First Presidential Debate of 2020: Trump vs. Biden… and ‘Debate Moderator’ Chris Wallace

The first of three scheduled debates between Trump and Biden took place on Sept. 29 at Case Western Reserve University and Cleveland Clinic in Cleveland, Ohio. “The format for the first debate calls for six 15-minute time segments dedicated to topics announced in advance in order to encourage deep discussion of the leading issues facing the country,” the commission stated in a news release a week before the event, under the headline “Moderator Announces Topics for First Presidential Debate.

Trump knew presidents running for re-election always blow their first debate (Reagan in ’84, George H.W. Bush in ’92, George W. Bush in ’04, Barry Obama in ’12) always look like they are caught in headlights after being shoved out of the presidential bubble, so Trump arrived loaded for bear and full of energy and fight.

Before the debate, the lying, cheating Biden team disagreed to drug testing and being checked for ear plugs and other mechanical devices. FOX News Reporters confirmed reports that Biden did not want to be checked for wires before the debate and said they would have to keep an eye on this. And some watchful sleuths discovered Biden was wearing a wire.  During the debate Biden reached into his jacket and realigned something there.  As he pulls out his hand what looks like a wire appears in plain sight1:

Here’s a picture showing Biden possibly wearing an earpiece:

There are other pictures showing something falling out of Joe’s sleeve, perhaps a heparin trap for injecting IV drugs:

Overall, Biden did a lot better than many expected (thanks to IV drugs and a debate team chiming in his ear)  if one ignored that almost every other statement he made was a lie or fantasy. But on policies and straightforward facts, Trump won the first debate comfortably. While they offered many other excuses following the debate, the corrupt national media wanted the two remaining presidential debates canceled because they knew Trump won and Biden lost.

Biden stood before the country and called the president of the United States a “clown.” Told the president of the United States to “shut up.” Sure, Trump interrupted and pestered, but so did Biden and so did Wallace (the biased moderator), but Trump didn’t call anyone names or tell anyone to shut up. Trump is a fighter, full of energy, full of piss and vinegar, eager to defend his record, and refuses to give an inch, and that’s a virtue.

  • Trump got Biden to repudiate the Green New Deal (something Biden’s own website says he supports), which will hurt him with the enthusiasts he needs on the left.
  • He got Biden to dismiss Bernie Sanders. Huge error. Huge.
  • He also got Biden to admit he’s going to raise taxes on the middle class. “That’s why I’m going to eliminate the Trump tax cuts. And I’m going to eliminate those tax cuts.” Biden said that and that means your standard deduction and child tax credits that the Trump cuts nearly doubled will be slashed in half.  So if you’re married and your federal tax rate is, say 20 percent, you’re going to pay 20 percent on about $12,000 in income you weren’t under Trump’s tax cuts. That’s a $2400 tax increase. Just is. Without any caveat last night, Biden straight up said he would repeal the Trump tax cuts. Trump cut taxes for everyone, so Biden intends to hit everyone with a tax increase.
  • Finally, Trump did a brilliant job sounding the alarm about the coming catastrophe and left-wing corruption involved with mail-in voting.

Trump won. It wasn’t pretty, but Trump won. And that’s why the corrupt media want to cancel the next two debates!

Trump also won big with Latino voters according to Telemundo viewers:


The Commission on Presidential Debates issued a statement after Tuesday’s debate between President Donald Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden that said the commission was looking at making adjustments as a result of moderator Chris Wallace losing control of the debate to Trump and Biden who interrupted and talked over each other and Wallace numerous times. Of course, the mainstream media blamed it on Trump as if he were the sole instagator, however he was interupted dozens of times by both Biden and his seemingly other opponent, the moderator Chris Wallace.

Later Wednesday CBS News’ Norah O’Donnell reported the commission is looking at cutting mics.

Former Bush 43 press secretary Ari Fleischer noted that it was Biden who first broke the rules and repeatedly interrupted Trump:

Flash back to 2012 when then-Vice President Biden (D) debated Republican vice presidential nominee Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI). A report from the time by ABC’s Good Morning America shows Biden heckling and interrupting Ryan over and over again, reportedly about 82 times. The result: a Saturday Night Live skit and no calls to change the rules or cut mics.


See Also:

Rockefeller Foundation Releases ‘Reset the Table’ Report, part of “The Great Reset” Describing Radical Transformation of Our Food System

The Rockefeller Foundation has released a new report, “Reset The Table” — an implied part of “The Great Reset” — describing a radical transformation of our food system in the face of the most significant disruption to our food supply in history. The report calls to provide food to all (like UBI), use schools as community nutrition distribution anchors, de-fund farms/ranches via “true cost accounting” that includes CO2, provide funds to BIPOC, collect realtime data for AI/automation, and much, much more. Christian breaks down this report, which builds upon the assault upon global food supply and your ability to feed your family. Thank you for sharing this report to help spread the word.

