Search This Blog

Loading...

Wednesday, April 23, 2014

Freedom Week: John Paul Stevens Validates What Conservatives Have Said For Decades

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

Former Supreme Court Associate Justice, John Paul Stevens, has written a book. As you might expect from one of the liberal stalwarts on the court, he has some helpful suggestions on how that pesky Constitution can be changed to allow for an easier transition to the Worker's Paradise, known as European Socialism. He was nominated by the way, by yet another Republican President who was duped into believing the idiotic advice of an adviser who kept his head hidden squarely within the confines of his own buttocks and proclaimed, "here's a legally conservative fellow who'll give us an original interpretation of the Constitution."

What is made clear by Stevens treatise is one immutable fact. For the entirety of his career as a Supreme Court Justice, he has interpreted the Constitution according to what he wanted it to say, and not according to what the document actually does say. In other words, when you hear the fallacious term, "living constitution," recognize that this is someone who has determined that they disagree with the founding principles of our nation, and wish to see those founding principles done away with completely. The Constitution for them, is an obstacle to be overcome, and used only as a tool to destroy the fabric of our nation as it was founded.

The Progressive Movement in our nation, who's two most influential leaders were Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson, saw our Constitution as an impediment to their desired transformation of a government constrained by its enumerated authority to one that would allow for an elite ruling class to basically rule as they saw fit. Individual freedom and self rule after all has never been the normative state for human beings in our world. Rather than recognizing inalienable rights granted by God as the source of our liberty, the Progressive Movement recognizes those liberties as a grant from government, thereby rendering them subject to removal by those same governments, via whimsy and fiat. In order to achieve this end, our founding documents had to be granted life, thus making an organic change possible.

Both Roosevelt and Wilson sought to increase the authority and scope of the Executive Branch, their own power base, and saw our Constitution specifically as an impediment to that end. They viewed the checks and balances system to be a nuisance which prevented them from edicting their political will, and sought to remedy that problem through direct appeals to transform our nation from being a representative republic to a direct democracy. The most successful of these fundamental changes were the Seventeenth Amendment, the recall ballot initiatives achieved in almost every State and municipal government throughout the nation, and the inroads into the way in which our Constitution has been handled throughout our educational system.

If you ask any high school child in America today whether our Constitution should be handled as a static document or a living document, they'll give the automatic response of living document, without ever stopping to consider or even ask, what does that question even mean, much less, what does my answer mean. Our Judicial Branch has been given plenary authority to render judgement based not upon what the law actually says, but what they want it to say, which is a dream come true for those who don't like having their authority checked. The Stevens book admits that fact. Looking back at his record, you'll see that throughout his entire career, he has ruled as if these changes had already been made to our Constitution.

1. The “Anti-Commandeering Rule” (Amend the Supremacy Clause of Article VI) This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges and other public officials. in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

2. Political Gerrymandering – Districts represented by members of Congress, or by members of any state legislative body, shall be compact and composed of contiguous territory. The state shall have the burden of justifying any departures from this requirement by reference to neutral criteria such as natural, political, or historical boundaries or demographic changes. The interest in enhancing or preserving the political power of the party in control of the state government is not such a neutral criterion.

3. Campaign Finance – Neither the First Amendment nor any other provision of this Constitution shall be construed to prohibit the Congress or any state from imposing reasonable limits on the amount of money that candidates for public office, or their supporters, may spend in election campaigns.

4. Sovereign Immunity – Neither the Tenth Amendment, the Eleventh Amendment, nor any other provision of this Constitution, shall be construed to provide any state, state agency, or state officer with an immunity from liability for violating any act of Congress, or any provision of this Constitution.

5. Death Penalty- (Amend the 8th Amendment) Excessive Bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments such as the death penalty inflicted.

6. The Second Amendment – (Amend the 2nd Amendment) A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.

His book is a further admission that far from a living document, until such changes are codified in actual Amendment form, his rulings and opinions are only temporary, which brings up another issue for the Living Document crowd. A living Constitution is as worthless as having no founding law to begin with. For years we have watched as the liberal members of the court have traveled about the globe admonishing audiences to embrace not what the Constitution actually says, but what it should, in their opinion, say instead. When the Egyptians were looking to form a new government, Ruth Bader Ginsberg actually went to the lengths to tell the fledgling conventioneers that the U.S. founding law was a bad example of how to form a nation, and that they should look to the Socialist nations of Europe for their inspiration.

This point can not be stressed enough, and it is the reason for the subterfuge employed by the living document crowd. The role of the Judiciary is as impartial referee, interpretation of what the law says and how our Constitution applies to various arguments of the day. It is not to determine what it should have said, or how it can be changed to accommodate the political whimsy of those who wish to introduce new sources of authority to take increasing lordship over the lives of the citizenry. That is how we will cease to be private citizens and will be established as subjects. It is no accident that one of the principle tenets of the Progressive Movement holds that members of any population are individuals second, and societal members first. In their worldview, we citizens of the United States should have our freedoms, which are our birthright, subordinated to the political will of the ruling class. A class by the way that does not exist, at least not according to the original interpretation of our Constitution.

Our founding law, as written enumerates certain pieces of authority to the Federal Government, and any thing that was not specifically enumerated was and should be considered to be beyond its scope and authority. In order to guarantee that this would remain the reality in perpetuity, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments were included in the Bill of Rights. The last time I checked, those two very important Amendments were still a part of the Constitution.

