JOHNMATYI.COM

KAY IVEY TO BYRNE: RETURN THE DONATIONS “Until the tainted money is returned, a cloud of doubt will linger over these transactions.”

2010-03-16T20:26:00Z

IVEY TO BYRNE: RETURN THEDONATIONS

“Untilthe tainted money is returned, a cloud of doubt will linger over thesetransactions.”

(MONTGOMERY, AL – MARCH 16, 2010) State Treasurer and Republican gubernatorial candidate Kay Ivey today challengedRepublican opponent Bradley Byrne to return thousands of dollars inquestionable donations made by four PACs linked to gambling interests.

Sunday’s Montgomery Advertiser reported thatoriginal campaign finance statements, which were filed earlier this year,showed VictoryLand and the Jefferson County Racing Association made donationstotaling $148,000 in late December to PACs operated by the Alabama Nursing HomeAssociation. Those PACs (VOTE98 PAC, FUTURE PAC, ELDER PAC and Secure PAC) madecontributions on the same day to Bradley Byrne, as well as several politicalcandidates, including Roger Bedford, Lowell Barron, Ron Sparks and Artur Davis.

Oddly enough, the statements’ dates were changedlast week to show the PACs contributed to Byrne BEFORE they received money fromthe gambling interests, raising new questions about the matter.

“Byrne has repeatedly promised he will not acceptgambling money, and I take him at his word,” Ivey said. “But as they say, theproof is in the pudding. It is highly unusual to amend a finance report just tochange a date, and that is prompting new questions.

“Given how contentious gambling has become in ourstate, people deserve to know where this money came from, and when it changedhands. Byrne swore last October that he would not accept any money from theAlabama Education Association, directly or indirectly. I agreed with hisposition, and took the same stand for my campaign as well.

“Yet in this instance, Byrne is engaging in a doublestandard by taking gambling donations that are being washed throughPACs.

“So I say to Bradley Byrne: abide by your originalethical standard. Return all of the money you received from VOTE98 PAC, FUTUREPAC, ELDER PAC and Secure PAC. Then the matter will be resolved once and forall.

“Until the tainted money is returned, a cloud ofdoubt will linger over these transactions. As one Republican candidate toanother, I urge you to do the right thing. You will sleep better at nightbecause of it, and the people of Alabama will, too.”

# # #

Paid for by the Kay Ivey Campaign forGovernor

P.O. Box 771, Montgomery, AL 36101-0771 ∙ (334) 293-9300 ∙ www.kayivey.org

KAY IVEY INVITES GOP RIVALS TO UNITE IN OPPOSING DEMOCRATIC HEALTH CARE BILL

2010-03-12T23:28:00Z

KAY IVEY INVITES GOP RIVALS TO UNITE

IN OPPOSING DEMOCRATIC HEALTH CARE BILL

“Thehour of decision has arrived, and it’s time all Republican candidates forgovernor set aside our differences and let Washington know that Alabama says‘No!’ to ‘Obamacare’ in a loud, decisive voice .”

(MONTGOMERY,AL – MARCH 12, 2010) State Treasurer and Republican gubernatorial candidate Kay Ivey today invitedher GOP rivals to unite in a statement opposing the Obama Administration’shealth care reform bill. National news reports said Democratic House leadersare poised to push for a vote in the House, possibly within a few days.

“NancyPelosi and her gang are pulling out all the stops to ram this bill down thethroats of the American people,” Ivey said. “President Obama is even delaying aplanned trip overseas a few days so he can pressure House Democrats into votinghis way.

“Thehour of decision has arrived, and it’s time all Republican candidates forgovernor to set aside our differences and let Washington know that Alabama says‘No!’ to ‘Obamacare’ in a loud, decisive voice.”

Iveysaid she participated in a strategy-planning conference call this morning forRepublican gubernatorial candidates around the nation that was sponsored by theRepublican Governors Association and hosted by Mississippi Governor HaleyBarbour.

