Global Warming Skepticism

UPDATED: 6-23-11

As is apt to happen when I'm involved in a innocent Facebook thread, a recent post by a friend turned into a friendly debate...this time on global warming. I am surprised that after all that has been revealed about the whole "Climategate" scandal, anyone still believes that mankind has any significant impact on the climate...but many do still.  For me, the science is settled. 

What follows is my Facebook response with links to supporting information.  Note: I will admit when I am w... wwwrrr....  wronnnnn.... wrong.  (Fonzie impersonation).  The volcano example I have been using seems to be unsupported. I still stand by my over-all assertion: Anthropogenic Global Warming is a hoax.

---

I am not a scientist and don't play one on TV. ;-). But I have paid pretty close attention to this whole thing for quite some time. When the theory of "man-made global warming" was first floated, I quickly dismissed it out of hand, in the beginning because of research I had read about a few years earlier. This research tested CO2 levels in polar ice. It showed that the planet has been going through heating and cooling cycles for thousands of years.

As the whole thing heated up, I read more and found out that while the temperature of Earth was rising...so was the global temperature of Mars. Last time I checked, there are no coal-fired electric plants or SUVs on Mars. There are many climate scientists who believe that solar activity has far more to do with global temperatures on earth that anything man could ever do...and the data from Mars would seem to back this hypothesis. The fact that global warming ended in 1998 [The East Anglia guy admits to it ending in 1995] also corresponds to a period of low solar activity.

There are also known, long-term ocean cycles that effect the climate...such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) that was in a cooling cycle from 1945 to 1977. In the 70's, climate alarmists were warning of the next coming ice age. So, what happened after the cooling cycle of the PDO...that's right, a warming cycle.

Additionally, while there has been some localized melting of glaciers, over-all, new data shows that the polar ice caps have NOT receded and we now know that the Michael Mann "hockey stick graph" is fatally flawed and that the models that were being used by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, and others, cannot even come close to predicting actual weather of the past when known data is used. We have also found out that they fudged the numbers and then sought to cover it up.

So while no credible scientists deny that the earth warms, most, who do not have vested interests, see it as a part of natural cycles that man could not significantly effect if he tried. We know that one, decent sized volcanic eruption puts out more so-called greenhouse gas than the whole industrialized world puts out in a whole year  [Can't find source for this one...in fact, this argument seems to be untrue.  Although volcanoes do emit large amounts so-called green-house gasses, the yearly total is significantly less than human activity]...and there are typically a few eruptions a year...what is the real impact of man?

Yes, I am a skeptic. I have done some reading, and I believe the preponderance of evidence is against the "Man-Made Global Warming" theory. I also follow the money and power of these sorts of things. With pending cap-and-trade legislation, new so-called Green businesses and the U.N. pushing for more control of world wide economy to help avert the "crisis," I see the corrupting influences that are backing the movement. Those who speak out against it are swimming against the popular stream and have very little to gain, and in many cases, a lot to lose.

---

Additional information that was not in the Facebook threads:

"Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming…it has simply been assumed that global warming is man-made. This assumption is rather easy for scientists since we do not have enough accurate global data for a long enough period of time to see whether there are natural warming mechanisms at work.

The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that the only way they can get their computerized climate models to produce the observed warming is with anthropogenic (human-caused) pollution. But they’re not going to find something if they don’t search for it. More than one scientist has asked me, 'What else COULD it be?' Well, the answer to that takes a little digging… and as I show, one doesn’t have to dig very far." ~ Dr. Roy Spencer. PhD., a highly respected climate scientist.

---

Newsmax.com reported in February of 2011 that a group of scientists blasted “climate alarmists who appear to be unaware of what is happening to our planet's climate," in an open letter in response to a report to congress made by those "alarmists."  The letter also asks if the recent reports “provide any real-world evidence of Earth's seas inundating coastal lowlands around the globe? No. Increased human mortality? No. Plant and animal extinctions? No. Declining vegetative productivity? No. More frequent and deadly coral bleaching? No. Marine life dissolving away in acidified oceans? No.

“Quite to the contrary, in fact, these reports provide extensive empirical evidence that these things are not happening. And in many of these areas, the referenced papers report finding just the opposite response to global warming, i.e., biosphere-friendly effects of rising temperatures and rising CO2 levels.”

---

National Geographic reported in December 2007 that "after reviewing his own new data, NASA climate scientist Jay Zwally said: 'At this rate, the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012, much faster than previous predictions.'"

And yet, Antarctica still has over 162,000 Manhattans of ice remaining.  And, over the years, the freeze thaw cycles have remained fairly consistent.  It better start melting quick. 

---

WHAT'S DOWN WITH THE SUN?

