This is starting to get old yet again the IPCC has been caught making unfounded climate predictions and claims. In my last blog we saw that Glaicergate was added to Climategate, now we see Amazongate.
The IPCC made a prominent claim in its 2007 report claiming climate change could endanger "up to 40 per cent" of the Amazon rainforest." Seems this was based on a WWF and Greenpeace author, Andy Rowel article where he referenced an article in Nature. The problem is the article in nature based it's prediction on logging not climate change.
One analyst found more than 20 passages in the IPCC's report have been showed to be from non-peer-reviewed, WWF or Greenpeace reports. Other researchers are finding still more groundless allegations. When looking at the IPCC claim that "global warming would put billions of people at the mercy of water shortages", it was found that what the research sited actually said was that rising temperatures could increase the supply of water. Obviously the IPCC doesn't really care what the truth is, what scientific research discovers, they care about promoting UN control using Global Warming as an excuse.
The IPCC is a political body, with a socialist agenda, that has been repeatedly proven to exclude any scientific data that doesn't support their political goals, to change data to meet promote their political goals, and denounce scientists who don't promote thier political goals. The IPCC is now shown to be scientifically and politically corrupt; only if you are blind to the truth could anybody defend the IPCC's findings.
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Friday, January 29, 2010
IPCC Caught Manipulating Science Again
Glaciergate
UN says - "Sorry about that prediction that the glaciers in the Himalayan Mountains will be gone by 2035, they were not based on any science. The important thing is that we fight global warming weather the facts support it or not." Well they didn't word it that way, but that’s what they said.
The UN has had to apologized for its current report, in which, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts that a Himalayan glacier, which is 71 kilometers (44 miles) long, could disappear by 2035. It also predicts that the other 45,000 glaciers in the world's highest mountain range will be virtually gone by then, with drastic consequences for billions of people in Asia, whose life depends on water that originates in the Himalayas. The IPCC report led environmental activists to sound the alarm about a drama that could be unfolding at the "world's third pole. Problem is that the report is wrong and wasn't based on science.
Geologist and expert on glaciers at the University of Nebraska in Omaha, John Shroder said "This prognosis is, of course, complete nonsense." His research shows that Himalayan glaciers are staying shrinking, growing, and remaining static, basically acting like glaciers have throughout history.
To go with "Climategate" which exposed scientists as withholding evidence, colluding to suppress evidence they didn't like, and conspiring to undermine and silence scientists who didn’t hold the party line, we now have "Glaciergate", where again for political reasons UN sponsored scientists are caught making up science.
Other science news shows that water vapor in the stratosphere, not CO2 is the culprit for the changes in temperature over the past 3 decades, but to keep getting funding (which comes from political sources), the scientists stress that even though the science shows that water is far more important to global temperatures, and accounts for both the increase in temperature during the 1990’s and decrease in the 2000’s it doesn’t mean that global warming isn’t man made.
They are worried that people will stop trusting what they say and disregard the whole IPCC environmental agenda. Let’s hope so. How many times do socialists disguised as environmentalists have to get caught hiding, suppressing, or lying about science before the Lamestream press, and people understand that it’s about controlling wealth and power, not about the environment.
Just as one should look questioningly at the results of scientific data funded by a big corporation which have vested interests in the outcome, we should consider the billions of government money poured into science in the same light, because government has a vested interest in the outcome. The more dire the environmental prediction the more claimed basis governments have to increase the size and scope of their control of individual lives.
The UN is a political body, with a majority of socialist and despots, not nations of free people. The UN has a political agenda which doesn’t include liberty and basic freedoms. Its goal is, and has been, to govern the world, controlling people in an elitist not egalitarian way. Since free people do not make the decisions that the elites at the UN would prefer they make they want to dictate, what the world, including the US should do. In the USA it’s our pesky constitution, and relative individual wealth that keep getting it the way. Any science that has the results screened first by politicians (the UN) before being released should not be used as a basis for the US to make environmental, political, economical or social decisions. The results that come out of the IPCC (UN) is biased and based on the goals of the UN, which are not in the interests of the USA or free people in general.
