Witnessing a Failed Presidency – Tea Party Nation

Witnessing a Failed Presidency – Tea Party Nation.

 

By Alan Caruba

 

When we elect someone—anyone—to the office of President, it is only natural that we attribute great political skills, intellect, and judgment to that man. We want to believe we have selected someone with the ability to do what must be done in a dangerous and very complex world.

 

This may explain why Presidents who have presided in times of war are more highly regarded than those that have not. Washington brought the nation into being by patiently pursuing a war with Great Britain, Lincoln saw the Civil War to a successful conclusion, preserving the Union

The last century offered two world wars and several lesser ones, Korea and Vietnam. Voters put Franklin D. Roosevelt in office in 1933 and then kept him there until his death in 1945 just before the conclusion of World War Two. They had no wish to disrupt his conduct of the war with anyone else. It fell to Harry Truman to wrap up World War Two and to pursue the Korean War to repulse communist North Korea’s invasion.

 

The Vietnam War had its genesis in the JFK years, but it was Lyndon Johnson who committed to it with a massive influx of infantry and massive bombing, neither of which was able to deter the North Vietnamese from uniting the nation. Having lied the nation into the war LBJ concluded at the end of his first term which he had won in a landslide that he should not run again given the vast level of unhappiness with the conflict.

 

The failure to respond in a strong way to the Iranians who took U.S. diplomats hostage left Jimmy Carter with a single failed term in office. Neither domestically, nor in the area of foreign affairs did he demonstrate strength or much understanding.

After 9/11 George W. Bush used U.S. military strength to send a message to the world in general and al Qaeda in particular. By the end of his second term, a completely unknown young Democrat emerged as the Democratic Party candidate for President by campaigning on a promise to get out of Iraq and offering “hope and change.”

 

Barack Hussein Obama captured the imagination of the voters. He was black and many Americans wanted to demonstrate that an African-American could be elected President. He was relatively young, regarded as eloquent, and seemed to project a cool, self-composed approach throughout his campaign.

 

The only problem was that he lacked a resume beyond having been a “community organizer.” He had graduated from Harvard Law School, but all of his academic and other public records had been put under seal so they could not be examined. Twice he ran against relatively lackluster, older men who did not possess much charisma, if any.

 

In his first term, his “stimulus” to lift the economy out of recession was a trillion-dollar failure. By his second term, however, the singular first term “achievement” was the passage of the Affordable Patient Care Act—Obamacare. When finally ready to enroll people it instantly demonstrated technical and policy problems. Obama began to unilaterally make changes to the law even though he lacked the legal power to do so.

 

The war in Iraq whose conclusion he had ridden to victory in 2008 and 2012 came unraveled and the Syrian civil war in which he had resisted any involvement metastasized into a barbaric Islamic State that seized parts of Iraq and northern Syria.

 

Halfway through his second term, it was increasingly evident that Obama did not want to fulfill the role of the Presidency to provide leadership in times of foreign and domestic crisis.

On August 28 Gallup reported “Americans are more than twice as likely to say they “strongly disapprove” (39%) of President Barack Obama’s job performance as they are to say they “strongly approve” (17%). The percentage of Americans who strongly disapprove of Obama has increased over time, while the percentage who strongly approve has dropped by almost half.”

 

His passion for golf became noticeable in ways that went beyond just a bit of vacation time. The time he spent fund raising seemed to be more of a priority than dealing with Congress. Not only did he fail to develop strong political working relations with members of his own party, his churlish talk about the Republican Party began to grate on everyone.

 

Though no President cares much for the demands of the press, they play an essential role in a democracy. His administration went to extremes to close off access to its members and by striking out at the press in ways that turned it from one that had gone out of its way to support him in the first term to one that actively, if not openly, disliked him in the second.

 

One characteristic about Obama had become glaringly obvious. He lies all the time. He lies in obvious and casual ways. In politics where one’s word must be one’s bond, this is a lethal personality trait. He dismissed the many scandals of his administration as “phony.”

 

Given the vast implications of what is occurring in the Middle East, in Ukraine, and elsewhere around the world his response was to interrupt his golf game to give a short speech and then return to the greens. In a recent press conference he said he has “no strategy” to address the threat that ISIS represents.

 

What Americans have discovered is that they have twice either voted for (or against) someone with fewer skills and even less desire to do the job for which he campaigned. This lazyness combined with his radical liberal politics have finally become obvious even to his former supporters.

His statement that he had no strategy to deal with the threat of the Islamic State and that it was perhaps too soon to expect one to have been formulated has led to the conclusion that he was far less intellectually equipped to be President than many had thought.

 

Now he must be endured and survived.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

ObamaDishonestyandIncompetance

 

 

Border Patrol will only shoot at Americans. – Tea Party Nation

Border Patrol will only shoot at Americans. – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Judson Phillips

 

This is a story that should make your blood boil.1a00014a

Criminals from across the Mexican border use lethal force against the American Border Patrol and they don’t shoot back.  The Border Patrol tracks drug cartel smugglers into America and are using bean bag guns against Ak-47’s.  But when they come across an armed American, shots fly.

 

From Stars and Stripes:

 

A Border Patrol agent pursuing a group of immigrants in a wooded area near the Texas-Mexico border on Friday fired several shots at an armed man who later identified himself as a militia member.

Border Patrol spokesman Omar Zamora said agents had been chasing a group of immigrants east of Brownsville Friday afternoon when an agent saw a man holding a gun near the Rio Grande. The agent fired four shots, but did not hit the man. The man then dropped his gun and identified himself as a member of a militia. Zamora said no other details were immediately available.

