largely a choice of style, not substance, dirty business, as usual, continuing
no matter who succeeds Obama. Still, Snowden has a point.
Hillary Clinton, like
husband Bill, got super-rich through speechmaking, lucrative book deals, and
other Big Money handouts.
Lots came from Wall
Street and other corporate supporters – a rogue’s gallery of crony capitalist
interests buying influence.
Her public financial disclosures show she earned $2,935,000 from
12 speeches to Wall Street banks alone from 2013 – 2015, five for $225,000 (her
Deutsche Bank paid her $485,000, Goldman Sachs, an astonishing
$675,000 for a single speech. Wall Street banks are her leading campaign
Over the same period, her
financial disclosures show she earned $21,667,000 for 92 speeches to private
organizations, mainly crony capitalist interests – expecting handsome dividends
from their investments, the way dirty business in Washington works.
process is too corrupted to fix, a Big Money-controlled one-party state with
two wings. All duopoly power candidates march to the same drummer – differing
only in style, not how they intend governing if elected.
Uninformed, out-of-touch US voters are easy marks to be fooled each
electoral cycle. Media scoundrels promote the illusion of democracy, existing
in name only.
Popular interests are ignored, independent candidates entirely shut
out. Names and faces change. Dirty business as usual wins every time.
Scattered reforms won’t work. Transformational change in needed. The
only solution is a popular grassroots revolution.
The alternative is endless wars, neoserfdom, and tyranny, a horror
no one should tolerate.
If you cap the volcano, eventually the pressure beneath rises to the
point that the cap gets blown off in spectacular fashion.
That the dramatic upheavals of war, pestilence and environmental collapse
can trigger social disorder and revolution is well-established.
Indeed, this dynamic can be
viewed as the standard model of social disorder/revolution: a large-scale
crisis—often a bolt-from-the-blue externality—upends the status quo.
Another model identifies
warring elites and imperial meddling as a source of revolution: a new elite
forcibly replaces the current elite (known colloquially as meet the
new boss, same as the old boss) or a dominant
nation-state/empire arranges a political coup to replace the current leadership
with a more compliant elite.
A third model was described
by David Hackett Fischer in The Great Wave: Price
Revolutions and the Rhythm of History. By assembling price and wage
data stretching back hundreds of years, Fischer found that cycles of economic
growth spawn population growth, resulting in more workers entering the market
economy. Their earnings trigger a demand-driven expansion of essential
commodities such as grain and energy (wood, coal, oil, etc.).
In the initial phase, wages rise and commodity prices remain stable as
supplies of essential goods expand and the demand for labor pushes up wages.
But this virtuous cycle reverses when the supply of essentials no longer
keeps pace with rising population and demand: the price of essentials begin an
inexorable rise even as an oversupply of labor drives down wages.
Fisher found that this wage/price cycle often ends in transformational
While proponents of these models have a wealth of historical examples
to draw upon, these models miss a key factor: the vulnerability or
resilience of the nation-state facing crises.
Some nations survive invasions, environmental catastrophes, epidemics
and inflation without disintegrating into disorder. Something about these
nation’s social/ economic /political order makes them more resilient than other
So rather than accept the proximate causes of disorder as the sole
factors, we should look deeper into the social order for the factors behind a
nation’s relative fragility or resilience.
The Decline Of Shared Purpose
Turchin defined a key factor in the resilience of the social order as
"the degree of solidarity felt between the commons and aristocracy,"
that is, the sense of purpose and identity shared by the aristocracy and commoners
"Unlike the selfish elites
of the later periods, the aristocracy of the early Republic did not spare its
blood or treasure in the service of the common interest. When 50,000 Romans, a
staggering one fifth of Rome’s total manpower, perished in the battle of
Cannae, the senate lost almost one third of its membership. This suggests that
the senatorial aristocracy was more likely to be killed in wars than the
The wealthy classes were also
the first to volunteer extra taxes when they were needed… A graduated scale was
used in which the senators paid the most, followed by the knights, and then
other citizens. In addition, officers and centurions (but not common soldiers!)
served without pay, saving the state 20 percent of the legion’s payroll….
The richest 1 percent of the
Romans during the early Republic was only 10 to 20 times as wealthy as an
average Roman citizen.
Roman historians of the later
age stressed the modest way of life, even poverty of the leading citizens. For
example, when Cincinnatus was summoned to be dictator, while working at the
plow, he reportedly exclaimed, 'My land will not be sown this year and so we
shall run the risk of not having enough to eat!'"
