More News on Global Warming Hoax

The Man Made Global Warming hoax continues to fall apart:

Scientist Who Claimed Polar Bears Were Drowning Is Investigated For 'Scientific Misconduct'

This article reports that Dr Charles Monnett, the man who originally claimed that polar bears were drowning due to melting polar ice due to Man Made Global Warming, has been placed on leave and is being investigated for 'integrity issues' apparently linked to the polar bear report.

Dr David Whitehouse, concerning the Monnett situation, said, "The dangers of climate science is that once you passionately believe in man-made global warming, you see connections everywhere when you should be scientifically cautious about drawing conclusions."

U.S. Scientists Pour Cold Water On Rapid Global Warming Theory

Dr. Roy Spencer and Dr. Danny Braswell claim data from NASA’s Terra satellite shows that the Earth’s atmosphere is releasing more heat into space than forecasted by  climate change models.

"Applied to long-term climate change, the research might indicate that the climate is less sensitive to warming due to increased carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere than climate modellers have theorized. A major underpinning of global warming theory is that the slight warming caused by enhanced greenhouse gases should change cloud cover in ways that cause additional warming, which would be a positive feedback cycle."

"Instead, the natural ebb and flow of clouds, solar radiation, heat rising from the oceans and a myriad of other factors added to the different time lags in which they impact the atmosphere might make it impossible to isolate or accurately identify which piece of Earth’s changing climate is feedback from manmade greenhouse gases."

Term Limits, Anyone?

Never a better reason for term limits than this.  Our legislators were never supposed to get rich from serving.  The longer they are in office, the more corrupt they get.



The List of the Congressmen who are getting rich by serving in Congress - Click Here

Government Restricts Consumer Choice

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) puts the smackdown on the Light Bulb Nazis.

DO NOT RAISE THE DEBT CEILING!

This video makes the debt situation pretty clear. 

CUT SPENDING NOW!



They are lying to you about the Debt Ceiling deadline.  You don't reform a "spendaholic" by raising their credit card limit.

Good Causes - Bad Laws

Let me start by saying that I love animals...especially dogs.  I can hardly watch the TV commercials from the Humane Society or the ASPCA.  The images of those neglected and abused animals breaks my heart.  I think that anyone who abuses animals should be strictly punished through the law.  If someone abused my dog, or a dog I know...God help them.  That's where I stand on the cause of preventing animal abuse.

On a recent trip to the Washington D.C. area, I was listening to a local talk show host interviewing Wayne Pacelle of the  Humane Society of the United States.  They were talking about a bill making it's way through Congress that would make it a Federal crime to be a spectator of, take a child to, or organize dog fights.  This is The Animal Fighting Spectator Prohibition Act (H.R. 2492). introduced by Reps. Tom Marino, (R-PA) and Betty Sutton (D-OH).

Sounds like a good cause, right?  I agree.  Dog fighting is a horrendous activity that should be stopped.  Pictures of animals who have been involved in dog fights (like the one above) sicken me.  And, the host and Mr. Pacelle both agreed that most people want to see it ended.  In fact, they speculated that this bill would pass with almost unanimous support.  After all, who would disagree with the cause of stopping such a terrible crime?  And that, in a nut shell, is the problem.  A good cause...yes.  A good law...no.

When people see something that is wrong, an injustice, they want to see it righted.  They look to government to pass a law.  That is generally how our representative republic works.  The problems is, most of our fellow citizens have no idea of how our governments are supposed to operate...the divisions of power designed into the Constitution.  They also do not understand or, sadly, don't care about the principles behind our founding documents.  Dog fighting is clearly a State issue.  It is not, in any way, an enumerated power of the Federal government.  And, in fact, according to a Humane Society of the United States report, all 50 States have laws concerning dog fighting.

So, you may ask, what makes the difference if it is a State or Federal law?  It's a very good cause, you say, it needs all the help it can get.  It is that attitude from our general citizenry that has brought us to the situation in which we now find ourselves.  It has lead to our behemoth, highly centralized, bloated and corrupt Federal government.  This mind set has given us out-of control bureaucrats who believe that only they know best and that they have unlimited power.

