How to Change a Society from a Largely Free Democratic Republic to a Fascist Socialist Totalitarian State

1.  Divide individuals by gender, by ethnicity, by wealth and income, by education, by age, and by sexuality; 

2.  Pit one group against another using the force of government to provide unearned rewards to some at the expense of others by putting limits on the rights of individuals to earn a living, limiting their freedom of association, and their freedom to cooperate with one another; 

3.  Thereby, creating distrust and hatred as the factions fight to control the government that insists on hurting many, making it a threat to all, thereby making it a matter of life and death for each group to control the government;

4.  Watch a country that once honored merit in the market place, but became an unlimited democracy, succumb to greed for the unearned with the development of ever more special interest groups dependent upon government largess;

5.  The government-run and funded education system becomes a tool promoting more and more government powers, seeks to suppress all private education alternatives, seeks to suppress individual rights especially freedom of speech and the freedom of the press or media, promotes the collective rights of some groups at the expense of the rights of the individuals in other groups, and promotes versions of the country's prior history that diverge ever more from the truth such that more and more power and money flow to the government and the education system;

6. In which a majority coalition of those who have less wealth and want government forced transfers of wealth to themselves and those who most lust for power turn the country into a socialist, fascist country (very poor, primitive countries usually turn communist instead);

7. Which in turn comes to be ruled by the most brutal elements of the power lusters with a total loss of individual rights.

I read William L. Shirer's The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich the summer after the 9th grade and came to understand most of this.  I think I understood some of these lessons better than Shirer did.  There have been many further examples of this process since WWII.

Here is a very interesting analysis video of what we are presently facing based on a young woman's experience during the disintegration of Yugoslavia.

Real Climate Denial by Megan Toombs

Potential Democratic VP nominee misrepresents Cornwall Alliance on Senate floor

Megan Toombs

Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) is a potential running-mate choice for presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. Yet he recently joined other Democratic Senators on the Senate floor to attack the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation and other Virginia-based organizations, in an attempt to defend climate alarmism against its critics.

As has been the case with other attempts to vilify, intimidate and silence experts who disagree with alarmist views on global warming and climate change, Kaine presented an argument rife with logical fallacies – appeals to emotion, straw men, ridicule, oversimplification and misrepresentation.

The one thing the good Senator forgot to include in his speech was any sound science and ethics!

According to Kaine, the Cornwall Alliance is part of a “web of denial,” a “shadow organization,” “bizzaro,” and “greedy.”

Senator Kaine read just a tiny piece of our Open Letter to Pope Francis on Climate Change, in which we quoted Psalm 19. He then said, “So somebody is really using Scripture to argue that making our energy production cleaner, safer, cheaper, violates the Christian tenet of caring for the poor?”

No, Senator Kaine, if you read the full Open Letter, you would discover that it addresses both science and economics. More important, it explains that pushing wind, solar, biofuel and other technologies that are not currently cheaper or better for the environment also hurts those in poverty. You would also have seen that it was signed by hundreds of scientists, including over 20 climate scientists. But you didn’t mention any of that.

Senators Kaine, Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and others have banded together to attack the alleged “web of denial” that appears to be made up only of conservative organizations that they claim are funded by ExxonMobil and other fossil fuel corporations that they consider immoral – even though the energy they provide has been indispensable to lifting and keeping billions of people out of poverty, and even though ExxonMobil has not given any of these groups a dime for a decade or more.

Moreover, there is another “web of denial,” the one created by climate alarmist organizations that are funded by renewable energy corporations, wealthy liberal foundations and government agencies that stand to gain money, prestige and power from promoting scares about climate change. As Kathleen Hartnett White brilliantly demonstrates in her booklet Fossil Fuels: The Moral Case, they have been caught exaggerating, fabricating and falsifying data to support their views, suppressing contrary data, intimidating scientists who disagree, and corrupting the scientific peer-review process.

Senator Kaine claims that 70% of Virginians agree with the “scientific consensus” that catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is real and that “it is urgent that we do something about it.”

