Democrats and the media are either incapable or just too lazy to see things from a perspective different from their own. This is very evident in the coverage of the recent summit meeting between President Trump and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un.
The Press and Democrats have consistently described the meeting as ill-advised, premature and lacking in preparation. They have been so biased that it is rare to hear them refer to it in any other way than “the failed summit.”
The fact that President Trump has gotten further in the negotiations than any other administration is at least deserving of a pause to consider a different perspective.
The Press has reported that the intelligence agencies have judged that North Korea will never give up their Nukes and that Trump is ignoring the intelligence. What is their point? Are they suggesting that Trump should give up and resort to a military solution? Isn’t it possible that our President has a different vision than previous administrations have had and is more optimistic than the intelligence community, the Democrats and the media? I think that President Trump believes that North Korea can achieve a level of economic security that will substitute for the nukes. Democrats and other Republican administrations have always seen the only solution as regime change achieved perhaps through military intervention. They always seem to think that a new regime will somehow magically resort to a democratic form of government as a result of being attacked. The track record for this approach is dismal at best.
Perhaps President Trump believes that taking the Dictator to other places, such as Singapore and Hanoi, might send a different message. It is a message that says we are not trying to replace you and we recognize and trade with these other countries and governments without threatening them because we are not threatened by them.
The media asserts that the Trump team was not prepared for the summit because they were not working enough with other people in the Korean delegation and because the summit did not result in a final deal. This is disingenuous for a couple of reasons. First, the Trump team has been working with the Koreans. Second, the Koreans do not have as much freedom to negotiate as the Press is attributing to them. It is more ignorant because the Press is fully aware that the Democrats in the Senate are still blocking many Trump appointees that might help. By and large I don’t think dictators are inclined to make concessions to committees of lower level people.
The Democrats and the media continually bounce around between fears that Trump will accomplish nothing or that he will give away too much. This perspective is driven by their experience with previous administrations and their inability or unwillingness to think. They have never made any real effort to understand the President and are thus incapable of considering what he might be trying to accomplish. This is why they can’t decide whether they believe a deal will never happen or that Trump is a failure because it hasn’t happened yet.
I have a different perspective as a result of watching the President and trying to understand him, as well as applying the information that is provided.
I think the President has put a grand deal on the table backed by strong sanctions and has no intention of accepting anything less. I think the summit had an immense value in delivering the message that he is willing to negotiate the details but not the final outcome. It might be that he and his team came to believe that Kim Jong Un needed to hear this message directly from the President in a very public way in order to send a message to Korea, Russia and China.
Hopefully, Korea, Russia and China are smarter and more capable of listening than the Democrats and the media. There is every reason to believe they are smarter. Either way, the President has sent a very clear, strong and effective message.
The Real Message of the Hanoi Summit
Press lies about Cohen testimony
The Press coverage of the public testimony by Cohen in front of the House Intelligence Committee has been at least incompetent and more probably deceptive and biased. The Press complains that the Republicans spent their time calling Cohen a liar and never directly refuted anything Cohen presented.
The earliest questions put forward by the Republicans were indeed directed at Cohen’s credibility. However, in relating this, the Press has conveniently ignored the very first complaint that the Democrats failed to provide any advance information about Cohen’s testimony or opening statement to the Republican’s as required by the Committees own rules. Thus, the Republicans had no knowledge of what accusations would be made.
In spite of this, the Republicans challenged a number of Cohen’s accusations and identified several discrepancies in his testimony.
Cohen claimed that payments he made to “Stormy Daniels” were uniquely a payment driven by the fact that Trump was running for President. Cohen went on to testify that the Trump organization had practiced “catch and kill” to pay off would be detractors over the entire period of Cohen’s relationship dating back to 2007. Democrats tried to establish that the payments were a campaign paymrnt, even though a personal payment from Trump would not make it so. Cohen testified that he received twelve payments for legal services greatly exceeding the value of the payment he made and declared these payments as income on his taxes totaling contradicting the earlier testimony and the Democrat’s assertions.
