Top Science Panel Caught in Another Global Warming Data Fraud

By John O’Sullivan  Wednesday, December 1, 2010

Newly released science book revelation is set to heap further misery on UN global warming researchers. Will latest setback derail Cancun Climate conference?

Authors of a new book ’Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory’ claim they have debunked the widely established greenhouse gas theory climate change. In the first of what they say will be a series of sensational statements to promote the launch of their book, they attack a cornerstone belief of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – what is known as the “carbon isotope argument.”

Mišo Alkalaj, is one of 24 expert authors of this two-volume publication, among them are qualified climatologists, prominent skeptic scientists and a world leading math professor. It is Alkalaj’s chapter in the second of the two books that exposes the fraud concerning the isotopes ¹³C/¹²C found in carbon dioxide (CO2).

If true, the disclosure may possibly derail last-ditch attempts at a binding international treaty to ‘halt man-made global warming.’ At minimum the story will be sure to trigger a fresh scandal for the beleaguered United Nations body.

Do Human Emissions of Carbon Dioxide Exhibit a Distinct Signature?

The low-key internal study focused on the behavior of ¹³C/¹²C isotopes within carbon dioxide (CO2) molecules and examined how the isotopes decay over time. Its conclusions became the sole basis of claims that ‘newer’ airborne CO2 exhibits a different and thus distinct ‘human signature.’ The paper was employed by the IPCC to give a green light to researchers to claim they could quantify the amount of human versus natural proportions just from counting the number of isotopes within that ‘greenhouse gas.’

Alkalaj, who is head of Center for Communication Infrastructure at the “J. Stefan” Institute, Slovenia says because of the nature of organic plant decay, that emits CO2, such a mass spectrometry analysis is bogus. Therefore, it is argues, IPCC researchers are either grossly incompetent or corrupt because it is impossible to detect whether carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is of human or organic origin.

Skeptics Out to Derail Cancun Climate Conference?

Cynics are already claiming ‘Isotope-gate’ is more than just a promotional stunt to hype this book launch. They say its also deliberately timed to disrupt the latest major international climate conference in Cancun, Mexico (November 29th – December 10^th).

The Cancun Climate conference (COP 16) is seen as a make or break attempt by world leaders to secure a binding international treaty to limit emissions of carbon dioxide after the failure of the Copenhagen Climate Summit last year. Copenhagen was undermined by the Climategate revelations and this latest attempt by skeptics may be a repeat.

The ‘Isotope-gate’ story is one of many planned promotional releases from the book and this publication is bound to cause embarrassment to delegates in Mexico if the revelations it contains become widely known.

Worryingly for Cancun (and the IPCC) this new book makes far bolder claims than have been made before by skeptics. Its authors say they have scientifically and mathematically disproved the greenhouse gas theory. The theory is the bedrock of all scientific claims that humans are responsible for climate change.

‘Slayers’ Book Reveals New Evidence of UN Climate Fraud

The ¹³C/¹²C argument being attacked by Mišo Alkalaj may be found in IPCC’s AR4—The Physical Science Basis Working Group. The IPCC clarifies its position on Page 139 of that chapter.

According to Mišo the fatal assumption made by the IPCC is that the atmospheric concentration of the ¹³C isotope (distinctive in prehistoric plants) are fixed. They also assume C3-type plants no longer exist so would need to be factored into the equations. Indeed, as Mišo points out such plants, “make up 95% of the mass of all current plant life.”

Therefore, decay of 95% of present-day plant material is constantly emitting the ¹³C-deficient carbon dioxide supposedly characteristic of coal combustion—and CO₂ emitted by plant decay is an order of magnitude greater than all human-generated emissions.

‘Isotope-gate’ is Twin Brother of Himalayagate

But a more sinister twist to the story is not just that the researchers erred in mistakenly overlooking the flaws about the ¹³C isotope, but that they never referred the analysis to outsider verification.

As with the Himalayagate controversy, the Prentice paper was never reviewed beyond the secretive four walls of UN climate alarmism; it relied entirely on an internal uncorroborated source.

On this cynical practice Mišo observes, “Few readers will be bothered to follow the trail all the way and especially not the ‘policymakers.’ But the few that do frequently find out that the argument is circular (A quotes B and B quotes A), etc.”

