Thorner/O’Neil: George Soros – Leftist Behind Silencing Conservatives?

By Nancy Thorner & Bonnie O’Neil – 

Knowing Republicans control the House, the Senate, the White House, and the majority of State Governors, one might rightfully ask “Why do Democrats still have such a strong public voice?’ The answer is troubling: The majority of America’s media sources are exceedingly and blatantly biased. Largely comprised of Liberal Democrats, they want to sway the public to their political viewpoints, and whether intentional or not, they preach their interpretation of the news and important issues which concern most citizens. This is true of Hollywood radicals to the biased New York Times, and most media sources in between. Trumps’ surprising election victory signaled that the public wanted a new direction. They chose a non-politician for a reason and they will choose television, newspapers, websites, and radio programs that reflect a course correction to the Right, that they believe best and necessary for America.

Consider that very few television media sources currently provide viewers with the Conservative viewpoint. FOX News is one of the very few exceptions. Not surprisingly, FOX is disliked, if not hated, by many on the political Left, and yet their programming remains #1:  the most popular cable news program. Rather than the Left learning from Fox’s successes and adapting to a less extreme Liberal agenda, most on the Left instead choose to devise ways to silence the more popular, effective Conservative voices, especially those who expose facts detrimental to their Liberal agenda.

Initial Victim of Left’s Liberal Agenda

The most obvious victims have been known FOX personalities, such as Bill O’Reilly, Glenn Beck, and Roger Ailes.

Glenn Beck was the first highly successful Conservative personality to suffer an attack by the Left, largely because he provided viewers with shocking facts that exposed details of specific people.  Beck concentrated on one man, George Soros, and all the organizations he founded and funded in association with his Open Society Foundation.

George Soros was not a household name at the time.  That changed when Beck began exposing details about this multimillionaire, such as how he uses his billions to manipulate the economy of specific countries to his advantage and often to their financial decline.  Even more interesting to Conservatives is that Beck provided  the names of these ultra-Liberal activist organizations, their functions and goals.

FOX viewers where shocked when FOX removed Glenn Beck, especially considering his program enjoyed excellent ratings. At the time, most did most did not connect his leaving with Mr. Soros.  The average American had no idea one man had the ability to remove someone as popular as Beck and that he was not immediately picked up by another media source.  However, his former audience finally realized the truth and that  Beck had been right all along about this man.  Beck’s warnings about Soros were not exaggerated.

Since Beck first exposed Soros on his FOX program, Soros has been busy adding to his immense wealth and adding more organizations to accomplish his anti-Conservative, many say anti-American, goals.  He has contributed more than $8,000,000.00 to at least 200 of his organizations. Many of which are described as detrimental to the values of our forefathers intent to undermine the principles of our U.S. democracy and to do whatever possible to silence those with whom they disagree, especially in maligning President Trump and his administration whenever possible.

It was a surprise to Thorner and O’Neil to learn that specific “fact-checker” teams are funded by George Soros with the aim to silence and/or discredit those with inconvenient facts that argue against his Liberal agenda.

Ailes and O’Reilly Suffer Same Fate

The next Soros casualty was Roger Ailes, the mastermind behind FOX News, one of the first to create a highly popular Conservative television news program.  Some in the industry considered Ailes a genius who also found and hired the most effective show personalities.

The biggest Fox shocker, however, was the removal of Bill O’Reilly from its programming.  This was an eye-opener that finally caused the public to begin questioning the oddity of FOX firing another highly popular Conservative voice.  It reminded FOX fans of the other victims who suffered a similar fate, causing them to realize there is a serious problem when someone with power can silence speech with which he disagrees.  It is a chilling reminder of why all speech must be jealously protected, and what happens if the public does not challenge those who ignore it.

The excuse given to the public regarding the removal of Ailes and O’Reilly was from claims, not proof, of sexual harassment; both men denied the claims.  At first blink, we tend to think the claims alone are sufficient enough to warrant removal.  But, it is curious that the supposed harassment occurred way before the women suddenly decided to report them.  Beck, on the other hand, was told he was fired because Fox objected to his mentioning of God.

Sean Hannity Fights Back

Now Sean Hannity has become the latest victim of an accusation of sexual harassment.   On Friday, April 21, 2017 on the Pat Campbell Show, former Fox News contributor, Debbie Schlussel, claimed Hannity had twice invited her to his hotel room after appearing together for one of his shows. Schlussel further claimed that after rejecting him, Hannity never invited her back on his show.  This was interestingly familiar to the claims against O’Reilly.

However, Hannity’s response was very different than his FOX friends.  He forcefully stated that Schlussel’s claims were “100 percent false and a complete fabrication,” further calling Schlussel a “serial harasser who has been lying about him for well over a decade.”  Threatening a lawsuit, Hannity made known that he will not allow slander and lies about him to go unchallenged in what he views as a coordinated effort afoot to silence those with conservative views.

After Hannity’s response, Schlussel changed her story.  Apparently she meant to say Hannity invited her to meet with him at his hotel, not in his hotel room.  Wow!  What a difference the threat of a lawsuit can make.  Too bad the other three Fox men didn’t respond in the same manner.

Calling all Patriots: Be Bold and Fight Back

All these men have been irritants of Soros, and it is fair to think Soros, his money, and his organizations were involved in a plot to remove them, their voices, and opinions because they opposed his own.  Are Soros’ tactics legal?  Regrettably they are, which should be a wake-up call to all Patriots who resent such tactics intended to silent opposition voices.

We might not have the money or power to match what Soros’ organizations can accomplish, but we do have the ability to join together in an effort to promote our political positions whenever and wherever possible.  There are Conservative, Republican groups throughout this nation that would be ecstatic to have Conservatives join them in their political efforts.  Rather than lamenting over what we perceive as wrong, a far better solution is to join other like-minded Patriots, providing a stronger voice that cannot be ignored.

We can boldly share our political views with friends, relatives, and neighbors. President Trump and his administration give us renewed hope and at least a four year window of opportunity to move America in the right direction.  Let’s do it!

Freedom is not free … it sometimes comes with a price each of us must pay to preserve what our forefathers gave to us.

Friday, April 28, 2017 at 10:30 AM | Permalink

Tags: Illinois Review

Comments

Thorner: Along comes “Lukewarm,” the just-right position on climate science

By Nancy Thorner – 

When it comes to human-caused global warming, most people think there are two camps: “alarmists,” those who acknowledge it, and “deniers,” those who deny it. But this is far from true.  There are credible scientists – such as those at The Heartland Institute’s latest climate conference (ICCC-12) last month – that accede to the existence of some global warming taking place, but question to what extent man is to blame.

For instance, participants and scientists at Heartland’s conference, S. Fred Singer and Dennis Avery, maintain that a warmer planet will be beneficial for mankind and other species on the planet and that “corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate.” Meanwhile, other reputable scientists attending ICCC-12 believe a period of cooler weather looms ahead in the not-too-distant future because of the lack of sunspots.

Now there is another camp, the “lukewarmers” as defined by Dr. Pat Michaels and Paul “Chip” Knapperberger. Both are recognized environmental climate scientists who believe that man-made global warming is real, but they refuse to buy into the politicized pseudoscience that has increasingly been used to buttress the case that global warming is also likely to be dangerous. In their book, Lukewarming: The New Climate Science That Changes Everything, Michaels and Knappenberger, refer to themselves as “lukewarmers,” and expose many myths about climate change.

