from Accountability Utah

America was founded on the belief that respect for individuals, apart from family and other associations, is paramount to a just and virtuous society. In recent decades, this belief has given way to a “more civil,” group-centered, “soft communism” doctrine that places individuals on unequal grounds before the law.

This philosophical shift will, if allowed to continue, result in the abandonment of justice and common sense, and lead toward the complete Balkanization and ruin of America. House Joint Resolution 2, “Family Impact Statement on Legislation,” the recently-passed Constitutional Amendment 3, and thought crimes legislation are discussed as examples of this degradation.

Read the rest at this link.

by Aaron Turpen, TorqueNews

In Washington, rhetoric is the name of the game. If your quoted blurb is better than your opponents’, you win the day – whether facts are on your side or not. In fact, the side that has to “explain” the facts is likely to lose, so you always want to be the one forcing the other guy to explain.

The more unknown, but bad-sounding the label you can stick to your opponent or their industry, the better. Ever since the Federalists won out over the Anti-Federalists thanks in no small part to the names they were able to get labeled with, politics in this country has revolved around name calling. Had the anti-federalist been called “Freedom-Lovers” or “Libertarians” then history might have been different.

So it goes today. Nothing is better for politicians than a crisis (contrived or real) that they can twist to their advantage. The price of gasoline has been a favorite subject for decades, with everyone trying to force the issue and give it the labels they want. Alluding to “Big Oil” is always a favorite tactic, as is “economic choking” and comments about “lifeblood.”

Lately, however, the new thing is to bring out a very old term with a lot of negative baggage and throw it at the public in such a way that it can be stuck onto some of the things we’ve been told to hate. Oil “speculators” are labeled with a spit and insinuated to be in alignment with Big Oil and all of the evils it’s been saddled with. To be an “oil speculator” is, according to the rhetoric, how you get insane profits by screwing over the American people because you want oil (and thus gasoline) prices to skyrocket so you can buy low and sell high.

As with all great lies, this one is told based on a kernel of truth. Add on the bicycle pump and start filling it up with hot air, though, and it becomes something entirely different, retaining only the veneer of the original, but being pumped up to incredible proportions.

Here’s the rub: chances are you yourself or someone you know, maybe even a family member or close friend or neighbor, is one of these “oil speculators.”

This new name that President Obama conjured up and that has been gaining ground in media is really just for those who participate in oil futures. Many people with a retirement fund, such as a 401k, or similar investment portfolio are probably sometime oil speculators. It’s one of many commodities that portfolio managers like to buy and sell as part of their attempt to average out ahead of the game to keep their clients’ investments profitable.

The way oil futures work (or any other commodities future, for that matter) is simple. Two types of people are in the game: those who only buy promises to own the commodity when it’s ready and those who actually want to own the goods when they’re ready for delivery. Oil is no different than corn, gold, pork, or rubber for car tires. People buy and sell it every day and, in the case of futures, they buy and sell an item that doesn’t exist yet, but is promised to be delivered when it does. In other words, when you buy corn futures, you’re expecting a farmer to grow it and give it to you just as when you buy oil, you’re expecting the owner of the oil rig to pump and deliver that amount of oil. The producer gets the security of money up front.

The idea for the buyer is to purchase at today’s prices and then either sell the rights to it before delivery (that’s the “speculating” bit) or wait for delivery and hope you got a good deal. Refineries, for instance, buy oil this way all the time, purchasing it months ahead of their actual need so that it shows up when they’re running out of what they’ve currently got.

The problem is, as with any future, you’re “speculating” that it will be worth more than you paid when it is actually ready for delivery – or at some point in between your purchase and that delivery. Investors will sell when that happens, making money in the process. But there’s risk, just like any investment. Oil is just another commodity, it doesn’t always rise in price. Recently it took a dip, in fact, and many of these so-called “speculators” lost out and sold their futures for fear that the dip would remain until the point of delivery. That part usually gets left out of the rhetoric, of course.