Thus, there exists no proof of any such distinct ‘human signal’ anywhere in samples of atmospheric CO2 and the IPCC is discredited. Therefore, once again, the public has been shown compelling evidence of how it was duped by junk science promoted knowingly by an international gang of fraudsters.

References:

IPCC (TAR) Third Report (2001), ‘The Scientific Basis,’ Working Group 1

IPCC (FAR) Fourth Report (2007) ‘The Physical Science Basis,’ Working Group 1

Ball, T., Johnson, C., Hertzberg, M., Olson, J.A., et al., ’Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory,’ (November, 2010), accessed online at: amazon.com (November 26, 2010).

De-Toxify the Beast!

by Gary North

Recently by Gary North: Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address, If He Had Been More Honest

Have you ever heard this phrase? “Starve the beast!” It refers to starving the Federal government. It argues that if Congress cuts taxes, spending cuts will necessarily follow.

The problem with this metaphor is that it conjures up a mental image of an overweight person who cannot bring himself to stop eating. He has no inner Richard Simmons, longing to get out.

The problem is this: this obese person has an inheritance that he can tap into whenever money runs short: the Federal Reserve System. He just keeps getting fatter.

The metaphor of the obese person is the wrong one. The correct metaphor is a city council filled with drunks. Only one of them has remained stone cold sober for 30 years. He keeps telling the voters that his colleagues can’t sober up on their own. The voters pay no attention. That is because the council members keep buying free drinks for the party-loving folks who live in their districts. “Barkeep, another round for my friends!”

Where does the city council get the money? From the voters. The voters who remain sober say they don’t like it when council members keep buying drinks for their neighbors and then put it on the city’s tab. But, drink by drink, household by household, most residents are becoming steadily addicted to booze.

It is always hard to persuade a lone drunk to head for Alcoholics Anonymous. It is impossible when they are all together at the bar, with half a dozen constituents each. “Set ’em up, barkeep! Put it on my tab!”

POLITICAL RESENTMENT BY SOBER VOTERS

There is no possibility that such a city council will ever head for AA as a group. Why should they? Parties are fun. Everyone loves a good party. But what’s a party with only lemonade? That would be a Baptist party, with some Mormons invited, just to be sociable.

But, insist the fiscal Baptists, one of these days the taxpayers are going to find themselves incapacitated. The broad mass of taxpayers are going to find it difficult to remain productive. Revenues will fall. Then the city council will find that the till is depleted. No more parties!

That sounds plausible, but there is a problem: bonds. The voters keep passing bond issues. And why not? When you are dealing with a room full of drunks who are three hours into the party, you will not find a lot of concern about the borrowing cost of putting more booze on the tab. Parties make for short-run thinking. “There’s always more where that came from! Let the good times roll!”

The bartender knows that the city council is good for the money. What’s a little extra debt? The owner of the bar will submit his bill at the end of the month, and it will be paid. It has always been paid. It’s easy money for him. He tells the barkeeper, “Keep filling up those glasses. The city is good for the debt.”

The remnant of voters who are both sober and productive now see what is going to happen. The bonds must be paid off. The sober voters will have to pay the bills. They don’t have the votes to lower taxes. They can at best hold taxes level. But the tab keeps getting larger. The tavern owners in the city keep extending credit. The tax base will not cover this indefinitely.

It is obvious to the voters who are not participants at the party that, at some point, the city is going to default on the bonds. The losers will be the dolts who kept lending money to a city whose council members were, with one lone exception, drunks. The tavern owners will hit the skids themselves. The fiscal Baptists prepare for the great “we told you so” opportunity that is surely coming. “Sorry, guys, but you knew your customers were a bunch of drunks. You will now have to go into another line of work. And your customers will all be suffering from hangovers and depleted bank accounts.”

The problem is, when the city defaults, there will be a lot of services cut. The parties will cease, but then money for all of the other services will be hard to come by. The city council will find it difficult to collect taxes. It will find it more difficult to attract future lenders. When it’s “in God we trust; all others pay cash,” there will not be much cash.

CONGRESS IS NOT A CITY COUNCIL

Here is where the analogy breaks down. Yes, they are all drunks: voters and council members. That part holds up. What doesn’t hold up is the analogy of the city council. Drunks with an unlimited tab are in Congress.

Unlike a city council, which faces a potential revolt by bond investors – the famous vigilantes – Congress has a central bank in reserve. That’s why it’s called the Federal Reserve. The FED keeps buying the debt of the U.S. Treasury. Congress, unlike a local city council, can keep running up the tab. “Another round for my guests, barkeep!”

