Boehner’s Purge


You might have noticed that my report on the Speaker election process lacked enthusiasm.

Now you know why.

Boehner is moving quickly to purge conservatives from all committees of meaning. He has vowed to cooperate with the White House and Democrats. He has vowed never to shut down government again, no matter how evil, onerous, or destructive of liberty government becomes.

Boehner has gone full native.

That’s a predictable outcome of a failed coup. The conspirators get whacked. Heads are rolling already: From Politco:

The removal of Florida Reps. Daniel Webster and Rich Nugent from Rules was meant as a clear demonstration that what Boehner and other party leaders accepted during the last Congress is no longer acceptable, not with the House’s biggest GOP majority in decades.

Read more:

That’s right. With a majority this big, let’s give Obama everything he wants.

Here’s my favorite line from Politico:

Boehner’s allies have thirsted for this kind of action from the speaker, who say he’s let people walk all over him for too long and is too nice to people who are eager to stab him in the back.

Yeah. Like the President.

While we wait for the great GOP majority to destroy itself, half the Capitol, and the economy, let’s prepare for 2016.

Ted Cruz Just Gave the Perfect Response to Establishment Critics VIDEO

Ted Cruz

The 9 percent who belong to the oligarchical political class hate the rest of us—except when they’re eating from our tables like rabid Vietnamese Potbelly Pigs.

The establishment’s latest target: Texas Senator Ted Cruz.

Fox’s Bret Baier asked Senator Cruz about critics like George Will and Charles Krauthammer who say Cruz doesn’t understand Washington’s rules: Congressional politics is a team sport

I am not trying to play the rules of Washington, because I think Washington is profoundly broken.

The taxi commissions have done everything they can to kill Uber and Lyft,

What we’re trying to do in the political world is very much the same thing [as Uber and Lyft], which is change the means of decision making,take it out of the smoke-filled rooms where decision making is done in Washington between career politicians and lobbyists, and instead empower the people. In my view, the only way we can turn this country around is if the American people rise up and hold every one of us accountable. So I’m not trying to play by the Washington rules.

The Establishment is upset that Ted Cruz had the audacity to question the Constitutionality of Obama’s unconstitutional amnesty order.

Why Ann Wagner Is Wrong to Attack Heritage Action


Accountability? We don’t need no stinking accountability.

No, Ann Wagner didn’t actually say that. But her comments to a 2nd District Republican committee meeting on Tuesday gave at least one attendee the impression that Mrs. Wagner opposes the idea of conservatives holding Congress accountable.

Ann Wagner Attacks the Conservative Heritage Action

Rep. Ann Wagner accused the conservative Heritage Action for America of “pitting Republican against Republican” and “never attacking Dems” at the Republican meeting.

I’d like to remind Mrs. Wagner that Heritage Action keeps score on all members of Congress, not just Republicans. Also, the reason Heritage Action and its Sentinels focus their activism on Republicans is because we know the Democrats are a lost cause. Yelling at Democrats doesn’t do a damn thing. (I have direct experience on this. I co-founded an organization that did nothing but yell at Democrats from 2009 to 2012.)

We don’t pit Republicans against Republicans, Mrs. Wagner; we pit members of Congress against their own principles. We hold people accountable, not to our standards, but to the principles people like you campaigned on.

Heritage Action Advances the Policies of Reagan’s Favorite Think-Tank

While no single institution is the sole judge of what is conservative, the Heritage Foundation comes close. Heritage’s white papers were the foundation of the Reagan Revolution. Here are some examples:

With the arrival of the Reagan administration, the Heritage Foundation and other conservative foreign policy think tanks saw a political opportunity to significantly expand Carter’s Afghanistan policy into a more global “doctrine”, including U.S. support to anti-communist resistance movements in Soviet-allied nations in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. According to political analysts Thomas Bodenheimer and Robert Gould, “it was the Heritage Foundation that translated theory into concrete policy. Heritage targeted nine nations for rollback: Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Iran, Laos, Libya, Nicaragua, and Vietnam“.[5]

— Source: Wikipedia

And from Christian Science Monitor in 1984 writing about Heritage’s 1,100 page “Mandate for Leadership,” which was something like Reagan’s first administration blueprint:

Like a shadow government – but one with considerable clout – the conservative Heritage Foundation is at work throughout the Reagan administration. Its fingerprints can clearly be seen on the administration’s 1986 budget, now emerging from White House deliberations. And its access in recent days to top government officials, including Cabinet secretaries, has been unprecedented for a private organization.

Even the hardest of the hard left found Reagan’s policies looked like legislative or executive execution of Heritage policy papers:

Since the beginning of the Reagan Administration, the Heritage Foundation has had an incredible impact on Republican policies in America. The right-wing think tank founded by Paul Weyrich, Edwin Feulner and Joseph Coors is largely to blame for the conservative state we find the country in today.

And, as Richard Amen wrote on We the People blog:

According to conservative writer William F.Buckley, Jr, Reagan acted upon approximately sixty percent of the three volumes of “Mandates” awaiting him when he took office which is why his Presidency was about sixty percent successful.

It’s safe to say that no other institution or think-tank exercised as much influence over the Reagan Administration as did Heritage. Now why wouldn’t Mrs. Wagner want to touch base with Reagan’s favorite think-tank? That’s exactly the service Heritage Action provides her.

Heritage Action launched in 2010 to help conservative legislators stay true to those first principles. Heritage realized that papers don’t change the world–actions do. But without a leader like Reagan to drive Heritage’s idea into law, its research and policy papers were just Saturday afternoon reading for conservative policy wonks.

Heritage Action’s purpose was to remind self-described conservatives in Washington that we don’t win when we don’t differentiate. And that call to differentiate seems precisely what disturbs Mrs. Wagner about Heritage Action.

Export-Import Bank Is a Silly Hill to Die On

Tell me how Mrs. Wagner differentiates herself from Democrats on Export-Import Bank? Wagner and Democrat Claire McCaskill read from identical talking point memos when they spoke to a St. Louis Public Radio reporter. They both threw out the same laughably false “facts” about Ex-Im and jobs, Ex-Im and “level playing fields.” Ann Wagner asking Heritage to attack Dems on Ex-Im is like a soldier calling for mortar fire on his own position.

Mrs. Wagner continued with some “facts,” like saying Ex-Im “is about 13,000 jobs in district. Jobs in this district. It’s not about Boeing.”

Oh really? Perhaps Mrs. Wagner would show us the research supporting her claim that Ex-Im created 13,000 jobs in her district. Because those would be the only 13,000 jobs Ex-Im created according to a Congressional Research Service report:

A Congressional Research Service report has confirmed that Ex-Im shifts jobs; it does not create them: “Economists generally maintain… that subsidizing export financing does not add to the overall level of economic activity, and subsidizes foreign consumption at the expense of the domestic economy. [Therefore], promoting exports through subsidized financing…will not permanently raise the level of employment in the economy, but alters the composition of employment among various sectors… and performs poorly as a jobs creation mechanism.”

Wagner is also wrong when she tells people, “This is about leveling the playing field in the International arena, and I will always fight for jobs in the district.” Less and 1/3 of Ex-Im’s loans involve competing subsidies from foreign governments. And the largest recipient of Ex-Im loans, Boeing, has stated it doesn’t need Ex-Im.

