Life, Liberty, Property
Note: This infographic is from last year and is missing some key transactions. GE does not own NBC (or Comcast or any media) anymore. So that 6th company is now Comcast. And Time Warner doesn’t own AOL, so Huffington Post isn’t affiliated with them
Hat Tip: Business Insider
Infographic Source: Frugal Dad
By Staff Report | April 2, 2012 | End of the American Dream
The middle class is being systematically wiped out of existence in the United States today. America is a nation with a very tiny elite that is rapidly becoming increasingly wealthy while everyone else is becoming poorer. So why is this happening? Well, it is actually very simple. Our institutions are designed to concentrate wealth in the hands of a very limited number of people. Throughout human history, almost all societies that have had a big centralized government have also had a very high concentration of wealth in the hands of the elite. Throughout human history, almost all societies that have allowed big business or big corporations to dominate the economy have also had a very high concentration of wealth in the hands of the elite. Well, the United States has allowed both big government and big corporations to grow wildly out of control. Those were huge mistakes. Our founding fathers attempted to establish a nation where the federal government would be greatly limited and where corporations would be greatly restricted. Unfortunately, we have turned our backs on those principles and now we are paying the price.
By Robert Moffit, Ph.D. | April 2, 2012 | Heritage Foundation
Abstract: The triumph of the administrative state has been made possible by the emasculation of the legislative power. Washington’s problem is not merely federal spending and debt; it is the arrogance of centralized power. The time is therefore ripe for a major national discussion not only about the size of government, but also about the processes of government. Americans have a choice: to be governed by the rule of law, as hammered out in open legislative debate carried on by elected representatives who are directly accountable to us, or the rule of administrators who are most certainly not accountable to us. The rule of regulators is arbitrary and unaccountable government—exactly what the Founders wished to prevent in crafting the Federal Constitution.
Steve Kroft of CBS recently interviewed President Barack Obama. In response to a question on his job performance, the President ranked himself fourth among America’s chief executives (behind Lyndon Johnson, Franklin Roosevelt, and Abraham Lincoln) in the production of policy initiatives.[1]
Critics quickly ridiculed his self-assessment as narcissistic nonsense. They’re wrong.
President Obama is transforming American government. Few Presidents have enjoyed more success in enacting such a large policy agenda in such a short period of time.
Combine this massive legislative production with his zealous regulatory program. While Washington’s bureaucratic regime has been growing since the early 1900s, under President Obama its growth has exploded. In 2009 and 2010 alone, federal agencies issued 7,076 final rules.[2]
While the President insists that his regulatory output is less than that of President George W. Bush, a closer look reveals that his “major” regulations—those having an annual impact of at least $100 million each—were more numerous. Since President Obama took office in 2009, federal agencies have issued 75 major regulations with an annual additional cost to the economy of $38 billion.[3] Taken altogether, the Small Business Administration last year estimated that the total cost of America’s regulatory burden reached $1.75 trillion—more than twice what Americans pay in individual income taxes.[4]
The U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Treasury, and Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are at the center of this regulatory storm. They alone account for 43 percent of all rules in the federal pipeline.[5] Of the 43 major rules issued in 2010, 10 were based on EPA mandates.[6] With the President’s health and environmental initiatives alone, the Obama White House has dwarfed the regulatory agenda of its predecessors.
The national health law expands the administrative power of the HHS Secretary beyond anything previously attempted. The Secretary is required to act—indicated by the statutory language “shall”—1,563 times in the final language of the legislation, and 40 specific provisions of the law mandate or permit the issuance of regulations.[7] Senate Republican Policy Committee staff estimate that the new law creates 159 new agencies or entities, but the Congressional Research Service says that the exact number is “unknowable” inasmuch as certain powerful federal offices are created administratively without direct congressional authorization.
While the law’s schedule of implementation stretches out over eight years, the most far-reaching provisions—the mandates on individuals, employers, and states—take effect in 2014. Nonetheless, in less than two years, the national health law has already generated over 11,000 pages of rules, regulations, and guidelines and related paperwork in the Federal Register.