There is no evidence that 70% of Virginians (or Americans) agree with this. They may agree that global warming and climate change are “real” and that humans today are contributing somewhat to these cycles and fluctuations, which have been ongoing for millennia. But to convert that into saying a huge majority believe humans are causing catastrophic changes is disingenuous. To say they want to spend trillions of dollars to try controlling Earth’s climate has no basis in fact.

And what “scientific consensus” is he talking about? The “97% of scientists” that is the go-to statistic for alarmists has been debunked so thoroughly that it takes serious chutzpah to use it.

Then there is the fact (observable fact, mind you, not computer models) that shows there has been no statistically significant long-term global warming for nearly all of the last 19 years.

Yet they deny this too.

Carbon dioxide (CO2) has increased quite significantly during this time, as developing countries built coal-fired power plants, created jobs, lifted people out of abject poverty, dramatically improved the living standards for billions, built roads and highways, and put millions of cars and trucks on them. So where is the correlation between increased temperature and rising CO2 levels?

There is none.

No one argues that humans have absolutely no effect on the environment or on potential warming.

What is in question is whether human CO2 emissions will create temperature increases and other planetary changes so dramatic that they will cause catastrophes that justify spending trillions of dollars in vain efforts to stabilize climates and temperatures that have never been stable. What is also in question is whether we can ethically do so by restricting or eliminating the fuels that countries all over the world depend on for 80% of the energy that makes economic growth, jobs, poverty reduction, health and welfare possible.

Those trillions of dollars should instead be spent to lift billions more people out of poverty, and reduce the high rates of disease, malnutrition and premature death that invariably accompany that poverty.

Right now, the only “proof” alarmists have is computer model projections that are wildly inaccurate, and a “hockey stick” graph that is utterly worthless and has been derided by the scientific community for the ability of that computer model to create suddenly rising global temperatures when it is fed random numbers from a phone book.

That’s some serious denial – of the uselessness of climate models, of what is actually happening in the real world, and of the fundamental human right of people everywhere to use fossil fuels to improve their living standards, health and well-being.

__________

Megan Toombs is the Director of Communications for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation. You can follow her on Twitter @MeganToombs. 

This article has been published here at the request of Paul Driessen.

Global Warming Controls Pointlessly Hurt the Poor Most

I am going to summarize the key points of a Daily Caller article entitled "How the Poor Bear The Brunt of Europe's Obsession with Global Warming" by Andrew Follett.

The important points are:

• From 2005 to 2014, the cost of residential electricity in Europe increased by 63%, compared to a smaller increase of 32% in the USA, which was itself driven upward by Global Warming Policies.
• The poor in Europe are hurt by their global warming policies about 1.4 to 4 times as much as the rich are.
• Britains paid 54% more than Americans for electricity in 2014.  7% of their electricity bill is charges for subsidies for green energy.
• 38% of Brits have to cut back on the purchase of essentials thanks to their high electric bills.
• This is pointless suffering since catastrophic man-made global warming is a false hypothesis and because the 2005-2014 European reduction of 0.6 billion tons per year of CO2 emissions was swamped by the increases of just four nations, China, India, Indonesia, and Brazil, whose increase in emissions was 4.7 billion tons per year in that period.

Another critical aspect of the European policy of expensive electricity costs is discussed here.  The important points are:

• About 10% of Europeans live in energy poverty.
• 7 million German households are in energy poverty.
• Millions of Europeans had their electricity shut off resulting in 40,000 deaths this winter.

This is a terrible price being paid in the name of bad science.  Those who insist on the bad science and the political barriers to inexpensive and reliable fossil fuels are performing very evil acts.  So many of those who are most vociferous in claiming a scientific consensus for catastrophic man-made global warming also claim to be champions of the poor.  Apparently, they need to make many more people poor so they will have more justification for their subsidies for the poor and claims for the need for income equality!

