Creating a Dependent Citizenry

         Is anyone out there really duped by the claims asserted in “Ballot law idea raises concerns,” February 20?  Democrats say that they harvest votes because people can’t get to the poles.  How did that ballot get to that house in the first place?  

        Is it possible that the resident is capable of getting the mail out of the mailbox, but incapable of returning the ballot to the mailbox?  I really think that the goal of the Democrat party is to create a citizenry so dependent on the federal that they are incapable of fending for themselves in any positive way.  They want the power, and we’re marching like lemmings into the sea of oblivion.  

Climate Change, Depend on it.

       Mr. Francisco Villa must know that no one is disputing the fact of climate change.  Elementary knowledge of geology shows us that the earth has been subject to extreme variations in climate since its birth so many eons ago. The issue that Mr. Esch was addressing was the extent to which human activity influenced the phenomenon. You belittled the substance of his letter by suggesting that the ratio between those support anthropomorphic causes and the deniers is 97 to 3.  Some research suggests that there are 20 times as many scientists who question the science of man-made global warming as those who signed off on it.

               There were 52 scientist who authored the media hyped United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I have identified more than a thousand scientists from all over the globe who take issue with that report including many current and former UN IPCC scientists.

               Princeton Physicist Dr. Robert Austin: “I view Climategate as science fraud, pure and simple,”

               Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook, Western Washington University: “The corruption within the IPCC… the doctoring of data and the refusal to admit mistakes have so severely tainted the IPCC that it is no longer a credible agency.”

               NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein “Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!” —

               Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin: “Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself — Climate is beyond our power to control…Earth doesn’t care about governments or their legislation. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself.”

               Brazilian Geologist Geraldo Luís Lino:  “Hundreds of billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing a Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that is not supported by physical world evidences…AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks.”

               Atmospheric Physicist Dr. John Reid “My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field.”

               Dr. David Deming, University of Oklahoma: “I write to expose the ignorance exhibited by WWU geology faculty, the most egregious example of pedantic buffoonery since the Pigeon League conspired against Galileo in the seventeenth century. Skepticism is essential to science.”

               I have a list of more than a thousand scientists who question the anthropomorphic theory.    Israeli astrophysicist Nir Shaviv mapped the path that our solar system travels through the spiral arms of the galaxy, and Canadian geologist Jan Veizer plotted 500 years of climate change. The pair of scientists discovered an exact correlation.  Apparently the inflow of cosmic rays affects variations in earth’s temperatures. 

               This little speck of cosmic dust called earth travels with its paltry star through an insignificant galaxy into a vast and glorious, endless universe of space and time.  What do we know, we who are the  “quintessence of dust" - William Shakespeare.

FDR Deepens and Prolongs the Depression

         Ok, James (“FDR quickly reversed course, helped the economy,” Yuma Sun January 7, 2016) let’s look at the facts.  Check out “Macro Trends.”  It shows, definitively the response of the stock market to government intervention.  By March of 1930 it recouped half of what it lost in 29.  Hoover signed Smoot Hawley in June and boom!  The bottom dropped out again.  It struggled back and looked much better by April of 32, but   Hoover signed the Revenue Act in June which more than doubled the income tax, and boom! Again.

               FDR recognized the havoc Hoover had created and won the election on a landslide in 32 running on a reform package.  He promised to cut federal spending by 25 per cent, he promised a balanced budget and he promised sound gold currency.  Within the first 100 days he had seized the country’s gold, devalued the dollar by 40 per cent and government spending skyrocketed.  He passed a minimum wage law.  Boom! The National Industrial recovery act in 1933.  Boom! Tax rates at 90 per cent in 1934.  Boom!  The Civil Works Administration and when that didn’t work, boom! Boom!

         Battered at every turn, the economy would not recover to 1929 heights until 1959. 

             Left alone, the economy creates its own rhythm.  Our country has suffered an economic down-turn every 20 years since 1779.  Notice on the graph that only three times did it last more than two years, always in periods of intensive government intervention, under Hoover and FDR in the thirties, under Jimmy Carter in the 70’s, and most recently under George Bush and Barak Obama.  And don’t let the media trick you into thinking the depression is over.  The real unemployment rate is 25 per cent, a little higher than it was during the “great depression.”  

Sacrificing the good of the country on the altar of elections.

       My contempt for the leadership of the Democrat party is that they are willing to sacrifice the good of the country, even peace in the world, in order to obtain political power.  The war in Vietnam is a case in point.

       I am not going to argue about whether the United States should have gotten involved in Vietnam.  That’s another issue. However, when President Nixon resigned in August of 1974, the war had been won.  Negotiations begun in 1968 had been brought to fruition. The bombing of military and industrial targets in North Vietnam succeeded in bringing the North Vietnamese to the table at the Paris Peace Talks. In order to prevent further aggression on the part of the North, it was agreed that America would continue to provide military hardware if and when the North attempted further aggression.

       It was over.  But the Democrat leadership refused to let the win stand. The landslide Democrat victory three months following Nixon’s resignation gave them the opening they needed, and they sold South Vietnam down the river. Democrat leaders who had demonstrated in opposition to Nixon’s tactics couldn’t afford having been proved wrong. They intentionally violated the Peace Accords, and millions of our South Vietnamese friends were slaughtered.

     The same thing happened in Iraq.  Democrats could not abide the fact that the war had been decisively won, so they abandon the entire Arabian Peninsula to the radical influences of ISIS and Al-Qaeda and begin indicting America for unrest in the Middle East.  Truth be known, members of radical Islam have participated in 548 jihads since Mohammed’s death in 632.    