In a way the lukewarming view of climate change set forth by Michaels and Knappenberger relates to the English Fairy Tale, The Story of The Three Bears. Goldilocks, in tasting the porridge that had been left to cool by the bears while they took a walk in a forest, found the Great Big Bear’s porridge too hot, the Middle-sized Bear’s porridge too cold, while the Little Wee Bear’s porridge was neither too hot or too cold.

The too-hot temperature of the Great Big Bear’s porridge is the same claim made by climate change alarmists like Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who falsely predict catastrophic occurrences unless drastic measures are taken. The lukewarming concept of climate science introduced by Michaels and Knappenberger, represents the neither too hot or too cold porridge of the Little Wee Bear – or, just the right approach.

Michaels, the director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute, explained all this as a featured speaker April 19 at The Heartland Institute where he talked about his book. Michaels is a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and was program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society. He is the author or editor of six books on climate and its impact, and he was an author of the climate “paper of the year” awarded by the Association of American Geographers in 2004.

While introducing Michaels, Heartland Institute President Joe Bast expressed with apparent delight, three happenings of note in the past 100 days:  1) The election of Donald Trump as president, whose accomplishments are acceding expectations – such as Trump cutting EPA spending by 31 percent, which was long overdue. 2) Heartland’s latest climate conference (ICCC-12) held in Washington, D.C. in March – which attracted 300 participants without a formal invitation being sent. The conference featured 40 speakers attracted 55 members of the media, most of whom heretofore had not been interested in what Heartland had to say on the topic. 3) Heartland sending some 350,000 copies of Why Scientists Disagree with Global Warming to science teachers in K-12 and colleges, as well as 400 CEOs. The message: There is no consensus on global warming. The media and some activist teachers organizations have chosen to respond with accusations that Heartland’s mailing is an attempt at brainwashing – a notion Bast thoroughly rebutted.

 Michaels Explains his Lukewarmer Thesis

Michael’s remarks, tailored to his slide presentation, showed time and again the misuse of the flawed, always too-hot climate models, and the tremendous incentives that exist for their continued misuse. So it follows that unreasonable and unnecessary climate policies have been based on the too-hot and frequently manipulated climate models. Clearly, he said, if the climate models can’t properly simulate the past, they can’t be relied upon for the future – and are a terrible basis for energy and economic policy.

Other aspects of the Michael’s Lukewarmers Camp include:

• Life thrived on Earth through hot time and cold, mostly with much higher CO2 concentrations and warmer temperatures than we are experiencing in the current era. This enhanced CO2 allows plants to take advantage of warmer temperature. Tropical rain forests have greatly increased because of the increase in CO2.

• Market forces compel adaptation to all kinds of change, including slight changes in climate. Even if the United States continues to burn half of its corn production, the rest of the world still is able to produce tremendous amounts of food to meet the needs of its growing population.

• Health effects of climate change on the U.S. are negligible and are likely to remain so. Forty-six percent of all U.S. deaths directly attributable to weather events from 1993 to 2006 were caused by excessive cold; 28 percent were from excessive heat.

• After 75 years of rapidly increasing CO2 emission, hurricanes have responded only lukewarmly. Severe weather is a characteristic of earth’s atmosphere and every day some kind of story or extreme event will (and likely will) be associated with global warming. Even if the issue of the day were global cooling, such extreme weather events could be made to fit that paradigm, too.

• Arctic ice has declined before, even in the last century before humans had put very much CO2 into the atmosphere. The Arctic was even ice free for long stretches, both before the end of the last ice age and afterwards.  The Washington Post on November 11, 1922 reported of hitherto unheard-of temperature in the Arctic zone. The seals were finding the water too hot and great masses of ice had been replaced by moraines of earth and stones. Nevertheless, there’s always plenty of ice in the Arctic Ocean, even in the beginning of the fall when it reaches its minimum extent.

• As for the survival of the iconic polar bear, the polar bear has weathered – and maybe even prospered – during many periods when the Arctic summer’s end was ice free.

• The Paris Climate Treaty is an unenforceable document that requires its signatories to prepare new “determined contributions” every five years, counts all warming since the Industrial Revolution as having been caused by greenhouse gas emissions, uses the mean sensitivity of the UN climate models, and requires an immediate cessation of all carbon dioxide emissions (fossil fuels) to meet its aspirational goal of keeping future warming below 1.5 degree C. This reduction in potential warming is operationally meaningless, and would result in a lukewarm agreement meant for a lukewarm world, in which only the United States and the EU stand to be harmed.

Michaels predicted a new warming of only six-tenths to a quarter degree by the end of the 21st century.  Accordingly, it makes no sense to plan for and then take measures to prepare for an event that has only a finite chance of happening, but which would greatly reduce our standard of living and further destroy this nation’s economy.

To watch the entire presentation by Michaels, click here.

 

Thursday, April 27, 2017 at 08:52 AM | Permalink

Comments

Thorner: Is Tucker Up to Keeping O’Reilly’s #1 Cable News Rating?

 

By Nancy Thorner – 

As published in the New York Times on Wednesday, April 19, 2017:

Tucker Carlson, a conservative provocateur who joined Fox News’s prime-time ranks only three months ago, has been tapped to replace Mr. O’Reilly at 8 p.m. Eastern, beginning on Monday, the network said. Mr. Carlson has become, seemingly overnight, one of the network’s most vital players, a remarkable turnaround for a pundit whose bow-tied heyday had seemed behind him.

About a week or so ago I discussed with CA political writer and humorist, Burt Prelutsky, my observations regarding Tucker Carlson’s Fox cable show.

Illinois Review readers were first introduced to Mr. Prelutsky and his one-of-a-kind writing though my review of his book, Angels on Tap, on Monday, March 27, 2017.  Angels on Tap is now a delightful, family-oriented movie with religious overtones. (Lacking yet is a distributor)

Perceived was a decided change in Tucker Carlson’s manner from the more aggressive stance he first took when his show premiered until now. But did Tucker really tone down his show, or did perhaps some of the novelty of a new Fox face lead to a false perception?

As Burt Prelutsky suggested, perhaps booking more guests would help.  By so doing Tucker wouldn’t have to waste so much time with some of his self-righteous pinheads guests. Prelutsky used Tucker’s Wednesday, April 20th show as an example. When interviewing the woman who thought there was no limit to Muslim immigrants Europe should be welcoming, Tucker kept demanding the woman answer his “core question,” belaboring the point like a dog with a bone.  As Burt wrote in his typical witty fashion:

But if people don’t care to answer, you have the option of either asking a different question or tying them down and hitting them with rubber hoses.  It felt like the segment went on for half an hour.

Food for Thought: 

• We both perceive that Tucker is showing a tad too much fear about a war with Russia.  It makes him sound too much like a liberal.  Most people don’t want to go to war, but by standing up to naked aggression, we have less chance of a war than we had under Obama, who encouraged our enemies by never standing up to them.

• Tucker repeatedly misses cues, as when he fails to mention Hillary’s turning over 20% of America’s uranium in exchange for a bribe to the Clinton Foundation when a guest slanders Trump for his alleged bromance with the Russian despot.

• On the other hand, Tucker’s week-long series devoted to the opioid epidemic was first-rate and important.

• With Tucker taking over Bill O’Reilly’s highly prized time slot, viewers will have to decide if he’s ready for primetime.  On balance, we both feel that an hour spent with Tucker is worthwhile more often than not.

Burt Prelutsky granted me permission to share his blog post about Tucker published on Monday, April 17, 2017, demonstrating Prelutsky’s fact-filled and humorous way of writing, which defines all of what Mr. Prelutsky’s writes. .