“GovernorBarbour urged all candidates to do everything they can to oppose this bill,”Ivey explained. “It’s bad for our country’s health care system, it’s badfor the American people, it’s bad for business, and it’s bad for Alabama.”

Ivey issending the following statement to rivals Robert Bentley, Bradley Byrne, TimJames, Bill Johnson, Roy Moore and James Potts:

We,the undersigned Republican candidates for Governor of Alabama, hereby announceour united opposition to the current proposed health care reform legislation (H.R.3590) before Congress, commonly known as “Obamacare.”

Weare opposed to this bill because it raises costs for medical services whichwill require new, additional federal spending; it raises individual healthinsurance premiums by an average of $2,100 for every family; it includes fartoo many secret deals made to “buy” votes for support; it will result indropped coverage for potentially millions of individuals who already havehealth insurance; it is a job killer at a time when the economy is bleedingjobs already; it creates severe financial distress on our states by placingeven more “unfunded mandates” upon them; it utilizes “smoke and mirrors”accounting as budgetary gimmicks with no guarantee for future solvency; and itcreates even more unwanted government bureaucracy that would impose pricecontrols and micro-manage health insurance premiums.

Weencourage the citizens of this great state to immediately contact ourCongressional Delegation and elected officials of ALL parties and tell them tovote “NO!” to this disastrous takeover of our healthcare system.

Iveysays the statement will be sent to all members of Alabama’s congressionaldelegation to register the gubernatorial candidate’s fierce opposition to thebill as soon as she has received a reply from all of her rivals.

# # #

Paid for by the Kay Ivey Campaign forGovernor

P.O. Box 771, Montgomery, AL 36101-0771 ∙ (334) 293-9300 ∙ www.kayivey.org

Alabama Legislative Session Update - Eliminate the Grocery Tax [Unlikely].

2010-03-09T12:48:00Z

[Editors Note] Alabama legislators will be discussing the repeal of the "Grocery Tax" in the upcoming week but it is unlikely that it will pass. Even if it does the compromise will be to increase the taxes on small businesses to make up for the lost state revenue. Of course the small busineses will then have to pass the tax on to their customers. Here is a novel idea; how about we just cut state spending instead.

One more thing to consider. Cam Ward is a hard working Conservative that we need to elect to the Alabama Senate. Representative Ward has been an active Conservative Republican all of his adult life.Watch for his name on the ballot. You can check out his activities on his official web site here.

Here is a quick preview of the upcoming week in Montgomery. This week will be a standard legislative schedule for the House. We will be in session on Tuesday and Thursday with committee meetings scheduled for Wednesday.

The House will take up a ten minute calendar this week. A ten minute calendar is designed to give every member of the House to pass a bill this session. The reason it is called a ten minute calendar is because a member is given a maximum of ten minutes to pass their bill or else it must be carried over. This requires the bill to be non-controversial and also no one comes and objects to the bill. Any member can speak for up to ten minutes on a bill so if one member has a problem with a bill it will be carried over. These calendars often include non-fiscal issues that are agreed to by all parties before ever coming up for a vote.

In addition to the ten minute calendar the House will continue to have short agendas with only five or six bills being debated each day. The membership seems to enjoy the shortened calendars and is in agreement that they do not wish to go back to the days where we just passed every bill that was brought up on any given day.

There are some rumblings that the House will take up the removal of sales taxes on groceries again soon but that appears unlikely considering the fact that the bills seems to have lost votes in the off season. Still expect at least one day soon to be devoted to discussing this issue. Rep. John Knight has made this his passion for quite some time and both parties agree to the need to eliminate the grocery tax but the sticking point is whether small businesses should be required to pay more in taxes to make up for the lost state revenue.

