The American left has grown fond creating imaginary conspiracies and campaigns being perpetrated by Republicans and/or conservatives; the “War on Woman,” and “racism” expressed through “code words,” being two of the most common.  The most absurd - and by far the most ironic - is the “War on Science.”

Last year, Amanda Marcotte, writing for Salon.com penned an article entitled, Beyond the war on science; Why the right embraces ignorance as a virtue.  In her piece, she not only claims that all Republicans and conservatives are utter imbeciles, but that,

“…for modern Republicans, being downright proud of their ignorance has become a badge of honor, a way to demonstrate loyalty to the right-wing cause while also sticking it to those liberal pinheads who think there’s some kind of value in knowing what they’re talking about before offering an opinion.”

Ms. Marcotte then “proves” how dumb Republicans are by giving an example of a Republican state lawmaker who made a poorly worded, ignorant sounding defense of his bill to ban the use of IUD contraceptive devices.  The other proof was that many Republicans don’t believe that humans cause global warming.  More on that point later.

The article quotes New York Times writer Ron Susskind, who quoted an official in the George W. Bush administration as saying to Susskind that,

“…guys like me were ‘in what we call the reality-based community,’ which he defined as people who ‘believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality...That’s not the way the world really works anymore,’ he continued. ‘We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.’”

Like so many others on the political left, Ms. Marcotte makes some valid points, but misses the big picture.  Neither the Republican political party nor conservatives are engaged in some concerted effort to undermine science or deny reality; our entire society has long ago renounced reality altogether.  The quote above from a high government official that the American empire creates its own reality perfectly expresses the arrogance and hubris that infects our government from the president down to your local town code enforcement officer.  This mindset is not confined to members of the Republican Party, but is rather the prevailing viewpoint of the Republicrat elite that constitute the ruling class in this country.

Does Ms. Marcotte actually believe that Obama administration officials do not feel exactly the same way?  Does she really think that Democrats studiously consider facts before rendering judgment because of their unfailing fealty to the truth?  In her article she trots out the obscure Republican lawmaker from Ohio and of course Sarah Palin to prove her case for Republican buffoonery - I’ll give her that.  What was lacking from the piece however was demonstrations of the scholarly wisdom and deliberative thought she claims characterizes Democrats; I will help her fill in those blanks:

Congressman Hank Johnson, questioning Admiral Robert Willard about plans to station 8,000 marines on the island of Guam, said, “My fear is that, uh, the whole island, uh, will become so overly populated that it will tip over and, uh, capsize.”[1] 

Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee believes that the United States won the Vietnam War.  She stood on the floor of the House of Representatives and said, “…victory had been achieved.  Today we have two Vietnams, side by side, north and south, exchanging and working.”[2]  South Vietnam has not existed as a nation state since 1975, when it was conquered by the communist north, but in Congresswoman Jackson-Lee’s world it is a happy place that lives in harmony with its northern neighbor.

Representative Jackson-Lee also believes that America has landed astronauts on Mars.  On a 1997 visit to the mission control center for the Mars Pathfinder probe, she asked whether the rover had managed to photograph the American flag planted there by Neil Armstrong.[3]

Representative John Conyers told an audience, “I love these members that get up and say ‘read the bill!’ What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages, and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means?”[4]  Nancy Pelosi famously said of the same legislation, “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it…”[5]

In April of 2012, as the senate was voting to shovel another $11 billion into the bankrupt US Postal Service, Senator Tom Carper of Delaware announced a scientific plan to save the hopelessly mismanaged agency,

“Five, six years from now, we’re going to have windmill farms off the coast of the United States east coast from North Carolina, Virginia, all the way up to Maine.  They could be harvesting the wind, turning that wind into electricity, and you know what?  The wind didn’t always blow (sic), but there’s sometimes that it’s gonna blow a lot more than we’re gonna - to generate a lot more electricity than we’re gonna use…(sic) What are we gonna do with that electricity?  Well, We’re gonna store it.  And where are we gonna store it?  Well one of the places is in the batteries of fleets of vehicles.  Who has one of the biggest fleets in America?  The Postal Service.  And a lot of the vehicles in their fleet are like, twenty-five, thirty years old.  And we have all these new vehicles coming to the market where (sic) far more energy efficient, to replace those old, some cases dilapidated, vehicles in the Postal Service, and they, the new vehicles with their batteries can literally be a place to receive the electricity, generated on a windy day in the Atlantic, out on the outer continental shelf to store that electricity, and when needed, put it back out on the grid.”[6] 

