Author: George Noga

Climate Change Part II – Computer Models

George Noga
No computer models of climate change have been updated to incorporate the actual temperature record of the past twenty years. Why is this true?
Climate Change Part II – Computer Models
By: George Noga – March 19, 2017
       Computer models predicting sharply higher temperatures were not only wrong but drastically so. And the models were wrong about much more than temperatures. They predicted antarctic ice would decrease; instead, it has increased and it is ten times larger than the arctic icecap. The predicted rise in sea levels is not materializing and the rate is slowing. Extreme weather has declined as proven by decreased insurance claims. Oh, and those disappearing Pacific islands – some are actually increasing.
      Despite their serious flaws, models have not been updated with results of the past 20 years. Why is this true given the gusher of government money available for such purposes? Moreover, the first scientist to update a model with actual temperatures since 1998 and still show alarming global warming would become an instant climate warrior rock star. Everything else has been improved in the past 20 years; compare your present cell phone to 1997 models the size of a brick and with long antennas.
      Are scientists too dumb or too lazy to update and to correct their computer models? Do they lack the necessary funding? Are they too busy teaching or performing other research? Do they lack either the incentive or the desire? Following are the five main reasons why no computer models have been updated for at least 20 years.
1. It simply cannot be done. As noted in Part I, temperatures increased sharply from 1910 to 1945 then cooled 1946-1975, then warmed moderately 1976-1998 and then paused beginning in 1999. Try fitting those data into a computer model.
2. Models rely on powerful CO2 feedback loops. To show alarming future warming, models assume ultra high levels of CO2 feedback amplification. Research shows such strong feedback may be wrong by up to 10 times. Even if they continued to use 300% amplification, they still could not make models mesh with observed temperature data.
3. Accurate models would show man-made warming is not a problem. Scientists could construct a plausible computer model showing a modest amount of anthropogenic warming; however, that is unsuited to their need to portray a cataclysmic and imminent global crisis as expected and demanded by their government patrons.
4. Funding for future climate and other research would evaporate. In addition to perpetual loss of funding, scientists who updated a model to show little, if any, man-made warming would experience all-out attacks on their work, methods, motives and ad hominem attacks as well. They may even be charged with thought crimes.
5. Scientists disavowing human causation would be savaged. Instead of their current status as moral warriors occupying the high ground fighting an imminent global crisis, they instantly would be regarded as bottom-feeding pariah. They would incur the wrath of those proven wrong, would become persona non grata on campus and would be shunned by their peers. The environmental religion is unforgiving to apostates. Instead of media darlings who do no wrong, they would be tarred as heretical climate deniers.
    I turn to Occam’s Razor (simplest explanation is the most likely one) to revisit the question of why computer models have not been corrected or updated. The simplest answer clearly is that a valid climate model cannot be constructed that explains the temperature record since 1910 including the pause in warming since 1998 and still show the desired results. In this case however, I also am going to turn to Noga’s Razor, which states that when there is only one plausible answer, it is the correct one.
    The absence of updated or corrected computer models for two decades constitutes dispositive and prima facie evidence human activity does not cause climate change.
Research note: I have invested considerable time researching this post. There are many climate models and some may have been updated, at least in part. It is possible there may exist climate models which include data for the past 20 years. What I do believe is that there are no updated computer models showing the same sharply rising temperatures as the original models. If such models existed, they would be widely touted by media and climate warriors.
Our next post March 26th is Part III of our climate change series

