Obama's news from the 1700s - The Glaciers are Melting!

Barack Obama is in Alaska and has discovered that the glaciers are melting.  Moreover, he wants you to believe it can be stopped if only you give the federal government vast new powers to tax and regulate you. This is a con.  It's not that glaciers aren't melting, but that it has been happening for a really long time and precedes the industrialization blamed by today's warmists.   

As a kid I remember learning about "the ice age".  As an adult I have come to learn there were probably tens of thousands of ice ages in geologic history spanning billions of years.  (UPDATE:  If scientists are right, earth is 4.5 billion years old.  We now know from ice cores at Vostok and Dome C that there is a major ice age every 100,000 years.  That means there may have been more than 45,000 massive global warmings in earth's history!)  Countless times the earth cooled, and countless times glaciers melted.  

Looking at the tiny speck of recorded history and trying to blame this all on manmade CO2 levels is like looking at a single cell from an elephant and trying to tell what it's great grandfather had for lunch!

Here, in it's entirety, is the piece by Jeff Dunetz who blogs at "The Lid", which spurred this post:  

Obama's Lying About The Alaskan Glaciers They've Been Melting For Three Centuries

Once again this president is lying to promote his global re-distribution of income policy also known as climate change.  Yesterday he visited the glaciers in Alaska (having been there...they are beautiful!).  He claimed that global warming was melting the glaciers---he is lying.  They've been melting since before the American Revolution. (Undiepundit update: they've been melting for over 10,000 years since the last temperature minimum.)  The good news is that the Arctic ice caps are growing:

- President Barack Obama walked down a winding wooded path, past a small brown post marked "1926" and a glacial stream trickling over gravel that eons of ice have scraped off mountain peaks.

He reached another post reading "1951", a marker for the edge of Alaska's Exit Glacier that year, and gazed up toward where the rock-rutted ice mass has since receded, a quarter mile away.

"This is as good a signpost of what we're dealing with on climate change as just about anything," Obama told reporters near the base of the glacier.

Glacial melting is nothing new, they have been receding before this country had a president.  Lets go back in history...take a look at this news article from 1952 which says the glaciers in Alaska had already lost half their size:

OK I hear you--1952 isn't early enough, how about 1923?

You want it even earlier, take a look at the map of Glacier Bay Alaska.  It shows where the glaciers are today vs. where they were up to at various points back to just before the American Revolution.  Unless Gen. Washington let the revolutionary army in SUVs there was no problem with greenhouse gasses back then.  In fact if you look at the map most of the melting took place before the 20th century.  Does Barack Obama really believe Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves and melted the glaciers?

Note: the source of the three pictures above is Steven Goddard's Real ScienceBlog

Lets take a look at what's been happening since Obama was elected.  Check that, let's take a look at what's been happening since Bill Clinton was president. To be honest NOTHING.

That's right, the satellite monthly global mean surface temperature  shows no global warming for 18 years 7 months since January 1997 the last time Hillary Clinton was trolling around the White House. Note that yes there was warming before Jan. 97, and thanks to the El Nino there may be warming in the near future (at least until the La Niña starts or the lack of sunspot activity throws us into a mini ice age as some scientists are predicting).

Those claims of the hottest temperatures on record are "sort of"  true also. Firstly they are talking warmest by a hundredth of a degree. Secondly it uses land based temperature readings rather than satellite data. Climate scientists actually preferred the satellite data as being more accurate until it started disproving their global warming hypothesis.  (Undiepundit update: It's been much warmer, even in Earth's recent history.  Vikings farmed Greenland up until 500 years ago, which would not be possible today.  And when they first went to Iceland 1100 years ago, there were no glaciers on that island that is now largely covered by ice!) 

I hate to upset the president but the truth is the ice caps are growing. A July 2015 article in the U.K. Telegraph called "How Arctic ice has made fools of all those poor warmists" reported:

In recent years there has been more polar ice in the world than at any time since satellite records began in 1979. In the very year they had forecast that the Arctic would be “ice free”, its thickness increased by a third. Polar bear numbers are rising, not falling. Temperatures in Greenland have shown no increase for decades.

When the Telegraph talks about more polar ice since 1979, it is really talking about both poles combined as the Antarctic ice cap has been growing more substantially over that period.