Cohen claimed that a phone call from Oliver Stone reporting that Julian Assange intended to release a volume of emails damaging to Hillary Clinton constituted a confidential agreement and advanced knowledge of the event by President Trump. The Republicans established as every reporter should know that the anticipated release had been publicly announced and was well known for over a month.
Cohen testified that he had a change of heart about Trump as a result of the events in Helsinki and Charlotte. The Republicans demonstrated that Cohen had submitted a manuscript for a book praising Trump a year after those events.
Cohen testified that he had never sought a position in the White House. The Republicans presented evidence including court documents from the Southern District of New York saying the opposite.
Perhaps the most ludicrous example of the deception is the testimony about the supposed collusion based upon the Moscow Hotel deal. Cohen has plead guilty to lying to Congress about the length of this process and the Democrats and media have accused Trump of lying because he said he had no business in Moscow. Based upon Cohen’s testimony the only activity on this effort was that the Trump Organization had submitted a proposal. The submission of a proposal does not constitute the establishment of a business relationship. Cohen testified that in response to queries by Trump, the only thing Cohen could tell him was that there had been no advancement of the proposal. Cohen testified that he was not even able to establish the real owners of the property they were interested in. What makes this so ludicrous is that it conflicts with the entire idea that Russia was interested in influencing or helping Trump. If the Russians were interested in compromising or influencing Trump, why would they simply ignore this entire area of Trump’s business interest?
The fact that the Press continues to lie about these issues is disturbing, but not nearly as upsetting as recognizing the lies being put forward by the Democrats. It is time to hold everyone in the Government who lies accountable for their deception without consideration of their Party affiliation.
Why Obama Officials should lose their security clearances
Security clearances are given only to people who require access to classified information in order to do their jobs. They are not a privilege or a perk.
People who get security clearances are required to go through a rigorous background check in order to assess their suitability for having a clearance.
The fact that a person gets a clearance does not grant that person access to anything classified. They must also have a legitimate need to know the classified information in order to gain access to it.
One of the rules about security clearances is that when you leave the job requiring the clearance, you lose your clearance. This is because you no longer have a need to have access to the information. You may not lose your clearance if you stay in the same organization and still require access, but when you leave you are supposed to lose your clearance.
Here is a real life example. When I went to the Naval Academy I received a clearance for material classified as confidential because my training required me to have access to that level of information. I did not have access to anything classified as secret or top secret because I did not have a need. When I was assigned to a submarine as an officer I was given a secret clearance because I needed access to that level to do my job. When I got more senior duties my clearance was upgraded to top secret again because my duties required it. When I left the submarine to teach at the Nuclear Power School, my clearance was downgraded because I no longer needed access to top secret information. When I left the military for civilian life my clearance was taken away because I did not need it anymore. When I went back to work for the Navy Department I received a new clearance based upon the requirements of my job and when I left Government Service my clearance was again removed.
Having a security clearance requires that you follow the law and protect the information you are granted access to.
John Brennan had questionable things in his background that should have made getting a clearance difficult, but he passed the examinations and was granted a clearance. As CIA director, he violated the law several times and should have had his clearance revoked as well as being removed from his position. It is documented that he spied on members of Congress which is against the law and he has lied to Congress while under oath on at least two occasions. These facts alone should require the removal of his clearance.
The idea that Brennan requires a clearance in order to discuss his past actions or assessments is a stupid and obvious lie. Brennan already knows what he knows. He can talk about it to members of the administration who have appropriate clearances at any time they ask as long as they do it in a classified setting. He would only need a clearance if the administration wanted to share new or current information with him. Given his illegal behavior he should not be given access to anything. He is a security risk.
As for the other members of the Obama administration who are being considered for having their clearances removed, some are extremely and obvious decisions. Those who have been fired, left their jobs, or reassigned for bad behavior, should have their clearances removed. Those who have left no longer require them and they have all failed to demonstrate through their behavior that they can be trusted.
Accusing the President of having an enemies list and trying to punish his political rivals is another obvious and stupid lie that can only be believed by people who simply don’t know how clearances are managed or who are so politically biased that they choose to ignore the obvious truth.