Climate Change Part I – Causation

George Noga
Climate change is the key for progressives to impose their agenda which they can’t
achieve via elections. If they succeed, government will control every aspect of our lives.
That is the reason MLLG is publishing this fact-based and principled five-part series.
Climate Change Part I – Causation
By: George Noga – March 15, 2017
     Anyone who reads our entire five-part series on man-made climate change may never look at that subject the same way again. Following is a summary of each part.
Part I – Overview and the role of human activity in climate change
     Summary of MLLG position: Earth has been in a secular, solar-caused warming trend since circa 1850; this is a normal part of alternate warming and cooling cycles throughout history. Increases in CO2 resulting from human activity may contribute to warming to a small and inconsequential extent – perhaps 10%. Moreover, the moderate warming predicted by the UN-IPCC is a net benefit to mankind. Present attempts to lower CO2 incur ruinous costs to achieve infinitesimal benefits and are disastrous. Bottom Line: Warming is likely about 90% solar and only about 10% anthropogenic.
The Five Main Arguments Against Anthropogenic Warming
1. Warming throughout solar system: NASA has documented warming on our moon, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Triton, Pluto, Enceladus, Dysmonia and Eris. (Specific temperature data are on our website.) Much of this warming has a similar pattern to Earth’s and there is not a single instance of observed non-warming anywhere in our solar system. The odds are over 1,000 to 1 (2^10) against this occurring in all ten out of ten other places (where data exist) in our solar system if temperatures on Earth were rising due to human activity. This is nearly irrefutable evidence of solar causation.
2. No warming for 20 years: There has been no net global warming at least since 1998 except possibly for the El Nino years of 2015 and 2016. Most (nearly 75%) of the warming in the 20th century occurred from 1910 to 1945 when CO2 was low.
3. Temperature patterns are consistent with solar causation: Weather since at least 1910 fits a secular warming paradigm. Temperatures increase in fits and starts; there are long pauses and even intervals of cooling. Temperatures increased from 1910-1945, cooled from 1946-1975, warmed from 1976-1998 and paused from 1999 to now. These data are consistent with solar causation but inconsistent with CO2 causation and all models.
4. Climate models are wrong: Models have not come even remotely close to predicting temperatures for the past 20 years. They haven’t been updated because it is impossible for them to account for the hiatus in warming since 1998. As shown infra, models rely on 300% amplification of CO2 feedback to achieve the high future temperatures predicted. Such feedback now appears wrong. Also, if warming is solar caused and behaves as shown in number 3 above, then no computer model could ever predict it.
5. CO2 feedback is much less than believed: Climate models assume increases in CO2 are amplified (increased) through feedback by 300%; instead, current research (now being peer reviewed) shows it could be dampened (decreased) by more than 50%. That difference means the effect of CO2 increases on climate change is lower than predicted by all climate models by a factor of up to 10 times. Increases in CO2 still may impact temperatures but by up to 10 times less than that shown in the models. Thus, CO2 can explain only about 10% of climate change, meaning the other 90% is solar. Note: Even if the amplification/dampening effects cited herein ultimately are found to be different, it would not change the fact that temperatures cannot be explained by changes in CO2.
      There is much more to the case against man-made warming, but I’ll close with this vignette. Ever since man trod this earth, climate change was 100% due to nature. Now, the climate consternation folks want us to believe that starting 40 years ago climate change is 100% due to human activity and has nothing to do with nature. Go figure.
Part II on March 19th – Why Climate Models Have Not Been Updated

Restoring Confidence in Police

George Noga
Confidence in police began to decline decades ago and now is low across all demographic groups. This post presents a practical plan to restore confidence.
Restoring Confidence in Police
By: George Noga – March 12, 2017

      Our September 25th post Crisis of Confidence in Police (online at www.mllg.us) was highly critical of policing in America and we received push back from some readers. When we criticize, we also like to proffer solutions; hence, we present this 10-part plan – in rough order of importance – for restoring confidence in police.

