Killing the Truth in Academia

General Robert E Lee
rlee@suthenboy.com
 
Preamble: The purpose of this blog is to discuss the principal curricula being taught in academia today as well as its impact on students and consequences to America. 
I was appalled by the disgusting reaction to Trump’s victory throughout academia, particularly by college students and instructors. Their behavior was reprehensible, embarrassing to America, and sadly, expected in today’s once hallowed bastions of higher learning. Something is drastically wrong in academia when instructors and students require coloring books, animals to hug, safe spaces to mourn, crying rooms, psychological help, relief from exams, and time off to assuage their despair, despondency, and anger. Far worse however, is their blatant rejection and defiance of America’s traditional election process because it did not provide the result they sought.
 
In my opinion the root cause of this abhorrent behavior is the culture of academia into which students are being indoctrinated by far left wing instructors propagating Marxism subtly disguised as progressivism. Sound ridiculous, please read on before commenting on my sanity. I also encourage you to read my 8/26/15 blog ‘Academic Shock’ to more fully appreciate the breadth and dangers of what is being instilled in students throughout academia today.
The following statements exemplify modern day fundamental building blocks of education: 
  • There are no facts, only interpretations – Friedrich Nietzsche
  • Morals, values, truths, standards, and human nature itself are products of different historical epochs and socially constructed – Marxism’s Worldview
Academia’s Standard Curricula: The curricula throughout politically correct academia today includes radical left wing self-proclaimed elite professors/instructors teaching students to reject objective truths and replace them with relative truths: i.e., perspectives or points of view to which each person is entitled regardless of how inconsistent with the truth they are. Notwithstanding how outrageous a relative truth may be, e.g., the Holocaust is a myth, at best it is taught to be a more unfortunate perspective on the matter instead of being repudiated as a lie. This self-serving cavalier attitude within the arrogant professorial domain adversely affects students in ways that include the following:
  • Disregards and renders truth meaningless
  • Erodes the legitimacy of serious opinion
  • Deprives students of a much needed solid education founded on traditionally accepted disciplines of study  
Another result of rejecting objective truths is that facts are considered as matters of opinion relative to and dependent upon the interests, prejudices, sexual orientation, or ethnic origin of the speaker rather than the truth or falsity of what the speaker says. The premise being that truth is somehow invented rather than discovered, and ergo, relative to the speaker.
 
Harvard historian Simon Schama perfectly exemplifies this arrogant attitude toward truth in the prologue to his fatuous book “Dead Certainties” (1991). Schama assures his readers “the claims for historical knowledge must always be fatally circumscribed by the character and prejudices of its narrator.” In other words, the historian’s supposed limitations make stating historical truth impossible, which is utter nonsense.
 
The Genesis of Relative Truths: This repugnant affront to traditional education, its truths and inherent values, is rooted in Cultural Marxism. This ideology was conceived, circa 1921, at the Frankfurt School in Frankfurt Germany by a group of radical Marxist intellectuals who rejected traditional Economic Marxism because they realized it was incapable of destroying and dominating the West. Cultural Marxism was based on behavioral psychology to achieve mass compliance with a desired goal(s), and ultimately replaced Economic Marxism. It is modern day Marxism euphemistically referred to as progressivism to hide the true ideology but Marxism nonetheless. The great majority of progressives are ignorant of the ideology they are propagating and just happy following the heard of sheep.
 
Unlike Karl Marx, the founding Cultural Marxists envisioned catalyzing the complete destruction of Western traditions, values, and culture by a lengthy, indefensible, peaceful cultural revolution wherein traditional morals and authority would be rejected. Once achieved Western culture would be supplanted by Cultural Marxist ideology.
 
In 1933 as National Socialism was gaining momentum in Germany the founders fled to America and set up shop at Columbia University in NYC. They began sowing the seeds of their cultural revolution by diffusing Cultural Marxist ideology through key spheres of influence, initially focusing on academia, politics, the MSM and film industry. The founders knew that progress would be slow but remained patient and steadfast while assiduously propagating their ideology.
 
The ’60s Boomer Rebellion: The founders’ fortunes dramatically changed for the better in the middle 1960s with the student “Boomer” rebellion wherein morality and authority were rejected and individual freedom to do as one pleased was exalted. The father and ultimate leader of this rebellion throughout academia was Herbert Marcuse, a founding member of the Frankfurt School and elite, well-respected university professor. Marcuse coined the chant, “make love not war” that became poplar throughout academia.
 