The statists tell us that President Obama is the most brilliant man ever to occupy the Oval Office, yet he believes there are fifty-seven states,[7] Austrian is a language,[8] that America built an “intercontinental railroad,”[9] that Japanese Emperor Hirohito signed the instrument of surrender on the USS Missouri,[10] that Canada has a president,[11] and that the Navy corpsmen who serve as medics with the Marines are “corpse-men.”[12] 

Clearly Republicans do not have anything approaching a monopoly on stupidity; it is rampant in the halls of power in Washington, DC.  Stupidity is as American as apple pie and obesity.  Twenty percent of Americans don’t know that the Earth revolves around the sun; 24 percent don’t know our country gained its independence form Great Britain; less than half of Americans know that electrons are smaller than atoms or that lasers use light waves; 73 percent don’t know what the Cold War was; 44 percent cannot say what the Bill of Rights is; 42 percent of Americans are unable to identify the Taliban - with whom we’ve been waging war for more than a decade; 64 percent can’t name the three branches of government and 35 percent cannot name a single one; and 29 percent cannot even name the current vice president of the United States.

The great irony is that, in terms of political philosophy, it is the left that perpetuates and embraces the denial of reality.  It is the left that has taught generations of schoolchildren that there are no right answers and that everyone should be on the honor roll.  The left clings to the belief that increased taxation benefits society - despite more than 2000 years of evidence to the contrary.  The left believes that Karl Marx dream of communism and total human harmony can be achieved through the application of government force - despite the failure of every socialist government created since he published his manifesto in 1848.

People of all political persuasions are stupid; and the people clever and wealthy enough to get themselves elected to political office are no smarter than the rest of the population.  This is the fundamental flaw with the thinking of leftists - which highlights their collective denial of reality; they believe that the government should control every aspect of human existence for the betterment of mankind, yet the government is made up of people from the same population that supposedly needs to be controlled.  Frederic Bastiat said it better than I more than a century ago;

“Is there a state apart from the people? Is there a human foresight apart from humanity? …Nothing can be more foolish than to found so many hopes upon the state, which is simply to take for granted the existence of collective science and foresight, after having set out with the assumption of individual imbecility and improvidence.”[13]

In the final and most delicious irony of Ms. Marcotte’s piece, she cites Republicans’ denial of global warming as proof of their contempt for science.  Yet man-made global warming (Or climate change as it’s now called, since the weather has taken recent cooling trend) is the most thoroughly and publicly discredited hoax in history.  The revelations of the emails from East Anglia University in England laid bare the deliberate fraud perpetrated by the hoaxter professors for all the world to see.  Ms. Marcotte also uses the standard line about the ‘decades of scientific research’ that prove the hoax, and the favorite; that global warming is the “consensus” of the scientific community.  This consensus is either a deliberate lie (Denial of reality) or breathtaking ignorance.  To understand the true consensus - that there is no such thing as anthropogenic (man-made) climate change, see the Oregon Petition, the Leipzig Declaration, and the Heidelberg Appeal, cumulatively bearing the signatures of more than 35,000 climatologists and meteorologists - including 72 Nobel Prize winners - who refute the existence of man-made global warming.   Someone looking to weigh all the science with regard to climate change might consider consulting the opinions of Professor Reid Bryson, the “Father of Climatology” and the founding chairman of the meteorology department at the University of Wisconsin (A well-know haven for liberals), who has stated with regard to global warming,

“…there is no credible evidence that it is due to mankind and carbon dioxide. We've been coming out of a Little Ice Age for 300 years...It's been warming up for a long time.”