The real question that should be asked is why did President Obama allow these people to continue to hold clearances when they should have had their clearances removed.
The Truth about Trump trade Tariffs
President Trump has stated his belief that having a strong steel industry is a National Security issue. His argument is based upon the idea of having a secure manufacturing industry and the necessary raw materials in the event of a war that would otherwise allow an enemy to shut off our supply of steel. This would make it impossible for us to build, repair or maintain military hardware. We would lose the war under those circumstances.
The broader truth is that no economy, even in peacetime, can survive without a manufacturing sector. Every economy has three basic sectors. The most essential is an agricultural sector. We have to eat and we need farmers to produce our food. The second tier of any economy is manufacturing. This sector produces everything else that we need including basics like housing. Importantly, it is the manufacturing sector that is responsible for all increases in productivity because this sector creates and produces all of the tools we use to be more productive. The third sector of the economy is the service sector. This sector includes everyone who does not directly support one of the other two sectors and includes the government. The most important thing to understand about the service sector is that it does not produce anything. The service sector requires that the economy must produce enough profits in the other two sectors to pay for the service sector.
In the context of trade wars, people in governments understand these basic concepts. Most citizens in the United States do not understand these basic relationships.
Hostile governments (China) have been using trade relationships to undermine our economy. By dumping steel at prices well below the cost of producing it, China has greatly weakened the steel industry in every other industrialized country.
The reason China can afford to do this is because we give them almost half a trillion dollars every year through our trade deficit with them. We are the enablers.
Taxing steel imports is the right thing to do. However, these taxes should be structured in a way that hurts China and not our allies. Those who call themselves our allies but who are selling us steel produced in China should not be exempt from the taxes.
China may retaliate, but it will not be like the liberals anticipate. Liberal administrations like Obama have always fallen prey to this notion that we have to have cheap goods from China for our economy to survive. The opposite is true. China needs us to buy their goods in order to execute their military ambitions.
Trump understands this and will do the right thing for America.
An Open Letter to the Students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School and to America
I listened to the impassioned speeches of the Students who rallied in Tallahassee in support of better gun control laws. Many of them made extremely relevant and important points. One said they had lost confidence in the Government. Another said he did not know what the right answer was, but he knew we were not doing enough. These ideas are at the heart of the problem, but sadly do not identify the cause of the problem and consequently the solution.
I have many things I want to tell you. Perhaps now is not the best time, but they are important and will ultimately help you understand the world you are inheriting. Perhaps you will choose to keep this letter close and read it from time to time.
First, no law prevents crime. A law simply tells you something is illegal and tells you the consequences for violating it. If laws prevented crime, there would be no criminals. It is true that laws may reduce crime by discouraging some people from committing crimes, but I rely upon the original statement. Ultimately, laws do not prevent a determined person from committing a crime. You may decide that new gun laws are important, but you should not be so naïve that you believe they will stop people from using guns to kill people or prevent evil people from finding other ways to accomplish their goals.
There are many things you should understand about your government and the Constitution. One thing is the real meaning of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment talks about guns and a well regulated militia. The idea behind the Second Amendment is far more important. The idea is that your life is an inalienable right. You have the right to defend yourself against any assailant even if it requires you to use deadly force to do so.
There are a couple of ideas about the Constitution that will help you understand what is wrong with our Country and explain why you cannot trust your government. In the simplest terms, the Constitution created the Federal Government. It tells each of the major players what they have the authority to do and more importantly what they cannot do. The Tenth Amendment reads “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” In simple terms, if the Constitution does not tell the people in the Government they can do something, they have no business doing it.
This idea that the power of the Government is limited is hated by politicians. They will go to all kinds of lengths to tell you it should not be limited. One of the worst of these is the idea that a decision by the Supreme Court is superior to anything else. This violates the basic principle that the Constitution is the Supreme Law. It also violates the idea of three co-equal branches and allows the court to make laws over the will of the legislature. It allows the Supreme Court to circumvent the amendment process. As simple and logical as this sounds the government has been successful in planting this idea in all of our law schools and virtually every lawyer is willing to accept this as true.
