Friday, September 26, 2014

The Global Warming Hoax!!!

Falling temperatures are giving climate alarmists chills:
“Global warming is nowhere to be found. The mean global temperature has not risen in 17 years and has been slowly falling for approximately the past 10 years. In 2013, there were more record-low temperatures than record-high temperatures in the United States. These extremes were not singular, but exemplary of conditions throughout much of the continent. As frigid conditions settled over the nation, global-warming alarmists went into full denial mode. We were emphatically lectured that singular weather events are not necessarily indicative of long-term climate trends. True enough, but haven’t we been repeatedly told that weather events such as hurricanes Sandy and Katrina are unequivocal proof of global warming? If we’re really in the middle of a “climate crisis,” is it not remarkable that low-temperature records from the 19th century were shattered? Weather extremes also seem to bring out the lunatic fringe. Of course, when we’re discussing global warming, it’s difficult to tell where the mainstream stops and the fringe begins. We were subjected to the oxymoronic explanation that frigid weather was, in fact, caused by global warming. According to Time magazine, cold temperatures in the United States were a result of global warming forcing the polar vortex southward. But in 1974, the same Time informed us that descent of the polar vortex into temperate zones was a harbinger of a new Ice Age.  Despite all the claims that the poles are melting and polar bears drowning, the global extent of sea ice remains stubbornly and significantly above the long-term mean. Apparently, the buildup of heat from global warming is producing more ice, not less, in defiance of both the laws of physics and common sense.”
Government Data Show U.S. in Decade-Long Cooling:
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s most accurate, up-to-date temperature data confirm the United States has been cooling for at least the past decade.
CO2 - The Key To Life On Earth!!! 
Climate Change: A study on the impact of rising CO2 levels finds a future world of thriving agriculture and lush vegetation. Carbon dioxide, the gas some see as a threat, is indeed the key to life on Earth. Rresearchers at the Theunen Institute in Germany find the rise in carbon dioxide levels may in fact be a boon to plant life on Earth.

The Theunen Institute, which has been monitoring the phenomenon since 1999, trained CO2 jets on plants, raising CO2 concentrations in the air around them to 550 parts per million (ppm), significantly higher than today's levels. The researchers announced on Tuesday that such increased exposure to carbon dioxide appears to boost crop yields. 'Output increased by about 10%. 'Higher CO2 enables plants to grow faster and larger and to live in drier climates. 'Plants provide food for animals, which are thereby also enhanced. The extent and diversity of plant and animal life have both increased substantially during the past half-century. 
Carbon dioxide is in fact not a pollutant. Rather, it is the basis of all plant, and therefore all animal, life on Earth. Dr. Robert Balling, director of the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University, notes that 'carbon dioxide concentrations were much higher in the past, millions of years ago, when plants evolved around the world.' 'When carbon dioxide levels increase, plants grow faster, bigger, more resistant to any number of stresses, and far more efficient in their use of water.'

As atmospheric CO2 levels consistently have been increasing, global mean temperatures have not kept pace. Warming has not been constant. In fact, it has been interrupted periodically by — global cooling, and seems to have stopped entirely in 1998. These are not the kind of temperature fluctuations you'd expect in the face of steadily increasing CO2 emissions, if CO2 was the main culprit.

Richard Lindzen, of the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, notes that global mean temperatures have risen about 1 degree Fahrenheit over the past century, rising significantly between 1919 and 1940, declining between 1940 and the early 1970s, rising again, and now back to cooling.

As Solomon notes, CO2 levels were five to 10 times higher when dinosaurs roamed the Earth on a fertile planet where lush vegetation sustained those immense beasts. The Earth is cooler now than then, and cooler than it was during the Medieval Warming Period. In that era, the climate was so warm that Vikings settled Greenland and grew crops there for centuries. When Eric the Red brought settlers to Greenland in 986, the climate supported the Viking way of life based upon cattle, hay, grain and herring for the next 300 years. Was it man-made pollution that allowed 300 years of Nordic settlement in Greenland? We don't think so.
During medieval times the whole of the planet heated up. It then cooled down naturally and there was even a 'mini ice age'. 
CO2 is not causing global warming. Alarmists Motivated by Politics and Research Funding: 
"We cannot stop carbon emissions because most of them come from volcanoes. It is a normal element cycled around in the earth. We have had a planet that has been a green, warm wet planet 80 per cent of the time. We have had huge climate change in the past and to think the very slight variations we measure today are the result of our life - we really have to put ice blocks in our drinks. The world has experienced three periods of cooling since 1850 and furthermore carbon dioxide was increasing during many of those cooler periods.

