Three World Leaders —Just Scanning The News This AM

Three World Leaders —Just Scanning The News This AM

Turkey—President of Turkey -Erdogan

What a difference an election makes. The President would not accept the recent result in the megalopolis of Istanbul. He proceeded to have the election there to be null and void and another election called so that his picked candidate could have another shot at it, with no doubt thinking that the people would bend and have the stooge elected. Well, guess what? The people rejected the President’s candidate again and this time by even a bigger margin than the original election. There is still hope——

Brazil —President of Brazil— Bolsonaro

Th irony of it all. The very Supreme Court that helped the President get elected is now causing him all the trouble in implementing his ‘agenda.’ The Wall Street Journal says:

SÃO PAULO—When Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro took office in January, he promised to defend what he calls traditional-family values, loosen gun laws and push the nation to the right after years of mostly leftist rule. But six months into Mr. Bolsonaro’s administration, the Supreme Court is proving to be a powerful obstacle to his conservative agenda.

And then there is

Boris —leading contender to be British PM —Boris Johnson

Well, a little snag along the way—like a heated argument with his’ partner ‘ which saw the police turn up late one recent night. And a former boss of Johnson’s , Max Hastings , unleashes a attack on him with the headline :

‘I was Boris Johnson’s boss: he is utterly unfit to be prime minister’

Now , you are ready to face the day!

Seabirds Disappearing Near Wind Farms In Iris Sea

By Jason Endfield , a British Author and blogger

Isle Of Man Seabird Populations Plummet As Wind Farms Overwhelm The Irish Sea

Herring Gulls are down 82%, European Shag down 51%, Razorbills down 55%. The list goes on….
* The world’s biggest offshore wind farm is just a few miles away.
* Isn’t there a conspicuous connection?

The Isle Of Man wildlife charity Manx Birdlife has reported a shocking 40% decline in the populations of many species of sea birds around the island’s coast.

The worrying figures emerged following a comprehensive census that took place over two years. Whatever the reason for the sharp decline of the birds, it illustrates that something has gone very wrong.

I’ve noted with interest that this unprecedented drop in populations, of several of the island’s maritime species, coincides with the proliferation of wind farms in the Irish Sea – something which has worried me during the past few years, as I have witnessed the frenzied development of the wind industry in the waters off the western coasts of England and Wales.

World’s Biggest Offshore Wind Farm just a few miles away….

We know that offshore turbines kill birds and bats, though it is almost impossible to estimate the number of casualties because there are no retrievable carcasses to count at sea….

It is also highly likely that wind farms adversely affect many marine mammals.

The world’s largest offshore wind farm is now in operation off the Cumbrian coast at Walney, just 40 miles or so from the Isle of Man, and, with the news that nearby bird populations are in free-fall, we must seriously ask whether the huge turbines might be killing more birds than we ever anticipated.

The Isle of Man study was, ironically, partly supported by the Walney Extension Offshore Wind Farm Project. How paradoxical would it be to find that the project itself, with its giant 640 feet turbines, was responsible for the plummeting numbers of sea birds.

The report is full of depressing statistics. Herring Gulls are down 82%, European Shag down 51%, Razorbills down 55%. The list goes on.

Marine Protected Areas “may not necessarily be major barrier to new projects…”

I’ve been increasingly concerned at the feverish pace of industrial offshore wind farm development in this country and especially in the Irish Sea. Such a high density of turbines in a confined area – an area renowned for its wildlife – has been watched with dismay by many environmentalists, especially since large parts of the sea have been designated Marine Protected Areas (MPA’s), supposedly limiting the scale of industrial development in precious areas that provide important habitat for so many species.

Alas, development has been allowed in vast parts of the sea that fall just outside the protected zones – and there have even been hints that the MPA’s themselves may not be off limit for future wind farm expansion. Last year, a report carried out for the Welsh government suggested that “this protection may not necessarily be a major barrier to new projects” – which sounds shockingly irresponsible to me.

Isle of Man plans might seriously threaten birds’ survival

Though the Isle Of Man currently has none of its own offshore wind farms, their government is reportedly close to approving industrial wind development off the island’s coast as early as next year. Such plans might seriously threaten the survival of species already struggling to cope with the industrialisation of their habitat.

