Global warming became a cause to save life on earth before it had a chance to become good science.  The belief that fossil fuel use is an emergency destroying our planet by CO₂ emissions took over the media and political arena by storm.  The issue was politicized so quickly that the normal scientific process was stunted.  We have never had a full, honest national debate on either the science or government policy issues.

By Karin McQuillan

It is not good for our country when a president of the United States singles out one group and tries to get the public to blame that group for the terrible problems facing us.  Democrats and Republicans don’t agree on much politically.  These days, we can’t even agree on the basic proposition that scapegoating is destructive.  Scapegoating tears a country apart.  It distracts us with false solutions when we are facing an economic emergency and have no time to waste.  And it raises the specter of violence — actual physical violence, with businesses destroyed and people hurt and killed.  Yet Democrats applaud President Obama’s scapegoating rhetoric.

The Rich don’t have enough  money to pay for $4,000,000,000,000 (that’s  trillions) a year in government spending — not even if the government confiscated 100% of their income every year.  Yes, that is every penny they earn.

Democrats could vote to take every penny of the income of families who make $100,000, and it still doesn’t pay for our yearly federal budget.  Why?  They earn only $3.4 trillion in taxable income.  Our president has spent $3.6 trillion this year, we are in debt for 15 trillion, and the looming Social Security deficit is over $50 billion this year — and $500 billion in a decade (again via the CBO).  And still the Democrats are asking for more.  The money isn’t there.

Either our government — that means both parties — faces reality and makes actual spending cuts, or we are finished as a prosperous nation.  If we don’t curb our spending, our economy will sink into something that made the Depression look like child’s play.

Note that this disaster is completely bipartisan.  The ballooning federal government has been created over decades by Republican and Democrat presidents and Congresses.  There are big forces of history at play — to name two of the biggest, longer lives and medical miracles are bankrupting Social Security, and China’s unfair trade practices have gutted our industrial sector.  Democrats and Republicans have failed to cope with these challenges.

The long-term problems aren’t Obama’s personal creation.  But he and his loyal base are responsible for how they choose to meet these challenges.  The summer debate on raising the debt ceiling focused the public’s attention for the first time on where we stand: right at the edge of the abyss.  Everyone is scared.  Fear gives rise to anger.  Obama’s poll numbers plummeted.  This is when scapegoating became the policy of choice for Democrats.

Obama’s pollsters told him that his chance of being re-elected on his record was zero.  But they had good news for him: Obama didn’t have to do anything as hard as tackling our economic problems.  He didn’t have to pivot to the middle and find bipartisan solutions as Bill Clinton did.  Obama didn’t need to change his budget proposal, which still calls for increased spending.  He didn’t need to respect the Tea Party’s grassroots demand for budget responsibility.  All he had to do was make speeches about how the rich are too greedy to pay their fair share.

So that’s what we’ve had since the Martha’s Vineyard vacation: three months of nonstop Blame Game.  It’s gone on and on because Obama’s loyal followers like it.  They think it’s strong leadership.

Obama was advised to scare people about Social Security, make them think Republicans are greedy, evil, moronic, “you’re on your own” extremists.   The liberal media and pundits are working overtime on the same message.  They are thrilled that Obama has changed the topic from the need to lower government spending to the unfairness of income inequality.  Of course, Obama promises Democrats that he will raise taxes on only Other People, the undeserving millionaires and billionaires.  No one has to do anything hard — the millionaires and billionaires will pay for it all.  Nothing has to be cut.  Nothing has to change.

I can’t help but smile as I write this.  Obama’s ploy is so childish, even ridiculous — and yet it works!  I heard each and every talking point coming out of my liberal friends’ mouths.  This is the power of leadership.  My smile doesn’t last.  It hurt me to see a friend’s love for her handicapped child abused, turned into gut-wrenching fear of Republicans — and then to see her gentle face all blurry and distorted with anger, a few inches from mine, as she yells into my face that Republicans want to abandon her child because we’re not willing to pay taxes.  In that moment, the potential violence of the OWS crowd became chillingly real.

We are getting toxic leadership from this White House.  Obama doesn’t have the power to destroy my old friendship.  But he does have the power to destroy our country.  Only Democrats can stop him.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/democrats_follow_obama_down_the_low_road.html

If you read this column completely and carefully today, you will learn about the true state of the scientific debate over global warming.  You will not get the truth about that from the Washington Post, the New York Times, or the rest of the self-regarded “establishment” media.  They are devoted to the fun and games of play acting as if there is no legitimate scientific debate over whether mankind’s use of low cost, reliable energy from oil, coal and natural gas portends catastrophic global warming that threatens life on the planet as we know it.

Recently, the media Knights Templar of the religious orthodoxy of man-caused global warming made a contrived pass at reviving flagging public respect for their fading catechism.  The occasion was massively overhyped and misrepresented reporting of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project.  But all that was new from that project was the departures from the official catechism.

The project reported only on the recorded temperature history since 1950 from temperature stations on land, which covers less than 30% of the earth’s surface.  As the project leader Berkeley Professor Richard Muller reported in a Wall Street Journal commentary on October 21, after obtaining and reviewing “more than 1.6 billion measurements from 39,000 [land based] temperature stations around the world… the result showed [drum roll please] a temperature increase similar to that found by other groups.”  Those are most prominently NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in the U.S., and the Met Office and Climatic Research Unit in the United Kingdom.

