The Supreme Court Has Destroyed the Principle of the “Consent of the Governed” – TheLead.com

The Supreme Court Has Destroyed the Principle of the “Consent of the Governed”

Supreme Court

 

Tom Mullen

As Americans celebrated the 242nd anniversary of their secession from Great Britain, references to the Declaration of Independence ratified on July 4, 1776 were many. But while the left reminded us “all men are created equal” and the right reminded us that all inalienable rights come from our Creator, far too little attention was paid to another phrase in Jefferson’s famous preamble: “deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Judging from the way most Americans talk, almost no one remembers how that consent is supposedly obtained.

Hint: It isn’t from voting, but that’s what most Americans seem to believe. According to this narrative, representatives are elected democratically, and by casting one’s vote, one consents to whatever legislation the representatives who win the election choose to pass, or whatever executive actions the elected president chooses to take. In the aftermath of Obamacare’s passage, surrogates for President Obama often justified that new federal endeavor with the quip, “That’s why we have elections.” Conservatives employ the same reasoning when their candidates win.

That raises the question: Why did the framers bother with Sections 8, 9 and 10 in Article I, Sections 2, 3 and 4 in Article II, or Sections 2 and 3 of Article III? Why did they include Article V at all?

The answer is that the aforementioned sections define the list of powers the people were consenting to, all others being reserved to the states or the people, while Article V was provided as the one and only means for the people to consent to any new powers. Put another way, any power exercised by the federal government that is not among those delegated in the Constitution is power exercised without the consent of the governed.

So, determining what the federal government should do is not “why we have elections.” Elections merely decide who will exercise powers already granted.

Even this standard for establishing consent of the governed requires an extremely elastic interpretation of the word “consent.” In the end, ratification of the Constitution itself and subsequent amendments were just another series of majority votes, each posing all the dangers to individual rights that any democratic process poses. That makes legislating without meeting even this low standard for consent even more egregious.

The word “unconstitutional” tends to obscure what’s really going on when the black robed high priests in Washington retire to deliberate on some new constitutional challenge. It’s such a stuffy, academic-sounding word that well-meaning people probably honestly believe it’s better left to the finest legal minds to determine. But what judicial review really purports to do is determine if anyone ever consented to the power being exercised by the law or executive action in question. And if the power is not listed in the original Constitution or a subsequent amendment, the answer is “no.”

That means that when the Supreme Court ruled as “constitutional” Social Security, Medicare, federal drug laws and myriad other federal legislation, it was ruling that the ratifying conventions of 1787-90 consented to the federal government having those powers right from the beginning.

That seems ludicrous, doesn’t it?

The Constitution is not written in a dead foreign language or legalese. It’s written in plain English, in a manner “We the People” can understand. It doesn’t take the finest legal minds in the country to determine which powers are granted and which are not. It’s all there in black and white. In fact, because it’s so unambiguously written, the court has had to rule constitutional most of what the federal government does outside of the military under the power granted in the Commerce Clause, which was originally proposed and ratified mainly in reaction to states erecting their own tariffs.

The assertion that by granting the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce, 18th-century Americans were consenting to allow the federal government to force them to participate in a federal pension program, monopolize all health insurance for people over 65 years of age, prohibit possession or ingestion of certain plants, and even to mandate how much water Americans could have in their toilet bowls, is absurd. With few exceptions, the history of judicial review is the history of an unelected group of judges lending legitimacy and legal sanction to the federal government seizing vast new powers without the consent of the governed.

Prior to Donald Trump’s election, this writer heard from many conservatives and libertarians that they would vote for Trump solely based on their fear that Hillary Clinton could appoint replacements for several aging SCOTUS judges. Many believed the ancient right to bear arms could be lost based solely on this. Two years into Trump’s term, with one appointment confirmed and Anthony Kennedy retiring from the Court, liberals now decry the imminent threat to “reproductive rights,” gay marriage and other progressive pillars. Their rhetoric and actions are becoming increasingly violent.

Surely, the founders never intended for the election of one man or woman to so profoundly change the legal framework of the entire nation, one way or another. This is the fruit of violating not only a set of rules spelled out in the Constitution, but for violating the fundamental principle that underpins the entire document: that the federal government will exercise no power not delegated to it, i.e., without the consent of the governed.

Strict constructionists since Jefferson have argued even judicial review itself is a power nowhere delegated to the federal government. That’s one of the very few powers upon which there is room for argument on both sides. But whether the power was granted or not, history clearly shows it has been used to undermine one of the most important principles of the American republic.

Here’s a useful rule of thumb. If it takes nine judges dozens of pages of legalese to explain how the Constitution grants a power in question to the federal government, then we should assume the power isn’t there. If there is any question at all, an amendment to the Constitution should be offered to determine if the people really do consent. That goes for all previous rulings by SCOTUS on constitutionality. If we really believe in consent of the governed, why not be sure?

Most of what the federal government currently does wouldn’t pass the test. That probably scares the heck out of a lot of people, but it really shouldn’t. It would simply allow blue states to govern themselves in much bluer fashion and red states to do so in much redder fashion. That’s by no means a perfect solution, but it would be highly preferable to the imminent civil unrest—or worse—Americans currently face as a result of letting the federal government do whatever it wants.

 

 

Tom Mullen is the author of Where Do Conservatives and Liberals Come From? And What Ever Happened to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness? and A Return to Common  Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America. For more information and more of Tom’s writing, visit www.tommullen.net.

Advertisements

Q&A: Marc Morano’s Politically Incorrect Book About Climate Change

Al Gore, former vice president, is among the radical left-wing environmentalist who author Marc Morano debunks in his book, “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change.” (Photo: Van Tine Dennis/Sipa USA/Newscom)

Marc Morano, founding editor of the award-winning website ClimateDepot.com, recently authored “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change.” He spoke to Daily Signal Editor-in-Chief Rob Bluey about climate change myths and other facts you probably haven’t heard reported by the media. An edited transcript of their interview is below. You can also listen to it on The Daily Signal podcast.

Rob Bluey: What prompted your interest in the issue of climate change? There’s a great photo of you in the book next to a wanted poster. How did you become such a villain to the left?

Marc Morano: I always said I was a Republican, except when it came to environmental issues. I remember not liking James Watt, the former interior secretary. I remember not liking President Ronald Reagan’s environmental policies. I always wanted to be a forest ranger as a kid growing up. I got heavily involved emotionally in watching all the documentaries about the Amazon rainforest back in the 1980s and 1990s.

It wasn’t until I started reading Dixy Lee Ray and actually hearing her talk, it was actually on Rush Limbaugh’s show, the coverage of the Rio Earth Summit, that I started to look deeper into environmental issues. What I remember her specifically saying, as a nuclear physicist, Dixy Lee Ray, that the Amazon was one of the most intact forests and this idea that it’s about to disappear was complete exaggeration and hype. I started investigating that. It actually culminated in a documentary on the Amazon rainforest.

>>> Buy the Book: “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change

Global warming, when I started focusing on it, I actually started with a skeptical view and I was only able to get more and more skeptical, because I saw the same tactics being used.

The way I ended up in the wanted poster in Paris—that was the movie premier of my film “Climate Hustle” from 2015 at a Paris cinema. The environmental groups put out wanted posters of me the day of the premier. All over the city, this was literally on the main streets of Paris. So I posed with one of them in the book and you can see the picture. They called me a “climate criminal wanted for climate crimes.” This is the kind of intimidation they like to do.

Marc Morano, author of “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change,” in Paris. (Photo Courtesy of Marc Morano)

Bluey: Despite that intimidation, you’ve still gone on to write this book. So what prompted you to do that and what’s your goal when a reader picks it up? What do you want them to walk away with?

