It's all about appearances

The Friday Dec 20th front page of the Detroit News carried the beginning of an editorial by editorial editor Nolan Finley titled "Trump is no John Dingell" to which I say thank goodness. For why I say that,see below. The subtitle is "Congressman was something Trump isn't: a gentleman."

Mr Finley was referring to a remark Trump made that perhaps the deceased Mr Dingell was 'looking up" at us from hell.  Yes, in street talk it was a cheap shot. I think Trump should have ignored the whole thing about Debbie Dingell supporting the President's impeachment despite the fact that president Trump lauded Mr Dingell's service upon his death.

That not everyone we are nice to will return the niceties is a fact we all experience. Trump does need to ignore the petty stuff and focus on what is important to the voters. What I'm focusing on is what Nolan Finley is focusing on: appearances.

To Finley, Dingell appears to be the gentleman while Trump is the uncouth cad. But I see Trump being very gentlemanly to those who don't attack him. This brings me to a long held observation of mine: that both parties have been playing the game called  'I'll pretend you are a morally astute person if you'll pretend I am. Thus we can both appear to be respectful.'

The only trouble is, the democrats seldom practiced it while the republicans foolishly played along. This in turn gave the Democrats the impression that they own the moral high ground and the Republicans are just me too-ers, which for along time, they were.

 Trump refuses to play that game. While he isn't challenging their claims to the moral high ground, his ignoring of those claims is driving them nuts. His sin? He's no longer pretending the progressives  are the good guys i.e. he's destroying their appearances of  moral goodness and political caring. Their world of appearances isn't working any more.

And that's why they hate him and those who voted for him.

Why I was no fan of Mr Dingell see this post by Danial Greenfield.

More on appearances soon.

Why the unceasing push to oust President Trump. Part 1.

Since president Trump's election what we've been seeing in the media and the Democrat party is a total revolt against him personally. Trump was elected legally by winning more electoral votes than Hillary just as our Constitution requires.

But this legal election was and still is unacceptable to the entire Democrat Party leadership. Even though Democrats have always considered Republican presidential wins a disaster for their party, they nevertheless abided by the outcome and focused on the next election.

Not this time.

So what is it  the Democrats are afraid of? Why can't they wait until the next election whether it be 4 or 8 years? Why does Trump need to be so feverishly ousted now"

Could it be because they were so close to cementing their socialist dictatorship with Hillary as leader that they now think they may never be this close again?  After all, president Obama had spent 8 years conditioning  the American people to a new, more austere normal of 2% or less GDP growth and  weakening our military and strengthening our enemies. The population was being conditioned to accept the Progressives' 'tough love' As Sen Dianne Feinstein once put it.

Or could it be the fear that the American people are rejecting their socialist ideology and must not be allowed to make that choice again by reelecting Trump to a second term? I think this is definitely a big part of it.

These Democrats seem to be focused on the expediency of the immediate moment with "impeach him by any means necessary" while ignoring long range consequences like losing future elections. It's what pragmatism has taught them and teaches students today.

Speaking about the nature of the concrete bound mentality novelist/philosopher Ayn Rand wrote:

"This kind of psycho-epistemology (concrete bound, unprincipled thinking-ME) works so long as no part of it is challenged. but all hell breaks lose when it is--because what is threatened then is not a particular idea, but that mind's whole structure. The hell ranges from fear to resentment to stubborn evasion to hostility to panic to malice to hatred."*

This is what we've been seeing since November 2016.

But why now and why is Nancy Pelosi all in for impeachment when she was originally against it? Again Rand explains"

"It is a conspiracy, not of men, but of basic premises--and the power directing it is logic: if, at the desperate stage of a losing battle, some men (Nadler, Schiff, et al-ME) point to a road logically necessitated by their basic premises, those who share those premises (Pelosi et al-ME) will rush to follow."**

So what premises are the Democrats following? We know the Democrat Party has been taken over by the Progressive movement which has no respect for American individualism but rather worships collectivism. It's the idea that the sovereign power lies with the state i.e. the government then the individual is the right-less subject of the state which is the voice of the people.

