Nonsensical Climate Change: Animal Farm Is Here! » Politichicks.com

In late June, an agreement was reached between the United States, Mexico, and Canada aimed at addressing the issue of climate change. The pledge calls for cutting greenhouse gas emissions from oil and related industries, along with the implementation of cross-border energy transmission systems and development of clean energy sources. Ironically, part of the inspiration for the deal was a desire to strengthen cooperation between the North American nations after an important US-Canadian energy project, the Keystone XL oil pipeline, was rejected by American President Barack Obama – a move that weakened American energy independence and had an as-yet unforeseen impact on domestic jobs.

This agreement is the latest in a series of environmentalist paranoia regarding climate change and human industrial activity in general. The people behind it labor under the delusion that cutting emissions of carbon dioxide is clearly more important than addressing the national security threat posed by Islamic terror, growing our economy, and other crucial concerns. They also suffer from the curious shared hallucination that North America is a planet, rather than one among six inhabited continents.

Now California has introduced the first bill of its kind, allowing for the prosecution of climate change opposition–basically making it illegal to engage in climate-change dissent. The bill 1161, California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016, is essentially, another assault on businesses and organizations that possibly could directly or indirectly engage in “unfair competition with respect to scientific evidence regarding the existence, extent, or current or future impacts of anthropogenic induced climate change,” the State Senate Rules Committee’s. This gobbledygook clears the way for litigations against fossil-fuel companies, think-tanks and others that have “deceived or misled” the public on the risks of climate change.  I see this as a prophecy for a California “Animal Farm”  the State has degenerated into totalitarian government.

Even if the US, Canada, and Mexico cut their greenhouse gas emissions drastically overnight – which no one is even proposing, in favor of more gradual reductions – its net effect on global human emissions would be negligible. There might even be negative reduction – emissions growth. That’s because developing economies with many times the population of North America, such as India and China, are aggressively industrializing and have shown no interest in hobbling their own growth in service to Western environmental concerns. Effectively, we can’t do anything to cut the amount of carbon dioxide that humanity pumps into the air.

global_warming_hoax

What we can do, unfortunately, is cripple the American economy at precisely the time it needs to be picking up steam. We have real international trade pressures coming from the aforementioned foreign powers – India and China – and we need to focus on being competitive with them. We also need to focus on maintaining the capacity for a strong, impregnable national defense. In a world of Islamic terrorism, to do any less is downright suicidal.

If these people really are so worried about the environment – a noble concern, so long as it is not placed above national security – then what they should really be pushing for is intelligent implementation of clean energy. Then it has to be done right, and it can’t come at the cost of throwing away our oil and gas industries overnight. The correct way to approach this challenge is to allow the free market to lead us into the future. We accomplish this by incentivizing clean energy development and deployment, offering tax credits to companies that do this work. As money flows into energy sources like wind and solar – naturally, not because the government mandates it – the market for dirtier sources will gradually diminish, giving businesses and workers in those industries needed time to retool and adjust to a changing energy economy. We can do this, but we must do it the right way – the capitalist way.

The most important effect of this strategy is that it preserves and even adds jobs in important industries, rather than sacrificing them on the altar of environmental awareness as punitive emissions caps against oil and gas do. We need to be looking at ways to strengthen and grow out economy while simultaneously addressing environmental issues, not throw one concern away in our need to worship the other. This is why the actions of the environmentalist left are irresponsible – not because it isn’t important to preserve and improve our environment, but because they’re going about it wrongly – and very dangerously.

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

Gun Control, Terror Watchlist — The NRA and the Rule of Law

By Dave Dolbee published on June 30, 2016 in News

America witnessed a remarkable and telling legislative showdown last week that revolved around a very simple concept underlying American democracy. That concept is due process. Some were willing to discard it for the sake of politics and the illusion of safety. Others were not. Here is what the NRA had to say about it:

Senate Judiciary Committee

Unable to sway the Congress to enact his gun control agenda, the president is trying to upset the Founding Father’s system of checks and balances by going it alone.

A series of untenable gun control proposals – some which would have placed your Second Amendment rights at the mercy of bureaucratic fiat, black lists, and secret “evidence” – were defeated.

But the degree to which some were willing to abandon foundational principles for short-term and self-serving political gain should serve as a sobering reminder to all that American freedom is not free and that we should never think our government will simply default to it. The Founders understood that, which is why we have a written Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Proponents of gun control tried to portray the showdown as being over those who wanted terrorists to have guns and those who don’t. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), a gun control standard-bearer, disgraced the dignity of his office by claiming “Republicans have decided to sell weapons to ISIS.”

