All Posts (29147)

Sort by

Free the "Poor"

Source; Sent from a friend.......

“The Industrial Revolution, starting in 1770 in Britain, had little to do with its universities and nothing to do with its government…willpower, effort and imitative raised men above their circumstances…it is also important side note that before that Revolution more than half the children born, wealthy or poor, failed to reach the age of five. By 1830 more than 75% lived way beyond that age.” –Paul Johnson

The definition of democracy implies a government by informed discourse, meaning individual views can and do change in the process of decision making, based primarily on proof, fact, logic, and reason. So, let’s do a little.

Given the perspective of history, every American alive today is easily among the wealthiest 1% of people to have lived on earth. The poorest of the poor in America have luxuries unheard of to most kings of the past. Do you appreciate running water? Electric lights? Advanced medical care? And we haven't even pointed out the fact that most of our technology -- that the "poor" largely benefit from -- has been developed by <gasp!> wealthy corporations. Understood properly, the past productivity of the wealthy is the only reason such luxuries are available to the so-called poor today. America's "poor" are far wealthier than the middle classes of most other nations.

If anything hurts the poor of the world, it's American class warfare. "In our attempt to blame poverty on prejudice, we have taught the poor to be prejudiced against the basic values necessary to sustain a free and civil society.... We've taught them there are no real absolutes to the human condition -- except perhaps that the highest value in life is to acquire things." --Star Parker.

Wealth has no agency. What matters is how people behave. Wealth depends not just on available opportunities but also on the interests and abilities of individuals, not to mention random occasional luck. In the long run, America’s along with the world's poor are most effectively helped by the system that helped create wealth in the United States -- free markets, limited government, and just laws(1). Want to help the poor, support free trade. To rebel against the free market is, in reality, self-serving, self-contradictory hogwash. At best, it's incoherent; at worst, it's a malicious deception.

 

Americans are overwhelmingly pro-business. They understand for the most part, businesses help their lives, government detracts from them. Businesses produce jobs, prosperity, a higher standard of living. Government produces nothing and destroys much. Businesses have to be efficient to avoid going bankrupt. Government just prints more money and inflation. Businesses have a powerful motive to succeed, governments do not.  Businesses have to innovate to stay competitive, governments do not. Government is bureaucracy, the opposite of innovation. Businesses create wealth for all of society. Governments destroy wealth for all but the powerful.
 

"The liberal led democratic Party’s coalition is frighteningly like the class structure of the European societies from which America diverged. They view the citizenry as a needy underclass sending respect and obedience up to them, the privileged elite. This elite, in turn, dribbles down bread and hospitals. Theirs is a system whose design is one where the population is relegated to a collection of needy souls dependent upon charity for the sustenance of their bodies, in symbiosis with elite of busybodies, who in turn are dependent upon giving charity for the salvation of their own souls. It's not progressive in the least. It's medieval (One reason why the liberal elite are so in love with Europe). Liberalism is co-dependency. America, by contrast, still has a large middle class that values independence over co-dependence. This leads to considerable frustration of America's liberals, who cannot even 'imagine' how anyone would not want their help." --Mac Johnson

 

You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity, by legislating the wealth out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work, because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work, because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation

That explains a lot as to why liberal BIG-government economic stimulus policies do not feature any real fiscal multipliers. The bulk of their programs/policies consist of transfer payments to individuals and states, with no real and substantial cuts in regulation, spending or taxes that would produce real incentive effects to spur freedom and economic growth. In other words, for liberalism its all about confiscating and redistributing wealth from those who earned it--the most productive group, and the job-creators in America--and giving it to those who didn’t, the least productive groups, mostly those who subsist on the state---including public officials. That does not constitute "looking out for one another" and is most decidedly not "what's right."

The democrat Party’s adherents, refusing to critically assess their ideology and its consequences, instead look for someone or something to blame for its own failings. Hence their dependence on what can be described as created blame-hate, which animates their mythological-based hate for any fact, logic, reasoning or person that disagrees with them. Their mainstream ideological generators, such as the media, the democratic Party leadership or Hollywood elites, fuel that venom. They are ready to believe just about anything suggestive of conspiracy, greed, deceit and machinated unfairness, producing a consuming delirium known as the Chomsky-Krugman Syndrome. That syndrome basically is an unwillingness to see the world as it really is, and to be aware of and understand the lessons humanity has acquired through time.