Morano: My goal here was to help conservatives and Republicans articulate the issue. During my time on Capitol Hill, I worked for the Senate Environment of Public Works Committee. I can’t tell you the horror stories, Rob, of being in high-level meetings, during the height of the cap-and-trade debate 2007, 2008, 2009; back when President Barack Obama was pushing this through all the way to 2010.

The staffers of very conservative Republican senators would be like, “Well, we don’t want to touch the science on this because we don’t want to be seen as against the Earth or against the environment. Let’s just solely focus on the economics.”

I remember arguing passionately. If people think we face the climate catastrophe, we’re Americans! They’re going to say we will bear any cost and overcome it. They never wanted to challenge it. So I’m trying to, and working for Sen. James Inhofe, we tried to challenge the science.

What I tried to do with this book is say it’s OK to espouse climate skepticism. The book is done for anyone from, I would say, sixth grade through highest levels of education to educate them with the top voices in science, the basic concepts, and to make it fun, informative in a talking point form.

This is a needed book because in order to fulfill President Trump’s policies, you need the scientific justification, and this book fills that gap in, as well as talks about the policy.

Bluey: The other thing the book has is a lot of great facts that I think counter what you so often hear in the media and from liberal politicians. Could you share some of them? I know you have examples right on the cover. For instance, let’s take hurricanes because we’re in the midst right now of another hurricane story. You hear this all the time—that these hurricanes are more intense, they’re happening more often because of climate change. You say, “No.”

Morano: Not only do I say “no,” but the peer-reviewed scientific literature clearly and overwhelmingly says “no.”

There is nothing unusual, particularly on extreme weather. It’s not just hurricanes. Hurricanes, floods, droughts, tornadoes, on the entire spectrum of extreme weather, we are either at stable or declining trends. And that includes droughts.

California droughts in previous centuries blew away anything we’re talking about now. Floods, no trends on 100-year, 85-year time scales. Hurricanes were much worse, many more powerful hurricanes in the 1940s and ’50s. In fact, we were in the longest period of no major hurricane category three or larger before last year’s big hurricanes hit. And even though there is this alleged record rains, in the 1960s hurricanes that hit Cuba had many more times rain and flooding events than that.

“They make it seem like extreme weather is everywhere. But taken as a whole, and in the peer-reviewed literature, it’s actually on a declining trend.”

I go into that in the book about these so-called 1,000-year floods and I explain that all these extreme weather events they claim, it’s kind of like a lottery promotion scam. Where they say, “Oh, this is a 1,000-year storm hit this city, and a 1,000-year storm hit that, this is unusual.” No, there are going to be very few lottery winners. But the lottery winners there are, they highlight them. “Look, there’s a lottery winner and there’s a lottery, look the lottery winners are everywhere.” They make it seem like extreme weather is everywhere. But taken as a whole, and in the peer-reviewed literature, it’s actually on a declining trend.

Interestingly enough, cold weather is actually more extreme than warm weather. In the 1970s, they blamed tornadoes, floods, even the threat of war and increased violence on global cooling at the time. So there’s just not the science there at all, when it comes to that. And also I go through all the other myths you’ve heard about from the hottest year on record, the hottest decade.

Bluey: Let’s tackle that one because we hear this one it seems month after month—another record-breaking month. At the same time, I love the chart that The Daily Signal published of the temperature throughout history. You see the lines going up and down. Tell us what we need to know.

Morano: First of all, in the book, I interviewed geologists, I have Nobel Prize-winning scientists endorse the book. They explain that in the geologic history of the Earth, we are in the coldest 10 percent of the geologic history of the Earth. In other words, 90 percent of our Earth’s history was too warm to have ice at either pole. So we are in the 10 percent coldest. That’s No. 1.

No. 2, if you go back to the Roman warming periods during the time that Jesus Christ walked the Earth—and I show this in the peer-reviewed studies in the book, in a very reader-friendly way—we are actually now cooler than we were. So we’ve cooled since the time Jesus Christ walked the Earth. We’re actually about the same temperature or cooler since the medieval warm period, since about 900 to 1300.

First of all, you say hottest year, what time scale? Then, you jump ahead to about 1850, the end of the Little Ice Age, where the New York river, New York Harbor froze over, the Thames river was frozen, it was a brutal period, coinciding with low sun spot activity and bunch of other factors.

Suddenly, we get thermometer data. So the thermometer data comes online right at the end of the Little Ice Age. It’s very cold. All these things you hear about the glaciers retreating, most of that glacier retreat happened by 1900. Now, 80 percent of the carbon dioxide came after 1940, or after World War II in 1945. We had a huge warm spell from the 1920s into the ’30s and then, we had a cooling period from the ’50s all the way up to about the late 1970s. I go into the whole global cooling scare.

“The so-called claims of the hottest year fall easily within the margin of error. That’s why it’s a political statement. It is utter nonsense from beginning to end.”

They now claim, “Oh, that never happened.” They have studies out, they claim that that was overblown, there’s only a couple scientists. I show in the book it was National Academy of Sciences, CIA, some of the same scientists warning of global cooling in the ’70s who then flipped and became global warming.

I actually feature in the book an article from the 1977 and ’78 in The New York Times, two articles. During this time, the scientists were battling it out when global cooling was morphing into a climate change, global warming.

To answer the question on the hottest year, we warm from the late ’70s to the late ’90s. Then essentially we flatlined. Essentially, there’s no statistically significant global warming. We had a thing called “the pause.” They didn’t like that, so they actually went back in the records and erased the pause. They changed the data.

Besides, even doing all that, the hottest year claims are within hundredths of a degree and that margin of error is tenths of a degree and they adjust the temperatures to within tenths of a degree without explanations. The so-called claims of the hottest year fall easily within the margin of error. That’s why it’s a political statement. It is utter nonsense from beginning to end.

It’s a fancy way of saying the temperature hasn’t changed since the ’90s. That’s where they get hottest decade on record. On record just means since the Little Ice Age ended, when we put thermometer data out and that’s what that means. If you go back further, we’ve cooled, Middle Ages, Roman warming period, and even further.

Bluey: Thank you for setting the record straight on that. One of the other things that you argue is that the left has abandoned this fact-based science and instead resorted to just dramatic fear-mongering. What do you mean?

Morano: Go back to the 19th century, Rob, to explain this. Every storm is allegedly unprecedented, we’ve never seen it, this is the new normal, so to speak. This hurricane has a name, it’s Hurricane Katrina. This hurricane has a name, it’s Hurricane Harvey. The same lines over and over. Everything is done as a tactic of fear in order to get action. This started in the 1960s with the modern environmental movement.

Particularly, I go into a little bit about Paul Ehrlich, author of “The Population Bomb.” I actually show, Rob, that they use this hysteria for the different environmental scares in the 1970s, whether it’s resource scarcity, over-population, rainforest clearing, et cetera.

They will say, “We need a global solution; we need global governance; we need wealth redistribution; we need sovereignty threatening treaty, or some kind of economic activity limiting.” No matter what environmental scare in the past that they tried to scare people with, it was the same solutions they’re proposing now.

In the book, I go back and show over and over that global warming is merely the latest scare they’re using to get their agenda. I show Naomi Klein, who’s an adviser to Pope Francis, who wrote “Capitalism vs. the Climate.” I interviewed her for the book. She actually says that they would be seeking the same solutions even if there was no global warming and that essentially, capitalism is incompatible with a livable climate. She actually urges people, “We need to jump on this because solving global warming will solve what we’ve been trying to achieve all along.”

They’re open about it. They use the climate scare tactics to achieve their ends. And in order to get those ends achieved, they have to hype and scare. It’s been a very effective strategy because they’ve bullied Republican politicians, who should know better, into at least submissiveness and silence and/or activism, when you come to the case with John McCain and even Mitt Romney.

