Shelby Steel has an interesting take on Obama and how he's governing...as a transformer and redeemer. He sees America not as exceptional but as needing of transformation and redemption for all our evils. But that is not the America I know. Even with our warts and mistakes America and Americans is and are good and have been a force for positive change in the world. That cannot be denied however one wants to bend and twist history. America is a force for good and everything that is decent in this modern world. And on Tuesday we the people are poised to prove that that is what we believe and what we stand for.
Whether or not the Republicans win big next week, it is already clear that the "transformative" aspirations of the Obama presidency—the special promise of this first black president to "change" us into a better society—are much less likely to materialize. There will be enough Republican gains to make the "no" in the "party of no" even more formidable, if not definitive.
But apart from this politics of numbers, there is also now a deepening disenchantment with Barack Obama himself. (He has a meager 37% approval rating by the latest Harris poll.) His embarrassed supporters console themselves that their intentions were good; their vote helped make history. But for Mr. Obama himself there is no road back to the charisma and political capital he enjoyed on his inauguration day.
How is it that Barack Obama could step into the presidency with an air of inevitability and then, in less than two years, find himself unwelcome at the campaign rallies of many of his fellow Democrats?
The first answer is well-known: His policymaking has been grandiose, thoughtless and bullying. His health-care bill was ambitious to the point of destructiveness and, finally, so chaotic that today no citizen knows where they stand in relation to it. His financial-reform bill seems little more than a short-sighted scapegoating of Wall Street. In foreign policy he has failed to articulate a role for America in the world. We don't know why we do what we do in foreign affairs. George W. Bush at least made a valiant stab at an American rationale—democratization—but with Mr. Obama there is nothing.
...But Barack Obama is not an "other" so much as he is a child of the 1960s. His coming of age paralleled exactly the unfolding of a new "counterculture" American identity. And this new American identity—and the post-1960s liberalism it spawned—is grounded in a remarkable irony: bad faith in America as virtue itself, bad faith in the classic American identity of constitutional freedom and capitalism as the way to a better America. So Mr. Obama is very definitely an American, and he has a broad American constituency. He is simply the first president we have seen grounded in this counterculture American identity. When he bows to foreign leaders, he is not displaying "otherness" but the counterculture Americanism of honorable self-effacement in which America acknowledges its own capacity for evil as prelude to engagement.
Bad faith in America became virtuous in the '60s when America finally acknowledged so many of its flagrant hypocrisies: the segregation of blacks, the suppression of women, the exploitation of other minorities, the "imperialism" of the Vietnam War, the indifference to the environment, the hypocrisy of puritanical sexual mores and so on. The compounding of all these hypocrisies added up to the crowning idea of the '60s: that America was characterologically evil. Thus the only way back to decency and moral authority was through bad faith in America and its institutions, through the presumption that evil was America's natural default position...
"Hope and Change" positioned Mr. Obama as a conduit between an old America worn down by its evil inclinations and a new America redeemed of those inclinations. There was no vision of the future in "Hope and Change." It is an expression of bad faith in America, but its great ingenuity was to turn that bad faith into political motivation, into votes.
But there is a limit to bad faith as power, and Mr. Obama and the Democratic Party may have now reached that limit. The great weakness of bad faith is that it disallows American exceptionalism as a rationale for power. It puts Mr. Obama and the Democrats in the position of forever redeeming a fallen nation, rather than leading a great nation. They bet on America's characterological evil and not on her sense of fairness, generosity or ingenuity.
When bad faith is your framework (Michelle Obama never being proud of her country until it supported her husband), then you become more a national scold than a real leader. You lead out of a feeling that your opposition is really only the latest incarnation of that old characterological evil that you always knew was there. Thus the tea party—despite all the evidence to the contrary—is seen as racist and bigoted.
But isn't the tea party, on some level, a reaction to a president who seems not to fully trust the fundamental decency of the American people? Doesn't the tea party fill a void left open by Mr. Obama's ethos of bad faith? Aren't tea partiers, and their many fellow travelers, simply saying that American exceptionalism isn't racism? And if the mainstream media see tea partiers as bumpkins and racists, isn't this just more bad faith—characterizing people as ignorant or evil so as to dismiss them?
Our great presidents have been stewards, men who broadly identified with the whole of America. Stewardship meant responsibility even for those segments of America where one might be reviled. Surely Mr. Obama would claim such stewardship. But he has functioned more as a redeemer than a steward, a leader who sees a badness in us from which we must be redeemed. Many Americans are afraid of this because a mandate as grandiose as redemption justifies a vast expansion of government. A redeemer can't just tweak and guide a faltering economy; he will need a trillion- dollar stimulus package. He can't take on health care a step at a time; he must do it all at once, finally mandating that every citizen buy in.
Next week's election is, among other things, a referendum on the idea of president-as- redeemer. We have a president so determined to transform and redeem us from what we are that, by his own words, he is willing to risk being a one-term president. People now wonder if Barack Obama can pivot back to the center like Bill Clinton did after his set-back in '94. But Mr. Clinton was already a steward, a policy wonk, a man of the center. Mr. Obama has to change archetypes. READ AT WSJ
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Monday, October 25, 2010
It's Not Extremist Muslims-It's The Everyday Muslims
Maybe our television commentators should know what they are talking about. Take the example of the latest blow up on the small screen. Two women who know nothing about what they are talking about - most of the time - blew up and walked out on O'Reilly who was a guest on their "The View" show. Why? Because he dared utter that Muslims did 9/11 and did not say "extremists". Let's get one thing straight. The Muslim religion demands Jihad from all Muslims. It is part of their religion. While the West has tamed Cristianity, Muslims have NOT tamed their religion. It is part of their duty to do Jihad.