1. Engage in self-evaluation. In the post Vietnam era, the military was in shambles. Like the police today, they were poorly perceived by the public. They took a critical look at themselves and transformed the military into the most trusted institution in America. Police must perform a similar realistic and critical review to understand why there is such a wide trust gap and then take all the necessary corrective actions.
2. Create a West Point for police. In another lesson from the military, a national police service academy should be created exactly like the others. This would attract many of the best and brightest into policing and provide leadership and professionalism.
3. Enhance professionalism at all levels. Advancement to sergeant, lieutenant, captain and senior levels should require further education and training. This is another lesson from the military, where advancement to each rank requires professional development. To advance to a senior police command position should require graduation from something akin to the War College, required for all military general officers. Under no circumstances should advancement ever be linked to the number of tickets or arrests.
4. Embrace citizen review boards. All jurisdictions should have non-political review boards and then work closely with them to build better community relations. Such boards should not be viewed as inimical but rather as a valuable resource. Use every possible opportunity to learn from community leaders and to build trust.
5. Abolish the us-versus-them attitude. Police form insular cliques, walling themselves off from their communities. They protect each other, even against accusations of wrongdoing, with a blue wall of silence. In the military there is no green wall of silence despite combat situations. Duty to the public always must come before police loyalty to their buddies. Until that happens, police never will earn the full respect of the public. This means that the practice of testilying (police lying under oath) also must end.
6. Use SWAT teams only when absolutely necessary. Currently SWAT teams are used over 50,000 times a year – sometimes to serve routine subpoenas. Such lethal force should be used sparingly and only when deemed absolutely essential.
7. Police should be non-union. It is inconceivable the military would be unionized, go on strikes, engage in job actions or tomfoolery regarding pay and benefits such as overtime spiking. This same paradigm should apply to police. Public unions create enormous resentment among private sector workers, only 6% of whom are unionized.
8. Abolish civil asset forfeiture. This is an incredibly sleazy, self-serving, extra legal practice that likely is unconstitutional. It reflects incredibly poorly on police, creates widespread resentment with the pubic and can’t be terminated soon enough.
9. Clean up the atmospherics. As part of heightened police professionalism, abolish telephone solicitations which grate on the public. Uniforms should be basic, no-frills with high ranking officers wearing civilian clothes; save the five-star general uniforms for rare formal occasions. At public events be modest and avoid self aggrandizement.
10. Use broken-window policing. Implement legal and appropriate measures proven most effective at preventing and lowering crime, regardless of any political pressure to the contrary. This means fully embracing broken-window policing.

   The erosion of confidence in the police to its present low level happened over decades and has myriad causes. The ten-part plan presented herein will not be quick or easy but it will restore the public’s confidence in the police to protect and to serve!

On March 17th MLLG begins its five-part series about climate change 

Trump Derangement Syndrome

George Noga
TDS, or Trump Derangement Syndrome, is a mental disorder that causes loss of all sense of proportion, civility and ability to think or act in a controlled manner.
Trump Derangement Syndrome
By: George Noga – March 5, 2017
     Trump Derangement Syndrome or “TDS” is a mental illness with a known cause but no known cure. It’s most prevalent on both coasts and college campuses. Sufferers avoid treatment because the malady releases endorphins, makes them feel smug about themselves and is virtue signalling. The main symptom is uncontrollable expressions of outrage at even the slightest non provocation. Victims lose all sense of proportion, civility and ability to think or act in a controlled manner. In the disease’s end stages, victims lose their grip on reality and can’t tell fact from fiction. TDS sufferers are mired in a state of denial. Note: there are no electoral votes in the state of denial.
      TDS struck the 60 Democrat congressmen boycotting the inauguration. Madonna had a severe case, making her muse about blowing up the White House. Meryl Streep became unglued with TDS during the Golden Globes. The Rockettes were afflicted as were many celebrities asked to perform at the inaugural. Among senators, Cory Booker and Pocahontas, err, Elizabeth Warren suffered severe amnesia, forgetting their earlier passionate support for school choice when questioning Betsy DeVos.
      When conservatives lose elections, liberals and the media always attribute the loss to repudiation of their candidates and policies. When progressives lose, it is always because of fear, anger, hate, bigotry, Fox News, Drudge, talk radio, internet memes and now Russia. Obama attributed the 2016 loss to voters “afraid, suspicious and fearful“. This follows his remarks claiming voters “get bitter, cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade frustrations“. Liberals can’t imagine voters rejecting their vapid ideas, hence TDS.
     TDS caused liberals to draw the wrong conclusions about the election, to deny reality and to set a disastrous course for 2018 and 2020. They face erosion in support from both blacks and private sector unions in the rust belt. Their leadership in the House is all over 75 years old. How will a party led by Chuck Schumer, Tom Perez, Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders and Pocahontas fare in 2018 senate races in states like North Dakota, which Trump carried by 36 points and Heitkamp won with 50.2% last go-round?  Their main presidential candidates for 2020 are Andrew Cuomo, Cory Booker and Pocahontas – George McGovern redux. Meanwhile, Republicans are only one state legislature short of the two-thirds needed to call a constitutional convention.
     The Sturm und Drang on college campuses is a TDS symptom but also is due to the realization their liberal god has failed. Obama was likely the most liberal president America will ever have and he failed to accomplish anything. Students have total control over campuses yet demand even more; they are beginning to eat their own. Progressives spent like drunken sailors, still the economy is sclerotic. For the first time ever, they will be worse off than their parents. And then along came Trump!
     The entire world is moving rapidly to the right; the black swans are circling and the Gods of the Copybook Headings, with terror and slaughter, are beginning to return.
Next Post on March 12th is: Restoring Confidence in the Police 

