By Rick Moran April 2, 2017
Senator Bernie Sanders criticized the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign for not reaching out to working people while calling for a basic "restructuring" of the Democratic party. Sanders, speaking at a rally in Boston, refused to characterize Trump supporters as "racists" or xenophobes," saying Trump didn't win the election as much as Democrats lost it.
Yahoo News:........So ultimtaely, Sanders wants to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic........Read more
Monday, April 3, 2017
Conservatives and the Progressive Ahabs
By Jeffrey Folks April 2, 2017
Moby-Dick America's greatest work of fiction, Ishmael sits near the front window of a cozy inn, peering out into the stormy evening. His eye rests on those fellow human beings passing by, unprotected from the cold and wet. Ishmael is separated from this fate only by a fragile pane of glass, but it is upon that separation, Melville implies, that all of civilization rests.
This truth – the fundamental insecurity of existence and the fragility of those forces that protect man from destruction – is the basis of all conservative thought. Conservatives recognize that existence is fraught with danger and uncertainty and that only deliberate effort joined with prudence and self-restraint can save mankind from the sort of debacles that have occurred throughout history, from the utter devastation of the Hundred Years' War to the Napoleonic Wars of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries to the era of war and depression that reigned from 1914 to 1945............Read more
Russia? No, the Pony in the Manure Is the Corruption of our Intelligence Officials
By Clarice Feldman April 2, 2017
There’s so much in print and online about the House and Senate intelligence committees and Russian “collusion” with Trump that I can’t blame people with real lives to lead who just throw their hands up and garden or go hiking.
Some will assume there’s got to be a pony in there somewhere, as Ronald Reagan used to joke about the kid digging through manure. I think there is, but it isn’t that Russia corrupted the 2016 election, it’s that Obama and his closest aides, including some at the highest level in the intelligence community, illegally intercepted one or more Republican candidates’ communications before the election, circulated them widely to their cohorts and then tried to use this information to defeat and later to hamstring Trump when Hillary -- to their surprise -- lost the election...........
“Opposition by some in the intelligence agencies who were very connected to the Obama and Clinton teams was strong. After Trump was elected, they decided they were going to ruin his presidency by picking them off one by one."..........Perhaps the easiest thing to do is to just consider everything the Democrats say, directly or through the media, which just prints as truth handouts from the same Democratic sources, as a lie. You’d save a lot of time and most likely be right..........Read more
There’s so much in print and online about the House and Senate intelligence committees and Russian “collusion” with Trump that I can’t blame people with real lives to lead who just throw their hands up and garden or go hiking.
Some will assume there’s got to be a pony in there somewhere, as Ronald Reagan used to joke about the kid digging through manure. I think there is, but it isn’t that Russia corrupted the 2016 election, it’s that Obama and his closest aides, including some at the highest level in the intelligence community, illegally intercepted one or more Republican candidates’ communications before the election, circulated them widely to their cohorts and then tried to use this information to defeat and later to hamstring Trump when Hillary -- to their surprise -- lost the election...........
“Opposition by some in the intelligence agencies who were very connected to the Obama and Clinton teams was strong. After Trump was elected, they decided they were going to ruin his presidency by picking them off one by one."..........Perhaps the easiest thing to do is to just consider everything the Democrats say, directly or through the media, which just prints as truth handouts from the same Democratic sources, as a lie. You’d save a lot of time and most likely be right..........Read more
China Goes on Offensive Against Islam, Bans Traditional Muslim Looks
Radical Islamic terrorism is continuing to invade corners of the globe not previously considered, and China is preparing to fight back against it.
As devout Muslims work their way into the nooks and crannies of the planet, many ready to radicalize at any moment, there have been a wide variety of reactions from world leadership. Former President Barack Obama’s genius plan was to basically ignore the problem until it went away.
(Spoiler alert: It didn’t.)
The current leadership in Germany and France have both allowed migrants nearly unfettered access to their nations in the wake of Syria’s massive crisis, allowing many crafty evil doers to slip across the border as well. President Donald Trump, after only 10 weeks in office, has twice attempted a temporary travel ban from terror-rich nations in order to bolster national security…although twice he’s been stymied by liberal, meddling judges.......To Read More.....
Sunday, April 2, 2017
Going Green Isn't Wrong: It's Evil!
By Rich Kozlovich
We have earned the right to be proud to called exterminators - that's history, and that history is incontestable. However, I also think it's clear we've done a poor job of educating the public making that case.
In recent years the National Pest Management Association implemented the Professional Pest Management Alliance program to promote our industry. And I think those who've been responsible for that program have been hard working and dedicated in their efforts to educate the pubic as to how important we are maintaining society's freedom from disease, plague, pestilence and early death - commonly called dystopia - the opposite of utopia.
Who has brought about dystopia in any part of the world, the green movement or us? This article is the first in a series. We will explore the results of the green movement's schemes, because it's my contention no mission of education can be fulfilled properly without attacking lies, misinformation, junk science and those who promote it.
So who's going to do it? The trade journals won't do it. They're just not designed for that kind of confrontational advocacy. The PPMA won't do it because they were created as the promotional arm of the NPMA, and promotion and confrontation are largely antithetical to each other.
So who's going to do it? Well..... I guess that leaves me. I will happily share that distinction with anyone from the industry who wishes to jump into this ....but as of right now .... I seem to be the only voice in the wilderness.
So much of what has gone right in the world has been the result of a strong chemical industry, and in our case - pesticides - those who manufacture them, those who sell them and those who apply them. Pesticides transformed this nation because this nation was full of people who embraced a vision of industrial progress. We need to get this, accept this, and make sure this rings as clear as a bell.
Pesticides were brought into common use because there really was a need.
This clabber from green groups and their fellow travelers claiming we "don't need pesticides" is blatantly false, stunningly unscientific, amazingly unrealistic and only those who're ideologically delusional can accept that. The difference between good health, plenty of food, and the crisis of third world living, is the acceptance and extensive use of effective chemistry.
Picture this: A pesticide salesman goes to an international agriculture conference and tells the farmers attending (Farmers being the most frugal people on the planet, and frugal doesn't mean cheap - it means unwilling to waste) he has to sell a million dollars of pesticides this year or he'll lose his job. And of course these frugal farmers - who are unwilling to waste - and who don't really need pesticides say - sure we'll be glad to spend a million dollars unnecessarily if that'll help you out.
Yeah, right!
In order to change the way people think about pesticides, human health and the environment is to challenge each and every false claim about chemicals. And not just pesticides, but chemicals as a whole, and industrial advacement! Including challenging false claims about vaccinations.
We need make the world aware nature isn't the "Mother Nature" we see in television ads. Nature isn't really a person, nature doesn't love us, nature doesn't hate us, nature is a biological machine, and that machine is working hard to kill us each and every day with biological agents, bad weather, earth quakes, tidal waves, freezing weather, roasting heat, disease and .....well.....you get the picture, most of which we can do little about. In short - going natural puts us in an amazingly inhospitable environment. An environment the green movement insists is the only way to save us from mankind. Save us from what? Long and healthy lives?
Chemistry is the number two key improver of that situation. What's number one? Readily accessible inexpensive energy. Both of which are under constant attack by the green movement. Both of which are essential to modern civilized societies.
As exterminators we have a responsibility to make our environment as good for humanity as is possible. As moral human beings we have a responsibility to expose the lies of the green movement for the good of humanity.
Everyone demands perfection, but the best we can possibly deliver is the most acceptable imperfection. And that requires work, thinking, resolution and clarity of thought. We have to get rid of these green infestations of thought such as placing the "rights" of animals over what's good for humanity. Those animals and plants which are going extinct are biologically incompetent and need to be replaced with species that are capable of surviving.
Tell me - what horrible thing happened when the dodo bird went extinct around 1700? Well, there's a tree on the island of Mauritius just east of Madagascar, called the tambalacoque tree, that was alleged to being going extinct because the only way it could propagate itself was if the seeds passed through the digestive system of the dodo. And since the dodo was extinct - so too was this tree going to disappear. Well....so what? If this tree was that biolgicially incompetent it deserved to go extinct, but there's only one problem with this story. It's a lie!
So in point of fact the disappearance of the dodo caused - nothing!
Good environmental stewardship can only be achieved with modern chemistry and advancements in genetic modifications in plants, and at some point - animals. Otherwise massive amounts of land will be needed to grow all the food necessary to keep humanity from starving - land that's not available in much of the world. Norman Borlaug said if we eliminated the tools of modern agriculture in the U.S. we would need the equilivelant land mass of everything East of the Mississippi River, with the exception of three states, to make up the difference in food production.
The primary thing needed for a strong and health environment is development. It's the undeveloped and underdeveloped nations that have the worst environments. When you eliminate industry you do a number of things that are detrimental to mankind and the environment.
When accused of not being reasonable my response is now and has always been - when have I ever not been reasonable? Being reasonable means acting in accord with reason. If being reasonable is to be defined as going along to get along I have to ask: What great obstacle was ever overcome by being "reasonable"?
We have earned the right to be proud to called exterminators - that's history, and that history is incontestable. However, I also think it's clear we've done a poor job of educating the public making that case.
In recent years the National Pest Management Association implemented the Professional Pest Management Alliance program to promote our industry. And I think those who've been responsible for that program have been hard working and dedicated in their efforts to educate the pubic as to how important we are maintaining society's freedom from disease, plague, pestilence and early death - commonly called dystopia - the opposite of utopia.
Who has brought about dystopia in any part of the world, the green movement or us? This article is the first in a series. We will explore the results of the green movement's schemes, because it's my contention no mission of education can be fulfilled properly without attacking lies, misinformation, junk science and those who promote it.
So who's going to do it? The trade journals won't do it. They're just not designed for that kind of confrontational advocacy. The PPMA won't do it because they were created as the promotional arm of the NPMA, and promotion and confrontation are largely antithetical to each other.
So who's going to do it? Well..... I guess that leaves me. I will happily share that distinction with anyone from the industry who wishes to jump into this ....but as of right now .... I seem to be the only voice in the wilderness.
