Obamacare, if enacted as proposed, eventually will result in a healthcare industrial complex crippled by the same problem as the UN IPCC and the EPA: the failure of the scientific peer review process. There will be one big difference: the climate crisis is not real, but the failure of the peer review process is guaranteed to cause a real crisis in health care, and inevitably a crisis with your personal health care or the health care of someone in your family.

Obamacare, requires multiple concatenated, multi-disciplinary task forces and committees to report recommendations up to the head of HHS; healthcare by consensus. Over time, these will become bureaucracies and fiefdoms like the IPCC committees, NASA GISS, Hadley CRU, and the EPA, all of which are now accused of fraud. How will this community-organized healthcare industrial complex work if the scientific peer review process has failed? How will it work if the credibility of a scientist or a medical research institute or a diagnostic instrument company on the task force is established by political connections and willingness to “tow the party line,” instead of credibility validated by empirically replicated science and engineering? The healthcare industrial complex will be unable to evaluate or debate the underlying science, having been institutionally hindered by conflicting interests. Healthcare will fail just as the Copenhagen and Rio+20 climate conferences failed.

Are you ready to trust your health care to a railroad engineer? Is a social worker’s opinion part of the consensus that sets the ‘standard of care’ for the cleaning procedures for a kidney dialysis machine between patients? Do a career politician and the community have a vote in the consensus decision which defines the ‘standard of care’ for your next medical procedure?  This are part of Obamacare.

If the peer review process is not repaired by the professional scientific societies, then your health is in danger, with or without Obamacare.  Arguably, we are already in danger.  The managers within each professional society have fiduciary responsibility to diligently manage the peer review process and professional ethics within that profession, but that is not happening today.  For that reason, many scientists and physicians are resigning from their professional societies.

Managers of professional societies cannot delegate their diligence responsibilities to other  organizations, such as one of the hundreds of new Obamacare agencies.  To do so would contradict the definition of peer review process. A meta-organization such as the National Academies of Science or National Research Council (or a multi-disciplinary committee as defined in Obamacare) does not have the skills or experience to replicate experiments and evaluate the data; attempting such a process would look like the UN IPCC and their gray literature instead of peer reviewed science.  The UN IPCC is a political organization, and  Obamacare mandates hundreds of similar political agencies, and these agencies will be making your health care decisions.

A properly functioning scientific peer review process keeps an organization or an individual honest and focused on goal … typically the means justify the end result. In contrast, in political ideologies typically the ends justify the means; a certain community organizer comes to mind. Politics and science are opposite in many respects.

The problem of junk science in the human-caused global warming fraud is just the tip of the iceberg. The problems will spread unless the peer review process within professional societies is fixed.

Management and editors at professional scientific societies are negligent in their failure to vigorously condemn scientific organizations and individual scientists who have not made their data and methods available to other investigators. These societies should be removing the publications by these scientists or clearly marking them as unvalidated work.  The societies and editors should not have published the work in the first place. The societies and the managers of these societies have not fulfilled their fiduciary responsibility to their members and sponsors and the result is now many examples of failure of the scientific peer review process.

Recently there have been many more revelations about fraud among global warming proponents. Phil Jones, manager and scientist at the UK Hadley Climate Research Unit has resigned.  Serious problems with distorted climate data from NOAA and NASA have been described by D’Aleo, Watts and others.  The EPA is faced with several lawsuits and a Congress determined by good reason to stop EPA regulation of greenhouse gases.  If a similar scandal were to happen in the healthcare industrial complex, there would be a real healthcare crisis and people would be dying.  The global warming alarmists are spending billions of dollars measuring sea level by the millimeters, CO2 by parts per million, and temperature changes in tenths of degrees over decades.

A couple of years ago, the TV show “60 Minutes” calculated that fraudulent healthcare claims total $60 billion a year.  Does anyone believe that the amount of fraud will now decline since Obamacare creates hundreds of new agencies in more than 900 pages of law?   If so, then yes, I have that proverbial bridge to sell you.