Once the aristocracy’s ethic of public unity and service
was replaced by personal greed and pursuit of self-interest, the empire lost
its social resilience.
Turchin also identified
rising wealth inequality as a factor in weakening social solidarity. By the
end-days of the Western Roman Empire, elites held not 10 times as much wealth
commoners but 10,000 times as much as average citizens.
Wealth inequality is both a cause and a symptom: it is a cause of
weakening social resilience, but it also symptomatic of a system that enables
the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few at the expense of
Diminishing Returns On
Complexity & Expansion
excellent book The Upside of Down:
Catastrophe, Creativity, and the Renewal of Civilization The Upside of Down: Catastrophe,
Creativity, and the Renewal of Civilization outlines two systemic sources of
increasing fragility: diminishing returns on complexity and the rising costs of
continuing strategies that worked well in the past but no longer yield positive
Successful economies generate surpluses that are skimmed by various
elites to support new layers of complexity: temple priests, state
bureaucracies, standing armies, etc.
All this complexity adds cost
but beyond the initial positive impact of rationalizing production, it reduces
productivity by draining potentially productive investments from the economy.
Building temple complexes and
vast palaces for the aristocracy appears affordable in the initial surge of
productivity, but as investment in productivity declines and the population of
state dependents expands, surpluses shrink while costs rise.
Meanwhile, strategies that
boosted yields in the beginning also suffer diminishing returns. Conquering
nearby lands and extracting their wealth paid off handsomely at first, but as
the distance to newly conquered territories lengthen, the payoff declines:
supplying distant armies to maintain control over distant lands costs more,
while the yield on marginal new conquests drops.
Expanding land under
production was easy in the river valley, but once water has to be carried up
hillsides, the net yield plummets.
What worked well at first no longer works well, but those in charge are
wedded to the existing system; why change what has worked so brilliantly?
As the costs of complexity and state dependents rise, productive people
grow tired of supporting an economy suffering from terminal diminishing
Empires do not just
suddenly collapse; they are abandoned by the productive citizenry as the burdens
become unbearable. The independent class of tradespeople (a.k.a. the middle
class), driven into serfdom by taxes, lose their shared identity with the
aristocracy. Beneath the surface, social cohesion frays. Once the benefits of
the status quo no longer outweigh its costs, the system is vulnerable to an
external disruption that would have been easily handled in previous eras.
The Suppression Of Social
There is another key factor
in the resilience or fragility of social order: the permeability of the barrier
between the ruling class and everyone below. We call this permeability social
mobility: how easy is it for a working class family to rise up to the
middle class, and how easy is it for a middle class family to enter the
political and financial aristocracy?
I recently read Venice: A New History,
a fascinating account of Venice's rise to regional empire and its decline to
What struck me most
powerfully was Venice's long success as a republic: it was the world's only
republic for roughly 1,000 years.
How did the Venetians manage this?
Their system of participatory democracy accreted over time, and was by no means
perfect; only men of substance had much of a say. But strikingly, key political
turning points were often triggered by mass gatherings of craftsmen and
Most importantly, the system
was carefully designed to enable new blood to enter the higher levels of power.
Commoners could rise to power (and take their families with them if their
wealth outlasted the founding generation) via commercial success or military service.
The Republic also developed a
culture that frowned on personal glorification and cults of personality: the
nobility and commoners alike deferred to the Republic rather than any one
In Venice, the political
leadership (the doge and the Council) were elected via a convoluted series of
steps that made it essentially impossible for one clique to control the entire
The doge was elected for a
term, not for life, and he had to be acceptable not just to the elites but to
the much larger class of movers and shakers--roughly 1,000 people in a city of
at most 150,000.
Venice's crises emerged when the upwelling of social and financial
mobility was capped by elites who were over-zealous in their pursuit of
hegemony: all those blocked from rising to power/influence became the source of
If you cap the volcano,
eventually the pressure beneath rises to the point that the cap gets blown off
in spectacular fashion.
The suppression of social
mobility and the monopolization of power by the few at the expense of the many
are universal dynamics in social orders.
Broadly speaking, Venice's
1,000-year Republican government, with its complex rules to limit
concentrations of power and insure the boundaries between elites and commoners
were porous enough to diffuse revolution and social disorder, speak to what is
once again in play around the world: social unrest due to the concentration of
power and the suppression of social mobility.
I don't think it's a stretch
to say that the greater the concentration of power, the lower the social
mobility, the greater the odds that the system will collapse when faced with
When the entire economy is
expanding faster than population, and this tide is raising all ships, the
majority of people feel their chances of getting ahead are positive.