In the early days of our country, most citizens, being highly suspicious of centralized power, resisted efforts of the Federal government to take more power unto itself.  The Constitution was debated among those who wanted a very limited Federal government (the "Federalists") and those who wanted an even more limited Federal government (the "Anti-Federalists").  They saw highly centralized and powerful governments as a clear danger to the liberties of the citizenry. In contrast, today our citizens seem in a rush to push more and more power to the Federal government.  They see a good cause, a perceived injustice, or just something that makes them mad and they say, "Why, there outta be a law."  And they expect the Federal government to do something.

This trend of looking to the Federal government has grown and accelerated since the early 20th century.  And now, though polls show that most voters (71%) believe the country is heading in the wrong direction, they have no idea how we got here or what to do to fix it.  They do not understand that the founding documents were designed to decentralize governmental power...for good reason.  As James Madison stated in Federalist 47, “The accumulation of all powers legislative, executive and judiciary in the same hands, whether of one, a few or many, and whether hereditary, self appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.” And, as Thomas Jefferson explained, " The way to have a safe government is not to trust it all to one, but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the function he is competent to [perform best]. Let the national government be entrusted with the defense of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the State governments with civil rights, laws, police and administration of what concerns the State generally; the counties with local concerns of the counties, and each ward [township] direct the interests within itself. It is by dividing and subdividing these republics, from the great national one down through all of its subordinates, until it ends in the administration of every man's farm by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best."

So, a good cause does not necessarily make for a good law...especially when that law gives more power to the Federal government.  Certainly it is easier to deal with one national legislature than 50 State governments, and that is a big reason why causes of national scope are taken to the U. S. Congress.  But this does not make it right...or constitutional.  In taking this easy way, even for causes we are passionate about, we cede a little more of our liberty every time...we hasten the growth of what Alexis de Tocqueville referred to as a "soft tyranny" in our country.

We need a new, or should I really say renewed, paradigm; one that allows us to champion good and noble causes, but makes liberty part of the cause.  We should pursue legal remedies only when absolutely necessary and seek them only to the lowest level of government which is proper.  And, keeping the founding principles in mind, never sacrifice one good for another.

Repeal the 17th Amendment

The following is a copy of a letter I sent to the Governor of my state and my state Senator and Representative.  I encourage you to do the same.


Dear [Governor/Senator/Representative],

I am writing today to encourage you to help restore the historic and proper of balance of power between the Federal and State governments in our country.  I fear that the Federal government has become far too powerful and corrupt to offer any reasonable hope for reform from within.  I have now become convinced that the only hope for our country lies in the States operating, as they were intended, as the major check and balance to the centralized power of the Federal government.

As you no doubt know, the United States of America was founded as a federation of free and independent States.  As James Madison stated it in Federalist 39, "Each State, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act.  In this relation, then, the new Constitution will, if established, be a Federal, and not a National constitution."  The struggle against nationalist sentiment within the Federal government has gone on since the beginning of our republic.  However, possibly the largest single blow to the principles of balanced power designed into the U.S. Constitution happened in 1913, with the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment.  With this one amendment, the States lost almost all of their ability to counteract unconstitutional usurpations of their power by the Federal government.  Senators, who were originally intended to represent the interests of the States, have, in many ways, become more powerful than the States themselves...now dictating to them instead of representing them.

The Seventeenth Amendment has been a chief catalyst to the concentration of power in the central government.  As Thomas Jefferson pointed out, "What has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government that has ever existed under the sun?  The generalizing and concentrating all cares and powers into one body, no matter whether of the autocrats of Russia or France, or of the aristocrats of a Venetian senate." This concentration of powers in the United States of America has lead to the situation in which we now find ourselves; with a Federal behemoth that has no regard for constitutional limits on its power.  This government believes itself free to force unwanted policies and regulations on the States and the People, regardless of whether it has legal power in these areas or not.  The steady movement toward total nationalism has brought us to the point of out of control spending and unbelievable debt that now threatens our very national security and world standing.

This is not a Republican or a Democrat issue, since both parties have been complicit in the abuse of power.  Neither is it a Liberal or Conservative issue since, though we may disagree in the specifics, we all generally agree in the liberty granted us by our founding documents.

As a leader of our state, then, I implore you to study this issue for yourself and to consider how you may be able to help champion the cause of repealing the Seventeenth Amendment of the Constitution.  With U. S. Senators restored to their proper roles, the States will also be able to retake their proper positions as the chief check on centralized government power.   It is with the members our State governments…with you…in which our hope lies for restoring our country to its founding principles.  The Federal government was created by the States and received its power from the States and from The People.  It is time for the States to reassert themselves and roll back the power of the Federal government.

