Progressives prefer blood over oil. More specifically, the left, communists, socialists, progressives, liberals, and Democrats prefer blood over oil. This is based on the actions, not the rhetoric, of the left including progressives. Since oil is financing much of Putin’s Russian war against Ukraine, the west, especially the United States, needs to cut off all sales of Russian and their allies’ oil on world markets. This must include removal of Russian and their allies’ oil transactions from the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (SWIFT) system. This step would eliminate most of Russia’s oil exports as a source of financing Putin’s Russian war against Ukraine. It would also further strangle the Russian economy. This would require the Biden Administration to reverse its restrictive oil policies and return the United States to an oil exporter, not an oil importer. This action could eliminate oil imports from Russia and its allies to the United States and our allies, especially Europe. Failure to take this step will prove that progressives prefer blood over oil; and the Biden Administration, by its inaction, prefers Ukrainian blood over oil.
Progressives claim that the United States must transition from carbon energy, oil and coal, to renewable energy to save the planet at all costs, including the blood of Ukrainians. Progressives want the United States to reduce our carbon use unilaterally when they will not require the largest carbon users in the world, Russia, China, and India, to reduce their use as a precondition to reductions by the United States. Without global cooperation, the claimed reduction in greenhouse gases contributed by the United States will have an insignificant affect in reducing greenhouse gases without reductions by the world’s worst polluters. Progressives fail to understand that the United States and the world will use the same amount of carbon energy including oil during their transition regardless of the source of the oil. Progressives also believe that energy inflation is an acceptable tool to reduce carbon energy use in the United States. This is another variant of the idea that progressives prefer blood over oil because they prefer the suffering of the poor and middle class over oil. For the poor and middle class, energy inflation causses them to choose between energy and food, medicine, or other necessities. Energy inflation is like a regressive tax that adversely affects those who can least afford the added costs.
With this in mind, why should the United States pay other countries, many our enemies, for our energy when we can produce it ourselves? Imported oil also includes the added cost of tanker and other high cost means of transport of oil further raising the price of gasoline at the pump. Therefore, the United States must become energy independent, and help eliminate the need for the United States and our allies to import Russian and its allies’ oil. If the Biden Administration does not change its policies to eliminate Russian oil imports and return the United States to an energy exporter and help Europe to become far less dependent on Russian energy, then we will know that progressives prefer blood over oil by their actions.
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your œPatriot Visions, start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
With their national poll approval ratings at or below 20%, it is not surprising that 80% of the population hears lies and damn lies when politicians and journalists open their mouths to speak or write. A discussion of the concepts of truth and lies may be an appropriate place to start this discussion. In The Ten Commandments we read this, You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor (EX 20:16, NIV), or do not lie. The Merriam Webster On-Line Dictionary definition of lie is to make an untrue statement with the intent to deceive. Conversely the same dictionary defines truth as, the body of real things, events, and facts, actuality, the state of being the case, fact. For We the People, the Deplorable Class, these concepts appear to be quite clear.
Lies of commission and omission advance the progressive cultural narrative to influence our social, political, and economic system.
ACADEMIC LIES
The 1983 Harvard University Press publication, A Dictionary of Marxist Thought essay on truth sheds a very different light on truth. Truth is described as the practical expression of a subject totality achieved in the realized identity of subject and object in history and this-worldly manifestations of class-related needs and interests. In the essay defining historiography, the study of history as a discipline, the definition of truth is refined, in the context of history, as an ideal chosen from an infinite number of similar, potential ideals determined by history and finally realized under communism once a consensus regarding the new truth of history is achieved. Joseph Stalin said, America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within. As a result, obscure and often discredited depictions of history are presented as historical facts to incrementally alter the existing historical paradigm and promote the progressive, Marxist agenda, academic lies. For example, the left ruthlessly uses this process to discredit the notion that our nation and Constitution are based on a Judeo-Christian society, principles, and laws.
With these thoughts regarding truth and history in mind and the current atmosphere on our college campuses and all levels of academia, it may be well for readers to consider the roll of the left’s educational dictatorship in today’s society to accomplish Stalin’s Marxist, progressive plan for America. Consequently, it is relatively simple to view the Constitution as a living, evolving document rather than a constant, unchanging basis for the rule of Law. The change, in jurisprudence from the preeminence of original intent to case law where precedent and the opinion of judges prevails and the Constitution became a living document, began in the middle of the nineteenth century at the Harvard Law School, the start of the left’s educational dictatorship. For the left, social truth is relative and changes with time and the current societal situation; and a lie is a contradiction of the current Marxist, progressive, social paradigm.
