Saturday, July 4, 2015

American Thinker: My Independence Day Picks!

Oregon bakery owners to pay $135,000 to gay couple and lose their right to free speech
By Rick Moran

The former owners of an Oregon bakery who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple's wedding are being forced to pay damages in the amount of $135,000 and have been ordered to cease and desist "from publishing, circulating, issuing or displaying, or causing to be published … any communication to the effect that any of the accommodations … will be refused, withheld from or denied to, or that any discrimination be made against, any person on account of their sexual orientation." Aaron and Melissa Klein, whose bakery "Sweet Cakes by Melissa" was forced to close because of the decision, say, “According to the state of Oregon we neither have freedom of religion or freedom of speech.”

The cease and desist came about after Aaron and Melissa Klein participated in an interview with Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins. During the interview, Aaron said among other things, “This fight is not over. We will continue to stand strong.”

Lawyers for plaintiffs, Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer, argued that in making this statement, the Kleins violated an Oregon law banning people from acting on behalf of a place of public accommodation (in this case, the place would be the Kleins’ former bakery) to communicate anything to the effect that the place of public accommodation would discriminate.

Administrative Law Judge Alan McCullough, who is employed by the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries and was appointed by Avakian, threw out the argument in the “proposed order” he issued back in April.

But today, Avakian, who was in charge of making the final ruling in the case—and is also an elected politician—reversed that decision.

It's mind-boggling that judges like this guy exist in America. But it gets worse, according to the Kleins' lawyer:

“Brad Avakian has been outspoken throughout this case about his intent to ‘rehabilitate’ those whose beliefs do not conform to the state’s ideas,” she told The Daily Signal. “Now he has ruled that the Kleins’ simple statement of personal resolve to be true to their faith is unlawful. This is a brazen attack on every American’s right to freely speak and imposes government orthodoxy on those who do not agree with government sanctioned ideas.”

Perhaps the judge would like to set up re-education camps so these misguided Christians can be "rehabilitated."

The Kleins aren't done yet:

In their Facebook post, the Kleins signaled their intention to appeal Avakian’s ruling, writing, “We will not give up this fight and we will not be silenced,” already perhaps putting themselves at risk of violating the cease and desist.

Remember: You will be forced to care.

By Sonia Bailley

No need to worry, the recent Ramadan triple slaughter fest in Tunisia, France and Kuwait has nothing to do with Islam. There is no linkage between Islam and terrorism, and the word Islamic need not be used to describe the terrorists because their murderous and barbaric ideology has nothing to do with Islam. Islam is, after all, a religion of peace that is being hijacked, perverted and distorted by only a small percentage of savage extremists.

Welcome to the false narrative that Western leaders, mainstream media outlets, and academic elites are enforcing on civil society to help shape the public’s perception of Islam so that it is always presented in a positive light. Any form of expression that reflects badly on Islam is in violation of Islamic law, which forbids any criticism of Islam, even what that criticism expresses the truth. Stories that are reported according to this narrative need not have anything to do with factual accuracy or truth. Both the 2009 Fort Hood massacre in Texas and the beheading in Vaughan Foods in Oklahoma last September were reported as workplace violence and not Islamic terrorism......

By Mark J. Fitzgibbons

As Americans gather this Independence Day weekend, many will read the Declaration of Independence. When we get to the line, “He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance,” we may wish to tip our hats to James Otis. John Adams wrote about James Otis’ fiery argument in court against the Writs of Assistance in 1761: “[T]he child independence was then and there born.” A 1783 eulogy poem written by Thomas Dawes described Otis as “first in patriot fame.” The Writs of Assistance, a method of search and seizure known as “general warrants,” were authorized by Parliament. Otis nevertheless called these institutionalized violations of liberty “illegal.”That certainly contrasts with the more milquetoast terms such as “lawless” and“overreach” used today to describe government’s unlawful and unconstitutional acts.

General warrants were used in England to suppress religious and political dissent, and were also being used to regulate and stifle commerce in favor of cronies of the Crown. Boston merchants hired Otis, previously the government’s lawyer, to argue their case. Otis called the Writs of Assistance“the worst instrument of arbitrary power, the most destructive of English liberty and the fundamental principles of law, that ever was found in an English law-book.”….

By Bruce Walker

The Fourth of July is the perfect time for conservatives to recall that we hold to our positions – or at least that we should hold to them – not because conservative principles will help the economy or make us safer or cause government to operate more effectively. Markets do produce prosperity in ways that statism does not – but Adam Smith, who pioneered this notion, did not publish his Wealth of Nations until after our Declaration of Independence. It is a happy byproduct of our love of liberty that liberty helps create wealth, but the men who signed the Declaration of Independence often condemned themselves and their families to poverty because of their value-driven conservatism.