You can read about 129 documented scandals illustrating the fraud and hypocrisy of the global warming alarmists here.  Entire books have been written debunking the man-made climate change hoax.  I will concede that Ms. Marcotte could offer as many opposing reports, statements and books, but the conclusion to be drawn by anyone who claims to be loyal to their faculty of human reason, is that there is nothing remotely like a scientific consensus about human contributions to climate change.

It is precisely because of their denial of reality that leftists are so angry and filled with hate.  While they stomp their feet and shake their fists at the greedy energy companies, one-percenters, and profess their heartfelt, if misinformed concern for clean water and air, reality exists all around them.  The reality is this; for all their hatred of the producers of this world, leftists can never allow themselves to think of what would happen to them without such people.  They cannot for one moment permit themselves to be consciously aware of the fact that if the evil, greedy, robber barons of the energy industry stopped providing fuel, they would be dead in a matter of weeks, or that they are fed, entertained, transported, and clothed by money-grubbing capitalists.  Reality exists; neither Barack Obama, nor his friends at Solyndra can make a solar panel that can keep them alive in the winter, propel an airliner into the sky, or even move their car a few miles to an Occupy rally.  That nagging feeling that causes them to be so angry all the time is rooted in the contradictions they hold in their minds, and their constant exertion to deny that reality.

Liberal author Jonathan Haidt, wrote an outstanding book on the subject of human reasoning and why liberals and conservatives differ so bitterly.  In The Righteous Mind; Why Good People Are Divided By Politics And Religion, Haidt postulates that human reasoning evolved primarily to create justifications for the thoughts and actions generated by our subconscious brains.  This theory has been supported by a host of scientific research, and explains the tendency of all humans to seek out evidence that supports our preferred set of beliefs, and disregard those that cast doubt upon our intellectual and political sacred cows.  A Washington Post column described this same phenomenon brilliantly; “…people use data like drunks use lampposts; more for support than illumination.”[14]

This condition is not exclusive to leftists however; it is the prevailing condition of our entire society.  Most Americans have deliberately unfocused minds that allow them to hold contradictory thoughts.  For the majority, it is simply a mechanism to escape responsibility for their own actions.  For those who profess political opinions, it’s a personal defense mechanism and a means to advance their agenda or increase their power.  Whether it’s Nobel Peace Prize laureate Barack Obama ordering worldwide drone assassinations from his personal “Kill-List,” or conservative George W. Bush signing No Child Left Behind legislation and ordering illegal surveillance of his own citizens, intellectual dishonesty and dismissal of contrary evidence are traits all of our Republicrat rulers share.

Daniel Webster said it best,

“There are men, in all ages, who mean to exercise power usefully; but who mean to exercise it.  They mean to govern well; but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters; but they mean to be masters.  They think there need be but little restraint upon themselves.  Their notion of the public interest is apt to be quite closely connected with their own exercise of authority.  They may not, indeed, always understand their own motives.  The love of power may sink too deep in their own hearts even for their own scrutiny, and may pass with themselves for mere patriotism and benevolence.”[15]

A long as we collectively refuse to engage in honest debate and adhere to intellectual honesty and acknowledgement of reality - the simple notion put forward by Aristotle that “A is A” - we will all be condemned to perpetual and increasingly tyrannical rule under the heel of the Republicrat ruling class