The Federal Reserve, unlike a bond vigilante, is not using its own money to pay Congress for its perpetual party. It creates money out of nothing to buy the IOUs of the party-goers. It’s a two party system. The Democrats invite their constituents to the party, and the Republicans invite theirs. They sit at different ends of the bar. Nobody is in favor of calling it a night and going home.

What this means is that the party can go on a lot longer in Washington than it can locally. The presence of the Federal Reserve makes the tavern-owners happy. The revelry will go on indefinitely.

Or can it? As they say, “drunks are drunks.” The behavior has the same debilitating effects, whether locally or in Washington, D.C. The revelers stagger home at dawn, only to start up again in the evening.

Good time Charlie Wilson is the model. So is Carl Albert, who was Speaker of the House from 1971 to 1977. He was an alcoholic. The public did not know or care. His colleagues knew, but a lot of them suffered from the same affliction. (http://bit.ly/DCbooze) It is “don’t ask, don’t tell.” People who live in dirty glass houses don’t hire window washers, let alone throw stones.

When you are dealing with people who are long-term alcoholics, you need to intervene to get them to stop. The problem is, almost everyone seems to be at the party, allowing Congress to run up a huge tab at the bar. The vast majority of voters do not want intervention. They may complain about too much beer being consumed by teenagers and other uninvited guests whose IDs are never checked by the bartender, but the hard stuff – Medicare, Social Security, and the Department of Defense – is untouchable. “Let’s party!”

The dwindling number of sober voters look at this and conclude: “Something’s got to give.” They are correct. This raises several questions.

1. What?
2. When?
3. With what consequences?
4. For whom?
5. In what order?

And, of course, the big one:

6. How can I get out of the way?

The last time that the Federal Government had no debt was in 1836. That was the only fiscal year in American history when the condition of cold turkey sobriety prevailed. This tells us that the problem of irresponsible drinking is not going to be solved at fiscal AA meetings: no booze at all.

Americans are not fiscal Baptists. We are, at best, sneakin’ deacons.

LAFFER’S SOLUTION

For 35 years, conservatives have witnessed a continuing debate that has raged on the sidelines of the conservative movement.

Should the Federal government balance the budget by (1) raising taxes or (2) cutting spending, so that economic growth can replace the forfeited revenues?

This is the debate over the Laffer Curve. Arthur Laffer presented his famous curve to Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld on a napkin. That was in 1974. He argued that, when taxes are too high, people will find ways of cutting back on their official, easily taxable production. The government will not collect all of the tax revenues that Keynesian economists had promised.

The solution, Laffer argued, is to cut taxes: especially high marginal income tax rates. Then production will increase and tax revenues will rise. Presto: Less is more! Less taxation on the books brings more revenue. That will balance the budget.

Wikipedia has a cogent article on the Laffer Curve.

The argument is formally correct, but it rests on an assumption: the marginal tax rates really are on the far side of the curve. This assumption is true most of the time.

The argument makes another assumption, which is never true for long: “Congress will not spend more money than is collected from any increased revenues.” This assumption is not correct politically. (When Laffer drew his curve, it was not politically correct, either.) Here is what it misses.

No matter how much revenue is collected, Congress will always pass more spending bills, so that the deficit will inevitably reappear, assuming that it ever goes away.

Put succinctly: “Federal government deficits are inevitable.” This law has remained unbreakable ever since 1837.

Mainstream economists make false assumptions. There is only one assumption with respect to taxation that is in fact a law of politics: “Assume the position.” Politics determines only who will assume which position and for how long.

DAVID STOCKMAN’S SOLUTION

Stockman was Ronald Reagan’s budget director from 1981 to 1985. He did not believe that Laffer’s solution would work. He said so in cabinet meetings. Reagan had promised to pressure Congress to pass a law lowering marginal tax rates. He also promised to increase military spending. He did both.

Stockman kept saying that the increased revenues would not be sufficient to overcome the increase in expenditures. He was correct. Reagan vetoed no big spending bills that Congress got to his desk for a signature. Spending kept rising.

Meanwhile, Volcker’s policy of dramatically reduced rate of growth in the monetary base produced back-to-back recessions: one under Carter in 1980, which lost the election for him, and one under Reagan in 1981-82, which cut revenues. In 1983, the Federal Deficit went over $200 billion. I had predicted this figure in my newsletter and my book on price controls in 1977, at the beginning of Carter’s Administration. I had said it would hit in 1984. I missed.

