Capitalism, greed and the carbon barons: The story behind the climate change deniers and their ongoing enslavement of the world.
Capitalism, greed and the carbon barons: The story behind the climate change deniers and their ongoing enslavement of the world.
Money, power, and misinformation, are the tools that the special interests use to undermine the overwhelming scientific evidence of the causal relationship between the burning of carbon based fuel and global climate change. The effort to undermine the science behind climate change is being funded and directed by a few powerful people, the carbon barons. These carbon barons in an effort to protect their profits and preserve the status quo have devised a multifaceted scheme to preserve their domination of the world’s energy supply, insuring their continued economic and political domination of the world. How did this all begin?
A century ago one man, President Teddy Roosevelt stood up to the world’s first carbon baron J.D. Rockefeller. Rockefeller was at the time the world’s richest and most powerful man, history’s first billionaire, the original carbon baron. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil Company controlled 40 percent of the world’s oil supply before it was eventually broken up into several smaller firms by Roosevelt’s anti-trust legislation and litigation. Rockefeller’s empire was split into 30 companies including two we know well today Exxon and Mobile, which have been allowed to merge into one again. The Roosevelt anti-trust action was brought to preserve the free market, and save democracy. Roosevelt’s anti-trust crusade and legislation were successful challenges to Rockefeller’s political and economic power. Though his actions are hailed in history books and he was immensely popular yet somehow Roosevelt was forced out of the election of 1908 by his own party. In hindsight we can see the turning point in history was not the breakup of Standard Oil for anti-trust violations as the history book portray, it was Rockefeller’s alliance with media mogul and former Roosevelt ally William Randolph Hearst (Lewiston Evening Journal Staff ). Hearst’s media empire had national reach and at Rockefeller’s request he launched an unprecedented series of attacks on Teddy Roosevelt (Lewiston Evening Journal Staff ). The marriage of the carbon baron’s cash and a willing media brought down one of our greatest presidents in a matter of months. The headline from the April 4th, 1907 Lewiston Evening Journal says it all, “Corporations desire an executive they can handle, not one of the Roosevelt school- Mr. Taft in the race.” The Roosevelt era of trust busting has long since passed and Rockefeller’s old company after years of deregulation has been put back together again. Today new carbon barons have emerged to threaten not only the free market and our democracy but life on the planet as we know it, all in the name of increased profits, and there is no Teddy Roosevelt in sight.
Just as Rockefeller had Hearst to shape the news and formulate public opinion a century ago, today’s carbon barons have media moguls of their own and are taking the tried and true strategy to all new heights. Michael Bloomberg and Rupert Murdoch the modern day Hearst are all too happy to carry the carbon barons message to the masses, just as Hearst a century before. By sowing the seeds of doubt among the public the media wing of the carbon barons empire is shaping the climate change “debate”. In fact the media blitz to counter act the science is so effective that less people in 2009 thought global warming was real than at any time in the 21 year history of the Gallup survey (Gallup). How is this accomplished in today’s mass media environment? While newspapers were the only media in Rockefeller’s era today we have talk radio, television, the internet and newspapers. Yet just as in Hearst’s and Rockefeller’s day the control of this multitude of media platforms and outlets is concentrated in the hands of a few large corporations. In reality only ten media conglomerates dominate the global media market (Meier), and the sources cited by the global warming deniers are even less diverse and objective.
The methodology the carbon barons employ is three pronged, the first is through direct campaign financing of carbon friendly candidates. The second prong or front if you will consists of the authoring and funding of quasi science which disputes the empirical evidence of carbon caused climate change, while funding of conservative think tanks to disseminate the “scientific reports” to a gullible public. The third prong is the complicit press, a press bought and paid for by the carbon barons, a complex web of board memberships and cross ownership ties it together in a neat little bow, a carbon bow.