So the premises are 1, statism, all forms of authoritarianism, 2, pragmatism, the range of the moment to hell with consequences thinking, and 3, sacrifice, the surrender of values for the sake of surrendering them which means the government gets to force us to make the sacrifices it thinks we should make.

In closing I think the Democrats are making a mistake in thinking the Trump administration is diametrically opposed to their statist ideology. He isn't. He still thinks Eminent Domain is a good idea. He also thinks all America's problems are the result of irrational deals. What he does not understand is that all those deals that hurt American citizens are there by design. Its' what the Progressives want: the US population to be dependent on them for most everything.

* Pg 40 in Rand's essay The Missing Link in her book Philosophy: Who Needs It. still in print.

**Pg 103 in Rand's essay An Untitled Letter also in Philosophy: Who Needs It.

Two bad ideas

The Sunday  Dec 8th Detroit Free Press had a oped by Freep writer Nancy Kaffar titled "How Michigan can make right-to-read suit go away."It says:

" The students filed suit in 2016, asking a federal court to recognize that a right to literacy is implicit in the U.S. Constitution and integral to participation in a democracy. They contend that the Detroit school district's failures are so widespread and so consistent that it's clear the system is at fault, and that it's up to the state to fix it."

There are several bad ideas in that paragraph not the least of which is the notion that America is a democracy. The founders wanted little to do with a democracy. They knew from history that democracies always collapsed into some form of dictatorship. They wanted a Constitutional Republic where the government was limited to a list of precise powers enumerated in a written Constitution.

There is some debate about the alleged difference between a 'pure democracy' and a republic where representatives are elected by a democratic vote. It's been my understanding that in a 'pure democracy' everything can be put up to a vote, where a majority can vote away the rights of minorities.

This was tried in ancient Athens and led to its collapse. Our founders knew this. To prevent majority rule from voting away the rights of minorities they knew they had to put restrictions on what may and may not be put up for a vote. To their credit, that's where the concept of a constitution devoted to the protection of individual rights came in.

But since those days our government has been tirelessly trying to remove those limits on its powers through the use of regulations. And it's been successful to the point where the government can now do almost anything it wants through regulations while us citizens can't budge without getting permission from permission grantors aka regulators, controllers, and various planning commissions.

In closing the issue of democracy I want to point out how obvious are the attempts by Progressives to do away with those constitutional restrictions on the government's power.

We can see how the Democrats have been trying to limit (regulate) free speech, freedom of association, do away with religious freedom, the second amendment's right to keep and bear arms and the 4th amendment's right to privacy. And by constantly referring to our nation as a democracy, today's intellectuals will wipe out in the minds of the young the existence of a constitutional republic and thus vote away those constitutional restrictions.

Now about that law suit by the students. They are right in attacking the utter failure of the government controlled Detroit school system. It is a disgrace. But they are wrong in seeking a Constitutional right to literacy.

There can be no such thing as a right to a thing before one does something to earn it by either buying it, receiving it as a gift or creating it yourself. A right is a government protection to the freedom of action, the freedom to pursue one's own life, liberty and one's own happiness. A right does not mean the government must provide one with those things.

And so it is with education. If one has a right to be taught to read then someone must be forced to teach him. It is true that a child needs to be taught by his elders how to survive and reading is just one of the skills needed.

 But if the government contracted with the people to educate students and have failed to do so then the governmentis guilty of a breach of contract, a violation of students and parents rights for which they-in government-need to be punished. But government isn't going to punish itself.

So if we want a better educational system we need to get government out of it completely. Just as government is not an economic entity and cannot regulate an economy without disastrous results, so government is also not an educational entity and cannot produce educated students without equally disastrous results.

Government is an institution of legalized force. By its nature it will always want to grow itself. When mixed with education it will teach all its students the value of government, how government control and government money will be the solution to all of their future problems.