So much of what has gone right in the world has been the result of a strong chemical industry, and in our case - pesticides - those who manufacture them, those who sell them and those who apply them. Pesticides transformed this nation because this nation was full of people who embraced a vision of industrial progress. We need to get this, accept this, and make sure this rings as clear as a bell.
Pesticides were brought into common use because there really was a need.
This clabber from green groups and their fellow travelers claiming we "don't need pesticides" is blatantly false, stunningly unscientific, amazingly unrealistic and only those who're ideologically delusional can accept that. The difference between good health, plenty of food, and the crisis of third world living, is the acceptance and extensive use of effective chemistry.
Picture this: A pesticide salesman goes to an international agriculture conference and tells the farmers attending (Farmers being the most frugal people on the planet, and frugal doesn't mean cheap - it means unwilling to waste) he has to sell a million dollars of pesticides this year or he'll lose his job. And of course these frugal farmers - who are unwilling to waste - and who don't really need pesticides say - sure we'll be glad to spend a million dollars unnecessarily if that'll help you out.
Yeah, right!
In order to change the way people think about pesticides, human health and the environment is to challenge each and every false claim about chemicals. And not just pesticides, but chemicals as a whole, and industrial advacement! Including challenging false claims about vaccinations.
We need make the world aware nature isn't the "Mother Nature" we see in television ads. Nature isn't really a person, nature doesn't love us, nature doesn't hate us, nature is a biological machine, and that machine is working hard to kill us each and every day with biological agents, bad weather, earth quakes, tidal waves, freezing weather, roasting heat, disease and .....well.....you get the picture, most of which we can do little about. In short - going natural puts us in an amazingly inhospitable environment. An environment the green movement insists is the only way to save us from mankind. Save us from what? Long and healthy lives?
Chemistry is the number two key improver of that situation. What's number one? Readily accessible inexpensive energy. Both of which are under constant attack by the green movement. Both of which are essential to modern civilized societies.
As exterminators we have a responsibility to make our environment as good for humanity as is possible. As moral human beings we have a responsibility to expose the lies of the green movement for the good of humanity.
Everyone demands perfection, but the best we can possibly deliver is the most acceptable imperfection. And that requires work, thinking, resolution and clarity of thought. We have to get rid of these green infestations of thought such as placing the "rights" of animals over what's good for humanity. Those animals and plants which are going extinct are biologically incompetent and need to be replaced with species that are capable of surviving.
Tell me - what horrible thing happened when the dodo bird went extinct around 1700? Well, there's a tree on the island of Mauritius just east of Madagascar, called the tambalacoque tree, that was alleged to being going extinct because the only way it could propagate itself was if the seeds passed through the digestive system of the dodo. And since the dodo was extinct - so too was this tree going to disappear. Well....so what? If this tree was that biolgicially incompetent it deserved to go extinct, but there's only one problem with this story. It's a lie!
So in point of fact the disappearance of the dodo caused - nothing!
Good environmental stewardship can only be achieved with modern chemistry and advancements in genetic modifications in plants, and at some point - animals. Otherwise massive amounts of land will be needed to grow all the food necessary to keep humanity from starving - land that's not available in much of the world. Norman Borlaug said if we eliminated the tools of modern agriculture in the U.S. we would need the equilivelant land mass of everything East of the Mississippi River, with the exception of three states, to make up the difference in food production.
The primary thing needed for a strong and health environment is development. It's the undeveloped and underdeveloped nations that have the worst environments. When you eliminate industry you do a number of things that are detrimental to mankind and the environment.
- First you make everyone poor, which makes it impossible to afford the cost of strong environmental policies.
- Second, when you eliminate cheap, readily available energy that allows people to heat and cool their homes, you create misery and even death. Eastern Europe had people freezing to death becuase of a lack of energy. Why did this lack occur. Because they were attempting to meet idiotic CO2 standards involving the false Global Warming scare.
- Third, burning wood for cooking in much of the world means breathing smoky air and respiratory problems.
- Fourth, public water systems will disappear causing water borne illnesses to skyrocket, as it did in South America when environmentalists convinced leaders chlorine in water caused cancer.
- Fifth, there will be no large scale sanitation programs to control sewage. People will live in filth.
- Sixth, the problems caused by a lack of modern transportation.
When accused of not being reasonable my response is now and has always been - when have I ever not been reasonable? Being reasonable means acting in accord with reason. If being reasonable is to be defined as going along to get along I have to ask: What great obstacle was ever overcome by being "reasonable"?
Black Democrats Are Starting Their Own Groups To Work Outside Of The DNC
Darren Sands
Posted on
The goal, operatives say, is to replicate the success of groups like Planned Parenthood Action and EMILY's List. "They say, ‘Hey, we hear you, we're going to change.’ Then they do worse. I think this moment is us finally saying, ‘This is not working for us.."...black operatives say have been ignored by the major Democratic campaign committees........“[The Democratic committees’] objective is not to elect black people to office. It’s to elect Democrats. (Note: So these anti-racists are going to use race as an election criteria?).......Donna Brazile, the former chair, called the group’s work “long overdue.”.........Tom Perez, has the slightly challenging task of unifying the various camps produced by the 2016 election............ (Note: So he says) “For too long, the Democratic Party has told young people of color to take a seat at the table, sit down and shut up. That ends now,” ......To Read More....
My Take - There's more irrational happy talk babble as the article goes on, but this is what you need to keep in mind: Will Rogers once said "I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat." The left constantly touts the idea the Republicans are fractured, but Will Roger's words were never more true than today.
Politicians all have some serious ego problems in my opinion, but the Democrat Party is now filled with ego maniacs beyond all imagining. They're making all this happy talk now, but the proof will be in the pudding after the 2018 midterms and the 2020 presidential election, and once this kind of spinterization starts - it never stops.
There are certain fundamental things we have to understand. Once these groups are up and running - the egos will become more out of control when they finally realize they will all be compteting for the same dollars from the same people - and they will start attacking each other. They act as if there's new ground out there to plow, and can generate massive amounts of contributions from a host of new donors solely on their personal agendas.
Those new donors with large amounts of dollars don't exist. And the ones who do - they have their own agendas, and they all want the most bang for their buck. Even Soros.
You can gererate a bunch of small contributions on line, but those people will only send small amounts to one or two people. There's not going to enough to fund all these groups and it will in effect weaken the Party as a whole, and these groups will end as quickly as they started. But the anger over all of this will last. When you're part of a group that's only philosophical foundation is based on anger, hate, greed and envy - you don't have much to offer to a large donor population.
That's why the Democratic Party has to rely so heavily on a few really wealthy donors and organizations like the labor unions with a left wing agenda to fund them. And both Donna Brazille and Tom Perez have to know that. So why are they jumping on board with this silliness? Because they're Democrats, they're radicals, they're intellectually corrupt, and they don't dare question these left wing loons since that's their base. Feeding leftist egos is now and has always been a major policy plan of the Democrats, and now it's going to continue to diminish the Democrat Party.
Here's one more factor that you will never see in the news. Financial incompetence and corruption will start to sink these groups almost immediately, and I predict most will not be in existence by the mid terms.
The goal, operatives say, is to replicate the success of groups like Planned Parenthood Action and EMILY's List. "They say, ‘Hey, we hear you, we're going to change.’ Then they do worse. I think this moment is us finally saying, ‘This is not working for us.."...black operatives say have been ignored by the major Democratic campaign committees........“[The Democratic committees’] objective is not to elect black people to office. It’s to elect Democrats. (Note: So these anti-racists are going to use race as an election criteria?).......Donna Brazile, the former chair, called the group’s work “long overdue.”.........Tom Perez, has the slightly challenging task of unifying the various camps produced by the 2016 election............ (Note: So he says) “For too long, the Democratic Party has told young people of color to take a seat at the table, sit down and shut up. That ends now,” ......To Read More....
My Take - There's more irrational happy talk babble as the article goes on, but this is what you need to keep in mind: Will Rogers once said "I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat." The left constantly touts the idea the Republicans are fractured, but Will Roger's words were never more true than today.
Politicians all have some serious ego problems in my opinion, but the Democrat Party is now filled with ego maniacs beyond all imagining. They're making all this happy talk now, but the proof will be in the pudding after the 2018 midterms and the 2020 presidential election, and once this kind of spinterization starts - it never stops.
There are certain fundamental things we have to understand. Once these groups are up and running - the egos will become more out of control when they finally realize they will all be compteting for the same dollars from the same people - and they will start attacking each other. They act as if there's new ground out there to plow, and can generate massive amounts of contributions from a host of new donors solely on their personal agendas.
Those new donors with large amounts of dollars don't exist. And the ones who do - they have their own agendas, and they all want the most bang for their buck. Even Soros.
You can gererate a bunch of small contributions on line, but those people will only send small amounts to one or two people. There's not going to enough to fund all these groups and it will in effect weaken the Party as a whole, and these groups will end as quickly as they started. But the anger over all of this will last. When you're part of a group that's only philosophical foundation is based on anger, hate, greed and envy - you don't have much to offer to a large donor population.
That's why the Democratic Party has to rely so heavily on a few really wealthy donors and organizations like the labor unions with a left wing agenda to fund them. And both Donna Brazille and Tom Perez have to know that. So why are they jumping on board with this silliness? Because they're Democrats, they're radicals, they're intellectually corrupt, and they don't dare question these left wing loons since that's their base. Feeding leftist egos is now and has always been a major policy plan of the Democrats, and now it's going to continue to diminish the Democrat Party.
Here's one more factor that you will never see in the news. Financial incompetence and corruption will start to sink these groups almost immediately, and I predict most will not be in existence by the mid terms.
Feel the Bern: Back from the brink? Venezuela reverses its congressional ‘coup’
Venezuela’s Supreme Court Saturday reversed a controversial decision that stripped congress of all its powers, as international pressure had been building against the socialist administration.
El Universal newspaper reported that the court had published two “clarifications” including one that said that the National Assembly will maintain its legislative functions.