Futures are like any other investment opportunity. Even oil barons like the Hunt Brothers or current media whipping posts the Koch family, have lost big-time in commodities futures. It happens to everyone. Want another secret? Even media darling Warren Buffet is an oil speculator. Shocking isn’t it? He’s not alone. Most of the people who’ve at least pretended to be against “speculation” are, in fact, speculators.

And chances are, if you have a mutual fund or a 401k, you are probably sometimes guilty of “speculating” on oil too. How does it feel to be Dr. Evil?

With more and more vehicle owners simply deciding refuse to pay red light camera and speed camera tickets, private, for-profit companies and municipalities are growing increasingly desperate. America’s second-largest city shut down its photo ticketing program last year largely because residents who could not afford the $500 citations did not pay them. On Monday, Las Cruces, New Mexico announced it would shut off the utilities of city residents who refused to pay Redflex Traffic Systems, the Australian company that owns and operates the cameras.

“The city is notifying offenders by mail that they have until the due date stated in the letter to pay the fines or make satisfactory payment arrangements,” a Las Cruces press release warned. “Failure to comply will result in termination of utilities services.”

Las Cruces claims vehicle owners owe $2 million. To encourage payment of the $100 photo fines, the city says it will employ an ordinance the council adopted in 1988 giving itself the right to shut off utility service to residents declared delinquent for any reason.

“The city may decline, fail or cease to furnish utility service to any person who may be in debt to the city for any reason, except ad valorem taxes and special assessments,” city code Section 28-10 states.

The city provides gas, water, sewer and trash services. Ordinarily, the New Mexico Public Regulation Commission prevents shutting off the utilities of low-income residents from November 15 to March 15. This is primarily a safety issue as lack of heating during a cold snap — Las Cruces recorded a -10 degree temperature in 1962 — could endanger the elderly. The commission also protects the seriously ill and customers on Medicaid or on assistance from a charitable organization. A spokesman for the commission, however, told TheNewspaper that no such protections apply to utilities run by a municipality. To have service restored, Las Cruces and its private vendor will charge a $48 re-connection fee on top of $125 per ticket.

Las Cruces gave Redflex approval to issue speeding and red light tickets three years ago. In January, a local university was unable to prove the program delivered a substantial safety benefit. Last year, a majority of voters in Albuquerque voted for the removal of red light cameras.

First, the video of his recent UCLA rally.

Second, a personal reminiscence. This video was a revelation to me. Half a century ago, I was briefly an undergraduate at UCLA. Twenty-five years earlier, my parents had been undergraduates at UCLA. The political outlook of the vast majority of students at UCLA 50 years ago was standard liberalism. The conservative student movement at that time was close to nonexistent. It was not as small as it had been in 1945, but it was still exceedingly small.

There were really only two student organizations in the conservative camp. One of them was the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, which back then was called the Intercollegiate Society of Individualists. The other was Young Americans for Freedom. The first organization has always been primarily academic. The second organization was more geared towards political activism. Both had been co-founded by William F. Buckley, the editor ofNational Review magazine.

I attended a summer seminar in 1962 that was sponsored by the Intercollegiate Society of Individualists. It was a two-week seminar. As I recall, there were no more than three dozen students. These students came from all over the west coast. To say that the conservative movement was a fringe movement in 1962 does not really get the idea across of just how tiny it was.

There was a libertarian faction in both organizations. The original co-founder of the ISI was Frank Choderov. He was a minimal government advocate. He soon dropped out of the organization, just as he had dropped out of all other organizations. He was a true individualist. The two other co-founders were conservatives, but they were both Roman Catholics. So, from the beginning, a Catholic-influenced conservatism and a Jewish-atheist-libertarian outlook coexisted in the same organization. The same was true of Young Americans for Freedom. Protestants were in the back of the minibus.

I do not think it would have been possible to assemble half of the crowd that saw Ron Paul. Even if the organization could have raised enough money to finance 3500 students from across the nation to come to a central location for a political rally, which would have cost fortune, it would not have been possible for the organization to bring that many students in. The idea that there would be that many students who would show up at UCLA at a political rally to hear Ron Paul would have been inconceivable as recently as 2008. The difference between 1962 and 2008 was enormous. But that difference is dwarfed by what has taken place in the last four years.