The way to get rich quick today is to slavishly champion the most awful leftist lies and then rake in money from government awards, contracts, tax-exemption, and the like, or to become a lazy professor writing expensive textbooks that trapped students have to buy…and so on. Those men who signed the Declaration of Independence, and even more the men and muskets of unpaid, ordinary Americans who fought the world’s first superpower, the British Empire, certainly were not fighting to be safer. Those not killed or crammed into ghoulish prison boats or maimed knew that a noose awaited them if their cause lost, as most people thought it would…….Our Declaration of Independence could not be said to make government work better, either. Our Continental Congress was a loose, illegal group that printed worthless paper money that was “not worth a Continental” and that was as often as not on the run from British armies. During our War of Independence, it might fairly be said that there was no real government in the rebellious colonies, and the Constitution was 13 years away…..

By Peggy Ryan

News that the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage ignited joyous celebration among gays and the media. Images assaulted us on all sides, victory parades showcasing same-sex couples entwined in ecstasy, media gushing praise, and #LoveWins rocking the Twitter universe. They won, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that same-sex couples can marry anywhere, anytime. By nullifying state laws, dismissing individuals’ religious beliefs, and totally ignoring the Constitution, they trumped it all and won. Except it wasn’t a gay victory, not really. Oh the gay community and their supporters will argue it was a huge win, an in-your-face slam-dunk. But beneath all the hoopla, behind the well-designed scenes, the gays lost. We all lost because the real victor, the hands-down big winner is government. You see, the dirty little secret is that gays, like blacks and Hispanics, are being used to declaw the silent majority. Politicians have tried over and over again to stop those constitutional nuts who keep waving the American flag and quoting the Constitution. It hasn’t been easy, these conservatives have been the majority since colonial days. They still are the majority, the silent majority; too silent.…..

By Claire Hawks

The level of overreaction in this country seems to have reached a fever pitch since the killing of nine black people in Charleston, SC by a highly disturbed young man. First the calls for banning the Confederate flag began, followed by calls for the removal of statuary of anyone having anything to do with the Confederacy. Louis Farrakhan has called for banning the American flag, and Malik Shabazz, the head of the New Black Panthers, has called for the killing of "slave masters." The logical progression would seem to be that there will again be legislation introduced in Congress for reparations to be paid to black people for the enslavement of their ancestors. Let's look at reparations logically, not emotionally.

The discussion in America has always centered on the descendants of American slaves feeling that they are owed reparations for their ancestors being held in slavery. There is no doubt that slavery was and is a horrible thing. No person or persons should ever be allowed to own another. But slavery has existed in the human race for millennia. In 1760 BC, the Code of Hammurabi, in the first recorded instance of slavery, referred to slavery as an established institution. No doubt there was slavery prior to this recorded history, and, unfortunately, it exists to this day in some parts of the world. I see some distinct problems with paying reparations to descendants of former slaves. I'm sure there are others....

By Eugene Slaven

Of all the invectives launched against the United States by the resurgent American Left, the charge that in America, White Privilege reigns supreme is the most insidious and culturally ruinous. Its intent is unambiguous: leftists perpetuate the White Privilege lie to smear America and its institutions as inherently racist, and therefore unworthy of adulation and in need of fundamental socioeconomic transformation. The ultimate power of the White Privilege calumny lies in its capacity to impugn the virtue of American patriotism and the idea of American exceptionalism. The Radical Left’s aversion to America is well documented. Rooted in a perverse contempt for capitalism and Western culture, leftists perennially seek to discredit the view that America is exceptional or even good. Engraining in our culture the White Privilege lie is an effective means to achieving that destructive end. After all, how can a racist nation be noble and moral, never mind exceptional? What kind of a morally and intellectually bankrupt person could be a patriot of a racist nation?.........

By Thomas Lifson

The fragile bonds of civilization that keep society peaceful and orderly are fraying in the face of mobs organized online. Last Sunday, an organized mob of about four dozen people attacked a Walmart in Macon, Georgia, intentionally doing damage to displays and merchandise and dragging a man out of motorized cart and throwing him to the floor. The Macon Telegraph reports:…………The odd (well, actually quite common) thing about this report and all the others I could find (including ABC News and Newsmax) is that in this age of hyper-consciousness about diversity, nobody dared notice that in the videos taken from multiple cameras (see embedded videos below), all of the miscreants appear to be black. This just shows the taboos that operate in American society and journalism. The endless propaganda that holds America to be a terrible racist place that has oppressed blacks is having predictable consequences, and these consequences are being erased from the public's notice insofar as possible. This sort of thing never ends well.

