CONSERVATISM THE END POINT OF LIBERAL FAILURE

Conservatism the end point of liberal failure

Revisionists are already hard at work planting information in the weak minded that Barack Obama was an excellent president. They will tell you in every category the former President was the envy of the World. Yet antithetically he comes in at the bottom of many reviews. Liberal reality can be measured in many ways. From murders in the streets of decaying cities controlled by Democrats such as Chicago and Baltimore to unfunded liabilities seen in California and Connecticut the liberal failure is evident. Irony is those wrapped in a liberal cloak believe the World around them is fine though the evidence points the other way. Hate for conservatives is a natural outcome of liberal failure. Conservatives get the job done more efficiently, on time and under budget. In other words they conserve resources, plan ahead and pay as they go. Liberals by nature are obstructionists who see progress in inches instead of feet as the right wing model displays.

The stench of Obamacare is the most glaring failure in the liberal camp since the election of Jimmy Carter. Sadly the Democrat Party moves further left each decade.

With the election of a Populist President the intellectually defunct opposing party has placed roadblocks for any and all legislative efforts proposed by the current Administration. Prior nominees for Obama were whisked through the Senate at a near record pace. The opposite is true for Trump appointees. Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer has called all Trump nominees less than friendly names. Schumer’s outright denigration of anything Trump not only displays an innate hostility toward the President his socialist leanings have surfaced as well. Liberalism works for a finite period of time, no more.

Nearly a trillion dollars was allocated to rebuild America under the prior Administration. Where did the money go? Roads, bridges, airports, tunnels and more are in worse shape than ever. Who directed the use of these funds? That’s right Obama, Schumer, Pelosi and a cadre of Democrats who are incompetent as politicians and failures as human beings. For the latter reasons these demoralized shadows of people realize if Trump succeeds the Democrats’ scheme of misappropriating money from the treasury will be outed. Redistribution of wealth was the ultimate goal for this trillion dollar reconstruction effort orchestrated by Obama. In Maryland there appeared to be an uptick of sales in high end vehicles by some socially irresponsible groups who hold Medical Assistance cards.  Unaffordable housing suddenly became affordable. Schools beyond the reach of inept minds began opening the doors to a cash laden population. Reparations had become a reality. Liberalism only works when the pain of paying falls to the other guy. America was shafted in the past 8 years now the payback is occurring and  liberal minds cannot accept the new reality.

Opposition to Trump, both before and after the election, continues to move forward by a small group of individuals. Their message is amplified by a media that sees only blue. Tortured by their November 2016 loss we now view the outcries of a party that has lost its footings and needs Prozac paid for by a new conservative health plan. Ultimately the liberal mindset fails when they deplete the one thing required to keep them afloat, money. President Trump’s reorganization of government structure and function will lead to many liberal programs unfunded and or abolished. This should have happened long ago. 2017 will be the year of the conservative. Have no doubt the partakers of welfare from Uncle Sam will be rioting, protesting and calling for the President’s impeachment because the check will not be in the mail.

Mark Davis

platomd@gmail.com

Manager of Best Editing, Copy Writing, Proofing and Book Reviews.

As humanity evolves, technological advances improve our lives

Commentary by James Shott

As humans and technology evolve, new ideas, products and improving processes make our lives fuller and easier. We once listened to music on plastic platters. Even as the quality of records improved, progress brought about the reel-to-reel tape machine. That was a great development, but then someone came up with the 8-track tape player, which eventually gave way to the cassette player, and then audio on tape was surpassed by a new technological creation, the compact disc. And now that, too, is about to become old news.

As the years, decades, and centuries pass, human beings evolve in their ability to develop ideas and create devices that improve the quality of their lives.

In 1593, Galileo Galilei invented the first device to measure temperature variations, a rudimentary water thermoscope. In 1612, the Italian inventor Santorio Santorio put a numerical scale on his thermoscope. While neither of these new instruments was very accurate, they represented progress.