Deconstructing Truth: Marcuse’s methodology for rebellion included deconstructing the language, e.g., he coined the infamous “what does ‘is’ mean?” which fostered the destruction of American culture. Deconstruction destabilizes and reconstructs clear definitions, the content and text of language, traditions, being, institutions, objective knowledge, reason, truth, legitimate hierarchies, authority, nature, and all that is considered universal. 
 
Marcuse was esteemed by the masses rebelling against the establishment. He catalyzed the confusion and obliteration of traditionally accepted culture through deconstruction which was primarily responsible for a major breakdown in the nation’s social conformity, particularly among impressionable young people.
 
The Intent of Deconstruction: Deconstruction is used by Cultural Marxists as the method of analysis that will show the correctness of their ideology in every situation and provide the answers they seek. This is done by taking any text, removing all meaning from it and re-inserting the meaning sought. For instance, Cultural Marxists uniquely use deconstruction to prove that any text illustrates the oppression of minorities, e.g., blacks, women, homosexuals, etc., by reading that meaning into the text’s words regardless of its actual meaning. The overused ‘race card’ routine should come to mind.
Outrageous examples include Shakespeare writing about suppressing women, and the Bible being about race and gender. Furthermore, morals, values, truths, standards, and human nature itself are considered products of different historical epochs and socially constructed. Ergo, the truth is relative, dynamic, and meaningless in the hands of a deconstructionist academician poisoning young minds to suit her or his agenda.
 
The Impact on Academia: The consequences of intentionally obfuscating and skewing the truth to fit a desired end have been particularly devastating in academia. Dissident ‘Boomers’ of the ’60s and their acolytes have dominated academia’s professorial domain for years. They were spoon fed and indoctrinated into Cultural Marxism as students, and as instructors are likewise actively propagating and spoon feeding that same ideology to their students. Among other things, they have intentionally undermined the integrity and very ideas of many academic disciplines in fields of study with generally agreed upon subject matters.
 
Study Groups: Instead of academic emphasis being placed on traditional disciplines, e.g., history, math, science, and literature, it is placed on race, ethnicity, and gender taught through study groups. There is an endless proliferation of such groups throughout academia which are typically comprised of the so-called “historically disadvantaged” minorities considered as ‘sacred cows’ by today’s politically correct progressives. This situation clearly evinces a breakdown of long accepted academic disciplines and is strongly encouraged by the respective educational administrations, also highly concentrated with progressives. 
 
Superficially the common mantra and favorite code words of study groups are inclusion, tolerance, diversity, sensitivity, social justice, sex education, and other such terminology connoting kindness. Notwithstanding the seemingly innocuous terms however, they are critical components of Cultural Marxism being cleverly disguised as progressivism as mentioned aforesaid. Ironically, to force compliance with their position on a matter, these inclusive, tolerant groups spew vile hatred towards and demonize everyone in disagreement with them, particularly straight White males.
 
Radical Left Wing Professors: Ultra-radical radical left wing instructors with personal anti-American agendas teach the pseudo study groups that include the following: women’s studies; gay studies; transgender studies; Asian studies; Afro-American studies; African studies; Indian studies; and the list goes on ad nauseam. While these groups are hyped as being cross- disciplinary they are anti-disciplinary because their sole purpose is to diffuse Cultural Marxist ideology in lieu of America’s culture, values and traditions. Among other Marxist concepts instructors use relative truth and deconstruction to achieve their desired anti-American goals. Carefully note, there are no male, White, or Western European studies. The only reference to Whites in any of these study groups is in demonizing and blaming them for the perceived ‘ills’ of the world’s ‘historically disadvantaged minorities’.
 