Tuesday, April 22, 2014

Peter Schiff on Deflation: A Concern So Stupid That Only An Intellectual Could Be Worried

It's no secret that Peter Schiff, one of the smartest economic minds produced during the last half century is not now, nor has he ever been, a fan of Janet Yellen. Obama tapped Yellen to be our current Fed Chief on the basis of her prediction of the 2008 Credit Market crisis. One of the problems with this fairy tale of course is that Yellen not only did not predict the crisis, but actually was one of the leading attack dogs who shut down any who did mention that problems loomed on our horizon. She equated the Schiffs, Williams', Sowells, of the world with Holocaust deniers, and labeled them as racists, looking to return our banking community to the days of preventing all people of color from achieving home ownership. (Those of you who google Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell will indeed get a bonus joke related to the last sentence of paragraph.)

The reason this is so pertinent today of course is that once again, Yellen has given us the, "just kidding signal," in terms of her latest threat to taper the quantitative easing, tighten the money supply, and has promised that fiat money will continue in perpetuity, as the wonderful tool the Keynesians will be using to fund their out of control spending spree.

Thursday, April 17, 2014

Freedom Week: Seeing The Forest Through The Trees

Political Cartoons by Glenn McCoy

There has been much said, written, and opined, about the goings on in Nevada over the past week. Legal experts, who strangely enough skipped law school, have pontificated on the right and wrong of a situation that really is hard to fathom in today's every-thing-is-fine-America. Does the Bundy Family have the right to keep using Federal Land, essentially claiming squatter's rights, for their cattle to graze upon? Does the Federal Government have the right to confiscate the cattle, who have so graciously and efficiently eliminated the need for a professional lawn and garden service to maintain the land? Here's my take, those are the small issues in a much broader discussion, and one that quite frankly should scare the snot out of you, if you place any value at all in the concept of America as it was founded.

We'll start here. The more astute among you may have noticed that the Federal Government owns very little, and by that I mean lest than one tenth of one percent, of the land East of the Mississippi River. West of our national geographic dividing line of course is a different story. More interesting than that wonderful little nugget of information however is the reason why. During the early days of our nation, it never dawned on our leaders that the government would ever hold any lands of consequence. Yes they knew that a standing army would have to be kept some where, and by the time Jefferson was President, they knew that they would need a couple of offices in which to conduct the business at hand for the nation. By and large however, our earliest leaders envisioned a nation where the private sector would be best suited to utilize everything available in the most efficient manner, in order to have every man prosper to the fullest potential possible. The term, 40 acres and a mule, was born in this era, and the concept was that each citizen if he wanted, would be granted land in sufficient quantity, to make of it what he could. The economic theory was that private citizens, given the opportunity to create their own wealth, would bring about the greatest amount of prosperity for the greatest amount of ordinary citizens. It was truly the grandest experiment of Adam Smith's, "Wealth of Nations," that the world had ever seen. It was his invisible hand given free reign to weave its magic, and that invisible hand is the working definition of American Exceptionalism. It worked, and worked remarkably well.

West of the Mississippi however is a different story. In Nevada for example, our Federal Government owns 78% of the land. This has effectively changed the dynamic between government and private citizen in what can only be regarded as the most fundamental of ways. This has given the Federal Government control over which businesses and what resources will be allowed to flourish in the Western half of our nation. When Barack Obama truthfully declares that fossil fuel production has increased during his Administration, he always fails to mention that this is in spite of his efforts as President, and not because of them. Fossil fuel production has been largely diminished on Federally owned lands, and the entirety of the increase has been due to private land owners participating in a boom previously unforeseen by the politicos now in charge of the top down management of our national economy. This group has the political bent to replace fossil fuel production with solar and wind, and since they control land owned by the government, they have the power to force their will upon us. (By the way, there's a connection here to the situation in Nevada that we'll discuss later.) Every acre of land owned by our Federal Government is an acre not being put to productive use by the Private Sector, and one that is used to allow for cronies to be granted privilege not honestly earned. So, when the Bundy's are called out for squatting on Federal Land, ask yourself why that land is owned by the Federal Government in the first place, and why the tradition of the government getting out of the way of the Private Sector has been eschewed.

The next thing that I've noticed over the last few years, since Barack Obama has become President, is that Federal Agencies not at all associated with law enforcement are toting guns. Those of you who know me, know that I am a big Second Amendment advocate, but this is not what our Founding Fathers meant to accomplish with the Second Amendment. Preventing those agencies from running roughshod over the citizens of this nation however, that is in fact the reason why the delegates to that Constitutional Convention demanded that the Second Amendment be included in the Bill of Rights prior to forming the Union that is the United States of America. I do not know how well armed those supporting the Bundy's were in the open Nevada air, but if they were equipped with land mines and bazookas, that would have suited me just fine. The Bureau of Land Management has armed officers? This should worry any who value the freedoms that all citizens of this nation are born with, as a consequence of being gifted those freedoms by our Creator at the time of our birth. When campaigning, our President said that he envisioned a civilian force equal in training and armament to the military, and he wasn't quite talking about protecting our Second Amendment, as his actions and rhetoric have shown repeatedly. He was speaking about an armed Bureau of Land Management, an armed Department of Education, an armed Environmental Protection Agency, and so on. These entities are becoming militarized, and will inflict their leftist vision for our nation by force if necessary.