Think about how ridiculous that statement is.

And it becomes all the more ridiculous in light of how strenuously President Obama, who embodies the values and agenda of Murphy’s politics, tried to deflect the blame for the Orlando terrorist attack away from radical Islamic jihad, the asserted basis of the attacker himself.

I am a bill cartoon

While the defenders of the Second Amendment have seen significant victories over the past year a couple of recent losses are troubling.

Obama loyalists desperately tried to portray NRA and the Second Amendment as the culprits in the Orlando attacks. During a series of publicity stunts – including Murphy’s “filibuster” on the Senate Floor and a “sit-in” by members of Congress on the House Floor – America heard again and again that gun control is now a matter of national security.

During times of fear and crisis, it’s easy to forget what we’re about as a country. It’s natural for opportunistic and ambitious politicians to grab more power for themselves. It’s natural for entrenched authority to demonize opposition and try to suppress dissent. We saw all of that this past week.

But America has always tried to be better than that, which is why the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. It is greater than any individual. It is mightier than any institution. And it states that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law ….” Whatever else Obama, Murphy, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and their surrogates in the media tried to make this past week’s contentious legislative efforts about, that’s what was at stake.

The government cannot arbitrarily deny or withhold rights. When someone’s life, liberty, or property is at stake, the person has a right to notice and the opportunity to respond, and the government bears the burden of making its case before a neutral decision-maker as to why its actions are justified. Without these simple principles, we are not a country of laws.

But that was too much for Feinstein, Murphy, and their anti-gun Senate colleagues. They would settle for nothing less than giving bureaucrats the authority to deny gun purchases at will, without any proving of their case. They would not stand (literally, in the case of their House counterparts) to require the government, if it were later sued over the deprivation, to have to prove anything other than a basis for its own “reasonable suspicion” against the individual. The want to let the government, in other words, retroactively rationalize its decision to abolish a fundamental right – not by actually proving a person is somehow a public safety risk because of nexus to terrorism – but by demonstrating it was not “unreasonable” in “suspecting” so at the time.

05 itshouldnotbecalledguncontrol

That’s not due process.

Make no mistake, the NRA does not want terrorists to have legal – or illegal – access to firearms.  NRA members have fought and died in the war on terror so we take a backseat to no one when it comes to national security.

Freedom endured this week in the U.S. Senate, but it would not have been possible without the dedication of NRA members who were willing to stand up and contact their elected officials in the face of this latest threat.  NRA members flooded Congressional switchboards in just a few short days, and it worked.  Your continued vigilance has always been what makes the NRA the strongest civil rights organization in the world.

At the same time, our victory would not have been possible without the Second Amendment leadership of Senators John Cornyn (R-TX) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA).  Both senators introduced legislation to protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding gun owners and worked tirelessly against passage of the gun control legislation introduced by Feinstein, Murphy, and others.  We could not have been successful without them.

But let’s be careful to not consider the battle over.  The Senate will remain in session this coming week, so your continued pressure is needed.  Gun control proposals could go well beyond the amendments that were voted on last week, so please contact your U.S. Senators and your U.S. Representative immediately and let them know you oppose any new gun control measures. You can call your lawmakers at 202-224-3121 or click here to Take Action.

Did the NRA get it right? What will you do to defeat future gun control measures and support the Second Amendment? Share your plans in the comment section.

Science Proves That Humans Are NOT the Cause of Climate Change

By Byron Claghorn

The Man-Made Climate Change and Global Warming hypothesis does not even qualify as a theory since these Global Warming Alarmists (GWA) have not been able to prove their case with actual scientific observations following accepted scientific method.  Instead the GWA rely on their own man-made computer models based on the shaky Premise and Assumptions that Man’s use of Fossil Fuels produces atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2) that is now causing unlimited and catastrophic warming that will as a result devastate the Earth and its population later in this 21st Century when the CO2 concentration-level reaches or exceeds 600 ppm (parts-per- million).

 
 This premise that is at the very foundation of the GWA hypothesis and their own computer models is a very tentative link between Fossil Fuels and Climate Change that they have asserted as caused by Greenhouse Gases (only 1% of our atmosphere, 10,000 ppm) due to the Greenhouse Effect that occurs about 10 miles up at the top of our Troposphere.