The Arctic Ice had a period of melting but as reported in Nature Geoscience:

However, we observe 33% and 25% more ice in autumn 2013 and 2014, respectively, relative to the 2010–2012 seasonal mean, which offset earlier losses. This increase was caused by the retention of thick sea ice northwest of Greenland during 2013 which, in turn, was associated with a 5% drop in the number of days on which melting occurred—conditions more typical of the late 1990s. In contrast, springtime Arctic sea ice volume has remained stable. 

In other words if the ice cap could talk it would say, "Baby I'm Back!"   It seems as if the Ice Cap size ebbs and flows for natural reasons and has nothing to do with CO2 in the air. That's why as the carbon in the atmosphere as been growing in the last century we've seen the ice grow, recede, and grow again.

In fact the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is at its highest level in almost13,000 years. Approximately 12,750 years ago before big cars and coal plants CO2 levels were higher than today. And during some past ice ages levels were up to 20x today's levels--ice ages, that's a lot of polar ice that didn't melt.

Obama talked about severe storms yesterday...another lie. No Increase In Hurricanes: A study published in the July 2012 in the journal of the American Meteorological Society concluded unequivocally there is no trend of stronger or more frequent storms, asserting:

We have identified considerable inter-annual variability in the frequency of global hurricane landfalls, but within the resolution of the available data, our evidence does not support the presence of significant long-period global or individual basin linear trends for minor, major, or total hurricanes within the period(s) covered by the available quality data.

Perhaps it's because he thinks news doesn't travel well from Alaska, but Barack Obama is lying about glacier shrinkage, about the ice caps, and about an increase in storms during his first trip to Alaska.

The Fed and Free Markets

Once again The Federal Reserve is stuck in the unenviable position of taking candy from the spoiled brat it created.  They've been jawboning about raising interest rates for so long I've lost track, yet they never fail to find excuses for postponing.  Meanwhile the spoiled brat keeps getting fatter, closer to type II diabetes, and more ill tempered with every passing quarter.

This reminds me of the similarly irresponsible Fed actions of 2005 - 2006.  In that case the Fed didn't just take candy from the brat, they went on to stomp on it's windpipe!  Forgotten in the blur of deceptive history is how the housing bubble, which the Fed helped create, came to collapse so violently and led to the financial crisis of 2008.

From 2005 - 2006 the Fed raised interest rates from 1% to 5.25%.  That was an increase of 425%! Housing prices, being inversely related to mortgage rates, promptly crashed.   It need not have happened that way.  The fed acted irresponsibly.

Now they are being overly cautious and inflating bubbles in equities, real estate, mergers, debt, etc. Much of the risk is once again concentrated in the federal government.  Fannie and Freddie own just about every mortgage written since 2008.  The Federal Reserve now owns over four trillion dollars of interest rate sensitive securities.  Plus, the rising dollar is squeezing exporters which would only get worse if the Fed normalizes.

We've seen what happens when the Fed helps distort and then crushes a big sector of the economy. Now we are seeing what happens when the Fed just keeps distorting.

Remind me again how we've got a free market economy in the U.S.?  

Big Surprise - Stern likes Trump!

Howard Stern has endorsed Donald Trump.   This will not come as a surprise to readers of undiepundit.com.  Here's what I wrote over a month ago:  

Donald Trump is the Howard Stern of politics.  He’s a shock jock in a field of politicians who sound like boring newsreaders.  He opens his mouth and out comes ego, shameless self-promotion, outrageousness, braggadocio, and downright meanness towards his detractors.   

But there are other things too which endear him to his audience.   He’s fearless, confident, unapologetic, and says things no one else has the cojones to say.   And he's entertaining.  Very entertaining.  In other words, he’s exactly like Howard Stern!  His fans are the same too.  Listen to them talk and you'll find yourself expecting them to blurt out “Baba Booey!” any second.  

Donald Trump is a serious candidate for President the same way Howard Stern was a serious candidate when he ran for Governor of New York in 1994.  Stern didn’t win.  Neither will Trump.       

That said, I really want Donald Trump to be the next President.  Allow me to explain. 

President Trump could accomplish from within the government what could never be accomplished from without:  namely the destruction and de-legitimization of the federal leviathan.  

Donald Trump could be the virus that infects and ultimately kills the progressive idea that government can and should micro-manage every aspect of your life.  Sure it sounds appealing when a silver-tongued community organizer gives you a one sided utopian vision to cling to.   But how many want to sign up for that same program when the guy who says “you’re fired!” becomes boss?  