Videos from the store’s surveillance cameras:……
George Takei, better known as Star Trek's Mr. Sulu, has been a gay activist for many years. Apparently, he's a sore winner as well. Responding to a thoughtful dissent by Justice Clarence Thomas to the gay marriage case, Takei called the associate justice to the Supreme Court a "clown in blackface."…..What happened to Takei's family was inexcusable, but he never explains how the government "took" their dignity. How can government take your dignity unless you give it away? Thomas made the same point about slavery. Even the most vicious mistreatment by white masters could not steal the human dignity that all people possess if they choose not to lose it. Dignity shines the brightest when it is challenged the most. Takei is not just wrong. He is a racist. What did Thomas's color have to do with his legal thinking? Judging an individual by the group like Takei has done is ignorant, and referring to Thomas as a fake black is beyond the pale. Like all liberals, he won't apologize or back down. But he should.
Now that we're in a new movement to ban the Confederate flag from computer games and old television shows, talk show host Mark Levin has jumped on the bandwagon, suggesting we ban the name "Democratic Party." Levin says this is because the Democratic Party has such a racist past. It was the party of slavery, after all, the party who fought against Abraham Lincoln's efforts to free the slaves. The Democratic Party was also the party of segregation for decades. Former Senate majority leader Robert Byrd was an official in the Ku Klux Klan. Hugo Black, FDR's appointment to the Supreme Court, was a lawyer for the Ku Klux Klan. FDR himself locked up most of our Japanese-American population in camps simply because of their ethnicity. Woodrow Wilson, a Democrat, signed a law making interracial marriage illegal, the army was segregated, and Wilson supported Jim Crow laws in the South. Democrat Bill Clinton praised Democratic senator William Fulbright, a segregationist…..

Editor's Note:  After reading your picks from this list I would like for everyone to read my article of June 28th,   We Are What We Stand For!

Thursday, July 2, 2015

Is the Media Silent on Tim Hunt Accuser Connie St Louis’s Lies Because of Her ‘Black Privilege’?

By Milo Yiannopoulos

It’s terrible that by mere accident of birth, some people are afforded benefits and opportunities that are denied to others.  That’s why I think Connie St Louis, the black female journalism professor whose malicious slander led to the virtual destruction of a Nobel Laureate’s career, needs to urgently check her privilege. Because unlike most people in the country, it seems she can get away with murder, thanks to her gender and, yes, her skin colour.

St Louis is responsible for the sacking of Sir Tim Hunt, a Nobel prize-winning biochemist who became the target of an online lynch mob after his comments about women in science were taken out of context……St Louis, eager to combat damaging stereotypes, immediately went off crying to the media........her resume describes her as an “award winning freelance broadcaster, writer, and scientist” who “presents and produces a range of programmes for BBC Radio 4 and BBC World Service” and “writes for numerous outlets, including the Independent, the Daily Mail, the Guardian and the Sunday Times…[yet she ] she had only written one article for the Guardian, in 2013…..[the] Joseph Rowntree fellowship which she received to write and publish a book….ten years later has yet to produce a completed work……. St Louis has lied about her CV, and she has lied about Tim Hunt.

Anyone else would be fired on the spot.

Quote of the Day

Once, when I was teaching at an institution that bent over backward for foreign students, I was asked in class one day: "What is your policy toward foreign students?"   My reply was: "To me, all students are the same. I treat them all the same and hold them all to the same standards."  The next semester there was an organized boycott of my classes by foreign students. When people get used to preferential treatment, equal treatment seems like discrimination. - Thomas Sowell

Sustainability Project, Part II

By Rich Kozlovich

Sustainable development is a phrase that's being bandied around everywhere these days. It's promoted by the United Nations as the answer to every problem in every aspect of human activity: sustainable development in agriculture, sustainable development in banking, sustainable development in tourism, sustainable development in education, and more. Let's get this right.  Sustainable development is just another effort by the left to take commonly understood words and re-define them in support of an irrational, misanthropic and morally defective ideology. Socialism! 

P.T. Barnum would have been truly impressed with this trompe l'oeil, for what better way to deflect attention away from themselves, the real perpetrators of the economic mess in which the world finds itself.  And now, because they've adopted and promoted this phrase - sustainable develoment - and tout it as a philosophy, we're to believe the economic incompetents who run these socialist governments, including the United States, have an economic vision that can be implemented with them in control and it will work to humanities benefit!  We desparately need to explore this.

