and that requires adherence to truth.

What most people are afraid of in speaking out is “what will others think of you?” That thinking must surely come from us being social creatures and wanting to be part of the group. It’s why Rudyard Kipling calls it “hard business.” It is not easy to stand alone, and you often will have to stand alone, because human beings are very, very susceptible to “group think” – as cowardly as it might be, it feels safe.

But while you may worry what others may think, as Kipling also points out, what you think of you is far more important. After all, you have to live with you far longer than with anyone else. The more comfortable you are with yourself the more happy that life will be. Internal peace comes in knowing that you stand for what you believe is right and you have the strength to deal with truths and reality.

One of the funniest ironies of life has to be that when a person is worried about what someone else is thinking of them, the likelihood is, if they are thinking about you at all, they are wondering what you are thinking of them. And, the real truth is (which might be disappointing to discover) most people don’t think about you as much as you think they do. In the broader world, you just aren’t that important! So, you might as well be important in your own little corner of the world.

And, you might as well know why it is you believe the things you think you believe to be true. Far too many people simply adopt the opinions of those around them and never give them any deep thought. If they have confidence in those opinions it comes from believing “everyone else thinks this, so it must be right.” Seldom is that the case.

One of the keys in speaking your mind is to LISTEN to the responses. You will find new knowledge, no matter the response. One of the things I have come to realize in such discourses is that I learn more from people who disagree with me than from those who agree.Kipling also points out, not only might you have to stand alone but it might also be frightening — a factor that also has a great deal of relevance in today’s world. But one should understand the significance of the various kinds of push back you might encounter. When people have no reasonable argument in a debate of ideas their first point of refuge is name calling. It’s not only a short cut to having to think, but it often succeeds in intimidating those with the stronger arguments into silence, which for those who tend to believe in “might over right” is some kind of hallow victory.

Coerced censorship is an even greater admission of having lost the debate. The kind of censorship we have been witnessing by those who control social media and a President who establishes a bureau of censorship is to admit that they recognize themselves to be intellectually bankrupt, and any kind of victory they hope to attain requires silencing all intellectual discourse. But, most of all they are declaring that they very vehemently believe in “might over right.” They are in fact the reason that we must be brave enough and strong enough to speak truth when seeing its need, because their acts of coercion against innocent citizens demonstrate most clearly what is at stake: our very freedom, and the right to “own ourselves.”


A federal judge in Kentucky struck down a Biden administration rule that required states to measure and report the greenhouse gas emissions from any vehicles traveling on the national highway system, according to a report in Epoch Times.

“With this victory in court, we’re slamming the brakes on the Biden Administration’s politics that make no sense,” said Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman, who led a coalition of 21 state attorneys general in suing the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) over the rule that sought to force states to cut carbon dioxide emissions on their roads.

Multiple states that sued over the rule argued that it could dampen job creation and eliminate future economic development.

Judge Benjamin Beaton of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky blocked the FHWA rule on April 1, calling it “invalid” and “a statutorily unsupported and substantively capricious exercise of the [FHWA] Administrator’s rulemaking authority.”

By Evelyn Pyburn

A plea for more fellowship in politics is nothing new. I have heard people calling for less “partisanship” for years and have understood part of it – or at least what I hope they mean – but there is another aspect I don’t think is wanted by some people. It is that, which seems more threatening, today, than it has for some decades.

Understanding and tolerating the views of fellow citizens is absolutely essential in a country in which freedom is promised to every individual citizen. So that — I not only “get,” but I would agree with it. But, when they seek “unity,” that could be far more difficult.

Asking for a compromise on a tax rate is doable, or the speed limit, or the boundaries of a precinct, but how do you compromise when the opposition is calling for your annihilation? Exactly how do the Jews of Israel compromise with Hamas demanding their total destruction? Does that mean agreeing to the killing of only half their population? Is that the kind of compromise expected of Israel? Just to get along?

It’s like being asked to compromise with someone who plans to shoot you. What kind of a compromise would you strike? About what kind of gun he should use?

That impossible compromise of two diametrically opposed positions is why there were early predictions that the fundamental principle of the US Constitution — declaring that all men are to be equal in a country that practiced slavery — would eventually lead to a civil war. The prognosticators understood that ideas are powerful and even a few words on a piece of paper hold great significance. Also, they understood that there was no way to compromise about how much of a slave’s life should be free. They are either free or they are not.  Our founders knew all this, and yet they wrote the Constitution as they did. Freedom for the individual was a principle they believed important enough to the future of civilization that they were willing to fight for it.

