(The ruling class of the USA) now acts as though all Americans could be terrorists and it increasingly confuses its own domestic opponents with enemies of the state.

Hillary, The Obamoid Agenda, And The USA’s Middle Class

For more than seven years, the nation has seen the results of the Hope And Change that Obama promised, and, for the middle class, those results have been lackluster at best. Well over half of US residents consider themselves “middle class”, and those folks are worried about unemployment rates, the rising cost of health care, taxes, uninspiring public schools, and the long-term prospects for the nation. Overall, the perception is that the security and success of the USA have declined in spite of Obama’s insistence that government is the solution. Many in the middle class recall Reagan’s “…government is the problem”.

If Hillary is to win, she will have to address the perceptions of the middle class. As time goes by, she could discover that blaming the problems of the nation on wealthy and under-taxed parasites is a tough sell.

Yet Hillary does have reasons to want to be perceived as Obama II: she needs the votes of black citizens, women, and the young; saying anything that might alienate those groups would be fatal to her campaign. Nor can she damn Obamoid policy as having caused problems and failed to improve matters economic and international.

Whether that can satisfy either the extreme collectivist (neo-socialist) element in the electorate or the folks who once put their faith in The One Leader is the question.

This newsletter hopes Hillary’s opponent looks into and discusses the Clinton Foundation (some information is here; use a good search engine for more). This is a marvelous device, for it allows huge amounts of money to flow in and be redistributed according to the desires of Bill and Hillary. If you think that statement implies that the foundation is a worthy charity, you do not understand why it exists.

Then consider the Clintons’ fees for speaking to various groups that believe the two politicians (a) have something important and useful to say, or (b) need financial help.

The obvious fact (that few dare to mention) is that Hillary loves money, and does what she can to get more of it. She is just as greedy as any Wall Street “bankster”, just as venal as any director on the board of a huge pharmaceutical company, and just as results-oriented as any hedge fund founder. Withal, she considers herself ethically far above the “One Percent”. Her financial affairs have always been targeted by critics of how money and influence operate in politics, however, and the implications of those opinions do not flatter her. For example, do you recall her successful “investment” in cattle futures? Here’s what the lapdog press had to say about it.

On Balance, Hillary faces some problems if she implies, however weakly, that she will continue Obama’s stumbling domestic policies. And as for foreign policy…well, perhaps she will not mention that.

In fact preaching about education, child care, and sexual politics (other than problems faced by rape victims, of course) should go down better.

As for how she could create more jobs, will she advocate lowering the capital gains tax (which would increase the revenue it brings in, and boost employment)? Never! Or will she propose lowering corporate taxes (which would repatriate billions of dollars currently warehoused overseas, thereby promoting US economic growth)? Not in a million years!

It’s bizarre: her ideological bias makes her the enemy of the economic elite she ardently desires to join and of the middle class whose votes she needs.

If many of the members of that middle class figure out what Hillary stands for and what she wants to do, she could lose to any Republican candidate. She knows that, and she knows she must be very careful when she paints herself as the best hope of a nation that has seen its policies wander and its goals recede.

She’s clever, so she’s evasive about all the weaknesses in her qualifications. She is also capable of lying and exploding in anger when she is frustrated by the truth; she typically seeks to evade responsibility for her inaction, ineffectiveness, blunders, and shocking incompetence. Use your Commentary membership to read this item; it details, among other things, Hillary’s invention of a fictional “Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy” — which is how she refers to those who consider her actions objectively.

Yes, she’s delusional. As an eternal victim of what she damns as vile plots, baseless smears, empty accusations, and insane prejudice, Hillary is adamantly averse to rational evaluation. She is always correct, no matter what the facts show; she bitterly denounces her critics, and automatically projects her flaws onto them.

For such people, reality is flexible. They can, for example, recall events that never happened. Hillary’s tall tale of “landing under sniper fire” in Bosnia might be diagnostic: if she confabulates easily, that could explain why she feels as she does about the horror of Benghazi. Her hubristic sense of entitlement might lead her to believe she can not possibly be suspected, let alone accused, of contributory negligence.