Donald Trump holds people accountable.  That alone would stop totalitarianism in its tracks.  The only way the progressive takeover can continue is if a majority stays convinced they are getting a free ride in exchange for others losing their freedoms.  Trump will give no one a free ride, and everyone will be his subject.   

Make Donald Trump President and inside of four years the electorate will be clamoring for limited government once again in America.  

So yes, Donald Trump for President.  And while we’re at it, Robin Quivers for VP.    Oh, and Baba Booey, Baba Booey, Baba Boooeeey! 

Why Socialism is Chic, and Capitalism is Not

Socialism is chic in 2015.   But, just a few short years ago, Obama voters would mock and charge racism when anyone likened his ideology to socialism.  Now, Bernie Sanders, an openly socialist candidate, is leading in some key polls of those very same voters!

Why is this happening in a country which enjoys the highest standard of living of any large diverse country, and one which uniquely earned it's place due to its historic reliance on free markets and constitutionally limited government?  Part of this is a triumph of deliberate indoctrination which has been going on for at least half a century.  Another part, and the most recent part, is a deliberate deception regarding the financial crisis of 2008.

Pop quiz:   

1. Who is the father of modern socialism/communism?  
2. Who is the father of modern capitalism? 

Odds are you will be able to answer the first question correctly, and can name Karl Marx as the father of modern socialism/communism.  You probably can do a decent job of explaining Marxism without even looking it up on Wikipedia.  You may even be familiar with the Marxist slogan, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

Conversely, if you are asked who the father of modern capitalism is, odds are you'd either draw a blank or be mostly wrong.

You may not realize it, but socialists have been influencing you your whole life. Prior to the 1960's there were prohibitions on government workers joining organized labor.  That's because there was an obvious conflict of interest; organized labor and socialism have been synonymous throughout their shared history in the U.S..  But that changed in the 1960's under Democrat John F. Kennedy, and since then, government workers, including school teachers, have flooded into organized labor.   Most likely every teacher who taught you in a U.S. public school was a member of organized labor.  Of course, not all teachers nor members of organized labor are socialists, but the politics of organized labor in the U.S. leans undeniably in that direction.  Today, Karl Marx is the most assigned economist in U.S. college classes.  

So how did you answer the second question?  In one sense the answer to that one is again... Karl Marx.  Yes, Karl Marx is both the father of modern socialism AND the father of modern capitalism. Karl Marx was the person who defined capitalism for the masses in his scathing critique of 1860s capitalism, called "Das Kapital".  He constructed a convenient dichotomy between socialism and capitalism based on his own definitions to support his theories .  Of course Marx's preferred ideology, socialism, was defined in the most glowing light, while capitalism was defined in the most sinister.

Many scholars credit a Scotsman named Adam Smith as the person whose ideas most influenced our economic system.  Adam Smith’s book, “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations”, was actually published in 1776.  (That date rings a bell, no?)  But the word capitalism didn't exist in Adam Smith’s day.  He never used it.  We mistakenly call our economic system capitalism because that's what Marx and the critics called it.  The name unfortunately stuck. 

If everyone knows what Marxism is, why doesn't everyone know what "Smithism" is?  Because it’s not taught, except to economics majors.  "Smithism" never became a word.  Marxism is taught everywhere all the time, and not just to economics majors.  If you want to learn about Adam Smith, you most likely have to do it on your own.  You can go through K-12 and well beyond in schools in the U.S., and never hear the name Adam Smith, never learn about his ideas, and never understand the influence those ideas had on the founding of our country.  If you go to Wikipedia and look up Marxism, you’ll find plenty.  If you go to Wikipedia and look up Smithism, you’ll get crickets. 

How about a more modern term, like Supply Side Economics?  You are probably familiar with that term, but can you accurately define it?  Can you define its opposite, Demand Side Economics?

·         Supply side economics is the theory that people will SUPPLY (create) more value if they are allowed to function in a free market.
   

·         Demand side economics is the theory that people will DEMAND (consume) more value if wealth is redistributed to them.

    

These are opposite approaches for achieving different economic goals.  Supply Side seeks to optimize overall economic vitality (Smithism).  Demand Side at times seeks to stimulate consumption (Keynesianism), or at times to achieve egalitarianism (Marxism).

If you look up supply side economics on Wikipedia, you’ll find a thorough entry along with plenty of criticisms.  If you look up demand side economics, you’ll get zip.  The language in this case does not favor the socialist demand side ideology.   Hence, it is not even defined.

