United States Slips on Economic Freedom Index

by JBorowski

United States Slips on Economic Freedom Index: "

Back when I was young in the 1990’s, I remember people often using the phrase “it’s a free country!” But as the years passed, that line became less commonly used. In recent years, I cannot recall one person using this old expression. This seems to be a sign that a great number of Americans are realizing that their freedoms are slipping away. So just how free is America today?

The newly released Heritage Foundation and Wall Street Journal’s Index of Economic Freedom 2010 rates countries based on ten components of economic freedom. This year, the United States slipped to the ninth freest country in the world. The researchers have included the United States in the “mostly free” category. According to the study, the United States is behind the countries of Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Canada, Ireland and Denmark. We’ve become less free since the 1990’s. In the first annual Index of Economic Freedom in 1995, the United States was the fourth freest country in the world.

This should be a huge warning sign. If current trends continue, the United States may not be listed in the top 10 freest countries in future years. The study assigned the United States a 77.8 out of 100 rating based on components such as property rights, business freedom, government spending, and trade freedom. The Heritage/Wall Street Journal study defines economic freedom as “the fundamental right of every human to control his or her own labor and property. In an economically free society, individuals are free to work, produce, consume, and invest in any way they please, with that freedom both protected by the state and unconstrained by the state.”

The good news is that America is relatively free compared to the rest of the world. For most Americans, it is likely virtually impossible to imagine living in the least economic free countries in the world. Based on limited available information due to government-imposed secrecy, North Korea is listed as the least free country in the 2011 Index. In the ten least free countries, the state controls and owns nearly every aspect of economic activity from trade to property. Since a lack of property rights and free trade are major explanations of poverty in the developing world, it’s no wonder that these countries are also the world’s poorest.

Freedom promotes wealth and prosperity. Peruvian economist Hernando de Soto once estimated that approximately 4 billion poor people in third world countries owned at least $9.3 trillion worth in real estate. But these assets were considered “dead assets” because citizens lacked a formal legal title to their property. As Steve Forbes remarked, “imagine what would happen to the global economy if even a fraction of that $9 trillion were liberated.”

We may be fortunate compared to the rest of the world. But we still have a lot of work to do. The Index of Economic Freedom finds that the United States’ “score is 0.2 point lower than last year, reflecting deteriorating business freedom, trade freedom, government spending, and monetary freedom.” As the study notes, the U.S. government spending spree has become unsustainable. The United States ranks 122nd out of 179 countries on government spending. Moreover, “drastic legislative changes in health care and financial regulations have retarded job creation and injected substantial uncertainty into business investment planning.”

Let’s strive to move America to number one on the Index of Economic Freedom. In just the past two years, the United States has dropped from sixth to ninth place. Congress must act to make real spending cuts. We can easily become freer by repealing recently passed bad legislation such as ObamaCare, the “stimulus” and the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul. Simultaneously, let’s work on eliminating programs shown to be inefficient. How about privatizing Amtrak and ending rail subsidies to save taxpayers $31 billion? Eliminating energy subsidies including ethanol to save $17 billion? Or ending agricultural subsidies to save nearly $29 billion? These are just a few examples. The list goes on and on. The sooner we start making these cuts, the better for freedom.

"

The Constitutionality of Obama's mandate: Introduction (1 of 8)

by MClemente

The Constitutionality of Obama's mandate: Introduction (1 of 8): "

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people…

~ James Madison, Federalist 45

Last March, President Obama and the Democrats in Congress passed their landmark health care reform legislation. At the very core of their bill is an individual mandate that requires all American citizens to obtain government-approved health insurance. During a joint session of Congress on September 9, 2009, President Obama declared:

[U]nder my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance...

Now, less than a year after the bill was signed into law, that mandate--that requirement that all individuals purchase health insurance-- is coming under intense scrutiny. Critics of the reform claim that such a law is outside of the powers granted to Congress by the United States Constitution. Last August, citizens of the state of Missouri voted overwhelmingly in favor of a measure, Proposition C, which invalidated the mandate for all state residents. 20 other states have filed a lawsuit in a Florida federal court to have the law declared unconstitutional (they may soon be joined by a 21st--Ohio). And Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has filed a separate suit against the law on behalf of the state of Virginia. He scored a major victory for opponents of the legislation this past December when a federal judge ruled that the mandate is outside of congressional authority stating:

A thorough survey of pertinent constitutional case law has yielded no reported decisions from any federal appellate courts extending the Commerce Clause or General Welfare Clause to encompass regulation of a person’s decision not to purchase a product... The unchecked expansion of congressional power to the limits suggested by the [individual mandate] would invite unbridled exercise of federal police powers.

This judge's ruling, of course, will not be the last word on the constitutionality of the law. The individual mandate--and the entirety of the Democrats' health care legislation--will undoubtedly end up before the Supreme Court. But as it works its way through the American judicial system, the questions still remains: Is forcing Americans to buy insurance—at times against their will—within the authority granted to federal government by the Constitution?

This blog will be the first in a series of blogs that attempts to answer that question. Our examination will begin as all good examinations begin, by defining what it is that we mean to examine: What is the individual mandate and how will it be applied? From there, we will attempt to understand whether Congress should employ a loose reading or a strict textual reading of the Constitution when crafting legislation. Then we will look at how the founders understood the wording that they wrote into our nation's founding document and whether or not they would have viewed such a mandate as Constitutional. And we will conclude by examining the expansive case law that has brought us to our present day jurisprudence and look at whether or not today's understanding of the Constitution has been expanded enough to allow the federal government to mandate the purchase of health insurance.

Section 1: Defining “Individual Mandate on Health Insurance”

When attempting to define a phrase, it is often helpful to understand the meaning of the words that make it up. The word “individual” clearly means a single, distinct person. That means that the “mandate” will apply to individuals and not to groups such as those working for the same employer or living within the same household. Moreover, the 2009 Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines the word “mandate” as “an authoritative command.” Thus, an “individual mandate” is an authoritative command directed at individuals forcing them to take part in a certain activity. But what activity is the federal government “commanding” individuals to take part in?