Follow the Money: The tie that binds, Cash is the currency of climate change deniers and when given in the form of political contributions it has a powerful effect on a politicians stated position. Unlike in the early 20th century today reporters and the general public can access the financial records and see the contributions of the carbon barons and track their cash as it flows through the political system. These financial disclosures tie the groups who publish the climate change denying reports, the media groups who recite it and the politicians who present it as fact to their constituents together with an indisputable knot, a knot comprised of cash.
In an age where campaign contributions are reported and can be tracked electronically, the carbon baron’s employ a coordinated strategy to preserve the appearance of propriety and the facade of democracy. How much does it cost to have a Senator ignore the science and become a climate change denier? Well that amount varies based on the Senator for example, Texas Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson has long been a supporter of Science according to her hometown news paper the Houston Chronicle yet suddenly in 2007 she issued a report titled Global Warming the Settled versus unsettled science (Berger). Eric Berger the Science writer for the Houston Chronicle was shocked by the Senators flip flop but a closer look at the money trail reveals the real story behind her sudden doubts. In 2008 after the report was issued Kay B. Hutchinson received $807,256 from the Oil and Gas Industry and an additional $285,000 from natural gas pipeline companies (Open Secrets ). In 2008, Kay B. Hutchinson was not facing re-election, so why did she receive the sudden influx of donations, was it the report?
Prior his run for the presidency in 2008, Senator John McCain repeatedly stated his concerns regarding climate change. After receiving $3,000,000 from the oil and gas lobby in 2008, Senator McCain’s position changed. The change is demonstrated by his actions and not his words. Within a year of receiving over $3,000,000 from the oil and gas lobby, McCain spent his summer campaigning and fund raising for climate change denying candidates including California gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman (Federal Election Commission). Since 1990 the oil and gas lobby have contributed over $190,000,000 to Republican candidates for the house and senate directly. This figure does not include 529 spending, funding for governors races, presidential campaigns or contributions to Political Action Committees and think tanks. It is important to note that this figure does not include any contributions from oil and gas pipeline companies which are deemed separate for reporting purposes or coal companies, which amount to an additional $75,000,000 to house and senate republicans. Is there some correlation between the republican national committee’s position on climate change and these massive donations? Of course not that would be illegal. Obviously these donations are a result of the positions these carbon friendly candidates take due to the underwhelming quasi-scientific evidence that carbon is not bad for the environment.
In his January 4th, 2005 speech, Senator James Inhofe, then the Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works illustrates his command of the subject of climate change.
”Much of the debate over global warming is predicated on fear, rather than science. I called the threat of catastrophic global warming the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people, a statement that, to put it mildly, was not viewed kindly by environmental extremists and their elitist organizations. I also pointed out, in a lengthy committee report, that those same environmental extremists exploit the issue for fundraising purposes, raking in millions of dollars, even using federal taxpayer dollars to finance their campaigns, said Senator James Inhofe (R) of Oklahoma (Inhofe).**
**Simple fact checking reveals that during the 2004 election cycle the Environmental Lobby donated at total of $671,677 to all candidates combined (Open Secrets ) versus the more than $87,000,000 from the carbon barons to house and senate republicans alone. In 2004 Senator Inhofe raised $4,273,456 from individuals and corporations who are directly tied to the carbon industry. It makes perfect sense for a lobby to spend 8.21% of its total lobbying budget for the entire 2004 election cycle on one Senators vote only if that one Senator happens to Chair the Senate Committee on the Environment, from where he can control the legislative agenda. During the 2008 election cycle with Senator Inhofe no longer the Chair but in the minority and serving as ranking member, his donations from the carbon lobby fell by 90% to $444,900 (Open Secrets ). Today’s climate change deniers and their media wing would have America believe that these facts are merely coincidence. Now let’s examine the second prong of the three pronged carbon baron strategy to control the news and public opinion, the quasi-science.
The carbon baron’s first prong of identifying carbon friendly politicians would be transparent unless it was accompanied by a misinformation campaign. To accomplish their goal the carbon barons devised a two step system to first fund quasi-science that calls climate change into question, and then propagate its message.