The left-wing progressives, UN IPCC and the Environmentalists have politicized and completely ignored factual scientific proof and methods to push this GWA hypothesis and its premise for their own special interests under the banner of “Save Our Planet!”.   Most of the GWA are completely unaware of the actual solid scientific facts and can only parrot platitudes that they have been taught convinced that this subject is too complex for them to understand, except for those that push the GWA agenda who are fully aware that all these claims are unscientific and deliberate lies supported by Political Correctness, direct intimidation and broad propaganda spread by a willing or naïve media.

Partial GWA Truths:

Yes, the earth’s climate has Always Changed in its 4.5+ Billion year existence!

Yes, the Greenhouse Effect is caused by Greenhouse Gases, but it has and continues to be balanced providing the Earth and its citizens with a pleasant and habitable climate – Otherwise the earth’s global temperatures would be an estimated very cold and inhospitable -18 degrees C (i.e., -0.04 degrees F).

Yes, Al Gore and the other GWA are correct that there is a correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and the earth’s global temperature.   However, they have the actual correlation Backwards: They claim that increased concentrations of CO2 caused by Man & Fossil Fuels in the atmosphere causes increased warming temperatures due to the Greenhouse Effect.

In other words, they contend that Man & Fossil Fuels are creating sufficient quantities of CO2 that upset the natural balance of the Greenhouse Effect which causes it to continue to accumulate atmospheric heat leading to unending and catastrophic warming.

Factual Proven Science and Empirically Validated Observations:

The highly-qualified and honest scientists that have analyzed several of the ice-core samples covering 800,00 years of history in their labs confirm there is a correlation between CO2 and Temperatures-levels which correspond to time periods accurately reconstructed by other highly-qualified and honest scientists.

It turns out that the actual correlation is that: As the Sun’s rays increase the Temperature that warms the oceans evaporating both water (H2O) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2) allowing it to enter the atmosphere Naturally The concentration of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is Increased!

This factual scientifically-researched correlation is precisely the OPPOSITE of the Global Warming hypothesis promoted by Al Gore and the rest of the GWA because rigorous scientific methods were applied!  Both Water Vapor (H2O) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2) are greenhouse gases with naturally-produced Water Vapor being overwhelmingly the most significant contributor to the Greenhouse Effect.

Note: Carbon Dioxide LAGS  Increases in Temperature, so Temperature Increase is the Cause for Increased Atmospheric CO2, Not the Other-Way-Around as Claimed by Al Gore & the GWA!

Furthermore, Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is scientifically considered a TRACE Gas at 400 ppm (i.e., 0.04%) in our atmosphere with most of it (95%) caused Naturally (i.e., 0.038%, 380 ppm) – Leaving only an Extremely Trace amount (i.e., 0.002%, 20 ppm) provided by Man!   The Man-made contribution is insignificant to the proven balanced Greenhouse Effect where the most accurate Satellite and Weather Balloon measurement of Global Temperatures show normal and balanced temperatures all within the tolerance of natural variation.

If the GWA hypothesis regarding CO2 in our planet’s troposphere were correct, high-levels of increased temperatures would appear here – It is not happening folks, the GWA and UN IPCC are again ignoring actual science and scientific methods to report the politically-inspired theme of Global Warming and a coming Climate Catastrophe (unless you give them trillions of taxpayer dollars, of course!).

Net-Net: Since atmospheric CO2 is scientifically proven to NOT CAUSE SIGNIFICANT GLOBAL WARMING – Man and his use of Fossil Fuels are Cleared as a significant Cause for Climate Change; Also, the GWA Climate Models are fully-invested and based upon this failed Premise regarding Carbon Dioxide which are likewise proven false since: A hypothesis and its models that are based on a false premise and assumptions must also be considered to be invalid. However, the GWA continue to ignore the scientific facts and push their preferred political positions to advance their own political agendas.

Our Sun and its billions of past and future Solar Cycles that provide alternating warming Solar Maximums followed by cooling Solar Minimums have and continue to be the Primary Driver of Climate Changes on Earth and throughout our Solar System.

The Modern Grand Solar Maximum (1850 AD to the Present) peaked in 1998 with a 1-degree F drop in Global Temperature – A flat trend that is now predicted to be a transition into the next cooler Modern Solar Minimum — Much like the very similar warm Medieval Grand Solar Maximum did a thousand years before (900 AD – 1300 AD ) which was followed by its next extremely cold Solar Minimum dubbed “The Little Ice Age” (1300 AD – 1850).

Don’t just take my word for this, you should use the link below to view an excellent and scientifically-based Video by the actual professional Climate & Solar Scientists that analyzed many of the Ice-Core Samples and who have received NASA awards of Excellent for their work on Satellite and Global Temperature measurement as well as other related Climate Research:

CLICK ON THIS LINK to have expert and honest Climate Scientists amplify and verify the above points!