Cameron County Sheriff Omar Lucio, whose agency is involved in the investigation, said the incident occurred on private property and it appeared the man had permission to be there. He was not arrested, Lucio said.

The man, whose name has not been released, was wearing camouflage and carrying a long arm that was either a rifle or shotgun, Lucio said. The agent had lost the group of immigrants when he turned around and saw the man holding the weapon.

BsCRwwNIgAANfXTAn unknown number of militia members have come to the Texas border following a surge in illegal immigration this summer.

But Lucio said, “We really don’t need the militia here.” He recognized they have the right to carry weapons, but noted that with the Border Patrol, Texas Department of Public Safety and local law enforcement, there are enough agencies working to secure the border. Gov. Rick Perry also called as many as 1,000 National Guard members to the border.

Really?

Secure the border?

Who the hell is doing that?

It isn’t the Border Patrol.  They are too busy babysitting illegal aliens.  The National Guard or Texas Department of Public Safety or the local law enforcement?

Sheriff Lucio is either a liar or a moron.  None of those agencies have authorization to enforce immigration laws.

Meanwhile, the door is open for every criminal or terrorist who wants to cross our border but if you are an American, lawfully exercising your rights, the Border Patrol is going to shoot at you.mywork

Decapitating the U.S. Military – Tea Party Nation

Decapitating the U.S. Military – Tea Party Nation.

 

By Alan Caruba

Many Americans were shocked by the Islamic State video of the beheading of the photo journalist James Foley. Perhaps they had already forgotten the decapitation of Wall Street Journal journalist, Daniel Pearl in 2002. Most certainly, the memory of the murder of nearly 3,000 on September 11, 2001 with the destruction of the World Trade Towers has begun to recede.

 

What most do not know is that decapitation is a requirement in the Islamic holy book, the Koran.

 

“So when you meet in Jihad in Allah’s cause those who disbelieve, smite their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them…” (Surat 47, al-Qital—the Killing–, Ayat 4.

 

“I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks and smite them over all their fingers and toes.” – Surat al-Anfel (The Spoils), Ayat/Verse 12.)

 

If I were a jihadist who wanted to undermine the capacity of the United States of America to both defend itself and/or to wage war on those who regard us as their enemy, I would welcome what is currently occurring to weaken our military. It is exactly what President Obama and a compliant Congress has been doing for some time now.

 

In the name of the “sequester”, an across-the-board reduction in federal spending, the military has suffered the most despite being the single key factor to defend the nation and to project our power to protect our allies.

 

An August 26 article in Politico reported that the five leading U.S. defense firms, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Boeing’s defense unit, and Northrop Grumman, have eliminated 70,000 jobs since 2008 through layoffs, buyouts, attrition, or, as Boeing did, moving employees to the commercial side of its business. “There’s little momentum in Congress to undo the current caps on discretionary federal spending and, facing a war-weary public, U.S. officials are pledging to avoid sending combat troops to today’s hotspots, including Iraq, Syria, and Ukraine.”

 

As reported by Bloomberg News in July, “The U.S. Navy can’t meet its funding needs for surface warships and a new class of nuclear attack submarines from 2025 to 2034 according to the service’s latest 30-year shipbuilding plan.” The Navy is just one element of the Pentagon’s current five-year funding plan “in an era of declining defense spending.” It will impact the need for new submarines, the planned full production of F-35 fighter jets, and a new long-range strike bomber.

 

In March The Washington Times reported that “President Obama is seeking to abolish two highly successful missile programs that experts say have helped the U.S. Navy maintain military superiority for the past several decades.” Obama wants to eliminate the famed Tomahawk and Hellfire missile programs. Why?

 

We have, however, billions for a variety of welfare programs, those devoted to “environmental research”, and countless other examples of sheer waste.

 

In January, commentator Mike Snyder raised the question, “Why are Dozens of High Ranking Officers Being Purged from the U.S. Military?”  He noted that “Since Barack Obama has been in the White House, high ranking military officers have been removed from their positions at a rate that is absolutely unprecedented. Things have gotten so bad that a number of retired generals are publicly speaking out about the ‘purge’ of the U.S. military that they believe is taking place.”

 

Retired Major General Paul Vallely was quoted as having said, “He’s intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon, and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged.”

 

Recognizing the threat that the Islamic State represents, even Secretary of State, John Kerry, has spoken of the need to destroy it, but he has for too long been saying that “climate change” is the most serious challenge the world is facing.

 

The U.S. has a full range of enemies such as Iran which since 1979 has declared the U.S. its enemy and continues a program to make its own nuclear weapons. Additional challenges include Russia’s actions in Russia in the Ukraine and China’s military power.

 

In July, Rowan Scarborough, a Washington Times columnist, warned that “An independent panel appointed by the Pentagon and Congress said that President Obama’s strategy for sizing the armed services is too weak for today’s global threats.” The National Defense Panel called on the President to “dump a major section of his 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review and write a broader strategy that requires the military to fight on multiple fronts at once.” That alone would require a larger military than we have now; one that is the size it was prior to World War Two!

 

How stupid is the Obama-Kerry climate change policy? In June, The Washington Times reported that “Some critics say such alarmist reports are causing the Pentagon to shift money that could be used for weapons and readiness. It is making big investments in biofuels, for example, and is working climate change into high-level strategic planning.”