Another of the more frightening things to consider with this mobilization, along with Waco, Ruby Ridge, and the dozen or so other places where our government has taken it upon itself to brandish arms against private citizens, is the fact that our government has decided to brandish arms against private citizens. Somehow, the Mexican Drug Lords who have invaded our Southern Border, without any sort of resistance what so ever, are not considered a threat to the peace and security of our nation. Barack Obama has unilaterally eased the restrictions on Visas offered to Islamists with previously known involvement in terrorist activities, (albeit those with involvement in acts of terror deemed to, "not be that bad," what ever in the Hell that means,) and still had dreams of bringing their ideology to the United States. Somehow, to our government, these people are not considered to be a threat to national security. From day one of this President's Administration, the only people considered to be a threat to the national security of the United States of America are those of us who advocate for limited government, free market economics, or private property rights. To that end, the IRS has specifically targeted us, on the political right for increased scrutiny, and as we've just learned within the last day and a half, for criminal prosecution, based on our political activities. (Wave bye bye to the First Amendment my fellow inhabitants of the land formerly known as the home of the free. I will await your arrival in one of the splendid reeducation camps, soon to be sprouting up all over the fruited plains.) As far as I know, every single government agency now has armed employees. What's even more frightening than all of that however, is the fact that our government was able to find enough people of sound mind and body to go along with all of this, and brandish those arms against their fellow citizens.

Another major problem to consider with all of this is in how these federal agencies are constituted to begin with. I know that I've written about this before, but it bears much further discussion. Currently, and I have no idea when exactly this began, the laws that create these agencies are written in a purposefully vague manner. The agencies are created to oversee some part of the federal behemoth and given the powers of all three branches of our checks and balances system. They write their own rules, administrate those rules, determine how they will be enforced, and adjudicate their own case load, all with a minimal amount of oversight or judicial review. The case of the EPA forcing farmers to treat spilled milk in the exact manner as an oil spill would still be clogged in our court system had the light of day not been brought to bear to expose the lunacy. The EPA backed off, but only because political pressures lined themselves up to determine that this was not the right time to enforce what they actually do have the legal right to do. Lost in all of the angst over whether the law is being followed is whether or not a law is even valid, or more importantly a good and moral law to begin with. Bad policies lead people making the correct moral decision to act outside of the law. That situation is far worse than most people realize, and we have put ourselves in this great nation in the reprehensible position of prosecuting people for attempting to benefit their fellow man and support their families.

I could have written this essay on any one of a hundred topics, and been able to include all of the same points. This one is somewhat special however. The government's stated reasoning behind preventing cattle from cutting federal grass for free was that somehow, and this is a stretch by the way, it would be bad for the indigenous population of turtles. As it turns out however, Nevada's Senior Senator, Harry Reid, has a relative named Rory, who has a friend that wishes to lease that particular strip of land in order to build, (wait for it....,) a solar farm. If you thought cows eating grass was bad for wild life, what do you think a solar farm, which has average daytime recorded temperatures over 800 degrees, would do? As it turns out, these places are literally the killing fields for all things ecological. So stick that in your Green Peace Pipe and smoke it. What we have hear is a case of crony Socialism, at its finest.

I have just one more thought that I'd like to leave you with. This is a level of tyranny that is on a par with why our nation revolted against England in general, and against Mad King George III specifically. Asked at another one of his meet real Americans campaign style photo ops today, President Zero was asked about his spiffy Health Insurance non-affordable destruction of the entire medical profession act. Specifically, the complaint lodged was in regards to the spiraling price tag on premiums for policies, which offer less coverage, and include deductibles so high that they'll never be met. His answer was, the law has passed, I won't sign a bill to repeal it, so get over it and move on. That's the exact amount of respect George III showed for the people living here in the Colonies. We are no longer citizens my friends, we're subjects now. It hasn't been said officially, but semantics aren't all that important anyhow.

Freedom Week: The Mystical Meaning Behind The Ancient Secret Of The Second Amendment

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

It has always been a source of great amusement for me, that our debates in this nation over the Constitution have tended to center around the concept of what the Founding Fathers meant when they put it all together. After all, they did not frame this document in a vacuum. They debated it vociferously, recorded their debate, argued with one another via written letters, and even took the measure to defend their work and explain it all, in great detail by the way, in a collection of news paper articles. Yet, even with all of that, we still get some down right zany explanations as to how their true intention was to limit personal freedom and build a top down nanny state with an overbearing government in control of even the most mundane daily decisions of everyone who happens to be a citizen of these fruited plains.

While there are certainly many areas of contention, none, in my humble opinion can match the beating over the years, taken by the Second Amendment. This particular safe guard against tyranny is the holy grail for the political left, and they've been after it since the very birth of the progressive movement. I want to make something perfectly clear, not all who advocate for gun control deserve ridicule. I do not doubt the sincerity of most of those that I meet and debate with. Most of the people we meet are honest in the way that they debate about any issue, and gun control versus the Second Amendment is no exception to that rule. The vast majority of the debate from the other side is being delivered by people who while they may be wrong, are none the less sincere in their thinking.

