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).

RACIST or REALIST in 2014 ? – Tea Party Nation

RACIST or REALIST in 2014 ? – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by BILL HALLIGAN

In light of the continuing violence & destruction in Ferguson, MO which erupted as a result of the police-involved shooting death of Michael Brown (6’4”, nearly 300 pound teenager –  just committed a robbery), it may be beneficial for some HONEST self-examination by us all to determine what our individual perceptions of this ongoing disturbance (and the re-occurrence of similar incidents of violence & destruction) really indicate about OBAMA’s American Society in 2014.

Metaphorically speaking… CLOSE YOUR EYES.  (Obviously you can’t read this post with eyes closed… hence, the Metaphor reference).

With your eyes closed, CLEAR your Mind of all thoughts and prepare to receive a VISUAL IMAGE when you hear the next Word:

RIOT

Now… did you envision throngs of Asian Foreign Exchange students overturning trash cans on college campuses, protesting tuition costs?

No ?  Neither did I.

Sadly, we as a society in America have become so conditioned by the constant VIOLENT DESTRUCTIVE BEHAVIOR that follows practically every police-involved shooting of a “Black Youth”, that we Americans not only EXPECT such violent behavior, we resignedly ACCEPT it.

Our self-destructive passive tolerance of INTOLERABLE actions by criminal thugs who capitalize on tragedy to foment insurrection, violence, and destruction (Burning, Looting, Assault, Firebombs, etc.) is truly indicative of just how LOW our American Society has been dragged down by the “Political Correctness Police”, Race Hucksters, the Liberal Progressives, and even by the President (who has dispatched Eric Holder & the DOJ to Ferguson, MO).

What business has the US DOJ in investigating a local shooting incident (other than to further inflame an already inflammatory issue)?  What message does it send when the President issues statements to the Liberal Mainstream Media before ANY investigation results of the incident have been made public ?  The issue of minority shooting deaths could better be investigated by sending Holder and the DOJ to places like Chicago or Detroit, rather than to Ferguson, MO.  But, the essential element of RACIAL TENSION simply doesn’t exist when both victim and shooter are of the same race.  So, Obama gets much more “RACIAL MILEAGE” out of stoking the flames of “Civil Unrest” when he can.  And any criticism of Obama for shameless pandering to minority “interests” at these times is immediately called RACISM.

America in 2014 is being dragged through much of the Racial Mud that the hard work of the Civil Rights movement of the early 60s sought to wash away from our collective soul.

And, sadly, current-day Race Relations are now suffering badly for it.

So now….. back to our visual image TEST…..

What vision popped into your own mind at the word: RIOT ?

Be HONEST.

Does that image make you a RACIST ???  Or merely a REALIST ?

If you can honestly answer REALIST, it’s a harsh new reality, isn’t it ?

Welcome to Obama’s Transformation of America in 2014.

Which begs another question in search of an HONEST response.

How’s all that “HOPE & CHANGE” feel now ?

There is a reason why liberals should never be in charge of law enforcement – Tea Party Nation

There is a reason why liberals should never be in charge of law enforcement – Tea Party Nation.

Posted by Judson Phillips

Liberal Democrats should be neither seen nor heard.  Nor should they be in a place of power or responsibility.

 This is especially true of the criminal justice system.

 Missouri Governor Jay Nixon, a liberal and living proof of life after brain death, called for, wait for it. You guessed it.  He wants Officer Darren Wilson prosecuted.  Let’s ignore the facts and play to the crowd.

 He wants a “vigorous prosecution.”

 From the Daily Caller:

 A vigorous prosecution must now be pursued,” Nixon said in a five minute video address posted to his website Tuesday.

“The democratically elected St. Louis county prosecutor and the attorney general of the United States each have a job to do,” said Nixon, a Democrat.

“Their obligation to achieve justice in the shooting death of Michael Brown must be carried out thoroughly, promptly, and correctly,” said Nixon of investigators.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder plans to visit Ferguson on Wednesday to meet with federal law enforcement officials and community leaders. Forty FBI investigators traveled to Ferguson over the weekend to interview witnesses.

Nixon has not directly justified his call for a strong prosecution. He has not indicated that he has any information on the shooting that has not been made public.

Wilson, a six-year police veteran with a clean disciplinary record, has not even been arrested or charged with a crime. A grand jury is set to convene on Wednesday to determine if he will be charged.

Wilson, who is on paid leave during the investigation, has reportedly claimed that he shot Brown after the man hit him in the face and struggled to gain control of his service weapon.

 Someone should tell this raging moron Nixon that the American criminal justice system does not prosecute people for the hell of it or to make political points. 

 I spent ten years of my career as a prosecuting attorney and I can call you, prosecutions are supposed to be based on evidence.

