Citizen United vs. F. E. C.

Imagine someone told you that the government banned a movie during a presidential campaign because this movie talked about that candidate in a bad light. Imagine that the government decided it had the power to prevent a book from being published if it was a 500 page work of fiction and the last sentence said, "Vote for Joe Blow for President". Would you think that was acceptable? Or would you argue that both the movie and the book should be protected under the First Amendment?

Despite what you may have read or heard in the media, this was the heart of the case Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission. Citizens United is a conservative charity that had made a film called "Hillary: the Movie". Here is how the website for the movie describes it:

Hillary The Movie is complete! The movie you’ve been waiting for is here and exploding onto the scene! With nearly 40 in-depth interviews with experts, opinion makers, and many of the people who personally locked horns with the Clintons, this is the film you need!

The cast to end all casts includes: Dick Morris, Ann Coulter, Newt Gingrich, Jeff Gerth, Buzz Patterson, Michael Barone, Billy Dale, Cyrus Nowrasteh, Tony Blankley, Dick Armey, Bay Buchanan, Joe Connor, Mark Levin, Frank Gaffney, Peter Paul, Gary Aldrich, Dan Burton, John Mica, Michael Medved, Kathleen Willey, Kate O’Beirne, Larry Kudlow and more!

If you want to hear about the Clinton scandals of the past and present, you have it here!

Hillary The Movie is the first and last word in what the Clintons want America to forget!

Obviously, this movie was not going to be flattering to Mrs. Clinton. Citizens United wanted to air commercials promoting the movie before the Democratic Primaries. However, under McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, because the group was promoting this film 30 days prior to a primary it was illegal. In other words, the government had the power to regulate what commercials were being aired prior to an election.

Citizens United fought this in court. As time and court hearings came and went, they picked up an unusual group of supporters. You would probably not be surprised to find that Citizens Untied is a conservative non-profit group, or that both the Heritage Foundation and the CATO Institute were supporting Citizens United in their fight. After all, conservatives stick together right? What may surprise you is that groups such as the ACLU, AFL-CIO, and the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press were also supporting Citizens United. The President's temper-tantrum during the State of the Union last week didn't make it sound like there was bipartisan support for this case, but there was.

Bradley Smith points out that, "The Court held that 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate political spending, is unconstitutional." The court did not address political spending by foreign countries, or by businesses that are headquartered overseas. There are other sections of the law that covers that and those sections have not been affected by this ruling. What the court found particularly offensive is the broad power the FEC had taken on to ban books, tv spots, or movies that discuss political candidates prior to elections. Shouldn't every voter be concerned with this?

Our nation has a rich heritage of political discourse. Sometimes this is done on TV, sometimes in pamphlets, sometimes in newspapers. Sometimes they're funded by private individuals, sometimes non-profit groups, and sometimes companies. But all of this is protected free speech. This is the very speech our founders tried to protect. Robert Robb points out today that:

No one would argue, for example, that because a corporation is not an individual, the Fifth Amendment's protection against the taking of property without just compensation doesn't apply to it, or the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. How can corporations be entitled to some of the protections in the Bill of Rights but not others?

I've read a number of articles that have said in reality this decision is likely to have a very limited impact on political adds. Let's pretend it doesn't. Let's pretend American companies and unions suddenly throw lots of money into political adds in the next campaign. I say, "So what? " Anything that increases our political discourse should be a good thing. And protecting the Bill of Rights should be supported by all of us.

The Repugnant Nature of the Minimum Wage

This post has grown out of an entry that I posted at Red State here. I received some interesting comments on it at Red State, so I thought I would rework it and open the post up here for discussion. I introduced this entry at Red State as part of the "Red State Book Notes" project.

This weeks reading for the "book notes" included the chapter “Minimum Wage Laws” from Economics in One Lesson. If I had titled the chapter, I would have called it “The Evil-and-in-all-Ways-Morally-Repugnant Minimum Wage Law”. In the interest of full disclosure, I have always thought minimum wage laws violated the very concept of a free society. If I run a small business and work out a contract with an employee to work for me for $5 an hour, why does the federal government believe it is entitled to step in and tell me I must actually pay that person $7.25 an hour? This is a private transaction between two people.

However, we are told that by having a minimum wage we guarantee people make a just and decent “living wage”. But do they? As Hazlitt points out in this book:

The first thing that happens, for example, when a law is passed that no one shall be paid less than $106 for a forty-hour week is that no one who is not worth $106 a week to an employer will be employed at all. You cannot make a man worth a given amount by making it illegal for anyone to offer him anything less. You merely deprive him of the right to earn the amount that his abilities and situation would permit him to earn, while you deprive the community even of the moderate services that he is capable of rendering.

This makes perfect sense if you think the process through and ignore the typical political rhetoric. Let’s say you own a small business. Applicant A shows up for a job interview. While the person is nice enough, you quickly determine their labor isn't worth the $7.25 an hour to you. You won’t hire this person. You will wait until someone comes along that you believe is worth the $7.25. The federal law has made Applicant A unemployable.

