Climate Change: Unsettled Science or Just Lies?

Recently President Obama’s White House has released the latest National Climate Assessment (NCA). Warning: this is 841 pages from the people who brought us the Obamacare website. The “Highlights” section is 21 MB alone; lots of graphics. Let’s get right to what matters to Florida, right?

How about that concern that causes thousands of Floridians to move North every month, the rise of sea level (as Senator Nelson warned us about)? President Obama predicts a rise of seven feet by year 2100, about an inch per year. Here’s a graphical representation, compared to past sea level rise at San Francisco. The scale on the left is in millimeters. The historical trend, over the last 8,000 years, has been 7 inches per century.


The president – who has no training in science – calls all us skeptics “flat-earthers”and assures us “the science is all settled,” with his usual arrogance.

It doesn’t take a degree in the history of science to realize that science in the 20th Century has been very unsettled. It began with the foremost scientist of the time, Lord Kelvin, assuring the world that the next century of science would be merely “a matter of adding a few decimal places to the measurements.” A fellow named Einstein, followed by Cavendish and Bohr and Planck, killed that idea. Atoms are no longer the smallest elements of matter, and now we’re not even sure what is. Protons?  Quarks?  Multidimensional strings? Not settled, but President Obama doesn’t care.

Just a week ago the Wall Street Journal published an excerpt from a new book, The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet, to be published by Simon and Schuster on May 13th. The author, Nina Teicholz, tells us that “personal ambition, bad science, politics and bias derailed nutrition policy over the past half-century.” That bad nutrition policy was urged upon us by the American Heart Association (AHA) and the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). A similar “skeptical” view of nutrition was published in Britain in 2007, The Great Cholesterol Con, by Dr. Malcolm Kendrick. Dr. Kendrick pointed out there is no chemical or statistical link between saturated fat and cholesterol. Both Teicholz and Kendrick point out that anti-cholesterol drugs – Lipitor, Crestor, Zocor, Mevacor, et al – are major profit leaders for Big Pharma. There’s more – much more – about how our health has gotten worse, not better, as a result of our diet in the last 50 years, but I’ll let you read Ms. Teicholz’s book. The US has gotten fatter and sicker, while adhering to Federal dietary guidelines. The science of nutrition, from Pinocchio’s government, has been very unsettled .

Am I saying science is bad? No, but… Science is a human enterprise, and humans are fallible; when big profits enter the equation, science becomes less objective. Big profits, along with an intention to do good, can lead people to ignore objective scientific criteria. Big funding – the kind the Federal government bestows – can also swamp objective scientific criteria, as it did in the case of scientific nutrition. Is it doing so in the case of “climate science”? Yes, it’s even worse! The Feds “invest” $7 billion annually in what used to be a backwater of scientific meteorology. We spent years and billions of taxpayer dollars in numerical prediction of weather, and in deploying hundreds of Doppler radar systems across the country. Those improvements helped our economy and saved lives. But, in the process, we discovered we can’t predict the weather more than a week or so – no matter how much effort or money we put into it.

President Obama claims we must   shut down coal-fired electricity because of climate forecasts decades into the future? Gee, I wonder if there’s any money – taxes – involved? Is this is just the unsettled science that fallible humans can blunder into, or is something worse is going on?

Well, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, speaking on the Senate floor, assured us that the Koch brothers are “oil multizillionaires”, that “they are the richest people in the world”, that they are “the main cause of global warming”, and that “they are blocking aid to Ukraine”. None of this is true, and Reid  seems to be approaching a mental breakdown. “Global warming” has become just one more political club to viciously attack anyone who threatens his rule of the Senate, and Obama’s intent to control all of the economy. It doesn’t even rise to the level of bad science.

On the side of science, Dr. John Christy, at the University of Alabama-Huntsville, points out that climate models not only have failed to predict the 17 year “pause” in global warming, they are incapable of predictions on a regional scale. Nevertheless, the NCA is full of regional predictions of drought, flooding, severe weather and heat. Even the IPCC admits, as of 2013, there is no evidence to support this claim.

And, in the Washington Post, normally a supporter:

For a long time, we have said in America, “If we can put a man on the moon, why can’t we do X, Y or Z?” Well, in the Obama era, that adage has morphed into, “If he couldn’t get a Web site right, how are we supposed to believe he knows how to control the climate?” Who really believes that a massive government tax and reordering of the economy in the name of stopping global warming or climate change or whatever will go as planned and the world’s thermostat will adjust to something the Democrats find more acceptable? Answer: Almost nobody. Voters don’t believe what the White House says on this issue in part because it has not been credible on so many other important issues. We’ve heard everything from “you can keep your health-care plan” to there is a “red line” in Syria. Why should anyone believe the White House now?

In June, Obama’s EPA will unveil new regulations to shut down the coal-fired electricity in this country. As a result:

Utilities have announced nearly 300 coal-fired generating units in 33 states will shut down as a result of the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed carbon regulations for new power plants, and emission standards for mercury and other hazardous air pollutants. The plan is expected in June.

Environmental experts say the upcoming standards for reducing carbon emissions from coal-fired plants are the holy grail in President Obama’s plans for power-plant standards. [Pittsburgh Tribune]

As of May 8th, the US has had the coldest start to the year ever in our climate history, at 37 F, according to the US Historical Climate Network.


We needed those 300 generators to keep the lights on and the furnace running. I wonder what we’ll do next Winter? Don’t you? It’s kind of unsettling.