 

The article quoted Sen. James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, the top Republican on the Senate Committee on Armed Services, as saying “The president’s misguided priorities with our national security can be seen in the $1 trillion defense cuts he has put into motion since taking office and then using the limited defense budget to support his green agenda.” Everything the President has said about climate change has been a lie.

 

President Obama has taken steps to open the military to homosexuals, a practice that was avoided for most of the nation’s history because of its effect on morale and he has advocated women in combat units in the name of “diversity.”

 

Questioned about it in 2013, Gen. Martin Dempsey, Joint Chiefs Chairman, referred to the requirement to introduce a “critical mass” or “significant cadre” of women into previously all-male units. Wars are not won by diversity. They are won by men who meet the physical standards and requirements of combat.

 

In May, The Washington Times reported that “These days, the U.S. military is only taking twenty percent of the applicants who walk into their local recruiter’s office intent on enlisting in the armed forces” noting that “the tough environment for potential recruits is due in large part to troop reductions in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the Pentagon’s plans to cut the size of the active duty Army.”  Cut the size?  At a time when we may need “boots on the ground” again in Iraq and a possible incursion into Syria?

 

Whether it is weapons systems needed by the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines and Coast Guard, the Obama administration has waged its own war on America’s capacity to meet the needs of our national security currently and in the years ahead. It has waged an effort to alter the makeup of our military personnel, to reduce portions of it, and to eliminate many top officers to lead it.

© Alan Caruba, 2014

 

It isn’t just the Islamic State’s American hostages that are being decapitated. It is the U.S. military.

 

© Alan Caruba, 2014

Glacial processes are beginning in Scotland >Must be Global Warming!< | Tavern Keepers

Glacial processes are beginning in Scotland >Must be Global Warming!< | Tavern Keepers.

 

1280px-Eigergletscher2006

The process of year-round snow pack, as being seen in Scotland, leads to glaciers such as these in Switzerland.

A team of scientists and climbers has recently been investigating the North Face and snowfields of Ben Nevis, the tallest mountain in Scotland. They are discovering  neve, a dense pack of ice and snow that is the first stage in the formation of glaciers. If the neve survives the summer, ablation turns it into firm which is denser and then glacial ice. In addition to the neve, scientists found sheets of snow weighing hundreds of tons and fissure tunnels known as bergschrunds. While these features are common in alpine and artic climates, they are very unusual in the UK. The presence of year-round ice can cause a positive feedback loop, lowering the temperature in the surrounding area and leading to more  snow. Eventually,according to WUWT, the process is how ice ages begin. According to the BBC, there were glaciers present in Scotland between 1650 and 1790. This period, a portion of the Little Ice Age, saw shortened growing seasons and political unrest in Europe as the result of brutal winters and snows that lasted well into the spring.

The drop in temperatures that have caused the snowpack may be caused by a lack of solar activity. The current solar cycle, which began in 2008, has seen half the number of sunspots that scientists expected. Another diminished solar period, called the Maunder Minimum, occurred between 1645 and 1715. In addition, Iceland is experiencing conditions that may lead to volcanic eruptions, another factor that caused the Little Ice Age. If all these things come together, Europe as well as North America may be moving into a period of very cold and brutal winters. In the case of Europe, this means even more reliance on Russia for natural gas. It may also cause Russia to continue its expansionist push for Ukraine areas further south to control farmable land. One wonders what mental gymnastics will be required as these natural processes continue to spin their progression as both the result of man and controllable by government.

About Suddenly John

John is an educator and a news enthusiast, as well as co-owner of Tavern Keepers. He was formerly an intern with Mercury One, doing daily research for The Glenn Beck Show as well as other products of TheBlaze. He now writes for Tavern Keepers, Right Side News, and Examiner.com. He is also preparing to pursue a doctorate in Instructional Technology and works with online software companies to develop instructional aids.

The History of Article V: Reclaiming Our Heritage – AMAC, Inc. AMAC, Inc.

The History of Article V: Reclaiming Our Heritage – AMAC, Inc.

by Michael Farris -obama- defending constitution laughing

George Mason was a visionary of liberty. He was the chief force behind the Virginia Declaration of Rights in 1776—the document which provided the framework for the Bill of Rights fifteen years later.

As a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, Mason was concerned that despite the best intentions of leaders like James Madison and George Washington, the federal government might grow beyond acceptable limits and invade the people’s liberty.

As the convention was winding towards its end, Mason realized there was a crucial oversight in the proposed method for future constitutional amendments. The proposal on the floor provided that all amendments would be proposed by Congress and then would be ratified by the states.  Mason, however, contended that under this process, Congress would never propose amendments to rein in the power of the federal government. Consequently, there was no ultimate check to keep the government from growing too large.

Like the other key leaders of his generation, Mason understood that the most important protection for liberty was a structure of government that funneled power through a strict system of checks and balances. According to Mason, the states were the ultimate check on the federal government. So Mason suggested, and the Framers unanimously agreed, that the states needed to have a way to propose amendments too.

This is why Article V of the Constitution provides two methods to propose amendments to the Constitution. Congress can propose amendments when two-thirds of both houses of Congress approve an amendment. Alternatively, state legislatures can apply for a convention to propose amendments on a particular topic. Once two-thirds of the states apply, Congress has a mandatory duty to call such a convention by naming the time and place for the convention to begin.

