Government garbage on Climate chance.

Last night Rudd and Penny Wong announced a treasury report that indicated that there would be little economic cost in their global warming tax scam. 

The fact that the calculations were done before the extent of the economic crisis is not seen as a problem for them. Industry hotly contests the calculations as to their costs.

Viv Forbes of Carbon Sense has this to say: -

Garbage out of Canberra:

Firstly, the Australian Treasury department has modeled the likely effect of the Emissions Trading Scheme on the Australian economy and assures us the costs will hardly be noticed.

So we have IPCC General Circulation Models that have failed consistently to predict the world’s cooling temperature, and Federal Reserve Financial models that failed to predict the biggest financial collapse for 100 years, but we are asked to believe Australian Treasury Computer Models that say a massive new tax and dislocation of every important Australian industry will have no significant effect.

One of the adjustment factors used to achieve this Wong result for Minister Wong is the assumption that Australian industry will be able to buy foreign carbon credits much cheaper than they would be in Australia. So we pay big dollars to a Carbon Trader operating in Pakistan and Nigeria, he gets his mates to not cut down a forest they were planning to clear, and all is OK according to Minister Wong and her boffins with the computer.

Garbage out of London:


The irony - it snowed in London in October 2008 for the first time since, well opinions vary, some say 1934 some say 1922, but a long time anyway. The irony was not lost on those reporting the House of Commons debate on the global warming bill.

This from The register: -

Snow fell as the House of Commons debated Global Warming yesterday - the first October fall in the metropolis since 1922. The Mother of Parliaments was discussing the Mother of All Bills for the last time, in a marathon six hour session.

In order to combat a projected two degree centigrade rise in global temperature, the Climate Change Bill pledges the UK to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 80 per cent by 2050. The bill was receiving a third reading, which means both the last chance for both democratic scrutiny and consent.

The bill creates an enormous bureaucratic apparatus for monitoring and reporting, which was expanded at the last minute. Amendments by the Government threw emissions from shipping and aviation into the monitoring program, and also included a revision of the Companies Act (c. 46) "requiring the directors’ report of a company to contain such information as may be specified in the regulations about emissions of greenhouse gases from activities for which the company is responsible" by 2012.

Recently the American media has begun to notice the odd incongruity f saturation media coverage here which insists that global warming is both man-made and urgent, and a British public which increasingly doubts either to be true. 60 per cent of the British population now doubt the influence of humans on climate change, and more people than not think Global Warming won't be as bad "as people say".

It was all deeply sanctimonious, but no one pointed out that Europe's appetite for setting targets that hurt the economy has evaporated in recent weeks - so it's a gesture few countries will feel compelled to imitate. …….

Yesterday, however, it seemed that the only MPs exhibiting enough "consciousness" to actually think - and ask reasonable questions about cost and effectiveness of the gesture - got a good telling off.

The Bill finally passed its third reading by 463 votes to three.

And an Attempt to Clear some Garbage in Brisbane:

“Climate Smart” is Yesterday’s Vision.

A statement by Viv Forbes, Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition.

The Carbon Sense Coalition today called on the Queensland Government to abandon their failed “Climate Smart” policy in favour of a new energy policy geared to the new realities of scientific re-assessment, economic austerity and international fragmentation.

In a formal submission to the Queensland government, the Carbon Sense Coalition said that the tsunami of climate alarmism had reached its zenith.

As it recedes, a new climate of scientific scepticism and economic austerity will sweep green extremism from the political landscape.

There will be no support for profligate spending on green baubles and beads, and no capacity for consumers or our basic industries to cope with the costs and dislocations of an Emissions Trading Scheme, especially as it becomes clear that nothing we can do will affect global temperatures.

The Queensland Government should forget party solidarity and instead stand up for the interests of the workers and consumers of tomorrow’s Queensland. These people want real industries producing useful goods and services and an end to speculative waste on feel-good causes like man-made global warming.

Advice, Prediction and a Warning.

As an Australian, I am looking at the election from outside. Sometimes outside people can see things that are not so apparent from close up. A couple of things today have allowed me to put something together that is worrying.

Pat Conlon at Born Again Redneck has some good advice re the feeling some supporters have that it is pointless voting, in states where Obama is tipped to win. That’s how he can win: -

I had a dentist appointment today and was disturbed to find that he was not going to bother to vote because the polls show that Obama will win. Fortunately I convinced him that was nonsense.

Then I got into my truck to drive home and hear on the Lars Larson radio talk-show that the lowest early voter turn-out in Oregon so far is in the red counties. Lars opined that they had fallen for the same nonsense that Obama is going to win.

That's exactly what the DNC/MSM has been trying to accomplish: to depress us to the point that we don't vote. So, if you know anyone who has succumbed to the propaganda, please tell them that it's not over yet; that we still have a chance and to make sure to vote.

Steve Maloney, one of the most active supporters I have encountered contacted me this morning with a prediction that we will win: -

On Election Eve: The "networks" may "call" PA early for Obama, as they did with Kerry (who just scraped through in 2004), but they should be very cautious. In 2004, the network "calls" came at about 8:30, when Kerry had a 61%-39% lead. By 2:30 a.m. the margin was 51-49.

On this year's Election Night (if Karl Rove and I are right), every minute after about 8:45 p.m., McCain will draw closer in PA. Sometime after midnight, we should know who's won PA, and don't be surprised if it's NOT Barack Obama.

A Warning.

I read some time back, that one of the things that nearly cost us Florida in 2000 was that the media called it early for Gore, with the result that a lot of the Republicans who tend to vote late, went home.

The media this year are excited about the prospect of an Obama victory to the point where I believe they will be just busting to call states for him as soon as possible. This could if we are unable to counter it cost us dearly.

We have to come up with a strategy to prevent it.

“Yesterdays Visions.”

The Carbon Sense Coalition has put up a submission to the Queensland government call for comments on “Climate Smart,” a set of climate and energy proposals. I am attempting here to paraphrase it into a small space to give some idea of the scope of it, however for the serious opponent of present proposals to deal with this hypothetical and doubtful ‘problem’ I suggest you go to: -

The Carbon Sense Coalition 

Climate Smart 2050? – Yesterdays Visions. 

Here are some of the more relevant points.

We are watching the slow development of the greatest public policy disaster ever seen in Western Democracies. Started by Green activists with other agendas, the Global Warming Hysteria now infiltrates every element of public policy, gets mentioned in every news broadcast, gets blamed for every unusual weather event, and is being used to support the greatest grab for taxes and power ever achieved without violent revolution. ….

Much of the observed recent warming has occurred in urban areas, whereas rural areas are cooler. This suggests that some of the apparent warming is caused not by the atmosphere but by growing cities with their concentration of population, bitumen and waste heat generators.

Many places on earth have experienced record cold during the last two years. Ice sheets are getting thicker, and some glaciers have started to advance.

The sun has become ominously quiet, with a long period with no sunspots and reduced magnetic strength. In the past, such periods of quiescent sun have heralded weather which was miserably cold and cloudy.

The bottom line is, there has been no abnormal global warming since the start of the Industrial Revolution, or in the 20th Century when man started using large quantities of carbon fuels, and there is no warming and some evidence of significant cooling occurring right now.