The scientists "frightening people witless by following the party line" are motivated by politics and research funding. They are taking advantage of the current situation. That is understandable. In previous times people got wonderful research grants in a war against cancer and they achieved a lot of money for that. Now we have a war on climate change and we have a huge number of people out there who have their career staked on it and are beneficiaries of this process.


Solar activity linked to cooler temperatures:
The sun is at a low point of a deep solar minimum in which there are little to no sunspots on its surface. Records for consecutive spotless days are at highs not seen since the early 1900’s. A sunspot, is a location on the sun's surface that is cooler than the surrounding area. A solar minimum is when the amount of spots on the sun is at a low and the reverse is true for a solar maximum. The complete solar cycle is about an 11-year process.

"There's a fair chance it will be a cooler winter than last year," (Ahem…Exactly what we’ve been seeing!!!)

Perry said there is a feeling from some in the scientific community the Earth may be entering into a grand minimum, which is an extended period with low numbers of sunspots that creates cooler temperatures. The year without a summer, which was 1816, was during a grand minimum in 1800 to 1830 when Europe became cooler. Another grand minimum was in 1903 to 1913.

There is anecdotal evidence the Earth's temperature may be slightly decreasing, but local weather patterns are much more affected by the jet stream than solar activity.

Perry is a proponent of the cosmic ray and clouds theory as opposed to the CO2 global warming theory to explain recent global warming trends. The cosmic ray and clouds theory is simply that solar activity can alter the amount of clouds in the atmosphere, which affects the temperature of the Earth. More clouds mean a cooler Earth because more of the sun's heat is being reflected. Fewer clouds equal a warmer Earth.

Data indicates global temperature fluctuations correlate to a statistically significant degree with the length of the sunspot cycle. Longer cycles are associated with cooler temperatures.
Global Warming Caused By Solar NOT Human Causes. Neptune and Mars heating at same rate/time. 
Report from

Changes on Neptune Link Sun and Global Warming

Research links solar output with the planet Neptune’s brightness and temperatures on Earth. Measurements indicate that Neptune has been getting brighter since around 1980. And infrared measurements of the planet since 1980 show that Neptune has been warming steadily as well.

The researchers plotted on a graph the changes in visible light from Neptune over the past half-century, changes in temperatures on Earth during that period, and changes in total solar irradiance. The results: The correlation between solar irradiance and Neptune’s brightness was nearly perfect; so was the correlation between changes on Earth and solar output.

When the sun is more energetic and putting out more energy, the Earth tends to warm up, and when the sun cools down, so does the Earth. The same is true out at Neptune — when the sun’s energy increases, Neptune seems to warm up and get brighter. How is it possible that the Earth’s temperature is so highly correlated with brightness variations from Neptune? The news from Neptune comes to us just weeks after an article was published showing that Mars has warmed recently as well.

If nothing else, we have certainly learned recently that planets undergo changes in their mean temperature, and while we can easily blame human activity here on the Earth, blaming humans for the recent warming on Mars and Neptune would be an astronomical stretch, to say the least.
MIT scientists baffled by global warming theory, contradicts scientific data. Methane root cause.
Scientists at MIT have recorded a nearly simultaneous world-wide increase in methane levels. This is the first increase in ten years, and what baffles science is that this data contradicts theories stating man is the primary source of increase for this greenhouse gas. It takes about one full year for gases generated in the highly industrial northern hemisphere to cycle through and reach the southern hemisphere. However, since all worldwide levels rose simultaneously throughout the same year, it is now believed this may be part of a natural cycle in mother nature - and not the direct result of man's contributions.

Methane - powerful greenhouse gas

Methane accounts for roughly one-fifth of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, though its effect is 25x greater than that of carbon dioxide. Its impact on global warming comes from the reflection of the sun's light back to the Earth (like a greenhouse). Methane is typically broken down in the atmosphere by the free radical hydroxyl (OH), a naturally occuring process. This atmospheric cleanser has been shown to adjust itself up and down periodically, and is believed to account for the lack of increases in methane levels in Earth's atmosphere over the past ten years despite notable simultaneous increases by man.
We may simply be going through another natural cycle of warmer and colder times - one that's been observed through a scientific analysis of the Earth to be naturally occuring for hundreds of thousands of years. 
Stunning satellite images show summer ice cap is thicker and covers 1.7million square kilometres MORE than 2 years ago...despite Al Gore's prediction it would be ICE-FREE by now:
The Arctic ice cap has expanded for the second year in succession – with a surge, depending on how you measure it, of between 43 and 63 per cent since 2012.