A shocking statistic states that some 43,000 people have been murdered worldwide by about 17,000 Jihadists. That is a slaughter and the West is not doing enough to squelch this scourge. Los Angeles Times national correspondent Terry McDermott writes the following at Investors.com
Islamofascism: O'Reilly, Whoopi and Joy are all wrong. The 9/11 terrorists weren't "Muslim extremists" or just plain "Muslims." A liberal newspaper reporter says they were model Muslims.
More precisely, they were "perfect soldiers" for Allah, says Los Angeles Times national correspondent Terry McDermott.
He would know. After traveling to the hometowns of the Muslim hijackers and investigating their family backgrounds, McDermott discovered they were not heretics or even "extremists," but in fact good, pious Muslims. And their families and communities encouraged them to join the never-ending Islamic holy war, or jihad, against us.
The lefties at NPR who fired analyst Juan Williams and the cackling hens on "The View" who walked out on his Fox colleague Bill O'Reilly would benefit enormously from reading his book, "Perfect Soldiers: The Hijackers: Who They Were, Why They Did It." It would open their PC-encrusted eyes to a truth that is already self-evident to most Americans.
The detail-rich book — which is endorsed by anti-war gadfly Seymour Hersh, no less — reveals that the 19 hijackers did not "hijack Islam," as conventional East Coast wisdom would have it. They weren't career criminals using the religion as an excuse to wantonly murder people. Nor were they misled into martyrdom by Osama bin Laden or other Svengali personalities.
On the contrary, they were deeply religious Muslims following the tenets of their faith, McDermott found. Most of them were from well-off families.
"Several were described as among the best boys — bright, respectful — in their towns," he reports in his book. "Many had gone to university," he adds. "Three had studied Islamic law." At least one, Ahmed al-Haznawi, had memorized the Quran, a sign of deep devotion much respected by Muslim elders. In fact, he earned the honorary religious title of "hafiz" at a young age.
McDermott describes how another hijacker, Wail al-Shehri left home to train for jihad in Afghanistan after a long period of recitation of Quranic verses. He had the approval of a local imam.
But he wasn't the only one who knew what they were planning. "Two-thirds of them told their families they were leaving to join the jihad," McDermott writes, adding that their families did not discourage them. "They went where they were called by their religion."
That's not the story we heard after 9/11. In media interviews, the parents of the hijackers expressed shock about the deeds of their sons. We must have the wrong men, they insisted. Their boys could never do such a thing. Jihad? What jihad?
Take Egyptian Mohamed el-Amir, father of 9/11 ringleader Mohamed Atta. Right after 9/11, he denied knowing anything about his son's activities. Then in 2005, after the London bombings, he confided to a CNN producer in his apartment in the upper-class Cairo suburb of Giza that his son had done a good thing and that the London suicide bombers were following in his footsteps. He said all this was just the start of a 50-year religious war, and that there would be many more fighters like his son.
El-Amir, a "skilled lawyer" by McDermott's account, declared that terror cells around the world were a "nuclear bomb that has now been activated and is ticking." He passionately vowed that he would do anything within his power to encourage more attacks.
Instead of mouthing tolerant-sounding platitudes and misleading their audiences about the true nature of the threat we still face, Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar and NPR's executives should educate themselves. They can start with McDermott's "Perfect Soldiers," which punctures the politically correct mythology surrounding 9/11.
A shocking statistic states that some 43,000 people have been murdered worldwide by about 17,000 Jihadists. That is a slaughter and the West is not doing enough to squelch this scourge. Los Angeles Times national correspondent Terry McDermott writes the following at Investors.com
Islamofascism: O'Reilly, Whoopi and Joy are all wrong. The 9/11 terrorists weren't "Muslim extremists" or just plain "Muslims." A liberal newspaper reporter says they were model Muslims.
More precisely, they were "perfect soldiers" for Allah, says Los Angeles Times national correspondent Terry McDermott.
He would know. After traveling to the hometowns of the Muslim hijackers and investigating their family backgrounds, McDermott discovered they were not heretics or even "extremists," but in fact good, pious Muslims. And their families and communities encouraged them to join the never-ending Islamic holy war, or jihad, against us.
The lefties at NPR who fired analyst Juan Williams and the cackling hens on "The View" who walked out on his Fox colleague Bill O'Reilly would benefit enormously from reading his book, "Perfect Soldiers: The Hijackers: Who They Were, Why They Did It." It would open their PC-encrusted eyes to a truth that is already self-evident to most Americans.
The detail-rich book — which is endorsed by anti-war gadfly Seymour Hersh, no less — reveals that the 19 hijackers did not "hijack Islam," as conventional East Coast wisdom would have it. They weren't career criminals using the religion as an excuse to wantonly murder people. Nor were they misled into martyrdom by Osama bin Laden or other Svengali personalities.
On the contrary, they were deeply religious Muslims following the tenets of their faith, McDermott found. Most of them were from well-off families.
"Several were described as among the best boys — bright, respectful — in their towns," he reports in his book. "Many had gone to university," he adds. "Three had studied Islamic law." At least one, Ahmed al-Haznawi, had memorized the Quran, a sign of deep devotion much respected by Muslim elders. In fact, he earned the honorary religious title of "hafiz" at a young age.