Did Putin read Tolstoy’s philosophy of history?

On April 20, 2014, the New York Times reported on its front page that photographs had surfaced linking pro-Russian separatists with Russia.  The report included photographs purporting to demonstrate this.

On April 24, the New York Times admitted that these photos were discredited. Despite this, Kerry stated in a speech later that day:

Some of the individual special operations personnel, who were active on Russia’s behalf in Chechnya, Georgia, and Crimea have been photographed in Slovyansk, Donetsk, and Luhansk.

A recent blog article claims that the US brought Europe to the brink of war intentionally. Whether it was intentional or not, there can be no doubt that it intended at least to further “contain” Russia in keeping with the Wolfowitz doctrine. Rather than intentional brinkmanship, I think this is one of many examples of the unexpected consequences of doing what the liberal left does as naturally as pulling on their socks in the morning, namely, reacting in accordance with their ideology and ignoring realpolitik.

I have said before that Russia’s cardinal sin in the eyes of Western demagogues (including Republican ones) is disobedience, and that this disobedience is best represented by its flat out refusal to accept same sex marriage and “gay” propaganda as being “on the right side of history.” Several readers have poo-pooed that theory, but this is because they do not understand how important social Marxism is to the Left. Fundamentally transforming America is not only about making us poor and hence dependent on welfare or about waging war on fiscal conservatives. It is also about continuing the century-old war on Judeo-Christian beliefs and values. That is why Obama once derided Americans for clinging to God and guns, and it’s why John Kerry recently mocked Christians for believing in something “written down 2000 years ago.” There are smart analysts out there who understand the Left in terms of its war on capitalism and the Constitution, but these same people haven’t a clue as to the enormous role social Marxism has played since the earliest times and at least since the founding of the Fabian society. I note in passing that most of my Russophobe friends completely ignore the phenomena of social Marxism on exhibit throughout the West, such as the obvious curtailment of Christian speech in the public square, the coddling of Muslims in the West and the Middle East, and the remarkably consistency of Western intervention in that region with the disappearance of indigenous Christian populations. To put it bluntly, Western policies are in fact genocidal to Christian populations and if the UN were consistent in its jurisprudence, it would have condemned NATO and the US a long time ago for the crime of genocide.

On the other hand, the Russians know something about history because they had a hand in initiating social Marxism in the West, and in addition, many have read Part II of Tolstoy’s War and Peace, which deals with the philosophy of history.

Tolstoy starts out by acknowledging that the old habit historians once had of interpreting human events as guided by the Divinity was no longer acceptable even then (the book was published in 1869). Tolstoy then proceeds to run through an exhaustive list of the various interpretations of history by the historians then considered “modern,” including the great man theory, the culture theory, the theory of abstractions, such as freedom, equality, enlightenment, progress, civilization and culture (how familiar these theories sound to us today!), the theory that the people invest their power in just leaders and withdraw it from unjust ones, etc. He also devotes a good bit of his treatise to the dichotomy of freedom vs necessity. He proceeds to criticize each of these theories one by one, proving that they do not tally with historical reality.

This last part of the novel, ending as it does with a nihilistic-sounding renunciation of all theories, leaves the reader with the sense that human events are essentially meaningless and historians will therefore never truly understand history; and as if that were not a dismal enough conclusion, Tolstoy also ultimately shows that freedom is an illusion. Obviously, G.W. Bush did not read Tolstoy.

But while the uninitiated reader may derive from this a depressing sense of fatalism, anyone who has studied Tolstoy’s life up to the time of that writing knows that he was in fact a deeply Christian intellectual. He therefore certainly believed that the old discredited approach including God as the author of history was in fact the only correct one, even as he pretended to dismiss it. His genius lay in this subtleness and minimalism.

He provides a glimpse of this in the following short passage in the last chapter:

Like Voltaire in his time, the unsolicited champions of the law of necessity [necessity refers here to the inevitability of events predestined by natural laws–Don] today use the law as a weapon against religion, though the law of necessity in history, like the law of Copernicus in astronomy, far from destroying, rather strengthens the foundations on which the institutions of church and state are founded.

Although he does not develop this argument as clearly as one might have wished, it is clear that his whole thesis rests on an acceptance of faith, without which history and all political ideologies are meaningless.

Could it be that Putin has read that part of War and Peace? Based on his actions, it is hard for me to imagine that he has not or that he has not taken the message seriously.

But whether or not he has, the fact that he behaves as though he has read and accepted Tolstoy’s assessment of history is precisely what has gotten him in such trouble with our Western “leadership.”

Charlie Crist attacked by his own adviser – This is brutal


Steve Schale

According to the Republican Party of Sarasota County (RPOS), “Five years ago, Charlie Crist abandoned Floridians, leaving behind the mess that he created in Tallahassee to run away to Washington.”

The Republican Party of Florida (RPOF) released a video of Crist being attacked by Steve Schale his own adviser. According to Schale’s website:

Steven Schale is a Florida-based political, communications and government relations strategist.

Steve has extensive experience in all levels of Florida politics and is one of the best regarded strategists in the Sunshine State.

The St. Petersburg Times has called him “one of the savviest and most effective political strategists Florida Democrats have seen in ages.” In 2008, he was named one of Florida’s “100 Movers and Shakers” by Florida International Magazine, one of the most influential Democrats in Florida by Politics Magazine in 2009 and 2013, and the most influential Democratic strategist in Florida by the Tampa Bay Times in 2012.

