Al Gore emerged from his hidey-hole recently to have a conversation with fellow traveler and 'Climate Reality Project' collaborator Alex Bogusky. You know that he knows it's over when the opposition is equated with racists. I mean, really. Hasn't that one been a little over-used?
Al Gore has never had a reasonable argument to present on 'climate change,' a flaw shared by the entire bunch of alarmists. It's just one lie after another coupled with name-calling. Propaganda that includes plenty of negative campaigning, but entirely void of any sustainable argument.
Alarmists are the most ignorant bunch of people when it comes to science (and other things too, I suspect). Try to imagine not knowing (or believing others don't know) that "climate" (measured by average annual temperature) has always fluctuated naturally. You don't know that there have been particularly hot summers and colder winters, for example.
It's been obvious for a long, long time - based on common knowledge as well as a host of scientific measurements - that there are also longer term trends. It gets warmer for a while and cools down a while. Some even longer term trends have given humanity (life in general) boom and bust cycles - generations of warmer prosperous years and ice ages.
So, imagine being so stupid that you think that if there's data (you know, science stuff) that says climate changes, it must be your fault. And now it's necessary for you to make a sacrifice to Al Gore's special science god to fix it. And if you don't buy into his superstitious nonsense, you're a racist?
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Saturday, August 27, 2011
Ron Paul Takes on Perry, Rommney, and Bachman
The true conservative in the race for the Republican nomination has been in the process of gaining more and more support every day in order to challenge the failing Presidency of Barack Obama. Ron Paul has proven time and again that he is true to what he believes in and has a record that will support his claims. Unlike a lot of the other Republicans in this race for the Presidency, Ron Paul can prove with fact that he has challenged the idea of big government with every turn in the road.
The Congressman has released a new ad that takes on the likes of Perry, Rommney, and Bachman. It is hard hitting, not negative, because it states fact.
Take a look for yourself:
Wednesday, August 24, 2011
We Do NOT Have a Federal Government
by Paul Rosenberg
WHAT WAS "FEDERAL"?
Nearly all of us use the word federal to refer to the United States national government, as distinct from the state governments. This has been an error on our part.
Federal was a description, not a name. It would be fair to use federative in its place. It described a type of government, not a particular organization.
For example, when we say "my friend has a fast car," we don't think that fast is the car's brand name – it is merely a description of the car's acceleration and top speed.
Federal was not the brand name of the government that James Madison designed, it was a description, like fast.
Notice how Madison distinguishes between national and federal. We have lost this distinction, and it is crucial.
James Madison
Federalist #39
The proposed Constitution, therefore, is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both.
In its foundation it is federal, not national;
In the sources from which the ordinary powers of the government are drawn, it is partly federal and partly national;
In the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal;
In the extent of them, again, it is federal, not national; and, finally,
In the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal nor wholly national.
Madison – six times in this passage – distinguishes between federal and national. There can be no question about this: he is referring to two different things. Federal is NOT the same as national.
We no longer use these distinctions because the US government has become entirely national – we have nothing else to attach the tag federal to.
At the founding – as Madison was writing the US Constitution – the meanings of the words he used were these:
National powers were those of an independent central government.
Federal powers were those that came from the contributions of the states.
To be fully precise, "federal" meant a union based on a treaty. It described the type of association that was being used.
Madison distinguishes between national and federal in exactly the same way that we distinguish between a business and a club.
FEDERAL POWERS
You can see from Madison's words that the structure of the United States government very carefully included federally-derived powers. Madison specifies them as fundamental components.
At its origin, the national government was dependent on the states, and not vice-versa. When the states shifted their positions, the central government, which rested on top of them, had to move along with them.
Understand, this was not a case where the national government was supposed to shift along with the states – there was literally no other possibility. An analogy would be the surface of the ocean moving up and down as a wave passes. The national government rode on top of the federal arrangement – when and where it moved, the national government automatically followed – like the surface of the ocean moving with a wave. There was nothing else it could do or be.
Madison did this on purpose. It was the central controlling and protecting mechanism of his design.
Here is what Thomas Jefferson had to say about the original federal structure of government in the US:
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William Johnson, 1823
The capital and leading object of the Constitution was to leave with the States all authorities which respected their own citizens only, and to transfer to the United States those which respected citizens of foreign or other States; to make us several [separate] as to ourselves, but one as to all others.
Jefferson, as usual, understood the essence of the arrangement: Separate among ourselves, but as one toward the rest of the world – the outsiders who only saw the surface of the wave, not the waters underneath.
Jefferson (who was certainly not alone in this) saw the centralizing movement of power from the states to the capital as the great threat to the American experiment of liberty:
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Nathaniel Macon, 1821
Our government is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction. That is: by consolidation first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence.
THE PATH OF DESTRUCTION
The federal structure of the US government was abolished in steps, over time. Certainly the largest factors were the confusion, ignorance, apathy and fear of the populace, which resulted in mute compliance. There were, however, watershed moments along the way. The most important of these events were the following:
Marbury v. Madison, 1803
This most important of Supreme Court rulings resulted from a complex case involving dirty deals, a politically-stacked Supreme Court and the entry of partisan politics into the operation of the American republic. By the time it was over, the Court had ruled against the man who wrote the Constitution (James Madison) and claimed the sole right to interpret it. Here’s how it went:
The Federalists, Alexander Hamilton being the driving force, organized into a faction (a political party) that organized and pooled their power.
Facing a loss of control after the election of 1800, they pushed John Adams to appoint a large group of judges and other officials in the lame duck session before he left office. Adams complied. These appointments were written for five-year terms – long enough for the Federalists to retain control through the next election.
Not all the commissions could be completed before Jefferson was inaugurated. One of these was slated for delivery to a hard-core Federalist named William Marbury.
When Jefferson took the Presidency, Marbury’s appointment was still in the Secretary of State’s office. James Madison, who now filled that office, withdrew the appointment for precisely the reasons you’d expect (being based on dirty dealing), and went about to appoint someone else.
Marbury ran to the Supreme Court, which was entirely composed of Federalist appointees. He demanded to be given his office.
In a complex ruling, the Court (led by John Marshall) ruled that Madison was wrong to withhold the appointment, but that this didn’t matter, since the underlying law from 1789 was unconstitutional.
The shock of ruling against the author of the Constitution aside, ‘Marbury’ brought up the important issue of constitutionality: Who decides? Even if we say there is an argument to be made for the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution, it is NOT in the Constitution. The Court should have said something like this:
Since it has fallen to us to decide such an important matter, we will render our opinion in this case. However, we request of the Congress and the States, that they pass an amendment to the Constitution clarifying this issue.
There is a great deal of confusion related to Marbury v. Madison that has come down to us. This ruling is universally presented in American schools as crucial to the "checks and balances" of the US government. This is deeply misleading.
Judicial review (the Supremes ruling on constitutionality) involves one branch of the national government providing a check on the other branches of the national government.
Judicial Review provided no check whatsoever on the national government as a whole.
The original design of the republic empowered the states to act as checks on the national government. This was the primary purpose of the federal structure. Without it, the national government has no check on its expansion and use of power. Thus it would seem that the states should be the interpreters of the Constitution – after all, it was they who created it.
RULES VERSUS JUSTICE
There is one last and important thing to mention regarding Marbury v. Madison, and that is the enthronement of rules above reality – of legal wordings over justice.
The "midnight appointments" of the Federalists used rules to manipulate the power-structure of the republic and to secure power by unintended means. James Madison, above all people, understood this. He withdrew Marbury’s appointment to conclude the abuse that was done to his system.
Chief Justice Marshall, however, ignored the injustice and parsed words instead: He went on at length over the distinctions of "nominate," "appoint," "confirm," and the fixing of seals.