CLIMATIC LIES
The environmental movement in general, and the notion that climate change or global warming is primarily associated with industrialization, pollution, and carbon-based energy, is a movement in which academic, political, and journalistic lies and collusion regarding a narrative is obvious. It is interesting that the climate change narrative has turned 180° in the last half-century. In the 1970s the climate change narrative was the coming Ice Age. Today’s narrative is that man caused global warming will destroy the earth and all its inhabitants within 100 to 200 years at the most. There is no interest in the academic, political, or journalistic communities to explore or explain the cause of this narrative change in such a short period of time. That is a question we the deplorables need not ask; and a discussion of the narrative change doesn’t fit the current narrative. The reality is that both narratives placed the cause as industrialization, pollution, and our dependence on carbon-based energy.
This question regarding geological evidence of climate change is rarely considered. How is it possible, in the absence of human activity and industrialization, that the earth has gone through multiple ice ages and subsequent periods of global warming ending each ice age? Some geologist have attributed the cooling cycles to impacts of huge meteorites or asteroids which filled atmosphere with impact debris causing the cooling and the subsequent Ice Ages. Natural atmospheric cleansing resulted in rising temperatures over time ending each Ice Age. This seems to be a logical theory, but here is an interesting question. If such impacts are the cause of the global cooling and ice ages with subsequent atmospheric cleansing resulting in slow steady global warming and the end of the ice ages, does that mean that the earth is too close to the sun? Are such asteroid impacts the only phenomenon that has prevented temperature increases too great to sustain life on earth? Without these hypothesized asteroid impacts, would earth be too hot for life and more like mars? These unasked questions are interesting to a young geezer. To me the real scientific question that should be asked is, if carbon dioxide pollution from carbon based energy sources is the cause of climate change, why did earth experience extreme cyclic ice ages and subsequent global warming before the industrial age? Of course, such questions do not fit the current narrative explaining climate change; nor do they warrant real scientific inquiry according to the narrative.
The majority of academics, journalists, and politicians claim that man caused climate change, currently considered global warming, is settled science. This claim is not without controversy. John Coleman, a founder of the Weather Channel has said that man-made climate change is a hoax and climate change is not happening. He declared there is no consensus in science. Science isn’t a vote, science is about facts. Coleman is skeptical about claims that 97 percent of climate scientists are in agreement on the issue noting,
They don’t have any choice. If you’re going to get the money, you’ve got to support their position. Therefore 97 percent of the scientific reports published support global warming. Why? Because those are the ones the government pays for and that’s where the money is.
Current Weather Channel management does not agree with Coleman. My question is, Who currently pays Weather Channel bills?
Not all scientists and environmental economists agree that costs of climate change mitigation will significantly alter climate change.
Another group of skeptics regarding man caused global warming is Patrick Michaels editor of CLIMATE COUP: GLOBAL WARMING’S INVASION OF OUR GOVERNMENT AND OUR LIVES along with seven other contributing climate scientists and economists. In the introduction to this publication, Michael’s demonstrates how academicians and climate scientists select data to support the current global warming paradigm. While discussing California’s K-12 climate change curriculum guide, he writes,
…The 50 “ year trend in California temperatures is 0.43 degrees Fahrenheit per decade, or 4.3 degrees per century¦.
But starting in 1960 is highly misleading¦. Records began in 1895. Using the whole record, the trend is only 0.08 degrees. California’s alarmist guide over estimates the over “ all trend by over 500%. Further, it is rather apparent, even in the 50 year sample, that the warming takes place largely between 1960 and 1980, with no net change in the succeeding 30 years.
This selective use of data to support the climate change narrative or paradigm is an academic lie of commission, just another damn global warming lie.
Similarly, Chapter 3 of this publication, Bias in the Peer Review Process: A Cautionary and Personal Account, reiterates Coleman’s claim regarding climate change publications. The author, Ross McKitrick, opens the chapter with the following statement:
Unfortunately, Climategate e-mails revealed that indeed there has been systematic pressure on journal editors to reject manuscripts not toeing the line about disastrous climate change. Even more unfortunate, my experience and that of others are that the post-Climategate environment has made this situation worse, not better¦.