As I pointed out in an earlier post on the matter, Ex-Im is not a huge program. It is not the worst example of corporate welfare and government interference in free markets. Instead, Ex-Im is an easy win for principled conservatives. A no-brainer that requires no action. It will just go away.

By defending Ex-Im, Mrs. Wagner has telegraphed how she will handle tougher corporate welfare issues. She will always back corporate welfare queens because they will always cry “jobs.” No facts, just slogans. And this is why I am voting for Bill Slantz for Congress on November 4.

I just don’t understand why Mrs. Wagner would choose the Ex-Im hill to die on?

Hey, Kettle: The Pot Is Calling

What’s more disheartening than the made-up facts was Mrs. Wagner’s silly attack on Heritage Action’s motives. Mrs. Wagner told the audience, which included some Heritage donors and Sentinels, “Heritage is just trying to raise money for itself.”


PSYCHOLOGICAL PROJECTION: A psychoanalytical theory, projection is the process whereby one subject believes they see attributes (both good and bad) in another. The theory views this tendency as a defense mechanism whereby unenviable or unpleasant traits, impulses or ideas are attributed to another. In this way, the projector is able to avoid the unpleasantness in themselves.

— Source: PROJECTION from Psychological Dictionary


Psychologists call it projection. In South St. Louis it was simply  “the pot calling the kettle black”.

Mrs. Wagner is one of the best-funded people in the House. She’s raised nearly $2 million in the current cycle despite running unopposed in her primary.

Here’s Ann Wagner’s fundraising vs. the House average:

Ann Wagner raises well more than the House average, yet she accuses a grassroots activist of taking positions for money.

Ann Wagner raises well more than the House average, yet she accuses a grassroots activist of taking positions for money. Source:

Money doesn’t fall into a politician’s lap. She has to work for that money. And she does. Ann Wagner is known as one of the hardest working fundraisers in town. This one and Washington.

While Heritage Action does accept donations, fundraising is not high on its activity list. Accountability is. On that point, Mrs. Wagner seems as ill-informed as she is on the proper role of government and on the “conservative-ness” of the Export-Import Bank.

I realize that Mrs. Wagner has to defend her positions against critics like me. I wish she should do it without the use of fabricated “facts” and psychological projection.

And that, my friend, is why I am not voting for Ann Wagner this time around.


Note: This post has been updated. Poor writing in the earlier version seemed to diminish Ronald Reagan’s presidency. My apologies. It was totally just crappy writing and did not reflect my views. —wth

3 Simple Questions for Chairman Priebus


On Saturday, I raised a concern about Erick Erickson’s handling of Reince Priebus at Erickson’s annual RedState Gathering.

Today, Erick responded to widespread criticism of his decision to protect the GOP Chairman from questions about tactics in the Mississippi Republican Senate Runoff. Here’s the heart of Erickson’s answer:

But there was more to it than me knowing people would be angry about Mississippi. First, many of the people told me what they wanted to ask Reince. Unfortunately, neither Reince nor the RNC had anything to do with the points they wanted to make. They no more believed me on that than they’d believe the Chairman. Had he, like me, denied responsibility to their points, they’d have just been more angry.

If Erickson was serious about putting this issue to bed, he might have identified those points about which the RNC knows nothing. (Although, that could be a very long list.) Instead, Erickson is basically saying, “look, I’d have opened up the mic, but you people wanted to ask stupid questions.”

Let’s put these three questions to Chairman Priebus:

  1. What evidence have you gathered about RNC committeeman Henry Barbour’s involvement in race-bating ads placed before the Mississippi Runoff?
  2. How has that evidence affected your handling of RNC committeeman Ed Martin’s request for investigation and censure of Republicans responsible for those ads?

3. How have you communicated your findings to Ed Martin?

As a reminder, Henry Barbour ran Priebus’s campaign for GOP chairman. And there is an irrefutable money trail from Henry Barbour’s group, Mississippi Conservatives, to the PAC that ran the race-baiting ads. From National Review Online:

As it turns out, Crudup raised all of the $144,685 his PAC took in from exactly one source: Haley Barbour’s political machine. A report filed with the Federal Election Commission reveals that Mississippi Conservatives, the political-action committee founded by the former Mississippi governor and Republican National Committee chairman and run by his nephew, Henry, provided that money to Crudup’s group in four installments. The first, in the amount of $62,685, came on June 10, a week after the race was thrown into a runoff. Cochran and his allies were looking to increase voter turnout across the state, particularly among African Americans and Democrats who had not voted in the June 3 primary.

I won’t insult Erickson’s intelligence by pretending Erick believes what he wrote today. I’m appalled that Erickson would insult ours by writing it.

Why Is Erick Erickson Protecting Reince Priebus?

Reince Preibus at RedState 2014

Call it the hand of God.

I was supposed to go to RedState Gathering this weekend, but things didn’t work out at the list minute. Now, I’m glad I wasn’t there.

Red State Gathering is blogger Erick Erickon’s annual conservative gabfest. This year, it was in Ft. Worth, Texas.

Reince Preibus at RedState 2014

Reince Priebus and Erick Erickson at RedState. Photo by anonymous Tea Partier

Reince Priebus, RNC Chairman, was one of the speakers. Priebus is under heavy pressure from Missouri’s Ed Martin and others to investigate Henry Barbour’s role in political attack ads that accuse the Tea Party of racism. So far, Priebus has blocked any such investigation.

Reince Priebus is running cover for Thad Cochran and Henry Barbour who called you, dear read, racist.

Traditionally, speakers at events like RedState Gathering take questions from the audience. But Erickson saw that Tea Party Patriots were armed with signs and tough questions for the Priebus .

I asked Erickson, via Twitter, why he protected Priebus from questions. Here’s Erick’s response.

Erickson’s answer is nonsense. No, Priebus did not authorize Henry Barbour’s attack on the Tea Party. He is not responsible for Barbour’s actions. 

But Priebus is solely responsible for his own response to irrefutable evidence that Henry Barbour funded the ads. Erickson has made himself culpable in the cover-up by protecting Priebus who is protecting Barbour. (Priebus and Barbour go way back, as we shall see later.) It’s typical Republican Establishment “cover your ass” nonsense.

Erickson has not responded to my follow-up question: 

Priebus is Chairman of the RNC, for God’s sake. He’s in charge. He needs a blogger to protect him from Tea Party Patriots? Give me a break.

Enter Ed Martin, Stage Right

Meanwhile, Missouri GOP Chairman, Ed Martin, has risked his entire political future by filing motions of censure against Henry Barbour and the Mississippi Republicans who shamefully libeled tea partiers, plagiarizing the vilest tactics from the Al Sharpton playbook.

I realize it’s considered bad form to set up a guest for humiliation in some circles. I get that. But if you’re going to allow Priebus to speak, you have to let him feel the heat for his failure to investigate the shenanigans in Mississippi. By blocking the investigation, Priebus is protecting the bad actors and further alienating grassroots conservatives.

Of course, we all know why Priebus won’t investigate Mississippi. As the Spectator pointed out, Henry Barbour and Reince Priebus are old buddies:

Martin’s request for an investigation would be, one thinks, a no-brainer. This is, after all, the party of Lincoln. Race baiting has no place in the Republican Party, which came to be in the first place because of its staunch opposition to slavery.

But there’s a problem: Take a look at this link to a site for a lobbying group called Capital Resources, which includes a bio for one of the group’s partners, the aforementioned Henry Barbour. If you scan down a bit there is a series of bullet points describing Barbour’s background. The very first one reads as follows: “Helped run RNC Chairman Reince Priebus’ campaign for chairman.”