Then, Marshall says this:
The people have an original right to establish for their future government such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness...
The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental.
What Marshall actually says here is that the American people wish not to work so hard defending their rights. He is giving them an excuse to be lazy:
The rules will take over from here on out. You can relax.
Liberty was the primary issue of the founding of the republic; the Constitution was subsidiary to that: it was a tool, valuable only if it helped to secure liberty.
The reversal of the central order – liberty being made subsidiary to rules – dethroned liberty.
Hamilton, Marshall and the Federalists were political power-seekers. To them, liberty was little more than a word that gave them legitimacy; what they really wanted was power.
Madison's design stood in their way; Marbury v. Madison pulled it apart.
The 14th Amendment, 1868
The 14th Amendment filled a hole in the Constitution by declaring that no state could trample an individual’s rights, such as the southern states had done by enslaving black people. (There was an earlier precedent for this, but the amendment was probably necessary.) The key section reads:
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Essentially, the 14th Amendment made sure that the Bill of Rights applied to everyone, no matter what their state government did. This was, in my opinion, a reasonable addition to the Constitution.
The problem with the 14th Amendment is not the text itself, but that people took it to imply the moral superiority of the national government. That is a highly questionable assumption.
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT & SLAVERY
When Americans talk about states' rights, there is an instinctual objection that never fails to grip people – that without central government power, slavery would still exist. The truth, however, is the opposite. And that truth is this:
Every branch of the national government of the United States assisted slavery until 1863. You can verify this yourself; go look-up The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and the Dred Scott decision.
While the southern states and the national government were supporting slavery, the northern states fought it: They nullified laws supporting slavery. (Wisconsin was exemplary in this.) The secession resolution of Georgia complains specifically about this:
For above twenty years the non-slave-holding States generally have wholly refused to deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property. [Northern state officials] shield and give sanctuary to all criminals who seek to deprive us of this property.
The northern states were the anti-slavery heroes, not the central government in Washington. If your school books implied the contrary, they lied.
The 17th Amendment, 1913
The 17th Amendment took the powers of the states and transferred them to Washington, by mandating the popular election of senators.
Previously, senators were elected by the state legislatures. That gave the states massive power in the central government. It provided a check on the power of the national government. If the states were unhappy with the direction of national government, they could instruct their senators to change it.
With senators being elected directly by the populace, the states were cut-out of the equation. In their place, political parties gained massive power, and nearly all power was consolidated in the city of Washington.
The argument in favor of the 17th Amendment was that state houses were corrupt and that they acted erratically, often leaving seats vacant for some time.
It is certainly true that the states were unruly. This, however, was not a crucial issue; the work of the Senate could continue regardless. Respected politicians, however, did not want to be seen as part of a disorderly body.
As for corruption in the states, that was often true, but the implied idea, that Washington was pristine, was – and remains – a bad, bad joke. But, even now, the moral superiority of the central government is often assumed, probably because many people find comfort trusting in the largest and most powerful thing.
Power always corrupts, but a structure featuring small, separate pockets of corruption is far less dangerous than one featuring a single, large seat of corruption, to which all money is gathered. As Thomas Jefferson wrote:
It is not by the consolidation or concentration of powers, but by their distribution that good government is effected.
The government of the United States remains, but it is of a fundamentally different character than the federal republic designed by Madison. Yet, we all keep saying federal. Not only is this use incorrect, but it has prevented us from recognizing the crucial fact that the American federal republic was stolen from our great-grandparents. This is not a trivial argument over vocabulary.
Deceptions and frauds are accomplished over time by changes in the meanings of words. Sometimes this is done purposely and sometimes it happens because people are more comfortable evading the original meaning. But regardless of how much intent was involved, the meaning of federal changed radically between 1803 and 1917. Our current use of the word conveys a completely different meaning than the original. This change of definition has masked a fundamental turning point in the governance of the American people.
What you do about this – or whether you do anything at all – is entirely your choice. I am merely pointing as best I can to the truth. I will add only this:
If you call yourself an American, be one.
August 24, 2011
Paul Rosenberg [send him mail] is the author of Free-Man’s Perspective, a monthly dispatch on the important things of life: virtue, courage, science, art, history, philosophy and personal growth.
Copyright © 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
WHAT WAS "FEDERAL"?
Nearly all of us use the word federal to refer to the United States national government, as distinct from the state governments. This has been an error on our part.
Federal was a description, not a name. It would be fair to use federative in its place. It described a type of government, not a particular organization.
For example, when we say "my friend has a fast car," we don't think that fast is the car's brand name – it is merely a description of the car's acceleration and top speed.
Federal was not the brand name of the government that James Madison designed, it was a description, like fast.
Notice how Madison distinguishes between national and federal. We have lost this distinction, and it is crucial.
James Madison
Federalist #39
The proposed Constitution, therefore, is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both.
In its foundation it is federal, not national;
In the sources from which the ordinary powers of the government are drawn, it is partly federal and partly national;
In the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal;
In the extent of them, again, it is federal, not national; and, finally,
In the authoritative mode of introducing amendments, it is neither wholly federal nor wholly national.
Madison – six times in this passage – distinguishes between federal and national. There can be no question about this: he is referring to two different things. Federal is NOT the same as national.
We no longer use these distinctions because the US government has become entirely national – we have nothing else to attach the tag federal to.
At the founding – as Madison was writing the US Constitution – the meanings of the words he used were these:
National powers were those of an independent central government.
Federal powers were those that came from the contributions of the states.
To be fully precise, "federal" meant a union based on a treaty. It described the type of association that was being used.
Madison distinguishes between national and federal in exactly the same way that we distinguish between a business and a club.
FEDERAL POWERS
You can see from Madison's words that the structure of the United States government very carefully included federally-derived powers. Madison specifies them as fundamental components.
At its origin, the national government was dependent on the states, and not vice-versa. When the states shifted their positions, the central government, which rested on top of them, had to move along with them.
Understand, this was not a case where the national government was supposed to shift along with the states – there was literally no other possibility. An analogy would be the surface of the ocean moving up and down as a wave passes. The national government rode on top of the federal arrangement – when and where it moved, the national government automatically followed – like the surface of the ocean moving with a wave. There was nothing else it could do or be.
Madison did this on purpose. It was the central controlling and protecting mechanism of his design.
Here is what Thomas Jefferson had to say about the original federal structure of government in the US:
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to William Johnson, 1823
The capital and leading object of the Constitution was to leave with the States all authorities which respected their own citizens only, and to transfer to the United States those which respected citizens of foreign or other States; to make us several [separate] as to ourselves, but one as to all others.
Jefferson, as usual, understood the essence of the arrangement: Separate among ourselves, but as one toward the rest of the world – the outsiders who only saw the surface of the wave, not the waters underneath.
Jefferson (who was certainly not alone in this) saw the centralizing movement of power from the states to the capital as the great threat to the American experiment of liberty:
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Nathaniel Macon, 1821
Our government is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction. That is: by consolidation first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence.
THE PATH OF DESTRUCTION
The federal structure of the US government was abolished in steps, over time. Certainly the largest factors were the confusion, ignorance, apathy and fear of the populace, which resulted in mute compliance. There were, however, watershed moments along the way. The most important of these events were the following:
Marbury v. Madison, 1803
This most important of Supreme Court rulings resulted from a complex case involving dirty deals, a politically-stacked Supreme Court and the entry of partisan politics into the operation of the American republic. By the time it was over, the Court had ruled against the man who wrote the Constitution (James Madison) and claimed the sole right to interpret it. Here’s how it went:
The Federalists, Alexander Hamilton being the driving force, organized into a faction (a political party) that organized and pooled their power.
