budbromley

The founders of this country knew without doubt that the federal government MUST BE limited and tightly controlled by competitive offsetting factors, and they knew it should NOT be directly involved in commerce or welfare…such as a king and his lords were in Europe and elsewhere.  For example, the founders refused to use government money for schools, but they built them themselves with their own money.

Article 1 Section 8 Clause 1 of the Constitution: “To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.” Definition of General Welfare: “Exemption from any unusual evil or calamity; the enjoyment of peace and prosperity, or the ordinary blessings of society and civil government.” (Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language, 1828).  The Constitution does NOT authorize the gov’t to write a welfare check to a citizen, nor find a job for a citizen, nor create commerce. Democrat FDR redefined the general welfare clause by dominating the Supreme Court in 1937.

The iron law of bureaucracy guarantees (1) that all government agencies will grow until they become inefficient and unable to accomplish their original intent, and (2) that the mission of the politicians and bureaucratic administrators running those government agencies will become sustaining and growing their budget and their agency, so that their own power and prestige increases and (3) they will not be working for the original legislated intent of the agency, but instead, they will be found to be working against the original intent or causing damage which the legislation sought to prevent.

To wit: the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 which created the Federal Reserve Bank was intended to protect the value of the dollar, maintain stable prices, and prevent the so-called “money trust,” (that is, prevent control of financial wealth and political power by a powerful few.) Yet today, in 2012 the dollar has already lost nearly 100% of its value (prices of everything are many multiples of 1913 prices) and a powerful few banks and bankers have been bailed out by the government, are considered too big to fail, and they carry financial derivatives risk 20 times the annual GDP of the entire U.S. economy, a level of risk that has doubled since a Democrat controlled Congress and Obama passed the Dodd Frank Financial Reform Act.

The progressives’ version of the Federal Reserve Act passed Congress on December 19, and President Wilson (Democrat) signed it December 23, 1913. Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and the White House. Wilson later said it was his worst mistake. “A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the world–no longer a government of free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of small groups of dominant men.” –President Woodrow Wilson

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently completed the first audit of the Federal Reserve in 100 years.  The audit revealed $16 trillion in secret loans. The Federal Reserve refers to these secret bailouts as an all-inclusive loan program, but virtually none of the money has been returned and it was loaned out at 0% interest.  This $16 trillion dollars is on top of the $16 trillion U.S. federal debt.

The federal government has lost billions of dollars each year trying to run AMTRAK and the U.S. Post Office.

Even with all of this evidence, some people still believe that the federal government can “reduce the cost and improve the quality of healthcare” through Obamacare.  But those true believers are not in the government.  Those inside the government understand the Iron Law of Bureaucracy.  http://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html

Even worse, some people believe that evolving sovereign control of government by citizens into a supranational bureaucracy for world government, exemplified by the European Union, is the path to the future.  The UN’s Agenda 21 and Law of the Sea is already being implemented all around us from zoning in local communities to international laws.  NOAA and other agencies are already implementing and preparing to implement several treaties and agreements through the President’s several Executive Orders to harmonize and standardize the U.S. with international rules.

And yes, it is the Iron Law of Bureaucracy that is damaging the fishing industry in Gloucester and allowing the mismanagement of wildlife, environment, natural resources, the general welfare and commerce.

Reference:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/iron.html

GAO Report: http://www.scribd.com/doc/60553686/GAO-Fed-Investigation#outer_page_144

Senator Barney Sanders’ statement regarding the GAO Report: http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=9e2a4ea8-6e73-4be2-a753-62060dcbb3c3

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/SeanMaloneRiseFallDollarLarge.jpg

Year                   CPI Index     Dollar Value     Inflation        History

A BBC article (link below) summarizes new research appearing in the journal Nature about methane (natural gas) in the Antarctic.  The Antarctic could be developed as a methane energy resource.

