By Richard Larsen

Since the 2008 financial market collapse, nearly every major newspaper and media outlet has featured stories on the demise or failure of capitalism. What they have mostly focused on is the failure of the largest financial institutions in managing risk, and the impact on the rest of us. But what they have mostly failed to do is mark the distinction between capitalism and crony capitalism. If they delved further into the failures of 2008, they would have been proclaiming the failure of crony capitalism.

We’ve seen over the past few years an even greater immersion into crony capitalism that further obscures the risks assumed by the major players in the private sector, poses even greater threats to the economy and our livelihoods, and further inserts government into control and manipulation of the very bedrock of our financial system, energy production, and corporate environment.

Although some amongst us are critical of capitalism, all of us participate in it, benefit from it, and fundamentally believe in it. At its most rudimentary level, capitalism is what we engage in every day. Investopedia defines capitalism as “An economic system based on a free market, open competition, profit motive and private ownership of the means of production.”

Everything we buy, every transaction we conduct, every financial plan we embark on, is based on our ownership of what we buy, build, produce, or service, and our freedom in making choices about price, service, and loyalty. If we want to make a purchase, we shop around for the best prices. Those companies that price comparable products or services too high will likely be passed over in favor of those who are more competitively priced. Those companies that fail to adapt to market forces, fail, and go out of business. The market has worked. Capitalism has worked. Capitalism does work.

Crony capitalism, however, is completely different. It is a perversion and a corruption of pure capitalism. Also referred to as corporatism, or statism, crony capitalism features corporate welfare as one of its most significant characteristics. Mussolini understood all too well this cozy relationship between government and business, for he once said, ?”Fascism should rightly be called corporatism, as it’s the merger of corporate & government power.”

Investopedia defines it as, “being based on the close relationships between businessmen and the state. Instead of success being determined by a free market and the rule of law, the success of a business is dependent on the favoritism that is shown to it by the ruling government in the form of tax breaks, government grants and other incentives.”

In other words, under crony capitalism, politicians in government determine winners and losers in the corporate world, not market forces. They determine which companies survive and flourish, and which fail.

This is the nature of the relationship in crony capitalism. Government officials express a desire to expand under the auspices of creating new laws, business incentives, and regulation. Corporations, through their lobbyists or CEOs who have been in government, influence the drafting of legislation to their benefit, gaining favorable tax treatment of their operations, regulation that favors their business model, and other business incentives. For this favorable treatment, corporations reward politicians by giving money to their campaigns and family members. Politicians benefit from the campaign donations, and push legislation and regulation that benefits their largest donors.

Financial reporter Christopher Powers aptly said of it, “It has become more and more apparent to seemingly everyone of late, that the American economic system is not based on capitalism, but a twisted hierarchical system of special interests and government favors commonly known as ‘crony capitalism.’??The distinction is very important, because crony capitalism in America – especially during the last century – created a toxic environment that has only recently spilled over into the mainstream understanding of the economy, but has long been under the surface, guiding the tides of public policy.”

Bill Frezza, a fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute has written, “Would a farmer who put out a trough of slop be surprised if it attracted a bunch of pigs? Yet activists who promote enlarging the size and scope of government always seem to be shocked when one program after another is hijacked by corporations that find it easier to seek favors in Washington than customers in the marketplace. And, despite knowing that such corruption is inevitable, mainstream media consistently dismiss those who advocate curtailing government powers as corporate stooges.”

Economics professor Donald Boudreaux, described the problem this way, ?”When government gives up its role as referee in favor of a reciprocal relationship with those it regulates that also benefits those who run government, you have cronyism. Crony capitalism has as much to do with real capitalism as praying mantises have to do with real prayer.”

In a truly capitalist system, bad banks and financial institutions, and automakers weighed down by massive “legacy” costs would have been allowed to fail in 2008 and 2009. Their profitable and viable operations would’ve been bought by more efficient competitors. Shareholders, bondholders and some depositors would have lost some money, but taxpayers would not have been put on the hook for a dime.

?