People who got into the conservative movement after the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 did not really understand what it was like to be in the movement 15 years earlier. The difference was enormous. Reagan’s presidency was a turning point, not because of any success on his part to shrink the federal government, but because of his rhetoric. Rhetoric is very important. It sets the agenda. Yet Reagan was elected four years after Ron Paul was first elected to Congress. Reagan did make an attempt to get the Republican nomination in 1976, but it failed. President Ford was able to get the nomination. But with his defeat to Jimmy Carter, the door was opened to Reagan. Reagan’s electoral victory was overwhelming in 1980. The political landscape had changed. It has never changed back.

When I joined Paul’s staff in June of 1976, I had no idea that anything like what has been happening this year would have been possible. He was sometimes the only Congressman to vote against some multimillion-dollar boondoggle. There was no one in Congress who shared his perspective. There still isn’t. Yet he draws huge crowds of students. They are not there because they think Congress will change in 2013. They are there to participate in the formation of a grass-roots movement. They sense the change.

The difference between the landscape in 1980 and today, with respect to Reagan’s rhetoric rather than his actions, now offers the possibility of serious political change. It is going to take time. Students under the age of 25 are the bedrock support of Ron Paul’s campaign. They do not supply the money, but they supply the cheering. They supply the bodies. There are a lot of bodies.

No other candidate this year has successfully drawn crowds of students as large as Ron Paul’s crowds. Obama had this advantage in 2008. I do not think he is going to enjoy that advantage this year. He has been revealed as an Establishment figure. This is not surprising; the Establishment always vets the two presidential nominees. Nobody deviates very far from the party line. Ron Paul does. This is why there was no possibility that he was going to get the nomination. But that does not detract from the fact that he is building a constituency for his ideas, and possibly for his son in 2016. These students are unlikely to go away soon.

The reason why they are unlikely to go away is because of the highly focused ideological message that Ron Paul brings. It is a message of nonintervention. It applies across the board, domestically and internationally. The Republican Party has not seen anyone like him since Robert A. Taft, and Taft was nowhere near as consistent as Ron Paul has been. Taft compromised on many issues, including federal funding of housing. It is not conceivable that Ron Paul would have compromised on that issue.

These students do not want to hear about compromise. They want to hear about the possibility of rolling back the welfare state and rolling back the warfare state. The conservative movement has always been divided on this two-part issue. The libertarians wanted to roll back both, but conservatives wanted to roll back only the welfare state, and not very far. Reagan was representative of that wing of the movement.

If these students continue to read, which I expect, and if they continue to participate on Facebook with students who share their opinions, this wing of the Republican Party is going to grow. As it becomes more obvious that the federal government is heading toward bankruptcy, the future will be obvious to young people that they will be the sacrificial lambs of Republican fiscal policies. There is no question in my mind that these students are going to pull the plug when they are 40 years old if they get an opportunity to roll back Social Security and Medicare.

They will also be willing to vote no on every bond issue that is presented locally to the voters. They are sufficiently well-organized, as far as I can see, to be able to defeat bond issues across the United States. If they can do this, they will fundamentally restructure local politics. Not many people show up at bond elections, but I think the kind of committed student who is willing to show up at a Ron Paul rally is likely to be willing to show up at the polling booth to vote against an expansion of local debt.

Rhetoric is important because it sets the agenda. Ron Paul’s rhetoric is the most anti-state rhetoric from any nationally known politician in the history of the country. Grover Cleveland may have been equally opposed to the expansion of the state, but the electronic media did not exist in his day. Ron Paul will get his message in front of hundreds of thousands of students over the next 20 years, whether he lives or dies. This makes a big difference.

The fact that he had a voting record to support his rhetoric makes him unique in American political history. Only Grover Cleveland could match him. It is true that Warren Buffett’s father, Howard Buffett, had a similar voting record, but he was not a nationally known figure. No other politician in the 20th century matched Ron Paul’s commitment to shrinking the state.

