Our rights do not originate with government, but they are to be "secured" by government.
Formerly: Libertarian Party of Citrus county

Thursday, December 31, 2009

Moral Imperative

Social security was created because it was a moral imperative that every senior citizen is provided for, at least at a minimum level. Every working person pays social security first, they may be exempt from income taxes but not from social security. Because it was considered a moral imperative, every working person pays into social security, with the only exception being clergy who may choose to opt out. This moral imperative is so great, that we insist that everybody make a sacrifice so that the old and infirm don’t suffer.

The solutions liberals offer to pay for universal health care are; to tax those who earn more than $500K per year, a Cadillac tax on those who purchase good health insurance, and/or borrow the money and let our grand children figure out how to pay for it. Liberals insist that universal health care be paid for by "the rich", instead of being borne by everybody equally. If universal health care is a moral imperative, shouldn't the payment of universal health care be borne by everybody equally, just like social security?

Wednesday, December 30, 2009

It's A New Year

Happy New Year everybody! Thanks for reading my blog, from comments in emails, FB, and other places it has become increasingly evident that a lot of people are libertarian and don't know it, and an significant number of people don't understand libertarian ideas, and some people really don't understand what bigger and bigger government does to liberty. Since reading dry political books, papers, articles and even blogs, on ideas that are new or you don't agree, is not going to happen. I've created a short list of fun books, all with action, good characters, and interesting commentary on liberty and government. Here is my New Years Recommended Fiction reading for understanding libertarian thought and the results of Too Much Government. Because some of you are like me, Frugal, (the quote some of my friends use is "cheap bastard"), these books can be acquired on the web as an eBook for free.

Little Brother - Cory Doctorow
Freehold - Michael Z. Williamson
The Moon is a Harsh Mistress - Robert A. Heinlein
Rebel Moon - VoxDay

I don't expect them to change anybody's political view, but hopefully you can enjoy a good read, and gain some understanding on libertarian thought.

Have a Happy New Year
a.k.a Tom Rhodes

PS: To bring in the New Year, I leave you with a few random quotes, by people with much more gravitas than I, on Liberty and Government:

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. ~ Thomas Jefferson

To be governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place(d) under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. ~ Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

If the present Congress errs in too much talking, how can it be otherwise in a body to which the people send one hundred and fifty lawyers, whose trade it is to question everything, yield nothing, and talk by the hour? ~ Thomas Jefferson

“To retain respect for sausages and laws, one must not watch them in the making.” ~ Otto von Bismark

Advertisements contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper. ~ Mark Twain

A free America... means just this: individual freedom for all, rich or poor, or else this system of government we call democracy is only an expedient to enslave man to the machine and make him like it. ~ Frank Lloyd Wright

“Laws: We know what they are, and what they are worth! They are spider webs for the rich and mighty, steel chains for the poor and weak, fishing nets in the hands of the government.” ~ Pierre-Joseph Proudhon

The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

No man's life, liberty or property are safe while the legislature is in session. ~ New York Judge Gideon Tucker

Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost. ~ John Quincy Adams

I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. ~ Thomas Jefferson

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it. ~ Thomas Jefferson

Many politicians are in the habit of laying it down as a self-evident proposition that no people ought to be free till they are fit to use their freedom. The maxim is worthy of the fool in the old story who resolved not to go into the water till he had learned to swim. ~ Thomas B. Macaulay

Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual. ~ Thomas Jefferson

The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. ~ Thomas Jefferson

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. ~ Thomas Jefferson

There ought to be one day - just one - when there is open season on senators. ~ Will Rogers

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government. ~ Thomas Jefferson

All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise, not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, so much as from the downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation. ~ John Adams

Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either aristocracy or monarchy. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide. ~ John Adams

Liberty, according to my metaphysics is a self-determining power in an intellectual agent. It implies thought and choice and power. ~ John Adams

Power always thinks... that it is doing God's service when it is violating all his laws. ~ John Adams

While all other sciences have advanced, that of government is at a standstill - little better understood, little better practiced now than three or four thousand years ago. ~ John Adams

Monday, December 28, 2009

Obama Orders End to Individual Rights

Two weeks ago, President Obama signed an executive order that makes an international police force immune from the restraints of American law. Until then Interpol's property and assets were subject to search and seizure, and it was bound by the Fourth Amendment, FOIA, and other limitations of the Constitution and federal law that protect the liberty and privacy of Americans. These limitations prevent the government authority from becoming tyrannical.

Consistent with his Marxist actions, following the historic practices of other Socialist/Marxist leaders, on Wednesday, December 16, 2009, President Obama issued Executive Order 13524 to do an end run around the constitution and eliminate the constitutional restrictions that protect individuals in the United States. This single Executive Order allows a government agency that is not accountable to the US citizens the right to ignore constitutional limits and have virtual unlimited authority over the people of the United States. Interpol's property and assets are no longer subject to search and confiscation, and its archives can no longer be touched by the US citizens. Interpol's U.S. headquarters are in the Justice Department in Washington D.C., Why would our government allow or want police data to be stored in the Justice Department and not be suject to US Constitutional restraints? Why is it necessary to have a government agency (not a US agency), to be exempt from constitutional limitations? How can any "police" be exempt from the protections the constitutions offers to it's citizens? Interpol can now use illegal means to gather “evidence” against US citizens, arrest US citizens, and prosecute us without any of our normal constitutional protections.

This has to be the scariest disregard for the individual rights of people of the United States thus far Obama has shown. Obama took an oath swearing to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." This action not only doesn't preserve, protect and defend the Constitution; it clearly weakens and is designed to get around the constitutional restrictions on government authority.

This can only be described as a violation of his oath and an act of treason.

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Summary of Health Care Bill

Eric Allie sums up passage of Health Care Bill

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

Arbitrary Power, Dictatorship, and Health Care

Arbitrary Power, Dictatorship, and Health Care

Posted By John David Lewis On December 22, 2009 at Pajamasmedia.com

The essence of a dictator's method is not to write harsh laws and enforce them rigidly. The world's most destructive thugs have wanted something different. They have wanted to impose their wills on a compliant populace using arbitrary power -- power not limited by laws or constitution, but power that was open-ended, ill-defined, and could be expanded based on the whims of the moment.

Well-written laws are the enemy of the dictator. As philosopher Ayn Rand put it, “When men are united by ideas, i.e., by explicit principles, there is no room for favors, whims, or arbitrary power: the principles serve as an objective criterion for determining actions and for judging men, whether leaders or members.” Laws, properly formulated, are based on principles, and serve to translate those principles into firm criteria for judging particular cases. What a dictator wants is to be free of such principles and to use his power as he wishes.

This provides a good basis for judging legislation today. Does a law or a bill constrain the power of officials -- both elected and appointed -- by the principles of the law? Or does it empower the officials to define the meaning of the law as they wish, to apply it in an open-ended manner, and to write regulations in order to expand their power?

Consider one example today: H.R. 3962, the ‘‘Affordable Health Care for America Act” recently passed by the House of Representatives. Even a summary perusal of its 1,990 pages shows an enormous scope for arbitrary definitions, applications, and regulations according to the decisions of unelected administrators. Here are a few passages to illustrate:

To determine what constitutes the “satisfaction of health care coverage participation requirements” under the 1974 ERISA rules, “the secretary may promulgate any interim final rules as the secretary determines are appropriate to carry out this part-- (Sec. 421). Readers of the bill who try to discover what constitutes an “interim final rule” will find that this is up to the secretary -- i.e., the bureaucrats -- to determine.

With respect to the so-called “temporary high-risk pool program,” a program to be run until the so-called health care exchanges are established: “If the secretary estimates for any fiscal year that the aggregate amounts available for payment of expenses of the high-risk pool will be less than the amount of the expenses, the secretary shall make such adjustments as are necessary to eliminate such deficit, including reducing benefits, increasing premiums, or establishing waiting lists” (Sec. 101). Who gets care, and what it will cost, will be up to the secretary.

