Latest Entries »
» Conservatives frustrated by GOP lack of leadership
Prominent Republicans see no evidence that their party’s electoral successes have advanced the cause of limited government and moral governance.
“Today, our party’s leaders act like thermometers measuring the temperature of the electorate. We need to be the thermostats and set the temperature,” said Rob McCoy, pastor of Calvary Chapel, a few minutes’ drive from the Reagan presidential library in Simi Valley, Calif.
For Republicans like Mr. McCoy, who is running for a state Assembly seat, the national party has racked up decades of compromises that have led to relentless government expansion, ever- increasing spending growth, continually mounting national debt and growing intrusiveness into the private lives of Americans.
From her George Mason University’s Mercatus Center office in Arlington, Va., economist Veronique de Rugy looks at the objective evidence of the Republican Party’s effect on limiting government.
“Every president has spent more total real dollars in his last budget than in his first,” she said, noting that Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson increased spending by 38 percent, but George W. Bush, twice elected on a conservative Republican platform, increased spending by 53 percent during his presidency.
“Even Reagan increased total spending by 22 percent” over President Carter, she says on her website.
Similar disappointments are nagging at other conservatives as an expected 10,000 of them – nearly half college age – prepare to descend on Washington for the 41st annual Conservative Political Action Conference this week at the Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center.
As always, the big question at CPAC will be over the best tactics to advance conservative ideas – specifically how often, if ever, to engage in principled but lost causes such as the filibusters that Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and fellow conservatives have launched, against the wishes of the GOP’s more center-right leadership in and out of Congress.
Limited-government warriors such as Helen Van Etten, chief audiologist for the Topeka, Kan., school district, strongly backs Mr. Cruz and his allies. She said these conservatives are willing to risk losing legislative battles – and even their own re-election races – to mount high-profile challenges to what they see as big- government advocacy from the national news and entertainment media.
Mrs. Van Etten, an elected Republican National Committee member, rejects the idea that the temperature setters are interested only in blocking action in Washington.
The problem, she said from her Topeka office, is not one of action versus inaction, but that “Republicans [are] being asked to compromise. That implies that we’re meeting the Democrats in the middle. What Republicans are being asked to do is capitulate completely and just give the Democrats everything they want.”
The temperature setters refuse to grant the temperature takers an exclusive franchise on the pragmatic electoral concerns. Oklahoma veterinarian and RNC member Carolyn McLarty contended that the hard- liners’ tactics “have strengthened the base by offering a glimmer of hope that some in Congress have the guts and grit to make a difference.”
Standing fast on principle to block bad legislation no matter the outcome doesn’t automatically conflict with pragmatic goals, said Iowa Republican Party Chairman A.J. Spiker. He insists the Ted Cruz- style filibusters and filibuster threats were not lost causes but rather “much-needed wind in the sails of conservatives.”
Far from voter backlash that the thermometer faction so fears, Missouri Republican Party Chairman Ed Martin said, “Our voters are glad someone is standing up to fight. It is better to fight even when you know you’ll probably lose, because that way our elected Republicans show they take their limited-government promises to voters seriously and are at least taking risks to achieve change.”
It’s not that Republicans whom conservatives deride as “Republicans in name only” don’t talk and vote conservatively. Many of the House Republican leaders whom conservatives consider to be too moderate have strong conservative voting records.
Few debates are surer to grow into heated arguments than betting that House Speaker John A. Boehner, who last year narrowly won a second term as speaker, has a liberal record. In fact, the Ohio Republican had a 90 percent American Conservative Union lifetime voting rating before he became speaker. The ACU gives a 96 rating to House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia and a 94 rating to Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy of California.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, a Kentucky Republican facing a fierce tea party challenge in his primary race this year, has a 90 percent ACU lifetime rating. The Senate’s second-ranking Republican, John Cornyn of Texas, can boast of a 93 ACU voting score.
Their critics, however, say it’s on unrated procedural votes and inside maneuvering that the McConnells and Cornyns differ from Mr. Cruz and allies such as Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican. Those differences lead to compromises that, to Republicans like Mrs. Van Etten, give everything to Democrats.
“Republicans are taking a big risk doing that because it can turn off their base and cause [voters] to stay home this fall,” she said.
Not everyone agrees with the hard line against compromise.
Lynn A. Stout, a distinguished law and business professor at Cornell University, argues that Republicans take even bigger risks by not compromising at tactically important times, even if many in the party base perceive capitulation.
From her Ithaca, N.Y., office, Ms. Stout said “some compromise is necessary to prevent Republicans from losing influence, especially with young voters.” She said polls generally show that using lost- cause filibusters such as Mr. Cruz’s attempt to defund Obamacare last fall is “a damaging strategy to Republicans.”
Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the party’s 2008 presidential nominee, has accused Mr. Cruz of instigating last year’s partial government shutdown and called the Texan “crazy.”
Thermostat Republicans note that Mr. McCain and other critics of the Cruz filibuster failed to put any of the blame for the shutdown on Mr. Obama and Senate Democrats by rejecting bill after bill to carry on government operations during the standoff.
Mitt Romney, the party’s presidential nominee in 2012, pointedly left Mr. Cruz and Mr. Paul off the list in November when he was asked to list the best available Republicans to head the ticket in 2016.
Former Virginia Gov. James S. Gilmore III, who served as RNC chairman and now heads the Free Congress Foundation, said his own career shows the conflicting impulses of thermostat versus thermometer politics.
Mr. Gilmore has played the Republican thermostat in his political career by standing up to President George W. Bush’s administration, for example, on foreign interventionism and government surveillance programs.
But Mr. Gilmore is of two minds on mounting hopeless fights in Congress over a principle. He faults Mr. Cruz, Mr. Paul and their allies for their tactics last fall.
“The American people rejected the government shutdown as irresponsible,” Mr. Gilmore said. “The need to climb back out of the hole Cruz and Paul put us in is the direct reason the GOP leadership postponed the substantive debate over the future of the nation.”
But Mr. Gilmore also said the less-confrontational approach of the Republican leadership on Capitol Hill “has pushed off the debate over the nation’s future until after the 2014 elections.”
He cited in particular the compromise spending plan fashioned by House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, Wisconsin Republican, and Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray, Washington Democrat, that conservatives have roundly criticized.