A second, equally dangerous idea is that the Constitution is a living document. The Founding Fathers understood the Constitution might need to change. That is why they created the amendment process. They did not give anyone the authority to interpret the Constitution. The responsibility of the courts is to interpret issues in our society to see how the Constitution applies to them. If the Constitution does not address something, it most likely means it is an issue for the States, not an excuse to interpret the Constitution and give the Federal Government more power.
The basic idea behind our Constitution is that people who want to be free and to govern themselves must be both capable and willing to do so. Our Founding Fathers told us when they created the government that it was the responsibility of us, the citizens, and a free press to hold the government accountable to the Constitution. Over the last two hundred years or so, you would have to say we have failed.
The ambition of politicians to take more power upon themselves and our willingness to avoid responsibility by asking the government to solve all of our problems has brought us to where we are today.
The simple truth is that no government in a free society can solve all of your problems and protect you from all calamities. The only way a government can do that is to take away all of your freedom and not allow you to do anything that might cause harm to yourself or someone else.
The simple and hard truth is that the Federal Government cannot solve this problem. If you place your trust in them to solve it, it will keep happening. This problem has to be dealt with at the local level.
The reason no one prevented the tragedy at your school is that no one wanted the responsibility. Perhaps they were afraid if they tried and failed, they might be blamed for it. Perhaps they just thought it was someone else’s responsibility. Clearly, all of you knew the risk. Interviews with your classmates demonstrated that the students knew the risk. Did you tell your parents? Did they know? Clearly the teachers and the school administration knew the risk. They first restricted the person and then expelled him. They must have known that would not prevent the atrocity. In other similar situations firing or expelling someone has actually acted as a trigger to initiate the violence. Clearly, the local police knew the problem and the risk as did at least one health official. And, yes, the FBI knew as well.
The problem is that everyone expected someone else to take care of the problem. No one felt it was their responsibility to do anything more than they did.
I applaud your ambition and commitment in going to Tallahassee. More importantly, I hope that you have learned that, as harsh as it sounds, you could have done more. I do not tell you that to make you feel guilty or to place blame. I tell you that because I want you to be empowered by your freedom. It sounds like I am telling you that you are responsible. Yes, that is what freedom is. Freedom is taking responsibility for your own life in every circumstance. It does not mean you do not make mistakes. It means you can learn from them. What you do with that knowledge is your choice. You can help other students and faculty at other schools understand what they need to do and that the government will not be able to protect them.
As I watched your speeches today in Tallahassee, I was impressed with your emotion and passion. I felt the pain you expressed. Your stories brought tears to my eyes. But I must caution you. We do not do our best thinking when we are reacting emotionally. In fact, it makes us extremely vulnerable to manipulation. I’m sure, if you think about your experiences while preparing for and attending the rally, you will be able to identify people who were taking advantage of your emotion to promote their agenda on gun control. There will be other people trying to do the same thing in the future. This tactic is not limited to any party or to any issue. All politicians as well as the media use this tactic.
With the passage of time, your emotions will subside at least to a degree. I hope for you that your passion does not diminish. I would like for you to learn to listen to politicians and media to identify those people who are appealing to you emotionally and those who are appealing to you intellectually. You will find the right answers through your intellect. Learn to avoid being manipulated emotionally.
There are many ways you can honor the memory of your lost friends. One of the ways that will have the most impact in your own life and the life of your community is to learn the real history of the founding of our Country. One of the things you will ultimately learn is that the divisions in our society are not an accident of nature. They are a contrivance of career politicians who use these divisions as a tool to distract us from a simple truth and maintain their own power. This simple truth is the fact that the struggle for freedom is not a struggle between blacks and whites, liberals and conservatives or between any religious groups. The struggle for freedom is a struggle between people who would be free and their government.
Do not rely on other people to teach you this history. Powerful people do not want you to understand it. All of the original documents are available. You can read all of the debates and everything the Founding Fathers wrote. A good place to start is to get a good book on the founding and start looking for the real documents. As you learn, share your experience with your family and friends. When we all start to understand the truth about our country and our own responsibility, we can start to see everyone else as an equal participant without the political manipulations.