Climate change activists want to have it both ways to advance their agenda, argues author Marc Morano. (Photo: Erik Mcgregor/ZUMA Press/Newscom)

Bluey: What are some of the strangest things that you’ve seen the left blame climate change on?

Morano: There’s a whole series of things. One of the things they do is they make opposite predictions. Global warming will cause more snow, less snow. More hurricanes, less hurricanes. More fog, less fog. More malaria, less malaria. I go through it all.

It’s as if you bet on the Super Bowl, and you bet both teams to win. You can go to the office the next day and say, “I did it! I won! I bet on the winning team.” First of all, they’re never wrong because they literally have opposite predictions.

The second thing is they come up with everything. Global warming will cause an increase in prostitution, bar room brawls, vehicle thefts. These are by United Nations scientists who did these studies, funded by major universities. These aren’t just some wacky claim, or some professor talking off the top of his head. They actually get funded studies to do this.

“They actually blame the rise of Hitler on global warming. … There are so many wacky things that they’ll blame on global warming.”

One of my favorites was in 1941, a University of Cincinnati professor said that the warmer weather we were having in the 1930s and ’40s created more docile people, which led to them being more susceptible to Hitler, Mussolini, and dictators. They actually blame the rise of Hitler on global warming at that time. Oddly enough, Hitler was saved in the bunker when Von Stauffenberg tried to kill him. Because it was a very hot day, they had to move the location of that meeting when the assassination attempt happened. They moved it to a room with a heavy table that saved Hitler. Global warming created Hitler, global warming saved Hitler.

There are so many wacky things that they’ll blame on global warming. My favorite quote is probably Michael Oppenheimer, U.N. lead scientist, former Environmental Defense Fund activist, “Anybody who eats is under threat from climate change.” That’s his summation. So there you go. It’s that combination of just about everything. If you eat, then you’re under threat of climate change, you should be worried. If you don’t eat, then you’re fine.

Even when you’re dead, you won’t escape the clutches of global warming. In the book, I show multiple examples. In one case, Peruvian mummies are decaying faster because of the humidity caused by climate change. Also, they’re worried that dead bodies in the permafrost in Siberia are melting and are going to release new pathogens. The dead walk among us because of global warming. So, even the dead are now to blame for exacerbating the problem of global warming.

Bluey: We’ve used these terms interchangeably: climate change and global warming. Can the left make up its mind on what to call it?

Morano: No, in fact, in the book, I have a lot of fun. “Global climate disruption” was John Holdren, Obama’s former science czar. He wanted to call it that. “Global weirding” is what Tom Friedman, New York Times columnist, wants to call it. They’ve come up with all these different names. “Global heating.”

Former Sen. Barbara Boxer, when I was in the Senate Environment Public Works Committee, she actually called the hearing “global warming” one time. This was when they were really trying to push climate change. Temperatures hit their peak in the late 1990s from the cooling of the 1970s. They’ve tried to push climate change because they didn’t think without that constant increase in temperature, they weren’t getting anywhere. It was getting harder to sell.

“[C]limate change had to be the new moniker because global warming was too focused on temperature.”

Climate change includes the extreme weather. I remember very vividly, I was in Bali, Indonesia—a $15,000 roundtrip business class flight for the U.S. Senate at a global warming hearing for the United Nations—arguing with a John McCain climate staffer about how the new argument in global warming was all going to be about extreme weather.

Therefore, climate change had to be the new moniker because global warming was too focused on temperature. They wanted to go out on every limb and this way they could blame everything from cows and transportation, airlines.

They’re trying to get every aspect of our society under global warming regulation and not just focus on temperature. Because now if you have a bad crop, if you have vehicle crash—the Department of Transportation got us funding to study how global warming could increase fatal car accidents—that’s why it has to be “climate change,” because they’re trying to go in every direction.

Bluey: How have the left’s policies, as you argue in the book, hurt the world’s poor?

Morano: That is one of the most insidious things. In the book, I feature Al Gore at a Bill Gates function, saying that Africa’s projected to have more people than China and India combined in the next century and that we need “ubiquitous fertility management.”

This is a white, wealthy Western politician saying essentially there are too many black Africans. Let’s be blunt about it. I actually quote a former Harvard professor just excoriating Al Gore for essentially racist comments. Basically singling out Africa and saying, “They’ve got to have better fertility management because we have too many Africans and we’ve got to control their population.” Now Al Gore would just say, “No, I’m thinking of only the Earth.” But what conservative politician could get away with that?

“Fossil fuels are the most abundant, cheaply available, and fastest way out of energy poverty, which means they’re the lifeline for lowering infant mortality, longer life expectancy, modern dentistry.”

When you look at third-world development—and by the way, “third world” is a politically incorrect term; we’re supposed to say the “developing world”—they have about 1.1 billion people without running water and electricity. Essentially, what they’re trying to do with climate policy is prevent them from developing through fossil fuels.

Fossil fuels are the most abundant, cheaply available, and fastest way out of energy poverty, which means they’re the lifeline for lowering infant mortality, longer life expectancy, modern dentistry.

If you’re living in a poor nation, you’re burning dung, you’re living in a hut made of dung, you’re breathing in horrible air, the rivers are polluted from sewage. The second you get modern sewage, the second you get coal plants even or oil or even nuclear, if you’re lucky enough, everything gets radically cleaner. They’re trying to prevent it. Even the World Bank won’t allow coal plant development in countries that are in dire poverty.

These environmentalists I interviewed, one in South Africa, they travel the world from Minnesota and other places—wealthy, white Western college kids—go to Africa and essentially say, “You’re doing it right by living this primitive existence. You’re living it right. You’re Earth-friendly.”

I interviewed Jerry Brown, the California governor, at an Earth Summit in South Africa. He actually says the Earth can’t allow the rest of the world to develop like the United States and Europe because we’d need 20 more Earths to do it. In other words, they have to be managed. It’s a new form of colonialism. It’s the most insidious things. That’s a very intense chapter in the book because it’s an eye-opener for people who haven’t been following this. They are trying to limit their development.

The environmental activists—climate activists—they even have something called the U.N. Climate Fund. I interviewed a South African development activist, Leon Lowe, who’s very articulate. He just says, “The developing world needs to tell the first world to essentially go to hell if they’re going to tell them how to develop, what resources they can use of their own.”

He says, “Until London, Rotterdam, Paris, and Washington level their cities, return them to swamps and wetlands and jungles, they have no business telling the developing world how they can use the natural resources, how they can develop, what energy they can use.”

That’s the dilemma we’re facing now. They’re trying to control and manage people and keep them at a subsistence level of life. It’s the most anti-human movement of today. It’s why former Czech President Václav Klaus has said, the greatest threat we face today for human freedom is, what he says, “ambitions environmentalism from the climate movement.”

Bluey: In addition to writing the book, you run a website called ClimateDepot.com. What’s your mission? What do you strive to do there?

What I’m trying to do there is have a daily one-stop shop of all the latest climate, energy, and environmental news. In other words, I link to all the mainstream sources, but I’ll try to pick out some of the best tidbits and actually try to do reality checks all the time. I do special reports.

It’s a way for you to get your energy, climate, environment news without just having to hear the mantra of nonsense, of 97 percent of all scientists agree the Earth is doomed, we’re facing a catastrophe, we need the Paris Agreement.

I have user guides. I have special reports and I have a lot of humor to try to bring people in—to say this is not an intimidating topic. Don’t be afraid to stand up because the whole movement is designed—the environmental left has designed this to intimidate everyone into silence on this issue. If you’re against climate change, belief in climate change, catastrophic climate change, you are a dumb person. You are an idiot. You’re a rube. You’re not welcome in polite society. Even the impolite don’t want you.