Wind energy companies might flaunt their green ideologies for all to see – but their industry nevertheless hides a grim reality. Their ‘green’ energy kills wildlife.

Money Vs Wildlife…

Speaking about the alarming drop in bird populations, managing director of Manx Birdlife, Neil Morris, suggested that “there are a number of causes for these declines and the solutions, such as protecting nesting sites, restoring food chains and mitigating climate change, will be challenging.”

It will be interesting to see whether more research will be carried out into just how many birds are being killed by the Irish Sea wind farms. My hunch is that many people would rather keep that information under their hats. So much money invested in offshore wind means that bad publicity would be very unwelcome and it is common for critics of the industry to be ridiculed.

​It seems likely that vast swathes of our coastal seas are likely to be further industrialised by the wind giants – even if it is at the expense of wildlife.

Why Isn’t Brexit A Reality?

Delingpole: Three Years Ago We Voted Brexit. Here’s the Real Reason We Haven’t Yet Got It…


Today is the third anniversary of the EU Referendum. Like all Brexiteers, I can remember exactly where I was when I heard the result. And more importantly, I remember exactly how it felt.

It felt as people must have done on VE Day. (Quite appropriate, really, given what the E in VE Day stands for…)

It felt how that preeminent knight of the Crusades Reynald de Chatillon must have felt on his release after years in the lightless, airless, foetid dungeons of Aleppo.

It felt like that time I chatted up a Norwegian barmaid well above my pay grade and instead of being turned down I got lucky.

It felt like lots of other things too, all of them good, and I expect it was just the same for you. Brexit Day — Independence Day, as we told ourselves we would soon come to call it — was perhaps the greatest political event of our lives because it was so momentous and so unexpected.

Momentous because — unlike general elections for parties so samey there was little to choose between them anyway — the result really would make a genuine difference.

Unexpected because — as we’d seen in the fractious, ugly campaign leading up to it — the Remainer Establishment had done everything it conceivably could have done, both by fair means and foul, to try to ensure that the people of Britain did not vote the way all their instincts urged them to vote.

The outcome, despite the Remainer Establishment’s best efforts, was:

17,410,742 for Leave

16,141,241 for Remain

Ever since, Remoaners have tried to persuade us that this 52 per cent margin was so tiny that frankly we should either ignore the result or run the Referendum over and over again until the right decision is reached.

But I suspect that that margin would have been considerably larger if the Establishment had not put so much money and muscle into trying to thwart the popular will by frightening people with Project Fear. The Bank of England, the International Monetary Fund, the Civil Service, the BBC, the universities, the City of London, the Confederation of British Industry, the President of the USA, etc — the Remain Establishment threw everything it possibly could into its battle against democracy. And still it lost.

After all that blatant cheating, you’ll forgive me for not being terribly sympathetic to the notion that we should bend over backwards to ensure that both Remainers and Leavers are kept happy by whatever happens next.

No, we shouldn’t.

Brexit was a binary decision. We voted Leave and there’s an end to it. No more can you be half in and half out of Europe than you can be half pregnant.

The idea that somewhere out there is some ingenious fudge whereby Britain gets Brexit but in such a way as to keep all the Remoaner losers on side was always one so stupid and dishonest that only a Remainer could have thought of it.

That’s because Remainers did think of it.

Every bad idea about Brexit that has emerged since the EU Referendum is essentially the product of Remainer holdouts who don’t merely disagree with the Brexit result but who actively want to overturn it.

Hard Brexit? A dishonest concept, fomented by the BBC, to conjure up the false notion that leaving the EU Single Market and Customs Union is so radical, nay extreme, that the sensible course is to water it down and make it softer.

No Deal? A deliberately negative phrase — the clue is in that first word — cooked up in order to suggest, falsely, that instead of simply telling Brussels we’re leaving, like it or lump it, it’s far better to go cap in hand to Michel Barnier, Jean Claude-Juncker, and Guy Verhofstadt and beg them for permission.