Just consider the law’s 15-member Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB). The powerful board will make its initial recommendations for detailed and specific Medicare payment cuts in January 2015, and the Secretary is empowered to put them into effect unless Congress enacts an alternative set of payment cuts to meet statutory Medicare spending targets.[8] The board’s automatic recommendations are subject to neither administrative nor judicial review, and the law further requires a three-fifths Senate majority to block IPAB’s prescriptions.
Peter Orszag, President Obama’s former director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), has observed that the extraordinary power of this new board is “the largest yielding of sovereignty from the Congress since the creation of the Federal Reserve.”[9]
In 2010 alone, Congress enacted 217 bills that became law, but that same year, federal agencies issued 3,573 final rules covering a wide variety of economic activities.[10] Today, more than at any other time in our history, we are less and less governed by the rule of law, hammered out in legislative deliberations as the Founders intended, and more and more governed by the rule of regulation. We are subject to edicts promulgated by administrators—persons we do not know and will never know, persons protected by civil service law and tenure who are not accountable to us and will never be accountable to us. Nonetheless, the administrators’ detailed decisions have the force of law.
Regulation, as law, can and does directly affect whether or not we can start or run our businesses, determine how many persons we can or cannot afford to hire, how we may or may not use our land or dispose of our property. Not only do administrators publish thousands of pages of regulations, but our fellow citizens can sometimes also go to jail for violating them.
Ladies and gentlemen, we are witnessing the triumph of the administrative state, but that conquest is only possible because of the emasculation of the legislative power. The Founders made Congress the lawgiver, as clarified in Article I, Section 1 of the Federal Constitution. So much of their focus, reflected in The Federalist and other writings, was on how to check and balance the predominant legislative power, to channel and contain personal ambition and factional interest, to restrain potentially tyrannical majorities and safeguard the rights of beleaguered minorities, to secure personal liberty and protect the rights of property.
Though federal power has grown steadily since President Washington took the oath of office, today the relationship between the individual and the government is changing in a qualitative way. Americans are increasingly the subjects of an administrative regime rather than the free citizens of a democratic republic with a limited government.
Picking Winners and Losers. This steady transfer of legislative power to administrators has another inescapable consequence: arbitrary rule. The champions of administrative power invariably couch their arguments in appeals to expertise. The more complex the economic sector to be planned or regulated, the more that strict uniformity in the application of the rules becomes problematic.
In broad congressional grants of power, lawmakers give administrators wide latitude in the development and enforcement of the rules, so those who make the rules can also unmake them by granting waivers and exemptions. In the case of the health care law, HHS has already granted over 1,722 temporary waivers to certain businesses, unions, and gourmet restaurants in San Francisco that don’t have to comply with national coverage rules that apply to other companies throughout the country.
Treating similarly situated Americans differently, either as individual citizens or as citizens of a particular state, amounts to arbitrary rule; and arbitrary rule is inherently unjust.
Today’s debate over the powerful bureaucracy is usually framed in terms of economic impact: How will federal rules affect economic growth and job creation, the price of gasoline or electricity, the cost of health insurance or the quality of medical care? While this level of debate is necessary, it is insufficient. Yes, we cannot neglect the trees, but it is really the health of the forest that matters.
The big question is this: How does this bureaucratic ascendancy affect ordinary Americans? My answer: Our very civic life is at stake, not just our prosperity.
The current trend is an affront to our self-government. The tacit assumption: Millions of us are not smart enough to make our own decisions for ourselves. Rather, we need to be closely supervised by officials. They will prescribe for us, for example, what kind of light bulbs and washing machines we should use. The provision of nutritional or caloric information on restaurant menus, or food items dispensed through vending machines, is now a federal mandate under Section 4205 of the Affordable Care Act.
Our supervision, though distant and impersonal, becomes more precise and detailed. We are to become increasingly dependent on government for our well-being. Today, almost half of Americans (48.5 percent) live in households that are getting some form of government assistance, largely funded from federal revenues, but nearly half (49.5 percent) of our citizens pay no federal income taxes. But today’s Progressives are still dissatisfied. In their view, the many are to be even more dependent on the few, and the few (the hated “rich,” however they are defined) should be paying even more in taxes than they do today.
Over time, these dynamics will change the character of our people, with corrosive consequences for our political culture and our economic prosperity. America will have a progressively larger class of dependent citizens, and that spirit of freedom and independence for which the Founders risked their lives and fortunes will be broken.