After what seemed like a session long fight over gambling, the Senate now appears poised to move to other issues after the Sweet Home Alabama plan failed to get the necessary 21 votes last week for passage. Senator Barron has hinted in news accounts that he plans to bring his road construction bill back up for a vote again soon. It is believed that commitments were secured during the gambling debate that should allow for Barrons bill to now pass the Senate. If it does pass most observers believe it will have an easier time in the House than it did upstairs.

Finally like everyone else, I have been campaigning on the weekends when we are not in session. My daughter is now old enough where she can join me out on the trail as well which makes for a lot of fun. This past week she seems to have gotten the hang of campaigning better than me. If I just had her energy then I could be everywhere at once. Unfortunately I dont have her energy so I tend rely on old faithful caffeine to help me keep up!

Paid for by Committee to Elect Cam Ward, Post OfficeBox 1749, Alabaster, Al. 35007

What’s behind the Democrats push on health care?

2010-03-08T13:16:00Z

Robert Kulak received his undergraduate degree in mathematics and economics and his graduate degree in insurance. An Air force veteran,he has consulted nationally and internationally in information systems. He has written international publications on subjects as diverse as political commentary,humor and healthcare. His articles are also regularly published on Examiner.com where he is the 'Hartford Independent Examiner

Ruminations, March 7, 2010

What’s behind the Democrats push on health care?

President Obama has stated, “The [health care] bottom line is, our proposal is paid for." According to Senator Joe Lieberman (D, CT), “this legislation would reduce the federal deficit by $132 billion over the next ten years and will continue to reduce costs by billions more in the following decade. This bill will also extend the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund for an additional nine years.”

That sounds great and, if you parse every word and its meaning, it’s not false. However, in order to say that the “proposal is paid for” or that it “reduce[s] the federal deficit,” the Democrats and the President have had to go to extraordinary lengths.

The numbers show ten years of revenue and balance it against six years of expenses. According to Douglass Emmendorf, Director of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the government plan would collect some $500 billion in revenue and $500 billion in Medicare cuts over 10 years. Costs, however, are projected over six years. So, comparing the last six years of revenues to the last six years of expenditures, the $132 billion in deficit reduction becomes a $268 billion deficit increase.
The $500 billion in Medicare cuts will be something that Congress will not let stand. It will be added under another bill. But putting the $500 billion in another bill does not make it disappear. It will still be spent by the government. So now the $268 billion increase over the last six years becomes, proportionately, $568 billion.
It also has some dubious revenue sources. For example it counts some $52 billion in Social Security revenue as an offset. Wait a minute. Social Security is an unfunded liability now and we are reducing Social Security revenues to pay for this health plan? And here’s an interesting footnote from Emmendorf’s memo to Senator Harry Reid (D, NV) on the effects of the health care plan on the budget: “Off-budget effects include changes in Social Security spending and revenues as well as spending by the U.S. Postal Service.” The U.S. Postal Service?
According to Richard Foster, Chief Actuary for Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the net result (i.e., after additional revenue and taxes have been taken into account) will be an increase in costs of $222 billion over ten years, and since expenses are only taken into account for six years, the actual results may be much worse.

The Medicare Trustees’ projection for long-term cost growth has been tinkered with by the Obama Administration to make the long-term health care costs without the proposed bill look worse and at the same time it reduced the number of aging people entering into the program to make the future demands of Medicare look better.
Medicare reimbursements to doctors are scheduled to be cut by better than 20 percent. The effect of these cuts would be that doctors would treat fewer Medicare patients. To avoid this scenario, Congress will offset the cuts and provide the necessary funds, estimated by the Administration at $245 billion over 10 years. But the funds will be provided in a separate bill. While these funds are undoubtedly health care related costs, Democrats have excluded them from the health care estimates.
Last Friday, the CBO, even with the restrictions of evaluating the limited set of data Congress gave it, projected the health care bill will “increase … the federal budget deficit by $239 billion over the 2010-2019 period."

It’s clear that we cannot afford the proposal in Congress. Why do the Democrats continue to push it? Why do they continue to jigger the numbers in an attempt to make them appear to be something that they are not?