That's important for a number of reasons, the most important of which is centered on how you defeat their ideology. Making it personal will not ever be a winning formula, they were led to where they live via their emotions, and the appeals to those emotions. What will work however, is a complete nonacceptance of their flawed straw man talking points. We need to back the train up, and refute them there, rather than trying to refute each individual piece of Tom Foolery that finds its way to the light of day.

For example, when Governor Cuomo screeches, "you don't need x number of bullets to kill a deer," simply remind the world that the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting, killing deer, or target shooting. When the next mass shooting, and there will be a next one, takes its place in the never ending news pummeling, point out how it happened, as always, in a gun free zone. When the great Joe Biden gives his brilliantly thought out treatise on how merely firing off a shotgun blindly into the night will be sufficient to scare off any home invader, making any other type of firearm unnecessary for protection, remind him that home protection was not at all the intention of the Second Amendment. When Michael Moore intones his preposterous theory that the Second Amendment means that the Framers of our First National Law intended for citizens to be gifted with permission to carry front loading muskets only, laugh at what is truly, museum grade stupidity.

Here is the truth about the Second Amendment. It was not placed in the Bill of Rights so that people who were in militias could form paramilitary organizations to assist in national defense. It was not put in the Bill of Rights so that the people living in that age would be able to hunt for food. The Founding Fathers were not worried about citizens being able to ward off burglars, or even bandits in a wild and lawless frontier. They were not particularly frightened of the Indian population suddenly and without provocation marauding within the original colonies. They wanted to make certain that the citizens would be every bit a well armed, and even better armed, than any army that a central government would be able to put together.

When the Constitution was presented initially to the Legislatures of the individual states, it was not ratified. The individual state legislatures wanted some additions to the agreement codified into the deal, prior to signing on. One of the Amendments demanded was authored by George Mason of Virginia. It was the Second out of Eight, (the last two Amendments that rounded out the Bill of Rights were authored by James Madison, as a response to the discussion concerning the first Eight.) Of all of the quotes concerning the Second Amendment and what it really means, perhaps the best and most succinct belongs to the fellow who wrote the thing.

Here's what George Mason had to say about the people's right to keep and bear arms:

To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them.

If you still have doubts as to what was intended by the Second Amendment, we'll let the author of the Constitution discuss it, at length. Here is the last paragraph from Federalist number 46, authored by James Madison, with emphasis added after the fact by myself:

Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it. The argument under the present head may be put into a very concise form, which appears altogether conclusive. Either the mode in which the federal government is to be constructed will render it sufficiently dependent on the people, or it will not. On the first supposition, it will be restrained by that dependence from forming schemes obnoxious to their constituents. On the other supposition, it will not possess the confidence of the people, and its schemes of usurpation will be easily defeated by the State governments, who will be supported by the people. On summing up the considerations stated in this and the last paper, they seem to amount to the most convincing evidence, that the powers proposed to be lodged in the federal government are as little formidable to those reserved to the individual States, as they are indispensably necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Union; and that all those alarms which have been sounded, of a meditated and consequential annihilation of the State governments, must, on the most favorable interpretation, be ascribed to the chimerical fears of the authors of them.

It is clear, or should be to anyone of even a slightly intellectually honest nature, that our founding fathers not only wanted our citizens to be armed to the teeth, but wanted private citizens to be a greater force than any military that our nation could muster. They wanted the private citizens to be able to defeat any military force Washington could send against us. So the short answer to the hyperbolic question, "do you think the Founding Fathers wanted private citizens to have nukes?" is an undeniable and resounding yes. They wanted the citizens to have access to anything our military, or any military has, at any time now, or in the future.

Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Freedom Week: No Captivating Fear Spreads As Far And As Quick As Environmental Fear

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

Have you noticed recently that every single initiative and statement made by the environmental movement has an underlying theme that remains constant, no matter what the complained about crime against Mother Earth? These stories or proclamations always go something like this, "the upcoming environmental disaster is a threat to all life on the planet, and the only way to put a stop to that threat, thereby saving humanity and all living creatures is to adopt Marxism as a socioeconomic system." I think, that just about covers it all. To prove my point, the U.N. grand poobahs on all things climate related released their third report this week, and if you had guessed that man kind is doomed and adopting a world wide Marxist government is the only possible way to save us all, then you would have won the office pool this year. I know that I'm shocked, how about you? Of course, there is a reason why, since 1991, Socialism and loss of freedom have been the only possible cures for our environmental sins, and I think I'll let one of the very first environmentalists to grace our Earth Mother tell us what that reason is.

Patrick Moore, founder of Green Peace, on why he left his own creation:

Basically they are using sensation, misinformation, and scare tactics. The environmental movement was basically hijacked by political and social activists who came in and very cleverly learned how to use green rhetoric or green language to cloak agendas that had more to do with anti corporatism, anti globalization, anti business, and very little to do with science or ecology, and that's when I left. I realized that the movement I had started was being taken over by politicos basically, and that they were using it for fundraising purposes. Nobody is going to listen to you if you say the world is not coming to an end, but if you say the world is going to end, you get headlines. And so sensationalism, especially when it's combined with misinformation leads to a situation where people send gobs of money to these groups for campaigns that are actually totally misguided.