It does not have to be this way. Our task is to paint the big picture, the overarching framework of American civic life. The great medieval philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas, the “First Whig,” defines law as an edict of reason, promulgated by the sovereign for the common good of the community.[11] The law instructs citizens in their rights and duties, and thus has a teaching function. That being the case, as lawmakers, you must become teachers of the Constitution, carriers of our rich political culture of republican government.
What must we do to preserve and protect the constitutional traditions of limited government, individual liberty, the separation of powers, and the unique advantages of federalism? James Madison, “the Father of The Constitution,” was not a lawyer, but he was a Congressman. And in that role, he was also a teacher: He routinely employed his formidable talents in the education of his colleagues and fellow citizens on the first principles of government.
In my reading of the public mood, you also have an eager audience. More and more Americans hunger for the wisdom of the Founders, are reading their biographies, and seek to understand their tightly reasoned arguments for the adoption of our Constitution. They are also becoming aware that there is something deeply wrong with the way in which they are being governed and that this process deviates from the intentions of the Founders. They correctly sense that modern government is ever more distant and disconnected from them. They are right.
President Obama, like President Woodrow Wilson, is a real “Progressive,” but what does that mean? In his recent speech at Osawatomie, Kansas, he recalled President Theodore Roosevelt’s “New Nationalism.”[12] A genuine Progressive, TR favored the imposition of inheritance taxes and the income tax and became the standard bearer of the Progressive Party in 1912.
Reflecting that tradition, President Obama and his ideological allies are also vigorous champions of aggressive executive power.[13] Commenting on President Obama’s governance, New York Times columnist David Brooks predicts, “When historians look back on this period, they will see it as another progressive era…. It’s a progressive era based on faith in government experts and their ability to use social science analysis to manage complex systems.”[14]
Welcome to the “100 Years War” of American politics. Progressivism, after all, was America’s dominant political movement from 1890 to 1920. While the Progressives are identified with social reform and the reining in of corporate interests and trusts, they focused intensely on structural reform of government, particularly civil service reform and the democratization of our politics.
No modern American political movement has been more successful. Within a relatively short span of time, progressives backed the adoption of four transformative amendments to the Constitution. They fostered the income tax (Sixteenth Amendment) and secured direct election of U.S. Senators (Seventeenth Amendment); many backed Prohibition (Eighteenth Amendment); and they allied with the suffragettes (Nineteenth Amendment). In the several states, they broke the power of the political bosses and enacted initiative and referenda and the recall of public officials.
Long before the New Deal of the 1930s, Progressives concentrated power in Washington. With the backing of the Progressives, Congress created the Federal Reserve System (1913) and the Federal Trade Commission (1914). Federal employment soared.[15] During the Great War, Congress (in the Overman Act of 1918) gave President Wilson enormous discretionary power to consolidate and rearrange executive offices and agencies. Meanwhile, dissent, especially criticism of America’s entry into the war, was suppressed.
“Permissiveness,” the hallmark of the Sixties, was never welcome among Progressives, old or new. Under the rule of the new Progressives, if you want to just “do your own thing,” you won’t. You will do what you are told. If you think you can just “turn on, tune in, and drop out,” think again. You will be forced, for example, to buy government-approved health benefits—including federally certified abortifacients—or pay a fine. You will behave. You will conform. You will comply. You will not march to a different drummer.
The old Progressives were earnest and well-intentioned—old-fashioned “do gooders.” They were also stern and sober social reformers. During the Progressive Era, Congress suppressed the lottery business and interstate prostitution. They enforced prohibition on the sale and manufacture of alcohol,[16] and they imposed taxes on narcotics. Personal vice had become a public enemy. Professor Charles Beard, a leading Progressive historian, wrote in 1930: “Perhaps no country in the world, except Russia, places so many restraints on what is called ‘personal liberty,’ the right to do as one pleases in personal conduct and on the use of property.”[17]
Because Progressivism is an old and recurrent stream in our public life, its influence on public policy is so immense that it is a given: part of our national landscape. Progressive intellectuals generally had—and still have—a profound faith in social science, a conviction that scientific expertise was the key to social progress, especially in a social and economic order that was increasingly complex. Administration was to be the change agent. Again, Beard: “Thus, in our day, a new social science is being staked out and developed—the science of administration in a ‘great society.’ If the ‘great society’ is to endure, then it must make itself master of administration.”[18]
For Progressives, true liberty was not merely freedom from, or “negative” liberty, meaning freedom from arbitrary rule or tyrannical coercion, as embodied in the venerable natural rights tradition of the American Revolution. True liberty was the freedom to be, to act, to grow personally and to fulfill one’s potential.