The students then as adults will have been indoctrinated with the notion that when something goes wrong the proper action will be to turn to government and cry "do something!" Just what the government craves. Now is the time to start auctioning off one school or district at a time to private  entities whether for profit or non-profit, doesn't matter. But I caution the students to reconsider making reading a Constitutional Right to be forced on teachers who in reality want and enjoy teaching.

The best corrective measure for reading failure is to privatize all of education. The sooner the better.

Bloomberg jumps in.

The Sunday Nov 24th online edition of the Washington Times reports that Michael Bloomberg officially announced his bid for U.S.president. The report quotes Mr Bloomberg:

"“I’m running for president to defeat Donald Trump and rebuild America. We cannot afford four more years of President Trump’s reckless and unethical actions,” Mr. Bloomberg said in a statement."

 What reckless and unethical actions? No answer.

 Again the report quotes:

 "“If he wins another term in office, we may never recover from the damage. The stakes could not be higher,” he said. “We must win this election. And we must begin rebuilding America.”"

What damage? Still no answer. I've got news for Mr Bloomberg, he'll be four years behind the rebuilding of America president Trump has already started. He's no different than the other candidates who speak in very vague, fuzzy, general terms without mentioning anything specific.

He is the former Mayor of NY City that wanted to ban Big Gulps because he thought they were unhealthy for us, channeling Bernie Sanders who saw no reason why citizens should have 23 choices of deodorant. Both men are statists through and through and do not believe we should be allowed to have such choices. Make no mistake, neither of these candidates are for your freedom to choose.

I urge my readers not to fall for Bloomberg's alleged move to the Democrat Party's moderate middle. It's a calculated political smoke screen.

More climate hysteria.

Looking at today's editorial page of the Detroit Free press I see a guest editorial by Debbie Dingel titled "A zero-emissions econoy by 2050."In it Ms Dingel asserts:

"Look at the world: devastating hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, melting glaciers, rising sea levels - and we see it directly in Michigan with "Once Every 100 Year Storms' that seem to be nearly yearly events now. Climate change is changing the world around us causing mass displacement and global health cries, the Great Lakes are at historic high levels, and many countries are experiencing increasing temperatures."

It's true that some of these things like wildfires and storms are happening but it is certainly not clear  that man made climate change is causing it. In fact there is strong evidence to the contrary, that what man is contributing to the atmosphere is in no way threatening catastrophic climate change.


But these things are not new. As for wildfires, it's been known for awhile that the California government's forestry policies have foolishly allowed years of underbrush to accumulate. This underbrush is fuel for massive uncontrollable wildfires.

Hurricanes and tornadoes are not increasing in either frequency or intensity.

If you're looking for good solid evidence against the notion that man is destroying the planet via CO2 I recommend these websites:

Watts up with that by Anthony Watts.

And,

 Climate Depot 

 I highly recommend scrolling down to their blogroll for many more websites. 

Stopping the growth of communism

The Detroit News of Nov 7th editorial page carried an oped by Marion Smith, the executive director of the congressionally authorized Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation. The oped title is "How to stop the communist comeback." He writes:

"Confronted with communist aggression, moral clarity is precisely what's needed. This is where Michigan can step up."

I couldn't agree more. About his organization he writes:

"Our organization is urging state lawmakers and city leaders to designate an annual day of commemoration on Nov.7. Three states have already established a Victims of Communism Memorial Day. As we mark this anniversary (of the fall of the Berlin wall), we should recognize the 100 million people killed by communism, and the 1.5 billion people who still live it its thrall."

I support this goal especially since our schools and universities have failed miserably in their responsibility to teach students about the horrors and evils of communism. He concludes with:

"The Berlin Wall fell, but communism didn't. The sooner we acknowledge this, the sooner we can stop this evil ideology from capturing more American hearts."

Again, I agree completely. But we need to look further into why so many people still think communism is an ideal even in light of its horrendous history of human slaughter and starvation. First, we have to see that Communism as a political system is just the most consistent form of collectivism. Whether it's socialism, democratic or otherwise, fascism or a mixture of them, all are forms of collectivism.