Just think about the injustice of compromising fundamental issues. When someone is simply defending themselves or their property and are asked to compromise with the aggressor, such an agreement is most assuredly to the benefit of the aggressor at a cost to the defender. The defender against aggression will always lose unless he stands strong.

It is a contradiction to justice and a violation of a citizen’s rights. It’s a fundamental over which compromise is not possible, and it is the conflict that usually lies at the basis of most political conflicts today.

The specifics of all our disagreements vary greatly, from how we get our medical care to what kind of stove we can use in our kitchens. Whether we must ride a bus or drive an electric vehicle. The pending conflicts at issue could fill a book, and basic to all of them is the threat of the use of FORCE.

Why ever should the issue of whether the planet is getting warmer be a political one? It is only political because of the threat of the use of FORCE. For the most part, those who disagree are not resisting the conclusion of those who believe it, they are resisting the use of FORCE, which is really the primary goal of the whole debate. Those claiming to believe the planet is warming want to FORCE their ideas and solutions on others.

So how does a society bring about change? There’s a magic little word – it’s called persuasion. Rather than FORCE, you persuade. Rather than addressing the opposition with a club, you address their mind. One is the tool of the caveman the other of civilized society.

Rather than coerce manufacturers to build electric vehicles and then FORCE citizens to buy them, you build the car and build a market – a FREE market – in which the product is refined and its benefit can be demonstrated and consumers are persuaded that it is a better product. The process happens a thousand times a day and it works – if indeed the product is valid. If it is not valid, then what is the point?

Ahh, but there is a point, power over others — brute FORCE. Although the desirability of it is inexplicable.

As a political issue – as an issue that pertains most often to governments – we should not be surprised that this conflict exists. After all, government is FORCE. Government by definition is the legalized use of force. Advocates for a civilized society concluded long ago that the only legitimate use of force is in self-defense or in the defense of others. The men who wrote the US Constitution believed that that principle is one upon which government should also function and they wrote laws meant to deliver that end in our relationships, one with the other, and most especially with how government interacts with citizens.

We should also not be surprised that there are people who do not agree – people who covet power and are more than willing to use it against fellow human beings, even if it is only about what light bulb they should use.

So, if you are among those who just want us all to get along, you should first understand that it is the threat of the use of FORCE that is dividing us, not the many nuances of debates. I might have an opinion about what kind of stove you should use in your kitchen, but we really have no conflict until I attempt to FORCE you to use a specific stove.

If harmonizing while holding hands and singing kumbaya is the goal, then decide what you really think about using FORCE against your neighbor. If one is truly sincere in striving for greater harmony among people, drop any advocacy that relies upon the government pointing a gun at innocent citizens and demanding their obedience. Getting along will not only be achievable, it can be guaranteed. And, who knows what amazing things might truly be achieved.

By Evelyn Pyburn

So reports are that migrants who have come to the US illegally are disappointed and want to return home. They are saying “the American dream is dead.”

As one Venezuelan illegal was quoted, “The American Dream doesn’t exist anymore. There’s nothing here for us… We just want to be home. If we’re going to be sleeping in the street here, we’d rather be sleeping in the streets over there.”

If they thought the “American dream” was handouts, freebees and socialized care from cradle to the grave, then double good riddance to them.

The “American dream” was never about those things – the American dream is, and will always be, about the freedom of individuals to work hard, to create and to generate wealth – the wealth that makes socialistic whims possible, for those who want to be kept citizens. But the socialistic whims only last until – as it has been said – we run out of other people’s money. “Other people”, of course, being those who are producing the wealth needed to sustain those who prefer not to work.

And, we should be doubly glad that they are gone because they are ILLEGAL! If they do not respect our country to the degree that their first act is to commit a crime with the crossing of our borders, then exactly when can we expect them to be law-abiding, trust worthy citizens, who truly respect this country and its laws?

The answer is never.

Never will they stand up and defend those principles or the people who live by them, when the chips are down – which is a most likely scenario with so many dishonest and disrespectful criminals abiding among us, who will vote for corrupt politicians. They vote for unethical politicians to wield the force that is necessary to aid them in their ideal of confiscating the property of the honest and productive citizens.