The first phase funds the “science” while the second phase serves to reinforce the underlying pre-determined “scientific” message. Namely that global warming is not a threat, not caused by man, and not related in any way to the burning of fossil fuels. This message is amplified by conservative “think tanks” that generate climate change denying op-ed articles which quote the quasi-science reports as gospel and reason to doubt climate change is carbon related. This integrated strategy is designed to give the media wing “credible” source materials for their anti-climate change news reports while simultaneously providing the elected officials in their pockets something to hide behind other than the piles of the carbon baron’s cash.
From the CATO Institute to the Americans for Prosperity the conservative think tanks have editorials flying off the presses reinforcing carbon industry funded science. For each quasi-science report written literally dozens of editorial writers are pre-positioned to amplify the message. Some classic examples are the “Scientific Misconduct: The Manipulation of Evidence for Political Advocacy in Health Care and Climate Policy” by George Avery of the CATO Institute, and of course the ever quoted “What to Do about Climate Change” by Indur Goklany also of the CATO Institute. The first seeks to undermine hard science by pointing to the so called climate gate email scandal and was written by a medical doctor not a climatologist or even meteorologist. While Indur Goklany a statistician and insurance actuary, claims that the loss of 4 to 10% of land mass due to “alleged” rising oceans is not a serious threat to humanity because that land has little value. Of course the merits of these reports would be arguable as neither has been peer reviewed as neither author’s peers write on these subjects, but it’s who they work for that really undermines their papers. The Cato Institute is hardly N.O.A.A. or the Academy of Sciences.
The CATO Institute was founded by the Koch brothers, as was the climate change denying group American’s for Prosperity. Who are the Koch brothers? Charles and David Koch are the new American carbon barons each is worth an estimated $17 billion and together they own the largest privately held oil company in the world with annual revenues in excess of $100 billion dollars. In 2008 the Koch brothers alone donated $20,000,000 to anti-climate change candidates for the U.S. House and Senate. The Koch family has a long and checked history in American political life, their father founded the racist arch conservative John Birch Society. Today the Koch’s along with Exxon Mobile are the largest funders of the climate change deniers (Bogardus).
”Although it is both a top campaign contributor and spends millions on direct lobbying, Koch’s chief political influence tool is a web of interconnected, right-wing think tanks and advocacy groups funded by foundations controlled and supported by the two Koch brothers.”-Center for Public Integrity (Bogardus).
Americans for Prosperity was established in 2004 by David Koch, who is Chairman of the Board of Directors of the AFP Foundation. For each of the three years, from 2005 through 2007, the Koch family foundations contributed more than $1 million to AFP. In 2008, the funding level doubled to $2 million (27% of AFP’s budget), bringing the total 2005-2008 contribution to $5.2 million. Information on Koch family contributions to the AFP 2009 budget is not yet available. In addition, several top level AFP staff are former Koch Industries or Koch Foundation employees; and the Koch brothers fund the placement of summer fellows and associates at AFP (DeMelle).
Unsatisfied by the scientific communities acceptance of the CATO and AFP “scientific works” the Koch brothers have established a new group The Heartland Institute, this institute is specifically charged with producing quasi-science to cloud the public’s perception of the “debate” on climate change. The group even holds an annual International Conference on Climate Change to give the “science” it produces more credibility; the keynote speaker at last year’s conference was none other than our old friend Senator James Inhofe.
Beyond the “science” and think tank reports to gain traction with the general public the carbon barons needed a third prong, a way to fully integrate their comprehensive strategy. The answer was a vertical distribution platform that could reach the masses and a credible financial media group who would reinforce the economic policy of imported oil. Into the breach stepped the modern day version of William Randolph Hearst, Rupert Murdoch, and the Mayor of New York, billionaire financial information broker Michael Bloomberg. Murdoch long recognized as the modern day Hearst is the King of Tabloid journalism. The Koch’s and Bloomberg just happen to serve as board members on each other’s foundations and charities, along with Jeb Bush and a select few conservative political types. Murdoch and several of his NEWS CORP executives sit on the boards of multiple energy companies, and it just so happens that two former Exxon Mobile Chairmen are on the board of Murdoch’s company and foundation. Perhaps this is why Fox News Network is the leading purveyor of faux science and climate change denying punditry; Fox derives more advertising revenue from big oil and coal companies than all other networks combined (Media Matters). Obviously this is a coincidence as no news organization that describes itself as “Fair and balanced” would intentionally mislead the public on such a critical issue.