Understanding our common history is the path to unity.
Congress violating Constitution
Recent news reports have exposed the existence of a secret slush fund in the Congress to settle sexual harassment and other personal claims against members of Congress. This fund appears to use taxpayer money supplied by Congress. To date Congress refuses to give details about how this fund was created, who has used it, and who has been paid by it.
Article I Section 9 of the Constitution says “No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriation made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all Public Money shall be published from time to time.”
Presumably members of Congress know what the Constitution says since they have all taken an oath (required by the Constitution) to support and defend it.
To date the response of Congress to this issue has been to pass a bill requiring sexual harassment training ignoring the obvious violation of the Constitution.
Article I Section 5 of the Constitution gives the Congress the power to discipline and expel members for disorderly behavior. Surely, violating the Constitution should be a punishable offense.
If the Congress fails to correct this problem and appropriately punish those responsible, the Justice Department should file suit with the Supreme Court to address this issue.
The NFL Protests-A Collossal Failure to Communicate
A quick review of the media coverage of the NFL protests demonstrates beyond doubt that the message about social justice has been lost. Understanding why and how this happened might be the most important thing the Social Justice cause can take from the experience. In a broad sense, the NFL Players, Owners, and even the President allowed themselves to be manipulated. Understanding who was manipulated and who was doing the manipulating is key to separating the “good guys” from the “bad guys”.
The original protest, kneeling during the National Anthem at an NFL game was probably done with good intentions, but was doomed to failure. It is always tempting for a person to use their platform in front of a large audience to raise awareness of an issue. Doing so requires that the audience be open to receiving that message and that the communication is precise and appropriate. The original protest had none of these characteristics and thus failed.
Emotional reactions abound during protests. Organizers know this and frequently use this to rally support for their cause. Unfortunately, when people react emotionally, they can be easily manipulated in any number of directions by those who have agendas and are practiced in this skill. NFL players probably don’t understand the fine art of manipulating others.
What Colin Kapernick failed to understand is that his protest placed himself at odds with the very people whose support he was seeking. This initial mistake allowed the media to manipulate the entire process for their own agenda.
FURTHER ANALYSIS
The Flag and National Anthem ceremony at the beginning of a sporting event is a very emotional event. It is used to celebrate all that is good about America and to honor those who have sacrificed to help protect and support those values. This ceremony reminds patriotic fans that America, in spite of our imperfections, is a thing to be honored and celebrated. We do this at sporting events because we know that despite the contest we are about to witness, at the end, we are all on the same team. While this appears to be a political exercise, it is done in a unifying way. It allows us to see ourselves as Americans, not as Republicans or Democrats, not as black or white, nor in any other context that divides us. It wipes away our experiences of the preceding week and allows us to to enjoy the experience together.
A protest that interrupts or detracts from this ceremony rather than being a part of it has the effect of alienating a lot of the people who are participating in it.
Basic protesting has two flavors. You protest against those who are hurting you. You protest with those who are your supporters or whose support you are seeking. Colin Kapernick made the initial mistake of getting this backwards. The media attention given to this event caused the other NFL players to be blind to the actual impact of the protest and allowed them to be manipulated into perpetuating the mistake.
The NFL owners are not responsible for the violence in our inner cities nor for the instances of injustice that occur. Neither are the NFL fans responsible whether in the stands or in any other venue. The unfortunate message that Colin Kapernick communicated was that he sought to make us aware of injustices to other people by treating us unjustly, by punishing us and sending us the message that we are somehow responsible for the injustice. This is not an effective way to garner support for your cause.
This raises the question-who is responsible for the injustice felt by minorities? I would suggest that you focus your attention on the people in power with the most direct connection and influence in each instance. If you feel a person was improperly prosecuted, you might look to the prosecutor who chose a charge that could not be proven. If you feel that minorities are living in unjust circumstances involving poverty, crime and drugs, you should probably look to the elected officials in their community who are failing to do their job.