The Backstop? An imaginary problem, conjured from thin air, by Remainer Civil Servants in cahoots with their mates at the EU, to derail Brexit by exaggerating border tensions between Ireland and the United Kingdom.

Withdrawal Agreement? A form of Brexit betrayal, secretly put together by a Remainer prime minister and her Remainer civil servants, in the fond hope that if you dip a turd in glitter everyone will go “Ooh! Shiny! Shiny!” and completely not notice what’s lurking underneath.

When you understand this, it releases you from the state of planet-struck befuddlement in which the majority of Brexit voters have spent the last few years.

That befuddlement can be summed up in the question that all the Brexiteers I know have been asking themselves again over the last three years: “How come — given that we were given a democratic vote on Brexit, and given that we promised that our decision would be honoured — we still haven’t got Brexit?”

Well, let me tell you the answer. It’s really very simple.

Britain in 2019 is a Third World country. It’s a Banana Republic. It’s a corrupt oligarchy. It’s Albania. It’s Russia. It’s Burkina Faso. It’s Venezuela. It’s all those countries in the world that we used to point at smugly congratulating ourselves that we’re not like them because Magna Carta, because English common law, because international transparency index, because the Queen — but which we can’t any more because we are like them.

Not exactly like them, obviously. No, what we’ve done is adopted many of their worst vices — the venality, the lack of democratic accountability, the utter disregard for ordinary people, the financial corruption, and so on — but then dressed them up in a pinstripe suit and a bowler hat and a furled umbrella from Swaine Adeney Brigg in the pretence that everything is still OK.

But everything is not OK.

The Establishment in this country is as scheming and sinister and mendacious and self-serving and hateful and contemptuous and intransigent as the Establishments in all the more obviously corrupt and evil and dangerous countries in the world to which we used to feel superior. It’s just much better at masking its vileness.

Just as a brief thought experiment, ask yourself how we’d view it if China had given its people a referendum and then executed a complete reverse ferret when the people gave the wrong result. Or if Iran had behaved similarly badly. Or the Democratic Republic of Congo.

We’d all condemn it (presuming that we’d been made aware of it) as just the kind of dodgy behaviour you’d expect from Communist dictatorships/Islamic republics/African sweatboxes. We’d be disgusted; appalled; aghast that the regime in question could get away with such crimes against democracy.

Yet somehow, mystifyingly, bizarrely, when our own government does it gets pretty much a free pass from our mainstream media, which for decades we’ve told ourselves is robust and fearless but which is in fact so compliant in might just as well be Soviet-era Pravda or Radio Pyongyang.

Other, less subtle countries might have nixed their own versions of Brexit with say, death squads, or disappearances in the night, or massive bribes to influential figures or tanks mowing down a few dozen student protestors. But that’s not the British way.

No, when the Remainer Establishment — our Deep State — wanted to kill Brexit, all it had to do was come up with that weasel excuse “Well you see, the thing is, it’s much, much more complicated than you think. And that’s why we can’t give you Brexit. Because procedural complexity and ‘the numbers’ and stuff you proles are simply too, erm, unsophisticated to understand…”

And our tame media, to a greater or lesser degree, and a good many parliamentarians and commentators who really should have known better, accepted this line on our behalf.

But we 17.4 million Brexiteers — and also, quite a few of those 16.1 million Remainers who have since changed sides having noticed just how appalling the EU and its supporters have been behaving these last three years — haven’t bought this fancy-pants slime ball nonsense.

We don’t watch the BBC. We’ve given up on the newspapers. We don’t trust the Westminster politicians. And quite a few of us have been lucky enough not to benefit from a university “education”.

We voted Brexit. We knew what the Brexit we voted for would look like when we got it. And so far, we definitely haven’t got it — or anything close.

It’s just as well that one or two people in Parliament seem to be waking up to what’s going on — because until they do there is never going to be peace and stability in this land.

Boris Johnson, in the likely event he becomes Prime Minister, is in the fortunate position of entering the role with no difficult choice.

Either he delivers swift, full Brexit. Or he delivers swift, full Brexit.

There really are no other options. The people decided this three years ago. The people must prevail.