Here’s the most depressing part of this whole sordid story. When faced with the choice of offending the Tea Party or the Establishment, Erickson decided to protect the Establishment.

Maybe Erickson was just being a good and gracious host. That’s what I want to think. But to those of us who’ve been in the streets fighting the establishment, this feels like another sell-out.

Chairman Ed Martin Demands Mississippi Investigation

Chairman Ed Martin

I’m on the road this week, but I’m thrilled to get this email from Missouri GOP Chairman Ed Martin:

Over the past few days, I have reached out to many but not all of you about some of what MissouriChairman Ed Martin Republicans were asking about re Mississippi especially about the racially divisive ads run in support of Senator Cochran.

Many of you gave me good advice, some were silent, and I got lots of input from Mississippi too.  My purpose in this is for us – we the RNC – to lead and help find out exactly what happened and move past it.  I consider this type of leadership central to our role as party leaders.

Some of my discussions were not easy with others being brought in via forwarded emails and some were contentious (with one exchange bordering on threatening) as folks want to move on.  I mean this to be an RNC issue – that we sort out.  But we cannot shy from the truth.

At this point, I am asking Reince to lead us – to appoint a committee of we RNC members to get to the bottom of the facts regarding the racially divisive ads and to report back to us for the August meeting.  I have purposely left the membership of this committee up to Reince so that he can move quickly.

I do not mean for this to be hostile but I do mean this to be about truth-telling.  I hope you will consider supporting my request.

You and I both know that Ed Martin is a stand-up guy. You may not know the pressure the GOP establishment puts on Ed. They didn’t want him as chairman because of actions like this.
Simply put, Ed Martin puts America before the Republican Party, and the Republican Party hates it.
Ed needs our support. The establishment will come at him with knives.
I’m with Ed.

The Masque of the Red Death – American Style


The “Red Death” had long devastated the country. No pestilence had ever been so fatal, or so hideous. Blood was its Avatar and its seal—the redness and the horror of blood. There were sharp pains, and sudden dizziness, and then profuse bleeding at the pores, with dissolution. The scarlet stains upon the body and especially upon the face of the victim, were the pest ban which shut him out from the aid and from the sympathy of his fellow-men.

—Edgar Allen Poe, The Masque of the Red Death

We’re facing a different kind of death—economic death. Self-determination death. Self-ownership death. The world seems to be going up in flames. Ukraine vs. Russia. Syria’s brutal Assad vs. al Qaeda. China vs. Japan and Vietnam. The United States vs. Everyone.



But mostly, the political dichotomy here and around the world is the elites vs. the plebeians.

Martin Armstrong (via

The Guardian reported that some 50,000 people marched in London to protest against austerity. They cried: “Who is really responsible for the mess this country is in? Is it the Polish fruit pickers or the Nigerian nurses? Or is it the bankers who plunged it into economic disaster – or the tax avoiders? It is selective anger.”

In the United States, both the federal government and the states have lost control of our borders. I don’t mean this as hyperbole, as many have over the years. There are literally thousands of destitute children taking over the border states of the US, and no one can stop it. No one. These refugees bring with them disease, poverty, and ignorance. And the President has no clue what to do.

Meanwhile, the world’s economies are facades hiding an empty bank managed by champagne-bathing, corrupt bankers. Congress and the White House and the press and the Fed keep the mask in place.

Yet we all know, deep down, the mask is slipping. Gravity drags the mask down. The banksters sweat a bit more, lubricating the mask and assisting gravity.

And yet on Wall Street the band plays on. The worse the economic news, the higher the market goes. From on Friday:

It was a busy week… Shittiest GDP print in 5 years, dismal consumption data, and European confidence and PMIs plunge (and Japanese macro data just collapsed)

  • JPY’s biggest gain in 14 weeks
  • 10Y Yield’s biggest drop in 6 weeks
  • USD Index worst week in 14 weeks
  • European stock’s worst week in 14 weeks

“Most Shorted” stocks continue to surge back to what looks like a great double top forming (7th week in a row)…

And the market responded with panic-buying to close Friday in the green.

Back to Poe:

But the Prince Prospero was happy and dauntless and sagacious. When his dominions were half depopulated, he summoned to his presence a thousand hale and light-hearted friends from among the knights and dames of his court, and with these retired to the deep seclusion of one of his castellated abbeys.

—Edgar Allen Poe, The Masque of the Red Death

Did he call these people to warn them? To prepare? To train them in the medical arts?

Of course not. He told them buy stocks.

It was towards the close of the fifth or sixth month of his seclusion, and while the pestilence raged most furiously abroad, that the Prince Prospero entertained his thousand friends at a masked ball of the most unusual magnificence.

—Edgar Allen Poe, The Masque of the Red Death

Maybe Edgar Allen Poe saw 2014 coming. And maybe Martin Armstrong sees what lies ahead.

The solutions from politics will always be the same – grab more power. We are in a downward spiral of liberty and how far we go down this path to the future will be determined by the people and if they at least wise up and see this is not class warfare, it is the people against government. This is why I say career politicians are dangerous for they can be bought way too easily as Clinton was to open the flood gates for the bankers.

This is why I now write about the new political dichotomy and what we can about it. And why I’ve lost faith in the GOP’s ability or willingness to stop the red death.

In Virginia, people did wise up–enough to jettison Eric Cantor, who will now work with massive corporations and TBTF banksters and their PACs to destroy David Brat. The GOP Establishment doesn’t want just any Republican economics professor to win—they want their candidates to win. As Mitch McConnell told us, the Republican Party’s only purpose now is to crush the tea party.

A couple of nights ago, I was in my garage putting tools away. A wicked looking black spider ran across the floor right in front of me. We have a Black Widow problem, so I didn’t bother to get the details of this bug. I stepped on it. Then I felt my body shiver as if the temperature had dropped to -5. The spider popped and hundreds of tiny, miniature versions of the spider scurried out from under my topsider. I killed the one and unleashed hundreds. (Others have experienced this freaky phenomenon.)

Maybe the GOP will succeed in crushing the tea party. But we’re like that black spider. Crush one and hundreds run from your shoe.

Let’s hope it’s tea partiers. Here’s Martin Armstrong’s depressing close:

This is not going to end pretty. The question is when does society wake up? Just how high will this price be that we have to pay? They will blame the rich and the idiots will cheer – get them. What will happen when there is no more wealth to hunt? We end up with a communist state by default – no wealth, just career politicians who blame everyone but themselves.

I’m sure my elephant-hat-wearing Republican friends are unhappy with my recent turn toward independence. But saving the Republican Party isn’t my mission. I’m trying to save self-governance. I’m trying to save self-determination. I’m trying to avoid totalitarianism and fascism. I’m trying to destroy the Red Death before it destroys us. And the GOP isn’t helping just now.

And now was acknowledged the presence of the Red Death. He had come like a thief in the night. And one by one dropped the revellers in the blood-bedewed halls of their revel, and died each in the despairing posture of his fall. And the life of the ebony clock went out with that of the last of the gay. And the flames of the tripods expired. And Darkness and Decay and the Red Death held illimitable dominion over all.

—Edgar Allen Poe, The Masque of the Red Death

Tomorrow I plan to profile some candidates you haven’t heard of. You haven’t heard of them because they don’t represent an establishment party. When you vote, I want you to know your choices, not just the choices your establishment overlords want you to know.