McDermott describes how another hijacker, Wail al-Shehri left home to train for jihad in Afghanistan after a long period of recitation of Quranic verses. He had the approval of a local imam.
But he wasn't the only one who knew what they were planning. "Two-thirds of them told their families they were leaving to join the jihad," McDermott writes, adding that their families did not discourage them. "They went where they were called by their religion."
That's not the story we heard after 9/11. In media interviews, the parents of the hijackers expressed shock about the deeds of their sons. We must have the wrong men, they insisted. Their boys could never do such a thing. Jihad? What jihad?
Take Egyptian Mohamed el-Amir, father of 9/11 ringleader Mohamed Atta. Right after 9/11, he denied knowing anything about his son's activities. Then in 2005, after the London bombings, he confided to a CNN producer in his apartment in the upper-class Cairo suburb of Giza that his son had done a good thing and that the London suicide bombers were following in his footsteps. He said all this was just the start of a 50-year religious war, and that there would be many more fighters like his son.
El-Amir, a "skilled lawyer" by McDermott's account, declared that terror cells around the world were a "nuclear bomb that has now been activated and is ticking." He passionately vowed that he would do anything within his power to encourage more attacks.
Instead of mouthing tolerant-sounding platitudes and misleading their audiences about the true nature of the threat we still face, Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar and NPR's executives should educate themselves. They can start with McDermott's "Perfect Soldiers," which punctures the politically correct mythology surrounding 9/11.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Is Our Science Getting "Sovietized"?
Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Here is his letter of resignation to Curtis G. Callan Jr, Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society.
Dear Curt:
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?
How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:
1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate
2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.
3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.
4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.<
5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.
6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.
APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?
I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.
I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.
Hal
Dear Curt:
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago). Indeed, the choice of physics as a profession was then a guarantor of a life of poverty and abstinence—it was World War II that changed all that. The prospect of worldly gain drove few physicists. As recently as thirty-five years ago, when I chaired the first APS study of a contentious social/scientific issue, The Reactor Safety Study, though there were zealots aplenty on the outside there was no hint of inordinate pressure on us as physicists. We were therefore able to produce what I believe was and is an honest appraisal of the situation at that time. We were further enabled by the presence of an oversight committee consisting of Pief Panofsky, Vicki Weisskopf, and Hans Bethe, all towering physicists beyond reproach. I was proud of what we did in a charged atmosphere. In the end the oversight committee, in its report to the APS President, noted the complete independence in which we did the job, and predicted that the report would be attacked from both sides. What greater tribute could there be?
How different it is now. The giants no longer walk the earth, and the money flood has become the raison d’être of much physics research, the vital sustenance of much more, and it provides the support for untold numbers of professional jobs. For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:
1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate
2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety. (They did admit that the tone was a bit strong, but amazingly kept the poison word incontrovertible to describe the evidence, a position supported by no one.) In the end, the Council kept the original statement, word for word, but approved a far longer “explanatory” screed, admitting that there were uncertainties, but brushing them aside to give blanket approval to the original. The original Statement, which still stands as the APS position, also contains what I consider pompous and asinine advice to all world governments, as if the APS were master of the universe. It is not, and I am embarrassed that our leaders seem to think it is. This is not fun and games, these are serious matters involving vast fractions of our national substance, and the reputation of the Society as a scientific society is at stake.
3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.
4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all, and also a contribution to the nation. I might note that it was not easy to collect the signatures, since you denied us the use of the APS membership list. We conformed in every way with the requirements of the APS Constitution, and described in great detail what we had in mind—simply to bring the subject into the open.<
5. To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members’ interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment. You did ask the members if they would sign a petition to form a TG on your yet-to-be-defined subject, but provided no petition, and got lots of affirmative responses. (If you had asked about sex you would have gotten more expressions of interest.) There was of course no such petition or proposal, and you have now dropped the Environment part, so the whole matter is moot. (Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot collect signatures on a vague petition, and then fill in whatever you like.) The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council.
6. As of now you have formed still another secret and stacked committee to organize your own TG, simply ignoring our lawful petition.
APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?
I do feel the need to add one note, and this is conjecture, since it is always risky to discuss other people’s motives. This scheming at APS HQ is so bizarre that there cannot be a simple explanation for it. Some have held that the physicists of today are not as smart as they used to be, but I don’t think that is an issue. I think it is the money, exactly what Eisenhower warned about a half-century ago. There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst. When Penn State absolved Mike Mann of wrongdoing, and the University of East Anglia did the same for Phil Jones, they cannot have been unaware of the financial penalty for doing otherwise. As the old saying goes, you don’t have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. Since I am no philosopher, I’m not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.
I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me, but I hope we are still friends.
Hal
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
The Day Of Reckoning - November 2, 2010
November has to be a referendum on FREEDOM! Freedom from government messing with our lives and our futures. Get out of our lives and leave us alone ....Here is an essay by Rob Tracinski at "The Intellectual Activist".
Time to Show the Democrats Who's Boss
by Robert Tracinski
With only two weeks left until November 2, it's time to give my official election recommendation.
For regular readers, there will hardly be any suspense about what I'm going to say. I advocate a straight Republican vote, across the board. It is imperative to vote the Democrats out of power and to do so by a historic margin, as a sweeping and unmistakable national repudiation.
November 2 is not just an election day. It is a day of reckoning.