 The evidence in this case is clear and convincing.  Michael Brown was a little wannabe gang banger who robbed a store minutes before he was killed.  He hit the officer, went for his gun, ran, then turned and charged the officer.

 The officer has injuries consistent with his story, including a fracture to his eye socket.  Brown’s injuries are consistent with Officer Wilson’s statement.  Witnesses back Officer Wilson’s statement. 

 According to reports, Wilson has fled the state of Missouri in fear of his life.  He should be when idiots like Missouri Governor Jay Nixon are fueling the fire.

 Officer Wilson deserves a medal for what he did. Jay Nixon deserves a jail cell.

Obama, Spectacularly Wrong – Tea Party Nation

Obama, Spectacularly Wrong – Tea Party Nation.

By Alan CarubaTaliban-Fans

“A greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: assalaamu alaykum”

The speaker had what one might imagine, given his background, a better insight into Islam, Muslims, and the Middle East than others who had preceded him. He said he was seeking “a new beginning” that was “based on mutual interests and mutual respect” because his nation and those in the Middle East shared “common principles—principles of justice and progress, tolerance and dignity of all human beings.”

He cited “civilization’s debt to Islam” and noted that there were more than 1,200 mosques in his country. He declared that his nation would never be “at war with Islam” and he quoted from “the holy Koran” several times during his speech.

Five years later, noting the Islamic holiday of “Eid-al-Fitr” on July 28, he said “In the United States, Eid also reminds us of the many achievements and contributions of Muslim Americans to building the very fabric of our nation and strengthening the core of our democracy,” but the U.S. did not elect its first Muslim-American congressman until 2007. No Muslims took part in our founding.

At one point he cited his nation’s “strong bonds with Israel” calling them “unbreakable.” Noting the Holocaust in which six million Jews were killed, he said that “Threatening Israel with destruction—or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews is deeply wrong” but that he deemed the situation of Palestinians “intolerable” adding that “Palestinians must abandon violence.” Noting his opposition to Israeli settlements, he managed to be on both sides of the issues that divide Israel and its Palestinian opponents.

1a00014aTurning his attention to Iran, he noted that “For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country”, citing reasons why Iranians felt justified to feel that way. He also pointed out that Iran “has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence” against U.S troops and civilians.”

“It is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point” and that preventing “a nuclear arms race in the Middle East could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path” adding that “No single nation should pick and choose which nations have nuclear weapons.” Presumably he was referring to Israel which would be directly threatened, indeed destroyed, by an Iranian nuclear weapon.

While noting the “controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years” he asserted that “No system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any another” despite the fact that the U.S. invaded both Afghanistan and Iraq specifically to impose new governments that would not threaten the U.S. and its interests in the Middle East.

Citing religious freedom, he said that “Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance” but noted that “Among some Muslims, there is a disturbing tendency to measure one’s own faith by the rejection of another’s”…and fault lines must be closed among Muslims as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.”

On August 7, after ignoring Iraqi and Kurdish requests for military aid in the form of weapons to fight the Islamic State (IS) for months, in the wake of its attacks on Christians in Iraq. the potential genocide of Yezidi men, women and children driven from their homes, and an attack on Erbil where the U.S. has a consulate and Baghdad where we have an embassy, he authorized “targeted military action in Iraq.”

He concluded by noting that “It is easier to start wars than to end them”, but Barack Obama, speaking in Cairo on June 4, 2009, mere months after having taken office in his first term, said he believed “We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning…”

His new beginning was demonstrated by withdrawing all U.S. troops from Iraq. The result of that action, combined with doing nothing as the Islamic State of Iraq, Syria and the Levant emerged from the Syrian civil war and severed the northern portion of Iraq, adding it to the portion of Syria it controls, has left a Middle East that faces a regional war with a fanatical Islamist entity.

With the benefit of hindsight, we can see how lacking in understanding of Islam, history, and the Middle East Obama he was. His Cairo speech became part of what came to be known as his “apology tour” as he spoke in other nations, making it clear that he thought the U.S. was the cause of many problems in the world and that he was endowed with some special capacity to make things right again at home and abroad.

The irony of the speech is that it was spoken by a man for whom no leader in the Middle East has any respect, putting the Prime Minister of Israel and the Supreme Leader of Iran on the same page together. Add to them the leaders of virtually all other nations. Obama thought he could dictate to Israel and could charm the Iranians to make concessions. He was wrong.

Obama was wrong about the Muslims that have been slaughtering Christians in the Middle East and Africa and he has been largely silent about it. The leader of the Islamic State that has captured a large swath of northern Iraq, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, recently anointed himself “Caliph Ibrahim” and told his fellow Muslims that “This is the duty on Muslims that has been lost for centuries.”