Where is the vigorous condemnation of this non-scientific behavior among the professional scientific societies? Where are the internal investigations of failures in the peer review processes within the scientific societies?  Where is the rejection of these unethical scientists from their peer review groups?  The editorial corrections for un-substantiated reporting are extremely rare.

Posted below is the commendable statement to the UK Parliament by The British Institute of Physics which describes problems with peer review process in the global warming fraud. The American Physical Society (APS) and the American Chemical Society (ACS) have taken the opposite position, having decided to endorse work by some of their members and defer to the UN IPCC; APS and ACS managers have inappropriately delegated their responsibility, when instead they should be demanding to review the underlying science and investigating their internal peer review problems.  Members and sponsors (including Congress) of U.S. professional societies should be actively condemning negligent management and taking legal action against management if they do not respond appropriately.  Where is the vigorous repudiation by Congress of the UN IPCC and its negligence, malfeasance and fraudulent peer review process?  American taxpayers are paying for a big part of UN fraud.

It is the negligence of management at these societies which is destroying the professional credibility of scientific societies. These managers are defending their bureaucracy and budget.  As a result, the world is accelerating backwards down a slippery slope into chaos and dependency on government by consensus.

Consensus and crony capitalism are life threatening when used in sciences, engineering and healthcare, but that is exactly what is defined in Obamacare. Citizens and Congress can act to stop it or else watch as our standard of living slides into the third world and beyond.

March, 2010 ———Updated July 13, 2012
Letterhead

Parliamentary Business

Memorandum submitted by the Institute of Physics (CRU 39)

The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia

The Institute of Physics is a scientific charity devoted to increasing the practice, understanding and application of physics. It has a worldwide membership of over 36,000 and is a leading communicator of physics-related science to all audiences, from specialists through to government and the general public. Its publishing company, IOP Publishing, is a world leader in scientific publishing and the electronic dissemination of physics.

The Institute is pleased to submit its views to inform the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee’s inquiry, ‘The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia’.

The submission details our response to the questions listed in the call for evidence, which was prepared with input from the Institute’s Science Board, and its Energy Sub-group.

What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?

1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.

2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself – most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change.

3. It is important to recognise that there are two completely different categories of data set that are involved in the CRU e-mail exchanges:

· those compiled from direct instrumental measurements of land and ocean surface temperatures such as the CRU, GISS and NOAA data sets; and

· historic temperature reconstructions from measurements of ‘proxies’, for example, tree-rings.

4. The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented. Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.

5. The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.

6. There is also reason for concern at the intolerance to challenge displayed in the e-mails. This impedes the process of scientific ‘self correction’, which is vital to the integrity of the scientific process as a whole, and not just to the research itself. In that context, those CRU e-mails relating to the peer-review process suggest a need for a review of its adequacy and objectivity as practised in this field and its potential vulnerability to bias or manipulation.

7. Fundamentally, we consider it should be inappropriate for the verification of the integrity of the scientific process to depend on appeals to Freedom of Information legislation. Nevertheless, the right to such appeals has been shown to be necessary. The e-mails illustrate the possibility of networks of like-minded researchers effectively excluding newcomers. Requiring data to be electronically accessible to all, at the time of publication, would remove this possibility.

8. As a step towards restoring confidence in the scientific process and to provide greater transparency in future, the editorial boards of scientific journals should work towards setting down requirements for open electronic data archiving by authors, to coincide with publication. Expert input (from journal boards) would be needed to determine the category of data that would be archived. Much ‘raw’ data requires calibration and processing through interpretive codes at various levels.

9. Where the nature of the study precludes direct replication by experiment, as in the case of time-dependent field measurements, it is important that the requirements include access to all the original raw data and its provenance, together with the criteria used for, and effects of, any subsequent selections, omissions or adjustments. The details of any statistical procedures, necessary for the independent testing and replication, should also be included. In parallel, consideration should be given to the requirements for minimum disclosure in relation to computer modelling.

Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate?

10. The scope of the UEA review is, not inappropriately, restricted to the allegations of scientific malpractice and evasion of the Freedom of Information Act at the CRU. However, most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other leading institutions involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change. In so far as those scientists were complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices, there is need for a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific process in this field.