On Wednesday, the same court had said it would assume all legislative functions as it claimed the opposition-led congress was illegitimate for being in contempt of previous court rulings......To Read More....
My Take - It turns out President Maduro wants "the courts to review their decision in order to “maintain constitutional stability.”' Amazing! I always find it amazing how leftists who've flagrantly abused their governments Constitutional restraints and safeguards are all of a sudden worried about those rules, safeguards and restraints. Obama and his miserable band of leftist miscreants are an excellent example of what happens when the criminals are out of power.
On Wednesday, the same court had said it would assume all legislative functions as it claimed the opposition-led congress was illegitimate for being in contempt of previous court rulings......To Read More....
My Take - It turns out President Maduro wants "the courts to review their decision in order to “maintain constitutional stability.”' Amazing! I always find it amazing how leftists who've flagrantly abused their governments Constitutional restraints and safeguards are all of a sudden worried about those rules, safeguards and restraints. Obama and his miserable band of leftist miscreants are an excellent example of what happens when the criminals are out of power.
Red Teams Can Save Climate Science From Itself
London, 31 March 2017 — Prominent climate scientists tell US Congressional committee that climate science isn’t working, but can be saved by a “red team” approach.
A group of prominent US climate experts have told a Congressional committee hearing that climate science is dysfunctional, beset by bias and groupthink, and is using a profoundly unscientific approach. Speaking before the U.S. House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, Professor John Christy told representatives that “consensus science”, as practiced by much of mainstream climatology, was “not science” at all, while Professor Judith Curry explained that “self-deception” had got the better of far too many climatologists.
Both concluded that there had been a wholesale failure to use the scientific method in climatology, something that could only be put right by the introduction of official “red teams” – groups of eminent scientists, who would be asked to challenge and provide dissenting opinions on official climate assessments.
Professor Christy said: “Congress needs a parallel, scientifically-based assessment of the state of climate science. Many important issues are left out of government-directed climate reports entirely; our policymakers need to see the entire range of findings regarding climate change”
The testimony of all four climatologists who spoke at the congressional hearings, including the dissenting views of Professor Michael Mann, are being republished by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, the London-based think tank which seeks to enhance the public debates on climate science and policy.
Full testimonials
Both concluded that there had been a wholesale failure to use the scientific method in climatology, something that could only be put right by the introduction of official “red teams” – groups of eminent scientists, who would be asked to challenge and provide dissenting opinions on official climate assessments.
Professor Christy said: “Congress needs a parallel, scientifically-based assessment of the state of climate science. Many important issues are left out of government-directed climate reports entirely; our policymakers need to see the entire range of findings regarding climate change”
The testimony of all four climatologists who spoke at the congressional hearings, including the dissenting views of Professor Michael Mann, are being republished by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, the London-based think tank which seeks to enhance the public debates on climate science and policy.
Full testimonials
‘Weaker Sun Could Reduce Global Temperatures By Half A Degree’
Experts Call For The Creation Of ‘Red Teams’
To Challenge Un Climate Science Panel
Brought to you by Benny Peiser's Global Warming Policy Forum
Prominent scientists operating outside the scientific consensus on climate change urged Congress on Wednesday to fund “red teams” to investigate “natural” causes of global warming and challenge the findings of the United Nations’ climate science panel. The suggestion for a counter-investigative science force – or red team approach – was presented in prepared testimony by scientists known for questioning the influence of human activity on global warming. It comes at a time when President Donald Trump and other members of the administration have expressed doubt about the accepted science of climate change, and are considering drastic cuts to federal funding for scientific research. --Chelsea Harvey, The Washington Post, 31 March 2017
The U.S House of Representatives today approved H.R. 1430, the Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of 2017 (HONEST Act), introduced by Science, Space, and Technology Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and Rep. Henry Cuellar (D-Texas). The bill passed by a vote of 228-194. The HONEST Act requires that Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations be based upon science that is publicly available. --U.S. Committee on Science, Space and Technology, 30 March 2017
After falling in six out of seven quarters since mid-2014, coal production rose in the third and fourth quarters of 2016. Among the coal supply regions, the Powder River Basin in Montana and Wyoming saw the largest increases in the second half of 2016. The increases in coal production were driven by an increase in coal-fired electricity generation, which occurred as natural gas prices increased. --U.S. Energy Information Administration, 29 March 2017
China’s coal-fired power generation as a percentage of the total energy mix is on the rise for the second year, despite the push towards renewable capacity additions in the country, Citi analysts said Friday. A 5% growth in China’s coal-fired power generation would mean an additional consumption of about 65 million mt of coal, with the size of the entire seaborne market at about 850 million mt, the analysts said. --Platts, 31 March 2017
At least 3,119 polluters have faked emissions data and even resisted checks from environmental inspectors, the ministry of environment said, summarizing its latest efforts to tackle the smog that often shrouds the north of the country. --South China Morning Post, 31 March 2017
The South African government has given the go-ahead for shale gas development in the Karoo region, Mineral Resources Minister Mosebenzi Zwane said on Thursday. “Based on the balance of available scientific evidence, government took a decision to proceed with the development of shale gas in the Karoo formation of South Africa,” he said in a speech. The department estimated that up to 50 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of shale gas was recoverable in the Karoo Basin, especially in the Eastern, Northern, and Western Cape provinces. He said it was in their interests to ensure all South Africans benefited socially and economically from the mineral wealth. --News24, 31 March 2017
In view of Australia’s decline from being one of the world’s cheap-energy economies into one of the most expensive — where power prices have doubled in a decade — governments in this country cannot afford to overlook important lessons from Donald Trump’s swift move to end Barack Obama’s war on coal and his predecessor’s other so-called “progressive” climate change preoccupations. Mr Trump’s realistic energy policy should encourage other nations to reassess. Worldwide, 1500 coal-fired generating plants are being built or are at the planning stage. At least the Turnbull government is on the right track in encouraging the construction of new clean-coal-fired power stations in an effort to mitigate Australia’s energy security and pricing crisis. --Editorial, The Australian, 31 March 2017
Answering a Silly Question: Of Course Government-Coerced Family Leave Is Anti-Market and Pro-Big Government
April 1, 2017 by Dan Mitchell @ International Liberty
Donald Trump wants the federal government to subsidize child care. If enacted, this policy is sure to increase costs and lead to inefficiency, just as similar types of intervention have caused problems in both healthcare and higher education.
While Trump’s proposal is misguided, it hasn’t generated much surprise because politicians routinely try to buy votes with other people’s money.
I was surprised, however, when the normally market-friendly American Enterprise Institute began to publish articles starting a few years ago in support of government policies on the related issue of paid family leave. I was even more surprised when I saw that AEI teamed up with the left-leaning Brookings Institution on a joint “Project on Paid Parental Leave.”
This is not an April Fool’s joke.
And I’m not the only one who is perplexed that someone at AEI is pushing one of Hillary Clinton’s favorite policies. In a comment on one of the AEI articles, a reader asks a very pointed question.
To her credit, she basically admits that the answer is no.
I’m temped to explain why this is nonsense. After all, the fact that we can’t have everything we want because of scarcity and trade-offs is one of the reasons market exist, not evidence of failure.
But I don’t need to explain because one of Ms. Mathur’s colleagues already has done the job. Here’s some of what Benjamin Zycher wrote on this topic.
Indeed, rejection of untrammeled majoritarianism was one of the main goals of America’s Founders when they put together the Constitution.
And since we’re on the topic of majoritarianism, Professor Don Boudreaux explains that favorable opinion polls for mandated parental leave are both irrelevant and misleading.
And what’s really ironic about this issue is that some honest female analysts acknowledge that women will bear a lot of the cost. Simply stated, employers will provide them lower cash wages to offset the liability that is created by the government intervention.
P.S. To the credit of AEI, it employs one of the nation’s best scholars on the faux issue of the gender pay gap (and you know it’s a fake issue because even Obama’s economic advisor dismissed the silly claim that markets deliberately overpay men).
P.P.S. While I wish Ms. Mathur’s support for intervention was just an April Fool’s joke, at least I can share some intentional humor to celebrate the day.
We know all about leftist hypocrites, and here’s another one to add to the list (h/t: Reddit).
Needless to say, I’m not expecting Michael Moore to sell one of his many homes to help the poor, either.
If you like April Fool’s Day humor, I shared some examples back in 2013.
Donald Trump wants the federal government to subsidize child care. If enacted, this policy is sure to increase costs and lead to inefficiency, just as similar types of intervention have caused problems in both healthcare and higher education.
While Trump’s proposal is misguided, it hasn’t generated much surprise because politicians routinely try to buy votes with other people’s money.
I was surprised, however, when the normally market-friendly American Enterprise Institute began to publish articles starting a few years ago in support of government policies on the related issue of paid family leave. I was even more surprised when I saw that AEI teamed up with the left-leaning Brookings Institution on a joint “Project on Paid Parental Leave.”
This is not an April Fool’s joke.
And I’m not the only one who is perplexed that someone at AEI is pushing one of Hillary Clinton’s favorite policies. In a comment on one of the AEI articles, a reader asks a very pointed question.
…why, exactly, a purported conservative think-tank would like to impose a one-size-fits-all, top-down national policy upon all businesses in all states, regardless of cost, on the flimsy argument that ‘It’s a good thing.’Aparna Mathur, AEI’s Co-Directors of the Project, has an article responding to the question of whether intervention from Washington can be considered pro-freedom or pro-market.
To her credit, she basically admits that the answer is no.
I see your point that encouraging a federal paid family leave plan goes against the idea of limited government. …we don’t think markets are the end-all solution here… If we don’t intervene, then that’s how it’s going to continue. …I also agree with your point that this will be a burden on businesses. …we have to be open to the idea that in some areas, markets fail or may under-provide a benefit. And in those cases, for the larger good of society…, we need to accept some sharing of costs.But while she admits the policy is statist, she nonetheless justifies it because there ostensibly is a market failure.
