US Healthcare Still the Best in the World; WHO Ratings Slanted Toward Socialized Medicine

The WHO rates the US 42nd in the World Health System; a ranking that is absurd. For one it is slanted very heavily toward socialized medicine, placing the US below many countries with socialized medicine regardless of the quality of care. The WHO does not consider data on wait times for care,  the availability of advanced medical technology, or even the success rate of treatment. Other areas such as infant mortality (46th; highest in the western world) and life expediency (26th) are also based on very questionable and non-medical data. 1)infant mortality; most western nations have some criteria as to when attempts will be used to keep a new born infant alive; the US has none.

Some of the countries reporting infant mortality rates lower than the U.S. classify babies as "stillborn" if they survive less than 24 hours whether or not such babies breathe, move, or have a beating heart at birth. Forty percent of all infant deaths occur in the first 24 hours of life...In the United States, all infants who show signs of life at birth (take a breath, move voluntarily, have a heartbeat) are considered alive...In Switzerland and other parts of Europe, a baby born who is less than 30 centimeters long is not counted as a live birth. Therefore, unlike in the U.S., such high-risk infants cannot affect Swiss infant mortality rates. Efforts to salvage these tiny babies reflect this classification. Since 2000, 42 of the world's 52 surviving babies weighing less than 400g (0.9 lbs.) were born in the United States. Infant Mortality Figures For US Misleading

Life expediency is also misleading; as it's based on differently calculated infant mortality rates, and non-medical deaths that are high in the US such as suicides and homicides and car accidents; if you remove non-medical deaths, America leads life expectancy compared to any other western nation. The US is #1 in cancer and breast cancer survival; a fact that is not considered in the rating by the WHO.

(I)f we measure a health-care system by how well it serves its sick citizens, American medicine excels. Five-year cancer survival rates bear this out. For leukemia, the American survival rate is almost 50 percent; the European rate is just 35 percent. Esophageal carcinoma: 12 percent in the United States, 6 percent in Europe. The survival rate for prostate cancer is 81.2 percent here, yet 61.7 percent in France and down to 44.3 percent in England—a striking variation.  Canadian Healthcare

In Canada, as in Britain under socialized medicine, patients are denied care, forced to cope with increasingly antiquated hospitals and equipment, and can die while waiting for treatment. Canada controls health care costs the same way Britain and Russia do: by denying modern treatment to the sick and letting the severely ill and old die Nation Health Insurance a Disaster

The Canadian government also does not allow doctors to charge for medical procedures if it is paid for by their single payer system; so you can't pay a private doctor more to be seen sooner.
Chaoulli was representing George Zeliotis, an elderly Montrealer forced to wait almost a year for a hip replacement. Zeliotis was in agony and taking high doses of opiates. Chaoulli maintained that the patient should have the right to pay for private health insurance and get treatment sooner. He based his argument on the Canadian equivalent of the Bill of Rights, as well as on the equivalent Quebec charter. The court hedged on the national question, but a majority agreed that Quebec’s charter did implicitly recognize such a right. Nation Health Insurance a Disaster 

As in Britain, eventually all National Single Payer system will need to cut corners. Britain's NHS seems to be returning to it's Eugenics roots;  suggestion this week from the Department of Health that it should take into account how much patients contribute to the economy when deciding on the cost-effectiveness of drugs. Denying Life savings Drugs This should really come as no surprize we have heard such things here in America from the Left. Howard Dean writes in an OpEd "One major problem [with ObamaCare] is the so-called Independent Payment Advisory Board. The IPAB is essentially a health-care rationing body. By setting doctor reimbursement rates for Medicare and determining which procedures and drugs will be covered and at what price, the IPAB will be able to stop certain treatments its members do not favor by simply setting rates to levels where no doctor or hospital will perform them." Politifact Lie of the Year and of course it simplies echos what Candidate Obama said, if the patient is too old, a pain pill is a lot cheaper than a pace maker).