Open Letter To The Premier Of Newfoundland And Labrador

Open Letter

Honourable Dwight Ball
Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador
St. John’s

Via e-mail

Dear Premier:

The Federal Government ‘s Bill 69 is now law. And it is my understanding that it applies to the Province’s offshore .

There are provisions of the Bill that violate the principle of joint management established by both Governments in the Atlantic Accord . For example , discretion by the Federal Minister over certain matters and relegating the Province to Minority status on certain Boards.

This principle of joint management was one that was fought for when I was Minister and later as Premier. It is fundamental to the Accord and hence the Province ‘s ability to have a meaningful say in offshore exploration and development . Over 30 sections of the 68 sections of the Accord relate to joint management.

I believe you and your administration have an obligation to uphold the principles contained in the Accord . It is my understanding that you had sought changes but these were rejected .

I think you have an obligation to further oppose this blatant violation of the Accord by challenging the Bill in the Courts.
I believe the people of the Province would support this effort, to have redress of a Federal action that violates provisions of a Federal Provincial Agreement duly signed in 1985.

Three relevant issues that I think bear directly upon this violation and why legal action is warranted :

1. There is no pressing matter of national concern that necessitates a Federal over-ride in this instance .

2. If one concept like joint management contained in several provisions of the Accord can be so violated then the precedent is set that others can be violated too , like the provision that the Province receive royalties as if the offshore resource were on land . Since the signing of the Accord the Province has received over $20 billion because of this provision. Specifically, if Sections 1, 2(c) , 2(d) and 2(h) of the Accord can be broken by Bill 69 , it is open season for other Sections like Section (e) , royalties , to be broken by another Federal Bill.

3. The Accord was implemented through legislation in the Parliament of Canada and the House of Assembly of the Province

The Province must assert through the courts that certain provisions of a dully signed, fully functioning Agreement , between the Governments and which was given Legislative sanction by both Governments , cannot be summarily violated by one of the parties thirty four years later. It must be protected from unilateral , unwarranted changes by one of the parties.

Honourable A. Brian Peckford P.C.
Premier ( 1979-1989)

Copied to Siobhan Coady , Minister of Natural Resources

Trudeau Liberal Govt Gets An F On Open Government

From Democracy Watch

Report card gives Trudeau Liberal open government record an F as international summit held in Ottawa

Posted on May 30, 2019 by Bradford
Thursday, May 30, 2019

OTTAWA – Today, as the Open Government Partnership Global Summit is being held in Ottawa, Democracy Watch issued its report card on the Trudeau Liberal open government record. The report card gives the Liberals an overall F grade.

The excessive secrecy problems with the Trudeau Liberal government include:

Liberals promised several changes not included in Bill C-58 in the Open Government section of their 2015 election platform, and in the specific Access to Information section of the platform;

Bill C-58 also proposed changes that were not promised in the Liberals’ platform, changes that were big steps backwards in access rights;

The Liberals have also failed to keep their international Open Government Partnership commitments, weak as those commitments were.

Bill C-58 also ignored many of the recommendations made in the unanimous June 2016 report of the House of Commons Access, Privacy and Ethics Committee;

The Liberals violated the legal requirement in the Lobbying Act (section 14.1) to review the Act every five years (the review should have happened in 2017) so they didn’t even try to close secret lobbying loopholes;

The Trudeau government has appealed a Federal Court ruling that that closed secret lobbying loophole, made Trudeau’s family friend the Aga Khan accountable for secret lobbying, and increased enforcement of the Lobbying Act and the Lobbyists’ Code of Conduct;

The Liberals ignored all of the recommendations made in the unanimous June 2017 House Committee report for key changes to strengthen the federal whistleblower protection system, and;

PM Trudeau and his Cabinet used a secretive, dishonest, Cabinet-controlled process to appoint the new Ethics Commissioner, and the new Lobbying Commissioner, and;

As former Information Commissioner concluded at the end of her term, the Trudeau Liberals have made the federal government more secretive.