Now we can go on and on about whether such calamities are actually headed our way. I notice that Chicken Little wastes no time with apologizing for screeching about dangers that weren't there to begin with, Ozone, Global Cooling, Godzilla, what have you. I also notice that Chicken Little and his merry crew are already on to some new issues with which to convince us to voluntarily give up our basic freedoms and economic prosperity and finally allow for the top down central planners to show us all a better way. But before anyone buys the premise that complete government control of our lives by some super world wide ruling elite party of genius bureaucrats would somehow be better for the environment, have a peek at the environmental track record of the Marxists the last time they were put in charge of things.

When the Berlin Wall came down and the Iron Curtain was finally lifted to expose the inner workings of communism to Western eyes, one of the more shocking discoveries was the nightmarish scale of environmental destruction. The statistics for East Germany alone tell a horrific tale: at the time of its reunification with West Germany an estimated 42 percent of moving water and 24 percent of still waters were so polluted that they could not be used to process drinking water, almost half of the country’s lakes were considered dead or dying and unable to sustain fish or other forms of life, and only one-third of industrial sewage along with half of domestic sewage received treatment.

An estimated 44 percent of East German forests were damaged by acid rain — little surprise given that the country produced proportionally more sulphur dioxide, carbon dioxide, and coal dust than any other in the world. In some areas of East Germany the level of air pollution was between eight and twelve times greater than that found in West Germany, and 40 percent of East Germany’s population lived in conditions that would have justified a smog warning across the border. Only one power station in East Germany had the necessary equipment to clean sulphur from emissions.

snip:

The environmental destruction associated with communism is no coincidence or accident of history, but rather a perfectly logical outcome for at least three reasons. Perhaps most obviously, communism invariably means authoritarianism (how else would a New Soviet Man emerge to work towards the bright, shiny future prophesied by Marx and Engels without re-education camps and control over the levers of societal machinery?), with little tolerance for dissent or concerns about hazardous waste in the worker’s paradise. To voice the opinion that perhaps not quite all was well, or that the air smelled funny, was to invite suspicions being a saboteur, kulak or harboring bourgeois tendencies.

Second, communism means an absence of property rights, having all been surrendered to “the people,” which is to say the state. As that which belongs to everyone in fact belongs to no one, who is to be confronted over the factory sending toxic plumes into the sky which then descends on the cornfield, or the dumping of waste into the river plied by tourists on cruise boats? And who really owns the cornfield or the boats?

Lastly, communism also simply cannot compete with capitalism in the production of wealth and technology, both of which greatly assist in addressing environmental problems. Why should anyone be surprised that only one East German power station had the necessary equipment to scrub sulphur from its emissions? This, after all, was a country whose answer to Western automobiles — the Trabant launched in the late 1950s — did not even include a fuel gauge in its early versions, something first introduced decades prior (unsurprisingly the Trabant was also bad for the environment, emitting nine times the hydrocarbons and five times the carbon monoxide emissions of the average European car of 2007).

Do you want to know what else causes a terrible ecological impact? If you guessed green technology or green energy does, you've won the prize. As it turns out, those Solar Energy Farms that our government has been pouring untold Billions into are responsible for a larger amount of deaths to birdies than pheasant season and duck season combined. Those Solar farms are basically the equivalent of the birdie killing fields.

The three main causes of death were:
1. Solar flux: Exposure to temperatures over 800 degrees F.

2. Impact (or blunt force) trauma: The birds’ wings are rendered inoperable while flying, causing them to crash into the ground. Birds that do not die are often injured badly enough to make them vulnerable to predators.

3. Predators: When a bird’s wings are singed and it can not fly, it loses its primary means of defense against animals like foxes and coyotes.
Hummingbirds, swifts, swallows, doves, hawks, finches, warblers and owls were just some dead birds found at the solar facilities’ “equal opportunity” mortality hazards.
In one instance, lab staff observed a “falcon-type bird with a plume of smoke arising from the tail as it passed through [a] flux field.”

The study found that besides the intense heat, birds may be mistaking large solar panels for bodies of water. The injured birds then attract insects and other predators to the area. They, too, are then vulnerable to injury or death.

In one instance, researchers found “hundreds upon hundreds” of butterfly carcasses (including Monarchs). The insects were attracted to the light from the solar farms, which in turn attracted birds and perpetuated a cycle of death and injury.

As for me, were it not for the very real danger of these people getting their way, and fulfilling their dream of wrecking the economic prosperity for all of us, (which by the way has a very real and terrifying human cost, such as famine in the third world among other things,) I would be laughing my touchas off at watching them run around from scary story to scary story bleating on about impending doom. I'm still cackling about that beyond stupid movie in which Man Made Global Warming literally chased Dennis Quaid down a corridor and had him slam a door shut to protect himself from it, (The Day After Tomorrow.)

One of the reasons environmental fear works so well on the easily duped is that you truly can not immediately see via empirical evidence the truth of falsity of the claim being made. The Earth is warming crapola has been shoveled at us since Ronald Reagan was President, and it wasn't until this year that the American Physical Society has finally pushed back.