                    

The there are those that presume the US could just clone the EU, France or Japanese health system in the US. The problem with this is it should be common knowledge that every medical system in the world has evolved over many years as a result of the countries culture, changes in the culture, and the wants and needs of the citizenry and of course the resources available to build it and maintain it; the healthcare system in one country would certainly not succeed in another. Japan and France are a good example. Both are exclusive systems that deal with the particular needs of their culture. In Japan they have employer insurance with a public option (something that works because it was designed to assist the healthcare market, not take it over). The Japanese also have three times more hospitals per citizen  than the US as the Japanese go the hospitals 4 times more often than Americans. The quality of their healthcare is greatly assisted by their healthy lifestyle and diet; something that costs Americans dearly. Further the Japanese and French are the most overly medicated people in the western world. Even with the highest tax rate in the EU (45-50%), the French healthcare system is estimate to collapse in 3-5 years. To cut costs the healthcare system has stemmed the use of name brand drugs (a common demand by French patients) and giving taxi rides to patients that live in rural areas that are farther from the hospitals. A look at one aspect of the quality of care shows the male death rate from cancer in France is 238 per 100K; in the US total deaths, male and female combined is about 173 per 100K.

I also agree that the US needs a sustainable healthcare system that won't bankrupt the sick. The Heritage Foundation once recommended that a low cost catastrophic healthcare plan be mandatory to protect the sick from bankruptcy; I think that was a good starting place, but obviously Americans need more; and  ObamaCare was the answer. The CBO estimates ObamaCare will still leave 30 million people without healthcare by 2016 Without Medicaid Expansion ObamaCare Would Increase Uninsured.  ObamaCare did offer waht might be part of the answer. If ObamaCare did nothing more than fund the expansion of Medicaid, without the ObamaCare hegemony if demands, the states would be able to offer many uninsured, health coverage; this healthcare could be tailored to the individual states, rather than the one size fits  all implemented by ObamaCare. 

Benghazi; Obama's Iran Contra

The issues about what happened in Benghazi appear to be somewhat complicated, but it still boils down to Hillary Clinton and the cover up. Benghazi appears to be a page stolen from the Reagan Administration and Iran Contra. While Reagan funded Nicaraguan rebels with arms sales to Iran, the Obama Administration was stockpiling weapons in the Benghazi consultant annex, left over from overthrowing the government of Libya and smuggling them into Syria to arm and train anti-Assad forces, many with ties to al Qaeda; all contrary to promises the President made to Congress and the American people. The reason responding forces where told to stand down was because this was a secret operation that needed to stay that way and the Ambassador Christopher Stevens(who was certainly involved if not leading the operation Slain US Ambassador Recruited Jihadists . was to be collateral damage. The big problem now is the cover-up, which like Watergate involves all the lies told by Obama and Secretary Clinton. He have to be able to trust our elected officials or we no longer have a representative government; that's why past Presidential crisis and Benghazi are important (and why, Secretary Clinton, it still matters why the attack happened and why Americans died in Benghazi).

First we now have evidence that some 35 CIA operatives were using the annex near the Benghazi consulate, working on a project to supply missiles from Libyan armories to Syrian rebels; an operation that  Ambassador Chris Stevens was spear heading . CIA Running Arms In Benghazi The attack was from a local militia group and Islamic extremist group in Libya, Ahmed Abu Khattala; that apparently wanted the missiles for themselves. Benghazi Attack Then as credible intelligence information started to emerge that a terrorist attack was likely, the FBI released the anti-Muslim video* in Egypt, in the event they needed a cover story for an attack on the embassy.

