Several friends of Heartland have expressed trepidation about continuing their long-time associations with us. This is my reply to one of those scholars, which shines a little more light about what’s going on around here since Peter Gleick confessed to creating the “Fakegate” scandal:
Dear John,
Sorry you feel this way.
For 28 years, The Heartland Institute has tried to stay “above the fray,” producing high-quality research and commentary and staying focused on the issues, even as the political dialogue became more and more polarized and corrosive. Almost alone among think tanks, we focus on communicating with people who do not already agree with us. We rely on research and reason, not rhetoric and emotion, and still do.
Marc’s views are his own — and, as always with him, an invigorating read. Those who are subject to easily getting the vapors over such things should probably not heed the advice “click to continue” below. For the rest, here is the full-and-raw Marc Morano, who called out — and answered — some egregious examples of global warming alarmists using “provocative communications” about skeptics that the MSM seems to have missed:
This is a brief list of attacks on skeptics of man-made global warming, which despite their vulgarity saw preferential tolerance from the mainstream media.
Know of any others? Email me at tsmith@heartland.org
America’s fixation on diversity is logical. We are a nation of immigrants, a great “melting pot” of ethnicities, nationalities and cultures, brought together by a choice to be an American made by us or our ancestors, and by a shared commitment to a unique set of values that constitute what George Will has called the “catechism” of America’s civil religion.
To acknowledge and appreciate our national diversity is to embrace our American heritage and culture. But diversity itself pales in comparison to the values that all Americans share; we come together as Americans not because we respect everyone’s differences, but because we are commonly invested in a core set of beliefs enumerated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. These ideals transcend diversity.
A new group has recently released a video advocating free-market policies from a whole new perspective, and the result is very compelling.
The group is called Free Market America, and its stated mission is to defend economic freedom, particularly from environmental extremism.
The video puts the viewer in the perspective of someone who wants to dismantle the country, and walks them though what they would do to accomplish it. Throughout the video, the viewer becomes aware of how many of today’s ideas match the destructive actions learned through this perspective.
What makes this argument compelling is that this sort of connection cannot be built from anything other than concrete evidence. Leaving the viewer to digest the sobering truth once the video ends.
After watching the video, feel free to read the transcript below if you would like a closer look at the video’s points.
If I wanted America to fail …
To follow, not lead; to suffer, not prosper; to despair, not dream — I’d start with energy.
I’d cut off America’s supply of cheap, abundant energy. Of course, I couldn’t take it by force. So, I’d make Americans feel guilty for using the energy that heats their homes, fuels their cars, runs their businesses, and powers their economy.
Recently “Color of Change,” Common Cause, the Center for Media and Democracy, and other extreme leftist groups’ have attempted to defame a group called the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). These attacks are not surprising considering the groups that are making them. Rather than discussing and debating actual policy, these groups resort to ad hominem attacks and bullying tactics. What is downright shameful is their use of a tragedy like Trayvon Martin’s death to dishonestly attack an organization with which they disagree on policy.
Like ALEC’s corporate donors, The Heartland Institute’s supporters are under fierce attack by the same left-wing groups using the same tactics. While “Color of Change” uses the Trayvon Martin tragedy as cover for its ideological campaign, “Forecast the Facts” and its allies are using our efforts to bring sound science to the debate over global warming. Such tactics have no place in the national debate over public policy.
Despite what these fringe groups want you to believe, ALEC is not involved in any black helicopter conspiracy. ALEC is in fact a very effective and respected public-private partnership that brings together state legislators, members of the private sector, the federal government, and general public to openly discuss public policy and free-market solutions. It does not hide that its stated mission is to advance “Jeffersonian principles of free markets, limited government, federalism, and individual liberty.”
As Georgia Senate Majority Leader Chip Rogers put it, “I stand with ALEC, and together we stand ready to defend our guiding principles of free markets and limited government, which is what our nation needs now more than ever.”
The Heartland Institute stands with ALEC in support of free enterprise, limited government, and federalism, and asks that you do so as well.
This long essay is well worth your time to read. It was written, without any encouragement or coaching, by Prof. William Gray, one of the world’s most distinguished and respected hurricane experts. He’s one of the “grand old men” of climate research, a hero and mentor to thousands of students and practicing meteorologists. In his essay he tells the story of how a younger generation of researchers got co-opted by the government grant process and have abandoned objectivity on the climate change issue in exchange for money and publicity.
The essay has many kind things to say about Heartland. I’m going to print out and cherish this essay for a long time, maybe for the rest of my life. This is vindication. I don’t care if the New York Times, Washington Post, or Michael Mann never admit that they were wrong. Bill Gray says we are right, and that’s all I need.