No event has had a more profound impact on this country's recent tilt towards socialism than the financial crisis of 2008.  It is said that history is written by the victors.  That has never been more true than in the wake of the financial crisis.  Democrats controlled the government commission that wrote the post-mortem.  Barack Obama won the presidency.  Democrats had both houses of congress.  And liberals made the movies and wrote the books explaining the crisis to the masses. Unfortunately, everything they told you was a deliberate deception designed to exonerate socialism, and scapegoat capitalism.   

The fact is the financial crisis of 2008 was a perfect demonstration of the failures of socialism. Redistribution of wealth, in this case redistribution of mortgage credit, was at the heart of the financial crisis.  At times, the support for this redistribution was bi-partisan, but the ideology behind it was socialist regardless of who was advocating.

It all began with the affordable housing goals promoted by Democrats in the early 1990s, which lowered mortgage requirements.  It accelerated in the mid 1990s under Democrat Bill Clinton with further loosening of mortgage standards, pressure on banks to write loose loans, and mandates for government backed companies FNMA (Fannie Mae) and FHLMC (Freddie Mac) to buy all the new mortgages.  It finally reached it’s apex in 2007 under Republican George W. Bush, while Democrats, including Senator Barack Obama, ran both houses of congress.

All the risk from this socialist redistribution was supposed to be assumed by the federal government in the form of the afore mentioned government backed companies.  Fannie and Freddie were ground zero for the financial crisis.  No government official took more money from these two companies, and at a faster rate, than the junior Senator from Illinois named Barack Obama.  His closest competitors in that money grab included Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Hillary Clinton.  If this is news to you,  it's because they wrote the history.

What they told you was that it was a perfect storm involving greedy bankers, deregulation, and the natural flaws of capitalism.  It was a plausible argument designed to deceive.  Bankers today are no greedier than their banking forebears.  So why did they suddenly engage in subprime lending for the first time in history in such large numbers? Because they were coerced to do so by their government.

Deregulation also had nothing to do with it.  Canadian banks are lightly regulated compared to their U.S. counterparts, and none of them failed.  Are U.S. bankers so much greedier than their Canadian counterparts that they drove their banks into insolvency while their less regulated neighbors to the north did not?  No, it was U.S. government regulation in the form of a socialist housing policy that caused the financial crisis.  Unfortunately, when the scheme went bad, the damage spread to the private banking and investment sector, bringing the entire global financial system to its knees.

The deceptions about this animated the Occupy Wall Street movement, got Barack Obama elected twice, and are responsible for the acceptance of openly socialist candidate Bernie Sanders today.   They are also part of the continuing campaign that has mischaracterized the mortgage market as an example of failed capitalism.

The frightening thing about this is, if history is written by the victors and they engage in deception, aren't we doomed to repeat it?  We are.  Fannie and Freddie own just about every new mortgage written since 2008, and the socialist policies promoting home ownership and borrowing have accelerated under Barack Obama.  We are in the process of building a second real estate bubble. Adding to that scenario is a socialist national debt bubble, student loan bubble, auto loan bubble, and equity bubble.

You might be saying, "OK, big deal, I'm a socialist.  Lots of countries are socialist, and some of them seem to be doing just fine. Britain and much of Europe are pretty socialist.  Why can't we have what they have?  Free healthcare, free college, and lots of benefits sounds pretty good to me!".  Well, we can have those things too.  But it won't last.  Seen Europe lately?  It ain't pretty.  Socialist Europe is dying.

Here's the thing:  National socialism has never produced anything long term other than misery, starvation, poverty, and authoritarianism.  That's at the national level.  And long term.  At the local level, socialism can survive a bit longer.  Local socialism does not eliminate the incentive killing aspects of socialism, but it does delay the inevitable monetary collapse.  That's because local governments cannot create money. State and local governments must be more disciplined or risk imminent collapse.  Therefore, they tend to be more fiscally responsible.  National governments can hide their insolvency much longer, plunder future generations, devalue currencies, manipulate interest rates, and cause much bigger problems down the road.

This is an important point that deserves repeating;  socialism cannot work long term at the national level.  The national level is where money is usually created and controlled.  The Euro countries are a recent exception now that money is no longer controlled by the individual countries.  The Euro is controlled by the European Central Bank, which is a consortium of 19 Eurozone countries .  It's almost like they recognized the fatal flaw and are trying to work around it.