But to former Iowa Republican Party Chairman Kayne Robinson, Mr. Gilmore’s claim that the government shutdown bloodied Republican noses misses the point.
“When a few Republicans like Cruz and Paul try to stop the march to socialized medicine, whether likely to succeed or not, at least they are lighting up the enemy and rallying the troops,” said Mr. Robinson. “The result is a few leaders and ex-presidential candidates, apparently sore because they are off the air, attack those who are at least trying. The national media, of course, put ex- leaders back on the air.”
At what is expected to be a raucous CPAC, the thermometer- thermostat tensions are likely to be on full display for the national media.
Despite the spotlight, Republicans like Iowa’s Mr. Robinson insist that compromise on principles is a misguided strategy and that those who stand up for the party’s values are unfairly maligned.
Ordinary Republicans “watch with a disbelief that turns to disdain as establishment Republicans try to personally destroy conservatives like Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, Steve King and Rand Paul for criticizing that same establishment,” he said.
Making the CPAC gathering even more intriguing is that Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist, normally a thermostat Republican and feared enforcer of the party’s no-tax pledge has come down strongly with the Senate GOP leadership in the shutdown debate.
Mr. Cruz “said he would deliver Democratic votes and he didn’t. He pushed House Republicans into traffic and wandered off,” Mr. Norquist said.
More recently, Mr. McConnell’s allies hammered Mr. Cruz for seeking a filibuster on a “clean” bill to raise the federal debt ceiling, without extracting a single spending cut from Mr. Obama. The parliamentary move forced Mr. McConnell, Mr. Cornyn and a handful of other Republican senators to cast politically damaging votes to shut off debate, even though all 45 Republican senators voted against the measure to raise the debt ceiling.
An unrepentant Mr. Cruz said he had made his point that compromising with Democrats by giving everything they want is not what people sent Republicans to Washington to do.
“Just about every American understands that we can’t keep going the way we’re going. We’re bankrupting the country. It’s irresponsible,” he said. “Today was a classic victory for Washington establishment interests, and the people who lost today are the American people.”
What most bugs thermostat Republicans is that their party seems to have a fatally steep learning curve.
From violating no-tax pledges to failing to curb the growth of government, “compromising on principle keeps on costing Republicans,” said Pastors and Pews founder David Lane, a Los Angeles-based conservative evangelical organizer. “Compromise cost them the White House in 1992. Reagan won re-election in 1984 with 49 states; [George W. Bush] needed the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 and Ohio in 2004.”
What most bugs Mr. McCoy, he said, is that “19 people in a Wisconsin church started the Republican party to end slavery, their president got a bullet in the back of his head and 650,000 people died in the war that ended slavery. For the next 70 years, Republicans dominated the political landscape as the party of character because they lead the people.”
Whether Mr. McCoy is right and the GOP has become a party led by followers – temperature takers – is the question CPAC was created to address.
» So, how do you like what is in it?
You have to hand it to Nancy Pelosi: She was dead-on accurate when she claimed Congress had to pass Obamacare before we would find out what was in it.
The latest case in point is the “Shared Responsibility Payment,” which appears in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, but hasn’t been widely appreciated for its Orwellian genius until the IRS started to promote it this year.
The “Shared Responsibility Payment” is the penalty U.S. citizens have to fork over to their federal overlords if they fail to accede to the government’s order that they purchase health insurance for themselves and/or their families.
You see, it turns out that by taking individual responsibility for my own health care, I am robbing other citizens of their opportunity to get “affordable health care” because part of my premium payment would be used to offset the fact that millions of other people don’t pay enough (or possibly anything) for their health-care insurance.
Therefore, the government, in order to protect its Ponzi scheme, assesses me a “shared responsibility payment” — a tax which can then be used to pay those subsidies by which Obamacare distributes wealth from the not-so-rich to the not-so-poor.
Now please realize this example has nothing to do with me personally. I have a very good health-care plan available to me as an employee of the Daily Inter Lake, which I have taken advantage of for 30 years. But that is something I do out of my own free will, and likewise the newspaper has provided this valuable service as a benefit to its hard-working employees because it recognizes the value of doing so.
That is called the free market. It is a far cry from individual mandates and employer mandates and shared responsibility payments. Imagine if the same kind of logic (or illogic) that is applied to health care by the current regime were also applied to other components of our society. At the end of the cash register receipt from your local grocery store, you could expect to see a shared responsibility payment that was taken from you in order to (supposedly!) feed the less fortunate. On every mortgage and rental payment, there would be a percentage set aside as a “shared responsibility payment” to ensure that no one would ever have to be homeless.
It wouldn’t matter whether you might personally be inclined to donate a similar amount of money to good causes or not. The choice would be taken out of your hands. Someone — or something, some government bureaucrat — knows better than you where your money can do the best good. And if you thought your family needed every penny of your hard-earned money to ensure that they would be able to get ahead, live a secure life, gain a college education, and perhaps a decent retirement, then you would be mocked, humiliated and shamed as a capitalist roader. That’s why they have to take the “shared responsibility payment” from you — because you can’t be trusted to do the right thing. Or at least that is what they will try to convince you — through propaganda from the White House, a variety of “social justice” pushers, and the major news media.
You, hard-working American, are the problem. It is your fault that there is hunger, homelessness and income inequality. Your failure to buy health insurance explains why people are needlessly dying in America! And say it loud enough and long enough, and eventually people start to believe it! We may even be almost to that point.
But maybe not. The best hope for stopping the federal government from controlling every aspect of our lives is education. Don’t just go along to get along, or you will very likely be going along with all the Chinese killed in the Cultural Revolution, all the people sent to the Gulags by Stalin, and all the freethinkers sent to the guillotine by the Committee of Public Safety during the Reign of Terror.
Isn’t it funny how revolution co-opts words and phrases and makes things that are deadly sound like a move in the right direction? Cultural Revolution! Committee of Public Safety! Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act! Shared Responsibility Payment! When you hear words like that, the best advice is grab hold of your freedom and run for your life.
Of course, there is precedent for this failed experiment in forcing people to take shared responsibility for the less fortunate among us. It is called Marxism. “From each according to his abilities; to each according to his means.” The only problem with that utopian sentiment is that it destroys what Confucius called “the will to win” and replaces it with the willingness to wallow. A more sure path to decadence does not exist.