We should all be grateful for the Heartland Institute and for its Nobel Mission to bring enlightenment and truth to the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) question. The recent illegal acquiring of internal documents from this Chicago based institute helps remind us what a unique and important organization it is. The Heartland Institute has given a great boost and encouragement to so many of us who have attended any one or up to six of their international climate science meetings that were held in New York, Wash. D.C., and Chicago between 2008-2011.
Today marks the second anniversary of the signing of President Obama’s health care takeover, a law which now hangs in the balance before the Supreme Court. But there is another anniversary too, and one far more meaningful in the course of human events.
It was 237 years ago today, in Virginia, that Patrick Henry gave a speech that rang out through the colonies and urged the people to stand up for their liberty. The speech is doubtless familiar to all of you. But there is a line that comes before the more famous conclusion which I have always loved.
In making his case that the colonists should be willing to stand even against the armed might of the British Empire, which had put down so many colonial rebellions in the past, Henry urged the Virginians on, saying:
The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave.
To which I would add: Whether this younger anniversary matters a few years from now depends in large part on us remembering the counsel of the older one.
Over at Slate, Torie Bosch writes that that an underlying subtext of the Hunger Games franchise is a dystopian future induced by climate change and resource conflict. Bosch writes:
For those who have remained immune to The Hunger Games’ hype (and that’s just silly—read the books already!), Suzanne Collins’ story revolves around a cruel yearly pageant held in the country of Panem: One boy and one girl from each of 12 “districts” scattered through what used to be the United States are sent to battle to the death in a reality TV competition. Twenty-three will die; one will survive to live a life of luxury. We’re told that the games were instituted by the leaders of the Capitol, which governs Panem, to keep the district residents docile: The forced sacrifice of their children reminds them that they are allowed to live only so that they may provide the Capitol with goods and entertainment, panem et circenses.
In the first book of the trilogy, we witness the Reaping, the ceremony in which the boy and girl from each district are chosen in a brutal lottery. The mayor tells the history of Panem, the country that rose up out of the ashes of a place that was once called North America. He lists the disasters, the droughts, the storms, the fires, the encroaching seas that swallowed up so much of the land, the brutal war for what little sustenance remained. The result was Panem, a shining Capitol ringed by thirteen districts, which brought peace and prosperity to its citizens. Panem, then, is what happens to North America’s democracies in a post-climate-change world.
Bosch hits on what is undoubtedly a theme of the series, but what is missing from her analysis is the other side of the story. In Panem, the only way to maintain the lifestyle of elites in the Capitol is to subject the producing districts to abject poverty. District 12, the home town of series protagonists Katniss and Peeta, exists only to produce coal for the capital. While certain resources may be scarce, lying on the other side of the fence are abundant plants and wildlife that could be harvested to address the needs of the people. Poor families can receive more grain and oil from the government only if they in turn place another slip with their name in the reaping, increasing the likelihood of their participation in the Hunger Games. Instead of allowing its people to prosper from these resources, the Capitol purposefully limits their access to resources to make them subservient to an authoritarian state. [click to continue…]
The title of this post is an analogy that the Wall Street Journal’s Dan Henninger uses to describe the modern Democrat’s vision of the citizen’s proper relationship to the state. And it’s an excellent one to make in his always must-read regular column.
What prompted that turn of phrase by Henninger was the introduction of the House Republican budget this week by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) — the most serious budget by Congress in our lifetimes. It is the only budget I have seen that (at long last) takes seriously the fiscal impossibility of continuing an entitlement culture in America — a fantasy that anyone paying attention could see was unsustainable years ago. Ryan is the first House Budget Committee chairman to finally say the truth. That took real political courage. Good for him, and the nation will be better off for it.
But back to Henninger’s theme. Most Americans don’t think of tax policy as defining the character of what this country is about. It’s natural to think: “It’s too mundane. It’s too ‘green eyeshade.’ It’s too hard to understand. Besides, only people with a lot of money care about tax policy. Me? Just give me enough money to buy something nice with my tax return.”
But that view misses the bigger and vital picture. Federal tax policy defines, in the most basic way, the relationship the ruling class establishes with those they govern. And that dynamic, no matter what tax bracket you’re in, matters. A lot. Does your government have first and ultimate claim on your time and labor? Or does your government acknowledge and respect that your finite time and labor are your own — to put toward the advancement of yourself and your family — and seek to only take from you what is absolutely necessary? In short: Who’s aims are paramount? Yours as a free citizen, or those of the state?