Virginia lost no time applying for such a convention. In November of 1788, before the new government under the Constitution was operational, the legislature of Virginia passed an application under Article V applying for a “Convention of the States” for the purpose of proposing a bill of rights and other similar amendments.mywork

Virginia’s legislature was composed of many of the same people who wrote and ratified the Constitution. They knew what Article V said, they knew what it meant, and they intended to use it. The states were trusted to limit the power of the federal government. And they knew that Article V existed, not for the purpose of rewriting the whole Constitution, but to propose particular amendments. Ultimately, of course, Congress passed a bill of rights and the states were satisfied.

There have been over 400 applications for a Convention of States (COS) passed by the state legislatures in the 226 years since that first application. But, there has never been a COS because two-thirds of the states have never agreed on a particular subject.

This leads us to the first iron-clad rule of constitutional law governing a COS: The states must agree on the agenda for the COS and until the states set the agenda, no convention is convened.

A COS was designed to stop federal abuses of power, which begs the most obvious question in American politics today: Is the federal government abusing its power?

Thomas Jefferson would say that the answer to this question is self-evident.  No sensible person can deny that every branch of the federal government is abusing its power.

Congress legislates on topics using power it does not have. It spends money—trillions of dollars—that it does not have. The President regularly legislates—a power he does not have—through executive orders and regulations. The Supreme Court rewrites the Constitution—a power it clearly does not have—through interpretations of the so-called “living Constitution.”

The Founders would be furious with the federal government’s abuse power even if it was using its power wisely install effective policies. But the chaos, debt, and devastation created by the federal government proves the truth of one of the Founders’ central beliefs: Tyranny never results in wise government.

To be clear, the federal government is not only abusive, it is also incompetent.

The Founders would not be surprised by these abuses, but they would be shocked that we have tolerated them for so long. They would demand an accounting for the gift of liberty that they fought and died to give us. And when we tried to blame Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court, they would shake their heads. “We gave you Article V,” they would say. “We gave you the power the power to stop tyranny. Why haven’t you used it?”

Internal threats are always the greatest dangers to liberty. We must use the Constitution’s own system of checks and balances to save this nation and our legacy of liberty. And we need to do it now.Image

(Please visit www.conventionofstates.com for more information).

The Carbon TAX Scam – Tea Party Nation

The Carbon TAX Scam – Tea Party Nation.

 

By Alan Caruba

 

In a recent appearance before a congressional committee, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy told them that the agency’s proposed sweeping carbon-regulation plan was “really an investment opportunity. This is not about pollution control.”

 

If the plan isn’t about pollution, the primary reason for the EPA’s existence, why bother with yet more regulation of something that is not a pollutant—carbon dioxide—despite the Supreme Court’s idiotic decision that it is. Yes, even the Court gets things wrong.

 

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is vital to all life on Earth, but most particularly to every piece of vegetation that grows on it. Top climatologists tell me that it plays a very small role, if any, in the Earth’s climate or weather. Why would anyone expect a gas that represents 400 parts per million of all atmospheric gases, barely 0.04% of all atmospheric gases to have the capacity to affect something as huge and dynamic as the weather or climate?

 

When something as absurd as the notion the U.S. must drastically reduce its CO2 emissions is told often enough by a wide range of people that include teachers, the media, scientists, politicians, and the President, people can be forgiven for believing this makes sense.

 

What Gina McCarthy was demonstrating is her belief that not only the members of Congress are idiots, but all the rest of us are as well.

 

Faking Climate Data

 

“The science is clear. The risks are clear. We must act…” Sorry, Gina, a recent issue of Natural News, citing the Real Science website, reported “(in) what might be the largest scientific fraud ever uncovered, NASA and the NOAA have been caught red-handed altering historical temperature data to produce a ‘climate change narrative’ that defies reality.”  As reported in The Telegraph, a London daily, “NOAA’s U.S. Historical Climatology Network has been ‘adjusting’ its record by replacing real temperatures with data ‘fabricated’ by computer models.”

 

The EPA has been on the front lines of destroying coal-fired plants that produce the bulk of the nation’s electricity, claiming, like the Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth that coal is “dirty” and must be eliminated from any use.

 

On July 29, CNSnews reported that “For the first time ever, the average price for a kilowatthour of electricity in the United States has broken through the 14-cent mark, climbing to a record 14.3 cents in June, according to data released last week by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.”

 

A Carbon Tax

 

What the Greens want most of all is a carbon tax; that is to say, a tax on CO2 emissions. It is one of the most baseless, destructive taxes that could be imposed on Americans and we should take a lesson from the recent experience that Australians had when, after being told by a former prime minister, Julia Gillard, that she would not impose the tax, she did. They get rid of her and then got rid of the tax!

 

As Daniel Simmons, the vice president of policy at the American Energy Alliance, wrote in Roll Call “Australia is now the first country to eliminate its carbon tax. In doing so, it struck a blow in favor of sound public policy.”  Initiated in 2012, the tax had imposed a $21.50 charge (in U.S. dollars), increasing annually, on each ton of carbon dioxide emitted by the country’s power plants.” At the time President Obama called it “good for the world”, but Australians quickly found it was not good for them or their economy.

 

Favored by several Democratic Senators that include New Hampshire’s Jeanne Shaheen, Alaska’s Mark Begich, and North Carolina’s Kay Hagan, the Heritage Foundation, based on data provided by the Energy Information Administration, took a look at the impact that a proposed U.S. carbon tax would have and calculated that it “would cut a family of four’s income by nearly $2,000 a year while increasing its electricity bills by more than $500 per year. It would increase gas prices by 50 cents per gallon. It could eliminate more than a million jobs in the first few years.”