Soaking Electricity Customers with Taxes in Maryland

I just received my January electricity bill for electricity used in the 33 days from 5 December 2013 to 7 January 2014 for my laboratory.  The total BG&E bill was for $158.20, which was a very small bill compared to months when we are running air conditioning.  Our heating is with natural gas.  The bill breaks down as follows:

BG&E Distribution and Account Services = $119.92
Electricity Generation Charges = $16.08
Maryland Taxes = $22.20

My laboratory paid 1.38 times more in taxes than it paid for the actual generation of the electricity we used!  Taxes were 14.0% of my total bill.

Of these taxes, the biggest single tax is the Maryland Universal Service Program charge which is a flat monthly fee of $10.29 to provide welfare aid to the poor.  Interestingly, this fee of $10.29 is also subjected to the 6% sales tax, so this is really a charge of $10.91 each month.  Note that this is discriminatory against very small businesses, since it is a fixed fee.  It is also, as are other charges on the bill, a disincentive to reduce one's energy use since it is not proportional to energy use.

Another tax is the Francise Tax, which is proportional to the number of kWh used.  That tax is also subjected to the 6% sales tax!  The remaining tax is an Environmental Surcharge, which was the only tax not subjected to the 6% sales tax.

The 14% taxation is not the whole story.  The state of Maryland buys into the same ideas on energy that Obama does.  Gov. Martin O'Folley does everything he can to increase energy costs.  BG&E and electricity generation companies have to pay the high costs of the solar and wind generation schemes favored by the Progressive Elitists, as well as biomass fuels.  Fortunately, these increased costs have been offset by the lowered cost of natural gas and a program which allows one to buy electricity supplied by companies other than BG&E.

Medicaid and ObamaCare are Racist

The Progressive Elitists have told us over and over that those of us who believe one should have to have photo identification to vote are racist.  Of course there are many actions for which a photo ID is required, such as setting up a bank account.  That is not just a bank policy, but it is actually required by law.  One is sometimes also required to show a photo ID to enter a courthouse or many a federal facility.  All apparently racist policies.

Why is it racist to require a photo ID?  Well because the poor are more likely to be of certain racial or ethnic groups and the poor are less likely to own a car or have other easy transportation.  They are also less likely to have a stable address.  Yet, ObamaCare either requires you have a computer, or go to a few sparse and undependable centers for registering, or to undergo an exchange of mailings which tends to depend upon a stable address.  It clearly discriminates against the poor by the criteria of the left.

Now many of the poor will qualify for Medicaid in those 26 states that chose to expand Medicaid under the PPACA or ObamaCare law.  How do they apply for that Medicaid once they find out they qualify for it?

• Go to your Social Security, health department, or social services office.
• Produce a birth certificate or a passport
• Produce your Social Security card
• Produce a utility bill with your address on it
• Provide a recent paycheck or a tax return
• Provide a photo ID

Now, having enrolled in Medicaid, call and travel all over tarnation trying to find a doctor who will actually treat any medical condition for the severe underpayment amount provided them by Medicaid.  Clearly, the Medicaid program does not consider those on it to be worthy of an adequate payment for their medical care and has no concern for their travel time or problems, long waits for care, or even if they can actually find care at all.

As is usual for Progressive Elitist programs for the poor, it is all a pretense and there is no actual concern for the poor.  Yet, the existence of the programs is supposed to fool everyone into believing that they care, while those of us who point out the absurdity of the programs are claimed to be uncaring and racists by criteria the Progressive Elitist laws themselves require.

• Birth certificate or passport
• A power or light bill showing your address
• Something that shows your Social Security number
• A recent paycheck or tax return

Let's see; did I forget anything? Oh, that's right… A PHOTO ID!

Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/12/obama-racist-promoting-obamacare/#ep0PgVDhw432vRDE.99

Did You Know that We Need Big Government to Protect Us from Walmart?

Walmart is the biggest retailer in the world, with $443.85 billion in sales in 2012.  It has 2.2 million employees.  It offers low prices to bring in customers for the goods it efficiently supplies.