Stockman looked at the politics of budget-cutting and concluded, “No way.” He was correct. There was no way that Reagan would reduce spending sufficiently to bring the budget into balance.

The question was this: “Could he have cut spending?” That was the most important domestic policy question in the entire post-War world.

The thrust of bipartisan Keynesian politics, 1946 to today, has been to resist all attempts to cut spending, or even hold it steady. Reaganites promised a Reagan revolution. “Let Reagan be Reagan.” But Reagan was a big spender. He never lost his taste for the New Deal, which he favored domestically all of his life. He was never in the camp of the Taft Republicans.

Reagan had the votes to get marginal tax rates cut. He had the votes to build up the Defense Department. But he never bothered to test the political waters on the question of domestic spending.

In 1983, Social Security technically went bankrupt. That was Reagan’s moment of truth in domestic politics. Would he let the thing go under, or would he implement the Greenspan’s Commission’s recommendation to hike taxes? He did not hesitate. He backed Greenspan.

Then in 1986 he signed TEFRA into law: a major tax increase.

There was no Reagan revolution. There was only a Laffer revolution, and then only on the taxing side.

Stockman wanted a balanced budget. He saw that Reagan would not provide it by vetoing spending for domestic programs. So, he opposed tax cuts. He opposed the Laffer revolution. Conservatives never gave Stockman credit for having warned Reagan that this would happen. When he resigned, there were no cries of “Good show, Dave!”

Had I been Stockman, I would have resigned. But I would have resigned over Reagan’s refusal to cut spending, not his decision to cut taxes. My motto is this: “If you’re going to commit political suicide, do it on behalf of cutting spending.”

“ALL HAIL THE DEFICIT!”

Here are the political choices available in a national political system that is based on this slogan: “Another round for my friends, barkeep.”

1. Cut taxes (deficit rises).
2. Leave taxes alone (deficit rises)
3. Raise taxes (deficit rises)

This means that the deficit will rise. Now the debate shifts. From the point of view of American voters, who should buy Treasury debt?

1. Private investors
2. Foreign private investors
3. Foreign central banks
4. The Federal Reserve

There is no question which I am in favor of: #3. Let foreign central banks buy all of it – every last dime of it. Why? Because American voters will accept this slogan: “Stiff China!”

Somebody is going to get stiffed. There is no way out. This can be American investors. It can be Asian central banks. It can be American citizens, who will be wiped out because of

1. Piecemeal default by hyperinflation
2. Piecemeal default by mass inflation and price controls
3. Immediate default by open declaration of Federal bankruptcy
4. Piecemeal default by means-testing of benefits
5. Piecemeal default by the boom-bust cycle, repeated forever

The deception can go on and will go on. But the question of who bears most of the costs of the default is a political question.

CONCLUSION

Raising taxes will not help. Congress will spend every dime and borrow against the future.

Cutting spending is not politically possible. Reagan had his chance. He never considered it.

The deficit will delay the day of sobriety.

The day will come when Congress will not have any more credit. The bar’s owner will send a note to the bartender: “Don’t let these guys run up the tab. It’s cash on the line.”

If the FED inflates, prices will rise, until the bar’s owner tells the bartender: “Silver coins or gold coins only.”

Congress will then sober up.

Tens of millions of Americans will then go through forced de-tox at that point. It will be pink elephants on parade.

Pink elephants are the inevitable result of red ink.

So, my goal is to increase the supply of red ink. I want to keep more of my income, so that I can invest in asset categories that will protect me from the drunks, both when they are drunk and when they have the DT’s. This means lower taxes now, capital accumulation now, and buying up the distressed property of drunks after they finally sober up. Cut taxes and cut spending. But if it’s one or the other – and it surely is – cut taxes.

I wish to be remembered by this poem:

North marched up the Laffer curve,
And said to all his men:
“Let’s cut the rates till income falls,
And then let’s cut again.”

December 1, 2010

Gary North [send him mail] is the author of Mises on Money. Visit http://www.garynorth.com. He is also the author of a free 20-volume series, An Economic Commentary on the Bible.