As for Bloomberg his role is to provide credible “unbiased” economic perspective on the benefits of big oil and coal. Recently a Bloomberg columnist ran a series of articles denigrating the concept of energy independence from an economic perspective, citing the low costs of imported oil and the downside of not importing middle-eastern oil (Bassett). As the importation of oil accounts for two-thirds of our trade deficit and drains $1,000,000,000 a day from the United States, while creating no jobs how is this argument even plausible? It’s not according to Noble Prize winning economist Paul Krugman who cites big oil as a threat to our economy and the planet as a whole. Dr. Krugman cites the scare tactics and greed of the carbon barons as the only rational to continue doing business as usual in his 2009 New York Times op-ed entitled Betraying the planet (Krugman).
No recent administration was as friendly to the carbon barons and hostile to the environment as George W. Bush’s. George W. Bush’s Director of White House Counsel for Environmental Quality was former Koch Industry attorney Elizabeth Stolpe. Prior to being appointed by Bush, Stolpe was under investigation for directing Koch employee’s to dump toxins into the ground water in seven states, while she ran Koch’s environmental policy division, the charges were dropped suddenly when she accepted the policy job within the Bush Administration.
What’s really at stake for the world and those who profit from the coordinated effort to hide the truth? Why all the subterfuge and misinformation to protect a system which is killing the planet? Why do we fuel international terrorism by transferring $1,000,000,000 a day to countries run by dictators who hate us? Why do we as a nation place our national security at risk by subjecting our economy to the whims of a powerful few carbon barons and kings?
The answer is simple, it’s greed. Every day the few who benefit from what is the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of the world, insure that you know nothing about what is happening. According to production reports I have read the King of Saudi Arabia makes $240,000,000 per day as long as oil is above $70 a barrel. You will not find the King on the Forbes list of the World’s Richest People, he doesn’t want you to know that he makes $167,000 per minute, 24hours a day 7 days a week and more every year, all to destroy the planet. All that money while being guarded and secured by American military might. An absolute dictator, his regime routinely decapitates its citizens for minor offenses. His middlemen like the Koch brothers and Exxon-Mobile Corp, are perhaps easier for us to understand. Last year Charles and David Koch brought in $2.1 billion each, for bringing you, the American consumer the oil and gas that you need. The average American family of four lives on $42,000 a year, it would take 50,000 years for the average American family to make what David made last year alone. Fifty-thousand years is nothing, to earn what the King of Saudi Arabia made it would take 2,085,610 years. In other words the King of Saudi Arabia made more than money last year than the entire population of New York City, all eight and one half million of them combined. Can you imagine winning a $240,000,000 Powerball jack pot every single day of your life? What would you do if you did win even once? The King is destroying the world one barrel of oil at a time. With his profits he educates over 300,000,000 students in fundamentalist Muslim schools, (CIA) in fact he has built every Islamic maddrassa in Pakistan and Africa. These are the same schools that turn out terrorists, not one at a time but by the hundreds. The fact is we the American people serve the King of Saudi Arabia. He has loaned us over $1 trillion dollars as he and his investment companies own over $1 trillion of U.S. Treasuries, and this is in addition to the estimated $1,700,000,000,000 in publicly traded securities he controls. His power is limitless his reach global his politics not democratic and his schools create Taliban fighters and al-Qaeda members on a daily basis, he is our friend and ally. He must be because over the course of the past 25 years we the American people have spent over $2,000,000,000,000 defending him from his neighbors and enemies (Pentagon Quadrennial Defense Review). I guess now you know why President Bush was holding his hand.