Could it be that pro-Obama columnist David Ignatius of the Washington Post reflected the Democrat’s attitude when he encouraged them to forget about the numbers and make health care a moral crusade? Could it be that he wants to do what he thinks is right regardless of the implied consequences because, being America, he thinks that sooner or later we will figure out how to pay for it?

Or is there something more devious at work? In order to pay for the Obama health care program in the future, we will have to cut something. Could it be that Democrats accept the bogus health care numbers because they anticipate that (1) once enacted, people and the economy will become so dependent on it that it can never be rescinded, and (2) the money will be found elsewhere through drastic cuts (for example, – the Defense Department’s budget for 2010 is over $663 billion) or higher taxes?

The Democratic health care proposals are economically unsound. Are the Democrats oblivious to these numbers or are they just devious? Maybe they are just so focused on the political process that they are not paying attention.

“The bottom line is, our proposal is paid for." By whom, Mr. President?

Armenia and Turkey – no biggie?

Representative Howard Berman (D, CA), the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, wants it both ways: he wants Congress to make a profound statement and wants the rest of the world to ignore the profound statement.

Last week, the House Foreign Affairs Committee approved by a vote 23-22 a resolution that stated the Ottoman Empire (the predecessor to modern day Turkey) had committed genocide on Armenians in 1915. While responding to his constituencies, Berman felt that the resolution was significant enough for the entire House of Representatives to declare before the world that the Ottomans are guilty of genocide. At the same time, he downplayed the impact that the declaration would have in the international relations, stating “"I believe the Turks, however deep their dismay today, fundamentally agree that the U.S.-Turkish alliance is simply too important to get sidetracked by a nonbinding resolution passed by the House of Representatives." In other words, no biggie.

The definition of genocide is the systematic destruction of a people. It was first used to describe the attempted destruction of Jewry by Nazis during World War II. Since that time, the term has been used by groups of people who seek, rightly or wrongly, to vilify another group. Israelis have been accused of genocide by Palestinians; Anglo-Americans by Native Americans; and Turks by Armenians.

Congress, dealing with local constituencies – many of whom are of Armenian ancestry – decided to curry favor with them and leaving President Obama to pick up the pieces and try to maintain a relationship with Turkey. Actually, Obama bears some of the responsibility for this vote since, during his campaign in 2008, he stated that he would have the Ottomans/Turkey declared guilty of genocide and Congress took him at his word. However, between the campaign and today, Obama has had to face the realities of governing and foreign policy, and decided that the declaration wouldn’t be in the best interests of the United States -- but it was too late.

What actually happened? There are disputations of some of the action but two things not in dispute: between 1915 and 1923 between 600,000 and 1.5 million Armenians died, and the Turks had a hand in it.

On the eve of World War I in 1914, Armenia was no longer independent and straddled a border: partly in Russia and partly in the Ottoman Empire. As a Christian people, Armenia’s relationship with the Muslim Ottoman Empire was at times precarious, to say the least. Twenty years earlier, when the Armenians had begun to demand more rights, the Sultan massacred between 80,000 and 300,000. When World War I broke out, the Ottomans cast their lot with Germany against Russia, leaving the Armenians right in the middle. Many Armenians saw a possible Russian victory as leading to an independent Armenia and began to work with Russia.

By 1915, the Russians had organized Armenian volunteers in its army and some Armenians worked against the Ottomans as Russian agents. The Ottomans, always suspicions of Armenians, undertook to remove them from the border regions. Although those charged with removing the Armenians were officially told to provide them with food and water, many historians consider their admonitions as cover (“Give them plenty of food and water, Kerem.” Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. “You know what I mean?”)

During the removal, between 600,000 and 1,500,000 Armenians died. What ever the precise cause of death (the Turkish civil war, disease, malnutrition), the proximate cause was the Turks’ actions. Turks, understandably sensitive to this issue, often point out that the few Armenian villages that were not in the region of conflict were left alone; hence, according to the Turks, it could not be described as genocide.