As a social philosophy, collectivism says that the sovereign power resides in the collective which means the group, the society, the public, and so on. It says the individual has no rights and can be sacrificed to the collective whenever it thinks such is in its interest.

 It is opposite of the philosophy of individualism upon which the founders tried to erect a free society where the sovereign power resides in the individual and the state exists to protect him by recognizing his rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of his happiness. Its moral code is one of rational self interest, not sacrifice.

However all political systems are founded on some moral code. Up to and including the Enlightenment most societies were built on the morality of sacrifice and there is a lot of confusion today of what that concept means.

Most people today think that sacrifice is giving up something of value to get something else. But that is a trade not a sacrifice.

In her essay "Racism" in her book "The Virtue of Selfishness" she wrote:
"Collectivism holds that the individual has no rights, that his life and work belong to the group...and the group may sacrifice him at its own whim to its own interests. The only way to implement such a doctrine is by means of brute force--and statism has always been the political corollary of collectivism."

And this means the only sure way to stop the comeback of communism is to challenge its morality of sacrifice. All other efforts will only slow down its growth but not stop it.

I'm back, finally.with a new post on Capitalism

Apologies to my readers for not posting since May. I've been real busy helping family members and some friends who came on hard times and keeping my own house up. But that is easing off now so here is my next post.



 The Detroit Free Press of Aug 25th had an oped by guest columnist Ted Kaufman a former US Senator from Delaware. The headline is "Corporations suddenly say they care about you, be wary."

Lets look at that headline a little closer. Now I know that headlines are often written by editors so I'm not criticizing Mr Kaufman for that. But most businesses do indeed care about the happiness of their customers. They have to care or lose them as customers.

The word 'suddenly' here is a smear word. It implies that businesses usually don't care about you but if they say they do then  it has to be a  'sudden' departure from their normal heartless practices.

This tells me that the article is probably going to be anti-business or anti-profits or leaning that way. First though I want to say that I don't know of any corporations that "suddenly" decide to care about their customers. It's been my experience they're eager to show how much they value their customers from day one.

(As a side note I would say that 'be wary' headline warning is much more appropriate when applied to those in Mr Kaufman's chosen profession: politicians. But I digress.)

What Mr Kaufman wants us to be wary about is:

"A few day ago, the Business Roundtable, the very prestigious organization that consists of the CEOs of nearly 200 major U.S. Corporations, announced their members had agreed on a new definition of "the purpose of a corporation."

He then says cynically:

"It was enough to melt your heart. The CEOs of corporations like Walmart, Amazon and Goldman Sachs had decided their companies should be:" (My comments in brackets MN]

#'Investing is our employees.' [They do that with paychecks and benefits MN]

          #'Dealing fairly and ethically with our suppliers.' [They do that to stay in business   MN]

#'Supporting the communities in which we work." [They do that by opening their doors and hiring workers MN]

#'Generating long-term value for shareholders.' [They do that by focusing on maximizing profits-which Mr Kaufman disdains. MN]"

'Each of our stakeholders is essential,' the statement said.'We commit to deliver value to all of them, for the future success of our companies, communities and our country."

 Sheesh! Sounds like a moral pledge of allegiance is being offered here. But why? Isn't a company opening its doors to provide a community with goods and/or services that will make their lives better, hiring locals to work there, and paying taxes to support the local government, enough of a benefit to the community? Evidently not for Ted Kaufman. His attack is on profit seeking as such.


The tool to be used against the corporations is the concept "stakeholder" an invalid concept designed to smuggle into boardrooms an unearned guilt for the crime of successful production. Mr Kaufman continues:

" Back in 2015, I wrote a column in this newspaper that quoted a 2009 Business Roundtable report called "Company Stakeholder Responsibility." It called for more involvement with what it defined as a corporation's "major stakeholders, a group that went well beyond owners of its stock."

