Private industry and governments around the world have spent trillions of dollars in the name of saving our planet from manmade global warming. Academic institutions, think tanks and schools have altered their curricula and agenda to accommodate what was seen as the global warming "consensus."

Mounting evidence suggests that claims of manmade global warming might turn out to be the greatest hoax in mankind's history. Immune and hostile to the evidence, President Barack Obama's administration and most of the U.S. Congress sides with Climate Czar Carol Browner, who says, "I'm sticking with the 2,500 scientists. These people have been studying this issue for a very long time and agree this problem is real."

The scientists whom Browner references are associated with the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Let's look some of what they told us. The 2007 IPCC report, which won them a Nobel Peace Prize, said that the probability of Himalayan glaciers "disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high" as a result of manmade global warming. Recently, IPCC was forced to retract their glacier disappearance claim, which was made on the basis of a non-scientific magazine article. When critics initially questioned the prediction, Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC's chairman, dismissed them as "voodoo scientists."

The IPCC also had to retract its claim that up to 40 percent of the Amazonian forests were at risk from global warming and would likely be replaced by "tropical savannas" if temperatures continued to rise. The IPCC claim was based on a paper co-authored by the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), two environmental activist groups.

England's now-disgraced University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) has been a leader in climate research data. Their data, collected and analyzed by them, have been used for years to bolster IPCC efforts to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions. Climatologists, including CRU's disgraced former director Professor Phil Jones, have been accused of manipulating data and criminally withholding scientific information to prevent its disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

Professor Jones, considered to be the high priest of the manmade global warming movement, has been in the spotlight since he was forced to step down as CRU's director after the leaking of e-mails that skeptics claim show scientists were manipulating data. In a recent interview with the BBC, he admitted that he did not believe that "the debate on climate change is over" and that he didn't "believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this."

Long denied by the warmers, Professor Jones admitted that the Medieval Warm Period (800 A.D. to 1300 A.D.) might well had been as warm as the Current Warm Period (1975-present), or warmer, and that if it was, "then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented." That suggests global warming may not be a manmade phenomenon. In any case, Professor Jones said that for the past 15 years, there has been no "statistically significant" global warming.

During the BBC interview, Professor Jones dodged several questions: why he had asked a colleague to delete e-mails relating to the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report and ask others to do likewise; whether some of his handling of data had crossed the line of acceptable scientific practice; and what about his letter saying that he had used a "trick" to "hide the decline" in tree-ring temperature data?

Given all the false claims and evidence pointing to scientific fraud, I don't think it wise to continue spending billions of dollars and enacting economically crippling regulations in the name of fighting global warming. At the minimum, we should stop the Environmental Protection Agency from going on with their plans to regulate carbon emissions. Companies should resign from the United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), a lobbying group of businesses and radical environmentalists. Dr. Tom Borelli, who is director of the National Center for Public Policy Research's Free Enterprise Project, says that BP, Caterpillar, Conoco Phillips, Marsh, Inc. and Xerox have the common sense to so already.

The 545 People most responsible for America’s Problems

Let’s start off with some eternal truths. 1. Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them. Then they either make them worse or find a way to make sure the cure is worse than the original problem so that the cure also becomes a problem. That way, they can lie about what they’ve been doing to stave off the original problem.

2. Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits? If the government were run like most businesses, we would have declared bankruptcy long ago and restructured to prevent further deficits. Governments should always break even every year, regardless of its level. To do anything else suggest incompetence on the part of the politicians in charge.

3. Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes? Because inflation means you have to spend more money for anything thereby requiring politicians to spend more monies on everything to keep the same level of services. This way, they can legitimately ask for more and more of your money.

4. You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does. And congress authorizes the expenditures and the taxes to pay for them. Remember this always. Governments have no monies nor wealth that they don’t first take from their subjects.

5. You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. Then the Senate is supposed to discuss and adjust those appropriations, not rubber stamp them. Of course, Senators are no longer beholden to the State Governments because they’re popularly elected just like their Representative neighbors so they’ve become just another spending body. That’s how elections are won. Buy the votes with their own monies collected through taxes they have no voice in controlling.

6. You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does. Them with the money makes the rules.

7. You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does. (occasionally, if the Federal Bank isn’t looking.)

8. You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does. (Well, until Obama was elected, anyway.)

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country. I exclude the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank. It’s a good job if you can get it.

I also exclude all special interests and lobbyists for the very simple reason they have no legal authority, no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing (except with money, of course.). I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. Politicians have the power to accept or reject. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine his votes.

Those 545 human beings spend a lot of their energy (we call it campaigning after they’ve been elected.) convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party. And some of the media cooperates as well, particularly if they like the politician in question, like Barry Barrack Soetoro Hussein Obama. He is the first near black president, you know…

That separating politicians from normal human beings is an excessive amount of gall. No (intelligent) normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker of the House to stand up and criticize a President for creating deficits.   The president only proposes a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it and he doesn’t appropriate monies.