UN Blowback: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims: 
Cow Flatulence to Blame for Global Warming: 
The EPA has recognized the contribution cow farts are making to Earth’s greenhouse gases, stating earlier that globally, livestock are the “largest source of methane from human-related activities”.  A 1995 study of methane emissions from cattle found that cows typically lose about 6 percent of their ingested energy as methane, partly a result of their slow digestive process. A single cow can produce between 250 and 500 liters, or about 66 to 132 gallons, of methane a day (the average U.S. vehicle gas tank can hold about 16 gallons of gas).
Greenpeace co-founder: No scientific evidence of man-made global warming: 
NASA’s Global Warming Stance Blasted by 49 Astronauts Who Worked at NASA: 

Tuesday, July 01, 2014

Immigration – Filling the Void


July 1, 2014
Bryan Baumgart
Chairman, Douglas County Republican Party

The United States is not alone in its struggles to replace an aging workforce and the important tax revenue attached to it.  As America continues to “gray”, it must find a way to care for its aging population.  While other countries such as Japan and China struggle to find a solution (see charts below), the United States has a distinct advantage in that immigrants continue to flock to this country seeking freedom and opportunity.  

The facts are undeniable. Our country is quickly sinking in debt, Social Security and Medicare are rapidly approaching insolvency, and the ever increasing number of laborers leaving the work force only compounds the problem our country is facing. A healthy immigration policy is key, not only to fill the labor demands of American businesses, but to effectively care for our aging population. 

“Neither Medicare nor Social Security can sustain projected long-run programs in full under currently scheduled financing. Both programs will experience cost growth substantially in excess of GDP growth through the mid-2030s due to rapid population aging caused by the large baby-boom generation entering retirement and lower-birth-rate generations entering employment and, in the case of Medicare, to growth in expenditures per beneficiary exceeding growth in per capita GDP.”

Because US birth rates are not sufficient to fill the void left by an aging American workforce, immigration reform with an emphasis on targeted immigration continues to be our best viable solution. Targeted immigration provides a fighting chance for both Social Security and Medicare by filling in the voids of the population pyramid (see below).

The follies of failing on immigration reform
An aging workforce is not the only increasing burden American taxpayers must confront.  Our current immigration policy has led to an estimated 14 million plus undocumented immigrants currently residing in the United States, often living at the expense of American taxpayers.

A recent story in the Washington Post explored the burden placed on school budgets by the rising percentage of students who qualify for subsidized meals and extra English instruction:

“Immigration reform could help families more easily attain legal status and begin adding to the tax base.”

Some of the most vocal opponents of immigration reform decry propping up benefits for noncitizens at taxpayer expense. Ironically, these same critics then turn around and oppose allowing their participation in the system.

The undeniable facts remain. Our current immigration process has left us with 14 million undocumented immigrants. Most of which are hardworking, law abiding, family and faith oriented individuals who came seeking the same opportunity and pursuing the same happiness that our ancestors sought. Their children, born in America know no other country or way of life. 
Logic tells us that deportation is not an option, nor should it be. Past attempts to solve the problem through amnesty have obviously failed. Construction of a border fence will certainly prove futile as the human spirit cannot be held captive by a fence or means of force. Immigrants will continue to flock to this country seeking freedom and opportunity with the same furor that drove our ancestors to risk all in the pursuit of a better future.

The solution is to address the failing immigration policy that has caused this problem in the first place. The legal process must first be simplified in order to act as an incentive rather than a deterrent. Once effective reform of the legal process is achieved, undocumented immigrants should be allowed to self-report and enter into that legal process…AT THE BACK OF THE LINE. Temporary citizenship should be granted during this time in order to avoid tearing families apart and other unnecessary societal distress. Rather than living at the expense of American taxpayers, immigrants would be welcomed out of the shadows and could pull their own weight becoming contributing taxpayers themselves.  Immigration should then be targeted at filling the labor demands of American businesses. It’s a problem with a rare win/win solution.