A Personal Memoir On Regulation

George Noga
My experience owning and managing a highly regulated business for 35 years
A Personal Memoir On Regulation
By: George Noga – March 1, 2017
      After a decade in large corporations, I started a financial services business. Before conducting any business, I formed a broker-dealer firm to comply with regulations for sale of investments. Within weeks of registering, I was subjected to a surprise SEC examination and found in violation of a few paperwork regulations A full blown investigation ensued which took 3 years and $150,000 (today’s dollars) to settle. In the end, I was formally censured by the SEC, which became part of my permanent record. All this occurred before I had even one client or had sold even one product.
      Fast forward many years and my growing business now was regulated by the SEC, NASD, FINRA and 20 states. Agents from one of the states arrived for a surprise inspection; after poking around for several days, they discovered (horrors) that a newly hired broker had made a single $5,000 sale a few days before his registration in that state had become effective. This broker had been duly registered with the SEC and NASD and we had submitted his state registration over 3 weeks previous but it had not been timely processed. This became a cause celebre; my firm was reprimanded, fined and subjected to further examinations; another indelible violation was on my record.
      In my career these were the only two regulatory hiccups; yet I was tarred with the same broad brush as truly dishonest brokers who caused great harm. My cost and sanctions were more severe than if I never had registered in the first place. Regulations are so numerous, complex and arcane it is impossible to be in full compliance and I was perpetually at the mercy of any benighted regulator with a chip on his shoulder. My firm with 50 brokers was subject to the same regulations as industry behemoths, which could afford to hire a veritable legion of high-priced compliance professionals.
    Despite all the lunacy, I would not object to the onerous regulatory regimen if it actually protected investors. Instead, regulation confuses and harms investors. It gives them a false sense of security that the government is looking out for them; whereas, in reality, the rules are the same as always, i.e. investors must know what they are doing and who they are doing it with. Investors can’t distinguish good brokers from dangerous ones because everyone in the industry for awhile has a record of violations. And, of course, the not inconsequential cost of regulation is passed on to clients.
     Prospectuses were required to provide investors full informative disclosure but have been subverted to become nothing more than insurance policies for promoters. The list of risk factors is endless; yet most investments that go bad do so because of unknown and/or unknowable risks not among the factors listed. The prose has become turgid with horrors such as indecipherable 257 word sentences explaining tax consequences.
     Regulators behave in accordance with the tenets of public sector economics, i.e. they respond to personal incentives and not to the interests of investors. There has been a long train of frauds, abuses and Ponzi schemes such as Madoff that have gone on for decades despite ongoing SEC and FINRA examinations and even after regulators were tipped off about the wrongdoing and given a road map to uncover the fraud.
     The goal of regulators is not about promoting honest, ethical, moral, client-friendly or even lawful behavior. It is only about mindless compliance with ever-changing and expanding esoteric and complex rules promulgated by politicized, bureaucrats and requiring a phalanx of specialists to interpret and to enforce. Moreover, the regulations are only tangentially, if at all, related to serving the interests of the public.
     I close with one final outrage. I retired in 2009 and have not been licensed since then. Nevertheless, by virtue of continuing to receive compensation as a retired broker, I remain subject to regulation until the day I die and beyond. After I cross that final bar, my heirs remain subject to regulation. It never ends; even the grave is no respite.
   My lifetime of experience convinces me government regulation is a vast Kafkaesque wasteland that benefits no one except the regulators. And the band plays on!
The next post on March 5th  addresses Trump Derangement Syndrome