The argument is sometimes put forward that we need a minimum wage law, or need to increase it because the gap between the “have’s” and the “have nots” has gotten too big. First, there is never any evidence put forward with this argument. Secondly, as the above shows, a federal minimum wage law will only make any gap there is that much larger. Finally, this gap never takes into account the increased living conditions of today’s “poor” versus their counterparts from 50 years ago.

When I originally posted this, I got a comment that minimum wage laws prevent industry from exploiting people. This argument assumes that individuals can’t take care of themselves. The supporters of minimum wage laws assume that someone working $5.00 and hour won’t leave to earn $5.25 an hour. It also assumes that only the government can prevent an employer from taking advantage of an individual. Our world is now so interconnected it’s easy to find out what employers pay. If you are worth more, you’ll find a job that pays more.

Finally, if you accept the theory behind the minimum wage law, then you must also accept the power of the federal government to decided a "maximum wage law", or a point above which you cannot be paid. If the government can legally set a price below which you cannot pay someone, why can’t it set the price above which you cannot pay someone? Further, since minimum wages apply to almost every industry, a "maximum wage" would as well. The maximum wage law has gotten some traction when it is suggested that it apply to companies that have taken bailout money. That is just a short skip from all companies.

A minimum wage law is just another instance of the federal government interfering in what should be private transactions between two people. You can wrap it up in the pretty argument of a “living” wage, or in “helping the poor”, but at the end of the day, its just the government sticking its nose into our private lives when they shouldn’t be there. It’s a failed attempt to legislate prosperity.

"What Will Democrats Do Now?"

That seemed to be the question I heard the most yesterday. With the election of a Republican to the blue state of Massachusetts, what will the Democrats do? Here are my thoughts on what Tuesday's election means.

No Obamacare This Year

The Senate Republicans seem to be doing a very good job of standing in the breach. With a 41st vote, the Republicans can stall any legislation as long as they want. The only way to pass Obamacare is through reconciliation or by the House adopting the Senate bill. Speaker Pelosi doesn't have the votes in the House, and reconciliation will strip the bill to the point that Reid may not even recognize it. There may still be health care reform this year. However, I think it will be very different from what we have seen so far.

"Moderate" Democrats Will look for the door.

There are two types of Democrats in the party today: Progressives and Democrats. Progressives are the true liberals of the party like Reid, Clinton, and Pelosi. "Moderate Democrats" or Democrats are the more main stream or even "blue dog" element of the party. The progressives have been telling the moderates for months now that they must pass health care reform or they won't get reelected in November. President Obama has told Democrats he will personally campaign from coast to coast for them after they pass health care. Today, moderate Democrats are looking at Massachusetts and thinking that Obama campaigned for Coakley and she lost. She lost in Massachusetts and she lost the independent voter by 3:1. They remember New Jersey and Virginia where Obama campaigned and the Democrat lost in both cases. In both cases independents voted for Republicans by a 2:1 margin. Career politicians see as job #1 getting reelected. President Obama doesn't have the shirt tails to give them the cover they need in November. Already Representative Anthony Weiner (D-NY) says health care reform has as much chance of passing as pigs flying out has butt. Democrats weren't talking like this before Tuesday. I think some Democrats will simply announce they aren't seeking reelection, others will start distancing themselves from Reid and Pelosi and may start voting against things like health care reform or cap and trade.

The Politicans will Begin to Listen

During the last twelve months, a number of Republicans and Democrats have participated in Tea Parties across the country. They have gone to their representatives office to complain. They have sent emails, letters, and phone calls telling the congressman or senator how to vote and what the voters thought. These people have been ignored. Many Democrats in Congress and the Senate simply believed the voters couldn't, or wouldn't, really do anything. Now Nelson has been run out of a restaurant for the first time in his political career by angry voters. A solidly blue state has elected a semi-conservative Republican who campaigned on fighting a Democratic President on his signature issue. I promise you a number of politicians are looking for ways to seem more responsive to voters. That's always a good thing.

Massachusetts (Open Post) -- UPATED III

By now it's hard not to know what is going on in Massachusetts. Today is the special election to replace the late Senator Ted Kennedy. I think in any other year, no one would be following this election. However, Scott Brown stands a good chance to shock the nation today and upset the system to become a Republican elected in bluest of blue Massachusetts. Scott Brown has campaigned as a down to earth politician. One of his tactics has been to drive a pickup truck to his different campaign events. His biggest issue has been health-care reform. Brown has said that if elected he will be the 41st vote against the current health care legislation.


The Democrat in the race, Martha Coakley has made a number of blunders, with many of them coming in the last couple of weeks. Among the blunders, she has stated there are no terrorists left in Afghanistan, has misspelled "Massachusetts" in campaign adds, and said she had no knowledge of a reporter who was pushed down by one of her security people (photo's of the event show otherwise). Perhaps worse for her chances with Boston voters, she said on a radio interview that former Boston Red Sox pitcher Curt Shilling was a Yankee's fan.

This race will end in one of three ways:

1. An outright win by Coakley. This will make for interesting news for about 24 hours, will give Sen. Reid the 60 votes he needs to hold onto in the Senate, and is the traditional wisdom in this election.
2. An outright win by Brown. Will be a political earthquake felt throughout the United States. It could change the very nature of the political debate for the next 9 months until November.
3. A close win by Brown. The ugliest of all options. This will bring out challenge and recount after recount. We will also probably see a legal challenge to determine if Ted Kennedy's temporary replacement in the Senate can remain seated until the election is decided.
   