Watch the video:


Obama Administration threatened Nigeria with sanctions in 2013 for fighting Boko Haram

Boko Haram claimed that their rights had been violated by the Nigerian government, after the pattern of Islamic supremacists everywhere, who always claim that they are the wronged and aggrieved party. The Obama Administration, as clueless and Islam-sympathetic as ever, bought it.

“Obama Administration Threatened Nigeria with Sanctions in 2013 for Fighting Boko Haram,” by Fred Dardick, Canada Free Press, May 14, 2014 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

Hillary Clinton wasn’t the only Obama administration official who went to bat for Boko Haram over the past few years.

Soon after John Kerry took over as Secretary of State, the U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria, Terence P. McCulley, accused the Nigerian government of butchery during a confrontation with Boko Haram terrorists in Baga, a Nigerian town on the shores of Lake Chad, and in May 2013 threatened to withdrawU.S. military aid from the West African nation.

Boko Haram militants attacked a Nigerian military outpost in April 2013 outside Baga, killing one soldier. Following the three-day battle human rights activists, including the George Soros-funded and liberal aligned Human Rights Watch, which is not exactly known for its impartiality when it comes to reporting on Islamic issues, claimed the Nigerian military wantonly slaughtered 183 civilians and burned down over 2,000 homes and businesses.

The Nigerian government denied the claims saying the death toll and destruction had been vastly overstated by its enemies, and in fact 30 Boko Haram terrorists, 6 civilians and one soldier, had died in the fighting. Reports from the Baga clinic, which treated 193 people following the battle, but only 10 with serious injuries, seemed to back up the Nigerian government claim that no large-scale massacre had occurred.

The U.S. Nigerian Ambassador, blindly believing any Islamist sob story that crossed his path, responded in a May 2013 meeting with human rights activists by defending Boko Haram:

Mr. Terrence announced to the activists that the US congress had previously passed a law that bars the United States from rendering military assistance to any government that violates basic rights of citizens. He said the Obama led US government has therefore ceased to assist Nigeria militarily in obedience to the law.

The threat of military sanctions, and whether or not they were actually implemented, is an open question as there has been zero coverage of this issue in the mainstream media, may have had a chilling effect on Nigerian military operations against Boko Haram. Since Ambassador McCulley’s proclamation the Nigerian civilian death toll by Boko Haram Islamic militants has skyrocketed over the past year.

No wonder the Nigerian government was initially reluctant to accept U.S. assistance with finding the more than 200 Christian girls kidnapped by Boko Haram last month. Emboldening Nigeria’s Islamic terrorist enemies and having been already accused by the Obama administration of crimes against humanity for fighting militants who were responsible for hundreds of civilian deaths since 2010, they likely felt that Obama’s belated support was more a product of diplomatic CYA than actually caring about the fate of kidnapped Nigerian children.


Flashback 2012: Jihad Watch reports on Boko Haram threat to kidnap Christian women in Nigeria
Christian teen whose father and brother were murdered by Boko Haram denied U.S. visa
Raymond Ibrahim: Nigerian ‘Sex-Slaves’ Disrupt Obama Narrative on Islam
Trinidad Muslims travel to Venezuela for jihadist training
Hamas-linked CAIR offers free Qur’ans to counter AFDI ad about Islamic anti-Semitism

Climate Change Scientific Reality: Surviving the Next Cold Climate

The following is a series of seven short video clips of an event held in Sarasota, FL about climate change. The event was hosted by the Sarasota Patriots, an organization founded by Beth Colvin. The Sarasota Patriots brought two experts on climate policy: John Casey, President of the Orlando based Space and Science Research Corporation, and Craig Rucker, Co-founder of the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). The presentation was about the science, policies and politics of climate change.

Tad MacKie recorded the entire presentation. You are encouraged to watch and carefully listen to what John Casey has discovered and proven, and what Craig Rucker and CFACT are doing about impacting public policy on climate change. The entire program is 1:35 long and is in seven 15-minute or less segments. This link will take you to the You Tube playlist for the entire series of videos. Each segment follows:

Climate Change Scientific Reality Part 1: John Casey and Craig Rucker



Climate Change Scientific Reality Part 2: John Casey and Craig Rucker



Climate Change Scientific Reality Part 3: John Casey and Craig Rucker



Climate Change Scientific Reality Part 4: John Casey and Craig Rucker



Climate Change Scientific Reality Part 5: John Casey and Craig Rucker



Climate Change Scientific Reality Part 6: John Casey and Craig Rucker



Climate Change Scientific Reality Part 7: John Casey and Craig Rucker




Scientists in cover-up of ‘damaging’ climate view | The Times
Study suggesting global warming is exaggerated was rejected for publication in respected journal because it was ‘less than helpful’ to the climate cause, claims professor | Mail Online
Coldest Year On Record So Far In The US | Real Science
Report: Climate Change, Not Islam, is Catalyst for Terrorism, Arab Spring, Syrian War

Operation American Spring: Enter the People, Ordinary Heroes

Washington, D.C., May 16, 2014 – Today is the first day of Operation American Spring. Momentum has been building, our forces growing, for over eight months.

The cries of millions of Patriots coalesce, in this coalition of Constitutionalists. We come with courage of conviction, with peace in our hearts. We are determined to mass. We will make our voices heard!

