Maggie's Farm

The most likely scenario for the forced mass conversion to EVs by the US government is to make the US middle class and working class poorer and to increase pollution without any meaningful, and possibly an increase in greenhouse gas admissions.

Which was actually one of the intentions of the Soviet Union when they crated the environmental movement in the west, and the intention of many progressives.

I'll grant that my comment wasn't especially clear, but it's like you go out of your way to misunderstand and doubletalk.

When the USSR's KBG helped organize socialist and communist parties, and Green parties, they intentionally seeded those parties with radical environmentalists in the hopes of causing western countries to adopt environmental policies that would be economically destructive to the countries. Which explains why the environment in the eastern bloc and China was much worse than the west. The communist's alleged environmentalism was purely subversive propaganda. Much like the environmentalism of most progressives today. It's the same thing I've pointed out to you before: when what one does conflicts with what one says, what one says is a lie and what one does is the truth. Progressives do not have low carbon footprints (controlling for age and wealth) compared to moderates and conservatives, so they're liars telling a lie to advance their political cause, to feel superior to those who disagree with them, and to attempt to exercise control over others.
As for the EV/ wind and solar energy part, the infrastructure buildout required to do the "green transition," in addition to being massively impoverishing to most of the population, would be so large and resource intense that it would do far more environmental harm than our current energy system. Also, in addition to that environmental and economic harm, we would end up with energy and transportation systems that had far less reliability and utility.

It doesn't matter how much you wish that were not true, it is still true. It doesn't matter how often you say silly things like latitude not impacting polar power potential, hopes or wishes are not facts.

Monte and bailey. Some of the more moderate ideas of the non-radical environmental movement were adopted in the west. None of the extreme ones were. They were adopted because the west was rich enough to be able to afford such luxury policies. Which is to say the Soviet subversion failed. To this point. The Russians and Chinese still use BOT and troll farms to push radical LW environmentalism, including net zero. Not out of concern for the environment, but to weaken the west economically. Is that really the best you can do?

Is that the best you can do? Blue states have simply exported manufacturing to red states and thus exported their carbon dioxide production. They've switched to producing services, which cannot exist without the manufactured goods and energy they import from red states. Those service jobs also happen to tend towards creating more income inequality. Additionally, in terms of standard of living, (IOW, indexing cost of living to income), red state residents do significantly better than blue state residents. As I pointed out to you years ago. The disparity in respective standard of living is even greater now than it was when I made that point to you 5+ years ago.

Those are those of us who think that one who's only claim to notoriety is their being an outspoken, unrepentant racist ought not be normalized or legitimized by a government institution. So there's that. Despite the insistence by those of your ilk that blacks can't be racists, or that whites can't be the victims of racism, or if they are, they deserve it.

Then there's also the fact that a reputed institution of higher learning ought not be spending money to have a cognitive (and moral) tootler address the students they are charged with teaching and instilling the ability to think clearly in. One might think that it's a waste to have such a clown speak unchallenged, given that his go to response to anything other than100% fawning agreement is to announce that the other person is a racist. One might contract with oh say, Glen Lourey to debate Kendi. Or Douglass Murray. Or John Mcwhorter. Or Christopher Ruffo. Of course, Kendi, being the 4th class mind and con artists he is, would never agree to such a debate. He was chosen because people like you view him as a pet, and because rich white leftists want to be told they're one of "the good white people" by black people.

Ending birthright citizenship does not require a constitutional amendment. It is largely a judicial and bureaucratic creation (notice the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." phrase). It can be undone by a simple judicial ruling. In fact, the chances of such an occurrence is rapidly increasing, and I think is more likely than not to happen in the next 10-20 years.