According to analysis released by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act—which was the first bill passed in the House of Representatives—will “establish a mandate for most legal residents of the United States to obtain health insurance.” It goes on to specify that “The bill [will] require individuals to obtain acceptable health insurance coverage, as defined in the bill.” Similarly, a CBO report that analyzes the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act—which was signed into law by President Obama on March 23rd, 2010—reveals, “The legislation [will] require individuals to obtain acceptable health insurance coverage, as defined in the legislation.”

Clearly, the government is “commanding” that individuals obtain “acceptable” health insurance. To enforce such a mandate, both pieces of legislation include a financial penalty paid to the IRS by individuals who choose not to obtain health insurance (see either letter). Almost every legal United States resident will be required to abide by such a mandate regardless of age, race, gender, or economic status. Thus, the phrase “individual mandate on health insurance” can be defined as “a command by the federal government that nearly every United States citizen obtain acceptable health insurance as defined by the government or be subject to a financial penalty.” Put even more simply, the government will force individuals to purchase a government approved product—health insurance—not as a consequence of any of their actions but merely because they exist.

Now that we have defined “individual mandate on health insurance,” we can ask: is a mandate on the purchase of health insurance constitutional? Before we can determine whether or not something is constitutional, however, we must know how the Constitution and the limitations that it holds on government should be read. Only by understanding how to view the document can we grasp the powers that it grants and the powers that it prohibits. Is the document meant to be read loosely with a heavy reliance on personal interpretation or is the meaning of the text finite and knowable?

In our next installment of this series of 8 blogs, we will examine how the Constitution should be read and which section--if any-- allows the federal government to mandate the purchase of a product.

"

The Constitutionality of Obama's mandate: Reading the Constitution (2 of 8)

by MClemente

The Constitutionality of Obama's mandate: Reading the Constitution (2 of 8): "

In our last installment (Blog 1) of this 8 part series examining the constitutionality of the health care mandate, we stated that the "individual mandate" included in the Democrats' health care reform bill is:

...a command by the federal government that nearly every United States citizen obtain acceptable health insurance as defined by the government or be subject to a financial penalty. Put even more simply, the government will force individuals to purchase a government approved product—health insurance—not as a consequence of any of their actions but merely because they exist.

Now that we have that defined it as such, we can begin our discussion of whether or not the mandate is constitutional. But before we can determine if Congress has the constitutional authority to enact a law, we must know how the Constitution and the limitations that it holds on government should be read. Only by understanding how to view the document can we grasp the powers that it grants and the powers that it prohibits.

Section 2: How should we view the Constitution?

Before the health care legislation became law, I had the honor of meeting Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. During the meeting, Justice Thomas explained his belief that the first question that one must ask when examining any law or restriction is, "By what authority?" To clarify his point, Thomas used the following example: If a police officer were to come down from Anchorage, Alaska and try to arrest an individual who was guilty of no crime in Worcester, Massachusetts, the first question that that individual would ask is, "By what authority are you arresting me?" Similarly, Justice Thomas insists, when considering legislation passed by the federal government, one must ask, "By what authority is the government enacting this law?" Justice Thomas’s question raises an even greater one. By what authority does the government enact any law?

The federal government receives the authority to make laws from the United States Constitution. The Constitution, however, also limits government’s authority. Only certain types of laws can be passed by the federal government. Depending upon how the Constitution is read, the extent of such restrictions may vary. So how should we view the Constitution? Today, there are two prevailing views. One, as we will see, protects the individual liberties of every American while preserving the authority it grants to the federal government and the other threatens the security of both.

On one side of this crucial argument are those who favor “judicial activism.” Proponents of judicial activism assert that the Constitution is a “living document” and that it must be able to adapt to modern circumstances. The founders, they assert, could not have possibly envisioned the circumstances that face modern Americans. Thus, it is the job of those in the Federal Court System to apply modern interpretations to the document. Providing the Court with the freedom to expand upon the document allows it to address circumstances that the writers could not have foreseen. The Court must not be bound by a strict reading of the text.

On the other side of the debate are so-called “originalists.” Originalists believe that the meaning of the Constitution is finite and knowable. They believe that the meaning was set at the time of the founding and that it must not be expanded upon. Expanding upon the founders’ original intent, they argue, can only lead to violations of the very freedoms that the Constitution was written to protect.

In his book, Restoring the Lost Constitution, Randy E. Barnett argues that proponents of judicial activism expand upon the framers’ original intent because the Constitution is seen as an obstacle standing in the way of “noble objectives.” In order to abide by the Constitution, one must be willing to accept that the power of the federal government is limited. One must understand that the federal government was instituted to protect the rights of individuals and nothing more. If this premise is accepted, then it does not matter how many citizens a given piece of legislation may help. All that matters is whether or not the government possesses the constitutional authority to pass such legislation. This is problematic for many who see the Constitution as a barrier standing between government and its ability to achieve “progress.” Barnett writes:

One way to slip [the bonds set on government by the Constitution] is to imply that the original Constitution is illegitimate by repeating the refrain that we cannot be bound by the “dead hand of the past” or by constantly invoking the various sins of the framers. By delegitimizing the original Constitution, such rhetoric seeks to free us from its constraints.

In order to decide whether or not such constraints are problematic and to understand what constitutional limitations mean for the individual mandate, we must identify the original purpose of the Constitution. Why was it written?

To answer this question, it is essential to first examine the views of the men who wrote the document. The Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787. In the years that led to its ratification, America broke away from oppressive tyrannical rule, declared its independence, experimented with a flawed confederation and hosted a lengthy public debate concerning how best to reform the nation’s government. Each of these major events greatly impacted the writing of the American Constitution and—at their core—each of them was a defense of individual liberty. In Restoring the Lost Constitution, Barnett asserts that:

[In] the founders’ view… ‘first comes rights, and then comes the Constitution.’

This becomes evident when examining the document used to declare America’s separation from the British Empire.

