The proposed federal investigation into those who question man-made climate change is more dangerous to science than the Inquisition.

Sourced through Scoop.it from: www.thepublicdiscourse.com

In a remarkable letter to President Obama, twenty climate scientists have called for a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) investigation into “corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change.” They support their position by claiming that “an overwhelming majority of climate scientists are convinced about the potentially serious adverse effects of human-induced climate change on human health, agriculture, and biodiversity.”

The notion that a criminal investigation should be used to arbitrate a scientific dispute is antithetical to the proper norms of scientific inquiry. Whether or not there is intended deception is irrelevant, because the validity of a scientific theory is independent of one’s motivation for affirming the theory. Moreover, an overwhelming majority of scientists favoring a particular position does not provide scientific support for that position. There was universal support for Newton’s laws for over two centuries, but it only took one dissenter to supersede them.

Worse than the authors’ nonscientific approach to scientific disputation is their effort to bring down the machinery of the state on their opponents. It has taken centuries for science to free itself from domination by the state. It was not long ago that the opponents of Trofim Lysenko were crushed by Stalinist oppression. The authors might argue that they only want an investigation. If so, do they really expect that potential criminal investigations would not have an adverse effect on free inquiry?

It is instructive to compare the RICO letter to a letter written 400 years earlier by Tommaso Caccini and delivered to the Congregation of the Holy Office (the Inquisition) on March 20, 1615. Caccini argued that the Copernican heliocentric theory that the planets orbit about a fixed sun is incompatible with the Bible and informed the Inquisition that Galileo had advocated this theory. On February 26, 1616, the Inquisition ordered Galileo “to abstain altogether from teaching or defending the said opinions and even from discussing them.” Galileo submitted to the decree and avoided prison.

There are similarities between the proposed RICO investigation and the trial of Galileo.

– In both, the accusers argue that they have the support of the majority of scientists. In the case of Copernicus, even the great Tycho Brahe rejected the heliocentric theory. By the time of Galileo, the theory had gained more support, including from Johannes Kepler.

 

– In both, the accused would be brought to trial under laws giving the prosecution wide latitude of interpretation.

– In both, the charge is essentially heresy against what Francis Bacon called the Idols of the Theater—uncritical acceptance of dogma and popular theories.

 

– In both, conviction would result in imprisonment.

– In both, the accusers claim there is great societal risk in not taking their position. In the case of Galileo, it was credibly argued that rejecting the geocentric theory would undermine the faith, thus undermining the moral order, and thereby leading to societal breakdown. The argument takes on great urgency when one realizes that from Caccini’s accusation to Galileo’s conviction spanned the period of 1615 to 1633 and that the Thirty Years War ran from 1618 to 1648, a war resulting in population declines of up to a third in parts of the Holy Roman Empire.

See on Scoop.it – Eagle Views

The Income Tax as we know it today can be laid at the feet of Presidents Taft and Wilson with the passage and enactment of the 16th amendment to the Constitution in 1913; however the story does not end there or even begin there. Let’s take a walk back through history and see how today’s income tax came to be.

Wartime has always given the government the ideal opportunity to introduce more taxes. The introduction of the “Wartime” income tax actually began during the Civil War. It was adopted in 1862, although the idea gained traction during the War of 1812. This “Wartime” income tax was the first graduated (progressive) tax, with higher rates for higher incomes.

The war ended in 1865, yet the income tax was not repealed until 1872. Another stab at the income tax (a flat rate this time) was again enacted in 1894 by the Grover Cleveland administration, but was declared unconstitutional (Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan and Trust Co., 1895), being that we were no longer at war and, more importantly, because it was a direct tax on wages (Article I, Section 9) which, then, was clearly not part of the Constitution. I guess they still knew what that document was back then.

Did you know that the framers of our Constitution did not permit the federal government to directly tax incomes? That is why there had to be an amendment to the Constitution giving the federal government the power to directly tax each income.

So in 1913, at the tail end of the Taft administration, the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified when Delaware accepted it in February of that year. One month later, the evil and now second worst President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson, was sworn in.

Within a month of being sworn in, a progressive rate income tax was introduced to Congress. The progressive income tax was now in place and the graduated rates were a clear measure for Wilson and his supporters to redistribute wealth. Plainly speaking this allowed the federal government to take money from those who earn it and give to those who did not, or even better this allowed politicians to BUY VOTES with your money.