"This is not Milton Friedman's argument that the only social responsibility is to increase profits," the report said, "but rather it is a practical matter--giving money to the opera doesn't make up (in any moral sense) for short-changing customers or communities. How does this company make customers, suppliers, communities, employees, and financiers better off?" [I have already answered this above]

A stakeholder is anyone that has an interest in the business but does not own shares. I have an interest in a lot of business close to my house. Does that qualify me for some of the company's profits? I don't see where. I buy from them because doing so is in my self interest. They take my money because that is their interest. It is a win-win deal. But that is not what Mr Kaufman wants.

He adds:

"The report continues: "Capitalism is a system of social cooperation--a system of working together to create value for each other, value which none of us could create on our own. In this sense, business is already an enterprise with moral ramifications."

It must be noted that this is not Mr Kaufman speaking but rather the CEOs of 200 major corporations who have been cowered into spiting in their own face for the sin of producing values that people are willing to pay for because those values make their lives better in some way.

To compare this practice of mutual trade for mutual benefit to "short-changing customers and communities" is a moral disgrace especially when it's the businessmen agreeing to disgrace themselves. But what idea could have the power to make men take the whip out of the hands of their destroyers and whip themselves?

This is what an unearned guilt will do to anyone naive or cowardly enough to accept it. That is what altruism--other-ism--is all about. Selling guilt then sitting back and collecting penitence.

Truth is, most politicians don't want the penitence for themselves. They want to guilt companies into surrendering more of their profits to the community so they can stand in front of that community and declare "Look what I've done for you, now reelect me (or my party)"

It is almost futile to tell these CEOs to stand up for their right to exist without having to pay ransom money to so-called 'stakeholders' who want more than a fair and free trade. It is futile because the Ted Kaufmans of the world will not give the businessmen any moral credit for their charity to the community.

Aside from the snide remark that the report  "...was enough to melt your heart." He also says:

"How often have you read a story about a major corporation choosing its commitment to the community in which it operates over maximizing profits?"

He later says "To put it bluntly, talk is cheap." I will only add, so is his.

The only commitment a corporation needs to make to its community is to provide a product or service that the people are willing to pay for, which means a mutual trade for mutual benefit.

 I can however, testify to the fact that the corporations Mr Kaufman cites routinely donate a lot of their products and even money to local charities. I've seen such corporations donate hundreds of say hot dogs, burgers, buns, pop and water, bags of potato chips, bags of ice etc.to picnics and fund raisers of local charities. It is common practice.

But Mr Kaufman's oped makes no mention of such investments made by corporations in their respective communities. If fact, to read this oped one could easily believe corporations don't do such investing, a serious evasion of the facts and evidence that Mr Kaufman doesn't care how much charity they give. His hatred of profits is all that matters.

To further prove my claim that Mr Kaufman is not a supporter of free trade despite his claims to the contrary , I cite his closing paragraph:

"I'd be hopeful only when we get serious about the "enforcement tools" needed for corporations to really believe they have stakeholders beyond their shareholders. (He was quoting Larry Summers in the Financial Times who also called for "enforcement tools.")

Of course those "enforcement tools" always turn out to be guns, the legalized guns of regulators. So we can see that Mr Kaufman, and Mr Summers, seek forced charity as a government policy. But that is a contradiction in terms. Charity to be moral at all must be volitional, by choice. As Ayn Rand pointed out, the moral is the chosen, not the forced. Forcing charity is what thieves do.

Most troubling for me is the spectacle of capitalism's heroes failing to defend the most moral political system ever devised, free market capitalism. The word sacrifice wasn't mentioned in the oped. But sacrifice, its real meaning: the surrender of values for lesser values or nothing in return, is what his oped is all about. (For more on this see Rand's book 'Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal' still in print.

When businessmen refuse to defend their moral code of rational self interest, when they agree to sacrifice some more of their profits in order to feel moral, Then the game is over. The haters of individual rights have one.

It's only a matter of time till you hear something like "you haven't sacrificed enough. We, in government, who care, must nationalize your business and in that way provide real sustainable social justice." Except it won't.

When capitalism's most productive heroes agree that free trade for mutual benefit is akin to 'short-changing customers and communities, capitalism doesn't need any enemies. It's committing suicide.