But in the U.S. we have no such arrangement.  We borrow and print money at the federal level. Our system was never designed to be a socialist system.  The constitution implied that the states were the proper place for redistributive experimentation.  At the national level, the conflict of interest is just too great for elected officials.  National politicians will eventually destroy the currency, borrow too heavily, undermine the work ethic, and undermine national defense in an attempt to gain and maintain power today.  The founders knew that.  It's happening today. We have doubled our national debt in just the last seven years.  Interest rates have been artificially held near zero for that entire time.  If and when rates normalize to historical levels, the debt service alone will cause the kind of pain socialist nations have felt throughout history. We are not immune.
  

In summary: You were indoctrinated to be a socialist. You were indoctrinated to call our system capitalism.  You've been deceived about the benefits of socialism.  You've been deceived about the evils of free markets.  And you've been deceived about the perils of national socialism.  If you still think socialism is chic after all that, that is your right.  Just keep it local, and maybe - just maybe, it won't collapse until after your kids inherit the mess.

Trump to GOP: "Baba Booey!"

Donald Trump is the Howard Stern of politics.  He’s a shock jock in a field of politicians who sound like boring newsreaders.  He opens his mouth and out comes ego, shameless self-promotion, outrageousness, braggadocio, and downright meanness towards his detractors.  But there are other things too which endear him to his audience.   He’s fearless, confident, unapologetic, and says things no one else has the cojones to say.   And he's entertaining.  In other words, he’s exactly like Howard Stern.  His fans are the same too.  Listen to them talk and you'll find yourself expecting them to blurt out “Baba Booey!” any second. 

Donald Trump is a serious candidate for President the same way Howard Stern was a serious candidate when he ran for Governor of New York in 1994.  Stern didn’t win.  Neither will Trump.      

That said, I really want Donald Trump to be the next President.  Allow me to explain.  

President Trump could accomplish from within the government what could never be accomplished from without:  namely the destruction and de-legitimization of the federal leviathan. 

Donald Trump could be the virus that infects and ultimately kills the progressive idea that government can and should micro-manage every aspect of your life.  Sure it sounds appealing when a silver-tongued community organizer gives you a one sided utopian vision to cling to.   But how many want to sign up for that same program when the guy who says “you’re fired!” becomes boss? 

Donald Trump holds people accountable.  That alone would stop totalitarianism in its tracks.  The only way the progressive takeover can continue is if a majority stays convinced they are getting a free ride in exchange for others losing their freedoms.  Trump will give no one a free ride, and everyone will be his subject.  Make Donald Trump President and inside of four years the electorate will be clamoring for limited government once again in America. 

So yes, Donald Trump for President.  And while we’re at it, Robin Quivers for VP.    Oh, and Baba Booey, Baba Booey, Baba Boooeeey! 


(I posted this originally on 7/21, and in light of everything since, including the debates,  it holds-up pretty well.  Lately Trump has been taking on Megyn Kelly with his characteristic meanness, and Carly Fiorina is having none of it.  I can't think of two women I'd rather not cross more than those two.  Nevertheless The Donald Trump Show will continue and we will all be diminished by it.  Everyone that is except the Clintons who more and more appear to be the architects and beneficiaries of this risible show.)       

The Clintons are Awesome!

Once again the Clintons are in the news for marital infidelity, dishonesty, and meanness.   So as the pop media digs up Donald Trump's ex-wife's divorce deposition claiming he forced himself on her, which she now retracts,  Bill and Hillary are never held accountable for Juanita Broaddrick's rape by Bill Clinton, which she has NEVER retracted.  

So as the NFL season is soon to kick-off, I say "No More"...

Donald Trump for President!

Donald Trump is the Howard Stern of politics.  He’s a shock jock in a field of politicians who sound like boring newsreaders in comparison.  He opens his mouth and out comes ego, shameless self-promotion, outrageousness, braggadocio, and downright meanness towards his detractors.  But there are other things too which endear him to his audience.   He’s fearless, confident, unapologetic, and says things no one else has the cojones to say.   And he's entertaining.  In other words, he’s exactly like Howard Stern.  His fans are the same too.  Listen to them talk and you'll find yourself expecting them to blurt out “Baba Booey!” any second. 

Donald Trump is a serious candidate for President the same way Howard Stern was a serious candidate when he ran for Governor of New York in 1994.  Stern didn’t win.  Neither will Trump.      

