They Have A Dream...

From Wikipedia.

Fourier complex is an extreme form of egalitarianism in which the believer is prepared to accept, or actually wishes for, widespread poverty, possibly even starvation, as the consequence or means of making the material wellbeing of every member of society equal. In aggravated or more candid instances, this ethic is admitted or even proclaimed by the adherent. In other cases, the belief is held unconsciously as a contingent value and/or it is denied by a person who in fact knows that he holds the view. The term was coined by Ludwig von Mises in his 1927 book Liberalism. He took it from the name of the famous French socialist Charles Fourier. In that the attitude does not accord with materialistic rationality or self-preservation, Mises regarded and described it as a neurosis, or psychological disorder. Triggered most commonly by envy, it embodies a misanthropic viewpoint that may be compared with the anti-human ethics of more-extreme instances of environmentalism, nationalism, and various other "isms" that can be emphasized beyond the point of providing benefit to the human race or even to the believer himself.

It may be regarded as a "dog in the manger" attitude extended to the scope of society, or even mankind.

Ron Kitching sent this to me.

Rudd and Turnbull et all, believe that carbon dioxide causes global warming in spite of all evidence to the contrary. Russian author Leo Tolstoy, explains why people pursue myths. He wrote :

“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth, if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions, which they delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives.”

Ludwig von Mises also had an explanation for such behavior. He explained thus:

The Fourier complex named after the French socialist of that name, is more properly the concern of the psychologist than of the legislator ...

The failure of his hopes, constitute every man's most deeply painful experience...He seeks refuge in the solace of a saving lie.

He takes refuge in a delusion. A delusion, says Freud, 'is something desired, a kind of consolation; it is characterized by its resistance to attack by logic and reality'.

Only the theory of neurosis can explain the success enjoyed by Fourierism - the sad product of delusion.

Rudd and Turnbull and their followers need psychological treatment if they persist in imposing a destructive ETS tax on the population.

In particular Rudd’s devotion to fantasy reminds me of Dr. Evatt’s sad mental decline in the face of disappointment.

Bill Russell, Going great.

I have posted before on the Bill Russell campaign for the 12th district PA, and have just followed up. Bill is standing against probably one of the most corrupt and unprincipled people in the congress, John Murtha who is so reprehensible he would give his party a bad name if it were not the Democrats.

Bill has been on active service and as such has not been allowed under the rules to campaign or even be in contact with his campaign. From the campaign Website: -

“Although Bill’s commitment as an officer in the Army Reserve prohibits campaign activities while on active duty, the grassroots “Russell Brigade” has rallied to the cause. From making tens of thousands of phone calls to secure his position on the November ballot, to raising hundreds of thousands dollars in small contributions, the campaign has moved far beyond any single candidate, to become a national movement for change in the 12th Congressional District.”

We’re still counting, but by Friday afternoon, the Russell Brigade had received over 1,100 online contributions in the wake of Michelle Malkin’s Wednesday column! There’s simply no way to express how grateful and encouraged our little team in southwest PA is feeling during this patriotic tidal wave.

Next week we’ll be posting some major endorsements, “Honor the Heroes” stories and information about Bill’s return to the campaign trail.

It seems that the effort is going well as they have significantly outdone the Murtha campaign in money raising in the last quarter.

From Politicker PA: -

His absence this summer might seem a mortal wound for a campaign already facing a Herculean task. Murtha, after all, is one the country's most high-profile Democrats and won a 17th term to Congress by 20 percentage points in 2006.

Last week's fundraising totals, however, suggests Russell's campaign is more than token. He raised $669,534 in the second fiscal quarter, compared to Murtha's $113,155. Seventy-percent of Russell's donations derived from contributions less than $50, according to Luksik, suggesting large grassroots support. Murtha still holds a significant advantage in cash on hand, however, with $644,243 to Russell's $269,953.

(Russell’s campaign relies on honest donors while Murtha relies heavily on donations from corporations benefiting from his earmarks.)

A survivor of the 9/11 attacks on the Pentagon, Russell appears to be channeling anger at Murtha for what he says were the congressman's attacks against U.S. Marines charged with killing innocent civilians in Haditha, Iraq. Murtha's comments, which are highlighted on Russell's Web site, stand in stark contrast to the truth, his campaign says, citing the acquittal of nearly all the marines accused of wrongdoing.

Russell's vociferous support for those marines is part of his overall candidacy, which stresses heavily his years of service in the military. His Web site has a military theme and is decorated in sandy-brown camouflage colors.

Campaign officials suggest Russell's absence this summer because of his military service only galvanizes that theme.

Obama as he would see himself.

This has been around for a while but I have not seen it on video before finding this from the "National Black Republican Association." Check these guys out, they are really pulling their weight.

For the text try Times online.

Doubtful GW figures and 'remedies'.

A couple of interesting articles in the ‘Australian,’ the first ‘Temperature rising over dodgy greenhouse statistics” by Christopher Booker, from Britain's The Sunday Telegraph, on the so-called incontrovertible evidence of global warming.

THERE are four internationally recognised sources of data on world temperatures, but the one most often cited by supporters of global warming is that run by James Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Hansen has been for 20 years the world's leading scientific advocate of global warming (and Al Gore's closest ally). But in the past year a number of expert US scientists have been conducting a public investigation which (raises) large question marks over the methods used to arrive at his figures.

First they noted the increasingly glaring discrepancy between the figures given by GISS, which show temperatures continuing to race upwards, and those given by the other three main data sources, which all show temperatures having fallen since 1998, dropping dramatically in the past year to levels around the average of the past 30 years.

Even more searching questions have been raised over Hansen's figures by two expert blogs. One is Climate Audit, run by Steve McIntyre, the computer analyst who exposed the notorious hockey-stick graph that was shamelessly exploited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore.

He has now shown that Hansen had been adjusting almost all his pre-1970 global temperature figures downwards, by as much as 0.5 degrees, and his post-1970 figures upwards.
It is still too early to suggest that the recent drop in temperatures shown by everyone but him is proof that global warming has stopped. But the fact is that not one of those vaunted computer models predicted what has happened to temperatures in recent years.

The second is “Feed the undergrad snake oil to Mr. Percival, Garnaut,” by Frank Devine.

For the uninitiated, Ross Garnaut is the government’s guru on on the likely economic impacts of climate change, and the costs and benefits of mitigation strategies. Garnaut has come up with a carbon-trading scheme to create a new tax burden on all Australian business and individuals some of which will be redistributed to those the left approves of, and the rest blown on ‘research.’

WHO is Ross Garnaut: economic adviser to the Government on climate change or bible salesman?

His interim report on the Government's proposed emissions trading scheme usefully alerts us to its drastic, if not catastrophic, possible effects on Australian employment, power generation and cost and standard of living.

But Garnaut's fervent promotion of an ETS and of the need for Australia to act urgently and unilaterally to reduce carbon emissions is unconventional behavior for a narrowly expert consultant.

His confident prediction that failure to act immediately will lead to the loss of the Great Barrier Reef, Kakadu and the Murray-Darling Basin not only falls strangely from the lips of an economist but has the cadences of rote recitation: the Reef, Kakadu, the Murray-Darling, holy lands of the green religion.