Perhaps no bleating from Chicken Little rewards the fear mongers as well as that warning associated with Nuclear Power. I watched with some amusement as the dolts in California flocked to pharmacy shelves and emptied the stores there of iodine due to the Earth Quake experienced in Fukishima. Never mind that the exposure to radiation felt by the California population was 2000 times greater due to the bananas found in the grocery stores there, or the granite on their kitchen counter tops, or in the phosphorous found in their laundry detergent, than any possible exposure caused by the Fukishima Plant, their fear came from that place that dared to use Nuclear Power in order to create cheap electricity for the citizens of Japan. This is because in the world of the Marxists, it is not the actual danger that is important, but that anyone outside of their socioeconomic system would successfully produce energy in order to create prosperity.

Just in case you're predisposed to be afraid of Nuclear Power, perhaps you should read this article from the Wall Street Journal.

Besides the U.N.'s Chernobyl report, the most extensive data on human exposure to radiation is the American-Japanese joint study of hibakusha—"explosion-affected persons"—the 200,000 survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The expectations at the start of that study (which has taken over 60 years and continues to this day) were that survivorswould be overrun with tumors and leukemia and that a percentage of their descendants would be genetically deformed. Instead, researcher Evan Douple concluded, "The risk of cancer is quite low, lower than what the public might expect."

Radiologist John Moulder analyzed the results of one group of 50,000 survivors, about 5,000 of whom had developed cancer: "Based on what we know of the rest of the Japanese population, you would have expected about 4,500 of them. So we have 5,000 cancers over 50 years where we would expect 4,500." Assuming that the 500 additional cases are all due to radiation, that means a rate of 1%. And there was no increase in inherited mutations. Remember: These aren't victims of a power plant breakdown; they are survivors of a nuclear attack.

For the Fukushima disaster of 2011, the consensus estimate is a 1% increase in cancer for employees who worked at the site and an undetectable increase for the plant's neighbors. Just think of the difference between the overwhelming nuclear fears and nightmares we've all suffered from since 1945 and that range of increased risk: 0% to 1%. And if that's not enough to question everything you thought you knew about radiation, consider that, even after the catastrophe in Japan, the likelihood of work-related death and injury for nuclear plant workers is lower than for real estate agents … and for stockbrokers.

That's right, despite all of the Mother Jones and Huffington Post pictures and pontifications showing how Fukishima has doomed all of man kind, the truth is that there is a small chance that two, count them two, more people who worked at that plant on that day might, not definitely but might, develop health problems later in life due to exposure from that particular day. The resulting health impact on the neighboring community will be zero, and certainly Californians went a little overboard with their iodine buying spree.

By the way, if you guessed that Hydraulic Fracturing was going to cause Earth Quakes as the next Chicken Little table pounding warning, then you win the prize. What that prize is of course is another matter. Your prize is a spiffy multi year vacation at one of the reeducation camps coming soon to the People's Republic Of Amerika, I'll see you there.

COLUMBUS, Ohio — State regulators for the first time have linked earthquake activity in eastern Ohio to hydraulic fracturing, confirming the suspicions of activists pushing unsuccessfully for a drilling ban.

State Oil & Gas Chief Rick Simmers told The Associated Press on Friday that the state has halted drilling indefinitely at the site near Youngstown where five minor tremors occurred in March following investigative findings of a probable link to fracking.

A deep-injection well for fracking wastewater was tied to earthquakes in the region in 2012.

Simmers says Ohio will require sensitive seismic monitoring as a condition of all new drilling permits within three miles of a known fault or existing seismic activity of 2.0 or greater. Drilling will pause for evaluation with any tremor of 1.0 magnitude and will be halted if a link is found.

Monday, April 14, 2014

Freedom Week: Fear And Manipulation Are The Greatest Prison Guards

In honor of Passover starting this evening, with Tuesday being the first full day, I thought I'd go in a slightly different direction. A completely non religious discussion inspired by a religious event or celebration. Passover, for my non-Jewish friends is at its core, a celebration of freedom. More specifically, it means to those of us who are Jewish, our deliverance from bondage, (enslavement,) by God, and as a consequence of that deliverance, the agreement that we would live our lives according to the laws of the Torah, (the first Five Books of Moses found in the Old Testament of the Bible.) So, for this week, my topics will be a celebration of that spirit of freedom, what it means, how do we achieve it, keep it, and prevent the usurpers of such from gaining a foothold on ideology within our societal thought.

There are two conditions required in order for an entire population to be subjugated. One of those conditions is that there must be a group of elites or a ruling class that wishes to do the subjugating. The second condition that needs met is that the population in question must, for the entire duration of that subjugation, be incapable of doing anything about it. Those doing the subjugating will always live in constant fear of losing their upper hand. For them, Life itself will always be a paradox. Having a population that is totally and forever subordinated, and at the same time, constantly a threat if awakened to the possibility of revolt.

That is why slavers will institute certain precautions among their chattel. Education will be disallowed, most specifically, Slaves will not be allowed to learn the art of reading and writing. Disarmament is a must, as in complete gun control. Fear must be instilled, but a deeper and more subtle fear than what you might believe. Yes, making chattel fearful of immediate reprisal for breaking the rules is a necessary tool, but it is not the complete picture. Even more useful is making the subordinate population fearful for their very existence, thus convincing them to become complicit in their own bondage. Even more insidious, convincing the enslaved that they are not a permanent servant class, and controlling their behavior through mass manipulation techniques taught in every Group Dynamics Class on college campuses across our Fruited Plains.