     Take race relations.  America is the most diverse and charitable country the world has ever known, but in order to secure the votes of the minorities, Democratic leaders find it necessary to trap them into a state of dependency and stir up race hatred at every opportunity.  Yes, the United States does have the stain of slavery and Jim Crow on its historical canvas, but it’s the only country in the history of the world that was willing to sacrifice hundreds of thousands of lives in order to bring the institution to an end. 

Christians less than kind.

      At an Easter prayer breakfast our president said, “And I have to say that, sometimes when I listen to other less-than-loving expressions by Christians, I get concerned." He is bothered by less than kind comments by Christians, bothered when Christians are less than loving.

Did he express concern that members of Islam were less than loving when members of ISIS beheaded 21 Coptic Christians in February?   Did he express concern about Islam when al-Shabaab terrorist slaughtered nearly 150 students at a Kenyan university on Holy Thursday?  Does it bother him the al-Qaeda-affiliated group warned that they were not through, that cities in Kenya will "run red with blood”?

          On March 15, Fulani terrorists massacred nearly one hundred Christian villagers in Egba, Nigeria, mostly women and children.  On that same day Jamaat-ul-Ahrar suicide bombers attached two churches leaving 15 worshipers dead.  Did you hear our president express disappointment in Muslims who were less than kind?

          By my count, in 2015 alone, there have been 30 acts of terrorism on innocent Christian targeted solely because of their faith by Muslim groups who cite their own religion as motive.  But President Obama is bothered by less than loving comments by Christians? 

The 17th Amendment: The Amendment that destroyed the fabric of America

Early American settlers had a unique opportunity, the opportunity to start over, to create a different form of government. The kings of Europe were busy fighting one another, so the American settlers were pretty much left to govern themselves for the first 200 years.   They developed an appreciation for living independently which led them to devise a government that protected those rights.  They recognized that the most dangerous force in the world was government.  They compared it to fire, necessary but a treacherous hazard.  They had no confidence in man’s ability to resist the lure of power so they designed a constitution that would, as Thomas Jefferson said, “bind him down from mischief.” 

Each branch of government was designed to check the power of the other, and the theory was that the sovereign states would jealously guard their powers as expressed in the 10^th Amendment.  Integral to the design were the differences in the two houses of congress.  The House of Representatives was to reflect the passions of the people, members being elected by popular vote.  The Senate, like the Senate in the Roman Republic, was to be the more deliberative body, cooling the passions and providing stability to the government.  Members were appointed by legislative bodies of the various states and were to represent the interests of the state keeping the power of the federal government in check. 

Electing senators by popular vote as a result of the 17^th Amendment created two problems.  First, the senate loses its deliberative quality, the members now having to spend their energies responding to the passions of the masses, buying votes with our tax dollars.  It also changed the allegiance of senators.  They are no longer the voice of the state.  They are the voice of the federal government.  The power and significance of the Sovereign States is lost.  

We didn’t notice the danger at first.  Montesquieu was right: “A nation may lose its liberties in a day and not miss them in a century.”  It’s been a century.  It’s time for us all to join the bucket brigade.  Or better yet, fight fire with fire.  Lovers of freedom must be vigilant, read, study, research, and debate analyzing history and current events according to the principles of liberty.  We need to rekindle the fires that fueled the founding.

Benghazi not a Hoax

         As usual, James Sefcak attempts to mislead his readers, (“GOP used deaths for political gain,” Yuma Sun April 2).  First, the title.   No, Mr. Sefcak.  It was Clinton and Obama who “dishonored those Americans who died in Benghazi in an attempt to turn a national tragedy into twisted political gain.”   The mantra of his campaign was, “Have no fear.  I killed Bin Laden and Al Qaeda is on the run.”  Had they admitted at the outset that the slaughter was a carefully planned and executed terrorist attack, they would have deep sixed the election. 

     Obviously the Clinton Obama strategy had some deep, disturbing flaws.  So they tell the grieving family members a blatant lie, that the attack was a spontaneous reaction by a few justifiably angry young men. 

       According to Sefcak, the GOP engineered the “alleged scandals.”   No, Mr. Sefcak.  The scandal was not “alleged.”   It was real.  Brave men really died.  Really. 

As evidence Sefcak says, “GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy didn’t just admit to the Benghazi hoax, he bragged about it.” What McCarthy admitted to was that the point of the Benghazi investigation wasn’t to find, “the truth.” The seven previous Benghazi investigations already accomplished that goal. The evidence of Hillary Clinton scams is undeniable.  The purpose of the investigations was to make sure that the American public recognized the depth of Hillary Clinton’s dishonesty.

  The depth of her dishonesty is well known as well.  She was not, in fact, named in honor of Sir Edmund Hillary’s magnificent feat.  He had not yet accomplished it at the time of her birth.  She did not land under sniper fire in Bosnia.  All of her grandparents were not immigrants.  Her applications to the Marine Corps had not been turned down.  It didn’t exist.

   It is a fact that Hillary lies.  Check out at   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI, 13 minutes, one lie after the next.

  It is also a fact that her supporters cannot handle the truth, perhaps because they are so demoralized.  Yuri Bezmenov, former KGB operative, said that’s the first objective of socialism, to demoralize the masses. "People who are demoralized are unable to process information. When exposed to information, they cannot change their perceptions.  Their behaviors defy logic."