Excess Regulation Costs America $5 Trillion

George Noga
This post quantifies the true cost of excess regulation and explains how it impedes growth.
Excess Regulation Costs America $5 Trillion
By: George Noga – February 26, 2017
     The USA has not achieved 3% economic growth since 2005, a stretch of 11 years and counting. Previously, the longest period without 3% growth was a mere four years from 1930 to 1933! Excessive government regulation is the primary cause, yet few Americans truly understand the grave harm this causes and how it wreaks its damage.
    If the regulatory burden had been held constant at 1980 levels, when regulation already was pervasive, the US economy would be 25% larger today. That translates to unrealized economic growth of $5 trillion, equal in 2017 to $15,000 for every man, woman and child in America, or $60,000 for a family of four, each and every year forever. The regulatory cost for the average business is 21% of payroll. The costs used herein are only incremental costs since 1980; the total costs are vastly higher.
     The cumulative effect of new regulations since 1980 costs us nearly 1% per year in GDP. If the US regulatory burden were its own country, it would be the world’s fourth largest economy, bigger than Germany, France, and the UK. Source Note: Most data cited herein are from the Mercatus Center at George Mason University; some data have been extrapolated from 2012 (when their study concluded) to 2017 by MLLG.
 
    Now that we have quantified the horrific cost of excess regulation, let’s look at how it savages economic growth. The direct cost of compliance alone is $2 trillion per year. Regulation results in less investment, misallocation of resources and increased unemployment. Following are specific insights and examples of how the 1+ million regulations now in existence destroy economic growth and harm American families.
     The first insight is that regulation must be viewed from a cumulative perspective. The effect of adding one incremental regulation onto the mass of existing regulations creates an endogenous effect that is far greater than the impact of just the newly added regulation and is compounded by the uncertainty and likelihood of future regulations.
    Most industries succeed in regulatory capture, i.e. manipulating the regulators and using regulation as a weapon to prevent competition. Big companies use regulation to quash smaller firms. Researchers found that stocks of companies heavily committed to lobbying outperform the S&P 500 by 25%. The lesson is not lost on business: better to invest in gaming government rather than in creating new products and jobs.
      The World Bank Ease of Doing Business Index lowered the US from third to eighth place during the past eight years. During the same period, getting a construction permit increased from 40 to 81 days. Enforcing a contract now takes 420 days compared to 300. Regulatory risk has jumped 80%; capital expenditures dropped $32 billion and jobs shrank by 1.1 million. Alarmingly, many more regulations now carry criminal penalties whereas in the past they were simply civil. Remember the collapse of  Arthur Anderson, the giant CPA firm, when it was slapped with ersatz criminal charges?
      Progressives believe society would be better if governing elites (i.e. progressives) used highly credentialed experts in every field to establish enlightened rules to govern behavior. This is a fundamentally flawed view of human nature and of how the world really works. As has been repeatedly demonstrated throughout human history, free people and free markets work best without the heavy hand of government.
     President Trump recently signed an executive order requiring that every dollar of cost imposed by new regulations be offset by eliminating two dollars of other regulatory costs. This is a good start not only for obvious economic reasons but because it can change the culture and incentives from rule making to deregulation.
Next from MLLG on March 1st – A Personal Perspective on Regulation

Americans Vote With Their Feet

George Noga
People vote with their feet and 1,000 Americans each day are leaving blue state
progressive hellholes and moving to red states with greater economic freedom. 
Americans Vote With Their Feet
By: George Noga – February 19, 2017

     As far back as 260 years ago Americans voted with their feet; witness this excerpt from a 1775 letter in the Boston Gazette.