I highly recommend Rand's essay "The Obliteration of Capitalism" in her book "Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal"

I've been unable to find a link to Mr Kaufman's oped.
 

The Demons in Guns.

The May 12 print edition of the Macomb Daily (a suburban county of Detroit) carried an oped attack on gun ownership by Miami Herald writer Leonard Pitts Jr. He starts out by reporting on an 18 year old student who died rushing a gunman in his school and goes on to list a few other heroes who met the same fate.

He then declares:

     ""Don't blame the guns."
     That's what gun-rights advocates always say in moments like this. And OK, fair enough. Lets not blame the gun"

From there he proceeds to blame the gun but not the gun itself just its existence in a free society. Like Ocasio-Cortez  claiming that billionaires are not immoral themselves, just their existence is.

     "But can we not blame this nation's insistence on easy and unfettered access to the gun? Might that not have the tiniest bit to do with the fact that gun violence is rampant here?
     Instead of dealing with that causality, gun people ask us to take gun violence as some immutable fact of life, some intrinsic component of freedom."

There are three  things wrong with those sentences. First, unfettered access to guns would mean me going to a gun shop, selecting a gun, paying for it and leaving. But that's not the reality we have. I had to apply for a permit, wait for a background check, take an 8 hour class in gun safety. Unfettered? Hardly.

( In a laissez faire economy it wouldn't be completely unfettered either. The above requirements would be demanded by insurance companies not the government. Any government involvement would be restricted to the framework of how best do we exercise our right to self defense while protecting the rights of others. For example, laws against brandishing in public, because such brandishing is an objective threat to the rights of others, would be a proper government concern.)

Second, "gun violence" is a cognitive package deal designed to deceive by packaging as a concept's defining characteristic two or more things that are not the same and thus don't belong together.

Gun violence can be used to assault and destroy life or it can be used to defend life. To package these two contexts--assault and defense--together in the concept of 'gun violence' and condemn both as equally evil is dishonest at worst or sloppy writing at best.

Third, someone needs to inform Mr Pitts that an individual's Constitutional right to life includes the right to defend that life and 'unalienable' means immutable and intrinsic. Notice too how he admits that he believes guns, inanimate matter, cause deaths when he uses the word 'causality.' But 'let's not blame the guns''?

Mr Pitts then tells us his view on why we citizens want to own guns in self defense:

     "People are dying for nothing. For some fantasy of rugged self-reliance.
For some shortcut to macho. For some terror of the Other standing at the bedroom window. For nothing."

So your right to defend yourself and family against attack is nothing more than an irrational fear of a boogey-man in the bedroom window? Or a shortcut to macho? This is nothing but a smear of American's right of self defense. What's wrong with self-reliance rugged or otherwise? To be against self-reliance is to be for dependence. That must be what he wants of citizens.

The image that Mr Pitts is projecting is an image of self-reliance, independence, individualism, and self-defense. This is to be denigrated as fantasy?

I would like to point out that if you don't have a right to defend your life, then in fact and in reality, you don't have a right to life. How can you have a right to something you are not allowed to defend and keep? You can't and you won't. And this is what the gun grabbers want, your right to life in their hands, not yours.

Our ancient primitive ancestors believed that spirits and demons inhabited everything, trees, rocks, air, water etc., that some had a magic power to bless us while others could destroy us. Mr Pitts, in believing guns have a power to urge their owners to run around killing fellow humans is trying to return us to the primitive. Let's not fall for that.

The God of Moderation

Here is a comment I left at the Valdaidiscussionclub.com website.

The God of Moderation
This is written as if it were an attempt to balance individualism with collectivism, food with poison, suffering with happiness and the goal or goals of this balance are to be achieved by moral efforts of the United Nations. It is a moral foundation designed to justify the New World Order's goal of balancing freedom with dictatorship because extremes of either are allegedly evil.

The authors have a hard time figuring cause and effect.