I am leaving this post open throughout the day. As I hear news I think is important I will update this post. Feel free to comment and check back often.

**Update One**

I just saw this at Fox News:

Congressional Democrats are meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Tuesday, but the acrimony is starting to reveal itself as Democrats speak more and more in terms of who mismanaged the debate.

It may mean nothing, but if Democrats are already looking for someone to blame if Brown wins, that means they are very nervous about their own internal polling numbers.

**Update Two**

On Michael Medved's show this afternoon he interviewed one of the author's of the new book Game Change. Mark Halperin stated that in his private conversations with staff in the White House, they don't like their chances in today's race. Again, this doesn't affect the actual race, but it does point to poor internal poll numbers at the White House for Coakley.


**Update Three**

I just saw this posted by the Associated Press. They have already called the election for Scott Brown. Here is the first paragraph:

BOSTON – In an epic upset in liberal Massachusetts, Republican Scott Brown rode a wave of voter anger to defeat Democrat Martha Coakley in a U.S. Senate election Tuesday that left President Barack Obama's health care overhaul in doubt and marred the end of his first year in office.

My Favorite Books From Last Year.

I am borrowing / copying / stealing this post from Rebecca at My Adventures in History. A few days ago, she wrote a post entitled My Top Ten History Books of 2009. The post discussed some of her favorite history books that she read in 2009. After reading her post, I decided it might be fun to do the same thing here. So, here are my favorite political / current events / history books that I read in 2009 (in no real order).

1. A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (And Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media by Bernard Goldberg. I read this book early in 2009, and wrote a review of it here. The main message of this book was that the media did a very poor job of looking into (then candidate) Barack Obama's history. The media has lost, and will continue to lose, credibility because of it. This book sounds like an attack on Barack Obama, but it was really a critique of the media.
   
   
   
2. Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg. I reviewed this book here. It's a very good book and will have you rethinking the Woodrow Wilson administration, the 1960's, and our government today.
   
   
   
3. American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson by Joseph Ellis. I reviewed this one back in February. It falls into the "history" category, but it is a quick read. Mr. Ellis does a very good job of showing both the author of the Declaration of Independence and the man of contradictions we know him to be. I highly recommend it.
   
   
   
4. Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto by Mark Levin. The best work of Conservative thought I have ever read, and possibly the best one ever written. If you are Conservative or Libertarian, this is a must read. If you are liberal and want a concise explanation of what Conservative's think, this is your "enemy playbook".
   
   
   
5. The 5000 Year Leap: A Miracle That Changed the World by W. Cleon Skousen. I couldn't mention the books I read last year and not mention this one. When I reviewed it in May, I never thought it would generate the debate it did on this site. I have reports that tell me what pages on this site people look at. The review on this book is read every single day.
   

In case you aren't interested in any of these books, I also have two "honorable mentions" from last year. Both of these books are well worth the read, and neither made it onto this site for a review.

1. A Man of Letters by Thomas Sowell. This was a great read. It is Mr. Sowell's attempt to retrace portions of his life through his correspondence. There are only a few people that I will read anything they write. Mr. Sowell is one of them. Anytime I find an article by him, I stop what I am doing to read it. This book really made me think. You won't be disappointed with it.
   
   
   
2. Pride and Prejudice and Zombies: The Classic Regency Romance - Now with Ultraviolent Zombie Mayhem!by Jane Austen and Seth Gramme-Smith. Really, what classic wouldn't be made at least a little better if you added zombies? This contains Austen's original masterpiece, with a little zombie goodness sprinkled in for fun. You'll laugh! You'll Cry! It's better than Cats! At least until Cats and Zombies opens on Broadway.

I hope you try at least one of these books over the next year. If you do, let me know what you thought of it. Did you read any books this past year that should be reviewed on here? Let me know. Regardless of the political perspective of the author, if I like the book, and think my readers will like it, I'll review it and post it here.

Should Harry Reid Step Down?

This weekend, a quote surfaced from Harry Reid describing Barack Obama. The quote was from 2008 and, as Fox News reports,Harry Reid is quoted as "...describing Barack Obama as 'light-skinned' with 'no Negro dialect' unless he wants one." In the last few days Republicans have called on Reid to step down as Senate Majority Leader. Senator Reid spent the weekend calling black leaders to get support for staying in his leadership position. The White House says the President is not offended by Reid's comments.

I personally think Reid's comments crossed a line. I don't think I would feel comfortable using the word "Negro" to describe a person, or a person's actions, in today's world. I think as an elected official, Reid needs to be a little more careful with his words than a private citizen. I also wonder if Reid's comments, as Senate Majority Leader, are suppose to represent the Democratic National Committee, and Senate Democrats. We know there is at least one previous member of the Klan who is a Senate Democrat (Byrd, D-WV).

Many have drawn a comparison to Trent Lott's comments in 2002. Lott was Senate Majority Leader as well, but Lott was also Republican from the south. Lott stepped down from the Senate Majority Leaders position when Democrats took offense at his comments at Sen. Strom Thurmond's birthday party. Reid was particularly clear when he said that Lott had no alternative but to step down from the leadership position.

