Congress Should Impeach EPA Head Gina McCarthy – And Then a Whole Bunch of Other Bureaucrats – Tea Party Nation

The national Republican Party is currently in the midst of a slow-motion train wreck.  Their presidential primary has amply demonstrated their Base’s profound disaffection.  You can call it anger, you can call it delusion – you can call it a tuna fish sandwich.  But when 70+% of your voters don’t like anyone having anything to do with anything you’ve been doing – you absolutely call it a problem.


And when it’s this big, it’s a problem for the Party – not their voters.  There’s an old banking joke: If someone owes the bank $10,000 – that someone has a problem.  But if someone owes the bank $10 million – the bank has a problem.  70+% is the bank having a problem.  


The Party remains somewhere in Egypt – along the banks of Denial.  It likes to dismiss these people with incredibly flattering terms like “Crazies.”  And elected officials these people actually like with terms of endearment like “Jackass.”  Because you always go far when insulting the majority of your voters. 


Speaker John Boehner is turning in his gavel and leaving Congress – apparently because everyone thinks he’s done a phenomenal job.  And on his way out the door he is denouncing his voters for having “unrealistic expectations.”  He would know – they have them in large part because his Party and their campaign minions set them every election cycle when they’re lying to get votes. 


They last October ran thousands of ads promising to defund ObamaCare and President Barack Obama’s unConstitutional fiat amnesty.  People then ridiculously expected them to defund ObamaCare and Obama’s amnesty.  Talk about “unrealistic expectations.”  Immediately after the election, the GOP funded both.  And are now saying to their voters what Otter said to Flounder in Animal House: “You f***ed up – you trusted us.”


All of this is part of a larger problem.  The GOP appears to be at best utterly indifferent to – at worst complacently complicit with – this President’s all-encompassing, omni-directional unConstitutional overreaches.  He and his many, many political bureaucrats are every second of every day dramatically exceeding their legal bounds to exponentially grow government.  And the GOP has done just about nothing to stop any of it. 


We the People gave the GOP the Congress – and thus the power of the purse.  Yet every time a potential political scrap looms anywhere way out on the distant horizon – the GOP Leadership goes into a preemptive cringe.  And screeches from their crouch that they pinky-swear-promise they absolutely will not use their power of the purse.  One would think that if you from a deep sleep shook awake Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, he would reflexively yell “No shutdown!”


What HAS the GOP done?  Well, they sued ObamaCare.  Which is at best extra-Constitutional – I don’t recall any of our Founders mentioning calling the trial bar as a remedy to tyranny.  But there is a non-shutdown, Constitutional remedy at their disposal – they can impeach bureaucrats. 


A government shutdown (which is really only ever like a 13%-of-the-government shutdown) is inarguably high profile – and thus the merest mention thereof causes Republicans to run for a corner in which to collectively cower.  A Presidential impeachment is also very visible. 


But the American people’s initial response to impeaching a bureaucrat would most likely be “What?  Who?”  The repeal of these faceless cogs in Obama’s Machine would allow the GOP to not just pretend to oppose this President’s agenda – but ACTUALLY oppose this President’s agenda.  In a way that has little prospective political cost – and thus shouldn’t cause their fragile constitutions any discomfort.  And it affords them opportunities to message on the concepts and advantages of legal and less government. 


Arguably no bureaucrat deserves impeachment more than Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) head Gina McCarthy.  Arizona Republican Congressman Paul Gosar rightly thinks it’s time

For far too long, Congress has allowed unelected bureaucrats and executive branch officials to slowly bend and break the laws of this country in order to further their own partisan political agendas. We have reached a breaking point where the American people have no faith in the fundamental checks and balances put in place by our founders to protect  our liberties and freedoms.


On numerous occasions, EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy broke the law by lying to Congress in order to force misguided and overreaching regulations, which have no scientific basis, down our throats. Perjury before Congress is perjury to the American people and an affront to the core principles of our Republic and the rule of law…


Lying to Congress is not an unserious thing.  This Administration’s first Attorney General, Eric Holder, was found in Contempt of Congress for withholding information therefrom.  A problem with a Contempt of Congress charge for the Attorney General is – the Attorney General is the one who is supposed to mete out punishment.  When the Executive Branch is supposed to discipline itself,….


Impeachment bypasses this self-dealing.  Congress impeaches – the bureaucrat goes.  Miss McCarthy repeatedly lied about policies that are incredibly damaging to just about every sector of the private economy.  She repeatedly lied so as to protect and advance their anti-capitalism agenda – at the expense of the rule of law and Congressional oversight.  She needs to go.


The GOP should remove her – and use the process as an opportunity to detail the very obvious case for why. And when they see the sky doesn’t come crashing down upon them – they should feel liberated to lather, rinse and repeat with all manner of McCarthy’s out-of-control colleagues.


And as an added bonus – their Base will love it.  It is the very good policy – that is also very good politics.  If the GOP wants to save themselves from a fate worse than Trump – they should get busy doing it. 

Is Arctic Sea Ice Set to Disappear? – The Last Resistance

IcyAlGoreClimate scientists are saying that Arctic Sea ice is on the verge of disappearing in the summers. Irreversibly. But other data indicate otherwise.


You hear it all around from global warming alarmists: Arctic Sea ice is melting at an “irreversible” rate due to global warming, and it won’t be able to recover. But it seems the reports of Arctic Sea ice disappearance have been greatly exaggerated:

In fact, Arctic sea ice extent as a whole seems to be stabilizing despite this year’s record low maximum in February. NSIDC data shows Arctic sea ice extent is currently within the normal range based on the 1981 to 2010 average extent.

“Global sea ice is at a record high, another key indicator that something is working in the opposite direction of what was predicted,” Dr. Benny Peiser, director of the Global Warming Policy Forum, told the U.K. Express in January.

“Most people think the poles are melting… they’re not,” he said. “This is a huge inconvenience that reality is now catching up with climate alarmists, who were predicting that the poles would be melting fairly soon.”

The Arctic Sea ice trends are actually quite variable. About as variable as glacier melt, actually. Which means that the only way to create a compelling trend is to cherry-pick data. Which seems to be just about exactly what global warming alarmists have been doing.