But then liberalism basically rejects give-and-take political discussion. Instead the liberal position is typically posed and defended in the language of feelings or some fuzzily defined rights. Either way, there is nothing much to their debate—their feelings are personal or the rights ill-defined  and relative, both of which are beyond the reality-check reach of intellectually sound analysis which consists of argumentation by the rules of logic and honest majority decision making. liberalism’s opinions reflect a body of remarkably dogmatic thought that leaves little room for what they so strongly give a lot of rhetoric claims to, sound critical analysis--let alone dissent or new ideas. They are ever more isolated from facts, logic and reason, let alone the thoughts concerns and desires of their fellow Americans.

In essence, as Paul Kengor states: "Progressivism is nothing more than moral relativism at the political level. For them, Truth is never constant, with no fixed starting point, whether (theologically) in Sacred Scripture or (politically) in sacred political documents like the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Truth is determined not by an absolute authority but by the individual – or rather, progressive individuals en masse -- who are always marching and ever-advancing toward evolving truths revealed somewhere down the road."

All of which supports what George Will has observed, that:"...the distilled essence of contemporary liberalism, enjoys imposing its will--about abortion, racial preferences, capital punishment, tobacco, firearms, etc.—primarily through litigation rather than legislation. Liberalism's fondness for judicial fiat rather than democratic decision-making explains the entwinement of the democratic Party and trial lawyers and their love for the concept of a living (read that as pliable) Constitution. These things will continue until these people are gone."

(1). “Charitable efforts are vital expression of human solidarity that, when carried out wisely, play a crucial role in relieving human suffering. But they are not the way people escape poverty. The normal way is through enterprise and free-markets—through ordinary, everyday business…Applying our intelligence as well as our sympathy is actually the most loving thing we can do for the poor”---Rev Robert Sirico

 

Read more…

Flooding.

Source; From Snglr

Data show that flood impacts as measured by direct economic losses have actually decreased by about 90% since 1940 as a proportion of U.S. GDP. The United States is in fact more resilient to flooding than it has ever been. The reduction in flood impacts is an incredible story of success sitting out in plain sight that is completely ignored, in favor of stories that instead tell us that down is up.

The data shows U.S. annual flood damage as a proportion of GDP. In 1940 flood losses amounted to a 2023 equivalent of about $50 billion per year, and in 2022 they totaled about $5 billion, a reduction of over 90%.

Although it is true aggregate flood losses have increased, that is a result of price inflation and population growth in general, and in particular increased population density and development in areas historically prone to flooding. When you put more people in flood plains along attractive riverfronts, lakeshores, and coasts prone to hurricanes, while draining wetlands (which are natural buffers to flooding), channelizing formerly meandering waterways, and replacing natural areas that absorb or drain waters after storms with impervious surfaces, the result is more flooding and higher losses when storms come.

From 1940 through 2023, as flood damage tripled and GDP grew by more than 10 times, flood damage decreased dramatically as percentage of U.S. economic activity.

Claims that climate change is making flooding worse are untenable, not supported by the data. Such claims are also unsupported by the supposedly authoritative bodies charged with examining the impacts of “human-caused” climate change.

For example, in the 2018 National Climate Assessment (NCA) published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the agency stated, “Human-induced warming has not been formally identified as a factor in increased riverine flooding and the timing of any emergence of a future detectable human caused change is unclear.”

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) assessment concurs with NOAA’s. The IPCC reports having “low confidence” that there is even a “sign” of change in the frequency or severity of flooding. The IPCC also has “low confidence” that climate change affects flooding at all. Some regions of the world have had more flooding, others less. Neither trend can be attributed to global climate change, per the IPCC.

A study of flooding in the United States and Europe published in the Journal of Hydrology states, “The number of significant [flooding] trends was about the number expected due to chance alone.”

The science on flooding and climate change indicates flood costs aren’t rising as a percentage of GDP and there is no evidence floods are increasing as a result of climate change.

Meanwhile, research published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society (BAMS) finds West Antarctica has recently cooled significantly, indicating the ongoing glacial decline there is driven by factors other than global warming.

The team of researchers from China and Australia examined a variety of datasets, including reconstructed sea surface temperatures from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and monthly mean surface data from the Byrd station (“the only WAIS [West Antarctic Ice Sheet] station with complete long-term temperature records from 1958 to 2021”), to calculate the West Antarctic temperature trends. The scientists found West Antarctica’s mean annual surface temperatures cooled by more than -1.8°C (-0.93°C per decade) from 1999 to 2018, which many climate alarmists have proclaimed the warmest two decades on record. The spring temperature decline on the West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) was even steeper, cooling at a rate of 1.84°C per decade in that period.