Likewise, there is no Climate Crisis at 600+ ppm as claimed by the GWA, since Carbon Dioxide is still a trace gas and has an insignificant impact on Climate.   CO2 is not a pollutant and it is good for Plants, Animals and Humans since the well-known Photosynthesis process absorbs CO2, water and light to produce the Oxygen we breath as well as absorbs the CO2 we exhale.

Likewise the GWA needs to stop demonizing the element Carbon (C) since it is essential to all life on Earth and all living things, including you and I, which are Carbon-Structures.

 

Carbon is the most-flexible element that recombines to form a vast number of useful compounds with almost 10-Million compounds described to date that is still a fraction of possible future compounds such as: soft pencil leads, hard diamonds, lightweight composite aircraft parts, lubricants, Nanotubes, Buckminster Fullerene “Buckeyballs”, even advanced tennis racquets (e.g., Graphene), …, etc.

In Conclusion: The allegiance to the politically-motivated ‘Anthropocentric Climate Change’ myth is preventing a massive improvement in our Economy by political constraints placed on our vast energy resources. We are now being urged by politicians and the GWA to further waste huge amounts of taxpayer money on a “Fool’s Errand” to stop “Man-Made Climate Change”, a non-existent threat and impractical task since we cannot control the Sun’s Energy, the Earth’s Tilt and Orbit which are the actual forces of only ‘Natural Climate Change’.

 

Byron Claghorn

Byron Claghorn is an experienced Business Analyst, Project Manager and Technical Writer. With a keen interest in science, the Global Warming and Man-Made Climate Change claims did not ‘Ring True’, so he has focused much time and effort in its research and reporting in this series of articles: “Man-Made Climate Change? – The Science on the Other Side of the Coin”. As a result of trying to ‘Connect the Dots’ in this highly politicized subject of “Climate Change”, this series will both inform as well as provide an example of how you can verify these facts, plus empower you to continue to question and ‘Connect your own Dots’ on this subject.

 

The Obama Administration is Vociferously Anti-Science – Tea Party Nation

Posted by Seton Motley

We conservatives are incessantly assailed by the Left as “anti-science.” That we stand athwart scientific and technological advancement – yelling “Stop!” But time and again, it is Leftists that make decisions that fly in the face of actual, readily obvious science. And the Barack Obama Administration is rife with just these sorts of Luddites.

Mathematics is a science – so Leftists oppose it. Math dictates that when you make it more expensive for businesses to hire people – businesses will hire less people. Thus the minimum wage is anti-science. Uber-Left California Governor Jerry Brown admitted “Economically, minimum wages may not make sense” – before raising his state’s anyway. President Obama unilaterally raised the minimum wage for government contractors.

The science on global warming – oops, I mean climate change – is far from “settled.” Former high-ranking Obama Administration official Dr. Steven Koonin wrote “The idea that ‘Climate science is settled’ runs through today’s popular and policy discussions. Unfortunately, that claim is misguided. It has not only distorted our public and policy debates on issues related to energy, greenhouse-gas emissions and the environment. But it also has inhibited the scientific and policy discussions that we need to have about our climate future.”

The climate science evidence we do have is mounting – and it’s against the Leftist alarmists. Who have already woefully missed decades-worth of predictions. Who claim that carbon dioxide is a pollutant – when it is what everything plant on the planet inhales. Leftists claim that carbon dioxide raises global temperatures – all the while China and India’s CO2 outputs have exponentially exploded, while global temperatures have flatlined for now-going-on eighteen years.

Meanwhile, multiple alleged science institutions have been caught actively attacking science to protect the Left’s climate change myth. Amongst these anti-science scammers are United-Nations-touchstone East Anglia University and our own National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

The Left’s anti-science-ness is so deep – and yet so superficial – President Obama tried to dodge culpability for his ongoing, terrible jobs record by blaming ATM machines.

This Administration’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is just another anti-science Leftist entity. Time and again the FCC’s three Democrat Commissioners (one of whom also serves as Chairman) have voted for ridiculously anti-science unilateral power grabs. Particularly in their sites – the World Wide Web.

The Internet has become a free speech-free market Xanadu – and it has done so virtually government-free. Arguably no endeavor in human history has grown so huge, so fast – in large part because it has been virtually government-free.

If ever there was an “If it ain’t broke – don’t fix it” entity – the Web is it. This FCC has made it their mission to ignore Reality, mathematics, economics, technology and many other wings of science – and pretend what ain’t broke needs a whole lot of government fixing.