Obama was wrong that no nation can impose a system of government on another when the history of Islam has been the determination to impose Sharia law wherever it gained power and the history of Communism was the imposition of that system in Eastern Europe and elsewhere like Cuba until the collapse of the Soviet Union freed its subjugated nations, though Cuba has continued to be subject to the Castro dictatorship.

These days, Iran is still playing Obama for a fool while pursuing its quest to build its own nuclear weapons. The Russian Federation has seized the Crimea from Ukraine. Latin American nations are dumping their children into an America that has no real border anymore.

Since he gave that speech in 2009, the Middle East has seen the rise of the Islamic State stretching from Syria to Iraq. Syria remains embroiled in a civil war. The Palestinians are again attacking Israel. Iran is still intent on building its own nuclear weapons. Tunisia, Egypt and Libya have removed former dictators.

If you read Barack Obama’s Cairo speech from start to finish, you cannot come away with any other impression than that a self-deluded fool gave it, a man determined to avoid confronting the enemies of mankind unless an Islamic-inspired genocide requires it.

© Alan Caruba, 2014istandwith israel

Yes, Sue Our Lawless President! – Tea Party Nation

Yes, Sue Our Lawless President! – Tea Party Nation.

By Alan Caruba

Not finished 

“Today, however, President Obama has taken the concept of discretion and so distorted it, and has taken the obligation of faithful enforcement and so rejected it, that his job as chief law enforcer has become one of incompetent madness or chief lawbreaker. Time after time, in areas as disparate as civil liberties, immigration, foreign affairs and health care, the president has demonstrated a propensity for rejecting his oath and doing damage to our fabric of liberty that cannot easily be undone by a successor.”

 That is Judge Andrew P. Napolitano, a Fox News commentator, writing in the July 31 edition of The Washington Times.

 Americans and many around the world are increasingly fearful of a President who has demonstrated no regard for the checks and balances of our incredible Constitution, the oldest in the world that still functions to protect individual rights and which sets forth the divisions between our legislative, judicial and executive departments of government.

 Congress, however, will not impeach President Obama, but the House will sue him on the basis of just one of the many examples of his dictatorial use of executive orders to ignore the power of the legislative branch to pass laws he took an oath to enforce. He has unilaterally and illegally altered the Affordable Care Act 27 times, his signature legislature that former Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, told us Congress had to pass “so we can find out what is in it.” No Republican member of Congress voted for this two-thousand-page-plus law, passed late in the evening of Christmas Eve, 2009.

 The decision to impeach a President is essentially a political one and Republicans understand that the impeachment of President Obama would be interpreted by nearly half of the voters as an attack on a President they support. There have only been two impeachment actions in U.S. history and both have failed.

 The nation is significantly divided regarding the President and Congress has been in gridlock as Democrats the Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, has refused to let more than 300 House bills sent to the Senate be debated and voted upon.

 Suing the President has ample history. It is hardly “a stunt” as Democrats have labeled it. New York Democrat Louise Slaughter called it “preposterous”, but failed to mention that eight years earlier, in 2006, she was a plaintiff in a lawsuit filed by congressional Democrats against George W. Bush!

 In a 1939 case, Coleman v Miller, the Supreme Court granted standing to members of the legislature to sue. Two years ago, four Democratic members of the House filed a suit against Vice President Biden in his capacity as head of the Senate, challenging as unconstitutional the filibuster. Other Democratic legislators had filed lawsuits claiming standing in 2001, in 2002, in

2006, and in 2007. The judiciary concluded their cases had little merit.

 In a July 30 Wall Street Journal commentary, David B. Rivken who served in the Reagan and Bush administration’s Justice Department and the White House Counsel’s Office, and Elizabeth Price Foley, a constitutional law professor at Florida International University, wrote:

 “These barriers between the branches are not formalities—they were designed to prevent the accumulation of excessive power in one branch. As the Supreme Court explained in New York v. United States (1992), the ‘Constitution protects us from our own best intentions. It divides power among sovereigns and among branches of government precisely so that we may resist the temptation to concentrate power in one location as an expedient solution to the crisis of the day.”

 “Congress has the exclusive authority to make law because lawmaking requires pluralism, debate and compromise, the essence of representative government…Litigation in federal court is an indispensable way to protect all branches of government against encroachment on their authority,”

 “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it,” said President Obama. In April, A poll by PolitiFact of the Tampa Bay Times, revealed that 63%–two thirds—of respondents agreed that President Obama lies at least some of the time on important issues and an additional 20% said he lies every now and then. Only 15% believed the President is completely truthful. Democrats were 39% of the 1,021 registered voters polled. Republicans were 38% and independents were 20%,

 The President has lied so routinely that this character flaw is likely to play a role in the forthcoming midterm elections on November 4. When you add in his lawlessness and his leadership failures that have created a far more dangerous and divided world, Americans are likely to vote for change in Congress.