That there are many people crashing our borders because they want freedom there is no doubt. It is mind boggling that there are many in the US who apparently do not want freedom – people who apparently believe that powerful politicians, who will subjugate others, are their friends. It is indeed too bad that they have never studied history.

There was a reason for having a legal structure to enter the US – so immigrants would not have to sleep in the streets. Part of that process included immigrants having a sponsor – someone to help them get established so they would have a place to live, food and a job. And, US citizens across the board readily stepped up to be sponsors. Often they were church organizations, not unlike the one recently reported on in Billings that is assisting legal immigrants.

Democratic leaders in places like Chicago and New York are crying that they lack the resources to feed and house the thousands upon thousands of illegal immigrants who have descended upon their communities, and they blame President Biden for not giving them enough funding to do so. They say their states have provided millions in aid but the federal government has not matched it.

These politicians are little different than the illegal immigrants who thought the “American dream” was about freebees and handouts. They too do not understand the “American dream.” They apparently do not know that it isn’t their state or the federal government that has the wealth needed to support the illegal aliens. They do not seem to know that the aid they talk about comes from taxpayers – the citizens who work and produce and abide by the laws. They express no appreciation or recognition for the people from whom the funds must come. But given the role they play as legal plunderers, their indifference is not surprising.

This situation of encouraging illegal immigrants to enter the US, seeking a distorted perception of the American dream, has every potential of unraveling the fabric of the “American dream.”

The truly sad thing is the “American dream” is not something that has to be uniquely American. Any country can have it. Nothing – absolutely nothing – stands in the way of any country having the wealth and standard of living that Americans have – but it can’t be achieved through socialism or any kind of collectivism.  The people of a country – including the US —must rid themselves of the confiscators – the corrupt politicians – and they must believe in the justness of individual freedom, and abide by the ideals and principles of individual responsibility and system of laws, rather than the favors of power mongers.

While many illegal immigrants have come with a very incorrect idea about what the American dream is –they are not alone. Many Americans hold the same mistaken ideas, which is significant because it is the IDEA that matters. It is not a matter of borders. The American dream is built upon an IDEA . . . and it is that IDEA that is the focus of the desperate efforts of collectivists to censor communications, silence free speech and criminalize the exchange of ideas, so that people never understand the IDEA. It is the IDEA of the “American dream” that they fear. The American dream is the IDEA that each citizen should be free to live life as they choose.

By Evelyn Pyburn

It’s been my observation that there is no tax that doesn’t eventually filter down to the individual citizen, and if they are a consumer, they are a taxpayer.

This isn’t a good thing or a bad thing, it just is. Businesses do not pay any kind of tax. While they may seem to pay them, in the end they have to pass them on in the price of their product to the consumer. If they don’t, they vanish as a business – they go broke, quit business, and cease to be a part of the picture. 

Taxes are not really paid on “tax day,” they are paid when the consumer purchases a product.

Taxes are consequential for businesses, only when they are looking for best locations in which to do business. But even then they are most consequential to the consumers and workers in the community, who benefit from the products, services, innovations and jobs that businesses bring.

There is no magic tax that saves the consumer.  There is only one way to lower taxes and that is for the government to spend less. Even if rich people pay higher rates, those tax inputs eventually reach the lowest rung of consumers in the prices they pay. 

It is especially vile when politicians attempt to dupe voters into believing that businesses are their enemy – that the individual’s taxes are high because businesses don’t pay their “fair share.” That is a favorite political mantra by political entities who do not want people to fully understand that the ONLY way to lower taxes is to lower government spending – bearing in mind that government has NOTHING that it doesn’t have to first take away from the citizens.

There are undoubtedly shifts in markets depending on what kinds of taxes are imposed. High property taxes reduce the number of homeowners. Rents increase.  High gasoline taxes reduce the amount citizens travel, but they pay them when they purchase groceries or products freighted into their community. High income taxes may encourage people to leave a community to work in a different state, which is also a price paid by the community. There may be some variance in every day transactions, but in the end, citizens are always the losers when taxes are high.

“Balanced” does not mean “lower,” which is how some people interpret the call for balanced taxes, and what the advocates want people to believe, and perhaps even believe themselves. But, not all that many people are fooled it seems, given a recent poll in which a majority of Montanans oppose adopting a statewide sales tax.