Perhaps fortunately for his earned professional reputation, Garnaut is a really crook salesman. Though usually reluctant to surrender much of this space to other people's words, it seems a worthy sacrifice to quote Garnaut's paean to the Murray-Darling in a speech he made to the National Press Club.

"The Murray-Darling Basin is the heartland of old Australia. It produced Australia's defining identity, the Australian legend around the nomad shearer, the bush ballad and the doctrine of mateship. It generated the subsequent Australian military legend, with the formation of the Australian Light Horse for the Boer War and the transformation into the First Light Horse for World War I.…

After this, (which is not strictly true, the Murray-Darling played a part but was not exclusive) he goes on about famous people and ‘Percy the Pelican’ as a call to arms.

Frank Devine makes the point: -

When Private Eye was young this was the kind of semi-literate tosh that appeared in the magazine's Pseud's Corner, whose entries were sometimes selected by another product of the Murray-Darling basin, Barry Humphries.

Pretentious and extravagant sales blather from an eminent person to whom one looks for objective analysis is an ill omen for climate change policy. No proposition can succeed without public understanding and acceptance. This won't be achieved through brow-beating.

With the Government's green paper now out, carriage of the argument for Australia introducing a cap on carbon emissions by 2010 will fall to Kevin Rudd. His addiction to loop-holed and evasive bureaucratese is too vividly established for us to expect that he will address us solely in English. Although not confident enough yet to tackle the specifics of what Garnaut reverently calls the science, I believe there is much substance to the comment by Christopher Booker in London's Daily Telegraph.

"The orthodox global warming thesis that as CO2 levels in the atmosphere continue to rise, so too should global temperatures, (is) accepted by pretty well every politician in the Western world, but not by a growing number of scientists."

Booker also claims that through the forced closing of nine of Britain's largest oil and coal-fuelled power stations under EU anti-pollution rules, the nation will lose 40 per cent of its generating capacity and has no plausible plan to replace it.

It is hard to think of an issue for which Australia has been in greater need of aggressive scrutiny of government actions than that of climate change. Yet the mood among the aspirant new ruling classes, abetted by an incomprehensibly passive federal political Opposition, seems to be for suppression of dissent.

This was shown by Garnaut's use of the pejorative "climate change deniers" to put down critics of his interim report. It is a loathsome phrase concocted by "warmists" to smear their opponents as the same kind of criminal loonies who deny the Holocaust.

Michael Costa was a dissenter Garnaut dismissed as a "well-known" denier. This is pretty uppity sneering, Costa being Treasurer of NSW and Garnaut, well, I'm blowed if I know what.

"The science" aside, before assenting to an ETS we need answers in the plainest English to three primary questions:

What's in it for Australia for capping its carbon emissions before China, the world's heaviest emitter and reported builder of two new coal-fired plants a week, agrees to take any action at all?

Why is it in the national interest to give the Government billions of dollars in emission permit fees to dispose of as it pleases, largely as compensation for people earning less than $100,000 a year who are "disdavantaged" by carbon capping?

How many people will be needed, and at what cost, to administer an ETS?

CFCs and Global warming.

Its odd isn’t it, for a few months I have been having the fleeting thought, “Whatever happened to the ozone hole.” Actually there are two of them but the one in the southern hemisphere was noticed first which caused a lot of talk, then one was found in the more populous northern one sparking action.

For the last 3-4 years however they seem to have dropped off the planet, you just don’t hear of them any more. I guess with the current fashionability of global warming, ozone holes just aren’t cool any more.

Ron Kitching sent an Email the other day when I was busy and I put it aside, coming back to it today, and there it was, the good ol ozone holes. There was a rather lengthy paper, “CFC Destruction of Ozone - Major Cause of Recent Global Warming!” by Robert A. Ashworth.

For reasons of space I am only using the introduction and the conclusion, but I recommend for those interested to go to the complete article here: -

Introduction

There has been a lot of discussion about global warming. Some say anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions caused the earth to warm. Others say there is no abnormality at all, that it is just natural warming. As you will see from the data presented and analyzed, a greater than normal warming did occur in recent times but no measurements confirm an increase in CO2, whether anthropogenic or natural, had any effect on global temperatures. There is however, strong evidence that anthropogenic emissions of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were the major cause of the recent abnormal warming.
CFCs have created both unnatural atmospheric cooling and warming based on these facts:

CFCs have destroyed ozone in the lower stratosphere/upper troposphere causing these zones in the atmosphere to cool 1.37 oC from 1966 to 1998, a time span selected to eliminate the effect of the natural solar irradiance (cooling-warming) cycle effect on the earth's temperature.

The loss of ozone allowed more UV light to pass through the stratosphere at a sufficient rate to warm the lower troposphere plus 8-3/4" of the earth by 0.48 oC (1966 to 1998).

Mass and energy balances show that the energy that was absorbed in the lower stratosphere /upper troposphere hit the lower troposphere/earth at a sustainable level of 1.69 x 1018 Btu more in 1998 than it did in 1966.

Greater ozone depletion in the Polar Regions has caused these areas to warm some two and one-half (2 ½) times that of the average earth temperature (1.2 oC vs. 0.48 oC). This has caused permafrost to melt, which is releasing copious quantities of methane, estimated at 100 times that of manmade CO2 release, to the atmosphere. Methane in the atmosphere slowly converts to CO2 and water vapor and its release has created higher CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

There is a temperature anomaly in Antarctica. The Signey Island landmass further north warmed like the rest of the Polar Regions; but south at Vostok, there has been a cooling effect. Although the cooling at Vostok needs to be analyzed in more detail, because of the large ozone hole there, black body radiation from Vostok (some 11,400 feet above sea level) to outer space is most likely the cause. Especially, since this phenomenon occurred over the same period that stratospheric ozone destruction took place.

Conclusion

Many factors influence the earth's temperature. However, from a scientific analysis, carbon dioxide has little to no effect on the temperature. This is clearly shown, by an earth temperature drop of almost 0.6 oC from January 2007 to January 2008. It should be obvious to everyone who has analyzed climate change that climate-driving forces, other than CO2, control the temperature.

However, chlorofluorocarbon destruction of stratospheric ozone can be correlated nicely with both the cooling and warming temperature anomalies seen over the time span from 1966 to 1998. One can account for most, if not all, of the 0.48oC rise in earth's temperature from 1966 to 1998 with the additional UV light that hit the earth due to ozone destruction in the upper atmosphere.

Ozone destruction has also indirectly created an increase in CO2 concentrations due to the melting of the permafrost in Siberia that has warmed two and one-half (2½) times more than the average earth temperature has risen. The higher temperatures started melting the permafrost, and this in turn created a significant release of methane. Methane slowly reacts with oxygen to convert to CO2 in the atmosphere.

Unless we remove the CFCs from the atmosphere, it appears that the whole earth will continue to be warmer than normal and higher concentrations of CO2 (from permafrost release of methane) will exist until the CFCs in the stratosphere slowly disappear naturally over the next 50-100 years. The exceptions that could alter this are large volcanic eruptions or weather modification techniques as proposed by physicist Freeman Dyson, wherein fine particulate, such as bauxite (Al2O3), is sprayed into the stratosphere to simulate a volcanic eruption, which would absorb more UV light in the stratosphere and would cool the earth.