Officials may gather whatever taxpayer information they decide is necessary. “The secretary shall collect such data as may be required to establish premiums and payment rates for the public health insurance option and for other purposes under this subtitle -- (Sec. 321). Section 412 requires employers to submit “such information as the commissioner may require” to multiple federal agencies.

The bill institutionalizes such coercions by establishing over one hundred new commissioners, boards, committees, and programs, each with its own area of control. (For a list, see here.)

America is not a dictatorship. These bills are available for us to read, and we are able to discuss them openly, to agree or to disagree, and to speak and write about them in forums both public and private. But we will not be free to escape either the regulations which a faceless bureaucracy will write in order to enforce its edicts, or the decisions made by such bureaucrats over our lives.

If you are an employer, you will not escape punishment if a bureaucrat decides that your health plan is not “acceptable” and that you must be fined for your failure to meet his decision. If you are an individual who does not want to purchase full-coverage health insurance, but would rather buy catastrophic insurance that covers hospitalization only, your decision will not be “acceptable” and you may face a government audit and a new tax.

Do you have a serious disease? Does your doctor wish to readmit you to the hospital? A bureaucrat will decide whether or not you get treatment, based on a statistical analysis of the number of such readmissions by the bureaucrats: “excess readmissions shall not include readmissions for an applicable condition for which there are fewer than a minimum number (as determined by the secretary) of discharges for such applicable condition for the applicable period and such hospital” (Sec. 1151).

The scope of power here extends to the very definitions of terms within the law. This leaves the meaning of the law fluid and subject to the will of the bureaucrats. Section 1151 continues: The term ‘applicable condition’ means, subject to subparagraph (B), a condition or procedure selected by the secretary among conditions and procedures for which (i) readmissions (as defined in subparagraph (E)) that represent conditions or procedures that are high volume or high expenditures under this title (or other criteria specified by the secretary).”

No, America is not yet a dictatorship. But we can ask ourselves whether the essence of such a dictatorship -- and its institutional foundations -- are not being built into federal law now. The scope of action available to federal administrators is widening today at a blinding speed. No proper reform of health care -- or any other area of life -- can be accomplished by the progressive, open-ended empowerment of government officials against defenseless American citizens.

Dr. John David Lewis is Visiting Associate Professor in the Philosophy, Politics and Economics Program at Duke University. His most recent book is Nothing Less than Victory: Decisive Wars and the Lessons of History (Princeton, 2010). His website is johndavidlewis.com

[Blogger's Note] Interesting way to look at it.

Monday, December 21, 2009

The Youth Revolution - Project 2012

The Youth Revolution - Project 2012
If you can't see the video CLICK HERE

Sunday, December 20, 2009

Copenhagen, The UN War Against Free Enterprise

In my past blogs, in the news, and on the net it has been clearly demonstrated that there is no scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Previous posts listed quotes of environmental leaders that clearly noted that the science didn’t matter, that it was an “opportunity” for social justice.

"No matter if the science of global warming is all phony … climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world," Canadian minister of the environment, Christine Stewart, Calgary Herald, Dec. 14, 1998.

Copenhagen was not about saving the planet, or global warming, or climate change. It is the majority of UN nations (dictators, despots, socialist juntas, and all), wanting to end free market economics. The majority of less fortunate countries have significantly less economic freedom than the wealthier countries. Read the Handbook on Economic Freedom, or Economic Freedom of the World: 2009 Annual Report.

Comparing the countries on the ranking chart for economic freedom to the activities at Copenhagen, it is clear that what they are trying to do at Copenhagen is transfer money from economically free countries to mostly economically un-free countries. Proof that Copenhagen is a war against capitalism, not a science based reaction to mans activities, comes from the words spoke to the general audience at Copenhagen.

“…our revolution seeks to help all people…socialism, the other ghost that is probably wandering around this room, that’s the way to save the planet, capitalism is the road to hell....let’s fight against capitalism and make it obey us.” ~ Hugo Chavez, COP15 United Nations Climate Change Conference, December 7-18, 2009.

From the writings and speeches of the proponents of dramatically changing the way everybody lives to stop “global warming”, the obvious agenda is against free market economics. The hostility towards free markets is based on some unfounded assumptions. 1) Since free markets allow some people to get “rich,” while others remain “poor,” the free market system is itself unjust; 2) The accumulation of wealth can only be accomplished by unjust means; 3) The re-distribution of wealth from the rich to the poor is the only means of attaining “social justice”. These are the same tired old Marxist arguments for socialism that history has repeatedly proven to be false, detrimental to society, and lead to more deaths in the last century than all the religious wars in history combined.

The first assumption that because some people receive more than others in a free market society, that it is unjust doesn’t take into consideration individuals. Societies are made of individuals not groups. Some individuals are smarter, more industrious, stronger, and/or more charming than others. In a free market, society rewards individuals based on the benefit they offer their fellow man. Tiger Woods is a charming, good looking, man who can hit a golf ball better than anybody else, and does it with style, and has a reputation for putting in more hour practicing and improving his craft than anybody else. Other individuals in society are willing to pay to watch him or have him promote their product, literally millions of individuals in society pay extra for products, or pay directly to watch him, thus he was richly rewarded. No person, or any corporation was forced to give Tiger money, he was rewarded voluntarily. His rewards were commensurate with what the rest of society voluntarily thought his work was worth. Tiger has now greatly hurt what society is willing to pay him to watch him hit a ball. Individuals in society have determined that his actions in breaking his marriage contract with his wife, that they no longer are willing to pay to see him hit a golf ball. Is that fair, why should he be paid less to hit a ball than he used to be paid? Because the benefit he provided to society is not as valuable. He was paid huge sums of money because the combination of skills, talent, work ethic, and charm he cultivated were rare and valuable. The same reason a schlepping tacos is paid little, the skill, talent and charm required to prepare a taco are low, and common. Would you pay $100 to for a taco? Of course not, but millions pay $100 or more to see a play, a sporting event, or go to a concert, because we feel it is worth the money, and are willing to exchange $100 of our labor, for the labor of some other to entertain us. This is a free market voluntary action. People are rewarded based on what other are willing to reward them for their service. Why should a person who is unwilling to take advantage of the education offered, un willing to do what has proven to lead to success and independence, be giving the fruits of the labor of people who do?

The second assumption that the accumulation of wealth can only be accomplished by unjust means is even sillier. Again Tiger Woods has accumulated hundreds of millions of dollars. How did he unjustly accumulate that wealth, nobody nor any company has ever been forced to give him a dime. The only unjust means I currently see in our US economy is large corporations buying off government officials to create laws to stifle completion. Our current system can and should be referred to as “Corporatism” not free enterprise, as the government has created huge hurdles for new business to get into any market thru excessive regulation.

Attaining “social justice” through the re-distribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, exactly what Copenhagen is calling for, has been proven to only benefit the ruling elite, and send the remaining part of society into relative poverty. Look at the average Cuban for proof. Better yet, look at the Chinese, who have shown that as they move their economic system towards capitalism their standard of living is increasing. A final example Zimbabwe, which was called the breadbasket of Africa, exported huge amounts food until the Land reform in Zimbabwe redistributed wealth from “rich” is now starving and dependent on food aid.

AGW is just another excuse for Marxist elitists and despots of the world to try and gain control, and punish countries that are successful.

Friday, December 18, 2009

Thomas Jefferson: Fortune Teller

If the American people ever allow the banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers occupied … I sincerely believe the banking institutions having the issuing power of money are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies. ~ Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson was a true Renaissance man, probably a genius. He was a noted inventor, archaeologist, arechitect, scholor of history, political philosopher, and masterful politician. What I didn't know was he was also a fortune teller. If he couldn't see the future how else could he have written so accurately a description of todays monitary environment?

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Stupid Stuff the Legislature is Doing

I can’t believe it, consider the mess we’re in, the economy is in the tank and like FDR’s New Deal, the obscene spending by Obama is driving us into depression. Jobs are still going away, and my paycheck is worth a lot less. If I were getting paid in gold not dollars I receive 33% less than I did before I ever head of Obama. So what are our legislatures doing? They are wasting time, and costing us all money, creating regulations to control the volume of TV commercials. The House bill is H.R.1084 and the Senate bill is S.2847. The stupidity and arrogance of the people in Washington is beyond ludicrous.

Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va., said "It's an annoying experience, and something really should be done about it." Rep. Anna Eshoo, D-Calif., created the bill when she heard that the FCC had been getting complaints about commercial volumes being louder than program volumes for year. Don’t think that this is just more of the Democrats trying to regulate everything we do, the Republicans are just as guilty. Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-Fla., when asked a reasonable question on why Congress is involved said, "You can say, 'Well, that's fine. Just turn it off, but it's constantly an irritant when you have to do it. And we've got all the new bowl games coming up."

Now Congress can and is regulating anything that’s “annoying” or irritating. It’s annoying that I have to wait in line at the grocery store because there are only 3 checkout clerks when the store has registers for up to 10, it’s irritating that I can hear children playing in a nearby park at 8am on Saturdays when I’m trying to sleep in, it’s really annoying having to watch and listen to airplanes flying over the beach towing signs advertising drink specials at Joe’s Bar and Grill. You don’t have a right to not be annoyed, my desire to not wait in line doesn’t create a reason for the federal government to force a private business to hire more clerks, nor to make kids soccer games start after 10am on weekends, nor does my desire to have a serine day at the beach uninterrupted by advertising allow the federal government to limit others to expressing their views in that public place (even commercial views).

If you don’t want commercials louder than the rest of the TV show, then use PPV for your games, use the internet for your TV, etc. If you want free convenient, inexpensive TV entertainment, you have to put up with commercials, they pay for it not you, so the guy paying the bills should be able to determine how the commercial he wants his commercial displayed and heard. Your non-right not to be “annoyed” does not supersede his real first amendment right of freedom of speech. In as much as watching TV is truly a voluntary thing, and nobody is forced to watch commercial TV, and you are free to choose PBS or other non-commercial TV venue, or any of the for pay TV channels via cable or satellite, what possible justification can there be for congress passing a law abridging the freedom of speech, and it is abridging the freedom of speech of the advertiser.

This is another example of Too Much Government and very stupid legislation and clear disregard for constitutional limits to the federal government. It is obscene for or federal government to be doing stupid stuff like this.

Socialism in Stages: Governments Produce Poverty

Note: This is a great article on the influence of socialism on our capitalistic society and a good basic document on economics.


Socialism in Stages
Even soft, incremental expansions of government produce poverty.

By Dan Oliver Jr.

America debated three strategies during the Cold War. The Right wanted “roll back” — dreams of Patton driving his tank into Red Square. The Left wanted d├ętente — which is French for “surrender.” The country loosely followed containment, a program outlined by George Kennan in 1946, which argued that the political contradictions of the Soviet state would eventually cause its own demise. America had but to be patient.

Kennan may have been the first to realize that a society based on Communism would not survive politically, but it was Ludwig von Mises, in his 1922 work Socialism, who demonstrated that any such society could not survive economically.

When a collection of free individuals — the market — is willing to pay a price for a product that creates “excess” profits, it signals producers to provide more of that product. If the market does not support a given price, producers are forced to redeploy their assets for more pressing social needs. Similarly, if a factor of production, such as labor or capital, changes in price, producers instantly react, sending signals — through the prices of intermediate goods — down to the consumer. Prices effortlessly allocate society’s assets to reflect consumer preference and adjust to accommodate the ever-changing availability of scarce resources.

Mises argued that governmental interference in prices, through taxation, subsidies, and regulation, complicates this process — affecting not only the consumption of final goods, but also the economic calculations that are necessary to provide intermediate goods and services. Higher-order division of labor fails. Poverty results. For example, while Chinese and Russian central planners were busy setting quotas for steel mills, there was no method for consumers to signal that they preferred food — and millions starved to death.

If the hard socialism of Communism produces economic and societal collapse quickly, Mises theorized, the soft, incremental socialism of the West — popularized again recently as the “Third Way” by Tony Blair and Bill Clinton — would produce poverty in stages. Every bureaucratic intervention in the market reduces long-term wealth creation, even if it provides a temporary boost to the economy. In time, this reduction of wealth is blamed on the inefficiencies of the remaining “unfettered” market, which provokes calls for greater intervention, ad infinitum.

Health care is a perfect example of the incremental socialization process. Government programs such as Medicare and Medicaid began by providing limited assistance to the old and the indigent. As health-care costs rose, these programs were expanded and new ones, such as S-CHIP, were added. The government now pays 32 percent of all non-military health-care bills, up from 6 percent in 1960. The remaining private expenditures are heavily regulated, resulting in the anticipated economic chaos. Under Obamacare, the situation can only grow worse. As P. J. O’Rourke quipped: “If you think health care is expensive now, wait until it’s free.”

Housing provides another example. Today, 71 years after Fannie Mae was founded, the central government provides a stunning 90 percent of the liquidity in the mortgage market, enabled by the Federal Reserve’s repurchase of 85 percent of new mortgages with freshly printed money. Banking is next.

Ronald Reagan’s 1980 election was the zenith of the conservative movement’s attempt to defeat Communism and limit government. Internationally, deployment of Pershing II missiles in Europe and military support of anti-Communist movements gave teeth to containment. Nine years later, the Soviet Union fell. Domestically, Reagan promised to get government off our backs by reducing taxes to starve Leviathan. Instead, politicians made up the shortfall with deficits, which soared as government grew relentlessly under both political parties. Twenty-nine years after Reagan’s election, the federal government spends 37 cents of every dollar in the economy. Operation Rollback as applied to the federal government has failed.

The economic laws described by Mises that brought down Communism apply equally to the American brand of soft socialism. Market forces will soon lay waste to American central planning just as surely as they did to the Soviet version two decades ago. The crises in housing, health care, and banking, the inevitable results of government intervention, are but harbingers of greater instability in our way of life. If Republicans wish to stay relevant, they must return to their conservative roots.

— Dan Oliver Jr. is Founder of Myrmikan Capital, LLC. He has a J.D. from Columbia Law School and an MBA from INSEAD.

Original Article

Monday, December 14, 2009

Cowboy cop wants Drug War ended

This cop want Liberty, Privacy Rights, and Personal Responsibility, what a concept, which is probably why he cofounded LEAP

If you can't see the video above CLICK HERE

Historic Rational for Tea Parties

Regardless of what the press tells you the modern Tea Party movement is historic and a true grass roots movement. It is not a Republican or Democrat movement. The Republicans are trying to ride on the coattails of the movement, and the Democrats are trying to paint it as a right wing movement. Most of the people I've talked to at Tea Parties are independent, third party, or disenchanted members of the Democans or Republicrats.

With the advance of the internet, the ruling elite no longer have control of the media. They no longer control the message the people receive, what news they can be exposed to, or even dictate what stories can be important. I'll bet you've heard of "ClimateGate", NBC, CBS, ABC, etc have all avoided the story as if it didn't exist, the ruling elite are trying to say it’s all just a tempest in a tea pot. The reality it exposes the ruling elite, lying, suppressing information, attacking dissenters, in order to use “global warming” as a reasoning for taking more power from the people and giving it to themselves..

Blogs, e-mail, twitter, and other internet communications, now make the ability of the ruling elite to control the message almost impossible, not that they aren't trying. They are doing everything they can to keep the people from exercising their first amendment rights. In St. Louis the ruling elite have gone so far as to have their armed enforcement people arrest people for passing out pamphlets to his neighbors publicly opposing the actions of the ruling elite. This is not as isolated a case as the ruling elite would have you believe, and is reminiscent of the actions of the British to colonials like Thomas Paine, whose pamphlet "Common Sense", which criticized and exposed the actions of the ruling elite.

In the late 18th century it was the Committees of Correspondence that performed the function that bloggers and tea party organizers perform today. At the time news was generally disseminated in hand-written letters that were carried aboard ships or by couriers on horseback. Those means were employed by the critics of British imperial policy in America to spread their interpretations of current events. Then as now the ruling elite hated not having control of all the information people were exposed.

