Why the Right-Wing Bullies Will Hold The Nation Hostage Again and Again

“Why the Right-Wing Bullies Will Hold The Nation Hostage Again and Again” …….the Marxists at Huffpost explain.  Well I suppose they did bully in the Wisconsin Teachers’ Union todo recently……….If bullying means winning.   Mr. Reich’s labor boys and girls who occupy teacher roles in the Badger State, made big noise and paid big money there , however.

 I have never been called a Right-Wing bully in my life, but I think I might be one at that.   If so, I think I rather like the feeling.  So I read  this Huffpost stuff from Robert Reich, one time Secretary of Labor.

Robert Reich, Labor man, confesses:

“When I was a small boy I was bullied more than most, mainly because I was a foot shorter than everyone else. They demanded the cupcake my mother had packed in my lunchbox, or, they said, they’d beat me up. After a close call in the boy’s room, I paid up. Weeks later, they demanded half my sandwich as well. I gave in to that one, too. But I could see what was coming next. They’d demand everything else. Somewhere along the line I decided I’d have a take a stand. The fight wasn’t pleasant. But the bullies stopped their bullying.

I hope the president decides he has to take a stand, and the sooner the better. Last December he caved in to Republican demands that the Bush tax cut be extended to wealthier Americans for two more years, at a cost of more than $60 billion. That was only the beginning — the equivalent of my cupcake.

Last night he gave away more than half the sandwich — $39 billion less than was budgeted for 2010, $79 billion less than he originally requested. Non-defense discretionary spending — basically, everything from roads and bridges to schools and innumerable programs for the poor — has been slashed.

The right-wing bullies are emboldened. They will hold the nation hostage again and again.

In a few weeks the debt ceiling has to be raised. After that, next year’s budget has to be decided on. House Budget Chair Paul Ryan has already put forward proposals to turn Medicare into vouchers that funnel money to private insurance companies, turn Medicaid and Food Stamps into block grants that give states discretion to shift them to the non-poor, and give even more big tax cuts to the rich.

There will also be Republican votes to defund the new health care law.

“Americans of different beliefs came together,” the president announced after agreement was reached. It was the “largest spending cut in our history.” He sounded triumphant. In fact, he’s encouraging the bullies onward.

All the while, he and the Democratic leadership in Congress refuse to refute the Republicans’ big lie — that spending cuts will lead to more jobs. In fact, spending cuts now will lead to fewer jobs. They’ll slow down an already-anemic recovery. That will cause immense and unnecessary suffering for millions of Americans.

The president continues to legitimize the Republican claim that too much government spending caused the economy to tank, and that by cutting back spending we’ll get the economy going again.

Even before the bullies began hammering him his deficit commission already recommended $3 of spending cuts for every dollar of tax increase. Then the President froze non-defense domestic spending and froze federal pay. And he continues to draw the false analogy between a family’s budget and the national budget.

He is losing the war of ideas because he won’t tell the American public the truth: That we need more government spending now — not less — in order to get out of the gravitational pull of the Great Recession.

That we got into the Great Recession because Wall Street went bonkers and government failed to do its job at regulating financial markets. And that much of the current deficit comes from the necessary response to that financial crisis.

That the only ways to deal with the long-term budget problem is to demand that the rich pay their fair share of taxes, and to slow down soaring health-care costs.

And that, at a deeper level, the increasingly lopsided distribution of income and wealth has robbed the vast working middle class of the purchasing power they need to keep the economy going at full capacity.

“We preserved the investments we need to win the future,” he said last night. That’s not true. The budget he just approved will cut Pell grants to poor kids, while states continue massive cutbacks in school spending — firing tens of thousands of teachers and raising fees at public universities. The budget he approved is cruel to the nation’s working class and poor.

It is impossible to fight bullies merely by saying they’re going too far.”

Further comment:   Like nearly all modern Democrats, the Marxist Obama kind,  Robert  Reich measure any resistance to Marxist forced equality as bullying.   There was  after all a rather decisive election held last November, but  the Marxist Democrats pay attention to elections whenever it’s expedient to do so.