There are at least 12 General Circulation Computer Models trying to simulate and forecast earth’s climate. None of them agree without manipulation. Thus at least 11 of them are wrong. None of the models have been successful at forecasting temperature even a few years ahead. Therefore ALL of the models are wrong and cannot be relied to forecast future global temperatures.

Of course we do have a large ‘carbon footprint’ in Queensland because we produce more surplus coal, minerals, metals and food for export than any other state of country in the world, using a small labour force and a large inventory of modern useful power-consuming tools and machinery. Of course we have a big carbon footprint because we have a small human footprint. 

Unlike countries like China, India, Indonesia and much of South America and Africa we have a small human footprint but we produce a large surplus for export. If there are carbon hogs in the world, it is those countries who consume all their own production plus all of our surpluses.

All laws which mandate particular shares of the energy market for particular technologies should be abolished. No “X% of the electricity market for gas, solar or moonbeams”. Energy conservation is a good policy at any time. But government edict is the worst possible way to achieve it.

High prices are the greatest incentive to energy conservation, and consumers are very sensitive to rising prices for anything. OPEC has just discovered that consumers have become very economical with petrol since petrol prices soared.

Regional planners try to segregate and separate all human activities. They believe they are better in deciding where people may live, how big their farms or blocks must be, and where businesses must congregate. … Let people decide where they live, where they work and where they shop and many lives would become simpler, cheaper and safer.

Governments themselves are huge centralisers. Everyone flocks to be near the power centres and near the honey pots of government funds. Government should be shrunk, decentralised and confined to barracks – that would achieve a huge reduction in their carbon footprint, and their cost to taxpayers.

Subsidies always encourage waste, and the most glaring example today is the health system. Because health services appear free to the user, it is used for every ailment from a sore thumb to a bruised personality to a face lift. 

The four most valuable energy resources in the world today are coal, oil, gas and uranium. These are the only currently feasible energy sources to power our cities, our industries and our transport fleets. But here in Queensland, uranium mining is banned, and uranium exploration is not talked about in polite company. 

There is perhaps no better example of the law of perverse consequences than the world wide government force feeding of the ethanol industry. All over the world, scarce capital has been diverted to the construction of ethanol plants. These chemical plants have consumed a significant share of world food stocks, caused steep rises in food prices, and food shortages in many countries..

Once oil prices fall back to the long term average, as they surely will, these ethanol plants will become un-economic and just one more supplicant for continuing support from tax payers. …
The collapse of Climate Alarmism is inevitable, and, we believe, imminent. There are strong reasons for that opinion:

Every day sees a new scientific paper denying the main thesis of the Alarmists; or a new scientist joining the ranks of the Skeptics.

Public opinion is changing quickly. Politicians specialise in following public opinion, and already the signs of about-face are there. First the UK electors and then the Canadian electors punished the greens and the climate alarmists heavily; then the leader of the ACT Party in New Zealand came out in strong opposition to the ETS proposals of the major parties; …

The once solid European block of alarmists has crumbled in the face of revolt lead by the Poles, the Italians, the Eastern Block, and even Germany. Russia is not a believer and is only in for whatever spoils they can gather. China, India and Indonesia have no intention of limiting their carbon emissions.

Climate Smart 2050 is thus “Yesterday’s Vision.” It should be withdrawn to be replaced by an Energy Policy for tomorrow. The whole Climate Smart policy should be withdrawn, and all the bureaucracies set up to promote it dismantled promptly. It should be replaced by a completely new policy outlining how Government will support the backbone industries of Queensland in the tough times ahead. ….

The document this is taken from is authorised by:
Viv Forbes BSc App, FAIMM, FSIA
Chairman,The Carbon Sense Coalition info@carbon-sense.com

Ghosts from Obama’s Past.

The recent surfacing of an audio interview of Obama ruing that the courts have not addressed the issue of redistribution of wealth has met with the predictable ‘shoot the messenger’ response from the Obama campaign.

His own words on record are the fault of Fox news and McCain for airing them?



Meanwhile his old mate Bill Ayers has hit the ABC news in an article, “WATCH: 'Washed-up Terrorist' Ayers Stays Mum on Ties to Obama,” by Bryan Ross and Molly Dean: -

… But Bill Ayers is staying mum, and working hard to duck reporters and the campaign spotlight in the final week before the election.

He told a journalism student attending an education justice symposium in New York Sunday he and other former radicals were being "demonized" by Fox News. "We're nice guys, right?"

Asked by the student, if he repudiated the actions of the Weather Underground, which carried out a series of 1960's robberies and bombings that killed at least six people, Ayers walked away without answering. …

Asked about Sen. John McCain's description of him as a "washed up terrorist," Ayers said nothing as he raced to find a taxi. …..

Organizers of the event attempted to stop media coverage by falsely claiming Ayers' appearance had been canceled.

So not only are Fox to blame for reporting words that the candidate is no longer wanting people to hear they are demonizers of unrepentant terrorists. How can they continue to display integrity when it is so uncool?

Mike Hucabee with Joe the Plumber.

I pinched this one off Gayle over at Dragon Ladies Den.

I knew this one was around for a while but didn’t follow up as I am not too fussed with Huckabee, but I have to admit he does a good job here. He brings out a lot of material I haven’t encountered before.

The information on healthcare and company taxes should give a lot of food for thought. Good one Mike and Joe.

Wayne Root; Battered Voter Syndrome.

Wayne Root has a way with words, and in this case has come up with a modern parable of our times. All members of all political parties can learn from this one, especially Republicans who tend to believe they are the major party standing for personal liberty, keeping the size of government down, and fiscal restraint.

Heres an extract of Wayne's article: -

"He lies to me all the time. He takes my money and tells me that I can't spend it as well as he can. I've watched him spend us into financial ruin, giving money to his friends. Wasting money on irresponsible schemes. We're so far in debt, we'll never get out.”

"I work extra long hours to support him. I bring home all the money, yet he tells me what to do all day long. He winds up controlling almost every aspect of my life. He even tells me that I don't know how to properly raise my own children.”

"When he needs me, he's nice to me. He tells me how he wants the same things I do. After he gets what he wants, he goes back to his real personality. The truth is that he couldn't care less about me. He couldn't care less about anyone or anything. He only cares about himself. He uses the rest of us to get what he wants.”

"He keeps hurting me and I don't know what to do. I'm really scared. But he has me convinced that anyone else would treat me worse. He's probably right. So I stay.”

"It's probably all my fault. I just need to show him that I support him 100%. Maybe than he'll treat me better." ……

…. the tale of woe you just read above is not from a battered spouse. This person is suffering from "battered voter syndrome."

Both Republicans and Democrats fall victim election after election to such abuse.

Let's start with battered Republicans. How many times can conservative or free market libertarian voters be lied to, without waking up to the deception? Year after year, at election time Republicans trot out candidates who portray themselves as libertarian conservatives standing for free markets, smaller government, lower spending, lower taxes, and more freedom. But after they are elected, they govern very differently than they promised. The reality is that Republicans talk about smaller government, but once elected, they expand government just like Democrats. They treat us like battered voters. …..