Another way to think of the “shared responsibility payment” is as tribute — the money that enslaved people owe to their conquerors as a sign of submission. This was common in ancient times up through the Roman Empire. Failure to make the payments could result in extreme punishments up to and including death because rejection of the “tax” was considered an insult to the emperor. We don’t have an emperor, but the federal government has more and more exhibited the imperial trappings that attend to those who rule with a sense of entitlement rather than a sense of honor.
It is not surprising that the most extreme forms of tribute carry with them an explicit admission of indebtedness to the ruling class. The jizya tax imposed by Muslims on non-Muslims up through the 20th century was seen as “a protection for their not being slain,” according to Orientalist Edward William Lane.
The “shared responsibility payment” may not go that far, but it is implicitly an acknowledgment that citizens are obligated to do whatever the government orders them to do. Whether you want to pay for your neighbor’s health-care plan or not, you must do so. And once the government has conditioned you to do what IT thinks is right instead of what you think is right, well, you can imagine the rest, and it isn’t pretty.
» NJ considering bill that would ban many rifles » News — GOPUSA
On Monday, the New Jersey Assembly’s Law and Public Safety Committee is scheduled to hold a public hearing about a bill that reduces the maximum magazine from capacity from 15 to 10, but in effect goes even further. Since the legislation covers both detachable and fixed magazines, it has the effect of banning popular, low-caliber rifles.
The Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs gave the draft legislation to top firearms experts in the country to determine what guns would fall under the expanded ban.
They discovered that the bill would affect tube-fed, semi- automatic rifles because the magazine cannot be separated from the gun.
Thus, the experts found that at least 43 common rifles would suddenly be considered a prohibited “assault firearm,” such as the .22 caliber Marlin Model 60, Remington Nylon 66 and Winchester 190.
Just having one such gun would turn a law-abiding owner into a felon overnight.
Possession of an “assault firearm” is a second-degree crime in New Jersey. The penalty is up to 10 years in jail and a mandatory minimum sentence of three to five years, with no chance of parole.
“This bill is a gun ban, there’s no question about that,” Scott Bach, the executive director of the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, told me in an interview.
“If it becomes law, it would have zero impact on crime because criminals don’t follow bans. It would only affect legal gun owners by essentially tying their hands when they need to defend their lives.”
Even worse, the bill has no grandfather clause and no amnesty period. So as soon as this legislation becomes law, everyone in possession of these rifles is automatically a felon and the guns are subject to seizure by the government.
Remember just last May, these same legislators were caught on a hot microphone saying, “We needed a bill that was going to confiscate, confiscate, confiscate.”
Mr. Bach said, “For years anti-gun Democrats have claimed that they have no agenda to ban and confiscate guns. But last year their true agenda was revealed on that hot mic. This bill is another step in that process.”
The timing of this drastic legislation is not by accident. New Jersey Democrats are determined to make Gov. Chris Christie squirm. Their objective is to make the potential Republican presidential candidate choose between local emotional pleas and national pro-gun voters.
State Senate President Steve Sweeney has had families of Newtown, Conn., school shooting at public events over the past few weeks to encourage passage.
It’s most likely that this radical bill will pass the Assembly and the Senate in the next few months. So, Mr. Christie’s veto power is the only thing that can stop the outright attack on gun owners and the Second Amendment.
There may be no way to stop Vladimir Putin from starting a hot war with Ukraine, so Ukraine and its Western allies must prepare for the worst and do it quickly, according to former Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili.
Saakashvili, who fought the Russian army in 2008 for five days after the Russians invaded, is in Kiev to advise the new Ukrainian government. He says he’s providing counsel on how to hopefully avoid an all-out war with Putin’s army. But Saakashvili is also there to deliver a warning to Kiev: Russia appears to be preparing for armed conflict in Ukraine and the world must be ready for that battle, just in case Putin can’t be dissuaded from the fight.
“Right now my advice to the Ukraine government is to maintain maximum restraint, but to prepare for the worst, because I don’t think Vladimir Putin is going to stop where he is. He is not going to stop anywhere until he gets rid of the leadership in Kiev,” Saakashvili said in an interview with The Daily Beast on Monday. “The West should be ready that there might be a war here.”
There several similarities between Russia’s 2008 invasion of Georgia and its 2012 invasion of Ukraine and one main difference. Russia has yet to cross militarily into greater Ukraine, outside Crimea, and wage a full scale invasion of the country, as it did in Georgia. But Saakashvili said he sees plenty of signs that’s exactly what Putin plans to do next.
There are multiple Russian intelligence organizations stirring up trouble all over Ukraine’s south and east with a goal of preparing a pretext for a large-scale military intervention, he said. The huge military exercises currently ongoing on the Russian side of the border are of the same scale to those that immediately preceded the Russian invasion of Georgia, he pointed out. Russia is also putting out massive amounts of propaganda to establish a narrative that could support a large scale intervention, again eerily similar to their actions in 2008.
“Putin certainly has plans for large scale military intervention in the whole of Ukraine,” said Saakashvili. “I think Russia is looking for a hot war.”
“The problem might be that no matter what the Ukrainians might do or not do, Putin might still go for military confrontation.”
There were reports out of Ukraine Monday that the Russian military was now threatening to attack Ukrainian military bases in occupied Crimea if Ukrainian forces didn’t surrender by Tuesday morning. Some Russian officials disputed those reports. Saakashvili said that the Ukrainians should not surrender those bases because it would only encourage Putin to become even more aggressive.
“The problem might be that no matter what the Ukrainians might do or not do, Putin might still go for military confrontation,” he said. “They shouldn’t give up anything. The more they give up, the more the Russia will ask for. I don’t think Putin will be happy until he has a full takeover of Ukraine.”
Right now, there are plenty of things the U.S. and the European Union can do to try to stop Putin from escalating the Ukraine crisis into all out war, he said. There should be immediate economic sanctions, with the West going after Putin’s vast personal wealth and that of his friends. The U.S. can also help Ukraine defend itself by sharing military intelligence, defending Ukraine from cyber attacks, giving Kiev’s armed forces training and even equipment, and moving NATO naval forces into the region as a show of strength, Saakashvili said.