Let's explore those last two items in a more focused context. How do potential overlords achieve these ends? How do you convince an entire segment of the human population that without your protection from some perceived boogeyman or collection of unseen dangers, they would perish? How do you get them to be afraid of those boogeymen in the first place, meaning initiate the perception necessary to establish the ruse?

Fear, contrary to what you may believe is not a human failing. It is an evolutionary defense mechanism, which in the past helped us, as a species, to survive. When I managed Woolworth Stores in some of America's crappiest neighborhoods, I happened upon an alcoholic named Norm. One day Norm came up to me and said, "you should try being an alcoholic John, it gets rid of your inhibitions." I told Norm that I liked my inhibitions just fine, and that inhibited behavior was in fact what kept mankind alive for from his first appearance on Planet Earth. When you think to yourself, "should I play in traffic, in front of that oncoming tractor trailer?," it is your inhibitions that say, "probably not a good idea." It is the fear of falling from great heights that convinces your natural curiosity to not test the laws of physics by throwing yourself off of tall buildings to determine if you might indeed be able to fly. Fear and inhibitions were those very things that made early man not pull the tails of lions, poke bear while sleeping, or tug on Superman's cape. What makes us different as species, is our ability to temporarily control those hardwired pieces of our natural design. The entire point I'm trying to make here is that those pimping fear in order to control everyone have a distinct advantage to begin with, and that advantage is that we are, all of us, genetically predisposed to be fearful pretty much most of the time.

Being a follower, is also hardwired into most of us. I know that this one hurts to read, and more specifically, most people actually see themselves as leaders. The truth is however, that this is not so. From the beginning of our first steps upright as people, when Simian Chromosomes 2 and 13 fused, forming our Human Chromosome number 2, with its two centromeres and three telomeres, our survival has been enhanced by living in collective groups, rather than individually. For any such social structure, leaders and followers are always established, with genetics playing a particular role in determining alphas and betas, (leaders and followers.) After the Nuremberg Trials, in which the world at large refused to accept officially any defense in which the betas of Germany professed that they were merely followers, a pretty smart guy named Stanley Milgram decided to test if it were possible after all that people in general would really be willing to simply follow a maniacal leader to commit genocide. What he found was to say the least, chilling.



Of Milgram's original 40 test subjects, 4 were removed from the study due to a breakdown of the control conditions, (the actors involved failed to convince the test subjects of the ruse,) 35 deliberately killed off their victims, and 1 person refused. The single failure by the way was a Catholic Priest, scoring one for those of you with faith. Our humanity really is connected to our faith in a higher power. Also of note, Milgram eventually lost his job at Yale due to the fall out from this experiment, as many of those tested over the course of this study needed psychological counseling due to their realization that they were indeed willing to commit murder simply because a person in authority ordered them to do so. If WWII proved one thing, it is that human beings are predisposed to be followers, and that we are capable of being manipulated in mass, even if that manipulation leads us to do terrible things. For those of you who say it could never happen again, I would simply point to Josef Stalin's mass murder in the Soviet Union, and Pol Pot's mass murder in Cambodia, both of which happened after WWII. Both were instances of subordinates being ordered to exterminate millions of people based on ideological or racial grounds, and following those orders without question or failure.

I'm sure that many who read this will be those precious few alphas who are leaders and not followers, but the vast majority will be followers who view themselves as leaders. In Milgram's experiment, each of the subjects was interviewed prior to the testing, and each one of them professed their belief that they were strong enough to stand out from the crowd and were essentially non-conformist in nature. My personal belief is that the first step in controlling these parts of our nature, genetically coded into us through millennia of natural selection, is recognition of the existence of this truth. Only by recognizing that we are being led against our will, or fearful for possibly irrational reasons, can we overcome the effects of those realities.

Always question the premise for which information is presented to you. Don't allow for others to frame the debates of the day, dictating terms upon which decisions are made. We, as people with inalienable rights granted by our creator have a say so in matters pertaining to our existence as well, meaning, self determination. As a small lad who was a member of BBYO, (for you Christians out there, think church youth group,) I participated in a leadership weekend. There was some hippie present who taught us a class in Group Dynamics, doubtless based on his work at some leftist corner of what ever institution of higher learning was providing him protection from the consequences of living in the real world. We glossed over the basics of recognizing that when collected together as a group, people will begin to act in concert in certain respects, without recognizing the phenomenon. This behavior will begin to take on a life of its own, and will do so in every instance of any group's formation. Even today, and in the most unlikeliest of places, I can see evidence of this in motion. Not only can this group behavior be noticed, but it can be manipulated, and most of the members of the group will follow suit. There probably will be a few dissident influences, but there is a methodology of dealing with those as well. The means of dealing with those dissident influences is easier for leaders who are organized, and looking out for them specifically. The success of the dissidents, similarly depends upon the ability to organize, but that success can be accomplished. For what makes groups easy to manipulate, is also the thing that the manipulators fear the most, and that is the recognition of the manipulation. People are generally not pleased to learn that they've been conned. They're downright mad beyond belief if they feel that they've been led to a bad end.

Milgram's test subjects did not just go away after his experiments were done. They contacted the University in New Haven, Connecticut demanding his head upon the realization that he had played with their emotions, consciousness, and pointed out how easily they could be led into tossing aside their humanity. The people of Germany held war crimes trials for decades after the original Nuremberg Trials had ceased, hunting people for prosecution deemed to low on the totem pole to be considered war criminals by the International Court. Truth and knowledge are the tools which will make combating the weapons of the left possible.

