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."

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.

Healthy Skepticism

"Skepticism, like chastity, should not be relinquished too readily." ~ George Santayana

"The logic of validation allows us to move between the two limits of dogmatism and skepticism." ~  Paul Ricoeur


Who can you believe these days?  Everybody seems to have an angle...some agenda behind what they say.  Once upon a time...yes, it kind of seems like a fairy tale now...people held truth, honesty and unbiased reporting of facts in high regard.  This seems to be a long-lost relic of the past in today's age of marketing, sound bites, political spin and pseudo-journalism.

Today, everyone seems just to accept, and even expect, that politicians of every stripe are spinning, slanting, or just plain lying about the facts.  We know that, regardless of party, our politicians are corrupted by the influences, trips, voting blocks, and campaign donations (read bribes) of the thousands and thousands of lobbyists and special-interest groups.  We know that these politicians tell us what they want us to hear...regardless of the facts...so that they can advance their (or rather their lobbyist's) agendas.  But even though we all seem to know this, a large number of Americans seem to trust government, as a whole, to do what is best for the public.


Sadly, this propensity to bend the truth to the requirements of an agenda has expanded in our society far beyond politics, as we typically think of it.  Scientific American recently reported that, "False positives and exaggerated results in peer-reviewed scientific studies have reached epidemic proportions in recent years. The problem is rampant in economics, the social sciences and even the natural sciences, but it is particularly egregious in biomedicine." 

We have all grown up in a world where science has accomplished amazing things.  We have come to think that with enough time and funding, science could solve all of the problems of the world and provide wondrous inventions to make our lives immeasurably better...and that's where the problem begins.  As Scientific American puts it:

"The problem begins with the public’s rising expectations of science. Being human, scientists are tempted to show that they know more than they do. The number of investigators—and the number of experiments, observations and analyses they produce—has also increased exponentially in many fields, but adequate safeguards against bias are lacking. Research is fragmented, competition is fierce and emphasis is often given to single studies instead of the big picture.

Much research is conducted for reasons other than the pursuit of truth. Conflicts of interest abound, and they influence outcomes. In health care, research is often performed at the behest of companies that have a large financial stake in the results. Even for academics, success often hinges on publishing positive findings. The oligopoly of high-impact journals also has a distorting effect on funding, academic careers and market shares. Industry tailors research agendas to suit its needs, which also shapes academic priorities, journal revenue and even public funding."

 Remember, the article says this trend is "epidemic" in the disciplines of "economics, the social sciences and even the natural sciences."  While they single out the influences on biomedicine  by  "companies that have a large financial stake," the case can also easily be made that government, and their seemingly endless supply of grant money, also exerts undue influence on the scientific process.  These "conflicts of interests" with the government are most probably the exact reason for the "false positives and exaggerated results" in the science of so-called man-made global warming, known as Climategate.  Remember, Al Gore told us that "the science is settled."  That's because his preferred science stood to make him millions and millions of dollars.  In economics, government has a vested interest in promoting models that support their continued expansion, central planning and out-of-control spending.  This is why there seems to be no end to the number of economists who will say that Stimulus spending and increasing debt is a good thing...despite the historical evidence.  And similarly in social science, government wants research that shows that their Great Society programs do indeed work, regardless of what you think you see in the inner-cities.

Just as we should always maintain a healthy skepticism about the claims of miracle cures, fast weight loss products or hair restoration creams, we should be that much more skeptical of government-backed scientific findings.  While buying an ineffectual sexual enhancement supplement may be personally very disappointing, buying government's science-backed solutions can threaten the very liberty on which our country is founded.  So, look closely at what you are being told.  Check for past results.  Does the proposal square with what we have seen in the past?  As the article says:

"First, we must routinely demand robust and extensive external validation—in the form of additional studies—for any report that claims to have found something new. Many fields pay little attention to the need for replication or do it sparingly and haphazardly. Second, scientific reports should take into account the number of analyses that have been conducted, which would tend to downplay false positives."

 Skepticism is a very healthy attribute. It keeps us from falling prey to snake oil salesmen, charlatans and tyrants.  Don't blindly believe what your government, or so-called scientists tell you.  Make sure you understand the implications of their proposals.  Try to discern the hidden agendas...and dearly guard your liberties. 

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty.  Suspect every one who approaches that jewel." ~ Patrick Henry

The End of the World and Other Non-Disasters

We have recently been treated to a media circus surrounding the doomsday predictions of an 89-year-old wacko preacher, Harold Camping.  Camping predicted that the world would end on May 21, 2011 at 6:00 PM...That's six o'clock in what ever time zone you happen to live...you see it was going to start in Fiji and work its way around the globe hour by hour.  The fact that he was wrong when he predicted the end of the world in 1994, or was wrong this time, doesn't seem to deter him from claiming that his math was just a little off.  The new doomsday is now set for October..mark your calendars.

