Global Warming: Not About The ‘E’ Word (Environment)

Listen to propaganda from the EPA and MDE, and you would think “Climate Change” programs are about saving the environment–but you would be wrong.

I’ll start by defining a term I created: “climateer”–someone with a vested interest in believing in catastrophic anthropogenic climate change. Two especially interesting attributes of climateers are the facts that (a) they have no conclusive facts, but rely on anecdotal assertions like ”97% of scientists believe in climate change”; and (b) climateers are genuinely disappointed when evidence indicates their fears are exaggerated.

The fact is, exaggerated Climate Change has little to do with the E-word, i.e. the Environment…but has everything to do with the C-words: Communism vs. free-market Capitalism.

Perhaps you’re thinking… “sounds a little over the top, commissioner…”

Consider this.

The question of whether or not there is climate change is not the question. Climate has been changing since the beginning of time. The more relevant questions are these: Is change exceeding regular cyclical norms? And to what extent is it anthropogenic, i.e. man-made?

Let’s return to the question of whether climate change doctrine is motivated by the E-word or the C-word.  Nothing I say will convince climateers they’ve been duped, so I’ll let the leftist “experts” tell us in their own words.

Fasten your seatbelts.

Ottmar Edenhofer, Vice-chair of the U.N. International Panel on Climate Change, says: “One must say clearly that we… redistribute the world’s wealth by climate policy.” Hmmm.

Harvey Ruvin, former Vice-chair of the International Council on Local Environmental Initiatives, said: “Individual rights will have to take a back seat to the collective” in the process of implementing Sustainable Development.” Interesting vernacular.

Naomi Klein of The Nation magazine says: “So when [Commissioner Rothschild] reacts to… climate change as if capitalism itself were coming under threat, it’s not because [he’s] paranoid… It’s because [he’s] paying attention. … most leftists have yet to realize that climate science has handed them the most powerful argument against capitalism.”

Third Annual Conference of the World Association for Political Economy in Lang Fang, China, May 2008:  “…global ecological sustainability will be possible only with fundamental social transformations and a new global economic system organised on the principles of social ownership of land and other major means of production … only socialism and the global solidarity of all working peoples can free both humanity and the earth from the fatal threat of global capitalism.”

Are you catching these not-so-subtle undercurrents of Marxism?

A top-10 favorite comes from David Foreman, founder of Earth First and director of the Sierra Club: “We must make this an insecure and inhospitable place for capitalists and their projects … We must reclaim the roads and plowed land, halt dam construction, tear down existing dams, free shackled rivers and return to wilderness tens of millions of acres of presently settled land.”

Truth is stranger than fiction.

In the book “Ecology and Socialism: Solutions to Capitalist Ecological Crisis by Environmentalist Chris Williams,” Williams says: “It is utterly impossible for Capitalism to view the world as a single interlocking system. “ He asserts the only political system that can holistically address the challenges of the 21st century is “Marxism.”

The frontal attack on free-market capitalism is self-evident.

They regularly change phraseology, so rebutting them is like playing a game of whack-a-mole at the Ocean City Boardwalk–as soon as you knock down one of their hysterical arguments, an increasingly ambiguous replacement argument pops-up.  Pow!

A lack of conclusive evidence forced climateers to change their vernacular four times in three decades. First, it was “Global Cooling.” Then, “Global Warming.” Next, “Climate Change.” And now, drum roll please, they have adopted their most ambiguous term. They call it “Climate Disruption.”

Cute… and sufficiently ambiguous to allow every self-appointed pantheistic climateer to wave his/her hands hysterically and yell “climate disruption.”  Every time there is a storm, hurricane, tornado, typhoon… you name it…  hotter, colder, wetter, dryer, more snow, less snow… see, it’s exactly what we warned would happen. Their diagnosis is always the same, and it reminds me of the snake-oil salesmen of the 1850’s who went from town to town selling the same “ointment” for anything and everything that ails you.

Climateers also shifted vernacular related to “Sea Level Rise.” In an effort to band-aid unsustainable hysteria, it’s now called “Storm Surge.” Convenient.