LISTEN UP, TUCKER CARLSON

Nobody was happier than I was when Tucker Carlson replaced Megyn Kelly on Fox.  But I am beginning to lose patience with him because he’s reminding me of the famous little girl with the curl, the one who was very good when she was good, but when she was bad, she was horrid.

The other night, (Monday, April 11, 2017) we got to see both Tuckers in the same hour.  He did a good job of ridiculing Brad Sherman  who just happens to be my congressman.  After Sherman theorized that Trump had tomahawked Syria, not for humanitarian or militarily strategic reasons or even to send a clear signal to China and North Korea, but simply to deflect claims that he’s in bed with Putin, Tucker did a splendid job of mocking him as the ignoramus I know him to be.

But Sherman, whose skin must be nearly as thick as his head, appeared unfazed.  In fact, when Tucker asked him if he didn’t agree that the pinpoint attack on the Syrian airfield was a good thing, Sherman replied: “After the chemical bombings of civilians by Assad, any president would have done the same.”

I, and I suspect the majority of Carlson’s viewers, sat in stunned silence when the host failed to point out there had in fact been a president, a member of Sherman’s own party in fact, who, even after drawing a red line in the sand, had done absolutely nothing.

But missing his cues has become something of a habit with Carlson.  A few nights earlier, when another left-wing congressman accused Donald Trump of playing footsies with Putin, Carlson failed to mention that not a single Democrat in Congress complained when Secretary of State Clinton handed over 20% of America’s uranium to Russia in exchange for a huge bribe to her family’s foundation.  As mortal sins go, most people would agree that playing footsies, even if true, would pale by comparison.

I wouldn’t want anyone to get the idea that Carlson’s case is hopeless.  After blowing it with Rep. Sherman, he made something of a comeback when he had on a New York City public defender whose client is an illegal alien who had been convicted of sexually abusing a child and deported.  As so often is the case, the schmuck snuck back in.  This time he attacked a woman on a subway.

The lawyer’s complaint was that the NYPD had informed ICE of his court date, so they’d be in a position to take him into federal custody.  She regarded this as a moral outrage because Mayor Bill De Blasio had assured everyone that New York was a sanctuary city, and that such things would never happen.

Apparently, there are those, including this public defender, who believe, as does Mayor De Blasio, that he is God.  Carlson did a good job of disabusing her of that notion.

Carlson also did a good job of refuting a lawyer who is fighting the Texas law requiring people to show a government-issued I.D. (driver’s license, passport, gun permit) in order to vote.

As Carlson pointed out, you can’t board a plane, receive welfare, hold a paying job or get a credit card, without one of these documents.  In most places, you can’t even register your kids for school if you can’t prove who you are.

But the lady ignored the facts, instead focusing on a fraudulent number — 600,000, mostly black and Hispanic — whom she insisted had lost their voting rights because of the Texas bill.

Carlson patiently explained that while it’s true that voting is a constitutional right, so is owning a gun.  And yet, there are several barriers that American citizens have to successfully hurdle, including providing a photo I.D., before they can purchase a pistol.

Instead of agreeing that it’s not unreasonable for Texas to require the same proof of identity before allowing someone to vote that is required of someone buying a six-pack of Budweiser, the loon doubled down by contending that only two cases of voter fraud had been discovered in Texas, and so those pesky ID’s are clearly unnecessary.

Heaven only knows what they’re teaching in law school these days, but, apparently, logic isn’t one of them.

If you like what Burt Prelutsky has to say, and his style of writing which include doses of humor with political truth, you can subscribe at a reduced rate of $35.00, which entitles you to receive 3 – 4 political commentaries per week though the end of August, 2017.  Yearly subscriptions are a bargain at $100.  Prelutsky’s new subscription year begins on September 1, 2017.  Contact Burt Prelutsky at burtprelutsky@aol.com

Friday, April 21, 2017 at 09:31 AM | Permalink

Thorner: Australian lawmaker talks Libertarianism at Heartland Institute

By Nancy Thorner –  

The Heartland Institute on April 12 hosted “An Evening with Sen. David Leyonhjelm,” a lawmaker that distinguishes himself as the only Libertarian in the Australian Parliament – the “Rand Paul of the Senate Down Under.”  Leyonhjelm stopped at Heartland as part of his week-long tour of the United States.

In Australia, what Americans know as the Libertarian Party goes under the party name “Liberal Democrats.” While both terms may convey nasty connotations to some, not so if liberalism is referred to in its “classical” sense as a philosophy and ideology belonging to liberalism – in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual, and upon the realization that a “Democrat” in Australia does not resemble America’s Democratic Party. The same applies to Australia’s main political parties: The Liberal Partyresembles conservative-leaning Republicans, while the Labor Party is most like our Democrats, and Australia’s Green Party is America’s Socialist Party.

The Liberal Democrats were founded as a political party in Australia in 2001, although Leyonhjelm didn’t join until 2005. Active in managing the Liberal Democrat Party in 2007, 2010, and 2013, it was in 2013 election that Leyonhjelm won his seat in the Senate representing New South Wales as the first member of the Australian parliament from the classical liberal or “Libertarian” Party. When Senator Leyonhjelm joined the party, its membership totaled 150 members. It now has more than 4,500. Review here the positions taken by the Libertarian Party in Australia.

Australia’s Government Allows Minority Parties to Thrive

Jim Lakely, Heartland’s director of communications, introduced Leyonhjelm and suggested he speak about the political disruption in Australia, and if it’s similar to what happened with the election of President Trump in the U.S. and Brexit in Great Britain. Leyonhjelm agreed that there has been a disruption of Australia’s major political parties but first wanted to explain the make-up of Australia’s parliamentary system of government, which differs greatly from the U.S. in that it allows minority parties to exert influence.

• There are 76 senators – 12 from each of the six states, two from each territory. The usual term is six years. The support of the majority party never happens in the Senate. Leyonhjelm is the only elected member of the Liberal Democrat Party in the Central Parliament.

• Government is formed in the lower House, the House of Representatives. Whoever wins the majority in the House forms the government and who governs. In the Senate the government never has majority support.

• The House of Representatives does require the support of Senate members to pass legislation. These Senate members are referred to as “crossbench” senators.

• Presently there are 12 crossbench legislators in the Senate. Leyonhjelm is one of them. Government needs the vote of 10 crossbench legislators to pass bills.

Senator Leyonhjelm then went on to speak about protest votes – which took place in Australia in 2012 and 2016 – and were not unlike what happened to elect Trump and with the Brexit vote in Great Britain. In 2012, a protest party won three seats in the Senate, which no longer exists because of disunity among its members. Then in 2016, another protest party formed and won four Senate seats, which accounts for the12 crossbench legislators now in the Senate. Senator Leyonhjelm is among them.

Conflict About Australian Immigration Policy

As Leyonhjelm explained, although Australia has always welcomed immigrants – and Australia has very few illegal immigrants – immigration has now become an issue in the country. As the Australian Constitution has no Bill of Rights to assure Freedom of Speech, immigration has become linked with free speech. A pending law would make it illegal to “assault” with speech anyone on the basis of their race, nationality, or color. It was in 2014 that Senator Leyonhjelm said that some cultures are incompatible with Australian society, and that could become illegal in his country.

Budget and Energy Issues Loom Large in Australia

On Australia’s budget, Senator Leyonhjelm said his country is not as close to the cliff as is the U.S. and Europe, but it will get there soon if left unchecked.