This continues a much more predictable trend among global warming scientists. You can’t entirely blame them. The fact is that creating predictions for complex and highly variable natural phenomena is a bit of a crap shoot. Things seem to be going a certain direction until they’re not. And even when you are able to accurately graph certain trends, the causation for those trends is not necessarily any easier to ascertain. Even if there has been a warming or a melting trend, that doesn’t necessarily mean that human involvement or greenhouse gases are to blame.

And the vanishing point on these trends continues to fluctuate. Some climate scientists are saying that the Arctic Sea will be free of ice during summers as soon as 2040. They thought it might be earlier than that just a few years ago. But the change of things keeps changing, and coming up with accurate long-term predictions continues to be aiming at a moving target. The only thing that hasn’t changed is the agenda. And that’s what really concerns me.

Here Comes the Small Arms Treaty Again – Freedom Outpost

Here Comes the Small Arms Treaty Again – Freedom Outpost.

Recently, we witnessed the circus that is the United States Senate completely surrender its constitutional powers to the executive branch. Last November, we went to the polls and handed the Republican establishment the largest majority it has had in decades, only to watch them capitulate to the Obama regime on every single issue. From failing to defund Obamacare, reign in spending, and, most recently, stop the Iran deal, the Republicans have shown themselves to be the traitorous, communist infiltrators they are. What people need to see is that there is a conditioning process taking place, and the events revolving around the Iran nuclear deal are the most recent example. Here, little by little, Mitch McConnell, along with Bob Corker, virtually reworked the treaty provisions in the Constitution. The U.S. Senate is the only congressional body that has treaty-making powers, and they completely reworked the entire process, giving the president nearly all of the advantage. Treaties, under the U.S. constitution, need a two thirds vote from senators for ratification. Under the Corker bill, in order to stop the Iran deal, there would need to be a two thirds vote to stop it from being implemented by the White House. Why would the U.S. Senate surrender such an important aspect of their constitutional authority? Is there another agenda at work? Sadly, the answer to that question is yes. Many argue that the Iran deal is not a treaty but an agreement. The Senate had the authority to make it a treaty. Why didn’t they? It all revolves around a conditioning process designed to get the masses to accept the next big agenda item–The U.N. Small Arms Treaty. Many U.S. Senators have openly stated that they refuse to ratify this traitorous treaty; however, the new process established by the Corker bill may very well have changed the way treaties are passed from here on out.

There has been a lot of controversy surrounding the Small Arms Treaty. Many insist that it is international in scope and in no way would affect your right as an American to keep and bear arms. This a foolish assumption motivated by a fear of taking the time to do some research. The text of the treaty is quite clear in its intentions to disarm civilian populations, or people deemed to be “unauthorized recipients” of firearms and ammunition. The language of the treaty can be very misleading, as there are paragraphs that seem to support an individual’s right to own firearms based on the nation state’s own laws and constitutional systems. Take this paragraph from the Annex, concerning the pretext of the treaty, for example:

Mindful of the legitimate trade and lawful ownership, and use of certain conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities, where such trade, ownership and use are permitted or protected by law,

Many people would read that and assume that, because our constitution protects our rights to keep and bear arms, this treaty would not affect us in anyway. The only problem with this assumption is that law makers from many states have changed their gun laws. Semi-automatic rifles and high-capacity magazines are no longer legal to own, in several parts of the country. This changes the term “permitted or protected by law” drastically. States like New York, Oregon and Connecticut have already passed new gun registration laws that have yielded a low success rate of compliance. Situations like this are where the next part of the treaty would be helpful.

Article 16 International Assistance

1. In implementing this Treaty, each State Party may seek assistance including legal or legislative assistance, institutional capacity-building, and technical, material or financial assistance. Such assistance may include stockpile management, disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programs, model legislation, and effective practices for implementation. Each State Party in a position to do so shall provide such assistance, upon request.

2. Each State Party may request, offer or receive assistance through, inter alia, the United Nations, international, regional, sub regional or national organizations, non-governmental organizations, or on a bilateral basis.

3. A voluntary trust fund shall be established by States Parties to assist requesting States Parties requiring international assistance to implement this Treaty. Each State Party is encouraged to contribute resources to the fund.

President Obama would very much like to get Australian-type gun control laws passed, in which case, there would be very little that is “protected by law” that this treaty could not affect. In the event that people fail to comply with such laws, as they have in New York and other states, the U.N. would have legal authority to come in and assist local governments in disarming efforts. In fact, it is highly likely that the recent racial strife we have witnessed was intentionally fomented in order to push us into conflict; in which case, U.N. peace keepers would also have the authority to disarm conflicting parties under this treaty. The U.N. Program of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects states the following:

21. To develop and implement, where possible, effective disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programs, including the effective collection, control, storage and destruction of small arms and light weapons, particularly in post-conflict situations, unless another form of disposition or use has been duly authorized and such weapons have been marked and the alternate form of disposition or use has been recorded, and to include, where applicable, specific provisions for these programs in peace agreements.

Many people believe that ratification of this treaty would be an act of treason against the United States constitution that our politicians have sworn to uphold and defend, and, truthfully, it would be. Unfortunately, plans to disarm the United States have been in place for nearly six decades. State Department Publication 7277 describes the objectives of the United States as seeking a world free from war, where all nation states have been disarmed and merged into a system of international control in line with standards set by the United Nations.


The over-all goal of the United States is a free, secure, and peaceful world of independent states adhering to common standards of justice and international conduct and subjecting the use of force to the rule of law; a world which has achieved general and complete disarmament under effective international control; and a world in which adjustment to change takes place in accordance with the principles of the United Nations.

In order to make possible the achievement of that goal, the program sets forth the following specific objectives toward which nations should direct their efforts:

  • The disbanding of all national armed forces and the prohibition of their reestablishment in any form whatsoever other than those required to preserve internal order and for contributions to a United Nations Peace Force;
  • The elimination from national arsenals of all armaments, including all weapons of mass destruction and the means for their delivery, other than those required for a United Nations Peace Force and for maintaining internal order;
  • The institution of effective means for the enforcement of international agreements, for the settlement of disputes, and for the maintenance of peace in accordance with the principles of the United Nations;
  • The establishment and effective operation of an International Disarmament Organization within the framework of the United Nations to insure compliance at all times with all disarmament obligations.