Just as when they use the phrase “it’s for the children” when they want some pesticide banned - after all, who could be against something that's "for the children" - they resort to these emotional appeals to prevent you from looking deeper into what they’re really promoting.   Their policies haven't been "for the children", it been  “to the children”.  For over 50 years those policies have devastated the children of the third world terribly.

Correspondingly, we had better look more deeply into the phrase “sustainable development” when they talk about economic development.  After all - Who can be against sustainability? After all isn’t sustainability something that can be done over and over again!  Who can be against development?  Isn’t development about creating more and better ways to live!  What can be wrong with any of that?

Let’s think about this for a second.  The words sustainability and development can easily be defined separately, but can they be defined as a phrase?  Are they even compatible as a philosophy?  Ask ourselves this question.   Is anything sustainable if there’s development?  We will explore that!

What happens when the two are combined and defined illogically and in a way that will generate a diametrically different goal than either sustainability or development would mean independently? What happens when the real goal isn’t the leftist mantra – we can fix everything if the world just adopts our vision of sustainable development and give us the power to define it, and unendingly re-define it, as we see fit to meet needs that only we can understand and implement according to some unknown formula?  What if the real goal is global governance under the auspices of the United Nations?  

Independently both of these words are easily definable. The trick is to put these words together in order to create a phrase that is so meaningless anyone can attribute any philosophy to it they wish and call their policy “sustainable development”.

In reality the term sustainable development as a philosophy is a logical fallacy because it has no logical foundation.    Who decides what’s sustainable, and for whom?  Who decides some practice or other is or isn’t worth developing?

There are no identifiable parameters for a universal definition or modalities of action to which everyone can agree.  As a result there can be no logical foundation from which to make viable verifiable determinations for what needs to be done.  That leaves opinion - not facts, not science, not history, not results – just someone’s opinion as to how the world should function.  Make no mistake about this.  If the world accepts this there will be no level of individuality will be tolerated, including the real foundation for economic sustainability or development – personal property rights. 

Here in the United States that is now, and has been, the thrust of these people from the beginning.  The elimination of personal property rights by use of the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, via their agents of tyranny at the EPA, the Wildlife Service and the Army Corp of Engineers.

They claim sustainable development is to support current and future generations. Both of which is completely incomprehensible for central planning purposes, especially by bureaucrats who’ve never had a real job. Who knows what future generations need?  Who knows what developments will arise that will change the needs of society today.  Who knows what developments will be thwarted by central planning meddling?   Who’s to say what’s best for current or future generations, and how do we know their goals and plans are benign?

Especially since - as a group – the sustainable development mob thinks – mostly privately lest the world find out how insane their vision of the world really is – the world has between four and six billion too many people.  So why does anyone think a massive infusion of regulations and taxes implemented by an unconnected, unaccountable, unconscionable United Nations bureaucracy dominated by tyrants should regulate sustainability? 

The reality is that sustainability has no need of government at all.  Actual sustainability is self regulating! Either something can be done or it can’t.  If it can’t be done people will stop doing it and attempt some other way of achieving a needed goal. 

That makes development self regulating also.  Development occurs when a need arises, and as in all developmental processes there will be successes and failures.  That’s how the light bulb came into being.  Edison tried 1000 compounds as a filament and failed, but he took each failure as a success because they now knew what wouldn’t work.   When a reporter asked, "How did it feel to fail 1,000 times?" Edison replied, "I didn’t fail 1,000 times. The light bulb was an invention with 1,000 steps." 

What regulation from a central authority could have made that happen?   What if central planners didn’t want this development to happen?  What if central planners had decided electric light bulbs were destructive to the economic interests of candle makers and declared light bulbs as a threat to current and future generations? 

Who was the most antagonistic opponent of the electric light bulb?  John D. Rockefeller!  Why, was he a supporter of sustainability or development?  I guess you could say he was a supporter of sustainability – because his company, Standard Oil of New Jersey’s number one product was kerosene, which was used to light the nation’s buildings, and the electric light bulb would not be sustainable for his business model.  Remember, gasoline was a by-product of kerosene production and was thrown away because it was so volatile and there were few cars.  Once again – the reality of history is this - nothing is ‘sustainable’ if there’s development.

Now we find these promoters of sustainable development claiming sustainable development isn’t possible without equality of genders.  Really?  Why?  Whether or not our particular societal paradigms practice equality of race, equality of gender, equality of class or not, there is no ‘sustainable’ proof that has anything to do with sustainability or development.  Great political and economic empires came into being without practicing anything that could be construed equality in any arena. 