I’m temped to explain why this is nonsense. After all, the fact that we can’t have everything we want because of scarcity and trade-offs is one of the reasons market exist, not evidence of failure.
But I don’t need to explain because one of Ms. Mathur’s colleagues already has done the job. Here’s some of what Benjamin Zycher wrote on this topic.
There are no free lunches, and the mere fact that expanded paid leave in isolation would be very nice for some or many workers says little about the unavoidable tradeoffs. Would a given worker or group of workers prefer more such leave combined with lower explicit wages, or with fewer other nonwage benefits, or with employer demands for higher productivity? …with respect to the new moms returning to work soon after giving birth: Was that not their choice? Yes, in almost all cases, and it is not clear from Mathur’s discussion precisely why such costs ought to be “shared across society.” …Whatever “socializing the costs” comes to mean, it is inevitable that the proponents of such a policy, unconcerned with the expansion of government power, will demand that businesses give something up… So much again, for the free-lunch atmospherics: Such increases in costs will reduce employment… Which brings us to the final assertion: “In some areas, markets fail or may underprovide a benefit.” Wow. What does “underprovide” mean? …there are only two basic approaches to answering that question. The first: the outcomes emerging from competitive markets, in this case the amount of paid leave employers offer to employees and the amount that employees are willing to accept as part of total compensation, including working conditions defined broadly. Mathur simply rejects that outcome as too little. The second: Political determination of the appropriate amount of paid leave, in which majorities impose their will on everyone regardless of individual preferences. Why stop at paid leave? Why not have voters determine wages, vacation policies, dress codes, and everything else? And are voters really qualified to do so?I especially like Zycher’s final point. The notion that 51 percent of people should be able to dictate the terms of contracts to both employers and employees is offensive.
Indeed, rejection of untrammeled majoritarianism was one of the main goals of America’s Founders when they put together the Constitution.
And since we’re on the topic of majoritarianism, Professor Don Boudreaux explains that favorable opinion polls for mandated parental leave are both irrelevant and misleading.
Of course that’s what the polls show – which is precisely why such polls are unreliable in cases such as this. We need take no polls to discover that people generally prefer to get benefits at a cost to them of nothing. Such ‘information’ is hardly newsworthy. …I want, for example, a brand new Mercedes-Maybach S600, but because I’m unwilling to pay the hefty price for the benefit that owning such a car would give to me, the correct conclusion is that I do not really want such a car given its cost.In other words, Boudreaux and Zycher both agree that there’s no free lunch. Paid leave, mandated by government, necessarily imposes a cost.
And what’s really ironic about this issue is that some honest female analysts acknowledge that women will bear a lot of the cost. Simply stated, employers will provide them lower cash wages to offset the liability that is created by the government intervention.
P.S. To the credit of AEI, it employs one of the nation’s best scholars on the faux issue of the gender pay gap (and you know it’s a fake issue because even Obama’s economic advisor dismissed the silly claim that markets deliberately overpay men).
P.P.S. While I wish Ms. Mathur’s support for intervention was just an April Fool’s joke, at least I can share some intentional humor to celebrate the day.
We know all about leftist hypocrites, and here’s another one to add to the list (h/t: Reddit).
If you like April Fool’s Day humor, I shared some examples back in 2013.
Dear Readers
Paul Driessen is a friend of mine who regularly sends articles he allows me and others to publish, and he always has some pre-article comments. I wished to share this one with you because I've been irritated over the actions of people who claim to be conservatives while supporting insane leftist policies or actions, and working to undermine all efforts to fix these insane polices, including using shoddy explanations and science.
Paul outlines who these groups are. He mentions Ron Arnold here and all the fund raising these false conservatives generate to support their agenda. I didn't ask, but I'm sure he got that information from Ron's book, Freezing in the Dark: Money, Power, Politics and The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy.
Paraphrasing one comment - Frightening is the only way to describe Ron Arnold's book, and this is only the tip of the iceberg.
Paul outlines who these groups are. He mentions Ron Arnold here and all the fund raising these false conservatives generate to support their agenda. I didn't ask, but I'm sure he got that information from Ron's book, Freezing in the Dark: Money, Power, Politics and The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy.
Paraphrasing one comment - Frightening is the only way to describe Ron Arnold's book, and this is only the tip of the iceberg.
Here are Paul's pre-article comments.
It’s amazing how many “conservative” organizations are stepping forward these days, to support “clean, green” energy and immediate action to stabilize Earth’s always fickle climate, while condemning President Trump’s actions to roll back many Obama Era anti-fossil fuel decisions.
Among them are Young Conservatives for Energy Reform, Citizens for Responsible Energy Reform, ConservAmerica, RepublicEn (as in Republican Energy), Conservatives for Clean Energy, and the environmentalist Christian Coalition of America.
But even more interesting is that almost every one of these organizations is funded by “progressive” anti-fossil fuel billionaires and their numerous “charitable” foundations, including The Energy Foundation, which I profile and expose in this article.
Thank you for posting my article, quoting from it, and forwarding it to your friends and colleagues.
Best regards,
Paul
Pretend conservatives for not so clean energy
Far-left ‘charitable’ foundations give millions to ‘conservative’ groups to drive climate agenda
Paul Driessen
More and more conservatives are proclaiming the virtues of clean energy. At least that’s what some groups want you to believe. In reality, far-left “charitable” foundations have given pretend conservatives millions of dollars to advance a climate chaos, renewable energy agenda – channeling the funds through intermediary groups, to OxiClean the transactions and limit transparency and accountability.
The huge Green Profiteers Network has to be at least somewhat bipartisan to ensure continued mandates, renewable portfolio standards, production and investment tax credits, regulatory exemptions and other subsidies that have made Climate Crisis, Inc. a $1.5-trillion international business. With global financial and insurance giants allying with that crowd and determined to procure some $93 trillion (!) by 2030 to create a “de-carbonized” and “sustainable” world economy, the effort has intensified.
But now it must contend with President Donald Trump. His growing list of executive orders and regulatory reviews is rapidly reversing eight years of Obama “Clean Power Plan,” “social cost of carbon” and other regulatory decrees; laying the foundation for reversing EPA’s absurd finding that plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide “endangers” human health and welfare; and putting the United States in a position to lead the world back from the brink of Paris pact pandemonium and wealth redistribution.
Other countries will likely follow these energy and climate actions, says Cornwall Alliance ethicist Calvin Beisner, thereby “sparing their citizens from the crushing costs of pointless policies to mitigate global warming, by raising energy costs and prohibiting the most reliable, affordable forms of energy.” These actions are vital, because “the greatest threat to the environment is not affluence. It’s poverty.”
Radical environmental groups are nevertheless preparing to battle every Trump action in our courts, legislatures, newsrooms … and streets. Preparing to join all the prominent big-name groups is a host of like-minded, tax-exempt, pseudo-free-enterprise outfits, many operating under the umbrella of the Conservative Energy Network. This 2016 creation includes Young Conservatives for Energy Reform, an environmentalist Christian Coalition of America, Citizens for Responsible Energy Reform – and Conservatives for Clean Energy (CCE), launched in 2014 as an “educational” and “charity” organization.
They all advocate the asserted need to “fundamentally transform” energy and economic systems, and switch from fossil fuels to “clean, renewable” energy, to save our civilization and planet from “dangerous manmade global warming, climate change and extreme weather.” The other thing they seem to have in common is funding sources that enable them to be so visible and active.
Prominent among those funding sources is The Energy Foundation. It launched CCE with a $350,000 grant in 2014, gave $535,000 to the Christian Coalition in 2013 and sent $925,000 to the North Carolina Solar Energy Alliance since 2008, the the Civitas Institute notes, citing tax filings and other sources.
Between 2007 and 2014, Civitas points out, TEF also gave $4,476,000 to the Southern Environmental Law Center, a litigation factory that uses questionable climate and ecological claims to drive lawsuits against energy and other development projects, raising energy costs, killing jobs, and hammering the budgets, health and wellbeing of poor, minority and working class families.
As a 2014 US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee report explained, a virtual who’s who of ultra-wealthy leftist foundations and their “Billionaires’ Club” of donors is the financial force behind The Energy Foundation. TEF serves as a “pass-through” hub that helps donors make it seem that grant recipients have a more diversified base of support than they actually do; shields them from transparency and accountability; and at times hides contributions from donors that could raise serious “red” flags.
One such donor is the secretive Sea Change Foundation. Set up by billionaires Nat Simons and his wife, Sea Change has been exposed by multiple investigators as a shell corporation that funnels huge sums to radical anti-fracking and anti-fossil fuel activists from Vladimir Putin pals, giant Russian oil companies and investment groups, and more reputable sources like the Gates and Walmart Foundations.
The Energy Foundation received nearly $65 million from Sea Change between 1997 and 2015 – plus tens of millions more from the Hewlett, Packard, McKnight, MacArthur, Rockefeller, Pew, Bloomberg, Tomkat (Tom Steyer) and other foundations. All together, over 120 fat-cat foundations gave a whopping $534 million to the Energy Foundation between 1997 and 2015. During the same period, The Energy Foundation gave over $1.2 billion to more than 12,000 activist and agitator groups, investigative journalist Ron Arnold discovered.
It’s a bit daunting to have this kind of money and power allied with green, urban and government elites against Blue Collar America and the fossil fuels that still supply 81% of the USA’s energy.
This is the cabal of “consumer” and “environmental” groups that “Conservatives” for “Clean” Energy has in its corner. With offices in North Carolina and Virginia, CCE is heavily involved in fossil fuel and renewable energy political activism.
It is closely allied with the NC Solar Energy Alliance, to extend government mandates, tax credits and other government assistance to a marginal electricity source that brings higher prices, lower reliability, and reduced ability of families, hospitals, schools and businesses to meet tight budgets, says Civitas.
It has also partnered with the SELC and other groups pursuing new strategies to bankrupt and close coal-fired electricity generation plants, by generating misplaced fear about coal ash impoundments. Once public anxiety rose, activists demanded that the ash be dug up and moved “somewhere else,” regardless of the cost, which could be in the billions – and regardless of the fact that detected levels of chromium-6 (and other metals) do not pose health risks and come from natural rock formations, as well as from coal.
