We wrap up a historic week of education (or is that edutainment) on the serious issue of Iran’s quest for thermonuclear destructive capability. Creatively, Tom and his team analyze the use of rock & roll music to protest the Iranian Revolution of 1979. In particular, our focus is the well-known song by the British Punk group, The Clash, entitled: “Rock the Casbah.”
Not only does this early 80’s protest piece make some amazing points but this song clearly underscores the undeniable Clash of Civilizations between Islam and the West. With us as a special quest is spokesperson for the Defenders of Liberty Motorcycle Club, the “Wall.”
Do not miss this very informative and entertaining wrap up to a very important week!
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/iranian-green-revolution-02-2009-e1440337170805.jpg426640Defend The Borderhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDefend The Border2015-03-07 06:05:542015-03-08 08:41:42Rock Iran’s Casbah!
“From the other side of the religious and political spectrum, Chief Downing has been portrayed as the dupe of jihadists. The activist group United West, which contends that Muslims want to impose religious law in America, crashed a community meeting with Chief Downing at a Los Angeles mosque and posted footage of the resulting confrontation on YouTube under the title “LA Top Cop in Bed with Muslim Brotherhood.”
Deputy Chief Michael Downing of the Los Angeles Police Department officially partners with the Muslim Brotherhood to fight Muslim terrorism. Downing calls the Muslim Brotherhood “Like Democrats and Republicans.”
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/tuw-la-deputy-chief-muslim-brotherhood.jpg360638Defend The Borderhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDefend The Border2015-03-06 18:07:222015-03-06 18:07:22New York Times features United West Video Expose: LA Top Cop in Bed with Muslim Brotherhood
The Perceived Problems of Global Population Growth Are Failures of Governance by CHRISTOPHER LINGLE…
Once again the Bush administration has come under fire for a decision that runs counter to conventional wisdom. Undeterred by widespread denunciations after opposing the Kyoto Protocol, it announced that funds appropriated by Congress to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) would be cut back. With all the hue and cry about the dangers of population growth in the world, it would seem that an agency that supports reproductive health in developing countries should be a sacred cow. Even so, it is fair to ask whether this indicates a sort of bullheadness or insensitivity on the part of the President and his team or whether many of the shapers of world opinion have their facts wrong.
Unfortunately, this issue has become wrapped up with the abortion controversy. Both sides have sought to occupy the moral high ground. For its part, the Bush administration points to the use of UNFPA funds to support compulsory abortions in China. This should be uncontroversial to anyone outside the policy-making corridors of Beijing. It beggars the imagination that pro-choice advocates would support the use of force to require abortions, contraception, or sterilization.
From their side, population planners and reproductive-rights advocates insist that cutting funds will harm the interests of many women, especially in developing countries. Funding cuts are paired with horrific images of millions of unwanted pregnancies, related medical complications, and an unabated spread of AIDS. (See Nicholas D. Kristof’s op-ed “Devastated Women,” New York Times, April 26.)
The Bush administration might have found itself on more tenable ground if it shifted the debate toward the persistent negative image associated with population increases per se. For herein lies a truly prickly question. Neglected in this debate is that having more human beings actually constitutes a net gain. Instead, supporters of population planning (both voluntary or involuntary) start with the assumption that there are already too many of us on our fair earth. And there is surprisingly little dissent to this view. Sharp declines in infant mortality and improved health care have increased life spans and contributed to the population’s nearly quadrupling within a century, from around 1.6 billion in 1900 to almost 6 billion in 2000. Worries about a global population explosion brought warnings of worldwide famine and immiseration. Happily, these predictions have not been borne out. One eloquent body of work that should be more widely heeded is that of the late economist Julian Simon, who had a remarkably undismal view of the world. His optimism is best expressed in his book The Ultimate Resource. Therein, he identifies human beings as being capable of resolving most problems that confront us.
Ignoring the view of thinkers like Simon, political leaders in both India and China were caught in the trap of a negative logic that allowed abusive acts against their citizens in the name of “sound” public policy. Clearly, the forced sterilization and abortions they pursued were a violation of the most basic principles of human dignity. Their actions reflect a disregard for the value-added potential that is inherent in each and every human being. Yet they are obviously not alone. Even conventional economic data calculation reflects a negative bias against population growth.
Consider the calculation of per capita income whereby national income is divided by the size of the population. This means that an additional person will increase the denominator and reflect a decrease in the material well-being of a community. However, a batch of new puppies born to a breeder will increase the numerator and reflect an enhancement in economic conditions. Such an anomaly comes from ignoring the imputed present value of the future flow of benefits from a newly born human.
Despite their likely denials of such, there is an implicit racism in the demands of population-control advocates. Since many Western developed countries have shrinking populations, insistence on limiting population growth involves holding back the numbers of black, brown, and yellow peoples.
Although considerable evidence refutes the dismal view of population growth, it persists. Consider the fact that the areas of highest population density are the most prosperous and often the most hospitable. Amsterdam, Hong Kong, London, Singapore, and Tokyo are prime examples of this. And even though Bombay and Cairo are heavily polluted, they are both certainly more prosperous and productive than the surrounding countryside.
Exaggerated Dangers
Interestingly, advocates of population control are subject to strong personal incentives to exaggerate the dangers. Concocting horrific images of overpopulation allows politicians to lay claim to more resources from taxpayers (whose numbers they paradoxically wish to see increase!). Similarly, “nongovernmental organizations” (NGOs) stand to gain funds by beating the same drum.
It turns out that population growth has internal checks. For example, people who are richer, healthier, and better educated tend to have smaller families. According to U.N. estimates, there will be little growth in the world’s population growth after 2100 and the population will be stable at just below 11 billion. This is because the population growth rate peaked at about 2 percent a year in the early 1960s and has been declining ever since. It is now 1.26 percent and is expected to fall to 0.46 percent in 2050. Countries where fertility rates are at sub-replacement levels constitute about 44 percent of the world’s total population and include many developing countries. On the one hand, high rates of economic development along with rising per capita income has heralded a declining pace of population growth due to rapid decreases in birthrates. On the other hand, it is troubling counterpoint that countries with lower levels of economic development are experiencing a discernible decline in life spans.