 

Simmons noted that “It only took (Australians) two years of higher prices, fewer jobs, and no environmental benefits before they abandoned their carbon tax.”

 

We don’t need, as Gina McCarthy told the congressional committee, “investments in renewables and clean energy” because billions were wasted by Obama’s “stimulus” and by the grants and other credits extended to wind and solar energy in America. They are the most expensive, least productive, and most unpredictable forms of energy imaginable, given that neither the wind nor the sun is available full-time in the way fossil fuel generated energy is. Both require backup from coal, natural gas, and nuclear energy plants.

 

In addition to all the other White House efforts to saddle Americans with higher costs, it has now launched a major effort to push its “climate change” agenda with a carbon tax high on its list. A July 29 article in The Hill reported that “Obama is poised to sidestep Congress with a new set of executive actions on climate change.”

 

If we don’t jump-start our economy by tapping into the jobs and revenue our vast energy reserves represent, secure our southern border, and elect a Congress that will rein in the President, the U.S. risks becoming a lawless banana republic. Carbon taxes are one more nail in the national coffin.

 

© Alan Caruba, 2014

Climate Alarmists Never Quit! – Tea Party Nation

Climate Alarmists Never Quit! – Tea Party Nation.

 

By Alan Caruba

 

In the same way Americans are discovering that the Cold War that was waged from the end of World War Two until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 is not over, Americans continue to be subjected to the endless, massive, global campaign to foist the hoax of global warming–now called climate change—on everyone.

 

The campaign’s purpose to convince everyone that it is humans, not the sun, oceans, and other natural phenomenon, and that requires abandoning fossil fuels in favor of “renewable” wind and solar energy.

 

“It is not surprising that climate alarmists, who desire above all else blind allegiance to their cause, would demand all school teachers toe the ‘official party line’ and quash any dissent on the subject of man-made global warming in their classroom,” says Craig Rucker, the Executive Director of co-founder of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). “What is absurd is that any teacher or free-thinking person for that matter would listen to them.”

 

These days when I am challenged regarding my views about global warming, climate change or energy I send the individual to www.climatedepot.com and www.energydepot.us, two constantly updated websites filled with links to information on these topics. Both are maintained by CFACT.

 

It’s not just our classrooms where Green indoctrination goes on. It is also our news media that continue to distort every weather event to advance the hoax. Guiding and feeding them is a massive complex of organizations led by the United Nations—the International Panel on Climate Change—that maintains the hoax to frighten people worldwide in order to achieve “one world order.”

 

On September 23, heads of state, including President Obama, will gather in New York City for what the Sierra Club calls “a historic summit on climate change. With our future on the line, we will take a weekend and use it to bend the course of history” to save the world from “the ravages of climate change.” This is absurd. Suggesting that humans can alter the climate in any way defies centuries of proof they do not.

 

One of the leading Leftist organizations, the Center for American Progress, focused on the July 14 Major Economics Forum in Paris, offered four items for its agenda. Claiming that “the Arctic is warming two times faster than any other region on earth”, they wanted policy changes based on this falsehood. They blamed climate change for “global poverty” and wanted further reductions in so-called greenhouse gas emissions from energy use. The enemy, as far as they were concerned was energy use.

 

Mary Hutzler, a senior research fellow of the Institute for Energy Research, testified before a July 22nd meeting of the Senate Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on International Development and Foreign Assistance, that due to Europe’s green energy (wind and solar) policies, industrial electricity prices are two-to-five times higher than in the U.S. and that, by 2020, 1.4 million European households will be added to those experiencing energy poverty.

 

There are lessons to be learned, for example, from Spain’s investment in wind energy that caused the loss of four jobs for the electricity it produced and 13 jobs for every megawatt of solar energy. In Germany, the cost of electricity is three times higher than average U.S. residential prices. Little wonder that European nations are now slashing wind and solar programs.

 

Billions Wasted to Combat Global Warming

 

In the U.S., the Obama administration used its “stimulus” to fund Solyndra—$500 million dollars—and fifty other Green energy projects that have failed or are on their way to failure. Undeterred with this appalling record, on July 3 the Energy Department announced $4 billion for “projects that fight global warming.”

 

But there is no global warming. The Earth has been in a cooling cycle for seventeen years and it shows no indication of ending anytime soon. This is the same administration that has waged a war on coal, forcing the closure of many plants that produced electricity efficiently and affordably, and had throughout the last century.

 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s 2014 weather highlights showed that, from January to June, the temperature in the U.S. has risen by a miniscule 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit compared with the average temperature for the 20th century. NOAA also noted that recorded temperatures for the first half of 2014 are the coldest since 1993 when the cooling cycle began. The exception to this has been California.

 

Brainwashed for decades about global warming, 20% of likely voters, according to a July Rasmussen poll, still believe that global warming is not over, colder weather or not, 17% were not sure, but fully 63% disagreed!

 

The results of a Pew Research Center poll in June revealed that 35% of Americans say there is not enough solid evidence to suggest mankind is warming the Earth while another 18% says the world has warmed due to “natural patterns”, not human activity. Pew found that liberals remain convinced that humans are to blame, but the bottom line is that 53% disputed the President’s claims.

 

That means that a growing number of Americans are now skeptics.

 

In the months to come we will see marches and meetings intended to further the global warming lies. The good news is that fewer Americans are being influenced by such efforts.

 

© Alan Caruba, 2014

Should the Government Tell You What to Eat? – Tea Party Nation

Should the Government Tell You What to Eat? – Tea Party Nation.