 * I’d like to congratulate my friend Yeny Curruchich Martinez who after a long journey, today became a proud American citizen. Your story which began in Guatemala, led through California, and finally brought you to Nebraska where you passionately serve fellow Nebraskans as a nurse does not end here. Today marks an exciting new chapter in your story.  A story that serves as an inspiration to me. You truly embolden everything that makes America “that shining city on the hill”.  

Thursday, May 08, 2014

Credible Challenge to Obamacare Back in Court - Violates Constitution's Origination Clause

May 8, 2014

A Federal Appeals Court in Washington will take up a credible challenge to Obamacare today.
The challenge was made possible when SCOTUS ruled the individual mandate penalty a tax back in June of 2012. 
The challenge is based on the “Origination Clause” (Article 1, Section 7 of the US Constitution) which states that “any legislation to create a tax to be collected by the federal government must originate in the House of Representatives”. 
The clause was created by our founders as a safeguard to liberty because they understood that the power to tax, if misused, involves the power to destroy. The requirement is designed to maximize political accountability. The House is closest to the people and less insulated than the Senate. Each member must seek reelection every two years.
The argument is that Obamacare originated in the Senate and was then sent to the House of Representatives and is therefore unconstitutional.
The White House will argue the Senate has a right to amend House Bills and send them back for approval. With Obamacare, Sen. Reid took a bill passed in the House called the “Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009” that offered tax credits to military members who were first-time homebuyers. He then amended that bill by stripping out the entire text of the six-page law and replaced it with the 2,000-plus page bill that became the Affordable Care Act.
Opponents will argue that Reid’s legislative manipulation was unconstitutional because SCOTUS has held that only Senate amendments that are germane to the subject matter of the underlying House bill can avoid scrutiny under the Origination Clause. Otherwise, the Constitution’s Origination Clause is meaningless.
The case is Sissel v. US Department of Health and Human Services (13-5202).

Weather Channel Co-Founder Slams Federal Climate Report

May 7, 2014

’600 page litany of doom’: Weather Channel Co-Founder John Coleman slams Federal climate report: A ‘total distortion of the data and agenda driven, destructive episode of bad science gone berserk’    

Coleman: 'When the temperature data could no longer be bent to support global warming, they switched to climate change and now blame every weather and climate event on CO2 despite the hard, cold fact that the “radiative forcing” theory they built their claims on has totally failed to verify.'

'The current bad science is all based on a theory that the increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the exhaust of the burning of fossil fuels leads to a dramatic increase in “the greenhouse effect” causing temperatures to skyrocket uncontrollably. This theory has failed to verify and is obviously dead wrong. But the politically funded and agenda driven scientists who have built their careers on this theory and live well on the 2.6 billion dollars of year of Federal grants for global warming/climate change research cling to this theory and bend the data spread to support the glorified claims in their reports and papers.'

(For more on global temperature standstill see here: Global Temperature Update: No global warming at all for 17 years 9 months)
John Coleman’s Blog for Wednesday, May 7th

The sky is falling. “Climate Change” is running wild and disaster is certain unless we immediately stop burning coal and oil and move quickly to “green energy” to eliminate use of fossil fuels. Heat waves, huge floods, powerful storms, droughts and rising seas are on the verge of killing millions of us and destroying our civilization. That is my summary of the new Federal Assessment of Climate Change issued by a Obama administration team of more than 300 specialists guided by a 60-member federal advisory committee produced the report. It was reviewed by federal agencies and a panel of the National Academy of Sciences.

This 600 page litany of doom and gloom has received extensive coverage by the panting anchors of the national media who feel important when tell their audience that “the sky is falling.” Horrible pictures of storms, floods, drought and heat waves leaped out of the TV sets as the New York and Washington DC headquartered media was particularly excited to tell us how the huge increases in floods and storms was the worst in that part of the nation.

If you accept the picture painted by this report, the weather was just right, steady and nice in the historic past but because our industrialized society has powered its heating and air conditioning, its transportation by train, plane, cars and trucks, generated it’s electric power to run our lights, computers, television and smart phones with fossil fuels it has triggered this nightmare of awful storms, droughts and heat waves.