Facing a loss of control after the election of 1800, they pushed John Adams to appoint a large group of judges and other officials in the lame duck session before he left office. Adams complied. These appointments were written for five-year terms – long enough for the Federalists to retain control through the next election.
Not all the commissions could be completed before Jefferson was inaugurated. One of these was slated for delivery to a hard-core Federalist named William Marbury.
When Jefferson took the Presidency, Marbury’s appointment was still in the Secretary of State’s office. James Madison, who now filled that office, withdrew the appointment for precisely the reasons you’d expect (being based on dirty dealing), and went about to appoint someone else.
Marbury ran to the Supreme Court, which was entirely composed of Federalist appointees. He demanded to be given his office.
In a complex ruling, the Court (led by John Marshall) ruled that Madison was wrong to withhold the appointment, but that this didn’t matter, since the underlying law from 1789 was unconstitutional.
The shock of ruling against the author of the Constitution aside, ‘Marbury’ brought up the important issue of constitutionality: Who decides? Even if we say there is an argument to be made for the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution, it is NOT in the Constitution. The Court should have said something like this:
Since it has fallen to us to decide such an important matter, we will render our opinion in this case. However, we request of the Congress and the States, that they pass an amendment to the Constitution clarifying this issue.
There is a great deal of confusion related to Marbury v. Madison that has come down to us. This ruling is universally presented in American schools as crucial to the "checks and balances" of the US government. This is deeply misleading.
Judicial review (the Supremes ruling on constitutionality) involves one branch of the national government providing a check on the other branches of the national government.
Judicial Review provided no check whatsoever on the national government as a whole.
The original design of the republic empowered the states to act as checks on the national government. This was the primary purpose of the federal structure. Without it, the national government has no check on its expansion and use of power. Thus it would seem that the states should be the interpreters of the Constitution – after all, it was they who created it.
RULES VERSUS JUSTICE
There is one last and important thing to mention regarding Marbury v. Madison, and that is the enthronement of rules above reality – of legal wordings over justice.
The "midnight appointments" of the Federalists used rules to manipulate the power-structure of the republic and to secure power by unintended means. James Madison, above all people, understood this. He withdrew Marbury’s appointment to conclude the abuse that was done to his system.
Chief Justice Marshall, however, ignored the injustice and parsed words instead: He went on at length over the distinctions of "nominate," "appoint," "confirm," and the fixing of seals.
Then, Marshall says this:
The people have an original right to establish for their future government such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness...
The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental.
What Marshall actually says here is that the American people wish not to work so hard defending their rights. He is giving them an excuse to be lazy:
The rules will take over from here on out. You can relax.
Liberty was the primary issue of the founding of the republic; the Constitution was subsidiary to that: it was a tool, valuable only if it helped to secure liberty.
The reversal of the central order – liberty being made subsidiary to rules – dethroned liberty.
Hamilton, Marshall and the Federalists were political power-seekers. To them, liberty was little more than a word that gave them legitimacy; what they really wanted was power.
Madison's design stood in their way; Marbury v. Madison pulled it apart.
The 14th Amendment, 1868
The 14th Amendment filled a hole in the Constitution by declaring that no state could trample an individual’s rights, such as the southern states had done by enslaving black people. (There was an earlier precedent for this, but the amendment was probably necessary.) The key section reads:
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Essentially, the 14th Amendment made sure that the Bill of Rights applied to everyone, no matter what their state government did. This was, in my opinion, a reasonable addition to the Constitution.
The problem with the 14th Amendment is not the text itself, but that people took it to imply the moral superiority of the national government. That is a highly questionable assumption.
THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT & SLAVERY
When Americans talk about states' rights, there is an instinctual objection that never fails to grip people – that without central government power, slavery would still exist. The truth, however, is the opposite. And that truth is this:
Every branch of the national government of the United States assisted slavery until 1863. You can verify this yourself; go look-up The Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 and the Dred Scott decision.
While the southern states and the national government were supporting slavery, the northern states fought it: They nullified laws supporting slavery. (Wisconsin was exemplary in this.) The secession resolution of Georgia complains specifically about this:
For above twenty years the non-slave-holding States generally have wholly refused to deliver up to us persons charged with crimes affecting slave property. [Northern state officials] shield and give sanctuary to all criminals who seek to deprive us of this property.
The northern states were the anti-slavery heroes, not the central government in Washington. If your school books implied the contrary, they lied.
The 17th Amendment, 1913
The 17th Amendment took the powers of the states and transferred them to Washington, by mandating the popular election of senators.
Previously, senators were elected by the state legislatures. That gave the states massive power in the central government. It provided a check on the power of the national government. If the states were unhappy with the direction of national government, they could instruct their senators to change it.
With senators being elected directly by the populace, the states were cut-out of the equation. In their place, political parties gained massive power, and nearly all power was consolidated in the city of Washington.
The argument in favor of the 17th Amendment was that state houses were corrupt and that they acted erratically, often leaving seats vacant for some time.
It is certainly true that the states were unruly. This, however, was not a crucial issue; the work of the Senate could continue regardless. Respected politicians, however, did not want to be seen as part of a disorderly body.
As for corruption in the states, that was often true, but the implied idea, that Washington was pristine, was – and remains – a bad, bad joke. But, even now, the moral superiority of the central government is often assumed, probably because many people find comfort trusting in the largest and most powerful thing.
Power always corrupts, but a structure featuring small, separate pockets of corruption is far less dangerous than one featuring a single, large seat of corruption, to which all money is gathered. As Thomas Jefferson wrote:
It is not by the consolidation or concentration of powers, but by their distribution that good government is effected.
The government of the United States remains, but it is of a fundamentally different character than the federal republic designed by Madison. Yet, we all keep saying federal. Not only is this use incorrect, but it has prevented us from recognizing the crucial fact that the American federal republic was stolen from our great-grandparents. This is not a trivial argument over vocabulary.
Deceptions and frauds are accomplished over time by changes in the meanings of words. Sometimes this is done purposely and sometimes it happens because people are more comfortable evading the original meaning. But regardless of how much intent was involved, the meaning of federal changed radically between 1803 and 1917. Our current use of the word conveys a completely different meaning than the original. This change of definition has masked a fundamental turning point in the governance of the American people.
What you do about this – or whether you do anything at all – is entirely your choice. I am merely pointing as best I can to the truth. I will add only this:
If you call yourself an American, be one.
August 24, 2011
Paul Rosenberg [send him mail] is the author of Free-Man’s Perspective, a monthly dispatch on the important things of life: virtue, courage, science, art, history, philosophy and personal growth.
Copyright © 2011 by LewRockwell.com. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.
Obama 39%, Paul 38%
Rasmussen reports:
The president and the maverick are running almost dead even in a hypothetical 2012 election matchup.
Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul earns 38% of the vote to President Obama’s 39% in the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters. Fourteen percent (14%) like some other candidate, and eight percent (8%) remain undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Just a month ago, Obama posted a 41% to 37% lead over Paul, who ran second to Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann in the recent high-profile Ames Straw Poll in Iowa.
Paul, whose long run afoul of the GOP establishment with his libertarian policy prescriptions, picks up 61% of the Republican vote, while 78% of Democrats fall in behind the president. Voters not affiliated with either of the major political parties prefer the longtime congressman by 10 points – 43% to 33%.
But Paul still has a long haul among voters in his own party. He ran fourth last week in Rasmussen Reports’ most recent survey of Likely Republican Primary Voters with nine percent (9%) support. Texas Governor Rick Perry, the new face in the race for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, has jumped to a double-digit lead over Mitt Romney and Bachmann with the other announced candidates trailing even further behind.