As well, PM Trudeau and his Cabinet ministers have been involved in the following scandals, all marked by excessive secrecy:

The secret trips to the Aga Khan’s private island in the Bahamas;
Finance Minister Bill Morneau secretly owning $30 million in shares in his family’s company Morneau Shepell Inc.;

Keeping it secret how many lobbyists have helped organize fundraising events for the Liberals (Barry Sherman of Apotex Inc., and Mickey MacDonald of Clearwater Seafoods, are not likely the only ones);

Giving preferential access to the PM and Cabinet ministers to secret “bundler” fundraisers;

The secret effort to influence the Attorney General’s decision concerning the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin;

Failing to prevent Kevin Lynch from secretly lobbying Michael Wernick;

Keeping the identities secret of executives and others connected to SNC-Lavalin who donated to the Liberals through an illegal scheme, and;

Keeping it a secret that the Ethics Commissioner’s senior lawyer is the sister-in-law of Minister Dominic LeBlanc.

Tens of thousands of voters have sent letters through Democracy Watch’s Open Government Campaign and Protect Whistleblowers Campaign and Government Ethics Campaign calling on the Liberals to make many key changes to stop excessive government secrecy, protect whistleblowers, and stop secret lobbying. Democracy Watch also signed the open letter issued in 2017 by a global coalition of organizations and individuals calling for open government changes.

The only positive changes the Trudeau government has made are mainly in the area of open data by making information that was already public easier to access; making MPs’ expense reports more accessible; making it easier to file and track access to information requests, and; making details about some fundraising events public through Bill C-50 that came into force last December.

“The Trudeau Liberals have broken most of their open government promises, made the federal government more secretive, failed to make key changes to protect whistleblowers and stop secret lobbying, and been involved in many scandals marked by excessive secrecy, and that’s why they deserve a failing grade in the area of open government,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch and Part-time Professor of law and politics at the University of Ottawa.

“Given that the federal open government, whistleblower protection and lobbying laws have been reviewed several times in the past 15 years, and that there is a consensus on key changes that must be made, the Liberals have no excuses for failing to make these changes.”

How Crazy Is This Zero Fossil Fuel Idea? Terence Corcoran Of National Post Has Some Numbers.

Terence Corcoran: Why the global fossil-fuel phase-out is a fantasy akin to time travel

To produce the power needed to offset fossil fuels, Canada would have to build two and a half $13-billion hydro dams every year

Canada’s Green Party, said to be gaining ground, has a new platform plan, headlined “Mission: Possible,” to eliminate fossil fuels by 2050.

June 21, 2019

Judging from the headlines, Canada and the world are on track to ratchet up renewable energy and begin the rapid scale-down and ultimate phase-out of fossil fuels. Most energy analysts consider the fossil-fuel phase-out to be a scientific, economic and political fantasy, akin to levitation and time travel, but the movement keeps making news.

Governments everywhere — from Canada to the United Kingdom to states in Australia — are declaring climate emergencies and committing to variations on zero emissions. The international organization promoting emergency declarations claims “a fast transition to zero emissions is possible.”

Canada’s Green Party, said to be gaining ground, has a new platform plan, headlined “Mission: Possible,” to eliminate fossil fuels by 2050. A proposed Green New Deal in America aims to eliminate fossil fuels from the U.S. power grid by 2030 and phase gasoline out of the transportation sector.

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh says Canada’s oil industry is on its way out: “It’s the direction the world is headed.” The newly announced Liberal and Conservative programs are leaning in the zero-carbon direction, although less explicitly.

The magnitude of the implied decarbonization effort takes us beyond the possible and into the world of junk science fiction

So what are the carbon zeroists talking about? Aside from massive amounts of government intervention — almost a total takeover of the economy — the practicality of it all looks a bit impossible, to put it mildly. As the graph below suggests, the required technological and economic change could be a little overwhelming.

The general scale of the operation is hinted at by Climate Mobilization, an organization promoting climate emergency declarations: “Only WWII-scale Climate Mobilization can protect humanity and the natural world.”

In keeping with the analogy, here are some indicators of the magnitude of the coming Green World War III.

In Canada, for example, Vancouver energy consultant Aldyen Donnelly calculated that to achieve the “deep decarbonization” Canada is aiming for will require massive expansions of non-fossil fuel sources of energy.