Copyright © 2010 Gary North

The Black Riders Have Left Mordor

Doug Casey on the TSA

Interviewed by Louis James, Editor, International Speculator

Recently: Doug Casey on Gold’s New High, the Fed, and the Greater Depression

L: Doug, your favorite group of people, the Transportation Security Agency, has been in the news a lot lately, with their chief being summoned to Capitol Hill to answer for the excesses of his underlings. Today is National Opt Out Day, when Americans are encouraged to refuse the full-body “porno” scans and the alternative pat-downs. And yet, the TSA is said to have very high approval ratings – as high as 81% in one CBS poll. As straws in the wind go that does not bode well. What do you make of this?

Doug: They’re certainly the face of government that one encounters most often these days. Some newer polls and news stories suggest that support for what they do may be waning, but in general, it’s another sign of the accelerating decline of the American Empire. As Tacitus pointed out in the second century, the more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the state.

All bureaucracies inevitably become sodden, counterproductive, and centered mainly on their own agendas. But the TSA is on an extraordinarily steep downward trajectory. I suspect that is for several reasons. One is that the TSA is on the “front line,” as they pathetically describe it, of an unnecessary and illusory war on terror, so they’re very sensitive about somehow justifying their existence. Another is that they’re dressed up in uniforms and organized in a paramilitary manner; once you put people in uniforms they become much more obedient chimpanzees. Another is that their employees are actually the dregs of U.S. society. It amazes me that when Congress created it, they somehow found 50,000 people who thought that getting paid to go through fellow citizens’ dirty underwear at airports was a good deal.

This is unskilled labor of the most menial sort. But these are not, by and large, teenagers with no skills; rather, they are middle-aged people who should be able to find some more productive – or at least higher-paying – use for their time. I suppose it was perceived as a step up for those who were WalMart greeters, or packing bags at Safeway – although that’s incorrect, because although those are low-paid, unskilled, and unchallenging occupations, they are at least honorable work.

And they’ve now expanded the force to 65,000, and they are still hiring – they’ve placed ads on the backs of pizza boxes. These people are truly the bottom of the barrel.

L: I’ve just looked it up, and the TSA screener gets paid $10.91–$15.59 per hour. Overtime is up to $23.23, and there are bonuses. I wonder what those are for…

Doug: I doubt the bonuses are based on “customer satisfaction.” And I bet the government benefits are significant, and the fringe benefits are commensurate with government employment. At this point, the average government employee makes about 50% more than a civilian worker. It’s appealing to those who have not bothered to learn a useful trade.

But the real problem is psychological. Certain types of people are drawn to certain types of jobs. Only a certain type of person would, for example, become a prison guard. It’s bad enough being sent to prison involuntarily, so what does it say about a person who’ll spend his or her days there, just to be the one with the baton? These are really bad apples, and the power has, quite predictably, gone to their heads.

L: You don’t think any of them think they are actually making people safe – saving lives?

Doug: There might be a few who actually believe that, but that doesn’t mean they are not still, on average, the sort of person who enjoys bullying other people. Actually, the people who are even more contemptible are the members of the chattering classes – you can read their editorials in the Washington Post and here – who cheerlead for the TSA, by saying “Yes, some mistakes are made, some officers are over zealous, or lack common sense, but it’s good and necessary in principle.” That’s totally pernicious nonsense on all levels. It’s a matter of principle that’s in question, something to which they’re completely oblivious.

There are many, many recent examples of just how arrogant and abusive these thugs have gotten recently. I just read today about a cancer victim that had a bladder bag…

L: Can’t take any liquids through security!

Doug: Yes. So they pawed the thing and spilled urine all over the fellow, and he had to travel that way. Another story I read recently was of a woman who had pierced nipples and the TSA removed the rings with some pliers they had lying around, even after the things were identified and were obviously no threat.

And there was a six-year-old child who couldn’t walk without a leg brace, but they made him take it off to go through the metal detector. And you better not back-sass your betters today, either…

Actually, the TSA serves absolutely no useful purpose. On the one hand, it’s playing into the bad guys’ hands by helping bankrupt the U.S., by death through a thousand cuts. On the other hand, if a bad guy really wanted to do some damage, he’ll just stand in a line with hundreds of others waiting to go through screening, and detonate his carry-on bag there. That will certainly happen.

L: I’ve just looked up some sample news reports, including the screaming three-year-old and that guy’s “don’t touch my junk” cell-phone recording that’s going around, for people who haven’t seen them.