It is not surprising that there are immense reserves of methane beneath the ice and oceans on and around Antarctica.  More than 170 million years ago, it was part of the super continent Gondwona.  At several points in its history, Antarctica has been covered with forests and inhabited by life forms.  It was much warmer then than now and the continents have moved.  But, it is the continuous degradation of life forms that continuously forms methane and petroleum almost everywhere on the planet.  Today, this planet is creating gas and oil as it always has done and in quantities that dwarf human use of it.  After water, oil is the second most common liquid on this planet.  Only human contrivance keeps oil, gas and energy prices high.

Temperatures in Antarctica have been as low as -89 degrees C in our lifetime.  Most of that continent is 3 kilometers above sea level, which makes it very different and much colder than the Arctic North Pole where there is no continental land mass.  The Arctic north is essentially at sea level.  Temperature decreases rapidly with altitude.  This means there is almost zero chance of Antarctica warming enough to produce a methane-caused climate catastrophes there… except for the unlikely event of a major asteroid strike on earth or a major tectonic event.  BBC fails to point out that Antarctica is gaining sea ice and ice depth on most of its land mass.

Southern Hemisphere sea ice is slowly increasing:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png

When a long spell of significant global warming occurs again, long before Antarctic ice sheets would melt, the methane hydrates on the continental shelf and Gulf of Mexico offshore the U.S. would warm first and methane would bubble to the surface.  That methane would immediately turn to CO2 when it contacts O2 in the air and we would see a steeper increase in the CO2 trend.  But, during the last ten years of so, satellite measurements are showing no increase in global temperatures, and satellites produce the most reliable measurement.  Some reports show a rising trend in temperatures on land surfaces, but land comprises only about 30% of the planet’s surface and many scientists fault these land-based measurements for location problems and cherry picking of data.

It is very unfortunate BBC chose to use this scientific article to continue the hysterical misinformation that global warming could release this Antarctic methane to cause a climate catastrophe.  The scientists only mention the climate warming aspect in the very last phrase of the very last sentence of the abstract in the journal Nature, “with the potential to act as a positive feedback on climate warming during ice-sheet wastage.”  Climate was not the focus of their scientific article, but no doubt the mention of the potential climate connection still helps get them published in the UK in the very pro-global warming Nature publications.

It is very unfortunate that BBC chose to publish a negative story instead of a positive story.  These sorts of things depress markets and readers.  The positive story is that the earth has naturally sustaining reserves of gas and oil which could be developed to stimulate a new renaissance in the macro economics on this planet.  Instead, BBC chose to promote the self-fulfilling continuing negative narrative built on global warming.  That neo-Malthusian narrative has been proven false, but so-called progressives and liberals continue to repeat that lie because it maintains their status quo and their control of governments and economies, by keeping gas and oil prices high, which in turn inflates the prices of everything else.  There is nothing progressive or liberal about sustaining a lie.

It is dishonest that BBC seems to seek out claims that humans are the cause of global warming and that humans could reverse global warming.  A limited amount of global warming has not been determined to be a negative for either humanity or the planet.  The contrary is true.  Even if all of the Arctic sea ice disappeared each summer, that would have many benefits, and that in fact has happened in the past.

The hypothesis that humans cause global warming has been de-bunked by the work of thousands of scientists around the globe.  Many of the scientists who still support this failed hypothesis have been caught distorting data,  hiding data, and blackballing scientists who speak out against the scientific fraud.  One of those nefarious scientists is Dr. Michael Mann, the inventor of the so-called hockey stick sudden rise in temperatures which Al Gore made infamous in his movie and speaking tours.  Dr. Mann’s invention has been debunked.  Mann is part of the sad episode known as “ClimateGate.”