11. The first of the review’s terms of reference is limited to: “…manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice…” The term ‘acceptable’ is not defined and might better be replaced with ‘objective’.

12. The second of the review’s terms of reference should extend beyond reviewing the CRU’s policies and practices to whether these have been breached by individuals, particularly in respect of other kinds of departure from objective scientific practice, for example, manipulation of the publication and peer review system or allowing pre-formed conclusions to override scientific objectivity.

How independent are the other two international data sets?

13. Published data sets are compiled from a range of sources and are subject to processing and adjustments of various kinds. Differences in judgements and methodologies used in such processing may result in different final data sets even if they are based on the same raw data. Apart from any communality of sources, account must be taken of differences in processing between the published data sets and any data sets on which they draw.

The Institute of Physics
February 2010

http://www.sovereignty.net/p/sd/sdsf-1.pdf

Beginning July 2, 2012 representatives from many of the world’s socialist, tyrannical and dictatorial regimes are meeting at United Nations headquarters inNew Yorkfor a month-long meeting, in which they’ll put the finishing touches on an international Arms Trade Treaty that could seriously restrict your freedom to own, purchase and carry a firearm.

Specifically, the U.N. wants to implement international gun registration requirements, bans on commonly owned firearms, tracking and registration of ammunition purchases, and create a new U.N. gun control bureaucracy.

President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and many more American politicians supportU.S.agreement to this UN treaty.

Here is a copy of June 29 letter from 130 members of Congress to President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton regarding UN Arms Treaty.  http://kelly.house.gov/sites/kelly.house.gov/files/ATT%20Letter.pdf

Here’s more from Chris W. Cox, Executive Director of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), NRA’s chief lobbyist. http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/02/congressmen-urge-the-un-to-trample-the-us-constitution/     or

http://www.nraila.org/

Forbes magazine explains: “U.N. Agreement Should Have All Gun Owners Up In Arms”   http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/06/07/u-n-agreement-should-have-all-gun-owners-up-in-arms/

Dick Morris explains the treaty is planned to be signed July 27. Video here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZeJpXLsVCI&feature=youtu.be

Here is the official UN website:  http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/SALW/

Here is a good blog report linking Fast and Furious and the UN Arms Control Treaty  http://www.independentsentinel.com/2012/05/small-arms-treaty-of-2012-elimination-of-the-second-amendment/

You can send a letter to your members of Congress and President Obama for free at this link.
http://petitions.conservativeactionalerts.com/5270/tell-congress-obama-no-small-arms-treaty/

Here’s my letter

July 4, 2012

Dear President Obama:
Dear Representative Tierney:
Dear Senator Kerry:
Dear Senator Brown:
We are hearing a lot of talk on the internet that the Obama administration and some senators are considering in secret a UN treaty on small arms. Please let me know if these stories are true.

I strongly urge you to actively discourage and to vote against any version of a United Nations Small Arms Treaty.

The government of the United States does not have authority under the Constitution to prevent Americans from owning and bearing arms. Nor is it within the authority of our government to determine which arms or ammunition Americans may own and for what purpose. Therefore, the government of the United States does not have authority to negotiate with the United Nations on this subject. This is not a matter of my personal opinion or interpretation versus yours. If you do not understand and agree, then, according to the Constitution which you are duty bound to protect and defend, you are incapable of fulfilling the duties of your office.

I vow to make sure that any politician who votes for or supports this treaty, or any other treaty which reduces the sovereignty of American citizens such as the Law of the Sea Treaty currently being promoted by Senator Kerry, will be voted out of office.

Thank you in advance for protecting the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Sincerely,

Clare Livingston Bromley, III

It is likely that Holder, Clinton and Axelrod conspired in the design of ‘Fast and Furious.’  Probably Obama approved it.  Most likely Eric Holder will stand trial in a civil case brought by families of those killed by “Fast and Furious.”  Holder will lose the civil case and be fined some millions of dollars, if he is responsible.  An Obama pardon won’t help him in a civil case.