Doug: This is, in my view, criminal malfeasance. These people are completely out of control. But, more importantly, it’s a sign of the times.  An atmosphere of suspicion, antagonism, envy, and fear is becoming more pervasive every day in the U.S. and Europe. With every real or imagined “terrorist” event it gets ramped up more. The TSA now has goons patrolling trains and bus stations. A clever bad guy will attack one of those, so that all public travel in the U.S. would be as bad as it is in the airports. Then, a couple incidents using cars and trucks, which would “prove” the necessity for 100,000 more TSA people. Eventually, you’d be unable to travel anywhere, in any way, without the prospect of inspection and detention.

L: People do seem to be realizing this danger. The outrage seems to be a matter for comedians to take up. There are some Internet spoofs of the TSA pat-downs going around, including one from Saturday Night Live I just dug up.

Speaking of spoofs, do you remember the Airplane movies made back in the 1970s to spoof the Airport dramas? In the second one, there’s a scene in which two main characters are talking in the foreground, and in the background, people are trooping through the magnetometer with guns, bandoliers and bazookas, while a little old lady is thrown against a wall and frisked. These movies are totally slapstick, intended to be utterly ridiculous, and now life is imitating fiction.

Doug: I know; Americans are now the laughingstocks of the world. Life is clearly imitating art at this point. There’s no question about it. I just wish it would get to the point it did in V for Vendetta, towards the end of the movie – and sooner rather than later. But I fear that whatever replaces the current system – at least for a while – will be even worse, before it eventually gets better.

L: It certainly seems to be a sign of our times – evidence of the decay of the empire, as you say; the roaches are coming out of the woodwork and marching about in the light of day with arrogance and disdain for their inferiors. On the other hand, the head TSA roach did get called out on the mat. The Internet is buzzing with praise for Ron Paul’s efforts to put them in their place. Do you think there’s any hope Americans will put their collective foot down and stop the airport grope-fest?

Doug: No. Some polls show citizens are outraged, but most others suggest that they are cheering the TSA on. The fact is that when you deal with almost anybody, as an individual, they are generally affable and sensible. But we’re dealing here with mob psychology, and governments. Therefore you’re dealing with the lowest common denominator, and the basest motives and emotions. At this point the whole system is in a self-reinforcing downward spiral. It needs to be flushed.

L: Hmmm. There was a recent comedy about an improbable romance between a “nobody” and a girl who’s totally “out of his league.” What job did they give the guy to epitomize the insignificance of his life? He was a TSA goon. But it was a Hollywood fantasy, so he was, of course, an under-appreciated nice guy.

Doug: That’s classic. But in real life, even people who would ordinarily be nice tend to let the demons within out, once they’re sucked into power within an abusive system. It’s like the Milgram Experiment. You can put an ordinary person into an authority system, and he starts acting as he’s told to. And the public starts acting like sheep. This is why it only takes one guard to intimidate 100 prisoners.

Take the example of Germany. It was a civilized country in the 1920s, but when the wrong people got in power, the 20 percent of the 20 percent who are the worst among people came out of the woodwork and joined the SS and the Gestapo. They were mostly pretty average nothing/nobody people who let power go to their heads – just like the people who work for the TSA today.

The Black Riders have come out from Mordor and their minions are swarming over the land.

L: Someone replicated the Milgram experiments recently. I’m amazed they got it past an ethics committee. As for the TSA, here’s a collection of horror stories to back you up.

What’s really scary is all the preparation our tireless public servants have done, setting up systems that seem benign – or at least mostly harmless – now, but pave the way for serious abuse. The suspension of posse comitatus for the drug war, the declaration of U.S. citizens to be “enemy combatants” (a term not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution) and therefore without the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, the stories about the FEMA camps already built, wiretaps without warrants, the erosion of the Second Amendment (the right to keep and bear arms), “free speech zones” where free speech is allowed… All of these things are police-state tools.

Right now, the U.S. still feels relatively free. You and I can have this conversation without being sent to the gulag. But make a joke in a TSA screening checkpoint, and see how free you feel. Or make a politically incorrect statement on a college campus. What happens when these insects, with real or manufactured approval from the masses clamoring for security, feel truly free to do whatever they please?

Doug: The cat’s totally out of the bag now. It’s become Kafkaesque. It’s gotten so bad, many people I know go out of their way not to fly through the U.S. Even if you’re not leaving the airport, but are just making a flight connection, you have to go through the indignities of customs and immigration – and then you have to deal with these lowlifes at the TSA. And it’s just going to get worse.