….. But it isn't only Republicans who suffer from battered voter syndrome. Democrats have spent their fair share of time being abused by their own heroes too. Democrat politicians promise responsible government that will help “the little guy,” and then give us Congressman Barney Frank to oversee Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, while his lover runs the very programs that put the housing market and financial system into crisis.

Then there is Obama- the man of “change.” Well he has raised over $600 million dollars in change- smashing all-time records for campaign contributions. Who gave him $600,000,000? What do they expect in return? How did he do that in the worst economy in our lifetime? Does this ring any alarm bells in your mind? When Obama promises to “spread the wealth around,” to whom will he give your money?

Is Obama really for the “little guy?” He has been one of the biggest beneficiaries of contributions from Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns, and Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac. All of them were at the very center of our credit crisis, investment banking meltdown and Wall Street bailout. Why did they choose to give so much money to Obama? What did they expect in return? Did all that campaign cash prevent Obama from speaking up about the looming financial meltdown?

Obama comes from the Chicago political machine- a modern day Tammany Hall. The economy of Chicago and the state of Illinois have been wrecked by this corrupt Democratic machine- with bloated budget deficits; out of control spending; unfunded state government employee union liabilities; among the worst public schools in the country; among the highest taxes in the country; the highest murder rate in the country; and one of the biggest population exoduses in the country.

If you like Chicago, you'll love America with Obama as President. If you think Obama is the man of change, you are a battered voter. ……

Wayne Allyn Root is the Libertarian Vice Presidential nominee on the Libertarian Presidential ticket of Bob Barr/Wayne Root. His web site is: www.ROOTforAmerica.com

Hate crimes and Obama on the Constitution.

(HT Delaware Libertarian)

“Forget all of the guilty associations. This audio of Obama shows his full colors flying for total government control over all human economic realities.”

“….The Constitution is an eternal mandate that government exists to secure our innate rights as free people. It does not give us freedom, it exists to protect it against collective encroachments, by government above all. It does not "vest us" with rights, as Obama characterized the high court's decisions ordering government to equally protect the rights of African-Americans. …”

Go there.

While you are there, check out “Here's why hate crimes are a dangerous idea...”

Steve points out that an effigy of Sarah Palin hanging from a noose has been determined as not a hate crime. The troubling thing about this from my perspective is that according to Steve Whitmore, of the LA County Sherrifs Department, a similar display featuring Obama might not be considered the same.

Whitmore said that potential hate crimes are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. If the same display had been made of a Barack Obama-like doll, for example, authorities would have to evaluate it independently, Whitmore said.

"That adds a whole other social, historical hate aspect to the display, and that is embedded in the consciousness of the country," he said, adding he's not sure whether it would be a hate crime. "It would be ill-advised of anybody to speculate on that."

My opinion is that the display is nothing more than a rather sick effort in extremely bad taste, but we have to expect that from liberals.

I strongly oppose the idea of ‘hate crimes’ as if something is a crime, it is a crime, the same crime regardless of what is going through the mind of the perpetrator at the time. The motivation of the person who did this was probably to make a political statement in bad taste. The ‘hate crime’ rules mean that another person making the same ‘political statement’ about another candidate can be charged with an offense.

The London Times on Palin.

Patrick Joubert Conlon is one of the best sources of those snippets of information I generally miss, how the hell he manages it will never know, but here’s a beauty.

Amid the Obama fascination of Europe, the Times comes out with some reality: -

It's hard to make a reasoned and fair judgment about the Alaska Governor because she has been the victim of one of the nastiest, most sustained and comprehensive slime-jobs ever performed by a hyper-partisan national and global media. ….

Palinphobia is so shot through with condescension and ideological incomprehension on the media's part that trying to cut through to the reality of her political message is not easy. …

As for the anti-intellectualism she seems to represent, this is a favourite old saw not only of the Left but also of the whole Establishment crowd. There's an unshakeable view among the coastal elites that real wisdom is acquired only by circulating between the ivy-encrusted walls of scholarship and the Manhattan and Hollywood cocktail set.

But there's real wisdom among those derided Americans who have never even ventured to the coasts, but whose steady consistent voice and values have been truly responsible for America's many successes.

Some of the weaker Republicans are going into premature post mortems at the moment and looking for someone (other than themselves) to blame for an election that is not even lost. I doubt that McCain is conceding, and Sarah certainly won’t, she’s a fighter and will do her best to get us over the line.

This was always going to be a difficult one, especially with the press being determined to get their own result and becoming the propaganda wing of the DNC. These candidates have done bloody well just to be competitive, never mind closing for the kill.

There are many who, if this thing is lost will blame the candidates. My suggestion is to read Teddy Roosevelt’s “Man in the Arena” speech, and in a lot of cases ask “Did I do enough myself?” or in a lot of cases, “Should I have at least done something?”

Obama and the welfare state.

The latest National Black Republican Association newsletter features an article, “A new Welfare state,” by Ken Blackwell.

Thanks to Joe the Plumber, we now know for sure that Barack Obama wants to "spread the wealth around." But the Democratic candidate still hasn't come clean on just how much of a European-style socialist he is.

Look at the "tax cut" he says he'll give to 95 percent of Americans. In fact, this is simply a government check he'd hand out - including to millions who don't pay income taxes, since each year 38 percent of Americans already get a full refund.

In other words, his "rebate" is a welfare plan, plain and simple.

When called on this, Obama's answer is that those 38 percent still pay payroll taxes, so he's rebating part of those payments. But that actually puts him deeper into the socialist hole. Here's why.

Payroll taxes go to fund Social Security and Medicare - the main US social-insurance programs. The taxes are dedicated because these are insurance programs - you're paying so that you'll be covered when you hit retirement age.

But, down the line, these programs face a financial crisis even worse than the housing mess that we're in now. They need literally trillions more dollars (above what they're set to take in) to meet their current obligations. By federal law, absent those new funds, every retiree will automatically have his or her benefits cut.

If Obama means to rebate those payroll taxes from the Social Security/Medicare funds, he's accelerating the bankruptcy of those programs. If not, he's still transferring money from people who pay income taxes to those who don't.

There's more: Either way, Obama is effectively changing these cores of American retirement from social insurance programs to European-style social welfare programs: Instead of each of us paying into the fund, and later collecting on that basis, some people will be paying in less to collect the same benefit.

That's a flat-out repudiation of President Franklin Roosevelt's vision in founding Social Security, and of the promise that's always underlain Medicare. Neither was ever supposed to become a charity program - but Obama's pointing down just that road.

The Obama double bind is either bankrupt our nation's retirement programs or put the nation on the path to European-style socialism. Which is it?

No wonder Obama is so popular is Europe: The Europeans finally found an American who thinks like they do. (And they won't mind in the least when we start suffering the sky-high unemployment and lack of economic growth that socialism has given them.) …….

For the rest of it go here.

Do you know this ?

I just got this from Viv Forbes, and while it was brought up early in the campaign, it is worth reiterating. Palin probably has the Governorship most responsible for the national security of the USA.

-Question: What is America's first line of missile interceptor defense that protects the entire United States?

-Answer: 49th Missile Defense Battalion of Alaska National Guard.