The Democratic Party faces a reckoning for using the financial crisis as a pretext for a government takeover of the economy and for the exercise of raw, unchecked, arbitrary power. It faces a reckoning for spending trillions of dollars of money we haven't even earned yet on a wish-list of big-government programs and paybacks to the public employees' unions. It faces a reckoning for engineering the government takeover of whole industries and for expropriating the rights of bond-holders in order to favor the interests of unions. It faces a reckoning for acting as if there are no constitutional limits on government power, as if they can do anything they like to us so long as they tell us it's for the "general welfare."
The Democratic Party faces a reckoning for not being "shovel-ready"—for being effective only at preventing private economic activity—for enacting, in the first weeks of the new Congress, a stimulus bill that swiftly succeeded in bankrupting the country, but which failed to stimulate anything other than the bloated pensions of state employees and the six-figure incomes of federal bureaucrats.
And most of all, it faces a reckoning for passing a trillion-dollar takeover of our health care against our will and over our loudly expressed objections.
The Democratic Party faces a reckoning for showing contempt for the governed—for telling us that they had to pass the bill so that we could find out what was in it, as if we were too stupid to analyze it for ourselves—for smearing ideological opponents as racists—for regarding all the bitter clingers in flyover country as mentally defective because, in the words of President Obama, they're "hard-wired not to always think clearly" when the issues get too difficult for their poor little heads.
The Democrats face a reckoning for trying to revive the basic principle of aristocracy: the idea that there is a small elite in the nation's capital who know better than us how we ought to work and think and who are therefore entitled to run our lives and spend our money.
This is what needs to be repudiated. If the Democrats are allowed to keep control of Congress after so openly defying the will of the American people, then they will be emboldened to initiate a new and even broader round of assaults on our liberty. And at this point, with expectations high for Republican gains, if Democrats lose control of Congress by a small margin, they will think they got a reprieve and they may be motivated to cling to their agenda for the final two years of Obama's presidency.
They need to be shown who's boss. They need to taught, in a way they will remember for decades, that they answer to the people. We need a Democratic loss that will go down in the history books, one that will stun even the most pessimistic Democrats. They have to realize they are up against a broad historical movement and not just a temporary off-year protest against incumbents.
We need to make this election into the opening shot of a second American Revolution.
This is why I'm offering my recommendation two weeks before election, because it is important not just to vote for Republican and against Democrats. It is important to make November's victory as big as possible by doing whatever you can to aid Republican congressional campaigns. There is still time for your campaign donations to make a difference in close races, and now is the perfect time to offer your services as a volunteer, particularly for the "get out the vote" operation. We need to bring as many pro-liberty voters to the polls as possible, to ensure a massive advantage in turnout that buries the Democrats.
This is also no time for third-party protest candidates. If you want to send a message to the Republican Party to reform itself—well, we already had an opportunity in the primaries, and we did a pretty good job of it. We'll get another good opportunity in the 2012 primaries. But now is the time to support your local Republican candidate even if he is uninspiring—because at least he will be susceptible to pressure from the Tea Parties and from pro-liberty voters, whereas the Democrats have demonstrated that they will simply ignore us.
And he will be susceptible to pressure from a Tea Party Caucus of small-government radicals in Congress, including a number of congressmen who are influenced by Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged. These are the Republicans—I've profiled many of them in TIA Daily, and I'll continue to do so in the final weeks—who deserve our positive, fully enthusiastic support. One of the ways you can support them is to send them to Congress as part of a strong congressional majority in which they will wield outsized influence.
With a committed leftist still in the White House, it is crucial to have a powerful, radicalized Republican majority in Congress as a counter-balance to the vast arbitrary authority of the modern presidency. We can expect an unrepentant and unreformed President Obama to try to bypass the new Congress, imposing his agenda through the vast authority of executive-branch regulatory agencies. The EPA is already preparing a system of energy rationing more draconian than "cap-and-trade," which they are ready to impose with no specific authorization from Congress. The only thing that can prevent this is a significant effort by the Republicans to reclaim that constitutional authority of Congress. The REINS Act would be a good start.
The issue here is whether there are any limits on government power—whether the Constitution is a limit and whether the consent of the governed in a limit. In the past two years, the Democrats have made their position on constitutional government clear: they are against it. The Republicans are mixed, but their party contains the only Washington contingent of constitutionalists, and they must be put into power.
The best analogy to the current situation is the old story about the frog in a pot of water, who doesn't notice as the heat is gradually turned up until he is boiled alive. President Obama turned up the heat a little too fast, and a lot of voters have suddenly begun to notice: this water is boiling. And they're not going to be content with just turning it down to a low simmer. I think a significant portion of the public has woken up to the fact that we've been losing our liberty for a century and we're on the brink of socialism. The first step is the pull back from the brink, and the next step is to begin pulling back the government to within its narrow constitutional limits.
In that respect, this election not the end of the struggle for liberty. It is the beginning—and let's make it a strong beginning.
Time to Show the Democrats Who's Boss
by Robert Tracinski
With only two weeks left until November 2, it's time to give my official election recommendation.
For regular readers, there will hardly be any suspense about what I'm going to say. I advocate a straight Republican vote, across the board. It is imperative to vote the Democrats out of power and to do so by a historic margin, as a sweeping and unmistakable national repudiation.
November 2 is not just an election day. It is a day of reckoning.