Representative Berman may not think the House’s declaration of genocide a biggie but, evidently, Turkey thinks it is. In response to last week’s House committee vote, Turkey has withdrawn its ambassador to the United States.

And the President and Secretary of State Clinton think it’s a biggie, too. They are tasked with maintaining amicable relations with Turkey and their reasons for maintaining this relationship are many. After all, Turkey is a member of NATO and has provided troops for many operations including Afghanistan. It is a gateway to northern Iraq for the United States and home to a U.S. air base. Add to that the fact that the ruling party in Turkey is moving from being a secular government in a Muslim country towards becoming a Muslim government in a Muslim country. And Turkey has increasingly cordial ties with Iran and Syria and increasing hostility toward Israel.

Describing the dilemma in which the United States now finds itself, Sedat Ergin last week wrote in the Turkish newspaper Hurriyet: “On one side of the scale, there is the Congress under the influence of ethnic lobby groups, and on the other, there are the greater United States’ interests in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Caucasus. It is up to the American administration to come up with the best choice between the two.”

It sounds like it could be a biggie and Representative Berman has not done his president or country any favors.

Quote without comment

Will Rogers: “This country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session as when the baby gets hold of a hammer.”

Rob Kulak

KAY IVEY BLASTS NEGATIVE ANTI-CHARTER SCHOOL TV ADS

2010-03-04T20:13:00Z

KAY IVEY BLASTS NEGATIVE ANTI-CHARTER SCHOOL TV ADS

“This is another case of the state’s biggest teachers union protecting its monopoly at the expense of students and the people who foot the bill for education: we taxpayers.”

(MONTGOMERY, AL – MARCH 4, 2010) State Treasurer and Republican gubernatorial candidate Kay Ivey today strongly condemned two new TV commercials aimed at keeping charter schools out of Alabama.

“The claims made in these negative ads are intellectually dishonest,” Ivey said. “They allege charter schools don’t work. If that were true, then why do they have a proven track record of success in 40 states? They claim bureaucrats in Washington want to push charter schools on us. My personal experience is totally opposite; I find parents all over Alabama are pushing to get charter schools. They want choices and alternatives to make sure their children learn at high standards, and charter schools are one of the best alternatives available for that. Where underperforming public schools don’t work, charter schools can.”

Ivey noted the ads are sponsored by the Alabama Education Association.

“This is another case of the state’s powerful teachers union protecting its monopoly at the expense of students and the people who foot the bill for public education: we taxpayers. The AEA realizes charter schools are a direct assault on its powerbase. Instead of being open to innovative ways to improve our woefully struggling education system, the teachers union is stiffening its neck and saying ‘No!’ The parents of children who are trapped in poorly performing schools, and everyone who pays for those schools with their hard-earned tax dollars, deserve better.”

Additional information:

You can see the TV commercials at www.nocharterschoolsalabama.org

For more on my strong support of charter schools, visit my campaign website at http://kayivey.org/CurrentIssues.html

Paid for by the Kay Ivey Campaign for Governor

P.O. Box 771, Montgomery, AL 36101-0771 ∙ (334) 293-9300 ∙ www.kayivey.org

KAY IVEY STATEMENT ON GUN OWNER’ RIGHTS

2010-03-03T15:40:00Z

KAY IVEY STATEMENT ON GUN OWNER’ RIGHTS

“Alabama gun owners will have one oftheir own defending their rights with Kay Ivey in the governor’s office.”

(Montgomery, AL March 2,2010) Statement from State Treasurer and Republican gubernatorial candidate Kay Ivey regarding the McDonald V. Chicago case now before the U.S. Supreme Court.

“While public attention is largely absorbed by electronic bingo, we must be vigilant about other important issues. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments today in a case that could directly impact hundreds of thousands of people here in Alabama.