In other words, that is nothing new.  But this review and confirmation of the established land based temperature records that everyone working on the issue is familiar with was widely celebrated in the liberal/left Democrat Party controlled media as definitive new proof of the truth of the man-caused global warming religion.

Muller, however, was more intellectually honest than any of them in confessing in the Journal article that the BEST project involves no independent assessment of the question of “how much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects.”  But that is the whole issue in the global warming debate.

Muller also honestly admits that “The [land based] temperature station quality is largely awful,” noting that “A careful survey of these stations by a team led by meteorologist Anthony Watts showed that 70% of these stations have such poor siting that, by the U.S. government’s own measure, they result in temperature uncertainties of between two and five degrees Celsius or more. We do not know how much worse are the stations in the developing world.”  He adds that, “The margin of error for the stations is at least three times larger than the estimated warming.”

He also admits that the land based temperature records are corrupted by urban heat island distortions which are constantly growing over time, building in a warming bias.  He recognizes that the established temperature authorities mentioned above today use data from only about 2,000 weather stations, down from 6,000 in 1970, which raises questions about their selections among available sites.

Moreover, Muller admits the recognized temperature authorities try to homogenize the temperature records from the thousands of temperature stations around the globe to come up with a summary statistic of the degree of global warming, and serious questions can be raised as to how to do that, disputing a large portion of the warming attributed to humans.  Muller also confesses that one-third of land based temperature stations worldwide show cooling rather than warming.

These concessions are important to recount because of more basic problems with the established land based temperature record that Muller doesn’t confess.  Weather satellites measuring atmospheric temperatures worldwide, over land and water, which are not subject to the above troubles of land based weather stations, show no warming since their record began in 1979, and before that there was actually global cooling dating back to 1940.  The satellite record regarding atmospheric temperatures is independently confirmed by weather balloons.  Moreover, the computer based climate models utilized by the UN’s own Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and the atmospheric theory they rely upon, all insist that if man’s use of carbon based fuels was warming the planet, the atmosphere must be warming faster than the surface.

In addition, the scientifically recognized temperature proxy data from tree rings, ice cores, lake and ocean sediments, and stalagmites also show no warming since 1940.  Note that the warming before 1940 is attributable to the global recovery of temperatures from the Little Ice Age, and even the land based records show no warming over the last 13 years.

Fred Singer concludes as a result “It is very likely that the reported warming during 1978-97 [from land based weather stations] is simply an artifact — the result of the measurement scheme rather than an actual warming.”  When Singer sent a letter to the editor to the global warming cheerleading Washington Post, pointing out the above anomalies and his conclusion, he reports the peculiar response that “they were willing to publish my letter, but not my credentials as emeritus professor at the University of Virginia and former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service. Apparently, they were concerned that readers might gain the impression that I knew something about climate.”

But there is more.  Even the land based temperature record is not consistent with the theory of man-caused global warming.  That record does not show persistent warming following persistent growth of CO2 and other greenhouse gases.  Rather, it shows an up and down pattern of temperatures more consistent with natural causes.  Those include solar flare and sun spot cycles, and the periodic cycling of warm and cold water in the oceans from top to bottom, particularly the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO).

The truth is a vigorous global scientific debate persists over whether man’s use of carbon-based fuels threatens to cause catastrophic global warming, and the media not reporting that is not performing journalism.  The most authoritative presentation of this debate can be found in the 856 page, Climate Change Reconsidered, published by the Heartland Institute in 2009.  This careful, thoroughly scientific volume co- authored by dozens of fully credentialed scientists comprehensively addresses every aspect of global warming, and indicates that natural causes are primarily responsible for climate patterns of the last century.   Heartland has just published a follow up 416 page Interim Report updating the debate.

When you run across a Knight Templar threatening you with a lance and a sword unless you confess the truth of catastrophic man caused global warming, ask him for his rebuttal to Climate Change Reconsidered.  You will find the effect is like showing a cross to a vampire.

Indeed, the latest and best work actually provides scientific proof that the man-caused global warming catechism is false.  Fully documented work by Roy Spencer, U.S. Science Team Leader for the AMSR-E instrument flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite, and Principal Research Scientist for the Earth Systems Science Center at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, shows using atmospheric temperature data from NASA’s Terra satellite that much more heat escapes back out to space than is assumed captured in the atmosphere by greenhouse effects under the UN’s theoretical climate models.  This explains why the warming temperature changes predicted by the UN’s global warming models over the past 20 years have been so much greater than the actual measured temperature changes.

In August, 2011 came the results of a major experiment by the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), involving 63 scientists from 17 European and U.S. institutes.  The results show that the sun’s cosmic rays resulting from sunspots have a much greater effect on Earth’s temperatures through their effect on cloud cover than the UN’s global warming models have been assuming.  This helps to explain why the historical pattern of temperature changes seems to follow the rise and fall of sunspots, rather than the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.  This further confirms what Heartland’s Climate Change Reconsidered argues — that natural causes have the dominant effect on Earth’s temperatures, not greenhouse gases.