Bluey: Marc, thanks so much. Again, the book is called “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change.” Thanks for writing it.

Morano: Thank you, Rob. Appreciate it, enjoyed it.

Speculative Climate Chaos v. Indisputable Fossil Fuel Benefits – Paul Driessen

Speculative Climate Chaos v. Indisputable Fossil Fuel Benefits
Editor’s Note: This column was co-written by Roger Bezdek***

Judge William Alsup has a BS in engineering, has written computer programs for his ham radio hobby, delves deeply into the technical aspects of numerous cases before him, and even studied other programming languages for a complex Oracle v. Google lawsuit.

As presiding judge in People of the State of California v. BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips and Royal Dutch Shell, he insisted that the litigants present their best scientific evidence for and against the state’s assertion that fossil fuel emissions are causing dangerous climate change. Now he wants to see, not just the alleged damages from burning oil, natural gas and coal – but also the immense benefits to humanity and the people of California from using those fuels for the past 150 years and more.

Environmental and climate activists, including cities pursuing climate lawsuits against oil companies, almost never acknowledge those benefits, which are far-reaching and indisputable. We can only hope attorneys Anne Champion, Philip Curtis, Diehl Kemper, et al. and friends of the court will do justice to the many blessings attributable to our use of these once unimaginable energy resources.

For countless millennia, our ancestors struggled to survive amid deprivation and backbreaking dusk-to-dawn labor, often on the brink of starvation – with the bulk of humanity living little better than their domesticated animals. Average nasty, brutish and short life expectancy hovered in the low thirties.

But then, suddenly and miraculously, in barely two centuries, health, prosperity and longevity began to climb. First coal, then oil, then natural gas paved the way, providing the fuels for transportation, communication, refrigeration, electricity and other incredible technologies that improve, enhance, safeguard and save lives. Incomes increased eleven-fold. Mass die-offs so confidently predicted by Malthus and Ehrlich never materialized. In fact, global life spans more than doubled, and today billions of people enjoy living standards that even kings and queens could not dream of 120 years ago.

Sadly, equal numbers of people still struggle on the edge of survival. A billion and a half are still without electricity, two billion still exist on a few dollars a day, and millions still die every year from insect-borne, lung and intestinal diseases – largely because they still burn wood and dung, instead of fossil fuels.

In 1900, New York City’s 3.4 million people relied on 100,000 horses whose “tailpipes” emitted 2.5 million pounds of manure and 60,000 gallons of urine every day. Sanitation crews cleaned it up, dumped it mostly in local rivers, and hauled dead horses to rendering plants. Farmers devoted thousands of acres just to growing horse feed. Imagine what today’s 8.6 million NYC residents would require and emit.

Today, far more powerful, far less polluting, trucks, cars, buses, trains, subways and airplanes move people, food and products far more quickly and efficiently. They take us to work, school and worship services; to the grocery, bank, drug store, doctor and restaurant; to movies, picnics and sporting events. Fire trucks help us battle devastating conflagrations, and ambulances take our injured to hospitals.

All these vehicles (internal combustion and electric) exist because of, are fueled by – and travel on roadways made with fossil fuels: asphalt from oil, metal and concrete manufactured using fossil fuels.

Even electric cars require oil, gas and coal for manufacturing and recharging. Indeed, the earth-moving machines, drilling rigs and production platforms, pipelines, foundries, factories and other technologies needed to extract, process and fabricate raw materials into the world around us exist because of fossil fuels. Every bit of metal, plastic, concrete, wood, fabric and food we see results from fossil fuels. Even wind turbines, solar panels and biofuels are impossible without the fuels that California so loves to hate.

Medical devices, computers, cell phones, radios and televisions, kitchen appliances, household and office heating and air conditioning, millions of other products of every description require fossil fuels for their components, manufacturing and daily operation. The schools and research laboratories that made our amazing technologies and other advancements possible are themselves made possible by fossil fuels.

The modern agricultural equipment and practices that feed the world share the same ancestry: tractor and harvester fuel, ammonia fertilizer from natural gas, pesticides and herbicides from petrochemicals. Carbon dioxide from burning these fuels helps crop, forage, forest and grassland plants grow faster and better, with less water and better resistance to droughts and diseases. Our bounteous grain and other crops mean fewer famines, except where forced starvation is used to subdue and eliminate enemies.

Indeed, between 1961 and 2011, the total monetary value of CO2 enhancement for 45 crops reached an estimated cumulative value of $3.2 trillion! Carbon dioxide’s annual enrichment value rose from $19 billion in 1961 to $140 billion in 2010. Between 2012 and 2050, these benefits will total $9.8 trillion!

Pharmaceutical and cosmetic products all have their roots in petrochemicals – as do paints, synthetic fibers and plastics. Hockey and football players are dressed head to toe in fossil-fuel-sourced materials.

High-rise office and residential buildings made possible by steel and concrete allow our cities to grow upward, instead of just outward, preserving millions of acres of wildlife habitats and scenic areas.

Then there’s electricity. Look around you, and try to imagine your life without this wondrous, pervasive energy source. Electricity was properly ranked humanity’s second most significant innovation of the past 6,000 years, after the printing press! It has created, shaped, defined and powered the modern world, and facilitated virtually every technological achievement of the past century. Electrification of nations is undeniably the world’s most significant engineering and life-enhancing achievement of the past century.

Economic growth, quality of life and longevity are directly correlated to sufficient, reliable, affordable electricity. In today’s world, nothing happens without it: communication, transportation and research; the operation of every home, office, hospital, factory and airport; refrigeration to preserve food and medicine; heating and air conditioning to save lives and enable people to survive and prosper in any climate.

Electrification will be increasingly important in the 21st century, and world electricity consumption is forecast to double within four decades, as electricity supplies an increasing share of the world’s ever-increasing energy demand. Fossil fuels will continue generating at least 75% of electricity, even in 2050.

Hydroelectric and nuclear (which radical environmentalists also despise and oppose), a bit of geothermal, and a smattering of unreliable, weather-determined wind and solar power will supply the rest. The land, resource and environmental impacts of building and operating wind and solar must also be considered.

Social media and internet search engines (to run biased searches for alarmist climate news) also depend on electricity – 91.4% of which was generated by fossil fuels, nuclear and hydro in 2016 in the USA.

Increased productivity generated by all these technologies creates the leisure time and wealth that enable everyone to enjoy evenings, weekends and holidays – and the fossil fuel transportation to go places (including to faraway, exotic locales and 5-star hotels for IPCC climate change confabs).

Finally, aside from nuclear-powered ships, our highly mechanized military gets there “the fastest with the mostest” thanks to fossil fuels, to combat terrorism and provide for our national defense.

Judge Alsup’s case is thus really about highly speculative manmade climate disasters versus indisputable fossil fuel benefits – as further documented here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and elsewhere. Indeed, today’s undeniable fossil fuel benefits outweigh any hypothesized climate, sea level and other costs by literally orders of magnitude: at least 50:1 to more than 200:1.

Barring major efficiency, battery storage and other technology improvements, renewable energy cannot possibly replace fossil fuels. Judge Alsup has no choice but to rule in favor of the oil company defendants … and all who rely on oil, gas and coal for the countless, life-enhancing benefits barely touched on here.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and author of articles and books on energy, climate change, carbon dioxide and economic development. 

Roger Bezdek is an internationally recognized energy analyst and president of Management Information Services, Inc.

What is the Proper Role of Federal Government? – Freedom Outpost

Is our Constitution worth preserving? Guard it as you would guard the seat of your life, guard it not only against the open blows of violence, but also against that spirit of change…Miracles do not cluster. That which has happened but once in six thousand years, cannot be expected to happen often. Such a government, once destroyed, would have a void to be filled, perhaps for centuries, with evolution and tumult, riot and despotism.