The U.N. Small Arms Treaty is the culmination of this plan. It is hard to argue that our military is not what it once was. Not only have our forces been reduced to almost nothing, but they have also been psychologically disarmed, as they have become a breeding ground of political correctness and social experiments. Our police forces are also being psychologically disarmed, as they are afraid to do their job, due to the intentional fomenting of racial strife. The disarming of military forces is the first stage of this plan. Stage two would include the establishment of a permanent peacekeeping force within the framework of the United Nations; and stage three would be the destruction of all remaining arms, in order to maintain international order. If you believe, at this point, that our second amendment will mean anything, you are foolish. If they are successful in disarming our military, there is no chance they will allow the civilian population to be armed.

This is high treason on a grand scale. The Obama administration has been involved in numerous scandals which involved gun running operations: Fast and Furious, which was used as a pretext to discredit the second amendment; and Benghazi, which was a gun smuggling operation arming Islamic terrorists for the purpose of taking out Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad. President Obama has no right to move forward with this treaty, and doing so is, in fact, an act of treason against the American people. Only a mass movement of noncompliance can stop this.


The Plot to Impose a National Sales Tax or Value Added Tax – Freedom Outpost

The Plot to Impose a National Sales Tax or Value Added Tax – Freedom Outpost.

Posted by

A devilish plot is afoot to impose new national taxes on the American People. It is a masterful piece of trickery because the authorization for the new national taxes is buried within Compact for America’s version of a balanced budget amendment to the US Constitution.

Furthermore, the balanced budget amendment does nothing to control federal spending; and transforms our Constitution from one of limited and defined powers to one of general and unlimited powers. 1

Yet this monstrosity is pending in Michigan as SB 306 2 and in North Carolina as HB 366.
3 Legislators in four States, Alaska, Georgia, Mississippi and North Dakota, have already passed it.

Let’s look at Sections 1-6 of Compact for America’s balanced budget amendment:

It does Nothing to Control Federal Spending

Section 1 allows Congress to spend as much as they take from us in taxes and add to the national debt.
That’s a good idea?

Sections 2 and 3 permit Congress to raise the debt whenever 26 States agree.  States are addicted to federal funds. Will 25 States agree not to take more federal funds?

Section 4 is a joke:  Who believes Congress will impeach a President for refusing to “impound” an appropriation made by Congress? Congress won’t even impeach a President for Treason.

How Authorization for the New Taxes is Hidden

Section 5 says:

“No bill that provides for a new or increased general revenue tax shall become law unless approved by a two-thirds roll call vote of the whole number of each House of Congress….” [italics mine]

What is a “general revenue tax“? Section 6 defines it:

“…’general revenue tax’ means any income tax, sales tax, or value-added tax levied by the government of the United States…” [italics mine]

Now go back to Section 5 and substitute the definition of “general revenue tax” for that term:

“No bill that provides for a new or increased income tax, sales tax, or value-added tax levied by the government of the United States shall become law unless approved by a two-thirds roll call vote of the whole number of each House of Congress….”

There it is: All that’s needed is approval of two-thirds of the members of each House and a new national sales tax and/or value added tax is imposed on us. And they can increase it, along with increasing the income tax, whenever they get two-thirds of the members to vote for it.

Section 5 also permits Congress to make laws to impose a new “end user sales tax” 4 which would replace the income tax – this “end user sales tax” is passed by a simple majority of both houses.

So! Compact for America’s balanced budget amendment provides two options to Congress:

  • Two-thirds of the members of both Houses can impose a new sales tax and/or value-added tax in addition to the income tax; or
  • A simple majority of both Houses can impose “a new end user sales tax” which replaces the income tax.

Which option will Congress choose?

Our Constitution Doesn’t Now Authorize a National Sales Tax or Value-added Tax

Article I, §8, clause 1 says:

“The Congress shall have Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises…”

Principles of Compact for America say this clause already authorizes a national sales tax or value added tax. Board Vice-President Chip DeMoss said on Feb. 12, 2014:

“a national sales tax would be an “impost” (defined as a tax or similar compulsory payment) that is authorized under Article I, Section 8, Clause 1…” [see comment 19].

We may not properly use DeMoss’ redefinition of “impost”!

We must use the definition of “impost” our Framers used: The Federalist Papers say an “impost” is a tax or duty on imports. Type imposts in the search box [at the link] and the Papers discussing imposts will come up. See for yourself that an “impost” is a tax or duty on imports.

Webster’s 1828 Dictionary defines “impost” as:

“…Any tax or tribute imposed by authority; particularly, a duty or tax laid by government on goods imported, and paid or secured by the importer at the time of importation. Imposts are also called customs.”

Do you see?

National sales taxes and value-added taxes are also not “excise” taxes. Excise taxes are a tax on a unit of goods – such as the infamous whiskey excise tax of 1791 which led to the Whiskey Rebellion. 5 It imposed a flat tax per gallon. The tax was payable for domestic whiskey at the distillery (§17 of the Act) and the casks were numbered and marked to show the tax had been paid (§19 of the Act).

“Taxes” at Art. I, §8, clause 1 refers to the apportioned direct tax provided for at Art. I, §2, clause 3 of our Constitution.

Our Framers were specific about the kinds of taxes Congress is permitted to impose. Congress does not have the power to impose any kind of tax it wants. Our Framers limited Congress’ taxing power to:

  • the apportioned direct taxes at Art. I, §2, clause 3;
  • the duties or imposts on imports at Art. I, §8, clause 1; and
  • the excises at Art. I, §8, clause 1.

A sales tax is none of the above. A sales tax is a percentage of the retail price of goods. A value-added tax is a “turbo-charged national sales tax on goods and services that is applied at each stage of production, not merely on retail transactions” and raises a “gusher of revenue for spendthrift governments worldwide”.

We have never had a national sales tax or value added tax in this Country. Why? Because they are not authorized by the Constitution.

We were manipulated into supporting the 16th Amendment. We were told the income tax would “soak the rich” – and the envious drooled at the prospect.

And so again today, statists are seeking to trick us into supporting a national sales tax or a value added tax: first, by concealing it within the verbiage of the bill; 6 and then, once the trickery was exposed, by claiming the Constitution already authorizes these new types of taxes.

There is a Better Way: Downsize the Federal Government!

Our Constitution limits federal spending to the enumerated powers. The list of objects on which Congress may lawfully spend money is a short list.
See the list HERE.