California Federation of Teachers Pledge Support for Black Racist Cop Killer

Teacher Unions have been in the news lately.   They rallied loudly and long   in Wisconsin and spent millions of dollars there to change the direction of that state’s Supreme Court.    Public service is one of their strengths.

Prager fan, Cole from California noticed the outstanding public service provided by the California Federation of Teachers in this article from the Daily Caller and wanted to share it with Prager Nation: 

“Between negotiating for more benefits and teaching their students, the California Federation of Teachers has adopted a resolution of support for convicted cop-killer Mumia Abu-Jamal.

At the CFT’s 2011 Convention in late March, the delegates passed 30 resolutions, from solidifying support for anti-bullying legislation to supporting transitional kindergarten. Among the resolutions largely pertaining to education and collective bargaining rights was Resolution 19 – to “Reaffirm support for death row journalist.”

“Therefore, be it resolved, that the California Federation of Teachers reaffirm its support and demand that the courts consider the evidence of innocence of Mumia Abu-Jamal,” the Committee Report reads.

Mumia Abu-Jamal was a former member of the Black Panthers who was found guilty of murdering Philadelphia police officer Daniel J. Faulkner during a routine traffic stop in 1981. Abu-Jamal was subsequently sentenced to death.

His supporters, such as the California Federation of Teachers, argue that his trial was unfair and that he is a civil rights hero.

“Mumia Abu-Jamal has for decades as a journalist fought courageously against racism and police brutality and for the human rights of all people and has taken strong stands in support of working people involved in labor struggles and in support of well-funded, quality, public education,” the resolution reads.

Daniel Flynn, author of “Cop killer: How Mumia Abu-Jamal conned millions into believing he was framed” told The Daily Caller that Abu-Jamal was the poster-child for ending the death penalty…20 – 30 years ago.

“Somebody should tell the California Teachers Federation that this is over, he is in jail, he is going to stay there,” Flynn said. “You have numerous eyewitnesses saying Mumia did it. You had ballistic evidence – Mumia’s gun at the scene was consistent with the bullet used to kill Faulkner. Mumia admitted after the fact that he did it.”

Fred Glass, CFT spokesman, told TheDC that the even though the case is 30 years old, since Abu-Jamal is still going through appeals, the issue remains relevant.

“The delegates decided it was time to reiterate that they supported him due to the irregularities that they felt had taken place during his case,” said Glass. “They see this as a civil liberties issue, it is quite common for the CFT to take positions on broad social matters like this.”

American Federation of Teachers (AFT) spokesman Tom Lansworth, said that this is an issue the national union has never before considered, however, it likely will appear before the AFT at their next convention.

“It appears that one of the intents of the California resolution is to present this issue to the next AFT convention, which will be next year. Our national convention is held every two years. So the California action is part of the normal process of proposing resolutions for debate by the national convention. This does not appear to be an issue that we have acted on before,” he told TheDC, adding he had no idea whether the AFT would adopt the resolution.

Either way, Flynn sees the action as the CFT showing their liberal stripes.

‘The California Federation of Teachers is reacting to that long tradition on the left that takes murders and makes heroes out of them,’ said Flynn.”

Comment:   Flynn describing the California Teachers’ Union as showing  “their liberal stripes” should be an insult to liberals everywhere.   I certainly take offence as a devoted Dennis Prager fan.   These goons are Marxists.   They have no connection with things classically called ‘liberal’ except as an enemy.    These California teachers apparently  get their basic education for the pedagogy of black racists.

It’s good to know what the teachers of our American children and youth are up to these days.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/04/11/teachers-support-cop-killer/#ixzz1JH1S6mvY

Fort Sumter Attacked……The War Between The States Began Today, 150 Years Ago!

from Lincoln’s first inaugural speech on March 4, 1861:

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I can not be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the National Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it. I will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others, not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse. I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment, however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.

The Chief Magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have referred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the States. The people themselves can do this if also they choose, but the Executive as such has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administer the present Government as it came to his hands and to transmit it unimpaired by him to his successor.

Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world? In our present differences, is either party without faith of being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of Nations, with His eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth and that justice will surely prevail by the judgment of this great tribunal of the American people.

By the frame of the Government under which we live this same people have wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief, and have with equal wisdom provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very short intervals. While the people retain their virtue and vigilance no Administration by any extreme of wickedness or folly can very seriously injure the Government in the short space of four years.

My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. If there be an object to hurry any of you in hot haste to a step which you would never take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object can be frustrated by it. Such of you as are now dissatisfied still have the old Constitution unimpaired, and, on the sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while the new Administration will have no immediate power, if it would, to change either. If it were admitted that you who are dissatisfied hold the right side in the dispute, there still is no single good reason for precipitate action. Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has never yet forsaken this favored land are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulty.

In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to “preserve, protect, and defend it.”

I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.”

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – -

The Attack on Fort Sumter:

On April 12, 1861, Confederate Brig. General, P.G.T. Beauregard, an expert artilleryman, graduate of West Point, laid siege to Fort Sumter in the harbor of Charleston, S.C., where federal troops had been withdrawn in anticipation of war.

This little tidbit from Wikipedia is my offering to the Prager public to follow through the life and times of Abraham Lincoln, America’s greatest President, through the years of America’s greatest trial,

On Thursday, April 11, 1861, Beauregard sent three aides, Colonel James Chesnut, Jr., Captain Stephen D. Lee, and Lieutenant A. R. Chisolm to demand the surrender of the fort. Anderson declined, and the aides returned to report to Beauregard. After Beauregard had consulted the Secretary of War, Leroy Walker, he sent the aides back to the fort and authorized Chesnut to decide whether the fort should be taken by force. The aides waited for hours while Anderson considered his alternatives and played for time. At about 3 a.m., when Anderson finally announced his conditions, Colonel Chesnut, after conferring with the other aides, decided that they were “manifestly futile and not within the scope of the instructions verbally given to us”. The aides then left the fort and proceeded to the nearby Fort Johnson. There, Chesnut ordered the fort to open fire on Fort Sumter.^[11]

On Friday, April 12, 1861, at 4:30 a.m., Confederate batteries opened fire, firing for 34 straight hours, on the fort. Edmund Ruffin, noted Virginian agronomist and secessionist, claimed that he fired the first shot on Fort Sumter. His story has been widely believed, but Lieutenant Henry S. Farley, commanding a battery of two mortars on James Island fired the first shot at 4:30 A.M. (Detzer 2001, pp. 269–71). No attempt was made to return the fire for more than two hours. The fort’s supply of ammunition was not suited for the task, also there were no fuses for their explosive shells, only solid balls could be used against the Rebel batteries. At about 7:00 A.M., Captain Abner Doubleday , the fort’s second in command, was given the honor of firing the first shot in defense of the fort. The shot was ineffective, in part because Major Anderson did not use the guns mounted on the highest tier, the barbette tier, where the gun detachments would be more exposed to Confederate fire. The firing continued all day, the Union fired slowly to conserve ammunition. At night the fire from the fort stopped, but the confederates still lobbed an occasional shell in Sumter. On Saturday, April 13, the fort was surrendered and evacuated. During the attack, the Union colors fell. Lt.Norman J. Hall risked life and limb to put them back up, burning off his eyebrows permanently. No Union soldiers died in the actual battle though a Confederate soldier bled to death having been wounded by a misfiring cannon. One Union soldier died and another was mortally wounded during the 47th shot of a 100 shot salute, allowed by the Confederacy. Afterwards the salute was shortened to 50 shots. Accounts, such as in the famous diary of Mary Chesnut, describe Charleston residents along what is now known as The Battery, sitting on balconies and drinking salutes to the start of the hostilities. The Fort Sumter Flag became a popular patriotic symbol after Major Anderson returned North with it. The flag is still displayed in the fort’s museum. A supply ship Star of the West took all the Union soldiers to New York City. There they were welcomed and honored with a parade on Broadway.