The preamble to the Declaration of Independence states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government …

The arrangement of this statement reveals the founders’ belief that natural rights pre-exist the establishment of a government. The Declaration begins, “We hold these truths to be self-evident…” By referring to the aspects of the subsequent statement as self-evident truths, the founders insist that they do not merely apply to colonists but rather that they are universal. Included in these universal truths is the idea, “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” This bold assertion reveals the founders’ dedication to the notion that no one life is more valuable than the next, and that—by virtue of sharing the same rights—no individual or group of individuals has the authority to rule over or oppress another. Moreover, the equal rights shared by all humans are “unalienable.” They cannot be taken away. This is because they are granted not by any man or institution but rather they are “endowed” upon individuals by their Creator. Only the One who grants rights has the authority to take them away.

Although the founders believed in the unalienable rights of every person, they also understood that there will always be forces in this world that seek to oppress. Thus, “to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it.” In the eyes of the founders, government does not possess rights. Its sole purpose is to protect the rights of its citizenry from outside forces. If it fails in this duty, it is the responsibility of individuals to abolish it. The writers of the Declaration—and subsequently the writers of the Constitution—believed that government’s power comes out of its ability to protect the rights of its people. Individuals do not receive natural rights from government and thus government does not have the authority to take rights away. To the extent that it protects individual rights, government operates legitimately. When it fails to protect such rights, government becomes an unlawful ruler over what would otherwise be free people.

In Common Sense, the 1776 pamphlet which served as the spark that lit the powder keg of the revolution, Thomas Paine captured the founders’ views on government:

[G]overnment even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one.

The founders knew that government is needed to protect the natural rights of individuals. But—after fighting to escape the wrath of British rule—they were well aware of its propensity for power. To insure that American citizens would be free from the shackles of government, they wrote the United States Constitution. The checks and limitations that were incorporated within it were seen as both a safeguard against oppression and an essential way of protecting personal liberty.

The Declaration of Independence makes clear that the purpose for writing the Constitution was twofold. It was written to grant the federal government the authority to impose upon specific liberties in order to protect the natural rights of citizens; it was also written to protect the rights of citizens from both the overreaching hand of government and outside oppressors.

Since it is impossible for an individual to gain more natural rights than were granted to him by his Creator and since government cannot gain more power without imposing upon the rights of individuals—which, in doing so, renders it illegitimate—the Constitution cannot be read loosely. An expansion upon the original meaning of the Constitution grants Congress illegitimate power and infringes upon the liberties that it was written to protect. Thus, when viewing the Constitution one must adhere to a strict textual reading. Without such a reading, government has no authority to pass laws, and individuals lose an essential safeguard against oppression.

In our next installment of this series of 8 blogs, we will examine which section of the Constitution--if any-- allows the federal government to mandate the purchase of health insurance.

"

The Constitutionality of Obama's mandate: Which enumerated power? (3 of 8)

by MClemente

The Constitutionality of Obama's mandate: Which enumerated power? (3 of 8): "

In our first installment (Blog 1) of this 8 part series examining the constitutionality of the health care mandate, we defined the term "individual mandate on health insurance." In our second (Blog 2), we saw the need to adhere to a strict textual reading of the Constitution when crafting legislation. Now we must determine which section of the Constitution--if any--the federal government can use to defend its command that nearly every United States citizen obtain acceptable health insurance as defined by the government or be subject to a financial penalty.

Section 3: What clause grants Congress the authority to mandate health insurance?

Now that we have seen the necessity of abiding by the founders’ original wording, we must apply the question raised by Justice Thomas to the proposed mandate on health insurance. By what authority does Congress plan to force Americans to purchase insurance? As we have seen, such authority must be grounded in the Constitution. Of the powers that the founding document vests in Congress, there are two that Congress could reasonably argue grant it the ability to mandate the purchase of insurance. They are the power to “lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to… provide for the… general welfare of the United States,” and the power to “regulate commerce… among the several States.”

Let's examine each individually to see if the federal government does possess the authority to enforce its mandate.

The Power to Lay and Collect Taxes:

In a paper entitled The Constitutionality of Mandates to Purchase Health Insurance, Mark Hall, a law professor at Wake Forest, argues that the Constitution grants Congress the power to “impose a tax on people who do not have health insurance.” Such a tax would be a means by which Congress could enforce its mandate. Punishing those who do not buy insurance with an added tax burden would cause a majority of Americans to acquire coverage.

Such a tax may seem like a legitimate way to discourage individuals from living without insurance but the federal government does not possess such broad taxation powers. Like every other power vested in Congress, the Constitution holds limitations on lawmakers’ ability to collect taxes. Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to collect excise and capitation taxes. The 16th Amendment created a national income tax. But an extra tax burden placed on individuals who choose not to purchase health insurance does not fall under any of these three categories. In a 2009 op-ed written for Politico, Ken Klukowski, a fellow and senior legal analyst with the American Civil Rights Union, writes:

It can’t be an excise tax because that’s a surcharge on a purchase, and here people are not buying anything. It can’t be a capitation (or “direct”) tax because that is a tax on every person in a state and must be equal for every person in the state; this would be a levy that some people would pay and others would not. And it can’t be an income tax because that must be based on personal income, not purchase decisions.

Furthermore, an additional problem arises out of this attempt to manipulate the tax code to serve as a means of mandating insurance. Past legislation has been struck down by the Supreme Court for having:

...[the] effect of suppressing an activity or where it is coupled with regulations that clearly have no possible relation to the collection of the tax.

The Court has held that Congress cannot use the tax code merely as a means of penalizing individuals or businesses. In order for Congress to impose a tax, their intention must first be to raise revenue. Take the case of Bailey V. Drexel Furniture Company (1922) in which a furniture company argued that Congress did not possess the authority to use burdensome taxes as a means of punishing companies that employed the use of child labor. In the opinion of the court, Justice Taft writes:

Grant the validity of this law, and all that Congress would need to do, hereafter, in seeking to take over to its control anyone of the great number of subjects of public interest… would be to enact a detailed measure of complete regulation of the subject and enforce it by a so-called tax upon departures from it. To give such magic to the word "tax" would be to break down all constitutional limitation of the powers of Congress and completely wipe out the sovereignty of the States.