A free people shouldn’t trust their government, and especially a government agency is not elected by the people like the UN, anymore than they should trust Exxon to protect the environment or Enron to protect their investments.
UN says - "Sorry about that prediction that the glaciers in the Himalayan Mountains will be gone by 2035, they were not based on any science. The important thing is that we fight global warming weather the facts support it or not." Well they didn't word it that way, but that’s what they said.
The UN has had to apologized for its current report, in which, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicts that a Himalayan glacier, which is 71 kilometers (44 miles) long, could disappear by 2035. It also predicts that the other 45,000 glaciers in the world's highest mountain range will be virtually gone by then, with drastic consequences for billions of people in Asia, whose life depends on water that originates in the Himalayas. The IPCC report led environmental activists to sound the alarm about a drama that could be unfolding at the "world's third pole. Problem is that the report is wrong and wasn't based on science.
Geologist and expert on glaciers at the University of Nebraska in Omaha, John Shroder said "This prognosis is, of course, complete nonsense." His research shows that Himalayan glaciers are staying shrinking, growing, and remaining static, basically acting like glaciers have throughout history.
To go with "Climategate" which exposed scientists as withholding evidence, colluding to suppress evidence they didn't like, and conspiring to undermine and silence scientists who didn’t hold the party line, we now have "Glaciergate", where again for political reasons UN sponsored scientists are caught making up science.
Other science news shows that water vapor in the stratosphere, not CO2 is the culprit for the changes in temperature over the past 3 decades, but to keep getting funding (which comes from political sources), the scientists stress that even though the science shows that water is far more important to global temperatures, and accounts for both the increase in temperature during the 1990’s and decrease in the 2000’s it doesn’t mean that global warming isn’t man made.
They are worried that people will stop trusting what they say and disregard the whole IPCC environmental agenda. Let’s hope so. How many times do socialists disguised as environmentalists have to get caught hiding, suppressing, or lying about science before the Lamestream press, and people understand that it’s about controlling wealth and power, not about the environment.
Just as one should look questioningly at the results of scientific data funded by a big corporation which have vested interests in the outcome, we should consider the billions of government money poured into science in the same light, because government has a vested interest in the outcome. The more dire the environmental prediction the more claimed basis governments have to increase the size and scope of their control of individual lives.
The UN is a political body, with a majority of socialist and despots, not nations of free people. The UN has a political agenda which doesn’t include liberty and basic freedoms. Its goal is, and has been, to govern the world, controlling people in an elitist not egalitarian way. Since free people do not make the decisions that the elites at the UN would prefer they make they want to dictate, what the world, including the US should do. In the USA it’s our pesky constitution, and relative individual wealth that keep getting it the way. Any science that has the results screened first by politicians (the UN) before being released should not be used as a basis for the US to make environmental, political, economical or social decisions. The results that come out of the IPCC (UN) is biased and based on the goals of the UN, which are not in the interests of the USA or free people in general.
A free people shouldn’t trust their government, and especially a government agency is not elected by the people like the UN, anymore than they should trust Exxon to protect the environment or Enron to protect their investments.
People are free when they control their government. When government controls the people, there can be no freedom.
~ Henery Lamb
Thursday, January 28, 2010
President Obama Declares War on Free Speech
If you’ve been listening, you’ll realize that the First Amendment, our Freedom of Speech, is under attack by no less than the President of the United States. During the State of the Union Speech the president declared war on the first amendment attacking the Supreme Court of the United States and the press.
When the Supreme Court upheld the right to freedom of speech, for all not just some, Obama declared it a priority to fight to limit what and when powerful unions can speak. Concerning the SCOTUS’ decision to allow Labor Unions and other groups of people to express political speech near elections, Obama said, "I can't think of anything more devastating to the public interest.” WOW! The act of individual people pooling their money together to finance political speech during election season is “devastating to the public interest.” Isn’t that exactly what the first amendment is supposed to protect?