I am deeply disturbed to have to suffer through this total distortion of the data and agenda driven, destructive episode of bad science gone berserk. The only good news is that I least where I am and on the channels and websites I saw I was not further insulted by fawning TV Weathercasters visiting the White House and interviewing the President. I best I can tell, on a national level, that turned out to be a non-event (thank goodness).

Please allow me to hold your attention for a few minutes to explain why I don’t buy into this Climate Change alarmism. The climate of Earth has never been “normal” or stable. It has continuously changed through this planet’s 4.5 billion year history. Powerful storms, floods, droughts, heat waves and ice and snow storms have come and gone as long as Earth has existed.

The current bad science is all based on a theory that the increase in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the exhaust of the burning of fossil fuels leads to a dramatic increase in “the greenhouse effect” causing temperatures to skyrocket uncontrollably. This theory has failed to verify and is obviously dead wrong. But the politically funded and agenda driven scientists who have built their careers on this theory and live well on the 2.6 billion dollars of year of Federal grants for global warming/climate change research cling to this theory and bend the data spread to support the glorified claims in their reports and papers.

When the temperature data could no longer be bent to support global warming, they switched to climate change and now blame every weather and climate event on CO2 despite the hard, cold fact that the “radiative forcing” theory they built their claims on has totally failed to verify.

They call people such as me who debunk their non-scientific silliness as “deniers” and claim we are flat-earthers and shills for “big oil”. It is insulting and maddening. But I will not be silenced. And neither will the thousand others, many of them with Ph.D.’s and on the faculties of major universities who are working to stop this bad science that labels CO2 as a pollutant and blames it for every shift in the weather.

We will be gathering, we global warming skeptics, at Heartland Institutes 9th International Conference on Climate Change, July 7 – 9, 2014 in Las Vegas. You can learn about that conference at I will be one of the speakers at the breakfast session on Tuesday July 8th. Look at the list of speakers on the website and you will see an impressive group. A group of the powerful Ph.D.’s in the group have recently published a complete scientific document that totaling destroys the climate change alarmism of the US Democrat Party and the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. You can find that publication on line at

In the meantime, through blogs, and radio and television interviews whenever any of us can get on the air we will continue to try to debunk this way of climate alarmism. For instance, I will be on the air on WLS Radio in Chicago with Bruce Wolf & Dan Proft on Wednesday morning (today) at 8:45 AM Chicago time (6:45 AM San Diego time) and do my best to tell the real story of climate and weather. You can listen to that broadcast on line at

All of this not withstanding, my life is sooo good. Every day is fun and relaxed since I have ended the tread mill life of grinding out all those TV weathercasts a day. I now do my dancing for fun only. LOL


Blog for Tuesday, May 6th

The President of the United States has decided to make Climate Change a major issue of the last two years of his Administration. This deeply saddens me but I won’t give up my effort to debunk the horrid distortion of science that has led to this Climate Change Alarmism campaign. First of all, please, believe me, there is no significant man-made global warming. There is a minor warming trend continuing as Earth continues to go through its normal, natural climate change from Ice Age to Interglacial period which in ten thousand year or so will fade into another ice age. The activities of mankind in powering our civilization with fossil fuels has had no significant impact on this natural process. And this chart shows that the warming has stalled now for 17 plus years:

So today to launch his new campaign the President has invited a group of television Meteorologist to the White House to interview him on the topic. The barrage of publicity will be deafening. I deeply regret that the global warming/climate change thing has become a partisan political issue. Al Gore made global warming a Platform issue for the Democrat Party and it is now accepted without serious study or scientific consideration by a vast majority of liberals in this country. And, as politics goes, the Republican Party denies global warming because it is a key issue of the other party without even studying the science.

There are thousands and thousands of scientists who know without a doubt that the entire matter is based on bad science. We fight with everything we have to inform the public of the truth, but the dominate liberal media shuns us and the global warming team calls us names and insults us. We know we right and we try to explain that this global warming campaign is costing us billions in tax dollars every year and driving up the our cost of living by well over a thousand dollars a year for the average family (and the cost is increasing dramatically in the coming years as the government enacts cap and trade regulations.) One dramatic increase is in the cost of corn. This is leading to hunger and perhaps thousands of deaths per year in the poorest nations of the world. It is not a small, “who cares” matter. You can get my explanation of how this all got started and what the bad science is all about by watching my videos on this website or following my links to active climate change debunking websites of scientists I greatly respect. I get you to set politics aside and study the science of the issue. It is important. Meanwhile, somehow I will get through the next 48 hours or so of massive publicity on the issue.