Justice Taft goes on to explain that although the differences between a tax and a penalty may be difficult to define, the fact that Congress is granted both the power to tax and the power to regulate means that the two must remain separate and distinct powers. Congress cannot use its ability to lay taxes to enforce regulations that would otherwise be unconstitutional.

It might be argued that the decisions of the Court in Bailey and similar cases have since been overturned. Examining cases such as Magnano Co. v. Hamilton (1934), it is easy to fall victim to such an ill-conceived notion. For instance, in the case of United States v. Sanchez (1950), the court looked to the Magnano ruling and declared:

It is beyond serious question that a tax does not cease to be valid merely because it regulates, discourages, or even definitely deters the activities taxed... The principle applies even though the revenue obtained is obviously negligible... or the revenue purpose of the tax may be secondary... Nor does a tax statute necessarily fall because it touches on activities which Congress might not otherwise regulate. As was pointed out in Magnano Co. v. Hamilton, 292 U.S. 40, 47 (1934): ‘From the beginning of our government, the courts have sustained taxes although imposed with the collateral intent of effecting ulterior ends which, considered apart, were beyond the constitutional power of the lawmakers to realize by legislation directly addressed to their accomplishments.'

But in cases such as Magnano, the tax imposed was imposed unconditionally. No other purpose—specifically no regulatory purpose—appears on the surface of the legislation. In such cases:

...the Court has refused to inquire into the motives of the lawmakers and has sustained the tax despite its prohibitive proportions (See McCray v. United States).

However, when the tax imposed conditionally and individuals can avoid paying it by complying with certain regulations the validity of the tax is determined by whether or not Congress has the authority to regulate such activities:

If the regulations are within the competence of Congress, apart from its power to tax, the exaction is sustained as an appropriate sanction for making them effective; otherwise it is invalid (See Sunshine Coal Co. v. Adkins).

A tax that applies only to those who do not purchase health insurance is a conditional tax. An individual can avoid paying it by acquiring insurance. Thus, Congress does not have the constitutional authority to enforce an individual mandate by placing harsh taxes upon citizens who choose not to follow it. If it is going to mandate the purchase of health insurance, then it must be able to prove that such a mandate is grounded in the text of Constitution. In order to do so, the federal government will likely assert that such authority can be found in the “Commerce Clause.”

The Commerce Clause

Article I of the Constitution lists the power vested in Congress. Historically, one such power has been interpreted far more loosely than others. No clause has been used to expand limitations held on congressional authority further than the Commerce Clause. In its name, the federal government has claimed the power to regulate the intrastate navigation of ferry services, the production of wheat grown solely for personal use, the mere possession of a fire arm within a certain distance of public schools, and even the cultivation of cannabis solely for personal use. But if Congress is to use legitimate authority, then it must remain within the confines prescribed to it by the Constitution. What authorities did the framers of the Constitution believe the Commerce Clause provides?

According to Randy Barnett's Restoring the Lost Constitution:

“Commerce” means the trade or exchange of goods including the means of transporting them; “among the several states” means between persons of one state and another; and the term “to regulate,” when applied to domestic commerce, means “to make regular”—that is, to specify how a rightful activity may be transacted—and the power to prohibit wrongful acts.

In order to test the validity of this claim, we must examine how both the writers of the Constitution understood the Commerce Clause and also how the Clause was interpreted by the general public. To do so, we will define for ourselves what was meant and understood by the terms “commerce,” “to regulate,” and “among the several states.”

In our next installment of this series of 8 blogs, we will examine the word "Commerce." We will look at how it was used and understood by our founders and the general public at the time of the ratification of the United States Constitution.

"

Pathetic: Global Warm-ongers Issue Dire Warning for Year 3000

by JammieWearingFool

Pathetic: Global Warm-ongers Issue Dire Warning for Year 3000: "I guess they've given up on all the idiotic forecasts for 10 or 20 years down the road since they've been proven wrong every time. Now they set a new standard: Making predictions for how things will look 989 years in the future. Hey, at least they can't be debunked now by us evil deniers.Even if humans stop producing excess carbon dioxide in 2100, the lingering effects of global warming could"

Shock CBS Poll: 77% of Americans are Extremist Teabaggers, Want to Cut Government Spending

by JammieWearingFool

Shock CBS Poll: 77% of Americans are Extremist Teabaggers, Want to Cut Government Spending: "Sadly, there are still the the diehard, far left relics who think it would be a good idea to pay more taxes to reduce the monstrous deficits racked up by Obama, Pelosi and Reid. Upside: It's only 9% of the public.A new CBS News poll finds that Americans strongly prefer cutting spending to raising taxes to reduce the federal deficit. While 77 percent prefer to cut spending, just nine percent call"

Loughner Video Released: Yes, He Was Nuts

by JammieWearingFool

Loughner Video Released: Yes, He Was Nuts: " He mentions we're in an illegal war. That sounds so familiar.A YouTube video that prompted the suspension of Tucson shooting suspect Jared Lee Loughner in September was released Friday by officials at Pima Community College and included rambling statements such as "We are examining the torture of students" and "This is genocide in America."The video, no longer on the website, was released to The"

More Than Half of All States Now Suing to Stop Obamacare

by Conn Carroll

More Than Half of All States Now Suing to Stop Obamacare: "

This Wednesday Maine Attorney General William Schneider announced that the Pine Tree State would become the 23rd state participating in Florida’s multi-state suit against Obamacare. With Oklahoma and Virginia each pursuing their own seperate suits, that brought the number of states fighting Obamacare’s budget busting Medicaid expansion to 25.

It didn’t take long for that number to become 26. The Kansas City Star reports:

Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt sent a letter Wednesday seeking to join almost two dozen states in challenging the new federal health care reform law.

…

Schmidt, a Republican, campaigned on challenging the law. He defeated Steve Six in the November election and took office Monday.

“This lawsuit is about standing up for the rule of law and protecting the liberties guaranteed by our Constitution,” Schmidt said in a prepared statement. “Our federal government is designed to be a government of limited, enumerated powers, and we do not believe it has the power to order citizens into commerce so it can then regulate their conduct under authority of the Commerce Clause. Whatever the merits or demerits of health care reform, the ends cannot justify an unconstitutional means.”