In 1654, Ferdinand II, the Grand Duke of Tuscany invented the first enclosed liquid-in-a-glass thermometer, and replaced water with alcohol as the medium to measure temperature changes. This instrument, too, was inaccurate and used no standardized scale, but represented a step forward.

Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit invented the first modern thermometer, the mercury thermometer with a standardized scale, in 1714. Thermometers continued to evolve since that time, becoming more accurate and more versatile along the way, measuring the temperatures of air and liquids. For most of those 300 years they utilized a liquid to measure temperature, but today digital technology has become the standard.

From their land-bound home, humans learned how to move through the air and into outer space, and now digital thermometers measure temperatures on Earth from satellites orbiting many miles above the planet. For 37 years satellite-based instruments have provided the world's most accurate and unbiased temperature data.

And space-based measurements are free from coverage gaps and “siting problems,” conditions that plague land-based instruments. A study authored by Anthony Watts and Evan Jones of surfacestations.org, John Nielsen-Gammon of Texas A&M, and John R. Christy of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, show the problems inherent in land-based thermometers that do not affect space-based measurements.

Watts, the lead author of the study, explained: “The majority of weather stations used by NOAA [the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration] to detect climate change temperature signal have been compromised by encroachment of artificial surfaces like concrete, asphalt, and heat sources like air conditioner exhausts.” He added: “We also see evidence of this same sort of siting problem around the world at many other official weather stations, suggesting that the same upward bias on trend also manifests itself in the global temperature record.”

The study notes that there are two subsets of weather stations, those that are well sited, and not affected by extraneous effects, and those that are poorly sited, and are affected by extraneous effects. The well sited stations produce readings markedly cooler than those corrupted by extraneous effects, and the study suggests that the results of the well sited stations – the truest measure of environmental temperature – are adjusted upward to more closely match the results of the poorly sited stations, resulting in temperature readings higher than true readings.

Put into plain English, many land-based measurement stations are corrupted by elements that are not a part of the Earth’s natural temperature, and they skew the results upward. Real-world temperatures measured by satellites are consistently cooler than those projected by climate computer model simulations because they are not affected by concrete, asphalt and other things that collect and produce heat that are not a part of the Earth’s natural environmental temperature.

And what the satellite-based instruments reveal is stunning. There has been no warming at or in the:
    •    South Pole for 37 years
    •    Southern hemisphere for 19 years, 10 months
    •    Tropics for 19 years, 3 months
    •    Tropical oceans for 22 years, 11 months
    •    North Pole for 13 years, 10 months
    •    Australia for 18 years, 1 month
    •    U.S.A. for 18 years (49 states)
    •    Globally for 18 years, 6 months

These readings plainly show that contrary to global warming scare stories in the media, the world has not warmed as the models projected. However, warming advocates choose to ignore these measurements, and the reason why is simple: Without a scary story of future catastrophe to promote, they lose power and they lose money, the power to control the masses being the more important.

The worldwide effort to fight climate change is not about fighting climate change; it is about control. But twenty-first century technology provides evidence that is devastating to the global warming narrative. 

The simple truth is that some years are warmer than others; and some years are cooler. Warming and cooling periods may lasts a few to several years or many decades. Our climate is not static and has never been.

Contrary to the warming advocates’ story, satellite-based measurements show that the industrial revolution that set loose the development of so many things that make our lives better has not caused the planet to heat up.

With science, the media and government conspiring to subject people to ideological control over unproven climate change, that progress will be impeded, and the entire world will suffer.

Cross-posted from Observations

Ominous omnibus: There are many problems with the spending bill

Commentary by James Shott

Last Friday Congress passed the omnibus spending bill, avoiding a government shutdown when current funding expired at 12:01 a.m. on Dec. 23. At 2,009 pages it spent a dazzling $1.149 trillion, and like most legislation it had some good features and some less-than-desirable features.

It was described as far-reaching legislation funding the government until next October, passing tax breaks for businesses and low-income families, reauthorizing programs to compensate and provide health care for first responders and survivors of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and a cybersecurity measure that could help businesses cooperate more closely with the government and each other in fighting online threats.