The world’s history demonstrates the largest obstacle to sustainability or development is   government!   The very people who are promoting what they call sustainable development are the very people who stand in the way of legitimate economic sustainable or development with massive infusions of regulations, fees, taxes and penalties for doing anything with which they disagree. 

What if they decide drinking wine is a threat to the needs of today’s society? What if they decide growing grape vines or the making of wine will not be tolerated?  What if they decide theatrical entertainment should be restricted in order to more directly focus on producing the things the central authority decides is most important?  Both of those things occurred in ancient China. 

These aren’t stupid people.  They’ve been educated in the best universities in the world so they must have studied history….but did they really?  In order to really understand world economics we need to study the history of China!

According to the book Wealth and Poverty of Nations, “by about 500 BCE the Chinese had learned to improve the supply and use of water by means of artificial devices and arrangements; were making use of draft animals (above all, the water buffalo) for plowing; were weeding intensively; and were putting down animal waste, including night soil, as fertilizer. All of this required prodigious labor, but the work paid off.  Yields shot to a high of 1,100 liters of grain per hectare, which would have left a substantial surplus for the maintenance of nonfood producers.”

Printing and paper was invented by the Chinese around the 9th century, but the difficulty of ideographs versus an alphabet made printing or even learning difficult.  for all that printing [in China] did for the preservation and diffusion of knowledge in China, it never “exploded” as in Europe,.  Such publication depended on government initiative, and he Confucian mandarinate discouraged dissent and new ideas”.  (WAPN pg 52)

The Chinese use of gunpowder started by the eleventh century (two to three hundred years before it appeared in Europe, and probably brought from China) but never advanced beyond their use as incendiaries because the “Chinese would seem to have been more afraid of rebellion from within than invasion from without.  More modern armaments might fall into the wrong hands, and these including those of the generals.” (WAPN Pg. 53)   

So it appears the central authorities decided gunpowder was not to be developed any further for the benefit of a sustainable society…Right?  Or was it for the benefit of the central authorities?  

The control of the Chinese population by a central authority – The Emperor, who was presented as “The Son of Heaven”, making him a semi-divine being in the eyes of the Chinese – feared innovation as a threat to his rule.  As a result a nation that was scientifically 500 years ahead of the rest of the world stifled innovation with regulations and an unyielding bureaucracy until the rest of the world surpassed them.  That’s been the history of central planning all over the world. 

While there have been times when in the short term it has worked to meet a specific need, as a permanent arrangement to meet societies needs – it’s a disaster!

Their rhetoric about "sustainable development" gives the impression this will benefit society providing for all of humanities needs.  But what happens when this central authority decides to change it to "sustainable consumption"? All they promote in all their schemes and international treaties lead to that - sustainable consumption - and they will decide what and how much will be consumed and by whom.

After he took power in China communist dictator Ma0 Tse Tung decided he needed armament but he didn’t have the capital to purchase it.  So to fix that economic problem he decided to sell the food needed by his Chinese countrymen to get that capital.  Over thirty million innocent people starved to death and Mao said that was the beginning and more may need to die in order to attain his goals.  What was he sustaining?  His power at the expense of humanity! 
The left is not a lover of humanity, sustainable development as a policy defined by them and under their control, will not be benefit humanity.   We have the history of leftism, and that history is incontestable!  There really is good and evil in the world and there really is such a thing as right and wrong.  What needs to be demonstrated over and over again is the left isn’t just wrong.  It’s evil! 

The Sustainability Project: Part I


Paradigms and Demographics For June 2015

By Rich Kozlovich

The month of June had some interesting twists regarding from which countries the most hits came from for Paradigms and Demographics. The top ten for June was United States, Ireland, Russia, Germany, India, Greece, France, Ukraine, Slovenia and Bulgaria.

I always find it interesting how countries with serious problems can all of a sudden surge into the top ten. I’m not quite sure why with the exception of Bulgaria. I was able to correlate the number of hits on fracking articles and Bulgarian hits. They started hitting over fracking and have stayed in the top ten ever since. It would appear there are a substantial number of people in Bulgaria that feel P and D has a unique perspective to offer.

I’m not sure what’s happening in Ireland, but I welcome their interest. China jumped into the top ten for a few days and then dropped off the radar again. At one point hits from China were growing so rapidly they went from not being on the chart to number two on the all time chart in less than 18 months. Some months back they dropped down to the point they didn’t even appear on the daily chart. I’m assuming there is a problem with the Chinese government blocking their access to the internet.
Isn't it interesting China is one of the countries that are trying to get the UN to take control of the internet to “protect the security, stability and resiliency of the Internet" and “is advancing a proposal to make a special committee of the U.N. General Assembly the dominant body to determine global Internet governance."  "Meanwhile, Russia has joined China in sponsoring an “international code of conduct for information security” at the U.N. that would authorize Internet censorship and enshrine multilateral state control of the global network.”