By October of 1913, the progressive income tax was in place. It still was not what we think of, being that there was no withholding as we have today; but, like all progressive ideas, they have to start somewhere, and that somewhere was to set up the framework for wealth redistribution.

The onset of World War I afforded progressives the opportunity to rapidly expand the tax system, but it wasn’t until World War II that the tax burden dramatically increased. Due to the war effort, federal spending went from $9 billion in 1940 to more than $98 billion in 1945. And it has gone up ever since. $98 billion seems small by today’s 3 trillion-dollar federal spending spree.

Up until this time, present year income taxes were paid by the taxpayer in the following year. This posed a problem for the war effort. They needed that money now – not next year.

Enter a rather unlikely culprit – the great free-market economist Milton Friedman, who worked at the Treasury during the early part of the war. It was actually he and his colleagues at Treasury who proposed the pay-as-you-go income tax withholding idea, which was enacted in 1943. Well there goes my respect for Milton Friedman.

In his memoirs, he described the reasoning, at the time, behind the idea of withholding. “It was clear to all of us at the Treasury, as we set out to multiply the amount of revenue to be collected from the personal income tax, that it would be impossible to do so unless we could develop a system to collect the taxes as the income was earned, not a year later.” He added that “the system would have been introduced had I been involved or not.”

Later, he regretted that decision, as he wrote: “We concentrated single-mindedly on promoting the war effort. We gave next to no consideration to any longer-run consequences. It never occurred to me when I was helping to develop machinery that would make possible a government that I would come to criticize severely as too large, too intrusive, too destructive of freedom. Yet, that was precisely what I was doing.” Even the best of us can have serious lapses in judgment.

Unfortunately for us, unlike the “Wartime” income tax of 1862, this “Wartime” tax, now 70 years removed, was never repealed and has been the sole mechanism of our modern-day redistributionist welfare state.

So then why not repeal the 13th amendment? Because politicians love that they get to use your money to buy votes.

via The Income Tax – A Brief History – Freedom Outpost.

WASHINGTON—Musicians Keith and Kristyn Getty headlined the second annual Washington Prayer Gathering today as thousands of Christians converged on the National Mall”

Sourced through Scoop.it from: www.worldmag.com

2 Chronicles 7:14 reads:

14 if My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land.

Failure to acknowledge God and honor Him as the only true God has led us down this path of darkness. The only hope of turning the tide of sin in America is if the righteous humble themselves and pray for the nation and repent of the sins of  the nation.

Although God is not obligated to look favorably on a nation that has for so long told God He was not welcomed, but knowing that God is a merciful God and slow to anger gives us hope that perhaps he will repent of any anger He has for America and forgive her many sins.

However if God’s people do not take the time to humble themselves and pray for God’s forgiveness then there is less hope of God’s mercy being poured out rather than his wrath.

See on Scoop.it – Eagle Views

WICHITA, Kansas — A university in Kansas is under fire after it made alterations to its Christian chapel to accommodate Muslims. According to reports, the Grace …

Sourced through Scoop.it from: christiannews.net

See on Scoop.it – Eagle Views

Some senior U.S. officials involved in the implementation of the Iran nuclear deal have privately concluded that a key sanctions relief provision – a concession to Iran that will open the doors to tens of billions of dollars in U.S.-backed commerce with the Islamic regime – conflicts with existing federal statutes and cannot be implemented without violating those laws, Fox News has learned.

Sourced through Scoop.it from: www.foxnews.com

Well isn’t that an interesting development? Obama’s Iran nuclear treaty deal runs afoul of federal law, but when has that ever stopped the Obamanation from doing whatever he wants to do? Congress has heretofore been ineffectual in stopping any plans put forth by Obama.

Since Congress under the Corker act relinquished their treaty ratification powers to Obama I seriously doubt if they will mount any effort to thwart this Iran deal. To think that the fools on capital hill actually thought that Obama would put forth anything of real value have to be high on something. Everything Obama has  touched has turned to crap and this is just another example of his ineptitude and incompetence. Of course Congress is just as inept and incompetent to have rolled over multiple times and allowed this President to continue his wrecking ball campaign.

All this is mute however since Obama did an end run around Congress and dashed immediately to the UN Security council before the ink was even dry on the Iran deal, and as far as the signers to the deal are concerned it is full steam ahead. Iran will continue to develop nuclear weapons, Russia and China will continue to do business with Iran. Iraq and Syria will also get in on the trading, and congress will sit there like dopes wondering what went wrong.

See on Scoop.it – Eagle Views