Obama listed some of his enemies in the State of the Union speech last night. His enemies are not Islamists who vow to destroy western civilization and the USA specifically; he declared that “TV pundits” are the enemy.
I’m at a loss for words to describe my feelings when the President of the United States says people freely expressing their political opinions are enemies. “TV Pundits” have no real power, they don’t have an army, they are not calling for violence, they can’t make laws, they can’t put people in jail, they can’t change taxes, and they aren’t trying to silence those who don’t agree with them, they are people in America exercising their first amendment rights. The only power TV pundits have is the power of thier Ideas. If your opinions, looks and personality are popular enough that others are willing to pay you to broadcast them, and the President doesn't like what you say, then you’re an enemy.
This whole enemies list smacks of leftist governments like the Cuba, China and former regimes like USSR, socialist Japan, and Fascist Germany, which do everything they can to control the media and what ideas people are exposed. The last American president to declare the media as enemies was Nixon, who was routinely called and considered a fascist by the pundits. Nixon considered pundits enemies because he knew if he was exposed he would be out of a job and powerless. What is Obama hiding if he has to declare that those who don’t agree with him are enemies?
If his ideas, policies, and actions cannot stand criticism, maybe it’s because they are not what the people want. Obama has ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR, the NY Times, and most other major newspapers all promoting leftist ideas. Considering the huge left tilt of mass media, if the ideas expressed by one TV network and a dozen talk radio hosts can influence enough people to effectively stop his agenda, then maybe he should consider that the country doesn’t want his fascist implementation of European socialism. In the battlefield of ideas, Obama’s ideas, and the left’s ideas in general are losing. Declaring TV pundits “enemies”, during the State of the Union, is the act of a desperate man who has lost control of the message, and fears being exposed.
Our democracy depends upon free speech, not just for some but for all, that includes TV Pundits, or bloggers, or even corporations and labor unions.
When the Supreme Court upheld the right to freedom of speech, for all not just some, Obama declared it a priority to fight to limit what and when powerful unions can speak. Concerning the SCOTUS’ decision to allow Labor Unions and other groups of people to express political speech near elections, Obama said, "I can't think of anything more devastating to the public interest.” WOW! The act of individual people pooling their money together to finance political speech during election season is “devastating to the public interest.” Isn’t that exactly what the first amendment is supposed to protect?
Obama listed some of his enemies in the State of the Union speech last night. His enemies are not Islamists who vow to destroy western civilization and the USA specifically; he declared that “TV pundits” are the enemy.
I’m at a loss for words to describe my feelings when the President of the United States says people freely expressing their political opinions are enemies. “TV Pundits” have no real power, they don’t have an army, they are not calling for violence, they can’t make laws, they can’t put people in jail, they can’t change taxes, and they aren’t trying to silence those who don’t agree with them, they are people in America exercising their first amendment rights. The only power TV pundits have is the power of thier Ideas. If your opinions, looks and personality are popular enough that others are willing to pay you to broadcast them, and the President doesn't like what you say, then you’re an enemy.
This whole enemies list smacks of leftist governments like the Cuba, China and former regimes like USSR, socialist Japan, and Fascist Germany, which do everything they can to control the media and what ideas people are exposed. The last American president to declare the media as enemies was Nixon, who was routinely called and considered a fascist by the pundits. Nixon considered pundits enemies because he knew if he was exposed he would be out of a job and powerless. What is Obama hiding if he has to declare that those who don’t agree with him are enemies?
If his ideas, policies, and actions cannot stand criticism, maybe it’s because they are not what the people want. Obama has ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR, the NY Times, and most other major newspapers all promoting leftist ideas. Considering the huge left tilt of mass media, if the ideas expressed by one TV network and a dozen talk radio hosts can influence enough people to effectively stop his agenda, then maybe he should consider that the country doesn’t want his fascist implementation of European socialism. In the battlefield of ideas, Obama’s ideas, and the left’s ideas in general are losing. Declaring TV pundits “enemies”, during the State of the Union, is the act of a desperate man who has lost control of the message, and fears being exposed.