Cultural Studies: Cultural studies is the group most repugnant to traditional education because content is entirely discretionary with the instructor and accordingly, characterized by attitudes and agendas instead of empirical facts. There are two mandatory requisites for cultural studies: (1) political animus: (2) hostility to factual truth. Generally, students are strongly encouraged and often mandated to take this ridiculous course that is underpinned by ‘White Guilt’. 
Below are examples of relative truths students are taught by politically correct radical left wing Marxist ideologues with an aversion to empirical evidence and everything American.  
  • Columbus was an evil, bloodthirsty marauder who committed the American Holocaust, while the Indians were peaceful, environmentally sensitive creatures who lived in blissful harmony with each other and the earth. 
  • Cortez, who conquered Mexico on behalf of Spain, was a mass murderer and the Aztec conquest evinced European Imperialism perpetrating the greatest genocide in all human history.
  • Early pilgrims slaughtered their Indian guests at a Thanksgiving feast
It should be abundantly clear that present day curricula taught by Marxist instructors precipitated the behavior of academia that resulted from Trump’s win. More ominous, however, is the poisonous Marxist ideology into which students are being indoctrinated by instructors that loathe and want to destroy traditional American culture and values.

Corruption at America’s Highest Levels of Government

Corruption at America’s Highest Levels of Government
 
Hillary-What-Difference-copyThe purpose of this blog is twofold: 1. Point out Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s complicity and willful, subjective involvement in a corrupt effort to ensure Hillary Clinton is elected president; 2. For you to carefully consider whether her character represents the ethical and moral standards reasonably expected of the U.S. Attorney General or any person serving at the highest level of our government.
 
Never in America’s history has the depth of blatant unbridled corruption in the presidency and judicial system been more clearly exemplified than on July 5, 2016, when FBI Director James Comey announced that he would not bring criminal charges against Hillary Clinton and the matter was closed. There is not a doubt in my mind that this fraud perpetrated on America’s rule of law, judicial system and her citizenry was architected well in advance by corrupt amoral liars Obama, Lynch, Clintons’ long time hack Comey, and the Clintons. For details see my 9/8/16 blog The Clinton – Comey Nexus.
 
Miscarriage of Justice at the Highest Levels of Government: The reason for such a disgraceful miscarriage of justice should be abundantly clear by now: Obama, Lynch and Comey want the candidate whose character is as corrupt, dark and evil as theirs to be president. That stellar individual is Hillary Clinton, a proven evil, amoral pathological liar and rapacious, ruthless career criminal.
 
It is a dark, unprecedented time in America when the President, Attorney General, and FBI Director use the power of their respective offices acting under color of title to illegally facilitate their goal. Equally appalling is America’s President aggressively supporting vile Clinton, who should be under indictment, while she is the target of multiple legitimate, long overdue criminal investigations all involving felonies. However, in addition to other character traits, Obama is a crude, classless boor and such comportment is expected.
 
U. S. Attorney Lynch: Pursuant to President Bill Clinton’s nomination in 1999, Lynch served as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York in Brooklyn until joining the law firm of Hogan & Hartson in March 2002. She remained there through April, 2010 then returned to her old position as U.S. Attorney in Brooklyn when Obama appointed her.
 
Hogan & Hartson began preparing and filing the Clintons’ tax returns in 2004, and were among Hillary’s largest financial supporters in the legal industry during her first presidential campaign. I cannot speak to a relationship between the Clintons and Lynch during her stint at the law firm. However, knowing the depth of the vile Clintons’ corruption and use of key people it is not a stretch to assume that developing a solid relationship with ex U.S. Attorney Lynch was in their cross hairs. Soon thereafter it was accomplished.
 
HSBC Money Laundering Case: HSBC was implicated in the largest international money laundering case in U.S. history. Its executives admitted to laundering billions of dollars from arms dealers, drug traffickers, and power players from around the world from 2006 through 2010. As much as $881M laundered through the bank’s U.S. arms was from Mexican drug cartels and their various middle east terrorist allies in violation of multiple banking laws.
 
For the sake of brevity, criminal charges were never filed against the bank or any of its executives. Instead, in December, 2012, Lynch, acting in her capacity as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York and with U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder’s acquiescence, brokered a ‘Deferred Prosecution Agreement’ wherein HSBC Bank USA agreed to pay a $1.9 billion fine and admitted to the following felonies: 
  • Willful criminal conduct
  • Gross violations of the Bank Secrecy Act, including failure to establish and maintain an effective anti-money laundering program,
  • Failure to establish due diligence in laundering of over $881 million
The U.S. in turn agreed to drop its criminal investigations and prosecutions of HSBC directors and employees. In other words, HSBC committed multiple serious felonies and walked without incurring any criminal consequences, gratis Obama, Holder and Lynch.
 