But when the economy is
stagnating, and those in power are amassing most of the gains, the majority
realizes their chances of securing a better life are declining. This is the
pressure that is being capped by the status quo that first and foremost
protects the privileged.
How porous are the barriers to
social mobility in our society? That a few people
become billionaires from technological innovations that scale globally is not a
real measure of social mobility for the masses.
In Part 2 we
identify the wellspring of revolution, and reach a conclusion that may surprise
America’s affliction with climate
alarmism is shaped by two facts:
First, the main instigators have
crossed the Rubicon and have no choice but to fight. How has this
happened? Nature was one cause: the short-term natural warming in
1978-1998 was mistaken for anthropogenic warming through the confirmation bias.
Natural cooling from 1999 onward has canceled the expected anthropogenic
warming (which is small, beneficial, and caused by a variety of factors -- not
just carbon dioxide release).
other causes were entirely manmade. In hindsight, it is clear that for
almost two decades (approximately 1988 -- 2004) multiple groups of climate
“scientists” have been fabricating results in parallel, unaware that others
were doing the same. Mann with his hockey stick got the most fame, but he
was just one among many. Computer models, descriptions of the carbon cycle, and
even instrumental temperature records were forged to exaggerate climate
sensitivity to carbon dioxide, to hide past climate variations, to argue that
carbon dioxide release is irreversible, etc. The environmental movement,
encouraging and encouraged by this perversion of science, made global warming
its central theme. And so did many mainstream politicians. Al Gore was the
towering figure among them. He used his two terms as vice president to gut
American science, replacing scientists with environmentalists and lawyers (see
the book Politicizing
Science: The Alchemy of Policymaking, which contains essays by William Happer,
Bernard Cohen, Patrick Michaels, Fred Singer and
other scientists who experienced or witnessed this process). A vicious spiral
developed: alarmist politicians handpicked scientists supporting the alarm,
then they believed their claims, and so it went. A hardened core of
climate alarmism was formed from such politicians and their quasi-scientists.
This core attracted multiple layers of followers, ranging from ordinary profiteers
and leftist extremists to totally innocent duped believers………
The second problem can be
illustrated by the words of former Senator Timothy Wirth, which he said no
later than 1993: "We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the
theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing, in terms
of economic policy and environmental policy." Too bad he did not ask where the ride was heading and who
was at the wheel. The result was that many liberal or left-leaning
institutions, including the whole Democratic Party, hitched themselves to the
hostile agendas of the UN and
European Greens. Timothy Wirth became the Chairman of the UN Foundation.
Unable to get off this hellish ride, some of his allies effectively became
tools of foreign governments and NGOs. An example of such behavior at the
highest level is the joint
climate change statement with China, in which the U.S. promised to
decrease carbon dioxide emissions, while China promised to increase them! This
document was signed by Obama and praised by the formerly mainstream media as a
When their less committed
followers, including Democrat congresspersons, Senators, editors of major media
outlets, liberal billionaires etc., suspect foul play, the alarmist core throws
a fit and demands that they stop thinking, acting, and most of all listening to the “deniers.” Amazingly,
the followers obey, even though some of them are extremely smart and
experienced. Apparently, these people do not notice that the so-called “climate
scientists” have no scientific achievements outside of the insular “climate
science,” and that whatever honors they received were given either by their
non-distinguished peers or by politicized bodies (Heinz Awards, MacArthur
Foundation Awards, etc.). The
“scientific consensus” is not an argument but passive-aggressive
acknowledgement of a lack of arguments, and their allegations of a denial
machine, secretly funded by “fossil fuels,” are just conspiracy theories. The
alleged 97% agreement is closer to election results in the former Soviet Union
than to the opinions of actual scientists.
forecast is not comforting: the alarmist core has no choice but to escalate its
assault on society, and to push its powerful followers (including the Obama
administration) to more and more desperate acts.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/02/the_current_state_of_climate_alarmism.html#ixzz41aWudcU2
posting Study 5, I would like to further explain some of the fundamental
structure of the whole series of CAP and the basic premise behind it.
last 15- 20 years, I have read many books and watched some DVD series on Christian
history and American politics. I have also tried to keep up with social,
cultural, scientific and economic developments. As Christians, we should have a
solid grounding in most of these areas.