The New American Political Dichotomy

2013-07-12 09.27.52

Before we get to politics, I want to tell you about a business exercise.

The Universal Veto Game

2013-07-12 09.27.52

Sometimes my job as a consultant involves helping people decide what to do when no ideas have a consensus. Sure, someone in a hierarchy can dictate terms, but dictated solutions don’t really work in business. Cooperation and collaboration are too important for success, and dictated terms are usually executed half-assed.

So we play this game. It’s called the Universal Veto game.

Everybody in the meeting (usually 15-20 people) writes one project they’d like to do on a 3×5 Post-It note. Then they write another. And another until everybody has 10 notes and 10 pet projects.

Next, each person selects three “cannot live without” projects from his stack and posts those three Post-Its on a wall.

Then, we take 10 minutes to walk along the wall and read all of the projects.

At the end of the 10 minutes, everyone is authorized to remove any Post-Its they don’t like for any reason. Everyone has a veto over every idea.

We usually end up with 3 or 4 Post-Its that no one objects to. At least a few people consider these remaining ideas a top three priority for the company. By focusing on any one of those three projects, management and the project’s champions can count on broad support and no strong opposition.

Problem solved.

Political Dichotomies

Now, imagine if we brought together 15-20 representatives of various “warring” political factions in the USA and played the same game. You’d see Post-Its that say things like “Kill the Rich” and “Outlaw Abortion” and “Ban Guns.” There’d be ideas like a balanced budget amendment, the fair tax, flat tax, and $25 minimum wage.

But there would be a few ideas on that wall of Post-Its, too. “End Crony Capitalism,” “Abolish Corporate Welfare,” “Stop Spying on Americans,” “Audit the Federal Reserve.”

I bet if we brought together hard left Democrats like Elizabeth Warren and hard-right Republicans and Libertarians and Occupy Wall Streeters and Focus on the Family and whoever, those last four ideas would remain.

That’s the new political dichotomy in America. The old left vs. right, Democrat vs. Republican, progressive vs. conservative, atheist vs. evangelical dichotomies aren’t dead–they just don’t matter right now.

Those old dichotomies that you and I grew up fighting don’t matter because none of us is in control of the debate. We’re not allowed to fight our cherished old battles because we’ve lost control of the debate switch.

The new dichotomy in America is Elite vs. Plebeian. It’s the Political Class vs. the Subject Class. And it’s the only dichotomy that matters.

At some point, we are called to fight the battle the new dichotomy poses. That might mean a new party that includes some former enemies. And that new Plebeian party will have a focus as narrow as the Republican Party did when Abe Lincoln was elected. Imagine a platform with these four planks:

  • Crush crony capitalism
  • Abolish corporate welfare
  • End warrantless domestic spying
  • Subject the Federal Reserve to regular public audits

I suspect such a platform would generate broad support. We’d knock off these projects in fairly short order. We’d then deal with the unforeseen consequences of our ideas. (They’ll come. Believe me.)

Then we can go back to our old battles, but those battles will be less bitter because we’ll be fighting against our brothers and sisters in arms.

Challenge Question

Would you tear down any of these those four planks? If so, please tell me why.

Adam Weinstein and His Neo-Nazi Propaganda Machine


“Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”

–President Dwight D. Eisenhower, Farewell Address, 1961

I know. I’m going to get letters. “We don’t reference Nazis, William.”

Yeah, well, when a growing numbers of “respected” writers and scientists preach from Josef Goebbel’s Nazi Propaganda Playbook and Criminal Sentencing Guidelines, I permit myself to call it like it is.

A young man named Adam Weinstein recently called for incarceration of disbelievers in the cult of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW). His argument mirrors the argument Goebbels used in 1930s to quash dissent from eugenics and to take immediate policy actions for the betterment of humanity.

I intend to demonstrate the parallels between the current cult of CAGW, public proponents of aggressive political action in response to their faith in CAGW, and their ideological ancestors of Nazi Germany.

 The Holocaust’s American Roots

We can’t talk about Nazi racial policies without talking about the debunked and discredited scientific consensus around eugenics. According to Wikipedia, Eugenics is:

the belief and practice of improving the genetic quality of the human population.[2][3] It is a social philosophy advocating the improvement of human genetic traits through the promotion of higher reproduction of people with desired traits (positive eugenics), and reduced reproduction of people with less-desired or undesired traits (negative eugenics).

When we think of racial crimes against humanity, genocide, and holocaust, we think of Nazi Germany. But Hitler and Josef Mengele, the most notorious of Hitler’s scientists, relied on the American Eugenics Movement for inspiration, ideas, and legitimacy. Why not? Look at the pantheon of American political, business, and social leaders and institutions who supported eugenics:

  • Woodrow Wilson, President of the United States
  • Margaret Sanger, Founder of Planned Parenthood
  • Theodore Roosevelt, President of the United States
  • H.G. Wells, Author
  • Alexander Graham Bell, Scientist
  • Hermann Joseph Muller, Nobel Laureate
  • Robert Andrews Millikan, Nobel Laureate
  • David Starr Jordan, President of Stanford University
  • The Carnegie Institution
  • Harriman Railroad Corporation
  • The Rockefeller Foundation

Not to mention prominent British thinkers:

  • John Meynard Keynes
  • George Bernard Shaw

What might eugenics look like in practice? We don’t have to guess. From the same Wikipedia article:

American William Goodell (lived from 1829 to 1894) advocated castration and spaying of the insane.[6] Mortality rates from “Battey’s operation”, the surgical removal of healthy ovaries, was as high as one in five deaths at the time, but the surgery kept being performed.[7]

Francis Galton, a distant relative of Charles Darwin, founded eugenics in the 1860s, but eugenics floundered until picked up and dusted off by American academics and politicians in the 1900s. Stanford president David Starr Jordan turned on the whole academic, progressive, do-gooder world with his 1902 article, Race of a Nation.

Most states in the US passed eugenics laws beginning in the 1920s. In a famous eugenics Supreme Court case, Beck v. Bell, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes defended the practice by writing:

It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind… Three generations of imbeciles are enough.

Imbeciles of the world, UNITE!

Today, CAGW skeptics find difficulty getting published or winning faculty seats in universities. Likewise, scholars who opposed or questioned eugenics were shunned in the 1920s and 1930s. America’s major universities, its most respected business leaders and institutions, its dominant politicians, its newspaper editors, and its state legislators considered anti-eugenicists crackpots—possibly the sort of feeble-minded imbeciles the enlightened progressives were trying to exterminate. Speaking out against eugenics was tantamount to volunteering  as subjects for scientific human experimentation. As Hans Schantz writes on the technology blog AetherCzar:

Eugenics supporters advocated immediate and sweeping actions to keep society from being overwhelmed by the higher birth rate of social undesirables. More than thirty states in the U.S. had compulsory sterilization for certain individuals aimed at keeping undesirables like mental patients, “imbeciles,” and criminals from polluting the genetic pool. [emphasis added]

There was no to time to waste! The science of the day was overwhelming and clear. Anyone who opposed eugenics was opposed to civil society and, thus, an existential threat to humanity. To the planet! To God and His angels in Heaven.

“Kill the heathens!”