At a bare minimum this sweetheart deal did not even rise to the dignity of a slap on the wrist because the fine was less than chump change to HSBC. It still reeks from the rancid stanch of corruption emanating from a quid pro quo wherein Obama, Holder, and Lynch were the other beneficiaries. Congress went through the usual feigning of outrage, held meaningless hearings, etc., then swept the farcical performance off to ‘la-la land’ to join its other charades.
 
Coincidence or Quid Pro Quo: I have never believed in coincidences but rather have always felt that things happen for a reason. For instance, consider the following events:
  • Comey was an executive in senior level management and a director of HSBC during the time it was laundering the aforesaid $881M
  • Obama named Comey FBI Director in 2012
  • During the same time HSBC was and likely remains tightly connected to the Clinton Foundation that received up to $81M in ‘pay to play donations’ from a few of its clients
  • On November 11, 2014 Obama named Lynch, still serving as U.S. Attorney in Brooklyn, as Attorney General
  • Lynch and Sleazy Willy Clinton got caught meeting secretly for 30 minutes in her plane parked at a remote corner of the Phoenix airport a few days before Comey announced his egregious decision not to charge Clinton. 
No coincidences here but rather each evinces a quid pro quo underpinned by corruption.
 
A Friend at DOJ: The law and ethics notwithstanding, Lynch is determined to do whatever it takes to facilitate a Clinton presidency, and prevent her from facing criminal prosecution. In connection therewith the following is public information, and one can only speculate what Lynch and Obama are doing privately, but be assured it is most likely not legit.
 

1. On October 28 Comey unexpectedly broke protocol and without Lynch’s knowledge announced that he had reopened the previously closed criminal investigation of Clinton’s email scandal. His reasoning was based on the NYPD and some of his agents discovering some 650,000 emails on a laptop shared by Clinton’s chief aide at State, Huma Abedin, and her husband, Anthony Wiener while investigating a sex case involving Wiener. Abedin is a Muslim with strong ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and many of the emails were from the State Department. Knowing this explosive information would be leaked sooner than later Comey acted on his own to avoid further embarrassment and prevent Lynch, a staunch supporter, defender, and friend of Clinton from thwarting his efforts.

 

2. According to the MSM and insider accounts Lynch was angry and vehemently resisted assisting Comey in the new investigation. However, since Comey had made the announcement and to save face she appointed assistant AG Peter Kadzik to head the criminal investigation of the laptop’s content. Incredibly, Lynch knew Kadzik was best friends with Clinton’s campaign manager, corrupt liar unctuous John Podesta. Wikileaks produced an email from Kadzik’s private gmail account giving Podesta a ‘heads up’ about filings the DOJ would be making in the first Clinton email matter. In effect this was ‘DOJ insider information’ to which Podesta was not entitled. Sending it was against policy and likely illegal, but inconsequential to Lynch since Kadzik’s act was intended to benefit Clinton.

 

3. Lynch ordered FBI agents investigating the organized criminal enterprise known as the Clinton ‘Pay to Play’ Foundation to stand down, notwithstanding an ‘avalanche’ of inculpatory evidence supporting a multitude of felonies.

 
Connect the Dots: The dots between Lynch and the vile career criminal Clintons are present, very telling, and easy to connect: they evince a crystal clear pattern of criminal corruption at the highest levels of our government that is repugnant to all decency. It should be abundantly clear that Lynch is illegally using her position as Attorney General to facilitate a Clinton presidency. She is intentionally thwarting the legal process involved in criminal investigations by overtly and covertly shielding for Clinton and this corrupt liar will never indict her. Needless to say, Lynch and people of her sordid character will occupy every key position in a Clinton administration as they do in Obama’s lawless one and it will be business as usual in the toxic DC pit where lying and corruption rule supreme.
 
America’s Next President: This will likely be the most important election in America’s history because Clinton and Trump want to place our country on diametrically opposed paths for the foreseeable future. Clinton claims America is already great and not in need of change except for open borders to all and increasing the number of Muslim aliens to support by 550%. Trump knows that America is badly broken and can only be made great again by controlling immigration, and eliminating the accepted culture of corruption and lying that permeates the Washington DC swamp.
 