This is why I think we are at a turning point politically. Is going to take time. The aftermath of a federal financial crisis will make it clear to historians that 2012 was a turning point. Ron Paul will be seen as the fulcrum that gave the leverage to a new generation of voters who were opposed to the welfare-warfare state.

Since I have a political site and am heavily into politics (see MilitantLibertarian.org, not to mention much of the content here on AaronsEnvironMental), I was asked to review a new t-shirt that is, well, very obviously of a political bent.

Historical anomalies aside, a shirt featuring Thomas Jefferson with an AK-47 is really hard to outmatch.  Look how awesome that is.  The over-accessorized AR-15 in Adams’ hands kind of fits his character, but the M243 in Franklin’s hands is inaccurate since he could never carry enough ammo for it – he had gout.

Regardless, as a connoisseur of political gun tees, I can say that this one is probably the best one I’ve ever owned.  So far, most who have seen it think it’s great.  Including my wife.

The statement made is a good one and the shirt is of fine quality USA-grown cotton with a good printing.  Pictured here was after a wash, so it’s obviously not going to fade or crack soon.

The original, promo shot with a much better looking model is here:

Want one? Go to http://www.theoriginalhomelandsecurity.com

I received one or more of the products mentioned above for free using Tomoson.com. Regardless, I only recommend products or services I use personally and believe will be good for my readers.

While bilateral initiatives have dominated North American issues over the last couple of years, the trilateral relationship has suffered. With a series of high-level meetings, the U.S., Canada and Mexico are taking steps to boost the NAFTA partnership. First, the defense ministers met to discuss shared continental security threats. This was followed by a leaders summit which pledged to deepen trade, regulatory, energy and security cooperation. The recent meetings have caused some to once again take notice of the incremental efforts to merge all three countries into a North American Union.

In what was hailed as an historic event, U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, Canadian Defense Minister Peter MacKay, Mexican Secretary of National Defense Guillermo Galvan, and Mexican Secretary of the Navy Mariano Mendoza recently held theInaugural Meeting of North American Defense Ministers. As part of a framework they agreed to, “ Develop a joint trilateral defense threat assessment for North America to deepen our common understanding of the threats and challenges we face. Explore ways to improve our support to the efforts of civilian public security agencies in countering illicit activities in our respective countries and the hemisphere, such as narcotics trafficking. Explore how we can collaborate to increase the speed and efficiency with which our armed forces support civilian-led responses to disasters. Continue to work together to strengthen hemispheric defense forums.” The ministers also committed to enhancing cooperation in the fight against transnational criminal organizations. The trilateral defense meeting is part of the ongoing efforts to establish a fully integrated North American security perimeter. 

On April 2, President Barack Obama hosted Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon for the sixth North American Leaders Summit. In a joint statementthey reaffirmed their, “commitment to further develop our thriving political and economic partnership with a consistent and strategic long-term vision.” The leaders acknowledged that, “continued North American competitiveness requires secure supply chains and efficient borders. We remain committed to achieving this through co-operative approaches.” With respect to regulatory initiatives, they agreed to move forward trilaterally in areas such as “vehicle emission standards, railroad safety, the Globally Harmonized System of Classification and Labeling of Workplace Chemicals, and aligning principles of our regulatory approaches to nanomaterials.” They also announced the creation of the North American Plan for Animal and Pandemic Influenza. Following the leaders summit, U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk engaged in discussions with Canadian Trade Minister Ed Fast and Mexico’s Secretary of the Economy Bruno Ferrari, as part of theNAFTA Commission Meeting.

In their joint communique, the leaders recognized, “the growing regional and federal cooperation in the area of continental energy, including electricity generation and interconnection and welcome increasing North American energy trade.” They emphasized the need to deepen, “cooperation to enhance our collective energy security, including the safe and efficient exploration and exploitation of resources.” There was no mention of the Keystone XL Pipeline Project which would carry oil from western Canada to the Texas gulf coast. President Obama has blocked the plan pending further environmental review. While speaking at theWoodrow Wilson Center following the leaders summit, Prime Minister Harper made it clear that even if the pipeline is approved, Canadian oil will be heading for Asian markets. Meanwhile, the U.S. has been pushing Mexico to further open up its oil sector to private investment. In February, they signed an agreement regarding, “the development of oil and gas reservoirs that cross the international maritime boundary between the two countries in the Gulf of Mexico.”