Food for Fighter Jets! What a shitty idea! Brought to you by the few greedy bastards it will benefit!
Wake up, running cars and planes on food that could have been eaten by one of the 16,000 kids who die every day from starvation is idiotic!
While most of the world’s industrialized nations are modernizing agricultural production methods and encouraging through subsidies greater food crop production rather than the growth of feed stock for livestock, the Unites States is turning food into fuel for automobiles. Even today the Pentagon announced the test flight of an F18 fighter jet which will run on biofuels. While JP4, the current fuel of choice for high performance aircraft is $3.50 a gallon the new biofuels are only $36 a gallon, and require more energy to produce than they are capable of creating. Not only are the biofuels much more expensive but they have the added benefit of taking food from the mouths of starving people. Obviously this stance is unsustainable in the long run and undermines American national security by depriving our nation of the opportunity to aid the starving, thus winning the hearts and minds of a new generation. In addition to the ludicrous biofuels the U.S. Department of Agriculture still pays farmers not to grow crops, in the form of market subsidies to maintain lower food production. These actions and others like them leave the doors open to those who can and will use our actions rather than our words to define us.
Greed has been with humanity from the onset and remains part of the human condition. To address the issue of greed and the divisions it creates will require man to be aware, and the few will not allow awareness. The schools, churches, governments and social movements are all tools of the few to perpetuate the system which perpetuates their greed and power.
The most significant social issue facing the humankind in the 21st century is the intentional division of the masses by the investor class. The perpetuation of the myth that capitalism is good by the capitalist class is baffling. The message that somehow greed is beneficial to mankind is troubling. The evolution of modern society is being held hostage by special interests not only in the United States and the rest of the industrialized world but also in every 3rd world dictatorship. These are the capitalists who bring you wars for another people’s resources, financial inequity to enrich each other and allow famine and epidemics to preserve the bottom line. For a dollar a share they will lay off 100,000 workers and ship the jobs to Mexico, and once Mexico becomes too expensive China and India. Beneath the surface of each and every issue one can raise as a potential social problem runs the current of greed. All the world’s social issues can be traced back to the affects and or byproducts of greed. More money for one means less for another, more food, more liberty, more control, more for one always means less for someone else. Resources are not unlimited the supply is always finite, and control of resources means less for most and much more for the few.
The system exists to benefit the few and is perpetuated by those same few who control what you hear, what you see, what you think and what you learn. The game is rigged, sure you can form a fringe group and make noise but your message will not be heard, your voice will not be allowed to threaten the system which the few control. From time to time one of the few will stand up and point to a lesser issue and cry for your action to help, all designed to divert your attention. You are a pawn, a serf, a minion. As in Rome the masses are distracted by games and entertainment so they do not see the wool in front of their eyes. There is no movement to address the true inequity that unbridled capitalism creates because the few send you messages that you can one of them, just buy a lottery ticket, or work hard come up with the next big idea. The system insures that you’re happy being exploited alongside your friends at the country club, because they show you images of those who are far worse off. This myth of capitalism breads social injustice. Speak out and be jailed challenge the system and be branded a traitor or simply led into the woods with a shovel to dig your own shallow grave accompanied by men who think they are one of the few, minions all.
The impact of media on society
The impact of media on modern society can trace its roots to the inflammatory works of authors Thomas Paine and Jean Jacques Rousseau. In an age where kings ruled every nation on the planet these men authored and published works which changed the course of human events. Faced with execution for crimes against the crown Paine and Rousseau wrote on despite the risks to life and liberty.