A Clinton Presidency: I am certain that a Clinton presidency will replicate the culture of rampant corruption and amoral pathological lying Obama has instilled in his administration only on steroids. This is the type of culture in which the Clintons are proven experts; they will also wreak havoc on America to complete the destruction of her traditional culture and values commenced by Obama. Remember, Clinton is a hard core Marxist mentored by and an acolyte of anti-US Marxist Saul Alinsky, as is Obama. Alinsky wrote the radical activist’s bible, ‘Rules for Radicals’, wherein he educated his followers on how to cause chaos and systemic disruption to destroy America.
 
A Trump Presidency: If you are sick of corrupt lying career politicians subordinating America’s interests to their personal greed and want a better, safer, more productive America for yourself and your family’s future, vote for Trump. It is time to change the failed, corrupt amorality of DC with a highly successful outsider who sincerely loves and will put the best interests of America first and foremost … Donald Trump.
View archived blogs at Suthenboy Archives

Independence Day – Tea Party Nation

We at Tea Party Nation wish you a happy Independence Day.  And we encourage you to take a moment and read the document that gave us a free nation.

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. —

Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.

He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

  • For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
  • For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:
  • For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:
  • For imposing taxes on us without our consent:
  • For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:
  • For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:
  • For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:
  • For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:
  • For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.1377023_632027936839875_306360385_n

He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. 

In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.Image

The States Created the Federal Government – Not the Other Way Around – Freedom Outpost

The States Created the Federal Government – Not the Other Way Around

Center for Self Governance (CSG) Administrative Team

For some time now, many have voiced the notion that federal law always trumps state law. According to the 9th and 10th Amendments, this is false.

Numerous federal agencies have imposed unconstitutional regulations, which carry the same impact and consequence as law. Many of these regulations limit our liberty and literally choke the life out of America’s small businesses.

As Article VI, clause 2, states, “This constitution, and the laws of the United States, which shall be made IN PURSUANCE thereof…shall be the supreme law of the land.” Additionally, according to Article I § 1, only Congress can make law. Therefore, many executive orders, judicial opinions, and federal regulations not enacted by Congress or made IN PURSUANCE of the Constitution are not legitimate law.

The “Father of the Constitution” James Madison described the doctrine of “anti-commandeering” in Federalist #46. “Anti-commandeering” simply means the federal government cannot force state or local governments to act against their will. States are responsible to maintain their sovereignty in order to keep our Republican form of government, guaranteed in Article IV, § 4.

Mike Maharrey of the Tenth Amendment Center points to the following four Supreme Court decisions from 1842 to 2012 which firmly established Madison’s “anti-commandeering” doctrine:

PRIGG v. PENNSYLVANIA (1842) Justice Joseph Story wrote the majority opinion concerning the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793. He said that the federal government cannot coerce the states to enforce federal law.

Story wrote, “The fundamental principle applicable to all cases of this sort, would seem to be, that where the end is required, the means are given; and where the duty is enjoined, the ability to perform it is contemplated to exist on the part of the functionaries to whom it is entrusted. The clause is found in the national Constitution, and not in that of any state. It does not point out any state functionaries, or any state action to carry its provisions into effect. The states cannot, therefore, be compelled to enforce them; and it might well be deemed an unconstitutional exercise of the power of interpretation, to insist that the states are bound to provide means to carry into effect the duties of the national government, nowhere delegated or entrusted to them by the Constitution.”

NEW YORK v. UNITED STATES (1992) Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote for the majority on the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendment Act of 1985. The law violated the SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE of New York because “ [it] offers the States a ‘choice’ between the two unconstitutionally coercive alternatives–either accepting ownership of waste or ANTI-COMMANDEERING DOCTRINE regulating according to Congress’ instructions–the provision lies outside Congress’ enumerated powers and is inconsistent with the Tenth Amendment.”

Justice O’Connor continued, “As an initial matter, Congress may not simply commandeer the legislative processes of the States by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program…While Congress has substantial powers to govern the Nation directly, including in areas of intimate concern to the States, the Constitution has never been understood to confer upon Congress the ability to require the States to govern according to Congress’ instructions.”