The leaders joint statement also noted that, “The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) provides an opportunity to further deepen our trade relationship and create jobs. The United States welcomes Canada’s and Mexico’s interest in joining the TPP.” During a press conference with his NAFTA counterparts, Obama confirmed that, “Consultations with our TPP partners are now underway on how new members can meet the high standards of this trade agreement, which could be a real model for the world.” The U.S. is spearheading TPP negotiations which also include Australia, Brunei, Chile, Malaysia, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore and Vietnam. Japan has also expressed interest in being part of the TPP process. The door is also open for other countries to join which is why many consider it to be a building block for an Asia-Pacific free trade zone.

Robert Pastor who has been a leading advocate for deeper North American integration described the TPP as a flawed strategy. He explained Canada and Mexico’s decision to join, “as a defensive measure to ensure that they protect what they gained from NAFTA.” Pastor warned how, “the TPP will divert scarce political capital and attention from North America.” In contrast, theCouncil of the Americas are of the opinion that it would boost the integrated North American economy. They view the TPP as a “promising vehicle to support the updating of our bilateral and trilateral trading relationships within North America to the high standards of twenty-first century free-trade agreements.” While on a visit to the U.S. in March, Canadian Trade Minister Ed Fastproclaimed that, “As neighbours and friends, we can and should build the TPP together. As like-minded allies, we can ensure that high standards are included in the TPP on such issues as investment, regulatory cooperation, state-owned enterprises and labour provisions.” If Canada and Mexico are accepted into the TPP fold, it could be used to renegotiate and expand NAFTA.

The U.S., Canada and Mexico have also agreed to launch a consolidated Central America Integration System-North America Security Dialogue to deepen regional coordination and cooperation. This includes working closer together in the fight against transnational organized crime, arms trafficking and money laundering. During the leaders joint news conference, President Obama praised Mexico’s courage in standing up to the drug cartels, and added, “today each of us reaffirmed our commitment to meeting this challenge together — because that’s the only way that we’re going to succeed.” President Calderon went on to say, “The security of North America is absolutely tied to each of its member states.” The Merida Initiative has expanded the U.S.-Mexico security partnership. It has provided military equipment, training, infrastructure development, along with border security and information technology enhancement. At the 2009 North American Leaders Summit, Prime Minister Harper announcedCanadian support for Mexico’s fight against drug trafficking and transnational organized crime.

Mexico’s drug war is increasingly being seen as a continental problem that requires continental solutions which is further pushing the NAFTA partnership into a common security front. This is escalating the militarization of the borders, integration in areas of law enforcement and the military, as well as advancing the development of a North American security perimeter.

Related articles by Dana Gabriel
Canada and Mexico to Join U.S. in NAFTA of the Pacific
Pretext for a North American Homeland Security Perimeter
Indoctrinating a New Generation to Think North American
The North American Leaders Summit and Reviving Trilateral Integration

Dana Gabriel is an activist and independent researcher. He writes about trade, globalization, sovereignty, security, as well as other issues. Contact: beyourownleader@hotmail.com Visit his blog atbeyourownleader.blogspot.com

According to Dr. Clive Best, A key prediction from the 2007 IPCC WG1 report fails statistical tests.

AR4 figure for long term predictions for each scenario

Abstract: Global temperatures measured since 2005 are incompatible with the IPCC model predictions made in 2007 by WG1 in AR4. All subsequent temperature data from 2006 to 2011 lies between 1 and 6 standard deviations below the model predictions. The data show with > 90%  confidence level that the models have over-exaggerated global warming.

Background: In 200o an IPCC special report proposed several future economic scenarioseach with a different CO2 emission profile. For the 2007 assessment report these scenarios were used to model predictions for future global temperatures. The results for each of the scenarios were then used to lobby governments. It would appear that as a result of these predictions, there is  one favoured scenario – namely B1 which alone is capable of limiting temperature rises to 2 degrees.

Full story here