 As some of these details started to emerge, the CIA initiated a full court press,  subjecting Agency employees, involved or having knowledge of the operation monthly polygraph tests, among other measures that many have claimed has put a chill on any of the agents willing to testify in any of the Congressional investigations. Dozens fo CIA Operatives on Ground in Benghazi If this information becomes main stream, it could be devastating to the Obama Administration. First and foremost Obama was facing re-election and had based his foreign policy success on end of al Qaeda resulting from the American Special Forces taking out Osama Bin Laden; an obsurb premise by any measure. It also would have showed how that President Obama lied (again) and did an end around Congress and the Constitution as he would have  been arming Syrian rebels, many with ties to al Qaeda, contrary to promises made to congress and the American people. Further, and possibly the most important, it would have been a death knell for Secretary of State  Hillary Clinton's President hopes in 2016, as the entire operation would have the very least needed here approval as it involved a US embassy and Ambassador Chris Stevens. This is also a fight (in Syria) were the US has no dog, but Saudi Arabia does. It should be noted that President Obama's failure to oust the President Assad from Syria has resulted in serious diplomatic rift between the US and Saudi Arabia.

*There is ample evidence that Mark Youssef, the maker of the infamous Benghazi video was release from Federal Prison in 2010, after serving 6 month of a 21 month sentence to make the video for the FBI. The movie had only one showing, in a ridiculous plan to smoke out al Qaeda. The FBI then retained the film as an asset (sometimes called a honey pot) that could be used at a later date. Anti-Islam Film Producer on Federal Probation. Nakoula Basseley Nakoula

Climate Change; These Aren't the Droids You're Looking For

One of the first issues one has to deal with the Anthropological Global Warming (AGW) zealots is their terminology; they tend to use Global Warming, AGW and Climate Change interchangeably (Climate Change as defined by the zealots, always means Climate Change that is the result of AGW, but they will try and trap the opposition, making it appear they are denying the natural process of climate change that has occurred since the planet had an atmosphere). The point being it is well known that the climate has been warming since the 16 century, the question being what affect man has had on the climate, and the best information science has, is nothing; or it is so minor it is unmeasurable. Further, ask any AGW zealot what exactly would be the result of de-industrializing the world to reduce man's carbon foot print and the answer is a minor reduction in the timetable of the inevitable warming of the planet; a warming that humanatinity was has had no part in (AGW is based on the theory that increases of C02 in the atmosphere from the Industrial revolution has accelerated Global Warming; ie Climate Change). One problem with this theory is the fact that C02 in the earth's atmosphere has increased in the last 15 years (360 ppm to 400 ppm; this is the same rate of increase since the 1980's, from 336ppm in the 1980's to 395ppm in 2013) but there has been no global warming in the same period Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Atmosphere. Still the zealots wave their hands in front of our collective faces, trying the Jedi mind trick that "These aren't the droids you're looking for"; in other words any chink in the AGW is not to be dwelled upon because the science is settled.

Then there is the often quoted study that AGW has a 97% consensus amongst scientists. The so called survey by AGW alarmists John Cook, has not only been scientifically discredited, but had become the poster child for the manipulation of information.

Then there is the often quoted study that AGW has a 97% consensus amongst scientists. The so called survey by AGW alarmists John Cook, has not only been scientifically discredited, but had become the poster child for the manipulation of information.One of the primary criticisms is most of the studies Cook claimed to support AGW, were actually neutral on the subject (8,000 out of 12,000) or rejected it entirely (the 97% was based on a ranking system, not the actual number of studies). One researcher that critiqued the study said,  

"Remembering AGW stands for anthropogenic global warming, or global warming caused by humans, take a minute to let that sink in.  This study done by John Cook and others..., found more scientific publications whose abstracts reject global warming than say humans are primarily to blame for it". Musings on the 97% Consensus. Misleading the public about consensus opinion regarding global warming, of course, is precisely what the Cook paper sought to accomplish. This is a tried and true ruse perfected by global warming alarmists. Global warming alarmists use their own biased, subjective judgment to misclassify published papers according to criteria that is largely irrelevant to the central issues in the global warming debate. Then, by carefully parsing the language of their survey questions and their published results, the alarmists encourage the media and fellow global warming alarmists to cite these biased, subjective, totally irrelevant surveys as conclusive evidence for the lie that nearly all scientists believe humans are creating a global warming crisis. Global Warming Alarmists caught Doctoring 97% Consensus Claims/