Obama also has to elaborate on his Friday statement promising “costs” for Russia if it intervened in Ukraine militarily, he said. Statements by senior officials have been good but need to be backed up with action if the U.S. wants them to have any effect on Russian thinking.
“Putin does not take these statements seriously,” he said. “He thinks that ultimately the Western elite will see it as in their interest not to isolate Russia.”
The Crimea invasion shows that Putin’s government is paranoid and extremely unstable, Saakashvili said.
“That’s the main reason Putin is so engaged and proactive in Ukraine,” said Saakashvili. “I think he is really terrified for his survival because he is taking a huge gamble and this really shows his desperation and he thinks the best way to distract his people is to bring war to the people of Ukraine.”
Of course, Saakashvili is hardly an unbiased observer. He’s been a sworn enemy of Putin’s for years. And there’s a lot of controversy about Saakashvili’s 2008 decision to engage the Russian military. Many say he was tricked into giving Putin a pretext to invade Georgia. Others say he helped to provoke the Russian-Georgian war. But even Saakashvili’s harshest critics have to admit that the former Georgian president saw the invasion of Crimea coming and tried his best to warn the United States in advance.
U.S. Ambassador to Georgia John Bass wrote in a confidential cable in 2009,released by Wikileaks, that Saakashvili was worried about a Russian invasion of the peninsula.
“Saakashvili expressed concern about Ukraine’s future, predicting that there could be trouble in Crimea after the election, and explicitly suggesting that Russia could use force to ‘secure Crimea,’ causing an immediate political crisis for whatever new President took office in [Kiev],” he wrote.
By 2011, Saakashvili was practically badgering U.S. officials to take seriously his warning that Putin would move on Crimea sooner or later.Another released cable revealed that Saakashvili pressed then Assistant Secretary of Defense Sandy Vershbow (now Deputy Secretary General of NATO) to prepare for this exact event.
“Saakashvili stressed repeatedly that he expected Russia to follow its 2008 invasion of Georgia with intervention in Crimea,” the cable stated. “He predicted that Russia would incite tension in the peninsula and then make a generous offer to Yanukovych (presumed as the next president) to help solve the problem. Saakashvili said that Putin wants to keep the pressure on Ukraine and Georgia as a lesson and a warning to others in the former Soviet Union.”
“Back in 2008 I was screaming to anyone who would listen that after the invasion of Georgia there would be an invasion of Ukraine and people thought I was a little delusional. So I feel vindicated now I’m not happy at all about it,” Saakashvili told The Daily Beast. “After 2008, the West still could not imagine that Putin was capable of such things. They should have known better.”
Restaurant Chain Charges Customers Obamacare Surcharge
February 27, 2014 at 11:04 am
A Florida group that that manages several restaurants is already banking money for when the Obamacare employer mandate takes effect in 2015, and is charging customers a 1 percent surcharge on food and drinks.
Currently only management employees of the eight Gator’s Dockside restaurants receive health insurance, but starting in December, in order to comply with the employer mandate, about 250 full-time employees will also receive health insurance, according to CNN Money.
Sandra Clark, director of operations for the Gator Group that manages the restaurants, “is not sure how much the company is spending on compliance, but estimates that it will cost $500,000 a year to extend insurance to its full-time hourly restaurant workers,” CNN Money reported. “The surcharge may bring in about $160,000 a year, she hopes.”
Gator’s Dockside isn’t the first restaurant to start charging an Obamacare fee. A Los Angeles restaurant has also implemented a surcharge.
Gator’s Dockside could choose to not give full-time employees coverage even once the mandate kicks in, and pay a fine. Or the chain could reduce its current full-time employees’ hours, so that they only work part-time – and thus don’t qualify for health coverage under the employee mandate.
But as the surcharge shows, Obamacare is no free lunch. Most businesses probably won’t opt to add a specific surcharge in order to cover their new health care costs, but some will certainly raise prices – or reduce quality of their products. Obamacare hasn’t driven down the costs of health insurance, or found a magical new source to cover those costs.
federal Court Upholds School Ban on American Flag T-Shirts
February 28, 2014 at 12:15 pm
Yesterday, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld a California high school’s prohibition on American flag t-shirts on Cinco de Mayo. The case is Dariano v. Morgan Hill Unified School District, and while it might get the law right, it certainly highlights a worrying trend in American schools: the inability or unwillingness to protect students whose speech is unpopular.
On Cinco de Mayo, May 5, 2010, three students wore American flag t-shirts to Live Oak High School. Live Oak, according to the Ninth Circuit, had a history of gang and racial violence. The students who wore the American flag t-shirts were threatened with physical violence. Rather than discipline the students who made the threats, the school decided to tell the American flag t-shirt-wearing students that they could either turn their shirts inside-out, or go home. Two of the students went home, and the students collectively sued the school district in federal district court, claiming that the school violated their First Amendment rights.
Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit upheld the dismissal of the students’ claim, on the grounds that school officials “anticipated violence or substantial disruption of or material interference with school activities, and their response was tailored to the circumstances.”
In the landmark 1969 case of Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld the First Amendment right of students to peacefully protest the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands to school. In a famous passage, the Court opined that neither students nor teachers “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”
However, the Tinker case did give wide latitude to K-12 school officials to regulate conduct that would “materially and substantially interfere” with school operations. In yesterday’s case, the Ninth Circuit held that under Supreme Court First Amendment law in the K-12 context, it was “reasonable for school officials to proceed as though the threat of a potentially violent disturbance was real,” and to order the removal of the American flag t-shirts as a result.
While this result might be legally correct, it is still troubling. The admission that school officials in California have no control over their violent students is not something to be proud of. Intuitively, Americans recoil against the so-called “heckler’s veto.” A heckler’s veto is where a peaceful exercise of speech rights is shut down because that speech might offend other people, and those other people are or might be violent. State sanction of the heckler’s veto has been repeatedly struck down by the Supreme Court outside of the school context. Just because cartoons of Mohammad might lead to riots does not allow a police department to arrest a publisher; just because a Nazi speaking in Central Park might cause others to riot does not allow New York City to deny his permit.
Yet in this case, a heckler’s veto occurred, and worked. The peaceful wearing of American flag t-shirts was prohibited because school officials were unable to protect those wearing them. The bad actions of anti-American-flag-t-shirt students effectively shut down the speech. Lawful or not, Live Oak High School evidently has huge problems if it cannot protect its students or maintain school discipline.