Many countries have population profiles that show increased aging. With progressive improvement in life expectancies and health conditions during long intervals of peace, the median age of many populations has increased. With more individuals able to better their lives, it can be said that the overall human condition has improved.
There are other ways to cope with local population growth. One of the simplest would be to allow more open immigration. However, populists mount opposition by invoking the fear of infiltration by terrorist organizations or the dilution of indigenous culture. These claims find eager support among trade unionists who want to keep out other workers who seek to improve their lot. Looking at it from a purely economic standpoint, there is considerable evidence that migration yields net benefits to receiving countries. Incoming migrants tend to be younger and healthier than the receiving population. And their choice to move away from the familiarities of their home country implies a high initiative to work. In all events, most economic migrants take up jobs that locals are unwilling or unable to fill.
The other way to offset the pressures of the peopling of the earth is to take steps to allow higher economic growth. There are various benefits from this. First, increases in average income tend to lead to declining birth rates. Second, higher levels of income provide both the desire and the means to solve a wide range of problems.
The perceived problems of global population growth are failures of governance. Instead of diverting resources toward population control, governments and NGOs should support open immigration and policies that promote economic growth.
ABOUT CHRISTOPHER LINGLE
Christopher Lingle is a professor of economics at Universidad Francisco Marroquín.
EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is courtesy of FEE and Shutterstock.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/20150306_detail.jpg313631Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2015-03-06 17:56:572015-03-06 17:56:57The Inhumanity of Population Control
The smart choice is innovation at the edge by ANDREAS ANTONOPOULOS…
“Every device employed to bolster individual freedom must have as its chief purpose the impairment of the absoluteness of power.” — Eric Hoffer
In computer and communications networks, decentralization leads to faster innovation, greater openness, and lower cost. Decentralization creates the conditions for competition and diversity in the services the network provides.
But how can you tell if a network is decentralized, and what makes it more likely to be decentralized? Network “intelligence” is the characteristic that differentiates centralized from decentralized networks — but in a way that is surprising and counterintuitive.
Some networks are “smart.” They offer sophisticated services that can be delivered to very simple end-user devices on the “edge” of the network. Other networks are “dumb” — they offer only a very basic service and require that the end-user devices are intelligent. What’s smart about dumb networks is that they push innovation to the edge, giving end-users control over the pace and direction of innovation. Simplicity at the center allows for complexity at the edge, which fosters the vast decentralization of services.
Surprisingly, then, “dumb” networks are the smart choice for innovation and freedom.
The telephone network used to be a smart network supporting dumb devices (telephones). All the intelligence in the telephone network and all the services were contained in the phone company’s switching buildings. The telephone on the consumer’s kitchen table was little more than a speaker and a microphone. Even the most advanced touch-tone telephones were still pretty simple devices, depending entirely on the network services they could “request” through beeping the right tones.
In a smart network like that, there is no room for innovation at the edge. Sure, you can make a phone look like a cheeseburger or a banana, but you can’t change the services it offers. The services depend entirely on the central switches owned by the phone company. Centralized innovation means slow innovation. It also means innovation directed by the goals of a single company. As a result, anything that doesn’t seem to fit the vision of the company that owns the network is rejected or even actively fought.
In fact, until 1968, AT&T restricted the devices allowed on the network to a handful of approved devices. In 1968, in a landmark decision, the FCC ruled in favor of the Carterfone, an acoustic coupler device for connecting two-way radios to telephones, opening the door for any consumer device that didn’t “cause harm to the system.”
That ruling paved the way for the answering machine, the fax machine, and the modem. But even with the ability to connect smarter devices to the edge, it wasn’t until the modem that innovation really accelerated. The modem represented a complete inversion of the architecture: all the intelligence was moved to the edge, and the phone network was used only as an underlying “dumb” network to carry the data.
Did the telecommunications companies welcome this development? Of course not! They fought it for nearly a decade, using regulation, lobbying, and legal threats against the new competition. In some countries, modem calls across international lines were automatically disconnected to prevent competition in the lucrative long-distance market. In the end, the Internet won. Now, almost the entire phone network runs as an app on top of the Internet.
The Internet is a dumb network, which is its defining and most valuable feature. The Internet’s protocol (transmission control protocol/Internet protocol, or TCP/IP) doesn’t offer “services.” It doesn’t make decisions about content. It doesn’t distinguish between photos and text, video and audio. It doesn’t have a list of approved applications. It doesn’t even distinguish between client and server, user and host, or individual versus corporation. Every IP address is an equal peer.
TCP/IP acts as an efficient pipeline, moving data from one point to another. Over time, it has had some minor adjustments to offer some differentiated “quality of service” capabilities, but other than that, it remains, for the most part, a dumb data pipeline. Almost all the intelligence is on the edge — all the services, all the applications are created on the edge-devices. Creating a new application does not involve changing the network. The Web, voice, video, and social media were all created as applications on the edge without any need to modify the Internet protocol.
So the dumb network becomes a platform for independent innovation, without permission, at the edge. The result is an incredible range of innovations, carried out at an even more incredible pace. People interested in even the tiniest of niche applications can create them on the edge. Applications that only have two participants only need two devices to support them, and they can run on the Internet. Contrast that to the telephone network where a new “service,” like caller ID, had to be built and deployed on every company switch, incurring maintenance cost for every subscriber. So only the most popular, profitable, and widely used services got deployed.
The financial services industry is built on top of many highly specialized and service-specific networks. Most of these are layered atop the Internet, but they are architected as closed, centralized, and “smart” networks with limited intelligence on the edge.
Take, for example, the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT), the international wire transfer network. The consortium behind SWIFT has built a closed network of member banks that offers specific services: secure messages, mostly payment orders. Only banks can be members, and the network services are highly centralized.
The SWIFT network is just one of dozens of single-purpose, tightly controlled, and closed networks offered to financial services companies such as banks, brokerage firms, and exchanges. All these networks mediate the services by interposing the service provider between the “users,” and they allow minimal innovation or differentiation at the edge — that is, they are smart networks serving mostly dumb devices.