In that same survey, 43% of likely primary voters expressed a favorable opinion of Paul, while slightly more (45%) registered an unfavorable view of him. This included 15% with a Very Favorable regard for Paul, who ran unsuccessfully for the party’s presidential nomination in 2008, and 14% with a Very Unfavorable one.
Still, Paul, popular with many in the Tea Party movement, runs better against the incumbent than another Tea Party favorite, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.Obama leads Palin 50% to 33% among all likely voters, making her the only potential GOP candidate to date against whom the president’s support has risen out of the 40s.
(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.
The match-up surveys of 1,000 Likely Voters were conducted August 15-16, 2011 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error for the surveys is +/- 3% with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
Obama continues to trail a generic Republican candidate in a hypothetical 2012 matchup.
Seventy-six percent (76%) of Tea Party members support Paul. Fifty-one percent
Read the rest of the article here
Texas Republican Congressman Ron Paul earns 38% of the vote to President Obama’s 39% in the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters. Fourteen percent (14%) like some other candidate, and eight percent (8%) remain undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Just a month ago, Obama posted a 41% to 37% lead over Paul, who ran second to Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann in the recent high-profile Ames Straw Poll in Iowa.
Paul, whose long run afoul of the GOP establishment with his libertarian policy prescriptions, picks up 61% of the Republican vote, while 78% of Democrats fall in behind the president. Voters not affiliated with either of the major political parties prefer the longtime congressman by 10 points – 43% to 33%.
But Paul still has a long haul among voters in his own party. He ran fourth last week in Rasmussen Reports’ most recent survey of Likely Republican Primary Voters with nine percent (9%) support. Texas Governor Rick Perry, the new face in the race for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, has jumped to a double-digit lead over Mitt Romney and Bachmann with the other announced candidates trailing even further behind.
In that same survey, 43% of likely primary voters expressed a favorable opinion of Paul, while slightly more (45%) registered an unfavorable view of him. This included 15% with a Very Favorable regard for Paul, who ran unsuccessfully for the party’s presidential nomination in 2008, and 14% with a Very Unfavorable one.
Still, Paul, popular with many in the Tea Party movement, runs better against the incumbent than another Tea Party favorite, former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.Obama leads Palin 50% to 33% among all likely voters, making her the only potential GOP candidate to date against whom the president’s support has risen out of the 40s.
(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.
The match-up surveys of 1,000 Likely Voters were conducted August 15-16, 2011 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error for the surveys is +/- 3% with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
Obama continues to trail a generic Republican candidate in a hypothetical 2012 matchup.
Seventy-six percent (76%) of Tea Party members support Paul. Fifty-one percent
Read the rest of the article here
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
Washington Sacrifices Its Financial Rating to Feed the Sacred Cows
Cato Institute: Washington Sacrifices Its Financial Rating to Feed the Sacred Cows
Under the latest budget "compromise," spending and borrowing will continue to rise. But who's counting? Standard & Poor's, unfortunately. Washington's inability to implement a credible budget plan has lost Washington's stellar financial rating.
The painful lesson of budget deals past is: never mind the official agreement. What will spending actually be? Higher and higher.
Even before the ink was dry on the accord, special interests were organizing to protect "their" share of the federal loot. For all the talk about the federal government protecting the poor and performing essential services, Washington is mostly about paying off those with the most power and influence.
There is virtually no person or activity that is not subsidized by Uncle Sam. Indeed, all of the biggest federal spending programs provide welfare, just not to poor people.
The biggest recipients of welfare are the middle class. Social Security and Medicare only incidentally address poverty. The biggest share of benefits goes to people who could provide for their own retirement and purchase their own health insurance.
Of course, most recipients mistakenly believe that the two programs are social insurance, paid for by the recipients' contributions. In fact, the money collected is not invested; the systems' so-called trust funds and personal accounts are accounting fictions. The Supreme Court has ruled that the government has no legal obligation to pay anyone anything.
Indeed, if the programs really were genuine social insurance, they would not threaten taxpayers with more than $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities. In truth, the two are public Ponzi schemes. Unfortunately, with America's aging population the good times are long over.
America's military budget is largely foreign welfare — a form of foreign aid, if you like. The U.S. faces no significant security threats other than terrorism, which is best met through intelligence, Special Forces, diplomacy, and international cooperation. No other nation comes close to America in military might. America alone accounts for roughly half of the world's military spending.
The biggest recipients of U.S. "defense aid" are Washington's well-heeled European, Japanese, and South Korean allies. Rather than spend their own money on the military, they rely on U.S. taxpayers to pay the bill. It's a great deal if you can get away with it — as they have for decades. ....
Read the rest at Cato Institute: Washington Sacrifices Its Financial Rating to Feed the Sacred Cows
.
Under the latest budget "compromise," spending and borrowing will continue to rise. But who's counting? Standard & Poor's, unfortunately. Washington's inability to implement a credible budget plan has lost Washington's stellar financial rating.
The painful lesson of budget deals past is: never mind the official agreement. What will spending actually be? Higher and higher.
Even before the ink was dry on the accord, special interests were organizing to protect "their" share of the federal loot. For all the talk about the federal government protecting the poor and performing essential services, Washington is mostly about paying off those with the most power and influence.
There is virtually no person or activity that is not subsidized by Uncle Sam. Indeed, all of the biggest federal spending programs provide welfare, just not to poor people.
The biggest recipients of welfare are the middle class. Social Security and Medicare only incidentally address poverty. The biggest share of benefits goes to people who could provide for their own retirement and purchase their own health insurance.
Of course, most recipients mistakenly believe that the two programs are social insurance, paid for by the recipients' contributions. In fact, the money collected is not invested; the systems' so-called trust funds and personal accounts are accounting fictions. The Supreme Court has ruled that the government has no legal obligation to pay anyone anything.
Indeed, if the programs really were genuine social insurance, they would not threaten taxpayers with more than $100 trillion in unfunded liabilities. In truth, the two are public Ponzi schemes. Unfortunately, with America's aging population the good times are long over.
America's military budget is largely foreign welfare — a form of foreign aid, if you like. The U.S. faces no significant security threats other than terrorism, which is best met through intelligence, Special Forces, diplomacy, and international cooperation. No other nation comes close to America in military might. America alone accounts for roughly half of the world's military spending.
The biggest recipients of U.S. "defense aid" are Washington's well-heeled European, Japanese, and South Korean allies. Rather than spend their own money on the military, they rely on U.S. taxpayers to pay the bill. It's a great deal if you can get away with it — as they have for decades. ....
Read the rest at Cato Institute: Washington Sacrifices Its Financial Rating to Feed the Sacred Cows
.
What Shift Right?
Cato Institute: What Shift Right?
Liz Marlantes of the Christian Science Monitor joins other pundits in proclaiming “America’s Big Shift Right” in politics and governance. “In Washington today, when it comes to the size of government, the debate isn’t over whether to cut spending, but by how much,” she writes. That’s true, but it’s because the federal budget has doubled in just 10 years, with half the increase coming in the past three. Politics may be more conservative, but government is still getting bigger.
Some of Marlantes’s arguments are mystifying: “Instead of coming on the heels of a great liberal expansion of government, today’s shift comes after three decades of the unraveling of elements of the social safety net.” Really? The Congressional Budget Office reported in 2007 that three major “safety net” programs accounted for 45 percent of the federal budget. In this chart the red line represents “social safety net” programs:
Read the rest at Cato Institute: What Shift Right?
.
Liz Marlantes of the Christian Science Monitor joins other pundits in proclaiming “America’s Big Shift Right” in politics and governance. “In Washington today, when it comes to the size of government, the debate isn’t over whether to cut spending, but by how much,” she writes. That’s true, but it’s because the federal budget has doubled in just 10 years, with half the increase coming in the past three. Politics may be more conservative, but government is still getting bigger.