So far, I
have brought into play in this CAP series - two books and one DVD. I
periodically draw from each, as I see the topic developing. If I had to select
just one resource which encapsulates most of what I’ve learned and best
expresses it in a readable style, it would be Gary North’s “Unconditional
Surrender” book. In fact, he wrote it because he couldn’t find one which he
could recommend to others.
has become the basic track on which our CAP series will run, in the short term
at least. It is so well organized that we don’t have to read the whole book
from beginning to end chronologically. Each topic has been helpful to me as an
entity unto itself, with an excellent summary and conclusion. Some of you might
want to order it yourself and I would certainly recommend it. The best price I
have found is at American Vision. A free download is also available.
premise behind this book is that we are now living in this phase of the Kingdom
of God, which Jesus began upon His first advent. This is fundamentally in
opposition to what a large percentage of Christians believe. That is why I have
decided to post Mr. North’s Preface to his book.
following is from “Unconditional Surrender”.)
book was born of necessity. In 1980, I was publishing a bi weekly economic
newsletter, Remnant Review, which was sent to people who are interested
in ways of preserving and increasing their capital. In my June 6, 1980 issue, I
wrote about the "Four G’s” in investing: gold, groceries, guns, and God. I
had plenty of recommendations on the first three, but when I came to the
fourth, I got stuck. I wanted
to recommend a good introductory book on the significance of Christianity
for the modern world, and I couldn't think of one. There are books of many
kinds, all dealing with one aspect or another of Christian faith and
worship, but I couldn't think of one that was general, theologically
accurate, comprehensive, and readable.
to bother me. At the time I was publishing seven newsletters - and writing four
of them - so my time was extremely scarce. Furthermore, I ran the Institute for
Christian Economics, and one of my continuing projects was writing a complete
economic commentary on the Bible. Then as now, I spent a minimum of ten hours a
week, fifty weeks per year, on this project. So I knew I didn't have much time
to write a book. At the same time, I became convinced that an introductory book
the job done without ruining my schedule, I decided to write this book, but
with a time limit. That limit was two weeks. I began on July 2, 1980, and I
finished the first draft on July 14. In fact, I even had half a day to spare,
since I finished in the afternoon.
the last book I ever wrote on a typewriter:
an IBM Selectric III. By the end
of the year, I had switched to a word processing program called SSI, which a
year later became WordPerfect. I used
the SSI program that another ministry owned.
I plugged into its minicomputer by means of a wire strung across the
street. In those days, SSI sold for
$7,500, which in today’s money is $20,000.
It ran on a $25,000 used minicomputer, which in today’s money is
$66,000. ICE bought it for me to
use. Mistake! Within a year, it was possible to buy
WordPerfect for $495, and an IBM PC for under $2,000. I had bought too soon! But in just one week, I doubled my
output. No other tool ever accomplished
that in my lifetime.
James Jordan read the manuscript, and he made some important suggestions. I
have included most of them in the final version. Still, the book is basically
the product of two weeks of writing. The entire project took one month: from
start to final draft.
wanted it to be readable.
Complexity makes books unreadable, so I wrote it rapidly: no notes, no outline,
and with only the chapter headings in mind. But I had been studying the Bible
for over twenty years before I began this project. (I used the King James
Version for citations, since most readers own this translation.) With Jordan’s
help, I made major revisions in the chapter on “Man”, in the section dealing
with salvation. I am least happy with this section, since it's more complex
than I had hoped, but I have been unable to figure out a way to make it shorter
or easier. I wanted it to be accurate.
didn't have time to be more thorough. I hope that my approach has at least made
the book readable. Anyone who wants to pursue some of these topics in
greater detail can follow through by reading further. No single handbook can
serve as a final source on the meaning and implications of Christianity.
decided originally to call the book Christianity: What Difference Does It Make? Some
of my associates wanted me to call it Sheer Christianity, a title
reminiscent of C. S. Lewis's Mere Christianity. But I stuck with Unconditional
Surrender, since I think it comes closer to the major themes of this book.
to produce a handbook that
could serve as an introduction to the basics of Christianity, as well as a
study guide for people who are already Christians, but who have never spent much time considering
the social, political, and economic implications of Christianity. It might be thought of as a fat tract. It might be
thought of as a Christian manifesto. My hope is that it will at least be
is divided into three sections. The first section, "Foundations," covers the
fundamentals of orthodox Christianity. These are the religious principles that
set Christianity apart from all other religions. The second section, "Institutions,"
covers the implications of Christianity for the major institutions of human
life. We should expect to find a very different approach in each major
institution from what we would expect to find in non-Christian cultures.
Finally, there is the third section on "Expectations." What should we expect in the future?