PRINTZ v. UNITED STATES (1997) The Brady Gun Bill required that county law enforcement officers administer part of the background check, thus providing local enforcement of a federal program.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority opinion, “…it is apparent that the Brady Act purports to direct state law enforcement officers to participate, albeit only temporarily, in the administration of a federally enacted regulatory scheme…We held in New York [v. United States] that Congress cannot compel the States to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program. Today we hold that Congress cannot circumvent that prohibition by conscripting the States’ officers directly. The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program. It matters not whether policymaking is involved, and no case-by-case weighing of the burdens or benefits is necessary; such commands are fundamentally incompatible with our constitutional system of DUAL SOVEREIGNTY.”

INDEPENDENT BUSINESS v. SEBELIUS (2012) The federal government attempted to force states to expand Medicaid by threatening to withhold funding for their Medicaid programs.

Justice John Roberts held that punishing states by coercing them to participate in a federal program violates the separation of powers. Roberts wrote, “The legitimacy of Congress’s exercise of the spending power thus rests on whether the State voluntarily and knowingly accepts the terms of the ‘contract’. Respecting this limitation is critical to ensuring that Spending Clause legislation does not undermine the status of the STATES AS INDEPENDENT SOVEREIGNS in our federal system. That system rests on what might at first seem a counterintuitive insight, that ‘freedom is enhanced by the creation of two governments, not one.’ For this reason, the Constitution has never been understood to confer upon Congress the ability to require the States to govern according to Congress’ instructions. Otherwise the TWO-GOVERNMENT SYSTEM established by the Framers would give way to a system that vests power in one central government, and individual liberty would suffer.”

The Tenth Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” This amendment appears to be simple enough. If the short list of less than 20 “powers” is not specifically listed in Article 1, § 8 as a federally delegated responsibility, then the individual States or the people reserve that authority. Is healthcare on the list? Business? Jobs? Wages? Education? Marriage? Abortion?

The States and the people created the federal government and determined its responsibilities – not the other way around. Constitutionally, States do not need permission from the federal government to take action. State legislatures must pro-actively enforce State sovereignty on behalf of the people they represent.

Our Constitution guarantees to all Americans in every state a Republican, representative form of government with separation of powers in order to maintain dual sovereignty. This foundational principle of liberty is unique to America’s form of government and is essential to our freedom.

*Article by Michael Moon and Karen Lees

Hillary’s Campaign Deeply Damaged: Accuses Obama Appointee of Sabotage – Minutemen News

hillary_clintonHillary’s Campaign Deeply Damaged: Accuses Obama Appointee of Sabotage – Minutemen News

The Clinton campaign is scrambling.

The Washington Times – Hillary Clinton is vehemently disputing new charges that she sent top-secret information from a nonsecure email account while at the State Department, but analysts say the scandal has already damaged her so deeply that her presidential ambitions are at risk.

Mrs. Clinton’s messages contained some information classified above “top secret,” the intelligence community’s inspector general said in a letter to Congress this week. Fox News reported Thursday that the information is so sensitive that even senators, who already have clearance, must go through additional hoops if they want to see some of what she was sending.

The Clinton campaign responded by accusing the inspector general, I. Charles McCullough, appointed by President Obama, of politically motivated leaks to sabotage her campaign.

Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders’ ‘likability’ factor has garnered him a continual rise in his poll numbers. Clinton has been working to paint a picture of him as likable – yes – but, not able to deliver on his promises.

“In theory there’s alot to like about some of his ideas, but in theory isn’t enough. A president has to deliver in reality,” said Mrs. Clinton of her opponent in a recent speech.

Sorry Hillary – the ‘reality’ for you is – the voters don’t trust you.   You don’t belong in the presidency. You belong in jail!!12367_984177174962380_2035255209678994494_n

Freedom Party America – Tea Party Nation

Posted by Jeff Dover

Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan is planning to pass new legislation to bring hundreds of thousands of immigrant workers to the United States.  We just got rid of John Boehner.  We made enough noise that the GOP ousted him.  The GOP then made a show of considering a conservative replacement for Boehner.  It was only a show, folks.  Aren’t we used to that by now?  Well, we need not to have worried, because the so-called “Freedom Caucus” endorsed Ryan’s bid for the seat of Speaker.  Of course, his win was by secret ballot.  That way, constituents in conservative districts would be unable to see how their “conservative” GOP representative voted.  Yet, we knew that Ryan was a progressive ally.  Are we to believe that those who work with him and know him personally didn’t know how he would behave as Speaker?  ( Hint: They knew.)