China and other developing countries are to phase out CFC production in 2010. Some CFC production plants have been shutdown ahead of schedule in these developing countries, which is very beneficial. However, it would not be that difficult to remove CFCs from the atmosphere to bring earth's temperature back to normal much quicker. Although the atmosphere is intricate in how it acts and reacts, it appears that CFCs are the dominant cause of greater than normal earth warming from 1966 to 1998.

Einstein (18) once said, "The grand aim of all science is to cover the greatest number of empirical facts by logical deduction from the smallest possible number of hypotheses or axioms". One can do that here using CFC destruction of ozone to explain the recent earth temperature anomalies seen.

The United States Congress will be considering a $1.2 trillion carbon tax this year that, if implemented, would make the recent increase in the cost of gasoline look pale in comparison to the price energy will be after such a tax is imposed. Taxing carbon makes absolutely no sense and will dramatically hurt the economy of every country that implements it - all for no good reason! This paper is a direct challenge to the IPCC; their models are way off base. When one develops a model, actual data needs to be observed to confirm or refute the model that one develops. It looks as though the IPCC did not do this.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Christopher Monckton for his support and suggestions. Most of all I would like to pay tribute to three gentlemen; Paul Crutzen, Sherwood Rowland, and Mario Molina, who saved this earth through their work on the CFC effect on the environment. If they had not worked to stop CFC production, what we are seeing now with global warming would be nothing compared to how bad it would have been without their efforts to stop its production. Their work was not only important from the standpoint of reducing global warming, but also in reducing the occurrence in skin cancer.

Crybaby Obama.

I found this at the Catskill Commentator, and it’s so good I am reprinting it.

FROM ATLAS SHRUGGED BLOG: This thumbsucker is unbelievable. Watch the video of Obama complaining that the troops only watch FOX.” Why is FOX always on? ” Obambi whined.

Major Garrett said, “they make the choice” ” Obama replied “Is that the commander in chief’s choice?”

huh? What a frickin crybaby. He implies its a Bush conspiracy.

Just for knowing, American Forces Radio and Television Service offers all cable channels and mainstream media channels, the troops choose FOX.It aint a conspiracy its called “remote control”! The troops can change the channel.

Expect the Pelosi to introduce a “military fairness doctrine” .He complained that everywhere he went FOX was on.

What a putz!! And if there is ever a mandate that a news channel be on — its CNN. Have you ever been to an airport where FOX was on?

One viewer wrote in that at his last visit to Walter Reade Medical Center l CNN was on all the TVs at the hospital, when he requested they change the channel to FOX, he was told that it was hospital policy that the TV could not be changed from CNN” (!) And that’s Walter Reed.

Al you have to understand what every narcissistic little twerp knows, its all about him. Always, every time, perpetually, 24/7, now and forever, about him.

Conservative Merger in Queensland.

After a great deal of wrangling the proposed merger of the Queensland Liberal and National parties seems to be going ahead. Delegates of both parties today voted overwhelmingly to support the merger; some figures indicate 85% support. The Liberal executive tried to torpedo it yesterday by voting to postpone the vote.

The Brisbane Lord Mayor Campbell Newman, Australia's most senior elected Liberal, called on members to defy the decision, and said Liberals should turn up to Saturday's convention. He said, "The Liberal Party members have already indicated strongly through the plebiscite, to the tune of 86 per cent support, that they want a merger."

After a number of politicians from the party indicated they would go ahead with joining the merged entity and outrage from the rank and file a court hearing overturned the decision and the meetings went ahead.

A previous merger was torpedoed by the federal Nationals, resulting in the parties being thrown into turmoil, which was exploited by Labor by calling an early election. The federal Nationals seem to support the idea this time however the Liberals seem to be more reserved towards it.

The two parties worked very successfully as a coalition for a long time but after a Liberal factional dispute this ended with the Liberals deciding to go their own way. The result was that the Nationals won the next election in their own right with the help of a couple of Liberal defectors, and they have never amounted to much in Queensland since.

The previous attempt threw the Labor Party into panic mode as they were becoming extremely unpopular with the electorate and they couldn’t believe their luck when it was called off allowing them to have another three years in power.

They are already on the attack over this one with the state treasurer; Andrew Fraser claiming it is nothing more than a sham. “No amount of champagne or confetti and champagne corks popping can paper over the divisions that lie within the National/Liberal Party and the Liberal Party itself,” Mr. Fraser said.

Mr. Fraser said the fighting within Coalition ranks had shown it was not in the position to be in government. “The Coalition thinks this puts them in a better position (to win government),” he said.

Actually it will, the merger should bury most of the divisions that have plagued the non-socialist side of politics in this state, and with the Labor Party really starting to stink this is the worst news for them since Anna Blyth became their leader.

Arrogance, Lies and Obama.

A couple of interesting things in the latest Free US Now newsletter, the first is a report from one of the troops in Afghanistan on Obamas visit there: -

As you know I am not a very political person. I just wanted to pass along that Senator Obama came to Bagram Afghanistan for about an hour on his visit to 'The War Zone'. I wanted to share 
with you what happened. He got off the plane and got into a bullet-proof vehicle, got to the area to 
meet with the Major General (2 Star) who is the commander here at Bagram.



As the Soldiers where lined up to shake his hand he blew them off and didn't say a word as he went 
into the conference room to meet the General. As he finished, the vehicles took him to the ClamShell 
(pretty much a big-top tent where military personnel can play basketball or work out with weights) 
so he could take his publicity pictures playing basketball. He again shunned the opportunity to talk to
Soldiers to thank them for their service.



So really he was just here to make a showing for the Americans back home that he is their candidate for President. I think that if you are going to make an effort to come all the way over here you would thank
those that are providing the freedom that they are providing for you.

I swear we got more thanks from 
the NBA Basketball Players or the Dallas Cowboy Cheer leaders than from one of the Senators, who 
wants to be the President of the United States. I just don't understand how anyone would want him to 
be our Commander-and-Chief. It was almost that he was scared to be around those that provide the
freedom for him and our great country.

If this is blunt and to the point I am sorry but I wanted you all to know what kind of caliber of person he 
really is. What you see in the news is all fake.

The second is this video of Obama lying to reporters in Israel.


"Just this past week, we passed out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee - which is my committee - a bill to call for divestment from Iran as a way of ratcheting up the pressure to ensure that they don't obtain a nuclear weapon,"

The problem is: -

First, Obama is not a member of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee.

And, Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., who traveled with Obama to the Mideast this week, who is a 
member of that committee, ironically, voted "no" when the committee passed the bill July 17 on a vote of 19-2.

House Reps Visit ANWR.

Photo; Oil Platforms have an aesthetic beauty all of their own.

Platts reports that John Boehner, the House minority leader has argued that opening up ANWR could be done without harm to its fragile environment. "It is possible for energy production and wildlife protection to co-exist in the region," he wrote in an Internet blog of the trip by the 11 lawmakers.