Most of what the federal government does today is unconstitutional as outside the scope of the powers delegated by the Constitution. Let’s cut federal spending by downsizing the federal government to its enumerated powers and constitutional limits.


1 Congress’ spending is limited by the enumerated powers: If an object is on the list of enumerated powers (e.g., the patent & copyright office authorized by Art. I, §8, cl. 8), Congress may lawfully spend money on it. That’s how our Constitution already controls federal spending.

All versions of a balanced budget amendment change the constitutional standard for spending FROM whether an object is on the list of enumerated powers TO a limit on total spending where Congress may spend money on whatever they or the President put in the budget. This is what transforms our Constitution FROM one of enumerated powers only TO one of general and unlimited powers. And that is the true purpose of a balanced budget amendment. It has nothing to do with limiting federal spending – the pretended spending limits are fictitious since they may be waived whenever the feds [and 26 of the States] want to waive them.

2 Leon Drolet’s article of July 10, 2015, and Sam Easter’s article of July 8, 2015, about SB 306 pending in Michigan don’t mention the new national taxes.

3 Matthew Burns’ article about the hearing on HB 366 before N. Carolina’s House Judiciary Committee (which passed HB 366) doesn’t mention the new national taxes. Burns quotes the Bill’s sponsor, Rep. Chris Millis, as saying the problem is “Washington is unwilling or unable to limit itself.” So the solution is to massively increase Congress’ taxing powers?

4 “End user sales tax” is not defined in the balanced budget amendment.

5 Apparently, the practice of tarring & feathering “revenuers” began with the Whiskey Excise Tax.

6 The trickery was exposed over a year ago HERE. Since then, they have claimed the Constitution already authorizes the new taxes. Are we too gullible to be free? PH

Limiting the Federal Government by Restoring Freedom and Power to the States – Eagle Rising

Limiting the Federal Government by Restoring Freedom and Power to the States – Eagle Rising.

By / 17 August 2015

“Hi!  I’m from the government, and I’m here to help!”  —Ronald Reagan, citing what he thought were the Ten Most Dangerous Words in the English Language


A Big-Government Scandal

It looks like an Environment Protection Agency bureaucrat, to make the EPA more important in the minds of Americans, recently created an ecological catastrophe in New Mexico.  A New Mexico resident with 47 years of relevant experience warned the EPA what would happen if they did not change what they were doing, but the decision was made to do it anyway.  So the EPA’s shenanigans were on purpose!

Had there been no EPA, and local authorities had had oversight, this disaster would never have occurred.  It is far-away central planners—disconnected from local communities—who so often choose to be negligent, since they are free from any local accountability.  (Read about the latest EPA scandal here.)


Creating a Monster

The US government was created by the sovereign states, not the other way around.  Therefore, the federal government is there to do the bidding of the states, and of the people, rather than dictating to them.  There were three co-equal branches upon the nation’s founding, but there are, today, so many executive-branch departments—all of them massive in size and in the scope of their powers—that an imperial executive has been allowed to evolve.  America has, indeed, created a Leviathan.


The Road to Hell . . .


purpose of constitutionThe original intent of creating an executive department is to help our chief executive—the president—to enforce the laws passed by Congress.  But each department has ended up hiring its own army of bureaucrats to “help.”  And the result has been that each one has created rules that carry the force of law.  And none of these rules has ever been given the consent of the governed.  Many rules have even been scandalously written by lobbyists from the very organizations the departments were created to regulate.  Hundreds of thousands of rules—known collectively as “administrative law”—have been instituted, regardless of the fact that there is no provision in the Constitution that lends legitimacy to most of these.  So, good intentions are never enough; the proverbial road to hell is paved with good intentions.  

Cutting the Executive Down to Size

The best alternative to reform the problem of tempting a potentially scofflaw executive—who might make end-runs around the Congress simply by having department heads make new rules—is to rid the government of its tyrannical departments.  Rather than having so many executive departments, the enforcement mechanism for these laws should be the sovereign states themselves.  If a state is not complying with a legitimate federal law—one falling within the scope of the Enumerated Powers Clause (see here) the Department of Justice could always sue the state to force compliance.


Washington’s Original Concept of a Cabinet of Advisors

When George Washington took office, he created four governmental departments: the Department of Justice, the Department of State, the Department of the Treasury, and the Department of War (now the Department of Defense).  Any other departments should be eliminated.  Some of them have functions that could be taken over by the four departments that remain.  Others should have their functions subsumed by the states.  The states should run all departments and programs not authorized in the Enumerated Powers Clause.


Nullification of Un-Constitutional Laws


Jefferson and nullificationThe other thing that the sovereign states should do is to refuse to follow any federal law or mandate not within the federal government’s constitutional power to create.  (And, it goes without saying, unconstitutional executive orders, executive memos, and other such executive creations should be treated the same way.)  A federal law creating a welfare program should be nullified by the states, since such programs find no support in the Constitution.  (The General Welfare Clause is a reference to public goods that are created for the protection or use of all the people equally, such as the US military or a public road.)  Of course, a state could create welfare programs on its own, if it chose to do so.  

Nullification of Un-Constitutional Court Rulings

The Supreme Court has made rulings that are unconstitutional.  It is not the Court’s job to rewrite the Constitution.  The power of judicial review does not render the Supreme Court capable of writing law, on its own, independent of the means that are constitutionally mandated for amending the Constitution or passing laws in the Congress.  The Court’s only legitimate role is to rule on the laws as written.

States should ignore—and, therefore, nullify—decisions that are clearly not within the bounds of the Constitution.  If states were to do this, the jurists on the Court would take great pains, in their opinions, to reference what parts of the Constitution authorize them to rule the way they do.  This would mean the Court never could have ruled the way it did in Kelo v. City of New London.  (Read about Kelo here.)


Falling in Love with the Constitution Again

In addition to implementing a policy reducing the executive branch and nullifying unconstitutional decisions by the Supreme Court—or any federal court, for that matter—the states should make sure that they themselves are not infringing the rights of Americans under the Constitution.  Of course, the federal check on this kind of behavior would be a suit brought against a state by the Department of Justice.