Colonial assemblies formed special committees of correspondence as did various lesser arms of local government. These committees articulated the feelings and desires of the local body wrote them down and distributed their view to other similar groups. Many committee members were active in the secret Sons of Liberty organizations. Like our initial modern tea parties they were formed for a specific action and disbanded. Soon they became more formal and permanent.

The first formal committee of correspondence was established in Boston in 1764 and was charged with rallying opposition to the recently enacted Currency Act and the unpopular reforms imposed on the customs service. Now we are seeing more formal organization of modern Tea Parties. Liberals in both the government and the press are using this to say that the tea parties are not grass root organizations, which is like saying that Sam Adams and Thomas Paine didn’t represent the people of the colonies, and were a front organization for the rich.

The next year in response to the Stamp Act Crisis, New York took the initiative by summoning its neighbors to join in common resistance to the new taxes. Massachusetts correspondents responded by urging other colonies to send delegates to the Stamp Act Congress that fall. Sam Adams organized a committee to protest in 1772, in response to the decision to have England, not the colonial assembly, pay the salaries of the royal governor and judges, thus making them accountable to England not the colonists. In the following months, more than 100 other committees were formed in the towns and villages of Massachusetts.

These committees eventually prepared the way for and organized the First Continental Congress, which convened in the fall of 1774. The Second Continental Congress seized upon this successful idea and created its own correspondence committee to convey the American interpretation of events to foreign powers.

The committees of correspondence were formed, not just to provide the people with an alternative viewpoint of the ruling elite, but to shine light on the actions and danger to liberty that the ruling elite posed at the time. Just as in the late 18th century it was the power to tax that the committees of correspondence were attacking, today the modern Tea Party movement is attacking the ruling elite abusing their power to tax. It was the committee of correspondence which eventually lead to the removal of the ruling elite who were abusing the power to tax and the formation of a government found on the basic principles described in the Declaration of Independence. It is because our current government is acting similar to colonial England, with onerous taxes, regulations, and limiting liberty and freedom, that the people of this country are again forming “committees of correspondence” in the modern form of blogs, and web pages, and Tea Parties.

Saturday, December 12, 2009

Liberal Lies on Firearms

The New York Daily News has a headline over a picture of a Mac-10 submachine gun that reads The MAC-10: The gun used in Time Square shooting, used by John Wayne, Bruce Willis in films.
It notes facts like:
Some facts about the gun used in Thursday's Times Square shooting:
- The MAC-10 is a handheld submachine gun that weighs about 6 pounds, can hold 30 bullets in its magazine and fire more than 1,000 rounds a minute.

If you actually read the very short article you’ll find that the criminal in question did not use the illegal submachine gun, but completely legal semi-automatic pistol called the Masterpiece Arms 9-mm. It shoots exactly One round every time you pull the trigger, just like a revolver. With the crappy trigger, and action of the cheap Masterpiece Arms 9-mm pistol, if well maintained, an expert might get off one round a second, as if you try to shoot it any faster it has a reputation for jamming. Except for its shape, it operates no differently and uses the same ammo as a common World War I pistols like German Luger, except that it’s less reliable, less accurate, and more poorly made. Luckily the Times Square shooter chose a scary looking weapon instead of a well made weapon, and the fine NYPD have ridded us permanently of this criminal.

In the article describing the shooting the Daily News says:
Bullets whizzed through Times Square Thursday when a street hustler armed with a fearsome MAC-10 lost a gunfight with a veteran cop

He pulled the stolen semi-automatic murder machine

You just gotta love NYC sensationalism, it is fun to read, just not truthful. First the lie, as their other article reported it wasn’t a MAC-10. Second the “murder machine” quote, sensationalistic but not accurate, it’s no more a murder machine than a car (which kill far more people), or a knife, or rope, or a wrench, or a candlestick. The old board game, Clue, notes lots of tools that can be used to commit murder. Other reports note that the gun jammed after a couple rounds were fired (note: don’t buy, or even steal, cheap weapons for self defense just because they look scary). The obviously less than brilliant criminal, and rapper, because of choosing cool over reliable is now pushing up daisies. This is just the story of a stupid criminal rapper wannabe who thought a cheap scary looking pistol would make him a badass and he’d become famous like Diddy or Jay-Z.

Why isn’t the post noting that the law, which makes having an unpermitted pistol in NYC illegal, doesnt work. Obviously the 20,000 laws concerning guns didn’t stop this criminal from acquiring a weapon. How could more laws have made any difference, the criminal was willing to and did break a bunch of laws, more laws would make no difference. Mayor Bloomburg, predictably, is using this event to call for more restrictive gun laws.

I love this quote “Cops said they had recovered 26 high-powered guns, such as the MAC-10, this year”. Two lies in one short sentence, the gun in question wasn’t a MAC-10, and it isn’t a “high-powered” gun. A 9mm semi-automatic pistol is generally considered minimal for self protection, most police forces have either never used them or replaced 9mm weapons with the higher powered weapons because of the rounds ineffectiveness. They did note that the 26 "high-powered" weapons were of 5427, if you do the math you'll see that less than one half of one percent of the recovered guns are like the MAC-10. Criminals choosing this type of weapon is obviously not much of a problem.

The Daily News depends on the ignorance of the public for it's lies to go unnoticed. The left is again demonstrating that it is more than willing to use lies and scare tactics to restrict the liberty of citizens.

Thursday, December 10, 2009

How would AGW theory stand up in court?

Suppose a person took the federal government to an impartial court, claiming damages and loss of liberty because of enforcement of laws to protect the environment from Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), and a truly impartial judge allowed the scientific evidence of AGW to be brought into court to substantiate the plaintiffs claims that the government lied about the science provide a basis for cap & trade, and other draconian energy laws.

Our litigants would ask a basic question; what evidence backs up the claims of AGW proponents used to justify the draconian environmental laws?

The government paid scientists would instead of solid, reproducible scientific evidence, offer hypotheses, speculation, assumptions, assertions, “hockey stick” graphs, computer models and worst-case scenarios – purporting to demonstrate that CO2 causes planetary warming … and the warming will be cataclysmic. These government paid for reports were “peer-reviewed” by networks of fellow government paid for proponents of AGW who tied every temperature, weather and wildlife anomaly to global warming and carbon dioxide. They would claim the “science is settled”.

Our litigant would start by showing case law, where a London High Court found no less than 9 false claims in Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth”, to demonstrate that there is evidence that the data presented to promote AGW is false. They would also lay at the court, news articles and quotes, of government agents saying that even if there is no evidence of global warming they must use the crisis to promote social change.

Our litigants would present reliable satellite temperature measurements that span most of the planet. This data only covers the last 30 years, and for the past 15 years show stable and then declining temperatures, despite steadily rising CO2 levels.

They would show that the data used the government paid for scientists is from their research using ground temperatures. Our litigants would expose some not so nice facts, like approximately half of the world’s current ground-based temperature gauges are in the United States, and cover just 1.8% of the Earth’s surface. They would have meteorologist Anthony Watts testify about his research which shows that most of those gauges are close to air conditioning exhausts, tarmac, blacktop and other heat sources. Thus have abnormally high readings, corrupting climate records, models and analyses. He would also testify that the majority of Siberia’s stations were shut down years ago, leaving that frigid region without reliable data, further tilting average global temperatures upward. Britain’s combined marine and land-based temperatures were “value-added” (aggregated, averaged and manipulated) by its East Anglia University Climate Research Unit (CRU), which then lost all the original raw data, so no one could check its methodologies, honesty or accuracy.

They would present evidence that the government paid for scientists stonewalled requests from experts who did not accept dire predictions of planetary mayhem, and wanted to examine the raw temperature data, computer codes and analyses. Then the litigants would present thousands of emails revealing a systematic, concerted collusion to stifle debate, conceal data, manipulate temperature trends that contradicted predictions of dangerous warming, delete data, and pressure scientific journals to publish only pro AGW studies and exclude analyses that did not agree with AGW theory.

They would then call on a sampling of the more well known scientists who don’t believe in AGW, there are tens of thousands, including Dr. Grey noted climatologist who says that the thousands of emails from GRU are just the “tip of the iceberg” in exposing the AGW hoax.