The US House of Representatives' top Republican, leading a group of House Republicans touring Alaska oil and natural gas facilities Monday, insisted the contested Arctic National Wildlife Refuge could be developed in an environmentally-sensitive manner.

For example, the Ohio Republican noted that a local caribou herd has increased in size from 5,000 to 30,000 animals since oil production began in BP's Alaska North Slope Prudhoe Bay field in the 1970s.

In addition to taking a flyover tour of ANWR, which Republicans have long wanted to open up to energy development, the delegation also took flew over the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, where a major lease sale is slated for this fall, and toured BP's Endicott Production Facility at Prudhoe Bay.

Nancy Pelosi however maintains she would not entertain any Republican efforts to allow drilling in ANWR or other closed areas of the Outer Continental Shelf.

Meanwhile Anchorage Daily News reports that Gov. Sarah Palin has invited Republican presidential candidate John McCain to see ANWR.

"I'm asking him to come up and see ANWR," Republican Gov. Sarah Palin told me Saturday during the centennial meeting of the National Governors Association here. As to her discussions so far with McCain, Palin said, "We agreed to disagree." But, she quickly added, "I am encouraged with his evolved thinking on offshore drilling, and I think he might come along on ANWR if he sees our 2,000 acres for himself."

This would be an excellent opportunity for McCain to come full circle and aggressively support drilling, as well as to see for himself the type of VP who can help him win the election. This one can be won at the fuel pumps of America, and it makes a lot of sense.

Obama is boxing himself into a corner nicely by criticizing the idea of more drilling as well as greater use of nuclear generation.

Drew Carey on Big Brother state.

I swiped this off Gayle who swiped it from Goat, who titled it, “Banned By Big Brother Government.” Drew Carey is always good value.

Mugabe has to go

This is not the place for a joke but this cartoon really echoes the international actions by SA so far.


I have posted on Zimbabwe before, but at that stage there was the hope that Mugabe would quit, be voted out, or die of unnatural causes, preferably excruciatingly painful in nature. Now the last part is all we can hope for, as while he may be only now a figurehead leader for a military junta he is still there and there seems a reluctance internationally to do anything about it.

Most talk seems to seek a diplomatic solution, which I personally think is a waste of time.

A recent post in ‘Thoughts on Freedom,’ ‘More bad news from Zimbabwe,’ quoted the following: -

… Mrs. Chigoro is one of them. She is considered such a threat she is being kept under armed police guard at a Harare hospital.

Seventy years old, her injuries are so horrific she can no longer lie on her back or walk unassisted. She can only huddle in a claw-like shape. The appalling chemical burns that have removed her lips and melted her right cheek come from an industrial weed killer she was forced to drink. The widow can eat no solids and survives with the aid of a saline drip. Her crime was to survive the death squads that have roamed the rural areas of this bankrupt and terrified country. The police, armed with AK-47s, have been stationed on her ward to stop her from telling her story.

Gibb Chigoro, her son, had known that he was at risk. He was the first Movement for Democratic Change candidate to win a council seat in the ruling party stronghold of Mashonaland Central. After the first round win, he had watched the militia, police and army let loose on opposition supporters, with scores killed, thousands beaten and 200,000 displaced. …..

By the time they arrived at the camp, it was dark. The beatings that had begun mid-morning started again. No one remembers how long they went on. But when their torturers grew tired they brought out the bottles of Paraquat - a Chinese-manufactured herbicide, used to kill weeds. It has become a weapon of choice in Zimbabwe’s political terror campaign and the militia have been instructed to dip their sticks in it before beating victims.

The four terrified survivors were then forced to drink it. Mrs. Chigoro remembers her son, Hamilton, telling her not to swallow the burning liquid. A doctor described the effects of Paraquat: ‘It’s absorbed through the skin, the heart rate plunges and it attacks the nervous system. It acts on skin in a similar way to ammonia.’ ……

A friend who is a former Zimbabwean made the comment: -

The events in that article are truly appalling and sickening. My brother in Zimbabwe recently told me that he’d had unconfirmed reports that white farmers had also been forced to drink a poisonous substance but I’ve seen nothing about it. Why don’t the local press print articles like the one in this blog?

I’d love to see Mugabe have a painful lingering death or get shot but he’s almost a puppet now. The Joint Operational Command are now running the country, so those leaders would take over and also need to be taken out. The only internal options I now see are if economic conditions for the lower ranks of the army and police get so bad that they rebel with a counter coup. South Africa has the power to remove them but won’t.

The one thing all South Africans are looking forward to is the 2010 soccer world cup. If they lost that due to external pressure it would be a major embarrassment and might just prompt them to do something. As it is, most ex-Rhodesians/Zimbabweans are totally despondent and feel there is no justice in the world, not only for them but especially for those like Mrs. Chigoro.

In the Mail Online is an article, ‘The Dirty Half-Dozen: The generals who are even more ruthless and bloodthirsty than Mugabe,’ by Andrew Malone. Read it if you have a strong stomach.

Sitting behind Mugabe at the ceremony, as Chinese-built fighter jets screamed overhead, six men glowered and followed their dictator's every move.

Thickset and bursting out of their heavily decorated military uniforms, the watching men were The Generals - a group of cold-blooded killers who have seized power in Zimbabwe and revel in nicknames such as The Butcher and The Son Of God.

Dubbed the Dirty Half-Dozen or The Gang Of Six by Zimbabwe's traumatized people, The Generals have formed a military junta with terrifying plans to 'eliminate all opponents'. They forced Mugabe to hand over power to them at a meeting in State House, his HQ in Harare, the capital, days after he lost the first round of elections on March 29.

In a chilling turn of events, they arrived in a fleet of black Mercedes on April 5 and issued the President with an ultimatum: withhold the election results, stand aside and let them do their work to ensure they never again face a challenge to their lucrative, blood-thirsty rule.

Faced with exile and disgrace after this unthinkable defeat, not to mention the threat of being tried by the UN for war crimes, diplomats say Mugabe could see no way out.

He could agree to the deal in return for staying on as a figurehead president, or face the wrath of men responsible for some of Zimbabwe's bloodiest massacres, where pregnant women have been cut open and their unborn babies thrown down wells.

According to palace insiders, even Grace, Mugabe's wife, has turned against her husband. She was working as a security guard at State House when the President first spotted her and she officially became Zimbabwe's First Lady after Mugabe's first wife died. Grace relished the role, commandeering the country's aircraft for shopping sprees in Paris, London and Milan.
Now, however, she is furious at the prospect of losing the perks of office, which include five mansions and the delivery of boxes stuffed with millions of U.S. dollars to her home each month. She told Mugabe, 40 years her senior, to accept the deal offered by The Generals. Reluctantly, he agreed. ……

But The Gang Of Six has too much to lose. As one Western diplomat told me before I slipped out of Zimbabwe: 'These men will not give up power. They are in too deep. They have too much blood on their hands. They have shown they will stop at nothing to keep what they have got.'

Pity the brave people of Zimbabwe. For I suspect that even the removal of Robert Mugabe will not be enough to save them.

There are now stories of foreigners working with the death squads: -

“In the rural areas, eyewitness say they mercenaries move from village to village, with translators in two since they don't speak the local tongue.