In its current form, Medicaid is already bankrupting states across the country. Obamacare only further overloads this already broken system by expanding Medicaid eligibility to include all Americans under 133 percent of the federal poverty level. Of the 34 million Americans who gain health insurance through Obamacare, over half (18 million) will receive it through Medicaid. While Obamacare will pay for all of the benefit expansion for the first three years, and 90% of it after that, Obamacare never pays for any of the state administrative costs for adding those 18 million Americans to their welfare rolls. That amounts to billions in unfunded federal mandates for states to absorb.

"

Economic Freedom: America vs. China

by Emily Rein

Economic Freedom: America vs. China: "

According to a new poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, 47% of Americans incorrectly see China as the world’s leading economic power. Only 31% of Americans get it right and name the United States.

This study reveals some interesting realities about Americans’ perceptions of China. Another important fact that Americans might not know is that the United States far outranks China in measures of economic freedom. According to the 2011 Index of Economic Freedom, which ranks 179 countries on economic freedom, China comes in 135^th. In fact, its score of 52.0 puts the country into the category of “Mostly Unfree.”

Although it is true that the United States has fallen in the rankings this year due to reckless government spending and increased regulatory burdens, Americans are fed up with such violations of our freedoms. Last November the American people indicated at the polls that they want elected officials who will limit government and preserve the liberties that our Founders envisioned and that make the United States an exceptional nation.

Economic freedom is the fundamental right of every human to control his or her own labor and property. Take a look at the chart below to see just how far behind China is.

To learn more or to create and share your own chart comparing countries’ scores on the Index, visit heritage.org/Index.

"

Maine Governor Tells NAACP to “Kiss My Butt” After Insults (Video)

by Jim Hoft

Maine Governor Tells NAACP to “Kiss My Butt” After Insults (Video): "

Finally. A Republican with some kahunas.

Gov. Paul LePage tells the radicals at the NAACP to “Kiss my butt.”

The Bangor Daily News reported:

Speaking to reporters Friday morning, LePage was asked to respond to suggestions from NAACP members and others that his decision not to attend ceremonies honoring Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. were part of a negative pattern.



“Tell them to kiss my butt,” LePage said with a large smile, according to video by WCSH6. He then added: “If they want play the race card, come to dinner and my son will talk to them,” a reference to his adopted son, Devon Raymond, who is black.

Dan Demeritt, LePage’s spokesman, had said the Republican governor was unable to attend an NAACP dinner honoring King in Portland on Sunday because of personal commitments and an NAACP breakfast in Orono on Monday because he plans to attend the funeral for a former state trooper.

The newly sworn-in Gov. Paul LePage, surrounded by friends and family, waves at the crowd Wednesday after his inauguration at the Augusta Civic Center. Behind the governor is his daughter, Lauren LePage. From top, counter-clockwise are Sec. of State-elect Charlie Summers; Speaker of the House Robert Nutting, R-Oakland; LePage’s sons Devon Raymond and Paul LePage Jr.; Former Gov. Angus King; and Former Gov. John McKernan. The woman in front of LePage is unidentified. (Morning Sentinel Andy Molloy)

"

At Public School, Anti-Americanism Hides in Plain Sight

Tell people over and over again that America is mostly or even mainly characterized by racism, and you are teaching people to hate America. Or, as one eleven-year-old girl from another South American family told her classmates: "We hate America, but our parents are making us live here."

January 14, 2011 – by Barry Rubin at Pajamas Media

EXCERPTS:

Kids in the class constantly use the word "racist," even when colors completely unassociated with human beings are mentioned — a black cat, for example, or automobile.

What happens when you tell young people over and over again that the most important fact of American history is the internment of Japanese during World War Two? In a single year, I watched as fourth graders were assigned four different readings on that topic while spending ten minutes on George Washington and zero on Abraham Lincoln. Their sole reading on September 11 was a story on how Kenyans reacted to the event — with no identification of who had carried out the attack.

What appears in textbooks will curl your hair. And I'm not talking about relatively high-profile issues like teaching about Islam (a topic that has never even been mentioned in my son's school), but how they describe the economic system or world history. Some examples, all based on first-hand experience:

• A math exercise in which the teacher uses a deck of playing cards, each of which is marked "Vote Obama" on the back.

• A current-events discussion in which, even though Junior Scholastic referred to the Times Square bomber as an "Islamist terrorist," the only correct answer is that this Taliban-backed Pakistani immigrant is a "home-grown terrorist."

• Days spent in unquestioning study of man-made global warming, with no mention even of a controversy. One student remarks afterward, "Due to global warming, it will soon be snowing in Africa."

• Despite having music class, the following dialogue takes place:

Father: "Did you learn the Star Spangled Banner?"

Son looks puzzled.

Daughter helpfully sings, "You know, 'Oh, say can you see …!'"

Son: "What's that?"

• On Memorial Day, son draws pictures of soldiers during free time in school; teacher confiscates, makes and files photocopies, and warns him never to do that again.

This situation, to put it mildly, is a social disaster. The bills for this calamity will be paid in the future, just as today we are living in the shadow of the radical 1960s come to cultural, ideological, and political power.

FULL ARTICLE

RELATED ARTICLES:

Rhee: "Now is the Time to Act" in Education Reform

Head of New York City teachers' union received more than $600,000 for 2010

Preparing Our Children for Global Citizenship

Poster child for eliminating teacher unions – cocaine addict takes four years to fire

Enforcing the propaganda of climate dogma

Learning the Truth About Education

Teachers union promotes Alinsky radicals guide to revolution

The best government money can buy -top 20 public sector union paid politicians

The Department of Education – Who Needs it?

They met to kill God and establish Marxism

The Failing Promise of Public Education

Teachers union says parents too stupid to understand ratings

We Don't Need No (Leftist) Education

Pushing Junk Science on Children

The Urban Plantation

Department of Education's slush funds

Stupid in America: How We Cheat Our Kids

Sen. Tom A. Coburn: Big Government and teachers unions are failing our children

The best government money can buy -top 20 public sector union paid politicians

Teachers union promotes Alinsky radicals guide to revolution

Tenure qualification: Are you still breathing?