All but a few of his faithful followers knew Camping was a crackpot.  I mean, come on...everyone knows the world is not going to explode until the end of 2012.  The Mayans told us that...geez.  But while we have all had fun at the expense of  the poor, deluded old preacher Camping...well, maybe not so poor since millions of dollars in donations poured in...we continue to give credence to other doomsday crackpots.  Take for example the horrible predictions surrounding last years Deep Water Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.  Why this was to be the mother of all disasters.  Life as we know it in the whole Gulf region would be gravely changed for decades, and decades.  This was just the proof the environmentalists needed to show once-and-for-all that big oil meant big trouble for planet earth.  Why we may never recover from the tens-of-millions of barrels of crude oil spilled into the waters of the Gulf...we will be lucky if the whole ocean doesn't die from this.

Well, just as with crazy ol' Camping, these prophets of disaster were wrong...spectacularly wrong.  As Humberto Fontova reports in the Washington Times, the would-be devastation...never was.  Just a short three months after the spill, marine scientist Ivor van Heerden said, "There’s just no data to suggest this is an environmental disaster...we’re not seeing catastrophic impacts. There’s a lot of hype, but no evidence to justify it.”  Take the time to read the article, its worth it.

At the beginning of the spill, I tried to tell my Facebook friends that, while this was not a good thing, the earth has a tremendous ability to "heal itself" of these sorts of impacts.  The vastness of the oceans, I said, would disperse the oil.  I pointed out that oil is a natural product of the earth's processes and that it seeps out, unaided by man, all the time.  I reminded them of similar predictions in the past and how wrong they had been: 

• The Exxon Valdez site was almost as if nothing ever happened in a year or two.
• The Alaska pipeline not only didn't kill off the wildlife, but actually helped increase the caribou population.
• The late Carl Sagan's predictions in 1990 that if Saddam Hussein set the oil wells on fire we could see a miniature nuclear winter.  The oil wells burned and...well...Sagan was wrong.
• In the early 1970s the environmentalists were predicting a coming ice age...now "the planet has a fever."

And on, and on , and on.  I predicted that within a year, we wouldn't hardly be able to see the impact.  I was wrong...it was much quicker than that.

These prognosticators of peril never seem to be correct...and yet, we continue to listen to them.  We laugh at the followers of preacher Camping and castigate them as a bunch of rubes...but we allow the enviro-vangelists to set our national energy policies and determine allowable uses of our land.  Both Camping and the enviro-wackos have long track records of being wrong, which begs the question, who are the real rubes?

When will we see these charlatans for what they are?  When will we treat them with the same humorous disdain that we reserve for the likes of Camping?  Wrong is wrong.  At least Camping only had limited ability to bilk people of their money.  The environmental lobby has almost unlimited power through their hold on government.

Pigford - "Government Run Amok"

For those who think there is no fat in the Federal budget that could possibly be cut, allow me to introduce you to Pigford.  Not Eva Pigford...the beautiful actress...but the case of Pigford v. Glickman.  Pigford, as it is simply referred to, was a class-action suit filed by Timothy Pigford against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on behalf of 400 other black farmers who alleged discrimination in farm lending.

As Andrew Breitbart of BigGovernment.com reports, "There seems to be considerable evidence that some black farmers were denied access to timely loans and generally received unfavorable treatment by some USDA employees."  While the USDA did not admit to doing anything wrong, they did make some changes to their procedures and directed the Civil Right's Action Team (CRAT) to investigate.  "CRAT issued a thick report confirming that black farmers had been denied equal access to credit"

The case was adjudicated in favor of the farmers. Qualifying farmers could either "be paid $50,000 tax- free and would possibly have their government loans erased." or, through hearings "before a court-appointed independent arbitrator to seek larger damages."   But, that was just the beginning, the fraud and corruption had just begun.  As Breitbart explains:

"The original estimate on both sides of the lawsuit was that the number of claimants would total between 1,000-4,000. But what started out, as a relatively small case of perhaps 4,000 claimants at most, is today a multi-billion dollar settlement with over 94,000 claimants.  What makes that figure so problematic is that during the years the alleged racial discrimination took place (1981-1996), there were never more than 33,000 black farmers total in the entire United States according to the census bureau." 

FBI investigations estimated that at least half of the claims against Pigford were false...before the investigation was shut down.  There were aplicants who lived in suburbs and urban areas, who never farmed in their lives.  One USDA whistle blower reported that "“Pigford was basically legalized extortion. It reached the point where they were just handing money to people."  "The legal standard was supposed to be a preponderance of evidence,” says another employee, “but soon they pretty much gave money to whoever filled out a form.” 