How will we implement the principles we found in section one? Do we have time
to develop the institutional base of section two? What is the proper plan of
action? What are we required by God to do?
third edition, published in 1987, I added the chapter on “Time”, and in this edition,
I have added another chapter, “Judgment”. I did this because I recognized that the book
should be structured in terms of the five points of the biblical covenant
model. This five-point structure was the
basis of Ray Sutton’s book, That You May
Prosper: Dominion By Covenant, which the ICE published in 1987. The first three chapters of this book matched
the first three chapters of his.
I knew in 1980 that
this book will inevitably offend everybody. It breaks with most of what we know
as "establishment Christianity." There are many establishment
Christians who think they aren't part of a religious establishment, but they
are. When they read this book, and if they think about what they are reading,
they will either have to reject much of what I conclude in this book or else
they will have to begin to labor long and hard to rethink the religious
principles they have been taught for many years.
Any time a reader
doesn't like what he's reading, he should check his premises. Then he should
check out the documentation I provide. Errors
in any human book are inevitable, but it's a question of reducing errors to a
book breaks with many of the current slogans of Christian churches, yet it
was written in terms of this presupposition: the Bible is the inspired Word
of God. It was perfect in the original manuscripts (autographs). It is because
I believe the Bible is inspired with respect to both its historical data and
its theological judgments, that I decided to write this book. I am convinced
that much of what passes for conservative Christianity in the early
twenty-first century is neither conservative nor Christian.
What I recommend to the
reader is simple to state but difficult to achieve: respect for what the Bible says. Something isn't
Christian because I say it is, but because the Bible says it is. At the same
time, something isn't Christian just because some pastor or some familiar book
says it is. Just because you haven't heard anything like the message this book
presents doesn't mean it isn't an accurate message. You have to make up your
own mind. Tradition is no substitute for personal responsibility. Slogans you
learned in Sunday school may not be what the Bible really teaches. Just because
you may have an outline at the foot of each page in your Bible doesn't
guarantee that the text of the Bible teaches what's in those footnotes. You have
to decide, not in terms of what men say, but what the Bible says.
America, Donald Trump — who many of the experts thought had no chance — is
dominating the polls. In Britain, meanwhile, much of the public seems to be
mobilizing in favor of exiting the troubled European Union — a British Exit, or
Writing in The Spectator, Brendan O’Neill puts this down to a class revolt on
both sides of the Atlantic. And he’s right as far as he goes, but I think
there’s more than just a class revolt. I think there’s also a developing preference
cascade. O’Neill writes: “In both Middle America and Middle England, among both
rednecks and chavs, voters who have had more than they can stomach of being
patronised, nudged, nagged and basically treated as diseased bodies to be
corrected rather than lively minds to be engaged are now putting their hope
into a different kind of politics. And the entitled Third Way brigade, schooled
to rule, believing themselves possessed of a technocratic expertise that trumps
the little people’s vulgar political convictions, are not happy. Not one bit.”
Well, that’s certainly true. Both America and Britain have developed a ruling
class that is increasingly insular and removed from — and contemptuous of — the
people it deigns to rule. The ruled are now returning the contempt.
Prechter predicted this more than a decade ago. It's also happening in other
European countries. This
is what happens when the social mood changes. The blithe, mindless optimism
that permits the populace to be used and abused by the financial elite is gone.
People are seeing more clearly now, and they are beginning to recognize what
was done to them, and by whom.
There will be a reckoning. There
will be many reckonings. And unfortunately, not all of them will be pretty, or
When the tide goes out, it's easy to see who was naked all along.
“Coming up next we have retired Air Force
lieutenant general Tom McInerney, financial analyst Ross Gerber, and a
housewife from Nebraska named Pam.” Why don’t we ever see that on the news? I’m
serious. Housewives make up almost a third of American moms and that is a massive
piece of the voting puzzle. After all, it was the female vote that got Obama elected.
I’m not sure why so many of them voted for him. He thinks they’re losers.