To produce the electric power needed to offset the lost fossil fuel energy, Canada would have to build 2.5 hydro power dams the size of British Columbia’s $13-billion Site C project somewhere in the country “every year for the foreseeable future” leading up to the proposed 2050 carbon reduction targets. The geographic and cost obstacles send that prospect into the realm of the impossible.

On a global basis, the magnitude of the implied decarbonization effort illustrated in the graph takes us beyond the possible and into the world of junk science fiction. In 2018, world consumption of fossil fuels rose to 11,865 million tonnes of oil equivalent (mtoe). To get that down to near zero by 2050 as proposed by the zeroists would require a lot of alternative energy sources.

University of Colorado scientist Roger Pielke Jr. did some of the rough numbers. “There are 11,161 days until 2050. Getting to net zero by 2050 requires replacing one mtoe of fossil fuel consumption every day starting now.” On a global basis, such a transition would require building the equivalent of one new 1.5-gigawatt nuclear plant every day for the next 30 years.

If not nuclear, then maybe solar? According to a U.S. government site, it takes about three million solar panels to produce one gigawatt of energy, which means that by 2050 the world will need 3,000,000 X 11,865 solar panels to offset fossil fuels. The wind alternative would require about 430 new wind turbines each of the 11,865 days leading to 2050.

So far, other tested technologies do not exist to offset the fossil fuel energy that would be lost under the green zero targets. Maybe this is a world war that should be stopped before it gets out of control.

Heart Attack Makes Deadly Comeback

From WSJ

Heart Attack at 49—America’s Biggest Killer Makes a Deadly Comeback

Younger people, women and nonsmokers are more likely to be victims of the crisis in cardiovascular health, driven by skyrocketing obesity and diabetes

By Betsy McKay
June 21, 2019 10:58 am ET

One of America’s greatest achievements over much of the past century has been a huge decline in death rates from heart disease and strokes. Anti-smoking campaigns, medications to control blood pressure and cholesterol, and surgical advances have extended millions of lives, fundamentally reshaping the U.S. population.

Now, progress has stalled. That’s helping drive down life expectancy in the U.S. after decades in which each generation of Americans could expect to live longer than the one that came before.

The death rate for cardiovascular disease—which includes heart disease and strokes—has fallen just 4% since 2011 after dropping more than 70% over six decades, according to mortality statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Particularly alarming is that the death rate is actually rising for middle-aged Americans.

The overall cardiovascular-disease death rate is an under-recognized contributor to the recent decline in U.S. life expectancy. While that has been driven mostly by deaths from drug overdoses and suicides, improvements in cardiovascular health are no longer providing a counterbalance.

Among victims are John Singleton, the 51-year-old filmmaker behind the movie “Boyz N The Hood,” and actor Luke Perry, the 52-year-old former star of “Beverly Hills, 90210.” Both died of strokes earlier this year.

Heart disease was once on course to fall below cancer as the nation’s leading cause of death, a change public-health statisticians most recently predicted would occur by 2020. No longer, said Robert Anderson, chief of the CDC’s mortality statistics branch. “It’s highly unlikely given the current trend that there will be a crossover anytime soon,” he said.

The obesity epidemic and related rise in the prevalence of Type 2 diabetes are key culprits in the new wave of cardiovascular disease mortality, researchers and cardiologists say. Studies have linked obesity and diabetes to high blood pressure and other conditions that increase the risk of heart attacks, strokes and heart failure.

“It’s a really major driver,” said Stephen Sidney, director of research clinics at the Kaiser Permanente Northern California Division of Research, who has studied the changes in cardiovascular disease mortality rates. Obesity began rising across the U.S. population in the early 1980s, and Type 2 diabetes rates accelerated several years later. That has given both “enough time to really impact in a negative way on the population,” Dr. Sidney said.

Dr. Steven Nissen, at the Cleveland Clinic, said cardiovascular-disease patients nowadays are younger, more obese, much less likely to be smokers and include more women. PHOTO: DUSTIN FRANZ FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Nearly 40% of U.S. adults age 20 and over are obese, another 32% are overweight, and 9.4% of U.S. adults 18 and over have diabetes, according to the CDC.