Bitcoin is the Internet of money. It offers a basic dumb network that connects peers from anywhere in the world. The bitcoin network itself does not define any financial services or applications. It doesn’t require membership registration or identification. It doesn’t control the types of devices or applications that can live on its edge. Bitcoin offers one service: securely time-stamped scripted transactions. Everything else is built on the edge-devices as an application. Bitcoin allows any application to be developed independently, without permission, on the edge of the network. A developer can create a new application using the transactional service as a platform and deploy it on any device. Even niche applications with few users — applications never envisioned by the bitcoin protocol creator — can be built and deployed.
Almost any network architecture can be inverted. You can build a closed network on top of an open network or vice versa, although it is easier to centralize than to decentralize. The modem inverted the phone network, giving us the Internet. The banks have built closed network systems on top of the decentralized Internet. Now bitcoin provides an open network platform for financial services on top of the open and decentralized Internet. The financial services built on top of bitcoin are themselves open because they are not “services” delivered by the network; they are “apps” running on top of the network. This arrangement opens a market for applications, putting the end user in a position of power to choose the right application without restrictions.
What happens when an industry transitions from using one or more “smart” and centralized networks to using a common, decentralized, open, and dumb network? A tsunami of innovation that was pent up for decades is suddenly released. All the applications that could never get permission in the closed network can now be developed and deployed without permission. At first, this change involves reinventing the previously centralized services with new and open decentralized alternatives. We saw that with the Internet, as traditional telecommunications services were reinvented with email, instant messaging, and video calls.
This first wave is also characterized by disintermediation — the removal of entire layers of intermediaries who are no longer necessary. With the Internet, this meant replacing brokers, classified ads publishers, real estate agents, car salespeople, and many others with search engines and online direct markets. In the financial industry, bitcoin will create a similar wave of disintermediation by making clearinghouses, exchanges, and wire transfer services obsolete. The big difference is that some of these disintermediated layers are multibillion dollar industries that are no longer needed.
Beyond the first wave of innovation, which simply replaces existing services, is another wave that begins to build the applications that were impossible with the previous centralized network. The second wave doesn’t just create applications that compare to existing services; it spawns new industries on the basis of applications that were previously too expensive or too difficult to scale. By eliminating friction in payments, bitcoin doesn’t just make better payments; it introduces market mechanisms and price discovery to economic activities that were too small or inefficient under the previous cost structure.
We used to think “smart” networks would deliver the most value, but making the network “dumb” enabled a massive wave of innovation. Intelligence at the edge brings choice, freedom, and experimentation without permission. In networks, “dumb” is better.
Andreas M. Antonopoulos is a technologist and serial entrepreneur who advises companies on the use of technology and decentralized digital currencies such as bitcoin.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/20150303_dumbnetworkdetail.png313631Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)http://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngFoundation for Economic Education (FEE)2015-03-06 17:26:482015-03-06 17:27:31Decentralization: Why Dumb Networks Are Better
On March 3, 2015 Israeli Prime Minister made a historic visit to Washington D.C. to address a joint session of Congress to talk about President Obama’s dangerous nuclear containment deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran.
While Prime Minister Netanyahu was speaking, the usual Code Pink, Jew Haters, and Israel hating Rabbis came out in full force. Watch as we try to engage with the Code Pink demonstrators about Hamas.
We also have a very interesting conversation with the Neturei Karta anti-Zionist Rabbis. These black hat Jews are referred to as Rent-a-Rabbi’s because it is suspected they have a very close relationship with the Iranian government and do their bidding in speaking an anti Israel message.
Remember when Israel bombed the Iraqi nuclear plant in Osirak Iraq ushering in over 20 years of non nuclear proliferation in the Middle East region. Israel was condemned by the West in public but praised in private. Historically we are at the same crossroads again and the stakes are more serious than before. Iran has the missile delivery systems to bomb not only Israel but also Western targets. If Iran obtains a nuclear capability the political map of the Middle East and the world will be forever changed for the worse.
These are tumultuous times and The United West is reporting to you on the ground in Washington D.C.
EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of representatives of the anti-Zionist Neturei Karta sect rally outside the U.S. Capitol on March 3, 2015 in Washington, DC. (photo credit: AFP PHOTO/CHRIS KLEPONIS)
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/anti-israel-rabbis.jpg357635Defend The Borderhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDefend The Border2015-03-06 16:25:032015-03-06 16:26:53VIDEO REPORT: The Usual Suspects Code Pink, Jew Haters and Israel hating Rabbis in Washington, D.C. on 3/3/2015
A Huffington Post blogger claims the state’s recovery debunks laissez faire by COREY IACONO, MATT PALUMBO…
“US Uncut” founder Carl Gibson is known for creating shocking, if dubious, viral memes about the economy.
On the progressive group’s Facebook page, he’s claimed that Switzerland is such an equal society because they have a minimum wage of $50,000 a year and strict caps on CEO pay (despite the fact Switzerland has no minimum or maximum wage laws). He’s also attributed Iceland’s success after the financial crisis to their government’s heroic refusal to bail out the banks (as long as we don’t count the $4.6 billion bailout they got from the IMF). His solution to the US national debt is to follow the example of Norway, which taxes oil profits at an astounding 78 percent and has no national debt (we’ll just assume he’s never typed “Norway national debt” into Google).
His heroic battle with facts continued last week in his column at the Huffington Post. This time he’s managed to single-handedly disprove “trickle-down economics,” a school of thought that doesn’t actually exist. In his words, “It’s official — trickle-down economics is bunk. Minnesota has proven it once and for all.”
What has Minnesota done? Hike the top income tax rate to 90 percent? Raise corporate taxes? Increase the minimum wage to $15 an hour? No, but under the governorship of Mark Dayton, who took office in 2011, Minnesota raised the state income tax rate on individuals earning over $150,000 (and households earning over $250,000) by a whopping 2 percentage points.
According to Gibson’s narrative, everything was on the wrong track in the Gopher State under the prior conservative governorship: “Between 2003 and late 2010, when [Governor Tim] Pawlenty was at the head of Minnesota’s state government, he managed to add only 6,200 more jobs.… Between 2011 and 2015, Gov. Dayton added 172,000 new jobs to Minnesota’s economy — that’s 165,800 more jobs in Dayton’s first term than Pawlenty added in both of his terms combined.”