The bill easily cleared both chambers, first in the House, which passed it 316-113, followed by the Senate in a 65-33 vote. President Barack Obama signed the measure.

Republicans, who hold majorities in both houses – 54 percent in the House and nearly 57 percent in the Senate – supported the bill by a significant majority in the House, but in in the Senate only about one-third voted for the bill.

Despite the Republican majority in both houses, the GOP managed only a few real victories, while the minority party won big, according to most analyses.

Republicans gained the lifting of a 40-year ban on oil exports, prohibiting funding to bail out the insurance companies in the Obamacare health insurance program, and preventing the IRS from regulating political speech.

However, they were unable to restrict the Syrian refugee program, end funding for Obama’s executive actions on immigration, defund Planned Parenthood, defund sanctuary cities, or restrain EPA over-regulation of ponds and streams, and coal-burning power plants.

Perhaps the most noteworthy provision in the bill is the one that could allow more than a quarter-million temporary guest workers into the country, an increase from the previous federal cap of 66,000 on H-2B visas for low-skilled foreign workers seeking blue-collar jobs in the U.S. This is a significant change to immigration law, and it has conservatives dismayed. Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, told The Daily Signal, “It came out of nowhere, completely out of nowhere,” the chairman of the House Freedom Caucus said, “[and] everyone was shocked there was a change and no one had talked about it.”

Conservatives are displeased that the Republicans were unable to remove so many troublesome provisions that they should strongly oppose, and also with the very process that created the bill and brought it to a vote.

Critics of the bill and its passage complained that the rank-and-file members of the House were not included in negotiations. Congressional leaders assembled the bill in smoke-filled back rooms and did not release the text of the 2,009-page bill until 2 a.m. last Wednesday, and the separate 233-page tax-extenders bill was released just before midnight.

Prior to the vote Heritage Action for America chief executive Michael A. Needham said the package represents the most sweeping changes to tax policy since 2012. “In fewer than 48 hours, lawmakers will likely be asked to vote on two massive bills that were negotiated behind closed doors over the past several weeks,” he said.

After the vote Republican presidential candidate Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky explained his “no” vote to a New York radio station: “It was over a trillion dollars, it was all lumped together, 2,242 pages, nobody read it, so frankly my biggest complaint is that I have no idea what kind of things they stuck in the bill.” “I voted against it because I won’t vote for these enormous bills that no one has a chance to read,” Paul continued. “[T]his is not a way to run government. It’s a part of the reason why government is broke." And broken, he might have added.

Rep. Raul Labrador, R-Idaho, who voted against the spending bill, said Republicans voted for the bill in part to support House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-WI, who had just taken that position and they were hopeful he would be more inclusive with rank and file members than his predecessor, former House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio.

“There were a lot of people who didn’t want to vote for this, but they were giving him a vote out of good faith,” he said. At the same time, many also were worried that Ryan had given Democrats too many policy concessions in the bill, a feeling now confirmed. “The Democrats unfortunately just learned that they can mistreat him like they mistreated Boehner, which is a really bad thing,” Labrador said.

What the Framers designed as an efficient and transparent system of lawmaking now operates in the gutter. These days, bills often reflect dishonorable characteristics like this bill had:
    •    Created in secrecy
    •    Hundreds or thousands of pages long
    •    Voted on without time to be properly considered
    •    Amendments not permitted
    •    Contain elements unrelated to the purpose of the bill
    •    Are approved for political expediency, rather than by broad support

Too many bills are designed not to produce needed and broadly supported laws, but to enact politically useful and narrowly focused measures that benefit some at the expense of the others.

This process is yet one more sign of the devolving nature of our country. If America is to survive, good government must be restored.



Cross-posted from Observations

Republicans face problems in debates and the House of Representatives

Commentary by James Shott

Say what you will about the way CNBC conducted the Republican debate, the business side of NBC News did something that neither Fox News nor CNN were able to do.

All three had similarities, like gotcha questions and efforts to pit one candidate against another, elements that obstructed a discussion of the serious issues of electing a nominee for President of the United States, rather than assisting voters in making an informed decision. To the extent that real issues arose, the combative atmosphere moderators created in all three debates got in the way.