The Democratic Party faces a reckoning for using the financial crisis as a pretext for a government takeover of the economy and for the exercise of raw, unchecked, arbitrary power. It faces a reckoning for spending trillions of dollars of money we haven't even earned yet on a wish-list of big-government programs and paybacks to the public employees' unions. It faces a reckoning for engineering the government takeover of whole industries and for expropriating the rights of bond-holders in order to favor the interests of unions. It faces a reckoning for acting as if there are no constitutional limits on government power, as if they can do anything they like to us so long as they tell us it's for the "general welfare."
The Democratic Party faces a reckoning for not being "shovel-ready"—for being effective only at preventing private economic activity—for enacting, in the first weeks of the new Congress, a stimulus bill that swiftly succeeded in bankrupting the country, but which failed to stimulate anything other than the bloated pensions of state employees and the six-figure incomes of federal bureaucrats.
And most of all, it faces a reckoning for passing a trillion-dollar takeover of our health care against our will and over our loudly expressed objections.
The Democratic Party faces a reckoning for showing contempt for the governed—for telling us that they had to pass the bill so that we could find out what was in it, as if we were too stupid to analyze it for ourselves—for smearing ideological opponents as racists—for regarding all the bitter clingers in flyover country as mentally defective because, in the words of President Obama, they're "hard-wired not to always think clearly" when the issues get too difficult for their poor little heads.
The Democrats face a reckoning for trying to revive the basic principle of aristocracy: the idea that there is a small elite in the nation's capital who know better than us how we ought to work and think and who are therefore entitled to run our lives and spend our money.
This is what needs to be repudiated. If the Democrats are allowed to keep control of Congress after so openly defying the will of the American people, then they will be emboldened to initiate a new and even broader round of assaults on our liberty. And at this point, with expectations high for Republican gains, if Democrats lose control of Congress by a small margin, they will think they got a reprieve and they may be motivated to cling to their agenda for the final two years of Obama's presidency.
They need to be shown who's boss. They need to taught, in a way they will remember for decades, that they answer to the people. We need a Democratic loss that will go down in the history books, one that will stun even the most pessimistic Democrats. They have to realize they are up against a broad historical movement and not just a temporary off-year protest against incumbents.
We need to make this election into the opening shot of a second American Revolution.
This is why I'm offering my recommendation two weeks before election, because it is important not just to vote for Republican and against Democrats. It is important to make November's victory as big as possible by doing whatever you can to aid Republican congressional campaigns. There is still time for your campaign donations to make a difference in close races, and now is the perfect time to offer your services as a volunteer, particularly for the "get out the vote" operation. We need to bring as many pro-liberty voters to the polls as possible, to ensure a massive advantage in turnout that buries the Democrats.
This is also no time for third-party protest candidates. If you want to send a message to the Republican Party to reform itself—well, we already had an opportunity in the primaries, and we did a pretty good job of it. We'll get another good opportunity in the 2012 primaries. But now is the time to support your local Republican candidate even if he is uninspiring—because at least he will be susceptible to pressure from the Tea Parties and from pro-liberty voters, whereas the Democrats have demonstrated that they will simply ignore us.
And he will be susceptible to pressure from a Tea Party Caucus of small-government radicals in Congress, including a number of congressmen who are influenced by Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged. These are the Republicans—I've profiled many of them in TIA Daily, and I'll continue to do so in the final weeks—who deserve our positive, fully enthusiastic support. One of the ways you can support them is to send them to Congress as part of a strong congressional majority in which they will wield outsized influence.
With a committed leftist still in the White House, it is crucial to have a powerful, radicalized Republican majority in Congress as a counter-balance to the vast arbitrary authority of the modern presidency. We can expect an unrepentant and unreformed President Obama to try to bypass the new Congress, imposing his agenda through the vast authority of executive-branch regulatory agencies. The EPA is already preparing a system of energy rationing more draconian than "cap-and-trade," which they are ready to impose with no specific authorization from Congress. The only thing that can prevent this is a significant effort by the Republicans to reclaim that constitutional authority of Congress. The REINS Act would be a good start.
The issue here is whether there are any limits on government power—whether the Constitution is a limit and whether the consent of the governed in a limit. In the past two years, the Democrats have made their position on constitutional government clear: they are against it. The Republicans are mixed, but their party contains the only Washington contingent of constitutionalists, and they must be put into power.
The best analogy to the current situation is the old story about the frog in a pot of water, who doesn't notice as the heat is gradually turned up until he is boiled alive. President Obama turned up the heat a little too fast, and a lot of voters have suddenly begun to notice: this water is boiling. And they're not going to be content with just turning it down to a low simmer. I think a significant portion of the public has woken up to the fact that we've been losing our liberty for a century and we're on the brink of socialism. The first step is the pull back from the brink, and the next step is to begin pulling back the government to within its narrow constitutional limits.
In that respect, this election not the end of the struggle for liberty. It is the beginning—and let's make it a strong beginning.
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Just as Freedom and Prosperity are Linked - Unfreedom and Poverty are Linked as Well
The top 10 countries in economic freedom and prosperity. Are you surprised that America is not in 1st place? Really - you are surprised? Where have you been the last 80 years?