While the global recession did have devastating impacts on the Minnesotan labor market at the end of Pawlenty’s term, it’s true that employment growth has been superior under his successor. In the first four years of Pawlenty’s tenure, employment in the state grew by 99,100 jobs, substantially less than the 182,100 in Dayton’s first four years. But is this really a result of progressive policies, or just the natural result of the economic recovery?
Gibson attributes Minnesota’s recovery to three of Governor Dayton’s policies: raising the minimum wage, raising taxes on the wealthy, and guaranteeing equal pay for women. But these changes were all quite small, and none corresponded with the turnaround in Minnesota’s employment, suggesting that they could not have been the cause.
Consider Governor Dayton’s plan for raising Minnesota’s minimum wage to $9.50 an hour by 2018. Under Dayton’s plan, the minimum wage is set to rise gradually:
[Prior to August 2014] Minnesota law set the minimum wage at $5.25 for companies with annual revenues up to $625,000 and $6.15 for companies that have revenues of $625,000 or more. The new law will change the threshold for small and large businesses to those making more or less than $500,000 in annual revenues. For those above that line, the wage will go from $6.15 per hour to $8. The small employer wage will go from $5.25 per hour to $6.50.
Considering that the federal minimum wage (which covers almost all hourly workers) is already at $7.25 per hour, a $0.75 increase in Minnesota’s minimum wage, applicable only to workers earning less than $8 an hour at businesses grossing more than $500,000 a year, isn’t exactly a radical move, nor would its effects be visible in raw employment data. Moreover, the minimum wage increase only went into effect in the summer of 2014, almost four years after Minnesota’s job market began to recover.
Similarly, the Women’s Economic Security Act, which guarantees equal pay for women working for state contractors (not businesses in general) by certifying that they are in compliance with non-discrimination laws that already exist, wasn’t put into effect until May 2014.
And Dayton’s tax hike, which increased the top marginal tax rate by 2 percent? That didn’t occur until 2013, and it only increased state revenues by $1.1 billion (or 0.35% of Minnesota GDP).
In fact, all of the policies Gibson praises were implemented well after Minnesota started experiencing its impressive job growth, and they weren’t especially ambitious in the first place.
As for the supposed benefits of higher taxes, Gibson states that “even though Minnesota’s top income tax rate is the 4th-highest in the country, it has the 5th-lowest unemployment rate in the country at 3.6 percent.” But this is the definition of a cherry-picked statistic. If you want to establish a correlation between top marginal tax rates and unemployment, you really have to use more than one data point and control for more than zero variables. (Speaking of cherry-picked statistics, among Midwestern states ranked by job creation from March 2013–2014, Minnesota ranked dead last).
In addition, an international study found that in industrialized countries, such as the United States, higher top marginal tax rates are associated with higher rates of unemployment. This suggests that higher top marginal tax rates may lead to less job creation than would otherwise occur.
The belief that higher minimum wages and higher taxes lead to better economic outcomes is not well-supported by the empirical evidence. Consider a study that found that reductions in state top marginal tax rates are associated with increases in income growth for all income quintiles (and vice versa). This result is diametrically opposed to Gibson’s depiction of reality.
Regarding the minimum wage, the empirical literature is mixed, but recent research by Jeffrey Clemens of the University of California raises some serious concerns. His analysis involved tracking thousands of real individuals across the country, comparing the experiences of low-skilled workers in states that increased their minimum wages to that of low-skilled workers in states that did not. Clemens and his co-author used a number of controls to ensure that their findings represented the actual effects of the minimum wage increase, rather than the effects of other variables. The results? Minimum wage increases had “significant, negative effects on the employment and income growth of targeted workers.”
Similarly, a study on economic freedom and income inequality in the states found that “reductions in both state minimum wages and tax burdens would be the most helpful in promoting higher levels, growth rates, and shares of income for the lowest quintile [that is, the poorest households].”
Clearly, controlled studies like these provide much more compelling evidence on the effects of minimum wage and tax hikes than a few uncorrelated data points scrounged from one state during a period of general economic recovery. It’s true that Dayton passed a few minor progressive policies during this time, but just because you jump in front of a parade doesn’t mean you’re leading it.
While Gibson and his ilk would like people to believe that interventionist policies are necessary for growth, research from the St. Louis Fed has found that, after controlling for other variables known to correlate with economic growth, states with less government interference in the economy experienced faster rates of employment growth than their interventionist peers. Other research suggests that the states with less economic intervention also tend to have lower unemployment rates and higher labor force participation rates.
Unlike Gibson, we will not be so ambitious as to claim that this evidence definitively debunks the entire progressive agenda. But we will suggest that there is compelling evidence that free markets work, and it can’t be refuted by a handful of cherry-picked data points from a single state.
I received this important non-partisan video from a friend. If you listen to one thing on the issue of Iran, this video by Senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska is it. This video was posted two weeks before Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech before the U.S. Congress on March 3rd.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/iran_nuclear_talks_mgn.jpg458638Robert Hellerhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngRobert Heller2015-03-06 08:33:432015-03-06 09:22:17VIDEO U.S. – Iran Talks: The Real Story in five minutes
Bill Little from PJ Media reports, “We need a champion for women’s’ rights! Luckily Hillary is about to be elected President!!! Oh wait, she pays her female staffers 72-cents on the dollar…”
The TRIFECTA exposes that the real wage disparities are not in the private sector according to the U.S. Department of Labor. Wage disparities do appear in industries such as the legal profession (Hillary and Barack are lawyers) and Hollywood (supporters of Hillary and Barack). The cause of wage disparity is Democrats! It’s a double standard.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Hillary-Clinton-e1425646422316.jpg394640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2015-03-06 07:54:522015-03-06 08:24:40Hillary Pays Female Staffers Less — 72 cents on the Dollar Less
John Boehner is in Congress illegally, at least according to the Ohio Constitution.