Americans have lived under the Incorporation Doctrine for so long that it has become, without much ado, standard practice for each state to apply the federal Constitution locally.  (Before the Incorporation Doctrine, the federal Constitution used to be applied only to areas of federal jurisdiction.)  There needs to be a level playing field, to ensure that everyone is applying the rules fairly.  And for this to happen, the people and their elected officials—if they have not done so already—need to take care to fall in love with the Constitution once again.

Health Tip: The Next Time Government Gives You Dietary Advice, Do the Opposite

Health Tip: The Next Time Government Gives You Dietary Advice, Do the Opposite.

By David Harsanyi
Friday, August 14 2015
We already know that government recommendations regarding health are often driven by a bunch of Chicken Littles.

In “Sleeper,” Woody Allen plays Miles Monroe, a cryogenically frozen owner of a Greenwich Village health food store who, when defrosted in the year 2173, finds himself in an authoritarian state filled with giant vegetables, android butlers and Diane Keaton. When an unnerved Miles is first unfrozen, Space Age doctors try to calm him down:

Doctor: “He’s ranting. We’d better tranquilize him.”

Miles: “I knew it was too good to be true. I parked right near the hospital.”

Doctor: “Now here, you smoke this, and be sure you get the smoke deep down into your lungs.”

Miles: “I don’t smoke.”

Doctor: “It’s tobacco. It’s one of the healthiest things for your body. Now go ahead. You need all the strength you can get.”

Pointing out the always-changing guidelines of salubrious living is a long-running joke in America. It’s worth remembering, though, that any self-corrections we make — and we make them all the time in real life using common sense — are far more difficult when government puts its imprimatur on pseudoscience, which it also does all the time.

In the Dietary Guidelines for Americans — the federal government’s advice manual for citizens — we are warned that “not eating breakfast has been associated with excess body weight.” But when researchers from Columbia University decided to test this notion, they found nothing of the sort: “In overweight individuals, skipping breakfast daily for 4 weeks leads to a reduction in body weight,” the study’s authors note. Other researchers did the same and came to similar conclusions. How many parents and overweight Americans took this advice as gospel when they could have been losing weight by skipping buttermilk pancake breakfasts?

We already know that government recommendations regarding health are often driven by a bunch of Chicken Littles. The leading organ of American scaremongering, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has gotten so much wrong over the years. There was the outrageous contention that 400,000 Americans were dropping dead from obesity every year. (They weren’t.) And then there were all the over-the-top warnings about the alleged risks of secondhand smoke. (They don’t really exist.)

Earlier this year, the bureaucrats behind the government’s dietary guidelines finally admitted there was “no appreciable relationship” between dietary cholesterol and blood cholesterol. After years of warning Americans that high-cholesterol foods would kill them — eggs, shrimp and so on — the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee will no longer list cholesterol among its “nutrients of concern” for overconsumption. Now some scientists argue that the state’s obsession with scaring citizens about fat may actually have made our health worse.

The popularity of partially hydrogenated vegetable oils — which government absurdly banned earlier this year — was driven in large part by government scaremongering about the evils of cooking with lard. But when contemporary researchers looked at the 1970s-era data underlying the dietary fat guidelines, they came to the conclusion that the data did not support the idea that eating less fat would translate to fewer cases of heart disease or that it would save lives. And studies show it hasn’t.

Nina Teicholz, author of “The Big Fat Surprise,” wrote this in The New York Times earlier this year:

“How did experts get it so wrong? Certainly, the food industry has muddied the waters through its lobbying. But the primary problem is that nutrition policy has long relied on a very weak kind of science: epidemiological, or ‘observational,’ studies in which researchers follow large groups of people over many years. But even the most rigorous epidemiological studies suffer from a fundamental limitation. At best they can show only association, not causation. Epidemiological data can be used to suggest hypotheses but not to prove them.”

For instance, the government has been telling us we’ve been eating too much salt for years. The Food and Drug Administration claimed that lowering salt intake would save tens of thousands of us every year. Overbearing nanny-state groups lobbied the government to regulate salt as they now do trans fats, and Americans turned to low-sodium diets in huge numbers.

One of America’s leading advocates of spurious science, New York’s Michael Bloomberg, persuaded more than 20 companies to drop salt levels voluntarily. Yet according to studies published in recent years, our salt intake wasn’t dangerous at all. Even the CDC has been forced to admit that it was wrong. And the low levels of salt recommended by the government not only were unnecessary but also have been dangerous for our health.

“There is no longer any valid basis for the current salt guidelines,” said Andrew Mente, one of the authors of a study published in The New England Journal of Medicine. “So why are we still scaring people about salt?”

Well, because that’s what government does best.


David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist and the author of “The People Have Spoken (and They Are Wrong): The Case Against Democracy.” Copyright © 2015

Thank God Mr Cruz is in Washington – Tea Party Nation

Thank God Mr Cruz is in Washington – Tea Party Nation.

My email account was on fire, everyone excited about Sen Ted Cruz calling Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell a liar on the Senate floor. Cruz cited each of Obama’s unprecedented unlawful power grabs and repeals of our freedoms that the GOP promised to block, only to stab us (We the People/Tea Party) in the back.  Immediately, I thought, “Thank God Ted Cruz is in Washington.”

Before I go on, I wish to address a guy whom I will call Ned. Whenever I praise a conservative, Ned emails to correct me, claiming the conservative is a deceitful traitor. When I share reasons for optimism, Ned vehemently disagrees, even seeming a bit angry that I would think our efforts could possibly make a difference in America’s corrupt political environment. Ned always sees the glass less than half empty. I guess we need people like Ned to keep us balanced. Although, I am not quite sure about that.

Sure enough, in response to patriots’ giving Cruz rave reviews for speaking truth to Washington power, Ned ripped into Cruz about questionable votes. Folks, I realize Ted Cruz is not perfect. But then, which presidential candidate is? Jesus is not running for president in 2016.

As a member of the Tea Party since it began, Cruz going down the list of GOP betrayals brought back memories. Remember how we fought and worked our butts off to give the GOP the House, then the Senate? We worked to elect Republicans to stop Obama from rolling out the welcome mat to illegals.

Over a million of us showed up in DC to protest Obamacare.

I thought of all the travel miles, funds, blood, sweat and tears sacrificed by Tea Party Americans; patriots who simply want lawful Constitutional government.