“Taxes continue very high. A great many of our industrious inhabitants are gone into the country; the burden now falls on a smaller number – and they less able to bear it.  Some have moved and others are about to move to country towns where their taxes are greatly eased. I love my native town but as my taxes are so large, I am resolved to move my family into the country.”
     Liberal politicians in California, New York, Illinois and other blue states have not learned the lesson from 1775. Nearly 1,000 people every day move from blue to red states. There are critical shortages of moving vans in California and New York and corresponding gluts in Texas and Florida. Illinois is hemorrhaging people. Folks fleeing blue states earn $20,000 more (per IRS) than those moving in and the gap is widening. The divide in education and social pathologies undoubtedly is just as great.
     Why is this so, given that blue states claim to be creating utopias for workers? The main reasons cited by those escaping are: (1) no right to work law; (2) high income tax rates; (3) high minimum wages; (4) pro-union work rules; (5) extravagant welfare benefits; (6) expansive regulations; and (7) green energy policies. Instead of workers’ paradises, progressive policies always result in impoverished snake pits.
     In a recent year, Florida gained nearly $10 billion in income from blue state defectors and Texas gained $6 billion. Five of the seven states with the biggest income gains have no income tax at all. New York was the biggest loser, shedding 115,000 people and $6 billion while Illinois lost over 110,000 people and $4 billion of income. In the past 10 years, a net of 1.5 million refugees abandoned California.
     Throughout human history, productive, hard-working people gravitate to where there is economic freedom. According to Gallup’s Index of Well Being, states with greater economic freedom also rank higher in happiness and well being. The five states ranking highest in economic freedom are SD, ND, TN, ID and OK (all red), while the five worst are NY, CA, NJ, HI and VT (all blue). The top 10 states in freedom enjoy median a household income $9,000 or 21% higher than the bottom 10. Moreover, all minority groups and immigrants in the freedom states also earn considerably more.
      States with more laissez-faire policies and greater economic freedom enjoy higher median incomes, more equitable income distribution, less poverty, greater success for immigrants and minorities and better overall well being. Despite hyperventilation by liberals, it is crystal clear in the real world which policies work and which fail. Smaller, less intrusive government always triumphs over big brother statism. America is voting with its feet resulting in a landslide for more liberty and less government!
      P.S. Will the last person leaving Illinois kindly turn off the lights?
Our next post February 26th takes on government regulation

The MLLG Collection – Short Takes

George Noga
We accumulate numerous blog-worthy topics too short for an entire posting.
From time to time we present an eclectic collection of such pithy morsels. 
The MLLG Collection – Short Takes
By: George Noga – February 15, 2017
1. Veterans Administration: During the 2013 VA scandal, veterans died while waiting for appointments. In response, Congress voted an extra $15 billion to reduce wait times and to make it easier to fire bad employees. So, how is that working out? Wait times today are 50% longer. Private physicians see up to 8 times more patients than VA docs. In one VA office (Phoenix) 13 employees make over $300,000. The few employees fired for severe misconduct have been reinstated upon appeal. You shouldn’t be surprised; this is simply government as usual. Solution: abolish the VA; move veterans into Medicare and use VA facilities for long-term care and for treating PTSD.
2. Oil Prices: Prices plunged 70+% from recent highs and oil company profits dropped 50%. What happened to all the speculators and price gouging? If energy companies manipulate prices when they are high, why aren’t they doing it now? If they are villains when prices are high, aren’t they now beneficent angels? One thing is certain: when prices rise again, progressives will demonize speculators and oil companies.
3. Vaccinations: The nanny state intervenes in many aspects of family life when there is no public health or safety danger and even when risks are statistically nonexistent. They ban teeter-totters, jungle-gyms and require sawing off limbs under 8 feet high to prevent tree climbing. They ban many toys and outlaw blowing up balloons for kids under 14. They have infantilized America. Yet, in the one area (vaccinations) where government intervention truly is necessary, they are AWOL. Communicable diseases are spreading like wildfire but government panders to anti-science movie stars and progressives ensconced in liberal enclaves who are spreading disease. If the push back were coming from evangelicals in flyover America, the reaction would be different.
4. Source of World Peace: Peace among nations is not achieved by disarmament, weakness or even by treaties. The rare times when peace prevailed was when it was imposed by a powerful nation, e.g,, Pax Mongolica, Pax Romana, Pax Brittannia and, until recently, the Pax Americana. The clear lesson is that peace is not the absence of power but it is a condition imposed by power. War is a terrible thing, but not the worst thing. It is worse to believe that nothing, even loss of freedom, is worth fighting for.
5. Obamacare Not Insurance: One stupid-crazy part of Obamacare is not often discussed. The ACA covers 100% of many small, ordinary and predictable medical expenses such as flu shots, annual physicals, birth control and 15-20 other procedures. However, if you break a leg, the ACA subjects you to high deductibles and copays. This turns insurance on its head; routine expenses are fully covered but a serious injury, when you really need insurance, can cost over $20,000 in deductible and copays. This is akin to your homeowners insurance paying in full for broken windows but charging you $20,000 in deductible and copays if your house burns to the ground.
6. Chick-fil-A: Progressive mayors of many liberal enclaves (New York, Boston, San Francisco, Chicago) are trying to ban Chick-fil-A because its owner once opposed gay marriage – as did Barack Obama at that same time. Perhaps mayors of conservative cities should ban Ben & Jerry’s for its socialistic views. It would be interesting to see progressives’ reaction to such a move. Why stop there? Why not have only liberal companies permitted in California and only conservative companies in Texas?
Next on February 19th is our post: Americans voting with their feet. 