“Many countries, including Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Brazil, will be advocating their vision of the Internet’s future at a major international conference at U.N. headquarters in New York at the end of 2015.”

Only a leftist could promote such blather and expect normal people to believe it’s a good thing. Yet that’s what’s being promoted by people in authority in the Obama administration. I often find it fascinating to see how so many insane people can worm their way into power.

India is number one on today’s top ten chart but alas, it would appear England has abandoned me, and although I know there are daily readers in Canada, both Canada and Australia don't seem much interested these days. However, there are a host of blogs from Australia I would be willing to bet their paying attention to such as Greenie Watch, Dissecting Leftism, both of which are published by Jon Jay Ray, and JoNova by Joanne Nova. You may wish to give them a look see.

Welcome to all and thanks for your interest.


Wednesday, July 1, 2015

A Question For Bernie Sanders

By Rich Kozlovich

Over the years I've talked about the socialist monsters of the 20th century and how many innocent lives they sacrificed on the altar of this insane secular atheistic religion. We have the history of these terrible crimes against humanity and that history is incontestable.

Alan Charles Kors wrote an article entitled, “The Age of Communism Lives”, on April 9, 2015. He says:

In addition to the tyranny, the torture, and the assault upon the human spirit, the slaughtered victims of communism were not the thousands of the Inquisition, not the thousands of Americans lynched, not even the six million dead from Nazi extermination.

The best scholarship yields numbers that the soul must try to comprehend: scores and scores and scores of millions of individual human bodies, which is what makes the work of Lee Edwards in keeping alive in our minds the victims of communism so morally essential, so morally vital.

Alexander Yakovlev, Gorbachev’s right hand man, who examined the archives for the last Soviet leader and who came away a deeply changed and heroic man, let us know that 60 million were slain in the Soviet Union alone. The Chinese author Jung Chang, who had access to scores of Mao Zedong’s collaborators and to the detailed Russian and local archives, reached the figure of 70 million Chinese lives snuffed out by Mao’s deliberate choices. If we count those dead of starvation from the communist ability and desire to experiment with human interaction in agriculture—20 million to 40 million in three years—we may add scores of millions more.

The communist Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot, who was educated in France and taught his politics by French communist intellectuals, butchered one-fifth to one-fourth of the entire Cambodian population. That would be as if an American regime had murdered some 50 to 70 million of its people. In each and every communist regime, countless people were shot and died by deliberate exposure, starved and murdered in work camps and prisons meant to extract every last fiber of labor before they die. No cause ever in the history of all mankind has produced more slaughtered innocents and more orphans than communism. It was a system of production that surpassed all others in turning out the dead……. There’s much more here.

I find people like Bernie Sanders and the entire left must be insane to continue to tout policies that have ended in absolute disaster.  Policies that demonstrate a total disregard for human suffering, privation, disease, starvation and early death. These are educated people – they must know the history of leftism. They must know the outcome of the very policies they espouse are so flawed they cannot possibly work. Yet they refuse the recant. There can only be one conclusion.  They must all be insane!

Tuesday, June 30, 2015

Greece: Ancient Culture - Spoiled Children

By Rich Kozlovich

Today there was an article that appeared on the Stratfor news service website (subscription only) entitled, Greece's Weighty Decision, saying “There is no doubt that it is a hard time to be Greek”  because the  Greeks are a “bewildered population” over the emerging “revelations” over the announcement by the Greek Prime Minister’s announcement on “national television that a referendum would be held July 5 on the bailout terms that had been offered by Greece's creditors”, and a later announcement “that Greece's bailout would not be extended beyond June 30.”

Alas, the Greeks, who like a spoiled child who has lived off daddy’s credit card for decades, are being asked to decide if their creditors are being “fair” by demanding they begin to take some responsibility for their actions. 

Well, I would like to know who wrote the Book of Fair?   There is no Book of Fair!  As is often the case “fair” depends on whose ox is being gored.  Fair is in the eyes of the beholder and in this case these spoiled angry children, who’ve rioted in the streets demanding the gravy train never stop, and have lived off the hard work of others are asked if it’s “fair” they have to new stand on their own two feet.    

Well, here’s the answer - the Greeks, who have lived off daddy’s credit card for decades, will demand their government go back and negotiate with the EU for a continuation of the largess that prevents them from becoming adults.  That’s when they will finally come to the realization no one cares what they think, no one cares what they were promised, no one cares what they want, and no one cares they don’t want to work hard and long to pay their own way. 