-Question: What is the ONLY National Guard unit on permanent active duty?

-Answer: 49th Missile Defense Battalion of Alaska National Guard.

-Question: Who is the Commander in Chief of the 49th Missile Defense Battalion of Alaska National Guard?

Answer: Governor Sarah Palin, Alaska

-Question: What U.S. governor is routinely briefed on highly classified military issues, homeland security, and counter terrorism? 



-Answer: Governor Sarah Palin, Alaska.

Question: What U.S. governor has a higher classified security rating than either candidate of the
Democrat Party? 



Answer: Governor Sarah Palin, Alaska.

According to the Washington Post, she first met with McCain in February, but nobody ever found out. This is a woman used to keeping secrets. She can be entrusted with our national security, because she already is.

Now We All Know!

Politically Incorrect on subsidies.

If I were less committed to personal rights I would make this compulsory viewing. This is one of the best demonstrations of the disastrous results of state interventionism, and a lesson in the law of unintended consequences.

I came from a family farm, and on moving away I gained an insight into the blinkered thinking that persists in relation to this area. It occurred to me fairly soon that where most other industries referred to themselves as businesses, family farms tended not to, rather regarding it as a tradition.

The family farm is not a sacred cow and should not be treated like one. There is no entitlement to survive uneconomically.

What really comes out in this video is the fact that most of the ‘family farm’ subsidies, really go to larger enterprises anyway, and most production is done without them.



To assume that you are entitled to a living regardless of economic viability is to assume that you are somehow superior to the rest of society, and have a right to call on them to give to you. Those who feel a right to demand a share of other peoples income to support themselves, are assuming a right of ownership over those people.

This is immoral.

NYT endorsing Obama.

I have been waiting with baited breath for most of the year to see who NYT would endorse for this election. 

Friends told me “Look you are being silly, they always endorse a Democrat, they are bound to go for the chosen one.” I am not a cynic though and pointed out to them that they were wrong, I mean they endorsed Dwight Eisenhower in 1956 and he was a Republican, how can friends be so cynical?

Admittedly the NYT hasn’t endorsed another Republican in the last 52 years, but you have to look at the quality of the candidates.

Look at the ringing endorsement for LBJ: -

In his frenetic dashing about the country, President Johnson stuck mainly to the safety of pious platitudes, interlaced with cloudy visions of the “Great Society.” …… It just cries out the quality of the candidate.

Well if you didn’t like that lets see why they liked Carter enough to recommend him over Reagan: -

Again and again Jimmy Carter seemed to be all sail and no boat, what did he do when his popularity sank in 1979? He fired half his cabinet and blamed the public for succumbing to malaise. …..

Mr. Carter’s economic policy amounts to nothing more than muddling through. But (heres the good part, probably written by their finance editor) isn’t muddling through just where economics is today? …. You can just see why they considered him a top man.

No, there is no satisfying you people, well here is why Mondale got the tick: -

Mondale has all the dramatic flair of a trigonometry teacher. His Nordic upbringing makes it hard for him to brag.

All right, that didn’t get you to vote the Donks in, the Dukakis one will do it surely: -

Michael Dukakis is not the unfocused incompetent his late and lame response made him seem. …. Now really you have to back a man of that quality.

The paper has backed five Republican contenders since 1880, McKinley, Taft, Wilkie, Dewey, and Eisenhower. Isn’t supporting us 6 times (twice for Ike) in 32 elections fair?

Foundation for Economic Education, Robber Baron Article.

1917 painting of John D Rockefeller.

The Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) seems to have been around forever, I enjoyed their monthly publication “The Freeman,” 30 years ago. The Freeman offers an uncompromising view of the benefits of the free market and introduces readers to the “many implications of what a free society is all about: its moral legitimacy, its tremendous efficiency, and its liberating effects in every area of life.”

One of the greatest problems most of us have in advocating a free society, or a free market economy is that those of us who have grown to adulthood in the last 100 years have never actually encountered one. We have all known a perception of freedom, but somewhere in it is authority from government, which has increased over the years. It is hard to visualize a state of affairs without that so called 'protection' there in the background, well foreground now.

FEE offers many historical examples of the benefits of liberty, both personal and mostly economic as well as commentary on just where government intervention is counter productive. The latest ‘Notes from FEE’ has a devastating analysis of the "Myth of the Robber Barons," by Burton W. Folsom, Jr.

…. Because we have a long history of government intervention in the economy, the assumption, both among those who design government programs and among the constituencies that support them—has usually been that government action accomplishes its objectives. Even people who have reservations about bureaucratic inefficiency reason that we wouldn't have turned to government so many times in the past if government hadn't accomplished something.

This shallow conclusion dovetails with another set of assumptions: First, that the free market, with its economic uncertainty, competitive stress, and constant potential for failure, needs the steadying hand of government regulation; second, that businessmen tend to be unscrupulous, reflecting the classic cliché image of the “robber baron,” eager to seize any opportunity to steal from the public; and third, that because government can mobilize a wide array of forces across the political and business landscape, government programs therefore can move the economy more effectively than can the varied and often conflicting efforts of private enterprise.

But the closer we look at public-sector economic initiatives, the more difficult it becomes to defend government as a wellspring of progress. Indeed, an honest examination of our economic history—going back long before the twentieth century—reveals that, more often than not, when government programs and individual enterprise have gone head to head, the private sector has achieved more progress at less cost with greater benefit to consumers and the economy at large.

The article then goes on to detail four examples of entrepreneurs who despite having the title of ‘robber baron’ in the modern age, benefited the public at large by the efficiency, and outperformed in some cases subsidized operations.

Cornelius Vanderbilt is the first. He established a major shipping line which through better business practices and efficiency, drove the government subsidized Collins company out of business, and made traveling so cheap that even the poor could get tickets.

Next we have James J. Hill who built the Great Northern Railway, a model of efficiency and a financial success, when subsidized companies had failed at great cost.

Andrew Carnegie founded Carnegie Steel in 1872, and through innovation and efficiency reduced the cost of rail from $56 per ton to $11.50, and its rail output surpassed that of all the steel mills in England combined.

The last was the inimitable John D. Rockefeller. 

By the 1890s, Standard Oil had a 60 percent market share of all the oil sold in the world. Rockefeller sold the oil at eight cents a gallon—that would be around $1.60 today. Eight cents a gallon! Nobody in the world could do it that cheaply. Kerosene was so inexpensive that people could light their homes for less than one cent an hour.

Rockefeller, the first billionaire in U.S. history, made a fraction of a cent on each gallon of oil his company sold. He had the foresight to say that his goal was to make it for six cents, sell it for eight cents, and use the two cents for research and development. Rockefeller realized that finding new uses for oil was the key to success. Eventually Standard Oil discovered and produced scores of byproducts, including candle wax, soap, petroleum jelly, tars, and lubricating oils.

In doing this he proved the ‘Invisible Hand’ theory of Adam Smith, which maintains that each individual in pursuing his own gain is led as if by an invisible hand to the greater good of all man. In reducing the cost of kerosene to a point where even the poor could use it for lighting, he removed the demand for whale oil, virtually destroying the whaling industry in the process.