A sales tax has long been unpopular in Montana, where the basic taxes are income and property taxes. One has to believe it is because most people fully realize that it is really a call for more taxation, not property tax reduction, as is commonly claimed.

If Montana citizens ever had any misconceptions, they were given a clear lesson in the early-90s, when the last push for a sales tax was being made by many politicians. We needed a “three legged stool” for balance, we were being told. A sales tax would reduce property taxes, they said. And, while they were willing to put a cap on how high a sales tax might be – they were seen scrambling into the woodwork when it was recommended that a cap also be placed on property taxes and income taxes.

Montanans had routinely seen in neighboring states, how quickly and easily sales taxes were raised, and they were highly suspicious that the same was in store for Montana. When caps – especially on property taxes – were totally rejected in the state legislature, it made the truth of the situation clear. And, it is that which most Montanans see as the underlying reason for a sales tax.

If balance is what is being sought, then bring forth the legislation that would place real caps on all three taxes.

Caps on all taxation is actually the policy under which government – at all levels — should always function, if one looks at the realities of growth, which is usually the excuse given for more taxes. When a community grows it increases demand for goods, prices increase, and the number of pay checks increase. There are increases in every economic regard which should generate increased tax revenues at exactly the pace —  the set cap — that government should grow to keep pace with community growth.

That would keep government growth in check – which would also keep in check the power that government is able to exert over innocent citizens.

If one is really desirous of growing business and encouraging entrepreneurship, the Tax Foundation suggests that taxes on business to business transactions be exempt. The Tax Foundation warns that taxing business inputs results in “tax pyramiding” – taxing tax payments.

Business growth and a strong economy is a win- win for every one – even government, if indeed it is growing at a justifiable pace. Why should government grow if business isn’t growing or if citizens can’t make a living?

Adhering to policies that restrain growth in government with that of the economy would have saved the country from having any general sales taxes at all. It was during the Great Depression when citizens were starving, forced to abandon their property, leave their homes, and suffered a horrible plunge in the standard of living, that state governments decided that they shouldn’t have to endure the same suffering, and 44 of them enacted a general sales tax which burdened their citizens even more.

Montanans apparently decided not to do that. And, the case can truly be made the state has benefited from that decision ever since. There have been many studies and analysis of economic performance that have shown that states lacking one of the “three legs of the stool,” do better economically than they would with a “balanced” tax system. Those studies, in fact, demonstrate many times over that it is lower taxes that generate strong economies and better standards of living.

So let’s not scratch our heads in pretense that Montanans don’t know what is good for them. Most Montanans know EXACTLY what is good for them.

By Evelyn Pyburn

With all the wrangling we encounter about words—what’s appropriate, what’s not, what a word means, and even if we dare speak words – if you think that is just an accidental manifestation in our society – think again.

To attack our language, to make communication difficult if not impossible. To create confusion and to intimidate, is a front line tactic of collectivists —socialists, communists, etc. To undermine society and the strength of the individual, really can be just a matter of words.

“The confusion and vagueness of terms always found in collectivist theories is not accidental; it is a reversion to the mental and verbal limitations of the primitive society it advocates, the inability to think in abstract terms,” writes Isabell Paterson, in God of the Machine, a 1968 book that explains why the Constitution works.

While most people use words to communicate, collectivists use words to create confusion. They want human beings to be cogs in a machine where no language is necessary, says Paterson.

Crippling our ability to communicate clearly or to articulate ideas is but one part of changing the words we use and the terms of their use, it is also used to subtly convey a concept — to infiltrate society with unchallenged perceptions.  A good example is the change of the word employee to “team member.” It is almost anathema to be called an employee any more  – you are a “team member.” The change underscores the collective as being more important than an individual. It diminishes individual achievement, automatically forcing the sharing of it with less productive members of a group. It also diminishes the role of the employer and what they must achieve in order to be an employer.

Paterson also underscores how the suspension of the real meaning of words allows people to speak utter nonsense without challenge, and advance concepts that make no sense. The example she gives is the claim that “All property is theft.” The definition of property is something that is owned. If it is not owned it is just something in nature. Theft presupposes rightful ownership – the forcible taking of something that is the property – ie. owned – by someone else.