David Stockman, former White House Budget Director, in a revelatory interview with Bill Moyers, said just last month, “Crony capitalism is about the aggressive and proactive use of political resources, lobbying, campaign contributions, influence-peddling of one type or another to gain something from the governmental process that wouldn’t otherwise be achievable in the market. And as the time has progressed over the last two or three decades, I think it’s gotten much worse. Money dominates politics. And as a result, we have neither capitalism or democracy. We have some kind of crony capitalism, which is the worst.”

Economist Walter Williams recently wrote, “Free market capitalism is unforgiving. Producers please customers, in a cost-minimizing fashion, and make a profit, or they face losses or go bankrupt. It’s this market discipline that some businesses seek to avoid. That’s why they descend upon Washington calling for crony capitalism – government bailouts, subsidies and special privileges.”

But as we’ve seen, in a crony capitalist system, such failures are given preferential treatment, if they have the right political connections. Economist Richard Salsman ?said recently, “Capitalism has been blamed for the Great Recession of 2007-2009 and for the financial crisis and bailouts of 2008, but it’s not ‘capitalism’ but the mixed economy and corporatism-cronyism that did it.”

The mortgage market meltdown illustrated how convoluted and corrupt crony capitalism is in the mortgage industry. Economist George Stigler, a Nobel laureate for his research into the causes and effects of public regulation conducted an exhaustive study characterizing the corrupt relationship between financial institutions, the Government Service Enterprises (GSEs, including Ginnie Mae, Freddie Mac, and Fannie Mae) and politicians. The abstract of his research states,

“How special interests, measured by campaign contributions from the mortgage industry, and constituent interests, measured by the share of subprime borrowers in a congressional district, influenced U.S. government policy toward the housing sector during the subprime mortgage credit expansion from 2002 to 2007.”

It continues, “Beginning in 2002, mortgage industry campaign contributions increasingly targeted U.S. representatives from districts with a large fraction of subprime borrowers. During the expansion years, mortgage industry campaign contributions and the share of subprime borrowers in a congressional district increasingly predicted congressional voting behavior on housing related legislation. The evidence suggests that both subprime mortgage lenders and subprime mortgage borrowers influenced government policy toward housing finance during the subprime mortgage credit expansion.”

Russell Roberts, a Distinguished Scholar and professor of Economics at George Mason University, scholarly breaks down this unhealthy relationship further, stating that “public-policy decisions have perverted the incentives that naturally create stability in financial markets and the market for housing. Over the last three decades, government policy has coddled creditors, reducing the risk they face from financing bad investments. Not surprisingly, this encouraged risky investments financed by borrowed money. The increasing use of debt mixed with housing policy, monetary policy, and tax policy crippled the housing market and the financial sector. Wall Street is not blameless in this debacle. It lobbied for the policy decisions that created the mess.”

This entanglement between Wall Street institutions, the GSEs, and politicians gets even more convoluted when you research on your own the role played in the mortgage collapse of people like Franklin Raines, Jim Johnson, Tim Howard, Timothy Geithner, Hank Paulson, Chris Dodd, and Barney Frank.

It’s crony capitalism that allows companies like General Electric, which had profits of $14 billion in 2010, to pay no corporate income taxes on a tax return that was 57,000 pages long. Tax deductions, tax credits, loopholes, “stimulus” funding, all speak volumes of the benefits of CEO Jeffrey Immelt’s cozy relationship with Washington, and how the largest corporations can “play the system” for increased profits.

The “green energy” movement is the fastest growing crony capitalism sector, receiving preferential tax treatment for deductions, government loans, and “stimulus” funding in the form of grants. Their capital outlays for lobbying have increased twelve fold over 2008 levels and the number of lobbyists for “green energy” companies and associations have increased 10 fold, according to OpenSecrets.org.

An entire library would likely be needed to document all the cases of abuse and crony capitalism in “green energy,” but the collusion between green energy companies and the government is absolutely shocking. The now bankrupt Solyndra debacle involving a government stimulus loan for half-a-billion dollars is just the tip of the iceberg. American Thinker goes so far as saying “green jobs are a euphemism for crony capitalism.”