The settled science of AGW is usually based on proxy data being fed into a computer model, or more recently "multi-proxy climate reconstructions", both rely on the often mistaken belief that proxy data is accurate enough and can be used to document past climate changes in order to predict future climate change due to global warming; both have proved  problematic and elusive. The purpose of science is rarely to predict the future, but to understand current phenomena; pretty much all attempts to predict the future of any act of nature, unless it's constantly repeats like the tides, has resulted in failure. The amount of variables in the weather and climate change are so numerous, it was the impetus for Chaos Theory; "Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future". In other words, until you know all the variables in minute detail of the initial condition of a process (and understand how they interact with each other), you will never be able to make an accurate prediction of the future.

Michael Mann's famous (and now discredited) hockey stick graph was based almost solely on proxy-data (and a programed for success computer model). "(Proxy data is an) indirect measurement inferred from a property more loosely related to temperature (the relationship may be less well understood or less reproducible and require more measurements and analysis before drawing a conclusion)." When one talks about proxy data, it means such things as tree rings, ice cores and lake sediments; these and other proxy data is open to interpretation and requires a huge amount of repetitive results to be even come close to being reliable. It was the tree ring scientists (dendrochronologists) that first complained about the Manns lack of cross-check tree ring record.Tree Ring Records Spur Debate. Then there is the exposé of the Phil Jones  Keith Briffa/ CRU studies,  showed that from hundreds of Siberian samples, Mann appeared to cherry pick only those that matched the criteria he was looking for. Other studies based on similar data had clearly shown the Medieval Warm Period as hotter than today. Indeed only the evidence from one tree, YADO61, seemed to show a "hockey stick" pattern, and it was this, in light of the extraordinary reverence given to the CRU's studies; now refereed to as "the most influential tree in the world." The Most Influential Tree in the World.

This is an IPCC graph before Michel Manns Hockey stick graph; there is still a hockey stick looking part of the graph on the right side, but it also includes the Medieval Warming period.

This is Michael Manns Graph that shows a similar "hockey stick" at the end, but ignores the  the Medieval Warming period.













The limited proxy alone shows the failings of the AGW predictions. If there is any validity to Chaos theory (Choas theory is still the gold standard in the study of the behavior of dynamical systems) there is no way any amount of proxy data will ever be accurate or complete enough to know the initial conditions of the processes of global warming and climate change. Further AGW doesn't even qualify as a hypotheses or theory as by definition these must include a method to determine if the hypotheses or theory is false; if the science of human generated global warming is settled than is only scientific theory ever known to have reached this paradoxical state. Michael Manns Hockey stick graph has become a discredited object in the history of science The Hockey Schtick  The Hook 97% consensus survey has already been debunked Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring Consensus Claim as has the recent Lovejoy multi-proxy climate reconstructions (who simply omitted the Medieval Warming period again to prove his case)  Lovejoy Global Warming Paper 100% Wrong

Now, I would like to include a description of science to show how far from science AGW really is. Recently, scientists from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics announced their discovery of gravitational waves created at the dawn of the universe. These waves were created in a period of rapid expansion called cosmic inflation. This new evidence could prove the definitive confirmation of the inflation theory. But other researchers are not convinced. Discovery of Gravity Waves Questioned by Cosmologists The reason for questioning the these gravity waves is explained by the following, Science is a demanding and unforgiving business, and great discoveries are greeted not with parades and champagne but rather with questions, doubts and demands for more data. Really? So why has it been so different with AGW. The article goes on, No one is alleging an outright scientific error. It’s more of a debate about how scientists should communicate their uncertainties when presenting blockbuster findings. This is a case of “extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." Again one has to ask, where is the extraordinary evidence for the blockbuster findings of AGW?  The answer is there are none, because AGW is not empirical science, it  political (within the realm of fascist) science. Big-Bang Backlash.