Boehner has been in the U.S. Congress since 1991, after serving as an Ohio State Representative. Consider that Boehner has been serving since 1991 and that according to the U.S. Constitution, each representative’s term is two years before needing to be re-elected. Boehner has served over two decades and two dozen terms consecutively in office.
So, is there anything illegal about Boehner occupying the office of a federal representative that long? Yes, there is.
Term limits for U.S. senators and representatives No person shall hold the office of United States Senator from Ohio for a period longer that two successive terms of six years. No person shall hold the office of United States Representative from Ohio for a period longer than four successive terms of two years. Terms shall be considered successive unless separated by a period of four or more years. Only terms beginning on or after January 1, 1993 shall be considered in determining an individual’s eligibility to hold office.
So what’s the problem? As usual, the federal courts stepped in and overstepped their bounds. In 1995, the Supreme Court ruled in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton to uphold an Arkansas Supreme Court’s decision that struck down Arkansas’ term limit provisions of federal representatives. The vote was 5-4.
In what had to be one of the most un-American and tyrannical portions of the majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, “The right to choose representatives belongs not to the states, but to the people.” He then added that members of Congress “owe their allegiance to the people, and not to the states.”
Do you see that? The people are not considered the people of the states. This is so backwards it isn’t even funny.
Justice Clarence Thomas understood properly and rebutted the majority position writing, “The Federal Government’s powers are limited and enumerated… the ultimate source of the Constitution’s authority is the consent of the people of each individual state, not the consent of the undifferentiated people of the nation as a whole.”
Perhaps it is time for Republican Executive Committees (REC’s) across the great state of Ohio to start drawing up letters of censure against John Boehner for refusing to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and for failing to uphold the policies, procedures and principles of the Republican Party and the State Constitution of Ohio.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/boehner.jpg360640Geoff Rosshttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngGeoff Ross2015-03-06 06:27:352015-03-06 16:51:58John Boehner violating the Term Limits provision of the Ohio State Constitution
On March 4th, 2015, the Coalition of African American Pastors (CAAP) announced that Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore would receive their first ever “Letter from Birmingham Jail Courage Award” in recognition of Justice Moore’s principled stand in defense of traditional marriage.
The group was moved to honor Chief Justice Moore following his defense of Alabama’s statutory and constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. Moore’s actions were based on the fact that the federal court does not have the power to redefine marriage in direct opposition to legal tradition and the clearly expressed will of the people. His courage and conviction persuaded CAAP that Chief Moore was the ideal honoree for the inaugural presentation of an award inspired by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s famous letter.
“Chief Justice Moore is an example for all of us,” stated Rev. William Owens, President of CAAP. “By making a principled and persuasive stand for marriage, Chief Justice Moore has singled himself out as someone who is ready to defend our most cherished values and help lead this new civil rights movement. By his words and courageous actions, he has helped preserve marriage, the family, justice, and the spirit of democracy. This is what it means to be a ‘Letter from Birmingham Jail Courage Award’ recipient. We hope that his example inspires others to take similar action to defend marriage in their own communities.”
The group announced that they plan to present the Letter from Birmingham Jail Courage Award to Justice Moore in a special ceremony in April.
The Alabama Supreme Court ordered a halt Tuesday to same-sex marriages in the state despite a U.S. Supreme Court order allowing them to proceed. The ruling capped a wild month of confusion and resistance in Alabama following a January decision by a U.S. district court invalidating Alabama’s ban on gay marriage.
The Alabama justices were defiant. “As it has done for approximately two centuries,” the court said, “Alabama law allows for ‘marriage’ between only one man and one woman.” Alabama judges have a duty “not to issue any marriage license contrary to this law. Nothing in the United States Constitution alters or overrides this duty.”
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/Alabama-Chief-Justice-Roy-Moore.jpg354640Dr. Rich Swierhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngDr. Rich Swier2015-03-05 07:20:472015-03-05 07:22:48Coalition of African-American Pastors Honors Justice Roy Moore for His Principled Stand for Marriage
Ken Cohen, Exxon Mobile’s vice president of public and government affairs, looks at a pipeline approved by the Obama administration that does the same thing Keystone XL will do–move Canadian oil sands crude [emphasis mine]:
Consider that the original Keystone pipeline took 693 days to approve. The current Keystone XL application has languished for 2,356 days and counting.
Then there’s the Alberta Clipper pipeline, another cross-border pipeline whose comparison to Keystone XL should leave many people scratching their heads.
That pipeline took 829 days to approve. That’s about one-third as long as the Keystone XL review.
The Alberta Clipper pipeline moves oil from Alberta to Wisconsin.
Alberta Clipper pipeline map. Image credit: Enbridge.
Cohen quotes the State Department’s 2009 announcement of the Alberta Clipper’s approval [emphasis his]:
The addition of crude oil pipeline capacity between Canada and the United States will advance a number of strategic interests of the United States. .… Canada is a stable and reliable ally and trading partner of the United States, with which we have free trade agreements which augment the security of this energy supply.
Approval of the permit sends a positive economic signal, in a difficult economic period, about the future reliability and availability of a portion of United States’ energy imports, and in the immediate term, this shovel-ready project will provide construction jobs for workers in the United States.
“The same arguments that prevailed for Alberta Clipper in 2009 apply even more to Keystone XL today,” Cohen writes.
Remember, this is President Obama’s State Department.
Its attitude toward Keystone XL is a mirror image of what it was toward the Alberta Clipper even though they have similar benefits.
Instead of appreciating how Canadian oil sands crude improves U.S. energy security, the president gets called out for misleading the public that oil through the Keystone XL pipeline will be exported from the U.S.
And instead of applauding the jobs what will be created by the pipeline, the president considers some construction jobs better than others.
What’s the difference between then and now? Politics.
Not that this opposition is stopping oil sands production. Record volumes of oil sands crude are being refined in the U.S. while President Obama feeds the hopes of activists that he’ll reject a project that his State Department says will have few negative effects on the environment.
Going back to the Senate’s veto override attempt, Karen Harbert, President and CEO of the Institute for 21st Century Energy, released a statement:
In an era when Congress can’t agree on much, the Keystone XL pipeline has stood out because it has such strong, bipartisan support. Unfortunately, pipeline supporters were a few votes short of the super-majority needed to overturn President Obama’s veto, but the President should not ignore this strong level of support when he makes his final decision on the pipeline.