No impartial judge when shown the obvious malfeasance of the government’s AGW scientists would allow their evidence for AGW to be used in a court of law. Without a scientific basis for the laws proposed by AGW proponents are shown to be capricious arbitrary controls on the liberty of the people, designed to redistribute wealth not protect the environment, and these laws have no rationality in science, and the judge would be force to issue a cease and desist order to the government.

Of course this could never happen. The same government that controlled the $30 billion dollars in climate research over the past 20 years also controls the judges. When an AGW scientist tries to throw out research because it was funded by some corporation, look at where they get their funding, and who would benefit from their results? The obvious answer is the government? Look at which scientists are willing to share their raw data and methodologies and which are not. Obviously the government funded research is less trustworthy than privately funded research. To repeat myself from previous blog entries, AGW is not about science, it’s about power.

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Tuesday, December 8, 2009

AGW a lost argument

Proponents of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) are down to name calling and ad hominem attacks. The use terms like “deniers”, “Flat Earthers”, “skeptics”, and worse for people who don’t believe in AGW, and call scientists who don’t toe the AGW line, "phony", a "hacks", and part of a "fringe groups". Since they have been caught manufacturing data, hiding data they don’t like, and colluding to suppress scientists whose conclusions don’t agree with their pre-conceived conclusion, proponents of AGW are reduce to mocking those who don’t agree with them.

It’s not like this is a new phenomenon, this trait was noted a long time ago, Proverbs 15:12 tells us "A mocker resents correction; he will not consult the wise."

Note that any responses to earlier blog entries (see FB) do not address the obvious collusion, cover-up, manipulation of data, and suppression of fellow scientists that Climategate has exposed. They say look here’s evidence the earth is warming, etc. but do not address the problems of Climategate, and insist that the science clearly proves AGW.

Since victory in the cold war which resulted in the dissolution of the USSR, where socialism was soundly defeated by capitalism, it has been noted in many places that the socialists looking for a place where they could advance their failed ideology took up residence in the environmental movement(LINK . Consider GreenPeace Founder Patrick Moore, why he left GreenPeace, and his views on Global Warming and Science. He said “By the mid-1980s, the environmental movement had abandoned science and logic in favor of emotion and sensationalism.” He also notes that the environmental movement is trying to work by consensus not scientific evidence. Scientific consensus and scientific evidence are not the same. It was a scientific consensus that the sun revolved around the earth, evidence proved the scientific consensus wrong; just as evidence is proving the AGW theory is dubious at best, in spite of the perceived consensus.

Senior research fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace Dr. Weinstein is a former senior research scientist who worked more than 30 years at the NASA Langley Research Center. Last April, he wrote an essay "Disproving the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) Problem" which is highly critical of AGW theory. Even if you don’t agree with him his credentials and the essay minimally demonstrate that there is no consensus in the scientific community; Dr. Weinstein concludes that “Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!".

In my previous blog entry Consensus and Consequences, there are nearly 100 links to scientists’ papers and opinions which also clearly demonstrate that the scientific community is not in consensus concerning AGW. Replies to this blog entry on FB brought up articles where scientists believe in global warming, rather than deal with the fact that there is no consensus in the scientific community concerning the theory of AGW, much less dealing with the evidence of malfeasance in the AGW community against any scientist who doesn’t support AGW.

Former US Vice President Al Gore, whose formal scientific training include two undergraduate courses of which his highest grade was a C, compared people like Dr. Weinstein to people who 'believe the moon landing was actually staged in a movie lot in Arizona' (June 20, 2006). When people resort to name-calling it is a sign they have lost an argument.

Since the name calling hasn’t worked to silence scientists who won’t follow the AGW line. Socialists posing as environmentalists have taken to threats. This was know but ignored even before Climategate. Michael T. Eckhart, president of the environmental group the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE), wrote in an email on July 13, 2007 to Marlo Lewis, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI):
“It is my intention to destroy your career as a liar. If you produce one more editorial against climate change, I will launch a campaign against your professional integrity. I will call you a liar and charlatan to the Harvard community of which you and I are members. I will call you out as a man who has been bought by Corporate America. Go ahead, guy. Take me on."

The whole AGW crowd doesn’t really care about science; they want to control how people live. They believe that some intellectual elites should determine how people should live, and are looking for a means to force people to live the way they think is best, regardless of how those individuals want to live. They are smart enough to recognize that energy use and wealth are directly related. So they seek to redistribute the wealth through energy policy, by controlling environmental regulation. Their goal is power, control, and wealth redistribution not using science to make sound societal decisions. Socialists in the USA hate the freedom and liberty the US constitution has afforded its citizens, because it limits their ability to dictate how people should live. So they are right now trying to work around the constitution through international treaties. It is easy to get most of the rest of the world to sign on to the treaty because it effectively redistributes the wealth of the US to other countries in the name of “environmental justice.”

I really don’t understand people who don’t believe that AGW is about power not science, even when that’s exactly what the proponents of AGW tell us. In 1998 former Canadian minister of the environment, Christine Stewart, told us that "No matter if the science of global warming is all phony … climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world" (Calgary Herald, Dec. 14, 1998).

In light of Climategate, and the preponderance of valid scientific research and data that disputes AGW theory, (regardless of what pro-AGW press would have us believe) it can only be concluded that when anybody says that the science is settled, and that AGW theory is the accepted best theory, they are either ignorant or a liar. When anybody says global warming if not stopped is going to be catastrophic, they are either ignorant or a liar. When anybody says there no credible scientists denying AGW, they are either ignorant or a liar. When anybody says that emails exposed by Climategate, are meaningless, then they are either ignorant or a liar.

Friday, December 4, 2009

Consensus and Consequences

Consider the Mother of All Publicity Disasters, the CRUtape Letters, Warmerquiddick, or more commonly Climategate. If you have had your head stuck in the sand you don't know what that is. If you get you get your news from NPR you think that it's all out of proportion, as all the "good" scientists believe in the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).

The e-mails expose, anything from poor recordkeeping and inattention to detail, pettiness and dishonesty to outright fraud among some of the world's leading climate scientists.

Next week the UN conference in Copenhagen, according to the UN's own research, will cause the release of more greenhouse gasses than Moscow produces in a year. The UN is not allowing both sides of the debate, even though there are staggering consequences of political decisions based on it, which will limit individual liberty, freedom, and standard of living for everybody in the world.

Consider the scientific method.

When AGW is exposed to the scientifi method, it fails, as when the data has been proven to be false, or even partially false, the UN proponets of AGW refuse to revist, revise, or reconsider the theory that man's activities is causing globlal warming may be not be true when looking at all the facts.

In light of the seriousness of the consequences of political decisions made based on global warming science, the credibility of the opposing sides of this debate should be considered. Of the two sides in this debate, which of them has often been caught manufacturing data to fit its predetermined conclusions; insist that there is no debate; has repeatedly issued false alarms (and will not allow itself to beld accountable for those false alarms); uses intimidation and ridicule to suppress and discredit this dissent; and finally which side of the debate has an economic and political agenda driving its science; has been tainted by millions of dollars in corrupting research grants?

In light of Climategate, the credibility of those who support the theory of AGW is, and should be, questioned.

For those of you who believe in AGW, have only been exposed to the lame-stream media, and don't know of or haven't read credible scientific dissents to AGW below are a few links you should read.