Thursday, April 10, 2014

The Definition Of, "Not A Smidgen," Revealed, When Democrats Shriek Witch Hunt

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

Following the context of Barack Obama's Millionth promise to get to the bottom of something, which for our purposes will be represented by the IRS targeting scandal, an activity that earned Richard Nixon a quarter of his ticket out of Washington D.C. via the torch and pitch fork express, we learned that his investigative skills are every bit as sharp as the rest of his freakishly thin resume. That is to say, it's exactly what one might expect from a man who'd never so much as managed his very own lemonade stand during his formative years. The Zero's digging turned up, "not a smidgen," of evidence that systematic or even incidental wrongdoing was going one at the single most powerful government agency ever conceived of by man.




Shall we define, "smidgen?" I don't know about you, but my definition would not be this, which is proof of felonious activity on the part of Lois Lerner, Elijah Cummings, Holly Paz, and the entirety of Cummings' staff. This would be something more than a smidgen, as in one giant big honking sized smoking gun, complete with bloody finger prints, photo I.D.'s, and a signed confession.

We'll clarify things here by including the Webster's definition of the word, just to end some of the more legalistic debate likely to break out.

smid·gen
╦łsmijin/Submit
noun,informal
1.
a small amount of something.
"add a smidgen of cayenne"

This in fact is pretty huge, and if you're about to ask how huge, I'll be happy to show that as well.



On January 31, Paz sent True the Vote's 990 forms to Cumming's staff.

Up until this point, Rep. Cummings has denied his staff ever contacted the IRS about True the Vote and their activities during Oversight hearings. In fact, on February 6, 2014 during a Subcommittee hearing where Engelbrecht testified, Cummings vehemently denied having any contact or coordination in targeting True the Vote when attorney Cleta Mitchell, who is representing the group, indicated staff on the Committee had been involved in communication with the IRS. This was the exchange:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ms. Mitchell: We want to get to the bottom of how these coincidences happened, and we’re going to try to figure out whether any – if there was any staff of this committee that might have been involved in putting True the Vote on the radar screen of some of these Federal agencies. We don’t know that, but we – we’re going to do everything we can do to try to get to the bottom of how did this all happen.

Mr. Cummings. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Meadows. Yes.

Mr. Cummings. I want to thank the gentleman for his courtesy. What she just said is absolutely incorrect and not true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
After the hearing, Engelbrecht filed an ethics complaint against Cummings for his targeting and intimidation of her organization.

Rep. Cummings has described the investigation into IRS targeting of conservative groups as a "witch hunt," and has tried multiple times to put the investigation on hold.

My fellow gentle inhabitants of the Obama Worker's Paradise, formerly known as the land of the free, the above screen cap is sufficient to convict all of the people I've listed above of some pretty damning felonies, and force them to take extended stay vacations at some of the nicest minimum security federal country clubs operated by our Federal Corrections Agency. It is an internal communication that verifies chatter between a sitting U.S. Congressman and an official of the IRS in which private information about a political adversary of the Congress Critter is being prepared for a report to be delivered to that same Congress Critter. Somehow, Barack Obama's exhaustive investigation failed to turn this up. I know I'm shocked, with him being the smartest guy to ever wear big boy pants and all. By the way, by that last remark, I mean to say that Barack Obama is the least qualified person for any task in any room that he enters.

This next link is purely for the fun of adding insult to injury, and is somewhat extraneous to the topic at hand. Apparently, violations of the Hatch act, that law that demands that federal employees perform their duties professionally, sans partisan political considerations, is routinely ignored at the IRS. They are an arm of the Democrat Party, no matter who occupies the Executive Branch at the time. This one is scarier even than the first link for one key reason.

At some point during our past in this country, our Legislators and Executives got the bright idea to grant Federal Agencies the scope and authority of all three branches of government, with respect to their broadly defined charters. That is to say, the EPA for example, has the authority to define the Clean Air Act as it wishes, writing its own rules, making executive decisions as to how to enforce it, and to adjudicate those whom it accuses to be in non-compliance. The IRS has the same authority, as does every other Federal Creation. If nothing else scares you, that should do it.

What's even worse than that however is the small fact that all, and by that I mean all, of these agencies have been so packed with partisan tools of one political party over the other, that we have been under the thumb of one party rule for decades now, if not longer. Basically, this represents every nightmare scenario that any of the most bizarre conspiracy theorists could ever come up with, all of it accepted as business as usual. We have self contained Federal Agencies which can now operate without the burdens of our checks and balances system, termed separation of powers by those smarter than average guys who wrote our founding documents. We have a clear identification of those working in these agencies with those who wield the reigns of power, and not with the people whom they serve. Most damning of all, we have clear proof that those Agencies as a whole are acting against the laws of the land to thwart the activities of any who oppose them.

I guess the good news in all of this is that about 23 States so far have officially filed their Article V Convention applications so far. The current situation is about as bad as it gets. If you make any political donations this year, outside of helping to defeat the Democrats at every level, make it the Article V Pacs. The only way we're going to reign these jerks in is going to be a direct action that grants us authority to write our own changes.