Dr. Mann works at Penn State which has become notorious for its neglect of its responsibilities in its sports programs.  Penn State investigated Mann’s work for 4 months in 2010 and “cleared him of any wrongdoing” in a whitewash report.  Most scientists have blasted Mann.  Yet Mann’s invention lives on in Gore’s movie, Obama’s speeches, UN-sponsored conferences at posh resorts for thousands of people from hundreds of countries … most on government paychecks and expense accounts…and CNN, PBS, BBC and Nature literature.  The elitist, pro-global warming UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) included Mann’s hockey stick graph in its Third Assessment Report in 2001 but then removed it from their 2007 Report.  Two Canadian statisticians, Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, discovered serious statistical errors in Mann’s hockey stick analysis; they even showed that random data fed into Mann’s algorithm would produce hockey sticks graphs.

Canadian climatologist Tim Ball jokingly wrote that “Mann should not be at Penn State but in a State Pen[itentiary].”  Mann sued Ball for libel, which leaves Mann open for pre-trial discovery of his hidden data and deposition under oath by Ball and his attorneys.  Mann has been hiding his data for years from many legal “Freedom of Information Requests.”  Of course, open access to original data is required for another scientists to reproduce the data,   but Mann has never allowed full access and Penn State has protected Mann even though Mann’s work was funded by government grants.  According to the rules of science, Mann is not doing science.  It would be fitting if Mann’s data are used to destroy the EPA’s and UN IPCC’s case for human-caused global warming and Mann went to jail for fraud for taking grant money from the public under false pretenses.

The article in Nature:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v488/n7413/full/nature11374.html

Read more on the Mann’s scam:  http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/04/climategate_heads_to_court.html

The BBC story:  http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19410444

I know this is not what the mass media and Democrat politicians tell you.  But this is the history of Social Security (FICA) according to the Social Security Administration.

President Lyndon Johnson (LBJ) was the first to use the Social Security Trust Fund surpluses to finance increased spending on Great Society programs and the Vietnam War. Technically speaking, Johnson moved the SS Trust Funds from “Off Budget” to “On Budget.” He sent legislation labeled Unified Budget Act to Congress.

LBJ’s spending was so large that even the Social Security trust funds didn’t cover his deficit. Johnson began to use SS trust funds for general budget items.

“This change took effect for the first time in the President’s budget proposal for fiscal year 1969, which President Johnson presented to Congress in January 1968. This change in accounting practices did not initially put the President’s budget proposal into surplus–it was still projecting an $8 billion deficit. However, it is clear that the budget deficit would have been somewhat larger without this change (it is difficult to say how much larger because this change was mixed-in with the other legislative, budgetary and fiscal policies the President was urging Congress to adopt).”

…” In the 1983 Social Security Amendments a provision was included mandating that Social Security be taken “off-budget” starting in FY 1993. This was a recommendation from the National Commission on Social Security Reform (aka the Greenspan Commission). The Commission’s report argued: “The National Commission believes that changes in the Social Security program should be made only for programmatic reasons, and not for purposes of balancing the budget. Those who support the removal of the operations of the trust funds from the budget believe that this policy of making changes only for programmatic reasons would be more likely to be carried out if the Social Security program were not in the unified budget.” (Note that this was a majority recommendation of the Commission, not the unanimous view of all members.) This change was in fact enacted into statute in the Social Security Amendments of 1983, signed into law by President Reagan on April 20, 1983.”

“Actuaries say that thanks to the Reagan reforms of 1983, Social Security is fully funded for 75 years.  Medicare is much harder to gauge, because no one knows the future rate of growth of medical costs, which have been quite high in recent decades.”

You might find this interesting.  http://www.ssa.gov/history/BudgetTreatment.html

President Clinton reversed Reagan’s reform and put your Social Security and Medicare payroll contributions (as well as your employer’s contributions on your behalf) back into the general budget, i.e. back “on budget.”  Since Clinton administration the federal government has been spending your money on anything.  The government takes your money, replaces it with a non-marketable, interest bearing U.S. government IOU.  But you the taxpayer are paying the interest on that IOU.  You are paying interest on your contributed money which the government borrowed from the trust funds.