Rank Country Overall Change
1 Hong Kong 89.7 -0.3
2 Singapore 86.1 -1.0
3 Australia 82.6 0.0
4 New Zealand 82.1 0.1
5 Ireland 81.3 -0.9
6 Switzerland 81.1 1.7
7 Canada 80.4 -0.1
8 United States 78.0 -2.7
9 Denmark 77.9 -1.7
10 Chile 77.2 -1.1
View full list »
Rank Country Overall Change
1 Hong Kong 89.7 -0.3
2 Singapore 86.1 -1.0
3 Australia 82.6 0.0
4 New Zealand 82.1 0.1
5 Ireland 81.3 -0.9
6 Switzerland 81.1 1.7
7 Canada 80.4 -0.1
8 United States 78.0 -2.7
9 Denmark 77.9 -1.7
10 Chile 77.2 -1.1
View full list »
Friday, October 15, 2010
An Excellent Analysis of Why Open Borders Work
The Future of Freedom Foundation has done an incredible job explaining to us why open borders work and how closed borders are harming our country and harms any country trying to force people out. Another way of putting this is that America does not belong to anyone in particular - but it does belong to anyone who wants to work and live in freedom. There are two parts to this article and you can find it at THE FUTURE OF FREEDOM FOUNDATION.
Imagine you were born in a part of the country where farming was no longer productive, or in a rust-belt town where the local factories had closed. You hear of good jobs in California and Colorado, so you decide to move. How would you feel if, when you arrived at the state line, you were denied the opportunity of a better life because you happened to have been born in a different state? Welcome to what it is like to be Mexican.
Freedom of movement is one of the most basic human rights, as anyone denied it can confirm. Yet governments obstruct people’s movement across borders in all manner of arbitrary and iniquitous ways. They require that people prove — how? — that their lives are in danger before admitting them. They determine which family members are permitted to join their relatives and which are not; Danes’ non-European spouses cannot come to live with them in Denmark unless both are age 24 or more. Americans’ foreign girlfriends and boyfriends also struggle to gain admission; the rules for foreign pets are laxer. Those seeking to come to work are vetted through a byzantine set of rules and quotas that delight bureaucrats, lawyers, and lobbyists, but deny most people the opportunity to better themselves and do untold damage to the U.S. and global economy.
Immigration controls are generally seen as normal, reasonable, and necessary, but in fact they are economically stupid, politically unsustainable, and morally wrong. For a start, the freedom to leave a country and enter another is the ultimate safeguard against tyranny. Throughout history, emigrating has often meant the difference between life and death: remember the Pilgrims who set sail on the Mayflower, the Huguenots who fled France to take refuge in England, and the Jews who escaped Nazi Germany. In the aftermath of the Second World War, the shameful recognition that governments had conspired to send countless Jews to their deaths by denying them refuge led to their signing on to Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states, “Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.” In practice, though, this right is often honored in the breach.
While it is vitally important that asylum-seekers are able to seek refuge abroad, fear of persecution is not the only legitimate reason that people might want to cross national borders. They might be seeking a better job. They might want to be with the ones they love. They might simply want to experience something different. And why shouldn’t they be able to?
Those fortunate enough to be rich and highly educated take it for granted that they can move around the world more or less as they please. They vacation in Mexico, safari in Africa, even go on trips around the world; they increasingly work abroad for periods of time; and some end up settling elsewhere — like the many Americans who now live in London, and the many Londoners who now live in the United States. Why, then, do we seek to deny this right to others?
Opponents of open borders often respond that Americans aren’t actually free to go where they choose. They point out, correctly, that one needs a visa to go to many countries and that the Chinese government, for instance, may very well deny you one. But why should America be basing its policies on what the Chinese government does? Should the United States deny people freedom of speech because the Chinese government does so? The point about universal human rights is not that they are necessarily universally applied, but that they ought to be. That others fail to apply them is not a reason for the United States to fail to do so too.
Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, “Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own.” But what is the right to leave a country if one cannot enter another? Since even international human-rights law does not give people the right to cross borders freely, the United States should lead by example, by passing a constitutional amendment guaranteeing open borders. READ THE REST - Open Borders Work- part 1
Then read Open Borders Work - Part 2.
Imagine you were born in a part of the country where farming was no longer productive, or in a rust-belt town where the local factories had closed. You hear of good jobs in California and Colorado, so you decide to move. How would you feel if, when you arrived at the state line, you were denied the opportunity of a better life because you happened to have been born in a different state? Welcome to what it is like to be Mexican.
Freedom of movement is one of the most basic human rights, as anyone denied it can confirm. Yet governments obstruct people’s movement across borders in all manner of arbitrary and iniquitous ways. They require that people prove — how? — that their lives are in danger before admitting them. They determine which family members are permitted to join their relatives and which are not; Danes’ non-European spouses cannot come to live with them in Denmark unless both are age 24 or more. Americans’ foreign girlfriends and boyfriends also struggle to gain admission; the rules for foreign pets are laxer. Those seeking to come to work are vetted through a byzantine set of rules and quotas that delight bureaucrats, lawyers, and lobbyists, but deny most people the opportunity to better themselves and do untold damage to the U.S. and global economy.
Immigration controls are generally seen as normal, reasonable, and necessary, but in fact they are economically stupid, politically unsustainable, and morally wrong. For a start, the freedom to leave a country and enter another is the ultimate safeguard against tyranny. Throughout history, emigrating has often meant the difference between life and death: remember the Pilgrims who set sail on the Mayflower, the Huguenots who fled France to take refuge in England, and the Jews who escaped Nazi Germany. In the aftermath of the Second World War, the shameful recognition that governments had conspired to send countless Jews to their deaths by denying them refuge led to their signing on to Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states, “Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.” In practice, though, this right is often honored in the breach.