Some of Marlantes’s arguments are mystifying: “Instead of coming on the heels of a great liberal expansion of government, today’s shift comes after three decades of the unraveling of elements of the social safety net.” Really? The Congressional Budget Office reported in 2007 that three major “safety net” programs accounted for 45 percent of the federal budget. In this chart the red line represents “social safety net” programs:
Read the rest at Cato Institute: What Shift Right?
.
Sunday, August 7, 2011
A Question to You and the Tea Party Movement
By Roger F. Gay
We're moving toward the real election season. I can tell. The pressure is on to perceive anything and everything as somehow related to a clear choice between just two political parties; no matter how false and idiotic those choices may be and no matter how independent of politics some of those choices should be. It prepares us to be drawn hopelessly into the black hole of traditional American two-party political hysteria from which no reason can escape.
No doubt we'll fall for it again (collectively even if I don't). Brother against brother, friend against friend, colleague against colleague, we'll fight to bring people we don't really know to power against those other guys, hoping against hope that it will mean what we hope it means. It brings religion to mind. Once you've admitted you're a sinner, you have a chance to do something about it. But politics isn't religion and there seems to be no born-again equivalent that requires first admitting you've been fooled and then understanding that they're doing it again. A church has never been established specifically to promote anti-idiocy in politics and to counter politically manipulated emotions.
Then there's the Tea Party. I was surprised by a recent survey that found the number of people in the United States that consider themselves part of the movement is only slightly higher than the number of people who self-identify as “liberals.” Self-identified “conservatives” are twice as many as either, according to the survey.
My surprise might be in part due to the constantly pushed idea that Tea Party members are conservative. I'm not personally convinced that's true, except somewhat in a particular sense. But perhaps a difficulty in the survey might have to do with confusion in terminology. In the US, common use of the term “liberal” means politically left or a Democratic Party politician or supporter. It has lost its original meaning to the point that we now use the term “libertarian” for that instead, although not necessarily Libertarian. There are several types of “conservatives,” some of whom would not enjoy having dinner together. The term is also used, equally unwisely, to refer to a politician or supporter of the Republican Party.
Given the survey results, consider that the “generic Republican” polls only slightly better than Barack Obama and that none of the actual Republican candidates stand up to him well and it's hard to imagine that people so apparently content with a “two party system” think multiparty systems and the metric system are complicated! OK – the two-party system seems to hold a promise of superficial simplicity. I see that. But if you want clear meaning and choices, it doesn't support the minimally required complexity so it doesn't make things easier or even workable. Two choices. Trying to draw the entire set of facts and logic that describe all reasonable or popular political options down to just two simple choices is guaranteed to drive you crazy right from the start. It takes you to a place that is composed of so much compromise and shallow imagery that meaningless ambiguity becomes heavy enough to create the traditional black hole of American politics by collapsing on itself.
To the extent that the vast number of people who show up at Tea Party events have the feeling that something is fundamentally wrong, I can identify. Even though I did not agree with their collective plan, I am sympathetic. It's rational, so they're not crazy. Tea Parties want to reform the Republican Party. My commentary above explains why I do not think that solves the fundamental problem. But it does express a long held sense of need. Remember Ross Perot? He split the Republican vote enough to put Bill Clinton in office. Tea Partiers don't want to continue supporting a bunch of lying thieves. They don't want to throw elections to the other bunch of lying thieves either. They aren't content with having no choice but a false choice. They're trying to solve the problem within the confines of the two-party system.
That they are too impatient to address the more fundamental problem is understandable as well. A well-developed multiparty system would reduce and overcome the hysterical and destructive tendencies in traditional American politics. To achieve it would require much time and effort to educate the American public and then to institute systemic changes. The required constitutional process is far from trivial. Other parties would then need to develop to provide viable and credible alternatives. (We would stop calling them “third parties” because there would no longer be a de facto limit of two. You would not in any sense be “throwing your vote away” by voting for candidates in whatever party most honestly fits your preferences.)
Would I prefer a multiparty system to a superficial change. Yes. But for all its benefits, it doesn't address the problem fast enough. We are not at a cross-road in American political history. We are deep in crisis. The country is under attack. There is a fight for survival going on in which any perceived fault in the Tea Partiers plan can be explained as self-defense. We have a duty as citizens to respond.
On the other hand, I'm a great believer that more than one thing can be going on at the same time. Asking to choose between reforming the Republican Party and starting a process toward a workable democracy is presenting a false choice. (Those of you who are twitching to say that the United States is not a “democracy,” please settle down. We've always had elections and that's what this article addresses. I am not suggesting “pure democracy.” Nowhere have I suggested eliminating limits to government power, checks and balances, federalism, or the Bill of Rights. The country belongs to you. We have elections. You're supposed to have a choice. That's democracy.)
Given the survey results it's obvious that there are a whole lot of people who currently consider the Tea Party movement their political home. I'm just saying that it would be very hard to believe that it would be difficult to put together one more committee to begin addressing the problem at a more fundamental level. Let's imagine that the American people win. In the short term, Washington corruption is brought under control and the nation survives. Then what? Do we maintain this same struggle forever as power corrupts and there is insufficient competition to keep it in check? Or should we go farther to fix the system?
.
We're moving toward the real election season. I can tell. The pressure is on to perceive anything and everything as somehow related to a clear choice between just two political parties; no matter how false and idiotic those choices may be and no matter how independent of politics some of those choices should be. It prepares us to be drawn hopelessly into the black hole of traditional American two-party political hysteria from which no reason can escape.
No doubt we'll fall for it again (collectively even if I don't). Brother against brother, friend against friend, colleague against colleague, we'll fight to bring people we don't really know to power against those other guys, hoping against hope that it will mean what we hope it means. It brings religion to mind. Once you've admitted you're a sinner, you have a chance to do something about it. But politics isn't religion and there seems to be no born-again equivalent that requires first admitting you've been fooled and then understanding that they're doing it again. A church has never been established specifically to promote anti-idiocy in politics and to counter politically manipulated emotions.
Then there's the Tea Party. I was surprised by a recent survey that found the number of people in the United States that consider themselves part of the movement is only slightly higher than the number of people who self-identify as “liberals.” Self-identified “conservatives” are twice as many as either, according to the survey.
My surprise might be in part due to the constantly pushed idea that Tea Party members are conservative. I'm not personally convinced that's true, except somewhat in a particular sense. But perhaps a difficulty in the survey might have to do with confusion in terminology. In the US, common use of the term “liberal” means politically left or a Democratic Party politician or supporter. It has lost its original meaning to the point that we now use the term “libertarian” for that instead, although not necessarily Libertarian. There are several types of “conservatives,” some of whom would not enjoy having dinner together. The term is also used, equally unwisely, to refer to a politician or supporter of the Republican Party.
Given the survey results, consider that the “generic Republican” polls only slightly better than Barack Obama and that none of the actual Republican candidates stand up to him well and it's hard to imagine that people so apparently content with a “two party system” think multiparty systems and the metric system are complicated! OK – the two-party system seems to hold a promise of superficial simplicity. I see that. But if you want clear meaning and choices, it doesn't support the minimally required complexity so it doesn't make things easier or even workable. Two choices. Trying to draw the entire set of facts and logic that describe all reasonable or popular political options down to just two simple choices is guaranteed to drive you crazy right from the start. It takes you to a place that is composed of so much compromise and shallow imagery that meaningless ambiguity becomes heavy enough to create the traditional black hole of American politics by collapsing on itself.