A few months back Joe Wilson was accused of being racists because he accused the President of lying. President Obama said Don Imus should be fired for his comments about a particular girl's basketball team. Democrats demand repercussions for these comments, but there should be no repercussions for the Senate Majority Leader just because he is a Democrat?

A reader named Patrick made a comment on this site that I have heard used a number of times now. The argument goes: because Republicans used political tricks and closed door negotiations, we shouldn't be outraged when Democrats do it on health care. Those using this argument want to know why we didn't hold Republicans to this standard. I believe it was wrong of the Republicans and I would question supporters of Harry Reid today, "Why was it wrong for Lott to say something offensive, but not Reid? Why did the President think Imus should be fired, but Reid should retain his comfy position in the Senate?"

If Reid were to step down, he would still be a sitting Senator. The Democrats would have the same number of votes. Reid could still run for reelection this year. However, if Reid steps down, it might jeopardize the President's agenda because a new Majority Leader might not be as liberal, even though he would still be a Democrat. Does that mean that the President's feelings on race, and the Democratic Parties, have a price? Eric Holder has said we are cowards on race. Who was he referring too?

Did Obama Lie, or is he Cowardly?(UPDATED)

Breitbart.tv has a video posted on it's website today. The video shows candidate Barack Obama promising to show congressional health care debates on C-SPAN so that the voters can see exactly what deals are made and who is trying to protect the voters. The clip has him promising this eight times.

The Democrats have now passed a "health care" bill in both the House and the Senate. Traditionally, these bills would go to a conference committee made up of Republicans and Democrats from both the House and the Senate. This committee would iron out the differences in the bill, and present a revised bill to the House and Senate to vote on and send to President Obama.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are considering skipping this step, and conferencing behind closed doors with the White House on a "final bill". This would lock out Republicans and many Democrats. C-SPAN remembered President Obama's campaign promise, and wants to hold him to it. They have asked to broadcast the negotiations to the voters. So far the Democrats are claiming that they don't need to broadcast the negotiations because, "There has never been a more open process for any legislation in anyone who’s served here’s experience," (so says Pelosi).

During the Bush Administration, we were told daily that President Bush lied about any number of things. Where are those on the left who were constantly attacking Bush? President Obama appears to have lied now. Where are the calls from the left for an open and honest negotiation? Where are the snappy "Obama lied" chants? How do we know the politicians in Washington are looking out for the voters?

I have some liberal and left leaning readers. I also have readers who consider themselves moderate. How does this make you feel? Are you okay with the President making one promise on the campaign and ignoring that promise now that he is President? Where is the promised new day of transparency?


***Update***

CBS News is running a news story saying that both Nancy Pelosi and President Obama support negotiations on this bill occurring behind closed doors. CBS ran this story as, "Obama reneges on health care transparancy". CBS also cited this as the President, "...breaking an explicit campaign promise."

Do Unto Others...

I was catching up on my reading tonight and came across this in a recent issue of National Review:

Muntazer al-Zaidi is the Iraqi journalist who earned his place in the headlines by being rude to George W. Bush and chucking shoes at him. He did almost a year in prison for this, and ever since he's been trying to start a charity on behalf of "victims of the U.S. occupation in Iraq." Paris was the obvious place in which to bolster his militant reputation by holding a press conference. A kerfuffle followed when someone present stood up and in Iraqi Arabic defended U.S. policy, accused al-Zaidi of aiding and abetting dictatorship, and gave him a taste of his own medicine by throwing a shoe at him. It was al-Zaidi's turn to duck, and he didn't like it one bit, complaining that "the occupier and his lackeys" would stop at nothing to get him. Hustled out, the avenging shoe thrower took the precaution of giving his name only as "Khayat," but he had already proved that one Iraqi at least is able to spot the difference between freedom and tyranny, and is not afraid to say so.

Quick Notes: Happy New Year

I just wanted to update everyone on the status of Political Friends. I spent the weekend in Nashville with family. We had a great time, and took in a Predators vs. Ducks hockey game. We made it back today, and the whole family is trying to catch up from the trip.

Look for new posts this week, and look for updated comments. Til then, Happy New Year everyone, and here's to having a great 2010!

Are We Ready to Profile?

By now you've read or seen a variety of opinions on what we should do after the failed Christmas terrorist attack. I won't repeat all the details here. At this stage, it appears the intelligence community knew a little about the terrorist (enough to give him the codename "The Nigerian"), but not a lot. What we do know is there were holes in our system that allowed this man to have everything he needed to blow up a plane over a major U.S. city. His own mistakes, and the quick actions of private citizens are the only thing that saved us.


I have seen a number of reporters and pundits asking if we should update airport screening machines in response to this attack. Specifically, should U.S. airports install the new machines that allow a viewer to see everything under a passengers clothes. However, very few pundits seem to be discussing profiling. Why are we willing to punish innocent passengers by essentially strip searching them, but we won't suffer the potential embarrassment and hurt feelings of a few passengers and a few terrorists by profiling?