The U.S. federal government can only tell us how many employees it had in 2011.  It had 4.403 million employees.  The state governments had 3.779 million full-time employees and 1.534 million part-time employees.  The local governments had 10.786 million full-time employees and 3.202 million part-time employees.  Each of these governments inefficiently supply services for which their customers are forced to pay.  They also produce copious mandates that the People are forced to obey. They command forced labor from employers and businesses for the convenience of government.  Federal, state, and local governments all produce mandates that Walmart must obey.  Federal, state, and local governments spent a mere $6.5 trillion out of the national GDP of $15.0 trillion (43.3%) in 2011. 

Now which of these would a rational person fear, Walmart or Government?  I fear Government, but Progressive Elitists fear Walmart!  Yes, they offer Walmart as a primary reason why we must have Big Government.

Why?  Well the story is that Walmart moves into a town or small city and offers goods at such low prices that they drive all other businesses that used to be in the town out of business.  Walmart pays its employees so poorly that they are in danger of starvation and poverty overtakes the town.  A minimum wage increase mandated by government is required to make Walmart pay a "living wage."  In addition, Walmart is killing American jobs because it brings many of its goods in from other countries.  Walmart is a monster, a very unethical killing machine!  Progressive Elitist after Progressive Elitist will use this story to justify Big Government, including MBAs from the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and the Columbia Business School.

OK, let us ask a few questions about this story. 

When Walmart moves into a town, how does it find the manpower to open its store before it has driven all of the other businesses out of business and taken their employees away?  Does it not have to pay prevailing wages to induce those initial employees to work for them?  It is common for new stores to have tens of applicants for each person they can hire.  Yes, according to studies for every 100 jobs created at the Walmart store, in time about 50 retail jobs in other stores are commonly lost.  Yet this is a sizable net creation of jobs.

It is said that Walmart is evil for putting many other retail businesses out of business.  But all Walmart does is to offer products for sale at good prices.  It is up to the people who used to go to the pre-existing retail stores to actually choose to go to Walmart.  They are the ones who do not go to Joe's Grocery Store and Madeline's Clothing Store.  They have the option to choose to pay higher prices in those stores and support those who have long been in their community.  If anyone made unethical choices, would it not be these customers who had no loyalty for the original shop owners of their towns?

Of course, it is not always the case that these smaller stores were even doing their best to provide the lowest prices they could.  A few of them may have taken advantage of having little competition in the town for the kind of goods they sold.  Some of them morally deserved to go out of business in many cases.  No doubt others did work hard to provide the best service they could, but so surely did many a buggy maker, a stabler, a blacksmith, a wagoner, and a saddler when they were mostly put out of business by the advent of cars and trucks.  Logically, the Progressive Elitist claim would be that all car and truck makers and trucking companies were unethical in putting these older companies out of business.

On Black Friday, there were labor union organized protests at many Walmart stores.  They claimed that 825,000 Walmart employees make less than $25,000 a year.  This may be true, but many of them are likely part-time employees.  The majority of Walmart employees are full-time, which is actually unusual for retail stores.  The average full-time associate earns $12.81/hr. and the average employee (full and part-time) earns $11.83 per hour.  Walmart says that 99% of its employees make more than the minimum wage in their areas, which is highly at variance with the usual story told casually by the usual Progressive Elitist.

Walmart, in a McKinsey & Company study that George Will referred to in 2006, found that Walmart contributed 13% of all of the national productivity increase in the late 1990s, which held down inflation greatly and made Bill Clinton look good as President.  It accounted for $200 billion in savings on the cost of goods each year, which is surely a larger savings now that Walmart is even bigger.  George Will pointed out that the average Walmart shopping household makes less than the national average, so these cost savings go to these poorer households, doing them much more good than food stamps and earned income tax credits did for them then.  But as usual, one can count on the Progressive Elitist, who claims to champion the poor, to actually abhor anything that really helps the poor outside of a government dependency program.  They hate Walmart.

But, Walmart's business model depends upon these less affluent customers and those customers respond in droves by going to Walmart for its convenience and low prices.