Regarding energy, Leyonhjelm laid the blame of Australia’s energy problems – including rolling blackouts in the state of South Australia – on poor government policy. A goal was set to have 23.5 percent of all energy by 2020 produced by renewable energy sources. As of now, Australia is nowhere near that target. Leyonhjelm spoke of the high and rising costs of electricity, with no one willing to build private baseline power plants because of regulation uncertainties.

His prediction: Black outs will be frequent next summer, and taxpayer money will be needed to build fossil-fuel (coal) power stations that used to be funded by the private sector. Although there is a ban on fracking in several Australian states, there is lots of coal and gas. There is also plenty of uranium – which matters not, because nuclear energy is also banned in Australia. Senator Leyonhjelm did take a stand last year against the need for a carbon tax or any other type of tax.

Senator Leyonhjelm’s Fight for Liberty in Australia

Despite being the only libertarian in the Australian Parliament, Senator Leyonhjelm described his leverage vote in the Senate as a good one from time to time. He has two promises he strives to keep: He’ll never vote to raise taxes, and he will always vote to increase liberty. While holding that pledge from the crossbench seat, he’s been able to get concessions from the government, such as:

1. Saved a rifle range in Sydney, Australia that was in danger of being shut down. Leyonhjelm was able to extend its operation for 50 years.

2. Established an inquiry into the Nanny State, believing that good laws create freedom, not a nanny state.

3. Promoted an inquiry on Red Tape. Senator Leyonhjelm, representing New South Wales, chairs the committee as the only Liberal Democrat Party member in the Senate.

4. Introduced the concept of Liberty Offsets, in keeping with his principle rule as a senator mentioned above – that he will never vote to increase taxes or for a reduction of liberty. As explained by Senator Leyonhjelm at a news conference in Canberra: “The whole idea of these negotiations has been to offset any lost freedoms by introducing new ones.”

Additional Issues Facing Australia

In regard to Australia’s GDP, scheduled to be reported in May, it will not going up. This is not a surprise to Senator Leyonhjelm, which he contributes to Australia’s immigration program and the cost related to the free services provided. Such a practice does not contribute to elevating the per capita income.

Concerning free speech issue in Australia’s High Court, the media is not permitted to report on Court hearings. Senator Leyonhjelm does have a number of private bills in the Senate regarding advancing the principle of free speech. Even though private bills aren’t usually passed, it does force government to consider them. Leyonhjelm supports removing the ban for assisted suicide, for the simple reason that we should own our own lives. If we are not free to end our lives, with assistance if necessary, then we are not free at all.

In reference to Australia’s energy and budget crisis, Senator Leyonhjeim further related how public politicians have NO appetite or the courage to cut back spending and reduce taxes. Politicians might agree on what must be done, but don’t know how to do so to get re-elected, for saying the right thing is not the same as doing it. Does this sound familiar? Notwithstanding, Australia’a budget moves closer to the cliff every year. Leyonhjeim believes the energy crisis will only be solved when more blackouts occur this summer.

Senator Leyonhjelm further believes that only a left-wing government would be able to give government a haircut – much the way only Nixon could go to China. A left-wing government could get away with it, while a right-wing government would be branded as heartless. Australia, by the way, presently has a conservative government.

As to Senator Leyonhjelm’s political life as a Libertarian in Australia, he admitted it was a lonely one. Gratitude was expressed for the support Leyonhjelm receives from Libertarians here in America, especially The Heartland Institute. Leyonhjelm also reminded attendees, only half in jest, that there is no law against contributing here in America to his party in Australia.

Personal Observations About Leyonhjelm’s Speech at The Heartland Institute

1. On the whole, Senator Leyonhjelm’s talk sounded quite reasonable as he never touched on those hot-button issues that make libertarians unacceptable to those of who hold dear our conservative Republicans values. Observe here the positions on issues set forth by the Liberal Democrats (Libertarians) in Australia. They seem to closely mirror the libertarian political philosophy here in America, down to supporting the legalization of use, cultivation, processing, possession, transport, and sale of cannabis, with protection of minors and penalties for driving while impaired.

2. I found this piece about Donald Trump written on March 20 by Senator Leyonhjelm. Perhaps Leyonhjelm was hesitant at Heartland to admit what he really thought of Trump, knowing there were likely conservative Republicans in the room?

(Watch his presentation here.)

Wednesday, April 19, 2017 at 12:10 PM | Permalink

Tags: Australia, David Leyonhjelm, Illinois Review

Thorner: EPA’s Complete Failure Calls for Dissolution

Thorner: EPA’s Complete Failure Calls for Dissolution

By Nancy Thorner – 

This may shock the myriad of government employees that work at the Environmental Protection Agency, but there’s a five-year plan being mulled that would lead to the agency’s dissolution. It was one of many discussion topics at Heartland Institute’s 12th annual climate change forum in March.   Jay H. Lehr, Ph.D. appeared on a panel titled Climate Politics and Policy at ICCC-12, held in Washington, D.C., March 23 & 24.   Other panel members included Scott Armstrong, Ph.D. and the Honorable Dennis Hedke. Moderator was S.T. Karnick.

Dr. Lehr’s topic:  The Inefficiency of the EPA.

The EPA inflicted much harm during the Obama administration with its damaging rules and regulations. A turnaround is now taking place with the election of Donald Trump, but is the EPA really needed as a government agency?  Jay H. Lehr, Ph.D. doesn’t think so.  He has a five-year plan to dissolve the EPA.

Jay Lehr’s initial remark was to confess that a 70-year-old novel by Sinclair Lewis, Arrowsmith,  had influenced the direction of his life by guiding him toward science.

How CO2 became a greenhouse gas and then a pollutant

In relation to how CO2 became a greenhouse gas and a pollutant that now drives the issue of Global Warming, Lehr noted these two event.

1.  In 1895 the problem began when a Swedish scientist (Svante Arrhenius (1859-1927) decided that because CO2 had an impact on temperature, it qualified for a greenhouse gas.

2.  In 1990 a UN Committee was formed for the express purpose of determining man’s role in running the planet.

Not taken into consideration was how CO2 concentration was much higher in centuries past, yet this had no impact in slowing the natural occurrence of ice ages.  The UN-ICC Committee proceeded to construct mathematical models that were so devised to conform to already established ICC predictions that CO2 was the cause of global warming.  The ICC report that followed, and subsequent reports, continue to be viewed as consensus science by global warming advocates.

Noted by Lehr was the way Albert Einstein responded to a book published in 1931, 100 Authors Against Einstein.  When asked about the book, Einstein retorted by saying “Why 100 authors? If I were wrong, then one would have been enough!

As Lehr reflected, nine times more people die of cold than from heat.  There are even credible scientists who believe we are facing colder weather in the coming decade.

Twenty years passed before man discovered that washing hands was important when going from the morgue to the birthing room, and 50 years for Louis Pasteur to have accepted his germ theory medical stance. Lehr hopes it doesn’t take another generation of Americans to reject the messages of doom and gloom advanced by global warming alarmists. As Lehr stated, “If Robert Kennedy, Jr. could have his way, all global warming deniers would be tried for war crimes.”

Dr. Lehr’s 5-year plan to dissolve the EPA

The main thrust of Jay Lehr’s presentation was getting rid of the EPA.  Also strongly recommended was withdrawal from the Paris Accords.

The concept of creating the EPA was initiated through a series of meeting that took place from 1968 – 1971.  Dr. Lehr, along with 5 other individuals, was responsible for developing the concept of the EPA, which President Nixon signed into law in 1971.  During the 70’s seven laws were passed by the EPA that had merit, the one exception being the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act or Superfund Act, but in less than ten years the EPA had become weaponized and part of the Green Movement.  As stated by Lehr: “Not a single law was passed after 1980 that advanced the cause of environmental protection in the U.S.