Team of 13 International Scientists Write Letter To UN Sec. Gen. – IPCC ‘Must be called to account and cease its deceptive practices’ - 14th of July, 2008 (LINK)

Australian scientist reverses view on man-made warming - Now a Skeptic! Now says 'new evidence has seriously weakened' the case - (By Mathematician, Rocket Scientist & Engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government) – July 18, 2008 (LINK) <

Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever, Declares Himself Dissenter: ‘I am a skeptic’ - 'Global warming has become a new religion' - July 2, 2008 - (LINK)

Top UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Turns on IPCC. Calls Warming Fears: ‘Worst scientific scandal in the history’ – June 27, 2008 - By Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist who specializes in optical waveguide spectroscopy from the Yokohama National University, also contributed to the 2007 UN IPCC AR4 (fourth assessment report) as an expert reviewer. (LINK)

New scientific paper shows CO2’s effect on temperature was overstated 500-2000% - Published in Physics and Society journal of the American Physical Society – July 2008 (LINK)

Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Roy Spencer, formerly of NASA, presented ‘smoking gun’ analysis showing UN IPCC models ‚significantly overstated climate sensitivity to human climate forcings’ - June 17, 2008 – (LINK)

Four prominent scientists warn 'global warming out, global cooling in'- ‘Potential for a significant decline in the average mean temperature' - July 12, 2008 (LINK) & (LINK)

Arctic ice INCREASES by nearly a half million square miles over same time period in 2007 - July 18, 2008 – (LINK)

Australian astronomical Society warns of global COOLING as Sun's activity 'significantly diminishes' – June 29, 2008 – (LINK) & (LINK)

New Study Exposes UN IPCC as ‘single-interest organization’ with echo chamber process – July 15, 2008 – By Climate data analyst John McLean (LINK)

Atmospheric Scientist Tennekes: 'Sun may cause some cooling' - 'No evidence at all for catastrophic global warming' - July 14, 2008 (By Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute.) (LINK)

Atmospheric Physicist James Peden Dissents from man-made CO2 Fears – ‘The so-called Greenhouse Effect is a Myth’ – Peden is formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh and Extranuclear Laboratories in Blawnox, Pennsylvania, studying ion-molecule reactions in the upper atmosphere. (LINK)

South African Scientist: 'There is no evidence man-made CO2 causes climate change' – By Dr. Kelvin Kemm, formerly a scientist at South Africa’s Atomic Energy Corporation. (LINK)

Climatologist dismisses extreme weather predictions due to man-made warming as ‘complete nonsense’ – By Hydro-climatologist Stewart Franks, an Associate Professor of Environmental Engineering at the University of Newcastle in Australia. (LINK)

Another scientist dismisses fearmongers: Midwest Floods and ‘Completely Unjustified’ Climate Change Fear Mongering – June 22, 2008 - By Mike Smith is a certified consulting meteorologist and a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society He is CEO of WeatherData Services, Inc., an AccuWeather Company, based in Wichita.) (LINK)

U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) report shows Hurricanes declining, NO increases in drought, tornados, thunderstorms, heat-waves – June 20, 2008 – (LINK)

Going Down: Death Rates Due to Extreme Weather Events (LINK)

Analysis in peer-reviewed journal finds COLD PERIODS – not warm periods – see INCREASE in floods, droughts, storms, famine – April 24, 2008 - (LINK)

Top Australian Scientist: Why so much climate change talk is hot air – (By William Kininmonth. formerly head of Australia's National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological Organization. He is author of Climate Change: A Natural Hazard (Multi-science Publishing, 2004) (LINK)

MIT Scientist Dr. Robert Rose wrote on July 8, 2008, “Cooler heads [are] needed in global warming debate” and linked warming and cooling cycles to the “orbit and the tilt and wobble of the axis of the Earth's spin.” Rose also questioned climate model predictions by stating, “Clearly, these are not ‘facts.’ They are computer models.” (Rose is a professor of Materials Science and Engineering at MIT with approximately 50 years of experience teaching various scientific disciplines at the graduate and undergraduate levels.) (LINK)

Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology declared she was skeptical of man-made climate fears – February 27, 2008 - Excerpt: “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly,” Simpson, formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies, wrote in a public letter on February 27. “As a scientist I remain skeptical,” she wrote. Simpson was described by former Colorado State Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr. as “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.” (LINK)

Veteran UN Climate Scientist Resigns Science Group in Protest: "AN ORCHESTRATED LITANY OF LIES" By UN IPCC Chemist Dr. Vincent Gray (LINK)

Award-winning Philippines ecologist and evolutionary biologist Dr. Perry Ong declared climate fears were “hyped up.” – May 18, 2008 – Ong is the director of the Institute of Biology at the University of the Philippines’ College of Science.) (LINK)

International climate declaration tops 1,100 endorsers – Man-made climate fears rejected – June 19, 2008 – (LINK)

Prominent scientist refutes his own theory, finds warming does not increase hurricanes – July 15, 2008 - Dr. Kerry Emanuel, an MIT professor of atmospheric science (LINK) & (LINK)

Another prominent hurricane expert reconsiders view: New study says global warming not worsening hurricanes – May 19, 2008 - By Meteorologist Tom Knutson of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s fluid dynamics lab in Princeton, N.J. (LINK)

UK Scientist Calls Man-Made Warming Fears ‘Dangerous Nonsense of the Age’ – July 17, 2008 - By Biogeography Professor Philip Stott, emeritus of the University of London (LINK)

Global Warming Has Ended – The Next Climate Change to A Pronounced Cold Era Has Begun - The Space and Science Research Center Issues A Formal Declaration: - July 1, 2008 (LINK)

U.S Army Chief Scientist Dr. Bruce West Says Sun, Not Man, Is Driving Climate Change – June 3, 2008 – (LINK)

Oceans Cooling! Scientists puzzled by “mystery of global warming's missing heat”- March 19, 2008 - (LINK)

New Data from NASA’s Aqua satellite is showing “greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide.” – March 22, 2008 - (LINK )

Report: 31,000 + scientists dispute UN’s man-made global warming claims! – May 16, 2008 (LINK)

New Peer-Reviewed Study Finds Greenland Ice Melt ‘not changing’ or ‘dropping’ – July 4, 2008 - (LINK) & (LINK)

Peer-reviewed study finds Antarctic fails to warm as climate models predicted – May 7, 2008 – (LINK)

Media Hype on ‘Melting’ Antarctic Ignores Record Ice Growth – March 27, 2008 – (LINK)

Arctic ice INCREASES by nearly a half million square miles over same time period in 2007 - July 18, 2008 – (LINK)

New Peer-Reviewed Study Shows Arctic COOLING Over last 1500 years! - Feb 5, 2008 - Published in Climate Dynamics on 30 January 2008 (LINK)

Numerous Peer-Reviewed Studies Show Natural Causes of Arctic Warming and Ice Reduction - Jan. 2008 – (LINK)

New analysis finds Arctic ice reduction may be due to undersea volcanoes – June 26, 2008 - (LINK)

New Report finds global sea ice GROWING: ‘World sea ice in April 2008 reached levels that were ‘unprecedented’ for the month of April in over 25 years.’ (LINK)

U.S. Senate Report Debunks Polar Bear Extinction Fears - Jan 30, 2008 – (LINK)

Top Ivy League Forecasting expert Dr. Scott Armstrong says polar bear models critically flawed - Bear populations increased in recent decades – May 8, 2008 - (LINK)

Swedish scientists: 'No concrete global warming proof in polar region' – June 21, 2008 – (LINK)

Climate Audit: May Global Sea Ice at '10th highest on record' – June 20, 2008 (LINK)

Study: 'Absolutely no evidence of warming for all of Antarctica' – July 1, 2008 – Study conducted by Vesa Laine of the Finnish Meteorological Institute in Helsinki; the work was funded by the Academy of Finland and the Finnish Funding Agency for Technology and Innovation (LINK)

Global warming may not affect sea levels, study finds - Jan 11, 2008 – (LINK)

After being stripped of his title, skeptical Oregon state climatologist George Taylor steps aside - Feb 22, 2008 – (LINK) [ See also July 2007 comprehensive report detailing how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation - LINK

Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Roy Spencer, formerly of NASA, found not one peer-reviewed paper has 'ruled out a natural cause for most of our recent warmth' – March 20, 2008 - (LINK)

UN IPCC in 'Panic Mode' as Earth Fails to Warm, Scientist Paleoclimatologist Dr. Bob Carter says – March 25, 2008 - (LINK );

UN IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri “to look into the apparent temperature plateau so far this century.” – January 24, 2008 - (LINK)

Canadian Climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball: CO2 from human or natural sources is not causing global warming – June 23, 2008 – (LINK)

New scientific analysis shows Sun “could account for as much as 69% of the increase in Earth's average temperature”- March 2008 - (LINK) & (LINK)