Keeping the ash where it is, and capping it with impermeable clay, is probably the best thing to do now.
But CCE then waded in with an opinion poll, which predictably found that North Carolinians want the ash moved but don’t want to pay for the removals, and support more wind and solar power. The groups are now poised to reprise the tactic in Virginia and other states with coal-fueled power generation.
TEF itself also weighed in, funding a study which predictably concluded that US renewable energy industries would “eventually” create 74,000 new jobs “from the ashes” of coal-related companies. Even if that were true, how many jobs would climate alarmism, chemical fear-mongering and costly renewable energy destroy in other sectors of our economy? Perhaps 740,000 or even 7,400,000?
President Obama’s Clean Power Plan alone could have imposed $1 trillion in lost output, 125,000 lost jobs and double-digit increases in electricity prices, the Wall Street Journal noted. The combined impact of all Obama Era climate and renewable energy programs would have cost the American economy $3 trillion and 6.5 million industrial sector jobs by 2040, Senator John Barrasso stated, referring to a National Economic Research Associates study.
To top it off, “clean” energy is not clean, renewable or sustainable. It requires perpetual subsidies, taken from taxpayers and consumers, and given to politically connected crony corporatists. It needs vast land acreage – for wind turbines, solar panels, long transmission lines … and backup fossil fuel generating plants. And all those facilities require enormous amounts of concrete, steel, copper, rare earth metals, fiberglass, fossil fuels and other non-renewable raw materials dug out of the ground, often in faraway lands that have few environmental, health or child labor standards.
Just imagine the tremendous good all those billions of dollars from all those “progressive” billionaires could do if – instead of lining the coffers of radical anti-energy agitator groups – they were devoted to actually helping poor families in the United States, other industrialized nations, and especially the most impoverished, energy-deprived, disease-ridden, malnourished countries on Earth?
That would be real, long overdue social and environmental justice. If wishes were horses ….
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org), and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death and other books on the environment.
Paul Driessen
More and more conservatives are proclaiming the virtues of clean energy. At least that’s what some groups want you to believe. In reality, far-left “charitable” foundations have given pretend conservatives millions of dollars to advance a climate chaos, renewable energy agenda – channeling the funds through intermediary groups, to OxiClean the transactions and limit transparency and accountability.
The huge Green Profiteers Network has to be at least somewhat bipartisan to ensure continued mandates, renewable portfolio standards, production and investment tax credits, regulatory exemptions and other subsidies that have made Climate Crisis, Inc. a $1.5-trillion international business. With global financial and insurance giants allying with that crowd and determined to procure some $93 trillion (!) by 2030 to create a “de-carbonized” and “sustainable” world economy, the effort has intensified.
But now it must contend with President Donald Trump. His growing list of executive orders and regulatory reviews is rapidly reversing eight years of Obama “Clean Power Plan,” “social cost of carbon” and other regulatory decrees; laying the foundation for reversing EPA’s absurd finding that plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide “endangers” human health and welfare; and putting the United States in a position to lead the world back from the brink of Paris pact pandemonium and wealth redistribution.
Other countries will likely follow these energy and climate actions, says Cornwall Alliance ethicist Calvin Beisner, thereby “sparing their citizens from the crushing costs of pointless policies to mitigate global warming, by raising energy costs and prohibiting the most reliable, affordable forms of energy.” These actions are vital, because “the greatest threat to the environment is not affluence. It’s poverty.”
Radical environmental groups are nevertheless preparing to battle every Trump action in our courts, legislatures, newsrooms … and streets. Preparing to join all the prominent big-name groups is a host of like-minded, tax-exempt, pseudo-free-enterprise outfits, many operating under the umbrella of the Conservative Energy Network. This 2016 creation includes Young Conservatives for Energy Reform, an environmentalist Christian Coalition of America, Citizens for Responsible Energy Reform – and Conservatives for Clean Energy (CCE), launched in 2014 as an “educational” and “charity” organization.
They all advocate the asserted need to “fundamentally transform” energy and economic systems, and switch from fossil fuels to “clean, renewable” energy, to save our civilization and planet from “dangerous manmade global warming, climate change and extreme weather.” The other thing they seem to have in common is funding sources that enable them to be so visible and active.
Prominent among those funding sources is The Energy Foundation. It launched CCE with a $350,000 grant in 2014, gave $535,000 to the Christian Coalition in 2013 and sent $925,000 to the North Carolina Solar Energy Alliance since 2008, the the Civitas Institute notes, citing tax filings and other sources.
Between 2007 and 2014, Civitas points out, TEF also gave $4,476,000 to the Southern Environmental Law Center, a litigation factory that uses questionable climate and ecological claims to drive lawsuits against energy and other development projects, raising energy costs, killing jobs, and hammering the budgets, health and wellbeing of poor, minority and working class families.
As a 2014 US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee report explained, a virtual who’s who of ultra-wealthy leftist foundations and their “Billionaires’ Club” of donors is the financial force behind The Energy Foundation. TEF serves as a “pass-through” hub that helps donors make it seem that grant recipients have a more diversified base of support than they actually do; shields them from transparency and accountability; and at times hides contributions from donors that could raise serious “red” flags.
One such donor is the secretive Sea Change Foundation. Set up by billionaires Nat Simons and his wife, Sea Change has been exposed by multiple investigators as a shell corporation that funnels huge sums to radical anti-fracking and anti-fossil fuel activists from Vladimir Putin pals, giant Russian oil companies and investment groups, and more reputable sources like the Gates and Walmart Foundations.
The Energy Foundation received nearly $65 million from Sea Change between 1997 and 2015 – plus tens of millions more from the Hewlett, Packard, McKnight, MacArthur, Rockefeller, Pew, Bloomberg, Tomkat (Tom Steyer) and other foundations. All together, over 120 fat-cat foundations gave a whopping $534 million to the Energy Foundation between 1997 and 2015. During the same period, The Energy Foundation gave over $1.2 billion to more than 12,000 activist and agitator groups, investigative journalist Ron Arnold discovered.
It’s a bit daunting to have this kind of money and power allied with green, urban and government elites against Blue Collar America and the fossil fuels that still supply 81% of the USA’s energy.
This is the cabal of “consumer” and “environmental” groups that “Conservatives” for “Clean” Energy has in its corner. With offices in North Carolina and Virginia, CCE is heavily involved in fossil fuel and renewable energy political activism.
It is closely allied with the NC Solar Energy Alliance, to extend government mandates, tax credits and other government assistance to a marginal electricity source that brings higher prices, lower reliability, and reduced ability of families, hospitals, schools and businesses to meet tight budgets, says Civitas.
It has also partnered with the SELC and other groups pursuing new strategies to bankrupt and close coal-fired electricity generation plants, by generating misplaced fear about coal ash impoundments. Once public anxiety rose, activists demanded that the ash be dug up and moved “somewhere else,” regardless of the cost, which could be in the billions – and regardless of the fact that detected levels of chromium-6 (and other metals) do not pose health risks and come from natural rock formations, as well as from coal.
Keeping the ash where it is, and capping it with impermeable clay, is probably the best thing to do now.
But CCE then waded in with an opinion poll, which predictably found that North Carolinians want the ash moved but don’t want to pay for the removals, and support more wind and solar power. The groups are now poised to reprise the tactic in Virginia and other states with coal-fueled power generation.
TEF itself also weighed in, funding a study which predictably concluded that US renewable energy industries would “eventually” create 74,000 new jobs “from the ashes” of coal-related companies. Even if that were true, how many jobs would climate alarmism, chemical fear-mongering and costly renewable energy destroy in other sectors of our economy? Perhaps 740,000 or even 7,400,000?
President Obama’s Clean Power Plan alone could have imposed $1 trillion in lost output, 125,000 lost jobs and double-digit increases in electricity prices, the Wall Street Journal noted. The combined impact of all Obama Era climate and renewable energy programs would have cost the American economy $3 trillion and 6.5 million industrial sector jobs by 2040, Senator John Barrasso stated, referring to a National Economic Research Associates study.
To top it off, “clean” energy is not clean, renewable or sustainable. It requires perpetual subsidies, taken from taxpayers and consumers, and given to politically connected crony corporatists. It needs vast land acreage – for wind turbines, solar panels, long transmission lines … and backup fossil fuel generating plants. And all those facilities require enormous amounts of concrete, steel, copper, rare earth metals, fiberglass, fossil fuels and other non-renewable raw materials dug out of the ground, often in faraway lands that have few environmental, health or child labor standards.
Just imagine the tremendous good all those billions of dollars from all those “progressive” billionaires could do if – instead of lining the coffers of radical anti-energy agitator groups – they were devoted to actually helping poor families in the United States, other industrialized nations, and especially the most impoverished, energy-deprived, disease-ridden, malnourished countries on Earth?
That would be real, long overdue social and environmental justice. If wishes were horses ….
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org), and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death and other books on the environment.
DNC's Perez says Trump a bully, 'didn't win election'
Fox News April 1, 2017
New Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez on Friday night said President Trump "didn't win the election" and suggested his Republican Party doesn't care about voters. The comments by Perez, Labor secretary under President Obama, appear to leave little doubt about the direction in which he will try to take the struggling committee.......Continue Reading.....
Klayman: Perez and Ellison Are Total Sleaze but They Represent the Current State of the American Left. They Must Be Legally Destroyed! See Freedom Watch
Saturday, April 1, 2017
You Gotta See This!!!
By Rich Kozlovich
In days gone by I wasn't all that impressed with Tucker Carlson and I always wondered why he was kept on the news networks. But I will say this - it's clear to me now he was far more impressive in the background than on the shows he was involved with. It's now clear to me he didn't have the right platform. He's in his right element now with the right platform, and he will become the big dog at Fox.
What's great is there's no end to the number of leftist loons who think their smart and capable, so he's never going to run out of loons to humiliate.