 

By Alan Caruba

 

Given the successive scandals and monster laws like Obamacare that have been imposed on Americans, the federal government’s efforts to control and determine what you eat doesn’t receive the attention that it should. The ultimate question is whether the government should tell you what to eat and then seek to enforce their views about it? The answer is no.

 

The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee is one of those federal entities that should have no role in determining what is on your plate, but among its recommendations is the promotion of “a plant-based diet, reduced meat consumption, and only eating fish after reading up on which are good for you.” Meanwhile the food police have been warning against the natural element of mercury in fish even though it is so small as to constitute no health threat.

 

Hanns Kuttner, a senior research fellow at the Hudson Institute, a Washington, D.C.  domestic and foreign policy think tank, says that the working premise of the committee is that a “good diet would increase consumer’s costs and imply the end of entire sectors of American agriculture—all in an effort to regulate behavior that has nothing to do with nutrition.” The committee, since 2010, “has not included a member who has any knowledge of food production and food regulation.”

 

The committee reflects the United Nations global campaign to encourage the consumption of insects. If you love dining on bugs, the UN wants this to be a part of everyone’s diet. According to Eva Muller, the director of Food and Agricultural Organizations Forest Economics, Policy and Products Division, bugs “are nutritious, they have a lot of protein and are considered a delicacy in many countries.” 

 

It should come as no surprise that Michelle Obama is leading the food police at this point. A program of the U.S. Agriculture Department announced new rules in 2013 to remove high caloric food and drink items from cafeterias and campuses of schools around the country. As of this year, sodas, sports drinks, and candy bars are banned. Only diet drinks, granola bars, and fruit are acceptable.

 

This is Big Government at work, but no one expects that kids will go along, nor are shoppers likely to embrace a U.S. Department of Agriculture report that wants to steer them toward more fruits and vegetables and away from sugar and fat-laden items. The new guide was written for the 47 million Americans who participate in the food stamp program. Yes, 47 million!

 

Michelle Obama also favors costly–$30,000 each—grocery carts that are color-coded to “help” consumers selected approved food items. This kind of intrusiveness is obnoxious.

 

Victor Skinner of the Education Action Group noted in early July that “The federal government’s attempt to force public school students to eat ‘healthier’ lunches is falling apart at the seams.” The New York Times News Service reported that the School Nutrition Association (SNA) which initially welcomed the bans is now lobbying Congress to dial back on the “overly prescriptive” and expensive changes.

 

“Congress is listening,” reported the Times, “and is considering legislation to delay the nutrition regulations for a year, some of which have already gone into effect.” The SNA is pointing out that many students are throwing away the additional fruits and vegetables included in their lunches, amounting to $684 million in food waste every year—or roughly “enough to serve complete reimbursable school lunches to more than 228 million students.” Moreover, the “nutritious” federal lunch menu is also proving costly for many school districts that are now forced to purchase more expensive foods to comply with the regulations.

 

We have reached the point where some schools are banning birthday cakes or cupcakes in classrooms where such celebrations have gone on for decades. Meanwhile many parents have noticed that their children just skip lunch at school and wait to come home to eat instead.

 

For as long as I can remember Americans have been told that something they eat or drink is dangerous to their health, even though Americans now enjoy the highest life expectancy since such data has been studied. Almost everything we have been warned against has turned out to have some beneficial aspect to it.

 

In March, the journal, Annals of Internal Medicine published a study that concluded that “Saturated fat does not cause heart disease.” Nina Teicholz, writing in the Wall Street Journal in May noted that “One consequence is that in cutting back on fats, we are now eating a lot more carbohydrates—at least 25% more since the early 1970s…instead of meat, eggs and cheese, we’re eating more pasta, grains, fruit and starchy vegetables such as potatoes.”

 

“The problem is that carbohydrates break down into glucose, which causes the body to release insulin, a hormone that is fantastically efficient at storing fat…excessive carbohydrates lead not only to obesity, but also, over time, to Type 2 diabetes and, very likely, heart disease.” Thanks to Big Government dietary guidelines and regulations, “the U.S. population (is) growing sicker and fatter while adhering to official dietary guidelines has put nutrition authorities in an awkward position.”

 

The latest group to join the Food Police are those opposed to food grown with genetically modified organisms (GMO), calling for the labeling of them. This is intended to boost the sales of “organically” grown crops that allegedly do not use pesticides or herbicides. It is pure propaganda because, as Mishcha Popoff, a former organic farmer and USDA-contract organic inspector, and the author of “Is It Organic?” recently noted in a Daily Caller article that “A whopping 43% of all certified-organic food sold in America now test positive for prohibited pesticides.” And, of course, “organic” food items cost more.

 

Simply put, crops need to be protected against insects and weeds. Always have and always will. There is no evidence that the proper use of insecticides and herbicides pose a health hazard. As one farmer told me, “My family eats what I grow. Do you think I would do anything to harm them?” Popoff notes that “The GMO industry is now well-established, with 35 years of science and over 20 years of commercial success behind it.”

 

The government has no business telling Americans what they should eat. It too frequently offers bad science and almost always propaganda. In the home of the brave and land of the free this is yet another intrusion in the lives of Americans. What you eat and even how much is an individual freedom and choice.

 

© Alan Caruba, 2014

A Great Plan to Replace the EPA – Tea Party Nation

A Great Plan to Replace the EPA – Tea Party Nation.

By Alan Caruba

 

For years now I have been saying that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must be eliminated and its powers given to the fifty states, all of which,have their own departments of environmental protection. Until now, however, there has been no plan put forth to do so.