“Sometimes, someone, usually Mom, leaves the workplace to stay home with the
kids,” he said in a Rhode Island speech last year, “and that’s not a choice we want
Americans to make.” This isn’t an unusual sentiment. I’ve seen women who answer
the “What do you do?” question with “I’m a stay-at-home mom” being met with
looks of disappointment as if they had replied, “Nothing.” Top Manager in
Charge of Ad Buying is just spending someone else’s money on something that
probably doesn’t work, but it garners a helluva lot more respect than Creator
of Human Life Who Then Shapes Said Lives. When Mitt Romney cited his
stay-at-home spouse as an example of a housewife who cares about politics, a
snarky “Democratic strategist” insisted Ann had
“never worked a day in her life.” The implication being, housewives are too
stupid to understand economics. On the contrary, they are far more invested
than Rachel Maddow……
(Full text at link below)
go to the doctor to get fillers and liposuction. Moms go because their son
smashed his head on the coffee table and needs stitches. The latter experience
is what matters to Americans when it comes to health care. Education gobbles up
more money every year while test scores stay the same. Pundits have to research
this, but housewives have been watching this happen from their eldest to their
youngest. They volunteer in the library and see the books devoted to
entertainers and sports stars. It was the mothers at my kid’s previous school
who discovered a massive room full of brand-new musical instruments covered in
dust. Antifeminists such as Dana Loesch and Lydia Lovric arrived
at this headspace after seeing their sons chastised for being boys. Sure, I get a little
worried about a mom being irrational about guns, but moms are also very
protective and guns protect. Just ask Dana.
these are all examples of anecdotal evidence. But I’m not talking about one day
with one housewife. I’m talking about making them an integral part of the
conversation. There are more housewives than there are blacks. Where’s their
voice? More moms are staying at
home than ever, and Americans agree that it’s a
good thing. Moms sway elections and do the vast majority of
buying for the family. Pundits are amusing and they’ve practiced the art of
cramming info into a small sound bite, but if we’re talking about experts, we
ought to include the people on the front line. The irony is, few can be
bothered. While we spend hours on TV arguing about what’s best for them,
they’re too busy actually doing it.
most of these wealthy socialists acted through their privileged group called
the Club of Rome. The Club was formed in 1968 at David Rockefeller’s estate in
Bellagio, Italy. In their 1994 book The
First Global Revolution Alexander
King and Bertrand Schneider wrote.
“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new
enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of
global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All
these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed
attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is
claim the list of enemies is designed to unite people. In fact, it is needed to
overcome what they see as the divisiveness of nation-states and to justify the
establishment of one-world government or global socialism. They believe that
global warming is a global problem that national governments cannot resolve.
The changed behavior they want is for all to become socialists.
They finally settled on global
warming as the environmental issue best suited for their goal. Of course, the
plan was just the beginning. One of my favorite cartoons from theNew Yorker showed Moses on the mountain with
the Ten Commandments. The caption read “Great
idea, who is going to fund it?” Global
warming and the identification of human produced CO2 as the problem suited all
the political, financial, and pseudo-religious controls a socialist group could
Kyoto Protocol was presented as a solution to the problem of human-caused
global warming. Those who
created the Protocol also created the problem. Through the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) they produced the science
required to support their claim. It is a well-thought out, well-planned,
classic circular argument. One of the early examples occurred in the book Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment co-authored by Paul
and Anne Ehrlich and President Obama’s current Science Advisor John Holdren. While discussing the non-existent
problem of overpopulation they wrote,
Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control
laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained
under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently
severe to endanger the society.
The question is who “concluded that compulsory
population-control” could be
sustained? The answer is the authors did. The next question is who decides “if
the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society?” Again, it is the authors. So, they
claim there is a problem, then they decide when it is severe enough to warrant
complete suspension of legal controls against such totalitarianism.
succinctly, they created the problem, created the proof of the problem, then
offered the solution. This is what was done with the
AGW claim. They assumed,
incorrectly, that a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase. They
then provided proof by programming computer models in which a CO2 increase
caused a temperature increase. They ran the model(s) by doubling CO2, ceteris paribus. The results showed a temperature
increase, which proved their claim. Now they could use CO2 as the lever
for all their political objectives incorporated into the Kyoto Protocol.
Science became the basis of blind faith.
Remember when it was the mostest importantest election
ever and it was vital that disappointed conservatives and libertarians rally
around the Republican nominee? Yeah, well, it seemed those who appealed to
party loyalty to get the disaffected right to vote for Bush, Dole, Bush,
McCain, and Romney are suddenly singing
a very different tune now
that it is becoming apparent that Donald Trump is going to be the nominee:
donors have engaged a major GOP consulting firm in Florida to research the
feasibility of mounting a late, independent run for president amid growing
fears that Donald Trump could win the Republican nomination.
A memo prepared for the group zeroes in on ballot access as a looming obstacle
for any independent candidate, along with actually identifying a viable, widely
known contender and coalescing financial support for that person. The two
states with the earliest deadlines for independent candidates, Texas and North
Carolina, also have some of the highest hurdles for independents to get on the
ballot, according to the research.