But who else is responsible?  Could it be that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is negotiating the UN Small Arms Treaty and intends to link it to Fast and Furious.   Many think so.  Was the the Obama administration orchestrating Fast and Furious in order to sway U.S. public opinion so the public would allow the UN Small Arms Treaty to be ratified by the Senate, and failing that to be enacted by yet another Obama Executive Order?  Is this the unconstitutional and deadly plot that is concealed by DOJ documents and Obama’s claim of Executive Privilege?

Bill Whittle at Pajamas Media connects the dots for you in this 5 minute video:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UFIpoL3jrfo#!

Fast and Furious was a re-start and modification of previous gun walking program shut down in the Bush administration, even run by the same administrator, but Fast and Furious was much weaker, no GPS tracking, no confiscation of the tracked weapons, no coordination withMexico, and 300 are confirmed dead.

And here is Eric Holder on CSPAN in 1995, reciting the narrative: “people need to be ‘Brainwashed’ about owning guns.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7mhP2dyz60

The fingerprint of political motive in the Obama administration against 2^nd Amendment interests is obvious.  Instead of doing their duty to protect and defend the Constitution and Bill of Rights, Obama and his acolytes Holder and Clinton intend to change it even by any means possible, including murders.  Remember, the end justifies the means according to their Saul Alinksy training.

If the Obama administration had intended to stop the flow of guns, then they would have used GPS and made immediate arrests in a controlled operation with Mexican authorites, as was done in the program halted during the Bush administration.  The field operation in Arizona for both the Obama program and the Bush program were run by the same DOJ administrator.  But the Obama team didn’t do that.  Instead they ran an uncontrolled program with no GPS in the guns and no pick up of the gun runners and assault rifles, and no coordination with Mexican authorities.  As a result an estimated 300 died.  The only conclusion is that the Obama administration wanted a tragedy, wanted another crisis.  The Obama administration wanted to use that crisis to turn American opinion against gun retailers and guns.  They wanted an excuse to re-start the assault weapons ban of the Clinton administration, and to obtain Senate ratification of the UN Arms Treaty being negotiated by Secretary Clinton.   Their intent was to blame Bush, and indeed Holder attempted to do exactly that in his early Congressional testimony.  Claims that the Obama administration was acting in good faith are specious, without merit and will not hold up in criminal court.

• AG Eric Holder lied to Congress, which was conducting a legitimate inquiry after death of a U.S. border patrol officer.
• Holder withheld information from Congress after a legitimate subpoena
• Holder is held in contempt of Congress, even Democrats in Congress agreed.
• House authorized criminal charges to be filed against Holder, even Democrats agreed.
• The decision to file criminal charges is left up to Ronald Machen, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia— who answers to Holder, and was appointed by Obama.
• At DOJ request, Obama declares executive privilege to prevent criminal charges against Holder’s, which would have meant Holder’s removal from office, and to protect the withheld documents.
• DOJ announces Holder will not be charged with criminal charges.
• Most likely the House Republicans will move forward on civil charges against Holder.  (Precedent:  There was a civil case against Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten for contempt of Congress, despite Bush declaring executive privilege.  The case was resolved when civil charges were brought in 2009, after Bush had gone into retirement, and the public — and political — notice given was minor.  But there were no deaths in this case.)
• Along with the House’s civil case, the family of the slain U.S. border patrol officer will seek monetary damages along with perhaps hundreds of Mexicans.
• President Obama could pardon Holder from criminal conviction if Obama is still in office, but Obama can do nothing to stop the civil trial of Holder and others.
• You are kidding yourself if you think the family of the slain U.S. border officer/Marine war hero will not pursue Holder and whoever is responsible in civil court.

And all of the above we know BEFORE we know what’s in the wiretaps and the statements by the several whistleblowers.