In sharp contrast to the mood in Republican debates was the Democrat debate on CNN, which also failed to reveal important information about the candidates, but approached not doing so by giving hugs and kisses to the candidates.

CNBC was both over the top and under the table. The three moderators were clearly not up to conducting a meaningful debate, not even on business and economic issues, and the muddle that resulted drew almost universal criticism. Moderators were poorly prepared, partisan, thought they were the stars of the show, were argumentative and often interrupted the candidates. While so many TV news people seem infected with the idea that being quarrelsome is cool, CNBC took that to a new level. You can challenge candidates on issues and answers, and still be civil.

However, as horrible as it was, CNBC did succeed in uniting the candidates for the first time since the campaign began, if only against CNBC’s amateurish approach, and the revolt that followed did produce a little discussion of important issues.

The 2016 debate series should be a valuable element in the process of selecting presidential candidates. Along with public and media appearances, the debates are opportunities for voters to hear candidates discuss their platforms and they are the only vehicle where the pros and cons of the various positions are aired in a way that voters have the opportunity to evaluate them side-by-side. 

So far they all have been disappointing, in terms of illuminating the candidate’s views, but CNBC wins the brown ribbon for the absolute worst. In place of questions on substantive issues, the moderators worked hard to trap and demean the Republican participants, which is very different from challenging them on issues.

Unfortunately, our campaign process identifies the best candidate, not necessarily the person best suited to be president. So much is based on appearance and performance, rather than candidates’ understanding of the country’s problems and sensible ideas for addressing them. A track record of success takes a back seat to image, charm and glibness.

And Republicans have the additional obstacle posed by the liberals in the media, who often misunderstand and not infrequently deliberately mischaracterize their objectives, and tell the world how awful they are.

Granted that the GOP is sharply divided, unlike the Democrat Party that pretty much possesses no diversity of thought. But the left portrays this Republican diversity as a weakness, which is interesting, since the left considers diversity one of the most important things in life.

It suits the purposes of the left to mischaracterize and demonize the House Freedom Caucus, the Tea Party groups and other elements of the right, and there are plenty of media sources indulging in that activity.

Some, commenting on Wisconsin Republican Paul Ryan’s election as House Speaker, wonder how he will possibly be able to manage such an unruly group. The liberal writers characterize the conservative Republican bloc with terms such as “right-wing fringe” and “radicals.”

The liberal writers are happy to offer guidance to conservatives, such as that if their subgroup wants to set policy for its party, all it needs is to have a majority of the party’s support. And if it doesn’t have a majority, it should meekly abandon its position and support the position of the majority.

And that no doubt would please liberals and Democrats, and many Republicans. However, millions of Republican voters recognize that this approach is largely why things are worse today than when the GOP gained control of the Congress, and why the Republican Congress has been so ineffective at representing their views.

These conservative House members were elected not to offer their ideas and then surrender, they were elected to fight for their supporter’s beliefs in the traditional conservative values that built the country, and to stick by them. Isn’t that what republican government is all about?

The liberals advise that when voters have put one party in charge of the executive branch and another party in charge of the legislative branch, as is the case today, compromise is demanded to move the country forward.

However, compromise does not mean surrender, as many of these “advisors” suggest. One does not oppose a bill with multiple objectionable elements, and then “compromise” by accepting the whole package when others resist changes. The two sides identify those elements they agree on, take the rest out of the legislation, and move the compromise measure forward.

Compromise means that everyone gives up something, not just the conservative Republicans. It is sad – even dangerous – that so many Republicans do not understand this.