Posted at 12:00 PM ET, 04/11/2011 April 1861: The War Between the States begins— what was the weather like? By Don Lipman

On April 12, 1861, Abraham Lincoln, 16th president of the United States, had been in office only 39 days when, at 4:30 A.M., Confederate cannons opened fire against Ft. Sumter, SC, a small Union garrison in Charleston harbor. The Civil War had begun.

Most historians agree that the weather was a huge issue during the entire conflict but strangely, at the time of the Ft. Sumter bombardment, little was reported about the weather. That day, however, it was rainy and in the 60s in DC, so we can only assume that Charleston weather was at least that warm, if not warmer (about average for Charleston in April)—with no rain at the time of shelling, since battles were generally not initiated in foul weather.

The bombardment of Ft. Sumter in 1861 when there were no reports of foul weather. April 1861

According to the Rev. C.B. Mackee (one of our best Civil War weather resources, as mentioned in Part I of this series), the remainder of April 1861 in Washington was quite pleasant. Temperatures were mostly in the 60s, 70s, and 80s, with the exception of 2 days with “high winds” and one (April 17th) when temperatures at the 3 observation times (7:00 A.M., 2:00 P.M., and 9:00 P.M.) were all the same, at 42 degrees — a very unusual occurrence. April 1861’s mid-Atlantic weather would contrast sharply with that of April 1862, when it was relatively cold and even snowy. And on April 5, 1863, 12 inches of snow fell, although it turned considerably milder thereafter.

(The above notations are  selected to relax our American Marxist Global Warming hysterics so they might focus more on America’s  real life  struggle for survival as a single nation.)

Seven states had already seceded from the Union, led by South Carolina in December, 1860  with the election of Abraham Lincoln a month earlier.  Four followed after the South Carolina attack on Fort Sumter…..Virginia, North Carolina, Arkansas and Tennessee.   Civil War would break out in Missouri.   Kentucky would supply both North and South with volunteers, and West Virginia would be carved out of the state of Virginia during the middle of the conflict.

Lincoln was perplexed regarding how the fighting should begin.  If the North attacked first,  Great Britain perhaps even allied with France might take the opportunity to join the South to humble the United States.   Southern cotton was essential for the English textile industry.   As the war dragged on, the industry and all associated with it, collapsed adding  fuel to potential international conflict.

Fort Sumter gave Lincoln the opportunity to tempt the seceded South Carolina to attack the Union attempt to supply its troops on the island fort……..The South set off the first cannonades  at 4:30 a few hours from now, 150 years ago…….

………when my grandfather, Frank Ray, living in Cherryfield, Maine, was 4 years old.

“Obama opposes spending cuts right up to the time he calls them historic”..

OBAMA, CHAMPION CON ARTIST AT HIS DISHONEST BEST

The following outstanding article is from today’s Wall Street Journal.   Dennis Prager led off the second hour of his today’s show.   Dennis is exceedingly polite even when his political opponents lie, cheat and steal.   Which verbs  bring the topic directly to Barack Hussein Obama and therefore, the following editorial.  

Barack Hussein Obama is a skilled, articulate liar, deceiver, cheat and felon.   Charles Krauthammer describes this president  as the most disingenuous guy ever.    Look up the meaning of the adjective for its more precise meaning.

Moreover, outside of his baritones, the man is incompetent as a leader, a thinker and a doer.   He is not a problem solver.   He hangs curtains well, we are told.

Here is the  stellar opinion piece, titled “Tea Party’s First Victory”:       “This is getting to be a habit. President Obama ferociously resists tax cuts, trade agreements and spending cuts—right up to the moment he strikes a deal with Republicans and hails the tax cuts, trade agreements and spending cuts as his idea. What a difference an election makes.

This is the larger political meaning of Friday’s last minute budget deal for fiscal 2011 that averted a government shutdown. Mr. Obama has now agreed to a pair of tax cut and spending deals that repudiate his core economic philosophy and his agenda of the last two years—and has then hailed both as great achievements. Republicans in Washington have reversed the nation’s fiscal debate and are slowly repairing the harm done since the Nancy Pelosi Congress began to set the direction of government in 2007.