What follows is a brief and simple primer about the structure of our Republic according to our founders. James Madison said that the powers delegated to the federal government are ‘few and defined’ (Article I, Sec 8). He explains that the general welfare clause does not grant the government the power to do generally whatever they want; it simply describes the purpose in delegating their few powers. In other words, our founders believed in and intended limited government. VERY limited.

James Madison  said, “I, sir, have always conceived—I believe those who proposed the Constitution conceived—it is still more fully known and more material to observe, that those who rarified the Constitution conceived—that is is not an indefinite government…but a limited Government. The Powers delegated to the federal government are few and defined…war, peace negotiations, and foreign commerce.”

By the same token, Congress was to have a limited and strictly defined role as well. Congress was not established to “become” the federal government but to control it on behalf of the people. That is the reason they hold the most influence and control (contrary to the myth of co-equal branches) through the checks and balances established through powers of impeachment and congressional oversight.

James Madison wrote to Thomas Jefferson on 24 Oct. 1787, “In the American Constitution, the general authority will be derived entirely from the subordinate authorities. The Senate will represent the States in their political capacity; the other House will represent the people of the States in their individual capacity.”

 

First, the Senate was established to represent the states in the federal government. That is why each state is allotted the same number of Senators, to ensure equal representation and therefore equal control for all states. The Senate’s primary job description was to protect the states from federal encroachment and ensure each state’s sovereignty. “Defenders of the 10th Amendment” would be a good description for the job our founders intended the Senate to perform.

Tench Coxe writes in ‘An American Citizen: An Examination of the Constitution of the United States II’ September 28, 1788,

President bears no resemblance to a king, so we shall see the Senate have no similitude to nobles. First then not being hereditary, their collective knowledge, wisdom and virtue are not precarious, for by these qualities alone are they to obtain their offices; and they will have none of the peculiar follies and vices of those men who possess power merely because their fathers held it before them, for they will be educated (under equal advantages and with equal prospects) among and on a footing with the other sons of a free people.”

The House was designed to be the representatives of the people. That is why there are more house members than senators, to better reflect the population of people in each state. The House’s primary job description was to be the guardians of Liberty, so the people can maintain the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. “Defenders of the 9th Amendment” would be a good description for the job our founders intended the House to perform.

Tench Coxe continues,

“Each member of this truly popular assembly will be chosen by about six thousand electors, by the poor as well as the rich. No decayed and venal borough will have an unjust share in their determinations. No old Sarum will send thither a Representative by the voice of a single elector. As we shall have no royal ministries to purchase votes, so we shall have no votes for sale. For the suffrages of six thousand enlightened and independent freemen are above all price”

 

But here we are today with a Senate that looks more like a protector of the federal government than a defender of the states and a House that feels it’s primary role is to “protect” national security instead of the rights and Liberty of the people. Placing security over liberty seems to be a common affliction of our Congress.

Patrick Henry made it perfectly clear that without Liberty, life was not even worth living. Benjamin Franklin rightfully declared that if we place security above Liberty, we would lose them both.

Our framers made it clear that if the federal government was not following their constitutional duties or abiding by the limitations established, their actions (their laws) were null and void.

Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper #33:

“If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution… But it will not follow…that acts of the large society which are NOT PURSUANT to its constitutional powers, but which are invasions of the residuary authorities of the smaller societies, will become the supreme law of the land. These will be merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such. Hence we perceive that the clause which declares the supremacy of the laws of the Union, like the one we have just before considered, only declares a truth, which flows immediately and necessarily from the institution of a federal government. It will not, I presume, have escaped observation, that it EXPRESSLY confines this supremacy to laws made PURSUANT TO THE CONSTITUTION.”

 

This is the fundamental principle of state nullification. If Congress understood their proper role they would KNOW that when the federal government creates unjust and unconstitutional law, it is their job to protect the people from it and declare the sovereignty of the people over the powers delegated to the federal government. If they really understood their oath to the Constitution and what their obligations were, THEY would be nullifying Obamacare, UN Treaties, and the myriad of unconstitutional executive orders spewed out by former administrations.

Of course, there are those who would assert that the Supreme Court has “declared” state nullification invalid. The problem with that assertion is that the Supreme Court is NOT the supreme law of the land. The Supreme Court is one-third of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (the division of government with the least power, by the way), a Federal government created by the people.

Allowing SCOTUS to determine the degree of sovereignty each state has over the federal government is the ultimate expression of a conflict of interest. Let us remember that the Federal government, which includes the SCOTUS is a creature of the people.

Would you allow the defendant in a criminal case to decide HIS own guilt or innocence? Of course not! But allowing the Supreme Court to determine how the Federal Government (of which it is a part) is operating with respect to State’s rights is to have the offender declaring his own innocence. Is the Supreme Court capable of making the proper ruling? I’m sure they are, but they are equally capable of making the improper ruling and such would be the destruction of liberty by declaring the 9th and 10th Amendments irrelevant.

 

Alexander Hamilton declared in Federalist paper #33 that when the government steps outside its constitutional bounds, it is incumbent upon the people to redress the injury done to the Constitution.

The current lack of understanding of the proper relationship between the States and its Federal Government as well as the neglect of the proper roles of our Congressional employees is leading directly to the destruction of our Constitution. And as Daniel Webster warned, we as a nation have an obligation to hold onto this great Constitution or suffer consequences of our neglect.

Daniel Webster stated in ‘An Anniversary Address’ July 4th 1806.

“Is our Constitution worth preserving? Guard it as you would guard the seat of your life, guard it not only against the open blows of violence, but also against that spirit of change…Miracles do not cluster. That which has happened but once in six thousand years, cannot be expected to happen often. Such a government, once destroyed, would have a void to be filled, perhaps for centuries, with evolution and tumult, riot and despotism.” 

KrisAnne Hall is an attorney, former prosecutor, a disabled Army veteran, a Russian linguist, a mother, a pastor’s wife and a patriot. Hall hosts weekly radio and TV programs and teaches an average of 265 classes each year on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Learn more at krisannehall.com.

The Language of Liberty series is a collaborative effort of the Center for Self Governance (CSG) Administrative Team. CSG is a non-profit, non-partisan educational organization, dedicated to training citizens in applied civics. The authors include administrative staff, selected students, and guest columnists. The views expressed by the authors are their own and may not reflect the views of CSG. Contact them at CenterForSelfGovernance.com

Don’t forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.

In 1 Graphic, Here’s What Uncle Sam Is Doing With Your Tax Money

Rapper Cardi B has some questions for the IRS. (Photo: Zach Chase/picture alliance / Runway Manhat/Newscom)

From the Daily Signal

Last month rapper Cardi B asked a slightly more profane version of the same question many Americans ask when they file their taxes.

“Uncle Sam, I want to know what you’re doing with my f—ing tax money.”

That’s a good question. The average American household sends more than $20,000 to Washington in tax revenue each year, and most see little in return.

In 2017, the federal government nabbed more than $3.3 trillion in taxes—but that still isn’t enough to satiate Washington’s immense appetite for spending. The 2017 deficit was a whopping $665 billion.

 

So where do our tax dollars go?

Some believe most of it goes to welfare programs and foreign aid. Others believe defense and corporate subsidies dominate the budget.

In reality, health entitlements—Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare—and Social Security are the largest programs. If Congress continues its current policies, these entitlements and interest on the debt are set to consume every dollar of taxes paid by 2027. That’s less than 10 years away.

Right now,  federal health programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare subsidies currently consume 28 percent of the budget. Federal health spending is projected to grow on an unsustainable trajectory of 6 percent per year over the next 10 years. That growth rate is about three times the projected pace of economic growth over the same period.