The leftist Syriza party took control of Greece’s government by promising to end the austerity programs, that were never really implemented under the previous government, and continue and expand the policies leftist governments love in Greece.  The very policies that got them into trouble.   And now all the leftist rhetoric, all the posturing, all the shouts of victory by they and the population is going to stop!  They’re finally coming face to face with reality.  They face doom and previous attitudes of defiance are gone, and now they know.  Daddy isn’t going to pay their bills any longer. 

Their banks are  closing - the potential of leaving the EU is very real - the potential for Greece’s total economic collapse is very real – violence is sure to erupt, and all the talk about they have to bail out Greece otherwise the Greeks will cozy up to Russia and Putin is interesting, but if there ever was a red herring that’s it.  Does anyone really believe Putin will give them money he doesn’t even have for his own country.  Putin’s a cad, but he isn’t a stupid cad.  No one can afford to be Greece’s friend on Greece’s terms.  Greece is toast, get over it and move on. 

As for the EU?  Unless they abandon all their stupid socialist economic, environmental, and regulatory policies – they’re doomed also.  Socialism is a system with no moral foundation that believes in stealing from the producers to give to the non producers.  Greece is finally learning the truth.  Eventually you run out of other people’s money!  Will the EU accept the reality of history?  I have serious misgiving about that, and to demonstrate just how deeply socialism permeates the European psyche take a look at England’s Conservative Manifesto.  If this is England’s concept of conservatism, then all of Europe is doomed. 

The link between climate and poverty

Posted by Marita Noon @ Breitbart

The climate alarmists are practically giddy over Pope Francis' recently released "climate encyclical"-remember, these are, generally, the very same people who dis the church and its position on abortion, the origin of life on earth, and the definition of marriage. Even Al Gore, who admits he was "raised in the Southern Baptist tradition," has declared he "could become a Catholic because of this Pope."

Not surprisingly, Carl Pope, who served as executive director of the Sierra Club for 36 years, chimed in. He penned a piece published on June 22 in EcoWatch in which he bashes "American conservatism" and positions the papal publication as being responsible for a "new dynamism" that he claims is "palpable."

"It is more a gale than a fresh breeze," Pope exclaimed, "when the most ground-breaking pope since John XXIII links poverty and climate." In his post titled "How Pope Francis's Climate Encyclical is Disrupting American Politics," Pope pronounces: "Something fundamental is shifting this summer in political and cultural attitudes around the climate."

The former Sierra Club director then goes into a litany of news stories to support his position. Included in his list: the recent agreement from the "world's major industrialized nations" to "Phase Out Fossil Fuels by 2100"-which is more rhetoric than reality.

In his claim of colliding "new realities and social change forces," Pope never mentions the polling indicating that after the most extensive and expensive global propaganda campaign, fewer people are worried about a warming planet than were 25 years ago. Nor does he acknowledge that, according to Harvard Political Review, the vast majority of Americans-even those who agree that "global warming is a proven fact and is mostly caused by emissions from cars and industrial facilities such as power plants"-are still "unsupportive of government measures to prevent climate change that might harm the economy."

And "harm the economy" it does-which is why, despite the G7 non-binding "agreement," many European counties are returning to fossil fuels and retreating from renewables-led by German capacity payments to keep coal-fueled power plants open.

On June 19, in PV Magazine, Stelios Psomas, policy advisor at the Hellenic Association of Photovoltaic Companies, laments Greece's "policy U-turn towards lignite." Psomas said: "All [the new government] is concerned with is how to promote power generation from fossil fuels e.g. new lignite power stations, new gas pipes and exploratory drilling for oil. So far, it has shown no interest at all for renewables energy."

In May, Greece's Production Reconstruction, Environment and Energy Minister Panagiotis Lafazanis, sent a letter to the European Commission "requesting permission to reactivate and prolong the life of Ptolemaida 3"-an "old technology" coal plant. Among his arguments, Lafazanis cited "the country's ongoing recession, which has prompted the need to maintain household heating costs as low as possible." Greece is also dueto start construction any day on Ptolemaida 5, a new lignite-fired power station in Northern Greece.

Greece's return to coal is due, according to Lafazanis, to the intermittency of renewable power, which endangers the country's "energy security," and to economic concerns. The Greek photovoltaic industry is "now preparing for the worst."

Similarly, Poland is also seeking exemptions from "the European Union's rules on reducing carbon emissions because the nation's energy security and economic development depends on coal," BloombergBusiness reports. Poland has previously received concessions from the EU climate policy. The new governing party, Law & Justice, is planning a strategy for the economy that "rejects the dogma of de-carbonization." In, Ben Garside predicts: "it may become more tempting for Polish governments to try to opt out of the [climate] laws altogether."

