Dakota Beacon

I apologize in advance for not talking about impeachment today.  I just feel that enough people are already doing this.  Let it suffice that the Democrats could have done better than this if they tried, or if not, should go to "Plan B" and try to offer a better alternative to a second Trump term - which so far seems to have eluded them.  So I want to go back to Greta at the U.N.  She's a bigger threat than the Democrats at the moment.  Not only to the rest of us, but to herself as well.

Her parents must be really heartless.  I cannot imagine putting a vulnerable, autistic, very troubled teenage girl in the position of "world leader" on "the environment".  This is child abuse.  Jon Miller has a short video where he takes to task the Left in its willingness to use this young girl and explains why they are doing so.  Well worth taking a few minutes to listen to and share with others - climate crisis skeptics and activists alike.  Those who are joining the mobs supporting this poor child should examine their culpability in what appears to be the personification of "nervous breakdown".  I repeat:  what's wrong with this girl's parents and why do they even still have custody of her in the police state of Sweden?  Why do they allow anyone or any movement to so abuse their daughter?  Or are they, themselves, the villains - the ones who want to bask in the imagined glory of little Greta.  It seems that someone should take action against these parents who, instead of helping and protecting their sick children use them for this instead.  On the other hand, maybe they think putting her in the spotlight HELPS her and helps in her overcoming her occasional muteness and other mental and emotional issues.  If so, we need to understand that and not take her seriously.  In any case, they have no right to use the rest of us as her "therapy" as she verbally whips us for trying to liver our own lives sensibly.

Here's an interesting question:  What if someone decided to manipulate Greta to attack her own country's government over immigration?   Look at it this way.  In Africa or wherever these migrant hordes generated that are overrunning Sweden, their "carbon footprint" is negligible.  But relocate them to one of the coldest, most developed nations in the world, Sweden, and their carbon footprint is enormous.  Now they must heat their homes, go about in motorized vehicles, do their laundry indoors (ice makes a good scrubbing surface perhaps, but it's lousy for rinsing).  They become consumers on the western European scale with an overlay of arctic winter to boot.  This is anything but environmentally sound.  And this is true anywhere a massive number of people move from a tropical desert to an arctic and subarctic region.  This is insanity from the hardcore environmentalist's standpoint.  So why does Greta not take on her own government first?  The Swedish government is certainly made up of irresponsible "children" by Greta's measure.  Perhaps the environmentally responsible thing for Greta and her family, her classmates and the rest of her people to do would be to migrate, together with the recent influx of immigrants, to Somalia.  There they could live in unheated huts, do their laundry in the local stream, get around on foot and be environmentally sound.  Something for the earnest Ms Thunberg to contemplate.

We don't know what the future holds for this kid, but she is so deeply committed to the idea of being a victim and that the world must end that when it doesn't she will probably suffer terribly from NO disaster.  Think about that.  Think about a Greta Thunberg in 2030, with the world still intact, turning relentlessly on its axis and the polar icecaps secure.  Unless, of course, she has been eliminated by another, more immediate, threat to her homeland, Sweden.  We know what that is.