EDITORS NOTE: The featured image is of an oil terminal in Hardisty, Alberta. Photo credit: Brett Gundlock/Bloomberg.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/bloomberg_hardisty_terminal_800px.jpg426640Sean Hackbarthhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngSean Hackbarth2015-03-05 07:04:052015-03-05 07:04:05Obama Administration Once Approved a Pipeline Just Like Keystone XL
Regardless of your “political affiliation,” you must admit Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu made a firm case as to why President Obama and the United States has no business entering into negotiations with the Islamic Republic of Iran — then again, perhaps Iran is not Islamic.
Is there any debate that Iran is the number one state sponsor of Islamic terrorism? Is there any debate that Iran has extended its hegemonic designs in the Middle East — controlling four capitol cities, Baghdad, Sanaa, Damascus, and Beirut? Is there any debate that it is Iran leading an offensive operation to retake the city of Tikrit in Iraq? And this comes after what is now a massive embarrassment for the Obama administration and our USCENTCOM to have divulged that America working with the Iraqis will have to push back its plans to take Mosul to later in the year.
Is there any doubt that Iran has shown no change in its militant Islamic behavior and rhetoric? Iran is still the same country that overran our embassy and held Americans hostage — when a previous American president displayed weakness and paralysis.
This is the same Iran that worked through Hezbollah to slaughter nearly 250 Marines, Sailors, and Soldiers in Beirut. Iran continues to hold an American Pastor — Saeed Abedini — and we want to negotiate?
But according to our president — there was “nothing new” — and I must agree Mr. President, there is nothing new about Iran and its belligerence. As well, there is nothing new about President Obama who sadly — along with many members of the Democrat party — acted like a petulant child, angry because someone didn’t give in to him. For someone to tell the Prime Minister of Israel to go home showed a complete lack of regard, respect, and displayed unadulterated disdain.
Why? Why is the truth was so frustrating?
The supposed “deal” with Iran only lasts for ten years; afterwards, Iran is free to pursue its nuclear intentions — and if any of you don’t believe Iran has those designs, you’re as naïve as Sir Neville Chamberlain or his modern reincarnation, Barack Obama.
Or perhaps Obama isn’t naïve after all?
There is a contest in the Islamic world for the new hegemony. The traditional state that has filled that role has been Saudi Arabia where the most holy sites in Islam reside — Mecca and Medina. The challenger is the last Islamic empire, the Ottoman, Turkey, where President Recip Tayyip Erdogan has rejected the original secular Muslim state vision of Kemal Ataturk.
But the new kid on the block is not Sunni, but Shia: Iran. And as Prime Minister Netanyahu stated, “we can focus on ISIS and beating them, but if Iran develops a nuclear weapon, we will have won a battle but lost a war.” And it seems the Obama administration is more than happy to sit back and allow the Iranian Republican Guard and Shiite militias to fight ISIS.
You ask me why should you care?
Because in the end, as Netanyahu stated, “the enemy of my enemy is my enemy.” Shall we sit back and disregard our own security but more so abandon Israel and its survival?
And consider the growing anti-Semitism in Europe that is forcing Jewish communities to disappear. Who of you will look into the eyes of Elie Wiesel and not understand the meaning of the words, “Never again?” This is not about a little skirmish with no ramifications for the future of liberty and freedom – it is a seminal battle for the soul of Western civilization. That’s neither over the top, nor fear mongering hyperbole. It is the hard truth.
Yes, I hear the detractors: we are war weary and we don’t want to fight; this is just an example of foreign entanglements and President George Washington in his farewell speech warned against this. Something tells me General George Washington would not allow militant Islam — Sunni or Shiite — to thrive.
Do I have a strategy? Sure.
First of all it is insanity to have vetoed the Keystone XL Pipeline. We should be developing our energy resources enabling us to keep prices minimal in order to spur on economic growth. Then we should be exporting excess energy resources so that Europe does not have to depend upon Iranian sources.
Reinstitute the crippling economic sanctions against the Islamic regime — it was working, so why would Obama let up on the gas? In the military we had a saying, “Why do you kick a man when he’s down? Because he’s close to your foot.” We should have kept kicking Iran, not offering them a hand helping them up — they have a knife ready.
We should form an alliance with Egypt, Jordan, United Arab Emirates, and the Kurdish Regional Government to defeat militant Islamic terrorism in the region. Arm the Kurds and promise them what they truly deserve and have always wanted — a sovereign homeland. A homeland that extends from northern Iran to Iraq to Syria. Enable them to be a bulwark against Iran, Turkey and Syria, while pressuring Hezbollah in Lebanon. Yes, this is an opportunity for leadership to reshape the Middle East into strong allies that can assist in defeating the jihadists.
And we need to fully support our best ally, Israel, and support their play against the array of Islamic terrorist groups who wish their destruction.
President Obama is hiding something. There is no other reason why he has issued a veto threat to the Congress for any legislation requiring his approval from the legislative body on his Iranian deal. So it seems the only enemy Barack Obama sees is the American Congress — I forgot, it is GOP-controlled, but none of this is political, right?
I just want everyone reading this to ask yourselves a question. You saw Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech yesterday. You heard President Barack Obama’s response to his speech (and his State of the Union address).
I ask you which one is a leader who loves his country? Let me give you a hint — in ten years, Iran will be free to become a nuclear power because of a deal that one of those two men wants very badly.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/netanyahu-podium.jpg445640Allen Westhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngAllen West2015-03-05 06:22:372015-03-05 06:22:37Netanyahu’s Profile in Courage
It was supposed to be a phone call for Obama administration ears only. But hear it the radio host did, she says. And what she heard should make your blood run cold — and perhaps your rage hot. Obama’s amnesty plan is to use illegal aliens as “seedlings,” said the federal officials. They will “navigate, not assimilate,” as they “take over the host,” create a “country within a country” and start “pushing the citizens into the shadows.”
Welcome to the “fundamental transformation” of America.