But as becomes clear in this interview - they don't answer the questions asked, they spew out logical fallacies to change the narrative, they won't stop talking, and they're always insulting the intelligence of those debating against them.
Logical fallacies are all the left has to offer!
In days gone by I wasn't all that impressed with Tucker Carlson and I always wondered why he was kept on the news networks. But I will say this - it's clear to me now he was far more impressive in the background than on the shows he was involved with. It's now clear to me he didn't have the right platform. He's in his right element now with the right platform, and he will become the big dog at Fox.
What's great is there's no end to the number of leftist loons who think their smart and capable, so he's never going to run out of loons to humiliate.
But as becomes clear in this interview - they don't answer the questions asked, they spew out logical fallacies to change the narrative, they won't stop talking, and they're always insulting the intelligence of those debating against them.
Logical fallacies are all the left has to offer!
'It's Our Job to Tell You What to Think'
On Wednesday morning, Feb. 22, Mika Brzezinski, one of the hosts of MSNBC's “Morning Joe,” shared her fears that President Trump was trying to undermine the media.
He is trying to undermine the media and trying to make up his own facts. And it could be that while unemployment and the economy worsens, he could have undermined the messaging so much that he can actually control exactly what people think. And that, that is our job.”Let me rephrase: It is the media’s unspoken job to control what people think. How very Pravda!
She let slip the unspoken truth that, yes, it is the media's “job” to “control exactly what people think.”.......Enter the Sixth Column. The Trump Administration is the resistance movement. ......... More
California Democrats Push to End the 1st Amendment
Leave it to the liberals in California to seek to put an end to the freedom of speech. The past home of the free speech movement has become one of the most devout defenders of liberal fascism in America today. The bill is AB-1104, it’s called The California Political Cyberfraud Abatement Act, and California liberals say it will solve their “fake news” problems. Sadly, they don’t seem to realize that it will create many more problems than it solves.
Here’s what it says:......To Read More....
Trump Team Uncovers a Mole: Leak of Whistleblowers leads to Shakeup of White House Staff
It was only hearsay being questioned on conservative websites yesterday, but today Breitbart News says it has confirmed with several sources inside the White House that the move to reassign deputy Chief of Staff Katie Walsh was directly related to White House concerns that she was leaking information to the press!
On Thursday, pro-Trump website Conservative Treehouse wrote that the leak of Devin Nunes’ “whistleblowers” was actually an elaborate ploy to smoke out who in the White House was leaking information to the press. Just a short while after the New York Times broke the story, Katie Walsh announced that she would be moving on to help lead a pro-Trump organization outside of the administration.
However, conservative rumor mongers argued that this was actually the White House ridding itself of a dangerous leak.......To Read More.....
Feel The Bern: Venezuelan Supreme Court Dissolves National Assembly
By Rich Kozlovich
According to Geopolitical Futures Watch List, "Venezuela’s Supreme Court assumed legislative powers and functions that normally are in the National Assembly’s jurisdiction. The court ruled that the Assembly is invalid and antagonistically defied all of the court’s rulings."
The court "dissolved the National Assembly "usurping" the power of the Assembly and "eliminated immunity for Assembly Members". Now it seems clear to me they would've never done this if they weren't assured there was a huge amount of support from powerful opposition forces within Venezuela's military and police in the country. However it appears the opposition party is refusing to obey the order. Not much of an opposition party is it? But I wonder - does anyone really believe these judges would be any better than the communists already there?
It would appear Geopolitical Futures and I agree on this though. This is the end for Maduro and his cabal of socialist thugs, thieves and criminals. It's my view they will be out of office by the end of this year. We also agree this change will not be a pleasant one. There will be violence, and this action by the court will be one of the reasons because it eliminates elections.
They seem to think this might be avoided depending on "mid-term responses from political opposition groups, the military, regional bodies and foreign powers." I don't! This nation is on the verge of starvation and the entire nation is just short of becoming an angry uncontrollable mob.
This government is toast, but what will replace it? Who will replace it? It had better be someone who understands they cannot exist economically until they make amends with the United States. The geography of Venezuela makes that an absolute imperative for their survival.
According to Geopolitical Futures Watch List, "Venezuela’s Supreme Court assumed legislative powers and functions that normally are in the National Assembly’s jurisdiction. The court ruled that the Assembly is invalid and antagonistically defied all of the court’s rulings."
The court "dissolved the National Assembly "usurping" the power of the Assembly and "eliminated immunity for Assembly Members". Now it seems clear to me they would've never done this if they weren't assured there was a huge amount of support from powerful opposition forces within Venezuela's military and police in the country. However it appears the opposition party is refusing to obey the order. Not much of an opposition party is it? But I wonder - does anyone really believe these judges would be any better than the communists already there?
It would appear Geopolitical Futures and I agree on this though. This is the end for Maduro and his cabal of socialist thugs, thieves and criminals. It's my view they will be out of office by the end of this year. We also agree this change will not be a pleasant one. There will be violence, and this action by the court will be one of the reasons because it eliminates elections.
They seem to think this might be avoided depending on "mid-term responses from political opposition groups, the military, regional bodies and foreign powers." I don't! This nation is on the verge of starvation and the entire nation is just short of becoming an angry uncontrollable mob.
This government is toast, but what will replace it? Who will replace it? It had better be someone who understands they cannot exist economically until they make amends with the United States. The geography of Venezuela makes that an absolute imperative for their survival.
ISIS Beheads a 100-Year Old Blind Man
While ISIS in Syria and Iraq is struggling to maintain their hold on their so-called caliphate, ISIS outside of the region continues to grow more powerful and fearsome. How fearsome? A just released video shows ISIS in Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula wreaking havoc and acting seemingly without concern for law enforcement or of Egypt’s government.........Another of the terrorists can then be heard saying, “Thanks be to God who has allowed the Islamic State’s soldiers in Sinai in applying his law and instituting religion in spite of all the infidels, apostates and envious Jews.”......To Read More....
After Latest Insults – Israel Cuts Funding for the United Nations, will the USA Follow?
By Onan Coca March 31, 2017
Israel may have finally found a way to strike back at the United Nations (UN) for the constant stream of insults and attacks that flow from the world governing body toward the tiny Middle Eastern nation. However, the tactic can only work if their closest ally, the United States, gets on board.
After the most recent round of hypocritical, and insulting attacks from the UN, Israel’s leaders have decided to slash funding to the organization. Emmanuel Nahshon is a spokesman for the Foreign Ministry office and he explained that following the two most recent anti-Israel votes from the UN, Israel had decided to cut “2 million dollars from its U.N. dues, given the anti-Israel votes at UNHRC.
The money will be used for development projects in countries” that are supportive of Israel, instead of on an anti-Israel body like the UN. Israel normally pays about $11 million to the UN each year, so the cut in spending is just under 20% of their normal dues. However, that cut comes along with a previously announced cut of $6-7 Million… Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s official government Twitter account tweeted confirmation that Israel would be withholding money from the UN......To Read More....
Israel may have finally found a way to strike back at the United Nations (UN) for the constant stream of insults and attacks that flow from the world governing body toward the tiny Middle Eastern nation. However, the tactic can only work if their closest ally, the United States, gets on board.
After the most recent round of hypocritical, and insulting attacks from the UN, Israel’s leaders have decided to slash funding to the organization. Emmanuel Nahshon is a spokesman for the Foreign Ministry office and he explained that following the two most recent anti-Israel votes from the UN, Israel had decided to cut “2 million dollars from its U.N. dues, given the anti-Israel votes at UNHRC.
The money will be used for development projects in countries” that are supportive of Israel, instead of on an anti-Israel body like the UN. Israel normally pays about $11 million to the UN each year, so the cut in spending is just under 20% of their normal dues. However, that cut comes along with a previously announced cut of $6-7 Million… Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s official government Twitter account tweeted confirmation that Israel would be withholding money from the UN......To Read More....
Bernie Supporters Exploited by Russians to Stymy Hillary Clinton Campaign
By Andrew West
The idea that Russia was responsible for the election of Donald Trump is the story that refuses to go away in 2017, even after months of work to understand the reality of the situation.
Previously, the liberals were working their fingers to the bone in an effort to pin all manner of Russian conspiracies on Donald Trump, including the possibility that the Kremlin had used high level espionage to infiltrate the conservative news cycle of the United States. The theory was the the Russians were planting so-called “fake news” stories with conservative media outlets in an attempt to undermine Hillary Clinton these salacious stories went viral.
Now, after weeks and weeks of investigation into the matter, it looks as though a part of this conspiracy theory could be true, but it’s not going to be the part that the liberal media was so excited to tout during the election and its aftermath..........To Read More.....
My Take - If there ever was a story that demonstrates just how worthless the main stream media is - this is it!
The idea that Russia was responsible for the election of Donald Trump is the story that refuses to go away in 2017, even after months of work to understand the reality of the situation.
Previously, the liberals were working their fingers to the bone in an effort to pin all manner of Russian conspiracies on Donald Trump, including the possibility that the Kremlin had used high level espionage to infiltrate the conservative news cycle of the United States. The theory was the the Russians were planting so-called “fake news” stories with conservative media outlets in an attempt to undermine Hillary Clinton these salacious stories went viral.
Now, after weeks and weeks of investigation into the matter, it looks as though a part of this conspiracy theory could be true, but it’s not going to be the part that the liberal media was so excited to tout during the election and its aftermath..........To Read More.....
My Take - If there ever was a story that demonstrates just how worthless the main stream media is - this is it!
Radical Black Lives Matter Agitators Get Harsh Truth From College President
By Andrew West
Black Lives Matter has been terrorizing American society for years, with their racist and anti-police protests, violence, and murder.
The hate group, thinly disguised as a liberal “social justice warrior” cabal has been radicalizing the youth of this nation since their inception. Disciples of the group are known for their ridiculously one-sided version of racism, and they are infamous for their message of violence against the police – a message that culminated in the death of five brave officers in Dallas, Texas in 2016.......To Read More......