Pigford began to be seen by activists and some in government as deserved reparations to blacks for the past sin of slavery, which has long been a goal of black activists.  Gary Grant, President of the Black Farmers and Agriculturalists Association said, “If you are an African-American, you deserve $50,000 because your roots are in farming and your folks have already been cheated.  You are collecting what your grandparents didn’t have the opportunity to.”   These activist groups used the Pigford case as litmus test for political support.  As long as candidates promised to keep the gravy train running with continued Pigford payouts, the groups will deliver the votes.

Since not enough people were able to get in on Pigford, Congress is working on Pigford II, sponsored by then-Senator Barack Obama.  This incarnation offers up $1.25 billion in taxpayer money.  It also opens the door to claims by Hispanics, Native Americans and women to get their peice of the pie...seems we're all farmers now.

While the Crew of 42 blog on black members of the 112th congress decries the so-called raising of the bar for payouts to black applicants, they never really deny that there is fraud.  In fact, they quote Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) concerning changes made to Pigford II to raise the eligibility bar saying, “There’s fraud in everything the government does. There’s just not gonna be as much fraud.”  Well, I feel better, how about you?

There are many more details to this case.  Facts like the largest recipient of Pigford I was Shirley Sharrod, the USDA employee who was caught up in the NAACP racism charges and who was fired...then re-hired.  Her and her husband received over $13 million.  The next largest award was $675,000.  The fact that Obama has seemed to use this fraud as a pay-off for votes.  The fact that officials have seemed to turn a blind eye to the corruption, either through lack of political backbone...or for personal gain.  And then there is the hundreds of millions of dollars paid out to the attorneys. The details are still emerging.

As Breitbart concludes:

"This embezzlement of taxpayer money, possibly to the tune of billions of dollars, demands congressional attention. At the very least, it would seem prudent to have a congressional investigation into the very real possibility that over a billion dollars of taxpayer money is going to fraudulent claims into what ostensibly began as a legitimate grievance by a few thousand black farmers."

In the video below, Jimmy Dismuke, a real farmer and qualified recipient of Pigford I tells of  the fraud perpetrated  by attorneys in recruiting claimants for the class-action suit.



Additional information:
Me & Mrs. Sherrod — And The $1.25 Billion Pigford II Black Farmers’ Settlement

A Little Perspective

Two recent articles brought home the importance of keeping a little perspective through all of the current political and economic turmoil. The first one, The American 21st Century by Victor Davis Hanson makes the point that we have seen bad times before, and somehow survived...even thrived. He gives examples of times, such as the Great Depression, when Americans and others were perdicting doom on America. These were times when we began to doubt our future and standing in the world...as many do today. Hanson helps our perspective with two important points:

"Amid all this doom and gloom, two factors are constant over the decades. First, America goes through periodic bouts of neurotic self-doubt, only to wake up and snap out of it. Indeed, indebted Americans are already bracing for fiscal restraint and parsimony as an antidote to past profligacy.

Second, decline is relative and does not occur in a vacuum. As Western economic and scientific values ripple out from Europe and the United States, it is understandable that developing countries like China, India, and Brazil can catapult right into the 21st century. But that said, national strength is still measured by the underlying hardiness of the patient — its demography, culture, and institutions — rather than by occasional symptoms of ill health."

The second article, Apocalypse, a video blog by Paleofuture.tv, reminds us that people have been warning about the collapse of society and the end of the world for a long time. It discusses how old, dystopian classics like The Late Great Planet Earth, Future Shock, and The Population Bomb have become seen as "campy" today because, of course, none of the predictions came anywhere close to being true.  So Al Gore's, An Inconvenient Truth or movies like The Day After Tomorrow and the myriad of shows on the 2012 Prophecies are nothing new...and will probably be seen as campy in the not-too-distant future.

So, yes we go through bad times periodically.  There are pockets of economic downturns and regional disasters from time-to-time.  But, if we can keep a wider perspective, beyond a current catastrophe to a broader historical view, we can take comfort that things will probably get better.  This is an observation I've made many times...people seem not to be able to see the forest for the trees...cannot see more that a few months in the past or future.  This myopic view of events can cause people to seem silly and just a little schizophrenic. As Matt Novak put it so well at the end of the video:

"Every generation has it's own challenges. Climate change, hunger, homelessness...all these things are very real problems we need to address.  But, if you're going to be making predictions about how we're getting dumber because of technology, or that we need to stock up on spam and gold bars and guns for apocalypse bunkers, don't be surprised if some smarmy punk from the future pulls out your old clips and we all get a good chuckle out of them."

Both of these articles remind us that, as the saying goes, there is nothing new under the sun.  We've seen it before...we've been through it before...and we survived.  But that doesn't mean that we should simply say que sera sera and ignore everything that is happening around us either. Part of the advantage of gaining a broader, historical view is that you can see trends and cycles that take years and even decades to play out.  It is not usually the short-term actions or occurrences that cause the most damage, but the long term.