“In 1999 President Clinton proposed investing the Social Security Trust Fund in what some might consider “risky” assets in the stock market and bonds.  The stock market then was in the late stages of a bull market cycle with stock prices and indexes overvalued. Clinton told a joint meeting of  the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate:

In 1993 President Clinton sought to increase taxes on Social Security benefits of the elderly and disabled. The final version of the bill passed by the Democrat controlled Congress increased taxes on beneficiaries from the first 50% to 85% of benefits (or “annuity payments” as they were originally called). Vice President Al Gore cast the deciding tie-breaker vote in the Senate to make the tax increase law. The Clinton-Gore tax increase on Social Security benefits imposed a 70% income tax rate on a retired couple making as little as $22,000 per year.

“Meyerson of the Democratic Socialists of America, writing in the Washington Post  proposed eliminating the payroll tax altogether, for both employers and employees, claiming it would increase by $2,100 the take-home pay, and buying power, of workers making $50,000 annually.”

http://www.conservapedia.com/Social_security

Obama is not a nice guy and he is not a moderate. Obama was elected to the Illinois legislature and to the Senate by smearing his opponents through proxy newspaper stories.  He was supported by felons, ex-terrorists, socialists and other questionable characters.  His policies are not helping but hurting the lower income constituencies that elected him. Nice guys don’t have kill lists for assassination by unmanned drones. Nice guys don’t let hundreds of guns walk into Mexico and kill 300+ people and then cover it up. Does Obama’s statement about Americans clinging to their guns and Bibles sound nice or moderate?  Does taking the legal contract rights of GM’s bondholders sound nice to you? How about shutting out Chrysler’s creditors and dealers in Obama’s deal with United Auto Workers?  In 2008, Obama openly bragged that his campaign strategy is: “If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun.” Nice? He called critics of his amnesty policies “enemies” who needed to be “punished” by Latino voters because they were not “the kinds of folks who represent our core American values.” Teamsters president Jimmy Hoffa introduced Obama at a Detroit Labor Day rally by urging union members to work against Republicans and “take these son of a bitches out.” Obama was silent. Obama told entrepreneurs, “You didn’t build that business…” Translated into Chicagoese: Nice little company you got there. Too bad if something happened to it.

“Chicago, Obama’s chosen political venue, helps to explain this behavior. The mayor of Chicago — the job he once aspired to before greater opportunity beckoned — is an utterly dominant figure.

Chicago pols assume they can endlessly plunder the local private sector without penalty. And business leaders quickly catch on that it’s a good thing to be known as a personal friend of the mayor. Campaign money flows accordingly.

The local rule is “don’t back no losers.” Those who do are well advised to do business somewhere else. You never know when the assessor is going to raise your assessment. And don’t appeal in court unless you hire the lawyer with the right connections.

The mayor is also the one who gets all the credit for all good things that happen on his watch, as Obama is attempting to do on the killing of Osama bin Laden. Even though he opposed the interrogation methods that produced the information that led our special forces to Abbottabad.” ~ Michael Barone

Reference and thanks to: Michelle Malkin

Also be sure to see this:  http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/obamacrimescom/

Ron Paul is the best man to be the next President. However, though I don’t like it, he was not able to persuade enough Americans to win even the GOP majority. Paul got my money and my vote in the primary and I tried to persuade many of his truths.

But, we have to be realistic.

Second, Romney has demonstrated business skills and experience far beyond Obama’s (which are non-existent), and also beyond Paul’s for handling an economic crisis.  Romney was demonstrating moral while Obama was sucking a bong and looking at porn or worse with his mentor.  Romney’s conservative principles with regard to government are not nearly as strong as Ron’s based on their records, but then Romney’s principles are far better than Obama’s.  Romney was building American enterprises while Obama was organizing against them, filing discrimination suits to coerce banks into subprime mortgages, training ACORN community organizers in the radicalism of Saul Alinsky.

Third, Obama has already demonstrated where he is taking this country… off a cliff into a chaos, tyranny and a de-developed and diminished America.  Fourth, Romney SAYS he is not going there.