While it is vitally important that asylum-seekers are able to seek refuge abroad, fear of persecution is not the only legitimate reason that people might want to cross national borders. They might be seeking a better job. They might want to be with the ones they love. They might simply want to experience something different. And why shouldn’t they be able to?
Those fortunate enough to be rich and highly educated take it for granted that they can move around the world more or less as they please. They vacation in Mexico, safari in Africa, even go on trips around the world; they increasingly work abroad for periods of time; and some end up settling elsewhere — like the many Americans who now live in London, and the many Londoners who now live in the United States. Why, then, do we seek to deny this right to others?
Opponents of open borders often respond that Americans aren’t actually free to go where they choose. They point out, correctly, that one needs a visa to go to many countries and that the Chinese government, for instance, may very well deny you one. But why should America be basing its policies on what the Chinese government does? Should the United States deny people freedom of speech because the Chinese government does so? The point about universal human rights is not that they are necessarily universally applied, but that they ought to be. That others fail to apply them is not a reason for the United States to fail to do so too.
Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states, “Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own.” But what is the right to leave a country if one cannot enter another? Since even international human-rights law does not give people the right to cross borders freely, the United States should lead by example, by passing a constitutional amendment guaranteeing open borders. READ THE REST - Open Borders Work- part 1
Then read Open Borders Work - Part 2.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Another Scientist Resigns From the Fraud that is "Global Warming"
TIA's Rob Tracinski reported on the resignation of an eminent physicist from a prestigious scientific society because they upheld the fraudulent Global Warming scam.
Rob writes:
A distinguished older scientist, physicist Hal Lewis, has resigned from the American Physical Society, one of the nation's most prestigious scientific associations, in protest over its support for the global warming hysteria. Lewis's open letter explaining his resignation shows how Climategate has radicalized many scientists, who now see the integrity of science itself as under attack.
Hence, Lewis denounces global warming, not just as an unproven theory, but as a "scam" and a "pseudoscientific fraud"—and as a corruption of science by enormous sums of government money.
Here is the letter, by way of Anthony Watts, who introduces it with only a little bit of hyperbole, "This is an important moment in science history. I would describe it as a letter on the scale of Martin Luther, nailing his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door. It is worthy of repeating this letter in entirety on every blog that discusses science."
"Hal Lewis: My Resignation from The American Physical Society—an Important Moment in Science History," Anthony Watts, Watts Up with That? October 8
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago)....
For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford's book organizes the facts very well.) I don't believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:
1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate
2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety....
3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.
4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all.... To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members' interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment.... The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council....
APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?...
There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst.... Since I am no philosopher, I'm not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.
I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation.
Rob writes:
A distinguished older scientist, physicist Hal Lewis, has resigned from the American Physical Society, one of the nation's most prestigious scientific associations, in protest over its support for the global warming hysteria. Lewis's open letter explaining his resignation shows how Climategate has radicalized many scientists, who now see the integrity of science itself as under attack.
Hence, Lewis denounces global warming, not just as an unproven theory, but as a "scam" and a "pseudoscientific fraud"—and as a corruption of science by enormous sums of government money.
Here is the letter, by way of Anthony Watts, who introduces it with only a little bit of hyperbole, "This is an important moment in science history. I would describe it as a letter on the scale of Martin Luther, nailing his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door. It is worthy of repeating this letter in entirety on every blog that discusses science."
"Hal Lewis: My Resignation from The American Physical Society—an Important Moment in Science History," Anthony Watts, Watts Up with That? October 8
When I first joined the American Physical Society sixty-seven years ago it was much smaller, much gentler, and as yet uncorrupted by the money flood (a threat against which Dwight Eisenhower warned a half-century ago)....
For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford's book organizes the facts very well.) I don't believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist.
So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it. For example:
1. About a year ago a few of us sent an e-mail on the subject to a fraction of the membership. APS ignored the issues, but the then President immediately launched a hostile investigation of where we got the e-mail addresses. In its better days, APS used to encourage discussion of important issues, and indeed the Constitution cites that as its principal purpose. No more. Everything that has been done in the last year has been designed to silence debate
2. The appallingly tendentious APS statement on Climate Change was apparently written in a hurry by a few people over lunch, and is certainly not representative of the talents of APS members as I have long known them. So a few of us petitioned the Council to reconsider it. One of the outstanding marks of (in)distinction in the Statement was the poison word incontrovertible, which describes few items in physics, certainly not this one. In response APS appointed a secret committee that never met, never troubled to speak to any skeptics, yet endorsed the Statement in its entirety....
3. In the interim the ClimateGate scandal broke into the news, and the machinations of the principal alarmists were revealed to the world. It was a fraud on a scale I have never seen, and I lack the words to describe its enormity. Effect on the APS position: none. None at all. This is not science; other forces are at work.
4. So a few of us tried to bring science into the act (that is, after all, the alleged and historic purpose of APS), and collected the necessary 200+ signatures to bring to the Council a proposal for a Topical Group on Climate Science, thinking that open discussion of the scientific issues, in the best tradition of physics, would be beneficial to all.... To our amazement, Constitution be damned, you declined to accept our petition, but instead used your own control of the mailing list to run a poll on the members' interest in a TG on Climate and the Environment.... The entire purpose of this exercise was to avoid your constitutional responsibility to take our petition to the Council....
APS management has gamed the problem from the beginning, to suppress serious conversation about the merits of the climate change claims. Do you wonder that I have lost confidence in the organization?...