To the extent that the vast number of people who show up at Tea Party events have the feeling that something is fundamentally wrong, I can identify. Even though I did not agree with their collective plan, I am sympathetic. It's rational, so they're not crazy. Tea Parties want to reform the Republican Party. My commentary above explains why I do not think that solves the fundamental problem. But it does express a long held sense of need. Remember Ross Perot? He split the Republican vote enough to put Bill Clinton in office. Tea Partiers don't want to continue supporting a bunch of lying thieves. They don't want to throw elections to the other bunch of lying thieves either. They aren't content with having no choice but a false choice. They're trying to solve the problem within the confines of the two-party system.
That they are too impatient to address the more fundamental problem is understandable as well. A well-developed multiparty system would reduce and overcome the hysterical and destructive tendencies in traditional American politics. To achieve it would require much time and effort to educate the American public and then to institute systemic changes. The required constitutional process is far from trivial. Other parties would then need to develop to provide viable and credible alternatives. (We would stop calling them “third parties” because there would no longer be a de facto limit of two. You would not in any sense be “throwing your vote away” by voting for candidates in whatever party most honestly fits your preferences.)
Would I prefer a multiparty system to a superficial change. Yes. But for all its benefits, it doesn't address the problem fast enough. We are not at a cross-road in American political history. We are deep in crisis. The country is under attack. There is a fight for survival going on in which any perceived fault in the Tea Partiers plan can be explained as self-defense. We have a duty as citizens to respond.
On the other hand, I'm a great believer that more than one thing can be going on at the same time. Asking to choose between reforming the Republican Party and starting a process toward a workable democracy is presenting a false choice. (Those of you who are twitching to say that the United States is not a “democracy,” please settle down. We've always had elections and that's what this article addresses. I am not suggesting “pure democracy.” Nowhere have I suggested eliminating limits to government power, checks and balances, federalism, or the Bill of Rights. The country belongs to you. We have elections. You're supposed to have a choice. That's democracy.)
Given the survey results it's obvious that there are a whole lot of people who currently consider the Tea Party movement their political home. I'm just saying that it would be very hard to believe that it would be difficult to put together one more committee to begin addressing the problem at a more fundamental level. Let's imagine that the American people win. In the short term, Washington corruption is brought under control and the nation survives. Then what? Do we maintain this same struggle forever as power corrupts and there is insufficient competition to keep it in check? Or should we go farther to fix the system?
.
Friday, August 5, 2011
The Bigger Insult of the Budget Deal
By Roger F. Gay
You've probably heard already that the budget cut in the budget deal really isn't a cut. Business as usual in Washington never ends, no matter what. Nothing has happened that will in any way reduce the run-away theft of public funds. If your “representative” says otherwise, she or he is a liar.
But there's been some shouting already about something even more insulting; the so-called “super government” that the deal has legislated to replace the Constitutional process of law-making.
If you're one of those people who really pays attention and thinks, you might have noticed how the new super-committee is supposed to make sense to us. It's composed of “representatives” from both houses and the Republican and Democratic parties. Seem fair?
I can say unequivocally that I have never given my permission to turn the country over to these two parties. This idea does not in any way represent balance or fairness or anything close to representation of the people. Sure, they've gotten away with controlling power for many years because we haven't done anything to stop them. But this institutionalizes the “two-party system” more than any previous event in history.
It just gives me a really creepy feeling, like a guy broke into my house to steal my stuff and then decided he might as well stay. Just one unread law away from owning the house and my stuff himself.
You've probably heard already that the budget cut in the budget deal really isn't a cut. Business as usual in Washington never ends, no matter what. Nothing has happened that will in any way reduce the run-away theft of public funds. If your “representative” says otherwise, she or he is a liar.
But there's been some shouting already about something even more insulting; the so-called “super government” that the deal has legislated to replace the Constitutional process of law-making.
If you're one of those people who really pays attention and thinks, you might have noticed how the new super-committee is supposed to make sense to us. It's composed of “representatives” from both houses and the Republican and Democratic parties. Seem fair?
I can say unequivocally that I have never given my permission to turn the country over to these two parties. This idea does not in any way represent balance or fairness or anything close to representation of the people. Sure, they've gotten away with controlling power for many years because we haven't done anything to stop them. But this institutionalizes the “two-party system” more than any previous event in history.
It just gives me a really creepy feeling, like a guy broke into my house to steal my stuff and then decided he might as well stay. Just one unread law away from owning the house and my stuff himself.
Could Al Gore Help Save the World?
By Roger F. Gay
Coming back to the global warming issue already seems a bit nostalgic. But if you're paying attention, even a little, you know it isn't really over yet. The stakes are far too high. For decades it's been part of the plan for the biggest heist ever. Not just for money, but for transforming the global political system to concentrate power in the hands of a very few. Proponents still hold high government positions in many countries and none of the conspirators are in jail yet.
My trip back into this particular Big Lie today started with a funny video in which a young woman suggested really big air conditioners to cool down the earth. A related YouTube clip from the Glen Beck show presented a young girl who had been invited to a special event in Washington and her father. Al Gore was at the event, instructing children to support his ill-begotten enterprise because their parents are stupid. (They have “old ideas,” as in anything presented as “new,” no matter how outrageous, must be really really good.) He compared his thing to the Civil Rights Movement, which in Al Gore's version of history was apparently a Girl Power exercise carried out entirely by 12 year old white girls who followed leaders like Al Gore (who as far as I know, has never been a 12 year old girl even if he acts like one).
I enjoy “brainstorming,” which involves respecting and considering all kinds of ideas; allowing free form thought to suggest things that might otherwise remain undiscovered and then evolving those thoughts until they make sense in the real world. For example, if you are willing to think big, perhaps some futuristic city will be air conditioned rather than the individual buildings and cars within it. An enclosed city isn't an entirely new idea but I don't remember whether its presentation in The Simpsons Movie or Futurama's Crimes of the Hot or Highlander II: The Quickening recycled exhaust heat from a giant air conditioning system back into energy production. (But if you think smaller: Heat Pump Water Heater Produces Hot Water & Free Cooling. Shucks, somebody already thought of it; proving not all good ideas are new.)
This brings me to the possibility that Al Gore could actually help save the world. Here's the thing. Before Al Gore came along, the global warming con was pretty much working as planned. Sure, there were “skeptics” but not enough attention was focused on the controversy for your every day ordinary citizen to take much notice. For the most part, indoctrination from the lamestream media was working. Surveys showed most people bought it. Other surveys showed they didn't really care, but that could be useful to the conspirators. Acceptance and apathy combined means government can “solve the problem” without having voters looking over their shoulders and asking what's really going on.
Al Gore is just kind of a half-witted stooge who's had things handed to him on a silver plate his whole life. He was introduced to the basics of corruption by his father and learned the Big Political Con from his years in Washington. He was influenced to push the limits by Bill Clinton. The big difference here is that Clinton knew exactly where to stop; just before the roof caved in. Al Gore doesn't have that instinct or the Clinton political consultants (or political powers and operatives that could allow him to get away with things that other people can't). After the roof collapses on him, Al Gore climbs around on the rubble, head bleeding, imagining he's still in the house. After it's condemned, he huffs like a 12 year old girl about being betrayed by the clean-up crew.
He spent a lot of (our) money promoting his agenda. Serious professional liars, the ones that actually have to be good at it to make a living, like New York Times journalists would have known how to play it; when to fall back and recalibrate. Al Gore didn't. He pushed ahead directly against a rising tide of public learning. Maybe a big national ad campaign with Al Sharpton and Newt Gingrich saying they're on-board – yeah, that's the ticket – that'll impress 'em. Then Congress would have no choice but to give him what he wanted. (Do I actually have to write something like “← sarcasm”.)