Without further analysis, this decision boils down to going in the same (negative) direction Obama is going today and where he will probably accelerate OR voting for Romney’s promise of a change in direction toward more conservative principles. Already at the point in the analysis, I would vote for Romney.

But there’s more.  Romney and Obama’s foreign policy positions are clearly NOT the same. For example, Obama clearly does not support Israel and Romney does…according to the current Israeli Prime Minister who is looking down Iran’s gun barrel.  What more proof do you need?  Obama stated he will stand with Muslims, while Romney slaps Obama and Clinton with the simple but obviously true statement that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. Romney supports Poland, Obama didn’t.  It could not be more clear.  Obama and Clinton, by their appeasement, are leading this country into war, perhaps unwittingly, by essentially waving a wave flag in front of an enraged bull (Iran and radical Islam). Make no mistake, Islamists intend to dominate the earth. We can’t hide our heads in the sand and expect they will leave use alone.  Libertarian President Thomas Jefferson had to send the first U.S. Navy ships and Marines to stop Muslim pirates.  Appeasement starts wars.  Wars stopped by appeasement are known as surrender.

Obama will try to institute gun control, Romney will not…and did not in Massachusetts (I live there and have a license). Instead, Romney brought the NRA and gun-control advocates to the negotiation table to draft proposals for MA’s existing gun law.

Obama clearly supports and is supported by big banks. Romney at least has the financial and economic clout and background to understand what is at stake in the economy, while Obama clearly is lost without a clue, led around by the nose. Romney is also supported in this election by big banks, but he does not really need that money and could be (yet to be proven) less beholden to crony politics than Obama.  Obama proven over and over that he is beholden.

Romney gives a huge portion of his income to charity (~19%) and Romney’s income is self-made, while Obama gives a pittance (less than 1%) to charity and Obama is a made man paying millions to hide something in his past while hiring thugs like Rahm Emanuel, Van Jones, SEIU, and ACORN.

Ron and Rand, Bill McClintoch, Marc Rubio, Jim deMint and several others have a chance of influencing Romney, but they have no chance of influencing Obama. Romney says he will reduce the size of government, while Obama has been steadily increasing the size of government.

Obama is the rotten bird in the hand, Romney is the live bird in the bush.

The whole tax system is upside down in terms of incentives.

There should be no tax on income or savings.  Tax should be on consumption, not on income.  The tax rate on consumption could be progressive, but that is a matter for a separate discussion.   Consumption that was purchased with food stamps or welfare checks should be taxed.  If one wishes to avoid or reduce the tax, then one delays or reduces consumption, or learns better shopping habits, resulting in increased savings and investments.  The entire economy would improve.

One might argue that taxing welfare checks is not productive. But that is easily proved to be false. We would be teaching behaviors which are desired and productive for the individual and society. Teach people to fish, don’t give them fish. Our current system is indeed teaching people, but teaching the wrong behaviors.

Healthcare and other such services should also be taxed as consumption, even if the funds used to pay for the healthcare came from an insurance policy. That would result in a competitive healthcare market. People would shop around for the best doctor/drug/hospital for the money.

Rio+20 failed (and Copenhagen, Kyoto before them) because it did not address the real cause of the problem.  For example, if your purpose or goal is to stop the melting of glaciers in the Rockies, you are doomed to fail at that goal if your actions are directed at the wrong cause of the melting.

Documenting the EFFECTS which would  occur if and when the glaciers melt with myriad studies does not provide information about nor confirm the CAUSE.  If a scientist is sincerely trying to save corral but does not understand the cause of the problem, most likely they will have sampling problems in their studies.  Coral adapts by moving to a different location if the water is too warm; the reef moves deeper or further north.  If you sampled the same location over time, which would make sense if the cause was ocean acidification, then you would miss the new coral heads forming 100 miles north.