We have come a long way since the 18th century from a media stand point no longer is the media merely the printing press with movable type. In the 21st century we have print, television, radio, movies and the internet screaming at us 24hrs a day. We live in an age where a slow speed car chase occurring thousands of miles away masquerades as breaking news. Beamed via billion dollar telecommunications satellites to your television, several experts offer a running commentary of the irrelevant event taking place half a world away. Today’s news and media coverage of world events is fast if nothing else, I mean if a cat is stuck in a tree in central Ohio we will know about it before lunch and before dinner we will have heard from the cats owner, seen the cat’s kittens and heard experts from the ASPCA and Arbor Society debate the value and safety of possible extraction methods.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the world one hundred US and international firebases in Afghanistan have come under intense attack from the Taliban, and in Washington a billionaire CEO of the world’s largest corporation has a senator put an earmark in a spending bill building him a bridge at tax payer expense. (Shah)So who decides what is news and why that darn cat is so important while my friends and your tax dollars aren’t? The media of course, but who are the media exactly and what incentive would they have to steer you away from the real story of the day and onto the poor cat stuck in a tree. The media today are not the hundreds of radio and television stations or the thousands of internet sites or even the production companies who make movies, the media today are in fact only nine international conglomerates, these nine multinationals are not in the news business they are in business period. The boards of directors of these nine multinationals are populated with CEO’s of the worlds other great multinationals, not Walter Cronkite. Firms like Exxon Mobile, General Electric, Microsoft, Archer Daniels Midland and Boeing determine what you see and hear.
In today’s world the classic “Common Sense” would not get a second look at any publishing house, not because they don’t want to publish it, because they can’t, they can’t because of the economics of the marketplace and the ownerships ties to the political powers that ensure their continued monopoly and utter domination of the media. The advertisers cannot be upset, no marketing executive want his or her commercials running after a news story which contains video of US Soldiers being dragged through the streets of Kandahar, so we simply don’t see it. A free press no longer exists in American life, free being the operative word. Opinion pieces are driven by one side of the argument or the other even “factual” reporting is tainted by high powered commercial enterprises in today’s media world. True media and news objectivity no longer exists. Richard Nixon would never have been impeached had he been president within today’s media environment, want proof look at the actions of the last president. Yet, the people are unaware as the media runs headlong in search of the next “cat in a tree” or Britney Spears story under the guise of breaking news. The commercial enterprise that is today’s media is simply that a commercial enterprise. News is a profit center not a public service ,attack the messenger has been replaced by purchase the messenger and shape the news to make your advertisers happy.
Works Cited Shah, Anup. Media Conglomerates, Mergers, Concentration of Ownership. 2nd January 2009. 6th November 2009 .
Reagan’s Missile Defense Triumph by Andrew Nagorski Washington Post
If Ronald Reagan was watching the news from afar last week, he had to be smiling. Not because of President Obama’s decision to abandon the planned deployment of a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. Reagan certainly wouldn’t like the political symbolism of that gesture — walking away from an agreement with two allies in Central Europe and appearing to bend to pressure from the Kremlin. As a partisan fighter, he would be in line with the Republican chorus of disapproval. Link to article http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/24/AR2009092403934.html
You, me, Ted Olson and the pandora’s box of corporate campaign contributions, who cares? You should here’s why…
With the Healthcare debate and the President’s address to the Nation on September 9th, many if not all Americans missed the real breaking news of the day thanks to your local and national broadcast news organizations. So what really happened? Well nothing yet, but what is going to happen will change democracy forever. Based on the oral arguments and the questions posed by the Justices on the United States Supreme Court one hundred and four years of legal precedent is about to go out the window and our elections are never going to be the same again. The case is Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205, seemingly a simple case on its face for a “conservative court” led by a man who must have said Stare decisis one hundred times during his confirmation hearing(Roberts). For all appearences it seems that Justce Roberts and his cohorts have taken the position stare decisis be damned, we are going to toss out over a century’s worth of legal precedents, and allow corporations to be deemed as persons for the purposes of free speech, and having already stated money equals speech, we are about to see unlimited corporate campaign contributions during our elections. This is an absolute subversion of democracy and will in the opinion of many legal experts be the end of free and fair elections in America… “What you talking bout Willis? ” Overreaction, you be the judge.