Finally, the UN’s own climate models project that if man’s greenhouse gas emissions were causing global warming, there would be a particular pattern of temperature distribution in the atmosphere, which scientists call “the fingerprint.” Temperatures in the troposphere portion of the atmosphere above the tropics would increase with altitude producing a “hotspot” near the top of the troposphere, about 6 miles above the earth’s surface.  Above that, in the stratosphere, there would be cooling.  But higher quality temperature data from weather balloons and satellites now show just the opposite: no increasing warming with altitude in the tropical troposphere, but rather a slight cooling, with no hotspot, no fingerprint.

So the scientific foundation for shutting down our modern, 21^st century, industrial economy has been obliterated.  But that is not stopping religious crusaders, due to the extremist ideology and special interests driving the global warming charade.

Commenters, you can pass on the ad hominem attacks.  No one is the least bit interested.

The truth is that the richer a country, and the more industrialized, the better that country takes care of the environment.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2011/12/01/salvaging-the-mythology-of-man-caused-global-warming/

A Simple National Energy Independence Strategy

By Bruce Stevens

The United States and Canada possess enormous conventional and unconventional oil and gas reserves that could not just make NAFTA energy independent, but also fundamentally change the global balance of power in oil and global geopolitics, breaking OPEC’s control and ensuring developing nations that their energy sources are secure.  All the U.S. government needs to do is two things: 1) open up these resources for development, and 2) put in a modicum of protection that will ensure that an OPEC price war does not (once again) crush North American production.  This second point will also encourage the development of non-carbon-based technologies.  Unfortunately, there are political forces in the U.S. that oppose any further development of carbon-based resources.

To understand the implications of these reserves, they must be put into context, both physical and economic.  According to the CIA, the world currently has about 1.5trillion barrels[1] of proven oil reserves, and humans consume about 87 million barrels a day[2] or 29 billion barrels per year, which would exhaust the reserves in about 46 years.  And while consumption is growing steadily, particularly with the rise of the Asian economic giants, many geologists have long believed that the world is at or near its peak production of oil and will see falling production henceforth.  (One can just Google “peak oil” to find a wealth of sites debating this point.)  However, with new discoveries cropping up frequently with the current high prices, including a large, 33-billion-barrel find in Brazil[3] and shale oil and gas reserves in many part of the world, the peak may be prolonged somewhat[4].

Of the global proven reserves, the Saudis hold the most with about 263 billion barrels, while the U.S. has less than 1/10 that — 21 billion barrels, or a little over 1% of global reserves.  Moreover, the U.S. is consuming about 1/4 of the world total, 20 million barrels day, and it imports half of that[5].

In addition, the current global oil reserves — known as low-cost or conventional oil — cost something under $15/barrel to produce, according to some former administration analysts[6].  Indeed, the Saudi and Iraqi fields cost only a few dollars per barrel to retrieve.  The combination of enormous supplies at low cost is why the Saudis and their OPEC allies in the Middle East have had control of global oil markets for over thirty years.

But into this bleak scenario have recently penetrated some bright rays of hope.  One is that according to numerous reports, there is a huge pool of oil sitting within the Lower 48 that could increase U.S. reserves tenfold and make the country energy-independent.  This reserve, known as the Bakken Formation, stretches from North Dakota northwest into Saskatchewan, and the U.S. portion is thought by some analysts[7] to hold between 175 and 500 billion barrels.  It is in a formation known as shale oil, which lies several miles below the surface in a narrow sheet of shale that must be reached by conventional drilling, then penetrated by horizontal drilling, and hydraulically fractured (or “fracked”) to shatter the rock to let the hydrocarbons leak out.  Such formations are considered “tight oil.”

On April 10, 2008, the U.S. Geological Service reported[8] that the Bakken contains “only” about 4 billion barrels of “technically recoverable” oil.  This estimate might be considered favorable but ultimately inconsequential, as it would represent only about a half-year’s consumption.  However, the key term, “technically recoverable,” means that this oil is accessible given current technology and economics.  It’s therefore critical to recognize that drilling technology is advancing rapidly.  Indeed, compared to the prior USGS estimate of the Bakken twelve years ago, the new estimate is 20-30 times greater.  If the total Bakken reserves are in fact about 400 billion barrels, then a mere 1% recovery rate would be extraordinarily and perhaps implausibly low.  Getting at those reserves may ultimately be only a matter of technology and cost.

The unusual characteristics of the Bakken make it a more expensive formation to discover and produce than the low-cost fields.  Numbers of $20-$40/barrel are bandied about[9].  The main indication of the Bakken’s production costs is that drilling is booming in the region, so at today’s prices, it is clearly attractive.

If the Bakken could produce half its estimated 400 billion barrels’ potential, it would be about the size of the Saudi reserves.  This alone could make the U.S. energy-independent for decades.  And there are other, similar shale oil formations in the U.S., such as the Eagle Ford deposit in south Texas.  But the Bakken is actually small potatoes.  The big game-changers, and other reasons for hope, are two other massive reserves, also here in North America.