Beginning with their “reclassification” power grab. Where the FCC’s Democrats decided to go back in time eighty years and bizarrely superimpose 1934 landline telephone law – on to the Internet.

Basic science says “The Internet network is dramatically different and exponentially more complex than a telephone network.” Basic science says “Law written sixty years before the advent of the Internet – doesn’t really work on the Internet.” But these things matter not to the Luddites. This power grab had to happen – to set the table for a whole host of subsequent anti-science attacks.

Also currently under consideration – the “set-top-box” grab. Where the FCC’s Democrats will force cable television providers to crack open their own complex digital networks – and completely reconfigure them each and every time an outside company wants to offer a new set-top-box.

Basic science says “Reconfiguring these networks is a huge, very expensive undertaking. Forcing providers to do so time and again will dramatically increase the prices consumers pay for these services.” FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler said he’s received e-mails from customers urging him to help lower their cable bills – and this bill-exploding proposal is his response.

Basic science says “The use of set-top-boxes is declining – as the use of applications (apps) is rising.” Thanks to technology and its advancement, every day your TV is becoming more like your smart phone – with rafts of apps, one for each individualized service. Rendering the set-top-box the soon-to-be-dinosaur of content delivery. And the backwards-looking, anti-science FCC is myopically fixating on the fossils.

Meanwhile, since about 2000 local governments have wasted hundreds of millions (billions?) of dollars trying to be Internet Service Providers (ISPs). Wasted – because government has been abjectly awful at it. So awful – that twenty states passed laws prohibiting or limiting their down-ballot governments from wasting even more coin thereon.

The Obama Administration – undaunted by math and history – dumped $7.2 billion more into government broadband in the 2009 “Stimulus.” Which shockingly created even more of the exact same failures. Making those twenty states look a whole lot smarter than the Feds.

Who’s even more steadfastly impervious to facts than the Obama Administration? The Administration’s FCC. Which just last year ignored all of these failures at all levels of government – and overturned the sensible state laws prohibiting these failures.

We could go on, and on, and….

Of course these myriad Administration officials aren’t dim – they’re ideological zealots. For them – it’s government uber alles. And being pro-government means just about always being anti-science.

Because far too often science demands less government. And this Administration won’t stand for that.

This first appeared in Townhall and Red State.

Deep-Sixing Another Useful Climate Myth – David Legates

By now, virtually everyone has heard that “97% of scientists agree:  Climate change is real, manmade and dangerous.” Even if you weren’t one of his 31 million followers who received this tweet from President Obama, you most assuredly have seen it repeated everywhere as scientific fact.

The correct representation is “yes,” “some,” and “no.” Yes, climate change is real. There has never been a period in Earth’s history when the climate has not changed somewhere, in one way or another. 

People can and do have some influence on our climate. For example, downtown areas are warmer than the surrounding countryside, and large-scale human development can affect air and moisture flow. But humans are by no means the only source of climate change. The Pleistocene ice ages, Little Ice Age and monster hurricanes throughout history underscore our trivial influence compared to natural forces.

As for climate change being dangerous, this is pure hype based on little fact. Mile-high rivers of ice burying half of North America and Europe were disastrous for everything in their path, as they would be today. Likewise for the plummeting global temperatures that accompanied them. An era of more frequent and intense hurricanes would also be calamitous; but actual weather records do not show this.

It would be far more deadly to implement restrictive energy policies that condemn billions to continued life without affordable electricity – or to lower living standards in developed countries – in a vain attempt to control the world’s climate. In much of Europe, electricity prices have risen 50% or more over the past decade, leaving many unable to afford proper wintertime heat, and causing thousands to die.

 

Moreover, consensus and votes have no place in science. History is littered with theories that were long denied by “consensus” science and politics: plate tectonics, germ theory of disease, a geocentric universe. They all underscore how wrong consensus can be.

Science is driven by facts, evidence and observations – not by consensus, especially when it is asserted by deceitful or tyrannical advocates. As Einstein said, “A single experiment can prove me wrong.”

During this election season, Americans are buffeted by polls suggesting which candidate might become each party’s nominee or win the general election. Obviously, only the November “poll” counts.

Similarly, several “polls” have attempted to quantify the supposed climate change consensus, often by using simplistic bait-and-switch tactics. “Do you believe in climate change?” they may ask.

Answering yes, as I would, places you in the President’s 97% consensus and, by illogical extension, implies you agree it is caused by humans and will be dangerous. Of course, that serves their political goal of gaining more control over energy use.