MAJOR DROP IN SOLAR ACTIVITY PREDICTED - 

"A missing jet stream, fading spots, and slower activity near the poles say that our Sun is heading for a rest period even as it is acting up for the first time in years, according to scientists at the National Solar Observatory (NSO) and the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL)."

"As the current sunspot cycle, Cycle 24, begins to ramp up toward maximum, independent studies of the solar interior, visible surface, and the corona indicate that the next 11-year solar sunspot cycle, Cycle 25, will be greatly reduced or may not happen at all."

"We are NOT predicting a mini-ice age. We are predicting the behavior of the solar cycle. In my opinion, it is a huge leap from that to an abrupt global cooling, since the connections between solar activity and climate are still very poorly understood. My understanding is that current calculations suggest only a 0.3 degree C decrease from a Maunder-like minimum, too small for an ice age. It is unfortunate that the global warming/cooling studies have become so politically polarizing."

The Ten Commandments of the Federal Government

The bureaucrats in the Federal Government seems to think of themselves as the all-powerful and uncontested rulers of  our lives.  This made me wonder, since they think of themselves as god-like, what would their version of the Ten Commandments be.  Here is my version of...

The Ten Commands of the Federal Government:

1. We are your Wise Overlords.  You shall have no governments before us...including those pesky States.

2. You shall not make for yourself any non-governmentally approved, unregulated or untaxed idols.

3. Do not use the name of the Lord!  It might offend somebody.

4. Remember tax day is April 15th and keep it holy...or else!

5. Honor your mom and dad...unless they are some kind of right-wing, wacko religious nuts or something.  Really, they don't always understand what is best...it takes a governmentally-sanctioned village to raise a child and properly indoctrinate...er, I mean...educate them these days.

6. You shall not kill...unless there's an inconvenient pregnancy involved. 

7. You shouldn't commit adultery...I mean, it's not nice...but hey, we're all human, right?  Consenting adults?  What can we do...we have our needs.  Just try to be a little discrete, huh?

8.You shall not steal!  Your government hates the competition. 

9. Don't bear false witness against your neighbor...unless they are some rich, spoiled lacrosse players, or some political rivals we don't like.

10. Don't covet your neighbor's wife...or stuff.  If he is unfairly taking more than his share of the goodies, we'll tax him out of existence...we got your back!


But, Mr. Government Official, what is the greatest commandment? 

Just remember this: Do what we say...when we say it...and nobody gets hurt.  All the other stuff is pretty much summed up by this commandment.

The Destruction of America

In the 1980s, Soviet defector and ex-KGB agent, Yuri Brezmenov warned of calculated and on-going subversive activities designed to destroy America.  This is just as former Soviet leader Nikita Kruschev told us they would do.

“We will take America without firing a shot...We will BURY YOU! We can’t expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism. We do not have to invade the United States, we will destroy you from within.”

Brezmenov estimated that only "about 15% of time, money and manpower" was spent by the KGB on intelligence activities.  The bulk of their effort was spent on what was called "ideological subversion or active measures."  This was an attempt to "change the perception of reality of every American to such an extent that, despite the abundance of information, no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community and their country."  Sounds like that would meet Kruschev's goals, doesn't it?

These "active measures" were designed as a slow, long-term process that was to be carried out in four major phases:

1. Demoralization - a 15 - 20 year process.  The minimum amount of time to educate one generation of Americans in Marxist/Leninist ideals.
2. Destabilation - 2-5 years. This phase attacks the economy, foreign relations, and defense systems.
3. Crisis - as little as 4-6 weeks. 
4. Normalization - A term used by the Soviets to describe the heavy-handed tactics the government would use to recover from crisis.

Brezmenov's opinion at the time was that "The Demoralization process in the United States is basically complete already."  He said that Marxist/Leninism ideology had been "pumped into the soft heads of at least three generations of American students...without being challenged or counter-balanced by the basic values of Americanism."

"The result, the result you can see.  Most of the people who graduated in the sixties, drop-outs or half-baked intellectuals are now occupying the positions of power in the government, civil service, business, mass media, educational systems.  You are stuck with them.  You can't get rid of them.  They are contaminated. They are programmed to think and react to certain stimuli in a certain pattern.  You cannot change their mind, even if you expose them to authentic information."

In this country, we have a long history of ignoring our enemies...even when they tell us what they are going to do in advance.  When Hitler announced his plans to carry out his "final solution" and annex Austria, Poland and other parts of Europe, we didn't believe him.  That wacky Adolph...such a kidder.  Peace in our time...Peace in our time.  We ignored, as we have seen, Kruschev's bold proclamations.  And today, we choose to ignore the Islamists when they tell us that they will wipe Israel from the face of the map and destroy America....LOL...what a crazy bunch of jokers.  What is even more disturbing than those who ignore these threats, is those in government, media and academia who try to actively deny or negate the threat.