Greenpeace has been slow to acknowledge John D. for the great conservationist he was, but I firmly believe that at some point in the future, every Greenpeace activist will wear a locket with a picture of Rockefeller in it close to their hearts, for his efforts to save the whale. Well, maybe not.

‘Joe the Plumber’ Ads. ‘

The McCain campaign has hit pay dirt with its latest advertisement, “I am Joe,” which brings out ‘the American dream’ of succeeding in bringing dreams to fruition.



The two greatest coups of the McCain campaign have been, (1) nominating Sarah Palin for VP, as Sarah is someone most Americans identify as “One of us,” and, (2) the appearance of Joe the Plumber, the average guy who just wants to work towards a better future, whose willingness to stand up for himself resulted in the Obama admission of wanting to spread your wealth around.

Joe is every individual in America and worldwide, who has ever dreamed of a better future from his or her own efforts. Joe represents all Americans who have ever worked to advance themselves. Joe is not a creature of the state, not a liberal, he is an anathema to liberals, an independently minded individual, Joe, is a sovereign entity.

America’s greatness has never come from government. America’s greatness has come from the ambitions, hard work, ideas, and plans of the average American who dared to hope for the exceptional, generally in spite of the government.

In America in its true sense, success is not guaranteed it is worked for. America in its true sense and in its philosophy, is not the result of a great government, it is a state of mind. It is a sense of liberty, where free people are at liberty to work for their dreams, some succeeding, some failing and trying again.

It is the effort of every American who has ever dared to hope for a better future, or has ever exhibited an entrepreneurial spark, who have made a great nation.

Joe the plumber, you are America.

Biden, Iran and testing Obama.

It’s always hard to know what Joe Biden is talking about, even I think for Joe himself. At a Democratic fund-raiser Sunday, he suggested that America’s enemies will try to take advantage of Obama if and when he becomes president. Why hell that just has to give you confidence.


“Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Obama like they did John Kennedy. We’re going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”



Hopefully, Joe has just stuffed up as badly as usual on some sort of attempt to make people think he is VP nominee for Barack F Kennedbama. Problem is Kennedy had been tested in WW2 and was ready to face a challenge, and was up to it. We should probably elect McCain, who the world knows will take a stand without having to run dangerous tests.

Interestingly Haaretz news is claiming that Iran is getting ideas of doing it big time.

HT, Dr. Sanity.

Top Iran officials recommend preemptive strike against Israel

Senior Tehran officials are recommending a preemptive strike against Israel to prevent an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear reactors, a senior Islamic Republic official told foreign diplomats two weeks ago in London.

The official, Dr. Seyed G. Safavi, said recent threats by Israeli authorities strengthened this position, but that as of yet, a preemptive strike has not been integrated into Iranian policy.

Safavi is head of the Research Institute of Strategic Studies in Tehran, and an adviser to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. The institute is directly affiliated with Khamenei's office and with the Revolutionary Guards, and advises both on foreign policy issues.

Safavi is also the brother of Yahya Rahim Safavi, who was the head of the Revolutionary Guards until a year ago and now is an adviser to Khamenei, and holds significant influence on security matters in the Iranian government.

Democrats defend Freddie and Fannie.

There seems to be reluctance among the general public, especially the liberal ones to accept that the Freddie Mac and Fannie May debacle was the responsibility of the Democrats, who resisted every effort by Republicans to boost oversight. There seems to be the perception that it must be Bush’s fault as he was in the White House when the storm broke.

Bush cannot rule without Congress. This clearly shows that Republicans wanted more oversight of these institutions whle Democrats refused.

Take note of Obama’s economic advisor, Frank Raines who reaped huge bonuses while using questionable book keeping methods, to meet financial targets.

Foreign dreams of Obama.

I just ran into a link to a Boris Johnson (a Pom) writing on why he supports Obama for President. Johnson seems to me like a man who is getting most of his information from the mainstream media, which if its anything like here in Australia, or the US is hopelessly biased. Most of what he has to say sounds like Obama campaign slogans.

I usually don’t bother reading people who come up with writing stuff like, “no difficulty in orally extemporising a series of grammatical English sentences, each containing a main verb,” but thankfully he eased off this shit, and the rest was at least readable. I normally regard such expressions as “exemplifying the vacuousness of societal members who are upemselves.” The main areas where I have issues with him are as follows.

(1) “…… intervention in Iraq has served in some parts of the world to discredit the very idea of western democracy.”

The parts of the world where ‘western democracy’ seems discredited now in the main, had no time for it in the first place.

(2) The recent collapse of the banking system, and the humiliating resort to semi-socialist solutions, has done a great deal to discredit - in some people's eyes - the idea of free-market capitalism.

Those people have not used their eyes, ears, or any other senses to find out the real causes of the ‘collapse’. The fact is that the whole thing goes back to government intervention in the free market, starting in the Clinton era. It is idiotic to suggest that banks would keep lending to people who couldn’t repay unless the dead hand of the state was in there somewhere.

(3) He (Obama) needs to stick up more vigorously for free trade, and we must hope that any ill-considered new taxes will be thwarted by Congress.

Obama has a record of opposition to free trade, and if the Democrats control both houses of Congress, there will be more and bigger taxes.

(4) and his (Ayers) last act of terrorism took place when the candidate was eight, and it isnot really clear that he and Obama are chums at all.

Ayers has not repudiated his acts, and has in fact stated that he didn’t do enough. Ayers and Obama have had extensive connections through boards, and his political career was launched at a function in Ayers house.

(5) If Barack Hussein Obama is successful next month, then we could even see the beginning of the end of race-based politics, with all the grievance-culture and special interest groups and political correctness that come with it.

This is an odd thing to say about a man who despite talking about a non-racial campaign has pulled the race card at every opportunity. He called Bill Clinton a racist for a remark that had nothing to do with race, unless mentioning Jesse Jackson is racist. You could call Bill a lot of things and be right, but racist is not one of them. He did the same to Hillary and to McCain.

It will be a great thing when America votes in its first black, brown, or whatever President, but if that President is not a good one, it will be a terrible setback for non-racial politics.

Republicans on ABC (au)

A while ago I was contacted by the ABC, the Australian national broadcaster and asked to do an opinion piece on why I though the Republicans are the best for the US and bringing into it some ideas on the financial crisis.

It is now up on the ABC News Online website, (naturally I recommend it.)

Republicans: best for America

Anti-slavery activists and western land settlement advocates formed the Republican Party in 1854. In 1860 Abraham Lincoln was elected the first Republican President.

During the Civil War, Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation that freed slaves. The Republicans outlawed slavery, guaranteed equal protection under the laws, and helped secure voting rights for African-Americans. They have been at the forefront of every major civil rights act over the years. The principles of the Republican Party are based on individuality and personal freedom, responsibility, equal rights, and free enterprise.

Fiscal responsibility and keeping as much of the activity of government at the local or state level are strong points. These principles are generally found more at grassroot level than higher up in the party. Grassroots supporters need to push more of the Jeff Flake, John Shadegg, Dana Rohrabacher, and Sarah Palin, style libertarian Republicans into government to redress the balance.