The basic problem is that Al Gore isn't really with the movement, which by-and-large has historically been content with smaller cons (although not always small) and has the patience to work through a larger plan. Al Gore is with Al Gore. He was already involuntarily retired from politics and ready to receive his extra-curricular retirement pay and he was thinking big, very big, as in one of the wealthiest and most powerful men in the world big. And he wasn't willing to wait until after his own death for it all to work out. For starters, he needed a couple more mansions and a fleet of private jets just as fast as Congress could pass the laws without reading them. And that's the way Washington works, right? No question!
To be fair to his pals in Washington, Al Gore and his partners did receive hundreds of millions in public funds, which I think any normal corrupt politician would have thought quite generous. But Al Gore wouldn't have a clue what to do then. Legitimate business was out of the question. “Business as usual” Washington politics was all he knew. He could only imagine becoming richer and more powerful by keeping his own private worm hole to illegitimate government spending open with his plays backed by large donors looking for political favors. It was his only career experience.
The greatest impact on the global warming saga came as a result of Al Gore's decision to explain climate science to the public. His film, An Inconvenient Truth was intended as a propaganda device to promote his agenda. It was like Al Gore to bite off more than he could chew and go too far. Explaining science was well beyond his own understanding. He easily went beyond the limits of credibility because he had no way of considering where those limits might be. He didn't seem able to rest until everyone saw the film, including young children who cried hysterically after watching it. The public attention became focused on Al Gore and his “issue.”
And before long public opinion was changing, but not in the direction Al Gore hoped and expected. Apathy, at least momentarily, subsided. People were paying attention. One area held a surprise. Many scientists who had not studied climate change, had generally been on board with the fake “science” that had been produced. Although the scientific process involves scientists checking the work of other scientists, scientists generally don't check the work of every other scientist. They become experts about published science in their own area of specialization, and especially about things they're paid to work on. Many scientists simply repeated the “party line” on global warming, especially those who were paid to do so. Others had been temporarily fooled by the constant claim that “the science is settled.”
Many federal grants were offered based on false claims, but not for checking the claims. To get federal research funds in many fields required repeating the claims. Many scientists took the money and played along. But that didn't stop all scientists from checking the claims and the heightened interest created a greater priority for developing real knowledge about the subject. (There are indeed, still many real scientists who are really interested in real science and continue to engage in the real scientific process.) Before long, surveys were turning up showing a great majority of scientists on the skeptical side of global warming hysteria. And the general public soon followed. (I don't know of a survey among 12 year old girls.)
If you haven't caught on yet, this – at least in a brainstorming mood – aims at explaining how Al Gore might help save the world. Through his insatiable greed and equal ineptitude, he helped awaken the public to one of the biggest cons in world history. While doing so, he helped awaken the public to the real meaning of “business as usual” in Washington. What the public has gained during these last few years (aside from it didn't all start with Bush) includes a more detailed understanding of the relentless effort to concentrate power and control the flow of more and more money.
Forget political theory. It all has nothing whatsoever to do with “liberal” verses “conservative” and only borrows tactics from the insurmountably corrupt extreme left (which, whether under the Nazi or Commie brand name, is just another name for extreme power play to begin with). It's all simply about money and power. Power corrupts. It's about corruption.
What he's done by accident may be the very thing he needs to claim a more positive ground in history. He need not be left merely as the dumbest crook from Washington. He could realize, finally, that he's been caught and there's no escape. He could come clean. He could tell. His next book could be about Washington corruption and his part in it. He could, this time intentionally, help save the world.
.
Coming back to the global warming issue already seems a bit nostalgic. But if you're paying attention, even a little, you know it isn't really over yet. The stakes are far too high. For decades it's been part of the plan for the biggest heist ever. Not just for money, but for transforming the global political system to concentrate power in the hands of a very few. Proponents still hold high government positions in many countries and none of the conspirators are in jail yet.
My trip back into this particular Big Lie today started with a funny video in which a young woman suggested really big air conditioners to cool down the earth. A related YouTube clip from the Glen Beck show presented a young girl who had been invited to a special event in Washington and her father. Al Gore was at the event, instructing children to support his ill-begotten enterprise because their parents are stupid. (They have “old ideas,” as in anything presented as “new,” no matter how outrageous, must be really really good.) He compared his thing to the Civil Rights Movement, which in Al Gore's version of history was apparently a Girl Power exercise carried out entirely by 12 year old white girls who followed leaders like Al Gore (who as far as I know, has never been a 12 year old girl even if he acts like one).
I enjoy “brainstorming,” which involves respecting and considering all kinds of ideas; allowing free form thought to suggest things that might otherwise remain undiscovered and then evolving those thoughts until they make sense in the real world. For example, if you are willing to think big, perhaps some futuristic city will be air conditioned rather than the individual buildings and cars within it. An enclosed city isn't an entirely new idea but I don't remember whether its presentation in The Simpsons Movie or Futurama's Crimes of the Hot or Highlander II: The Quickening recycled exhaust heat from a giant air conditioning system back into energy production. (But if you think smaller: Heat Pump Water Heater Produces Hot Water & Free Cooling. Shucks, somebody already thought of it; proving not all good ideas are new.)
This brings me to the possibility that Al Gore could actually help save the world. Here's the thing. Before Al Gore came along, the global warming con was pretty much working as planned. Sure, there were “skeptics” but not enough attention was focused on the controversy for your every day ordinary citizen to take much notice. For the most part, indoctrination from the lamestream media was working. Surveys showed most people bought it. Other surveys showed they didn't really care, but that could be useful to the conspirators. Acceptance and apathy combined means government can “solve the problem” without having voters looking over their shoulders and asking what's really going on.
Al Gore is just kind of a half-witted stooge who's had things handed to him on a silver plate his whole life. He was introduced to the basics of corruption by his father and learned the Big Political Con from his years in Washington. He was influenced to push the limits by Bill Clinton. The big difference here is that Clinton knew exactly where to stop; just before the roof caved in. Al Gore doesn't have that instinct or the Clinton political consultants (or political powers and operatives that could allow him to get away with things that other people can't). After the roof collapses on him, Al Gore climbs around on the rubble, head bleeding, imagining he's still in the house. After it's condemned, he huffs like a 12 year old girl about being betrayed by the clean-up crew.
He spent a lot of (our) money promoting his agenda. Serious professional liars, the ones that actually have to be good at it to make a living, like New York Times journalists would have known how to play it; when to fall back and recalibrate. Al Gore didn't. He pushed ahead directly against a rising tide of public learning. Maybe a big national ad campaign with Al Sharpton and Newt Gingrich saying they're on-board – yeah, that's the ticket – that'll impress 'em. Then Congress would have no choice but to give him what he wanted. (Do I actually have to write something like “← sarcasm”.)
The basic problem is that Al Gore isn't really with the movement, which by-and-large has historically been content with smaller cons (although not always small) and has the patience to work through a larger plan. Al Gore is with Al Gore. He was already involuntarily retired from politics and ready to receive his extra-curricular retirement pay and he was thinking big, very big, as in one of the wealthiest and most powerful men in the world big. And he wasn't willing to wait until after his own death for it all to work out. For starters, he needed a couple more mansions and a fleet of private jets just as fast as Congress could pass the laws without reading them. And that's the way Washington works, right? No question!
To be fair to his pals in Washington, Al Gore and his partners did receive hundreds of millions in public funds, which I think any normal corrupt politician would have thought quite generous. But Al Gore wouldn't have a clue what to do then. Legitimate business was out of the question. “Business as usual” Washington politics was all he knew. He could only imagine becoming richer and more powerful by keeping his own private worm hole to illegitimate government spending open with his plays backed by large donors looking for political favors. It was his only career experience.