The Israeli's seem to profile with excellent success. I think we should really consider this. With the Christmas bomber, we had a Nigerian, paying for a ticket in cash, traveling without luggage. Surely that would have raised a few flags in the profiling process.


There will be the inevitable remark that profiling is racists. I am not arguing to profile strictly on racial lines. I am saying let's talk to Israel, and use another tool that could potentially catch terrorist as oppose to strip searching a vast group of passengers who have no intention of blowing up an airplane.

Book Review: Liberal Fascism

I have written on here a number of times about the Red State Book Notes project. This project was created to discuss conservative idea's and theories. The first book of the project was "A Message to Garcia". The second book was Jonah Goldberg's Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning.

Mr. Goldberg traces the history of fascism from Mussolini and Hitler to the modern progressive movement. Before my more liberal readers get up in arms, Mr. Goldberg points out that just because today's liberal movement share's a history with Hitler and others doesn't mean all liberals today would condone that action. However, many of the theories that today's progressive's support have been pursued before with deadly consequences.

As part of the Red State project, I wrote diary entries after almost every chapter. You can view those below this paragraph. Each of these posts discusses important ideas within each of those chapters. They are not intended to be recaps of the chapter, but only discuss an important point. I wanted to post these links to provide more information on the book, and to give you a flavor of the book.

The Good Tyranny

Liberal Fascism: Adolf Hitler

The Original Fascist: Wilson?

Liberal Fascism Chapter 5: We have to do something!

LF Chapter 6 and the Second Coming

LF Chapter 7: The Liberal Racist

LF 8: The Myth of the "Right Wing Business"

LF9: The Religion of Government

LF 10: The Fascism of the Green Movement

LF Afterword and My Final Thoughts

One of the most interesting things I discovered while reading this book is just how little I knew about the Woodrow Wilson presidency or JFK. For example, the first two chapters of the book go into detail about Adolf Hitler and Mussolini. After discussing why people view those governments as fascist, Mr. Goldberg then applies those same rules to President Woodrow Wilson. Mr. Goldberg argues that Wilson was actually the first fascist government in the world.

In the final chapter, Mr. Goldberg points out that liberals aren't the only people with fascist tendencies. He argues that some "compassionate conservatives" have shown fascist tendencies when they try to regulate behavior. However, this section is relatively small. Mr. Goldberg's book focuses in on the examples provided by liberals. He says, "In this book I have argued that modern liberalism is the off-spring of twentieth-century progressivism, which in turn shares intellectual roots with European fascism. " This sentence is a great summary of the book.

This is a great read if you are looking to explore the history of liberalism or progressivism. With more politicians on the left shunning the "liberal" label in favor of the "progressive" one, knowing exactly what this means is important to all voters.

Senate Gives us a Lump of Coal

The Senate has passed what they are calling Health Care Reform. The Democrats in the Senate passed this in spite of breaking Senate rules twice this week, in spite of outcry on both the left and right. Why was it rushed through today? Because Reid was afraid of what would happen if the Democrats went home and heard from their constituents, and Reid was afraid the voters would get a chance to read the bill that was introduced less than a week ago.

Merry Christmas, here's your coal.

Quick Notes: Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and Happy New Years to you!

Over the next week and a half, my posts will be somewhat infrequent as I celebrate the season with family and friends. I hope you and your family have a safe and fun Christmas and a very happy New Years.


I am working on a post about the Health Care Bill we are about to be saddled with. I think the Senate is in for a rude awakening on this. Both left and right are very upset about this bill. I am also working on a post about a school on the West Coast that banned LEGOs from the school.

If you are looking for something to read today, I recommend these articles:

1. Peter Wehner writing on the Commentary Magazine online site lists some of the backlash that might be waiting the Senate and President Obama over the Senate's Health Care Bill.
2. William Kristol at the Weekly Standard sounds a similar note with a lesson on what a "Pyrrhic Victory" is.
3. Thomas Sowell writes about the "Science" Mantra. I read Sowell any time I can. I like this quote from his article:

As for politicians, Senator Barbara Boxer has urged prosecution of the hackers who uncovered and revealed the e-mails! People who have in the past applauded whistleblowers in business, in the military, or in Republican administrations, and who lionized the New York Times for publishing the classified Pentagon papers, are now shocked and outraged that someone dared to expose massive evidence of manipulations, concealment and destruction of data-- and deliberate cover-ups of all this-- in the global warming establishment.

Enjoy these articles, and once again, have a Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year!

My Global Warming Primer

There seems to be lots of questions on this global warming issue. Anonymous Guy and Andy just go back and forth quoting things that make there point of view true. It is like one of you saying the way to heaven is to follow the Koran and the others says to follow the Bible. Your only proof of who is correct comes from those books you are promoting. Is it possible that the Jews know the way to heaven too? To finish the analogy are human actions the absolutely only reason the Earth is currently warming? If not how much effect do human actions have on it?

--Pack04 commenting here.

I thought Pack04 brought up an excellent point. When I discuss Global Warming face to face with people, I don't have the ability to insert a hyperlink to make my case. Instead, I rely on logic, and hope to give the person some direction to go do their own research. I am going to do my best to do that here. Hopefully this will help shed some light on my thoughts on global warming, and might give you some food for thought.