There you have it. Hilarious, pathetic, and a threat to America and individual liberty.

Climate Change is all about attempts to put a stake through the heart of America’s free-market economy, and replace it with a government-controlled Marxist economy… all in the name of social justice… to save the world from the threat of free market capitalism.

Remember, this was in their own words, not mine.

It’s time to stop scaring our children and refocus them on the morality of free markets and individual liberty.


Learn more about your Constitution with Commissioner Rothschild and the “Institute on the Constitution” and receive your free gift.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

A (Socialist) Wolf In Sheep’s Clothing–Part 2

In my previous article on “Social Justice”, I began to expose the “Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing.” I am referring to noble sounding, but ill-conceived, government initiatives that insidiously displace individual rights and freedoms with collectivist goals. This can be expected as evidenced by the fact the insignia for the Fabian Socialists is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Certainly, everyone wants “justice”. Our Pledge of Allegiance ends with the words “with liberty and justice for all.” However, the mischief begins when the word “SOCIAL” is inserted in front of the word “JUSTICE”.

America was founded on the concept of liberty and justice for each and every individual, and our declaration begins with the premise that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

Although we are created equal, there are no guarantees of equal economic outcomes under our free enterprise form of economy and government.  Find a country where everyone is economically “equal”, and I’ll show you a government where nobody has any freedom.

The Social Justice movement works from the basic premise that global free-market capitalism is “unsustainable” and is the source of all evil because it does not lead to equal outcomes.

I know what you’re thinking–“whoa commissioner, you had me until then…  but it sounds a little over the top to me.”  You want evidence.

Okay, let’s start with the various definitions of social justice that seek a form of egalitarianism, i.e. equal, outcomes for all.

Next, we have Mr. Obama’s promise to fundamentally transform America.  Transform into what?

Have you ever seen the Common Core Transformative Matrix?  Of course, you should be asking the question… transform our students from what into what? Well, it looks somewhat like a four leaf clover. The topmost leaf has the destination.

Want to know what it says? I’ll give you some hints. It doesn’t say “God”. It doesn’t say “The Constitution.” It doesn’t say, “America.”

It says “Global Citizen.”

So what’s a Global Citizen? It is a euphemism for ‘godless government-state citizen’ that places the collective above liberty, above free-enterprise, and above God.  It targets vulnerable children who do not yet subscribe to the principles of individual liberty and unalienable God-given rights.

Don’t laugh. It’s happening as we speak. I know as a fact that an exercise called the “Privilege Walk” is being taught throughout our colleges, and within local public schools. Students are lined-up side by side and asked a series of 25 race-baiting and subtle but anti-Judeo/Christian questions that go something like this:

If you are a white male, take one step forward.

If schools are closed during holidays that align with your religion, step forward.

If you are a minority, take a step backward.

If your parents do not have a college degree, take a step backward.

In the rotting carcass of failed progressive-left federal education doctrine, class envy, anti-white bias, and anti-achievement exercises are presented as a means of promoting Social Justice. In reality, the Privilege walk is little more than a classic anti-white male, anti-capitalist exercise, designed to evoke negative emotions against those who have enjoyed individual success. As Obama said, “If you own a business, you didn’t build that.”  If you own a successful business, you should bend the knee and pay homage to the collective and your government.

It is classic Marxist class warfare… subtle but effective.

Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged, perfectly indicts this mentality: “The smallest minority on earth is the individual.  Those that deny individual rights cannot claim to be defender of minorities.”  Yet, that is exactly what the Social justice movement does.  It strips individuals of self-identity and treats them as members of a victim-class. This is called “Identity Politics.”

If you’re lucky enough to belong to a group that is in political vogue with politicians, you may reap government benefits, or even a college admission.

If you belong to the wrong group, which usually consists of either Caucasian males, or business owners, you’re in trouble. Supporters of free-market capitalism are “unsustainable.”

So go ahead… take the Privilege Walk, and feel guilty.