The first of these is the Athabasca oil sands (or tars) in Alberta.  These reserves are now being developed, and in 2003, the Canadian government officially added 177 billion barrels — 2/3 as much as Saudi Arabia — to its reserves from these fields.  However, this is only about 1/10 of the total reserves of Athabasca[10].  In other words, this field holds more than the world’s proven reserves.  Like the Bakken, it is thought to be more expensive to produce than conventional oil — perhaps in the range of $35-$40/barrel[11], but also as with the Bakken, this field is enjoying a development boom.

The U.S. also has oil sands, in Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming, though relatively small — but still significant — at 32 billion barrels, and evidently not yet being commercialized[12].

The other big game-changer could be U.S. oil shale (as distinct from shale oil, like the Bakken and Eagle Ford), the reserves of which lie close to the surface in the Rockies and are estimated to hold 2 trillion barrels[13] — again more than the world’s conventional reserves.  The costs of producing these reserves are thought to be higher than oil sands, but well below the current prices of oil.  In fact, Estonia and Brazil are already producing oil from oil shale, and IDT Corporation is working on a project in Colorado and another in Israel[14].  While various critics have stated that oil shale would take a decade or more to produce, this writer has spoken to a knowledgeable congressional aide who reported that Shell is confident that it could have 1-2 million barrels per day in production within a couple of years of a green light.  But to produce these reserves would require substantial upfront investments that would not pay back for some years.

So why aren’t oil companies developing these massive reserves rapidly?  There are two main obstacles: competitive risk and political opposition.  Regarding competitive risk, oil-producers have witnessed huge swings in oil prices in the last 35 years, with peaks in 1974, 1979, 1991, and 2008 close to current levels (in inflation-adjusted dollars), with deep troughs as low as less than $25/barrel[15] in adjusted dollars in the mid-’80s, late ’90s, and 2009.  This bitter history and the prospect of similar price swings in the future increase the perceived risks associated with making the long-term investments necessary to exploit these resources.  Such risks chill, or kill, long-term investments.

The political impediment is even more imposing.  The environmental movement has pushed the Democrats to prohibit leasing of the oil shale deposits[16], which lie mostly under federal lands[17].  Republicans have made repeated attempts to open these reserves, but they have not been able to get anything to pass the Senate.  If they did so, getting their attempts signed into law would be problematic, as demonstrated by the political uncertainty surrounding obtaining federal permits to build the Keystone XL pipeline that would take Canadian oil from its sands to refiners along the Mississippi River and Gulf Coast[18].

To summarize: global production from conventional, low-cost reserves is not keeping up with demand growth; oil prices are near all-time highs and likely to rise farther if production can’t keep up with demand; but enormous supplies of higher-cost oil lie within NAFTA.  The only reasons why they are not being developed aggressively are politics and competitive risk.

To address the latter, imagine that the U.S. government imposed a “reverse tariff” on oil imported from outside NAFTA, so that as the world price of oil fell below a certain point — say, $70/barrel — the tariff would make up the difference and keep the North American price for crude at $70.  Producers of Bakken shale oil, Athabasca oil sands, and Rockies oil shale would have some security that prices would not force them to stop production, so they would be more willing to produce.

Such a policy would have several benefits, both economic and political.  Setting a price floor like this would not impose an immediate increase on consumers, as it would kick in only if prices fell by about one-third from current levels.  Indeed, such an increase may never be invoked.  On the other hand, it wouldn’t necessarily represent a hard floor — if North American sources turned out to be producible at lower-price levels, competition among producers would drive the price down below the tariff trigger.  The tariff would bite only if/when global oil prices cycled into a trough, from which they would eventually emerge anyway.  And the low, unlikely costs of having this tariff should be compared to these substantial benefits: making North America truly energy independent, free from supporting the hostile nations currently providing us our energy; increasing the world supply of oil, thereby reducing the prices available to those other oil-producing nations; liberating the U.S. from having to guarantee the sea lanes to the Middle East; giving China and other emerging countries confidence that they have ample sources of supply outside of the Middle East; creating thousands of jobs in North America, with the associated tax revenues for all levels of government; and — importantly for those who believe in anthropogenic global warming — establishing an historically high price for North American oil that should in turn stimulate both conservation and development of alternative energy sources.

There is more for progressives to like about this program than just encouraging the development of non-carbon-based forms of energy.  What could be more progressive than creating high-paying jobs in the U.S. and income for the working class and revenue for local, state, and federal government?  Moreover, there are four basic issues in the upcoming election: persistent high unemployment, income inequality, fiscal solvency at all levels of government, and national security.  Developing our national energy reserves would address all four simultaneously.  This should be a bipartisan no-brainer.

Without incentives like this tariff policy, the U.S. may ultimately develop its own oil resources, but the process will probably take much longer, and in the meantime, the U.S. will continue to run unnecessarily large trade deficits, forego thousands of jobs and billions of tax revenues and, to paraphrase New York Times columnist Tom Friedman, fund both sides of the jihad, and run the risk of having a catastrophic oil shortage and resultant price increases because of supply disruptions in the Middle East.  We have an opportunity now, with current oil prices, to break out of dependency on hostile oil states and establish a rational strategy towards energy independence.