A little about my background. I have been writing about global warming on here since 2007. I have been reading about the topic longer than that. I studied geophysics in college as a minor. Does that make me an expert in the field? Absolutely not. It does give me a few tools to understand some of the science behind the arguments. Truthfully, I think most of this debate can be understood by anyone, if they can keep a few points in mind. As you read the rest of this article, try to put aside what you currently know about the debate on global warming. Then, after reading this, go back to what you previously thought with, hopefully, a slightly different perspective.


First, it's important to remember that the Earth's climate and temperatures are constantly changing. If you could magically transport all humans, and every piece of our technology and pollution off the planet, the Earth would probably still be warming. At the very least, the temperature would continue to change. Before man arrived, the Earth went through natural warming and cooling cycles. This will continue long after we leave. The question both sides debate is: How much warming is due to man?


Secondly, remember that all future predictions (dire and otherwise) are based on computer models. Computer models are a very complicated set of predictions and assumptions an individual makes. In every other scientific or engineering field, once a computer model is created, it is tested with a known set of data with known results. For example: if you were creating a climate model, you might plug in data from 1900 to 1960 to see if your model could accurately predict the weather of the 1970's and 1980's. If it does, you have a good model. If it doesn't, your model still needs work. Here is the second important point: No model currently out there will predict previous years climate. None of them.


One of the assumptions built into climate models is how clouds act. Climatologists on both sides agree that clouds are an important component (some have argued they are a primary component) of what our climate does. However, climatologists don't understand how or why clouds form, or how and why the disappear, or even why they appear in some locations and not in others. As a third important fact, this means all computer models incorporate a guess on how clouds do what they do. This starts the model with an error before the first piece of data is entered.


Now let's pretend we could accurately predict the climate, and we knew it was in fact warming. That still doesn't end the debate. There is no proof that global warming is a bad thing. If the planet was to increase its temperature by 1 degree over the next 100 years, that might be beneficial. It could cause an increase in plant life and human life. Hot weather kills less than cold weather. If we knew a 1 degree increase might cause an additional 1000 deaths in the summer, but save 10,000 lives in the winter, would that be bad? This debate hasn't happened yet, and until it does, we shouldn't spend fortunes trying to correct something we don't really understand.


We aren't sure how accurate our predictions are, and we aren't sure if global warming would truly be a bad thing. Now, let's look at some solutions. If you have read about this topic, you are familiar with the Kyoto treaty. In a nutshell, the Kyoto Protocol is a international treaty that sets targets for reductions of greenhouse gases. The United States is has not ratified this treaty. However, if every nation in the world signed on to Kyoto and met its requirements, it wouldn't stop global warming. The best it would do is to reduce global temperature increases by approximately 0.01 degree Celsius. And this relatively insignificant reduction would come at a fortune of money, technology, and even quality of life.


However, just because I don't believe in man-made global warming doesn't mean there aren't solutions I would support. I do believe conservation is important. I recycle in my own home. I also believe that if the United States did a major push to increase our nuclear energy facilities, there would be a number of benefits. More US nuclear energy would mean more energy here, less money going over seas, more jobs in the United States, and if you believe in Global Warming, a clean energy source. I am always suspicious of people who claim to believe in man-made catastrophic global warming, but aren't willing to discuss more nuclear facilities in the United States. This is a compromise that should generate support form Democrats and Republicans alike.


The next time you read a global warming article (regardless of the point of view of the article) keep these points in mind. I think you might be surprised with what conclusions you reach on your own if you ignore the propaganda, and just look at the facts. Regardless, like any other issue, if you are going to make an informed decision, you will need to do some homework. I hope this helps to give you a framework to start digging around with.

Book Review: How the Obama Administration Threatens to Undermine Our Elections

I have written twice before (here, and here) about the new series of political pamphlets from Encounter Books. Encounter is producing these pamphlets as,"...indispensable ammunition for intelligent debate on the critical issues of our time." They are small (the one discussed here is 35 pages) and cheap ($5.99). In How the Obama Administration Threatens to Undermine Our Elections (Encounter Broadsides), author John Fund attacks,"...dubious measures that make our current system even more prone to confusion and manipulation...".

This is the third in the series. I have been reviewing these in the order I have received them which is why I haven't reviewed the second book yet. I have to admit that I was a little suspicious of the topic for this one. I was very excited to read the first book in this series, but I wasn't so excited about this book. However, after reading the book, I have to say that Mr. Fund has done a good job laying out his case.

Mr. Fund points to the administrations action in some areas, and inaction in others, to make his point. He discusses a couple of cases that the Justice Department has dropped that were slam dunks / handed to Mr. Holder on a silver platter. Yet for some reason, this administration has dropped them. The case of voter intimidation by the New Black Panthers is one example. From Mr. Funds book:

Bartle Bull couldn't believe his eyes. The former civil-rights lawyer had been arrested in the South during the 1960's. He once forced local officials in Mississippi to remove nooses that were hanging from tree branches outside polling places. But until election day 2008 in Philadelphia, he had never seen a man brandishing a weapon blocking the entrance to a polling place. And now he can't understand why the Obama Department of Justice has dropped its case against the New Black Panther Party, the hate group (according to the Southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League) whose thugs he saw threatening potential voters with truncheons when they tried to vote.