Patrick Chitaka, the MDC chairman in Manicaland province in the east of the country, said the foreigners had been identified in the past two to three weeks supporting government-backed men.

Mr Chitaka said: "We have observed that some of the people leading the violence are foreigners because they speak a different language and they do not understand our local languages.

"Also the tactics they are using are not peculiar with Zimbabweans because they are cutting out the tongue, removing eyes and genital parts. We are not sure where they come from."

The claims were supported by human rights workers in Manicaland last night. A spokesman for one group who did not want to be named said observers on the ground had witnessed "tens, if not hundreds" of foreigners accompanying government-backed militias.

He said the soldiers were not from neighbouring countries but were more likely from farther north in Africa, possibly Rwanda, Kenya or Uganda.

Local people claim the irregular forces are Hutus from Rwanda, but the human rights representative said he could not be definitive. There are an estimated 4,000 Hutu refugees living in Zimbabwe, some of whom took part in the genocide of Tutsis and moderate Hutus in 1994.”

More can be found in ‘Zimbabwe Situation,’ if this is not graphic enough to start demanding action. The west have intervened in many humanitarian crises in the past, and at present most armies in Europe are not doing anything useful, Perhaps they might find the courage to act without needing the USA to hold their hands.

Viscount Monckton's Remarks.

From Ron Kitching.

The Poisonous Pests at the IPCC are playing for keeps. And the Labor Party is their Australian Agent and worse still, the Liberals and Nationals are following.

I just saw Malcolm Turnbull replying to a pro Climate Change tax statement by the treasurer and he said: We have to look after the Australian economy and at the same time focus on the global objective. He should have said: We need to foster Australian industry and business, and at the same time, expose the hoax of climate change and in particular expose the false deionization of carbon dioxide as a poisonous gas, when it is in fact, a gas necessary to grow our crops and to oxygenate the air through sunlight and the miracle of photosynthesis in plant foliage. Yet there is so little of it in the atmosphere - less than 0.04% . All life, including plant life, ocean life depends upon carbon dioxide.

I think that they and the Newspaper Editors are the ones we should direct our efforts to.

This post is taken from an Email to Benny Peiser, Editor, CCNet .

The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley has asked me to circulate the attached letter which he sent today to the President of the American Physical Society. Christopher Monckton's paper together with the contentious APS disclaimer can be found here:
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm

The Announcement by the APS editor of Physics & Society to open a debate about the IPCC and its scientific critics is available online here:
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/editor.cfm

Dear Dr. Bienenstock,
Physics and Society

The editors of Physics and Society, a newsletter of the American Physical Society, invited me to submit a paper for their July 2008 edition explaining why I considered that the warming that might be expected from anthropogenic enrichment of the atmosphere with carbon dioxide might be significantly less than the IPCC imagines.

I very much appreciated this courteous offer, and submitted a paper. The commissioning editor referred it to his colleague, who subjected it to a thorough and competent scientific review. I was delighted to accede to all of the reviewer's requests for revision (see the attached reconciliation sheet). Most revisions were intended to clarify for physicists who were not climatologists the method by which the IPCC evaluates climate sensitivity - a method that the IPCC does not itself clearly or fully explain. The paper was duly published, immediately after a paper by other authors setting out the IPCC's viewpoint. Some days later, however, without my knowledge or consent, the following appeared, in red, above the text of my paper as published on the website of Physics and Society:

"The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions."

This seems discourteous. I had been invited to submit the paper; I had submitted it; an eminent Professor of Physics had then scientifically reviewed it in meticulous detail; I had revised it at all points requested, and in the manner requested; the editors had accepted and published the reviewed and revised draft (some 3000 words longer than
the original) and I had expended considerable labor, without having been offered or having requested any honorarium.

Please either remove the offending red-flag text at once or let me have the name and qualifications of the member of the Council or advisor to it who considered my paper before the Council ordered the offending text to be posted above my paper; a copy of this rapporteur's findings and ratio decidendi; the date of the Council meeting at which the findings were presented; a copy of the minutes of the discussion; and a copy of the text of the Council's decision, together with the names of those present at the meeting.

If the Council has not scientifically evaluated or formally considered my paper, may I ask with what credible scientific justification, and on whose authority, the offending text asserts primo, that the paper had not been scientifically reviewed when it had; secundo, that its conclusions disagree with what is said (on no evidence) to be the "overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community"; and, tertio, that "The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions"? Which of my conclusions does the Council disagree with, and on what scientific grounds (if any)?

Having regard to the circumstances, surely the Council owes me an apology?

Yours truly,
THE VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY

---------------
CCNet is a scholarly electronic network edited by Benny Peiser. To subscribe, send an e-mail to listserver@livjm.ac.uk ("subscribe cambridge-conference"). To unsubscribe send an e-mail to listserver@livjm.ac.uk ("unsubscribe cambridge-conference"). Information circulated on this network is for scholarly and educational use only.

The attached information may not be copied or reproduced for any other purposes without prior permission of the copyright holders. DISCLAIMER: The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed in the articles and texts and in other CCNet contributions do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of the editor.
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/

More on Greenhouse signature MIA

The following was forwarded to me with the following introduction: This is in my view an important letter from Prof. Don Parkes (Ret), to some of the nations politicians. I think that we should all in our own words and in our own way, make all of Australia's politicians aware that we need a decent, effective and well informed opposition in particular.

It is a statement on the article I posted regarding the opinion piece in the Australian, ‘No smoking hot spot.’

By D.N.Parkes PhD Human Ecology (Retired Professor, Australia and Japan)

Not only is Evans well qualified in academic terms: but he has been at the very heart of the interface between science and national politics as a Consultant to the Australian Government's Greenhouse Office, albeit during the term of the previous government.

In this role, among other things no doubt, he personally developed the very climate change related land use and forestry models that are a basis for the Rudd Australian Government's outrageous policy on what is now called, with typical sophistry, 'pollution reduction'!

Evans makes two critical statements:

“.... most of the public and our decision makers [see comment * below from Professor Pitman] are not aware of the most basic facts."

"The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary."

It is now up to the news media to report. Though welcome as an 'Opinion' piece in The Australian newspaper, this is a far cry from that same newspaper showing any real courage and reporting the views as a NEWS item with equal weight given in column measurements to that afforded the discredited science of IPCC, day after day. Every now and again an Opinion piece is published - few voters will read it as they would a news item version.

It has been as a direct result of the media's selfish and opportunistic selectivity, world wide, that an independent scientist and engineer, with a Doctorate (Stanford) in Electrical Engineering and therefore no doubt well able to write the sort of complex system models he prepared for the Greenhouse Office of the Australian Government, has been persuaded to be so forthright.

In fact what Evans is saying is devastating NEWS for the Australian and global public. Many of us who have doubts about the strength of the IPCC science and who questioned individual IPCC scientists (see below) find nothing new in what Evans writes except for his explosive revelation of the growing unsuitability of models as a basis for policy.

One Australian scientist, Professor Pitman is an IPCC lead author and in the field in which Evans developed his modeling : land use and forestry sector as affected by so-called anthropogenic global warming.