According to Peter Schweizer, a research fellow at Stanford University, “an examination of grants and guaranteed loans offered by just one stimulus program run by the Department of Energy, for alternative-energy projects, is stunning. The so-called 1705 Loan Guarantee Program and the 1603 Grant Program channeled billions of dollars to all sorts of energy companies. The grants were earmarked for alternative-fuel and green-power projects…”

He continued, “a large proportion of the winners were companies with Obama-campaign connections. Indeed, at least 10 members of Obama’s finance committee and more than a dozen of his campaign bundlers were big winners in getting your money. At the same time, several politicians who supported Obama managed to strike gold by launching alternative-energy companies and obtaining grants. How much did they get? According to the Department of Energy’s own numbers … a lot. In the 1705 government-backed-loan program, for example, $16.4 billion of the $20.5 billion in loans granted as of Sept. 15 went to companies either run by or primarily owned by Obama financial backers—individuals who were bundlers, members of Obama’s National Finance Committee, or large donors to the Democratic Party.”

It doesn’t seem to make much difference which political party is in control in Washington, for crony capitalism has thrived, as David Stockman said, for the past thirty years openly, and “under the public radar” for the past century. The problem has been significantly exacerbated over the past few years, as political favoritism toward specific industries and companies has accelerated the tax breaks, tax free loans, and outright government grants to corporate favorites as anointed by Washington.

The costs are massive, and impossible to get a complete grasp on. The Fiscal Times has quantified the cost of just the top 10 tax breaks to corporations at nearly $500 billion. The New York Times reports that subsidies in one corporate sector has tripled in the past few years, leading to a “gold rush mentality” in that sector. When all the tax breaks, incentives, subsidies, grants, and loans are totaled, the figure could well exceed $1 trillion. And government costs that currently administer all those programs could be in the hundreds of billions.

The solutions are not easy, but must be addressed. We need honest people who can’t be “bought off” in Washington, and term limits for congressmen and senators would help keep them that way. The influence peddling and free money exchange between major industries and Washington has to end, which could include a lower cap on campaign contributions by corporations and individuals. A flat tax on corporations would help to eliminate the cronyism in our tax code.

If “fairness” is truly one of our core American values, as the president said in his State of the Union Address, expunging the crony capitalism that has infested Washington is a great place to start.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Idaho Chooses Life

Idaho Chooses Life announced today that it was urging pro-Life Idahoans to support Rick Santorum in the March 6th GOP Presidential Caucuses.
“The Board of Idaho Chooses Life has voted to support Rick Santorum,” said David Ripley, Executive Director, in a prepared press statement, “based upon his viability, his stellar record and his unquestionable passion for defending the sanctity of human life.”

“We have watched with increasing revulsion as President Obama leads an unprecedented assault on Life and Liberty,” Ripley continued. “The hour demands a leader with a deep understanding of the threat posed by government-run health care. As Rick Santorum has argued, ‘ObamaCare will crush economic freedom, will make people dependent upon government for the most important thing: their very lives’.”

ICL noted that Santorum has been in the forefront of the national pro-Life movement for many years. He was a principal sponsor of the Partial Birth Abortion Ban and the Born Alive Infants Protection Act as a member of the U.S. Senate. But Santorum has not just fought against Roe v. Wade – he has worked to provide women and girls in difficult situations with real world help. In 1999 he sponsored the Women and Children’s Resources Act to help women access health care, housing and educational services.

Santorum’s fundamental grasp of the core issues at stake in the pro-Life battle is further demonstrated by his sponsorship of the Assisted Suicide Prevention Act and the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act. This latter bill would have directed resources toward medical research on stem cells derived from ethical sources.

“Idaho pro-Lifers have an historic opportunity to impact the national race for president,” Ripley concluded. “We urge our supporters to get involved and make a difference on March 6th.”

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

by Rep. Tom Loertscher, R-Bone

We have a page program in the legislature that gives high school seniors the opportunity to come and work in the legislature. These young people are the crème on the crop as students go and they come for a six week period to help. They must have permission from their teachers and principals, and are able to be away for that period of time, and they must keep up on their studies in addition to their page duties.

At this time of the session it is time for the first half of the session group to head back to school. The tradition around here is for them to put on a program which usually is a reflection of what they have learned while they are here. In that short of a time they get to know us pretty well and they have a great time making fun of our little idiosyncrasies. It is clear that they really are paying attention to what goes on and they are not bashful about making us laugh at ourselves.