Think American ingenuity would stand by while Hitler showed the world how to identify and round up undesirables? Think again, you doubter of American Excellence:

The Harriman railroad fortune paid local charities, such as the New York Bureau of Industries and Immigration, to seek out Jewish, Italian and other immigrants in New York and other crowded cities and subject them to deportation, trumped up confinement or forced sterilization. [source]

Somehow, the Hennessys  slipped that noose, escaping to the yay-hoo world of Middle America where highfalutin ideas like eugenics hadn’t yet arrived. (Washington University was, after all, was only 50 years old when the Harrimans were rounding up the Hennessys and Harrigans in New York City.)

In 1914, Harry H. Laughlin published a study with recommendations for the final solution to the problem of Jews, Italians, Irish, Emancipated Negroes, and other feebleminded peoples under the pithy title, Preliminary Report of the Committee of the Eugenic Section of the American Breeder’s Association to Study and to Report on the Best Practical Means for Cutting Off the Defective Germ-Plasm in the Human Population. (I’m guessing he got paid by the word.) The link takes you to a PDF of the entire document, which pairs well with a medium-rare filet and a 1989 Russian River Valley Hemlock. I’ll treat you only to the table of contents for section 3, “Suggested Remedies”:

  • Life Segregation
  • Sterilization
  • Restrictive Marriage Laws and Customs
  • Eugenical Education
  • Systems of Matings Purporting to Remove Defective Traits
  • General Environmental Betterment
  • Polygamy
  • Euthanasia
  • Neo-Malthusianism
  • Laissez-Faire

In the work, Laughlin praised Spartan mothers for drowning their weaker offspring, but stopped short of calling for mass extermination of America’s Least Wanted. A few years later, though, American eugenicists were calling for stronger action:

At the First National Conference on Race Betterment, University of Wisconsin eugenicist Leon J. Cole lectured on the “dysgenic” effects of charity and medicine on eugenic progress. He made a clear distinction between Darwin’s concept of natural selection and the newer idea of simple “selection.” The difference, Cole explained, “is that instead of being natural selection it is now conscious selection on the part of the breeder.…Death is the normal process of elimination in the social organism, and we might carry the figure a step further and say that in prolonging the lives of defectives we are tampering with the functioning of the social kidneys!”

While American eugenicists sorted out the thorny issue of whether to get on with killing the unwanted or if regular beatings would suffice, the American movement developed a big fan across the Atlantic. New York Times best-selling author, Edwin Black, describes the fan mail a young Austrian sent to two prominent American eugenicists:

America had established the value of race and blood. In Germany, the concept was known as Rasse und Blut. Yet the catch phrase was developed by David Starr Jordan, the racist president of Stanford University. U.S. proposals, laws, eugenic investigations and ideology were not undertaken quietly out of sight of German activists. They became inspirational blueprints for Germany’s rising tide of race biologists and race-based hatemongers, be they white-coated doctors studying Eugenical News and attending congresses in New York, or brown-shirted agitators waving banners and screaming for social upheaval in the streets of Munich.

One such agitator was a disgruntled corporal in the German army. He was an extreme nationalist who also considered himself a race biologist and an advocate of a master race. He was willing to use force to achieve his nationalist racial goals. His inner circle included Germany’s most prominent eugenic publisher. In 1924, he was serving time in prison for mob action. While in prison, he spent his time poring over eugenic textbooks, which extensively quoted Davenport, Popenoe and other American raceological stalwarts. Moreover, he closely followed the writings of Leon Whitney, president of the American Eugenics Society, and Madison Grant, who extolled the Nordic race and bemoaned its corruption by Jews, Negroes, Slavs and others who did not possess blond hair and blue eyes. The young German corporal even wrote one of them a fan letter.

In The Passing of the Great Race, Madison Grant wrote: “Mistaken regard for what are believed to be divine laws and a sentimental belief in the sanctity of human life tend to prevent both the elimination of defective infants and the sterilization of such adults as are themselves of no value to the community. The laws of nature require the obliteration of the unfit and human life is valuable only when it is of use to the community or race.”

One day in the early 1930s, AES president Whitney visited the home of Grant, who was at the time chairing a eugenic immigration committee. Whitney wanted to show off a letter he had just received from Germany, written by the corporal, now out of prison and rising in the German political scene. Grant could only smile. He pulled out his own letter. It was from the same German, thanking Grant for writing The Passing of the Great Race. The fan letter stated that Grant’s book was “his Bible.”

The man writing both letters to the American eugenic leaders would soon burn and gas his name into the blackest corner of history. He would duplicate the American eugenic program—both that which was legislated and that which was only brashly advocated—and his group would consistently point to the United States as setting the precedents for Germany’s actions. And then this man would go further than any American eugenicist ever dreamed, further than the world would ever tolerate, further than humanity will ever forget.

The man who sent those fan letters to America was Adolf Hitler.

Hitler’s infatuation with American science was a mutual admiration society.  By 1935, American eugenics found its perfect, if lethal, advocate.

The Scientific Consensus of 1935

“To that great leader, Adolf Hitler”

–American eugenicist Clarence G. Campbell, 1935 Population Congress in Berlin

Scientific consensus is nothing new. Numerous hypotheses have earned a consensus of interested scientists. Usually, consensus involves data-driven  hypotheses of large systems that are not easily subjected to laboratory tests.

Many scientific consenses are wrong. Long held but recently debunked scientific myths include:

  • Eggs cause heart disease (they don’t)
  • Saccharin causes cancer in humans (it doesn’t)
  • Dietary fiber reduces chances of colon cancer (it doesn’t)
  • Sustainable cold fusion is just around the corner (it isn’t)
  • Coal-fire electric plants cause deforestation through acid rain (they don’t)
  • Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) deplete the ozone layer (they don’t)

Six scientific consensuses you’ve learned about, all which were dead wrong or dramatically overstated by breathless, emotionally blinded advocates. All lies or errors backed, not by some mob of Walmart shoppers, but by United States Surgeons General, television doctors, and leading climate scientists. Just as eugenics was once the scientific consensus accepted without question by Alexander Graham Bell, Woodrow Wilson, John Maynard Keynes, the faculty of Harvard, and the president of Stanford University, catastrophic anthropogenic global warming is, today, accepted without question by Al Gore, Barack Obama, the faculty of Harvard University, and the president of Stanford. And many more.No, they weren’t blithering idiots. And they didn’t seek to do evil. They were blinded by cognitive biases and faulty heuristics into accepting as truth a flawed prescription for the betterment of humanity.

In other words, great scientists are just as susceptible to falling in love with an error as is the average Walmart shopper.

So go ahead and spray some CFC-infused saccharin sweetener on your whole egg cheese omelet while basking in the glow of your coal furnace. Just don’t let the miseducated paragons of climate and health virtue catch you, or you’ll be fed to Clarence Campbell’s lethal chamber. (Burning human flesh is, no doubt, a form of renewable green energy eligible for tax deductions.)

But enough of our modern pseudo-plagues.