We are armed only with our prayers. Our determination to rescue the government of the United States of America from the amoral enemies of Liberty is without bound. We must not fail!

We come to the seat of power to speak truth. America has fallen away from the founding principles of freedom that once made her prosperous and great. We have become a nation not of liberty and law, but of elitist intimidation and crony corruption. Merit and hard work mean nothing anymore. No longer are American citizens free to exercise their God-given rights without interference from government. The American dream of a better life for our sons and daughters is gone. But it is not forgotten, nor forsaken.

We come not as an attacking army of invaders, but in the bold vision of OAS founder Col. Harry Riley, as a massive ‘human petition’, demanding our elected Representatives begin the long-overdue task of cleansing our government of corrupt and criminal elements who have usurped their proper role as servants, and seek to rule, instead. All American law that does not have a basis in Constitutional law is null and void. We will no longer quietly accept the diktat of those who knowingly broke the Oath they swore so solemnly. We will not recognize nor consent to illegal control of government, that is rightfully ours. Since so many so-called ‘leaders’ abrogate their oaths to protect and defend America against all enemies, foreign and domestic, it falls upon the People to stand behind the ideals embodied so clearly and eloquently by our Founders in the Declaration and Constitution.

Many millions of the People may pour into Washington, D.C. today. More will come in days that follow.

And multitudes more support OAS on the home front. Whether with money or on social media, with constant contacts by phone, fax and e-mail to Congress, or merely with their humble prayers, the People are mobilizing in a vast movement. The efforts of all, no matter how seeming small, are vital.

Undaunted by unceasing attempts of contemptible cowards and undercover government operatives, the People’s support of Operation American Spring grows and swells daily, surging forward. Real patriots are not dissuaded by the false logic and unreasoned rhetoric that spews and sputters from the mouthpieces of the elites, who fear our strength and will. We reject the spurious argument that OAS has no Constitutional grounds to make demands on government officials; we stand on our First Amendment Rights of Free Speech, Free Assembly and Petition of Grievances. Those in power, with willful and woefully short memory forget their own pasts protesting and demanding resignation of President Nixon.

Fear mongers predict a peaceful, unarmed presence in Washington will provoke and provide predicate cause for declaration of Martial Law. They fail to see the impact that sanctioned government violence would have in polarizing the entire nation to resist with force of arms. We dare to march unarmed into the enemy’s corrupt camp, with the certain knowledge that our brothers and sisters are waiting, and watching. It is not we who should tremble at the hollow might of tyrannical government.

“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozler has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.” – Carl Sagan

Current Politics Podcasts at Blog Talk Radio with Patriot Nation on BlogTalkRadio

The Cold Hard Facts about Wealth Redistribution

The Democrat sales pitch goes something like this… People should not have the freedom to earn unlimited wealth while others are struggling just to survive. Government should take from those who earn too much and redistribute to people in need. This is the right and duty of government.

Despite being a Marxist philosophy which flies in the face of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, not to mention the concepts of freedom and liberty, the pitch is designed to appeal to the hearts and minds of decent people honorably concerned about the welfare of others less fortunate. In America circa 2014, the message seems to be widely accepted despite the obvious assault on freedom and liberty which quite naturally follows.

For decades, Democrats have claimed to care about the poor, the black community and the under-achiever. They have been redistributing billions in other people’s earnings, allegedly to these and many other disadvantaged groups, not only in America but all over the world, and they have been handsomely rewarded in every election since.

However, the cold hard facts on what democratic wealth redistribution is really all about are entirely inescapable. The facts do not support the sales pitch and the people who should be most angry about that are those who were the alleged beneficiaries, those who voted for this mess.

  • According to the World Bank the U.S. average per capita income as of 2012 was $53,101, placing 6th in the world for the highest personal income per capita.
  • According to IRS data, 97.8% of all Federal Income taxes are collected from the top 50% of income earners in America. The other 50% are obviously Democrats.

Keep these numbers in mind as we look at how the federal government is redistributing those earnings via current tax code and welfare systems…

If you are fortunate enough to live in one of the top ten welfare states in the nation today, here are estimated the average annual collective welfare benefits packages for each state, per recipient… showing annual benefits per recipient, voting trends and percentage of increase in benefits since 1995. (Data was taken from a recent audited CATO Institute Report)


(Provided by CATO Institute Report)

Now, let’s not only compare these numbers to the U.S. average per capita income stated above, but also the bottom ten welfare states in the country as of today, based on the same criteria.


(Note the anomalies in Illinois and Maine…Why has Illinois and Maine been targeted?)

Depending upon where you live, it may not pay to work anymore. But how you vote certainly can have personal financial benefits for those who wish to not work.

As demonstrated in the above charts, there is indeed a massive redistribution of wealth taking place in America today. Clearly, a massive shift in welfare benefits has been taking place over the past several years, reducing welfare benefits in right-leaning states and paid out in heavily democrat voting states.

Is race really a factor?

Heavily black populated areas like Illinois and the Deep South have all experienced huge cuts in welfare benefits over the last few years. Welfare funds are being taken from black communities and sent only to heavily democratic voting areas of the country, as seen in the charts above. So no, race is not a determining factor in wealth redistribution, or at least not as it is presented by those redistributing the wealth of American taxpayers.

Is unemployment rate a factor?

Of the top ten highest unemployment states in the country, only four are in the top welfare states and four are in the bottom welfare states. So again, the answer is no.