This was “positive” liberty. It was to be achieved by the removal of economic and customary restraints, creating fairness in social and economic relations, liberating all persons, regardless of class or condition, from the unwelcome vicissitudes of the market and providing child care, education, universal health care, and pensions: in short, security. Justification for government action would be grounded, as Beard argued, not in power, but in service. This new liberty would be secured through broad-scale central planning and social and economic regulation.
Positive liberty, therefore, was to be achieved through the positive state. Think personal “growth” in a straitjacket.
Such ideological assumptions justified a federal role in health care and a national system of social insurance (based on the German model) for pensions in the Progressive Party platform of 1912. They explain the passion for centralization of power, particularly in the executive branch of national government, where scientific expertise would be able to work its will. “Progressivism,” wrote Professor Ralph Gabriel of Yale University, “was an aspect of the rising cult of science.”[19]
But Progressivism carries within it the seeds of contradiction. While Progressives long championed the democratization of our institutions, sunlight in government, and the elimination of the baneful influence of corporate interests, they clung stubbornly to a faith that public problems could be effectively solved through bureaucratic decision-making: little bands of experts appointed to an expanding number of government boards, commissions, or panels. That is at the heart of the Progressive conception of modern government.[20]
Populist rhetoric notwithstanding, the reality of Progressive rule is profoundly undemocratic, precisely because it takes crucial decision-making that directly affects the lives of millions of citizens “out of politics.” Thus, you have the administrative state: the rule of administrators.
Read the full article here.
By Daniel Greenfield | April 29, 2012 | Sultan Knish
Controlling a large number of people isn’t easy. The United States alone consists of 312 million people spread out across nearly 4 million square miles. Add on nearly 500 million for the population of the European Union and another nearly 4 million square miles of territory. Then pile on Canada with 34 million people and another 4 million square miles, Australia with 22 million and 3 million square miles and a few other stragglers here and there, and the postmodern rulers of the progressive empire have to cope with nearly a billion people spread out across 15 million square miles.
Large territories and large numbers of people are very difficult to govern. Structures tend to break down and people further away from the centers of power don’t listen to the boys at the top. The only way to make a going proposition of it is to consolidate as much power as possible at the center and the very act of centralizing power leads to tyranny.
The most direct chokehold possible is physical. China’s rulers, faced with vast territory and population, turned to the water empire. The modern West is quickly rediscovering a more sophisticated form of hydraulic despotism, cloaked in talk of saving the planet and providing for everyone’s needs.
Western resources are not innately centralized, which makes seizing control of them and routing them through a central point more difficult. This has to be done legislatively and has to be justified by a universal benefit or a crisis. One example of this is FDR’s Agricultural Adjustment Act which allowed the government to control wheat grown on a farm for private consumption. Another is nationalizing health care by routing the commercial activity of medicine through government organs. Both services and commodities can be controlled in this manner.
But the larger challenge is that the West is rich and a water empire depends on scarcity. Central control is much less potent if there is plenty of the commodity or service available. It’s only when shortages are created in bread or health care that the system really wields power by rationing a scarce commodity or service.
If a resource is scarce, then the water empire has to distribute it efficiently. But if a resource is widely available, then the water empire has to find ways of making it scarce, until the demand vastly outstrips the supply.
The modern water empire is dependent for its power on manufactured shortages. The rise of the progressive state was closely tied to its exploitation of shortages. Its challenge has been to win the race with industrial productivity by manufacturing shortages and destroying wealth faster than it could be created. While the machine of industry created wealth, the machine of government destroyed it. Today the machine of government is very close to winning the race, creating a state of permanent shortages.
Manufactured shortages are the great project of modern governments. This manufacture is done by prohibitively increasing the cost of creating and distributing products and services, by controlling the means of production in the name of wealth redistribution and by prohibiting the production on the grounds that it is immoral or dangerous. Over the 20th century the transition was made from the first to the second and finally to the third.