One constant in the history of America, through good times and bad, is the trend toward larger, more powerful and more intrusive government.  This trend usually happens very incrementally.  Many don't even recognize it when it is happening...it's a death by a thousand cuts. Sometimes, as with the Health Care bill (and the Obama administration in general) they try to accelerate the trend. But, this usually elicits a strong response from the voters.

No one act, law or regulation by government will cause the end of our freedom or the collapse of our economy...but look back over the years and see how our freedoms have been eroded...see the usurpation of power...the corruption that has taken over government.  It is in this view that you can truly see what we have lost...not in apocalyptic, destructive occurrences, but by the constant pounding  of the waves against the foundations of our society.

This is why we, as citizens, must insist that government expansion be not only stopped, but reversed.  This goal will only come about with diligence and a long-term view and commitment.  It will not be accomplished in one or even a few victories.  But, if we are to stop the erosion of our rights, we must move back toward our founding principles and rebuild the shores of our liberty.  Don't get defeated by one loss, or bill, or issue.  Don't get too comfortable or cocky with one win.  Take the wins you can get; learn from the losses and keep your eye on the ultimate goal.

So, Chicken Little, take heart.  The sky is not falling...today.  But keep a wary eye on the shores.

The Socialist Ascendancy

Anyone but the most sheltered or willfully ignorant among us must surely be able to see that the socialists have come to Washington and have taken over. Socialists, Marxists, communists, progressives ... call them what you want, these all come from the same root philosophies. Over time and in different parts of the world, these philosophies have been carried out in slightly different ways...state ownership of the means of production...state control over the means of production...or just excessive regulation. It always ends up the same way, despite of all the populist rhetoric, centralized control by a few ruling elites and ultimately, if they have their way, totalitarianism. For the purpose of this post, we will just call them all socialists.

Since the beginning of the Obama administration, the socialists have become more emboldened than any time since maybe the Wilson administration. With flagrant disregard for the will of the people, they have bailed out their cronies in the banking industry which allowed them, despite presiding over the failure of their industry, and the economy in general,  to continue with their excessive bonuses and lifestyles.... Similarly, they bailed out failing Chrysler and GM. While totally disregarding existing bankruptcy and contract law, the government stiffed the bond holders and creditors of these companies and funneled huge amounts of money to more cronies in the auto workers unions. With these two moves, the government established stronger control in the banking industry and had, in-effect, taken over a large portion of heavy manufacturing.

The next target was health care. Here, despite huge amounts of opposition from the citizenry, they shoved a bill through Congress that gives them almost complete control over one-seventh of the economy. This massive piece of ... ah, legislation was passed before anyone was allowed to read it and while some parts were not even complete. Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, said that they had to pass the bill first before anyone could know what was in it. When asked in a press conference where they got the Constitutional power to control health care, and force citizens to buy coverage, Ms. Pelosi laughed and simply said, "Are you serious...are you serious?"

This move on health care set some potentially dangerous precedents. First that they would show such blatant disregard for the will of the people. Second, the fact that they were able to pass such a bill without anyone reading it. And third that they could so flippantly wave off the Constitution...without seemingly much consequence at all. This victory emboldened the socialists to pursue their agenda with all abandon...regardless of any possible electoral consequences.

Then, shortly after the global warming scam began to come unraveled, the socialists began floating the theory that they really didn't need legislative authority to implement cap and trade. As Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) told the attendees at the climate change meetings in Cancun recently, the "E.P.A. is busy trying to implement cap-and-trade through the backdoor." He added that "the Obama Administration is trying to achieve administratively what it could not legislatively. Cap and trade is now as dead as a doornail, as the American people rejected it at the ballot box on November 2. But that hasn’t stopped the Obama E.P.A."

The socialists believe that they can simply enact cap and trade regulations through the E.P.A . This is, after all, important...the very survival of the planet is at stake, they lie. And with this move, they hope to put the final nail in the coffin of this bothersome obstacle of (little r) republican rule in this country. Now, regardless of who holds office, they can simply rule by fiat through the established regulatory bureaucracies.

Most recently, flush with hubris, the socialists have tested the theory again by moving to apply "net neutrality" regulations on Internet Service Providers (ISPs). Contrary to popular belief, the Internet is not a government-owned, homogeneous network.  Rather it is a conglomeration of hundreds and even thousands of individual, privately-owned networks that are interconnected.  But this does not stop the FCC, who's charter is only to regulate broadcast frequencies, from attempting to take control.  Many people see net neutrality as unnecessary tampering at best and the first step toward controlling content on the Internet at worst.  More than 300 Congressmen, including 86 Democrats, asked the FCC to stop it's efforts in this regard and defer to the legislature.   Even the Federal Court has previously ruled that the FCC does NOT have the power to inflict net neutrality regulations on the Internet. The court said, regarding the FCC's reasoning, that "if accepted it would virtually free the Commission from its congressional tether."  In other words, it would allow ruling without representation of  The People.