Finally, let's look at the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). This think tank was formed prior to the 2009 UN Copenhagen Climate Summit. The GWPF as an enemy of US climate scientists becasue it takes the stand that it,  does not have an official or shared view about the science of global warming – although we are of course aware that this issue is not yet settled;  and, Above all we seek to inform the media, politicians and the public, in a newsworthy way, on the subject in general (AGW) and on the misinformation to which they are all too frequently being subjected at the present time. Recently, Professor Bengtsson, a former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg and author of more than 200 papers, accepted an invitation to join the (Academic Advisory)  Council (of the GWPF) less than three weeks ago. His decision significantly enhanced the credibility of the foundation, which announced that “one of Sweden’s leading climate scientists” had joined its council. Unfortunately he had to resign soon afterwards, “I have been put under such an enormous group pressure from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable. It is a situation that reminds me [of] the time of McCarthy.” The reason? because the GWPF takes the position that the science AGW is not settled. Professor Bengtsson Blames US Climate Scientists for Witch Hunt. Professor Bengtsson said the pressure was so intense that he would be unable to continue working and feared for his health and safety unless he stepped down. Yes this is the fascist political science of AGW.. but don't pay any attention, because "these aren't  the droids you're looking for".

The Ukraine, Benghazi and Obama's War on Reality

The Obama Administration continue their war against reality when we look at the Ukraine. First, there is no doubt in anyone with any knowledge of the area, that the vast majority of the population of Crimea is Russian, and the vote to be annexed by Russia was a populace and expected move. It is also known that about 50-60% of the Eastern Ukrainians are also Russian and do not want to be part of the EU; this has led to protests in the city of Donetsk and two other eastern cities by several hundred pro-Russian demonstrators. What is Washington's response? The United States says there is "strong evidence that pro-Russian demonstrators in eastern Ukraine are being paid." The White House said some of the demonstrators who took over a government building and proclaimed independence from Ukraine were not local residents. White House spokesman Jay Carney said "I think that at least suggests that outside forces, not local forces, were participating in the effort to create these provocations." The obvious question is, how in the world could they know this? It took the CIA and the FBI almost a month before they figured out the terrorists that attacked and killed our Libyan Ambassador in Benghazi on 9/11*, were not a local group protesting a YouTube video almost no one has ever saw, but now they tell us they have identified hundreds Ukrainian protestors and know where they came from. Perhaps the real reason is, like Egypt and Syria, the Obama Administration can not accept that world does not revolve around President Obama, and people in other countries may want something other than what President Obama believes is to his best advantage. So true to form, when reality doesn't present Obama with the narrative that suits him, he simply tries to create a different reality.

 *I mean who would have thought that a terrorists group linked with al Qaeda would attack an US embassy on the anniversary of 911? Of course it might the unsubstantiated story the CIA was smuggling arms  to the Syrian Rebels (used by both sides of the Libyan war), also linked with al Qaeda on the same night, and simply did not want to explain they what they were up to.

Another reason is the shore up what has been seen as a lack of any cohesive foreign policy in the region. Libya is in tatters (the President and NATO seems to have done the impossible of making Lybia worse than it was under Gaddafi). While President Obama had courted the Muslim Brotherhood and Mohamed Morsi as the new President of Egypt, two years later the  people took to the streets by the millions (possibly 30 million; labeled by many as the largest public protest in history) to oust President Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood; branding them as a terrorists organization (something President Obama has still refused to do despite atrocities carried out by the organization world wide). There is also the Syrian "problem" were President Obama promised Saudi Arabia he would dethrone Assad. But even with supplying al Qaeda and al Qaeda aligned  Syrian "rebels" and atrocities on both sides (evidence of poison gas used by both sides) Assad has not so easily dethroned (and it appears President Obama has moved on).  As the war was about to devolve into a proxy war  with the US (representing Saudi Arabia), al-Queda and the Sunnis on one side and Russia, Assad, Hezbollah, and  the Shiites on the other ( My Enemy's Enemy),  Russia brokered a cease fire giving Obama an out, leaving Saudi Arabia feeling like an American who thought he could keep their healthcare plan and doctor under ObamaCare, and then being told by the President, "I never said that."