Two years ago that Dr. Lehr presented his plan to dissolve the EPA to participants at ICCC-10 held in Las Vegas, CO.  His plan, distributed to all state legislatures, called for dissolving the EPA and turning its responsibilities over to the states.  But instead of receiving push back about his plan, Lehr was asked why a 5-year plan was needed to dissolve the EPA.  Wouldn’t one year be enough time to accomplish the task at hand?, to which Jay responded:  “It was to give administration and others in the agency a chance to find other work.”

EPA facts noted by Dr. Lehr:

• Out of 14 separate offices within the EPA, each with its own staff and budget, only 5 deal with the environment, two belong in the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and 7 others are entirely non-scientific offices.
• 15,000 employees are spread between Washington D.C. and 10 regional offices and a few research centers, with a total budget allowance of $8.2 billion.

In essence, a committee would initially be formed of 6 members from each state (300 in all) to evaluate the 14 separate EPA offices as to their effectiveness.  The EPA committee finding would then be submitted to Congress, and with Congressional approval, a directive would be issued to dissolve the EPA, contingent upon a two-thirds votes of all 50 states.

Complete elimination of the EPA would take five years to accomplish.  Notwithstanding, at the wish of the 50 state environmental agencies, the Office of Research and Development — one of five EPA offices actually dealing with the environment — could be retained under the direction of the states.

EPA, a useless, bloated government agency

The existence of the EPA has only made life miserable for states.  It’s useless in its current form.  The idea of creating the EPA had considerable merit back in 1971, which it lost after states formed their own EPA structures to deal with environmental problems.  The Constitution doesn’t call for the establishment of the EPA, or many entities existing within the federal government, that shift power away from the states to the federal government.

Regarding the one actual field project in recent year the USEPA was engaged in — a waste spill near the Animus River in Colorado — it was botched, which resulted in the pollution of the Animus River for over a month. The EPA response: “We’re sorry.”

Other articles by Thorner from attendance at Heartland’s ICCC-12:

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2017/03/thorner-new-chapter-in-global-warming-debate-realized-at-heartlands-iccc-12.html

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2017/04/thorner-the-role-of-fossil-fuels-in-keeping-world-peace-heartlands-iccc-12.html

Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 11:00 AM | Permalink

Thorner: McConchie airs Capitol frustrations at conservative Republican dinner

Monday, April 10, 2017

Thorner: McConchie airs Capitol frustrations at conservative Republican dinner

McConchie on 2016 election night | Daily Herald photo

By Nancy Thorner – 

The 2017 Republican Assembly of Lake County (RALC) Ronald Reagan Dinner was held April 1st at the Dover Straits Seafood House in Mundelein, IL. A record number of 84 members and guests attended.

The RALC is an affiliate of the National Federation of Republican Assemblies (NFRA), a grassroots political organization which promotes conservative principles and candidates within the Republican Party. The first Republican Assembly was founded in 1934 in California. 

President Ronald Reagan called the Republican Assemblies “the conscience of the Republican Party,” while still others referred to them as “the Tea Party before there was a Tea Party.”

 Prominent current and past Republican Assembly Members include:

• Late President Ronald Reagan
• Late Actress Jane Russell
• Late Phyllis Schlafly, founder of Eagle Forum
• Grover Norquist, founder of Americans for Tax Reform
• Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum
• U.S. Senator Rand Paul
• U.S. Senator Ted Cruz
• Former Ambassador and Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell

RALC Treasurer, Mike McKay, introduced the Honorable State Senator Dan McConchie (26th District) as a true conservative and a member of the RALC. Senator McConchie was described as an energetic campaigner. McConchie won his seat a year ago in the primary and was then appointed a month later to fill the unexpired term of the previous state senator, Republican Dan Duffy, who stepped down.

Senator McConchie began his remarks musing about Governor Bruce Rauner and his “TurnAround Agenda” campaign with its list of 20 different items. Among the items, having a budget was deemed a requisite to get Illinois back to fiscal order. Illinois is now in its 22nd month without a budget.

Senator McConchie pointed to a recent setback toward achieving a balanced budget due to under-performing revenues. The largest component of the decline came from the “Big Three” State revenues: individual income tax, corporate income tax and sales tax. Although sales tax collections in the first two thirds of FY2017 have kept up with the original projections, individual income tax receipts are down 3.9% from this point last year, and corporate income taxes are down 43.7%.

McConchie said Illinois is a “financial disaster.” When Leslie Munger was Comptroller, $7 billion in bills were sitting on her desk to be paid. Now unpaid bills have mounted to $12 billion. Furthermore, pension debt has skyrocketed to $130 billion. Illinois’ bond rating is just about at junk level, and they’re being treated as such.

McConchie bemoaned why some agreement can’t be reached in dealing with Illinois’ debt. Although Governor Rauner did agree to some form of tax increases, Democrats have not stepped forward in the direction of Republican concessions. Instead, Governor Rauner has been at loggerhead with the Democrats for over two years.

“Unlike a business or corporation where differences of opinions must be settled to keep the company functioning,” said McConchie, “in politics when contrasting people push against each other the result is gridlock. Senator McConchie related how sometimes promises made are not being kept for Illinoisans who depend on social service providers who are not being paid for their work.

About Mike Madigan:  McConchie related how Madigan has held office for 44 years, having been Speaker of the House for 30 of the last 33 years.  Madigan, at 74 years of age and with no heir apparent, seems to have no desire to understand the situation.  As McConchie see it, upon waking up in the morning Madigan’s goal is to beat whoever he has to at their game today.  As such Madigan goes from election to election.

How then to get change here in Illinois, reasoned McConchie?  There must be a grassroots swell where enough becomes enough. Cooperation must happen to get things done.  The situation in Springfield, in McConchie’s words, “is indeed dire.”

Outside the budget issue, McConchie mentioned House Bill 40, which would expand taxpayer funding of elected abortions to all nine months.  It’s on the edge of passing in the IL House.  If the bill passes in the House it will pass in the Senate.  McConchie spoke of the grassroots becoming involved, but the push back must continue, and urged the audience to contact their representatives and senators.

Said McConchie, “It’s a dark place in Springfield.”  He asked that prayers be said for all legislators in Lake County. We cannot rescue Illinois on our own. It requires a Divine hand.  McConchie suggested that we take one day at a time, and, when possible, attempt to help another see the truth in the right way.

McConchie did admit to becoming frustrated, but when showing up for work each day he functions within the framework of that day to find things he can do on his own, also reaching out to others to achieve positive results. McConchie is starting to see little miracle of God.

At the end, a $10 per ticket raffle for a Springfield XD 9 sub compact was held conducted by RALC Vice Chairman, Glenn Garamoni.

A partial list of elected officials present included Judge Daniel B. Shanes, Circuit Court of Lake County; Bonnie Quirke, Libertyville Library Trustee; IL Rep. Randy Hultgren (14th District); Mark Shaw, Lake County Chair of Republican Party; Steve Lentz, Mayor of Mundelein; Mundelein Trustees Dawn Abernathy and Ray Semple; Republican Township Chairmen:  Phil Howe (Avon), Bob Cook (Wauconda), Glenn Garamoni (Fremont), Frank Bessette (Antioch), Nancy Kubalanza (Grant), and Jim Dorfman (Ela).