Meanwhile, Social Security, the single largest federal program, accounts for roughly a quarter of all federal spending. Its trust funds are already paying out more than they take in, and as more people retire, the system will face continued stress.

Without reform, the program’s trustees project benefits will need to be cut as much as 23 percent if nothing is done by 2034.

In the meantime, rather than slowing down, spending on all these programs is expected to dramatically increase in the near future. Combined annual spending on health entitlements and Social Security is projected to grow by 89 percent over the next decade.

Other income security programs—veterans’ benefits, food and housing assistance, federal employee retirement, and disability—account for 17 percent of the budget, surpassing national defense spending.

The defense budget covers everything from military paychecks, to operations overseas, to the research, development, and acquisition of new technologies and equipment.

At 15 percent of the federal budget, defense spending is the last major category of federal spending and has been falling as a percent of the budget for the last decade.

And the rest?

Well, interest on the debt is one big culprit.

Over the coming decade, U.S. debt held by the public is projected to balloon to over 96 percent of gross domestic product—driven primarily by health and Social Security spending. As the size of the debt grows, so will the interest costs.

Currently, 7 percent of the budget is spent on interest—money that takes away from other priorities. But in just five years, interest spending is projected to exceed national defense.

Deficit spending has many costs. Economic growth tends to slow in countries with debts that are comparable to the size of the economy, a group the U.S. is quickly joining. As the debt increases, so does the cost of the interest we must pay to those who hold the debt. China is currently the largest foreign holder of U.S. debt.

Without reforming America’s massive and growing federal programs, Washington will have to continue to borrow increasing amounts of money, piling new debt onto younger generations and worsening the nation’s already unsustainable economic course.

Some people will tell you that the recent tax cuts are to blame for our fiscal challenges. However, in 2018, total tax revenue is projected to increase by $22 billion. In dollar terms, tax reform was only a cut in the growth rate of revenue collection and not actually a decrease in total dollars collected by the IRS. By 2025, revenue growth will return to pre-tax reform levels.

The growing deficit is caused exclusively by more spending—every year after 2018, tax revenue is projected to grow faster than the economy.

Growing government spending threatens higher taxes on current and future taxpayers. Without serious spending reforms, taxes will go back up. Congress made much of the tax cuts temporary. After 2025, when many of the tax cuts expire, tax revenue jumps back to its pre-tax reform levels. Eventually, rising debt will leave lawmakers with limited options to avoid a financial crisis. Unless we can reverse course, it is only a matter of time before the taxman comes knocking.

In the words of Cardi B, “What is y’all doing with my f—ing money? I want to know. I want receipts.”

Increasing taxes is not the solution. Washington already takes too much of the money that Americans work hard to earn. Congress must rethink how it is spending the people’s money.

 

Anti-Gunner Thinks Armed Women Will Get Hurt More

Regardless of what precipitates it, any gun debate will eventually fire up to encompass almost every aspect of firearms. This is just how it shakes out and how it will continue to shake out.

This time around, for example, a school shooting has sparked a debate about how women can use a firearm to defend themselves from danger.

Leave it to the anti-gunners, however, to try and argue that having a firearm makes them get hurt worse.

What these arguments neglect to mention is that when women—and particularly women of color—actually do try to defend themselves against their abusers, they are frequently the ones who end up getting punished.

First, some facts: Women are three and a half times more likely to be killed by a romantic partner than men are. Women are more than twice as likely to be killed by their husband or an intimate acquaintance than by a stranger. And, according to a Johns Hopkins School of Public Health study, “women living in homes with 1 or more guns were more than 3 times more likely to be killed in their homes.”

Ah, this old chestnut that has been debunked time and time again. In particular, there’s no adjustment for lawfully-owned firearms versus criminal behavior. Women who live in the home of a criminal or are a criminal themselves are far more likely to be murdered than other women, enough so that it may well skew the results.

But it continues.

You also can’t look at the problem of domestic violence without acknowledging the even worse problem of domestic violence within the law enforcement community. Studies have found that police officers’ partners and families experience domestic violence at a much higher rate than other families. And women who suffer abuse at the hands of police officers are often afraid to go to the police with their experience, fearing retaliation or simple inaction.

This is what I like to call the “Look! A squirrel!” argument.

No one is disputing that abuse happens. Regardless of where it happens, though, women have a right to self-defense, and there is no better tool for self-defense, particularly for a woman, than a firearm. Period.

The story follows up with a bunch of anecdotal stories of where the system failed, where women who supposedly defended themselves against abusive men were then prosecuted for it. The point, of course, is to show just how women get screwed.

Of course, the stories leave key things out. For example, the story brings up Bresha Meadows, a 14-year-old girl who shot and killed her reportedly abusive father. It talks all about how the system failed her.

Consider the case of Bresha Meadows. In 2016, the 14-year-old girl fatally shot her father—a man who she, her mother, and her siblings all described as abusive. Rather than being praised for her bravery in defending her mother and siblings, Meadows was arrested and charged with aggravated murder. Prosecutors originally considered trying Meadows as an adult, which would have carried a potential sentence of 20 years to life in prison. Meadows ultimately spent 10 months in a juvenile detention center in Ohio, and was released earlier this month.

Horrible, right?

However, that’s not the whole story. You see, Bresha Meadows wasn’t defending herself, according to the law as written. Oh no. What she did sure as hell looks like premeditated murder (emphasis mine).

And as Jonathan Meadows slept in his living room, his daughter pulled the trigger, ending his life and dividing a family, according to interviews and a police report. The relatives of Bresha’s father called the shooting a calculated murder. Those of the girl’s mother called it the end of a husband’s nonstop pattern of emotional and physical abuse that raged on until a young girl exploded.

In other words, at that moment, Meadows was not in fear of her life. Sure, she may have been terrified that someday her father would kill her, but right then he was harmless. He was asleep. She was as safe from him at that moment as she ever would be. And she shot him.

Then there’s this tidbit:

Consider the case of Marissa Alexander. In 2010, the Florida mother of three fired a “warning shot” toward her abusive ex-husband to prevent him from assaulting her. Despite the fact that she was a licensed gun owner and no one was harmed by her shot, Alexander was arrested and charged with three counts of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon.

There were a couple of problems here. For one, Alexander’s ex-husband was both unarmed and standing with her son when she fired at him, and there doesn’t appear to be any claims that the boy was at risk from his father.

Second, the bullet from the gun doesn’t look like a “warning shot” like Alexander claimed.

The fact of the matter is that, like anyone else in such a circumstance, Alexander had, and failed, to show she was in fear of her life at that moment. Past abuse doesn’t justify lethal force, and thus her Stand Your Ground defense didn’t hold up in court.

The same would have happened if the genders were reversed.

Despite these instances that are supposedly proof that women won’t get a fair shake from the criminal justice system if they use a gun in self-defense, bear in mind that the estimates for the defensive use of a firearm range from 100,000 per year to as many as 2.5 million. There’s no way those are all men defending themselves, either.

Instead, tens of thousands to millions of women successfully defend their lives with a firearm every year and do so without the criminal justice system hammering them.

The fact of the matter is that when a woman is in danger, a firearm is the best option for defending her life. Less lethal options aren’t always effective, and hand-to-hand techniques give way too much of an advantage to the men due to weight and strength differences. Yet even the smallest of women can muster enough strength to pull a trigger.

If they want to avoid difficulties with the criminal justice system, however, they need follow the same rules the guys have to follow.

New Study Shows Past Research On Rising Ocean Temps Built On Faulty Science | The Daily Caller

 

Ocean temperatures have risen only 0.1 degree Celsius over the last five decades, according to a landmark study some scientists argue could change the way researchers measure the ocean’s temperature levels.