The third means of manufacturing shortages is the final trump card in the race between human ingenuity and government power. It began with pollution regulation and has reached the stage where all human activity, from a bike ride to the corner to a puff of exhaled air, is a form of pollution. The carbon footprint is to the human being what the Agricultural Adjustment Act was to wheat, a mandate for total central regulation of all human activity.
While the second means of manufacturing shortages only justified redistributing wealth, the third prevents its creation. It is the final lock of the water empire. When it slides into places, shortages become permanent and the Empire of Poverty rules over all.
The Empire of Poverty is the modern incarnation of the water empire, its feigned concern for social equality disguising its hunger for total power. With the third stage, the empire of poverty is mostly putting aside its pretense of controlling production in order to maximize human benefits from the products or services and is shifting over to controlling production in order to deny use of the products and services to those who need them.
Global Warming rhetoric is still couched in the usual social justice rhetoric, aimed at the poorer kleptocracies who are eager to join the line for a handout, but its logic is poverty driven. It is not out to create wealth, but to eliminate it, on the grounds that cheaply available food or electricity is an immoral activity that damages the planet.
Read the full article here.
Adam Taxin interviews Daniel Greenfield for a bit under five minutes about his Sunday, April 29, 2012 column, “The Empire of Poverty.”
By Tony Cartalucci | April 14, 2012 | Land Destroyer Report
Video: Church of Malthus evangelist, Paul Gilding in his “the Earth is Full” talk, tells us one million years of human progress has “finally” reached its limits. This is a tale that has been fallaciously told for at least the last 200 years since crackpot economist Thomas Malthus warned of imminent societal collapse based on a growing population – a prediction, like those of a suicidal doomsday cult, that has been demonstratively and repeatedly proven wrong. Gilding also attempts to link “climate change” in as a manifestation of our reached limits.
….
April 14, 2012 – Paul Gilding describes himself as an “independent writer, advisor and advocate for action on climate change.” He is not a scientist, nor does he appear to participate in any sort of productive industry. He is a modern day Malthusian evangelist – preaching the limits of population growth as hysterically as Thomas Malthus did over 200 years ago, warning of imminent societal collapse. Gilding’s contemporaries include John P. Holdren, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, who in 1977 ludicrously concluded that the United States would collapse when its population reached “280 million in 2040.”
America’s population stands well over 300 million today, and the only collapse it faces is due to a maniacal government attempting to carry out global imperial conquest through trillion dollar decade-spanning wars, and mega-trillion dollar banker bailouts paid to the order of institutionalized degenerate gamblers.
Clearly, whatever “science” men like Gilding and Holdren are basing their system of beliefs on is divorced from the science that gives us technology and progress. It is analytical, theoretical, and compiled by men who have little experiential knowledge of how the world actually functions. They are priests and evangelists perched in ivory towers and behind podiums shouting out their patently false conclusions to the crowds before them. Their resumes are devoid of accomplishments in applied science and technology, and instead filled with ridiculous predictions and “academia” that have humiliatingly and repeatedly been proven false.
Worst of all, their work is carried out on behalf of a “Green Vatican” of sorts – not based in Rome, Italy, but on Wall Street and in the financier capital of London – who in reality are the greatest purveyors of environmental catastrophe. Like many cults and organized religions before them, they shift the burden of reconciling “sin” onto its growing flock of followers instead of taking responsibility for its own actions, resultant from perpetual greed.
For instance, Gilding in his TED Talk, claims that humanity has exceeded Earth’s carrying capacity by 1.5 times – a number drawn from the “Global Footprint Network” funded by a myriad of corporate-financier funded foundations, not the least of which is Biotech GMO giant, Syngenta (2010 Annual Report, page 26 of the .pdf). A recent report published by investigative journalist Patrick Henningsen titled “Big Green Oil Money: WWF founded and run by Royal Dutch-Shell,” exposes how yet another denomination of the Church of Malthus is indeed funded by Wall Street and London. It should be noted that the WWF is linked directly to the “Global Footprint Network.”