 

Monday, April 10, 2017 at 12:01 PM | Permalink

Thorner: The Role of Fossil Fuels in Keeping World Peace, Heartland’s ICCC-12

By Nancy Thorner –

Featured at The Heartland Institute’s Twelfth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-12), held March 23-24 at the Grand Hyatt Hotel in Washington, D.C., were eleven panel discussions over the two-day period.

The six panel discussions I was able to attend were held back-to-back with six other panel discussions taking place simultaneously in a nearby hotel ballroom. 

Joseph Bast is president and CEO of The Heartland Institute, headquartered at 3939 North Wilke Road, Arlington Heights, IL  60004.

Early on I decided to write about an afternoon panel discussion held on the first day of ICCC-12.  Not only did the title of the panel intrigue me, Fossil Fuels and World Peace, but all three of the speakers spoke with authority and clarity on the subjects provided, which as a whole provided an understanding of how fossil fuels foster world peace.     

PANEL 3B – FOSSIL FUELS AND WORLD PEACE

Panel moderator:

lsaac Orr, research fellow on energy and environmental issues at the Heartland Institute.

Panel 3B Speakers in order of presentation: 

• Craig D. Idso, Ph.D., founder and former president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and currently serves as chairman of its board of directors.  He is the lead author of the Climate Change Reconsidered series produce by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate change.  Check our Dr. Idso’s excellent blog and subscribe for free.      

• Dennis T. Avery, a senior fellow of the Hudson Institute since 1989. Prior to that, he was a senior analyst in the U.S. Department of State (1980-88), where he won the National Intelligence Medal of Achievement in 19883. Avery is co-author, with Fred Singer, of the New York Times bestseller, Unstoppable Global Warming — Every 1,500 years, published in 2007.  Dennis Avery’s forthcoming book is titled, When Weather IS Extreme: the “Little Ice Ages.

• Aaron Stover, a senior staff member and policy analyst for The Heartland Institute. He previously worked on transatlantic policy projects focused on Central and Eastern Europe for the Atlantic Council, the Center for European Policy Analysis, and the U.S.-EU-Slovakia Action Commission at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. 

Craig D. Idso, Ph.D. – Historical Relationship Between Carbon Dioxide, Climate and Social Conflict

For his presentation, Craig Idso was asked to highlight the historical relationship between carbon dioxide, climate and social conflict.

As an introduction to his remarks, Idso noted that many political and opinion leaders feel it is important to enact legislation to limit carbon dioxide emissions out of concern that global warming is detrimental to society. Craig Idso then proceeded to set forth the historical relationship between carbon dioxide, climate and social conflict.

China was used by Idso as a good test case to begin highlighting the relationship between global warming and social stability.  Why?  Because it has been a well-populated, primarily agricultural country for millennia, and it has a relatively well-recorded history over this period.  A 2013 study by Lee and Zhang (2013) indicated how natural calamities and human catastrophes peaked during the colder climates of the 17^th and 19^th centuries, whereas during the relatively warm 18^th century, agriculture production was enhanced, famines were abated, wars, rebellions and epidemics were minimal and population growth surged. 

A 2005 Zhang et al study of social unrest and dynastic transitions from the mid-ninth through early twentieth century in China found similar results; namely, that warmer climates have been immensely more effective than cooler climates in terms of helping to “keep the peace.”  What’s more, China is no different from the rest of the world in this regard.

Focusing next on the whole of Europe, Idso employed a 2010 Tol and Wagner study showing through documentation that “periods with lower temperatures in the pre-industrial era [were] accompanied by violent conflicts”.  This in contrast to periods of warmth which generally correlated with more peaceful times and epochs of less warfare.

It became clear after Idso’s presentation of several additional studies, that literature does not support concerns over potential future increases in civil strife due to CO₂-induced global warming. Empirical data instead confirms that the reality is just the opposite of climate alarmist projections. What is more, ironically, there are legitimate reasons to conclude that rising atmospheric CO₂ will actually help to alleviate social unrest in the future.

Even Jimmy Carter understood how atmospheric C02 was helpful in alleviating social arrest.  In an op-ed published a number of years ago, To Cultivate Peace, We Must First Cultivate Food, Carter wrote: “raise the standard of living of the millions of rural people who live in poverty by increasing agricultural productivity,” His argument was that thriving agriculture “is the engine that fuels broader economic growth and development, thus paving the way for prosperity and peace.”  Said Carter, “leaders of developing nations must make food security a priority,” for “there can be no peace until people have enough to eat.”

Of importance is whether the food needs necessary for an increase in human population will be achievable. Craig Idso spoke of estimates he developed and analyzed as to a supply-and-demand food scenario for the year 2050, then comparing those results with the food needs of the human population that is expected to be inhabiting the planet at that future date.

Idso concluded that a very real and devastating food crisis is looming on the horizon, and that continuing advancements in agricultural technology and expertise will most likely not be able to bridge the gap between global food supply and global food demand just a few short years from now.

A positive impact on crop yields would be achieved through a rising atmospheric CO2 level, which would considerably lessen the severity of the coming food shortage. In some regions and countries it will mean the difference between being food secure or food insecure.  Thus the world’s food security envisioned by President Carter is precariously dependent upon the continued rising of the air’s CO₂ concentration.

According to an article published by Norman Borlaug in 2000, in order to meet the needs of the growing population of the planet, “we will have to nearly double current production again” within a few short decades.”  But Dr. Borlaug saw some ominous forces at work that could keep society from achieving the food needed to feed an expanding population, citing those that array themselves against the genetic engineering of agricultural crops and their unsubstantiated scare mongering done by opponents of genetic engineering. It is however a given that new technology must be developed for global food insecurity to have any chance to surface in the future.

Concluding thoughts by Craig Idso: CO₂-induced global warming is not leading, nor will it lead, to increased incidences of social unrest and war. Rather, future warming (if it is to occur) in conjunction with the very real and measurable benefits expected by continuing atmospheric CO₂ enrichment will help to foster social stability and peace. It’s time for the true deniers to wake up and face the facts. For far too long now they have besmirched and defamed the many virtues of carbon dioxide. Atmospheric CO₂ is not a pollutant, it is the very elixir of life.

Dennis T. Avery – War in the Cold

Dennis Avery explained in his presentation, War in the Cold, that until recent times the wars among earth’s peoples were concentrated in the planet’s “little ice ages.”  These “little ice ages” lasted 350-550 years.  The wars were triggered mainly by hunger. Crops were assailed in the cold periods by 1) short growing seasons with heavily overcast skies, massive regional droughts that lasted up to 350 years, and heavier floods that drowned farmers and their fields. Crops failed across cultures and around the world. Cities couldn’t be fed because they could neither produce nor preserve food for famines. Governments collapsed and/or invaded neighbors. Rebellions proliferated.

Ancient periods of conflict included the Bronze Age Collapse (1200 BC), the Iron Age Cooling (800 BC) the Dark Ages (600 AD), and the Little Ice Age (1300 AD to 1850.) The Modern Warming morphed seamlessly out of the icy cold after 1850.

Avery noted a study of China, the earth’s most war-torn culture, by David Zhang. He found that China had 500 wars, rebellions, and dynastic collapses in the 900-year span from AD 1000 to AD 1900. 

China was the most fought-over because 1) the region gets major cyclical shifts in climate every few centuries from cold/dry to warm/wet. 2) The tropical rain belts move north and south over China, changing rainfall regimes and forcing constant adaptations. 3) Locust attacks are stimulated by the alternating floods and droughts of the “little ice ages.” 4) Finally, bubonic plague was triggered by droughts in western China’s grasslands. China suffered three bubonic pandemics that killed huge percentages of the population.