On April 14 2008, Corbyn (UK), Hendriksen (Greenland), Parkes (Australia) and Schreuder (UK/Netherlands) wrote to IPCC's Dr. Pachauri and included D'Aleo's now famous graph showing no relationship between temperatures and atmospheric CO2 over a 10 year period. http://www.uncapsa.org/Topics/IPCC_letter_14April08-1.pdf) .

We asked for an explanation. We received an immediate and aggressive reply from IPCCs Pitman [*]: not only did he unequivocally reject our concern about the IPCC science and its implications but admonished us saying we had no right to 'confuse decision makers'. Evans is right! Perhaps Pitman will now write to him and explain why decision makers are unaware of the 'salient facts'!

Of course as we know this is more or less straight out of the IPCC's Procedural Documentation, as is the consensus requirement for those preparing the Summaries for Policymakers. Pitman must be aware of and have used Evans' models. He will not however have the courage to write publicly on the matter, admit that there is no warming, admit that models he uses are not sufficient for policy making at the draconian level now intended by Prime Minister Rudd. Yet he is well paid to do just that.

Professor Karoly of Melbourne University is also an IPCC lead author, paid by Australian taxes. He will not answer our question on CO2 and its causal properties in global warming: we are also waiting for him to provide the review of a recent article by Dr. Vincent Gray, a former IPCC expert reviewer who has been extremely critical of IPCC science.

AT first Karoly said he 'did not review articles that were not peer reviewed! He finally agreed - but he is now well over the agreed date and no longer responds to emails. He too advises Australia's Prime Minister.

Another Australian climate scientist is Professor Brook of Adelaide, his title is almost laughable as "Professor of Climate Change" - laughable because for Brook there is no chance of change, and laughable because it befits the bias of the South Australian State Government that funds the position.

Brook was simply outrageously abusive to us when he was asked to comment, by a colleague, on our letter to Pachauri and D'Aleo's now famous graph: eventually he provided an unreserved apology: following threats of action against him through his University. It is this sort of extraordinary behavior that those who question the 'high priests' of an albeit flagging religion, receive.

Another example of the disdain with which Australia's AGW scientists treat questions of public significance was evident at a meeting of the Royal Society of NSW in Mittagong on April 5 2008. Dr. Pearman, formerly of CSIRO but now a fund raiser and public speaker for Monash University and the so-called Climate Institute (not to be confused with the real one!) is an adviser to the Minister for Climate Change and Water, P.Wong, but when asked a question about when 'cooling' might be expected from his 'models' replied facetiously in 20,000 years or next year!

This is arrogance driven by ignorance and fear of a loss of the good times if an honest answer is given: Pearman should have said, 'Well observations show that there is cooling now: our models did not project it'.

In the wake of such extraordinary behavior for publicly funded scientists on a matter of such significance, [behavior that would not be tolerated by medical science or pharmaceutical science]: Evans has been truly refreshing.

In the article, that I hope Benny and Marc and Kate and others will distribute widely, Evans itemizes 3 "salient facts", with additional clear exposition. In brief as, 1) The greenhouse signature is missing. 2) There is NO EVIDENCE to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming [some scientists would go further and propose that there is NO causal link at all]. 3) The satellites [NOT models] that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001.

Ignorance of or disregard for any ONE of these 'salient facts' do indeed expose the Australian Rudd Government as 'criminally negligent' (Evans 2008) - will any news media in Australia or worldwide have the courage to present this as a news item? The Australian will not use it again no doubt but at least it has made a start. The Daily Telegraph in UK perhaps, the National Post in Canada, The WSJ in the US?

Evans asks, "What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue to rise?" [As seems ever more likely from the pattern of observed temperature data and the signals on solar activity rather than flawed models]. He asserts, and it seems with some grounds for doing so in the light of the recent Garnaut report and Prime Minister Rudd's absurd labeling of the gas that is essential for ALL life on earth, as a 'pollutant' - that Rudd's Labor government is about to 'deliberately wreck the economy in order reduce carbon emissions'.

However it is not only the Government that will deliberately wreck the economy but the Unions also. The Union leaders will be privy to much of the spin on 'climate change' data - but their members will not. They are going to lose their jobs in the thousands - but Rudd is going to 'compensate them'! Copy of this letter and the Evans article is being sent to the AWU, earlier correspondence to them on the matter of Rudd's needless policy that threatens its members, was not answered.

The political party, here in Australia or in the US, Canada or UK that espouses the points that Evans [and many other scientists have made] will win the next elections in their respective countries. The need to conserve fossil fuels for 'movement' is now well understood and will be supported simply on the basis that fuel for transport vehicles, as we know them today is in short supply - that is the reason. The scrapping of all carbon capping, trading, taxing nonsense - unheard of no more than 10 years ago - will be both easy and well received - and votes will prove it.

Readers who are unaware of a recent letter signed by scientists from South Africa, Canada, USA, UK, Netherlands, New Zealand, Australia, Greenland including one Nobel Peace Prize winner 1988 (shared), and 3 former IPCC expert reviewers might like to refer to the following site where the Letter and related data can be found.

http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Letter_UN_Sec_Gen_Ban_Ki-moon.pdf

Copies have been sent to Australian MPs including MP Greg Combet, formerly Sec-Gen of the ACTU.

Remember Mises' great quote:

Society lives and acts only in individuals; it is nothing more than a certain attitude on their part. Everyone carries a part of society on his shoulders; no one is relieved of his share of responsibility by others. And no one can find a safe way out for himself if society is sweeping towards destruction. Therefore everyone, in his own interest, must thrust himself vigourously into the intellectual battle. None can stand aside with unconcern; the interests of everyone hang on the result. Whether he chooses or not, every man is drawn into the great historical struggle, the decisive battle into which our epoch has plunged us.

The Greenhouse signature is MIA

I didn’t get the “Australian” today, so I am grateful to Ron Kitching for letting me know the following article was there so I could look it up.

Many of the arguments presenting cases against the wave of GW histrionics tend to be dismissed as mere skepticism, but this one is going to be a bit harder for the Al Gore groupies to ignore as it comes from a guy who was in the system.

“Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.”

The following are some highlights: -

I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.

FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.

When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.

The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:

1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.


Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever. …..

2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.

3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.

4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect. ….
The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion.

What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.

The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy.

The full story is here.

Gung Hobama.

I have checked the Obama WTF site (which lists verified lies by him) and can’t find this one so the list seems to be expanding, so maybe we now have 73.



It amazes me that the guy seems to think he will not be caught, but then again the press seem generally reluctant to publicize it so maybe he is right in this. He seems to say whatever suits him at any given moment, then when it doesn’t suit him any more he has another story in the starting blocks ready to go, and denies he ever said what went before.

He has now sanitized his website of his ‘opposed the Iraq war from the beginning’ stuff, which given the fact that he used it extensively in the campaign against Hillary proves him to be a bare faced liar.

The Democrats along with Obama have painted themselves into a corner on Iraq. In the beginning when it was a popular concept they were all for it. When they noticed the public sentiment change against it they saw political advantage in changing their views to opposition.

And weren’t they opposed? They were vehement, strident, passionate, they accused the troops of cold blooded murder, remember General “Betrayus,” remember how Pelosi tried to use a motion against Turkey to cause them to cut off their part of the supply route for the troops in the line of fire. That’s betrayal.