“I want Alabamians to know how I stand. I am a proud gun owner and a Life Member of the National Rifle Association. A quote from me in Monday’s (Mobile) Press-Register summed it up this way: “I got the (NRA) belt buckle. I got the jacket. I got the gun, too.” So I fully recognize and appreciate just how important gun ownership is to countless people across our great state.

“The Supreme Court is deciding McDonald v. Chicago. City law makes it almost impossible to own a gun in Chicago. The Second Amendment of the U.S.Constitution guarantees us the right to bear arms. Justices will decide whether city and state governments can limit gun ownership. It could very well be one of the most important decisions the high court hands down this year.

“We the People, the body of everyday citizens, have a fundamental, constitutional right to protect ourselves. As former Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story wrote long ago about our rights as armed citizens, we are ‘the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections and domestic usurpations of power by rulers.’

“Our state’s motto is Audemus Jura Nostra Defendere, which means “We Dare Defend Our Rights.” We must dare defend our right to own guns and resist those who want to chip away at the Second Amendment and whittle it down to a powerless stub. That won’t happen on my watch. Alabama gun owners will have one of their own defending their rights with Kay Ivey in the governor’s office.”

For more details, consult this editorial in today’s New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/opinion/02tue1.html?ref=opinion

# # #

Paid for by the Kay Ivey Campaign forGovernor

P.O. Box 771, Montgomery, AL 36101-0771 ∙ (334) 293-9300 ∙ www.kayivey.org

Ruminations, February 28, 2010: Is Eric Holder right? The politics of global warming

2010-03-01T12:58:00Z

Ruminations, February 28, 2010

Is Eric Holder right?

Attorney General Eric Holder has taken some hits lately from both the left and the right for his proposals on handling of terrorist trials – and the hits are not without merit. He has upset many by his decision to put 9/11 plot planner Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) on trial in New York City in a civilian trial in public court rather than in a military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay.

In one sense, the selection of New York City struck a defiant tone toward al Qaeda: Holding the trial within blocks of the site of the 9/11 tragedy was an in-your-face kind of attitude that Americans like. On the other hand, there is the enormous cost – estimated at more than $250 million – and the location of New York would make it and the millions of people who work and live in the area, a more tempting target for al Qaeda.

And then there’s Holder’s decision to try KSM in a civilian court. The downside of a civilian trial is that:

KSM could be found not guilty.
It could provide KSM with a forum for spreading his doctrine.
The prosecutors (the government) could be forced to reveal secrets that could aid our enemy.

Holder’s arguments to the contrary have been unconvincing. “Failure is not an option,” said Holder. Actually it is a possible outcome however unlikely.

But maybe Holder has another reason to avoid a military tribunal and make the trial of KSM as open and balanced and public as possible. Maybe there is another group of Americans with which Holder wants to curry favor: American Muslims.

There have been no precise censuses done on Muslim Americans and estimates range from 1.3 million (American Religious Identification Survey) to 7 million (Council on American-Islamic Relations also known as CAIR). A reasonable estimate might be to split the difference and say that there are about 4 million Muslim Americans.

It is also reasonable to say that the great majority of these Muslim Americans are loyal Americans. Yes, we have discovered that there are some who have decided that they owe greater allegiance to al Qaeda than to the United States and have plotted against us and there are some, no doubt, who are plotting against the United States at this moment and have yet to be discovered. But, out of a population of 4 million, the number of plotters is relatively small.

It is also reasonable to assume that Muslim Americans feel that they are under a cloud of suspicion in their own country. They are. All America’s enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan are Muslims, though not all Muslims are America’s enemies. It would be reasonable to assume that the CIA and the FBI are keeping closer tabs on Muslims than on Christians, Jews and atheists. And, if you and your co-religionists are under a cloud of suspicion, isn’t it natural to draw closer together and feel that you are a world apart from the majority? Do we want any group – especially Muslim Americans at this time – to feel that they are separate from the rest of America and that the rest of America looks at them as something less than loyal Americans?