The consequences of obesity are eroding the enormous gains brought about by public-health campaigns against smoking, along with medical innovations such as cholesterol-lowering statin drugs. Statins, which were introduced starting in the late 1980s, have prevented millions of Americans from developing life-threatening blockages in their blood vessels that can cause heart attacks.

“You couldn’t see the effects of the obesity epidemic when we were in the process of getting people to use statins,” said Steven Nissen, chief academic officer of the Heart and Vascular Institute at the Cleveland Clinic. Now, he said, “we’ve got a counterforce here.”

Progress Stalls

Oscar Washington Jr., just 49 years old, wasn’t feeling well when he got out of the shower one morning in April 2017 after a workout. “I think I got overheated,” the utility company vice president told his wife, Doris. He lay down on their bed.

His arm was hurting, and he started to twist and turn. Ms. Washington became worried. She wondered if he was having a heart attack. Mr. Washington’s father had passed away just four months earlier, of heart disease, and the couple was co-chairing a coming American Heart Association ball.

She gave her husband some aspirin and an ice pack. Then she helped him get dressed and drove him to the emergency room. Doctors there found him in the midst of a deadly heart attack, with blockages in a main artery on the heart and two others. Despite an emergency triple bypass operation, Mr. Washington died two weeks later of complications of his condition.

Mr. Washington was an active member of his community who left behind a wife and two daughters. Hefty for his height, at 5 feet 6 inches and 250 pounds at the time of his heart attack, he had been on blood-pressure and cholesterol medications for years. But he worked out regularly and hadn’t been diagnosed with a heart condition, his wife said.

“He didn’t have any symptoms,” said Ms. Washington, a 52-year-old agriculture-agency official in Little Rock, Ark., who has managed her grief and loneliness by staying busy with work, caring for her daughters, now ages 20 and 13, and setting up a scholarship fund for Arkansas high-school students in her husband’s name.

Today’s heart-disease victim is vastly different from the classic patient doctors and the public were trained to recognize a half-century ago: a smoker, usually male, whose LDL, or “bad” cholesterol numbers were “sky high,” said Dr. Nissen. Now, the patients are younger, more obese, much less likely to be smokers and include more women, he said. Many are unaware that they are at risk.

Where Heart Disease Death Rates Are Rising

Death rates for people aged 55-64 are increasing in the south, where they are already high, and across the country, especially in rural and smaller metropolitan areas.

“I’ve been working in a coronary-care unit for 40 years, and the patient that comes in now looks completely different from the patient when I was starting out,” he said. “It is an absolutely striking difference.”

He calculated the median BMI of patients in the unit one day recently. Obesity is defined as a BMI of 30 or above. The unit’s median was 34, he said. Several patients had BMIs over 40.

“I think obesity is the new smoking in terms of contribution to heart disease,” said Sadiya Khan, a cardiologist and assistant professor of medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine. “We’ve made such great progress in coming up with smoking-cessation programs. For physical activity, healthy diet and weight loss we haven’t found the right approach.”

Dr. Khan was lead author of a 2018 study in the journal JAMA Cardiology showing the lifetime risk of cardiovascular disease and deaths from it to be higher for overweight and obese adults than for people with a normal body-mass index. The researchers analyzed data from more than 190,000 participants in 10 study cohorts going back several decades.

Cardiovascular-disease death rates rose 1.5% between 2011 and 2017 for 45-to-64-year-olds, according to CDC statistics. That includes increases in the rates of deaths from strokes, hypertensive heart disease and heart failure—all diseases associated with obesity.

Older people still account for most cardiovascular deaths, but the cardiovascular-disease mortality rate for people 75 and older—who had benefited from the treatment advances and smoking cessation—actually fell 6% in the same years.

“I have seen 30-year-olds coming in with heart attacks,” said Robert Sanchez, medical director of cardiovascular medicine at HCA West Florida’s Northside Hospital and Tampa Bay Heart Institute. Over his 28-year career, he said, he has started to see younger patients. He also has more patients in their 90s, who have survived longer due to better health care.