HIJACKING THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE
By Doug Tjaden
March 2, 2014
Today we live with Alice in Wonderland, where up is down, and down is up, and little in the world makes logical sense. Nowhere is this more evident than the twisted logic used by progressives to literally hijack the “establishment clause” in the 1st Amendment, and then use it to establish a religion of their own.
The clause is very straight forward:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion…”
In order to understand its original meaning, we must know the definitions of the key words as they were used during the time period when the Constitution was written. The most accurate source we have for these definitions is Webster’s 1828 Dictionary. It defines several of the key words in the clause as follows:
1. Participle present tense Regarding; having regard to; relating to.
Establishment (as in, “to establish”):
1. To set and fix firmly or unalterably; to settle permanently.
2. To found permanently; to erect and fix or settle; as, to establish a colony or an empire.
3. To enact or decree by authority and for permanence; to ordain; to appoint; as, to establish laws, regulations, institutions, rules, ordinances, etc.
4. To settle or fix; to confirm; as, to establish a person, society or corporation, in possessions or privileges.
1. Religion in its most comprehensive sense, includes a belief in the being and perfections of God.
2. Religion as distinct from theology, is godliness or real piety in practice, consisting in the performance of all known duties to God and our fellow men, in obedience to divine command, or from love to God and his law.
3. Any system of faith and worship. In this sense, religion comprehends the belief and worship of pagans and Mohammedans, as well as of Christians; any religion consisting in the belief of a superior power or powers governing the world, and in the worship of such power or powers.
By these definitions, there is absolutely no logical argument that can be made that the Federal Government ever has nor is currently engaged in specifically, permanently, and firmly erecting laws, regulations, institutions, rules, or ordinances to “establish” a religion as this nation’s official religion. A rational mind cannot even conceive that, understood as originally intended,this clause has ever been violated by the Federal Government.
Yet, the progressives today have successfully hijacked the clause through their propaganda and the public education system. They have redefined it to mean, “No governmental agency or property shall in any way reference religion, Christianity in particular.” This is the new operative definition of the “establishment clause,” and progressives are feverishly using it to drive out any reference to the Christian religion from anything considered “public.”
There’s only one problem. There are no laws establishing Christianity as our nation’s religion. That is why the battle is not being fought in Congress. There is no legislation to overturn. Instead, progressives, led by the ACLU and atheist organizations, have strategically moved the battle to the courts.
These judges have no laws to cite that are unconstitutional. Instead they cite the “establishment clause” which has been killed, redefined, and resurrected as their straw man. Wikipedia’s definition of a straw man includes this insightful observation:
“To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.”
The arguments used in today’s courts citing the “establishment clause” should be laughed right out of the courtroom. Unfortunately, the public is ignorant of the original argument, and the judges who the cases are argued before are in support of the agenda. Thus, the prosecution and judges easily knock over the new straw man. As a result, life in the United States is being radically transformed.
Filling the Void
Every society adopts a core belief system that determines how people interact with one another, and the standards of morality they collectively practice. The United States’ underlying constructs were derived from Judeo/Christian principles. As they are removed, they must be replaced by something.
In a hypocritical twist common to progressives, they are using their distorted definition of the establishment clause to actually establish a “religion” of their own. They have exempted the belief system of secular humanism from being defined as a “religion.” This removes all restrictions from using the force of law to enact or rescind laws in order to create a moral and social vacuum that only their religion can fill.
Webster’s definition of “religion” includes a “belief of a superior power, or powers governing the world.” In the progressive’s case, the religion of secular humanism places the state as the superior power to govern the world. The ruling elite are its “gods.” Their superior human reason is the means by which society is ordered.
There is great danger in such a belief system. Never in the course of human history has such a “religion” succeeded in governing its citizens without bloody oppression. In a recent event at the University of Pennsylvania, a student asked renowned Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias, the following question:
“Why are you so afraid of subjective moral reasoning?”
It goes to the heart of the appeal to allow the secular humanist religion to govern mankind. They truly believe that, left to his own devices, man can and will order society to peacefully benefit all. Dr. Zacharias’ response is classic.
“Do you lock your doors at night?”
That simple question laid the groundwork for his point. He reminded the young man of the bloody atrocities committed by secular China during theRed Guard’s Rebellion and the Boxer Rebellion. He reminded him that secular China and Russia killed 60 million people a piece during the 20th century. He then stated, “When subjective morality becomes totally subjectivized, this [bloody oppression] is what happens in society.”
Progressives who subscribe to the secular humanist religion must be approached with truth, reason, and the undeniable evidence of history. Christians should not be cowered by their tactics, one of which is the increasingly aggressive push to have us all bow to the homosexual agenda. While many may disagree on how to deal with issue of homosexuality, their agenda is being used as the tip of the spear to set the legal and societalprecedents that undermine our society’s Judeo/Christian foundation.
Progressives have twisted the establishment clause, creating an environment where they use the clause as a pretense to do exactly what it was meant to prevent – in this case, establishing a state mandated religion of secular humanism. The longer the Christian community waits to confront this, the more deeply their religion will become entrenched. If we do not stop secular humanism from becoming the established religion, it will only be a matter of time – decades maybe – before our nation experiences a fate similar to that of past secular governments. That is not something we want our children and grandchildren to face.
Help remove the scales from the eyes of your Christian friends and family. Share the news and sources you read. Gently, but persistently engage in conversations with them. Network with others who are like-minded, not only for support, but for ideas on how to get involved. Finally, do not shrink back from taking the progressives to task. Exposing hypocrisy is one of the most effective ways to shine light on the gathering darkness, and to defeat it.
© 2014 Doug Tjaden – All Rights Reserved
Doug Tjaden is founder and Executive Director of the Christian Liberty Project. He is the author of “Fool’s Gold – How The Traditions of Men Have Replaced God’s Honest Money”, and is a regular speaker for the Tenth Amendment Center’s Nullify Now! tour. Doug also co-hosts the second hour of The Gun Show, with Matt Canovi, on KSGF, in Springfield, Missouri.
Doug spends his time and energy fighting to re-establish honest money through state led initiatives, and to awaken and engage the Christian community to fight for our spiritual, civil, and economic liberty. He regularly blogs at dougtjaden.com.