War on Black Americans Shifts Voting Patterns

George Noga
Democrats pander to blacks before each election and then ignore them. Liberal policies are tantamount to a war on blacks, but a tectonic shift in black voting may be underway.
War on Black Americans Shifts Voting Patterns
By: George Noga – February 12, 2017
     MLLG is among the very first to detect a shift in black Americans’ voting patterns. A cardinal principle of American politics is that there are no permanent majorities; coalitions and interests continually change. Not long ago Texas was reliably Democrat and California reliably Republican. In 2016 Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania flipped. A seismic shift also may be underway for African-American voters!
      In 2016 black voting returned to the pre-Obama 90% Democrat level. The bigger story lay in the 2 million who voted in 2012 but not 2016. In 2020 if blacks vote 80% Democrat, that’s a shift of 6 million votes – 4 million less for Democrats (including the 2 million who don’t vote) and 2 million more for Republicans. Such a shift of only 10 percentage points would swing Colorado, Minnesota and Nevada from Democrat to Republican and would make Arizona, Florida, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin reliably Republican and crush Democrats’ electoral hopes.
     If I were a Democrat, those data would terrify me; if I were a Republican, I would sense the electoral opportunity of a generation. The only potential for Democrats is on the downside as they effectively will never get above 90% of the black vote. Such a shift is possible within four years due to two major forces – growing disillusionment among blacks with harmful Democrat policies and Trump economic policies buttressed by likely benefits from his appointees in education (DeVos) and HUD (Carson).
The War on Black America
     Democrats pander to blacks in election years but afterward blacks live in the same dysfunctional, crime-infested neighborhoods with the same failed schools and the same dim economic prospects. Liberal policies don’t alleviate their problems, they aggravate them. They know their votes are captured and they now realize they have nothing to lose by abandoning their unquestioned allegiance to failed progressive policies.
     There are countless Democrat policies – including those advanced by Obama – that harm blacks in particular; following are merely five of the worst such policies.
1. Opposition to school choice tops the list. Dems and the NAACP, in obeisance to teachers unions, oppose school choice and even charter schools although failed public schools are literally killing black kids. The NAACP has outlived its moral purpose.
2, Low economic growth harms blacks disproportionately. But Dems are committed to hyper-regulation, high taxes and uncertainty which strangles economic growth. This results in unemployment and underemployment with little or no wage growth.
3. The war on drugs is responsible for the arrest and incarceration of legions of blacks and creates a milieu of urban terrorism in poorer neighborhoods. Dems are anti-police and oppose broken window policing despite overwhelming support among blacks.
4. Obamacare has created an army of 49ers and 29ers along with sky-high premiums, deductibles and copays. It also raised taxes and restricted economic expansion.
5. Minimum wage hikes, overtime rules and banning payday loans all savage African-Americans much more so than others. These policies are toxic and bereft of benefit.
    Democrats, the NAACP and African-American leaders are viciously attacking Trump, DeVos and Carson – not out of concern for black Americans or because they worry that their policies will fail. They attack them because they are terrified to their marrow that Trump and his appointees and policies will succeed – and with it drop the black Democrat vote from 90% to 80% and that they will be sucked up in the vortex.