The Constitution, the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi, the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they can manage to agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million has not yet replaced a mere 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility.   I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not directly traceable to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist. It would seem self evident.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red. If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ and Afghanistan, it's because they want them there. If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan and HEALTH CARE INSURANCE PLAN not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems except those Congress wishes to ignore and perpetuate.

Don’t let those 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take that power.   Above all, don’t let them con you into the belief that there exists such disembodied ephemeral, mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing the things they take an oath to do. Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power. They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses. Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees. We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess! Never vote for an incumbent. Throw’em all out. The very few honest ones will have no trouble finding honest work. The rest can go on welfare.

PL Booth, www.blueeyeview.blogspot.com 07/18/09

Walter Williams wrote a recent editorial about the Naval Academy and their Diversity Program. Having experienced this form of discrimination many times while a federal employee, I agree with him wholeheartedly. Here’s how the Naval Academy's PowerPoint display explains diversity by saying, "Diversity is all the different characteristics and attributes of individual sailors and civilians which enhance the mission readiness of the Navy," adding that: "Diversity is more than equal opportunity, race, gender or religion. Diversity is the understanding of how each of us brings different skills, talents and experiences to the fight -- and valuing those differences. Leveraging diversity creates an environment of excellence and continuous improvement to remove artificial achievement barriers and value the contribution of all participants." Admiral Gary Roughead, chief of Naval Operations, says that "diversity is the No. 1 priority" at the academy.” Unfortunately, how diversity is being and is to be achieved completely belies this statement.

Says Walter, “Diversity at the Naval Academy, as at most academic institutions, is not about equal opportunity but a race and sex spoils system to achieve what the Navy brass see as a pleasing race and sex mix. They accomplish that vision by the removal of "artificial achievement barriers." Mr. Williams, a professional, educated black man of real accomplishment, then describes what he sees as the Naval Academy’s artificial achievement barrier candidate, a black with B and C grades, with no particular leadership qualities, and 500 on both portions of the SAT. Such is virtually guaranteed admittance while a white student, who's not an athlete, with such scores is deemed not qualified. In fact, there is a disproportionate number of unqualified blacks now in attendance at 3 service academies.

Many students ( of all minority groups) are admitted to the Naval Academy through remedial training at the Naval Academy Preparatory School (NAPS) in Newport, R.I., which is a one-year post-secondary school. Finishing the year with a 2.0 GPA, a C average, almost guarantees admission to the academy. A C average for remedial work is nothing to write home about. Occasionally, when students don't make the 2.0 GPA target, the target is renegotiated downward. Minority applicants with SAT scores down to the 300s and with Cs and Ds grades (and no particular leadership or athletics) are also admitted after a remedial year at the Naval Academy Preparatory School. “ All the academies have their remedial schools.

But such unqualified applicants who apply for mere government positions not Military Academies are still hired and given promotion preferences over higher qualified non-minorities simply because they exist, even though the Civil Service Law governing “equal opportunity” dictates different methodology for selections than mere color or gender. The Law is ignored in the name of diversity and most promotional selections must first be approved by some “equal opportunity” office or board made up of minorities, generally blacks. This has been going on so long, there is a huge majority disparity of black women who now run virtually every agency in Washington.

Selection boards and officials are under constant pressure to select minorities rather than better qualified and educated whites. They found the way to do this legally is to lower the overall standards for selections by discounting education directly related to the agencies for which they work, equalizing outside work experience with experience gained within each agency, then allowing anyone with an overall score above the actual minimum required to be selected rather than the most qualified. Sometimes the information and selection criteria used become “unavailable” or the selectors are told to NOT write anything down because no records will then be available in case of lawsuits or reviews.

Diversity agendas give rise to widespread resentments at two levels. Some minorities admitted or promoted meritoriously on the same basis as whites, resent the idea of being seen as having the same minimal qualities as blacks given preferential treatment, in other words being ignorant. Another level of resentment comes from whites who see minorities being admitted, retained, and promoted at lower levels of overall performance and achievement then being treated with kid gloves. If any whites openly complain about the unequal treatment, they run the risk of being labeled as racists, one of the most unappreciated aspects of preferential treatment. It runs the risk of creating racist attitudes, and possibly feelings of racial superiority, among whites and others who were formerly racially neutral.  

Governments at all levels, Colleges, Universities, and Corporations with racially preferential admittance and promotional policies are doing a great disservice to blacks and other minorities in another, mostly ignored, way. By admitting and promoting poorly prepared and educated blacks and minorities, they are helping to conceal the grossly fraudulent education they receive at the K through 12 grades. Also, ignorance breeds ignorance and bad decisions because the poorly prepared don’t want to compete with more highly qualified so tend to select and promote other poorly qualified minorities with whom they can better compete. And this forces already low standards even lower.