WebSite: Christian Liberty Project
Feb. 20, 2014
“Public virtue cannot exist in a nation without private, and public virtue is the only foundation of republics. There must be a positive passion for the public good, the public interest, honor, power and glory, established in the minds of the people, or there can be no republican government, nor any real liberty: and this public passion must be superior to all private passions.” –John Adams, letter to Mercy Warren, 1776
TOP 5 RIGHT HOOKS
Not Another ‘Red Line’
Foreign policy neophyte Barack Obama once again made a bone-headed pronouncement about world affairs, this time addressing the violence in Ukraine. “[W]e’re going to be watching closely and we expect the Ukrainian government to show restraint, to not resort to violence in dealing with peaceful protesters,” he said Wednesday. “We’ve also said we expect peaceful protesters to remain peaceful.” He added, “[T]here will be consequences if people step over the line.” Unfortunately, everyone knows that Obama speaks loudly and forgets his stick, especially when the nation in question is in any way associated with Russia’s Vladimir Putin, which Ukraine’s government is. Just like his “red line” with Syria, this latest warning is huff and bluster that will only weaken U.S. standing in the world.
Tea Party Turns Five
Yesterday was the fifth anniversary of CNBC’s Rick Santelli reporting from the Chicago stock exchange floor and calling for a new “Tea Party.”1 He was specifically opposed to Barack Obama’s “stimulus,” bailouts and other massive spending growth. “A lot of people have been credited with starting the modern-day tea party but make no mistake, it was Rick Santelli,” said Glenn Beck. “His off the cuff monologue spoke the words that millions of Americans felt but could not nor dare not speak.” The Tea Party remains a force in the GOP, and is the reason the party swept to victory in the House in 2010. We hope the movement can regain that momentum this fall, retake the Senate, and restore some fiscal sanity to Washington.
Insurance Tax Will Raise Premiums
Before ObamaCare was passed, Barack Obama repeatedly told us that his new law would save the average family $2,500 a year on their health insurance premiums. Wrong. A new study2 by Robert Book of the American Action Forum shows that the annual tax on health insurance companies based on their market share will inevitably be passed on to consumers. As a result, he says, it “will result in a premium increase of $60 to $160 per person in 2014, rising to $100-$300 by 2018, for the average insured individual – and over $260 per family in 2014, rising to over $450 in 2018, for families with employer-sponsored, fully-insured coverage.” Once again, we see all too clearly that the BIG Lie was calling ObamaCare the “Affordable” Care Act.
$100 Billion in Bad Payments
The federal government wastes a lot of money, that much is inarguable. But thanks to Veronique de Rugy and Jason Fichtner3, we have some new detail, specifically on various welfare programs and wrongful recipients. Medicare fee-for-service is the worst offender in nominal terms, with nearly $30 billion in improper spending in 2012 alone. But the Earned Income Tax Credit is worse in percentage terms – de Rugy writes that it’s “responsible for $12.6 billion in improper payments, almost a quarter of what the program spent in 2012.” In conclusion, she says, “The reality is that federal spending has grown too massive to be adequately overseen, and the resultant waste, fraud, and abuse squanders public resources and undermines trust in government.”
Report Dramatizes Shootings
A new report4 released by Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun groups Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in American (MDA) and Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG) claims that, “In the fourteen months since the mass shooting in Newtown, CT, there have been at least 44 school shootings including fatal and nonfatal assaults, suicides, and unintentional shootings – an average of more than three a month. These school shootings resulted in 28 deaths and 37 non-fatal gunshot injuries.” This data however is highly misleading. “Included in the numbers are  suicides,” explains columnist John Lott. “Also included are late night shootings in school parking lots, on other school grounds or even offschool property, often involving gangs. As ‘shootings,’ they also include any incident where shots were fired, even when nobody was injured.” They also fail to mention that the overall number of school shootings continues to decrease.
For more, visit Right Hooks5.
Report: Minimum Wage Increase Decreases Employment
Conservatives have argued for years that raising the minimum wage leads to a decrease in employment among those on the bottom rung of the economic ladder, an argument leftists vehemently deny. But a report from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that a proposed minimum wage increase to $10.10 an hour by 2016 would eliminate 500,000 jobs despite the prospect of enhanced economic activity overall. While that’s a bad scenario, even the best number the CBO could come up with was the increased minimum wage would lead to a “very slight decrease” in employment. Their worst case projection is that one million jobs may be lost.
It’s also worth considering that the increased economic activity, once losses from those who were furloughed, business owners making less profit, and overall higher costs due to the inflationary effects of an artificial wage hike are factored in, would result in a paltry $2 billion increase in real income overall. In part, this is because just 19% of these additional earnings would accrue to families below the poverty line; meanwhile 29% would go to families who make three times the poverty level. In other words, many of those workers who actually make minimum wage – representing less than 2% of the workforce – are those just entering the workforce, meaning they most likely still live with their parents and supplement a far larger household income. The CBO estimates just 2% of those who live in poverty will be lifted out of it by a minimum wage increase. But how many non-minimum wage earners will be forced into poverty by the increased costs?
So why would we engage in what commentator Charles Krauthammer called8“a transfer of wealth from some low-income earners to other low-income earners”? Simple – it’s an election year and goodies have to flow freely to those who typically vote Democrat. Either they’ll get a raise or they’ll be enjoying many months’ worth of unemployment payments, a win-win for the lazy and statists everywhere.
Working Out the Details of NSA Reform
High-ranking members of the intelligence community and civil liberties advocates are trying to figure out just how the government will go about implementing the changes Barak Obama recently proposed9 for the NSA. But what they’ve come up with doesn’t instill a lot of confidence. Obama called for a number of changes to the government’s intelligence gathering infrastructure, including a prohibition on spying on allied leaders and restrictions on gathering and holding data on non-citizens overseas. Both restrictions can, of course, be rescinded if there is a compelling national security purpose – a loophole so broad a Mack truck could drive through it.
One slightly more troubling proposal includes the creation of a privacy advocate that would have a voice in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which currently only hears the government’s side of any national security issue. Injecting a third party into this area of the intelligence infrastructure is fraught with problems. National security information could be compromised and legal proceedings could severely gum up legitimate investigations. Just imagine the damage that could be done if the ACLU had a voice in a FISA court.