Rocking the Boat on Education

Power grab on campus

Education secretary vows climate indoctrination

The Department of Education – Who Needs it?

The Schools Scandal

Obama Education Dept. pushes awards to close race states

Secret is out -union endorsements win 'Race to the Top' funds

Christie tells truth about union pensions

This 'progressive' sex ed is child abuse

Obama's Safe School Czar Admits Gay Curriculum is the Ultimate Goal

Back to Constitutional Basics in Education

Folk hero Gov. Chris Christie responds to teacher criticism

The Anti-Parent Agenda of Colleges

Pimping for the left – Education secretary urged his employees to attend Sharpton's rally

Race to Nowhere – tear the schools down

National Education Association Selling its Saul

Some Who Can't Teach Still Do

Union thuggery: threatening the Los Angeles Times for reporting on teacher's performance scores

Less than 25% of high school grads ready for college

In Washington, It's the Money that Talks

5 Ways the Incestuous Left is Pimping Your Kids for Cash and Votes

The Left's Special-Interest Human Shields

UPDATE: Congress passes union payback bill – here's why

Bailing Out Teachers

Teachers union promotes Alinsky radicals guide to revolution

The best government money can buy -top 20 public sector union paid politicians

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-California) – best money can buy

Illinois school administrator to get $26 million pension!

Myths about the teacher layoff crisis

Why firing the desk-sleepers, burnouts, hotheads and other failed union teachers is all but impossible

Why Democrats are Pushing the $165 Billion Union Pension Bailout

SEIU union spends $500,000 in local election, may reach $1,000,000 – a sign of the times?

Cititzens wise up to high union costs

Unions get personal in protests for goodies

Finance bill favors interests of unions, activists

In the Tank for Big Labor

Unions plan to own your representative – step up the election heat

The Unionized States of America

http://usactionnews.com/2011/01/at-public-school-anti-americanism-hides-in-plain-sight/

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

Morning Bell: Economic Freedom Is Foundation Of All Other Freedoms

Next Monday, January 17, is the 50th anniversary of President Dwight Eisenhower's farewell address. The speech is most commonly remembered for President Eisenhower's warning about the "unwarranted influence" of the "military-industrial complex," but often left out of the story is Ike's warning about profligate federal spending as well: "We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow." Ike went on to call for "balance in and among national programs" including "balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable."

The balance of today's federal budget looks much different than it did during Ike's time. When Ike spoke, the U.S. government spent 10 percent of or gross domestic product (GDP) on national defense, while Medicare and Medicaid did not even exist. Today, we spend only 4.9 percent of our GDP on defense and 9.9 percent on our entitlement programs (which include Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security). Clearly, defense spending is not the cause of our nation's debt problem. Looking forward, the imbalance only gets worse: Defense spending is set to fall to 3.5 percent of GDP by 2015 while spending on entitlement programs is set to consume 100 percent of tax revenue by 2052. The "balance" of our spending priorities has dramatically shifted—and not toward one that favors "the clearly necessary" over the "comfortably desirable."

This week, The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal released the 2011 Index of Economic Freedom, and the news was not good. For the second year in a row, the United States became less economically free as the Obama Administration jacked up government spending through economic stimulus, undermined private property with more bailouts, failed to pursue free trade agreements, and slowed job growth with burdensome new Obamacare regulations. Our deficit in 2010 was actually higher as a percentage of GDP than the deficits of Greece or Spain. We are headed down a European welfare state path. And that path will not allow the U.S. to continue to play its leading role as the world's most powerful democracy. The Heritage Foundation's Theodore Bromund explains:

Historically, American international leadership after World War II was predicated on the correct belief that political and economic freedom and progress were interdependent. The U.S. decided to move away from protectionism, and encourage other countries to do the same, to prevent another Great Depression and the accompanying rise of totalitarianism. But now, instead of the U.S. driving the world's move towards economic freedom, the U.S. is holding the rest of the world back. This is a rejection of the U.S.'s successful, bipartisan post-war grand strategy. The United States cannot be a world leader if it has a stagnant economy.

Our military leaders also recognize federal spending as a threat to national security. This past August, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Michael Mullen told CNN that "the most significant threat to our national security is our debt." This is not to say that our defense budget is perfect. Far from it. Heritage Foundation defense policy analysts Mackenzie Eaglen and Julia Pollack have identified defense spending reforms that could save taxpayers more than $70 billion. But it is vitally important that these savings are plugged back in to preserving our economic freedom. Our military equipment and forces are wearing out. Our tactical aircraft have an average age of 20 years, bombers nearly 30, and tankers about 45. The bipartisan blue-ribbon panel led by William J. Perry, former Secretary of Defense under President Bill Clinton, and Stephen J. Hadley, former National Security Adviser to President George W. Bush, identified military modernization as the key to doing more on a strained national security budget.

We cannot adequately protect ourselves without a modernized military. A modernized military depends on a strong U.S. economy. That is why economic freedom is not just a pocketbook issue: It is fundamental to American security.

Quick Hits:

• The House of Representatives' vote to repeal Obamacare is back on for next week.
• After voting to repeal all of Obamacare Tuesday, the House will vote to repeal the $19 billion 1099 tax reporting requirement Wednesday.
• Yields on municipal bond debt shot above 5 percent Thursday, the highest they've been since the height of the financial crisis.
• The EPA revoked a key permit for one of the largest proposed coal-mining projects in Appalachia Wednesday, the first time the EPA has withdrawn a water permit for a mining project that had previously been issued.
• A Hudspeth County, Texas, road crew came under fire Thursday morning from gunmen in Mexico.

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/01/14/morning-bell-economic-freedom-is-foundation-of-all-other-freedoms/

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

Students First: Michelle Rhee Releases Agenda for National Education Reform

Treating teachers like professionals, giving parents school choice, and using education dollars wisely: these three priorities frame the agenda of Students First, the newly established nonprofit headed by former D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee.

The plan, released Tuesday on StudentsFirst.org and outlined by Rhee in The Wall Street Journal and an on Fox News Wednesday, provides further detail regarding the agenda, which she calls "a comprehensive set of policies and legislation that … create the right environment … where transformational school reform can take hold."