But, as The American Spectator reported, "without compelling reason, law or even politics on their side, on December 21, on a 3-2 party line vote, the FCC voted to impose its 'net neutrality' rules on the Internet. What net neutrality means is that the government now has the power to decide how ISPs and broadband operators manage the access they provide to the Internet. It is as if the government decided to regulate how FedEx delivers its overnight mail, and what routes and what vehicles they use." 

The trend is clear; the patterns are well known from history.  The socialists are on the move doing what socialists always do...moving toward their goal of total state control. As we move into the new decade, we must not think that our job is over because of a few electoral victories last November.  This barely slows the socialists.  They only retool and set off with even more conviction than ever.  This cancer has been growing for years and will not respond to quick doses of aspirin or applications of band-aids.  The cure will take time...and strong medicine.  The answer lies in a return to our founding documents...but we are so far afield of these principles that the way back will be murky and fraught with pitfalls.  It is, however, a trip we must take...before it is too late.

Early signs are good.  The people have begun to waken from their slumber and begin to see the extent to which liberty has been eroded.  But this is no easy task.  It is, in fact, a generational task.  We must fight as hard as we can now...and prepare our children to carry on the fight.  But, the fight can be won...it has been won before...by the very founders of this great country.

So raise high the banners...light the fires of liberty anew...and stand, arm in arm with your fellow citizens, to be counted for the cause of freedom.

And...have a blessed and prosperous 2011.

---

UPDATE:  (12/30/10; 9:24 pm EST)  This must be some kind of record.   I no sooner published this post when I came across another story to back my assertions.  Here is the link:

Obama Moves to Strengthen Labor Unions - Communists Approve

Why Feed the Pig?

In a previous post, The Utility of Federalism, I laid out some of the benefits of the Federal form of government that our founders gave to us over the mostly National system we have now.  In this installment, I want to consider why it is unwise to trust so much of our money, and therefore power, to the centralized bureaucracy in Washington D.C.

In recent days, I have been assailed by claims that the crazy Tea Party tax cutters are going to cause the country's infrastructure to collapse and return us back to the 18th century.  This, to me, sounds like the echoing, desperate squeals of the panicked  "federalus porkulus," the Federal pig, a creature that grows ever fatter and who's appetite cannot be satiated.

The first and simplest  argument to the infrastructure scare is...the Federal government did not build and does not maintain our infrastructure. 

< I'll wait a few seconds while that fact registers...take your time.>

The Federal government does not build roads, does not build utility or communications or any other infrastructure.  These are built by State and local governments, by private power and communications companies...not by the Federal government.  Yes, even the Interstate Highway system is built and maintained by the States.  When was the last time you saw a "FED-DOT" crew patching potholes on a road, or  "FED-Power" or "FED-Comm" crews out working in line trucks? 

I know, I know, what about all of that Federal highway money?  What about Obama's promises to fix our failing infrastructure?  Nothing but political slight of hand, I assure you.  The only thing the Federal government does is collect tax money and dole it out for projects.  But where does this federal tax money come from in the first place?  It comes from citizens and companies of the States.  So let's think about this... we gather our money...ship it to Washington in amounts beyond comprehension...so they can ship it back to us for our infrastructure?  Does this make sense to you?

But that alone, the seeming silliness of the whole thing, isn't the worst of it.  What happens to this money between the time we send it to Washington and the time we see it back in our States?  The monumental waste and inefficiency of the Federal government is well known...with the proverbial $600 hammer and $1000 toilet seat.  The Heritage Foundation lists a few more recent examples in an article.  My personal favorite...
"Washington will spend $2.6 million training Chinese prostitutes to drink more responsibly on the job." Seriously?  How was that justification written up?

Then there is the layer after layer of bureaucrats and red tape that has to be supported by our money. Anyone who donates to charitable organizations wants to know that as much of their money as possible actually goes to the target of the organizations charity.  A good charity has low administrative costs that take only pennies from each dollar donated.  This, however, is not a characteristic of Federal Government.  The Washington Times reported in February of this year that, "The Obama administration says the government will grow to 2.15 million employees this year, topping 2 million for the first time since President Clinton declared that 'the era of big government is over' and joined forces with a Republican-led Congress in the 1990s to pare back the federal work force" We also recently learned that the average Federal employee makes about twice as much in total compensation than the average private-sector employee.  This type of bureaucracy costs a lot of money just to maintain.