Though the Soviet Union was unable to see the complete fruition of their decades-long "active measures," they certainly softened us up.  We are at such a state of politically-correct paralysis that we cannot even come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending our country.  We harass and a assault children and old ladies in airport security lines...but we best not look askant at a Muslim or person of Middle-Eastern decent.  In the spirit of cooperation and fairness, we reach out to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, regardless of years and years of evidence of their murderous intentions, while telling Israel that they should contract their borders to pre-1967 lines...even if they can't properly defend themselves.  Those silly Iranians, Palestinians, Syrians, etc., they don't really mean any harm.  And now we embrace the so-called Arab Spring movement...a movement specifically designed to exploit our weak-minded political correctness.


Brezmenov's warning then is still applicable for today: "If people will fail to grasp the impending danger of that development, nothing ever can help the United States.  You may kiss goodbye to your freedoms...including freedoms to homosexuals, to prison inmates.  All this freedom will vanish in five seconds."

Watch Brezmenov in his own words below:

Part 1: 






Part 2:

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.

Politics in the Land of Make Believe

An unfortunate fact of life, especially in this world of 24 hour media is that people are drawn to things that entertain and make them feel better.  And it seems that the culture in general are less and less able to distinguish between fact and fiction...reality and make believe.  And this goes across all all areas of life from home to work to politics.  It is sad, but it is the truth.

The video below from ZONATION points out that in the current culture, while conservatives "live in reality, Liberals live in a world of make believe...that's why they are so good at it."  He also says, "Liberals are able to make compelling points because they have to be creative to sell their B.S...Lying takes creativity by default.  A lie, in itself, is an exercise  in creativity...Telling the truth is not a creative process.  That's why its so hard to make the truth entertaining."  He warns conservatives that they had "better start tapping into the creative side to promote the truth."

Here's an entertaining, but sad, coverage of the topic.

Now For The Really Important Stuff

Well, we got bin Laden, now we can get down to the serious business of state...college football.  You know, this was one of the pressing issues on which President Obama ran for office.  In November of 2008, with two wars being waged and a flagging economy, he had time to think about this important issue.

"If you've got a bunch of teams who play throughout the season, and many of them have one loss or two losses, there's no clear decisive winner. We should be creating a playoff system," then presidential candidate Obama told interviewer Steve Kroft.  "It would add three extra weeks to the season. You could trim back on the regular season. I don't know any serious fan of college football who has disagreed with me on this. So, I'm going to throw my weight around a little bit. I think it's the right thing to do."

And now that he's President and has saved the world, almost single-handedly, from the scourge of Osama bin Laden, he is turning his Department of Justice loose on the NCAA's , Bowl Championship Series (BCS).  The Associated Press (AP) reports that in a letter "the department's antitrust chief, Christine Varney, asked NCAA President Mark Emmert why a playoff system isn't used in football, unlike in other sports; what steps the NCAA has taken to create one; and whether Emmert thinks there are aspects of the BCS system that don't serve the interest of fans, schools and players."

But it's not just an Obama, or Democrat issue.  This is too important an issue to play partisan politics.  On October 21, 2010, Bloomberg reported that Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), "asked President Barack Obama to have the Justice Department investigate college football’s Bowl Championship Series to determine if it violates the Sherman Antitrust Act."  Hatch further said, “My goal is go get into a championship playoff system where whoever the teams are, they are justified in playing in the national championship.  The BCS system requires everybody to join. It’s an unfair system and we need to do everything we can to try and change it.”

So, there you go, finally an issue that both Democrats and Republicans can agree on.  And what could be more important.  Everybody with any awareness of the importance of college football understands just how terrible the BCS system is...at least if your team didn't make a bowl game. What better cause on which to use the coercive, destructive power of the Federal government than this?  I mean, if the Constitution didn't intend to protect us from travesties such as this, then there is no protection...no justice at all.

I urge all Americans to contact your Federal representatives and insist that they support this noble cause...to drop all of this extraneous business of budgets and the economy...war and peace...and other such wasteful pursuits and get behind President Obama's Justice Department in providing a more sensible and equitable college football bowl game selection system.

Stand firm! Stand for your rights as an American sports fan!  History will record this struggle along with the hearings about use of steroids in professional baseball and inquiries into the safety of football helmets.  Don't be on the wrong side of history.

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

Free To Choose

Milton Friedman

In 1980, renowned economist, Milton Friedman produced and aired a television series called Free To Choose.  This series, as well as an updated series (1990), is available in it's complete  at http://www.freetochoose.tv.  In this series, taped 31 years ago, Dr. Friedman tackles many of the same issues that we face, and hotly debate today, including: free markets, government interventionism, the welfare state, equal rights, consumer protection, labor relations and many more.