 

Dr. Jay Lehr has done just that and his plan no doubt will be sent to the members of Congress and the state governors. Titled “Replacing the Environmental Protection Agency” it should be read by everyone who, like Dr. Lehr, has concluded that the EPA was a good idea when it was introduced in 1971, but has since evolved into a rogue agency threatening the U.S. economy, attacking the fundamental concept of private property, and the lives of all Americans in countless and costly ways.

 

Dr. Lehr is the Science Director and Senior Fellow of The Heartland Institute, for whom I am a policy advisor. He is a leading authority on groundwater hydrology and the author of more than 500 magazine and journal articles, and 30 books. He has testified before Congress on more than three dozen occasions on environmental issues and consulted with nearly every agency of the federal government and with many foreign countries. The Institute is a national nonprofit research and education organizations supported by voluntary contributions.

 

Ironically, he was among the scientists who called for the creation of the EPA and served on many of the then-new agency’s advisory councils. Over the course of its first ten years, he helped write a significant number of legislative bills to create a safety net for the environment.

 

As he notes in his plan, “Beginning around 1981, liberal activist groups recognized EPA could be used to advance their political agenda by regulating virtually all human activities regardless of their impact on the environment. Politicians recognized they could win votes by posing as protectors of the public health and wildlife. Industries saw a way to use regulations to handicap competitors or help themselves to public subsidies. Since that time, not a single environmental law or regulation has passed that benefited either the environment or society.”

 

“The takeover of EPA and all of its activities by liberal activists was slow and methodical over the past 30 years. Today, EPA is all but a wholly owned subsidiary of liberal activist groups. Its rules account for about half of the nearly $2 trillion a year cost of complying with all national regulations in the U.S. President Barack Obama is using it to circumvent Congress to impose regulations on the energy sector that will cause prices to ‘skyrocket.’ It is a rogue agency.”

 

Dr. Lehr says that “Incremental reform of EPA is simply not an option.”  He’s right.

 

“I have come to believe that the national EPA must be systematically dismantled and replaced by a Committee of the Whole of the 50 state environmental protection agencies. Those agencies in nearly all cases long ago took over primary responsibility for the implementation of environmental laws passed by Congress (or simply handed down by EPA as fiat rulings without congressional vote or oversight.”

 

Looking back over the years, Dr. Lehr notes that “The initial laws I helped write have become increasingly draconian, yet they have not benefited our environment or the health of our citizens. Instead they suppress our economy and the right of our citizens to make an honest living. It seems to me, and to others, that this is actually the intention of those in EPA and in Congress who want to see government power expanded without regard to whether it is needed to protect the environment or public health.”

 

Eliminating the EPA would provide a major savings by eliminating 80% of its budget. The remaining 20% could be used to run its research labs and administer the Committee of the Whole of the 50 state environmental agencies. “The Committee would determine which regulations are actually mandated in law by Congress and which were established by EPA without congressional approval.”

 

Dr. Lehr estimates the EPA’s federal budget would be reduced from $8.2 billion to $2 billion. Staffing would be reduced from more than 15,000 to 300 and that staff would serve in a new national EPA headquarters he recommends be “located centrally in Topeka, Kansas, to allow the closest contact with the individual states.” The staff would consist of six delegate-employees from each of the 50 states.”

 

“Most states,” says Dr. Lehr, “will enthusiastically embrace this plan, as their opposition to EPA’s ‘regulatory train wreck’ grows and since it gives them the autonomy and authority they were promised when EPA was first created and the funding to carry it out.”

 

The EPA was a good idea when it was created, the nation’s air and water needed to be cleaned, but they have been at this point. Since then, the utterly bogus “global warming”, now called “climate change”, has been used to justify a torrent of EPA regulations. The science the EPA cites as justification is equally tainted and often kept secret from the public.

 

“It’s time for the national EPA to go,” says Dr. Lehr and I most emphatically agree. “All that is missing is the political will.”

 

© Alan Caruba, 2014

The Approaching Storm – Tea Party Nation

The Approaching Storm – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Jeff B. Willis

Photo via US Daily ReviewA budget deficit that grows with each passing second!

A partisan health care plan that threatens to destroy what is left of the American middle class!

A mess in the Middle East!

An absolute crisis on our Southern border that has the “smell” of something that was intentially inflicted by a divisive, power mad administration!

Governor Rick Perry has evidently had enough! He has elected to go it alone, in an effort to secure his 1200 mile stretch of the border. After years of pleas for help, the conclusion is, “Washington doesn’t plan on helping!” If it is to be done, then Texas, with hopefully some help from other states, will attempt to stem the flow of undocumented souls pouring into our country!

Perry appears to have a grip on the problem. And, a solution! The problem is, the President doesn’t think it’s a high enough priority to make a visit to the border.  Not that he wasn’t recently in the neighborhood! It isn’t that he wasn’t asked by Perry personally! Perhaps, he simply can’t grasp the urgency. After all Harry Reid himself, said this past week, that the border was indeed “secure.”

More and more Republicans are ruefully acknowledging that the President doesn’t want to do anything. Other than, to allow these “refugees” to stay, with hopes of spawning future Democrat voters! Never mind what the law says! Who cares about the constitution! The administration and friends consider the latter an anachonism anyway!