Our democracy depends upon free speech, not just for some but for all, that includes TV Pundits, or bloggers, or even corporations and labor unions.
Sunday, January 24, 2010
The Democrats' technological thuggery
This artilce originally appeard HERE
It points out the more extreme ad hominum attacks of Liberals (leftists) on those who oppose them, and the acceptance of the restrictions of civil rights to people who don't oppose leftist views upto and including acceptance of violence against conservatives and libertarians.
The Democrats' technological thuggery
Posted: January 21, 2010
By Phil Elmore
Copyrite World Net Daily
It points out the more extreme ad hominum attacks of Liberals (leftists) on those who oppose them, and the acceptance of the restrictions of civil rights to people who don't oppose leftist views upto and including acceptance of violence against conservatives and libertarians.
The Democrats' technological thuggery
Posted: January 21, 2010
By Phil Elmore
Copyrite World Net Daily
Force is technology.
It is crude technology, but it is technology nonetheless. Technology is the application of a tool or tools to human effort. This produces a result greater than can be accomplished without the tools used. In the case of naked force, technology could be a clenched fist wielded with intent – or it could be the truncheon in the white knuckles of a Black Panther who is bullying elderly voters.
The technology of force can also be thieving, manipulation and intimidation of any democratic or bureaucratic process, in this case as nationally exhibited by the Democratic Party. Force, as misused by the Democrats, is the application of violence, abuse of process, libel, slander, propaganda, theft and a variety of other criminal behaviors to gain and keep, through any means necessary, the power to rule, arrogantly and presumptuously, every miniscule facet of your waking life.
Democrats engage in this reprehensible, morally bankrupt, hypocritical behavior even as they breathlessly exclaim that their political opponents mean them harm. The example that springs most readily to mind is the bug-eyed, botox-paralyzed, Medusan visage of Nancy Pelosi as she feigned crocodile tears at the thought of those awful, mean "tea party" people waving imaginary Nazi symbols and somehow implying violence because they dared to oppose the socialization of American health care.
Meanwhile, as hand-wringing Democrats engaged in these histrionics, their union thugs were beating protesters in an effort to silence them. A supporter of socialized medicine bullied, assaulted and then bit off the finger of an older man who dared to oppose Obamacare. Supporters of amnesty for illegal aliens attacked Americans opposed to the invasion of their nation. Conservative protesters were pepper-sprayed and beaten by homosexual activists.
Republican protesters risk their well-being whenever they dare to stand up for their political beliefs – and the left-leaning popular media turn a deliberately blind eye to their Democrat fellow travelers' crimes. While all this was going on, Democrats and the media were falling over themselves laughing to redefine "tea party" protesters as "teabaggers," a sexually vulgar term that left-wingers across the mainstream media are now free to use with impunity. Winking and nudging your co-anchors while uttering the word is optional, incidentally.
Take Steven Benen, for example. Benen's a typical liberal whose first reaction to the news of Kenneth Gladney's beating by SEIU thugs was to sneer that, well, if the guy could still walk around afterward, it couldn't have been a very big deal. Why, conservatives must have been busily manufacturing a cause celebre ... and why doesn't Gladney have health insurance? Benen was, in fact, much more concerned with who was paying Gladney's hospital bill than he was with the assault on a black conservative.
That black man – whom Benen apparently thought probably deserved a good roughing up – was one of the many people MSNBC's execrable Contessa Brewer condemned as "racist" for daring to oppose Obama's socialist agenda. Considering the topography of left-wing political beliefs, the reasonable man finds a disturbingly large number of Democrats who are entirely comfortable with the thought of roughing up their political opponents. Failed Democratic Senate candidate Martha Coakley certainly had no problem with one of her aides knocking down a reporter for the Weekly Standard. Who do those conservative journalists think they are, after all?