PL Booth, www.blueeyeview.blogspot.com 07/22/09

Obama says government is the best arbiter of health. Why is that? BO's plan insures only 16 million of the supposed 46 million uninsured of our nation. Of course, no one actually knows how many people actually lack health insurance but BO says it so we must accept it, even if wrong? Why is that? As many as 300 million Americans have health insurance (which IS NOT health care) so why should our entire nation be forced into government insured healthcare just to carry the other supposed 46 million?

A quick profile of the uninsured says ten million are illegal immigrants - which doesn't mean they don't get health care, free. Walk into virtually any emergency room in America and illegal immigrants are the bulk of patients. (Education and health care costs for illegal immigrants comprise from 16.4 to 20.5 percent of California's budget deficit. Figures are similar nationwide.)

Liberals (Dem Socialists) are urging Obama's nationalized health care plan cover illegal immigrants. The Washington Post suggests failure to include illegal immigrants in the new National health care redesign would create unemployment among U.S. citizens since businesses wouldn't be forced to pick up the insurance tabs for illegals thus hire them at greater rates. This is likely true unless laws to prosecute businesses that hire illegal immigrants - or, better yet, not to require employers to cover employees – are enacted. Only Socialists would use employer malfeasance as an excuse to sacrifice workers' current insurance plans.

Another 9 million or so "uninsured" have household incomes of above $75,000, more than 3 times federal poverty standards for a family of four. For a mere married couple, that's 7 times federal poverty standard. Some 30% of these people are temporarily without health insurance, normally for six months or less, between jobs. Many others voluntarily avoid health insurance; even if they can afford it (My wife and I did during our youth. So did my kids.)a perfectly reasonable position. Factually, many people worry less about paying for the occasional visit to the doctor than paying monthly premiums. The Obama plan would force insurance on all these people then force public (Government controlled and paid for) insurance on the rest of us. Kindly remember, government has nothing it doesn't first take from us – its citizens – first. The PUBLIC will have to pay for Gov. Insurance through taxes.

Sally Pipes of the Pacific Research Institute and author of The Top Ten Myths of American Health Care says there are "12 million uninsured Americans … eligible for Medicaid and the State Children's Health insurance program -- but they haven't signed up,". Again, voluntary behavior is voluntary, not an excuse for government involvement.

OK, let's sum up. Of those 46 million "uninsured," 31 million uninsured require no fix from the federal government. That leaves 15 million uninsured unaccounted for. The nationalized health care plan Obama proposes, shifts health care insurance for literally 95 percent of the population to a FEDERALLY controlled plan on behalf of 5 percent of our population, the 5 percent who, like illegal immigrants, receive FREE emergency care anytime under current federal law. Why is that?

The media and BO portray the American health system as a system in crisis by pointing to skyrocketing premiums. Costs of a family policy is now approximately $1,000 per month for employers. Obama says, "One out of every five dollars we earn will be spent on health care in a decade." Premiums for family coverage have risen 78 percent since 2001. The current Government programs, Medicare and Medicaid, comprise a huge chunk of the federal budget. In ten years, they'll comprise more than any other government expenditure. You might consider this as well. Social Security is now broke taking in less than it spends each and every month.

Why are these costs rising exponentially higher? Because of current increased government involvement in the health care system. State regulations decrease market flexibility by requiring that insurers cover unhealthy individuals at lower-cost and requiring insurers cover certain hospitals and doctors. Federal and State governments require health care providers (Insurers and medical personnel) care for individuals without reimbursement which means continually escalating costs for those who do pay, the general public and taxpayers. Both federal and state health care subsidization programs encourage health care providers and insurance to raise prices, our costs, to break even. More government equals higher costs, not lower.

The answer should be more free markets, not less. Competition between insurers, not government monopoly, would lower costs. The correct answer is an expanded private system, not a public one paid for by public taxes. There is no single payer system anywhere in the world that gives better care than we get in the USA, now

The Souter Replacement Battle

Free Speech Case: Citizens United (Hillary: the Movie) v. Federal Election Commission

Posted: 05 May 2009 07:05 PM PDT

The Road to Hell is Paved with Good Intentions

 Have you ever given thought to how we got into our present fascist quagmire? What has brought us to the brink of Socialism where a President can openly fire the CEO of a private corporation and nearly 40% of our nation’s residents receive some form of federal monetary aid (notice I said residents, not citizens.) When did we step onto that slippery slope? And how can we get off?