1a00014aThere are always unexpected consequences. Don’t look now, but there are thousands of “thirty and forty something” veterans who are seeing this border crisis for what it could be: “Americas last stand.” They are already unhappy with the administration. Whether it’s Iraq, the V.A., or even the Marine interned in  Mexico, all signs indicate that this President doesn’t like them very much.

Not that Governor Perry is urging these forgotten Patriots to expend their resources and energy on such an undertaking! He isn’t! But, he is, after all, a fellow veteran! Not a weekend warrior, but a former Air Force C-130 pilot! When compared to the current Commander-in-Chief, there is no comparison! Odds are, he’s just the guy they’ve been looking for! Certainly worth a trip south, accompanied by their personally owned AR-15 and, say, 3000 rounds…

This is an exceptionally dangerous scenario! Without question, Texas is not alone. Even more alarming is these “Patriots” actual lust to get into a fight, preferably with the Americans who they have gradually grown to hate!

As always, liberals would pigeonhole it as “race based.” In truth, these “Patriots”  represent a “rainbow coalition!” Those inspiring their ire often work in unelected positions holding perceived dictatorial authority. Many “Patriots” have struggled in Obama’s anemic economy. Perry’s promise of “less regulation, less government and more economy prospertity,” symbolizes deliverance.   

Governor Perry talks about accomplishments and achievements. He points to an America that reaches for the sky. This message of hope and confidence is not lost on these frustrated soldiers of fortune. They understand it better than most! Years of neglect have culminated into unquenchable anger. To rally behind a cause can quickly transform anger into joy!  

ObamaDishonestyandIncompetanceNo doubt, many in the Perry camp would be slightly nervous with this development. As one supporter put it, “the media would portray us as the bad guys, like so many were viewed in Nevada. Receiving financial help from other states would be welcomed.”

That, too, may be forthcoming. But the possibility of thousands of veterans, many battle tested, showing up in Texas to defend the border, would likely be greeted enthusiastically by apprehensive locals. They would likewise influence those BLM, DHS and National Guardsman trying to cope with a problem increasingly seen as both self inflicted and infinite!

Imagine a 23-year-old, suddenly confronted by a 35-year-old. The later has, at the very least, been through the grind. At the most, he (or she) has experienced a tour. Think how easy it would be for the older soldier “to get into” the younger soldiers’ head! Get the picture? Alas, the perfect storm!

Don’t forget, the military is going through a downsize, courtesy of the administration. There is clearly a morale problem throughout the armed forces. The prevailing paradigm amounts to being “unappreciated and no longer needed.” Thus, when the 35-year-old reminds the 23-year-old that their oath is to “defend the constitution,” not the presidency, the circle becomes complete!

ImageIt is estimated that there are about 270 million firearms held by the civilian population which are accounted for. It is believed that there are an additional 270 million firearms unaccounted for. Nearly all are in the hands of roughly “30%” of the population. Can we guess who these Americans are?

How about law enforcement officials? Has anyone checked to see where the majority of them stand, ideologically?

Conservatives in America are seething! Most have reached a tipping point. The consensus of opinion reins consistent: “liberals have used everything from voter fraud to an overreaching judicial system to force their agenda upon America.”

gadEqually disquieting is the near universal belief that the system has failed. Any remaining confidence in leadership dissipates with each Thad Cochran candidacy.

“Fixing America” via a constitutional convention is openly discussed. Term limits, English only, a definition of marriage and a more simplied tax code are hot topics! They are joined with calls to repeal the 14th, 16th, and 17th amendments. On a growing number of tongues are Malcolm X’s historic ultimatum: “The ballot or the bullet.”

Should there be a second American Civil War, make no mistake! It will be ideological, not sectional. It will not be North versus South or East versus West! It will be “Liberals versus Conservatives.” The Liberals will lose! Decisively!

ImageFollowing the rout, massive immigration to Canada, Europe, South America, even Africa can be anticipated! Perhaps twenty million Americans will permanently exit the country. Their Conservative victors will proclaim, “don’t let the door hit you on the way out!” Left behind will be the “Sheeple,” who will, in effect, be granted release from their dubious destiny of drone duty.

Could this apocalyptic future unfold? Perhaps! Thomas Jefferson noted that, “the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” That time may be upon us!

Governor Perry is not advocating such an outcome! Without question, he would do everything in his power to thwart a calamity of this magnitude! History has proven, however, that leaders are often not self chosen!

Sadly our country looks to be approaching the point of no return. The left has pushed relentlessly, obviously unconcerned that they might be overplaying their hand! Arrogantly, they have concluded that their intellectual superiority will prevail over their slower talking, seemingly provincial counterpart. Tragically overlooked is the  determination held by the latter. Not to mention the passion!

Obama-constitution burningIt is hoped that Governor Perry can secure the border. While it’s shameful that the President has chosen to take a back seat, it isn’t wholly unexpected. Open borders will result in increase crimes against the civilian population. As former Idaho Congressman, Curtis Bowers implied in his documentary, “Agenda: Grinding America Down,” citizens will “relinguish freedoms while welcoming more government when threatened with violence and anarchy.” 

The good news is there appears to be room for a compromise on the border crisis. Better yet, there is an approaching midterm election.

Should the Republicans reclaim Senate majority, while holding House serve, a brief lull could follow. Not to suggest that things will be settled! The President has made it clear that if Congress won’t comply, “I have a pen and a phone.”

The political establishment would like to see Obama leave office without incident. The problem is, he may not be interested in going quietly. An ideologue to the last, Barack Obama looks determined to finish what he started. Even, if it carries cataclysmic consequences.mywork

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,893 other followers