The WAIS cooling in the last 2 decades is consistent with what has occurred on the continent as a whole: an approximately 1°C per decade cooling trend since 1999.

None of Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 models used and cited by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted or reflects the Antarctic cooling trend, either for the continent as a whole or for its various regions.

The Central Pacific and Eastern Pacific regions have also experienced significant cooling trends so far this century. The BAMS study suggests Antarctica’s temperatures and climate are dominated by various ocean current oscillations, primarily the Pacific Decadal Oscillation shifting from a negative to a positive phase, that have swamped any possible effect of increases in CO2 concentrations.

This trend, with its lack of conformity to the models’ predictions, implies substantial uncertainties in future temperature projections of CMIP6 models.

Read more…

Source; MEROBERTM 

The Washington Post has just published the most blatant piece of Trump assassination porn that we’ve ever seen. The Post’s Editor-at-Large, a guy named Robert Kagan, wrote an op-ed in which he joins the hysterical likes of MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough in huffing about how Trump will be worse than Hitler if he gets back in office and democracy will be permanently ended and blah blah blah.

These demonic calls for assassinating President Trump are always couched as questions… “What if?” But the real purpose is to try to stir up some lone gunman or some MK-ULTRA windup toy so that he or she will make a real assassination attempt.

Kagan’s new piece in the Washington Post is titled, “A Trump dictatorship is increasingly inevitable. We should stop pretending.”

As Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) noted on Twitter, the CIA is now greenlighting the assassination of President Trump.

For those who don’t know, all of the intelligence agencies in the federal government have favorite media outlets that they use to propagandize the American people and push their ideas on us. It’s like Operation Mockingbird on steroids these days. The intel agencies have reporters, anchors, and hosts on the payroll who are used to push the federal government’s foreign policy objectives on the people.

For example, when the FBI wants to illegally leak something to the public, where does the information always come out first? It’s in one of two places: Either the New York Times, or Yahoo News (the Russian potty dossier). The NSA uses NBC News. The National Intelligence Council uses CBS News. Having worked at ABC News for 12 years, I can personally attest to the fact that the Pentagon and the Department of Defense prefer to use that outlet to propagandize Americans.

And for the CIA, the outlet that they prefer to use is the Washington Post. We joke about the Washington Post being “Jeff Bezos’s blog” ever since he purchased the paper, but which tech company does the CIA rely on for all its cloud computing needs and AI technology? That would be Amazon, which is owned by Jeff Bezos.

Everybody who works in permanent Washington, DC knows that the CIA propagandizes the American people via the Washington Post. That’s why Matt Gaetz immediately called out this Robert Kagan assassination porn the way he did.

Kagan concludes in his piece that Donald Trump winning the Republican nomination is a foregone conclusion at this point. He also frets that Trump is now leading Joe Biden by every conceivable metric and in every poll to win the presidency back next year. Because of that, he’s suggesting through this CIA hit piece that Donald Trump should get the Julius Caesar treatment, for the good of the republic.

Kagan writes:

“If we thought there was a 50 percent chance of an asteroid crashing into North America a year from now, would we be content to hope that it wouldn’t? Or would we be taking every conceivable measure to try to stop it, including many things that might not work but that, given the magnitude of the crisis, must be tried anyway?”

Every conceivable measure? Gee, what could that mean?

“Will those who balked at resisting Trump when the risk was merely political oblivion suddenly discover their courage when the cost might be the ruin of oneself and one’s family?”

He makes this sound like Trump is going to lock up his family, when the reality is much more likely that Trump is going to fire Robert Kagan’s wife on day one of his new administration. Kagan is married to Acting Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland. You may recognize Nuland’s name from some of America’s most disastrous foreign policy failures of the past two decades.

Nuland was the CIA and the State Department’s author and instigator of such hits as the Iraq War, the Arab Spring, the biolabs in Ukraine and the Ukraine war with Russia, a failed coup attempt in Sudan last summer, and the loss of the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency. She’s one of those people who has been “failing upward” in the Washington, DC apparatus for the past two decades. And her CIA shill of a husband is calling for Donald Trump to be assassinated.

“Every conceivable measure.”

--
"Every man who loves peace, every man who loves his country, every man who loves liberty, ought to have it ever before his eyes, that he may cherish in his heart a due attachment to the Union of America, and be able to set a due value on the means of preserving it." —James Madison (1788) As Harry Truman said: "Show me a politician who got rich while in office, and I will show you a Crook."
Read more…