But, the most insidious part of the whole thing is how our money is used to accrue power to the politicians and bureaucrats.  Federal funds are routinely used to coerce, bribe and threaten people and organizations to do what the politicians want done.  Highway and other funds are withheld from States unless they buckle under to Federal regulations.  So called "Stimulus" money  is used to blatantly payoff political cronies.   Tax money...yours and mine...in the form of earmarks and pork projects is used to buy votes and control among Congressmen, as Senator Jim Demint warns the newly elected representatives of in a recent open letter.    The tax code and the IRS are used to control individuals and corporations.  This should not be viewed as just business as usual in Washington, but as the total perversion of our republican form of government that it is.

Another argument you hear for Federal involvement in infrastructure is that they need to make sure that all States get an equal chance at having all the best infrastructure.  First of all, it is not how our government is designed, not to mention it is not allowed by the Constitution...and therefore illegal.  But setting that aside for a minute, let's look at this logically.  Do all States need the same infrastructure?  Does a sparsely populated State like, say Wyoming or Montana need the same infrastructure as New York or California?  Do the citizens of the States have a choice as to where they live?  I mean, if you want ready access to museums, restaurants, theater and commerce, you can move to Manhattan.  If you want nature, seclusion and a slower pace of life, you can move to Montana.  Someone living in Manhattan should not expect a quiet, slow-paced life...and someone in Montana should not expect all the amenities and infrastructure of New York City.  Life is made up of choices and compromises.

Regardless of the need of infrastructure in a given State, most States could much more afford what is needed if so much of their money was not being sent to Washington and being filtered through that inefficient bureaucracy.  If there is still a need, this could be handled between the States.  There are some good reasons to have good transportation systems between the States.  It allows for more efficient trade and movement that benefits all States.  States could, especially on a regional basis, work out some revenue sharing agreements to benefit the whole region and avoid the Federal pig.

But, some say, what about when the economy is in trouble like it is now?  Surely the Federal government must step in and save the day.  So you mean the same group of incompetents that caused the problem in the first place?  Is that who you would trust to clean up their own mess?  I say if we had not allowed them to so greatly exceed their legal boundaries in the first place, we would not be in the mess we are in now.  To trust them to fix the economy by doing more of the same is the very definition of insanity.

But, we are told that without FDRs big-government policies of the New Deal we would never have come out of the Great Depression.  This is simply foolishness.  Many respected economists today, who have studied the Great Depression, now believe that FDR extended the depression by about seven years.  FDR's own friend, Treasury Secretary and architect of the New Deal, Henry Morgenthau said this about their efforts:

“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good ...on our promises. I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot!"

Americans have been hypnotized into thinking that nothing can get done in this country without the help of old Uncle Sugar...the Federal government.  The American people have become programmed to believe that it is the job of their representatives to bring home big "pork project" money.  This is not how the country was meant to be run and is just simply untrue.  We can't be blamed for this type of thinking.  We have been trained for years...decades...and indeed generations that this is the only way we have become such a great country.  But, it is time to wake up from the hypnosis.  We must start to look at the claims with a calm, logical mind. 

There is nothing that makes sense about purposefully sending our resources through the legalized money laundering organization that resides in Washington D.C.  States must begin to resist this drain on our wealth and return to their constitutional roles.  Even if the States are corrupt, you can at least remove the layers of Federal corruption that provide little or no benefit.  There is no good reason to continue to feed the pig.  The pig must go on a drastic diet to return it to its proper size and function.  Only then can our country return to prosperity and liberty.

Don't Fall for Class Warfare

The most used tactic of the Left, whether Communists, Socialists, Maoists, Stalinist, Nazis, Fascists...or American Liberals/Progressives, is class warfare. Class warfare is simply a tactic of pitting different groups against each other for the purpose of polarizing or rallying segments of population around a cause or to the side of a group vying for political power.

One of the most extreme examples of class warfare was the Nazis. The Nazis pitted a large majority of the German people against the Jews, blaming all of the country's economic and social problems on them. With their lies and propaganda, the Nazis turned the Jews into sub-human monsters in the minds of their people. Because they were viewed as evil, the Jews could be treated in any way the Nazis saw fit. Anyone who had any dealings or sympathy for the Jews were also demonized. Being branded a "Jew lover" could result in ostracization, loss of your job or business, or freedom...or worse.

The Nazis effectively used the Jews as scape goats for all their problems. More than that, they turned them into Boogie Men who had to be stopped at all costs. This led some to become active Nazi henchmen...and many others to turn a blind eye and become passive contributors to the holocaust.

The sad truth about the Nazis was that none of it had anything to do with the Jews, or the good of the German volk (people). None of the escalating actions against the Jewish people, or the Jewish sympathizers, did anything to improve the plight of the common German...not that this would have justified their atrocities. It was only ever about increasing the power of the Nazi party and their Fuhrer. The Jews were only the Boogie Man the Nazis needed to divert attention from their true totalitarian intentions...despite their populist rhetoric. Their Jewish Boogie Men even gave the Nazis cover for aggression against other countries simply by labeling them as Zionist collaborators.