Bruce Stevens received a bachelor in economics from Duke University and an MBA from Harvard.  He worked as the global energy coordinator for The Boston Consulting Group in the late ’80s and has been involved in the energy industry as a private equity investor and management advisor.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/a_simple_national_energy_independence_strategy.html

Not All ‘Protesters’ Created Equal

By Jack Cashill

Obama’s Job Description

By Cindy Simpson

A starting point for such an evaluation was recently provided in the 60 Minutes interview with President Obama.  Although CBS News described its segment as a discussion of “both [Obama's] accomplishments and the challenges he faces as he begins his quest for reelection,” many would argue that Obama’s role of campaigning has never ended.

Obama revealed his own view of his job early in the interview, when correspondent Steve Kroft asked: “Isn’t it your job as president to find solutions to these problems, to get results, to figure out a way to get it done?”  Obama answered:

It is my job to put forward a vision of the country that benefits the vast majority of Americans.  It is my job to make sure that my party is behind those initiatives, even if sometimes it’s breaking some china and going against some of the dogmas of our party in the past … And it’s my job to rally the American people around that vision.

Prior to hearing those remarks, many of us had been operating under the naïve assumption that the primary responsibility of the president was as sworn in the oath of office: to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.  We assumed that a president’s “vision” would harmonize with our founding documents, that the president would provide leadership to more than his own party, and that his “initiatives” would not “benefit the vast majority” to the detriment of the freedom and liberty of all.

The American Thinker article “President Obama, It’s Business, Not Personal,” analyzed the job of Obama as if he were an executive in corporate America:

As the man at the top, he sets the tone for the rest of us, and the best interests of all shareholders should be his top priority, all while operating inside the parameters of power granted him. He must be the number-one champion of his company’s product — the assurance and protection of our God-given rights of freedom and liberty. And he must faithfully represent his company, not some fundamentally transformed entity audaciously designed in his own mind.

Imagine a corporate executive saying something like Obama told Kroft:

[W]hen I came into office in 2008, it was my firm belief that at such an important moment in our history, there was no reason why Democrats and Republicans couldn’t put some of the old ideological baggage aside … And I think the Republicans made a different calculation, which was, “You know what?  We really screwed up the economy.  Obama seems popular.  Our best bet is to stand on the sidelines, because we think the economy’s gonna get worse, and at some point, just blame him.”

Most CEOs would never dare to make such whiny sentiments public, and we wonder what exactly Obama meant by the phrase “at such an important moment in our history.”  Surely he referred to our economic troubles, and not to his own election victory.  But then when Obama described to Kroft his view of Wall Street from “40,000 feet” above, it was difficult not to recall Newsweek’s Evan Thomas’ vision of Obama “standing above the world” as a “sort of God,” or the time that Obama, upon accepting his party’s nomination in 2008, declared: “…this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”  He has since informed us, however, that his presidential powers do not include “control [of] the weather.”

In a speech describing the presidency, Rep. Mike Pence wisely noted:

[W]e as a people are not to be ruled and not to be commanded … the president should never forget this; that he has not risen above us, but is merely one of us, chosen by ballot, dismissed after his term, tasked not to transform and work his will upon us, but to bear the weight of decision and to carry out faithfully the design laid down in the Constitution[.]

It goes without saying that the commander-in-chief should be loyal to our founding ideals.  Bows and apologies to the rest of the world and assertions that the American experiment of “a you’re-on-your-own economy … hasn’t worked … [and] it’s not gonna work in the future” display either a radically different view of our nation’s history or the desire to dramatically remake its character going forward.

Another president’s remarks have lately been making their way around the blogosphere:

Now, more than ever before, the people are responsible for the character of their Congress. If that body be ignorant, reckless, and corrupt, it is because the people tolerate ignorance, recklessness, and corruption. If it be intelligent, brave, and pure, it is because the people demand those high qualities[.]“[i]

While those words of wisdom by James Garfield were written over 100 years ago, his additional comments in the same essay are even more noteworthy:

The legislation of Congress comes much nearer to the daily life of the people than ever before.  Twenty years ago, the presence of the national government was not felt by one citizen in a hundred. … Now he meets it in a thousand ways.  Formerly the legislation of Congress referred chiefly to our foreign relations, to indirect taxes, to the government of the army, the navy, and the Territories.  Now, a vote in Congress may, any day, seriously derange the business affairs of every citizen. [ii]

Garfield would be shocked to see the level of derangement produced by our government today.  And he likely would never have dreamed that the burden of taxes are borne by only around half of the country, with a large proportion going to programs that redistribute to the other half or to pork-barrel spending.  And if Garfield was concerned about the engagement of the constituency in his day, imagine his horror at the realization that today’s electorate would likely never vote against the hand that feeds it, a hand that under the guise of governmental authority takes wealth out of the pockets of others.

Rather than considering “cutting taxes” or “gutting regulations” to boost our lagging economy, Obama instead has dug in his heels and demanded that wealthy Americans “do their fair share” plus “a little bit more.”  And if he lacks support, he asserted: “We’re just gonna keep on looking for specific things that we can do without congressional cooperation.”

Another president from the past viewed his role quite differently: Grover Cleveland, who “believed in keeping government expenditure at the minimum required to carry out essential constitutional functions.”  Cleveland famously vetoed the Texas Seed Bill, legislation that proposed to spend $10,000 on assistance to drought-suffering Texas farmers.  Cleveland stated:

I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution; and I do not believe that the power and duty of the General Government ought to be extended to the relief of individual suffering which is in no manner properly related to the public service or benefit. A prevalent tendency to disregard the limited mission of this power and duty should, I think, be steadily resisted, to the end that the lesson should be constantly enforced that, though the people support the Government, the Government should not support the people.