 

 Our next post “Voting with Their Feet” is about migration from blue to red states. 

Antidote for Fake News: Fair Witnesses and Mentats

George Noga
Journalism is dead. Fake news proliferates. Fact checkers are corrupt. Most people
want the truth but don’t know where to find it. This post offers a possible solution. 
Antidote for Fake News: Fair Witnesses and Mentats
By: George Noga – February 5, 2017
    More Americans believe Elvis is alive (8%) than trust the media (6%). Their distrust is not misplaced. Journalism schools are hothouses of progressive argle-bargle; they draw their students, who cling to illusions of adequacy, from the bottom deciles. The media have abandoned even the veneer of objectivity; they are irredeemably corrupt.
    Most Americans want to know the plain truth even if it shatters long and deeply held shibboleths. I exclude from that group the 24% who self-identify as progressives because their beliefs are based on religion and are thus impervious to facts or logic. Fortunately, there are solutions for the remaining 76% of Americans who want truth.
     All the main fact checking sources including Facebook, PolitiFact, and Snopes are debauched and unprincipled. We need an unimpeachable, competent and nonpolitical source for checking facts and determining truth. We need Fair Witnesses and Mentats.
     The Fair Witness concept is a creation of science fiction author Robert Heinlein in his book, Stranger in a Strange Land. Heinlein’s book takes place in the milieu of an overbearing government (familiar?). One way citizens could counter the overweening power of government was to hire a Fair Witness, a specially trained and recognized person who was so truthful and objective as to be unimpeachable. Anything observed or reported by a Fair Witness was universally accepted by government and the courts.
    Heinlein’s Fair Witnesses are professionals with an eidetic memory trained to make no extrapolations or assumptions; they wear distinctive white robes and are accorded deferential treatment by society. When a Fair Witness is asked the color of a house, he/she replies, “It is white on this side.” Heinlein’s book was published 55 years ago and the Fair Witness concept was only a small, obscure part of the book. However, if you search the internet for Fair Witness, there are 80 million entries – more than for the Kardashians, Pope Francis and Vladimir Putin. Obviously, it resonated with readers.
     Mentats, created by sci-fi writer Frank Herbert (Dune series), were specially trained to develop their cognitive and analytic capacities to unimaginable heights. They were the embodiment of logic and reason and only a few could qualify. It is thus a recurring sci-fi theme that society needs accurate, impartial arbiters of ascertainable facts.
    Clearly, the public, or at least 76% of it, is hungry (make that desperate) for a reliable way to separate fact from fiction. The potential is unlimited and there is no reason the Fair Witness/Mentat  concept could not be modified to work today. In fact, I have a blueprint for such a program but it is too lengthy to include herein. If someone successfully introduced such a concept (website) today, he/she could be the next internet billionaire. I would be tempted to try it if I were fifteen years younger.
     Imagine the possibilities! Fair Witnesses would transform public debate about any matter that lends itself to proof. It would be the death knell of progressivism – which is based on lies. Being untruthful would become unproductive. The thought of a news story being promptly rendered untrue might even make the media more circumspect. There are obvious applications for business and advertising. Note: I  plan to write a future post about what a Fair Witness might have to say about climate change.
     We have much to learn from obscure sci-fi tracts published long ago. Like all great science fiction, Stranger in a Strange Land and Dune speak to us today. Fair Witnesses or Mentats would shatter the Elvis myth but they also would bring about a renaissance in the media – currently trusted by only 6% of the most gullible Americans.
Next up from MLLG on February 12th – The Democrats’ War on Blacks