Also available at BitChute

PDF of ‘Reset the Table’ report

Rockefeller Foundation’s ‘Reset the Table‘ web page

Support IceAgeFarmer


Forces are working to take total control of every drop of oil extracted from the ground, every fish caught from the sea, and every last bean harvested. It requires an immense technical infrastructure comprising 5G, blockchain, and Artificial Intelligence. This infrastructure has been built and is now being deployed, and we must understand that it is — in the very words of the Department of Defense — an AI weapons system. And that system is going live NOW. Christian breaks it down.

Also available on Bitchute

Portland Passes “Green New Deal” Carbon Tax, First Of Its Kind in the Nation

Referring to it with happy little buzzwords such as “climate justice,” the city of Portland will soon be implementing the first (and hopefully only) “green new deal” carbon tax in the nation, which city “leaders” estimate will suck $60 million out of the economy. The money will allegedly be going toward “creating” “green energy” jobs. They say the tax will only affect The Evil Corporations™ specifically referring to Walmart.

The “Portland Clean Energy Community Benefits Initiative”  was passed via ballot initiative in the 2018 election, when 173,000 people voted for it. It was originally projected to raise $30 Million. Now the city gets to see what they voted for.

Oregon Public Broadcasting reported in 2018:

Proponents, mostly local community organizations, said the benefits far outweigh any potential drawback, especially for communities of color — which they argue are disproportionately affected by climate change. The measure’s steering committee includes Verde, the Coalition of Communities of Color, the Asian Pacific American Network of Oregon and the Portland branch of the NAACP, among others.

Willamette Week reports today:

In just a few months, the city of Portland will begin investing the proceeds from a groundbreaking new tax on large companies.

“It’s a model for the rest of the nation,” Mayor Ted Wheeler said recently. “A beacon and a testament to our community’s belief in doing things a different way.”

The Portland Clean Energy Community Benefits Fund, or PCEF, will raise as much as $60 million a year from a new tax on big retailers. The money is supposed to supply clean, efficient energy and jobs to people the city has long slighted.

At its core, the concept transfers wealth from big corporations such as Walmart to low-income Portlanders of color. It’s a local version of the Green New Deal proposed in 2019 by U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). It’s also part of a larger political effort to reshape who calls the shots—and who benefits—in America’s whitest big city.

Never has City Hall had so much money to spend with so few strings attached. The guidelines for spending the tax are squishy, as are the yardsticks for measuring the effectiveness of those expenditures.

“One of the biggest tasks facing this effort is, what are the key metrics of success?” says David Heslam of Portland’s Earth Advantage Institute, a supporter of the new tax. “They haven’t communicated that yet.”

That uncertainty concerns observers such as Maurice Rahming, an owner of O’Neill Electric, one of the city’s largest African American-owned contracting firms.

“What are the accountability means they are going to use to track outcomes?” Rahming asks. “At the end of the day, it’s about accountability and delivering on services.”

Oh, but it gets better. Remember the proposal to force building owners to provide space for the homeless vagrants? The woman behind that, Oriana Magnera, is the same one who peddled this unicorn fart climate utopia tax!

Last month, the City Council made some last-minute adjustments to the new tax, exempting some companies, including national waste haulers and construction firms, leaving large retailers such as Walmart, Target and Home Depot to pony up.

On Dec. 12, while considering those tweaks, the council got a warning from Oriana Magnera, a spokeswoman for the coalition that put the measure on the 2018 ballot.

“These exemptions take money out of the hands of black, indigenous and other communities of color and put it instead in the pockets of corporations,” testified Magnera, who works for Verde, a social justice nonprofit active in passing the ballot measure and making preparations for deploying the money. “We will fight fiercely if any future erosion occurs.”

Magnera and her fellow advocates face both an unparalleled opportunity and a daunting responsibility: to spend the new money transparently and well.

Oh, and to make this even more comically tragic, Portland had tried a watered-down version of this several years ago, relying on Obama stimulus money. And, shockingly, it failed in spectacular fashion!

For all the talk about how new and innovative the Portland Clean Energy Fund is, the fact remains that the city tried something similar before—and not that long ago.

The promise of energy efficiency is seductive: Insulate walls, caulk some leaks and tune up the heating system, and the savings on utility bills will exceed the costs of the work.

If anybody could have made an energy efficiency nonprofit thrive in Portland, Tim Miller seemed to be that guy.

He had the pedigree: a degree in economics and industrial engineering and an MBA from Stanford; five years at Intel; and a couple of decades doing green energy consulting before he signed on in 2012 at a Portland outfit called Clean Energy Works.