“All this research has to happen before March 16, when inevitably Trump is the
nominee, so that we have a plan in place," a source familiar with the
discussions said. March 16 is the day after the GOP primary in Florida, a
winner-take-all contest that Marco Rubio supporters have identified as a
must-win to stop Trump's early momentum.
I wish I could say that I'm even a little bit
surprised. But I'm not. It is rather funny, though, that the rules the
moderates installed to permit a Romney clone to keep out the Ronulans are going
to seal Trump's victory sooner rather than later.
Never trust a moderate. Never permit a
moderate in a position of leadership. And the moment he snipes at you, treat
him exactly like you would treat an enemy taking a shot at you.
Surprisingly, Scalia gave some advice on
his own replacement in this summer’s controversial Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme
Court decision. And now, as Justice Scalia lies in repose Scalia’s insightful words ring true that a
diverse Supreme Court should benefit—and represent—all Americans.
Justice Scalia left the nation a virtual
legal memo with some unexpected advice on qualities we should look for in a
future successor on the nation’s highest court, mainly religious, educational
and geographic diversity. In Justice Scalia’s strongly worded dissent in last
year’s Obergefell-Hodges decision, which mandated same-sex marriage in all 50
states, Justice Scalia said the following: “To allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be
considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel
of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation
without representation: no social transformation without representation.”
Justice Scalia mean? Well, the current Court, prior to Justice Scalia’s death,
consisted of nine justices; four of the justices were from New York City, and
if you count Justice Alito from suburban New York and New Jersey, five of the
justices come from greater New York. Of
the other four, two were from California—Kennedy and Breyer—and one was from
Georgia—Thomas—with just one justice, Chief Justice Roberts, from the vast
Midwest of the United States.
Educationally, there are more common
threads—four went to Harvard, three to Yale, one to Cornell and one to
Stanford, and three received their undergraduate degrees from Princeton.
And this lack of diversity doesn’t stop
there. Justice Scalia also
explained in his dissent that the Supreme Court had “not a single Evangelical
Christian, a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans, or even a
Protestant of any denomination.” Before Scalia’s death, six Catholics
and three Jews made up the court. Such an elitist group of judges, Scalia
argued, was very likely to be dangerously out of step with the broader culture
of the country they seek to serve. Indeed.
Justice Scalia did not believe that the Supreme
Court should legislate from the bench. His point, however, was that if they were going to insist
on legislating from the bench, they needed to be far more representative of the
country religiously, educationally and geographically.
The rise of figures like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump isn't the
cause; it's the symptom
Step back from the campaign fray for just a moment and consider
the enormity of what’s already occurred.
A 74-year-old Jew from Vermont who describes himself as a
democratic socialist, who wasn’t even a Democrat until recently, has come
within a whisker of beating Hillary Clinton in the Iowa caucus, routed her in
the New Hampshire primary, and garnered over 47 percent of the caucus-goers in
Nevada, of all places.
And a 69-year-old billionaire who has never held elective office
or had anything to do with the Republican Party has taken a commanding lead in
the Republican primaries.
Something very big has
happened, and it’s not due to Bernie Sanders’ magnetism or Donald Trump’s
It’s a rebellion against
The question is why the
establishment has been so slow to see this. A year ago – which now seems like
an eternity – it proclaimed Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush shoe-ins.
Both had all the advantages –
deep bases of funders, well-established networks of political insiders,
experienced political advisors, all the name recognition you could want.
But even now that Bush is out and Hillary is still leading but
vulnerable, the establishment still doesn’t see what’s occurred. They explain
everything by pointing to weaknesses: Bush, they now say, “never connected”
and Hillary “has a trust problem.”
A respected political insider recently told me most Americans are
largely content. “The economy is in good shape,” he said. “Most Americans are
better off than they’ve been in years. The problem has been the major
Economic indicators may be up
but they don’t reflect the economic insecurity most Americans still feel, nor
the seeming arbitrariness and unfairness they experience.
Nor do the major indicators
show the linkages Americans see between wealth and power, crony capitalism,
declining real wages, soaring CEO pay, and a billionaire class that’s turning
our democracy into an oligarchy.
Median family income lower now
than it was sixteen years ago, adjusted for inflation.
gains, meanwhile, have gone to top.
These gains have translated into political power to rig the system
with bank bailouts, corporate subsidies, special tax loopholes, trade deals,
and increasing market power – all of which have further pushed down wages
pulled up profits.
democracy doesn’t work
In what ways does democracy fail?