In the early 20th century, population and social problems dominated studies of human conditions and societal extinction, much as CAGW dominates today. As with CAGW, scientists interested in these human problems reached a consensus on the cause and final solution to problems of population, poverty, inherited disease, racial capacities, crime, and feeblemindedness. The scientific and political consensus was called eugenics:

At the peak of its popularity, eugenics was a widely held scientific consensus with broad social support. It reinforced existing prejudices and racism. More competent and rigorous analysis has shown the sweeping claims of eugenics to be grossly overstated, if not completely wrong. But, eugenics led to the implementation of far-reaching policies and practices that in the fullness of time we have come to deeply regret. [emphasis added]

–Hans Schantz, AetherCzar, July 1, 2010

Nazi Germany, eager for international support for its racial policies, looked to the international scientific community for support. From The Nazi Connection: Eugenics, American Racism, and German National Socialism by Stefan Kühl:

In the summer of 1934, one and a half years after the Nazis came to power in Germany, the International Federation of Eugenic Organizations (IFEO), meeting in Zurich, passed a resolution to which Nazi propaganda frequently referred in order to illustrate the international acceptance of their race policies. In this unanimously [consensus!] passed resolution . . . the IFEO state that, despite all differences in political and social outlooks, the organization was “united by the deep conviction that eugenic research and practice is of the highest and most urgent importance for the existence of civilized countries.” It recommended that all governments “make themselves acquainted with the problems of heredity, population studies, and eugenics.” It stated that eugenic principles should be adopted as state policies “for the good for their nations . . . with suitable regional modifications.”

Replace “IFEO” with “IPCC” and “eugenics” with “global warming,” that paragraph might well appear in tomorrow’s Washington Post. Here, I’ll do it for you:

In the summer of 2010, one and a half years after the Obama administration came to power in the United States, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), meeting in Brussels, passed a resolution to which American propaganda frequently referred in order to illustrate the international acceptance of their climate policies. In this unanimously passed resolution . . . the IPCC stated that, despite all differences in political and social outlooks, the organization was “united by the deep conviction that climate change research and practice is of the highest and most urgent importance for the existence of civilized countries.” It recommended that all governments “make themselves acquainted with the problems of greenhouse gasses, global warming studies, and climate regulation.” It stated that climate change principles should be adopted as state policies “for the good for their nations . . . with suitable regional modifications.”

International consensus on bad science finds fertile soil in the minds of madmen. As we saw at the end of the previous section, Adolf Hitler fell in love with the science of eugenics and the political case eugenics provided. Hitler’s dark obsession with Jewish treachery against Germany was mere prejudice in Hitler’s mind—until American scientists armed his mind with scientific proof.

When Hitler seized control of the German government, he made eugenics the official state policy. Racial laws and regulations, academic regulations, racial propaganda, and discrediting of “deniers” were all justified by the scientific consensus that had formed around eugenics and metastasized to every country in the industrial world.

German racial hygienists and Nazi race politicians viewed this resolution as confirmation of German and American dominance in the eugenics movement and as international approval of the 1933 German sterilization law. . . . Nazi racial hygienist Heinz Kürten, who led a Committee for the Implementation of the National Revolution with the goal of forcing Jews out of medical positions in Germany, explained that the conference had shown eugenicists from all over the world that the implementation of comprehensive eugenics measures in Nazi Germany represented an important step in global eugenics. [source]

At the next eugenics conference in Germany, the world toasted its new, global, scientific consensus for the preservation of civilized society. Again, from The Nazi Connection:

The 1935 International Congress for Population Science in Berlin marked the apex of international support for Nazi race policies and represented a great success for the Nazi race propaganda machine. This Congress assembled prominent eugenicists, anthropologists, population scientists, and geneticists from all over the world. German racial hygienists constituted the largest group of participants, delivering 59 of the 126 presentations. [source]

How could mere science launch a holocaust? Because the scientists who defended their non-scientific consensus used existential fear-mongering to promote and defend their work. Pro-eugenics scientists, politicians, and philosophers locked themselves into a logic-tight echo chamber and launched the world on the fast track toward the Holocaust.

The Nazis’ Scientific Justification for Eliminating Dissenters

Once Hitler’s dictatorship seized power, it really didn’t need a scientific consensus to implement its racial policies. But the scientific consensus behind eugenics didn’t hurt.

Hitler’s dictatorship, backed by sweeping police powers, silenced critics of Nazi eugenics and supporters of individual rights. After all educational and cultural institutions and the media came under Nazi control, racial eugenics permeated German society and institutions. Jews, considered “alien,” were purged from universities, scientific research institutes, hospitals, and public health care. Persons in high positions who were viewed as politically “unreliable” met a similar fate [source].

Few could argue that Hitler’s purge was anti-scientific. After all, a review of the world’s scientific journals of 1935 showed the overwhelming majority of published studies affirmed the validity of eugenics and the need for society to rid itself of undesirables. As Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, “Three generations of imbeciles are enough.”

Even though Hitler didn’t need anyone’s permission to silence critics of eugenics, he justified the purge:

  1. Eugenics is the scientific consensus
  2. Eugenics proves that bad breeding weakens the race
  3. Dissenters seek to block implementation of our science-based policies to save the race
  4. Therefore, dissenters are an existential threat to humanity

Who wouldn’t want to silence an existential threat to humanity? To argue against Hitler’s racial purity laws was to argue for human suffering, misery, and eventual extinction. Scientists and profiteers of human suffering are despicable. They should pay for their crimes, and they should not be allowed to pollute the minds of people unfit to form a sound scientific judgment on such complex matters. That’s what we have scientists for, right?

Once a madman’s aims seem justified by a scientific consensus, Katy bar the door.

Parallels Between Eugenicists and Modern CAGW Proponents


Why do CAGW evangelists call skeptics “deniers?” Probably, because they want to link skeptics with Holocaust deniers. More than probably. CAGW-ist Nick Cohen says CAGW skeptics are exactly like Holocaust deniers—only worse:

And please, can I have no emails from bed-wetting kidults blubbing that you can’t call us “global warming deniers ” because “denier” makes us sound like “Holocaust deniers”, and that means you are comparing us to Nazis? The evidence for man-made global warming is as final as the evidence of Auschwitz. No other word will do. [emphasis added]

Not all CAGW proponents like the term denier. Joe Romm, for instance, cringes at the term, he says, because he lost family in the Holocaust.

Since I lost many relatives in the Holocaust, I understand all too well the unique nature of that catastrophe. The Holocaust is not an analogue to global warming, which is an utterly different kind of catastrophe, and, obviously, one whose worst impacts are yet to come.

Now, that we understand that CAGW evangelists use the term “denier” with a malicious purpose, we can return to our friend Adam Weinstein. And thank him for opening our eyes. My eyes, at least.

Until I read his Gawker rant, I laughed off the idea of jailing CAGW “deniers.” I’d scanned the stories about some third-rate philosophy professor wanting to round up “deniers” into concentration or re-education camps or whatever. I might even have tweeted to a link to one of these stories, but I didn’t take it seriously. Too often, political activists on all sides promote crackpot ideas by venting their outrage at an opponent’s idiotic ideas. I’m guilty, but I’m trying to reform.

I began reading Adam Weinstein’s article on my iPhone as the automated car wash whirred and hissed around me. Nothing like white noise of a car wash to kick off some premium lateral thinking. I can’t tell you exactly which sentence or paragraph released the memory in mind, but somewhere early—somewhere between Applying Pre-soak and Power Wash and long before Clear Coat Enhancer—Mr. Weinstein’s logic for jailing CAGW skeptics took on an eerie German accent. Perhaps it was his opening syllogism.

Man-made climate change happens. Man-made climate change kills a lot of people. It’s going to kill a lot more. We have laws on the books to punish anyone whose lies contribute to people’s deaths. It’s time to punish the climate-change liars [source].