Following elections in the United Kingdom that gave the conservative Tories a decisive majority, Britain's energy policies are changing. While, so far, claiming to stick to its carbon targets, the new government will focus on minimizing costs.

In an editorial prior to the elections, The Guardian framed the party differences this way: "The Tories have cast off their green disguise. They will end subsidies for onshore wind power and rely on the market to bring down prices, they are enthusiastic about fracking and they want to build more roads. ... The Greens, of course, remain committed to creating a zero-carbon economy, even if that is at the cost of economic growth."

As predicted, the new Energy Secretary, Amber Rudd, announced, an end to onshore wind subsidies, which "will save hundreds of millions of pounds." She acknowledged that ending the "subsidy scheme" meant about 250 projects, totaling about 2,500 turbines, are now "unlikely to be built."

The change in the government's attitude toward wind energy, which was part of the Conservatives Manifesto, is likely the first of many to come in the weeks ahead. The Manifesto pledges to:
  • Keep energy bills as low as possible;
  • Halt the spread of onshore windfarms;
  • Back a significant expansion in new nuclear;
  • Continue to support development of North Sea oil and gas and the safe development of shale gas; and
  • Not support additional distorting and expensive power sector targets.
In The Telegraph, columnist Fraser Nelson reports that, after taking stock of what has been learned in the past five years, Rudd intends to take the summer to come up with "a proper Tory plan"-which, like the wind subsidy decision, is expected to follow the Manifesto and keep energy bills as low as possible.

Once again, economics are an important factor. Nelson states the following as a problem with climate-driven energy policy: "the fact that at least 15,000 British pensioners die of the cold each winter. It's a staggering death toll, which has been greeted with a shrug for far too long. But this, too, is ending. The notion of 'fuel poverty' is being more widely recognized-and green subsidy is compounding the problem."

In Germany, Greece, Poland and the UK, fossil fuel has reemerged. However, in Ethiopia, according to Pope, they are willing to reduce projected 2030 carbon pollution by 64 percent. The caveat? "If climate finance is made available."

Yes, there is a "link" between poverty and climate. The green energy favored by the Pope, Carl Pope, and other climate alarmists threatens energy security, harms the economy, and creates fuel poverty that kills thousands of people each year.The Telegraph, columnist Fraser Nelson reports that, after taking stock of what has been learned in the past five years, Rudd intends to take the summer to come up with "a proper Tory plan"-which, like the wind subsidy decision, is expected to follow the Manifesto and keep energy bills as low as possible.

The author of Energy Freedom, Marita Noon serves as the executive director for Energy Makes America Great Inc. and the companion educational organization, the Citizens' Alliance for Responsible Energy (CARE). She hosts a weekly radio program: America's Voice for Energy-which expands on the content of her weekly column.

Climate Change and Energy Press Release 30/06/15

'Vatican Advisers Have Lost Their Moral Compasses'

London 30 June 2015 - A new paper published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation finds the Vatican is being laid astray by its advisers by statements on climate change that are scientifically lacking and ethically dubious.

The report, written by Dr Indur Goklany, examines just some of the scientific statements made by the Pontifical Academies ahead of the Pope’s recent encyclical on the environment and finds that these fly in the face of the empirical facts.

As Dr Goklany explains: “The academies say that sustainability and resilience are being destroyed by over-consumption and that fossil fuels are to blame, yet almost every indicator of human well-being from life-expectancy to health to standard of living has improved beyond measure largely because of our use of fossil fuels”.

And according to Dr Goklany’s analysis, the beneficial impact of fossil fuels has not only been on human well-being but also on nature, because fossil fuel use has allowed more intensive use of land, thus reducing the amount of wilderness that has to be diverted to agricultural use. This means that the Vatican’s backing of reductions in fossil fuel use would actually reduce human well-being and increase the human impact on the planet.

Dr Goklany said: “Climate change is a moral and ethical issue, but it is a strange ethical calculus that would justify wiping out the gains we have made in human well-being over the last few centuries at the same time devastating the natural world. The Vatican’s advisors appear to have lost their way”.

About the author

Dr Indur Goklany is an independent scholar and author. He was a member of the US delegation that established the IPCC and helped develop its First Assessment Report. He subsequently served as a US delegate to the IPCC, and an IPCC reviewer. He is a member of the GWPF’s Academic Advisory Council.

Full paper (pdf)


Dr Indur Goklany

Dr Benny Peiser
Global Warming Policy Foundation