History is rife with examples of political decisions making religion an element of rebellion. Protestant Britain made Catholicism in Ireland an element in the underground movement against the ruling class. The atheistic Soviet Union made Catholicism in Poland an element in the underground movement against the ruling class. Jewish Israel made Islam in Israel an element in the underground movement against the ruling class. It may not have been the intent to do that but a lesson that should be learned is that politics can drive religion and, in turn, religion can drive politics.

Recognizing that a massive underground religious movement in the United States can drive the country in a direction that none of us wants to take, perhaps Holder is making a statement to Muslim Americans as well as the rest of the world. And that statement is: Americans will treat Muslims – or any other group, for that matter – with the utmost civility, fairness and openness in our jurisprudence system; no one, who lives within the law, has anything to fear. And maybe, that statement has more credibility when trials like KSM’s are carried out under a civilian judiciary than under a military tribunal.

Maybe Holder’s decision is a good one. Maybe he’s right on this one.

Is there a difference between libertarians and conservatives?

Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) met in Washington last month and held annual its straw poll for President. The winner was a libertarian, Representative Ron Paul (R, TX). If you are troubled by the selection of Paul, don’t be. Past winners of the CPAC straw poll have been Mitt Romney (three times), George Allen, Gary Bauer, Steve Forbes and Phil Gramm – none of whom were even nominated for president. Only George W. Bush, the winner of the 2000 straw poll went on to win. That’s a significance ratio of one in eight and Paul will make it one in nine.

But the Paul victory does mean something. It could mean an electoral tilt away from the Democratic Party. Now that statement includes a lengthy explanation and some definitions. So here goes.

Registered attendance at CPAC was up 36 percent in 2010 to a record high of 2,395. That number (and the result of the straw poll) evidently includes a larger number of libertarians. That would indicate that libertarians are moving away from Democrats and toward Republicans. Libertarians, contrary to what you may hear, are not conservatives.

The best way to look at political alignments is to divide issues broadly into two categories: social and economic. And then we divide political inclinations into four groups: liberal, conservative, libertarian and populist. Liberals and conservatives disagree on everything as do libertarians and populists.

Liberals are pretty much laissez-faire on social issues. Liberals believe that people should be left to their own devices and would like to see fewer laws restricting social activities. They are more likely to favor legalized abortion, decriminalizing marijuana, permitting homosexuals to serve in the military, and making all aspects of government open.

On economic issues, liberals believe that people and corporations, left to their own devices, often do the wrong thing economically and liberals would like to see more restrictive laws on the economy; liberals want more controls. They are more likely to favor salary caps, price controls and more commissions controlling various aspects of business.

Conservatives are the opposite. Conservatives believe that people, left to their own devices, often do the wrong thing. Conservatives would, therefore, like to see more social laws. They are more likely to want to prohibit abortion, keep marijuana criminalized, restrict military service to heterosexuals and allow some parts of the government to operate in secret.

On economic issues, conservatives are closer to laissez-faire and believe that people and corporations, left to their own devices, make better economic decisions. Conservatives would, therefore, like to see fewer laws on the economy. They are more likely to oppose salary caps, price controls and more commissions controlling various aspects of business.

This brings us to libertarians. Libertarians are laissez-faire on everything. They are more likely to side with liberals on social issues and with conservatives on economic issues.

And last, but not least, that brings us to populists. Populists tend to agree with liberals on economic issues and with conservatives on social issues. They don’t trust anyone to get it right without oversight.

So, having said all that, what does that say about Ron Paul’s win in the straw poll and about the increased attendance of libertarians at CPAC? It seems to imply that libertarians are placing more emphasis on economic issues this time around. They are moving toward conservatives because they feel threatened by liberal policies of the Democrats and that, to them at this time, seems more important than social issues.