The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), by claiming to be the consensus of scientists,’ is actually defining a paradigm in the sense of the late historian of science Thomas Kuhn. To Kuhn, paradigms are overarching logical structures, and the work of normal science,’ is the care and feeding of paradigms with data and research findings that confirmed that indeed the paradigm is a correct representation of scientific reality.
This is the story of those difficulties with the IPCC and with the keepers of the paradigm¦.
Unfortunately, policymakers and the political class cannot see what is happening because the absence of these publications gives the appearance of unanimity in science that is not there.
Throughout this 28 page chapter, McKitrick discusses the issues raised in his introduction. In conclusion he states,
The paper I have discussed makes the case that the IPCC used false evidence to conceal an important problem with the surface temperature data on which most of its conclusions rest¦.
In the aftermath of Climategate, a lot of scientists working on global warming-related topics are upset that their field has apparently lost credibility with the public¦. I would like to suggest that the climate science community consider instead whether the public might actually have a point¦.
The policy community has aggressively intervened in climate science because of all the breaches of normal scientific procedures¦.. It appears to be a profession-wide decision that, due to the conjectured threat of global warming, the ethic of scientific objectivity has had an asterisk added to it: there is now the additional condition that objectivity cannot compromise the imperative of supporting one particular point of view.
This strategy is backfiring badly: rather than creating the appearance of genuine scientific progress, the situation appears more like a chokehold of indoctrination and intent intellectual corruption. I do not know what the solution is, since I have yet to see a case in which an institution or segment of society, having once been contaminated or knocked off balance by the global warning issue, is subsequently able to right itself. But perhaps, as time progresses, climate science will find a way to do so. Now that would be progress.
Although the authors concede that some warming is occurring, CLIMATE COUP goes on to challenge most of the dire claims related to the global warming paradigm, the extent of man’s contribution to climate change, and the relationship between the costs and benefits of most of the proposed solutions to the problem.
Evaluation of the Paris Climate Accord shows that it appears to be more of a wealth redistribution plan exempting major polluters like China and India and extracting huge costs on the developed world especially the United States of America. This is especially true for carbon credit payment plans where individuals, businesses, and nations pay penalties or taxes for excessive carbon energy usage which is transferred to developing nations. When the world’s most significant carbon polluters are excluded, the actual or scientifically perceived, reduction in temperature creases is relatively insignificant in comparison to the exorbitant costs. Touted benefits appear to be nothing more than political, journalistic, and academic lies, damn lies all. Consequently, the fact that President Trump withdrew from the accord will benefit the United States far more than the accord would benefit the earth with its insignificant impact on changes in the rate of purported global warming.
POLITICAL LIES
In today’s highly partisan environment, with slim legislative majorities and complex legislation often pairing liberal with conservative elements forcing lesser of evils considerations, principled votes can be difficult or impossible. The inevitable result of this type of legislation is political lies since it often hides issues that cannot pass on their merits within other critical legislation such as funding for Planned Parenthood within a an unrelated appropriation bill. The only way to end this political legislative gerrymandering is to require that all legislation relates to a single issue that stands or fails on the merits of the issue. The current legislative process is deceitful and makes political lies inevitable.
A related legislative issue is the Senate rule requiring 60 votes to pass non-budgetary legislation and the resultant filibuster. When the majority party does not have 60 Senatorial votes, the filibuster often forces Senators into defacto lies because they cannot fulfill campaign promises. The situation causes We the People to distrust politicians and the political process rendering election of Senators a somewhat thankless process. Alexander Hamilton observed that the filibuster is not democratic. He discussed what could be described as the tyranny of the minority where the minority overrules the majority. This is inconsistent with the republican form of government and democratic principles where the majority rules. Hamilton also discussed the remote possibility that unscrupulous campaign financiers would only need to come up with money to influence 40 equally unscrupulous Senators rather than 49 such Senators to alter the result of a vote on an issue. Withholding funds would be a more likely and less obvious strategy. This 60 vote super-majority rule often turns hope in the power of our Republic into a damn political lie. This is unfortunate since the origin of the filibuster rule was a simple misunderstanding not part of the Founder’s plan for the Senate.