The greatest impact on the global warming saga came as a result of Al Gore's decision to explain climate science to the public. His film, An Inconvenient Truth was intended as a propaganda device to promote his agenda. It was like Al Gore to bite off more than he could chew and go too far. Explaining science was well beyond his own understanding. He easily went beyond the limits of credibility because he had no way of considering where those limits might be. He didn't seem able to rest until everyone saw the film, including young children who cried hysterically after watching it. The public attention became focused on Al Gore and his “issue.”
And before long public opinion was changing, but not in the direction Al Gore hoped and expected. Apathy, at least momentarily, subsided. People were paying attention. One area held a surprise. Many scientists who had not studied climate change, had generally been on board with the fake “science” that had been produced. Although the scientific process involves scientists checking the work of other scientists, scientists generally don't check the work of every other scientist. They become experts about published science in their own area of specialization, and especially about things they're paid to work on. Many scientists simply repeated the “party line” on global warming, especially those who were paid to do so. Others had been temporarily fooled by the constant claim that “the science is settled.”
Many federal grants were offered based on false claims, but not for checking the claims. To get federal research funds in many fields required repeating the claims. Many scientists took the money and played along. But that didn't stop all scientists from checking the claims and the heightened interest created a greater priority for developing real knowledge about the subject. (There are indeed, still many real scientists who are really interested in real science and continue to engage in the real scientific process.) Before long, surveys were turning up showing a great majority of scientists on the skeptical side of global warming hysteria. And the general public soon followed. (I don't know of a survey among 12 year old girls.)
If you haven't caught on yet, this – at least in a brainstorming mood – aims at explaining how Al Gore might help save the world. Through his insatiable greed and equal ineptitude, he helped awaken the public to one of the biggest cons in world history. While doing so, he helped awaken the public to the real meaning of “business as usual” in Washington. What the public has gained during these last few years (aside from it didn't all start with Bush) includes a more detailed understanding of the relentless effort to concentrate power and control the flow of more and more money.
Forget political theory. It all has nothing whatsoever to do with “liberal” verses “conservative” and only borrows tactics from the insurmountably corrupt extreme left (which, whether under the Nazi or Commie brand name, is just another name for extreme power play to begin with). It's all simply about money and power. Power corrupts. It's about corruption.
What he's done by accident may be the very thing he needs to claim a more positive ground in history. He need not be left merely as the dumbest crook from Washington. He could realize, finally, that he's been caught and there's no escape. He could come clean. He could tell. His next book could be about Washington corruption and his part in it. He could, this time intentionally, help save the world.
.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Just 22% Approve of Debt Ceiling Deal, Most Doubt It Will Cut Spending
RasmussenReports: Just 22% Approve of Debt Ceiling Deal, Most Doubt It Will Cut Spending
Most voters disapprove of the debt ceiling agreement reached by the president and Congress earlier this week and most doubt it will actually reduce government spending. Not surprisingly, Political Class voters are much more supportive of the deal than Mainstream Americans. Among the Mainstream, 17% approve of the deal and 56% disapprove. Among supporters of the Political Class, opinion is fairly evenly divided.
Read the entire RasmussenReports article: Just 22% Approve of Debt Ceiling Deal, Most Doubt It Will Cut Spending
Most voters disapprove of the debt ceiling agreement reached by the president and Congress earlier this week and most doubt it will actually reduce government spending. Not surprisingly, Political Class voters are much more supportive of the deal than Mainstream Americans. Among the Mainstream, 17% approve of the deal and 56% disapprove. Among supporters of the Political Class, opinion is fairly evenly divided.
Read the entire RasmussenReports article: Just 22% Approve of Debt Ceiling Deal, Most Doubt It Will Cut Spending
Monday, August 1, 2011
Boehner, McCain Ready to Switch Parties? The Myth of Fiscal Conservatism
By Roger F. Gay
Journalists are already finding it easy to include John Boehner on the same lists as Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama. It's become obvious that he shares much in common with them politically and especially when it comes to spending other people's money. For those hoping to turn the Republican Party into a mainstream conservative party, the whole thing stinks. Boehner and other Republican members of Congress are there under the wrong flag.
Boehner has lied about budget proposals as much and as consistently as any Democrat, fully supporting run away spending and debt while pretending to propose and promote cuts. Maybe the new way of pretending that something has seriously changed will convince Americans that something has and after days of wrangling to look like they've taken principled positions of some kind, under principles that are difficult for normal folks to fathom, they'll finally get what they wanted to begin with – permission to spend even more. And if normal folks don't like it, maybe they can be convinced that “compromise” was necessary because that's politics.
John McCain is another troublesome figure, becoming better known for talking one way and marching the other. He's quoted at foxnews.com as saying he's "very concerned" about proposed defense cut provisions in The Boehner / Pelosi / Reid / Obama New Deal. National defense is of course, one of the few areas in which the federal government is actually supposed to be involved. But being “very concerned” apparently doesn't mean what it used to, at least not to John McCain. He also said that he would "strongly support" the deal. Pork is more important than national defense.
One of the most interesting thoughts in the FoxNews article was this.
In more than one article, I've presented the argument that fiscal conservatism is not a sufficient political ideology. In The Tea Party and The Illusion of Fiscal Conservatism I noted that
Journalists are already finding it easy to include John Boehner on the same lists as Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama. It's become obvious that he shares much in common with them politically and especially when it comes to spending other people's money. For those hoping to turn the Republican Party into a mainstream conservative party, the whole thing stinks. Boehner and other Republican members of Congress are there under the wrong flag.
Boehner has lied about budget proposals as much and as consistently as any Democrat, fully supporting run away spending and debt while pretending to propose and promote cuts. Maybe the new way of pretending that something has seriously changed will convince Americans that something has and after days of wrangling to look like they've taken principled positions of some kind, under principles that are difficult for normal folks to fathom, they'll finally get what they wanted to begin with – permission to spend even more. And if normal folks don't like it, maybe they can be convinced that “compromise” was necessary because that's politics.
John McCain is another troublesome figure, becoming better known for talking one way and marching the other. He's quoted at foxnews.com as saying he's "very concerned" about proposed defense cut provisions in The Boehner / Pelosi / Reid / Obama New Deal. National defense is of course, one of the few areas in which the federal government is actually supposed to be involved. But being “very concerned” apparently doesn't mean what it used to, at least not to John McCain. He also said that he would "strongly support" the deal. Pork is more important than national defense.
One of the most interesting thoughts in the FoxNews article was this.
House Speaker John Boehner may have to rely on a blend of Republicans and Democrats to push it through his chamber, with some conservatives unhappy about key provisions in the compromise.It would have been more accurate to have called them a blend of RINOs and Democrats. This is just the kind of thing that has mainstream conservatives steamed about the state of the Republican Party. It doesn't seem like it could get much clearer. There are members of Congress pretending to support the ideals voters expect from one party while putting a lot of effort into pulling the other party's wagon. The list of Republicans voting in favor will be a list of RINOs, targets for retirement from political life. Unless of course, they want to do the honest thing and run as members of the other party next time; then it will be up to a different set of voters to say yes or no.
In more than one article, I've presented the argument that fiscal conservatism is not a sufficient political ideology. In The Tea Party and The Illusion of Fiscal Conservatism I noted that
The fiscal conservatives of the T.E.A. Party tend to insist that neither political conservatism nor social issues matter. T.E.A. is an acronym for “Taxed Enough Already” and despite a very strong focus on Constitutional issues and over-reaching federal power expressed among its mass of participants, founders and organizers press to limit their scope to purely fiscal concerns. This they assert, is the big enchilada, large tent conservatism that is needed. Money is the root of all political evil and keeping taxation and spending under control is the final solution.I think this is a good time to ask; how's that working out?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)