Our schedule has picked up and we have a lot on our plate. The Joint Finance and Appropriations Committee has finished its hearings and will now start setting budgets. Most of us have seen the “big picture” overview of where they may be going given the revenue projection and the requests from the Governor and the agencies. The target number for the budget is about a 7.8 percent increase in expenditures over last year, but the revenue projection is for about a 4.5 percent increase over last year.

I realize that some of that is due to the meager amount that seems to be coming in over what we had projected last year but does not explain away all of the increase. Somewhere in the back of my mind is the memory of just ten years ago when the legislature spent twice the increase and how that led to a disaster in budgeting the following year. I for one do not want to see a repeat of that incident.

More and more stuff is making it through the committees to the floor for debate. One bill on early childhood education was presented to the body and after a few questions but no debate, it failed to pass the House. We don’t see that happen very often. Most of the time when a bill fails it is after a very rigorous debate, with passionate debate on both sides of the issue.

A former legislator who now lives in Boise County and is now one of the commissioners there, has been around the halls of the Capital quite a bit the last two weeks. He and I used to have quite the debates, both on and off the floor of the House. More often than not our disagreements were pretty sharp but over the years we have maintained a mutual respect for each other. We would “duke it out” during debate and then late into the evenings as we sat around our desks, we would discuss and re-discuss in an effort to persuade the other. We still probably don’t agree a lot, but in spite of our differences in philosophy, it was good to see him and talk about some of the funnier things that have happened in the past. One thing we agree on after these intervening years is that having differences on the issues is OK, but having rancor should not be part of the process or of life in general.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Idaho Chooses Life

My son and I ventured out to hear GOP Presidential candidate Rick Santorum in Boise. It was an encouraging and historic event. Perhaps 2500 Idahoans came out on a chilly evening to learn more about the man most likely to challenge Mitt Romney for the nomination.
First, we must give kudos to Jonathan Parker and Norm Semanko of the Idaho GOP for engineering an historic moment. Not many candidates have found the will or interest to travel out here to meet real folks and talk about their vision for America. Idaho’s March 6th Caucus date is meaningful and the presence of Rick Santorum proves it. Santorum’s retail campaign effort has even forced Mitt Romney to hold his first public event when he comes to Boise on Friday to once again raise money.

Santorum is a rock solid conservative, but he is no rock star. The folks in attendance were hungry for the kind of battle cry that Newt Gingrich can dish up; Santorum seems almost shy about folks getting too worked up. A few times the crowd was on the verge of a standing ovation, but Santorum interrupted to continue with his lecture about the numerous threats posed by the continued reign of Barack Obama.

The presidential hopeful comes with a modest staff and a U.S. Constitution in his back pocket. He produced it to expound on the need for the next president to be steeped in its powers and limitations. He called upon the nation to restore the nation’s founding vision, as articulated in the Declaration of Independence. Santorum recalled the courageous decision by the Founders to pledge their sacred honor at a time when they challenged the most powerful nation on earth: He demanded that those listening answer the call to service posed by these critical days.

No doubt that those in attendance were ready to answer that call. And there is the encouraging part of the evening: Ordinary citizens gathered in different parts of Capital High School to fight for their country at a time when she is in serious danger. Many, like me, brought their children. (Not only because of the historic opportunity to participate in history, but because these young people are the ones who will inherit the fruits of our present labor – or suffer most harshly the consequences of our failure).

No doubt these people will be present on March 6th. My guess is that most will be voting for Rick Santorum.

While Santorum does not have Gingrich’s gift for the spontaneous battle cry, he does have a certain charisma. It is the kind of charm, alloyed with a few parts humility, that could wear well in the months and years ahead. That humility was best displayed by his insistence upon coming to the gym, used as an overflow room, to take a few questions and shake hands all the way around the floor.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

By Andi Elliott

Tonight we had dinner with Senator and Mrs. Jeff Siddoway to discuss the senator’s remarks regarding wolf control which has stirred up quite a bit of controversy. I myself was appalled at the news report depicting the use of “live bait” which is why I contacted the Senator. I attempted to be civil but am sure that my anger came through in my email. So tonight, I found myself talking with a man who is a 4th generation sheep rancher and who has watched his sheep and his guard dogs slaughtered by wolves year after year. Just last week, 30 of his ewes were killed. Imagine the feeling of helplessness and frustration. Yes, the government reimburses ranchers for livestock lost to these predators but of course, the rancher comes out on the short end. Imagine having 40 of your 200 rams in a pen wantonly killed and then having to find replacement animals and the expense incurred in doing so.