Black Lives Matter has been terrorizing American society for years, with their racist and anti-police protests, violence, and murder.
The hate group, thinly disguised as a liberal “social justice warrior” cabal has been radicalizing the youth of this nation since their inception. Disciples of the group are known for their ridiculously one-sided version of racism, and they are infamous for their message of violence against the police – a message that culminated in the death of five brave officers in Dallas, Texas in 2016.......To Read More......
Observations From the Back Row: What's Wrong With Our Minds?
By Rich Kozlovich, Originally posted Friday, July 9, 2010 updated March 31, 2017
Let’s not kid ourselves - what they really want is Ford, and the rest of the automobile industry, to be out of business. What do they want from pesticide users? Well, I am sure that if we would offer to kill ourselves that they would agree that this would be a nice start, and we've been working hard to accommodate them.
If you look at who has affected people’s health positively and negatively you will find that it's the pesticide application industries that's saved and extended lives and it is the environmental movement who has taken lives. So why do we listen to them? Why does anyone?
I am the last one to decry their desire for a simple life without all the modern conveniences. If that is what someone wants, then I say…enjoy! However, if all of these people think their ideas are so great, why are all these green activists and their supporters living in the developed world and not in the third world?
If they really believe all of the stuff they spew out they need to take a personal stand and move there. They could really make an impact on everyone’s mind by taking their children with them also. Certainly that must make sense to everyone! After all, why would a green activist want to expose themselves and their children to all of these terrible chemicals?
They need to move to one of the many areas of the world where there are no roads, few cars and no running water contaminated with any chlorine or fluoride. No electricity, no vaccinations, no genetically modified foods, no fungicides, no anti-bacterial cleaners, no air conditioning, and all organic food with no synthetic pesticides or fertilizers.
Will there be many takers? Few if any!
You can be sure green activists will be as close to the modern conveniences and the society they claim to despise as surely as bank robbers will rob banks and pedophiles will hang around children.
To paraphrase the earlier question asked by Burt Prelutsky - “For what reason would any sane society ever believe anything these people say? The notion that society would be safe if these creeps ideas and philosophies were followed is perfectly loony.”
Yes …we really have lost our minds!
Some year back Burt Prelutsky wrote an article entitled “Those poor, poor perverts”. The basis of the article was a discussion as to how ridiculous are the arguments surrounding pedophiles and how they are to be treated by society.
He uses the old story of how “intellectuals” (he used the word “nuts”, but they were the intellectuals of the day…..nothing has changed!) would sit around for hours and discuss how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. See… television did cure one thing. The only problem is that so many of those who are in decision making positions apparently don’t waste their time on television, mores’ the pity, because they now sit around and decide how many feet away from a school a convicted pedophile may live who has been released from prison.
Prelutsky makes a point that should be obvious to the most casual observer - “For what reason would any sane society ever release such a person from jail? The notion that kids are safe if the creep lives 2,000 feet away from where they play is perfectly loony. What about the kids walking to and from those parks and playgrounds? “
He points out that it is like releasing all the bank robbers from the prisons and telling them they can’t live any closer that two blocks away from a bank and expecting this to be the solution to their wanting to rob banks.
He goes on to say, “judges and lawmakers seem happy to ignore the rates of recidivism among rapists and pedophiles. Is there anyone else, aside from defense attorneys, who would argue that a man who’s raped a six year old child deserves a second chance?”
We have ceded our own common sense to the “experts”!
Are they really all that credible - so credible we willingly abandon common sense, moral balance and traditional values instilled in society over the ages?
Where is our moral compass?
As unpleasant an issue as this is, I use it to show a peculiar nutty mindset that permeates society. Concern about pedophiles, bank robbers and other assorted villains of society is the common concern that we all must share. But we also have the added concern of those who are destructive to society in a much larger and more insidious way. The green movement!
A group that industry must have the most concerns over, and they aren't only on the outside of industry, they've become ensconced within industry. They are the fifth columnists we need to fear. They share the culture moving among us openly, speaking the same language, but all the while rotting the very foundation of industry with their works.
They promote junk and fraudulent science as fact and while they should be the ones at the fore front defending who and what we are - standing against this nonsense - they instead turn into cheerleaders - and everyone eats it up with an arrogant air of self-righteousness.
Society and industry willing accepts this nonsense because the media is on their side, keeping everyone misinformed or ill informed. The EPA is clearly complicit as they continue spewing out a lava flow of scientifically dubious regulations. They support junk science through grant money - IPM and Green Pest Control being these kinds of endeavors.
The green movement even has legislators held hostage to huge amounts of their monetary support. Some years back a California congressman wanted to make changes to the Endangered Species Act…not repeal it as is really needed…..just add some sanity to it, and the Sierra Club spent a ton of money to defeat him - and they did. They stated “this was a lesson” to other legislators. This makes them more deadly to more people over a broader scope of humanity than bank robbers or even pedophiles.
He uses the old story of how “intellectuals” (he used the word “nuts”, but they were the intellectuals of the day…..nothing has changed!) would sit around for hours and discuss how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. See… television did cure one thing. The only problem is that so many of those who are in decision making positions apparently don’t waste their time on television, mores’ the pity, because they now sit around and decide how many feet away from a school a convicted pedophile may live who has been released from prison.
Prelutsky makes a point that should be obvious to the most casual observer - “For what reason would any sane society ever release such a person from jail? The notion that kids are safe if the creep lives 2,000 feet away from where they play is perfectly loony. What about the kids walking to and from those parks and playgrounds? “
He points out that it is like releasing all the bank robbers from the prisons and telling them they can’t live any closer that two blocks away from a bank and expecting this to be the solution to their wanting to rob banks.
He goes on to say, “judges and lawmakers seem happy to ignore the rates of recidivism among rapists and pedophiles. Is there anyone else, aside from defense attorneys, who would argue that a man who’s raped a six year old child deserves a second chance?”
We have ceded our own common sense to the “experts”!
Are they really all that credible - so credible we willingly abandon common sense, moral balance and traditional values instilled in society over the ages?
Where is our moral compass?
As unpleasant an issue as this is, I use it to show a peculiar nutty mindset that permeates society. Concern about pedophiles, bank robbers and other assorted villains of society is the common concern that we all must share. But we also have the added concern of those who are destructive to society in a much larger and more insidious way. The green movement!
A group that industry must have the most concerns over, and they aren't only on the outside of industry, they've become ensconced within industry. They are the fifth columnists we need to fear. They share the culture moving among us openly, speaking the same language, but all the while rotting the very foundation of industry with their works.
They promote junk and fraudulent science as fact and while they should be the ones at the fore front defending who and what we are - standing against this nonsense - they instead turn into cheerleaders - and everyone eats it up with an arrogant air of self-righteousness.
Society and industry willing accepts this nonsense because the media is on their side, keeping everyone misinformed or ill informed. The EPA is clearly complicit as they continue spewing out a lava flow of scientifically dubious regulations. They support junk science through grant money - IPM and Green Pest Control being these kinds of endeavors.
The green movement even has legislators held hostage to huge amounts of their monetary support. Some years back a California congressman wanted to make changes to the Endangered Species Act…not repeal it as is really needed…..just add some sanity to it, and the Sierra Club spent a ton of money to defeat him - and they did. They stated “this was a lesson” to other legislators. This makes them more deadly to more people over a broader scope of humanity than bank robbers or even pedophiles.
The history of the green movement - along with it's foundational parent philosophy socialism - has brought dystopia to humanity all over the world, and they would love to have America share in it. The philosophy and programs, including the Precautionary Principle, are almost identical to those imposed by the world's first green government - Nazi Germany!
Does industry really believe all the nonsense they spew out? Do we really believe we can really come to some sort of mutually acceptable final agreement with them? No matter what many of the prominent people in our industry, or for that matter industry as a whole say publicly - when I talk to them personally and off the record they all acknowledge that it is all claptrap.
A lobbyist I have known for years makes the point that in any negotiations there must be some compromise, and I agree. The problem we seem to have is being able to understand the difference between compromise and capitulation. If during these discussions we give up something, I would like to know what the other side is giving up. I am not talking about just being quiet for a while either. Or being quiet while their brethren from other green groups attack us, which is what usually happens. There is no command and control system within the green movement. They will not only continue attacking industry they will attack their green brethren as sell outs for not being green enough.
If you give up 25% of something and they go away until next year - they will be back the very next year demanding that you give up another 25% and so on and so on and so on until you no longer have anything to give up. When you dance with the Devil you don't call the tune, you can't name the dance, you don't lead, and you may not be able to leave the dance floor.
Why don't we get that?
If you think this is an extreme and unreasonable view - ask Kentucky Fried Chicken. They backed down on point after point and the animal rights people said that this was a “good start”. There will be no end to their demands because the Neville Chamberlain “Policy of Appeasement” philosophy will not work on people with an agenda?
They are the anointed!
They know best about all things. They truly believe their individual and collective intellect is far greater than all of the practical experience accumulated by mankind over the centuries. Their's is the “vision of the anointed” - and must not be ignored - no matter the consequences. As a result of the policies they've promoted they clearly earned the right to b the 20th century’s greatest mass murders (even greater than all the murderous leftist dictators combined. The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression, conservatively claims they murdered 100 million innocent people. Depending on who you read their unjustified ban on DDT along may have unnecessarily killed that many innocent people, and that number grows daily) and are working just as hard in thd 21st century to maintain that status.
Ford Motor Company also found out the hard way. In a Fox News article Steve Milloy points out that “After Ford caved into pressure from left-wing activist investors and issued a report stating that it “views stabilization of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and energy security as critical and related business issues that warrant precautionary, prudent and early action,” the enviros thanked Ford in return by accusing his company of putting “more heat-trapping pollution into our skies each year than the entire country of Mexico" - continuing to “produce more global warming pollution on average than any other automaker” - continuing to make SUVs - and fighting a California law that would require a 30 percent reduction in automobile carbon dioxide emissions by 2016.”