[1] Condon, Stephanie. "Guam Tipping Over Comment No Concern for Guam Officials - Political Hotsheet - CBS News." CBS News. 2 Apr. 2010.
[2] "Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee on North and South Vietnam." YouTube.com. 15 July 2010. Web. 30 Dec. 2011.
[3] "For the Record - October 13, 1997." Old.nationalreview.com. National Review Magazine. Web. 30 Dec. 2011.
[4] Ballasy, Nicholas. "Conyers Sees No Point in Members Reading 1,000-Page Health Care Bill--Unless They Have 2 Lawyers to Interpret It for Them." CNSnews.com. Cybercast News Service, 27 July 2009. Web. 14 Dec. 2011.
[5] Freddoso, David. "Pelosi on Health Care: 'We Have to Pass the Bill so You Can Find out What Is in It...'" Washington Examiner. 9 Mar. 2010. Web. 14 Dec. 2011.
[6] "Senate Dem: Save the US Postal Service with Wind Farms." Fox Nation. Fox News Network, 25 Apr. 2012. Web. 26 Apr. 2012.
[7] "Obama Claims He's Visited 57 States." YouTube.com. You Tube, 9 May 2008. Web. 07 Jan. 2012.
[8] "Barack Obama Thinks Austrian Is a Language." YouTube.com. You Tube, 5 Apr. 2009. Web. 07 Jan. 2012.
[9] "Obama's Latest Gaffe 'We Built The Intercontinental Railroad' - YouTube." YouTube.com. YouTube, 24 Sept. 2011. Web. 20 Jan. 2012.
[10] ""Victory" Is Not Our "Goal" in Afghanstan." YouTube.com. YouTube, 24 July 2009. Web. 20 Jan. 2012.
[11] "Obama Refers to "President of Canada"" YouTube.com. YouTube, 15 Oct. 2008. Web. 20 Jan. 2012.
[12] "Obama Mispronounces "Corpsman" At Prayer Breakfast." RealClearPolitics. RealClearPolitics, 4 Feb. 2010. Web. 07 Jan. 2012.
[13] Bastiat, Frederic. "Economic Sophisms." The Bastiat Collection. Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig Von Mises Institute, 2011. 413. Ludwig Von Mises Institute Literature Library. Ludwig Von Mises Institute, 17 Mar. 2011. Web. 8 May 2012.
[14] Moore, Alfred. "Conspiracy Theories Aren't Just for Conservatives." The Washington Post. N.p., 21 Aug. 2014. Web. 15 May 2015.
[15] Webster, Daniel, and Edwin Percy Whipple. The Great Speeches and Orations of Daniel Webster, with an Essay on Daniel Webster as a Master of English Style,. Boston: Little, Brown, &, 1879. Print.

Senator Rand Paul has become the second Republican to announce his candidacy for the party’s presidential nomination.  Five years ago, Senator Paul entered politics and, against all odds, got himself elected to the US Senate from the State of Kentucky.

Since that time, he has been one of the handful of members who advocate for the federal government to return to the rule of law and the constitution.  Senator Paul has worked ceaselessly for the cause of liberty in the face of constant attacks from not only Democrats, but from members of his own party as well.

Senator Paul represents a threat to the Republicrat oligarchy that runs the country, and as such the attacks from his own party have generally been the most severe.  John McCain, the party’s legendary failure as its 2008 presidential nominee, has called Senator Paul a “Whacko Bird,” and Lindsey Graham referred to his concerns about civil liberties as “ridiculous.”

Senator Paul has stood firm to his convictions in the face of these assaults from establishment power brokers; most notably making a courageous stand against government lawlessness with a nearly 13-hour filibuster in March of 2013.  The senator was holding up a confirmation vote on the Obama administration’s choice for Director of National Intelligence, to protest their failure to provide assurances that the president would not kill an American citizen inside the United States with his drone squadrons.  In addition to this specific demand, which was declined by Attorney General Eric Holder, Senator Paul and others had grave concerns about the president’s personal kill list and how such killings were being carried out in locations across the globe.

The Good:

Senator Paul acknowledged that the American people have been getting the shaft from both political parties, saying “It seems to me that both parties and the entire political system are to blame.  Big government and debt doubled under a Republican administration.  And it’s now tripling under Barack Obama’s watch.”

Poor Lindsey Graham and John McCain must have choked on their porridge when Senator Paul demolished their entire worldview with this simple logic; “At home, conservatives understand that government is the problem, not the solution.  Conservatives should not succumb, though, to the notion that a government inept at home will somehow succeed in building nations abroad.”

Senator Paul made clear that he would put an end to the ongoing illegal surveillance of American citizens and other flagrant abuses of power, “To defend our country, we do need to gather intelligence on the enemy. But when the intelligence director is not punished for lying under oath, how are we to trust our government agencies?  Warrantless searches of Americans’ phones and computer records are un-American and a threat to our civil liberties.  I say that your phone records are yours. I say the phone records of law-abiding citizens are none of their damn business.”