Each layer of water in the ocean has vastly different temperatures, so determining the average temperature is nearly impossible without glossing over important data. Researchers at the University of California, San Diego decided on a different model – they measured the ratio of noble gases in the atmosphere, which are in direct relation to the ocean’s temperature.

Geoscientist Jeff Severinghaus, an academic at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, measured values of the noble gases argon, krypton, and xenon in air bubbles captured inside ice cores in Antarctica. Krypton and xenon are released into the atmosphere in known quantities as the ocean warms, according to the study, which was published Thursday in Nature Journal

“This method is a radically new way to measure change in total ocean heat,” Severinghaus said in a post on the Scripps website, which has since been removed. “It takes advantage of the fact that the atmosphere is well-mixed, so a single measurement anywhere in the world can give you the answer.”

 

Severinghaus measured values of the noble gases argon, krypton, and xenon in air bubbles captured inside ice cores in Antarctica. Krypton and xenon, which are remarkably stable regardless external factors, are released into the atmosphere in known quantities as the ocean warms.

Much of the previously available information used to determine ocean temperatures during the past thousands of years has come from records produced by organisms that lived during those times and were subject to a complex array of external biological factors. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and other major organizations rely on these methods to make their determinations.

The ratio of these gases allows for a much more effective and exact calculation of average global ocean temperature, according to Severinghaus and his team of researchers at Scripps. They discovered that xenon and krypton are well preserved in ice cores and can, therefore, provide temperature information that scientists can use to study many other aspects of the earth’s oceans.

“Our precision is about 0.2 ºC (0.4 ºF) now, and the warming of the past 50 years is only about 0.1 ºC,” he said, adding that advanced equipment can provide more precise measurements, allowing scientists to make better calculations going forward. His fellow researcher made similar remarks.

“The reason this study is so exciting is that previous methods of reconstructing ocean heat content have very large age uncertainties, [which] smooths out the more subtle features of the record,” said co-author Sarah Shackleton, a graduate student at Severinghaus’ lab.

“This is the first time that we’ve been able to see these subtle features in the record of the deglaciation,” she added. “This helps us better understand the processes that control changes in ocean heat content.”

Severinghaus’ findings are potentially very significant and “remarkably interesting,” Cato Institute scientist Patrick Michaels told The Daily Caller News Foundation. It tells academics that “we are living in a world that won’t warm at the same rate as those seen in the U.N. climate models”

Ocean temperature levels have caused a great deal of debate in recent decades. Many scientists believe hotter and cooler oceans could lead to dramatic shifts in not just global temperature levels but also hurricane frequency.

A study in 2015, for instance, predicted that the Earth is about to undergo a major climatic shift that could mean decades of cooler temperatures and fewer hurricanes hitting the U.S.

Scientists at the University of Southampton in the United Kingdom predicted at the time that a cooling of the Atlantic Ocean could cool global temperatures a half a degree Celsius and may offer a “brief respite from the persistent rise of global temperatures.”

This cooling phase in the Atlantic will influence “temperature, rainfall, drought and even the frequency of hurricanes in many regions of the world,” says Dr. Gerard McCarthy. The study’s authors based their results on ocean sensor arrays and 100 years of sea-level data.

Follow Chris White on Facebook and Twitter.

Disaster Costs Aren’t Proof Of Warming | The Daily Caller

By Michael Bastasch

Natural disasters did $330 billion worth of damage in 2017, mostly due to hurricanes smashing into the U.S. this fall, making last year the second costliest year for disasters since 2011, according to the reinsurance industry.

Insurers will pay out $135 billion for natural disasters, according to Munich Re, the most on record. Most of the monetary damages came from hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria, which hit U.S. and Caribbean islands in the fall. Hurricanes did $215 billion in damage.

While nominal costs of natural disasters — including hurricanes, fires and earthquakes — has grown over time, taking into account inflation and economic growth actually shows disaster costs have been trending down since 1990.

That’s according to research by the University of Colorado’s Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr., who’s spent years studying why natural disaster spending has increased despite no apparent trends in extreme weather.

 

Pielke’s pushed back against claims made by politicians and activists that global warming is making natural disasters more frequent, thus pushing up disaster costs. Pielke’s work — and the work of others — however, shows this is not the case.

The global economy has grown since the 1990s. Hurricane Harvey, for example, was the costliest natural disaster of 2017, inflicting $85 billion when it struck in late August. Harvey dumped record rainfall for several days over the greater Houston area.

But Harvey’s price tag would have been much smaller had it hit in, say, 1960 when Houston’s population was 60 percent less than it is today. Fewer buildings, roads and infrastructure mean the same storm can do less damage.

That’s not all, though, Pielke has noted that even without development, inflation also makes it seem like there are more $1 billion disasters today than there were in past decades. We’ve also gotten better at detecting extreme weather, including through the use of satellites.

Activists often argue that increased disaster costs and disaster declarations show how extreme weather is becoming more extreme and intense due to man-made global warming. Though, climate assessments say there’s no evidence of increasing trends in extremes.

“The most important caveat: don’t use disasters to argue about trends in climate,” Pielke wrote in a blog post that incorporated new Munich Re disaster data.

“Trends in the incidence of extreme weather help to explain this graph as the world has experienced a long stretch of good fortune,” Pielke wrote.

How Robert Mueller Sabotaged Counterterror Training in 2012 – Freedom Outpost

 We knew Robert Mueller was selling out America to our enemies in 2009 when Hillary Clinton told him to deliver uranium to the Russians at a secret tarmac meeting.

We also know that Mueller obstructed Congress’ investigation into the 9/11 attacks.

However, were you aware that Robert Mueller, the very man who is investigating the Trump administration for alleged collusion with the Russians was behind scrubbing any and all references of Islamic jihad from counter terror training manuals?  You didn’t?  Well, take a listen to the following video by Robert Spencer for the details and if you don’t have time for the video, I’ve transcribed it below.

It has now come to light that as Director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, who is currently the special counsel looking for any dirt he can find on President Trump, presided over the 2012 removal of all counter terror training materials that made any mention of Islam and jihad in connection with terrorism.

Since then, our law enforcement and intelligence officials have been blundering along in self-imposed darkness about the motivating ideology behind the jihad threat

Now, this turns out to be Robert Mueller’s doing.

In February 2012, the Obama administration purged more than a thousand documents and presentations from counter terror training material for the FBI and other agencies.

This material was discarded at the demand of Muslim groups, which had deemed it inaccurate or offensive to Muslims.

Now, this purge was several years in the making, and I, myself, was inadvertently the one who touched it off in August 2010.

I gave a talk on Islam in Jihad to the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, one of many such talks I gave to government agencies and military groups in those years.

Now, while some had counseled me to keep these talks quiet so as to avoid attracting the ire of the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations, or CAIR, the possibility of that pressure seemed to me to make it all the more important to announce that I had been there so as to show that the US government was not going to take dictation from a group linked to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

As it turned out, however, those who had urged silence were correct, for the Obama administration was indeed disposed to take dictation from CAIR.

CAIR sent a series of letters to Mueller and others demanding that I be dropped as a counter-terror trainer and the organization even started a coalition echoing the demand, and Jesse Jackson and other leftist luminaries joined it.

At the FBI, Mueller made no public comment on CAIR’s demand and so it initially appeared that CAIR’s effort had failed, but I was never again invited to provide counter-terror training for any government agency after having done so fairly regularly for the previous five years.

CAIR’s campaign to keep me from taking part in counter-terror training was, of course, not personal.  They targeted me simply because I told the truth, just as they would target anyone else who dared to do so.

Although Muller was publicly silent, now we know that he was not unresponsive and the Islamic supremacists and their leftist allies did not give up.