As is typical, the authoritarian regime that has been constructed by Obama and the Democrats seek to control reality, knowing that any government that seeks to institute collective control, must be seen as trustworthy and infallible. This means the government must constantly fight the war against reality; never before has an American President told so many lies and never has the main street press ignored so much; both of which is part and parcel of any collective government (the truth is we are facing  fascism but most don't understand the meaning) Creeping Fascism.

The Santa Cruz Sentential Owes the Dead Soldiers Families an Aplology

A recent letter published by the Santa Cruz Sentential shows the left will go to any lengths to disarm the American public, as it's war on reality continues; here is the letter;

Good guys with guns didn't prevent bad guy
The NRA is constantly telling us that the only way to stop the bad guys is to have good guys with guns. In last year's shooting at the DC Navy Yard and Wednesday's shooting at Fort Hood there were plenty of good guys facing a lone bad guy. Lot of good those good guys with guns had in stopping a bad guy.
— Gini M. Bianchi, Santa Cruz

This is my response

The Sentential printing the letter by Gini M. Bianchi thinking there were plenty of guns to ward off the attacks at the DC Navy Yard and Fort Hood, to stop the armed murdering rampages (showing good guys with guns can't defend themselves), could have only been allowed under one or more of the following three mindsets, 1) the Sentinel editorial board is as ignorant as the letter writer, not knowing that firearms are forbidden on military bases 2) the Sentinel editorial board knows firearms are not allowed on military bases and wanted to make a fool out of the letter writer 3) the Sentinel editorial board knows full well that firearms are forbidden on military bases but printed the letter anyway, hoping to use the murder of our courageous soldiers to further a political anti-second Amendment agenda. Either way the Sentinel owes these dead soldiers families and friends and it's readership an apology..

It remains to be seen if the Santa Cruz Sentinel editorial board has any character.

Charles Koch (the Koch Brothers) Defines A Constitutional Liberal*

(*The original meaning taken from the US Constitution as a lover of liberty; not current meaning from the post Woodrow Wilson era, as Progressives tried to publicly distance themselves from their belief in an autocratic and Eugenicists society.)

After the Supreme Court decision to strike down total limits on individual campaign contributions, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) invoked his favorite boogeymen, warning of future corruption in elections. This with half the US states having mandatory union membership and the members having no  right  to direct political donations taken from their dues; and the unions of course have pumped unlimited funds into the Democrat's political coffers for decades.

“The Supreme Court today just accentuated what they did on Citizens United, which is a decision that is one of the worst decisions in the history of that court,” Reid said during a press conference on raising the minimum wage. “All it does is take away people’s rights because, as you know, the Koch brothers are trying to buy America.”

 Democrats bash SCOTUS ruling

I have devoted most of my life to understanding the principles that enable people to improve their lives. It is those principles—the principles of a free society—that have shaped my life, my family, our company and America itself. 

Unfortunately,the fundamental concepts of dignity, respect, equality before the law and personal freedom are under attack by the nation's own government. That's why, if we want to restore a free society and create greater well-being and opportunity for all Americans, we have no choice but to fight for those principles. I have been doing so for more than 50 years, primarily through educational efforts. It was only in the past decade that I realized the need to also engage in the political process.

A truly free society is based on a vision of respect for people and what they value. In a truly free society, any business that disrespects its customers will fail, and deserves to do so. The same should be true of any government that disrespects its citizens. The central belief and fatal conceit of the current administration is that you are incapable of running your own life, but those in power are capable of running it for you. This is the essence of big government and collectivism. 