Mr. Fund goes on to discuss how after the Justice Department obtained a default judgment against the accused members of the Black Panthers, the Justice Department suddenly dropped the charges. There are other examples of this in Mr. Funds pamphlet, and there are examples of policy decisions the Obama Administration is pursuing that could make federal elections more fraudulent instead of less. Mr. Fund ends with a paragraph that should worry conservatives and liberals alike:

If we do not demand that the Obama administration and its allies in Congress abandon schemes and policies that further undermine confidence in our electoral system, we are headed for crises that will shake our electoral system and will make us look back on the disputed presidential vote of 2000 with something like nostalgia.

The Global Warming Hoax

You wouldn't know if from any coverage in the main stream media, the UN, or Al Gore, but man-made global warming has been exposed as a hoax. At the very least it no longer qualifies as "settled science" and there is question there was ever consensus outside of activists and four or five politically motivated scientist. If you haven't followed the news, I will give you a quick summary, the bad news and the good news (the last two intended for global warming believers).

For background, I have written about my position on man-made global warming here. I have read alot about global warming since I wrote that post, but my position hasn't changed dramatically since that writing.

What Happened?

A few weeks ago a series of emails from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of the East Anglia University became public. It is uncertain if they emails were leaked from inside, or hacked from outside the university. Either way, the CRU did not intend the emails to become public, and they contain some very damning information. The emails suggest that climate scientist at the CRU and in the United States have colluded together to hide evidence that contradicts the theory of man made global warming, to prevent papers that dispute global warming from being published, and to redefine the very word "peer-review" to protect their agenda and to prevent any dissenting papers from coming forward. A number of investigations have been called for in the UK, and the scientist who headed CRU has stepped down. On top of this, there is a possibility the scientists at CRU broke the law by destroying data that should have been made available under Freedom of Information laws in England and the United States. At the very least, all scientific research that has come out of the CRU is now suspect. Much of this research is used in the UN's own global warming reports.

There is far more than this. If you want more details, do a google search for "climategate". These are just the highlights. One important note. So far, this is only receiving media coverage in the United States through the "new media" of radio and the internet. That isn't the case in Canada and the UK. In both of these areas, it is front and center in many major papers as well.


The Bad News

If you are a global warming believer, these revelations are a true doomsday scenario. It means all of the science that has been used to predict catastrophic global warming is inaccurate. The scientists at the CRU were particularly worried about how to hide the cooling trends of the last ten years. They were also worried about keeping their data away from the public, and away from scientist who disagreed with them.

This isn't science, it's activism. In the scientific process, once you have performed an experiment, you release the data to anyone to see if they can collaborate or recreate your experiment. These scientists were doing everything in their power to avoid that. This disqualifies this as science even if the rest of the emails never surfaced.

The Good News

As devastating as this is to the global warming believers, there is a silver lining. There is no evidence we are heading towards a climate doomsday. If you previously thought man was destroying the planet by driving SUV's and using standard light bulbs, you don't have to worry about that any longer. Global warming believers can still work towards conservation, but not with the threat of Armageddon if we don't stop driving SUV's. This is an important point. I, and many others who have doubted the science behind this hoax, believe in conservation. However, Al Gore and others don't want conservation, they want laws that would destroy our entire economy. I think it is wrong to destroy our economy based on a vague theory that has failed to meet any projections, and that has no real science to back it up.

Harry Reid Forgets History

Once more I have to delay my Global Warming post. This time it's due to the inane comments of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Democrat-NV). In my experience, when liberals start crying racism, it's because they have run out of any legitimate arguments. Today, Harry Reid attempted to call Republicans racist because they oppose Reid's 2,000+ page (and multi-Trillion dollar) health care bill. Reid said:

Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, 'slow down, stop everything, let's start over.' If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right... When this body was on the verge of guaranteeing equal civil rights to everyone regardless of the color of their skin, some senators resorted to the same filibuster threats that we hear today.

This comment appears to be a reference to history. Harry Reid either believes no-one will look it up, or no one remembers what he's talking about. Here are the two possible cases Reid may be speaking about.


First, he could have been speaking of Strom Thurmond's unsuccessful filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Thurmond, who was a Democrat at the time, was defeated by Republicans. Perhaps Reid isn't much of a history student and instead was discussing the debate of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This would be particularly troublesome because the opposition to this bill was again led by Democrats. Even more embarrassing is that one of the most adamant opponents of the Civil Rights Act was Ku Klux Klansman, future Democrat Majority Leader, and current Democratic Senator from West Virginia, Robert Byrd. Byrd serves alongside Reid today. Jonathan Leaf, writing on the filibuster of 1964 says:

In total, the filibuster led by the "yellow dog" Democrats ran for ten million words over 534 hours, filling up 63,000 pages of the Congressional Record. Ultimately, 62 percent of Democratic congressmen and 60 percent of Democratic senators voted for the bill, compared to 80 percent of Republican congressman and 82 percent of Republican senators. {emphasis mine}

Reid should pay more attention to history, and not throw about labels that could be more accurately directed at his own party. The American public, and the voters of Nevada, don't want this health care bill. Reid can try to dance around the issue by smearing Republicans as racist while plugging his ears and ignoring the wishes of his own constituents. At the end of the day, this bill will hurt our economy far more than it will help it. On some level, Reid knows the dangers of this bill, and he knows it is unpopular. That's why he has resorted to calling Republicans racists when his arguments could easily be directed at his own party.