Following this pattern is Deutsche Bank, one of the “leading participants” in the carbon credit market, who had erected a monolithic “Carbon Clock” in New York City to add a sense of moral justification, public urgency, and support to their newly devised pyramid scheme. This is not some sort of new culture of “corporate responsibility” but just the latest in a long line of lies told by banking and industrial cartels to market their products and services to an infinitely exploited and purposefully misled population.
The Fallacy of Anthropogenic-Driven Climate Change Explained.
In order to deconstruct the dogma of the Church of Malthus it helps first to understand that the planet Earth is in a constant state of change. Beneath its surface are geological processes that literally turn the planet inside-out over the ages through tectonic shifts and the volcanism that results. When land is thrust up above sea-level resulting in the creation of an island, it in turn shifts weather patterns. Atmospheric moisture that would otherwise carry on until it reached landfall upon the ever shifting major continents of Earth, would instead condense and fall due to new variations in pressure and temperature.
Image: Islands and landmasses are formed naturally and continuously through tectonic shifts and in many cases volcanic activity pushing submerged land above sea-level (top). Once above sea-level, increased elevation and variations in pressure and temperature collectively affect local weather patterns (bottom). The constant shifting of Earth’s geography in turn perpetually changes global climate.
….
Collectively these geological changes result in new global weather patterns. Weather patterns then directly affect biological adaptation. Species that lived in previously cool regions may adapt significantly to deal with an increase in regional temperatures. Their ecosystem may be so vastly affected in such a short period of time, some species may even go extinct – a process that has been ongoing long before man arrived.
Images: According to Discovery Magazine, this dinosaur (top left) existed in the “rainforests” of Antarctica, which today is a frozen wasteland (top right). The map (below) shows what the world looked like some 65 million years ago during the Cretaceous period. North America is covered with an inland sea, as is Africa’s now arid Sahara Desert. Antarctica is depicted as covered in forests. Climate change is nothing new, nor is the “change” we are experiencing now the most extreme in terms of either temperature or CO2 levels.
….
To illustrate this, we can look at the state of planet Earth in terms of biology, geology, and climatology, approximately 65 million years ago, where the continents we now know today were already taking recognizable shape. CO2 levels were over 10 times what they are now, and sea levels were so high that North America featured an inland sea centered on what is now the
Mississippi River. Global temperatures were also many times greater than they are today, so much so, that Antarctica despite already shifting to Earth’s southern pole, was covered in temperate forests and was home to a thriving dinosaur population.
Collectively, these changes and shifts in biological diversity across the planet’s surface then feed back into atmospheric conditions which in turn affect the weather. Since at no point in Earth’s history has its geology or biodiversity been the same, it stands to reason that weather driven by these two constantly changing variables would also constantly change. Therefore, the concept of “normality” in Earth’s climate is a ridiculous notion. The best one could do is claim that the indefinitely changing weather and biodiversity of the planet is being altered by human activity before proving how weather would have naturally changed and how it is now artificially changing. Since the ideological doctrine of the Church of Malthus is an irrational climate “status quo” it is clear that their conclusions and the “science” used to arrive at them are significantly flawed. As we will later see, real environmental damage is being done by human activity, but by precisely the sponsors of the charlatans pushing “anthropogenic climate change.”
Image: The Sun is a star. All stars have a life-cycle during which it exhibits varying characteristics in both physical size and intensity. Between major stages of a star’s life-cycle lie many poorly understood forces that affect a star’s intensity during shorter time spans.
….
Another factor conveniently overlooked by the Church of Malthus’s priest class, is the role the Sun plays in driving not only Earth’s climate, but the climate of extraterrestrial planets such as Mars and the moons of the jovian planets (gas giants), such as Titan of Saturn. The Sun, like all stars, is a fusion reaction that exhibits drastically different characteristics throughout its life-cycle. Additionally, the internal cycles and anomalies that occur within the Sun on a daily basis are just now being examined and understood by stellar astronomers. Variations in the Sun’s intensity, however minute, can have wide-ranging affects on planetary climate throughout the entire solar system.
Image: Jupiter’s moon Io has volcanism so extreme, eruptions can be observed from space. Io’s volcanism, unlike the Earth, is not primarily driven by plate tectonics, but rather the powerful tidal forces warping the moon’s geology much the way Earth’s moon warps our oceans. The Earth’s moon may affect Earth geology in a similar, though more subtle manner adding yet another variable to the incomplete and dubious calculus of men like Gilding and Holdren (or Al Gore for that matter).