Senator Paul additionally called for:

-       A balanced budget amendment to the constitution.
-       Term limits for congress
-       Economic freedom zones for impoverished areas such as Detroit
-       Clearly defining our enemy as radical Islam

The Bad:

There really was little bad in Senator Paul’s speech for those who respect the constitution.  One concern was the creation of economic freedom “zones” instead of abolishing the IRS and making all of America an economic freedom zone.

The balanced budget amendment, as I argued in my book, is good but not good enough.  Any such amendment would have to limit spending to a percentage of GDP to prevent congress from simply raising taxes high enough to satisfy its appetite for money and power.  Hopefully more detail will be forthcoming from the campaign.

As congress and the president ramp up for their epic budget battle, I’ve decided to provide readers with a short primer and overview of the proposals to make sense out of the lies and distortions coming from all quarters.  The bottom line is the House Republican plan is the better of the two, but we are all screwed no matter the outcome.

First, some basics:  The “deficit” is the amount of money the government spends that it does not have, i.e., borrows.  The “national debt” is the cumulative amount of money the government has borrowed- and that you and I and our children will be required to pay back.  So, if you have a deficit of $500 billion dollars three years in a row, you will add $1.5 trillion dollars to the national debt (plus accumulated interest).  When you hear the word “deficit,” substitute “borrowed money.”

“Deficit reduction” means borrowing less than was borrowed the preceding year, or if you’re a politician, it can also mean borrowing less than you planned on spending.  It not only does not reduce the national debt, but actually continues to add to it - unless you reduce the deficit to zero - however even then, the debt would continue to increase due to interest, since no extra money is being raised to pay down the debt.

A “balanced budget” means you spend nearly exactly the amount of money you raise in taxes.  This would be a good idea if you weren’t already bankrupt.


Pols in both parties like to switch back and forth talking about deficits and debt to try to confuse you - so don’t be fooled.  If there is any deficit at all, the national debt is being added to; even if the deficit is smaller than last year.

Both parties put forward budgets that project out over a ten-year period, making all sorts of unsupportable predictions about how much tax revenue the government will raise and the growth of the economy.  Moreover, presidents can last only eight years and congress is up for grabs every two, and the budget needs to be passed every year.

New trick:  This year’s proposals refer to a great extent about the national debt as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP).  This provides another way to obscure the very simple calculus of money-in vs. money-out.

The Plans

President Obama:

The president’s proposed budget increases spending and adds to the national debt every year through 2025.  The proposal would find us in 2025 with a budget $2.4 trillion dollars higher than the one we have today, and the national debt (by his own estimate) would soar to a suffocating $26 trillion.

Key deceptions:

The president’s budget trumpets $1.8 trillion in deficit reduction.  This is either a simple lie or it is based upon a reduction in previously planned increases; the proposal does not explain.  The president’s budget clearly indicates the annual deficit increasing every single year through 2025.  Remember, reducing the deficit does not reduce our national debt by one penny.

Republican Plan:

The Republican proposal also increases spending and adds to the national debt every single year through 2025, although in smaller amounts than the president’s proposed budget.  Following the Republican plan would find us with a budget “only” $1.3 trillion over today’s spending levels.  The Republican plan does not provide projected national debt numbers, but following the math in the president’s proposal, I’d spitball the number at about $22 trillion (what difference is a few hundred billion when you’re already bankrupt?).

Key Deceptions:

The Republican plan claims to balance the budget in ten years, which it does - almost.  The budget in 2025 calls for borrowing about $50 million dollars, but they use the GDP trick to turn that into a surplus.

The Republican summary of their plan claims that it cuts spending by $5.5 trillion; however, as stated above, their budget proposes spending increases every year for the entire ten-year period.  We are left to guess that the supposed “cuts” are likely conjured up by lowering planned increases in spending.

Unconstitutional Government Rolls On

Both budget proposals continue to fund an endless array of unconstitutional agencies and activities of the federal government, from job training and housing assistance, to Food Stamps and other welfare giveaways.  Neither proposal does anything about the unsustainable, runaway expenses of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which devour more than half of the entire federal budget.