Global pandemics were triggered by the Chinese droughts, because the billions of bubonic-resistant rodents in western China’s grasslands starved—so their fleas sought new hosts like the camel caravans and merchant ship crews trading with nations to the west. The first global bubonic plague in Europe happened during the Dark Ages droughts of AD 540-740, when 30-60% of Europe’s population died over three centuries.  The second European bubonic plague epidemics happened in the 15th century when millions of deaths, with no treatment or prevention, occurred in Central Europe, 1621-31; France 1628-31; Italy, 1629-31, 1630-52; and Austria, 1679-80.

Avery highlighted the 17th and the19th centuries as two of the world’s “war peaks.”  The 17^th century suffered the ultra-cold Maunder Minimum with massive crop losses. Europe suffered the 30 Years War 1618-1648. As many as 11 million people may have died, while trampling armies ravaged farming and spread massive epidemics.

Europe’s populated almost doubled nonetheless, from 1700 to 1800. This happened because better sailing ships began swapping crops and livestock globally, with crops like potatoes and corn spreading worldwide, and America getting wheat, cattle and horses. Europe also discovered a whole new set of higher-yielding European farm technologies (including crop rotation and seeders). These events disarmed much of the famine impact of the cold.

The 19th century thus found a much larger human population again attacked by cold and chaotic weather. Avery noted the plight of America’s Woodlands Indians. The woodland Indians’ populations got new corn and bean varieties from Mexico, and doubled in the Medieval Warming from 900-1300 AD.   But the Little Ice Age threatened their vital corn crops with short, cloudy growing seasons. The six Iroquois tribes fought against each other so fiercely they signed a peace treaty; henceforth, they pledged to kill only warriors from other tribes.

Food is no longer the societal constraint of ancient times simply because of its current abundance. Avery believes that better farming today promises to feed a last surge of human population growth between today and 2060. Then human numbers will begin a long decline as birth rates continue to decline worldwide.

Energy, however, has replaced food as the new constraint on human affairs. Fortunately, World War II taught us that the only rational way for a nation to get resources it lacked was to buy them in the open market.

Unfortunately, our ancient dread of “overpopulation” has stimulated today’s surge in “environmental protection.” The movement seems dedicated to making the world poorer and more dangerous—as a way to shrink human numbers. That has spilled over into denying ourselves the energy that our intelligence created.

Historic headlines tell us that the earth has had a climate panic about every 30 years—alternating between fears of too cold and fears of too hot. Science should now use its emerging knowledge of natural climate cycles to predict abrupt climate changes. This is still imperfect, but so are the weather predictions. If the climate forecasts just refocused our attention to the reality that the climate is always changing, that would be a massive benefit. Appallingly, we almost voted voluntarily to renounce our energy — without real evidence of man-made warming.

Aaron Stover – Fossil Fuels and National Security

Recent remarks by Secretary of Defense James Mattis were evaluated as to how they were in compliance with President Trump’s own views of global warming.  Mattis remarked that “climate change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating today.  It is appropriate for the Combatant Commands to incorporate drivers of instability that impact the security environment in their areas into their planning.” 

Mr. Stover reasoned that it was up to Mattis to consider all factors, that climate has always been a part of defense planning, further stating that no reference was made to humans as the cause of global warming.

Questioned by Stover was the validity of the Climate-Security Hypotheses, which Stover said were based on IPCC (United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate) findings whose models are flawed with massively exaggerated temperature predictions.  As such causality is assumed without evidence. 

Stover went on to list five primary variables in the climate-conflict hypothesis, indicating how each one lacks credibility.

1.  Water:  This variable lacks empirical evidence as findings indicate there has never been a single war fought over water.

2.  Famine:  Climate security alarmists suggest rising temperatures and water shortages will reduce crop yields, but this ignores technological adaptation and the fertilizing effects of CO2.

3.  Resource Scarcity:  In recent times, no interstate conflicts have been driven by depletion of mineral resources.  Just the opposite has happened with improved resource extraction technology.  As with the water scarcity variable, economic incentives imply cooperation, not conflict.

4.  Refugee Flow:  According to Aaron Stover, very seldom do “climate refugees” resort to violence.

5.  The Arctic: Because of melting ice the theory is that an increase in Arctic shipping lanes could heighten instability.  Stover elaborated how doing the Cold War, the U.S. and U.S.S.R. conducted military operations without conflict at a time of greater instability. Current defense presence in five Arctic nations is akin to territorial policing.

Stover told a cautionary tale about the U.S. Navy “Farm-to-Fleet” Biofuels Program and how there is no reservoir of alternative fuels, nor will there be for the foreseeable future.  Furthermore, in 2011 the Departments of Navy and Agriculture partnered to deliver biofuel blends to power Navy ships and aircraft. “Green Fleets” 2012 maiden voyage used 50% biofuel-blend that cost $27/gallon, compared to $3.60/gallon for traditional fuel. From 2007-2014 the Navy spent at least $58 billion on alternative fuel, averaging $29.30 a gallon. 

In conclusion, Aaron Stover indicated the following as to why Climate Change Security Planning is futile and wasteful:

Efforts to link climate change to the deterioration of U.S. national security rely on improbable scenarios, imprecise and speculative methods, and scant empirical support.  Accepting the connection can lead to the dangerous expansion of U.S. security concerns, inappropriately applied resources, and diversion of attention from more effective responses to known environmental challenges. 

The danger of this approach is that it offers a sense of urgency which may not be warranted, given the gaps in the current state of knowledge about climate, the known flaws in the methods used to construct the scenarios of which these security scenarios are based, and confusion over the underlying causes of those security concerns. 

Article 1: Thorner:  New Chapter in Global Warming Debate Realized at Heartland’s ICCC-12

http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2017/03/thorner-new-chapter-in-global-warming-debate-realized-at-heartlands-iccc-12.html#more  

Friday, April 07, 2017 at 08:45 AM | Permalink

Comments

Thorner: Is the 1787 U.S. Constitution political science’s greatest gift?

By Nancy Thorner – 

What did the American Founders actually intend for the country and does it even matter today?

William Watkins, Jr., as the featured speaker at The Heartland Institute’s Wednesday evening free series of event, spoke about his book, Crossroads for Liberty: Recovering the Anti-Federalist Values of America’s First Constitution. Watkin’s book takes a surprising and thought-provoking look at the American Revolution, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and asks what we can learn from them.

William Watkins, Jr. is a research fellow at the Independent Institute. He received his B.A. in history and German summa cum laude from Clemson University and his J.D. cum laude from the University of South Carolina School of Law. He is a former law clerk to Judge William B. Traxler, Jr. of the U.S, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. He has served as a prosecutor and defense lawyer and has practiced in various state and federal courts. Other books include Judicial Monarchs: The Case for Restoring Popular Sovereignty in the United States, and the Independent Institute books, Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy; and Patent Trolls: Predatory Litigation and the Smothering of Innovation. 

William Watkins, Jr. introduced by Jim Lakely, Director of Communications at The Heartland Institute

William J. Watkins, in Crossroads for Liberty, rescues the Articles of Confederation from obscurity and condemnation. Watkins does not claim that the Articles constituted a perfect system, but it was a much better system than has been portrayed in history books.