There used to be a saying, “There is no moralist like an old Whore,” the Democrats have demonstrated it.

Unfortunately for them Bush did what John “I would rather lose an election than lose a war” McCain had been urging against the tide, and started the ‘surge’ which the Dems opposed. The result has been a dramatic improvement in the situation over there, leaving them with egg on their faces.

Now Obama has always been for it, Barack Hussein Gung Hobama.

Barr/ Root on Oil

Regular commenter Alex has pointed me in the direction of a couple of Youtube videos but for some reason they won’t come up but in the search I found this, which I recommend.

This election could well be won at the fuel pump, and these guys are placing themselves in a great strategic position. If the Republicans want to win this one they have to stop being wishy washy about it, give Sarah Palin the VP slot, and undertake to deregulate.

Rudd and Wong Wrong

The Australian government Armed with a report into climate change done by an economist is now rushing headlong into an ‘emissions trading scheme’ to raise taxes, redistribute wealth, and stroke the ego and vanity of Kevin Rudd.

Going into such a scheme without the rest of the world, (and the major developing countries, G5 have made it clear they do not intend to do so) is the height of economic suicide. We make our products which are eminently competitive on world markets less so, increase all costs across the board as this slug ‘washes down’ through the system, all for a piddling reduction in CO2.

With the resources boom and the current shortage of oil, there has already been a huge increase in the carbon price caused by market factors we hardly need an extra one from the government.

This should on its own cause an explosion in research into alternative energy on the basis of those higher cost methods becoming more competitive.

This thing will end up as a mess as was stated in the ‘Australian’:

John Roskam, executive director of the Institute of Public Affairs, thinks the ETS will make the Income Tax Assessment Act look easy to understand by comparison. It will involve government planning and regulation on an unprecedented scale. He says one can only wonder what sort of regime will be needed to ensure that companies do not profiteer unfairly.

The proposal as stated today appears to be a dog’s breakfast of taxes on emissions and efforts to compensate for them making the whole thing a bizarre exercise in the ridiculous. Even if we were to assume that such a scheme could be revenue neutral; that is that the costs imposed were offset by reductions in other taxes the extra weight of the bureaucracy required to implement it would be enormous.

Why not just let the market respond to the increasing cost of energy, by introducing new efficiencies, ideas and technology to solve the problem, instead of a massive exercise in social engineering?

Well, the reason is if the market were to do it Rudd and the government would get no kudos from it. By imposing massive costs and ‘compensating’ they are highly visible, and with ‘assistance’ to the poor and needy create more dependency on the state and hence less freedom.

Wong Wrong

This is a compilation of articles by Viv Forbes and Ron Kitching.

From the Asian Wall St Journal.

"The Group of Eight may be waking up to the cost of fighting global warming, but in Australia, the opposite is happening. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has promised to implement an emissions trading scheme by 2010, claiming it would be "reckless not to act." Rhetoric aside, Mr. Rudd just wants to do what every Labor politician likes: tax industry and redistribute the proceeds, at huge cost to the economy."

Minister Wong confirmed the course today. Australia is treading where most others fear to tread. And all the vultures are gathering to dismember the carcass. Bribes, exemptions, compensation, handouts, subsidies and rhetoric will be used to mute the opposition, while the luckless consumers and taxpayers are scared witless by forecasts of doom and endless repetition of loaded words like "carbon polluters", "pollution tax", "dangerous climate change" and "the huge costs of inaction".

Even the scheme has been renamed "The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme".

Once this monstrous scheme to tax and redistribute is embedded, it will infect every branch of our society and be very hard to eradicate.

Hopefully we will have an election before they can do irrevocable harm, if we can find some skeptical candidates not yet infected by this "Madness of Crowds".

What with Senator Wong’s statement at her National Press Club Address today, (16.07.08), that: “It is not business as usual; there will be a fundamental transformation of the entire economy. There will be an enormous economic transition.”

Her words brought to mind Jose Ortega Y Gasset’s remarks from his book titled The Revolt of the Masses:

"This is the greatest change that today threatens civilisation: State intervention - the absorption of all spontaneous social action by the state ... Society will have to live for the State, man for the governmental machine. And as, after all, it is only a machine whose existence and maintenance depend on the vital supports around it, the State after sucking out the very marrow of society, will be left bloodless, a skeleton, dead with that rusty death of machinery, more gruesome than the death of a living organism.”

Precisely what happened to the now disbanded Soviet Union.

It is obvious that with the many caps, gateways, scheme caps,
and reviews that the new economy will be a Fascist one reinforced by Soviet rules.

Indeed a massive fundamental transformation that can only end in abject poverty and disaster for the entire population.

W.A.R on the Energy & Economy Crisis

Some of my readers are not going to enjoy this. The LP have come up with a really sensible mainstream ticket at the worst possible time for the GOP, who are facing down a marxist in the guise of a Democrat, a master of double speak,(to put it mildly) with the media firmly determined to have him elected for the novelty value of a black President.

I have respected Root since he first came to my attention. The following excerpt is one of the reasons. WAR is solidly free market and non interventionist, the way the GOP used to be.

I recommend going to the complete article.

Ask any American voter. The two biggest issues in this 2008 election are the economic crisis and the energy crisis. Seldom are there easy answers to such complex problems. But, not this time. The answer is simple- more entrepreneurship and less government!

That means deregulation and decontrol. It means lower taxes and more incentives for private investment. UNLEASH THE FREE MARKET. Government doesn't solve problems- government causes them. American entrepreneurs will solve our energy problem- if only government will get out of the way. And those same entrepreneurs and that same free market capitalism will put America on the road to solving our economic problems as well.

This energy crisis and the economic crisis go hand in hand (and to some extent, the terrorist crisis as well). America's oil purchases abroad account for almost half the U.S. trade deficit. Every dollar we spend on foreign oil is a dollar that could be better spent growing the U.S. economy. How do we find the money to buy all that oil? We borrow it from those same countries, many of whom hate us. What do they do with OUR money? They use it to fund terrorism!

So, how do we stop this vicious cycle? Simple- we get government out of the way. Please, do not get me wrong. There is one area in which I am in consensus with the environmentalists and the Democrats. There is no question that the only long term solution for America's energy independence is to wean ourselves off of fossil fuel (oil) and replace it with clean and renewable energy.

But, the reality is that it may take another 20-30 years to be accomplished. In the meantime, the answer is drill, drill, and drill some more. President Bush took a first step today by lifting the “Executive Ban” on offshore oil drilling. …

Stop listening to liberal environmental extremists who want to drive America (by horse and buggy) back to the dark ages. They couldn't care less about the average working American. These radical environmentalists want to keep us all poor and beholden to them for handouts- that is how they buy your vote and keep themselves in power. It is time in my opinion to put the interests of Americans and the American economy FIRST. ….