Hillary’s greatest advantage is that lots of folks literally know little about her. They don’t remember (or never heard about) the early days, when she was backing and filling, covering up complex financial deals with shady characters, and misplacing vital documents. Some folks don’t know or have forgotten that she abandoned her health care plan as hopeless. Her ghost-written book is remembered by almost nobody.

Then there is Hillary’s employment of private detectives to intimidate women who were victimized in “the bimbo explosion”. That off-target description of the scandals tells perceptive observers that Hillary wants to portray her humiliation as not of Slick Willy’s doing. She implicitly postulates that society is a metaphorical jungle in which predatory, unprincipled females prowling for high-profile males must be driven off with torches. That is feminism?

If she can be a successful stealth candidate, she could win. It will, however, be harder than she suspects. Hillary, whose mirthless laugh and vile “Kentucky Fried” accent are truly cringe-inducing, has little to offer middle class voters. The electorate has been bitterly disappointed by the course Obama charted, and if Hillary is perceived as The One Leader’s political heir….

Climate Is Not Simple, Nor Is It Related To Sin

Weather is more complex than the AGW True Believers understand, and it’s more complex than even meteorologists have traditionally believed. In truth it is linked to astronomy, geology, and nuclear physics. If you want to understand why all these formerly unrelated fields of study must be taken into consideration whenever a thoughtful researcher approaches climate, by all means to go this web page. It will give you some appreciation for the irrationality of the Gore-Hansen Warmer Cult.

Reducing the phenomenon of climate change to an event driven by a single factor was inane enough, but then to damn those who oppose futile (but draconian) measures to “correct” the situation is a bizarre distortion and misapplication of faith.

Advances in science reveal causal links between circumstances previously either undetected or considered unrelated. It is not astrology, for example, to be interested in the alignment of the sun and planets as they cycle predictably from conjunction to conjunction. The history of the sun’s behavior is now being studied more thoroughly, and it does display cycles that matter to humanity. Cosmic rays not produced within the solar system play a very important role in the Earth’s weather. It is no longer nonsense to ask, “What is the relationship between solar activity and earthquakes and vulcanism?”

The science is too complex to be summarized here, but you can begin to see the outlines of the matter if you watch carefully the video linked above. Don’t be put off by facts that are new to you, no matter how surprising they might appear; this is a new cooperative interpretation of reality, and its unfolding will be both a revelation and a shock.

Finally, this bears repeating, unfortunately: when the Gore-Hansen Cult blames catastrophic climate change on human activity, it comes down firmly in the camp occupied by religious fanatics who blamed crop failures on witchcraft. “If we were fastidiously correct Christians, the corn* would not have failed” is seldom heard these days, though of course some nutcases like Jerry Falwell blamed the Islamofascist attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and (an unknown location in, presumably,) Washington DC on homosexuality and other behaviors denounced by the Old Testament.

Unfortunately few observers have remarked on the obvious religious nature of the Warmers’ critique; after all, the screed of their cult begins with human hubris and misdeeds, claims those sins produce utterly fantastic results, predicts catastrophe for generations yet unborn, and demands immediate reform and pietistic obedience to inerrant authority. The cult is Biblical in its self-assurance. Any belief system so constructed should bear a heavy burden of proof before it hijacks governmental power.

Of course the dispute continues, but note, please, that it is now fueled by the (simple, but irrelevant) fact that industry produces many tons of carbon dioxide each year. The statistic not mentioned is that the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere is small, and humanity’s contribution of the gas is a minuscule amount of the total. Nor is it noted that CO2 has a logarithmic effect as a greenhouse gas, becoming less influential per additional unit of the chemical as its volume in the atmosphere increases. Finally, the fact is that while humanity currently struggles along with just over 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the air, everyone would benefit if that figure could be raised to 600 ppm. You know why that is true because you read this newsletter — but most people would be horrified by the claim that more CO2 in the air is an excellent idea.