Cleveland could not find the power for a $10,000 grant in the Constitution.  Well, “folks,” guess what else besides the billions of dollars of today’s spending is not in the Constitution: the job description Obama has written for himself.

In the next few weeks, the GOP will begin the formal process of selecting its candidate.  In choosing the most qualified contender, we also affirm our idea of the proper role of the president.

Our founding fathers aptly designated the chief executive as the “President of the United States of America and Protector of their Liberties” [iii].  The best candidate is the one who aspires to that presidential job description.

Here’s something I never thought I would type: Barack Obama gets it, and Glenn Beck doesn’t seem to.

During his recent interview with 60 Minutes, Obama was asked by CBS reporter Steve Kroft how the president sized up the field of Republicans vying to be his opponent in 2012. Obama’s answer was candid and refreshingly accurate: “It doesn’t really matter who the nominee is gonna be,” he said. “The core philosophy that they’re expressing is the same. And the contrast in visions between where I want to take the country and what — where they say they want to take the country is gonna be stark.”

The president couldn’t be more right in that assessment — a reality that I think is lost on many of us who are political junkies. Those for whom the world of politics is either our livelihood or at least an obsessive hobby tend to view issues through a different lens and apply a level of detailed inspection to them that average citizens simply do not.

For instance, my wife and I watched the recent Republican presidential debate in Iowa together. She cares about her country and the direction it’s going, but she’s not the least bit interested in following the day-to-day drama of the presidential horse race. In fact, this was the first primary debate she has seen this year.

As the debate was unfolding, I noticed a remarkable difference in the way we perceived it. I was being hypercritical of certain responses or question-dodging, yet she was constantly saying things like “That was a good point,” or “I like him,” or “He knows his stuff.” When the debate was over, her comment was, “This is going to be hard, isn’t it?” But contrary to the media template that has emerged about the “epically weak Republican field,” she didn’t mean it was going to be hard trying to figure out which one of those jokers could possibly compete with Obama. No, when I asked her to clarify, she said, “It’s going to be hard to figure out which one of them to support when they all are so much better than what we’ve got.” Bingo.

While I was obsessing over the trivial differences in style or the substantive conflicts of specific policy between the candidates, my wife was looking at the big picture — each of those Republican candidates represented a marked departure from the Obama regime. And dare I say she is much more reflective of the hundreds of millions of eligible voters who will head to the polls next year?

That reality is what makes Glenn Beck’s recent comments so perplexing. Set aside the silly proposition that a Tea Partier who supports Gingrich over Obama is doing so only because of race. I attribute that nonsense to a frustrated Beck trying to draw attention to Newt’s progressive proclivities, rather than an honest indictment of a large swath of the population with whom he shares mutual respect and admiration. But Beck’s underlying assumption that a President Gingrich (or Romney, to a slightly lesser degree) would be a replica of President Obama is mystifying. And his further suggestion that he would consider a third-party alternative to Gingrich is beyond irresponsible, given that it all but ensures a second term of the very man Beck has rightly castigated as leading our country into the abyss.

As a man of integrity, I can only assume that Beck is charting this course based on principle. Fair enough. But as an admirer of Beck who recognizes the profound influence he wields on the right, I humbly ask: what principle does he hold that makes throwing Israel under the bus the best option? What principle does Beck hold that makes continuing to expand the practice of legalized child-killing the proper decision? What principle does Beck hold that makes the implementation and ingraining of ObamaCare into the fabric of our society a more noble choice?

Conservatives would be well-advised to make the case for their candidate in this primary and promote said candidate vigorously, while keeping in perspective what even the president himself understands: that all six of the individuals on the recent Republican debate stage represent a fundamental shift in philosophy from the current occupant of the White House.

Considering that Americans are now facing double the gas prices since Obama took office, almost double the unemployment from what it was the majority of Bush’s terms, double the debt, double the deficit, four times as many foreign countries under the thumb of the Muslim Brotherhood, fewer staunch allies who trust us, one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, more Americans than ever on food stamps, and the looming threat of a dramatic uptick in job loss as the president’s own signature “accomplishment” from his first term (ObamaCare) is fully implemented, that’s a reality that every conservative — including Glenn Beck — should be shouting from the rooftops.

Peter is a public high school government teacher and radio talk show host in central Indiana. E-mail peter@peterheck.com, visit www.peterheck.com, or like him on Facebook.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/12/what_obama_grasps_and_beck_doesnt.html

This incident was confirmed, in person, by Oath Keepers Tennessee Chapter President, Rand Cardwell. Here is Rand’s report:

“A fellow veteran contacted me concerning a new and disturbing development. He had been utilizing a Mormon cannery near his home to purchase bulk food supplies. The man that manages the facility relayed to him that federal agents had visited the facility and demanded a list of individuals that had been purchasing bulk food. The manager informed the agents that the facility kept no such records and that all transactions were conducted on a cash-and-carry basis. The agents pressed for any record of personal checks, credit card transactions, etc., but the manager could provide no such record. The agents appeared to become very agitated and after several minutes of questioning finally left with no information. I contacted the manager and personally confirmed this information.