I thought about how Obama sent out his liberal mainstream media air force to bomb us with accusations of racism against the first black president; hoping to soften and diminish our ranks. The Tea Party is not racist, nor do we hate anybody.

In his speech, Cruz did two things that were quite remarkable. First – Cruz exposed the good-cop, bad-cop personal and corporate enrichment scam both parties have been playing on the American people. Second – Cruz spoke with unprecedented clarity. He did not say McConnell misspoke or McConnell was disingenuous. Cruz said McConnell lied.

Cruz has been on a roll speaking the truth, making mincemeat of Obama minions and Leftist ideologues.  He really exposes DC insider political corruption in his book, “A Time For Truth.”

It was refreshing that when pressed by the liberal bias media, Cruz refused to jump on the destroy Donald Trump bandwagon. This tells me that Cruz has backbone and will not automatically play by the Left’s rules of engagement.

It is fair game for GOP presidential contenders to express their disapproval of Trump’s style and tactics. However, when a GOP presidential contender joins the MSM in its evil attempt to brand Trump a racist for simply addressing illegal immigration, red flags go up regarding the character of that contender.

It tells me the contender will say whatever necessary to win. I call that “soulless” politicking.

Such behavior has the awful stench of what happened in Mississippi. In the primary, Republican Thad Cochran’s camp joined Democrats in branding the Tea Party racist. To beat the Tea Party conservative, Cochran’s people despicably made lying phone calls to black voters saying the Tea Party candidate would turn back the clock on racial progress. This is the kind of deplorable evil divisive totally self-serving politicking Cruz exposes in his book.

The GOP presidential field is rich with honorable contenders. I ask myself the following question.

When I lay my head on my pillow at night which candidate winning the WH will cause me to sleep the most peacefully? Who is most likely to remain true to their promises to We the People; fight to repeal Obamacare, end the invasion of our borders, defend life and traditional values?

Who believes in Conservatism enough to throw a lifeline of inspiration to those drowning in the treacherous deep dark sea of Obama’s welfare state America? Who will pray as the song says, “Lord lift us up where we belong” as Americans?

Currently, I believe that candidate is Sen Ted Cruz.

Realizing the fruitlessness of trying to instill a bit of hope/sunshine into Ned, I delete his emails without opening them. Ned has gotten creative. After lunch the waiter brought the check and my fortune cookie. The message inside said, “Ted Cruz sucks! – Ned” (Just kidding)

Lloyd Marcus, The Unhyphenated American
Chairman, Conservative Campaign Committee

The Green Con Job — Billionaires Build Empires on Alarmism – Tea Party Nation

The Green Con Job — Billionaires Build Empires on Alarmism – Tea Party Nation.


A cottage industry of green cronyism has been created due to government subsidies and tax incentives that is making billionaires like Nat Simons, Tom Steyer and Elon Musk even richer while it bankrupts the rest of us.  Paul Driessen and Tom Tamarkin takes us down this crony road of phony alarmism and hyped-up climate disasters:

Elon Musk and his fellow barons of Climate Crisis, Inc. recently got a huge boost from Pope Francis. Musk et al. say fossil fuels are causing unprecedented warming and weather disasters. The Pope agrees and says Catholics must “ask God for a positive outcome” to negotiations over another UN climate treaty.

It matters not that the predicted calamities are not happening. There has been no warming in 19 years, no category 3-5 hurricanes making US landfall for a record 9-1/2 years, indeed none of the over-hyped climate disasters occurring in the real world outside the alarmists’ windows. In fact, poor nations support the treaty mostly because it promises some $100 billion per year in adaptation, mitigation and compensation money from FRCs: Formerly Rich Countries that have shackled their own job creation, economic growth and living standards in the name of stabilizing Earth’s perpetually fluctuating climate.

Any money that is transferred will end up in the pockets of governing elites. Poor families will get little or no cash – and will be told their dreams of better lives must be limited to jobs and living standards that can be supported by solar panels on their huts and a few wind turbines near their villages.

Simply put, the Musk-Obama-Pope-Climate Crisis schemes will save humanity from exaggerated and fabricated climate disasters decades from now – by impoverishing billions and killing millions tomorrow.

For the catechism of climate cataclysm coalition, the essential thing is that we believe the hysterical assertions and computer models – and support endless renewable energy mandates and subsidies.

Musk and his Tesla and SolarCity companies have already pocketed $4.9 billion in taxpayer-financed subsidies, and even long-elusive profitability has not ended the handouts. Now he claims a small “blue square” on a map represents the “very little” land required to “get rid of all fossil fuel electricity generation” in the USA and prevent a non-existent climate cataclysm. We just need rooftop solar panels linked to wall-mounted battery packs – a mere 160 million Tesla Powerwalls – to eliminate the need for all coal and natural gas electricity generation in the United States, he insists.

Hogwash (from pork barrel political pig farms). As this careful and extensive analysisdemonstrates, even without considering the monumental electricity demand required to convert America’s vehicles to electric-battery versions, providing today’s baseload and peak demand electricity would require 29.3 billion one-square-meter solar panels. Assuming adequate yearlong daily sunlight, that’s 29,333 square kilometers of active solar panel surface area: 7.2 million acres – or nearly all of Maryland and Delaware!

The analysis is technical, beyond the ability of most voters, journalists, politicians and regulators to comprehend fully. Read it anyway, if only to understand the enormity of financing, raw materials, mining, manufacturing and electricity required to make and ship the panels (some 40 million per year), battery packs and inverters (to convert low-voltage solar electricity to 120 or 240 Volt alternating current).

We are clearly dealing with an unprecedented green mirage and con job. It will drive average retail electricity prices from the 8-9 cents per kilowatt-hour in coal and gas-reliant states, to the 15-17 cents per kWh in California, Connecticut and New York – or even the 36-40 cents in Germany and Denmark, where unsubsidized rates are 70-80 cents per kWh! The impact of such prices on people’s jobs, living standards, health and welfare would be devastating. But Musk and his “clean” energy friends ignore this.

Musk has a BS in physics – and obviously holds advanced BS degrees in lobbying and con-artistry about climate disasters and renewable energy solutions, mandated by government decrees and financed by endless billions in subsidies. He has made numerous personal visits to legislative offices in Sacramento and Washington, to promote more such schemes, and aligns his efforts with those of Eric Schmidt, Nat Simons, Tom Steyer, Al Gore and members of the Clean Tech Syndicate: eleven secretive families with total wealth of over $60 billion, who want to get even richer off taxpayers and consumers.