Meanwhile, at the DOJ, the whistle blowers have been assigned to a DOJ administrator who vowed to “f–k” them.  http://www.grassley.senate.gov/about/upload/2012-06-29-CEG-DEI-to-DOJ-OIG-Thomasson-whistleblower-retaliation.pdf

Here is a good blog report linking Fast and Furious and the UN Arms Control Treaty  http://www.independentsentinel.com/2012/05/small-arms-treaty-of-2012-elimination-of-the-second-amendment/

For reference, here is the situation in the George W Bush administration that was covered by Executive Privilege after contempt of Congress by the Democrat-controlled House.  This was small potatoes mundane, less criminal than Watergate, and no one was killed, unlike the 300+ killed in Fast and Furious.

Per CNN:

Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten were accused of failing to cooperate in a congressional investigation into the mass firings ofU.S.attorneys and allegations that the White House was using the Justice Department for political aims. Their citations marked the first time White House officials had been found in contempt of Congress.  Republicans walked out.

See also:

Sussing the motive behind Fast and Furious  https://budbromley.wordpress.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=250&action=edit

Here is a good list of the 20 new taxes from ObamaTax, and 7 middle class taxes, all equaling over $500B over the next 10 years.

“No family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase.” President Obama

“If there ever was a reason for bipartisan rage about this law, it should be on the twenty – yes, twenty – hidden new taxes of this law. Making matters even more relevant is that seven of these taxes are levied on all citizens regardless of income. Hence, Mr. Obama’s promise not to raise taxes on anyone earning less than $250,000 is just another falsehood associated with this legislation.” (1) Robert Bonelli

Summarized by David Chaney: The Seven Middle Class Taxes (and 13 with indirect impact on Middle Class)

1. Individual Mandate Tax

“The first, and best known, of these seven taxes that will hit all Americans as a result of Obamacare is the Individual Mandate Tax (no longer concealed as a penalty). This provision will require a couple to pay the higher of a base tax of $1,360 per year, or 2.5% of adjusted growth income starting with lower base tax and rising to this level by 2016. Individuals will see a base tax of $695 and families a base tax of $2,085 per year by 2016.

2. Medicine Cabinet Tax

Next up is the Medicine Cabinet Tax that took effect in 2011. This tax prohibits reimbursement of expenses for over-the-counter medicine, with the lone exception of insulin, from an employee’s pre-tax dollar funded Health Saving Account (HSA), Flexible Spending Account (FSA) or Health Reimbursement Account (HRA). This provision hurts middle class earners particularly hard since they earn enough to actually pay federal taxes, but not enough to make this restriction negligible.

3. Flexible Spending Account (FSA) Cap

The Flexible Spending Account (FSA) Cap, which will begin in 2013, is perhaps the most hurtful provision to the middle class. This part of the law imposes a cap of $2,500 per year (which is now unlimited) on the amount of pre-tax dollars that could be deposited into these accounts. Why is this particularly hurtful to the middle class? It is because funds in these accounts may be used to pay for special needs education for special needs children in the United States. Tuition rates for this type of special education can easily exceed $14,000 per year and the use of pre-tax dollars has helped many middle income families.

4. Medical Itemized Deduction Hurdle

Another direct hit to the middle class is the Medical Itemized Deduction Hurdle which is currently 7.5% of adjusted gross income. This is the hurdle that must be met before medical expenses over that hurdle can be taken as a deduction on federal income taxes. Obamacare raises this hurdle to 10% of adjusted gross income beginning in 2013. Consider the middle class family with $80,000 of adjusted gross income and $8,000 of medical expenses. Currently, that family can get some relief from being able to take a $2,000 deduction (7.5% X $80,000 = $6,000; $8,000 –$6,000 = $2,000). An increase to 10% would eliminate the deduction in this example and if that family was paying a 25% federal tax rate, the real cost of that lost deduction would be $500.

5. Health Savings Account (HSA) Withdrawal Tax Hike

The fifth new tax on the middle class, and all Americans, is the Health Savings Account (HSA) Withdrawal Tax Hike. This provision increases the additional tax on non-medical early withdrawals from an HSA from 10% currently to 20% beginning in 2013. This provision actually sets these accounts apart from Investment Retirement Accounts (IRAs) and other tax advantaged accounts, all of which remain with a 10% early withdrawal tax.