Yes, we know, $39 billion in spending cuts for 2011 is less than the $61 billion passed by the House and shrinks the overall federal budget by only a little more than 1%. The compromise also doesn’t repeal ObamaCare, kill the EPA’s anticarbon rules, defund Planned Parenthood, reform the entitlement state, or part the Red Sea.

On the other hand, the Obama-Pelosi Leviathan wasn’t built in a day, and it won’t be cut down to size in one budget. Especially not in a fiscal year that only has six months left and with Democrats running the Senate and White House. Friday’s deal cuts more spending in any single year than we can remember, $78 billion more than President Obama first proposed. Domestic discretionary spending grew by 6% in 2008, 11% in 2009 and 14% in 2010, but this year will fall by 4%. That’s no small reversal.

The budget does this while holding the line against defense cuts that Democrats wanted and restoring the school voucher program for Washington, D.C. for thousands of poor children. Tom DeLay—the talk radio hero when he ran the House—never passed a budget close to this good.

The political gains are also considerable. When Mr. Obama introduced his 2012 budget in February, he proposed more spending on his priorities in return for essentially no cuts. Two months later, the debate is entirely about how much spending to cut and which part of government to reform. Democrats were forced to play defense nearly across the board, obliged to defend programs (National Public Radio) that were once thought to be untouchable shrines of modern liberalism.

Republicans also showed they are able to make the compromises required to govern. We realize that “governing” can often be an excuse for incumbent self-interest. But this early show of political maturity will demonstrate to independents that the freshmen and tea party Republicans they elected in November aren’t the yahoos of media lore. A government shutdown over a spending difference of $7 billion and some policy riders would have made the GOP look reckless for little return.

Now the battle moves to the debt ceiling increase and Paul Ryan’s new 2012 budget later this year, and there are lessons from this fight to keep in mind. One is to focus on spending and budget issues, not extraneous policy fights. Republicans have the advantage when they are talking about the overall level of spending and ways to control it. They lose that edge when the debate veers off into a battle over social issues.

We certainly agree that, amid a $1.5 trillion deficit, taxpayer funding for Planned Parenthood is preposterous. Let George Soros or Peter Lewis spend their private fortunes to support the group’s abortion counseling. But Mr. Boehner was wise to drop the provision on Friday rather than let Mr. Obama portray a shutdown as a fight over abortion rights. If Republicans want to win this fight in the coming months, they need to convince voters that Planned Parenthood funding is a low fiscal priority, not make it seem as if they want to use the budget to stage a cultural brawl.

This point is especially crucial in the looming showdown over increasing the debt limit. Mr. Obama will marshal a parade of Wall Street and Federal Reserve worthies predicting Armageddon if the debt limit isn’t raised as early as mid-May. Republicans will play into his hands of they seek to load up any debt limit increase with policies unrelated to spending and debt reduction.

The best advice we’ve heard is from former Senator Phil Gramm, who says Republicans should agree that families and nations should always honor their debts. But in doing so they should also make sure they won’t pile up new debt. For a family, that means cutting up the credit cards. For Congress, it means passing budget reforms that impose hard and enforceable limits on new spending and debt.

We are not talking here about that hardy perennial, a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution, that would easily become a lever for Democrats to push for higher taxes. Far better would be statutory limits on spending increases and debt as a share of GDP, sequesters that automatically cut spending if Congress exceeds those limits, supermajority rules for replacing those limits, and revisions of the budget baseline so that each year’s budget begins at last year’s spending levels, not with automatic increases.

This is the kind of reform the public will understand is directly related to the debt limit, and one that Senate Democrats and Mr. Obama will find hard to oppose. Republicans should waste no time starting to explain their debt-limit terms, so voters also understand the GOP isn’t toying with default as a political ploy.

One of the ironies of Friday’s budget deal is that it is being criticized both by Ms. Pelosi and some conservative Republicans. We can understand Ms. Pelosi’s angst. But conservatives are misguided if they think they could have done much better than Mr. Boehner, or that a shutdown would have helped their cause. Republicans need to stay united for the bigger fights to come this year, and for now they and the tea party can take credit for spending cuts that even Mr. Obama feels politically obliged to sell as historic.”