That said, I really want Donald Trump to be the next President.  Allow me to explain.  

President Trump could accomplish from within the government what could never be accomplished from without:  namely the destruction and de-legitimization of the federal leviathan. 

Donald Trump could be the virus that infects and ultimately kills the progressive idea that government can and should micro-manage every aspect of your life.  Sure it sounds appealing when a silver-tongued community organizer gives you a one sided utopian vision to cling to.   But how many want to sign up for that same program when the guy who says “you’re fired!” becomes boss? 

Donald Trump holds people accountable.  That alone would stop totalitarianism in its tracks.  The only way the progressive takeover can continue is if a majority stays convinced they are getting a free ride in exchange for others losing their freedoms.  Trump will give no one a free ride, and everyone will be his subject.  Make Donald Trump President and inside of four years the electorate will be clamoring for limited government once again in America. 

So yes, Donald Trump for President.  And while we’re at it, Robin Quivers for VP.    Oh, and Baba Booey, Baba Booey, Baba Boooeeey!       

Iran Wins!

If you are a law-abiding Christian who supports the second amendment, Barack Obama believes you are a terror threat, a "bitter clinger", and has you living under severe ongoing sanctions.  If you are a Shiite Mullah with long range ballistic missiles, thousands of spinning centrifuges, plans for a nuclear bomb, who chants death to Israel, death to America, and is in the process of gaining regional hegemony, you just had your sanctions lifted.  Take a moment to let that sink in.

Remember when Barack Obama referred to rural gun owners as "bitter clingers", bitter over their economic malaise and clinging to their guns and their religion?  These are the people being sanctioned by Barack Obama in numerous and diabolical ways.  They are being forced to pay for abortions, their groups are discriminated against by the IRS, the DHS targets them as a terror threat, their gun shops are sanctioned by Operation Choke Point, their legal right to purchase ammunition is thwarted by government bulk purchases and bans,  they are being forced to perform services against their beliefs, and they are mocked and ridiculed by Obama and his minions.

Meanwhile Iran, a totalitarian theocracy, the world's number one state sponsor of terrorism, the most egregious rogue nation on the planet, fomenter of regional chaos, persecutor of women, gays, and minorities, a nation which seeks to bring about global Armageddon, which regularly chants death to Israel and death to America, just got a green light to keep all their existing nuclear infrastructure, all their ballistic missiles, and got all their sanctions lifted in exchange for some vague promise to allow limited inspections by some guys in blue helmets sometime in the future.

Seriously, you can't make this stuff up.

(UPDATE:  Remember when Obama declared, "We are no longer a Christian nation..."?  Meanwhile, David Cameron just declared that Great Britain still is.  Below is a video compilation of the two statements by the two leaders.  Incidentally, the US is about 80% Christian, while Great Britain is about 60%.  [VIDEO - 21 seconds])



(Originally posted April, 2015)

Bush was Right

Remember the "Global War on Terror"?  (cue laugh track)  For those of you who watch comedy shows for your news, here's a refresher:  In the wake of 9/11, George W Bush (cue laugh track) realized that the attack was not an isolated event limited to some Saudi ex-pats under a single nut-job.  Instead, George W Bush saw the bigger picture and treated it like an ideological and global phenomenon. Part of that was a "Global War on Terror". (Bush was unfortunately too p.c. to call it what it was: "Global War on Jihad" or "Global War on Radical Islam").  He made clear it would be fought under the radar and that the battles and successes would not be made public.  He followed through for two terms. There were no new attacks, and the global Jihad lost ground.

Today we are stuck arguing who lost Iraq and created ISIS.  This is a diversion from reality.  ISIS headquarters is in Syria not Iraq.  They are currently spreading, well, globally.  Today they killed 50 near Gaza in Egypt.  The other day it was Kuwait, Tunisia, and Libya.  Before that, West Africa, East Africa, and Europe.  There have been ISIS inspired attacks and arrests in the US.

Gee, maybe all this focus on who lost the Iraq war should be redirected and we should ask instead, "Who lost the Global War on Terror?".

I can tell you it wasn't Bush.          

SCOTUS Schmotus

If you are scratching your head trying to figure out why The Supreme Court consistently defies the language of the Constitution, you are in good company.  If you are further scratching your head trying to figure out how the same court can defy the language of statutory law, you are also not alone. But don't despair, help is on the way.