Learn more about your Constitution with Commissioner Rothschild and the “Institute on the Constitution” and receive your free gift.

The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Equipping You With The Truth

Government Spending Cuts: A Triumph Of FICTION Over FACT

As we listen to our government officials at all levels, we hear many talking about spending cuts.  But, are they really cuts?

For example, in Maryland, if I add-up all of the so-called spending cuts made during the past 7 years, taxes should have decreased by $3 Billion, and individual tax bills should have decreased more than a thousand dollars a year per taxpayer.

Of course, that is not what has happened.  Taxes increased:  Income taxes, property taxes, flush taxes, rain taxes, fuel taxes, toll taxes, sales taxes, vehicle taxes, food and beverage taxes, bottle taxes, bag taxes, title taxes, death taxes, healthcare taxes.  You name it.

This raises an interesting question.  If government is making all of these “Spending Cuts”, why is government continuing to grow? And why are taxes continuing to increase?

The answer will anger you.  The average salt-of-the-earth common-sense citizen knows what a “CUT” is.    If this year I spend $100, but next year I spend only $99, it’s a “CUT”.

So what’s happening?

Government deliberately uses illegitimate definitions of a “CUT,” but depends on you to subconsciously apply a correct definition of a “CUT”.

Here’s how:

The first is something I refer to as the fallacy of buying bananas versus oranges.  If government decides to buy fewer bananas, but more oranges, it issues a press release saying it has cut spending on bananas, while failing to mention it is now spending more on oranges. Of course, in this so-called cut, net spending usually goes up.

The second definition is one I refer to as the fallacy of a reduced wish list.  Government creates its own wish list to grow its budget $10M next year.   When it only get $6M of the planned increase, they announce they’ve cut spending $4 million.  Again, this so-called cut translates into more spending and expansion of government.

So what is a real cut?  A real cut must meet one of the following three criteria:

1)      Next year’s total spending must be less than this year’s total spending.  If it’s lower, it’s a cut; or

2)    Next year’s total funding plan must be fewer total dollars than this year’s total funding plan. If it is, it’s a cut; or

3)    If next year’s planned spending per person is less than this year’s planned spending per person, it might be a cut.  The key word is “might” because you have to pay close attention to the details. If government reduces the amount of spending funded by each individual taxpayer, it may reasonably be considered a cut in spending-per-taxpayer.  This could happen when the population of a jurisdiction is increasing, but expenses are fixed.    On the other hand, if government reduces benefits for each recipient of a social program by 1%, but addicts 50% more people to the same social service, it’s not a cut.  It is an expansion of government.

So there you have it.  Three definition of a real cut in spending.    Everything else is fiction.

Understanding the games played by government officials will help citizens decode “government budget speak” and determine whether so-called cuts are fiction or fact.


Learn more about your Constitution with Commissioner Rothschild and the Institute on the Constitution and receive your free gift.

This post originally appeared on Western Journalism – Informing And Equipping Americans Who Love Freedom

Multiculturalism: A More Critical Look

Photo credit: AsianMedia (Creative Commons)

I raised two children through high school and college, and I’ve found that a disturbing anti-American bias is apparent in their multicultural studies.

America’s history is presented as a series of racist, ethnocentric, and colonialist abuses. Perhaps a partial undercurrent of truth exists for some of these criticisms. However, every major civilization on earth has been guilty of the same charges at one time or another. To America’s credit, we evolved and are arguably the most tolerant nation on the planet.

Recently, a friend of mine who is a professor at a Maryland university confided that white males have a rocky trek at her school.  It seems whites have now become the target of choice for endless attacks and derogatory comments by university intelligentsia. All of this appears to be a byproduct of multiculturalism run amuck.

Multiculturalism can be a good thing, especially when used to teach tolerance for individuals who are different than us. However, it is no different than medicine or chocolate … too much of it taken indiscriminately can make you sick. There is a fine line between tolerance and endorsement. What happens when we endorse cultures that do not share our beliefs relating to human rights, respect for law, and the pursuit of happiness for all people?