Those who make such nonsensical utterances pay no attention to the meaning of words… they assign their own meanings. They would probably attempt to claim that the collective owns it – that it belongs to everyone — again, paying no heed to the insanity of such a concept, to the fact that words mean something. In practicality when everyone owns it, no one owns it. When no one owns it the government has total control. Aha, might that not be what they really advocate?

And we all have become aware of how words can suddenly change in their meaning and in unexpected ways. For example “woke” was self-adopted by those who wanted to claim they identify with a group but didn’t want to exactly say they were “politically correct,” which held its own negative connotations. But while “woke” was meant to be a positive change for obedient followers, it kind of boomeranged into a negative. Its meaning was far too well understood by many people, and now those who coined the term are begging that it no longer be used.

Of course, there is the most glaring way in which words are changed, to suddenly mean negative things about race so those caught unaware can be accused of racism. It is done as a political tactic even when those being “protected” object – such as the political agenda that forced the changing of the name of the Washington Redskins to Commanders because Washington Redskins was perceived as being a racist slur – apparently by those who were not Native American, because there is now an effort by Native Americans – by the “Redskins” — to try to undo the name change.

Of course language is always changing most often as a consequence of things that change our lives – other than collectivists. Your great grandparents would undoubtedly have no idea what you mean to hear you say you are going to “google” someone.

The term “I figure” or “I calculate” emerged in the early days of American life, as more everyday people entered business and used math as their means of earning a living – they really were “figuring” and “calculating” in this Capitalistic society.

So if in this new age world you don’t know what to say to some people, just grunt.

— “they only block the sun.”

by Evelyn Pyburn

Just because it’s not likely to get nearly the public recognition that opposition views routinely get, this editorial is to emphasize two news reports about how much we should be concerned about global warming.

Not so much, it seems. Certainly, not so much that we should give up heat, food and life as we know it. And, most certainly, not enough to give up our freedom to choose how we want to live.

The Epoch Times reports focus on the fact that global warming is not the “settled science” that we are frequently told. There are in fact a lot of very smart people who have other points of view… they just don’t get much of a platform to say so.

We have all witnessed it– the media and politicians call them “climate deniers” and ridicule them to a degree that most people with doubts or questions learn to say nothing, which is exactly the purpose.

Following the end of the recent court case of children suing the state for denying them a clean environment, there were articles in which advocates gloated that so successful has the terrorization been, that the state’s attorneys never once even suggested that there might be doubt about the veracity of global warming claims.

One of those “deniers” is a 2022 Nobel Prize Laureate, John Clauser, who has pointed out that the hysteria about supposed climate warming is at the very least hugely overstated, if not outright deceitful. Clauser is not only a Nobel Prize recipient for his contributions to quantum mechanics, he holds degrees from Caltech and Columbia University, and served in roles at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, and the University of California, Berkeley. In 2010, he was honored with a portion of the Wolf Prize in Physics.

But more than that, he has read climate change research, which brought him to conclude that those living in fear of becoming crispy critters are “misguided” because researchers  have ignored a key variable, an oversight he calls “sloppy science.”

There is no “climate emergency,” says Clauser, as do another 1600 educated professionals who signed the World Climate Declaration organized by Climate Intelligence, which says “climate change science is not conclusive, and that the earth’s history over thousands of years shows a consistently changing climate.”

After studying the research of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), National Academy of Sciences, and the Royal Society, Clauser says the scientists “miss the mark on the critical role of clouds in the climate system.” He says, “cloud cover has a profound effect on the earth’s heat input… clouds are reflecting a massive amount of light back out into space.”

Clouds! What could be more obvious about weather? It’s hard to believe they could be overlooked.

Clauser stated, “As a physicist, I’d worked at some excellent institutions— Caltech, Columbia, Cal Berkeley—where very careful science needed to be done. And reading these reports, I was appalled at how sloppy the work was. And in particular, it was very obvious, even in the earliest reports, and all carried on through to the present, that clouds were not at all understood. … It’s just simply bad science.” 

Clauser referenced a book by Obama’s science advisor, Steve Koonin, in which Koonin noted the inconsistency of the IPCC’s 40 computer models, emphasizing their inability to explain the past century’s climate and suggesting that these models lack a crucial piece of physics.