 “It is hard for those who did not live through it to grasp the full force of the worldwide depression. Between 1930 and 1939 U.S. unemployment averaged (editorial note: substitute peaked) 18.2 percent. The economy's output of goods and services (gross national product) declined 30 percent between 1929 and 1933 and recovered to the 1929 level only in 1939. (Ed. Note: The stock market recovered much sooner but GOVERNMENTAL POLICIES stymied recovery.) Prices of almost everything (farm products, raw materials, industrial goods, stocks) fell dramatically. Farm prices, for instance, dropped 51 percent from 1929 to 1933. World trade shriveled: between 1929 and 1933 it shrank 65 percent in dollar value and 25 percent in unit volume. (Ed. Note: Protectionist policies restricting free trade kept business, manufacturing, and agriculture from exporting goods, hence prices and production suffered.) Most nations suffered. In 1932 Britain's unemployment was 17.6 percent. Germany's depression hastened the rise of Hitler and, thereby, contributed to World War II.”        --     Robert Samuelson, Encyclopedia Britannica

Mr. Samuelson’s history is generally accurate but relies upon Marxist economic theory for his commentary, normal in today’s Socialist theology.

 In his effort to combat the problems of the Great Depression, Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed, and with the help of the Socialist minded Democratic-controlled Congress passed, many New Deal programs. Within 100 days of taking office in 1933, he and his advisors proposed a series of measures designed to provide relief for the unemployed, recovery of the economy, and reform of the economic and banking systems. In other words, Roosevelt began tinkering with our economic engine. By 1934, the Supreme Court began ruling, correctly, against many of the New Deal programs as unconstitutional. In his second term, Roosevelt, flush from his 1936 landside presidential victory, was outraged and was convinced he had a mandate from the people to continue and expand his New Deal programs. This conflict between the Court and the Executive branches of government led to FDR's court-packing bill in 1937. The court acquiesced joining FDR in his Utopian ideology.

 FDR’s Dem Congress passed the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1933. Portions of its provisions were correctly ruled unconstitutional by the Court in 1933 which lead to passage of further curative amendments by Congress in the Soil Conservation and Domestic Allotment Act in 1936. The Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938 limited the area that farmers could devote to wheat production. (The Soviets had done so well with their own allocation programs we had to as well. Of course, the USSR allowed 30 million peasants to starve to death so Stalin could eat well, a mere statistic.)

 The stated purpose of the act was to stabilize the price of wheat in the national market by controlling the amount of wheat produced. The motivation behind the Act was a belief by Congress that great international fluctuations in the supply and demand for wheat were leading to wide swings in the price of wheat. Of course, our farmers weren’t allowed to export their excesses which led to widespread world hunger and poorer US farmers. Ah, how well the road is paved, eh! Even farmers who grew more than their Government allowed allocations for their own usage were penalized. More Socialism. Why should Government in any form be allowed to tell farmers how much grain they can grow for their own use?

 Wickard v. Filburn was a US Supreme Court decision. It allowed the Fed’s to control wheat production. Filburn was a small farmer in Ohio. He was given a wheat acreage allotment of 11.1 acres under a directive, Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938, which authorized the government to set production quotas for wheat. Filburn harvested nearly 12 acres of wheat above his allotment. He claimed that he wanted the wheat for use on his farm, including feed for his poultry and livestock. Fiburn was penalized. He argued that the excess wheat was unrelated to commerce since he grew it for his own use. It wasn’t sold nor intended to be sold.

 The Federal District Court ruled in favor of Filburn. The Act required an affirmative vote of farmers by plebiscite in order to implement the quota. (The Dems thought a vote would seem democratic.) Much of the District Court decision related to the way in which the Secretary of Agriculture had campaigned for passage: The District Court had held that the Secretary's comments were improper. The government then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States, which called District Court's holding against the campaign methods which led to passage of the quota by farmers a "manifest error." The court then went on to uphold the AAA under the Interstate Commerce Clause.

 Government prosecutors claimed concern lest the Act be held to be a regulation of production or consumption rather than of marketing.  In fact, activities such as 'production,' 'manufacturing,' and 'mining' were considered strictly 'local' except in special circumstances and not regulated under the commerce power because their effects upon interstate commerce were, as matter of law, only 'indirect.'

 It was supposed no decision of the Court allowed activities to be regulated where no part of the product is intended for interstate commerce or intermingled with the subjects thereof. It doesn’t work that way, of course. The issue was not how one characterized the activity as local, but rather whether the activity "exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce." In simple language, since Filburn didn’t have to buy feed from somebody else, his activities infringed on someone else’s ability to sell their grain.

 But the decision held ….even if (a person’s) activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce and this irrespective of whether such effect is what might at some earlier time have been defined as 'direct' or 'indirect.'  …..  It was a power grab by FDR and the DEMS to allow them to regulate who could buy and sell. Lot’s of flowery language but same result, Fascism. Just exactly the governmental form we went to war to end in Japan and Europe, aided, abetted, and promoted by a populist President same as Obama today.

 PL Booth, The Blue Eye View, MO 04/02/09