Ironically, multiculturalism embraces museumized versions of cultures that are incompatible with America’s Constitution.  An example includes fundamentalist Islam, wherein there is no distinction between church and state.  The Koran prescribes Islam; but it also prescribes a body politic, known as Sharia law, wherein women, Christians, Jews, and minorities are denied rights that are taken for granted in America.  My point is this: before embracing any culture, it would be wise to know exactly what we are embracing in the name of multiculturalism.

How do we reconcile Dhimmitude, a form of apartheid, that commands treatment of Christians and Jews as second-class citizens, under condition they subjugate to Sharia law? Women are required to wear veils. Is oppressing women acceptable?

An editor of a liberal northeast newspaper was dismissive, stating, “we won’t accept the most extreme versions of Islamism. That won’t happen.”  It is happening.  Under the guise of multiculturalism, Sharia tribunal courts hostile to women’s rights have already gained a foothold in Canada’s Provinces. Should America embrace Sharia courts?

Illegal immigration is another area of concern. Multiculturalism overtly discourages today’s immigrants from assimilating. The ACLU and other pro-multiculturalism organizations appear to aid and abet illegal immigrants who have no interest in assimilating.  Now, American college graduates living in places like Grand Island, Nebraska, or Greeley, Colorado have difficulty obtaining employment unless they speak Spanish.

A few years ago, in testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, Marsha Garst, Virginia commonwealth’s attorney in rural Rockingham County, described the crime and gang violence perpetrated by illegal aliens in her rural Virginia community. Garst urged lawmakers to address the illegal-alien gang problem “before our way of life is lost forever.” She went on to detail the involvement of gangs like the Salvadoran MS-13 and the Surenos 13, a gang comprised of citizens of Mexico, in drug trafficking, murder, kidnapping, and robbery.

America is under de-facto attack from those who do not embrace our values, and would destroy America’s way of life if empowered.

Mahatma Ghandi once said, “Non cooperation with evil is as much a duty as cooperation with good.” Has multiculturalism become the battle cry of the complacent and self loathing who refuse to recognize the current geopolitical and geo-cultural threats to America’s heritage? Should we endorse those who threaten our national security, break our laws, and show contempt for America’s constitution, culture, and way of life?

Clearly, multiculturalism has its virtues; but it also has limitations. A lack of unified values threatens the cohesion of our society. The secular nature of multiculturalism is perceived as hypocritical by many Americans. Why does multiculturalism embrace the value of other cultures while simultaneously denigrating the accomplishments and values of America’s great Judeo-Christian heritage?  And, why do multiculturalists appear to embrace the value systems and agendas of various fringe special interest groups, while simultaneously seeking to expunge Judeo-Christian values from our culture?

Multiculturalism rarely focuses on the goodness and benevolence of America and rejects assimilation as a racist concept. Yet, multiculturalism ignores the fact that immigrants leave their birth nations and come to America for a reason. They can retain their rich ethnicity, while sharing America’s culture. They want to be Americans.

Perhaps a better solution is to strive for a single, unified American culture that is simply multi-ethnic.

Ultimately, indiscriminate multiculturalism may prove to be the Trojan horse that destroys a free America. Hostile cultures, if empowered, may dismantle the hard-won rights enjoyed by women and minorities; freedom of religion; freedom from religion; and freedom from social disorder, crime, and tyranny.

It is a fact that America’s great Christian-Judeo culture laid the bedrock for the most open and diverse society in the world.  Ironically, multiculturalism taken to extremes may kill the proverbial Judeo-Christian goose that laid the golden egg.


Learn more about your Constitution with Commissioner Rothschild and the Institute on the Constitution and receive your free gift.

Photo credit: AsianMedia (Creative Commons)

Why Good Politicians Go Bad


A few months ago, a crew from New Jersey was recording a college campus video in my office.  I am a Constitutionally Conservative Republican; so when the interviewer asked me a question that seemed like it would have a self-evident answer, she was surprised when I threw her a curveball.

She asked, “Commissioner Rothschild, would you encourage young college Republicans to consider running for public office?”