Is poverty the determining factor?

No… of the top twenty states with the highest poverty rates today, six are in the bottom ten welfare states which have seen their welfare benefits taken away over the last several years. Only one of the states in the top ten welfare states is in the top twenty poverty states.

How about labor union influence?

Eight of the ten states at the bottom for wealth redistribution benefits are Right to Work states… the exceptions being Illinois and Maine, both unionized labor states. All of the top ten wealth redistribution states are forced unionization states. So it appears that the influence of labor unions may be a factor.

What is the overwhelming determining factor though?

With a couple isolated cases, ALL states receiving increases in welfare benefits at the top of the wealth redistribution food chain are heavily democrat voting states.

All but two of the bottom ten welfare states are heavily republican voting states.

Quite clearly, states with heavy democrat voting populations are the biggest recipients of wealth redistribution and it has nothing to do with poverty, race or unemployment.

It has everything to do with politics, wealth being taken from right-leaning states, even those with heavy black, poor and/or unemployed populations – and given to left-leaning beneficiaries, all at the expense of the top taxpayers in the country, most of whom vote Republican.

So, which are the wealthiest states in America?

The answer is, the same ten states also receiving the lion’s share of wealth redistribution from Uncle Sam, taken directly from republican states and given directly to democrat states. The numbers are verified and the numbers don’t lie.

Are democrats taking from white people and giving to black people? NO…

Are they taking from the rich and giving to the poor? NO…

Are they collecting from the employed to give to the unemployed? NO…

Are they taking from anti-union states and giving to pro-union states? YES…

But most of all, they are taking earned wealth from republican leaning states and giving it to democrat leaning states.

That’s how democratic socialist wealth redistribution works in the real world. The money is taken from political foes and given to friends. END OF STORY!


[1] Per Capita Income by State

[2] Per Capita Income by Country

[3] Annual Welfare Benefits by State

Pope Francis should take a lesson from Pope Leo XIII “On Socialism”

Recently Pope Francis restated his wish for world leaders to redistribute the world’s wealth to the  poor. According to Time, “Pope Francis reaffirmed his plea on Friday for world leaders to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor during an address before top U.N. officials and called for a global initiative to reduce the income gap. Pope Francis on Friday renewed his call on global leaders to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor. Francis made his plea during an address to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and other U.N. leaders gathered in Rome for an audience with the pope, CBS News reports.”

Perhaps Pope Francis can take a lesson from Pope Leo XIII on socialism?

QUOD APOSTOLICI MUNERIS (On Socialism) issued by Pope Leo XIII on 28 December 1878 states:

9. But Catholic wisdom, sustained by the precepts of natural and divine law, provides with especial care for public and private tranquility in its doctrines and teachings regarding the duty of government and the distribution of the goods which are necessary for life and use. For, while the socialists would destroy the “right” of property, alleging it to be a human invention altogether opposed to the inborn equality of man, and, claiming a community of goods, argue that poverty should not be peaceably endured, and that the property and privileges of the rich may be rightly invaded, the Church, with much greater wisdom and good sense, recognizes the inequality among men, who are born with different powers of body and mind, inequality in actual possession, also, and holds that the right of property and of ownership, which springs from nature itself, must not be touched and stands inviolate.

For she knows that stealing and robbery were forbidden in so special a manner by God, the Author and Defender of right, that He would not allow man even to desire what belonged to another, and that thieves and despoilers, no less than adulterers and idolaters, are shut out from the Kingdom of Heaven. But not the less on this account does our holy Mother not neglect the care of the poor or omit to provide for their necessities; but, rather, drawing them to her with a mother’s embrace, and knowing that they bear the person of Christ Himself, who regards the smallest gift to the poor as a benefit conferred on Himself, holds them in great honor. She does all she can to help them; she provides homes and hospitals where they may be received, nourished, and cared for all the world over and watches over these. She is constantly pressing on the rich that most grave precept to give what remains to the poor; and she holds over their heads the divine sentence that unless they succor the needy they will be repaid by eternal torments.

In fine, she does all she can to relieve and comfort the poor, either by holding up to them the example of Christ, “who being rich became poor for our sake, or by reminding them of his own words, wherein he pronounced the poor blessed and bade them hope for the reward of eternal bliss. But who does not see that this is the best method of arranging the old struggle between the rich and poor?

For, as the very evidence of facts and events shows, if this method is rejected or disregarded, one of two things must occur: either the greater portion of the human race will fall back into the vile condition of slavery which so long prevailed among the pagan nations, or human society must continue to be disturbed by constant eruptions, to be disgraced by rapine and strife, as we have had sad witness even in recent times.

Has Pope Francis, by his break with the true nature of the church, become merely another socialist? Socialism historically is a threat to the church, whether it be National Socialism, Communism, or any other form of wealth redistribution. Charitable giving is not the role of government at any level. Governments that seek to redistribute wealth do so to expand their power over their subjects, not to help the poor.

Americans have long embraced the ideas and ideals of classical liberalism. American Catholics would do well to understand the dangers outlined by Pope Leo XIII one hundred and thirty-six years ago. Was Pope Leo XIII thinking about Pope Frances when he wrote, “For she knows that stealing and robbery were forbidden in so special a manner by God, the Author and Defender of right, that He would not allow man even to desire what belonged to another, and that thieves and despoilers, no less than adulterers and idolaters, are shut out from the Kingdom of Heaven.”