The original 1980 Series consisted of ten, hour long episodes.  The first half of each episode was a film put together by Friedman on a given topic.  In these films, he traveled around the world to show examples of policies, practices and their effect on the population and economy.  The second half of the episodes are discussions with a panel of people who have expertise, from both sides of the debate, on the topic(s) covered.  Both the films and the panel discussions are very educational.

Series Titles:

Volume 1 - The Power of the Market
Volume 2 - The Tyranny of Control
Volume 3 - Anatomy of Crisis
Volume 4 - From Cradle to Grave
Volume 5 - Created Equal
Volume 6 - What's Wrong with our Schools
Volume 7 - Who Protects the Consumer?
Volume 8 - Who Protects the Worker
Volume 9 - How to Cure Inflation
Volume 10 - How to Stay Free

While Friedman's theories of economics are not universally accepted, by the Left or the Right, he was very influential in shaping of economic thought in the 1970s, 80s and beyond.   In this series, he offers a very understandable coverage of the topics and a cogent defense of his positions.  Regardless of your beliefs on the subjects covered, this series is worth watching...if you can keep an open mind.

Budget Cuts - No Sacred Cows

This is a challenge to all Americans...but especially to those who call themselves conservative...mostly because those who call themselves liberal really don't think there's a problem.  With the large deficit and debt our country faces, we must be willing to look at all areas of the Federal budget for potential spending cuts.  We must not be like so many others who say, "It's okay to cut those people's favorite program, but you can't cut mine." We must be willing to sacrifice our own "sacred cows."

For modern conservatives, one of the most sacred areas of governmental spending is the military budget. Providing for the "common defense" is, actually, one of the few, enumerated powers of the Federal government. We need to fund a strong and effective military that can carry out their constitutionally mandated role of defense.  But, if we are to be intellectually honest with ourselves, we must be willing to admit that it is possible that the government bureaucrats in military procurement could be just as untrustworthy as the bureaucrats in the rest of government.  After all, the Department of Defense is the only department of government that is not subject to outside audits.  Just maybe, there might be a little room for some waste and corruption there?  Maybe?

Beware the Military Industrial Complex!  Growing up I thought this was just some term that hippie, commie-freaks used to speak out against our military power...and they did.  But that is not the origin of the term or the warning.  It came from the farewell speech of President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1961.  Eisenhower, of course, was no stranger to the military, being a West Point graduate who became the Supreme Allied Commander of the European Theater of Operation during WWII, and a two-term President of the United States.  I think he knew a little about that of which he spoke.

While Eisenhower understood that, "A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction."  He recognized that the "conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry" was new to America and that "the total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government."  It was Eisenhower who warned:

 "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

In 2001, during as Senate hearing, the late Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) questioned a requested increase in the defense budget by saying, "How can we seriously consider a $50 billion increase in the defense budget when DoD's own auditors say the department cannot account for $2.3 trillion in transactions in one year alone?"  As much as I disagreed with most anything the late king of pork, Senator Byrd said...when you're right, you're right. Then Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, replied by saying, "It is...ah...I was going to say terrifying."  Rumsfeld continued:

"I doubt, to be honest, that people inside the department are going to be capable of sorting this out.  I have a feeling its going to take some folks from outside to come in and look at this, and put in place a process that over a period...and I regret to say, but I've seen how long things take...a period of years to sort it out.  And, I think it'll probably take the cooperation of Congress to try to get the system so you can actually manage the financial aspects of that institution, rather than simply report on things that have happened imperfectly."

Questioning the military budget does not, in any way, dishonor or disparage our men and women in uniform.  On the contrary, it values them more in that it insists that they not be used as pawns on a geopolitical chess board with the goal of accruing power and wealth to the members of the military industrial complex.  Our citizen soldiers fight to maintain safety and liberty of their country and the ones they love...not to prop up a corrupt government and their industrialist cronies.

Think about it this way, though many have claimed that the Gulf War and Iraq War were fought for oil...where is this oil we have fought for?  Oil supply is down, gas prices are soaring...it obviously wasn't a very successful venture, was it.  More likely, though,  it was fought to benefit the defense industry rather than the oil industry.  You see, if you have a very large stockpile of bombs, ammunition, and weapons systems, you really don't need to buy any more...unless you use up what you have.  For that, you need a war.  I'm just sayin'.

But, regardless of the relative merits of our actions in the Middle East, the defense procurement process has a large potential for fat and waste...as well as corruption.  Dr. Thomas E. Woods Jr. gives a little of the detail in the video below.  As you watch it, keep an open mind, maintain your intellectual honesty, and be willing to sacrifice your own sacred cows.