The 97% statistic has specific origins. Naomi Oreskes is a Harvard professor and author of Merchants of Doubt, which claims those who disagree with the supposed consensus are paid by Big Oil to obscure the truth. In 2004, she claimed to have examined the abstracts of 928 scientific papers and found a 100% consensus with the claim that the “Earth’s climate is being affected by human activities.”

Of course, this is probably true, as it is unlikely that any competent scientist would say humans have no impact on climate. However, she then played the bait-and-switch game to perfection – asserting that this meant “most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.”

However, one dissenter is enough to discredit the entire study, and what journalist would believe any claim of 100% agreement? In addition, anecdotal evidence suggested that 97% was a better figure. So 97% it was.

Then in 2010, William Anderegg and colleagues concluded that “97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support … [the view that] … anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for most of the unequivocal warming of the Earth’s average global temperature” over a recent but unspecified time period. (Emphasis in original.)

To make this extreme assertion, Anderegg et al. compiled a database of 908 climate researchers who published frequently on climate topics, and identified those who had “signed statements strongly dissenting from the views” of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The 97–98% figure is achieved by counting those who had not signed such statements.

Silence, in Anderegg’s view, meant those scientists agreed with the extreme view that most warming was due to humans. However, nothing in their papers suggests that all those researchers believed humans had caused most of the planetary warming, or that it was dangerous.

The most recent 97% claim was posited by John Cook and colleagues in 2013. They evaluated abstracts from nearly 12,000 articles published over a 21-year period and sorted them into seven categories, ranging from “explicit, quantified endorsement” to “explicit, quantified rejection” of their alleged consensus: that recent warming was caused by human activity, not by natural variability. They concluded that “97.1% endorsed the consensus position.”

However, two-thirds of all those abstracts took no position on anthropogenic climate change. Of the remaining abstracts (not the papers or scientists), Cook and colleagues asserted that 97.1% endorsed their hypothesis that humans are the sole cause of recent global warming.

Again, the bait-and-switch was on full display. Any assertion that humans play a role was interpreted as meaning humans are the sole cause. But many of those scientists subsequently said publicly that Cook and colleagues had misclassified their papers – and Cook never tried to assess whether any of the scientists who wrote the papers actually thought the observed climate changes were dangerous.

My own colleagues and I did investigate their analysis more closely. We found that only 41 abstracts of the 11,944 papers Cook and colleagues reviewed – a whopping 0.3% – actually endorsed their supposed consensus. It turns out they had decided that any paper which did not provide anexplicit, quantified rejection of their supposed consensus was in agreement with the consensus. Moreover, this decision was based solely on Cook and colleagues’ interpretation of just the abstracts, and not the articles themselves.  In other words, the entire exercise was a clever sleight-of-hand trick.

What is the real figure? We may never know. Scientists who disagree with the supposed consensus – that climate change is manmade and dangerous – find themselves under constant attack.

Harassment by Greenpeace and other environmental pressure groups, the media, federal and state government officials, and even universities toward their employees (myself included) makes it difficult for many scientists to express honest opinions. Recent reports about Senator Whitehouse and Attorney-General Lynch using RICO laws to intimidate climate “deniers” further obscure meaningful discussion. 

Numerous government employees have told me privately that they do not agree with the supposed consensus position – but cannot speak out for fear of losing their jobs. And just last week, a George Mason University survey found that nearly one-third of American Meteorological Society members were willing to admit that at least half of the climate change we have seen can be attributed to natural variability.

Climate change alarmism has become a $1.5-trillion-a-year industry – which guarantees it is far safer and more fashionable to pretend a 97% consensus exists, than to embrace honesty and have one’s global warming or renewable energy funding go dry.

The real danger is not climate change – it is energy policies imposed in the name of climate change. It’s time to consider something else Einstein said: “The important thing is not to stop questioning.”

icyalgore

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

Where’s All the Global Warming? | The Common Constitutionalist – Let The Truth Be Known

by: the Common Constitutionalist

 

I don’t normally like to bash others just because they have a different point of view. However, regarding this topic, I take pleasure in verbally beating up on those members of the Church of Perpetual Heat; the man-made Global Warming nuts.

 

We in realville, as Rush calls it, realize that a cold winter does not equal a global cooling trend, but neither does a hot summer prove global warming.

 

Yet that is exactly what we hear from the so-called warming experts whenever the temperature drifts above 100°F. When the temperature dips, the same fools either ignore it or call it climate change.

 

We don’t normally hear from the “true believers”. We hear mostly from those who have and continue to benefit financially from the warming farce and those who just want control.