….
Additionally, observations of the gravitational effects gas giant Jupiter has on its moons’ geology also hold profound implications regarding Earth’s geology, and subsequently the climate affected by that geology. Jupiter’s pull on it’s moons is so great that it literally causes tidal shifts of their mantles in the same way the sea is affected by tidal forces of Earth’s moon. These forces are so great, the friction caused by the moons’ flexing mantle so extreme, it creates volcanism on a scale that dwarfs any volcanic display seen on Earth.
How the Earth’s moon has affected Earth’s plate tectonics is also now only beginning to be understood. The moon’s distance from Earth is constantly changing, thus its effect on Earth’s geology is also in constant flux – and adds yet another variable to the very incomplete calculus used by “environmentalists” and “climatologists” who insist CO2 emissions from human activity are the primary drivers of an otherwise “static climate.”
Like priest-classes throughout history, the Church of Malthus abuses the ignorance of the general population regarding the basic forces of nature, oversimplifying planetary climatology that otherwise involves factors including geology, biology, meteorology, Newtonian physics, and stellar astronomy. Not only do they do this in order to sell their version of “indulgences” in the form of ineffectual “carbon credits,”and to assert their control over society in what they themselves call a planetary regime (Ecoscience, pages 942-943, 1977), but they are ignoring naturally driven climate change and the consequences that may indeed jeopardize human civilization. This priest class and their political and monetary “solutions” leaves civilization with no plans or contingencies in the event that the conditions seen during the Cretaceous period revisit us once again.
Climate change is indeed real – it occurs with or without humans, and can drastically change the face of the planet giving rise to great masses of biodiversity or killing off great numbers of species in what are called “mass extinction events.” Carbon credits, carbon taxes, forced sterilizations, destroying the family, piling humanity into micro-managed cities, and instituting a “planetary regime” to administer “global governance” will do absolutely nothing to stop climate change, but it is a great way for an elitist oligarchy to exercise megalomanical domination over humanity, as dreamed of by all tyrants since the dawn of human civilization.
The Church of Malthus is Regressive, not Progressive.
Without a doubt – the planet Earth, humanity’s sole refuge amongst the vastness of the universe, is being destroyed. It is not being destroyed, as we would be led to believe, by people having children, consuming natural resources, or expelling carbon dioxide (CO2). Instead, it is demonstratively being destroyed by reckless genetic engineering by big-agricultural corporations like Monsanto and Syngenta. It is being demonstratively destroyed by immense, ludicrously centralized supply chains like those of Pepsi and Coca-Cola supplying the world with poisoned sugar water.
Read the full article here.
"One man with courage is a majority." ~Thomas Jefferson
By Jonathan S. Tobin | August 11, 2012 | Commentary Magazine As John wrote earlier today, liberals are convinced that Mitt Romney’s choice of Paul Ryan to be his running mate offers them a golden opportunity to savage the Republicans about the Wisconsin congressman’s budget plans. Predictably, the New York Times delivered one of the first such salvos in its editorial posted […]
By Vanderleun | August 10, 2012 | American Digest [From 2008. Only the names have been changed because the target has changed.] This downward flight of intellectuals has been going on ever since the Romantic movement began its counter-revolution a couple hundred years ago. No matter how much they flap their lips it’s a fall, not […]
"Fundamental Transformation"
You Know Who You Are!
The Indispensable Man
"We win. They lose."
An Army of One
The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act - George Orwell
Conservative ramblings from a two-job workin' Navy Reservist Seabee (now Ret)
Help is not coming. Neither is permisson. - https://twitter.com/Grey_Enigma
news politics conspiracy world affairs
Sovereign Serf Sayles
I Said That? Yeah, I Said That!
Dan Miller's blog
By Redbaiter- in the leftist's lexicon, the lowest of the low.
Taking Pride in Humanity
ARTICLES IN THE NEWS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . COMMENTS, FEEDBACK, IDEAS
It's Secession Or Slavery. Choose One. There Is No Third Choice.
Just another WordPress.com site
The latest news on WordPress.com and the WordPress community.
John Malcolm 