6. Indoor Tanning Services Tax

Another regressive tax that is part of this law began in 2010 and that is the Indoor Tanning Services Tax, which places a 10% excise tax on people using tanning salons. While some may regard this as insignificant, the broader implication is that this act of taxation is a blatant move by the federal government to control the behavior of citizens. This provision, as does the Individual Mandate and as Justice Kennedy said during the oral arguments on the constitutionality of the law said, “….fundamentally changes the relationship between the federal government and the citizen.”

7. Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans

The seventh new tax that directly impacts the middle class, along with all citizens, is the Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans or the “Cadillac” Health Insurance Plan Tax. These are plans that provide extensive coverage and that are generally fully paid for, or largely paid for, by employers. This provision imposes a 40% excise tax on the employer-paid premium on taxpayers who are covered by such plans, beginning in 2018. The reason it begins in 2018 is because most unionized workers are covered by plans that fall under this definition and a deferral was made to spare union members from this tax for at least a period of time.

There are thirteen other taxes that apply to businesses and that apply to high income (over $250,000 per year) households. While these additional provisions will not impact the middle class directly, they can have serious indirect consequences for middle and low income earners. Beginning in 2014, the Employer Mandate Tax will impose an annual non-deductible tax on employers with more than 50 employees who do not provide health insurance for their employees.” (1)

(1) Middle Class Tax Breakout – http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/29/Seven-new-taxes
(2) Full list of ACA Taxes – http://atr.org/full-list-obamacare-tax-hikes-listed-a7010”

After the 2008 election, Democrats controlled the House, Senate and White House. What happened? The Fed and government subsidized and loaned trillions of dollars to bail out selected crony Wall Street companies and “green” corporate cronies of Democrats, and provided almost no money to mainstreet Americans who lost 40% of their net worth since 2008.

The Dodd-Frank financial reform act was passed, but reforms were insufficient to prevent another financial crisis or additional “bail outs” of financial institutions. Too big to fail banks just got bigger. In fact, U.S. bank exposure to SWAPS and other derivatives – a major cause of the financial crash – today is $231 trillion or 40% more than the $176 trillion at the height of the debt crisis and before Dodd-Frank. Just four banks account for 85 percent of total credit exposure to derivatives at U.S. banks, according to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. The answer to Matt is: elect Democrats.  Here’s how: certain corporations – and lawyers – and billionaires like Soros fill the campaign coffers of Democrats and elect Democrats, while demogouging corporations and Wall Street. http://www.economist.com/node/21547784

http://www.occ.treas.gov/topics/capital-markets/financial-markets/trading/derivatives/dq411.pdf

One obvious question is whether there is anything systematically different about the way American liberals and conservatives support their words with personal giving.  Let’s take a look at the study which is referenced by blog articles and by the newspaper article by Nicholas Kristol.

According to the referenced author, Arthur Brooks, a self-acknowledged liberal, who is an economist at Baylor University, there are systematic differences.  Brooks says he “grew up in an intact, religious, politically liberal family where giving was important” (p. 12), seems not to be interested in bashing American liberals, though that is how his conclusions will inevitably be seen by some.  The research presented finds that American liberals are more selfish than American conservatives when measured by the share of their income given in charity and the amount of volunteering they do.  (from one review of Brooks’ book)

Brooks’ book, “Who Really Cares” (reference below)  has four main messages:

• The four forces in American life primarily responsible for making people charitable are “religion, skepticism about the government in economic life, strong families, and personal entrepreneurism” (p. 11).
• “Conservative principles are most congenial to the four forces of charity” (p. 12).
• “Liberals, who often claim to care more about others than conservatives do, are personally less charitable” (p. 70)
• “For many people, the desire to donate other people’s money displaces the act of giving one’s own” (p. 55).

Nicholas Kristol in “Bleeding Heart Tightwads” comments about liberals in the New York Times (link below), “Come on liberals, redeem yourselves, and put your wallets where your hearts are.”

“The problem is this: We liberals are personally stingy.”

“Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.”