This is precisely was is occurring in the climate change issue and other UN-proposed treaties like UNCLOS.  The UN IPCC, EPA, Al Gore, EDF, WWF, etc are reciting a litany of effects which might or might not occur, replete with multimillion dollar grants and movies.  But even after 30 years and spending billions they do not have reproducible evidence validating the CAUSE of global warming or cooling, and they will not discuss or debate CAUSE, and demonize you if you ask.  The UN IPCC just released a new 500+ page report detailing impacts, risks and futures, but no evidence as to cause.  Beautiful graphics, expensively prepared, but nothing that speaks to cause.

Their behavior indicates that their real goal is different from what they are saying.  Their real goal as judged by their behavior is to raise money.  A corollary: judge a policy, project or program by its outcome with regard to a validated cause, instead of the stated intent.

Thus, the earth has been slowing and intermittently warming since the last ice age, but so far no one knows the cause.  Various hypotheses are being and have been tested.  CO2 has been thoroughly tested and it failed.  But, the “warmists” continue with the CO2 story built over 3 decades at the cost of tens of billions of taxpayer dollars spent because their real goal was not to stop warming.  Their real goal was to tax carbon, and to make us all feel guilty enough to not object to the taxes and inevitable price increases.

In fact, the economist who built the computer models for trading carbon credits was funded by The Joyce Foundation when Obama sat on its board of directors and another board director at that time is president of the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX).  https://www.theice.com/ccx.jhtml  Al Gore and the UN’s Maurice Strong were directly tied to CCX until early 2009 when it was sold to ICE (International Commodity Exchange)  in Atlanta.  Goldman Sachs was the largest CCX shareholder.  CCX was expecting $25 trillion per year in trades on carbon credits, on which CCX would be paid commission and fees.

Obviously, if there is no tax on carbon, then there is no need to trade carbon credits to offset carbon taxes.  Obama’s EPA is ignoring the science and the economics and taxing carbon anyway.  The House has already voted to defund the EPA’s activities regarding climate change and separately also to defund the UN IPCC.  Canada, eco-conscious and one of the early adopters of the global warming story, has defunded its climate change activities and renounced the UN IPCC program, as have Russia, China, Czechoslovakia.

By the way, Al Gore’s mentor Maurice Strong (a Canadian) is the same guy who was former Assistant Secretary General of the UN running the Iraq “Oil for Food” program until he ran from the U.S. and his UN job -having been caught red handed with a million dollar bribe check from Saddam Hussein.

You and I share interest in coral reefs and the environment, but climate change is a giant fraud.  Lawyers will make a LOT of money in the near future litigating cases against the fraudsters.

Obama is a useful ideologue idiot. Pravda is advancing the same causes as The Council of Foreign Relations in the US, JP Morgan Chase, and similar organizations and governments in 8 other countries. Here are excerpts from “The Anglo-American Establishment” by Carroll Quigley, historian for the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) during the 1960’s. Quigley was professor at the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. He was an instructor at Princeton and Harvard; a consultant to the U.S. Department of Defense, the House Committee on Astronautics and Space Exploration; and the U.S. Navy. He was also one of Bill Clinton’s teachers. Watch to end of this 10 minute video summary… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxfGSIHvOgc

Here is the full length 80 minute interview with G. Edward Griffin explaining the left-right DEM-GOP paradigm and collectivism, regardless of which party is in power, and the work of Carroll Quigley.  Quigley historian for the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) during the 1960’s. Quigley was professor at the School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. He was an instructor at Princeton and Harvard; a consultant to the U.S. Department of Defense, the House Committee on Astronautics and Space Exploration; and the U.S. Navy. He was also one of Bill Clinton’s teachers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAdu0N1-tvU&feature=related

Here’s excellent reading if you want to know what is really happening with global warming/climate change/sustainability. Covers recent science on sea level change, arctic ice cover, storms and weather events, etc. It’s a thorough rebuttal of the EPA, IPCC, and alarmists. Lots of references and links. http://www.masterresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Peabody_Science-of-Climate-Change.pdf