Cross-posted from Observations

Epitaph to Conservatism

Epitaph to Conservatism

 

Unnoticed by most and minimally commented upon by the media conservatism died in 2014. There were no parades, gatherings or events to commemorate its passing. Republican’s landslide at the polls in November did little to deter conservatism’s final defeat. Recent events in Washington solidified the liberal agenda enabled by Republican leadership and finalized by Barack Obama.  Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, provided the left, with a budget fraught goodies on their wish list. Fully funding Obamacare and amnesty for illegals one wonders who these people are working for. Congressional leadership, empowered to contain Obama’s policies, took the path of least resistance providing the President with the finances to continue ravaging the Constitution. More youthful members of the right vehemently protested Boehner’s caving to Obama’s demands, yet most supported the Speaker so they could stealthily leave town for the holidays. Conservative principles and ideas are an anathema to those who believe government should support and control each and every resident on the American landscape. Successfully squelching Republican dogma from the last presidential election cycle through now Obama moves into the future knowing he can do what he wants uninhibited by those on the other side of the aisle. Senate reconvenes in early January with a Republican majority and Harry Reid diminished to a secondary role. Reflecting on Mitch McConnell’s recent actions this Senate Majority leader to be has his mind entrenched in old boy politics instead of what is best for the nation. Newer blood is needed in the role McConnell plans to tackle to resurrect the platform which led to the Democrats defeat less than 2 months ago. Conservatism dictates constraints on spending, smart policies to grow the economy and a view of the World placing America first. These considerations have been forgotten by the bellwethers of a party whose present governing style is a reflection of a majority they will replace. Expect very little change in the next two years. Republicans’ failure to challenge Obama at his doorstep will lead to him being replaced by a clone not a conservative. Perhaps the American public has been manipulated by backdoor politics and collusion between the major parties to keep the country mired in the weaknesses Obama has generated for the nation. From this perch anything is possible by a government with 18 trillion in debt, out of control spending and Congressional members who come poor to Washington and leave millionaires. One thing for certain the nation is being placed on the road to another Clinton in the White House. This will occur in the event conservatism does not reemerge as a force to drown the collective liberal mentality seen in most recent times. Stay tuned.

 

Mark Davis MD, President of Davis Writing Services, www.daviswritingservices.com Dr. Davis’ most recent book is Obamacare: Dead on Arrival, A Prescription for Disaster. To contact Dr. Davis for interviews or media commentary please use the following email: platomd@gmail.com

Rush Limbaugh: out of touch with the mainstream

Rush Limbaugh: out of touch with the mainstream

 

America’s conservative archetype, Rush Limbaugh, has lost touch with the mainstream. Comments he made in 2010 have come back to haunt him. A recent caller to CSPAN reminded America of Rush’s insensitive remarks concerning school lunch programs and their lack of availability during the summer months. Rush stated parents should be feeding their children from home refrigerators or take them to a cheap fast food establishment when schools are closed. In the event those maneuvers did not work children can “dumpster dive” similar to homeless persons. As a conservative, I found his approach to this subject heartless. Yet, there is a more profound problem Rush views everything through a filter, which denies his sight a reality the rest of us see. Many children live within a dysfunctional family structure. Children from these homes may not have food readily available in the refrigerator or someone to give them a dollar for a McDonald’s meal, as Rush Suggested. School lunch programs provide the nutrients millions of children would not receive otherwise. Apparently, his views have not changed over the last three years. Rush’s comments on health care are equally incredulous. Through his golden EIB microphone Rush has stated repeatedly that Obamacare is wrong for the nation, yet his belief that everyone has equal access to medical services is a farce. Wealthy individuals obtain health care with the speed of thought, the rest of us wait in line. Rush is having a tenuous relationship with conservatism. He lives in his self-created Elysium, which prevents him from seeing the suffering many of us must bear under from a regime that is literally destroying the nation. There is no doubt that Rush has been a bellwether of conservative views for nearly 25, but father time may have paid him a visit. Perhaps this is the time Rush should bow out gracefully and hand over his microphone to one of his younger contemporaries. The World does not revolve around parties anymore, only around people. In the event Rush has a reawakening, he must realize this fact and help the masses with substance, which his daily allotment of verbiage leaves out. As an avid listener of his program, I hope he makes the right decision. Mark Davis MD. President of Healthnets Review Services and Davis Book Reviews, www.healthnetsreviewservices.com, americassage@gmail.com Author of Demons of Democracy and the forthcoming book, Obamacare: Dead on Arrival, A Prescription for Disaster.