They assume (demand) that bogus climate cataclysms will continue to bring them billions in climate cash payouts from Washington and state capitals, along with more exemptions from endangered species and environmental cleanup laws and regulations that are applied with a vengeance to fossil fuel projects.

Google scientists finally admitted that existing and near-term renewable energy technologies simply do not work as advertised and cannot meet their political or climate promises. The technologies are all hat, no cattle. However, the Climate Crisis and Clean Tech industries are determined to push ahead – using our money, risking little of their own, and getting reimbursed by us when their investments turn sour.

Google and NRG now want a $539-million federal grant to bail them out of $1.6 billion in taxpayer loans for the bird-roasting Ivanpah concentrated solar power project in California, because it does not work and needs so much natural gas to keep its water hot that it doesn’t meet state renewable energy standards. Other Obama “greenbacks” energy “investments” have also drowned in red ink, leaving taxpayers to pay the tab: Solyndra, Abound Solar, Solar Trust, Ener1, Beacon Power, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Musk is nevertheless lobbying for SB-350, which would require that 50% of California’s electricity be produced via “renewable” sources, such as wind, solar, biofuels and politicians’ hot air. Meanwhile, Google Chairman Eric Schmidt’s family and corporate foundations give millions to alarmist climate scientists, the ultra-green Energy Foundation, and rabid anti-fracking groups like the World Wildlife Fund and Natural Resources Defense Council. NRDC also gets millions from EPA, to promote the agency’s anti-fossil fuel agenda and place 33 of its employees on 21 EPA “advisory” committees.

Schmidt and Warren Buffett also support the secretive far-left Tides Foundation, which has given millions to groups opposed to coal and hydraulic fracturing, the Keystone XL and Sandpiper pipeline projects, and countless other job-creating hydrocarbon programs. Canadian researcher Cory Morningstar accurately describes Tides as a “magical, money-funneling machine of epic proportions.”

Billionaire Nat Simons and his Sea Change Foundation spend tens of millions annually promoting and lobbying for “renewable” energy policies, mandates and subsidies; investing in wind, solar and biofuel companies; supporting environmentalist pressure groups; and contributing to Democrat politicians who perpetuate the crony corporatist arrangements. Simons, his wife and various Vladimir Putin cronies (via Klein, Ltd. and the shadowy Bermuda Wakefield Quin law firm) are the only contributors to Sea Change.

We often rail against Third World corruption. Our American (and European) environmental corruption is simply more subtle and sophisticated. It is legalized deception and theft – a massive wealth transfer from poor and middle class consumers and taxpayers to billionaires who are raking in still more billions, thanks to brilliantly crafted alarmist campaigns. And let’s not forget Al Gore, Mike Mann, Tom Steyer, James Hansen and all the others who likewise profit immensely from these arrangements – and the constant vilification of scientists who question climate catastrophe mantras.

Pressure groups and governing elites used to argue that we are running out of oil and natural gas. That ploy no longer works. While fossil fuels may eventually prove finite, fracking has given us vast new supplies of petroleum – and huge coal, oil and gas deposits have been placed off limits by government decree. We have at least a century to develop alternative energy sources that actually work – that create real jobs, actual revenues, lower energy prices and true prosperity – without the mandates, subsidies, deception, fraud and corruption that are the hallmark of “green” energy schemes.

No wonder the “clean tech” crowd is financing anti-hydrocarbon and climate chaos campaigns. But despite the Pope’s belated rescue attempt, the pseudo-science of “dangerous manmade global warming” is slowly succumbing to climate reality. And any new UN climate treaty will founder once poor nations realize the promised hundreds of billions a year will not materialize.

Those still impoverished nations should not do what rich countries are doing now that they are rich. They should do what rich countries did to become rich.

Barack “Climate Change” Obama – Tea Party Nation

Barack “Climate Change” Obama – Tea Party Nation.


By Alan Caruba


“Woe to the land that’s governed by a child.”  – Shakespeare, Richard III


I have been wrestling for some kind of explanation why the President of the United States, Barack Obama, would continue to talk about climate change and urge the global transition from fossil fuels to wind, solar and bio-energy.     I have concluded that he thinks everyone, not just Americans, are idiots.


We know he lies about everything, but these two topics are clearly near and dear to his heart.


My friend, Paul Driessen, is a policy analyst for the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a free market think tank. Among the pundit class he’s ranked very high by his colleagues. Here’s what he has to say about climate change:


“Earth climate always has changed, is always changing, and always will change—but not from fossil-fuel use. Solar fluctuations, deep ocean circulation patterns, and other powerful natural forces have driven climate change and weather events throughout Earth’s history and will continue to do so.”


“President Obama’s hubris is breathtaking. He now thinks an army of regulators can control our planet’s temperature and climate by tweaking emissions of plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide, a mere 0.04% of the atmosphere.”


“America’s communities do not need to be protected from climate change. They need to be protected from the excesses of authoritarian presidents and bureaucrats.”


Driessen and I look at and listen to Obama and wonder if others too see and hear someone uttering some of the most absurd claims about the climate. Then we worry that this someone is the President of the United States with the power to turn his ignorance into national policy.


At this point we have suffered his initial failure to respond to the recession he inherited from the 2008 financial crisis. More than six years later the economy has barely moved toward a normal rate of growth. Then we were gifted with ObamaCare and the disruption of what was widely regarded as the best health system in the world. And, for good measure, he imposed Common Core on an already weakened educational system. It is being repealed and opposed in many states. For good measure, his foreign policy, if he has one, is widely regarded as a total failure.


How is it a former “community organizer” possesses a seemingly vast understanding of meteorology? Did they also teach that at the Harvard Law School? “Climate change,” said Obama, addressing a graduating class of the Coast Guard Academy, “constitutes a serious threat to global security, an immediate risk to our national security, and make no mistake; it will impact how our military defends our country.”


“Our military and our combatant commanders,” the President told the Academy graduates, “our services—including the Coast Guard—will need to factor climate change into plans and operations, because you need to be ready.” For what? For a rainstorm? For snow? Wind?