In the summer and fall of 2011, the online tech journal Wired published several exposes by the far-left journalist Spencer Ackerman, who took the FBI to task for training material that spoke forthrightly and truthfully about the nature and magnitude of the jihad threat.

In a typical Sally from one of these exposes, Ackerman condemned the training material for intimating that mainstream American Muslims were quote, “likely to be terrorist sympathizers.”

Now, certainly all the mainstream Muslim organizations condemn al Qaeda and 9/11.  However, some of the foremost of those organizations, such as ISNA, MAS, the MSA, CAIR and others, have links of various kinds to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

A mainstream Muslim spokesman in the US,  Ground Zero mosque Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf, refused to condemn Hamas until it became too politically damaging for him not to do so.

CAIR’s Nihad Awad openly declared his support for Hamas in 1994.

Other mainstream Muslim spokesmen in the US, such as Obama’s ambassador to the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, Rashad Hussain, and media gadfly Hussein Ibish have praised and defended Sami al-arian, the confessed leader of yet another Jihad terror group, Palestinian Islamic Jihad.

Do these men and organizations represent a tiny minority of extremists that actually do not express the opinions of the broad mainstream of Muslims in this country?

Maybe, but there’s something no counterparts, no individuals of comparable influence or groups of comparable size that have not expressed sympathy for some Islamic terror group.

Nonetheless, in the face of Ackerman’s reports, the FBI went into full retreat in September 2011.  It announced that it was dropping one of the programs that Ackerman had zeroed in on then on October 19, 2011.

Farhana Cara of Muslim advocates, who had complained for years about supposed Muslim profiling and entrapment sent a letter to John Brennan, who was then the
assistant to the President on national security for Homeland Security and counterterrorism.  The letter was signed not just by Cara but by the leaders of virtually all the significant Islamic groups in the US:  57 Muslim, Arab and South or Asian organizations, many, again, with ties to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood, including CAIR, the Islamic Society of North America, the Muslim American Society, the Islamic circle of North America, Islamic Relief USA and the Muslim Public Affairs Council.

The letter denounced what it characterized as US government agencies use of biased false and highly offensive training materials about Muslims and Islam.  It criticized the FBI’s use of biased experts and training materials.

CAIR complained that my books could be found in the FBI’s library at the FBI training academy in Quantico, Virginia, that a reading list accompanying a PowerPoint presentation by the FBI’s law enforcement communications unit recommended my book The Truth about Mohammad, and that in July 2010, I presented a two-hour seminar on the belief system of Islamic jihadists to the Joint Terrorism Task Force in Tidewater, Virginia and presented a similar lecture to the US Attorney’s anti-terrorism Advisory Council, which is co-hosted by the FBI’s Norfolk field office.

Now, these were supposed to be terrible things because I was supposed to be bigoted and hateful, but many of the examples CAIR adduced of bigoted and distorted materials involved statements that were not actually bigoted and distorted at all, but simply accurate.

What was distorted was CAIR’s representation of them.

For instance, CAIR stated this:  A 2006 FBI intelligence report stating that individuals who convert to Islam are on the path to becoming homegrown Islamic extremists if they exhibit any of the following behavior:

  • wearing traditional Muslim attire
  • growing facial hair
  • frequent attendance at a mosque or a prayer group
  • travel to a Muslim country
  • increased activity in a pro-Muslim social group or political cause

Now, note the FBI intelligence report that CAIR purported to be describing did not actually say that converts to Islam were necessarily on the path to becoming extremists if they wore traditional Muslim attire, grew facial hair and frequently attended a mosque. It simply included these behaviors among a list of 14 indicators to identify an individual going through the radicalization process .

Others included:

  • travel without obvious source of funds
  • suspicious purchases of bomb-making paraphernalia or weapons
  • large transfer of funds from or to overseas and;
  • formation of operational cells

CAIR selectively quoted and misrepresented the list to give the impression that the FBI was saying that devout observance of Islam led inevitably and in every case to extremism despite the factual accuracy of the material about which they were complaining.

The Muslim groups signing the letter demanded that the task force purge all federal government trainings of materials of these supposedly biased materials and implement a mandatory retraining program for FBI agents, US army officers and all federal, state and local law enforcement who had been subjected to biased training.

They asked for more as well to ensure that all law enforcement officials would learn about Islam in Jihad only what the signatories, through this letter, wanted them to learn.

Brennan immediately complied numerous books and presentations that gave a perfectly accurate view of Islam in Jihad were purged, but it wasn’t just Brennan.

Now, we know that it was Mueller all along.  Both Brennan and Mueller, of course, are part of the same Washington establishment that has wholeheartedly endorsed the idea that honest analysis of jihadist motives is Islamophobia.

The longer our military and intelligence apparatus subscribes to this view, the worse off we will be.

STUDY: Satellites Show No Acceleration In Global Warming For 23 Years | The Daily Caller

STUDY: Satellites Show No Acceleration In Global Warming For 23 Years

 By Michael Bastaschglobal_warming_hoax
 
Global warming has not accelerated temperature rise in the bulk atmosphere in more than two decades, according to a new study funded by the Department of Energy.

University of Alabama-Huntsville climate scientists John Christy and Richard McNider found that by removing the climate effects of volcanic eruptions early on in the satellite temperature record it showed virtually no change in the rate of warming since the early 1990s.

“We indicated 23 years ago — in our 1994 Nature article — that climate models had the atmosphere’s sensitivity to CO2 much too high,” Christy said in a statement. “This recent paper bolsters that conclusion.”

Christy and McNider found the rate of warming has been 0.096 degrees Celsius per decade after “the removal of volcanic cooling in the early part of the record,” which “is essentially the same value we determined in 1994 … using only 15 years of data.”

 

The study is sure to be contentious. Christy has argued for years that climate models exaggerate global warming in the bulk atmosphere, which satellites have monitored since the late 1970s.

Christy, a noted skeptic of catastrophic man-made global warming, said his results reinforce his claim that climate models predict too much warming in the troposphere, the lowest five miles of the atmosphere. Models are too sensitive to increases in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, he said.

“From our observations we calculated that value as 1.1 C (almost 2° Fahrenheit), while climate models estimate that value as 2.3 C (about 4.1° F),” Christy said.

While many scientists have acknowledged the mismatch between model predictions and actual temperature observations, few have really challenged the validity of the models themselves.

A recent study led by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory climate scientist Ben Santer found that while the models ran hot, the “overestimation” was “partly due to systematic deficiencies in some of the post-2000 external forcings used in the model simulations.”

Christy’s removal of volcanic-driven cooling from satellite temperature data could also draw scrutiny. The study also removed El Nino and La Nina cycles, which are particularly pronounced in satellite records, but those cycles largely canceled each other out, the co-authors said.

Christy said his works shows the “climate models need to be retooled to better reflect conditions in the actual climate, while policies based on previous climate model output and predictions might need to be reconsidered.”

Two major volcanoes — El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991 — caused global average temperature to dip as a result of volcanic ash, soot and debris reflecting sunlight back into space.

Those eruptions meant there was more subsequent warming in the following years, making the rate of warming appear to be rising as a result of man-made emissions or other factors, Christy said.

“Those eruptions happened relatively early in our study period, which pushed down temperatures in the first part of the dataset, which caused the overall record to show an exaggerated warming trend,” Christy said.

“While volcanic eruptions are natural events, it was the timing of these that had such a noticeable effect on the trend. If the same eruptions had happened near the more recent end of the dataset, they could have pushed the overall trend into negative numbers, or a long-term cooling,” Christy said.

DON’T FORGET TO WATCH GORE’S DISASTROUS CNN TOWN HALL:

Follow Michael on Facebook and Twitter