America Holds Its Breath

On this Election Day, America collectively holds its breath.

On one side, we have a segment of the populace who desire government to provide them with all their needs.  A segment who wants to be free from personal responsibility.  A segment who wants to be free from any presence of the Christian God in the fabric of our nation.  A segment who desires our nation to be more like the rest of the world.  A segment who believes that the ends justify the means, an ends that is nebulous and undefined, but just known as "hope."  A segment who justifies murder by claiming protection of individual privacy and right to personal choice.  A segment who believes that speech should only be free if it supports the desired ends.  A segment who deals with evil by legalizing and normalizing it.  A segment that believes truth comes from man and our rights come from the government.  A segment who sees a crisis as an opportunity to obtain more power

On the other side, we have a segment of the populace who desires limited government so that individual liberties are protected.  A segment who believes that each citizen is responsible for his/her actions.  A segment that believes that the Christian God is an essential requirement for the fabric of America. A segment that believes in the sovereignty of our nation.  A segment who believes that the way we do something is as important than the ends we seek to achieve.  A segment who believes that the right to life is not trumped by a right to privacy.    A segment who believes in the right to free speech, even if we may find that speech hateful or repulsive.  A segment who confronts evil.  A segment who believes that truth and rights come from our Creator.  A segment who sees a crisis as a call to do the right thing

These two positions are at their very core irreconcilable, and the emotions of both camps have been extensively whipped up by their respective leaders.  Opponents have been dehumanized and portrayed as "zombies" worthy of eradication.  Fear and hate are palpable in America.

How did we get here?

America failed to abide in our Constitution and in the Creator of heaven and earth.  We failed to safeguard the form of government and liberties it provides, having neglected our duty as citizens of this nation.  At our founding, We The People were sovereign.  But we have stood by while our government has steadily taken it away from us.  We have believed that through human effort our government can make a more perfect society.  We have convinced ourselves that America could not become like Nazi Germany or Rwanda where citizens commit mass murder and atrocities against their fellow citizens.  We have therefore sat idly by, sedated and distracted with music, movies, sports, and medication pretending that there is no problem, and if there is a problem, it will sort itself out.

As a result or our indifference, leaders of both parties have been guilty of taking us down a very dangerous path.  Both parties have involved us in unnecessary wars.  Both parties have bankrupted our nation by increasing our national debt to the point where it may be mathematically impossible to repay.  Both parties have passed legislation that infringe on our liberties.  Both parties have sought ways to circumvent the Constitution--and succeeded in doing so. Both parties have worked to undermine the sovereignty of our nation in favor of globalism.

Is our government doing things to us, or for us?

If We The People do not change the course of our nation quickly and restore our sovereignty, we may never be able to.

But are we already be too late?  George Washington instructed us that our nation depends upon morals and religion to function properly.  Without these two elements, it is doubtful that our Constitutional Republic can survive.  Have our morals already become so debased, and God removed so completely from our thoughts and actions, that our republic can no longer function as designed?  Perhaps we should just accept that our debauched culture now needs a dictator to keep it in line.  Perhaps we should rejoin the culture of the rest of the world, the very same world that many of our forefathers rejected by leaving everything behind and coming to an America where they could be more free.

After America, there is nowhere left to go.  Once America's freedom is gone, that's it.

We Americans, as every people of the world, get the government we deserve.  What kind of government do you think we deserve?  If it's not what you see now, then get out there and work to change it.  Wake up, pull your head out of the sand, contemplate our situation as a nation, and act.  Your life and your children's lives depend upon what you do this day, and every day after.

The bottom line is this: the battle for the future of America is not in Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen or Libya.  The battle is in America.  Put on the full armor of God and march to the sounds of the guns.

--Against All Enemies

Against All Enemies Blog: http://aaenemies.blogspot.com
AAE on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AgainstAllEnemies
AAE on Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/@AAEnemies

Disclaimer: These opinions are solely my own, and do not reflect the opinions or official positions of any United States Government agency, organization or department.