As syllogisms go, Weinstein’s is pretty weak. He probably didn’t mean to form a syllogism, as the Nazi propagandists did in the 1930s. But it was a syllogism, nonetheless. The rest of Weinstein’s argument builds on this initial logic: a) CAGW is undeniable and b) CAGW kills people and c) knowingly making statements that get people killed is a crime, therefore d) we must rid society of those who get people killed by denying CAGW.

Like the Nazi’s syllogism, the CAGW syllogism relies on your accepting the premises. Mr. Weinstein and Mr. Cohen accept as established that a) human activity is the primary cause of climate change over the past century and b) continued human-caused climate change will be catastrophic. But anyone with even scant knowledge of science knows that neither a) nor b) can be proven. Statistics 101 teaches that causation cannot be determined by analysis alone. Causation requires a controlled experiment in which the investigator controls all the independent variables. Obviously, no one can control — or even reasonable catalog — all of the variables affecting earth’s climate. No responsible person even claims to know how to weigh the variables we suspect contribute to climate. And no climate model has ever reliably predicted future climate changes.

What Mr. Weinstein advocates, though, is not a closer examination of the science he believes. To the contrary, Mr. Weinstein hopes to use the criminal justice system to prevent further inquiry. Mr. Weinstein believes it’s time to do what the Nazi’s did to eugenics “deniers.”

Let’s pretend Mr. Weinstein’s hopes come to fruition and look backward. In this scenario, a passaged quoted earlier in this post might be edited and reused:

Weinstein’s dictatorship, backed by sweeping police powers, silenced critics of American climate policy and supporters of individual rights. After all educational and cultural institutions and the media came under Weinstein’s control, CAGW permeated American society and institutions. Skeptics, considered “deniers,” were purged from universities, scientific research institutes, hospitals, and public health care. Persons in high positions who were viewed as politically “unreliable” met a similar fate [source]

Both eugenicists in Nazi Germany and CAGW alarmists today demand an end to inquiry and questioning of their beloved scientific consensuses.

Germany of the 1930s accepted that eugenics was settled science and complied. Many, if not most, Germans helped tamp down what they believed to be dangerous deviations from the accepted principles. Dissenters were arrested, or worse.

Now, Mr. Weinstein, an associate professor of philosophy, and others want the United States to follow Nazi Germany’s prescription for precisely the same disease: an existential threat to society and to the human race.

Weinstein isn’t kidding. Neither was Goebbels.  So what would Fuhrer Weinstein do?

CAGW Proponents Final Solution to the CAGW Denier Question

Earlier, we saw the list of remedies for the problem of undesirables propounded by Harry Laughlin in1914. Those remedies included forced sterilization, post partem murder of deformed or potentially deformed children, state laws controlling who may marry whom, and even euthanasia of undesirables.

When Hitler enacted his racial policies in Germany, American eugenicists–the Michael Manns of their day and cause–rejoiced.

Edwin Black recounts the story of a California eugenicist who gushed over the fact that Hitler was putting the movement’s ideas into practice:

“You will be interested to know,” Goethe’s letter proclaimed, “that your work has played a powerful part in shaping the opinions of the intellectuals behind Hitler in this epoch-making program. Everywhere I sensed that their opinions have been tremendously stimulated by American thought, and particularly by the work of the Human Betterment Foundation.

Human betterment, indeed. 

Again, consider that eugenicists dominated scientific journals of the 1930s, just as CAGW believers dominate today’s. The precepts of eugenics convinced the US Supreme Court and many inferior courts, not to mention over 30 state legislatures. In 1935, eugenics was as accepted as man-made climate change is today. Advocates of eugenics policies believed that the human race was doomed unless their policies became law. They saw their battle for centralized breeding and culling of the human race as a life or death struggle. Their science was every bit as sound as Michael Mann’s. And their supporters were every bit as serious about quashing dissent as Adam Weinstein.

So what are Mr. Weinstein’s suggested remedies for the final solution to the climate change question? I’ll let him answer:

I’m talking about Rush and his multi-million-dollar ilk in the disinformation business. I’m talking about Americans for Prosperity and the businesses and billionaires who back its obfuscatory propaganda. I’m talking about public persons and organizations and corporations for whom denying a fundamental scientific fact is profitable, who encourage the acceleration of an anti-environment course of unregulated consumption and production that, frankly, will screw my son and your children and whatever progeny they manage to have.

Those malcontents must be punished and stopped. [emphasis added]

But how? Under what laws would we round up and punish the “deniers?”

Under the same laws Italian courts used to punish six scientists who failed to warn the public about an earthquake before it happened!

The scientists weren’t convicted because they failed to predict an earthquake; no one can make such a prediction with reliable precision. But they were convened to study a series of tremors the week before the quake, and tacitly signed off on a government official’s public message that “the situation looks favorable” and residents should chill out with some wine.

Please don’t miss Mr. Weinstein’s implication here. Scientists should not form independent judgments based on the information available. Instead, in Mr. Weinstein’s world, scientists must conclude what he wishes them to conclude. The Italian scientists should not have used their own best judgment, but the judgment Weinstein and some associate professor of philosophy advanced–in hindsight.

To his credit–or perhaps as evidence of his disregard for individuals–Mr. Weinstein is not yet ready to round up the masses:

Let’s make a clear distinction here: I’m not talking about the man on the street who thinks Rush Limbaugh is right, and climate change is a socialist United Nations conspiracy foisted by a Muslim U.S. president on an unwitting public to erode its civil liberties.

You all know that man. That man is an idiot. He is too stupid to do anything other than choke the earth’s atmosphere a little more with his Mr. Pibb burps and his F-150’s gassy exhaust. Few of us believers in climate change can do much more—or less—than he can.

So us Walmart shoppers are safe. For now. Until we demand that Mr. Limbaugh be released from his prison cell.

At the start of the eugenics movement’s push toward the Holocaust, the Weinsteins of the time were more accommodating, too. Laughlin would let those who survived birth live in peace–so long as peace excluded having a family. Three generations of imbeciles are enough, after all.

As we’ve seen, though, activists who believe their cause is a life or death for the human race rarely settle for silencing critics and expunging universities of skeptical professors. At some point, the risk to humanity becomes too great to tolerate even the F-150 drivers and Mr. Pibb belchers. At some point, the Weinsteins of the world reluctantly call for lethal chambers to humanely free society of its existential threat.

From rounding up dissident scientists and pundits, it’s short ride to the concentration camps.


I am sure Adam Weinstein is a fine gentleman. I’m sure he’ll be offended by my comparing his call for silencing CAGW skeptics to the Nazis silencing eugenics skeptics. He might even be offended by the comparison between himself and American eugenicists of the 20th century.

Look, I’m not calling Weinstein a Nazi. I’m calling him a coward. An intellectual coward. A defender of a faith so fragile that challenges must be put down with weapons, handcuffs, and internment camps.

Mr. Weinstein wants a dictator to protect his beliefs from challenges. He wants protection from ideas and words he doesn’t like. He’s asking you, my brothers and sisters, to surrender your free thought and free speech to some all-knowing, all-seeing mastermind. He’s asking for a dictatorship of scientists he believes.

Mr. Weinstein is not a scientist. He believes scientists he chooses to believe. He has that right. For now.

Under his own rules, he would be subject to arrest were the scientific consensus on global warming to shift, as it did with eugenics. Under Weinstein’s plan for thought-purity, dissenters go to jail. Is Mr. Weinstein prepared to go to jail for his climate beliefs?