Lets set the scene; Its October of 2016 and the election cycle is heating up, the two Nominees Bill Gates of the newly renamed Democratic Party sponsored by Micro-soft and Some Oil Company CEO from Texas, Republican sponsored by Exxon, (did I mention hes still the CEO of Exxon Mobile). The two are going head to head on the television with ads running not every few breaks but on every channel all the time like infomercials. Gates’s campaign is funded by Microsoft, so far he has spent $2 billion dollars on advertising alone, he is still losing ground to Exxon’s CEO who is running on a pro-oil platform paid for by Exxon Mobile, the Kingdom Of Saudi Arabia, Aramco (Saudi National OIL Company) and many other oil producers. The promises are flying, free software for all, versus gasoline for a dollar if you vote for Dick… Would this be really different from what we have now? No it’s not. The real difference will come in the legislative process. As bad as things are now with campaign donations, imagine if a corporation could skip the lobbying process all together and just flat out hand $20,000,000 to the head of the committee to write a bill giving them the exclusive contract to supply the military with gasoline, or the exclusive right to supply Medicare supplies, think it can’t happen, you’re wrong it will happen its the natural result of this course of events.
Pandora’s box has been opened and we are about to see what it contains thanks to the Supreme Court hearing the case; Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205. Imagine, what a corporation could do if it had free rein to throw cash around in an unlimited manner? Forget about beating an incumbent in an election without corporate sponsorship, not just donations, true sponsorship, that will be the end of us, stare decisis my ass.
What if idiots didn’t run the world?
Barry Goldwater a true Conservative, these new guys (not so much)
Somewhere along the line, the “conservative” movement lost its way, as an Arizonan I was raised to be self-reliant, independent, and patriotic. As a youngster I had the opportunity to meet Barry Goldwater on several occasions as he lived only a mile or two away from my parents. He was Arizona to the core, a cowboy-poet, a thinker and most of all a man of action, he is known best to most for his Conservative Values “before that meant forcing your religion on other people”, to me his photographs of Arizona are as lasting a legacy as his legislative accomplishments. A complex man and true American Icon, how can the man who stated “I see no problem with gays in the military”, also be the father on Modern Conservatism? Simply put, Senator Barry Goldwater was a man of no contradictions, that’s how, he believed in freedom from government not freedom through government like so many of today’s “conservatives”. After 37 years in the military he would know best if gays in the military were an issue don’t you think. “The big thing is to make this country, along with every other country in the world with a few exceptions, quit discriminating against people just because they’re gay,”. “You don’t have to agree with it, but they have a constitutional right to be gay. And that’s what brings me into it.”-Barry M. Goldwater, Senator, Hero, Patriot. Can you imagine any of today’s politicians who are not gay making this statement? What does this have to do with conservative values, its simple, being conservative means, don’t tell me what I can and can’t do, and I won’t tell you what you can and can’t do, if its not addressed in the Constitution its not addressed.
The fact is we have lost our way and if we don’t find it soon we as a nation are done. I don’t mean vote for Republicans, or vote for this guy because he says he is a conservative, I mean we have to address the issues we are facing. In 2021, we will pay off the first gulf war, and some time after that say 20 years we will have paid off this current conflict. We will be buried in debt from the “great society” programs for all time, and I include George W. Bush’s prescription drug benefit in that list of unconstitutional socialist “great society” programs. He was by no means conservative, he was and remains an idiot! What would Goldwater have done in the last 8 years had he been President from 2001-2009? We can be sure that Iraq would not have happened and that the trillion dollar drug bill for seniors would not have passed, also I am confident that Katrina would have been handled in a more professional manner not by some guy who had only run horse shows before taking the job. Had, 9/11 happened on Barry’s watch Osama Bin Laden would be dead, or worse for his cause, locked up in a jail like a common criminal where he belongs.
‘An American Original’
“A stickler for the Constitution, Mr. Goldwater refused to join the Republicans of the New Right during the 1980s when they began to press for legislation that would limit the authority of the federal courts to curb organized prayer in public schools or to order busing for school integration. ” -Bart Barnes, Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, May 30, 1998; Page A01
Barry Goldwater in his own words,
From his prophetic 1964 speech,(Link above) in which he told the leaders of the Soviet Union that his children would never live under communism, and that their children would live under freedom, to his ground breaking and lasting Goldwater-Nichols Defense Reorganization Act, Barry Goldwater was a man of vision and a patriot.