Perhaps the most significant manipulation of the NFL players occurred when the media decided to focus on President Trump’s comments at a political rally in Alabama. President Trump used a derogatory term to refer to a generic NFL player while expressing the frustration that many patriotic NFL fans feel over the protests as described above. Irrespective of what you feel about the President, the media successfully hijacked the NFL players protest and made it a referendum against the President instead of a statement about social injustice.
For an entire weekend the NFL used their considerable public venue to express unity for each other , entirely abandoning the initial protest.
The result of all of this is that the association American people have with the NFL protest will always be about Republicans versus Democrats instead of about Social Injustice. This is the agenda of the media. They will take every opportunity and every issue to achieve this result with a bias against the conservatives. This behavior should tell you that the main stream media is not sympathetic to the cause of Social Injustice. They will tell you they are, but their actions say something very different. They will tell you that it is the President’s fault that they had to talk about the President instead of Social Injustice. This is simply not true. They have the choice of what they cover each and every day. When they choose one story line over another, it is their choice and an indication of their priorities.
Going forward, we should all recognize that the more emotionally we react to something, the more easily we can be manipulated.
More importantly, I am not your enemy and neither are you my enemy. We make greater progress towards our shared goals of equality and justice for all when we band together against those few people in power who seek to control and perhaps oppress us. Those who seek to divide us by constantly focusing on the divisions, as the media so frequently does, are not on our side.
Backing Winners
Afghan Nationals, Iraqis Nationals, Illegal Aliens, Congressional Republicans, and media pundits who would otherwise support POTUS have something in common. It is called the instinct for survival.
Afghanis and Iraqis do not support U.S. troops when they are afraid that the U.S. will leave and abandon them. They know the bad guys will overwhelm them and probably kill them after the U.S. leaves.
Illegal Aliens in California operate in a similar way. The liberals want us to believe that Illegal Aliens will support the Police and identify bad guys, if and only if, the Police and other authorities ignore the illegal criminal aliens. This makes no sense. Illegal Aliens are not afraid of the Police. They are afraid of the bad guys and are afraid that California authorities will not allow the Police to protect them against the bad guys. They have seen case after case where Police are told to stand down and not protect the innocent when bad guys are doing their thing.
The Congressional Republicans are the same way. They are political animals. They want to win re-election. They play in the political arena where “perception is reality”. They know the main stream media is controlling the political narrative and that POTUS is losing that war. Every time they see the media win at a White House Press Conference, they lose more confidence in the President and are less willing to speak out against the liberals and political enemies of the President.
Unfortunately, the instincts of POTUS point to getting rid of the Press Conferences. This is the wrong thing to do.
Media Pundits behave the same way. They live for ratings which are dependent upon the popular perception of the President. Those who want to support him back away and trash him for tweeting because they have given up believing that anyone can protect and defend the practice. They urge POTUS to stop tweeting. Again, this is the wrong thing to do.
Everything changes if POTUS gets a Press Secretary who can explain, defend and support the Presidential tweets, hold the Press accountable for their bias and debunk the false narratives they support. Trading talking points does nothing to change minds.
Can this be done? YES! Does such a person exist? YES! Can other people learn to do these things? YES!
Unfortunately, the information the President needs is not available to him because I cannot get a letter to him. One of the unfortunate things about our society is that people in the spot light insulate themselves from the public. In spite of the social media and emails, etc. all communication is outgoing unless you know someone on the inside. As much as I try, I have not been able to get through to the White House.
If the President starts winning with his Press Secretary in the Press Room, minds will be changed, the narrative will change, and people will start backing and supporting him in the public arena. Everyone loves a winner.
This week is the Comey hearing. It is a perfect opportunity to debunk the myth that the President lied when he fired Comey or that it had anything to do with any investigation. I fear it will just be another lost opportunity.
If you are reading this and care about our Country and believe in our President, help me help POTUS.
Leave a comment if you can help communicate with the White House.
THE PARIS CLIMATE ACCORD
As we approach the President’s decision on the Paris Climate Accord it might do us all well to reflect upon history.
From April 12, 1633 until June 22, 1633, the church under the guidance of Pope Urban VIII sponsored a trial for a man named Galileo.