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”– James Madison; Federalist No. 45

Sincerely,

More Big Brother - Smart Meters

I have always said that just because you can do something...doesn't mean you should.  Electric "smart meters" are a good case in point.  They do not, of themselves, save any energy.  They just allow the power company, and anyone else who the power company allows, to monitor your power usage.  What is the use of this?  Well, if they can monitor you, they can begin to control, through various means, your energy consumption.  Once again, we lose a little more of what's left of our privacy.

The video below makes some very interesting points.

Ban the...Bulb?

1960s: Ban the Bomb

It's pretty pathetic that the Lefties have gone from the Ban the Bomb movement to Ban the Bulb.  You may not be aware that a 2007 federal energy bill was passed into law that will ban the good ole' incandescent light bulb by 2014.  This was the same law that increased the auto fuel efficiency standard requirements by 40 percent.  The bill was symbolically sent from Capitol Hill to the White House, for signing by President Bush, in a Toyota Prius hybrid "go-kart."  Both of these measures have the effect of limiting consumer choice and are both outside the scope of the enumerated powers of the Federal government.

While there are pros and cons to the newer, compact fluorescent (CFL) bulbs, this is not a decision that we, the consumers, should have made for us.  I myself converted my own home to CFL bulbs about a year-and-a-half ago.  Not because I believe it will have any significant effect on the environment or over-all energy consumption...but because I read that I could save significant money on my electric bill...I'm all for that.  However, the increased cost of the CFL over the incandescent is only justifiable, in my eyes, if  they save you on electricity costs and last as long as advertised.  This has not been my experience.  I have since began converting back to incandescent bubs as the CFLs fail, far sooner than they're supposed to, all over my house...with no noticeable savings on electricity.

2000s: Ban the Bulb?

Congress is now considering the Better Use of Light Bulbs (BULB) Act which would repeal the earlier ban.  The Obama administration has come out strongly against this bill.   On Friday, July 8th, Energy Secretary Steven Chu said, concerning the ban, "We are taking away a choice that continues to let people waste their own money."  I'm sorry, Mr. Secretary, how I may or may not "waste" my money is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!

This guy is extremely arrogant and DANGEROUS.  Sure, right now it's just light bulbs...but what else could he use this same twisted-logic on?  Maybe you shouldn't waste your money on non-hybrid cars.  The increased fuel efficiency standards are aimed, I believe, at forcing that exact outcome.  Obama once chided that, "You don't blow a bunch of cash in Vegas when you're trying to save for college.”  Is going to Vegas a waste of money that Big Brother disapproves of...they do use a lot of energy lighting up that town.  Certainly you shouldn't waste your money on dangerous guns or buying boats  or motorcycles or other recreational vehicles, or living where you have a long commute to work...or many, many other things that could be considered a "waste of money" by some government hack or other.

It's just a light bulb, you say.  But it's so much more than that.  This ban is symptomatic of the politics, ideology and agenda of the radical, socialist Left that has come to power in this country.  They believe they know what's best for us all...they believe that only they can pick winning technologies...they believe that they have the right to rule...the Divine right of Oligarchs.  We must check this arrogance of power.  We must stop it's incremental wearing away of our rights...before it is too late.

So,no...it's not just about a light bulb.  You may like CFL bulbs and think they are a good idea.  But, if they can take away my right to choose on this issue, they can take away your right to choose on another.  Will we  allow "Big Brother" to rule every small aspect of our lives.

"That's why this president is so dangerous."

Representative Tom McClintock (R-CA) says it very well.  Obama has acted unconstitutionally and dangerously.  I say impeach him now!

Capitalism...Not What You May Have Been Told

As I study the history of this country, more and more I find that much of what we've been told is a cartoon version of reality...and many cases, a pure fabrication. Why would anyone fabricate history, you ask? Because they want to promote an agenda. And in this country, where we have government-run schools, that agenda is pro-big government.