Take ethanol as an example. Government tried to solve the energy crisis by picking ethanol as the winner. Big mistake. Ethanol has not only done nothing to solve our energy crisis, it has caused a worldwide economic crisis. The corn crops now dedicated to ethanol production have produced a worldwide shortage of corn needed for food (as well as cattle/chicken feed). That has in turn spiked grocery prices, caused shortages at the grocery store, and incited riots across the globe. Yet gas prices continue to rise, because it actually takes more than a gallon of gas to create a gallon of ethanol. And, it turns out that ethanol causes more pollution than gas as well. The result is an energy and economic crisis caused by government.

American Vs French Revolutions.

Patrick Joubert Conlon or as he calls himself ‘Born Again Redneck’ is a very active blogger and a valuable source of the more interesting things going down.

He has just put up a great post on the difference between the American Revolution and the French Revolution, which I thoroughly recommend. Below is the start of it.

Today was Bastille Day which the French celebrate as the first day of their Revolution of 1789; their Independence Day - sort of but not quite.

Washington, Adams and Hamilton immediately realized that the French Revolt was not quite the same as our War of Independence. Even Thomas Jefferson, who was very enthusiastic about the French Revolution at first, eventually recoiled from it.

Our revolution's watch-words were "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The watch-words of the French Revolution were "liberty, equality, brotherhood." In other words, the Americans understood freedom to be an individual right while the French saw it as a collective right. In order to bring about "equality" and "brotherhood" it is an absolutely necessary requirement to sacrifice individual sovereignty for the "greater good" and that can only be achieved by coercion.

Although Jean-Jacques Rousseau died in 1778, it is his ridiculous romantic ideas of equality that inspired the French Revolution. We can thank Rousseau and the French Revolutionaries for introducing emotionalism and subjectivity.

I knew I was Popular But ...

This morning I encountered this on a couple of sites I usually visit and couldn't resist it. Of course I will need to get one of those Hawaiian Birth certificates referred to below.

Birth certificate, or photoshop.

Embossed seal of the State of Hawaii absent from the purported "birth certificate" of Barack Obama

The old birth certificate thing has been doing the rounds for a while and I have been avoiding it on the basis that it would be fairly unlikely that anyone would be stupid enough to try to pull such a stunt. Now I am finding a fair bit of stuff that seems to indicate that something is not right in regard to it.

The "birth certificate" claimed by the Barack Obama campaign is not certified as authentic and appears to be a photoshopped fake.

The image, purporting to come from the Hawaii Department of Health, has been the subject of intense skepticism in the blogosphere in the past two weeks. But now the senior spokesman of that Department has confirmed to Israel Insider what are the required features of a certified birth document -- features that Obama's purported "birth certificate" clearly lack. http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Politics/12939.htm
……
“That strongly suggests that Daily Kos obtained the image from Photobucket, not the State of Hawaii, the Obama family, or the Obama campaign. Photobucket is not generally known as a credible supplier of official vital records for any of the fifty states, and the liberties that other Photoshoppers took with the certificates confirms this.

“Some of these oddities surfaced in Israel Insider’s previous article on the subject, but new comparative documentary evidence presented below, and official verification obtained by Israel Insider from a senior Hawaiian official, provides the strongest confirmation yet.

“An authentic Hawaiian birth certificate for another Hawaiian individual has since surfaced which, using the same official form as the presumptive Obama certificate, includes an embossed official seal and an authoritative signature, coming through from the back. Obama’s alleged certificate lacks those features, and the certificate number referencing the birth year has been blacked out, making it untraceable. [...]

The article is a good indication that Obama should come clean, check it out at the link. Here is more: -

McCain /Obama in perspective.

I have Gayle to thank for drawing my attention to this video, which really puts things in perspective.

“All of these tax increases are under the fine print of the slogan hope, they want to raise your taxes by thousands of dollars a year and have the audacity to hope you don’t mind.” Good one John.

Rudd and emissions trading.

We in Australia have to suffer the indignity of Kevin Rudd prancing the world stage giving gratuitous advice on what he wants done about global warming. Kevvy has the intention of rushing headlong into an emissions trading scheme, with no thought of economic consequences for the nation.

This guy is doing the old political trick of using anything that causes alarm to boost the power of government and particularly its tax base, a sort of Al Gore writ small.

Even farmers are to be taxed on the farts of their livestock as these contain methane, which is a greenhouse gas. Business will in many cases close their doors.

One such case appeared in “Adelaide Now” the other day.

OIL company Mobil could be forced to close its Altona refinery when the Rudd Government introduces a carbon emissions trading scheme.

The closure of the refinery, which supplies half of Victoria's fuel needs and 10 per cent of the national capacity, would reduce competition and could push up petrol prices.

Company executives believe the refinery, which employs 350 people, could become unviable because of competition from overseas facilities, which do not have to pay to emit greenhouse gases.

Under emissions trading, Exxon Mobil will have to purchase permits allowing it to emit carbon gases.

Even the Australian Workers' Union national secretary Paul Howes points out there is no point in Australian refineries closing if they were simply replaced by facilities overseas, which had lower environmental standards.

Munger, oil from a libertarian perspective.

Delaware Libertarian has an interesting piece on the position of Dr. Mike Munger, Libertarian candidate for governor in North Carolina on off-shore drilling for oil and natural gas.

I really cannot fault this one as it is really the free market solution, the government gets out of the way and let business get on with the job of supplying the consumer with fuel. The current shortage is not as Obama and associates would have it, a failure of free enterprise but is a failure of government intervention in the free market.

Could anyone take seriously the suggestion that in a time of rising demand oil companies would not go looking for new fields to get into production, would not build more refineries to turn out a marketable commodity, and in so doing deny themselves huge potential profits?

For a long time governments in the US have locked huge tracts up and prevented exploration in them for political reasons, yet now we see the left hypothesizing that oil companies have deliberately cut back on exploration to reduce the amount of oil and force up the price.

Dr. Munger's proposed comprehensive solution would require broad cooperation at the federal and state level. The key points are:

1. End tariffs on ethanol imports.

2. Allow drilling and new exploration for high-yield sources of oil and natural gas on Federal lands and offshore in all U.S. waters.

3. End domestic ethanol subsidies, which waste both energy and money.

4. Allow the increasing price of gasoline and oil to do its job, by encouraging consumers to conserve, and rewarding oil companies for finding new reserves.

5. Allow the immediate development of new domestic refining capacity and cracking facilities, which has been held up for more than a decade by short-run political gamesmanship.

"The key is to recognize that the increased price of oil and gas will solve this problem for us, if we let it," according to Dr. Munger. "Oil companies will develop new reserves, and new refining capacity. Consumers will choose more fuel-efficient cars, and heating options. Alternative fuels and energy sources will become competitive, and will be developed rapidly in the marketplace."

As for the current proposals by both Bev Perdue and Pat McCrory, "They will have no effect, and in fact they are not even making any real effort" to solve the problem," said Dr. Munger.

None of this will cut prices in the short term, but will create a light at the end of the tunnel, and perhaps make OPEC realize that the west will no longer be held to ransom in a few years. It would then seem logical to them to make more supplies available now to maximise their production and profits.

Dr. Munger has a PhD in economics and experience working in regulatory policy at the U.S. Federal Trade Commission. He holds a current joint appointment in Duke's Economics Department. He believes that only comprehensive energy reform will work to solve the nation's energy security problems.