We the People often feel that politicians simply say what they think their constituents want to hear during campaigns. Once they get into office, politicians seem to vote as the money tells them to vote, We the People be damned. Unfortunately, when politicians do stand on principles and vote based on campaign promises, they are often ridiculed, derided, and ostracized for the purpose coercing a change in their vote which would turn campaign promises into lies. Some unattributed examples will suffice; we really care about the people of the United States (but if bipartisan legislation will reduce our political power we will not participate in any such legislation), the IRS will never be used as a weapon against political opponents, if you like your doctor you can keep your doctor, if you like your healthcare insurance plan you can keep your plan, Under the ACA you will save an average of $2,500 a year, a cut in a government program occurs when the program increase occurs at a lower percentage than the rate of increase in the previous year or a lower than expected increase in a government program is a cut to the program (current Medicaid discussions for example), if you elect a Republican Legislature and President we will repeal and replace Obamacare, If you elect GOP Representatives, Senators, and President we will end illegal immigration and pass immigration reform, If you elect us we will reform Medicare and Social Security and insure that these programs will be available for all future generations, or elect us and we will lower your income taxes and reform the tax code. Of this list of major “lies,” Republicans did reform the tax codes and lower taxes. We the People could add pages to this short list of damn political lies. Liars must be replaced at every level of our political system.
HEALTHCARE LIES
The current Obamacare, healthcare insurance, repeal and replace debate is a discussion where journalistic and political liars collude. Collusion occurred during the debates for and passage of Obamacare. The first question regarding the current debate is the actual portion of the economy involved in the healthcare industry and the individual healthcare insurance market, Obamacare. The claim is that healthcare occupies one sixth of the US economy. Politicians claim and journalist report that the debate is critical because of this large proportion of our economy. Some questions are appropriate. Is healthcare insurance included in the healthcare share of the economy? If not, is the total healthcare contribution to our economy closer to 20% or more? Additionally, the combination of those currently involved in Obamacare and the uninsured is approximately 20% of the total healthcare insurance market. This is also known as the individual healthcare insurance market. Between 50 and 55% of healthcare insurance is provided by employers. Approximately 25% of the healthcare market is provided by VA healthcare, Medicare, and Medicaid. If the above proportions are generally accurate, then the debate regarding repealing and replacing or keeping Obamacare actually involves only 20% of the healthcare portion of the economy, or 3.3-4% not 16.6-20%, of the overall economy. Does this conflation of information, a gross overstatement or exaggeration, of the contribution of the individual healthcare insurance market to the overall economy constitute political and journalistic lies?
Terminology for the funds used to expand the individual healthcare Insurance market to able bodied low income workers through Medicaid using Obamacare is another area where politicians and journalists collude to at least misinform the people of the United States. In my opinion, Obamacare payments to supplement premiums, deductibles, and co-pays for this group constitute Marxist or socialist wealth redistribution from those tax payers with the ability to pay more to those having a greater need for healthcare insurance. In the words of Marx, From each according to his ability to each according to his need, wealth is redistributed by this plan. Depending on their political philosophy, politicians and journalists, use a variety of terms to describe this wealth redistribution. The terms include subsidies, entitlements, corporate welfare, and cost or premium reductions. The term wealth redistribution is not used nor is the fact that wealthier tax payers are financing the Medicaid expansion program ever discussed openly. These damn lies are lies of omission.
Politicians claim and journalists report that the individual market will be a competitive free market controlled by patients providing close patient doctor relationships and treatment choices. How can a market that involves at most 20% of healthcare be a competitive free market when 65-75% of the healthcare market is controlled by Medicare and employer provided healthcare insurance with contracts covering prices and availability? With these thoughts in mind, no one should be surprised that the promises of Obamacare turned into political and journalistic lies. Will the promises of any replacement for Obamacare, or improvements, in the individual healthcare insurance market also turn into political lies? Under the current paradigm, a real patient controlled, free market individual healthcare insurance market providing meaningful doctor-patient relationships, lower costs, and real choice is highly unlikely. Perhaps, it is time to consider an alternative.