There are indeed trillions of dollars involved, to say nothing of the fame and glory (and frequent trips to exotic islands) that go with being a member of the club. Your own Physics Department (of which you are chairman) would lose millions a year if the global warming bubble burst.... Since I am no philosopher, I'm not going to explore at just which point enlightened self-interest crosses the line into corruption, but a careful reading of the ClimateGate releases makes it clear that this is not an academic question.
I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation.
Friday, October 08, 2010
The Constitution Is For Everyone's Use Not Just Judges
For those who do not understand ANYTHING about that document called the Constitution here is an excerpt from TIA by Rob Tracinski. Let's remember that the Constitution is a restraint on government NOT the People.
The most revealing phrase here is Adler's description of any attempt at legislative self-restraint as "an extraconstitutional attempt to limit the powers of Congress." Extraconstitutional? But what does he think the Constitution is for, anyway? The whole purpose of the Constitution is precisely to limit the powers of Congress, and of the government as a whole.
What the left does not want to admit is that the Constitution is a charter for a government of limited powers. It is a constitution for a nation founded on the principles of liberty and individual rights. So the whole purpose of our system is for every branch of government to be limited in as many ways as possible, in order to prevent encroachments on the rights of the people.
The essence of the Constitution is to say, to the people: you may do whatever you want, and government can only interfere with you insofar as it is executing of a small number of specifically defined powers. And to the government, it sends the opposite message: you cannot do whatever you want, but are limited in your powers. And in case you have any doubts about what these limits are, we the people have written down in this document what you are allowed to do and what you are not allowed to do.
The left's view of the Constitution is to turn this on its head. The people are to be extensively regulated in every aspect of their lives—but as to the government, nothing should be interpreted as creating any additional limits on its powers.
Other commentators have already pointed out the concrete meaning of Lithwick's standard of constitutionality: that the legislature should take as much power as it can grab and wait until the Supreme Court slaps its down, on the theory that it's not a crime if you don't get caught. It is a legal theory of lawlessness.
On a deeper level, it is a theory of amorality. The root of limited government is the subordination of might to right, the idea that government coercion may only be used for specifically delimited purposes. This is what I call "the constitutional creed"—the idea that the Constitution serves as a guide to the only appropriate moral justifications for the use of government coercion. Yet the left's view, expressed by Lithwick and her colleagues in the mainstream media, is that government coercion can be used at whim, with the only limitation being what each branch of government thinks it can get away with in a continual power struggle with the other branches.
There is an old saying that "liberty for the wolves is death for the lambs." This is a constitutional theory of liberty for the wolves, a grant of unbridled power to those who want to wield force.
With less than a month before the election, we must remember that this is what is at stake: not just health care or the economy or anything so nebulous as "jobs." What is at stake is whether there are any limits on the power of the state. Lithwick has just given us a reminder of the fact that the left recognizes no such limits in theory, and the past two years have reminded us that the left sees no such limits in practice.—RWT
The most revealing phrase here is Adler's description of any attempt at legislative self-restraint as "an extraconstitutional attempt to limit the powers of Congress." Extraconstitutional? But what does he think the Constitution is for, anyway? The whole purpose of the Constitution is precisely to limit the powers of Congress, and of the government as a whole.
What the left does not want to admit is that the Constitution is a charter for a government of limited powers. It is a constitution for a nation founded on the principles of liberty and individual rights. So the whole purpose of our system is for every branch of government to be limited in as many ways as possible, in order to prevent encroachments on the rights of the people.
The essence of the Constitution is to say, to the people: you may do whatever you want, and government can only interfere with you insofar as it is executing of a small number of specifically defined powers. And to the government, it sends the opposite message: you cannot do whatever you want, but are limited in your powers. And in case you have any doubts about what these limits are, we the people have written down in this document what you are allowed to do and what you are not allowed to do.
The left's view of the Constitution is to turn this on its head. The people are to be extensively regulated in every aspect of their lives—but as to the government, nothing should be interpreted as creating any additional limits on its powers.
Other commentators have already pointed out the concrete meaning of Lithwick's standard of constitutionality: that the legislature should take as much power as it can grab and wait until the Supreme Court slaps its down, on the theory that it's not a crime if you don't get caught. It is a legal theory of lawlessness.
On a deeper level, it is a theory of amorality. The root of limited government is the subordination of might to right, the idea that government coercion may only be used for specifically delimited purposes. This is what I call "the constitutional creed"—the idea that the Constitution serves as a guide to the only appropriate moral justifications for the use of government coercion. Yet the left's view, expressed by Lithwick and her colleagues in the mainstream media, is that government coercion can be used at whim, with the only limitation being what each branch of government thinks it can get away with in a continual power struggle with the other branches.
There is an old saying that "liberty for the wolves is death for the lambs." This is a constitutional theory of liberty for the wolves, a grant of unbridled power to those who want to wield force.
With less than a month before the election, we must remember that this is what is at stake: not just health care or the economy or anything so nebulous as "jobs." What is at stake is whether there are any limits on the power of the state. Lithwick has just given us a reminder of the fact that the left recognizes no such limits in theory, and the past two years have reminded us that the left sees no such limits in practice.—RWT
Saturday, October 02, 2010
"The Only Policy Left: Growth" by Daniel Henninger
Great piece at the Wall Street Journal regarding the fact that an economy needs to GROW!!! in order for the citizens to prosper. Have forgotten this?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)