Scientists find dust free atmosphere may be responsible for up to .36 F rise in global temps – March 3, 2008 - (LINK)

New York Times Laments Media's incorrect hyping of frogs and global warming – March 24, 2008 - (LINK)

MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen’s March 2008 presentation of data from the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office found the Earth has had “no statistically significant warming since 1995.”- (LINK)

An International team of scientists released a March 2008 report to counter UN IPCC, declaring: “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate” (LINK);

Emitting MORE CO2 may 'be good for life on Earth', says atmospheric scientist Dr. Roy Spencer, formerly of NASA in May 2008. (LINK)

Former Colorado State Climatologist Pielke Sr. Rails Against Abuse of the scientific method’ in global warming study (LINK)

Sun in deep slumber: 10.7 solar flux hits record low value – July 16, 2008 - By Meteorologist Anthony Watts (LINK)

Science Daily: Scientists not sure why Sun 'continues to be dead' – June 9, 2008 (LINK)

Climate models fail again! Scientist 'startled' to discover 50% of ozone destroyed in lower atmosphere – June 26, 2008 – (LINK)

Report: In praise of CO2: Earth 'is the greenest it's been in decades, perhaps in centuries' – June 7, 2008 – (LINK)

'Global Warming Will Stop,' New Peer-Reviewed Study Says - Global Warming Takes a Break for Nearly 20 Years? - April 2008 - (LINK)

Cooling Underway: Global Temperature Continues to Drop in May - 'Significantly Colder' - 16-month temperature drop of -0.774°C! (LINK)

Earth's 'Fever' Breaks: Global COOLING Currently Under Way - February 27, 2008 - (LINK)

Alaska sees ‘longest stretch of no-nineties in the Alaska climate record, since 1904’ – June 25, 2008 - By Geophysical Institute, University of Alaska Fairbanks (LINK)

Chill out: Alaskan faces 'cool gloomy' summer – July 17, 2008 – (LINK)

Peru declares state of emergency due to record-breaking cold spell – 61 children die – June 19, 2008 – (LINK)

Why have the oceans been cooling for 5 years? – July 2008 (LINK)

Delaware: ‘Unheard of’ Cold ocean temperatures in July slow fishing – July 16, 2008 – (LINK)

Meteorologist: 'It's mid-summer and Lake Superior is still chilly' – July 15 , 2008 - By Meteorologist Karl Bohnak of Michigan’s TV6 and holds the American Meteorological Society’s broadcast seal of approval) (LINK)

Geophysicist calls man-made climate fears ‘a fraud’ and ‘hysterical scare tactic’ – June 29, 2008 - (By Dr. David Deming is a geophysicist and associate professor of arts and sciences at the University of Oklahoma who has published peer-reviewed climate studies) (LINK)

U.S. Scientists Sign Document Refuting Man-made Climate fears - "Prominent Americans among those demanding an end to climate hysteria" – June 27, 2008 – (LINK)

Climate Audit's Steve McIntyre: IPCC 'claimed to have destroyed all their working documents' - Violates 'objective, open and transparent' process! – June 20, 2008 (LINK)

Report: Nature may soon cool climate debate as 'fairly cold period' set to begin – June 18, 2008 - (LINK)

Meteorologist says Man-Made Global Warming Movement ‘Rapidly Running Out of Gas’ In past year - June 17, 2008 - (By Award winning Chief Meteorologist James Spann of Alabama ABC TV) (LINK) & (LINK)

NASA Aerospace Engineer Rejects Man-Made Climate fears (By Dirck T. Hartmann, who worked on the Apollo Space Program and many other significant NASA projects. Hartmann is a scientist/ aerospace engineer/physicist) (LINK)

How cold is it getting? Harsh winters force Mongolian horsemen to abandon nomadic life (LINK)

Somaliland resident in Africa: Global warming hysteria, ‘more to do with Europe’s prosperous middle class politics than Science’ (LINK)

Another Dissenter: ‘There is only 1/19 as much CO2 in the air today as there was 520 million years’ – By Geologist/Earth Scientist Greg Benson: - July 15, 2008 – Benson is an earth scientist with 30 years of geologic study and currently works as a research specialist in geologic modeling. (LINK)

New study finds cleaner skies 'contributing to at least half the warming that has occurred' - July 9, 2008 From New Scientist (LINK)

UN Scientist Debunks Warming Fears: ‘No correlation between the anthropogenic emissions of GHGs and global temperature’ - By IPCC Reviewer and climate consultant Richard Courtney – (LINK)

“No 'greenhouse' gas other than water has ever influenced the global climate perceptibly” By Chemical Scientist Dr. Brian G. Valentine, professor at University of Maryland (LINK)

UK scientist Dissents: ‘More proof that global warming is natural’ - June 26, 2008 (By Botanist Dr. David Bellamy) – (LINK)

Thursday, December 3, 2009

AGW: It's About Power not Truth

The conversion of all questions of truth into questions of power … has attacked the very heart of the distinction between true and false.
~ Theodor Adorno (1903–1969)

31,000 scientists have signed a petition saying that there is no scientific evidence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Meaning that more scientists don't believe man causes global warming than not. Many in the new press have been saying for decades that AGW is a hoax. There has been evidence for decades that AGW is a political tool not a scientific consensus much less scientific fact.

From Jonathan Schell's, "Our Fragile Earth," (Discover, October 1989); p. 44, lead author of several UNIPCC reports, Stanford professor of climatology Stephen Schneider, said, "We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public's imagination … so we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts. ... each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

From Michael Fumento's, "Science Under Siege: Balancing Technology and the Environment" (William Morrow & Company, 1993); p. 362, current head of the United Nations Foundation, Timothy Wirth, said, "We've got to ride this global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy."

From Calgary Herald, Dec. 14, 1998, we read that former Canadian minister of the environment, Christine Stewart, told editors and reporters, "No matter if the science of global warming is all phony … climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world."

The Huffington Post, Oct. 10, 2009, reported that based on a British High Court in London finding significant factual errors in Al Gore’s film, "An Inconvenient Truth, the British filmmaker Phelim McAleer asked Al Gore at the Conference for Environmental Journalists what he was going to do to revise his film, McAleer’s microphone was abruptly shut off and Mr. Gore refused to answer the question.

Newsweek reports after Gore found out that Timothy LaSalle, CEO of the Rodale Institute, was informing the public that CO2 need not be a problem, stating, "If we feed the biology and manage grasslands appropriately, we could sequester as much carbon as we emit," one of Gore's assistant told LaSalle to dial down his estimate.

The Newsweek article also says one of Gore's favorite quotes is from the philosopher Theodor Adorno (1903–1969): "The conversion of all questions of truth into questions of power … has attacked the very heart of the distinction between true and false."

Obviously making decisions on sound science is not and has not been the objective. AGW is a typical leftist ideology; the objective is to bring power to leftist elite, therefore pseudoscience, no matter how phony, is acceptable.

All of this is old news which has been systematically ignored or suppressed by the main stream media. Climategate should not be a surprise to anybody. The proponents of AGW have been saying for decades that the science doesn't matter, that AGW is a means to power. We just haven’t listened to them. Climategate is just more evidence that AGW is not based on solid science, that there is no scientific, and that there has been organized suppression of people and data that doesn’t support the AGW theory. At Copenhagen next week we will find out why; as we watch President Obama, turn over US sovereignty to an oligarchy of elite non-elected bureaucrats that will have the ability to create laws outside our constitution. It appears that the goal is, and always has been, for the left to succeed in weakening the US, and the systematic rape of US wealth. The citizens of the USA will be subject to taxes and laws by people and foreign entities who are in no way accountable to the people. It may be the end of our representative republic. Hopefully we the people will be able to pressure our elected senators not to ratify any treaty that comes out of Copenhagen.

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

The Pretense of Knowledge

Walter Williams does it again, this article fully and simply explains why having the government not individuals make decisions like healthcare for everybody is a bad idea.

When elites make our decisions for us
Posted: December 01, 2009
By Walter E. Williams, Ph.D.