Is Pope Francis giving his blessing to those who would steal and rob in the name of income equality? Is Pope Frances violating the Ten Commandments which implore Christians to reject stealing and coveting? American Catholics need to think long and hard about this.


Catholic ‘Americanism’
Leo XIII Knew Socialism Would Fail Because it was Evil
Leo XIII: “Taxing the Rich Does Not Help the Poor”
Obama and the Ten Commandments

Gun Control Works

Jot down what you think may have been the #1 cause of death in the world in the past 100 years then watch this clip. Bet you never thought of this!

Gun Free Zones Work. The number one killer of innocent people is gun control and gun free zones.



EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of Politico.

An Immigration question for you smart people in Washington, D.C.

President Obama gave a speech to law enforcement officers stating illegal aliens are here simply to better their families ignoring they created a criminal act to get here and another criminal act if they are employed and another criminal act if they are driving a car etc.

As if wanting to emphasize his point ICE released a total of 36,007 illegal aliens that were being held for mundane infractions of the law.

According to the report, the 36,007 individuals released represented nearly 88,000 convictions, including:

  • 193 homicide convictions
  • 426 sexual assault convictions
  • 303 kidnapping convictions
  • 1,075 aggravated assault convictions
  • 1,160 stolen vehicle convictions
  • 9,187 dangerous drug convictions
  • 16,070 drunk or drugged driving convictions
  • 303 flight escape convictions

I know all this has happened while you have been on vacation so it will be old news by the time you get back to “work” but if it happened while you were here would you: Applaud his speech and actions taken as something that should have happened long ago or do you think the action constitutes an “impeachable offense?”

RELATED VIDEO: On September 22, 2013 Christian Ziegler, State Committeeman for the Republican Party of Sarasota County, FL took part in the Fox News Post-Republican Presidential Debate Frank Luntz Focus Group on immigration.



Feds released hundreds of immigrant murderers, drunk drivers, sex-crimes convicts…
REP: Obama supports ‘worst prison break in American history’…
36,000 criminals freed while awaiting deportation…
Obama: Amnesty Push Coming in Next ‘Two to Three Months’…

Czech Book Dusting off Tucker (Benjamin, not Jeffrey) by Lawrence W. Reed

The literature of liberty, free markets, and individualism is immensely rich and getting richer with each passing year. Today’s great minds are building on yesterday’s greats. Taken as a whole, liberty’s library constitutes a most incredible collection of inspiration and insight into the boundless potential of human society. The only sad thing about it all is the extent to which those of an anti-liberty, statist perspective won’t tell their acolytes about it. Have you ever noticed how well “our side” knows Marx and Keynes while those on the other only think they know Hayek, Mises, Friedman, or even Smith?

Among the great thinkers of barely a century ago was Benjamin Ricketson Tucker. Critic of corporate welfare and a welfare state of any kind, Tucker edited and published a remarkable journal called Libertyfrom 1881 to 1908. It featured the bylines of many other great minds as well. Tucker was a fascinating advocate of “individualist anarchism,” which he also called “unterrified Jeffersonianism.”

In September 2013, the Foundation for Economic Education cosponsored a conference in the Czech Republic. Our partner in the effort was CEVRO, a private college in Prague devoted to advancing liberty ideas. Among the students in attendance was Lukáš Nikodym. He approached me afterward with a project he and his brother Tomas were contemplating: an online book of selected articles from Tucker’s old journal. “Will you write the foreword?” Lukáš asked. I hesitated not a second.

The book is now available, and I commend it to our readers, along with these related materials:

  1. The Individualist Anarchists: An Anthology of Liberty” (1881-1908)” by Greg Pavlik
  2. Forgotten Critic of Corporatism” by Sheldon Richman
  3. Liberty Fund’s Online Library of Liberty

Download fileDownload the PDF here

20130918_larryreedauthorABOUT LAWRENCE W. REED

Lawrence W. (“Larry”) Reed became president of FEE in 2008 after serving as chairman of its board of trustees in the 1990s and both writing and speaking for FEE since the late 1970s. Prior to becoming FEE’s president, he served for 20 years as president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midland, Michigan. He also taught economics full-time from 1977 to 1984 at Northwood University in Michigan and chaired its department of economics from 1982 to 1984.

Behind the Scenes on the Chicago Teachers Union Anti-Common Core Resolution

On May 7, 2014, the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) passed a resolution against the Common Core State Standards (CCSS).

That evening, I wrote this post and included my own experience and conversations on Lewis’ position on CCSS. In the post, I figuratively note that this is now a battle between Lewis and American Federation of Teachers (AFT) President Randi Weingarten, who has stated that if it comes down to AFT constituency rejection of CCSS and keeping CCSS at the AFT convention in July 2014, she plans to keep CCSS.

Though I metaphorically describe the battle as being between Weingarten and Lewis, I know from my interactions with Lewis that she is a union president who serves her constituency. Unlike Weingarten’s dealings with AFT members, Lewis does not try to force CTU membership into the mold of her top down choice.

On May 10, 2014, fellow blogger Anthony Cody posted a guest article by CTU member Michelle Gunderson. In it, Gunderson describes the process by which CTU arrived at and crafted CTU’s anti-CCSS resolution.

Include below is Gunderson’s post in part:

By Michelle Gunderson.

Wednesday evening I stood before my brothers and sisters at the Chicago Teachers Union to speak in favor of our resolution opposing the Common Core State Standards. When I finished speaking, there was a call for the vote. It was unanimous. It was resounding – not a single voice raised in opposition.