Further comment:   Much of my formal education was in the arena of Soviet Studies, including learning Russian.  I wound up loving Russians as a group, both the elegant suave survivors from the old Czarist aristocracy, but those with their imprisoned lives confined to the cement and sterility   of Stalinist Marxism as well.  

They were a cultured people…..a magnificent compliment in the language.   Within the permitted limits of that  which people were allowed to study   they were  learned and culturally Russian,  aware and alive. 

Soviet university  classes which I visited in 1966 were very impressively  taught by elegant, articulate winsome highly poised  gals.   Ordinary citizens living in the drab, crowded, smelly and cold cement blocks, were so generous, so pleasantly open and politely daring, sincere and honest…….

Think of the the black housing projects in Chicago or any  other black racist center of the American inner city built in the 1950s and 1960s.     Think of why these crime centers of the 1960s until the crime was so overwhelming and the destruction so complete from the asocial and antisocial  character of perhaps a majority of blacks living there.  

Now remove the crime and destruction, remove half of the possessions owned by the asocial and antisocial blacks of the inner city black plantations,  think peaceful, quiet, literate, aware, onguard, alert folks, knowing there was never going to be a chance for them to move anywhere else in their lifetime, even while  sharing  a kitchen with another family, but without any apparent hate for anyone including Americans.

Obama would have worked very well in the Soviet system.  His baritone, out front framing and bearing, official comrade carriage would have worked very, very well in any sales job not requiring truth in lending, subject, or deed.

He is a phony.   A man of shallow frontage.   More a Russian Marxist than Nazi Socialist salesman.

American Democracy’s Enemy #1….George Soros Sounds Like an authentic Modern American

But, beware……he is still the leading Marxist supplier of money to destroy American liberty……. The man with the money behind National Public Radio, and nearly everything LEFT in the once honorable Democratic Party.

Click on for a brief interview where Gorgeous George sounds like a concerned American, instead of the man show should concern all freedom-loving Americans:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/04/11/soros_us_could_absorb_some_more_debt.html

The Fantasies of Wind Power, European Union, Global Warming Face Reality

The following article by Christopher Booker, is from the Telegraph:

“What happens when the great fantasies, like wind power or European Union, collide with reality?

It might seem strange to link global warming and the futility of wind farms with the ongoing collapse of the euro. But in several directions at the moment we can see the unfolding of one of the hidden patterns shaping human affairs, which years ago I called “the fantasy cycle”. It is a pattern that recurs in personal lives, in politics, in history – and in storytelling.

When we embark on a course of action which is unconsciously driven by wishful thinking, all may seem to go well for a time, in what may be called the “dream stage”. But because this make-believe can never be reconciled with reality, it leads to a “frustration stage” as things start to go wrong, prompting a more determined effort to keep the fantasy in being. As reality presses in, it leads to a “nightmare stage” as everything goes wrong, culminating in an “explosion into reality”, when the fantasy finally falls apart.

Recent events show us two huge examples of this cycle moving to its final stages. One is the belief, which took hold 20 years ago, that the world was in the grip of runaway global warming, caused by our emissions of greenhouse gases. The planet could only be saved by abandoning fossil fuels and drawing our energy from wind and sun. For a while (the dream stage), all seemed to go according to the theory. As CO2 levels rose and the Earth continued to warm, our politicians started to propose every kind of drastic measure to reduce our emissions, such as building thousands of wind turbines. But in all sorts of ways, in the past few years, this dream and the theory behind it have begun colliding with reality.

Carbon dioxide levels continued to rise, but global temperatures failed to follow. Three times in the past 13 years – in 1998, 2006 and 2010 – they spiked upwards, thanks to periodic shifts in a major Pacific ocean current – the phenomenon known as “El Niño” – which brings warm water to the surface and boosts temperatures across the world. Each time it was trumpeted as “the hottest year ever”. But each time, as the ocean current reversed into “La Niña”, the spike was followed by an equally sharp cooling.