Well, that was in the past. That could never happen in our modern age, right? While American Leftists have not gone to these violent extremes, they do use the same basic class warfare tactics. The American Left has some different Boogie Men...some of these are Racists, Corporations, Wall Street and Insurance Companies. Instead of offering viable solutions or data to back up their positions or policies, they only need to divert attention...they need only cry, "Look out! Boogie Man!"

From the beginning of the Obama campaign, the racist Boogie Man was evoked for anyone who dared to question his ideas or qualifications. This Boogie Man is also often present at discussions of race relations or illegal immigration. These are topics that we are not allowed to be debated in the public square. You can only agree with the "politically correct" stand of the race-based groups or...look out! Racist...Boogie Man!

Corporations and Wall Street are also often made out to be Boogie Men. Even though most Americans benefit from corporations through jobs or services, the purveyors of class warfare demonize corporate America. They want corporations caged through excessive, and might I add unconstitutional, regulation. They want to bleed companies dry through taxation and corporate fees. If you dare point out that their policies destroy jobs and drive corporations to seek refuge in countries who do not punish them for success...they say that you are just in league with the evil corporate Boogie Men. And as far the Wall Street Boogie Men...how are your investments working out since the Democrats have been in charge? And yes, they were in control of the House and Senate during the administration of Boogie Man Bush.

No one is saying that there is no racism...that corporations, Wall Street or any other target of class warfare are perfect. But the sad fact is that since class warfare has been escalated in this country, things have not gotten better...they have gotten worse. It has only served to feed populist fears and biases and to accrue power to the would-be Boogie Man slayers. But, of course the Boogie Men can never be slain...they are too valuable a source of power for the Leftists.

The goal of class warfare is never to improve things. In fact, when things do improve, as in race relations, the Left changes the rules. Where Martin Luther King Jr's. very worthy goal of racial equality was beginning to become a reality, the goal was changed to "diversity." With diversity, instead of judging a person by their character or abilities, as King promoted, we are now to just make sure we have the correct balance of color, religion and sexual preference. Has "diversity" improved race relations...no, it has caused division. And if you speak out against the tactics, once again the racist Boogie Man serves them well.

Class warfare does not promote debate. It resists the free speech of its enemies. It does not have to show success because it blames it's failures on the Boogie Men. It's policies do not have to be based on sound economic or legal theory because the ends of defeating the Boogie Men justifies their means. And always, we must trust the intentions of the noble Class Warriors.

Class warfare counts on an uninformed and under-educated population. The way to resist class warfare is to know what you believe and why. You must stand on sound principle and historical evidence. You must insist on transparency and open debate. And, you must be aware of the true motives of those who would seek to be your rulers. As you hear the populist rhetoric of politicians and other political groups, ask yourself if it is based on truth. Don't fall for class warfare. Don't fear the Boogie Man.

Drive more...Save the Planet

Looking at a document from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) entitled National Air Quality Status and Trends Through 2007, I came across the data represented by the chart above.  After listening to the environmental doomsayers all these years, I was shocked at what the data revealed.  It is, in fact exactly opposite from what we have been told.

From 1990 to 2007 the Aggregate Emissions of six common pollutants tracked by the EPA (Particulate Matter, Sulfur Dioxide, Carbon Monoxide, Oxides of Nitrogen and Volatile Organic Compounds) were reduced by 41%.  This happened while the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the country grew by 63%.  Population grew by 21%. Energy Consumption was up by 20% and Vehicle Miles Traveled was increased by 45%.

How can this be?  All of those things are bad for the environment...right?  I mean aren't we evil capitalist/consumer pigs who are polluting the world more and more through our thoughtless use of "fossil fuels" and technology?  That's what they tell us...but it seems that air quality in this country has actually gotten better.  So...therefore...let me think now...if we drive MORE...the air should get even cleaner, right?  If we really care about clean air, like we say we do, we need to produce more, have more babies, use more energy and...DRIVE MORE.  Yeah...that must be it.  Because, the more we drove and did all of these other things, the cleaner the air got.

I also found out that according to a 1999 report of the US Public Interest Research Group that "From 1992 to 1997, the number of SUVs and other light trucks on the road grew from 54 million to 68 million. Today there is one light truck for every 3.9 Americans. If current growth continues, there will be an estimated 133 million light trucks on the road by the year 2020. Given population growth projections, this would be one light truck for every 2.4 people."  So this must mean that SUVs are also good for the air quality...not bad.

This is very upsetting.  Everything I thought I was supposed to know is now in question.  If you can't believe liberal, tree hugging environmentalists...who can you trust?

What's that?  You say you aren't too sure of my logic?  There are other factors at play here, you say.  Driving more miles can't really improve air quality, you contend.