There are times when the Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) seems like an engine; that we are able to accomplish great and difficult work seemingly overnight. I would like to pull back the curtain for a moment, and help others understand the purposeful and deliberate process we take in order to form our decisions and actions at CTU.

There are those in the media who contend we are being reckless and blindly following Karen Lewis, the president of our local. Nothing could be further from the actual case.Michelle.jpg

As much as we admire Karen Lewis and are grateful for her talents, this work was not generated from her. In fact, characterizing this event in such simplistic terms denigrates the social justice transformation of the Chicago Teachers Union, a long and hard-won struggle that involves many. We do not act on Karen Lewis’ behalf or her wishes. She acts on ours, with our guidance, and we love her for it.

It is hard to imagine a union in existence where a full democratic process is expected by everyone involved – leadership, rank and file, and union staff. Yet, in Chicago, we hold this ideal in such high regard we cannot imagine a union working any other way.

Several months prior to the passing of the resolution, the Caucus of Rank and File Educators began discussing and debating the Common Core in our open meetings. We read Diane Ravitch’s bookThe Reign of Error in small study groups. And many of us followed Anthony Cody’s work on this blog. Through conversations and study we came to a strong conclusion. The authors of the Common Core view the purpose of education as college and career readiness. We view the purpose of public education as a means for educating a populace of critical thinkers who are capable of shaping a just and equitable society in order to lead good and purpose-filled lives.

With our philosophical underpinning so drastically divergent from that of the Common Core we did not see any room for common ground.

That is why we say no to Common Core.

My hat is off to CTU.

To read the rest of Gunderson’s piece on Anthony Cody’s blog, click here.

EDITORS NOTE: The featured photo was taken by firedoglakedotcom. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license.

John Boehner: The King of Do Nothing

The IRS is now free to abuse citizens at will….the congressional “investigation” is over and congress did nothing!


Second-Banana Blues: Veep, cringe comedy, and laughing at Washington so you don’t cry by Michael Nolan

Political beliefs are great at ruining dinners, holidays, and family gatherings. In the Washington, D.C., of TV show Veep, they can ruin your career. And even at best, they—to say nothing of a conscience—are irrelevant.

The show’s creator, Armando Iannucci, doesn’t waste our time with fraught meditations on whether itshould be this way. Just keeping up with how it is occupies more than enough time and throws out more than enough opportunities for comedy. This is why he’s playing a different—and better—game than nearly every other fictionalizer of our Bizarro Olympus.

In this version of D.C., the meaning of whatever anyone does or says is determined after the fact, by the context it meets and how it affects the pursuit of and will to power. And it is always subject to revision. That is to say, almost all of the characters (crucially, though, not 100 percent) seem to have literally no selves inside their suits; they are the servants of power, the chief (maybe the only) virtue here.

So far, so what? Literally every show and movie about Washington makes this point. Veep stands out, especially among the power porn that generally defines Washington shows and movies, for using power as a setup for slapstick. And then Veep plays it deadpan, letting bits and jokes build on each other in the same way that every faux pas and errant bit of candor quickly metastasizes until it feels like Godzilla is marching up the Potomac.

That’s not to say, for all the His Girl Friday verbal ping-pong, that everything here is harmless and goofy. Julia Louis-Dreyfus’s Selina Meyer—the veep in question—generally winds up as the butt of every joke. Or at least the big ones, played by fate. When she declares occasionally that “I am the Vice President of theUnited States of America,” it sounds even more like a punchline than pulling rank inherently does anyway. But everyone has to clam up when she says that, particularly those who spend all day feverishly tending an image that not even Selina remotely buys. There are stakes. And for all the foibles, Selina can and will—like anyone with enough rank—destroy you. The threat of destruction and the promise of one day wielding that power drives everything else, from everyone else. You laugh because otherwise the horror is unbearable.

And it also appears to be inescapable, even setting aside that nearly every character here makes his or her own life miserable (or worth living—being a perverse bunch, I doubt even they can tell the difference) as a matter of choice. They all choose to live in and accept the terms of this world. If they didn’t, there’d always be plenty of others willing to take their places, even at the bottom of the totem pole, where all the whippings are handed out.

For example, one of Selina’s nemeses, an Ohio senator named Roger Furlong (played by Dan Bakkedahl, simultaneously starring in FXX’s Legit as an entirely different, half-decent kind of schmuck), manages to be as blatantly moronic as he is loathesome, and almost more vulgar than anyone else. And he relies entirely on his personal aide to complete most of his obscene neologisms, particularly when he wishes to insult said aide. That guy takes it and completes the punchlines. The fact that they’re usually still pretty ham-handed and almost always unwarranted actually adds to the hilarity. Though be forewarned: This isn’t the belly-laugh kind of hilarity; it’s closer to a near-desperate hysteria.

Point being, neither of these guys has to be here, even if Furlong—like everyone else on top—is the one who looks like he’s no good for anything else.

You Don’t Have to Be Awful to Work Here, but It Helps

This point matters, because it limits the amount of sympathy you can extend to any member of the cast. It’s a reminder that everyone here is getting something out of all of this, so how bad can their suffering really be?