Clauser said that Al Gore in his film, “The Inconvenient Truth”— “insists on talking about a cloud-free earth. . . That’s a totally artificial Earth.” Clauser said that satellite images show that clouds can cover “five to 95 percent of the Earth’s surface.. . The cloud cover fraction fluctuates quite dramatically on daily -weekly timescales.”

Clouds regulate the Earth’s temperature, serving as a “cloud-sunlight-reflectivity thermostat” that “controls the climate, controls the temperature of the earth, and stabilizes it very powerfully and very dramatically,” asserts Clauser. With two-thirds of the Earth being oceanic, the ocean becomes instrumental in cloud formation.

The article reports: Minimal clouds result in heightened sunlight exposure to the ocean, triggering increased evaporation and subsequent cloud formation, resulting in more clouds. .. abundant clouds reduce this sunlight, thus curbing evaporation rates and cloud formation, resulting in fewer clouds …This balance acts like a natural thermostat for the earth’s temperature…and has a vastly greater influence on Earth’s temperature than the effect of CO2 or methane… “this cloud-reflectivity mechanism might overshadow CO2’s influence by more than 100 or even 200 times.”

Koonin’s book reads that just a 5 percent rise in cloud cover can largely counterbalance the temperature effect of doubling atmospheric CO2. 

Clauser stated that this oversight, “is a rather egregious breach of honesty by the U.S. government by NOAA, . . . This worry about CO2, the worry about methane, the worry about global warming, is all a total fabrication by shocked journalists and or dishonest politicians.”

Clauser is not alone in his views.

The Global Climate Intelligence Group’s “World Climate Declaration” has been signed by 1,609 scientists and informed professionals, who say far more blatantly that “the ‘climate emergency’ is a farce.” When asked why they signed the statement “they all stated a variation of ‘because it’s true,’” reported Epoch Times.

The declaration’s signatories include Nobel laureates, theoretical physicists, meteorologists, professors, and environmental scientists worldwide.

“I signed the declaration because I believe the climate is no longer studied scientifically. Rather, it has become an item of faith,” Haym Benaroya, a distinguished professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering at Rutgers University.

Ralph Alexander, a retired physicist and author  of “Science Under Attack”, said, “The earth has warmed about 2 degrees F since the end of the Little Ice Age around 1850, but that hardly constitutes an emergency—or even a crisis—since the planet has been warmer yet over the last few millennia.”

Edwin Berry, a theoretical physicist and certified consulting meteorologist, said “public perception of carbon dioxide is that it goes into the atmosphere and stays there. They think it just accumulates. But it doesn’t.” He said carbon dioxide molecules stay in the atmosphere for about 3 1/2 years. And, while we are led to believe that human activity contributes about one-third of the total, it is only 5 to 7 percent. In explanation, IPCC claims that the CO2 humans emit is different from that which nature emits and the human CO2 stays in the atmosphere for hundreds of years.

But, a human carbon dioxide molecule is exactly identical to a natural carbon dioxide molecule.

“The belief that human CO2 drives the CO2 increase may be the biggest public delusion and most costly fraud in history,” Berry said. He said the deception is all about money and control.

“All climate model predictions have been wrong,” claims Benaroya. He said that the “push” to declare a climate emergency is about “”power and money, but also larger political forces.”

As for the United Nations’ push for net-zero CO2 by 2050, Alexander said: “It’s a complete waste of time and resources and may well impoverish many Western economies. China and India are not playing along in any case, which makes the whole effort meaningless.”

Richard Lindzen, an emeritus professor of meteorology and the Alfred P. Sloan professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, stated that the issue was never one of science but of politics. He says, “The only purpose of the policies is to make the society poorer. And if you’re poorer, you’re less resilient. So if you believe CO2 is an existential threat and your policies are doing nothing to prevent it but are making you less resilient, one would have to ask, are you a pathological sadist?”

The article quotes dozens of noted scientists, all of whom express doubts about global warming predictions – and be assured you have probably never seen any of their names in any media, especially not to the degree of Al Gore, who is no scientist at all.

Said one scientist, “the claim that 97 percent of scientists agree that humans are causing global warming isn’t truthful.”

When asked what concerns him most about the current narrative, Larry Bell, an architect known for designing and crafting inhabitable buildings for space, and an endowed professor at the University of Houston, said “I care about how climate hysteria, and how misinformation, drives policy. And these policies are driving our foundational bedrock policies that determine our economic well-being. They determine our national defense mastery—we won’t run a Navy on ethanol. We’re not going to run an Air Force on extension cords. It’s just absolutely insane. People think of climate as science. No, it’s not. It’s the big lever of government. It’s big globalism. And it ain’t favoring the U.S.”