Here are additional comments on Brooks’ book from a conservative perspective, to contrast with liberal Nicholas Kristol.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/castingstones/2008/04/conservatives-give-more-to-cha.html

On the question in the blog article below “Who’s More Charitable:” (below) which David Coffey provided: How is giving related to wealth? here is one study:

‎”The richest Americans give a greater share of their income to charities than low- and middle-income Americans do, but the mix of beneficiaries is decidedly different, according to congressional testimony from Frank J. Sammartino, the assistant director for tax analysis from the Congressional Budget Office.”

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/18/which-americans-are-most-generous-and-to-whom/

“Continued dependence on [government support] induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fiber. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit” ~ President Franklin Roosevelt.

I arrive at the same conclusion Harris Hall has discussed many times in his email thread.  I put it this way:  bleeding heart liberals try to relieve their guilt by spending other people’s money by means of politics and the courts.

But, I don’t think this transference of guilt actually works, or at least I have never understood how it works.  I am not so cynical as to believe that these bleeding heart liberals actually want the result that Roosevelt describes.  That result would only make the bleeding heart liberal even more guilty, and if continued, eventually pathological.  Taking private property (wealth) from one group via government expropriation and distributing it to another group resulting in spiritual and moral disintegration is sinister, and does not relieve guilt until one loses contact with reality.

Who’s More Charitable – Liberals or Conservatives?

By adaptivecomplexity

Created Dec 21 2008 – 8:58pm

To be honest, I don’t really care about the answer to this question. But read this Kristof NY Times column, and see if you’re convinced of the answer. It’s time to practice your critical thinking skills – questions you should ask about the claims presented in this column are exactly the sorts of questions you should ask when you read a press report about any statistics-based study, especially medical research.

Here is the basic result Kristof is talking about:

Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

Rather than taking that at face value, several questions should immediately pop into your mind:

1. Is this because more conservatives go to church, and give moeny to their church? For example, Mormons (who tend to be conservative), give 10% of their income to one of the wealthiest churches on the face of the planet, and one which does considerably less humanitarian work around than many churches (liberal and conservative) with much less wealth. Most of us wouldn’t count everything you give to your church as “giving to charity,” so you should ask yourself if the studies Kristof talks about take church giving into account.

And in fact, Kristof notes that “According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do.”

But maybe that’s because conservatives are already giving a big chunk of change to their church (which may really go to substantial charitable work, and not just to the general operating expenses of the church), so there is less money left over to give to non-religious charities. Thus excluding “donations to all religious organizations” may not be a fair comparison either.

2. Are conservatives richer, and thus able to give more to charity? Kristof notes that “measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes,” but we’re given no information on how giving relates to wealth. When I’m spending 80% of my income on basics like food, housing, and transportation, I have less money to give as a percentage of my income. If I only spend 30% on the basics, I’m free to give a larger chunk to charity.

3. How much is related to say, issues of urban vs. rural environments, instead of liberal/conservative? One claim is “People in red states are considerably more likely to volunteer for good causes, and conservatives give blood more often.” Is that because there are more volunteer opportunities in smaller towns than in big cities? I grew up outside of the fairly small city of Ithaca, NY. I volunteered for the local fire department there, something I could never do now in St. Louis because the fire department is all professional.

There are obviously more questions to ask, and it’s not clear at all, at least from the newspaper story, what we should really believe. It may very well be that, once you control for all of the confounding factors, liberals really are stingier. At least as Americans we’re giving 11 times more of our GNP to charity than the French, as Kristof notes.

But wait – the French pay a lot more in taxes to provide many services which are provided by charities in the US. So who really is more generous?

I’m not taking a stand on what the right answer is to any of these comparisons.  The lesson here is, don’t just believe the headline for any study. Learn to ask the right questions.

• Science & Society

ION Publications LLC

Bleeding Heart Tightwads, by Nicholas Kristol.  New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

Media Bias 101: “Surveys over the past 30 years have consistently found that journalists — especially those at the highest ranks of their profession — are much more liberal than rest of America. They are more likely to vote liberal, more likely to describe themselves as liberal, and more likely to agree with the liberal position on policy matters than members of the general public.”

http://archive.mrc.org/static/uploads/MediaBias101.pdf

In 1981, S. Robert Lichter, then with George Washington University, and Stanley Rothman of Smith College, released a groundbreaking survey of 240 journalists at top media outlets — including the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek, U.S. News & World Report, ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS — on their political attitudes and voting patterns. The data showed journalists hold liberal positions on a wide range of social and political issues. Lichter and Rothman’s book, The Media Elite, became the most widely quoted media study of the 1980s.