First, as noted above, many people vote as an expressive act. The typical Obama
voter knew nothing of his policies, but wanted to be “part” of “something”.
There are all sorts of cultural and emotional connotations associated with Team
Pepsi, and people want to affiliate themselves with those signals. Team Coke is
no better: many Republican voters are in favor of a culture of God, Flag, and
Apple Pie, and cast a vote for the GOP as an expressive act, without knowing or
caring the actual positions of the candidates they vote for.
Second, we are rationally ignorant: even if every voter chose to vote based on
policy, not emotions, our individual contribution to the outcome of an election
is insanely close to zero, and — at some level — we all know this. Thus, almost
none of us bothers to educate ourselves about the candidates and their
positions. This is, individually, a smart choice.
Third, democracy has the principal-agent problem: we voters send politicians to
Washington DC for — well, for whatever purposes we have. We hope that, once
there, they will do our bidding…and we expect to motivate them to do that
bidding by using the threat of our future votes and future campaign donations.
But a lot is hidden in that “voters hope to motivate them”. Because voters
don’t have time or inclination to monitor politicians, and because they tend to
vote for expressive purposes rather than policy purposes (think of all the
anti-war Democrats who support Obama and his various undeclared overseas wars),
politicians need only do just enough to appear to serve the voters, while
actually pursuing their own policies.
Fourth, we humans are hyperbolic discounters. Given the promise of
one marshmallow now over two in five minutes, we choose the one now. Is it any
surprise that we, en masse, repeatedly vote for the politicians who promise us
bread and circuses today, and a bill that won’t come due for … a while?
Fifth, democracy has the public choice problem. There are many
issues which affect each of us very little — ten cents per person in extra
taxes for program X, or three dollars per person more in the price of a
commodity because of trade barrier Y, or a slight bit of extra hassle in doing
thing Z. These hassles, collectively, destroy a lot of value in our lives, but
individually, harm us very little. However, these small barnacles did not
randomly accrete on the body politic — each is placed there by the dedicated
lobbying of some group that benefitsquite a lot from the tax,
regulation, or trade barrier. Ethanol in our gasoline harms all of us a little,
but helps a small influential group quite a lot. The outrageous salaries of
some tenured public school teachers harms all of us a little, but helps a small
influential group quite a lot. As long as one small group benefits from a
regulation, they will be motivated to secure an outsized influence on
politicians. And they will succeed.
However, I would note it should be kept in mind
that what the author means by "democracy" here is
"representative democracy" and not genuine direct democracy of the
sort practiced in Greece, US state referendums, and European national
referendums of the sort in which Great Britain is presently engaged. But
regardless, a very good article.
My opinion, as I have previously expressed, is
that the problems of "mob rule" of which the Founders so famously
warned have proven to be considerably fewer and less problematic than the
problems of establishing a political elite that uses the illusion of democratic
approval as a protective shield. Now that technology makes it viable for larger
polities, direct democracy is a moral imperative in any society with a
government that is justified by the will of the people.
migration is one of two things; a humanitarian crisis or the second wave of
imperial Islam, a cultural blitzkrieg. Neither Europe nor America can decide
which. Impaled on a moral dilemma of their own making, Brussels and Washington
have accepted open borders by default. Concurrently, there are few open
borders in the Ummah. Trump says that un-vetted Muslim immigration is an evolving disaster.
If national sovereignty and national security are still virtues, he is correct.
A hiatus on Muslim immigration pending
rigorous vetting and improved border control facilities is simple common sense.
Acknowledged or not, the Islamic world is the nexus of modern global
instability. Chaos, terror, sedition, and religious fascism are now Islam’s
primary cultural exports.
The Ummah problem
is both jihad and religious ideology. Islam is at war with the world, but only
ayatollahs, imams, and gadflies like Netanyahu and Trump seem to acknowledge
Trump often obscures intimations of policy with bombast, bad manners, and broad
strokes. Fortunately, Trump is running for commander-in-chief, not Secretary of
State. He defends the absence of specifics so as not to telegraph his punches.
Indeed, the telegraphed punch has become a battle standard of hapless Team
Obama in the Levant and South Asia. If Trump does nothing else in 2016, his
broad policy strokes may herald a pragmatic and much needed revolution in 21st Century
American foreign/military affairs.
the ship of state must come about before it can fire for effect. Policy wonks
can wait for the details.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2016/02/revolution_in_2016_sanders_or_trump.html#ixzz41CK6s9nI