I’m interested in – but not looking forward – to seeing what happens on my next trip to the U.S. Flying in most parts of the world is still fairly mellow, unless it’s a flight to the U.S. I plan on opting out next time, and not using the back-scatter device. I just have to keep my cool. These people can sense I have an attitude about these things – and frankly I have only contempt for people who don’t have an attitude. They either have no self-respect, or no intelligence. But it’s pointless to lose you temper, since you’re dealing with robots. Raging against the machine just depletes your own resources, and can actually strengthen the machine.

The wisest course is to minimize your flying, and soon other travel, in the U.S. That means spending a minimum of time in the U.S., but since there is relatively much less wealth and opportunity in the U.S. with each passing day, that’s less and less of an inconvenience. I fear it’s going to get much worse, at an accelerating rate.

L: And to add insult to injury, none of this makes anyone one bit safer, while there are systems that apparently do. They don’t pat people down in Israeli airports, for example, and yet have not had a breach of security for years. Here’s a video I found that makes that point.

Doug: I suppose. The Israelis have gone out of their way to hire street-smart operators, which won’t ever happen in the U.S. And they can be very politically incorrect, looking for a certain type – basically a young Muslim male; that will never happen in the U.S. either. And they’ve been lucky; only a complete idiot will hit such a hard target. But Israel is a theocratic, ethnically exclusive police state – hardly a model to follow. And I don’t like being interrogated by some fool in a uniform, either.

On the bright side, this gross violation of people’s rights by the TSA is so personal, it could be the thing that actually pushes the U.S. over a psychological tipping point, and gets Americans to act like Americans, and say, “I’m not going to take anymore!” At some point even a cowering dog will stop cowering and bite. At least in theory.

The would be good for the country, but could make things turn pretty ugly in the interim, which is one reason I’m glad I don’t have to – and don’t – spend much time in the U.S. any more.

L: But you’ve said before that the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave has been turned into Land of the Lapdogs and the Home of the Whipped Dogs. Do you actually think there’s a line beyond which U.S. citizens can’t be pushed and will develop the spine to act like Americans?

Doug: Well, one can hope. With millions and millions of people losing their houses, and almost 40 million people receiving food stamps, while corporate execs loot their publicly-traded and government-subsidized employers for billions in bonuses, and inflation set to take off in the not-too-distant future, these sorts of indignities could push people over the edge.

Sometimes, it amazes me to see the stock market going up in the face of all this volatility, but I believe it’s doing so because of the creation of all these trillions and trillions of currency units. Not because of any fundamental soundness in the economy. This has me thinking of the ideal speculations for the next little while… which I’ll write about in the next issue of The Casey Report.

L: Okay, but generally, investment implications would be as with other straws in the wind spelling out trouble and volatility: liquidate, consolidate, create, and speculate.

Doug: And diversify your political risk. As you know, I always like to look at the bright side of things. In this case, it will be interesting to see if the looming complete bankruptcy of the U.S. government will force a deconstruction of the “national security” state, including disbanding of the TSA, which may well grow to 150,000 employees in the near future. Or whether it will turbocharge its growth for a while thereafter.

L: Okay then, no need to repeat that – but readers who have not read what you have to say on those subjects should follow the links.

Doug: Right.

L: Say, Doug, we spoke about music last week, but neglected to mention our music project.

Doug: You mean your student from Belarus, whose debut CD we funded?

L: Yes. Her band is called PRANA. We’re still working on English translations, but there’s one song in English folks can listen to now, if they’re interested. Go to www.musicbyprana.com, click on “eng” for English, then click on the angel holding a musical symbol. That takes you to a page with an audio file called Tempt Me Not – click on the “play” triangle. There are other, rather different songs in Russian on the Russian side of the site.

If you’ll indulge me, I’d like to ask our readers for a favor: PRANA has entered a contest in which anyone can vote for their favorite Belarusian bands. The big prize is funding for a professional music video. There’s an important vote taking place today (until 5 a.m. EST 11/25), and another one next week. I’d like to ask our readers who are interested to listen to PRANA’s music, and if they like it, to vote for her in this contest. To do that is easy, though the site is in Russian; go to http://www.trkbrest.by/projects and click on Prana’s picture (it’s the one on the right, the only one of a girl), and when the popup box appears, click on the blue “Голосовать” button on the left. That’s it. Prana and our students in Belarus would really appreciate the support.