This event points to a new level of federal government encroachment on the basic freedoms of the American people. Likewise, it points to a confused policy within federal agencies. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), in their “Are You Ready?” guide to “In Depth Citizen Preparedness” recommends that citizens store emergency supplies, including bulk food, in the event of a natural disaster or man-made event (the new politically correct term applied to a terrorist attack). The FEMA guidance is spot-on as it allows individuals and families to be self-sufficient during an emergency situation.

And here in Tennessee, we just learned that Nashville Metro Public Health and the Tennessee Department of Health are conducting “door-to-door assessment of disaster preparedness … using a tool designed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to go door to door and check to see how disaster ready you are. .. in 30 neighborhoods in Davidson County [TN] that have been randomly selected to be the target of a door to door assessment.” I have confirmed that that is a state run effort.

So on the one hand, government agencies both state and federal are urging you to be prepared and even checking up on you to see how prepared you are, and on the other hand, we now have federal agencies that are attempting to gather information on individuals that are following FEMA suggestions. What is the reasoning behind gathering this information? Are American citizens now being “listed” by DHS if they are simply following FEMA guidance and purchasing bulk food and emergency supplies for their families? It appears as so.

This should be a red flag to all Americans. Not unlike the “trip wires” identified in the Oath Keepers list of orders that will not be obeyed, this incident should be considered as further evidence that our federal government is out of control. What business is it of the government if any of us purchase and store bulk food? Answer: It is none of their damn business! Maybe during the next Katrina-type event federal agents will storm your home to take your food stores along with your firearms. We can only theorize as to the motives of the government for this type of “list” being developed, but it goes against the very fabric of what a free people should allow by our government.” – Rand Cardwell.

Additional comments by Stewart Rhodes, Founder of Oath Keepers:

As Rand noted, it was fortunate that this particular cannery does not keep records of its customers. And Rand is correct that this is a very serious red flag. There’s a very good reason why one of the top ten orders that active duty Oath Keepers will refuse to obey is “We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.” As our Declaration of Orders We Will Not Obey goes on to state:

“Deprivation of food has long been a weapon of war and oppression, with millions intentionally starved to death by fascist and communist governments in the 20th Century alone.

Accordingly, we will not obey or facilitate orders to confiscate food and other essential supplies from the people, and we will consider all those who issue or carry out such orders to be the enemies of the people.”

If those who carry out such orders to confiscate food are enemies of the people, then that same label also fits anyone in the government compiling lists of Americans who store food. There is no legitimate reason for the Department of Homeland Security to compile such lists. Al Qaida suicide bombers are not known to store powdered milk and buckets of wheat. Nor are they known to store away dehydrated carrots and instant potatoes, or fruit punch mix for the kids. But the Mormons are known to do so, and so are many other Americans who have the common sense and maturity to take personal responsibility for ensuring that their families will have food, come what may.

It is part of Mormon Church religious doctrine to store food for hard times and emergencies, with a recommendation that each family store a year’s worth of basic dry goods along with three months worth of store-bought canned and boxed foods. To facilitate that practice, the Mormon Church runs its own food storage canneries selling powdered milk, wheat, flour, rice and beans, sugar, salt, and various other dry goods either in bulk 50 lb bags or in #10 cans for long term food storage (up to 30 years for some items). These Church canneries also often sell food storage items to non-church members, seeing it as both morally right and prudent to help their neighbors store food, whatever their faith. The cannery in Tennessee that was “visited” by federal agents follows that practice of helping the general public become better prepared.

So why do federal agents want to know who is storing away long-term food storage? We suspect it is for the following reasons:

1.  DHS/FEMA wants to know which Americans have food storage so the federal government can at some future point confiscate that food. Just as with lists of gun owners, compiling such lists is the first step toward future confiscation.

2.  DHS wants to identify those Americans who are “switched on” and squared away enough to actually store food for coming hard times (such as during an economic collapse). That population of awake, aware, and prepared Americans poses a “threat” to whatever DHS and its masters have in store for the American people, and as Joseph Stalin so ably demonstrated, one of the easiest ways to subjugate defiant people is to confiscate their food and starve them into submission.

The federal government already tipped their hand by sending the FBI to military surplus stores (as we reported), gun stores, and pawn shops to encourage those businesses to spy on their customers who buy MRE’s (Meals Ready to Eat), bipods, “night flashlights”, high capacity magazines, rifle bipods, and bulk ammo. Maybe some of you fooled yourselves into thinking there might be some legitimate reason for them to track purchases of such items. But powdered milk and wheat berries? Those are hardly items that could be used in a terrorist attack. It must be the storage of food itself that the feds now find so offensive and so “dangerous.”

And while the door-to-door preparedness assessments in Tennessee appears to be well intended (and we spoke with a friendly state preparedness officer who said it was motivated by the recent natural disasters in Tennessee), Americans are well justified in being concerned about such efforts and how that information may be used in the future, in light of these other well documented and confirmed incidents of federal law enforcement collecting information on those who purchase preparedness items and indicating that the purchases of those items may be “indicators of terrorist activity.”