JOURNALISTIC LIES
Journalistic lies are as complex as political lies. They are lies of commission and lies of omission. For this discussion, journalistic lies of commission are simply falsehoods intentionally reported as facts or unsubstantiated information and speculation based on anonymous, unverified sources. Lies of omission are simply the failure to report on legitimate factual stories that do not support the current news or social narrative. Both types of lies are developed to support the news narrative that the elites of journalism and the culture determine necessary to mold the opinion of the populace. Both types of lies undermine public trust in journalism.
It is a well-established fact that the vast majority of American journalists refer to themselves as liberal or progressive. These two labels along with communist, socialist, and Democrat are synonyms for Marxist. The difference between these terms is merely the speed and manner in which Marxist philosophy is implemented as the basis for governance. Many conservatives think that the primary purpose of news narratives is to provide information that supports, promotes, and insures that the central concept or ideal of progressive narratives are internalized by the majority of the population over time, social propaganda and indoctrination. Narratives being promoted by the progressive elites of our education system, pop culture, journalism, and progressive politicians, Democrats, are the previously described mission statement of Stalin for America, America will collapse from within¦ if we can undermine¦ its patriotism, its morality and its spiritual life. When Stalin referred to morality and spiritual life, he was referring to our Judeo-Christian heritage. Adding individualism and capitalism to the list of characteristics essential for American exceptionalism provides a fairly complete list of personal qualities and institutions that Marxism must undermine to ensure the internal collapse of America and usher in governance based on Marxist philosophy, socialism. It is these five areas of American culture, patriotism, morality, spirituality or Christianity, capitalism, and economic entrepreneurial individualism, that the progressive journalism narrative seeks to undermine.
Advancing the progressive social agenda starts in academia primarily in the social sciences. Regardless of the specifics, the narrative and agenda is almost always aimed at undermining our Judeo-Christian heritage, American morality and spiritual life. As soon as academia establishes a strong narrative, journalists join the fray. If politicians are unable to enact laws supporting the agenda, progressives take issues to the federal courts. Consequently, academia, journalist, and politicians collude to accomplish the progressive social agenda. This assault on American morality and spiritual life began with school prayer. The next phase was abortion rights which were followed by gay-rights and the battle for same-sex marriage. Next, progressives began their battle for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) rights. The final battle in this area could be totally open bisexual polygamy. Each progressive agenda cause would be worthy of extensive discussion. Suffice it to say that this has been a concerted effort to undermine the America of our Founders and the Judeo-Christian principles that made America the greatest nation in history.
Academicians, scientists, politicians, and journalist are all embroiled in a contest for the future of the United States of America based on the difference between lies, damn lies, and truth. Often the difference between lies and truth is in the eyes of the beholder and related to the narrative and motivation of the protagonists. In my opinion, the progressive narrative is that American patriotism, morality, and spiritual life must be undermined to insure that their vision for America will be realized. On the other hand, We the People in the Deplorable Class are diametrically opposed to the progressive narrative and agenda. We believe in the Founder’s vision for the United States of America. We believe in American exceptionalism, the critical impact of our Judeo-Christian heritage, the values espoused in Scripture, and the system of Constitutional capitalism that has evolved in America from colonial times to the present.
We the People in the Deplorable Class know that these values will help Make America Great Again.
Join the fray. All of the America’s Crossroad Posts are listed by categories in the BLOG CONTENTS tab. If you decide to read a few, please leave comments about your “Patriot Visions,” start or join the conversation, and share the Posts with friends and political frienimies.
Progressives prefer blood over oil. More specifically, the left, communists, socialists, progressives, liberals, and Democrats prefer blood over oil. This is based on the actions, not the rhetoric, of the left including progressives. Since oil is financing much of Putin’s Russian war against Ukraine, the west, especially the United States, needs to cut off all sales of Russian and their allies’ oil on world markets. This must include removal of Russian and their allies’ oil transactions from the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications (SWIFT) system. This step would eliminate most of Russia’s oil exports as a source of financing Putin’s Russian war against Ukraine. It would also further strangle the Russian economy. This would require the Biden Administration to reverse its restrictive oil policies and return the United States to an oil exporter, not an oil importer. This action could eliminate oil imports from Russia and its allies to the United States and our allies, especially Europe. Failure to take this step will prove that progressives prefer blood over oil; and the Biden Administration, by its inaction, prefers Ukrainian blood over oil.