Best regards,

John Coleman

Thursday, April 03, 2014

FAIL. Behind the 7.1 Million Obamacare Enrollees...

Bryan Baumgart - 4/3/2014

7.1 million.

That's the number of obamacare enrollees that President Obama touted during his victory dance yesterday.  But a look behind these numbers shows just how misleading they are. 

Of the 7.1 million people that signed up for obamacare, the Obama administration admits that 4.4 million actually signed up for Medicaid via the ACA rather than actual obamacare.  

Of the remaining 2.7 million that signed up for obamacare (by force of mandates and fines), only 27% had been previously uninsured 

It is estimated that 5 million Americans lost their insurance due to Obamacare so far and a recent survey by McKinsey & Company estimates that 73% of the obamacare signups already had insurance before obamacare 

NY Times reports that 20% haven’t actually paid for the obamacare insurance they signed up for yet (so they aren't technically insured), and it is expected that many more will let their plans lapse during the course of the year.  

The McKinsey study reveals the 27% of new enrollees that weren’t previously insured have an unusually high rate of failing to pay for their premiums. Only 53% had paid for their first premium, compared to 86% of the previously insured paying for theirs.   

It is estimated that less than 25% of the current obamacare signups are young and healthy, far short of the 40% the administration was hoping for. (The ACA hinges on large numbers of young and healthy individuals paying in without using their insurance in order to support everyone else and keep the program solvent).  


Based on census data, there were 44.8 million Americans uninsured in 2008 before Obamacare. Today…after spending over $2 TRILLION taxpayer dollars48.6 million Americans remain uninsured  

An expected 78 - 100 million more are likely to lose their employer insurance when the delay expires after the November elections.   

Estimates show premiums doubling and out of pocket expenses have skyrocketed so high that even those that have insurance can’t afford to get sick and use it.

They have health insurance but no health CARE.  

Where is the victory again?!

Monday, March 03, 2014

Common Sense Pt.2: The "Not-So-United" States of America

Bryan Baumgart – 3/3/2014

Earlier this year, Walter Williams posed a question in an editorial titled “Parting Company” on Townhall Daily that I believe will be asked more and more by Americans in the future.
“If one group of people prefers strong government control and management of people's lives while another group prefers liberty and desires to be left alone, should they be required to enter into conflict with one another and risk bloodshed and loss of life in order to impose their preferences on the other group?”
Williams went on to answer his question:
"I believe our nation is at a point where there are enough irreconcilable differences between those Americans who want to control other Americans and those Americans who want to be left alone that separation is the only peaceable alternative."
Williams isn’t alone. Calls for secession are becoming more and more frequent with each passing day.

On April 9, 2009, Texas Governor Rick Perry joined other states such as Oklahoma, Indiana, and South Dakota in publicly endorsing a resolution affirming the sovereignty of their state under the 10th Amendment. One could argue these resolutions are merely public objections to federal overreach, but they also lay the groundwork as legal platforms for future secession.