It’s also interesting that many pundits have cited President Obama’s move toward courting populists. It makes sense.

This time around, it is the economy – and in spades.

The politics of global warming

Politics are different from science. In politics, you try to convince people to adopt your point of view and often facts are spun to make them appear more favorable to your point of view; the end result of politics is to win a majority and be able to govern. Science works on the principle of providing raw data, documented processes and to answering skeptics in good faith; often theories held by the minority can eventually become the established science.

Whether or not anthropocentric global warming is a fact, one must admit that, to date, the science of global warming has taken a backseat to the politics of global warming.

It was clear from the start that the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was engaged in politics. The Working Group Summary for Policymakers was published in February 2007. At that time, it was announced that the full detailed report would be available a month later, as soon as the detail was ensured to be in conformance with the summary. Wait a minute. Isn’t that backward? Shouldn’t the summary come after the detail and shouldn’t the summary be in conformance with the detail?

The next indication that politics was trumping science was when the supporters of the global warming theory stated that global warming was settled science and anyone who disagreed was a “denier” (as in Holocaust Denier). Name calling is typically reserved for politics.

And just who are the faces of global warming? The co-winners of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize: Al Gore and Rajendra Pachauri. Gore is lifelong politician and nowhere near a scientist. Pachauri is the Chief of the IPCC and, by training, is an industrial engineer and economist. By vocation, for the last 35 years Pachauri has been an economics professor and has served in the leadership position of several organizations. He’s not a scientist either.

If that weren’t indicative of the political tack of the IPCC, the IPCC then began touting that some 2,500 scientists had signed-on to their document, making anthropocentric global warming the winner by majority rule. But science is decided by rigorous application of facts – it’s politics that’s decided by majority rule. A phrase that has come to describe just this situation of politics dominating science is the “Semmelweis Reflex”: the rejection of knowledge that conflicts with accepted science norms. (Ignaz Semmelweis, for whom the Semmelweis Reflex was named, was a 19^th century Vienna physician who suggested that hospital mortality rates could be lowered if physicians washed their hands before examining patients; however, Semmelweis’s suggestion was a contradiction of the settled science norms; doctors could clean their hands by wiping them on their smocks.)

Even skeptics got into the political game when Dr. Arthur Robinson, Director of the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine, initiated a petition that was eventually signed by 32,000 scientists stating, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human … [activities are] causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.” (For the full document, go here

http://www.petitionproject.org/.)

But when emails were hacked from Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia that appeared to disclose deception and political skullduggery, and when the world learned of errors regarding the disappearance of the Himalayan glaciers and on sea level data, among other statements – all instrumental in the IPCC study -- the IPCC realized it was time for a “do-over.” The landmark document on climate would have to be completely revised. This was to be announced in early December but the announcement was delayed for fear of the political impact that such a statement would have on the reputations of the representatives at the Copenhagen Climate Conference in mid-December.

In the meantime, the nomenclature is changing to make global warming more palatable. At first, the term “global warming” was used to reflect a concern that temperatures were rising world-wide. When that proved not to be the case (indeed, Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and a key figure in the Climategate scandal, stated in an interview with the BBC earlier this month: “there has been no significant warming since 1995”) the proponents of global warming changed the name of the phenomenon to “climate change.” And now, Tom Friedman, a political columnist for The New York Times, has suggested that the term “global weirding” be used to account for all variations in temperatures and weather.

The IPCC and their apostles have done the world a disservice. By politicizing their message in such a ham-handed fashion, they have thrown anthropocentric climate change into disrepute. To rebuild their trust, if possible, they will have to begin by admitting that the science is not settled. If they cannot make that statement – and as members of an organizations that has promoted itself on the “settled science” platform, it is a big step – they will never earn that trust again.

Quote without comment

BBC reporters last month posed the question: “When scientists say ‘the debate on climate change is over,’ what exactly do they mean?” Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, responded to the question: “I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view.”

Rob Kulak