The biggest issue of debate, however, is just what to do with the massive amounts of data collected by the NSA’s phone surveillance program. The president proposed putting the collected information in a third-party repository that the NSA would have to seek permission in order to access. No one is sure exactly what this would look like, but telecommunications companies want no part of it. There is no way to guarantee the safety of the data in the hands of a private enterprise, considering the data hacks that take place in the private sector these days. And if the third-party is some quasi public-private institution (think Fannie Mae for spies), who is to say that the operation can be run without leaks, political shenanigans or costly bureaucratic error?
Little mention is made about what to do with the data the NSA currently possesses; these plans are all concerned with future changes, not retroactive ones. However, The Wall Street Journal reports10, “The government is considering enlarging the National Security Agency’s controversial collection of Americans’ phone records – an unintended consequence of lawsuits seeking to stop the surveillance program.”
Meanwhile, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper argued this week that none of this would be necessary had the American public been aware of the NSA surveillance program from the start. Clapper thinks that Americans would have been fine with the extent of the program if the government had just explained its necessity right after 9/11. This, of course, doesn’t excuse his lying to Congress last year about the existence of the program, but that’s okay, too, because Clapper still believes the program is constitutional and effective, despite growing evidence that it is neither.
For more, visit Right Analysis5.
TOP 5 RIGHT OPINION COLUMNS
- Ann Coulter: New Obama Promise: If You Like Your Life, You Can Keep It11
- George Will: The Cold War’s Final Episode?12
- Thomas Sowell: Cruz Control? Part II13
- Victor Davis Hanson: The Outdated Business Model of Diversity Inc.14
- Ben Shapiro: The Left Preaches the Great Apocalypse of Global Warming15
OPINION IN BRIEF
Columnist Ann Coulter: “Our extremely progressive tax system, where nearly half the country pays no income tax at all, and the other half pays about 40 percent of their income, may not be fair. But most people also don’t think it’s fair to tax a guy making $80,000 a year the identical amount as one making $80 million a year. That’s exactly what Obamacare does. With Obamacare, the Democratic Party has foisted the most regressive tax possible on America. This ruthless assault on the middle class is all so we can have a health care system more like every other country has. Until now, the United States has had the highest survival rates in the world for heart disease, cancer and diabetes. … So across the world, we’ll all be equal, dying of cancer, heart disease and diabetes as often as everyone else. It’s not that Obama doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism; it’s that he wants to end it.”
Columnist Ben Shapiro: “[I]f consumerism and virtue are allied, there is no place left for the Marxist critique of capitalism – namely that capitalism makes people less compassionate, more selfish, and ethically meager. And so consumerism must be severed from virtue (very few leftists critique Americans’ propensity for spending cash on Lady Gaga concerts) so that it can be castigated as sin more broadly. In a world in which consumerism is the greatest of all sins, America is the greatest of all sinners, which, of course, is the point of the anti-consumerist critique from the left: to target America. Global warming represents the latest apocalyptic consequence threatened by the leftist gods for the great iniquity of buying things, developing products, and competing in the global marketplace. And America must be called to heel by the great preachers in Washington, D.C., and Hollywood.”
Justice John Marshall Harlan (1899-1971): “In view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is colorblind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.”
Columnist Cal Thomas: “Republicans have a lot of problems, but chief among them is that they are known more for what they are against. They hate President Obama, Obamacare, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Some Republicans don’t even like each other. What and who do they like? What are they for? Where are examples of their policies working – creating jobs, improving lives, lowering deficits and taxes, cutting spending and reducing the size and reach of government? (Hint: States have the answer, not Washington.)”
Humorist Frank J. Fleming: “If you needed the CBO to tell you a minimum wage increase would cost jobs, please stay out of politics.”
Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!
Nate Jackson for The Patriot Post Editorial Team
Join us in daily prayer for our Patriots in uniform – Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coast Guardsmen – standing in harm’s way in defense of Liberty, and for their families.
Progressive Insanity and the Global Warming Cult
Leading the charge is Secretary of State John Kerry, who epitomized the above approach in a speech to Indonesian students, civic leaders and government officials in Jakarta, Indonesia. First he laced into one the left’s favorite punching bags, namely the coal and oil industries he accused of “hijacking” the conversation. ”We should not allow a tiny minority of shoddy scientists and science and extreme ideologues to compete with scientific facts,” he declared. ”Nor should we allow any room for those who think that the costs associated with doing the right thing outweigh the benefits. The science is unequivocal, and those who refuse to believe it are simply burying their heads in the sand. We don’t have time for a meeting anywhere of the Flat Earth Society.”
Possibly suspecting that his presentation might be insufficient to galvanize the unwashed masses, Kerry added a dash of fear to the mix. ”This city, this country, this region, is really on the front lines of climate change,” Kerry warned. “It’s not an exaggeration to say that your entire way of life here is at risk. In a sense, climate change can now be considered the world’s largest weapon of mass destruction, perhaps even, the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction,” he added.
Kerry is taking his cues from President Obama, who went to California, where he promptly explained that state’s worst drought in a century is linked to global climate change and greenhouse gases. “We have to be clear. A changing climate means that weather-related disasters like droughts, wildfires, storms [and] floods are potentially going to be costlier and they’re going to be harsher,” he explained.
That was apparently too much even for the New York Times, who contended that the president and his aides “were pushing at the boundaries of scientific knowledge about the relationship between climate change and drought.” Even worse, the so-called paper of record was forced to admit that the much-vaunted computer models the “consensus” scientists having been using to promote their global warming agenda “suggest that as the world warms, California should get wetter, not drier, in the winter, when the state gets the bulk of its precipitation. That has prompted some of the leading experts to suggest that climate change most likely had little role in causing the drought.” That included an assessment by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which noted that the drought “resulted mostly from natural variations in weather.”
White House science adviser John P. Holdren, who co-authored a book describing government forced abortions and putting sterilants in the drinking water as legitimate population control measures, rode to the president’s rescue. While agreeing that no single episode of extreme weather can be linked to climate change, “the global climate has now been so extensively impacted by the human-caused buildup of greenhouse gases that weather practically everywhere is being influenced by climate change.”