More than 200 years ago, Thomas Jefferson warned that this could happen. "The natural progress of things," Jefferson wrote, "is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." He knew that no government could possibly run citizens' lives for the better. The more government tries to control, the greater the disaster, as shown by the current health-care debacle. Collectivists (those who stand for government control of the means of production and how people live their lives) promise heaven but deliver hell. For them, the promised end justifies the means.

Instead of encouraging free and open debate, collectivists strive to discredit and intimidate opponents. They engage in character assassination. (I should know, as the almost daily target of their attacks.) This is the approach that Arthur Schopenhauer described in the 19th century, that Saul Alinsky famously advocated in the 20th, and that so many despots have infamously practiced. Such tactics are the antithesis of what is required for a free society—and a telltale sign that the collectivists do not have good answers.

(adding to what  Mr Koch says here, there is a truism that says, "Liberals (ie collectivists) are tolerant; as long as you agree with them". Real constructive diversity involves the blending of world views, but with a common interest, not conflicting world views with no common interest, as it leaves only the government to sort things out. When liberals discredit and condemn their opponents simply to discourage an alternate view (and often gives an absurd amount of attention to horrid groups outside the norm that they try and tie to their target of condemnation), they obliterate the reality that there is real hatred out there that has no place in a civilized society. While in a free society these haters are free to speak their minds, that does not mean anyone has to listen.).

Rather than try to understand my vision for a free society or accurately report the facts about Koch Industries, our critics would have you believe we're "un-American" and trying to "rig the system," that we're against "environmental protection" or eager to "end workplace safety standards." These falsehoods remind me of the late Sen.Daniel Patrick Moynihan's observation, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Here are some facts about my philosophy and our company: Koch companies employ 60,000 Americans, who make many thousands of products that Americans want and need. According to government figures, our employees and the 143,000 additional American jobs they support generate nearly $11.7 billion in compensation and benefits. About one-third of our U.S.-based employees are union members.

Koch employees have earned well over 700 awards for environmental, health and safety excellence since 2009, many of them from the Environmental Protection Agency and Occupational Safety and Health Administration. EPA officials have commended us for our "commitment to a cleaner environment" and called us "a model for other companies." Our refineries have consistently ranked among the best in the nation for low per-barrel emissions. In 2012, our Total Case Incident Rate (an important safety measure) was 67% better than a Bureau of Labor Statistics average for peer industries. Even so, we have never rested on our laurels. We believe there is always room for innovation and improvement. 

Far from trying to rig the system, I have spent decades opposing cronyism and all political favors, including mandates, subsidies and protective tariffs—even when we benefit from them. I believe that cronyism is nothing more than welfare for the rich and powerful, and should be abolished. Koch Industries was the only major producer in the ethanol industry to argue for the demise of the ethanol tax credit in 2011. That government handout (which cost taxpayers billions) needlessly drove up food and fuel prices as well as other costs for consumers—many of whom were poor or otherwise disadvantaged. Now the mandate needs to go, so that consumers and the marketplace are the ones who decide the future of ethanol.

Instead of fostering a system that enables people to help themselves, America is now saddled with a system that destroys value, raises costs, hinders innovation and relegates millions of citizens to a life of poverty, dependency and hopelessness. This is what happens when elected officials believe that people's lives are better run by politicians and regulators than by the people themselves. Those in power fail to see that more government means less liberty, and liberty is the essence of what it means to be American. Love of liberty is the American ideal. If more businesses (and elected officials) were to embrace a vision of creating real value for people in a principled way, our nation would be far better off—not just today, but for generations to come. I'm dedicated to fighting for that vision. I'm convinced most Americans believe it's worth fighting for, too. 