No, I responded, unless they answer the following questions correctly:

First, are they committed to upholding the Constitution?

Second, can they handle not being liked?

“What do you mean?” she asked.

Well…   People who are amiable and have a strong need to be liked do not necessarily make good conservative elected officials.

You see, everyone who comes before a governing body inevitably wants money for something that they deem important:  Money for social programs; Money for infrastructure; Money for Public Safety; Money for Veterans; Money for Libraries; Money for Schools, etc.

Furthermore, in the world of government, special interests judge you based on whether or not you “support” their mission.   And, unfortunately, “support” is not measured by principles; nor is it measured by empathy.  In the stark world of government, it is measured in dollars.

Akin to rats in a cage that learn to push a lever for a pellet of food, most newly elected officials quickly learn they can buy accolades from members of various groups or unions simply by giving them what they want:  Money.

They also learn they can buy support from the liberal media by supporting the same liberal causes embraced by the liberal media.

In my three short years in office, I’ve witnessed this anomaly in action.  “Commissioner John Doe cares about education…[he gives us money].  “Commissioner John Doe cares about our hard working employees… [he gives us money].

Never mind the fact that increased spending levels today could force us to layoff fifty people next year if revenues fall short.

Never mind the fact that salary increases we give today could force us to raise taxes on struggling taxpayers next year.

So here’s the rub… People with a compulsive need to be liked do not know how to say “NO.”  They inevitably allow spending and the size of government to trend upward.

Here’s another rub.  The media is overwhelmingly liberal.   People with a compulsive need to be admired inevitably start fine-tuning their decisions in an effort to be praised by the liberal media.  Once this happens, the official is no longer leading with principles. Instead, he/she is being led by an unprincipled liberal editor.

I’ve asked my wife, “I wonder how long a principled man or woman can stay in office before they are eventually corrupted by political pressures?”

After months of reflecting on this, I’ve come to realize that, like most difficult issues, the answer is readily available within the bible.

Matthew 6:24:  “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.”

This same principle applies in politics to both politicians and constituents.

No elected official can serve two masters.  The decisions almost always boil down to Politics vs. Principles.  I’ve watched good officials go bad, and have concluded it is impossible to uphold conservative convictions over the long run unless you hold yourself accountable to both the Constitution and Christ-like principles during decision making processes.

Of course, it would be unfair to place all of the blame on elected officials.  The same pernicious problem affects constituents.

John Adams said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.”  The implications of his pronouncement are profound.   Expedient citizens evaluate their officials by what they give them. Good and moral citizens evaluate their elected officials based on their adherence to sound principles.

With every policy and every decision, each elected official and each constituent must decide what they value most…  Politics or Principles.

Last year, during a debate on funding, I received a revealing email from a teacher.  It threatened, “Commissioner Rothschild… If you want to do what’s best for your political career, you’ll give us the extra funding we demand.”

I walked up to the podium in front of hundreds of jeering government employees, read the email aloud, and told the audience, “I am now ready to respond to this email.  You see, my job is NOT to do what is best for my political career.  My job is to uphold the constitution and manage this county in a fiscally responsible manner.  And, suffice it to say, the reason our country is buried in $16 Trillion in debt, and the reason this county is buried in $300 million of debt is because politicians before me made GREAT CAREER DECISIONS.”

The crowd jeered again, and an unidentifiable voice in the audience, yelled “WHAT’S DEBT?” …apparently reflecting the liberal perspective that debt is just an artificial concept of no real concern.

It’s been nearly a year since that fitful evening. However, God willing, I pray I will never regret the way I handled myself.   But, it does highlight the pressures that cause too many elected officials to go bad.  It would have been so much more politically expedient to simply say, “I agree,” to the audience.

People get the government they demand and deserve.

In his first inaugural address, George Washington said, “The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained.”

Now, more than ever, I am convinced the only way to ensure Principles will trump Politics is to return to the timeless question: What would Jesus do?



Learn more about your Constitution with Commissioner Rothschild and the Institute on the Constitution and receive your free gift.