 

One can’t really blame the ignorant true believer. They have been pummeled, year after year, with the propagandist threats of “change your lifestyle to save the planet and reduce your carbon footprint”.

 

Yet here we are setting negative temperature records across the United States and it’s not even winter.

 

The city of Portland Oregon, with its record-setting cold temperatures, opened warming shelters this past weekend. The director of a local Portland nonprofit said his main job was just to keep people alive.

 

At the same time we in the United States are freezing our backsides off, the UN climate chief, Christiana Figueres, is busy trying to shut down coal-fired power plants worldwide.

 

As we know, coal is dirty and icky and pollutes mother Earth. It causes excess greenhouse gases which leads to global warming, don’t you know. Tell that to Portland’s homeless, dying in the streets from exposure.

 

The head of the World Coal Association, Milton Catelin said Figueres is, “ignoring reality. She comes from a perspective where the only challenge in the world today is global warming”.

 

Figueres is a man-made global warming nut, who just happens to come from tropical Costa Rica, where the high temperatures year-round are in the mid-80s and the lows in the high 60s, so naturally she has experienced nothing but warming.

 

A few days ago Rush Limbaugh mentioned a ridiculous article written in 2000 by Charles Onians. It appeared in the UK independent and was entitled: “Snowfalls Are Now Just a Thing of the Past”.

 

He wrote that warming, “is now accepted as reality in the international community”. He claimed that warming manifests itself in warmer winters and hotter summers. Brilliant!

 

The money quote is: “Children just aren’t going to know what snow is”. I guess “the children” didn’t attend any NFL games this past weekend or end up in a multicar pileup due to excessive ice and snow.

 

So here we are, a mere 13 years after Mr. Onians wrote his dimwitted article, and what do we hear?

 

A new cold temperature record has been set in East Antarctica. Although when all there is is ice and snow, how does one tell East Antarctica from West? Just asking.

 

Anyway, the temperature recorded was… are you ready for this?… -135.8°F. What does the U.N. have to say about that, Ms. Figueres?

 

Makes one wonder just how cold it would be without all this man-made global warming?

Maine Just Put Welfare Leeches In Their Place, Every American Needs To See What Happened Next | Top Right News

Source: Maine Just Put Welfare Leeches In Their Place, Every American Needs To See What Happened Next | Top Right News

paul-lepage

by Jason DeWitt | Top Right News

Governor Paul LePage of Maine isn’t running for president. But perhaps he should be.

Because he is doing in Maine exactly what Americans want to see — but which most candidates are not even talking about.

Last November, just one week after his re-election, LePage did something unusual — he made good on a major campaign promise, by slashing funds for cities who give welfare to illegal aliens. The policy has already had a huge impact, with illegals fleeing in droves, and stunned Democrat mayors forced to defend giving handouts to illegal invaders before angry voters at the next election.

Now, just 6 months later, LePage is making good on another promise: to put an end to welfare leeches in his state, once and for all.

The results are something every American should see — an EPIC victory. And Democrats are FURIOUS.

Governor LePage passed a measure last year that requires recipients of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistant Program (SNAP) to complete a certain number of work, job-training, or volunteer hours in order to be eligible for assistance. The new requirement has resulted in a dramatic decline in food stamp enrollment, resulting in a logical win-win for all of Maine.

At the end of 2014 the enrollment count for SNAP was approximately 12,000 individuals. Now that individuals have to complete either 20 hours of part-time work a week, volunteer for at least 24 hours per month, or get involved in a vocational program, the amount of SNAP recipients has dramatically dropped from 12,000 to approximately 2,500 by the end of March — a nearly 80% reduction in welfare. 

The drop in numbers exceeded Republicans’ expectations by leaps and bounds.

Instead of just giving welfare applicants an easy way out, Maine is forcing people to explore every opportunity for employment before allowing capable adults to take advantage of the system and the people of Maine.

ecard-welfre

Of course Democrats are insisting that the program targets those in poverty or rural areas but their argument is invalid. The individuals benefiting from the new food-stamp law are the ones who really need the assistance and aren’t just lazy parasites to society who suck the vitality out of taxpayers.

This is a huge victory for the Republicans of Maine and of course the sore loser Democrats are trying to tarnish the reformation’s success. Democrats are urging for special measures to ease back on some of the new requirements because they are “too strict”. Too strict to get off your butt and earn your money, or at least volunteer or learn a skill? Maine citizens aren’t buying it.