Clean Energy Works snagged a $20 million federal stimulus grant in 2010 and became an independent nonprofit whose mission was to deploy minority contractors to make 100,000 homes energy efficient.

“Our model was to retrofit,” Miller says. “The idea was to create jobs now—and let’s have them be good jobs.”

The program aimed to benefit underserved communities—just as the new tax does. “From the beginning, equity advancement was a hallmark of the program—promoting worker diversity and career pathways into the energy sector, as well as development of contractors including minority- and women-owned firms,” Clean Energy Works said in a grant application.

The similarities to the Portland Clean Energy Fund extended to granular details such as pay: Both programs specified workers should get no less than 1.8 times minimum wage.

Clean Energy Works conducted energy audits—and then, for a fee, referred homeowners to contractors for retrofits. “The feedback from the homeowners was almost universally positive,” Miller says. “People said, ‘We’re more comfortable in homes and we save money on our bills.’”

But Clean Energy Works’ services were expensive.

The Energy Trust of Oregon, a nonprofit funded by utility ratepayers, found the program’s costs “significantly” higher than those of other contractors doing similar work without public funding.

Miller acknowledges Clean Energy Works was more expensive, but he says the nonprofit’s holistic approach provided significant intangible benefits.

By 2014, Clean Energy Works had spent the $20 million in federal stimulus money it received four years earlier. It then secured an additional $10 million state grant to keep going.

But it could never generate significant revenues from its contractor referral service—and when the state grant ran out in 2016, tax records show, Clean Energy Works began recording large operating losses.

“An energy efficiency-based program could not support itself,” Miller says.

Although Clean Energy Works hoped to weatherize 100,000 homes, it only completed about 5,000.

Yet Miller judges the effort a success. “You got thousands of homes retrofitted, hundreds of jobs created, dozens of contractors, a ton of awareness,” Miller says. “It was money well spent.”

The article goes on to include:

[Proponents say] PCEF can thrive where the nonprofits they ran could not because the program won’t be measured by the strict financial metrics that utility-funded projects are measured by. Instead, PCEF projects can focus more on less easily measured health and climate benefits.

That’s right, they will consider it successful if we just ignore all economic reality. Speaking of economic reality, an even earlier version of this was attempted, and it also failed, to the surprise of no one. Even more predictable, dude took the money and ran.

In 1979, a new nonprofit called Portland Energy Conservation Inc. spun off from the city of Portland’s energy office. The nonprofit performed energy audits and weatherization retrofits, building up a national customer base.

By 2010, PECI employed 300 and even put its name in neon on the exterior of a downtown Portland high-rise, a bold move for an Oregon nonprofit. But PECI’s revenue declined precipitously from 2011 to 2014, and that year the nonprofit sold its business to CLEAResult, a for-profit Texas company.

PECI executive director Phil Welker chose to bank the $7 million in proceeds from that sale rather than stay in the energy efficiency business.

Welker has retired to Utah, replaced by Tim Miller, the former Clean Energy Works leader, whose task now is to give PECI’s money away.

You couldn’t script a wackier story. Dude gets millions of dollars in public money to start the greenie organization, it failed, so he sold off what was left and retired with $7 Million. No wonder these people promote such “plans,” they know they get paid no matter what. And Portland voluntarily voted for this.

So how exactly will the latest scam work? The article explains:

THE NEW TAX: Big retailers, with revenues of more than $500,000 in Portland and $1 billion nationally, pay a 1 percent surcharge on their Portland sales. The city estimates the tax will raise $44 million to $61 million annually. The city keeps 5 percent for administration.

WHO GIVES IT AWAY? City commissioners each selected one member to serve on the grant committee; those five members then picked four more. The committee chooses which grants to award, and their recommendations must be ratified by the Portland City Council. Committee members may not direct money to their own organizations. (See list of committee members below.)

WHO GETS THE MONEY? Nonprofits, working alone or with partners. One-fifth of the money must go to groups with a history of working with “economically disadvantaged” Portlanders. All workers must be paid no less than 1.8 times minimum wage.

MEMBERS OF THE GRANT COMMITTEE: Shanice Brittany Clarke, Portland Public Schools; Faith Graham, Network for Energy, Water, and Health in Affordable Buildings; Andrea Hamberg, Multnomah County; Michael David Edden Hill, journeyman electrician; Megan Horst, Portland State University; Jeffrey Moreland Jr., general contractor; Maria Gabrielle Sipin, transportation planner; Ranfis Villatoro, BlueGreen Alliance; Robin Wang, Ascent Funding

If something has a history of failing, leave it to Portland to keep doing it bigger!

And, oh yeah, as Mayor Ted Wheeler’s reelection campaign picks up, he and his wife are splitting.