Perhaps former KGB member and Russian academic Igor Panarin should be credited with US secession predictions as early as 1998. Panarin based his predictions on classified data supplied to him while he worked for the Russian “National Security Agency” (FAPSI). Panarin claimed that by 2010, economic, financial, and demographic trends would provoke a political and social crisis in the U.S. and that the wealthier states would withhold funds from the federal government and effectively secede from the union. He predicted that social unrest up to and including a civil war would follow and the US would split along ethnic lines.
Of course three years have since passed since the end of 2010 and Panarin’s predictions have not come true. That doesn’t mean they won’t, and if they do play out…Panarin’s scenario makes the most sense.
Panarin’s “wealthier states” (the states most likely to become fed up and make the first move) are the states with more to lose than gain from being part of the union. Economically self-sufficient states such as oil and gas giants like Texas, Alaska, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and the Dakotas are a few that fit the bill.
Critics will point to the fact that Texas actually receives more in federal revenue than it sends to DC in taxes or that blue states such as New York or California pay more in federal taxes than they receive. While this is true and serves to appease states like Texas, those red states still have a tipping point in regard to federal interference in their state’s Constitutional rights. Thus states like Texas reaffirming sovereignty under the 10th Amendment.
There is an important difference between self-sufficient states accepting more federal funds than they contribute out of choice, and states that do so out of necessity. Of course, any state that isn’t inhabited by a majority of voters supporting a giant welfare state could be self-sufficient (most red states). Independence directly correlates to personal responsibility.  
As the largest and most independent, Texas is likely the state to lead the charge after extending an invitation to the other “red” states to join the effort. States could refuse to contribute to federal coffers, choosing instead to hold on to their revenue and take care of their own or to join in union with other like-minded states.
Next comes the push from “red” counties in blue states to split from their respective states.  These efforts are already picking up steam. After President Obama’s reelection, symbolic petitions to secede were filed in more than 30 states. These petitions held no teeth, but have already turned into real movements such as the ongoing effort in California to split into six states or the five Colorado counties that voted to secede and form their own state. These counties could very well be accepted into neighboring “red” states.
The country could find itself split down the middle; a strategic advantage for the secession movement. The economic advantage then lies with those “red” self-sufficient states. Their tax climates will attract businesses (and job seekers) from the “blue” states which equates to increased revenue. In a classic repeat of the Cold War and collapse of the USSR under the weight of its own misguided ideals, the “blue” states find themselves starved of jobs, opportunity, and necessary revenue.
Which begs the question…what kind of opposition/response would spring up from the federal government? Up to this point, the secession has been a peaceful revolution. Would the president turn the military on a large number of states? If so, what orders would be issued? Should elected leaders be arrested it could spark rebellion from the armed citizenry of those states, sparking a civil war as Igor Panarin predicted.
The president’s latest move should come as no surprise then, as pointed out by Texas Governor Rick Perry. The president is once again attempting to gut the Army and National Guard; the branch of military under authority of the Governors. This move lends credence to the belief that the president is proactively working to gut the military forces that could be used in opposition and attempting to make the states more dependent on the federal government in cases of emergencies and defense.
Patriots best be vigilant.

Friday, February 28, 2014

Nebraska Public Service Commission…Necessary or Nuisance?

Bryan Baumgart - 2/28/2014
A seat at Nebraska’s Public Service Commission has become a highly coveted position 
“It is not a high-profile job, but it's described by some as one of the best elected positions in state government. It comes with a $75,000-a-year salary. And if history is any indication, the job could turn into a lifetime gig.” –Robynn Tysver, Omaha World Herald, 1/19/2014
The PSC is a constitutionally created executive body established under Article IV, Section 20 of the Nebraska Constitution.
The PSC was initially created by the Legislature in 1885 to regulate railroads. In 1906 a constitutional amendment made the Commission a three member elected Railway Commission. Membership was increased to five Commissioners in 1964 and the state was divided into five districts, each to elect a commissioner.
The Commission could be described in three words:


Today the Commission regulates telecommunications carriers, natural gas jurisdictional utilities, major oil pipelines, railroad safety, household goods movers and passenger carriers, grain warehouses and dealers, construction of manufactured and modular homes and recreational vehicles, high voltage electric transmission lines, and private water company rates. The Commission also oversees and administers several statutorily created funds with specific legislative purposes and goals including the Nebraska Universal Service Fund, the Enhanced Wireless 911 Fund, and the Nebraska Telecommunications Relay System Fund.

High Salaries:

The $75,000-a-year-salary makes the position one of the highest paid government positions in the state, just below those of the state auditor and state treasurer and considerably higher than the $12,000 paid to state senators making laws for the entire state. While the gig is considered fulltime and members are prohibited from engaging in other occupations, admittedly the duties are less than time consuming.
“While the position is intended to be full time, there have been times in the past when there were commissioners who were not as active or dedicated to the job.” --Current PSC Chairman Frank Landis.

Commissioners have become a prime target for lobbyists, pulling in 76 percent of campaign contributions from the industries they regulate. That doesn’t look to change anytime soon. Under legislation passed in 2011 the PSC is granted the authority to approve major oil pipelines. With possible decision making authority over the highly controversial Keystone XL pipeline, expect the PSC to be targeted heavily by lobbyists on both sides.

The question that remains…

Is the Public Service Commission a necessity any longer or is it an unnecessary expense to Nebraska taxpayers? Could the duties better be handled by other entities? With over $27 million dollars spent by special interests lobbying Nebraska lawmakers in 2013 alone, is the Commission prone to corruption?

Could Nebraska’s taxpayers be better served by ending the PSC through a Constitutional Amendment?

I think it’s time for a serious discussion.