The formation of the US constitution was unique. A group of colonies that had banded together to secure their independence were charged with establishing a federal government acceptable not only to the states themselves, but to an independently minded well armed population. …..

A good one from Newsbusters.

I found this in the “Jawa Report.”

Often I find I just can't download their stuff as there are some formats that just wont work for me, but this one is on Youtube and is just fine.

Powells bizare endorsement of Obama.

It is difficult to understand why Colin Powell would endorse the Democrats, why they would want him to, other than as another high profile endorsee, or how he will actually fit in there. Powell has had a fairly distinguished career over many years including National Security Advisor, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Secretary of State, and was mooted as a Republican challenger to Clinton in 96 but turned it down. Along with substantial military service this is no small achievement.

Interestingly, his senior administrative appointments were all given to him by Republican Presidents, Reagan, Bush Snr. and George W Bush.

The Democrats claim to be against the Iraq war, and insist that they were mislead by the Bush administration. Powell as Secretary of State would have to take some responsibility for this if it were the case and if in fact they were mislead as they claim, he was in a position to be part of the misleading. Is this the sort of man they really want?

Who can forget the sterling service he performed assuring the UN that there could be no doubt that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons and the capability to rapidly produce more? He also claimed that there was no doubt in his mind that Hussein was working to produce nuclear weapons.

His value to Obama as an advisor has to be seriously questioned as his assessment of ‘the surge’ was about as wrong as you can get.

On CBS’s Face the Nation in December 2006 Powell said he did not support surging tens of thousands more troops in Iraq, a plan that Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) supported and that President Bush was at the time expected to carry out and did. “I have not seen a case that persuades me that [Iraqi security] would be better” with more forces, he said.

McCain has insisted ever since the invasion that there should be more troops in Iraq against stiff resistance, finally getting his way and has been vindicated by the result. Powell has been proven dead wrong on this issue. The disturbing thing about this is that for much of this time Powell, who opposed the idea of more troops, had the ear of the President as his Secretary of State and thus may have been responsible for the pre-surge debacle.

It is difficult to see how he will fit in with the Democrats; successful black people tend to be frowned on apart from those who use the welfare system and class hatred to keep the rest down on the Democrat welfare plantation. Powell was one of the successes, along with Condi, and others who were criticized by the ‘mentor’ Rev Wright. Prominent Obama supporters, Al Sharpton and Harry Belafonte have referred to Powell and Rice as “house Negroes.”

This is not a new phenomena, President Lyndon Johnson is said to have made the comment about MLK, "That goddamn nigger preacher may drive me out of the White House."

Powell’s reasons for endorsing Obama seem a little odd. Powell called Obama a "transformational figure" in the nation's history, which given that he has done little other than run for president seems a strange assessment.

His expression of disappointment in the negative tone of McCain's campaign, indicates that he has fallen for the Obama rhetoric, McCain has been critical of the Obama campaign, but hell it is an election and no candidate has ever won an election by approving of every point in his opponents portfolio. The Obama campaign has been totally negative throughout the campaign.

He doesn’t like the choice of Palin as a running mate as he feels that she is too inexperienced. Rather weird, given that Palin has far more experience than the candidate he is endorsing for President.

The decision to focus in the closing weeks of the contest on Obama's ties to 1960s-era radical William Ayers upsets him as "it goes too far." Get over it Colin, that’s a cop out and you know it. What sort of National Security Advisor would not be disturbed at the thought of an associate of at least two known terrorists (Ayers and Dorn) becoming President.

I disagree with the focus on Ayers, as they should also be mentioning all of his other unsavory connections.

Prominent Black Leaders Support McCain.

I have respected the National Black Republicans ever since I received their first newsletter. These people have taken a strong position in the centre of our front line where the fighting is the fiercest. They cop a lot of crap as a result but they haven’t flinched.

Below are a couple of items they have put out recently: -

In a powerful video with personal testimonials, key black conservative leaders, including Dr. Alveda C. King, the niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., talk about how their faith influences the policies and politics they support. These black Americans state eloquently why they support Sen. John McCain and cannot, in good conscience, support Sen. Barack Obama. 

Democrats refuse to apologize to blacks. By Frances Rice.

(Follow the link for the full article)

Rather than do what is right and apologize for the horrendous acts of racism committed by the Democratic Party against black Americans, Democrats have shamefully shifted their guilt onto another party, the Republican Party. When confronted with unassailable historical evidence about their racist past, Democrats resort to the politics of personal destruction and attack the character of anyone who dares to tell the truth.

History, according to author Michael Scheuer, shows that the Democratic Party is the party of the four S’s: Slavery, Secession, Segregation and now Socialism. Democrats have been running black communities for the past 40 years, and the socialist policies of the Democrats have turned black communities into economic and social wastelands. The deplorable conditions in black neighborhoods is well-documented by black Democrat Juan Williams in his book Enough: The Phony Leaders, Dead-End Movements, and Culture of Failure That Are Undermining Black America. Democrats have the audacity to blame Republicans for the crisis in black neighborhoods created by the Democrats.

If we, as a nation, are to heal our racial wounds, move beyond racial divisiveness and assure economic prosperity for blacks, we must first hold the Democratic Party accountable and demand an apology for the harm inflicted on black Americans. ....

Liberal hate and Joe the plumber.

"To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so.

To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished.

It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed, and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality." ...              P. J. Proudhon.

I don’t generally quote anarchists as they are a bit impractical, but it’s a bit hard to argue with Proudhon on this one.

Town hall presented an article, A plumber and a Fisherman Walk Into a National Debate: -

Thanks to his courageous confrontation of Barack Obama, Joe Wurzelbacher, aka "Joe the Plumber", has become America's newest folk hero.

Obama's minions, being typical leftists, decided against responding intelligently to the phenomenon -- and threw a tantrum instead. In a fit of irrational passion, they immediately began digging up dirt on the newly-famous "everyman".

The resulting attacks were immediate and personal: "He has tax liens ... he's not named Joe (it's his middle name) ... he's not even a plumber!"

The allegation that Joe is not really a plumber is the one I found most interesting, as it reminds me of another incident from a few years back.

As you might recall, the fisherman who plucked Elian Gonzales from the sea was later criticized for not being a "real" fisherman. Not only was Elian's rescuer criticized for this -- but the liberals attempted to impugn his character by implying he was a phony who was posing as a fisherman. …

This, of course, begs the question, "What is a fisherman?" In this instance, Donato Dalrymple was not a licensed commercial fisherman, but rather a man who happened to be fishing when he rescued Elian. In a lot of people's minds, this made him a "fisherman". However, the slime-mongers decided that this was not a correct definition and made an issue of it. Ultimately, the debate was utterly irrelevant to the larger political discourse surround young Elian, but relevance does not seem to way all that heavily on the minds of certain leftist.

Elian for those who don’t remember was a child plucked out of the sea by Donato Dalrymple after the boat on which he and his mother attempted to escape from Cuba, sank in a storm and Elian was one of only three survivors. Elians mother drowned. The rule for Cubans at the time was that if they were intercepted at sea they were to be returned, but if they made it to America they were accepted.