In a case of perfect timing, Charles Murray's new book "By the People" is a great read for the head scratchers.  The book explains why the "Madisonian" structures that got us here are in ruins and how we can use new tools to counterbalance the metastatic government those structures were designed to thwart.  It's important to know that those structures are long gone and that looking to their remnants for salvation is a fools errand.  Railing against a President, a Legislature, or even the Court is a waste of energy.  Nothing within government can reverse the growth of government no matter who's in charge.  But that doesn't mean there's nothing that can be done.  Murray offers some hopeful solutions for a possible counter-insurgency strategy.

On the subject of gay marriage, I'm one of a rare breed who actually supports gay marriage while at the same time deplore that it was enacted by the SCOTUS.  On the ObamaCare decision, I oppose both the law and the decision.  Ditto on the disparate impact decision.  It was a rough week made a bit easier thanks to Murray's book.

   
Footnotes:

Here's what I wrote a couple of years ago (2013) about gay marriage:

I'm sorry, I find the marriage equality symbol particularly annoying.  Personally, I don't give a whit who marries who as long as it's consensual and between adults.  But I can't abide hypocrisy.   Gay and straight proponents of this new "right" are almost uniformly opposed to plural marriage.  These sanctimonious hypocrites are the same folks who just spent the last year dragging Mormonism through the mud behind their Priuses ridiculing the faith and its plural marriage history.  These are the tolerant ones who want equality?  I call bullshit.  Why not a right for all marriages?  With that in mind, I offer the plural marriage equality symbol above.  (or more accurately, the any marriage congruence symbol.)

Also this from 2013:

Gay marriage is usually thought of as a cultural issue or a human rights issue and of course it is on some level.  But there is not a single state in the union in which it is not possible for gay couples to legally and openly live together as a couple.  Moreover, turn on a TV today and gay characters are everywhere, attesting to their complete acceptance and ordinariness in pop culture. 

Yet there is still a huge issue separating gay and straight couples and in most cases it boils down to money.   Here is a partial list of the legal and financial entitlements which currently are not available to gay couples:

• Social Security Survivor Benefits

• Estate Tax Exemptions

• Inheritance Exemptions

• Tax Free Transfers To Spouses

• Joint Filing (which can lower taxes)

• Health Insurance Rates

• Government Employee Spousal Benefits

• Workman's Compensation

• Preferential Standing in Wrongful Death

• Miscellaneous Federal and State Benefits

• Approx. 1,138 Legal Rights (according to GLAD)

Most of the above list are areas which the Federal Government was not intended by the founders to be involved in in the first place.  But now it is in an ever expanding role, and the financial fate of gay and straight couples alike relies on it's laws and re-distributional largesse.   Despite losing consistently at the polls, big money is flowing the other way because even bigger money is at stake in the gay marriage debate.  It is for this reason that a federal law endorsing gay marriage is inevitable.   Just follow the money.   

And here's what I wrote about a possible counter insurgency strategy also in 2013:

Impeach Obama?  Ain't gonna happen.  I don't care how bad these scandals are, and they are really bad, we are stuck with Obama for the duration.  Practically everyone in media, entertainment, and academia voted for Obama.  If you voted for Obama you most likely: a) don't know about the scandals, b) would never admit you screwed-up,  c) say, "what difference does it make?", d) think it's all Bush's fault, or e) all the above.  This makes impeachment and removal impossible. 

There is another way to act decisively; just avoid paying taxes!  If you are among the informed and intelligent minority who believe Obama should be removed, if you believe he used the IRS like a Gestapo to kill dissent, if you believe he abused his power, if you believe he used the DOJ like a KGB to spy on his detractors, if you believe he lied when he knowingly blamed the Benghazi attack on an innocent videographer who still sits in jail to this day, then you should defund him.  Go Galt, invest in tax free municipal bonds, barter, live off your assets, go off the grid, start a non-profit (you may want to think about that last one), tell your Congressman to defund him.  Do everything you can to legally avoid federal taxes and defund Obama.  That's the only way. 

BTW, break no laws!  We can defund Obama legally if we work together.  You will never eliminate all your taxes, but you can certainly avoid a bunch if you make changes.    Remember, GE pays no taxes and breaks no laws.  Of course, you will never have the advantages of government access and legal advice that Obama's friend GE has, but you can probably cut your tax liability with some effort.  Make the effort.  Defund Obama.  It's all you can do, unless you're content with just fuming.