Revisionist history is nothing new. As Winston Churchill said, "History is written by the victors." In the early days of our country, John Adams, at the end of his career, complained of the mythologizing and romanticizing of the history of the revolution. He decried the Virginians' use of "puffers," or what we today call "spin doctors" to paint themselves in a more favorable light or to cover over scandals. In his martyrdom, Abraham Lincoln has been depicted as a saintly, abolitionist who only cared for the freedom of oppressed African slaves. This, I believe was to cover the blatant trampling of the Constitution and total disregard for the principles of the federation of the States. After all, how can you question the motives, or actions of a saint?

This type of revisionism has gone on from the beginning of our republic and will continue past its end. In the video below, Tom Woods speaks of some of the revisionism we have all been subjected to when it comes to the history of capitalism. Why? Because big government needs us all to believe that we are all helpless without their constant guidance and control. Take the time to watch it all. He talks about the fallacies of most often told views of the "evils of capitalism."

Foreign Policy and Spending

Soon after I published yesterday's post, I was made aware of this video by Jack Hunter of The American Conservative.  Also see my earlier post, Budget Cuts - No Sacred Cows.

I think it makes the point very well.

The Democrats' Spending Addiction and the Codependant Republicans

It has become very obvious that the Democrats are absolutely addicted to spending.  And they act just like addicts do...Despite being on the verge of going the way of Greece, they deny that there is a problem...they blame others for the problem, that isn't really a problem anyway, they look for new ways to hide and disguise their addiction, and they routinely lie about their addictive behavior. 

But, what about the Republicans?  Well, they have a long history of being enablers and codependents. Remember, if you will,  in 1982, President Ronald Reagan was promised $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax hikes that the Democrats were asking for.  The tax hikes took effect...spending cuts, no.  When George H. W. Bush's famously pledged, "Read my lips: No New Taxes" in his run for the presidency, the Democrat-controlled Congress would have none of it.  They demanded more tax money to feed their addiction.  Not learning the lesson from his former boss, Bush finally relented to tax increases after being "promised" a $2 spending cut for every $1 in tax hike.  And again...well you can guess what happened by looking at the chart above.

When faced with the fall-out from the inevitable housing bubble collapse, George W. Bush agreed to sign the "Porkulus" bill...without so much as a token promise from the Democrats...just because they said they had to have it.  This bill provided spending to bail out "too-big-to-fail" Democrat cronies and to "create" jobs...jobs that Jeffery H. Anderson of The Weekly Standard reports were created or saved at "a cost to taxpayers of $278,000 per job."  Anderson points out that, "the government could simply have cut a $100,000 check to everyone whose employment was allegedly made possible by the 'stimulus,' and taxpayers would have come out $427 billion ahead."  And, to add insult to near-fatal injury, numbers from a recent report from Obama's own advisers show that "over the past six months, the economy would have added or saved more jobs without the 'stimulus' than it has with it."

And now the Spendocrats are telling us that the fiscal problems we have cannot be solved through spending cuts...again, I'll wait while you look at the chart...we have to raise taxes on the hated rich...those despicable owners of business jets and signers of paychecks.  The problem is that the additional revenue gained from these proposed taxes, if any at all (see previous post), would make up about one-tenth of one percent of the current deficit. The question now is not whether the Democrats will overcome their serious addiction and cut spending, but rather will the Republicans stick to their stated principles and break their cycle of codependency.

Dr. Lawrence Lindsey was a former Governor of the Federal Reserve System from 1991 to 1997, and a Special Assistant to the President for Domestic Economic Policy during the first Bush Administration, among many other things.  He was basically kicked out to the Bush administration for estimating the cost of the first Iraq war at $200B, which Donald Rumsfeld said was "Baloney" and the Office of Management and Budget said would only cost $60B.  The true cost was over $1 Trillion.  In a recent Wall Street Journal opinion piece Lindsey stated his belief that the true budget deficit is much higher than is currently being estimated by the Obama administration.  "Underestimating the long-term budget situation," Lindsey said, "is an old game in Washington. But never have the numbers been this large."   Lindsey says that "only serious long-term spending reduction in the entitlement area can begin to address the nation's deficit and debt problems. It should no longer be credible for our elected officials to hide the need for entitlement reforms behind rosy economic and budgetary assumptions."

My fear is that, like so many times in the past, the Republicans will cave-in and enable further deficit spending.  And, as with so many addicts, I'm afraid the Democrats won't change their ways until we have hit rock bottom.  I pray that I am wrong and that the Republican leadership finally gets some backbone.I guess we will know soon.