The whole thing erupted into a political dogfight when the child’s father with the backing of the Cuban government demanded him back. He was subsequently taken by armed officers from his relatives home and sent back. Dalrymple was vilified in the press owing to being in the way of the Clinton administration.

For a great description of liberal hate read what Lawrence Auster has to say in “Liberal Fascism and Donato Dalrymple.”

Joe the Plumber, changing the game

Photo, from "Peace and Freedom II."

I don’t know, you go to a political rally, buttonhole a candidate, ask him a question, get an answer, go home and that’s it, well isn’t it? Well not if you are ‘Joe the plumber and the candidate is Obama, and he tells you how he wants to spread your wealth around a little.

The media inadvertently reported it including the reply, (must have been Fox) and it hit the fan big time. The debate was full of it and Joe the plumber was a household word, as was Obamas spread the wealth statement.

This was discomforting for the liberals, redistribution of wealth is one of the favourite Marxist anthems, and the left love it. The trouble is that they don’t really want those dipshit voters to find out. They tend to use terms like ‘fairness’ and ‘change,’ to describe it.

There was only one thing that the left could do about it, the old tried and true method, shoot the messenger, not Obama, but the miserable bastard who made him say it. Joe.

Suddenly the left wing media exploded, first with spin on what was meant, then with vilification of Joe. The reason the left use this technique is that their whole philosophy is one of cradle to grave intervention by the state, known appropriately by individualists as the ‘nanny state.’ This is popular with lefties as it helps to avoid such nasties as accountability, personal responsibility, and people doing stuff that they don’t like such as being successful and better off than they are.

This is of course the modern form of slavery – dependence, and lefties love to hug their chains, but the down side is that perpetually sucking at the tit of nanny state means that they never grow up, they maintain a Peter Pan like state of intellectual adolescence. The result is that when anyone questions or dares to present a perceived threat to the state, the centre of their world, they throw a tantrum.

Baghdad Keith did one of his anal rants, devoting quite a bit of time to Joe. Olbermann believers think that he is really telling off the right where in actual fact he is only preaching to the gallery. The reason for his success is that lefties love to be brow beaten by an authority figure, as long as that figure is one of theirs. Plenty of others joined in.

I am not aware of the true situation of Joe, whether he is in a position to actually buy the business, or whether he is hoping to go into business for himself one day, but what is apparent is that he wants better and is prepared to work for it. That is not the relevant issue.

What is relevant is that Obama has admitted that he wishes to take more from those who are successful, and give it to those who are not. A post on “Peace and Freedom II,” says it all: -

Sorry, Barack: you are now known and you are a loser.

Barack Obama has shown his distain for American Workers — and they noticed.

Joe the Plumber is a regular guy — and when he asked about the Obama Tax Plan ‘Barack the Messiah’ told him he’d have to give up a portion of his work wages to people that don’t work at all — and that this was good for everyone.

Joe didn’t buy it.

Me neither.

So Mr. Obama, thanks for sending out ‘Joe Biden the Idiot’ and a host of surrogates who are now attacking Joe the Plumber and all he stands for.

Barack: You have shown who you really are!

Barack: Joe the Plumber stands for all Workers in America, Dude. Workers who are tired — and they pay their taxes.

You, Barack, apparently stand for people without jobs. And you want to give them our money.

No Way Barack! No way in Hell my friend…..

Go figure!

Newsweek; “Economic meltdown made possible by libertarian ideas.”

HT, Libertarian republican.

Libertarians are on the liberal shit list this year, and the term libertarian is being used as a swearword. Huffington Post sees Sarah Palin as “the new ideological heir to Ayn Rand, Alan Greenspan, Milton Friedman and Ronald Reagan and their "selfish," and "money-grabbing attitudes." …

“What's good for the country was irrelevant. It's Me First, the idea made popular by Ayn Rand, Ronald Reagan, the Bush dynasty, Milton Friedman, Alan Greenspan, and the crowd of money-grubbing right wingnut media hacks in process of swinging enough to the center to keep working if the Hanoi Candidate and his Miss Wannabee Alaska go down as the mood of the country shifts away from selfishness.”

Boston Globe then slamed her for being a free market, pro-growth, anti-zoning "libertarian."

“Palin's property-rights agenda exploited a deep anger toward the expansion of local government, an attitude that had defined politics in the Matanuska Valley since its settlement 80 years earlier as a way station for gold miners heading north. She used opposition to land-use restrictions to tap that vein of frontier libertarianism and a conspicuous display of her social views to connect with the new middle-class families who had suburbanized the valley in the 1980s.”

Now Newsweek have an article, “The Libertarians’ Lament,”- “Their heroic view of capitalism makes it difficult for them to accept that financial systems without vigorous government oversight constitute a recipe for disaster.”

In 2006, the liberal media made an effort to reach out to libertarians to help the Democrats win control of Congress. Daily Kos had weekly articles imploring libertarians to overthrow Republican rule. Newsweek and leading newspapers, ran editorials on "Why libertarians should vote Democrat this year."

Now it appears they have given up on using us as useful idiots and want us ‘under the bus.’

“A source of mild entertainment amid the financial carnage has been watching libertarians scurry to explain how the financial crisis is the result of too much government intervention, not too little. One line of argument casts as villain the Community Reinvestment Act, which prevents banks from "redlining" minority neighborhoods as not creditworthy. Another theory blames Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for subsidizing and securitizing mortgages with an implicit government guarantee. An alternate thesis is that past bailouts encouraged investors to behave recklessly in anticipation of a taxpayer rescue. But libertarian apologists fall wildly short of providing any convincing explanation for what went wrong. Like all true ideologues, they interpret mounting evidence of error as proof that they were right all along.”

They then use go on to lay the blame at the feet of three “market fundamentalists,” (Soros term): “Three officials, more than any others, have been responsible for preventing effective regulatory action for a period of years: Alan Greenspan, the oracular former Fed chairman; Phil Gramm, the heartless former chairman of the Senate Banking Committee; and Christopher Cox, the unapologetic chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission.”

To end it they have a rousing chorus of criticism of the basic libertarian philosophy: -

The best thing you can say about libertarians is that, because their views derive from abstract theory, they tend to be principled and rigorous in their logic. Those outside of government at places like the CATO Institute and Reason magazine are just as consistent in their opposition to government bailouts as to the kind of regulation that might have prevented one from being necessary. "Let failed banks fail" is the purist line. This approach would deliver a wonderful lesson in personal responsibility, creating thousands of new jobs in the soup kitchen and food-pantry industry.

The worst thing you can say about libertarians is that they are intellectually immature, frozen in the worldview many of them absorbed from Ayn Rand. Like other ideologues, libertarians react to the world failing to conform to their model by asking where the world went wrong. Their heroic view of capitalism makes it difficult for them to accept that markets can be irrational, misunderstand risk and misallocate resources—or that financial systems without vigorous government oversight constitute a recipe for disaster. They are bankrupt, and this time, there will be no bailout.

It appears to me that in the leadup to the election they have either decided that they are wasting their time pursuing votes from us, or that they don’t need us.

About Lysenko, Pseudo-Science And CO2.

My old mate Ronnie Kitching is a prolific letter writer, and this one gives a new perspective to the GW debate: -

Recently English Historian Paul Johnson wrote that the climate change bandwagon is like Marxist or Freudian science. A closer parallel might be with Lysenko pseudo-science.