The three priorities are described as follows:

1. "Treating teachers like professionals" by "valuing their impacts on students."

"Compensation, staffing decisions and professional development should be based on teachers' effectiveness, not on their seniority. That means urging states and districts to implement a strong performance pay system for the best teachers, while discontinuing tenure as job protection for ineffective teachers. This will ensure that the money spent on teacher salaries goes to the hard-working professionals who are improving student achievement every day."

2. Empowering parents with school choice.

"States and school districts must remove the barriers that limit the number of available seats in high-quality schools. This includes allowing the best charter schools to grow and serve more students. It also means giving poor families access to publicly funded scholarships to attend private schools."

3. Ensure accountability for taxpayer dollars.

"Over the past 40 years, per-pupil funding has more than doubled, but students have little to show for it. … This funding/achievement disconnect exists because in many cases states have spent money on some 'feel good' things that have not been proven to increase student achievement, such as smaller classes or raising salaries based on advanced degrees instead of effectiveness.

"StudentsFirst will advocate for aggressive reforms in critical structural, operational, and budgeting activities throughout the country.

"States and districts must shift new employees from defined-benefit pension programs to portable, defined-contribution plans where employees can contribute a proportionate amount to their own retirement savings. This will help ensure that states aren't draining their budgets with pension payouts."

While Rhee clearly states that "we do not pretend that we are the first to advocate for the ideas in this agenda," she asserts that the nation's current fiscal situation, along with the continued failing scores of students can "focus the nation on the need for change."

The ideas struck host Steve Doocy as common sense during his interview with Rhee on Fox & Friends: "Why haven't we been doing this … for a long time?"

Good question. It's time for opponents of sensible education reforms to put the needs of children before the demands of special interests—as Rhee's aptly named group suggests.

As the new year unfolds, parents, policymakers, school administrators, and advocates have the opportunity to put "students first" by allowing such common-sense ideas to take root, helping to ensure the best educational opportunities possible for the nation's children.

http://blog.heritage.org/2011/01/14/students-first-michelle-rhee-releases-agenda-for-national-education-reform/

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

Holy Hatefest!… Only 15% Agree With Libs That Heated Rhetoric Caused Tucson Shootings

Despite the constant media smears this week – only 15% of Americans believe heated rhetoric caused the Tucson shootings.

Far left Sheriff Dupnik was wrong.

Only 15% of Americans believe that heated rhetoric had anything to do with the shootings Saturday by a leftwing pothead that killed 6 people in Tucson.

Maybe the state-run media will remember this next time before they start smearing conservatives after a mass murder.
Quinnipiac reported:

Saturday's shooting of Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, in which six people were killed, could not have been prevented, 40 percent of American voters say in a Quinnipiac University national poll released today. Another 23 percent blame the mental health system, while 15 percent say it was due to heated political rhetoric and 9 percent attribute the tragedy to lax gun control.

American voters say 52 – 41 percent that "heated political rhetoric drives unstable people to commit violence," the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University poll finds. Liberals rather than conservatives are more responsible for such rhetoric, voters say 36 – 32 percent.

Voters surveyed just before the Martin Luther King Day holiday say 31 – 21 percent that the United States is a safer place for political figures today than during Dr. King's era, with 45 percent saying things are about the same.

Sheriff Dupnik needs to resign.

http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/01/holy-hatefest-only-15-agree-with-libs-that-heated-rhetoric-caused-tucson-shootings/

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

Want to own a hybrid car in California? It's going to cost you.

So now what happens when California's green enthusiasts rush out to by all the new plug-in hybrids?  The state prides itself on its environmental consciousness, and as a result the cost of electricity in the state is really, really high. So the latest hybrid cars are going to cost Californians -- a lot: Californians may...

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/BeltwayConfidential/~3/UqZtu2EI2M8/want-own-hybrid-car-california-its-going-cost-you

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

Democrat's Wife Gets Wristslap for Aiding and Abetting Fugitive Brother

Frankly, I'm amazed she got any jail time at all. Apparently they're really cracking down on these criminal Democrats in Massachusetts.A federal judge hit the wife of U.S. Rep. John Tierney (D-Mass.) with an unexpected 30 days in the slammer yesterday for helping her fugitive brother scam the IRS, while in the same breath insisting the congressman remains above reproach.The 6th District Salem

http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2011/01/democrats-wife-gets-wristslap-for.html

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

Mark Levin to Smear Merchants: 'I'm Gonna Drag Your Ass Into Federal Court'

Chris Matthews and Ed Schultz messed with the wrong guy.And Levin is putting his money where his mouth is by threatening to take MSNBC hosts and contributors like Chris Matthews, Ed Shutlz, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Joe Scarborough and David Frumm ("you little weasel") to federal court for accusations tying Levin to Loughner's rampage."I don't care if they're bloggers," Levin announced. "I

http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2011/01/mark-levin-to-smear-merchants-im-gonna.html

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

Vile Anti-Palin Posters Plastered on San Francisco Streets

Of course, the fact that Sarah Palin had absolutely nothing to do with the shooting spree that killed 6 people by a left-wing pothead…
But, since when did facts matter to these unhinged loons?

NBC Bay Area reported:

Despite President Obama's speech about healing, shared responsibility and shared pain, conservative pundit Sarah Palin is plastered, unflatteringly, along one San Francisco street (so far).

The posters — found and publisehd by SFist.com — espouse "Enrage them with fear until they feel justified in their violence."

Granted, Palin has brought even more spotlight on herself with a recent diatribe against "irresponsible journalists."

Maybe the president's message stressing the strength of our words and how we use them will stick … like a poster to a wall.

And, of course, the state-run media finds absolutely nothing wrong with this vile attack on conservative Sarah Palin.

http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/01/57259/

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

Figures. White House Blames Pep Rally On University of Arizona

The White House wants you to believe that they had nothing to do with the planning of the Tucson pep rally this week even though the president, the First Lady and several top members of Congress attended the event.
Of course, that's utter nonsense.

Every shooting memorial needs a special T-shirt.