Doug: Okay, but when will we hear more songs in English?

L: I’ve helped her translate her lyrical poetry, and she’s working on her pronunciation. The words are important in her songs, and she wants to be understood clearly. I hope we’ll have an English CD soon.

Doug: Good luck to her!

L: Thanks, and thanks for your input on the TSA today. I hope lots of people opt out!

Doug: You’re welcome. Until next time…

---

Doug and his fellow editors of The Casey Report tell it like it is – so you always know what’s coming. The increased government meddling in security and in all sectors of the economy, the looming bankruptcy of the U.S. government, and the investment implications can make or break your future wealth. Learn how to take advantage of the current situation and profit while other stand on the sidelines; click here for more.

December 1, 2010

Doug Casey (send him mail) is a best-selling author and chairman of Casey Research, LLC., publishers of Casey’s International Speculator.

Copyright © 2010 Casey and Associates

No Amnesty, No DREAM Act

The upcoming debate over the DREAM Act’s passage is beginning to look more like a con man’s shell game, of sorts.  With two new versions of the original DREAM Act now on the table, it will be easier to perpetrate a great fraud on the American public. Players in the game — the American people — will be tantalized with accepting changes in the law via legislation, substituting amnesty applied to current law breakers for the legitimate and honest legal immigration process already in place.

The White House, unaccountable agency czars, and congressmen, some of whom compromised integrity for votes in the pre-mid-term election cycle, are creating confusion over the details with the political goal of passing it without much objection.  Congressmen who never read bills, won’t know which version they are voting on. However, this is one measure where the devil is NOT in the details of the two bills, but in principle.

The truth of the DREAM Act’s goals, S. 3827, were best exposed by Senator Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) in his “Ten Things You Need to Know About S. 3827, The DREAM Act.” Here are a few of the low-lights he enumerated:

• The DREAM Act Is NOT Limited to Children, And It Will Be Funded On the Backs Of Hard Working, Law-Abiding Americans
• The DREAM Act PROVIDES SAFE HARBOR FOR ANY ALIEN, Including Criminals, From Being Removed or Deported If They Simply Submit An Application
• Estimates Suggest That At Least 2.1 Million Illegal Aliens Will Be Eligible For the DREAM Act Amnesty.
• Illegal Aliens Will Get In-State Tuition Benefits
• The DREAM Act Does Not Require That An Illegal Alien Finish Any Type of Degree
• The DREAM Act does not require that an illegal alien serve in the military as a condition for amnesty, and There is ALREADY A Legal Process In Place For Illegal Aliens to Obtain U.S. Citizenship Through Military Service
• Despite Their Current Illegal Status, DREAM Act Aliens Will Be Given All The Rights That Legal Immigrants Receive—Including The Legal Right To Sponsor Their Parents and Extended Family Members For Immigration
• Current Illegal Aliens Will Get Federal Student Loans, Federal Work Study Programs, and Other Forms of Federal Financial Aid

Dreamy buyers need to beware, both versions are on the Senate calendar. From Congressional Quarterly comes the minute differences between the two versions:

One version (S 3962) keeps an eligibility age of younger than 35 for the program, but a second version (S 3963) lowers that age to younger than 30….
If no other eligibility criteria are changed, the potential number of people eligible would drop slightly, from roughly 2.1 million to slightly more than 2 million, according to an analysis by the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute.

Besides the usual Democrats who support the measure, Republicans Richard Lugar from Indiana and Robert Bennett of Utah are already vocalizing their support. Senator Orrin Hatch may be on board if the cut off point is lowered somewhat; after all he authored the original legislation, nine years ago. Senators Snowe, Collins, Murkowski, Brownback and McCain either have not yet made up their minds, or haven’t made public statements on how they will vote.

If your elected representatives are out of sync with you, your family, friends and neighbors on this issue, contact them immediately as time is of the essence in this lame duck session, and let them know you are not in favor of limited or conditional amnesty for illegals. Remind them that the front door of the United States, the one our forebears came through, is always open for those seeking application for a new life in a new land. True justice requires that a nation and those from outside respect the established laws of that nation. Breaking those laws and then rewriting them after the fact is no justice at all.

Thanks,

Your friends at The John Birch Society