Mr. Koch is chairman and CEO of Koch Industries. Charles Koch: I'm Fighting to Restore a Free Society

The Democrats Triple down on Man Made Global Warming

March in Santa Cruz appears to be the evangelizing  Man Made Global Warming (MMGW) month. Just in our little town there has been a UCSC Climate Conference and  three letters in the Sentinel; plus in Washington DC a Talkathon planned by Democrats (thank you Barbara Boxer; is it any wonder that the electorate doesn't care about Global Warming, but the Democrats are shoving it down the electorates' throats rather than tackling real problems like unemployment and the national debt, or try and fix our healthcare system that ObamaCare has destroyed) and it's only the 9th!. But the electorate  has  woken up to some facts that cast doubt on this government funded dogma ;there has been no global warming in the last 17 years, which also discredits every computer model offered up by the UN.

You also have the inconvenient untruth of Al Gore's predictions, that by 2013 the polar waters would be free of ice;  nope, the ice still there and actually grew by 60% from the previous year  (I would say that it is a record amount but the Arctic ice has only been documented since 1979, so who knows if it's much of a record or not). When Gore gives his MMGW presentations he continually showed graphs that reversed the known phenomenon that when the oceans are warmed they release C02; instead his graphs shows C02 levels warming the oceans. He used to shrug it off saying is was a typo, but this typo continued to show up and now he will not debate any of his scientific rhetoric.  There is also the fact that the research papers that supported Michael Mann's hockey stick graph (which fueled the recent MMGW doomsday-sayers) seems to have disappeared (lost somewhere in my office says Mann), which is really okay, because his hockey stick graph has been completely discredited (even by Mann himself), even though he still says the science is good.

The MMGW also love to use climate and weather interchangeably, or invent new terms and theories to explain the failure of their computer models, as long as it's in their favor. Hot weather in the 90's proved global warming, cooling weather in the 2000-2014 proves Climate Change. The last glacial period was about 10-12000 years ago, so it's quite evident that the climate has gotten warmer; but the nature of the climate covers 10,000's of years, not hot or cold periods of weather that have occurred or a few hundred years. 2013 had the lowest instance of Atlantic hurricanes sine 1982, 2013 also shattered the record for fewest US tornadoes and forest fire activity plummeted to 1987 levels. There is also the 2013-2014 record cold wave that effected Canada and the Northern US (Rocky Mountains to the Atlantic coast).  Current computers say that MMGW will cause climate change, that will increase the amount of rain in California, which of course is in the middle of a drought (but that didn't stop President Obama from blaming the drought on MMGW). The drought and rain patterns for California are likely the result of repeating weather patterns refereed to as El Niño and El Niña. The current condition, El Niño historically causes higher temperatures and drought conditions, the colder and rainy weather is the result of El Niño. These two weather patterns have repeated and have been observed over time, so scientists can reasonably predict their appearance and effects on the weather.    

One of the most  the often false claim is that there is overwhelming evidence that MMGW exists. The truth is there is no evidence at all that MMGW exists; all there are is observations based on an unknown norm and computer models that churn out inaccurate predictions.The claim that C02 retains heat is the basis for MMGW is the result of the worse of proxy science; if MMGW exists then C02 is the only viable element that could account for it; in other words you first need the predisposition that there is MMGW and then claim it's the result of C02 levels. But even that isn't working out for the zealots. The levels of C02 have been increasing considerably since the beginning of the new millennium, but temperatures  have remained flat; so where is the heat that should be caused by all this C02? Well the zealots now say it's hiding somewhere in the oceans; they don't know exactly where, but they know it's there because the whole belief system of MMGW depends on it. But we are assured that the science of MMGW is settled, which makes MMGW the only settled science known to man.

What's obvious is, the planet be damned, the Democrats and other oppressive regimes have an end game of carbon taxes and control over the actions of all humanity.  Global Warming has simply morphed into a state sponsored religion with cult leaders that demand you, ignore the doubters, pay your carbon taxes or there will be another great flood.