Now, as a father of three boys all under 18 years of age, I worry about the future of this country, we the people, have entrusted our nation to the hands of idiots and corporate lawyers turned congressmen and Senators. We are swayed by fancy talk and bogus promises into voting for men and women who have a constituency not of “we the people” but of corporate interests. Cash is not free speech, corporate cash is surely not free speech. If a congressman or Senator takes more then $10 dollars from any one person or group he should be prosecuted for corruptionperiod. Return American to the American people, remember for every new law passed their are winners, those who wrote it and paid to have it sponsored, and losers, the rest of us who pay for it and get nothing in return, not even representation. What if Idiots didn’t run the world?
Homeland Security my a@@!
Former Director of Homeland Security (R) Tom Ridge has a new book to sell, and thus he is releasing juicy tidbits of information to the professional media in hopes of hyping the book and creating guest appearance opportunities for himself on TV news shows. I for one, envy the man for his absolutely ridiculous new found honesty. Look, as Director of Home Land Security he told us to buy duct tape and bottled water, assisted in the creation of the colored “threat level” chart, and took a paycheck from you the American Taxpayer, oh and now he wants you to buy his book to discover the truth behind his actions?
Once upon a time I raised my right hand and swore an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States of America from all enemies foreign and domestic, Mr. Ridge has done the same, but I guess when he took the oath it was to protect the party, and the President not the Constitution. That statement may appear harsh to some of you, but I am guessing you have never taken the oath, for if you had sworn to defend the Constitution you would understand what his recent revelations mean. Lets go back to August of 2004, a Decorated Combat Veteran has just won the Democratic nomination for President, and within 12 hours of his acceptance speech, the national threat alert is raised. CNN, and the other media monkeys are all over the series of leaked tips of potential terrorist threats, none of which are valid or even remotely threatening to any of us who grew up practicing duck and cover at school in case of a Soviet Nuclear attack, but the coverage goes on and on. What’s the big deal you say, well historically the Presidential Candidates have enjoyed a bump after a nominating convention, John Kerry not so much as a blip. Why was this the case in 2004, because instead of covering his VP choice, or running segments of his acceptance speech the cable news ran stories about potential subway bombers, and the national threat level being raised! Who raised the threat level, well Tom Ridge did and why did he do it, he says he did it because he was told to by the Office of the President, according to Ridge he was not even present and the National Security Council Meeting where this was discussed, oh nor was the CIA Head George Tenant, so who was and why did they raise the “threat level”? Ridge claims the meeting actually took place in the Vice Presidents Office of all places and no one was invited, but as a good party man he raised the threat level anyway. Now he tells us, what the $%^&?
Do yourself a favor, don’t buy this guys book, just send him the receipt for the duct tape and plastic you bought, or better yet send him the duct tape, COD! And for those of you under 40 yes, we did practice hiding under our desks to avoid being vaporized by Soviet Nukes, I believe Jimmy Carter stopped the practice in 1976 thinking that it was too scary for kids to know that some Russian guy with huge eyebrows, and I mean huge, had 20,000 nuclear missiles pointed at them. The truth of the matter is, the duck and cover drills where not as scary as some idiot getting on TV and telling people to buy duct tape and seal themselves into their homes for no good reason other then to win an election, that is truly scary and a complete subversion of the democratic process. From where I sit Mr. Ridge is a traitor, before the book I thought he was just an guy doing his job, being manipulated by those around him, but not anymore by his own words he was a willing participant, and that is treason.
Did you see the Daily show Health Care Segment? If not watch it on my site.
Covering the news in a satirical manner is what the Daily Show does best. Check the video on the right, in 7 minutes its sums up the Health Care reform debate so well, watch it for yourself. (video is licensed by my site not pirated with a link)
leave a comment