Below: Irate Portland SNAP recipients wait on line for vocational programs

irate

Maine was one of eight other states that took similar measures and declined a federal waiver for the new rule that requires welfare recipients to get off their behinds and contribute to society like everyone else.

This huge drop in the number of able-bodied welfare leeches after forcing them to work for their needs proves everything we’ve ever reported about welfare abusers. They’re only looking for the next handout.

Now if only we could get every American governor to do what Paul LePage is doing — against both illegal aliens, and welfare leeches — we might well save our nation.

 

The EPA Isn’t Handling Its Business – But Insists On Man-Handling Ours – Tea Party Nation

I have a (somewhat tongue-in-cheek) rule for federal government departments, agencies, commissions and boards: Barring a Constitutional amendment, if a bureaucracy was created after 1800 – it shouldn’t exist.

The Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution – were by 1800 thoroughly implementing it. If they didn’t yet have the federal government doing something – the federal government wasn’t to be doing it.   So unless a subsequent amendment added an authority to the federal panoply – it’s been an unConstitutional addition.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was created in 1970 – WAY past our sell-by date. Our nation got along just fine for nearly two centuries without this particular federal usurpation. Was the Constitution first amended to give the federal government the authority to override how fifty individual states each respectively decide how to handle environmental issues? Of course not.

Did Congress pretend to be a unilateral, illegal amendment process and pass legislation creating the EPA? Not even: “Pseudo-Republican Richard Nixon created the mess in 1970 in typical DC fashion. He pretended to be (a one-man Constitutional amendment process) – and signed an executive order. The Democrat-controlled Congress then pretended to be (two-thirds of the states) – and ‘ratified’ the EPA with committee hearings.…”

So the entirety of the EPA is Constitutionally illegitimate. It is through this prism that we should examine its actions. Which are unilateral, authoritarian, bullying and amateurish. Time and again they grab more and more power and authority over our lives – all while failing miserably at the things over which they already lord.

The latest example of their awfulness? “An EPA official was caught red-handed with full knowledge of the danger of an environmental spill at Colorado’s Gold King Mine in emails discovered by the Denver Post, but the agency downplayed any knowledge of the hazard to the public. As 3 million gallons of lead, cadmium and other chemicals polluted the Animas River, the EPA pretty well tried to downplay the severity of that, too.”

An EPA screwup of MASSIVE proportions. Followed by an equally huge attempted coverup. And yet literally no one in government was fired for the fiasco. And does their fiasco stop them from abusing a business accused of a MUCH smaller error? Of course not: “On the same day when the Denver Post printed the story above, the Department of Justice announced the latest criminal sentencing in connection with the Elk River spill.

“‘A former owner of Freedom Industries was sentenced today to 30 days in federal prison, six months of supervised release, and a $20,000 fine for environmental crimes connected to the 2014 Elk River chemical spill…. (Dennis P.) Farrell is one of six former officials of Freedom Industries, in addition to Freedom Industries itself as a corporation, to be prosecuted for federal crimes associated with the chemical spill.’

“Was this private company dealt with so harshly because the Elk River spill was larger than the EPA’s Animas River discharge? No: the Elk River spill was only 7,500 gallons, compared with three million gallons the EPA discharged into the Animas River.”

Get that? Six private sector employees and the company itself prosecuted – for spilling 0.0025% of what the EPA spilled. An EPA spill which resulted in zero bureaucrats prosecuted – or even canned.

The EPA can’t handle its business – but it sure as heck wants to man-handle ours.

And, of course, the EPA continues to unilaterally, illegally and omni-directionally expand its authority. But one such additional assault? “You want to kneecap farmers? And make food exorbitantly more expensive? Turn farmers’ water into a weapon against them.

“‘The issue is the EPA’s proposed changes to the Waters of the United States regulation. In March, the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed new rules that would expand the agency’s regulatory authority on streams and wetlands that feed into major rivers and lakes….

“‘(T)he rules…(would) allow the government to dictate what farmers can and cannot do with their farmland, which often includes small streams, ponds and marshes.’”

Given all we know – who do you think knows better how to treat and handle farmland? The farmers – who live and earn their living on it? Or faceless bureaucrats far removed from the land – and the consequences of their heinous actions?

If farmers screw up their land – farmers don’t eat. If bureaucrats screw up farmers’ land – farmers don’t eat. And NOTHING happens to the bureaucrats.

Farmers are just like the rest of us. The less government there is – the better things are for them. Less government domestically – like the ridiculous EPA. And less government internationally – like eliminating all government meddling in farm markets.

We the People handle with care. Government man-handles with impunity.

This first appeared in Townhall and Red State.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,775 other followers