The above was alleged by WCBM radio co-host Sue Payne in an interview with talk giant Mark Levin last Thursday. Payne says that while at an immigration rally, she became privy to three conference calls in which 16 Obama administration officials — including Cecilia Muñoz, director of Obama’s White House Domestic Policy Council — discussed plans for what could only be called the final destruction of traditional America and the cementing of leftist hegemony. Muñoz, by the way, is perfectly suited to this task; she was once a senior vice president for the anti-American Hispanic lobbying organization the National Council of La Raza.
Oh, la raza means “the race” (I guess the whole “‘Hispanic’ is an ethnicity” thing doesn’t cut much ice with them).
Payne opened the interview by explaining that what Obama actually did on November 21 — the day he signed his supposed executive amnesty — was create the “Task Force on New Americans” (TFNA) for the purposes of implementing his legalization scheme. And it won’t be applied to just 5 million illegals, but “13 to 15 million to give protection [to] and move…on to citizenship,” reports Payne.
Payne then said that the illegals, labeled “seedlings,” would eventually “take over the host.” She continued, “And the immigrants will come out of the shadows, and what I got from the meetings was that they would be pushing the citizens into the shadows. They would be taking over the country; in fact, one of the members of the task force actually said that we would be developing a country within a country.”
To this nefarious end, the goal of the TFNA is to create a “welcoming feeling” in illegal-seeded localities, which would be redesignated “receiving communities.” They’d subsequently be transformed (fundamentally, I suppose) into what are labeled “emerging immigrant communities” — or as some would say, México Norte.
The officials also said, reports Payne, that for the seedlings to “grow” they needed “fertile soil” (a.k.a. your tax money). The officials stated that the legalized aliens needed to be redesignated as “refugees” and be given cash, medical care, credit cards for purchasing documents and — since many illegals will be older — Social Security so they can “age successfully within their country within a country,” to quote Payne. As she then put it, it’s “as if we were funding our own destruction here.”
Some may point out that Payne has no smoking gun (that we know of) in the form of, let’s say, a recording of the calls. But Levin vetted her and found her credible, calling the scheme “stunning” and reflective of “Mao’s China.” I believe her as well, but it doesn’t even matter. She simply confirms what I’ve been warning of for yearsandyearsoverandoveragain: The Left is importing their voters, engaging in demographic warfare and authoring the death of the republic.
Mind you, legal immigration itself is a sufficient vehicle for this. Ever since the Immigration Reform and Nationality Act of 1965, 85 percent of our immigrants have hailed from the Third World and Asia, thus growing leftist constituencies that vote for socialistic Democrats by approximately a four-to-one margin; in contrast and as Pat Buchanan pointed out, “[N]early 90 percent of all Republican votes in presidential elections are provided by Americans of European descent.” This, along with hatred and bigotry, is a major reason why Obama and his ilk want to destroy white America.
But liberals crave immediate gratification, and amnesty greatly accelerates this process. Legalize 15 million socialist voters clamoring for handouts, have them bring in relatives via chain migration — give them Social Security numbers which they can use to vote (as is Obama’s plan) — and tomorrow’s leftist dystopia is today. I predicted this in 2008, by the way, writing:
The coup de grace Obama will use against rightist opposition is mostly embodied in one word: amnesty. This, along with some other measures, will both grow the Hispanic voting block and ingratiate Obama to it. This will enable him to create a powerful coalition of blacks, young voters and Hispanics that, along with the older whites he will be able to retain, will constitute an insurmountable electoral force. And this is why amnesty has long been a dream of the Democrats. Even easier than brainwashing new voters (which the media and academia specialize in) is importing them.
Admittedly, I can be criticized since the above article is titled “How Obama Will Ensure His Victory in 2012.” But titles are hooks as much as anything else. And since I don’t have a crystal ball, just a not yet crystallized brain, I’d never claim to be able to perfectly predict timing. It also turned out that Obama and the 2009 to 2011Democrat House and Senate were preoccupied with instituting ObamaCare, and that the liberal legislators were perhaps too cowardly to face re-election having passed amnesty. Regardless, I have another prediction, one I hope you’ll take seriously:
The chances are slim to nil that Obama’s amnesty will be stopped legislatively.
Obama against John Boehner is the Beltway Brawler vs. the Beltway Bawler. Moreover, I suspect establishment Republicans — who just refused to defund Obama’s scheme — want executive amnesty. Why? Because the issue has been an albatross around their necks. And while they don’t have the guts or desire to really stand against Invasion USA, they also know voting for amnesty would mean electoral disaster. So, let Obama act unilaterally, huff and puff a bit with a wink and a nod while doing nothing of substance, and “Voila!” The issue is off the table with plausible deniability of complicity.
And the courts? They may uphold the recent injunction against Obamnesty, but there’s no saying Obama won’t ignore the courts (he assuredly understands that judicial review is a jurist invention). And, anyway, amnesty was always only a matter of time with today’s cultural trajectory. Yet this cloud does have a silver lining.
The Left was very successful boiling the frog slowly with the legal importation of socialist voters and the gradual transformation of our culture via entertainment, the media and academia. But liberals’ childish haste may have led to a tactical error. By going all in on executive orders and amnesty — by transitioning from evolutionary to revolutionary change and turning the burner up high — the Left risks rousing that frog from his pan. And how should it jump?
Obama said after the November Republican victory that it was his “profound preference and interest to see Congress act on a comprehensive immigration reform bill” (emphasis added), but otherwise he’ll work via executive orders. He also offered the GOP a deal: “You send me a bill that I can sign, and those executive actions go away.”
Translation: My preference is to follow the Constitution.
But my will be done — one way or the other.
How to respond? Question: what do you do when someone says “My preference is to follow the game’s rules, but if I can’t win that way, I’ll have to cheat”? You can:
Continue losing; be a Charlie Brown sucker who keeps thinking that this time Lucy won’t pull the football away.
Cheat right back (hard to do without judges in your pocket).
Stop playing the game.
Now, conservatives, consummate ladies and gentlemen that they are, consistently choose option one. Far be it from them to violate the “law” even when it’s unconstitutional and therefore lawless. But I prefer option three.