Source: TheGatewayPundit

Study: Scientists Find “Man-made Climate Change Doesn’t Exist In Practice”

A new scientific study could bust wide open deeply flawed fundamental assumptions underlying controversial climate legislation and initiatives such as the Green New Deal, namely, the degree to which ‘climate change’ is driven by natural phenomena vs. man-made issues measured as carbon footprint. Scientists in Finland found “practically no anthropogenic [man-made] climate change” after a series of studies. 

“During the last hundred years the temperature increased about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C”, the Finnish researchers bluntly state in one among a series of papers.

This has been collaborated by a team at Kobe University in Japan, which has furthered the Finnish researchers’ theory: “New evidence suggests that high-energy particles from space known as galactic cosmic rays affect the Earth’s climate by increasing cloud cover, causing an ‘umbrella effect’,” the just published study has found, a summary of which has been released in the journal Science Daily. The findings are hugely significant given this ‘umbrella effect’ — an entirely natural occurrence  could be the prime driver of climate warming, and not man-made factors.

The scientists involved in the study are most concerned with the fact that current climate models driving the political side of debate, most notably the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) climate sensitivity scale, fail to incorporate this crucial and potentially central variable of increased cloud cover.

“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has discussed the impact of cloud cover on climate in their evaluations, but this phenomenon has never been considered in climate predictions due to the insufficient physical understanding of it,” comments Professor Hyodo in Science Daily. “This study provides an opportunity to rethink the impact of clouds on climate. When galactic cosmic rays increase, so do low clouds, and when cosmic rays decrease clouds do as well, so climate warming may be caused by an opposite-umbrella effect.”

In their related paper, aptly titled, “No experimental evidence for the significant anthropogenic [man-made] climate change”, the Finnish scientists find that low cloud cover “practically” controls global temperatures but that “only a small part” of the increased carbon dioxide concentration is anthropogenic, or caused by human activity.

The following is a key bombshell section in one of the studies conducted by Finland’s Turku University team:

We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot compute correctly the natural component included in the observed global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature. A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. That is why 6 J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMI IPCC represents the climate sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our sensitivity 0.24°C. Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased CO2 is less than 10%, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.

This raises urgent questions and central contradictions regarding current models which politicians and environmental groups across the globe are using to push radical economic changes on their countries’ populations.

Conclusions from both the Japanese and Finnish studies strongly suggest, for example, that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s “drastic measures to cut carbon emissions” which would ultimately require radical legislation changes to “remake the U.S. economy” would not only potentially bankrupt everyone but simply wouldn’t even work, at least according to the new Finnish research team findings.

To put AOC’s “drastic measures” in perspective  based entirely on the fundamental assumption of the monumental and disastrous impact of human activity on the climate  — consider the following conclusions from the Finnish studies:

“During the last hundred years the temperature increased about 0.1°C because of carbon dioxide. The human contribution was about 0.01°C.

Which leads the scientists to state further:

“Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased carbon dioxide is less than 10 percent, we have practically no anthropogenic climate change,” the researchers concluded.

And the team in Japan has called for a total reevaluation of current climate models, which remain dangerously flawed for dismissing a crucial variable:

This study provides an opportunity to rethink the impact of clouds on climate. When galactic cosmic rays increase, so do low clouds, and when cosmic rays decrease clouds do as well, so climate warming may be caused by an opposite-umbrella effect. The umbrella effect caused by galactic cosmic rays is important when thinking about current global warming as well as the warm period of the medieval era.

Failure to account for this results in the following, according to the one in the series of studies: “The IPCC climate sensitivity is about one order of magnitude too high, because a strong negative feedback of the clouds is missing in climate models.”

“If we pay attention to the fact that only a small part of the increased CO2 concentration is anthropogenic, we have to recognize that the anthropogenic climate change does not exist in practice,” the researchers conclude.

Though we doubt the ideologues currently pushing to radically remake the American economy through what ends up being a $93 trillion proposal (according to one study including AOC’s call for a whopping 70% top tax rate — will carefully inquire of this new bombshell scientific confirmation presented in the new research, we at least hope the US scientific community takes heed before it’s too late in the cause of accurate and authentic science that would stave off irreparable economic disaster that would no doubt ripple across the globe, adding to both human and environmental misery.

And “too late” that is, not for some mythical imminent or near-future “global warming Armageddon” as the currently in vogue highly politicized “science” of activists and congress members alike claims.

Source: ZeroHedge

Guaido invites Ocasio-Cortez to Venezuela to Witness Socialism in Action

Venezuelan President Juan Guaido is fighting for what’s left of his country as citizens rummage through the garbage for scraps to eat and collect sewer water for their children. Humanitarian aid is waiting at the border, but anyone who attempts to retrieve it is attacked by the military. Those who haven’t already fled the country […]