Even if there is a “climate emergency” we as individual citizens need our freedom to deal with it – unless you trust your life to our political leadership, because that is where we are headed.

By Evelyn Pyburn

I just read a reference to “the power of the boycott” – suggesting that people are just discovering it.

It’s kind of amusing that this should be a surprise to anyone. The power of a boycott is nothing more than consumers making choices. It is the very foundation of a free market system that we should all know and understand. Any one in business who doesn’t know that the ultimate decision-maker is the consumer is not long to remain in business.

A boycott is just a lot of consumers rejecting a political product or idea being foisted upon us in some way by a business in cahoots with the government.

It’s for sure that most politicians know who the ultimate decision maker is. It’s why we see ourselves and our freedoms being attacked from so many different directions. Many – a great many – politicians are trying to eliminate our freedom to choose in the realm of politics, knowing we might not choose them as leaders.

Boycotts are being taken up in something of an unprecedented way to make a point, because many other avenues for citizens (consumers) to make a choice are being blocked. Boycotts remain one of few alternatives for people to make themselves heard due to a public /private “unholy” alliance between government and big companies.

Of course the choices of consumers are being constrained in other ways under the Biden administration as they try to coerce what consumer products we are able to buy, as government attempts to gain increasing power over each one of us. But while they may be able to make it difficult if not impossible to purchase some products, it becomes difficult to force us to buy others – as the weak market for electric cars demonstrates.

That is the power of the market. No matter what they do, eventually the market will prevail. No matter to what extremes the government may be willing to go, in the end it will fail because really, there is nothing more powerful than markets – than each person choosing what they will support and what they will not.

So while some people may be surprised by the effectiveness of boycotts, they shouldn’t be – they are at play every day and always will be.

By Evelyn Pyburn

Save us from those who want to protect us.

The 12-year-old girl from Red Lodge who is passing a petition to allow people to become lawyers in Montana without going to law school or without sanctions of the Supreme Court, is so spot-on in so many ways. Why shouldn’t the legal profession be as accountable to the consuming public as a retail store or a hot dog stand???

The only problem with this young person’s petition is that it involves only lawyers. Why shouldn’t every profession be accountable to the people they serve more so than all-knowing overlords – who, as we have come to see, are not as all-knowing?

In fact, if never before, surely the past few years has demonstrated for all of us, how the overlords are not necessarily the benevolent caretakers and unbiased evaluators, as they would like to pretend. Almost every regulatory body has demonstrated that they can most easily be corrupted to gain political power and unearned wealth – whether they be attorneys, doctors, researchers, real estate agents, educators, engineers, or financiers.

In the end, we as consumers must always use our own good judgement about who we depend upon for expertise. Just because there is a piece of paper that gives someone sanction from some august body is no guarantee as to their expertise, honesty and true professionalism. Education can be a factor to consider but it should be the citizen’s right to do the considering. The transaction between a citizen and an attorney should be no different than in deciding what lawn mower to buy or what grocery store to patronize. In the end it should be a combination of attributes that commends the professional – not least of which is reputation, just as it would in any other FREE MARKET TRANSACTION.

Why shouldn’t a prospective client make the judgement call as to who they want to represent them legally? After all a citizen retains the right to represent themselves if they so choose; why shouldn’t they be FREE to choose who they want to advise them? The truth is this is as much as a protection racket as any other scheme.

And the fact of the matter is, in establishing a regulatory body to make such decisions, even should they start out as a fair and ethical group, just the existence of such a position becomes a shrieking invitation to corruption, which means it is just a matter of time before they are the corrupted, unjust and destructive bodies, as most have become.

We have surely come to recognize that even in the medical profession and with the overlords sanctioning medical treatments and medicines, our lives can be at risk if we are to make decisions based exclusively on official approvals coming from government. Big Brother is not necessarily our friend, and every citizen is responsible for their own decisions, every bit as much as if there were no licensing and permitting regimes. So why establish the pretense that there is some all-knowing, all-caring, honest and knowledgeable decision-makers who can relieve us of the responsibility of having to make such decisions ourselves? All that the existence of such “expertise” does is dupe a lot of trusting citizens, who have otherwise been brainwashed into trusting to “officials.” Not having such governmental advisors would make more clear to all citizens that they are still the final decision makers.