The rule of the Republicrats continues unabated, as does the unconstitutional, suffocating national government they’ve created.  The budget battle will provide great political theater, with your favorite pols posturing and preening for the cameras, but their shared system for controlling our lives will remain unchanged until the people decide to put an end to it.

Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) formally announced his candidacy for the GOP presidential nomination in a speech at Liberty University in Virginia this week.  While his stance on all the key policy issues of the day are not known in great detail, we will analyze his remarks - and those of all candidates - in terms of their comportment with the constitution and the principles of liberty.

The Good:

Senator Cruz openly called for a return to lawful federal governance under the constitution, saying 
"It's time to reclaim the constitution of the United States."  

He called for the abolition of the Internal Revenue Service.
This agency has been one of the greatest tools of political harassment and naked tyranny by presidents since its inception, and cries out for abolition.

Senator Cruz called for a simple flat tax on incomes.
This position requires additional clarification.  While on the surface, a flat tax seems like a fair and workable solution to our current incomprehensible, punitive, and confiscatory income tax, there would need to be policies in place to strictly limit the amount of income to be seized, and to prevent the use of the current so-called "progressive" taxation as advocated by Karl Marx; wherein the more money you earn the higher percentage of income you must surrender in taxes, e.g., a maximum tax of 12% would mean if you earn $1,000,000, you pay $120,000 in taxes, and if you earn $50,000, you pay $6,000.  That's what president Obama is fond of repeating: "Everybody plays by the same rules."

He called for the repeal of Obamacare.
Obamacare is an unmitigated disaster by any objective measure, and it is unconstitutional and an affront to liberty notwithstanding what nine politically-connected robed lawyers at the Supreme Court say.

Senator Cruz called for universal school choice.
This is a fundamental right that is denied most people in the US; especially the poor.  This position is in line with both liberty and the constitution, provided his solution involves dissolution of the federal Department of Education and leaving it up to the states, or a passing a constitutional amendment to enshrine the right on a national level.

The senator also called for securing the borders, upholding the Second Amendment, ending government surveillance of innocent Americans, and defending the US against Islamic terrorism.
All good, senator; depending on how you intend to defend the US.  Please not through continued undeclared wars, drone strikes across the planet, and a personal, presidential "Kill List," as is the current strategy of Nobel Peace Price laureate, Barack Obama.

The Bad:

The senator called for a president that "works to defend the sanctity of human life."
While all presidents should treasure the value of human life, this is clearly a reference to abortion.  While the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision is a textbook case of bad law and tortured logic, it is not the place of the federal government to make law concerning abortion, it is a right reserved to the states. 

He called for a president who "...upholds the sanctity of marriage."
Again, while I hope that our president is someone who values the sanctity of his or her marriage vows, the constitution provides no role for the head of the executive to make law or advocate about who can marry whom.  Gay marriage is an issue for the states, and in truth should be merely between the individuals choosing to marry.

Senator Cruz called for America to stand with Israel and a president who will never allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon.
This is both good and bad.  Senator Cruz, along with every other politician and commentator who endlessly pontificates on this subject, needs to state a specific policy.  We can "stand" with Israel by declaring their right to exist free from terrorism and military attack - or we can pledge to plunge ourselves into a war of Biblical proportions if and when Israel's enemies rise against them once again.  We can discourage the Iranians from obtaining a nuclear bomb through sanctions and diplomatic pressure, while constantly repeating that, "the military option remains on the table," or we can acknowledge the fact that we cannot prevent a determined Iran from obtaining a bomb short of invading that country with a million-man (and woman) army.  A real national conversation needs to be had about what we (the people - not the government) are prepared to do and not prepared to do when it comes to defending Israel and/or imposing our will on the Greater Middle East.

Overall, Senator Cruz's message was a positive and refreshing one.  If he sticks to the constitution as a guide he will have the one thing no Republican candidate has had in recent memory; credibility and solid moral and logical ground upon which to stand and make his case.