If you are one of the many Americans who still have on rose-colored glasses, or who still have your head buried in the sand (or stuck somewhere else warm and dark), it is time to pull your head out and face the reality of what the federal government is telling you by the actions of its agents. Those actions show both what they fear and their intent. What they fear are prepared, equipped, and “switched on” Americans, and their intent is to identify who they are, where they are, and then plan on dealing with them when the time comes. And rest assured that time will come. The recent U.S. Senate passage of S. 1867, which authorizes military detention and trial of U.S, citizens under the international laws of war (as if we were conquered Iraq or Afghanistan) is also an expression of their intent, and their contempt for the Bill of Rights.

Clearly, in light of the above, if you purchase food storage, along with any other preparedness items, you should be concerned about those purchases being tracked and your name winding up on some government list. But don’t let that stop you from storing food and other essential supplies, and don’t let this disturbing incident keep you from using your local Mormon cannery to do so. You need to get prepared. But do it while following the advice of James Wesley, Rawles over at www.survivalblog.com, who repeatedly urges his readers to “think OPSEC!” – if at all possible, buy with cash and pick it up in person, just like the customers of this particular cannery did, which left the “agitated” agents empty handed and frustrated. Good. That is as it should be. Don’t make it easy on them. And if you have not yet begun to store food, now is certainly a good time to start. You’re going to need it. Time is short, and you need to be prepared for what is coming.  “Are You Ready?” indeed.  – Stewart Rhodes

Recommended Preparedness and Self-reliance Resources:

http://www.providentliving.org/ (LDS website with links to church guidelines on preparedness and food storage)
www.survivalblog.com (one of the very best prepper websites, with tons of information.  Use the search feature and enjoy)
http://www.thesurvivalpodcast.com (EXCELLENT radio show by Oath Keeper Airborne vet Jack Spirko.  Also has great articles, forum, and how-to videos too)
www.operationsleepinggiant.com (an Oath Keepers sister project, just getting off the ground, to wake up veterans and get them focused on individual, family, community, and state: preparedness, security, sound money, and state sovereignty and independence).

www.alt-market.com (how to build strong communities, barter exchanges, food independence, sound money independence, the Montana Safe Haven State project, and excellent economic analysis by Brandon Smith).

www.americanpreppersnetwork.com (another great site with tons of information, a podcast show, articles, videos, and chat)

www.onpointtactical.com (innovative scouting, tracking, wilderness and urban survival school.  Stewart Rhodes has attended several of these classes and personally recommends this school to those who understand that “training trumps gear” as Kevin Reeve says)

http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2011/12/08/oath-keepers-alert-federal-agents-demand-customer-lists-from-mormon-food-storage-facility/

The pool of money is called the Green Climate Fund and is meant to channel an unspecified portion of a $100 billion in aid pledged by industrialized nations to developing ones by 2020. Christiana Figueres, the UN diplomat leading the talks, has said it must be a key outcome of two weeks of talks in Durban, South Africa that are due to end tomorrow.

The U.S., Venezuela and Saudi Arabia last week objected to a report laying out the structure and governance of the fund, delaying a final decision.

“It has made a lot of progress, it’s an area that’s among the most advanced in the negotiations, and I don’t have any reason to think that’s not going to conclude,” U.S. delegation chief Todd Stern told reporters today in Durban. “That’s going to get done. I’m confident of that.”

Stern’s comments echo those of envoys from Barbados, and Bangladesh, raising the prospect that the Durban talks, deadlocked over the thorny issue of the future of the existing climate treaty, the Kyoto Protocol, may result in the creation of a fund that’s prized by developing nations.

Source of Income

Even so, the fund will need to have sources of income, and developed nations have yet to pledge public funds. There’s a concern the fund shouldn’t be an “empty shell,” said Barbadian envoy Selwin Hart, who negotiates on finance for the 42-member Alliance of Small Island States.

“We need more signals from developed countries that they are willing to support this fund,” said Hart. “We can design a perfect institutional structure, but if there are no resources, it will not have the effect it must have.”

Hart said he’s “confident” the fund will be established in Durban, as did Bangladeshi negotiator Quamrul Chowdury, who said there is still stalemate on some outstanding issues.

Mexico’s environment minister said his country would like to host the fund’s secretariat because his country is a good “bridge” between the industrialized and developing worlds.

Germany also offered to host the Green Climate Fund and pledged 40 million euros ($53 million) for further operationalization and start-up costs.

U.K. Energy Secretary Chris Huhne said Britain intends to “support” the fund as soon as it’s operational.

Not Immediate

“We have heard that there are some developed countries that are waiting for the fund to be adopted in Durban before they announce money that they will put in the fund,” said Silvia Merega, an Argentinian envoy who negotiates for the G77 block of more than 130 developing nations and China. “We are skeptical on the capitalisation. We think it is not going to happen immediately.”

The green fund’s structure was largely agreed before delegates came to Cancun, and shouldn’t be a stumbling block, according to Mark Lynas, climate change adviser to Maldivian President Mohamed Nasheed,.

“Setting up the Green Climate Fund isn’t a deal breaker,” Lynas said. “The deal breaker is whether any money goes into it.”

http://newsrace.com/category/politics/