Does industry really believe all the nonsense they spew out? Do we really believe we can really come to some sort of mutually acceptable final agreement with them? No matter what many of the prominent people in our industry, or for that matter industry as a whole say publicly - when I talk to them personally and off the record they all acknowledge that it is all claptrap.
A lobbyist I have known for years makes the point that in any negotiations there must be some compromise, and I agree. The problem we seem to have is being able to understand the difference between compromise and capitulation. If during these discussions we give up something, I would like to know what the other side is giving up. I am not talking about just being quiet for a while either. Or being quiet while their brethren from other green groups attack us, which is what usually happens. There is no command and control system within the green movement. They will not only continue attacking industry they will attack their green brethren as sell outs for not being green enough.
If you give up 25% of something and they go away until next year - they will be back the very next year demanding that you give up another 25% and so on and so on and so on until you no longer have anything to give up. When you dance with the Devil you don't call the tune, you can't name the dance, you don't lead, and you may not be able to leave the dance floor.
Why don't we get that?
If you think this is an extreme and unreasonable view - ask Kentucky Fried Chicken. They backed down on point after point and the animal rights people said that this was a “good start”. There will be no end to their demands because the Neville Chamberlain “Policy of Appeasement” philosophy will not work on people with an agenda?
They are the anointed!
They know best about all things. They truly believe their individual and collective intellect is far greater than all of the practical experience accumulated by mankind over the centuries. Their's is the “vision of the anointed” - and must not be ignored - no matter the consequences. As a result of the policies they've promoted they clearly earned the right to b the 20th century’s greatest mass murders (even greater than all the murderous leftist dictators combined. The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression, conservatively claims they murdered 100 million innocent people. Depending on who you read their unjustified ban on DDT along may have unnecessarily killed that many innocent people, and that number grows daily) and are working just as hard in thd 21st century to maintain that status.
Ford Motor Company also found out the hard way. In a Fox News article Steve Milloy points out that “After Ford caved into pressure from left-wing activist investors and issued a report stating that it “views stabilization of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and energy security as critical and related business issues that warrant precautionary, prudent and early action,” the enviros thanked Ford in return by accusing his company of putting “more heat-trapping pollution into our skies each year than the entire country of Mexico" - continuing to “produce more global warming pollution on average than any other automaker” - continuing to make SUVs - and fighting a California law that would require a 30 percent reduction in automobile carbon dioxide emissions by 2016.”
Let’s not kid ourselves - what they really want is Ford, and the rest of the automobile industry, to be out of business. What do they want from pesticide users? Well, I am sure that if we would offer to kill ourselves that they would agree that this would be a nice start, and we've been working hard to accommodate them.
If you look at who has affected people’s health positively and negatively you will find that it's the pesticide application industries that's saved and extended lives and it is the environmental movement who has taken lives. So why do we listen to them? Why does anyone?
I am the last one to decry their desire for a simple life without all the modern conveniences. If that is what someone wants, then I say…enjoy! However, if all of these people think their ideas are so great, why are all these green activists and their supporters living in the developed world and not in the third world?
If they really believe all of the stuff they spew out they need to take a personal stand and move there. They could really make an impact on everyone’s mind by taking their children with them also. Certainly that must make sense to everyone! After all, why would a green activist want to expose themselves and their children to all of these terrible chemicals?
They need to move to one of the many areas of the world where there are no roads, few cars and no running water contaminated with any chlorine or fluoride. No electricity, no vaccinations, no genetically modified foods, no fungicides, no anti-bacterial cleaners, no air conditioning, and all organic food with no synthetic pesticides or fertilizers.
Will there be many takers? Few if any!
You can be sure green activists will be as close to the modern conveniences and the society they claim to despise as surely as bank robbers will rob banks and pedophiles will hang around children.
To paraphrase the earlier question asked by Burt Prelutsky - “For what reason would any sane society ever believe anything these people say? The notion that society would be safe if these creeps ideas and philosophies were followed is perfectly loony.”
Yes …we really have lost our minds!
A Six-Figure Welfare Fraud Horror Story
March 31, 2017 by Dan Mitchell @ International Liberty
Certain redistribution programs are called “entitlements” because anybody who meets various criteria is “entitled” to automatically get money or other benefits.
Economists worry that such programs (particularly the “means-tested” entitlements) create perverse incentives since some people will choose to work less and earn less in order to maximize the amount
of handouts they receive.
Such behavior is immoral, but understandable. People learn that if they make sacrifices and work more, the reward is taxation, whereas if they work less (or not at all), the reward is freebies from the government.
And the problem presumably is worse in places where there is a greater amount of redistribution (if you’re curious, here’s the data on which states and countries have the most profligate package of benefits).
But the problem goes beyond simply luring people into idleness with bad incentives. When politicians create programs that give away money, they also create opportunities for outright fraud. Which is a pervasive problem, as illustrated by these examples.
Minnesota’s Pioneer Press reports on a government audit that found one-third of welfare recipients improperly received handouts.
It’s also not clear how much of the problem is caused by accident and how much is caused by fraud. Presumably the latter, but it’s quite possible that some people aren’t knowingly bilking the system.
But in some cases, there’s no ambiguity. The Sun has a horror story about a stunning case of welfare fraud.
In any event, Ms. Dualeh claimed she was eligible for that huge package of handouts because her husband was no longer part of the family.
But that wasn’t true.
Though at the risk of being a pedantic libertarian, I would prefer if the headline said “Lucrative” instead of “Profitable.” After all, as Walter Williams has explained that profit is a meritorious reward for serving others.
But we can all probably agree that Ms. Dualeh deserves membership in the Moocher Hall of Fame.
P.S. I wouldn’t be surprised if Ms. Dualeh was introduced to the welfare system thanks to America’s poorly designed refugee program.
P.P.S. On the broader issue of redistribution and economics, this Wizard-of-Id parody contains a lot of insight about labor supply and incentives. As does this Chuck Asay cartoon and this Robert Gorrell cartoon.
Certain redistribution programs are called “entitlements” because anybody who meets various criteria is “entitled” to automatically get money or other benefits.
Economists worry that such programs (particularly the “means-tested” entitlements) create perverse incentives since some people will choose to work less and earn less in order to maximize the amount
of handouts they receive.
Such behavior is immoral, but understandable. People learn that if they make sacrifices and work more, the reward is taxation, whereas if they work less (or not at all), the reward is freebies from the government.
And the problem presumably is worse in places where there is a greater amount of redistribution (if you’re curious, here’s the data on which states and countries have the most profligate package of benefits).
But the problem goes beyond simply luring people into idleness with bad incentives. When politicians create programs that give away money, they also create opportunities for outright fraud. Which is a pervasive problem, as illustrated by these examples.
- Medicare fraud.
- Medicaid fraud.
- Food stamp fraud.
- EITC fraud.
- Unemployment benefits fraud.
- Disability fraud.
Minnesota’s Pioneer Press reports on a government audit that found one-third of welfare recipients improperly received handouts.
A review by Minnesota’s legislative auditor has found that some of Minnesota’s welfare programs do a poor job of ensuring benefits don’t go to ineligible people… It found significant error rates in the Temporary Assistance For Needy Families program, which provides cash and other benefits to low-income families with children. …the audit found eight of 24 families it reviewed weren’t eligible for benefits they received.That’s not a large sample size, so we don’t know if the actual overall error rate is higher or lower than 33 percent, but the audit certainly suggests that there is a major problem.
It’s also not clear how much of the problem is caused by accident and how much is caused by fraud. Presumably the latter, but it’s quite possible that some people aren’t knowingly bilking the system.
But in some cases, there’s no ambiguity. The Sun has a horror story about a stunning case of welfare fraud.
Fozia Dualeh, 39, was charged with felony theft in Anoka County District Court, as prosecutors say she received $118,000 in government aid over roughly an 18 month period. According to the complaint, Dualeh exploited three public benefit programs from January 2015 to August 2015 which included $24,176 in food support, $85,582 in child care assistance and $8,996 in medical assistance overpayments.Wow, almost $120K over 1-1/2 years. That’s an impressive haul, though perhaps not too surprising given the dozens of handout programs that – when combined – make idleness relatively lucrative.
In any event, Ms. Dualeh claimed she was eligible for that huge package of handouts because her husband was no longer part of the family.
But that wasn’t true.
A search of the home by authorities in late October 2015 led to the discovery of Dualeh’s husband, who is also the children’s father, Abdikhadar Ismail, hiding under a blanket in the master bedroom, charges said. Several articles of mens clothing were found in a chest, as well as numerous documents and mail throughout the home belonging to Ismail. Ismail also listed the family’s address on two vehicles and with his employer, a residential health care business.Given the large sums of money involved, the Center of the American Experiment probably deserves an award for most-understated headline on this issue.
But we can all probably agree that Ms. Dualeh deserves membership in the Moocher Hall of Fame.
P.S. I wouldn’t be surprised if Ms. Dualeh was introduced to the welfare system thanks to America’s poorly designed refugee program.
P.P.S. On the broader issue of redistribution and economics, this Wizard-of-Id parody contains a lot of insight about labor supply and incentives. As does this Chuck Asay cartoon and this Robert Gorrell cartoon.
Friday, March 31, 2017
Quote of the Day!
Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
Then there's "Heinlein's Razor" which has since been defined as variations on "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice."
The second one is the one I prefer and - quite frankly - is far more historically correct. When you read about the personal lives of some of the most famous - or in the case of many - infamous leaders in politics, science, entertainment or business - you can't help but attribute their actions and motives to malice. And I would attribute greed as a form of malice. Greedy for money, fame, notoriety and respect - even if that respect is attained through illegitimate means.
Then there's "Heinlein's Razor" which has since been defined as variations on "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice."
The second one is the one I prefer and - quite frankly - is far more historically correct. When you read about the personal lives of some of the most famous - or in the case of many - infamous leaders in politics, science, entertainment or business - you can't help but attribute their actions and motives to malice. And I would attribute greed as a form of malice. Greedy for money, fame, notoriety and respect - even if that respect is attained through illegitimate means.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)