This means nullification. Note that the Constitution is the contract Americans have with each other. And what happens when one party subject to a contract continually violates it in order to advantage itself, aided and abetted by corrupt judges?
The contract is rendered null and void.
Remember, cheaters don’t stop cheating until forced to. Governors and their legislatures need to man-up and tell the feds, “You like acting unilaterally and unconstitutionally? Two can play that game.” And this means not just ignoring Obama’s amnesty dictates, but nullifying a multitude of other things as well.
The other option is demographic and cultural genocide and the politics attending that. The Left knows this, too. Obama noted that growing “diversity hinders conservative priorities,” wrote the DC last month. Congressman Kurt Schrader (D-OR) said recently that amnesty “will decide who is in charge of this country for the next 20 or 30 years.” And an ex-advisor to former Prime Minister Tony Blair confessed in 2009 that the goal of the British Labour Party’s massive culture-rending immigration was to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.”
Do you get it yet?
Defy and Nullify.
The alternative is to walk legally and quietly into that good night, going out not with a bang but a whimper, muttering something about 2016, the Supreme Court and pixie dust.
RELATED AUDIO: Mark Levin interviews Sue Payne on Feb. 26, 2015. The clip sheds light on the White House strategy with regards to “amnesty” and introduces terms like “White House Task Force on New Americans”, “Receiving Communities” and “Emerging Immigrant Communities”.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/illegal-europeans.jpg360640Selwyn Dukehttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngSelwyn Duke2015-03-05 05:46:382015-03-06 07:34:48Obama Amnesty Plan: Legalize Foreigners, “Take Over the Host,” Push “Citizens into the Shadows”
I bet you didn’t know that most members of Congress do support term limits. The catch is, these limits apply only to the president’s tenure – not their own careers.
Under Article V of the Constitution, Congress has the power to introduce and vote on any constitutional amendment, which is then brought before the states for ratification. It’s the same method Congress used to add eight-year presidential term limits to the Constitution in 1947-1951.
That also means Congress is empowered – at any time – to pass an amendment bill to REPEAL presidential term limits. It never happens. Though Rep. Jose Serrano (D-NY) routinely introduces such a bill, it gets about as much momentum (read: none) as silly proposals to change the flag or create a national jaywalking database.
The dismal support for a repeal of presidential limits can only be read one way: as Congress endorsing the idea of term limits and honoring the public’s high approval for it. But this places America’s ruling class in a tough predicament. How can legislators claim with a straight face that the president should be term-limited but they should get to stay in office forever?
Think about it. All of the flimsy arguments legislators make against term limits on themselves also apply to the president. While Rep. Serrano may be more in disagreement with U.S. Term Limits than any other legislator, we have great respect for his logical consistency. The same can’t be said for his colleagues, who hypocritically oppose term limits on their own jobs while simultaneously upholding them on the president.
Perhaps they all want to be president someday, which would necessitate the job opening up on a regular basis. Well, that’s how teachers, firefighters, small business owners and ordinary Americans feel about Congress. They too would like to serve someday, but they sense that a cabal of unaccountable insiders has taken over, callously refusing to let go out of fear it cannot find a better job.
Contact your member of Congress and tell them you’re sick and tired of the double standard. Tell them “Since you support term limits on the President, you should be consistent by working to enact them on your own office.”
ABOUT US TERM LIMITS:
“Term Limits is known as the largest grassroots movement in American history, and US Term Limits (USTL) was, and still is, the leader of that movement”
Term limits have been placed on 15 state legislatures, eight of the ten largest cities in America adopted term limits for their city councils and/or mayor, and 37 states place term limits on their constitutional officers.
USTL stands up against government malpractice. We are the voice of the American citizen. We want a government of the people, by the people, and for the people- not a ruling class who care more about deals to benefit themselves, than their constituents.
We have worked tirelessly with citizens all across the nation, helping them better understand why term limits are a necessary government reform, and how to implement that vision from your town council, to Congress.
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/bushclintonobama.jpg451580Philip Blumelhttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngPhilip Blumel2015-03-04 09:27:182015-03-04 09:32:28Congress has no problem holding these men to a term limit, but refuses to limit itself by Nick Tomboulides
Pachauri’s resignation letter on religion: ‘For me the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma.’
UN IPCC critic Journalist Donna Laframboise responds: ‘Yes, the IPCC – which we’re told to take seriously because it is a scientific body producing scientific reports – has, in fact, been led by an environmentalist on a mission. By someone for whom protecting the planet is a religious calling.’
Climate Depot’s Morano statement on Pachauri’s resignation: ‘The IPCC is quietly popping champagne corks today. Pachauri gone can only be good news for the UN IPCC’ – Marc Morano: ‘If Pachauri had any decency, he would have resigned in the wake of the Climategate scandal which broke in 2009. Climategate implicated the upper echelon of UN IPCC scientists in attempting to collude and craft a narrative on global warming while allowing no dissent. Or Pachauri could have resigned when he wished skeptics would rub asbestos on their faces or conceded that the IPCC was at the ‘beck and call’ of governments. There were so many opportunities to to the right thing and fade away. But it took the proceedings of the Indian court system over the allegations of sexual harassment to finally bring Pachauri down. Things can only be looking up for the UN IPCC now that it has ridded itself of this political and ethical cancer.’
Flashback: Michael Crichton: ‘One of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists.’
Pachauri critic: Evidence ‘suggest strongly that Pachauri is a longtime sexual predator’ – Donna Laframboise: ‘What’s missing from this (Pachauri’s resignation) letter is any suggestion of remorse. When a scandal-plagued leader resigns because his alleged misdeeds are nuking his organization’s reputation, that is a mark of failure. He has let everyone down. Where are his words of apology to the thousands of IPCC-linked scientists whose honour is now eternally tarnished by their association with him?’ Pachauri’s letter talks about his “greatest joy,” and his “sublime satisfaction.”
https://drrichswier.com/wp-content/uploads/ipcc-quote.png360640Marc Moranohttp://drrich.wpengine.com/wp-content/uploads/logo_264x69.pngMarc Morano2015-03-04 09:17:462015-03-04 09:17:46Outgoing UN IPCC Chief reveals global warming ‘is my religion and my dharma’