I am very wary of beliefs that cannot be questioned. History shows that beliefs protected from examination are not protected because they are strong, but because they are weak. Too weak to withstand even mild scrutiny.

Refusing to consider the possibility that they might be wrong leads men to horrible crimes. Hitler, Goebbels, Laughlin, Campbell, Goethe, and all the other eugenicists were as certain of their faith in the science of eugenics as Mr. Weinstein is certain of his faith in man-made global warming. Eugenicists were so convinced of their beliefs that they stopped questioning themselves and prohibited others from questioning, too.

I don’t think Weinstein is evil. I do think he has opened the door and invited the devil in for a cold beer and pizza. Adam Weinstein is the kind of man who never questions his own convictions. Neither did Hitler. Nor does Michael Mann.

Holocausts are never perpetrated by men of weak of conviction.

This report is cross-posted from  You can download a PDF of this report here.

Why I Expect Much More of Republicans on Obamacare


Sam Adams and friends risked their lives in the commission of a felony in their outrage over government overreach.

That was the Boston Tea Party.

Look at us now! People furious with me for going after Senator Roy Blunt. I went after him because he announced he will vote for cloture knowing full well that cloture give Harry Reid his only chance to strip the House’s Obamacare defund language from the continuing resolution. Without cloture, the Democrats have to negotiate. With cloture, they can run roughshod of the Republicans.

I won’t back down because I demand more of my Republican representatives than I expect from Democrats.

Why do I expect more from Republicans?

Because I bought into the Republican notion that the party stands for courage and freedom. I still believe that within the GOP lies the American Ideal. And I’m not ready to give that up.

It is our birthright to expect a lot our elected leaders. Look what we expect from our doctors, our teachers, our inventors, scientists, engineers, artist, actors, entrepreneurs, and managers.

I still believe what General Patton told the Third Army on June 5, 1944:

When you, here, everyone of you, were kids, you all admired the champion marble player, the fastest runner, the toughest boxer, the big league ball players, and the All-American football players. Americans love a winner. Americans will not tolerate a loser. Americans despise cowards. Americans play to win all of the time. I wouldn’t give a hoot in hell for a man who lost and laughed. That’s why Americans have never lost nor will ever lose a war; for the very idea of losing is hateful to an American.

It is in our history to demand exceptional courage, commitment to principle, selflessness, statesmanship, responsible risk, and bold action from the people we elect. If we expect it of our enlisted personnel and draftees, we sure as hell should demand it from exalted Senators.

Of course, I’m not stupid enough to believe we won’t make mistakes. Yes, we’ll elect people who fail to live up to our admittedly high standards.

And we put up with human flaws. We should. We just won’t tolerate self-serving surrender.

I don’t expect perfection from anyone. I firmly believe what Peter Drucker said: people of great strength are also people of great weakness.

I might be the exception. I have remarkably deep and refined weaknesses that aren’t balanced with any notable strengths. But that’s my problem. And my family’s, I guess.

When we send people to Washington, though, as our representatives in government, we have every right–and a duty–to expect that their strengths be principle, courage, and boldness at critical moments in human history.

We are standing on the doorstep of history. Without courageous action, everything will change. For the worse. The American Era teeters.

This is not the moment for slick gimmicks. This isn’t the time to vote for Obamacare before you vote against it.

This is the moment to risk your career for the country if you are are Republican Senator or Representative.

This moment.

I would hate to be a Republican Senator today. I would hate the burden of history on my shoulders. Looking across America from Washington would buckle my knees. I break a cold sweat just thinking about such responsibility.

And I can only hope and pray that I would do the right thing if I were there. Nothing in my character or experience convinces me I would.

I can tell you, though, I wouldn’t relish doing what Ted Cruz is doing right now. I wouldn’t willingly trade places with Mike Lee. Or Roy Blunt.

And if, God forbid, I woke up tomorrow a US Senator from Missouri, and if that cloture vote stared at me while Senators Cruz and Lee stood and fought, I would pray that this cup would pass me by.

Left to my own devices, I am too weak to do the right thing. I know I am.

But I would not be alone.

I would be nothing more than the embodiment of you, of your courage. Of your hopes and prayers. I would be an animated vessel of the Marines at Iwo Jima, Washington at Valley Forge, and Reagan at Reykjavik.

As unworthy and unfit for such a job as I am, I’d forget my feeble courage and let theirs flow through me. I’d know the fate of the American experiment wasn’t really on my shoulders, but on the boundless courage of those remarkable people who faced greater fears than I could imagine — and soldiered on.

In America, the highest rank of society is citizen. Senator is down below school boards, town councils, and State Reps. As long as the people are behind me, I don’t need my own courage; they’ll lend me theirs. And if God would not take that cup from me, He’d send me whatever I needed to do my job. If I would only let Him.

At least, I pray I’d do so.

For weeks, you have lent your courage to Republican Senators. Millions of petition signatures. Thousands upon thousands of phone calls and office visits, emails, letters. You gave them your strength and a simple instruction: expend every drop of your power as a citizen and a Senator to stop this monstrosity of a law.

So far, three Republican Senators — McConnell, Cornyn, and Blunt — have closed their hearts and minds to the courage and strength you sent their way. They tried to stare down history with only the meager courage of a single human being. They tried to go it alone. And they flinched.

I’m not angry at Roy Blunt for his cloture vote. I’m disappointed that he wouldn’t channel our power to save America.

I don’t want to vote for Superman. I want to vote for simple people humble enough to channel and use the power we willingly lend them to do the right thing.

At least when the republic hangs in the balance.


Evolution of Government

  1. People are natural creatures.
  2. People were created without earthly masters.
  3. People are born free to choose.
  4. People invented government.
  5. Some people created private government by suppressing others.
  6. Some people created public government through voluntary cooperation with others.
  7. Public governments rule people.
  8. Public government serve people.
  9. Public governments foster human achievement.
  10. Private governments suppress human achievement.
  11. Private governments tell people what they can do.
  12. Public governments do what people allow.
  13. Private governments seek to maximize the power of the ruling class.
  14. Public governments seek to maximize the power of the people.

Once evolved, private and public governments become a series of contrasts.


Private government try to keep people equally constrained.

Public governments try to keep people equally free.



Private governments distribute limited wealth efficiently.

Public governments unleash unlimited wealth.



Private governments manage shrinking economies.

Public governments promote growing economies.



Private governments see money as a weapon.

Public government treat money as a tool.



Private governments put efficiency above freedom.

Public governments put freedom before efficiency.



Private governments manage religion.

Public governments respect religion.



Private governments seek two classes: a ruling class and servant class.

Public governments leave people to classify themselves.



Private governments limit what can be said.

Public governments limit what cannot be said.



Private governments control economic transactions.

Public governments foster economic transactions.



Private governments list permitted behaviors; everything else prohibited.

Public government list prohibited behaviors; everything else is permitted.



Private government is the top of the hierarchy.

Public government is the bottom of the hierarchy.



Private governments define and regulate families.

Public governments serve families.


Private governments protect the government from themselves.

Public governments protect people from criminals and invaders.



Private governments define happiness.

Public government promote happiness.



Private governments exist for the happiness of the government.

Public governments exist for the happiness of the people.



1.  Would you rather live with a private or a public government?

2.  Do you now live in a private or a public government?