The Los Angeles Times brought another angle to the mix, one that plumbs the depths of climate change hysteria. It cites a study by Matthew Ranson of Abt Associates, a Massachusetts research and consulting firm, that contends climate change “can be expected to cause an additional 22,000 murders, 180,000 cases of rape, 1.2 million aggravated assaults, 2.3 million simple assaults, 260,000 robberies, 1.3 million burglaries, 2.2 million cases of larceny and 580,000 cases of vehicle theft,” between 2010 and 2099.
In a Wall Street Journal article, authors Richard McNider and John Christy underscored the irony of Kerry comparing global warming skeptics to flat-earthers of ancient times. It was the flat-earthers who maintained something similar to the 97 percent “consensus” Kerry used to justify his rant. It was a tiny minority of scientists who posited that the earth was round. With regard to the actual science leftists accuse skeptics of ignoring, the McNider and Christy acknowledge that “carbon-dioxide levels in the atmosphere have increased due to the burning of fossil fuels, and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas, trapping heat before it can escape into space.” Yet what remains unknown is the level of warming that will occur.
They then address the aforementioned computer models, rightly noting that those created to explain the phenomenon were built “almost entirely” by scientists heavily invested in the idea of “catastrophic” global warming. Unsurprisingly, those investments have tainted the science behind them, which explains why many of the dire predictions they engendered have turned out to be “spectacularly wrong.”
That wrongness is invariably followed by a litany of excuses. One was the idea that an increased use of aerosols by human beings that ostensibly “skewed” the results. Moreover, the “consensus” scientists continue to ignore data that does not accrue to their political convictions.
Far more devastating, climate change promoters virtually ignore the disastrous economic effects their policies would engender. As Bjorn Lomborg, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, a nonprofit group focused on cost-effective solutions to global problems explains, 81 percent of the world’s energy needs are provided by fossil fuels, with billions of people depending on them for survival. “For many parts of the world, fossil fuels are still vital and will be for the next few decades, because they are the only means to lift people out of the smoke and darkness of energy poverty,” he writes.
That necessity explains much of the developing world’s resistance to the Obama administration’s initiatives. At this moment in time, they prefer raising their citizens out of poverty than kowtowing to an agenda they see as a First World problem created by wealthier countries that use the most energy. Despite this reality, the president quietly announced a major policy shift last June, whereby the U.S. would place severe restrictions on federal financing of coal plants in foreign countries. ”This new policy sends a message that coal is not an acceptable fuel source for the 21st century,” said Justin Guay, international climate and energy representative of the Sierra Club at the time.
That such a message condemns billions of people around the world to a life of subsistence survival — when they survive at all — is of little consequence. Apparently for progressives, “saving the planet” has little to do with saving the people who inhabit it.
While such an agenda has fewer life and death consequences in the United States, the administration is determined to pursue the same economy-ravaging policies here. And once again a president who has made a mockery of the rule of law and the constitutionally-mandated separation of power is determined to advance those policies “with our without” Congress.
Whether he can actually do so remains to be seen. On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear a case on greenhouse gas emissions that could determine if Obama has so broadly interpreted the parameters of the Clean Air Act that he has rendered Congress irrelevant. Briefs filed by business groups and Republicans paint the president’s effort as another overreach by the Executive branch. A brief filed by Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) contends the president is attempting “an intolerable invasion of Congress’s domain that threatens to obliterate the line dividing executive from legislative power,” and that regulation imposed under the auspices of the EPA were “perhaps the most audacious seizure of pure legislative power over domestic economic matters attempted by the executive branch” since President Truman’s attempt to nationalize America’s steel mills during the Korean War.
Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. countered with the administration’s argument. “The E.P.A. determined that greenhouse gas emissions endanger public health and welfare in ways that may prove to be more widespread, longer lasting and graver than the effects of any other pollutant regulated under the act,” he wrote in his brief.
The case is a challenge to a 5-4 decision made in 2007, when the Supreme Court required the EPA to regulate the emission of greenhouse gasses from motor vehicles if they endangered the public’s health and welfare. The administration wants to extend that decision to cover stationary power plants, as well as all sources that can annually emit 100 or 250 tons of relevant pollutants. That would give them the potential to regulate millions of pollution sources absent congressional authority to do so. Obama used the same rationale when he ordered the development of new standards for the nation’s heavy-duty trucks earlier this week.
Amanda C. Leiter, a law professor at American University believes a loss by the administration would not have a great impact, since they have other regulatory tools at their disposal. But the political damage could be significant because “it would be painted as another situation in which the Obama administration has overreached against the public will.”
Regardless of the decision, the administration will undoubtedly continue to overreach, aided an abetted by what authors David Horowitz and Jacob Laskin term the “New Leviathan.” They are progressive moneyed interests whose contributions dwarf those of their conservative counterparts, and who are determined to impose their agenda on the nation, regardless of the consequences. In the environmental arena, they are being led by billionaire Democrat Tom Steyer, whose political organization, NextGen Climate Action, aims to raise $100 million to support politicians who champion the man-made climate change agenda. Like so many leftist elitists, he is against the Keystone pipeline that would go a long way towards creating jobs and putting the nation further down the road towards energy independence. He considers climate change the ”generational challenge of the world.”
The real generational challenge, in America at least, is figuring out how to prevent progressives in general, and the Obama administration in particular, from fundamentally transforming the United States into a nation where liberty, freedom and free-market capitalism are regulated out of existence. Make no mistake: those who would employ questionable science to impose what amounts to a death penalty on millions of Third-World residents struggling for their very existence don’t think twice about imposing untold economic hardship on their fellow Americans, 76 percent of whom live “paycheck to paycheck,” for the same reason.
And its not about the environment. As a study by the Science and Public Policy Institute reveals, if Americans completely stopped emitting all carbon immediately — stopped driving, stopped cooling and heating our homes, shut down all the power plants, and even stopped talking – the global temperature would decrease by only 0.17 degrees Celsius by 2100.
As Bjorn Lomborg explains, the United States is already “showing the way” towards a future with cleaner fuel sources. That the Obama administration would sacrifice the well-being of millions of Americans and billions of impoverished people to force-feed that future is precisely what they did to the nation when they force-fed it ObamaCare based on the same litany of hysteria, lies and smears they are using here. One can only wonder when Americans will tire of the progressive lust for power wrapping itself as noble intentions.