Workers place shirts on chairs before a memorial service for the victims of Saturday's shootings at McKale Memorial Center on the University of Arizona campus Wednesday, Jan. 12, 2011. (AP)

The AP reported:

Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said Thursday he and other aides didn't expect the president's remarks at the school's basketball arena to receive as much rousing applause as it did. Gibbs said the crowd's response, at times cheering and shouting, was understandable.

"I think part of the grieving process is celebrating the lives of those that were lost, and celebrating the miracles of those that survived," he said.

The university said it did the planning with minimal input from the White House. The school paid for the event, including $60,000 for 20,000 T-shirts bearing the words "Together We Thrive," which were handed out for free. The money will not come student tuition, fees or tax dollars.

Well before Obama arrived, the atmosphere had become celebratory. People lined up for hours, and when the doors finally opened about two hours before the start, a huge cheer went up and the crowd surged into the arena.

Together we thrive.

http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/01/figures-white-house-blames-pep-rally-on-university-of-arizona/

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

Pic of the day: Gas prices under Bush and Obama

We're in trouble:

From the Heritage Foundation via Instapundit:

Fact: President Barack Obama's Energy Secretary Steven Chu wants to "figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe." At the time he made the statement, gas cost $7 – $8 a gallon in Europe.

Fact: Since taking office, President Obama's entire energy agenda has made a gallon of gas more expensive:

• Immediately after taking office in 2009, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, canceled 77 leases for oil and gas drilling in Utah.
• The EPA announced new rules mandating the use of 36 billion gallons worth of renewable fuels (like ethanol) by 2020.
• This summer President Obama needlessly instituted, not one, but two outright drilling bans in the Gulf of Mexico.
• After rescinding his outright offshore drilling ban, President Obama has refused to issue any new drilling permits in the Gulf, a policy that the Energy Information Administration estimates will cut domestic offshore oil production by 13% this year
• Interior Secretary Salazar announced that the eastern Gulf of Mexico, the Atlantic coast, and the Pacific coast will not be developed, effectively banning drilling in those areas for the next seven years;
• The Environmental Protection Agency has announced new global warming regulations for oil refineries;
• Interior Secretary Salazar announced new rules making it more difficult to develop energy resources on federal land.

Congress was overrun by Democrats in part because the establishment MSM tied high gas prices to Bush. With Obama in the Oval Office, not a boo or peep from these same media types. Related: Shell CEO: Get ready for $5 Gas by 2012

UPDATE: From Instapundit:

WHY THEY'D RATHER TALK ABOUT SARAH PALIN (CONT'D): $5 a gallon gas? Washington insiders are wondering if the next real economic crisis facing President Obama is when gasoline prices spike to $4 or $5 per gallon. At today's press briefing, a White House press spokesman rebuffed queries about the possibility saying 'there are many people that would get upset at me if I started to opine on oil and gas prices, so I won't.'"

http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2011/01/pic-of-day-gas-prices-under-bush-and.html

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

Not Joke- New Study Claims Global Warming Caused The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire?

It looks as if the climate change moonbats are working on a brand new scare tactic. The new scenario is that global climate has driven major changes in human civilization before, and if we don't do something it will lead to the decline of Western Civilization (as if the career of Justin Bieber hasn't already started the decline).

The study conducted by Ulf Buentgen, of the Swiss Federal Research Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research examined tree rings to determine which years had lots of rain making it a good year for agriculture. The study published in the weekly journal, Science suggests that mild summers may have been the key to the rise of the Roman Empire—and that prolonged droughts, cold snaps, and other climate changes might have played a part in historical upheavals, from the barbarian invasions that brought about Rome's collapse to the Black Death that wiped out much of medieval Europe.

Good growth by oak and pine trees in central Europe in the past 2,500 years signalled warm and wet summers and coincided with periods of wealth among farming societies, for instance around the height of the Roman empire or in medieval times.

Periods of climate instability overlapped with political turmoil, such as during the decline of the Roman empire, and might even have made Europeans vulnerable to the Black Death or help explain migration to America during the chill 17th century.

Climate shifts that affected farm output were factors in "amplifying political, social and economic crises," said Ulf Buentgen.

So far that all seems reasonable, now the crazy part:

The study said the evidence, helping back up written records that are sparse in Europe more than 500 years ago, "may challenge recent political and fiscal reluctance" to slow projected climate change in the 21st century.

Modern societies seem less vulnerable but "are certainly not immune" to climate change, especially because migration "will not be an option in an increasingly crowded world," they wrote.

The U.N. panel of climate experts says that greenhouse gases, mainly from burning fossil fuels, will lead to more droughts, floods, heatwaves and rising sea levels that could swamp low-lying island states.

These guys are supposed to be smart right? Now if all of this climate change described in the study happened hundreds an in cases thousands of years ago, that was before man made machines started putting the exhaust of fossil fuels into the atmosphere causing this supposed global warming that is giving the world this extra cold winter. Sounds like a great argument that the climate change is created by nature not man.

The study said: "Wet and warm summers occurred during periods of Roman and medieval prosperity. Increased climate variability from AD 250-600 coincided with the demise of the western Roman empire and the turmoil of the migration period."

"Distinct drying in the 3rd century paralleled a period of serious crisis in the western Roman empire marked by barbarian invasion, political turmoil and economic dislocation in several provinces of Gaul," it said.

Temperatures and rainfall only returned to levels of the Roman period in the early 800s, around the time when new kingdoms consolidated in Europe.

The Black Death bubonic plague of the mid-14th century, for instance, was during an unstable, wet period. "From other studies we know that a more humid environment is more supportive for the dispersal of plague," Buentgen said. 

OK Class what did we learn? Wet weather may have contributed to the spread of the bubonic plague, and disingenuous scientists may have contributed to the spread of the global warming hoax plague.

Please email me at yidwithlid@aol.com to be put onto my mailing list. Feel free to reproduce any article but please link back to http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com

http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/blogspot/NWlS/~3/WZMfaUM5Yzg/huh-new-study-global-warming-caused.html

Sent with MobileRSS for iPhone

Sent from my iPhone