This is the same President who sees no threat to our national security from Iran whose leaders shout “Death to America” every day when they aren’t also shouting “Death to Israel.” He has zealously been pursuing a deal that would enable Iran, the leading supporter of terrorism, to have nuclear weapons. Meanwhile Islamic State (ISIS) is taking over more territory in northern Iraq and into Syria. Obama might as well be dropping bags of marshmallows on them.


He blamed climate change in the form of “severe droughts” for the rise of Islamism in the Middle East and Africa. Someone needs to tell Obama that there have always been severe droughts somewhere on the planet, and floods, and forest fires, and blizzards, and hurricanes. Even so, in the last eighteen years, there have actually been LESS of these natural events, along with the flatlining of the planet’s overall or average temperature—there has been no warming!


Not content to blame climate change for the rise of terrorism, the White House issued a report that was described as “a doomsday scenario of health, security, economic and political issues.” The thing about climate is that it measured in centuries, not years. As for the weather, while records are maintained, it is usually reported as today’s news with a forecast of the coming week.


So you shouldn’t be surprised that the report blamed “asthma attacks” on climate change!


Suffice to say there isn’t a glimmer of hard evidence to support anything the President is saying these days about climate change.


And this is the same President that wants the U.S. and the rest of the world to give up the use of fossil fuels—coal, oil and natural gas—to “stop climate change.” 


IF Obama’s climate change idiocy is just a way to distract Americans from the real problems we have encountered thanks to his failure to address them, then it is purely cynical and political.


IF Obama really believes this stuff, he is unfit to be President.


© Alan Caruba, 2015

Stupefying Generations of Americans – Tea Party Nation

Stupefying Generations of Americans – Tea Party Nation.


By Alan Caruba


I used the verb “stupefying” to describe a long process in our nation’s schools that has produced several generations of Americans, dumbed down and resulting in more than half who are functionally illiterate, nor can do math, and, as a recent headline reported “Student’s Results in Social Studies Stagnate.”


“U.S. middle-school students’ performance on social studies didn’t improve much between 2010 and 2014, federal test scores released Wednesday (April 29) show, underscoring concerns about the uniformed citizenry and workforce.”  When it comes to U.S. history, the share of students scoring at or above proficiency last year was 18%, up one percentage point from 2010. In other words, over 80% failed to have a grasp on the subject, critical to every citizen’s understanding of U.S. history, its Constitution, and governance.


An extraordinary new book by Samuel Blumenfeld and Alex Newman, “Crimes of the Educators: How Utopians are Using Government Schools to Destroy America’s Children” ($26.95, WND Books) should be the center of conversation for a nation’s media, but I suspect this may be among the few places you would learn about it. Blumenfeld has written ten books on education and Newman is an international journalist, educator and consultant.


What history does teach us is that progressives, also known as communists, have slaughtered millions in their quest to create the perfect society where everybody earns the same amount, thus abandoning them to equal poverty. To achieve this, it was necessary to exercise complete control over what the children learned and what the media shared as news.


Blumenfeld notes that “In the United States the socialist utopians adopted a new and unique method of conquering a nation; by dumbing down its people, by destroying the brainpower of millions of its citizens.” 


This was launched in 1898 by John Dewey, a socialist, and outlined in his essay titled ‘The Primary-Education Fetich.’  “In it he showed his fellow progressives how to transform America into a collectivist utopia by taking over the public schools and destroying the literacy of millions of Americans.”


“The plan has been so successfully implemented that it is now a fact that half of America’s adult population are functionally illiterate. They can’t read their nation’s Constitution or its Declaration of Independence. They can’t even read their high school diploma.”


This was achieved by changing how children are taught to read in our government schools. Previously the method was phonetics in which children learned the alphabet, the sounds the letters represented, and how in combination they composed words. The present method is called “whole word” in which the child must recognize the whole word without identifying its alphabetical elements. “That forces children to read English as if it were Chinese,” says Blumenfeld.


He notes that most teachers are unaware of what they are doing and most parents trust the public schools that are supposed to represent the cherished values of our democratic republic. “But the unhappy truth is that today’s public schools have rejected the values of the Founding Fathers and adopted values from nineteenth-century European social utopian plans that completely contradict our own concepts of individual freedom.”


Blumenfeld also identifies a fact that is hidden in the growing numbers of people who having passed through our schools or attending experience dyslexia and learning disabilities.  Brain scans have demonstrated this. Our schools are places where the answer to the normal child’s energy and curiosity is deemed being “over-active” and our schools “push various psychiatric drugs on millions of children by requiring them to take such powerful, mid-altering stimulants as Ritalin or Adderal to alleviate such school-induced disorders as attention deficit disorder (ADD) and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). These drugs are as potent as cocaine and have even caused sudden death among teen athletes.”
“The long-term utopian plan required destroying America’s political, social, and moral culture of religious freedom, individual rights, unobtrusive government, and high literacy for all.”


That is a virtual definition of what has occurred in America today. We see it in the attack on religion, particularly Christianity, in America. We see it in the attack on traditional marriage in the name of the homosexual objective of “same-sex marriage.” We see individual businesses attacked for not wanting to give up their spiritual values and beliefs when challenged by homosexuals. We see it in the vast growth in the numbers of single mothers, often never married. And, of late, we see it in the obscene hatred being directed against our nation’s police forces.


The statistics cited in “Crimes of the Educators” have been published by Jeb Bush’s Foundation for Excellence in Education and they include:


Eighty-one percent of American 18 year olds are unprepared for college coursework.


More than 25 percent of students fail to graduate from high school in four years; for African-American and Hispanic students, this number is approaching 40 percent.


Seventy percent of those in prison and 70 percent of those on welfare read at the lowest literacy levels according to the 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey.


According to tests in 2012 given to 15-year-olds by the Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development, U.S. students were at 17th place in the world on reading, 29th in math, and 20th in science.


“These failures,” says Blumenfeld, “ are not the result of an accident. They are the result of programs created by the best-organized and best-paid educators on the planet. All of these programs that create failure were conceived to produce precisely the results we are getting.”


This explains, too, why many concerned parents have decided to teach their children at home while others spend their money to have their children tutored to overcome the damage of our public schools.


If you have looked around and thought to yourself that too many of the people who see, hear, work with, and who vote are dumb, you now know why.


© Alan Caruba, 2015


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,461 other followers