They say: "According to the study the key factor accounting for the rise in individualism was the increase in the level of economic development, though this relationship had some significant exceptions: “the fact that most of the countries that did not show an increase in individualist values were among the lowest in socioeconomic development over the time period examined is consistent with the observation that socioeconomic development drove the rise in individualism. China is an exception to this pattern, showing a decrease in individualist values even though the country has experienced economic growth.2”"  

Leaving the China point aside, this is backwards, it is political freedom that gives rise to economic development, not the other way around. To create an economic value a people need to be politically free to think and free to act on those thoughts. Without such freedom no economic development can happen. If the authors had read their first quoted author Ayn Rand further they would have learned: ""Another current catch-phrase is the complaint that the nations of the world are divided into 'haves' and the 'have-nots.' Observe that the 'haves' are those who have freedom, and that it is freedom that the 'have-nots' have not." ~ Ayn Rand

The authors openly admit, as they should, that individualism--individual freedom--is growing all over the world but they insist, it must be balanced. With what?

"In the end, a moral audit of the world economy suggests that part of the story of “global imbalances” that are blamed for the world’s economic ills may have to do with an excess of national self-interest over cooperative motives across countries, regions and global institutions. Rebalancing the world economy may necessitate a reassessment of values and a shift in gears to effect a transition to a new moral “steady-state."

When you hear someone claim the moral state as theirs, always ask "Moral? By what standard of value ?" Press them on this and you will find out theirs is the same standard used by every bloody thug and dictator in man's long history of butchery, human sacrifice. For centuries people have been told to sacrifice--give up--their money, property, freedom and even their lives but to whom?

The NWO concept screams for an answer to the question "Ordered by whom?" Obviously the rulers of the world and hopefully, in their minds, the UN. A world where sacrifices are offered by the ruled and collected by the rulers is the naked essence of their "new moral 'steady state.'"

More governmental "bold action" coming against citizens.

The Detroit Free Press Sunday 2/10/19 AP article "'Leader of climate panel predicting 'bold action'" portends of more wrong headed legislation by those who see themselves as saviors of the world. For example, the first sentence reports that "Florida Rep Kathy Castor is confident that a special House committee on climate change will play a leading role on one of the most daunting challenges facing the planet."

First, let me say that today's politicians can't help thinking they are in charge of the whole world, that they can save not only America but the whole planet. Someone should remind Ms Castor that she represents just the US and not the world.

The next sentence is an example of obfuscation: "The Democratic caucus is unified under the belief we have to take bold action on the climate crises," she said.  What's being obfuscated is the concept 'bold action.'

It is an out of context phrase. It makes no distinction between  the private bold action of Henry Ford inventing the industrial production line or the Wright Bros discovering human flight, each action devoid of force, verses the government 'bold action' of FDR forcing the dollar off the gold standard by making it illegal to own gold.

The difference is the 'bold action' of free men voluntarily creating goods and services in a free market and the bold action of government force initiated in the absence of any rights violation. The gold standard didn't violate any one's rights. So owning gold should never have been a crime.

 In the context of government,  'bold action' can only mean government force initiated against citizens who have done nothing wrong. Since they have done no wrong, a crime has to be invented.  So, the goal is to make some human action a crime. Like FDR's gold, that crime must be owning and using fossil fuels.

The USA was founded on the principle of individual rights which means doing something wrong meant violating or threatening to violate someone's rights. But now the powers that be want us to believe that exhaling or otherwise creating carbon dioxide (CO2) is or should be a crime for which the government must initiate bold action against us.

This new crime found a quasi-justification when the US Supreme Court declared carbon dioxide to be a pollutant. It is not of course. CO2 is a natural atmospheric gas which is actually plant food required by almost all living organisms.

There is an abundance of evidence against the pollutant designation. I recommend highly " Watts Up With That?" by @Anthony Watts for daily updates on the climate change scam. He has a blogroll of other climate critics I also like. And I recommend the book "The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels" by @Alex Epstein @CIP, Center for Industrial Progress.

The Democrats Can't Escape Their Farrakhan Problem

The Democrats Can't Escape Their Farrakhan Problem