For backup, we’ve got Mitch McConnell running things for us in the senate.  How do you like good ‘ol “I don’t want to talk about immigration” Mitch?  Great guy, eh?  Too bad he’s a progressive ally too.  I’m sure he’ll go along with Ryan’s omnibus bill.  It’s for sure the Democrats will go for it because, after all, as we’ve seen time and again, it’s in support of Obama’s agenda .  The ruling class will be happy.

The GOP are every bit as responsible for the terrorist acts here as the Democrats are.  Ryan won’t block the Syrian immigrants any more than he will help to secure our borders.   But it’s not just Paul Ryan.  Neither his predecessor nor the Bush Administration did anything either in spite of our urging.  Now Rush Limbaugh reports that 72 employees of the Department of Homeland Security are on the “terrorist watch list”.  Why must we hear that from Limbaugh?  Why isn’t our Republican congress telling us that … and then doing something about it?

C’mon, Tea Party!  Do you really believe at this point that the Republican Party is a place for us?  If so, why?   Where is the slightest evidence in legislative or executive action that they represent us in any meaningful way? The Drudge Report/Miami Herald reported yesterday that one of Jeb Bush’s main donors says he’ll vote for Hillary if Trump wins the nomination.  Is that any surprise?  That’s who these people are, the people who control the Republican Party.  They are Hillary by a different name.  Jeb Bush? Marco Rubio?  John Kasich?  Hillary?  Except for the pictures and a gap in class, they are the same thing on the main issues.

Yet, look at the support for Trump…he’s blowing all the others out of the water!  Do those Trump supporters care what the GOP thinks?  Apparently not.  So why belong to the GOP?  Just because it’s there?  Where’s that getting us?  Hopefully Trump will win the White House, but do you think that the GOP controlled congress will work with him on any major changes?  Forget it!  Ditto Cruz, should he be victorious. Then you’ll see some real opposition – the kind of opposition that’s been totally missing for the past nearly seven years.  And when Trump’s gone, without a new party, aren’t we right back to here, stuck with a bunch of self-absorbed losers shining us on while behind the scenes, out of view, various billionaires, corporations and lobbies,  foreign and domestic, decide in our stead how we, the people, will be governed?

We all know, at some level, that we have a ruling political class which does not give a damn about us.  I don’t just mean those of us at TPN who read and write here, but I mean about any American who is not a member of their club.  They do not represent us and they are fighting to remain unrepresentative of us, evidenced by their repeated attempts to dislodge Trump’s candidacy.  But that’s only a continuation of business as usual, remembering all the other conservative candidacies the Establishment has sunk in recent years.  

If we want to save our country we have to get free of the GOP.  And while we’ve got Donald Trump stirring things up, now is the time to do it.   The Establishment trolls and those with no ideas will tell us we can’t replace the GOP, that we can’t be successful.  Bull.  Pure unadulterated, fear-mongering bull.  They’ll rave on about “Articles X, Y and Z” or send us off to internet link “No Can Do”.  They’ll try to diminish me personally for bringing this up and will do anything except argue factually for continuing support of the GOP.  That’s because they can’t: there is no evidence to suggest that the GOP can turn the USA around or even wants to. 

The reality is that we can do and accomplish whatever we put our minds and our energies into accomplishing – and at some level we all know that, too.  Let’s do it!  Here’s our idea for moving forward with a party which will not permit what we have seen come to pass in Washington.  Help us out.  Get involved.  Help us organize in your state so we can begin to get people on the ballots around the nation who will represent you and me, who will work for common sense government.  Help us get people on the ballot who won’t lie to us.  Help us clean out that mess in congress and the White House and when we’ve got that underway and rolling, we’ll start on the bureaucracies.  Let’s start to turn the tide and win the things we want.  We won’t do it with the GOP.  Let’s get this thing organized and not look back! 

http://www.freedompartyamerica.com/

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. 

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 . . .

image: http://cdn1.eaglerising.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/constitution-300×300.jpg

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

image: http://cdn1.eaglerising.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Jefferson-and-nullification-e1439761226280.jpg

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.

Print
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 Creators.com

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