The ultimate constraint we all face is knowledge – what we know and don't know. The knowledge problem is pervasive and by no means trivial as hinted at by just a few examples. You've purchased a house. Was it the best deal you could have gotten? Was there some other house you could have purchased that 10 years later would not have needed extensive repairs or was in a community with more likable neighbors and a better environment for your children? What about the person you married? Was there another person who would have made for a more pleasing spouse? Though these are important questions, the most intelligent answer you can give to all of them is: "I don't know."

Since you don't know the answers, who do you think, here on Earth, is likely to know and whom would you like to make these decisions for you – Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, George Bush, a czar appointed by Obama or a committee of Washington bureaucrats? I bet that if these people were to forcibly make housing or marital decisions for us, most would deem it tyranny.

You say, "Williams, Congress is not making such monumental decisions that affect my life." Try this. You are a 22-year-old healthy person. Instead of spending $3,000 or $4,000 a year for health insurance, you'd prefer investing that money in equipment to start a landscaping business. Which is the best use of that $3,000 or $4,000 a year – purchasing health insurance or starting up a landscaping business – and who should decide that question: Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, George Bush, a czar appointed by Obama or a committee of Washington bureaucrats? How can they possibly know what's the best use of your earnings, particularly in light of the fact that they have no idea who you are?

Neither you nor the U.S. Congress has the complete knowledge to know exactly what's best for you. The difference is that when individuals make their own trade-offs, say between purchasing health insurance or investing in a business, they make wiser decisions because it is they who personally bear the costs and benefits of those decisions. You say, "Hold it, Williams, we've got you now! What if that person gets really sick and doesn't have health insurance? Society suffers the burden of taking care of him." To the extent that is a problem, it is not a problem of liberty; it's a problem of congressionally mandated socialism. Let's look at it.

It is not society that bears the burden; it is some flesh-and-blood American worker who finds his earnings taken by Congress to finance the health needs of another person. There is absolutely no moral case, much less constitutional case, for Congress forcibly using one American to serve the purposes of another American, a practice that differs only in degree from slavery, which we all should find morally offensive.

Whether it is health care, education, employment or most other areas of our lives, I ask you: Who has the capacity to master all the complexity to make choices on behalf of others? Each of us possesses only a tiny percentage of the knowledge that would be necessary to make totally informed decisions in our own lives, much less the lives of others. There is only one reason for the forcible transference of decision-making authority over important areas of our private lives to elite decision-makers in Congress and government bureaucracies. Doing so confers control, power, wealth and revenue to society's elite. What's in the best interests of individual members of society, such as a person who'd rather launch a landscaping business than purchase a health insurance policy, ranks low on the elite's list of priorities.

Walter E. Williams, Ph.D., is the John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va.

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

Random Thoughts on Liberty

Since this is an era when many people are concerned about "fairness" and "social justice," what is your "fair share" of what someone else has worked for? ~ Thomas Sowell

Monday, November 30, 2009

Connecticut Gets It

The people of Connecticut get it, Justin Kloczko, staff reporter for the Middletown Press doesn’t. His article reports that in Connecticut, the number of people requesting gun permits is up 50%. This trend is similar across the nation. Law abiding citizens are arming themselves more than in the past. Smith and Wesson, Ruger, Glock, Kal-Tec, and all the other firearm manufacturers are making record sales. Ammunition manufactures cannot keep up with demand.

Kloczko is typical of liberal reporters. This short news piece is laced with anti-gun opinion, of both the reporter and government officials.

He quotes Department of Public Safety Office Supervisor Diane Morrel saying, “Gun sales and permitting has hiked up since Obama took office. These people are worrying needlessly”. Needlessly? Obama has the most anti-gun voting record in the Senate, and his administration has said it will reinstate the assault-weapons ban that expired in 2004 and will look into putting stricter regulations on gun ownership. How is believing that the President and liberal congress doing what they have repeatedly said they would try to do worrying needlessly?

Even though it has been well documented, Kloczko is amazed at what the data in Connecticut tells him. His article concludes, “Despite the increases in pistol permits, the state is significantly safer than it was 25 years ago. According to Connecticut’s Uniform Crime Report, which indexes murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny and motor vehicle theft in the state, offenses have been on a downward spiral since 1985, dropping around 30 percent in recent years.” Crime did not drop despite the increase pistol ownership; it dropped because the increase pistol ownership is a significant contributing factor to decreased crime.

In the book More Guns Less Crime, John Lott documents the fact that where more regular people arm themselves and take responsibility for their own security the less overall crime exists for those people.

The people of this country, even the people of the liberal northeast, get it. They know that as the unemployment increases, crime generally increases, and that taking the responsibility to defend yourself is demonstrably more effective than depending on the government. They also know that a handgun is the single most effective self protection tool available. They also believe Obama and company when they say that they want to make it harder for law abiding citizens to arm themselves. Since the people of Connecticut get it there is an increase in firearm purchases. Why doesn’t the liberal press get it?

Friday, November 27, 2009

Pay No Attention to the Man Behind the Curtain!

The climatologists exposed for manipulating data, and colluding to exclude and scientific research that didn't agree with their pre-conceived conclusions, are now saying that it doesn't matter.

"What they've done is search through stolen personal emails - confidential between colleagues who often speak in a language they understand and is often foreign to the outside world," Penn State's Michael Mann told Reuters Wednesday. Mr. Mann added that this has made "something innocent into something nefarious."

Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, "My colleagues and I accept that some of the published emails do not read well. I regret any upset or confusion caused as a result. Some were clearly written in the heat of the moment, others use colloquialisms frequently used between close colleagues."

That is of course a lie. Steve Millory exposed the fact that the emails and data were not stolen.
Since news of embarrassing, if not incriminating emails broke last Friday, it has become clear that the CRU computer system was not “hacked” and the emails were not stolen. In fact, the file containing the emails had been assembled by CRU staff in preparation for compliance with a Freedom of Information request. The file was then stored in a publicly accessible portion of the CRU computer network — making it just a matter of time before someone discovered it. Why the file was so stored may never be known, but that’s not really what’s important.

Nothing illegal or unethical was done to affect the file’s release.

In his email dated May 2008 Mr. Mann regarding the U.N.'s Fourth Assessment Report he said "Mike, Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?", I guess he would want to word that differently so it reads better if he knew it would be exposed. Trouble is how do you word "hide the evidence" better?

Obviously from the documents and messages, Mann and Jones and others rigged the climate-tracking game from the start. According to them, only those, whose work has been published in select scientific journals, after having gone through the "peer-review" process, can be relied on to critique the science. Challenges from critics outside this cabal are dismissed and disparaged.

Stephen McIntyre's web site, Climateaudit.org, checks the findings of climate scientists and often publishes the mistakes he finds. The result of this exposure has resulted in Mr. Mann being force to publish a correction to one of his papers. Mann had this to say to the New York Times about the leaked emails "Those such as [Stephen] McIntyre who operate almost entirely outside of this system are not to be trusted."

In a march 2003 email Mann noted "This was the danger of always criticizing the skeptics for not publishing in the 'peer-reviewed literature'. Obviously, they found a solution to that-take over a journal!" This came out after the journal "Climate Research" published a paper not to Mr. Mann's liking, and went so far as to say "Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board." This Cabal has tried and is more or less successful at excluding acceptance of any publication that publishes views of which they don't approve.

Vincent Gray IPCC expert reviewer, documents how proof of fraud and exclusion of critical data has been endemic in climate research for over a decade in his Nov.27 article CLICK HERE TO READ
Since the small group — revealed within the CRU emails — control most of the peer reviewers, very few peer reviewed papers which criticize that group are allowed to appear in the most prominent published literature which dominates the academic establishment.

I have only been able to find a place to release my criticisms on the internet, now the only realm where unfettered scientific discussion is possible.

Mann's cabal uses the excuse that because their view is the most published most accepted that it is fact, when they control the peer review system and exclude and disparage any data that doesn't support their pre-conceived conclusions. Seems like the logical fallacy, Circular Reasoning, to me.

If their data is indisputable, why do they have to rig the system?