The family has experienced ever extending government oversight of ranching to the point that they could be watching the wolves attack their sheep and not be able to defend them because of regulations. In one instance related to me tonight, the senator called three government agencies trying to get permission to shoot wolves that were at that very moment menacing his sheep. By the time approval was given, the pack had left.
They’ve lost a total of 18 guard dogs…Great Pyrenees. The herding dogs (Border Collies/Heelers) are too afraid to even attempt to stay with the flocks. The wolves will kill the young guard dogs by simply crushing their faces. The adult Pyrenees weighing easily 80-120# are no match for the wolves. Mercifully, I haven’t personally seen dozens of sheep ripped to pieces and the dogs mutilated as they tried to protect their sheep. It would break my heart to see so much suffering.

After the introduction of the wolves in the Rocky Mountains, there was no problem for a few years until the wolves began multiplying and forming packs. The regulatory agencies know each pack and their offspring. Colored collars designate the different groups. The wolves are well monitored and I’m amazed how much is known about the individual wolves. My research indicates that contrary to public opinion, these wolves are not indigenous to Idaho but are the results of programs initiated by folks who know little of the reality of the situation. Millions of dollars are dedicated for this purpose.

I have spent some time on the net looking at effective methods of controlling wolves…trying to put myself in the place of a sheep rancher…and I have concluded that none of the “humane methods” were adequate for protecting the livestock and the dogs. And when the wolves attack at night, the sheepherders can hear the wolves and listen to the dogs barking and fighting and the sounds of terrified sheep…but in the dark, they are helpless in protecting their animals. They are not permitted to use adequate lighting or rifles equipped with night vision scopes. The odds are slanted against the ranchers and their sheep and the dogs.

During the dinner, I asked about his “live bait” comment. His response, I could tell, was from the heart. Yes, better wording could have been used; further explanation of his plan would have helped those of us focused only on the “live bait” comment to understand what ranchers are facing. There was no intent on sacrificing “the bait”. The animals would be used to hopefully lure the wolves within range to be shot or trapped…which still gives me a queasy feeling but I am at a loss to suggest a better solution. After hearing firsthand from the Siddoways of their experiences in simply trying to keep their animals safe and the limitations within which they have to work, I must offer an apology to them. They are trying to abide by guidelines established by an over-reaching federal government and have been placed at a terrible disadvantage. I wish that all could have heard what I heard tonight. Hopefully, my comments here will add some perspective to what ranchers are facing. I hate to see the suffering but I have nothing better to offer.

Andi Elliott

Tea Party Patriots Idaho State Co-Coordinator
President of For the Love of Pets Foundation

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

By Rep. Tom Loertscher, R-Bone

During the legislative session each year there are several organizations that have their meetings in Boise which affords their members a chance to meet and chat with legislators. This week The Farm Bureau had their meetings as did the Idaho Association of Counties. I like these two events because I get a chance to talk to folks from home and hear what is on their minds.

Farm Bureau, of course, has as their focus the needs of rural Idaho and arguably our district is one of the most rural of the state. One of the big issues that was brought up is the Senate bill that would elevate cruelty to animals to a felony. During those discussions it became clear that there is a difference of opinion on the bill even amongst the members. Before this comes before the House, I will be reading the legislation carefully to determine if this is a good idea or not. A couple of years ago when this came up, I was having a conversation in which the person accused all farmers and ranchers of being cruel to their animals. My response was that if farmers abuse their animals, their animals will abuse them back, will not perform well and they are soon out of business.

The counties spent most of the week in Boise for what they call their mid-winter conference. For the most part they are not too visible and we don’t get much of a chance to visit with our local officials. There were a couple of things that stood out this year more than I have seen other years.