For many years, the Articles of Confederation have been taught in American History class as having created too weak a central government, that it accomplished nothing, and that thankfully it was scrapped and replaced with the U.S. Constitution. Not so, according to Watkins. The Articles needed some reform, but it was a credible document before the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

Watkins likewise cleared up a misconception held by many that the Revolutionary War was all about taxation, brought to a head with the Boston Tea Party. Not true, he said. The argument was about sovereignty. Where did it lie? Did it lie in the British Parliament, or would individual states be able to govern themselves. In the Declaration of Independence, King George III of England was mentioned as the recognized power of authority whose removal was necessary for local state assemblies to achieve local rule.

Articles of Confederation Empowered State Governments

As to why the Articles of Confederation were adopted in the first place, patriot leaders at the time didn’t want some far off government telling them what to do concerning local matters. The Articles of Confederation were designed to let the people of each state govern themselves, while forming an alliance to maintain their independence. Delegates couldn’t serve more than three years out of a six-year period. In this way, legislators would feel the bit of the laws they passed.

In the aftermath of the Revolutionary War, Federalists like Alexander Hamilton began to express dissatisfaction with the Articles of Confederation, thinking it a hopelessly weak common government for the United States that needed replacement. Others, like anti-federalist Patrick Henry, strongly voiced how under the Articles of Confederation its government had put an army in the field for seven years to defeat the mighty British Empire. Said Henry: “Ditching the Articles of Confederation would only lead to an increasingly centralized government that would eventually result in weak states dictated to by a centralized government.”

Using the same reasoning as proclaimed by Patrick Henry, Watkins noted how the goals of the Articles of Confederation had been met:

• Great Britain was defeated. Hadn’t the British Navy ruled the world?

• Self-government and the states had been preserved.

But economic hardship did exist in the aftermath of the Revolutionary War due to the cost of achieving freedom from Great Britain – i.e. hard cash was limited, the protection of the British Navy was lost, as was the right to trade with the British West Indies. 

Ratification of Constitution Hinged on a Bill of Rights 

Federalists won the argument. Led by Federalist Alexander Hamilton, who believed a Constitution with a federal system of government could accomplish the same thing without the deficiencies in the Articles – and who further argued that because the Articles of Confederation were committed to states’ rights reform of the Articles was not possible — a Constitutional Convention was needed. Subsequently, a Constitution was written during the summer of 1787 in Philadelphia by 55 delegates to a Constitutional Convention that was called ostensibly to amend the Articles of Confederation (1781–89), the country’s first written constitution.

The new Constitution was submitted for ratification to the 13 states on September 28, 1787. It was ratified by nine states in June of 1788, as required by Article VII. The date of March 4, 1789 was set by Congress as to when the new government would begin operating, with the first elections under the Constitution held late in 1788. 

Why did four of the 13 states refuse to ratify the Constitution when first submitted to them? As Watkins explained, one of the many points of contention between Federalists and Anti-Federalists over the Constitution is that it lacked a Bill of Rights that would place specific limits on government power. Although nine states had ratified the Constitution by June of 1788, the key states of Virginia and New York would only ratify the Constitution after James Madison promised that a Bill of Rights would be added after ratification.

Two states, Rhode Island and North Carolina, refused to ratify without a Bill of Rights. In June 1789, Madison proposed a series of amendments to be debated in the first Congress. These amendments to the United States Constitution (10 of them) became known as the Bill of Rights.

Rough Sailing for the Newly Adopted Constitution of 1787

Watkins enumerated three lies that angered segments of the American population after they had been assured that certain things would not happen with the ratification of the Constitution.

1st lie

Farmers were told that the excise power in the Constitution wouldn’t be used except in unusual situations. The Whiskey Rebellion was a response to the excise tax proposed by Alexander Hamilton, who was Washington’s Secretary of the Treasury in 1791. In January 1791, President George Washington’s Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton proposed a seemingly innocuous excise tax “upon spirits distilled within the United States, and for appropriating the same.” What Congress failed to predict was the vehement rejection of this tax by Americans living on the frontier of Western Pennsylvania. By 1794, the Whiskey Rebellion threatened the stability of the nascent United States and forced President Washington to personally lead the United States militia westward to stop the rebels. Learn More

2nd lie

It was the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798, signed into law by President John Adams, that when put into practice became a black mark on the Nation’s reputation. People were lied to again. In direct violation of the Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of speech, the Sedition Act permitted the prosecution of individuals who voiced or printed what the government deemed to be malicious remarks about the president or government of the United States. Fourteen Republicans, mainly journalists, were prosecuted, and some imprisoned, under the act.

3rd lie

Alexander Hamilton’s claim that the Articles of Confederation were useless, and the only remedy was to draft a new governing document.

Anticipated Fears about 1787 Constitution Were Not Speculative in Nature 

Watkins suggested that our Constitution of 1787 is not the greatest gift of political science that the world has ever seen.

1. How can one size fit all with a nation of 50 states?

2. How can a national government be in charge of 300-plus million Americans? 

3. Shouldn’t individual states serve as laboratories of experimentation and policy making?

4. Does James Madison’s worry about the accumulation of power, which, he said “in one place is paramount to tyranny,” seem justified?

5. How can “We the People” monitor those we elect given the super-sized districts they represent? Watkins believes that the present system of limiting the House of Representatives to only 435 members is detrimental to limited government, for as the population expands those representatives become increasing disconnected to the very people they are supposed to be representing.

6. Can representative government even exist in a country of this size?

A massive shift of power happened when Senate members were elected. The Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution – proposed by the 62nd Congress in 1912 – established the popular election of United States Senators by the people of the states. The amendment supersedes Article I, §3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution, under which senators were elected by state legislatures.

As Watkins stated, the Founding Father reasoned that only licentious behavior and luxury could destroy the Constitution. Some 230 years later, this long-ago fear has been realized, as the founding principles of this nation have been eroded and cast aside in the interim. 

Human nature is flawed, and, as noted by Jefferson, “the chains of the Constitution” were needed, but what can now be done? As reasoned by Watkins, we certainly cannot return to the Articles of Confederation, nor is it possible to return to the Constitution, at least not as it was first conceived by our Founding Fathers.

Watkins suggested that general education is needed so the public, and especially young people, come to realize that the Socialism spouted by Bernie Sanders, embraced without even realizing what was being offered, is an evil and unworkable system of government.  

Selected Questions and Answers

Q: Why was the American Revolution different from revolutions in other nations?

A: Our revolution was based on the Rule of Law, whether sovereignty existed with the King of England or with state assemblies, which gave us a foundation upon which to base our government. The American people perceived that things were out of kilter and had to be restored.

Q: Is an Article V Convention a realistic plan? Is this an efficient way to address some of the flaws in our Constitution?

A: Watkins didn’t think it wise to take what we have and then trust that the results will be positive. As Watkins notes in his book: “There never have been enough states requesting a convention and this is for good reason. First, no one knows whether such a convention would be limited or unlimited in its scope. If the states requested a convention to consider proposing a balanced budget amendment, would the convention be prohibited from also offering amendments on matters such as abortion or capital punishment?” Watkins adds, “A convention could result in much chaos and constitutional uncertainty.”

“On paper,” Watkins laments, “they [the states] could demand a convention, but in reality Congress holds all the cards when it comes to constitutional change.” Instead, Watkins argues that “the states need the ability to propose and consider amendments without the involvement of the national legislature or the risk associated with a convention.” 

Q: Why the need for the Bill of Rights? 

A: People and states were fearful of a new federal government having too much power. 

Watch here the YouTube video of William J. Watkins, Jr. discussing his insightful book, Crossroads for Liberty. 

Wednesday, April 05, 2017 at 10:00 AM | Permalink