 That’s how democracy works and how our Constitutional system works. Suing the President is just one part of it.

 © Alan Caruba, 2014

Image

 

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

Bare Bones of a Plan for Revolution – Tea Party Nation

Bare Bones of a Plan for Revolution – Tea Party Nation.

Timothy Birdnow

On June 28 in 2009 José Manuel Zelaya Rosales was prevented from staging a coup d’etat in Honduras by the Honduran military. Zelaya, a Hugo Chavez wannabee, dreamed of extending his term of office beyond the constitutionally allowable two terms, and he was proceeding with a “referendum” to grant him a third term. The constitution of Honduras did not allow for this, and in fact any president so proposing another
term immediately forfeited his office. The Honduran supreme court, at the behest of the national congress,  asked the military to forcibly remove the renegade, and the military (quite properly) acted to remove a would-be dictator. American liberals called it a coup and demanded Zelaya’s reinstatement.

As did the Obama Administration.

According to a press report in The Indian:

http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/politics/honduran-presidents-ou…

“Barack Obama Washington, June 30 (EFE) US President Barack Obama has said the expulsion of the Honduran president by the country’s armed forces was illegal and reminiscent of Central America’s “dark past”. Speaking to reporters alongside visiting Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, Obama repeated his condemnation of Sunday’s events in Honduras, where the army ousted President Mel Zelaya and forced him into exile in Costa Rica.

“It would be a terrible precedent if we start moving backwards into the era in which we are seeing military coups as a means of political transition rather than democratic elections,” Obama said in the Oval Office Monday.

The situation in Honduras has “evolved into a coup”, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said earlier Monday, , adding that the US does not plan to suspend aid to the Central American nation.

“Our immediate priority is to restore full democratic and constitutional order in that country,” Clinton Said at a press conference.”

End excerpt.

The Administration tried very hard to force Honduras to restore Zelaya, but eventually had to buckle to a fait-accompli and accept a non communist government.

Barack Obama undoubtedly hated losing a fellow traveler, but was there perhaps not more to the matter than meets the eye? Another thing to keep in mind about President Obama is that he is the first President
to admit to being not just a drug user but a fairly heavy one.

http://www.addictionsearch.com/treatment_articles/article/obama-and…

Columbia and Venezuela have been using Central America for years as a staging ground for importation of drugs into the United States. Interestingly enough, Manuel Zaleya was a champion of ending the “drug war” and opening the narcotics flood gates.

According to a July 2, 2009 post in Investor’s Business Daily:

http://www.blnz.com/news/2009/07/02/Honduras_Drugs_3998.html

“The Hemisphere: A Honduran official has warned that deposed President Mel Zelaya was in league with Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez to ship drugs to the U.S. If true, can this really be the man the U.S. wants back in power?

Foreign Minister Enrique Ortez dropped a bombshell last week when he said Zelaya, the president who was thrown out by a constitutional process June 28 after defying the law, had a little side business with the Caracas caudillo allowing cocaine to roll into Honduras from Venezuela before heading to the U.S.

“Every night, three or four Venezuelan-registered planes land without the permission of appropriate authorities and bring thousands of pounds … and packages of money that are the fruit of drug trafficking,” Ortez told CNN En Espanol. “We have proof of all of this. Neighboring governments have it.
The DEA has it.”

If Ortiz is right, the U.S. effort to restore Zelaya to power would be suicidal for U.S. efforts to destroy drug organizations south of our border. It would undercut Mexico’s and Colombia’s savage drug wars and give drug lords such as the Sinaloa cartel’s Shorty Guzman, who has bases in Honduras, reason to strengthen operations.

It also means the U.S. must start asking questions about Chavez’s role in the drug trade now that U.S.-Venezuelan diplomatic ties are being restored. Right now, it’s such a hot potato that nobody in either the State Department or the Drug Enforcement Administration wants to comment on it.”

End excerpt.

Zelaya had called for drug legalization.
http://www.cato.org/blog/president-honduras-calls-drug-legalization

One must wonder if there is some link to the Obama Administration’s characterization of the removal of Zelaya as a coup and the fact that comrade Manuel wanted to end the drug war.

A better question is, is there a benefit to the leftist of the Obama Administration from the violence that has since erupted in the drug trade in Central America?

Bear in mind, it is this violence which is driving the explosive invasion of illegal aliens along the southern border of the United States.

The Administration recently introduced a softer, gentler anti-drug program

http://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/drugpolicyreform

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,850 other followers