I had scheduled a hearing in State Affairs on Wednesday for a bill that would have moved the primary election to August where it resided prior to 1980. I almost chickened out about going ahead with the hearing because I rather suspected that there was not enough support in the committee to get it passed to the floor of the House. And I knew that having all of the county clerks from around the state there, they would more than likely let their wishes be known. But I decided to go ahead knowing that a lot of clerks would have the chance to testify on the bill because they were already in town for their meetings.

When I came into the hearing room I spent some time talking and joking around with the clerks prior to the meeting telling them I hoped they wouldn’t be too rough on me. It was particularly noteworthy that several indicated during their testimony that they had previously not participated in a committee hearing of any kind. Well, at least I was right about one thing, the bill went down in flames.

Later that evening Sen. Tippets, Rep. Gibbs and I met with county elected officials from our district to discuss legislation and rumors of legislation. They wanted to know what the chances were for some matters to pass and wanted us to ease their fears of some of the rumored things they had heard about. I can wholeheartedly recommend these “over a bowl of ice cream” discussions. Come to think of it, when things get a little “hot” around this place maybe we should cool off with a bowl.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Idaho Chooses Life

Under the guise of extending a “compromise”, Obama has deepened the moral and constitutional problems instigated by his insistence that women deserve free birth control pills, abortifacients and sterilizations.
Rather than force Christian employers to directly finance these morally objectionable drugs, Obama will now force us all to pay for them through higher insurance premiums. Now it is not just church-sponsored organizations which will be compromised, but virtually every American who will be required to finance Obama’s bizarre notion that “contraceptives” are a birth right for any female.

Under his announced “compromise”, insurance companies will now be required to offer “free” contraceptives and abortifacients to any female covered by one of their policies.

But not even Obama can repeal fundamental economic laws. There is no such thing as a “free” drug. Someone will pay. And it won’t be insurance company executives. The costs will simply be buried into the general price of coverage. A little bookkeeping voodoo – and – problem solved. Thus, the Catholic Church and other Christian employers have actually gained nothing except a veneer of respectability, should they choose to accept it.

The grand question is whether the Catholic Bishops will be driven by moral principle or political expediency as they determine a response next week. We should be in prayer for them.

But don’t expect insurance companies to raise much of a fuss over this new edict. The risks are too high. They are now virtual prisoners of the Obama Administration; government-sponsored corporations akin to Fannie Mae. Their management’s loss of soul will cost taxpayers dearly in coming years.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

By Richard Larsen

Many of us were relieved that Punxsutawney Phil saw his shadow on Thursday signaling six more weeks of winter. In the context of one of the warmest Idaho winters on record, anecdotal quips and references to anthropogenic global warming (AGW), or manmade global warming, are on the increase. But of course, they can only be anecdotal since we know from the data that average global temperatures have been cooling slightly over the past decade, while manmade carbon dioxide (CO2) has been increasing steadily during the same period.

The fundamental tenet of AGW is logically fallacious. Man cannot “cause” the climate or the earth to warm. The primary source of heat for the planet is the sun, consequently, all truly causal forces of climate warming must be logically and scientifically connected with the sun, regardless of what man may or may not do to contribute to it. It is therefore both illogical and oxymoronic to refer to “manmade global warming.”

AGW proponents point to man’s CO2 emissions as “causal” to AGW, but they cannot be causal. Carbon dioxide, is a naturally occurring component of our atmosphere, but does not, of itself, produce heat. So even if we, as a species, doubled the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, it would not necessarily increase the global mean temperature since CO2 is not the cause, or origin, of heat for the planet.

That said, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which means it can trap solar heat in the atmosphere. So while it’s illogical to refer to “manmade global warming” or AGW, it is completely logical and scientific to refer to man contributing to global warming. Since CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and we generate CO2 with our carbon based transportation system and much of our energy production, we can and do have an effect on the amount of solar heat that remains in the atmosphere. Therefore we can contribute to global mean temperatures, but we cannot be the cause of it.

Let’s see if we can get a handle on how much we may be contributing to global warming by examining the components of our atmosphere. Scientists tell us that our atmosphere is composed roughly (by volume) of 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0-4% water vapor, 0.93% argon, 0.039% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases.