No student of history can truthfully deny that religion can be extremely dangerous. What everyone needs to understand now is that climate alarmism is an inappropriate amalgam of religious prophesy, piety, and persecution.

Further, the concept of anthropogenic global warming is not science. It is not logical, nor is it supported by facts. Its believers intend to subsume the political power of governments in order to impose irrational regulations on people who cannot be expected to have access to, or an understanding of, the facts of the matter.

*No, no, not maize! Grains such as wheat and rye were and still are called “corn” in many parts of Great Britain. What folks in the USA call corn is actually maize, Zea mays. In Britain, that plant is known as “sweetcorn”.

Links Courtesy Of The Tramp Abroad

An extinct squash is extinct no more.

The US state of California has a paid poet laureate. More information and links are here.

US Army commanders have started acting like cut-throat CEOs of large corporations. Maybe we should call it the “Trump Syndrome”.

Here’s more information on that gas leak in California that is spewing methane into the atmosphere.

Ordinary Links

Would you like to be able to predict earthquakes? Of course you would! See this, therefore.

There is an interesting paper on free will here. This newsletter would like to know whether Sam Harris consulted it before or after he completed his 2012 book, Free Will, ISBN 978-1451683400. (Harris is wrong, by the way: free will exists.)

Anthropogenic global warming strikes — and yet again!

Tut, tut, sloppy….

Astronomy has always been tainted by its tendency to favor authoritarian explanations rather than suffer genuine intellectual liberty. The examples of that bias are numerous, but the best-known is the generally misunderstood story of Galileo (you should read Koestler’s The Sleepwalkers, ISBN 978-0-14-019246-9, for the full truth). The bad news is that astronomy has undergone an incomplete transformation into a true science. Consider, for example, the case of Arp, a blacklisted professional astronomer whose observations and conclusions are finally gaining notice — though of course his name is not mentioned (by anyone but astronomy’s current rebels) when one of his seminal concepts is noted as observationally validated. Doubtless that is because the people who have recently reported honestly never heard of Arp or his work, and simply don’t know that the heresy must not be expressed. That institutionally-imposed ignorance means Arp’s reputation is not being resuscitated, though his thinking is no longer rejected a priori. His heresy was so offensive to the ruling elite that his ideas have been almost completely erased. It’s a tale that could have been told by Eric Blair (“George Orwell”).

Those interested in how modern astronomy is being challenged by new interpretations of the structure of the universe should watch this video. It’s excellent.

Imagine being a law-abiding US citizen who is literally terrified of the US government. Now imagine that agony is absolutely not irrational, but is a consequence of truculent institutional authoritarianism.

If you were an intellectually pretentious teenager or college student in the 1950-1960 decade, you probably were exposed to Ayn Rand and what she called “Objectivism”. In the event you wonder whether your perspectives have subsequently changed, have another look at one of the biggest bombshells Rand ever had to dodge: Whittaker Chambers’s review of Atlas Shrugged. Wow…those were exciting days, were they not? Well, as Chambers reminds us today, they were often illuminated by the babbling of poseurs, but they sure seemed like a glimpse of the future at the time. Wow, indeed.

Sometimes the US federal government seems to be its own worst enemy. What is the citizen supposed to assume, based on the information in the linked article? That the feds are leaving all manner of marks on the people they torture, and are then photographing the trauma and filing the photos away? There is something wrong here; the photos and the facts do not reveal it completely, however. In such a system, how can the voters expect to compel ethical governance? Who’s in charge?

Law enforcement officers in the USA often get it wrong: it is not illegal to photograph (and/or make videos), as long as that activity is conducted in public. Why? Because by definition, there is no expectation of privacy in public. The issue begins with the routine assumption of peace officers that they may intimidate the public with baseless threats. To set part of the record straight, watch this video in full.

“We are witnessing a conspiracy of politically correct silence.” So says Newt Gingrich.

The feds are lining up to defend Hillary against the consequences of her reckless egotism. Gee, who knew that would happen? Well, everybody did….