Congress should simultaneously vote on contempt for both Holder and Napolitano. Napolitano (and by implication Obama) just poked both SCOTUS and Congress in the eye. SCOTUS should charge Janet Napolitano with contempt of court…but SCOTUS has no means of enforcement except through the Executive Branch. The SCOTUS ruling today assumed that the Executive Branch would behave reasonably and continue its 287 program with Arizona. The announcement by Napolitano at DHS proves otherwise and exposes the Obama administration’s vindictive and unreasonable agenda. But SCOTUS has no means of enforcement other than one of the many agencies of the Executive, that means that Congress would have to compel the Executive Branch to take action with a new law. Congress should also declare Napolitano in contempt of Congress, since Congress wrote and funded the law requiring cooperation between the federal agencies and state agencies, a law with which Napolitano today announced DHS would refuse to comply.

This is tangential research to the case against Holder and possibly Obama on Fast and Furious. It speaks to their probable motive in Fast and Furious… i.e. to shut down gun retailers and gun sales.

Summary: how federal intimidation of gun retailers works.

Rick Reese, his wife Terri and two sons are long time gun retailers in New Mexico. These retailers have been in jail without bail for almost a year and all their money and possessions confiscated after a massive federal SWAT “sting” team assault. In the pre-trial hearing in June, 2012, the federal prosecuting attorneys Aaron O. Jordan, Nathan Lichvarcik and Michael Nammer, (employees of Eric Holder’s DOJ) admitted that all of the Reese gun sales had been properly logged and all transactions appeared to have been legal. The federal prosecutor also admitted that the Reese’s have paid all of their taxes and that there was no evidence of any under the table transactions and that all banking and financial evidence indicated that all members of the family never received any money other than their normal paychecks. The federal prosecutor admitted that the Reese’s employed off duty police and deputy sheriffs, but called them “dirty.” ATF and Homeland Security’s HIS received a tip about the Reese’s from a woman Penny Torres who had previously been arrested and convicted for gun running; Torres probably ‘cooperated’ in exchange for leniency in her sentencing.  Prior to tipping the feds about the Reese’s, the Penny Torres’ had attempted to buy guns for running to Mexico but she was reported to legal authorities by Terri Reese.  The “sting” on the Reese’s resulted from Torres’s tip. As the feds progressed “ investigation against the Reese family, they [the feds] were briefing and receiving guidance from Phoenix ATF Bureau Chief Bill Newell – the man responsible for directly overseeing Operation Fast and Furious” and previously responsible for Wide Receiver.  The Reese’s trial is scheduled for July, 2012. Judge is Robert C. Brack. Defense attorneys are Pete Domenici (son of retired Senator), Paul Rubino and a few others representing the four Reese family members.

The court docket is at the link below. Be sure to scroll down and look at the many pages of legal events that have occurred and keep in mind that the Reese’s are in jail and assets are confiscated by the feds. Mrs. Terri Reese was recently released on bail. The Reese’s legal defense would be VERY expensive. http://www.elpasotimes.com/newmexico/ci_20851983/lawyers-attack-governments-conspiracy-theory-deming-gun-sales

http://www.scribd.com/doc/97958288/Reese-Docket-11cr2284

Transcripts are here for Grand Jury Indictment and the pretrial hearings:
http://www.justice.gov/usao/nm/pr/2011/2011-08-30_new_deal_indictment.pdf

http://www.scribd.com/doc/97965604/Reese-11cr2294-Doc74

http://www.scribd.com/doc/97965606/Reese-11cr2294-Doc104

http://www.scribd.com/doc/97965608/Reese-11cr2294-Doc126

http://mobile.wnd.com/2012/06/family-jailed-for-holders-gun-crimes/