Now, let’s put carbon dioxide into perspective Oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon and land biomass has 2,000-3,000 GT. The atmosphere contains 720 GT of CO2 and manmade emissions contribute about 6 GT. The oceans, land and atmosphere exchange CO2 continuously which means that the addition by humans is incredibly small, amounting to .00159% of the total, and .0083% of the atmospheric carbon dioxide. Can such a relatively small contribution of CO2 make a difference climatically? Probably, but it’s going to be negligible.

To provide a point of reference for comparative purposes, the average household bathtub holds about 42 gallons of water. If you filled your tub and then poured in an additional half-a-teaspoon of water, that would be the equivalent of our CO2 contribution to the atmosphere. And remember, CO2 makes up just .039% of the atmosphere, which under other measuring systems would constitute no more than a “trace amount.” Water vapor is by far the most prevalent component accounting for as much as 85% of the greenhouse effect.

I’ve not seen anyone put this into the proper perspective better than Andrew Montford, a British science publisher. He said a couple months ago, “The problem is that you can accept all the basic tenets of greenhouse physics and still conclude that the threat of a dangerously large warming is so improbable as to be negligible, while the threat of real harm from climate-mitigation policies is already so high as to be worrying, that the cure is proving far worse than the disease is ever likely to be. Or as I put it once, we may be putting a tourniquet round our necks to stop a nosebleed.”

There appears to be little correlation between the amount of CO2 emissions and global temperatures. According to corrected NASA data, the earth has cooled by about 1 degree Celsius over the past decade, about the same amount it warmed over the past century, while CO2 emissions have increased by some estimates as much as 25%. If that tiny portion that man contributes to the atmosphere was so contributory to planet warming, certainly there would be empirical correlation and actual results would more closely match Michael Mann’s discredited “hockey stick” graph.

Even if all manmade CO2 emissions were immediately stopped, the effect would be negligible, as we contribute so little as a percentage to the atmosphere.

Like the weather, the climate has always changed, and will continue to do so in spite of, not because of us. Perhaps Punxsutawney Phil is a better prognosticator than the AGW alarmists.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

Idaho Chooses Life

Kudos to Austin Hill (KIDO Radio – Boise) for his show on the dire threat of Obama’s “contraceptive” mandate. This new exercise of raw federal power shows the dangers of ObamaCare. But contrary to the liberal media spin, this raw power grab impacts much more than the Catholic Church or religious institutions.

Under the new edict, EVERY private employer will have to provide free sterilizations, contraceptives and abortifacients to their employees. Not only will every employer have to provide those “benefits” – they will have to pay the full cost of doing so. President Obama has determined that it is an “unreasonable burden” for employees to cover even a modest co-pay. That makes every private employer, including the many who have pro-Life/Christian values, an unwilling party to the destruction of innocent life.

This is but one example of the grave moral danger associated with the drive in the Idaho Legislature to submit to ObamaCare by creating a state insurance exchange. Regardless of the hype coming from the gaggle of lobbyists pushing greater state power and control over insurance competition – a state exchange is the cornerstone block of ObamaCare. As such, it must adhere, by federal law, to the rules and guidelines issued by the Obama Administration.

A state insurance exchange is an expensive idea whose time may never come; but is downright dangerous now as part of Obama’s drive to remake Idaho.

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.

By Pete Ketcham

By process of elimination we now find ourselves fighting/working at the County &
Regional level to maintain the ideals, ethics, morality, and principles set forth in
our Constitution by the founding fathers.

The following is a clarification of some of the elements involved in this concept of “The Last
Frontier Of Constitutional Freedom”.

COUNTY & REGION
We all know that a county or region is a geographical entity, but in the context of this paper it is
far more. It is a county, or several adjoining counties that are composed of people with either
liberal socialist values (LSV), or conservative constitutional values (CCV) . Traditionally the LSV
counties are in the metropolitan areas with the greatest concentrated voting population of their
respective state, and thus the LSV regions control the policies of the state. In contrast to this, the
CCV counties, although comprising far more square miles are subjected to state controlled
liberal socialist policies that are not practicable, compatible, nor acceptable, and thus, are not
able to overcome this state controlled liberal socialist agenda due to the continued disparity in
voting population.