Well, I don't know.  It's the same kind of logic used by the proponents of so-called "Man Made Global Warming."  The global temperatures are rising...human industrial activity is increasing...so, therefore, we are going to burn up the planet.  But wait, we say...it has been warmer on earth in the past...even before the industrial age.  And, there's the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) of the oceans that causes global climate to warm and cool in cycles.  There is the fact that one decent sized volcanic eruption emits more "greenhouse gasses" than the whole industrialized world does in a year.  And, what about the fact that the global temperatures on Mars were increasing at the same time as they were on Earth...due, we believe, to solar activity.  There's no industry, or SUVs, on Mars.  Those are just a few of the many factors that we are told to ignore.  "The planet has a fever," and it's our fault, we are told.

Well, if the Climategate crowd can ignore other factors, so can I.  And until you can convince me that their factors are different than mine...I'm going to drive my SUV more.

Some of Us Knew It All Along

In the past few months many revelations have become public that show that so-called man-made Global Warming is a fraud.  The man at the center of the Climategate affair, Professor Phil Jones of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) has admitted that there has been no statistically significant global warming in over 15 years...that warming periods have happened in the past - but NOT because of human activities.  The famed "hockey stick" graph, and its supporting data and assumptions have been exposed as an utter sham.  Himalayan glaciers are not melting...Antarctic ice caps are not receding and the rainforests are not dying because of global warming.  It seem like every week that goes by brings news of debunked Global Warming myths.

The hysteria and industry that has grown up around the Global Warming myth was not an accident.  E-mails uncovered at the CRU showed a pattern of obfuscation and deceit aimed at covering up the true results of climate studies.  It has been revealed that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) was intentionally eliminating climate measuring stations in cooler locations around the world to drive up the average measured temperature.  And all the while Global Warming apologists, lead by Al Gore, spewed the lies to the public and our school children.  In effect, the whole scare seems to have been one big, orchestrated hoax aimed at gaining unprecedented control over industries, economies and people around the world.   And yes, some of us knew it all along!

Now that the curtain has been drawn back and the truth has been revealed, some still try to cling desperately to their charade.  They try to say that the colder than normal whether being experienced around the world is actually proof of Global warming...excuse me?  That if you can't understand the subtitles of "Climate Change," you're just not too intelligent.  "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

The tide has truly changed.   Where those of us who spoke out against the Global Warming story were cast as stupid, planet-hating, corporate stooges...we have been vindicated.  The truth is that those who believed in man-made Global Warming were the stooges of the statist government elites and their willing accomplices in the media and academia.  We were right.  The data was wrong...falsified. Climate Change is really just...weather.  So, at the risk of being rude...

We told you so! 

I won't wait for any apologies, though.  That would be too much to ask or expect.

The Climate Cover-up

Okay...I've waited to see how this Climategate stuff was going to play out before commenting.  Now, it seems that enough is known to make some observations.

The University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) has been one of the most influential organizations in the world in the man-made global warming movement.  The e-mails and data that were obtained (whether they were hacked as originally reported or available on a public server all along as was later reported is not important) shows a pattern of obfuscation and deceit by many of the scientists involved.  As Christopher Booker of the Telegraph reports, Several members of the CRU "have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws."

If the science truly supported the man made global warming claims, you would expect that the CRU would be not only willing, but insistent to share their data.  This is the way science is done...peer review.  Real scientists want to have their findings validated by the wider scientific community.  Peer review can validate theories or invalidate them...but in this way, we move closer and closer to discovering the truth.  Unless, the truth is not the goal.

The apologists have been out in strength.  Some have tried to make the method of the data release the issue...was it legal...was it fair.  Some are making all sort of excuses for the cover-up.  They say that since this is such an important issue, the CRU did not want to delay necessary immediate action because they didn't quite have all of the proof they needed.  And some I've seen just claim that it doesn't matter what the data shows because the ice caps are melting and polar bears are dieing.  I have not seen anyone, though, denying the data's authenticity.

The CRU's data has been used as a key factor in the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) recommendations to spend trillions of dollars to avert  what they predict to be catastrophic effects of climate change.  The UN and other agencies have made recommendations for international taxes, and other global governance.  Now, however, the IPCC says that it was only one of many inputs.

The CRU defends themselves by saying that their data matches up with the data of other organizations such as NASA and NOAA.  Since we know CRUs data was fudged, this does not really provide defense of their data, but does call to question the data of the other organizations.  There is much to be gained by those who would administer the climate laws...they certainly may have corrupted more than one organization.

So you may be a believer or an unbeliever.  I do not believe that human activity has significant impact on the natural climate change cycles.  But regardless of which side you fall on, are you willing to give up national sovereignty, trillions of dollars and personal freedoms on uncertain science and fudged data?  I'm not.  This needs to be stopped now and a full investigation should be done by outside organizations.