In 2007, temperatures fell by 0.75C, more than the entire net rise recorded through the whole of the 20th century. After they rose again to a new El Niño peak in 2010, we were told, only three months ago, by the compilers of the two chief surface-temperature records – the UK Met Office, in association with Phil Jones of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, and James Hansen of NASA – that 2010 was the “equal warmest” or “second warmest” year ever.

Last week, however, with a new La Niña, it was reported that global temperatures, as measured by satellites, had fallen by 0.65C since March 2010, making the world cooler now than its mean over the past 30 years. Yet again the computer models, predicting that, thanks to rising CO2, the world should have warmed in the past decade by 0.3C, have proved hopelessly wrong.

 If it hasn’t looked too hot for the theory on which our politicians base their plans to change the world, then last week it looked equally dodgy for what has been one of the most grandiose of their responses to this supposed crisis. Two sets of figures exposed more than ever the degree of delusion which surrounds the wish of our governments, in Brussels and in Westminster, that the centrepiece of our energy policy must now be to build even more windmills.

The report that drew most media attention was that from a Scottish environmental charity which focused on the fact that last year, despite our building yet more turbines, the lack of wind meant that they operated, on average, at only 21 per cent of their capacity – the lowest percentage ever. Several times, when demand was at record levels, the contribution of wind to our electricity supply was virtually zero.

Less attention was given, however, to figures put out by the Department for Energy and Climate Change, showing that the 3,168 turbines we have built, at a cost of billions of pounds, contributed on average, if very irregularly, only 1,141 megawatts to the national grid last year – less than the output of a single large coal-fired power station. From the DECC figures it is possible to work out that, for this derisory contribution, we paid through our electricity bills a subsidy of nearly £1.2 billion, on top of the price of the electricity itself.

Thus, in return for less than 3 per cent of our electricity, nearly 7 per cent of our billls were made up of hidden subsidies to the wind developers, a percentage due to treble and quadruple in coming years as the Government strives to meet EU “renewables” target by building up to 10,000 more turbines, at a cost of £100 billion. The dream of using the wind to keep our lights on is being shown by reality to be one of the most absurd fantasies of our time.

Another, in its own way even greater fantasy has been the colossal project taking shape over the past 50 years to take away the power of the nations of Europe to govern themselves and to hand it over to a weirdly dysfunctional new system of government centred in Brussels. No single element in that project was more ambitious or seen as symbolically more crucial than the wish to integrate Europe’s economies around a single currency.

Back in the 1970s, when this was first talked of, Sir Donald McDougall, a senior Treasury official, was commissioned by Brussels to produce a report on “The Role of Public Finance in European Integration”. He warned that economic and monetary union could only work if Europe was in effect given an economic government, with the power to dispose of between 25 per cent and 40 per cent of Europe’s GDP. This was because, as he foresaw, one of the core problems would be that if weaker countries were deprived of the power to set their own interest rates or to devalue, they would require a massive injection of resources from richer countries. Which, of course, is just what we now see being acted out in the desperate efforts to bail out Portugal, following in the wake of Greece and Ireland – with Spain, bigger than all three put together, possibly to follow.

As McDougall and many after him warned, the single currency could only work on conditions which the builders of a united Europe blithely chose to ignore, in pursuit of their make-believe. As a result, its collision with reality is now coming about, threatening a disintegration of the eurozone that could tug much of the European dream after it.

A third great fantasy of our time has been the belief that we can sort out the world’s trouble spots by reckless military interventions which fail to anticipate the bloody chaos they will unleash.

Another little instance has been the tragedy unfolding in the past few days in Camp Ashraf in Iraq, where Iraqi and Iranian terror squads have finally moved in to crush the 3,400 defenceless Iranian exiles who in 2003 gave up their arms in return for written personal guarantees of their safety by the US government.

Since Thursday night, more than 30 Ashraf residents have reportedly been killed and hundreds injured. This may be only a small example of the price so many others have had to pay for that act of folly when Bush and Blair sailed into Iraq like Don Quixote and Sancho Panza charging windmills.”