THE LAST FRONTIER OF FREEDOM
The last frontier of freedom exists at the county/region level as a process of elimination by virtue
of the fact that the battle for the Constitutional heart & soul of this nation has been lost at the
Federal level due to the epidemic of corruptness, greed, and incompetence, stretching from
the President, through Congress, and down to the janitor in a federal building. This is not to imply
that we should cease our efforts, or even decrease our efforts to restore our original
Constitutional system at the Federal level, but it has been a losing battleground for years as we
continue to adopt a “hunkered down”defensive position and continue to fallback against a
relentless offensive socialist agenda.

The fallback battle position at the State level we found, was hardly any better than the Federal
level due mainly, to the noose of Federal funding. The Governor, the legislators (both R & D), and
state employees are not about to pass or approve any legislation that could jeopardize the flow of
federal money that their political careers, jobs, or retirements depend on. In Idaho that fact
was brutally brought home to us at one Republican controlled senate committee hearing, which
essentially killed the effectiveness of the sovereignty movement in our state. In essence, Idaho is
compromised by the action and inaction of the Republican legislators and Governor who are
“ joined at the hip” with the Feds and Democrats when it comes to Federal funding. But I repeat,
we must not cease our efforts, or even decrease our efforts to restore our original Constitutional
10th Amendment sovereignly working at the State level, but frankly, our past efforts and
projected future efforts for success at the Federal and State level efforts do not look promising,
and thus it is prudent and imperative that we now initiate a viable plan of action at the County/
Regional level. This position is certainly not our first choice for change and resistance, yet this is
where we now find ourselves in our last and final battle position of peaceful resistance to Federal
(and perhaps state) constitutional usurpations, THE COUNTY & REGIONAL LEVEL.

PROPOSED ACTIONS TO TAKE
The actions and options to take at the County/ Regional level may seem limited and insignificant
at this time, but are very significant as one looks at the projected consequences of Federal
intervention and encroachment into state and county jurisdiction combined with the lack of
representation and protection at the Federal/State level by our representatives.

If things continue as is, I believe the time will eventually come in Idaho County, as it has already
come in various other counties throughout the US, where the people of the County decide they
can no longer submit to the unconstitutional mandates, rules, & regulations of the usurping
federal agencies, and thus the peaceful head to head encounter with the “Feds” comes about.

In the various counties that have already “taken on” the Feds, the tip of the spear of resistance
was the County Sheriff, and so far the Feds have backed off when confronted with the
determination of the people and the County Sheriff, but one cannot count on this result
indefinitely as this “resistant movement” grows.

If a particular county has a Sheriff and/or county commissioner who agree with the Fed’s agenda
and will do nothing to assert the County sovereignty or protect the people against Federal
unconstitutional usurpations, then perhaps the first item on the coalition’s agenda would be to
replace them with ones who will.

I believe it is vital that in each Idaho county, a “core coalition” of credible people be formed,
dedicated to the support of the Sheriff as he/she ( the primary person with the legal constitutional
County Law enforcement authority) resists the Fed’s illegal and unconstitutional encroachment
into County Jurisdiction. When this “core coalition” has put together a viable structure & plan of
action, they should reach out to the remainder of people in the County/Region with a professional
informational presentation that will inform and inspire the general public. This presentation will
need to be done in a very professional manner, and the process of “ putting this entire program
together” could greatly benefit from seeking the talents of those across the state that have the
expertise in this arena. I also believe that it is imperative to begin now to establish our “core
coalition”, as the productive conservative folks in the (CCV) regions are so busy with their
businesses, jobs, and recreation, that they are unable to see the pending crises that will engulf us
all, if we fail to act in a timely manner.

CONCLUSION:
Even though we are unable to effectively resist the Feds at the State & Federal level there is a
viable possibility of not only stopping the Federal aggression at the county line, but of actually
taking back lost ground, perhaps starting with the current school system. This county resistant
movement is slowly spreading through other states and has the possibility of becoming a
nationwide “resistance movement” of “freedom bonfires” remotely sprinkled throughout the US.

Pete Ketcham
Grangeville, Idaho

If you enjoyed this article, consider subscribing to the full-feed RSS.