The past success curbing cardiovascular deaths was hard-won. Heart disease and strokes were dreaded killers in the early- and mid-20th century. Scientists and doctors were only starting to understand the risks of smoking, high cholesterol and high blood pressure on the heart, and there were few treatments to prevent heart disease or save people.

The death rate fell steadily and sharply beginning in midcentury as public-health officials waged a war on smoking and exhorted people to eat more fruits and vegetables and to exercise. Medical advances such as coronary-artery-bypass surgery, defibrillators, better blood-pressure drugs and statins also saved lives.

The progress was so great that an editorial in the journal Science in 1996 posed the question, “Heart attacks: Gone with the century?”

But heart disease is still the nation’s top killer, and strokes, the other main component of cardiovascular disease, ranked fifth in the latest data.

Growing Risk for Hearts

Obesity and diabetes—factors that contribute to cardiovascular disease—have skyrocketed in the U.S. since the 1980s, and more people have uncontrolled high blood pressure.

Obesity and diabetes add to common risk factors such as high blood pressure that already made heart disease and stroke widespread. About 46% of American adults have high blood pressure, or hypertension, under guidelines released in 2017 by the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association. Of that group, three-quarters either aren’t being treated with medications or don’t have it under control, according to a study in Circulation, an AHA journal. High blood pressure can be caused by hereditary factors, too much sodium, excess weight and other factors.

The family of Mr. Singleton, the filmmaker, said after his death that he struggled with high blood pressure, a condition that often affects African-Americans earlier in life and more severely than people of other racial backgrounds in the U.S.

In obese people, excess weight leads to elevated blood pressure in several ways, including by increasing circulating blood volume and stiffening or narrowing blood vessels. The high blood pressure, in turn, puts strain on the heart and arteries, potentially leading to a heart attack. It can make blood vessels in the brain clog or burst, causing a stroke. It can also lead to heart failure.

People with obesity and diabetes also tend to have high triglycerides, a sign of poor metabolic health, a measure of factors such as blood sugar and blood pressure, and other metabolic abnormalities that are damaging to the heart and blood vessels. Abdominal fat produces proteins that drive inflammation, which research has shown to be linked to heart disease and stroke.

Heart experts say they need new tools and approaches, because today’s cardiovascular disease patients differ from those of past decades, and they need to reach people young, before obesity and diabetes develop.

Researchers and doctors also need “more granular, more accurate, more timely” digital health-care data from multiple sources to verify and better understand the trend the mortality rates point to, said Harlan Krumholz, a Yale University cardiologist and health-care researcher. “We have to have great respect for the signal but need to be working to understand the signal,” he said.

Julie Kubala was at a movie with her husband when she developed a pounding headache and felt mild discomfort “in my breastbone.” She thought it was aftereffects of the flu that she was recovering from.

The next morning, the pain was still there. She and her husband went to the emergency room. She was given an electrocardiogram, which showed she was having a heart attack. Doctors found an 80% blockage in her left anterior descending artery, a major pipeline of blood to the heart, and immediately placed a stent.

Ms. Kubala, who has obesity and Type 2 diabetes, was terrified from the experience, in March 2016. Until the heart attack, she had never spent a night in the hospital. “You have no idea what to do with this body now that it has betrayed you,” said the 51-year-old, who lives in Superior, Wis. “You realize that you don’t have the time that other people have.”

How to Cut Your Risk

She attended a cardiac-rehabilitation program, and connected with other patients on an American Heart Association support network for help dealing with the trauma and fear of mortality that patients can develop in the aftermath of a heart attack. She is exercising more and watching what she eats.

Still, she said, “the battle continues.” Her blood sugar is higher than she wants it to be. The medications she is on make it hard to exercise intensely, and she spends long hours at a clerical job at a health clinic. “I can’t lose a pound to save my life,” she said.

Ms. Kubala said she is working to change a lifetime of habits that go back to being overweight in childhood and several years of jobs in fast-food establishments. Diabetes runs in her family but no one ever talked about the disease, risk factors, or dangers of burgers, fries and soda when she was growing up, she said. “I am of a generation that was never educated in any of that,” she said.