And more than that — over and over again in the history of our country we have seen that brilliance can emerge from anywhere – it does not always come from the hallowed halls of academia – and in fact sometimes it emerges because it was not blunted by the staid philosophies of “experts”. In those cases, quite frequently a brilliant new idea has been forestalled by regulating boards, either because their members weren’t as brilliant, or they were protecting their friends and political alliances. In all cases – lives hung in the balance. It is in allowing people to protect their lives that they must have the freedom to choose in the market place – most especially when it comes to choosing what “professionals” they want to rely upon.

By Evelyn Pyburn

As jobs go begging in Montana people are often asking why. Where are the workers?

While it’s true that more workers are working now than ever before in Montana, it’s also true that there are businesses going out of business because they can’t get the workers they need. The Federal Reserve Bank recently asked the question, “Who’s not working?” If one takes measure of the people around them, their answer isn’t so surprising. Fully, 30 percent of working age Americans (25-54) who are not working are not in the formal labor force because they are caregivers. (I very much hesitate to say they are not working because being a caregiver – especially if doing so for both children and aging parents is very hard work indeed.)

For people in this age group, full-time caregiving is more common than not working due to school, poor health, unemployment, or military service.

In the big picture this should be a beautiful thing – to have parents actually raising their children, and families engaged in caring for their elderly or disabled rather than being institutionalized, is one of the greatest strengths our society could have.

About a third of caregivers are focused on children under age 6. The balance are either taking care of elderly relatives and some are caring for both the elderly and children. They are called the “Sandwich Generation” with most in the 40 year- age group and thieir numbers are growing.

The Seniorly Research Center (see front page article in this issue) reports a record 53 million Americans provide an estimated $600 billion annually in unpaid family caregiving. The number is up from 43.5 million in 2015. And, they add, “it is taking an enormous toll on their financial, physical, and mental health,” of the caregivers.

As I think about the people I know and what they are doing, these findings are not surprising and I suspect that is true for most of us. Over the past ten years, or so, I have known lots of people who have dedicated themselves, caring for elderly relatives—and as someone who has also done so in the past, I know it is one of the hardest things anyone can do. Watching friends who continue to do so, I am convinced that as a society we do not give caregivers the respect and gratitude they deserve.

Part of the reason I know they are not given the consideration they should have is because of all the laws and regulations  that are thrown in their way to make the jobs of government regulators easy while imposing incredibly ridiculous burdens on caregivers, who they really should be trying to help.

Just one little example: when my mother needed to go into assisted living and I tried to change her address at the post office, I was told I needed to bring my mother to the post office to do so. Taking my mother anywhere at that point in time was a half-day, major undertaking. While there are undoubtedly bad actors who must be guarded against — sorting that out should be the responsibility of people hired to do that. Their course of action should not be to push it onto the shoulders of someone who is already burdened with the phenomenal challenge of caregiving – most often without compensation.

I know one lady who told me her frustrations in trying to help an elderly, close family friend get medical care and assistance through various programs. For months she had had to deal with every kind of roadblock imaginable, usually by well-meaning people, sitting casually at desks, sipping their morning coffee, quoting by rote the rules – rules that imposed more work on everyone, and often creating serious delays. Delays that take a toll on the patient, as well as the caregiver. My friend explained how she eliminated most of her problems. She had a very professional-looking badge made, with her name on it and the title “Caregiver” embossed under it. It worked like magic. So what does that tell you?

Of course many of the most important caregivers in our society are the people who staff the medical facilities and other agencies that serve aging America, and they should be every bit as recognized and appreciated. In fact, quite often it was through them that I resolved problems that their superiors seemed quite indifferent about. Often on the QT, they would whisper what I should do to resolve a problem. Apparently, for the staff to be truly helpful was not allowed.

But the point is, those who think they are doing a good job in regulating this industry, aren’t.

And, unless and until you have been there and done that, most people do not realize the grave disservice, we as a society and community are imposing on people who deserve so much better. If, as these studies indicate, there is going to be more and more people in need of a better system, then let’s make it happen for the benefit of us all.

And by the way – the next time you see a caregiver, give  them a hug and say thank you.