Lysenko was an insignificant agriculturalist who thought he had a new way of developing crops that would vastly increase food production in the starving Russia of Stalin. It was called vernalisation, and included treating seeds before cultivation to affect their behaviour.

Significantly, Lysenko introduced his ideas first through politics, and had heavy political backing. Russian “intellectuals” inferred that his idea had a Marxist backing, because it claimed biology could be modified in the way that communists wanted to control people's behaviour.

Lysenko, through politics became a cult leader, whose ideas impressed the politburo and peasants.

He demonised conventional genetics. Opposition to Lysenko was not tolerated, and was labelled 'bourgeois' or 'fascist'. With Stalin's blessing numerous geneticists were shot, and others exiled to Siberia.

Dark green anti-industrial climate change ideology, like Lysenkoism, is much more attractive for politicians and “true believers” to follow than the study of real science.

The modern Lysenkos are Nicholas Stern in Britain and Ross Garnaut in Australia. Both Stern and Garnaut make it clear they are not scientists and have based their conclusions on the farcical IPCC reports.

Paid and encouraged by political leaders, both continue to make public statements warning about the increasing dangers of climate change as if they were experts. This merely keeps their reports in the public eye, and echoes the pseudo science of Lysenko.

Ronald Kitching

Lysenkoism refers to an episode in Russian science featuring a non-scientific plant-breeder named Trofim Denisovich Lysenko.

Lysenko was the leading proponent of Michurianism during the Lenin/Stalin years. I.V. Michurin, in turn, was a proponent of Lamarckism. Lamarck was an 18th century French scientist who argued for a theory of evolution which was based on the idea that changes were based on inherited learned behavior of ancestors.

Natural selection on the other hand argued that those life forms with better genetic traits to cope were better able to pass on their genes therefore the species evolved.

Lysenko, through mixing in a bit of good old ideology was able to persuade the leaders that genetics was not scientific, holding back Soviet agriculture for decades.

Theocratic ideology held back European science for hundreds of years. The literal translation of the Bible caused the church to favor the idea that we as ‘Gods creation’ would naturally be placed at the centre of the universe. Thus despite earlier civilizations knowing how things stood scientists were persecuted for questioning the conventional thinking of the day.

Political correctness worming its way into science is a worry.

Politics is based on the ideology of statism, that is that all human activities come within the role of the state and the government has the right to control them. Government will always seek greater control over human activities, therefore the idea of climate change being any sort of natural phenomenon, could not survive when Al Gore has come up with one that says it is all our fault, even though it had traction while there was no alternative explanation.

The state cannot control the weather while it is a natural phenomenon, so naturally a theory that there are aspects of the weather that are caused by humanity, has a distinct appeal to institutionalized control zealotry. They can do all sorts of things to ‘save’ us that we would not accept if it were not for the ‘threat’ to the climate.

Such a theory gives them scope for a whole raft of new and different taxes, excuses for rationing a vast range of products, controlling our movements, hobbies, recreational pursuits, criminalizing our skepticism, and of course gives them the argument that their opinion that some of us are ‘environmentally irresponsible’ is an excuse to argue that it is a ‘crime against humanity’.

Yep, in the eyes of the state, its proven.

Obama/Ayres and liberal media beatup.

Buttons from the 1972 Democrat primaries.

HT Libertarian Republican.

It all started when The Scranton Times-Tribune reporter David Singleton reported that while congressional candidate Chris Hackett at a Palin rally was addressing the crowd and mentioned Obama’s name a man in the audience shouted “kill him."

The press has had a field day on the claim that McCain is running a hate campaign aided by Sarah Palin. Baghdad Keith Olbermann has given a well rehearsed emotional lecture to us on the hatefulness of the rabid GOP supporters and their calls to kill Obama.

Congressman John Lewis has had his bit to say (Brackets Mine): -

……… George Wallace, (D, AL) who also became a presidential candidate. George Wallace (D, AL) never threw a bomb. He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who were simply trying to exercise their constitutional rights. Because of this atmosphere of hate, four little girls were killed on Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama.

This of course alludes to the activities of the KKK, (D, AL) and tries to pin them on the Republicans. Sorry john, but George and the KKK, were yours.

Precious (D, IL) brought it up in the debate: -

Obama: ….. that he was troubled with what he was hearing at some of the rallies that your running mate was holding, in which all the Republican reports indicated were shouting, when my name came up, things like "terrorist" and "kill him," and that you're running mate didn't mention, didn't stop, didn't say "Hold on a second, that's kind of out of line."

The problem is that they are lying and have been caught out, “The Times Leader”: -

Secret Service says "Kill him" allegation unfounded.

SCRANTON – The agent in charge of the Secret Service field office in Scranton said allegations that someone yelled “kill him” when presidential hopeful Barack Obama’s name was mentioned during Tuesday’s Sarah Palin rally are unfounded. .....

Agent Bill Slavoski said he was in the audience, along with an undisclosed number of additional secret service agents and other law enforcement officers and not one heard the comment.

“I was baffled,” he said after reading the report in Wednesday’s Times-Tribune.

He said the agency conducted an investigation Wednesday, after seeing the story, and could not find one person to corroborate the allegation other than Singleton.

Slavoski said more than 20 non-security agents were interviewed Wednesday, from news media to ordinary citizens in attendance at the rally for the Republican vice presidential candidate held at the Riverfront Sports Complex. He said Singleton was the only one to say he heard someone yell, “kill him.”

The Secret Service are pretty serious people, and are charged with responsibility for the safety of all nominees and are bound to take such things seriously. There is no chance that they would cover this up.

There will always be the odd emotional inarticulate idiot who gets carried away and is an embarrassment to all involved. McCain shut two of them down a few days ago, and was rewarded by the liberals with reports that he praised Obama, then attacked him and then praised him again, suggesting that he was losing it.

For those liberals whining about ‘unfair’ tactics try the following from Andrew Sullivan and your fellow Obama supporters in this video, (for those sensitive to disgusting biological insults, don’t go there) : -

Sullivan; “"It's obvious that it's Bristol's baby and, if it isn't then it's obvious that Palin is a sick and twisted bitch for bearing a deformed fetus and she's fanning the flames of hatred to get Obama killed”

The Obama Scrapbook.

P.U.M.A. has come up with a great adaption of an article by DougRoss@Journal, which shows a number of unsavory connections. Ayres is really just the tip of the iceberg.

Follow the links above to get a better idea: -

My early mentor “Frank” in Hawaii. Pity the neocons found out who it really was! (Frank Marshall Davis, who fled Chicago after the FBI and Congress began investigating him.)

Here’s me and Jimmy Hoffa (the son, silly, I was only 9 when his Dad disappeared!)

Bill Russell slaps Murtha down.

You have to hand it Bill Russell, he doesn’t beat around the bush, he supports his constituents. (Constituents to be anyway) It must feel great to “bitter America,” to have the prospect of voting for a representative who identifies with them and is not ashamed of them.

For a person who has represented the 12th for as long as Murtha has done, it is difficult to understand how he can turn around and make those claims.