The insularity of the Washington depicted here allows the show to keep its focus on relative merit rather than straying into the weeds of broad moral profundity. Expecting this out of people who want careers in politics is what got us here in the first place, after all. Nobody’s “good,” and it’s not clear that “bad” matters here, either. When someone from (more or less) outside this world pops up and says, “You people are monsters,” there’s a pause in which you can more or less see the thought bubbles above everyone else’s heads: Monsters? This guy thinks that matters?

I don’t think for a second that anyone on the show meant that “monsters” comment as an applause line. I don’t even really think it’s a punchline. It’s one of the occasional whiffs of real life that throws this world’s insanity into sharp relief.

What’s more, I was thinking the same thing as the other characters, and it was uncomfortable to realize. But I couldn’t help chuckling in admiration that the writers and cast had made me one of them.

And some people still don’t think of comedy as art.

Probably my favorite line thus far comes near the end of the second season. The context doesn’t really matter; just get a load of this: “There’s going to be difficult choices to make, like Sophie’s Choice choices, except more important because they’re gonna be about me,” Selina tells an aide. That line nearly knocked me out my chair. The way Louis-Dreyfus delivers it—and the way everyone else doesn’t react to it—is why they get to be actors and the rest of us don’t.

That line would be, if someone really meant it, a pretty lousy thing to say and a worse thing to believe. But it’s often a mistake to assume a one-to-one relationship between what’s said and what’s meant; here, italways is. At their least cringe-worthy, these kinds of lines come across as a kind of ritual commiseration, like smart, articulate, harried people handing off a gag gift that’s been making the rounds for decades, but putting a creative, novel touch to the wrapping first. At their worst, they’re unprintable here, but usually still also funny. In every case, they’re transgressive in at least one way. Sooner or later, whoever you are, they’re going to find one that steps on your toes, too.

Mr. Snark Goes to Washington

What I’m grateful for is that show brings cringe comedy into Washington. Veep doesn’t really belong in the same category as shows like Scandal or House of Cards, or even the long-suffering, martyred, back-patting that’s made Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert into, essentially, one-trick ponies (I mean, that’s not a fatal flaw—AC/DC and the Ramones are both one-trick ponies, too). That inures it from the unseemly power-fetishization that drips from everything you hear about the Underwoods.

But cringe comedy—the domain of Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant, which includes the principality of Larry David—usually has a longevity problem. No matter how brilliantly it’s written, directed, and acted, it gets exhausting if it plays only that note. Even after it stopped just remaking UK episodes with different accents, the U.S. version of The Office remained inferior to the original for much the same reason it was able to earn a far longer run: the probably crazy but also probably crucial belief that everyone’s fundamental decency means things will—and should—work out okay for them in the end. David and company figured out a better way around the cringe problem starting with the second season of Curb Your Enthusiasm. Merchant’s current project, Hello, Ladies, hasn’t yet, so you barely get a chance to enjoy it before you have to turn away.

Veep has come up with a solution to this problem that’s entirely its own. Maybe it’s the sheer strength of the ensemble cast. Maybe it’s the occasional reminders that there are real stakes here and at least some of the characters are aware of them (Selina seems genuinely shaken when a hostage-rescue mission she gave the green light to mainly for political capital costs a soldier his leg). Or maybe it’s the sense of a vast, chaotic complexity within nearly all of the characters: When Selina’s daughter shows up and calls bullshit, Selina works her like any other opponent. When her daughter just wants a mother, you can all but see Selina calculating how to “win” this situation in one eye while, in the other, a donnybrook rages between her conflicted desires, a suspicion she might not be up to it, and something that looks a lot like guilt—and the ever-present need to deal with the current crisis. She always manages to disappoint, Selina does. But always in a new way.

Or maybe it’s just that nobody ever wins or really seems to lose, either. The show doesn’t fall into the trap of imagining a fantasy Washington where justice is served and the world is set right again. That said, for all that Veep’s world suits my biases just fine, it does feel from time to time like it’s trotting out one inside joke after another, mainly just showing the types that plague Washington—but that even the creators ultimately find worth putting up with. Or maybe real Washington people are more types than people anyway. This show won’t really help you sort it out.

If it was shooting for sheer realism, that might be a problem. But it would also dilute the comedy. It’s better this way, where power hovers and looms, but never truly alights. It’s as if everyone had the exact same floater in their eyes; the more they try to focus on it, the more elusive it becomes. But as far as they’re concerned, there’s nothing else worth looking at.


Michael Nolan is the managing editor of The Freeman.

Grover Norquist: Veni Vedi Visa (I came, I saw, I took your Job)

In this episode we break Grover’s immigration H1-B, VISA scam.


Actually, it’s a brilliant scam where Wizard Norquist and his minions construct a false premise, then conceptually sell this bogus idea as the next best conservative idea to hit Washington. He then secures his target clients, collects eye-popping retainers and does the “K” Street shuffle on the heads of spineless politicians, who mechanically sign the law that the Wizard puts in their power-loving hands.

What a mess this guy has made out of the formerly honorable Conservative movement in America. Norquist has made a bit of a name for himself as a Beltway stand-up “comedian.” But none of his jokes have ever reached the level of side-splitting yuck, yucks, as when he says, with a straight face no less… “Immigration is the number one economic asset for America!”

Now, that IS funny…and destructive for serious Constitutional Conservatives… of which, the Wizard of “K” Street is not one.

As we move through this micro-series you will see how Norquist’s nefarious work impacts YOU on a daily basis in the areas of: Immigration, Islam, Israel and Iran (the Four Is).