Galileo was a scientist who studied among other things, the science of Astronomy. Galileo, as a result of his research, had published a document claiming that the earth revolved around the sun. For this he was convicted of heresy and spent the remainder of his life under house arrest.
For those of us who know the earth does, in fact, revolve around the sun, this may seem like an incredulous event. However, the situation has stunning parallels to the place we find ourselves in with respect to Global Warming and Climate Change.
First, let’s make a few observations about the history. The church saw itself as the seat of power over the civilized world. The church proclaimed the belief that the earth was the center of the universe. Given these two “facts”, there could be no power greater than the church other than God. It has been said that the man who controls the gates to heaven controls all of mankind. Galileo’s publication was a direct challenge to the power of the Church.
We know that Galileo’s position, the true scientific result, has stood the test of time. But, the truth did not stand in the way of branding Galileo a heretic, a traitor to God, and remanding him to a life sentence of house arrest.
Today, we have a Government that wants us to believe that Global Warming is real, and that Climate Change is the fault of man. They have used this proclamation to force many policies about energy and the environment on, not just the American public, but people around the world. They have raised taxes, taken property from the rightful owners, refused other landowners the right to use their own property, halted development using environmental regulations and forced some energy companies out of business consigning their workers to a life of poverty.
Just as the Church profited from their proclamation that the earth was the center of the universe; modern day politicians profit greatly from the mythology of Global Warming.
Just as the Church branded Galileo a heretic, modern day politicians have branded non-believers as “Climate Change deniers.” There have even been occasions when political figures have called for prosecution of “Climate Change deniers” as enemies of the environment.
The believers of climate change indoctrinate our youth much as a church would do. Public figures like Al Gore go to elementary schools and tell our children “you will be smarter than your parents”, global warming will save the earth. These people, who indoctrinate our youth, profit greatly from the global warming mythology. If they believe it, they don’t behave as if they do. They tell us sea levels will rise dramatically and then purchase large properties with ocean front acreage. They tell us carbon emissions are the main culprit and then fly around in private jets, shunning public transport. A few own the equivalent of a small air force. If we dare to challenge the hypocrisy or offer data refuting the “approved” conclusion, we are labeled deniers, accused of using alternate facts and generally looked down upon. They tell us the science is settled and there is nothing to be gained by challenging it.
And thus we have stumbled across the element of truth that calls into question all of what we are being told.
True scientific results stand upon their own merit, just as Galileo’s finding has stood the test of time and all further inquiry. These results speak for themselves and do not need to be supported and protected by threats and accusations.
True scientists know this. They also know that man’s knowledge of our surroundings is always growing. No true scientist would ever utter the words “the science is settled.”
Protecting the environment is a noble enterprise. When we see the political elite using junk science to enrich themselves so they can play “life styles of the rich and famous”, we have to question their motives and policies.
If our leaders would demand real science for the basis of their policy choices, they would be able to differentiate between the real technologies and policies that work and those which serve only to enrich the politically elite.
FREEDOM IS NOT FREE
I served aboard a nuclear submarine during the cold war. There were long separations from family with no outgoing communication. The days were long. Sixteen hour days were common. It could be boring or exciting. We used to describe it as days of boredom surrounding by minutes of sheer terror. I remember thinking it was ironic that we who served had to give up many of the freedoms we were protecting.
When I look back at the experiences in context of the world today, I realize my sacrifice was minor. Yes, I sacrificed a little, but I did not do it in 120 degree heat with a hundred pound pack on my back and with people shooting at me.
And now I think of those who paid the ultimate price and the loss their families and loved ones continue to suffer every day.
I think we all have to ask ourselves this question.
If we do not stand up to those in Congress who swore to protect and defend our Constitution and seek to undermine it at every opportunity;
If we do not stand up to the university professors who teach our children to hate America and literally refuse to allow an independent thought;
If we do not stand up to the outbreaks of campus violence that threaten free speech;
And if we do not stand up to the liberals who preach diversity but cannot tolerate an idea that differs from their own,
Then for what did those brave young men and women give their lives?
"Me? An Economic Expert"