Instead of insulting Republicans, maybe Reid should try to listen to them.

A New Road in Iran

Earlier this week,I wrote that Iran is moving in a direction that represents a clear and present danger to the United States. Iran is increasing it's nuclear production by beginning construction on five new enrichment facilities. It is also looking for locations to build an additional five facilities. Iran has also committed to increasing aid to external groups that oppose the West by $20 Million. I believe the bulk of this money will go to Hezbollah and Hamas.

There are "three steps" that make Iran a threat to us. First, Iran is not going to voluntarily stop its nuclear program. Is there anyone who seriously believes Iran will only build nuclear reactors and not nuclear weapons? Secondly, Iran controls and funds Hamas and Hezbollah. Should Iran get a nuclear weapon, it's only a matter of time before one (or both) of these groups gets one. Third, should Hezbollah or Hamas get their hands on a nuclear weapon, they will detonate it in Israel or the United States (or both). With this in mind, here are my solutions:

No more "positive" incentives" for Iran. Iran has shown it really isn't interested in allowing Russia to supply it with nuclear power. We should also drop the notion of enticing Iran with money or with an "entry to the world community". Iran has shown they don't care about any of this. How many years have we been following this path only to arrive with Iran closer to aobtaining a nuclear weapon than ever?

Immediate sanctions against Iran. These need to be real and have teeth. They should include a blockade of oil leaving Iran. Iran has to send its oil out to be refined. Let's put an end to that.

Increase funding to pro-Democracy groups inside of Iran. The Obama administration has opposed this and has actually taken the step of cutting funding to groups that document abuses inside Iran. This in an age when we can increase the money to the National Endowment for the Arts, but groups that are putting pressure on Iran get $0.00?

Keep the Military option on the table. And mention it often. Iran needs to know that we will not accept a world with a nuclear Iran. ALL options should be on the table to prevent that.

Mark Hitchcock in The Apocalypse of Ahmadinejad quotes Kenneth Pollack:

Right now, there are two clocks ticking in Tehran. The first is the clock of regime change. Given the sentiments of the people, it seems likely that there will be further meaningful change in Iran at some point in the future. The second clock is the clock of Iran' s nuclear program. We do not know when the alarm on either of those clocks will go off. History has demonstrated that meaningful change in Iran is likely to take considerable time...the findings of the IAEA suggest that Iran is getting fairly close to having a fully self contained enrichment process, if not actual weapons.

These words were written in 2005. We know the nuclear clock is much closer to going off than it was in 2005. President Obama's actions from this summer and more recently look like he doesn't care when either of these clocks go off. We have to act now. Should Iran get a nuclear weapon, the rest of the President's agenda will be moot. We don't have to use the military. We do need to do more than we are doing now.

The Problem with Iran

I really wanted to write about the now debunked myth of man-made global warming. With the revelations over the last week, the best you can say is that man-made global warming is a scientific theory that has yet to have any serious scientific data to support it. However, as fun as that would be to write, there is a much more significant and deadly issue facing the West.

Iran made two very significant announcements over the weekend. The first you have probably heard about by now. The second seemed to miss most of the big news outlets.

First, Iran announced they will build 10 new enrichment facilities. The first five will begin in the next two months. The sites for these five have already been selected. The sites for the next five will be selected over the next two months. These 1o facilities, along with the one the West has known about, and the one the West just found out about, would give Iran the capability to make 160 nuclear bombs a year.

First-and-a-half, Iran has said time and time again that if it had a nuclear weapon, it would detonate it in Israel even knowing Israel would strike back. Why? First, Ahmadenjad believes that he can create a world Armageddon that would bring the 12th Iman out of hiding. Second, Ahmadenjad also says there are more Muslims in the world than Jews, so he can win a war of attrition.

Second, also from this weekend, Iran approved a bill that will send $20 Million to militant groups who "oppose the West". The majority of this is probably going to go to Hamas and Hezbollah. Both groups are known terrorists groups and both are quite happy to lob any number of rockets, bombs, missiles, and suicide bombers at Israel. Ask yourself, "What would happen if Hamas or Hezbollah got their hands on a nuclear warhead, even a "dirty" one?"

Health Care and Global Warming are very important debates. However, inaction on Iran will render these two issue moot. Threats about Iran not joining the world community or facing serious sanctions this time won't cut it any longer. What will? Stay tuned for the next article...

Happy Thanksgiving

Happy Thanksgiving to everyone out there. I hope you and your family have a safe and happy Thanksgiving.


I am thankful for my family, my wife, and kids. Having a newborn baby, I am especially thankful to have everyone healthy and happy.


While we have debated a number of political issues on here, I am thankful to live in a nation that allows this free political discourse even when we don't agree with the administration.

Have a good holiday, and don't eat toooo much turkey.