When they're not libeling or beating their opponents, Democrats are busily changing the rules to their benefit in the middle of the political process. Never was this more obvious than in the battle over the Senate seat vacated by the late Ted Kennedy. Democrats in Massachusetts changed the law half a decade ago to stop then-Gov. Mitt Romney from appointing a Republican Senator to fill the seat that would have been vacated by John Kerry (had he become president). The Democrats then changed the process back so a Democratic governor could appoint a Democrat to fill Kennedy's seat after "the Lion of the Senate" died of cancer. When the people finally got to vote on that seat and put a Republican in office, it threatened the 60-vote majority needed to prevent a Republican filibuster in the Democrat-ruled Senate.
The Democrat response? The lisping, bloated self-parody that is Barney Frank sputtered and stammered and spat his way through a statement in which he hinted that the Democrats might do away with the filibuster to prevent this challenge to their imperial reign. This shouldn't surprise us at all; it wasn't too long ago that MSNBC host Ed Schultz said he was perfectly OK with vote fraud to keep those "bastard" Republicans out of office.
In the vote-fraud department, illegitimate officeholders like Al Franken are way ahead of Schultz. Franken stole his Minnesota Senate seat from Norm Coleman by (as tried and true for Democrats) changing the rules in the middle of the process – manipulating the recount of a close election to usurp that election's rightful winner. We can thank the precedent set by Democrat Al Gore in his attempts to commit similar theft of a presidential election.
The damning evidence is clear: Democrats are violent, corrupt, arrogant and self-righteous. A Democrat believes that his cradle-to-grave ideology makes him special. Whatever a Democrat does is justified in his mind as what is best for the masses, regardless of whether the proles know what is good for them.
The Democrats will continue to lie, to cheat, to steal and to trample the Constitution of the United States. They will be removed from power only through the most vicious of battles, and they will have to be dragged, kicking and clawing and screaming, from the table of government. The technology of their tyranny is all around us. The infrastructure of their arrogant imperialism is inescapable. Only when we are willing to acknowledge the fact of their thuggery will we have even the slightest hope of combating it. Only when we admit publicly that Democrats individually are villains will we have any chance of overcoming them.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Victory for Free Speech
Why is yesterdays Supreme Court ruling saying that the government may not ban political spending by corporations in candidate elections, so controversial?
The 1st amendment states that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ..."
Justice Kennedy got it right in his opinion where he said, “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”
The SCOTUS got it right, and overturned McCain-Feingold.
Justice Kennedy also wrote in the majority opinion, “When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”
The 1st amendment states that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech ..."
Justice Kennedy got it right in his opinion where he said, “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.”
The SCOTUS got it right, and overturned McCain-Feingold.
Justice Kennedy also wrote in the majority opinion, “When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.”
Friday, January 15, 2010
Why is this news?
I just don't get it, Obama calls to and congratulates a newly elected mayor of a major city, and leaves a voice mail.
The voice mail read as follows:
That’s a nice message, and appropriate for the newly elected mayor to Houston. No big deal. This is part of what the President should do; especially if the Mayor is a member of his own party.
The whole thing should be one big Yawn, and not worth a blip in anybody's news room, nor even a blip on Obama's radar screen. Why then did the Obama administration became irritated and after the voicemail of President Obama congratulating her on her election victory was leaked on YouTube. The new mayor said she received a curt call from someone in the White House wanting to know how the president's voicemail got up on YouTube, and that the president’s communications should remain private.
I think the new Houston Mayor, Annise Parker, should be proud of her victory, and sharing the congratulation she received from the POTUS with her constituents is wholly acceptable conduct. If she didn’t post it, and some staffer did, it is still wholly acceptable conduct. The POTUS called to congratulate her, how cool, is that. I know if I was called and congratulated by the POTUS, I’d be telling everybody and I don’t even like the man. If the president had not wanted the well worded congratulations to be heard or kept private, he shouldn’t have put them in the voice mail to a publicly elected official.
The only thing remotely newsworthy is the fact that the Obama administration was upset about it being posted to YouTube. The message Obama gave was a nice, apolitical, benign, pleasant, congratulatory, short and to the point, message. Why would he or anybody in his administration care if it was made public?
You don’t think it’s because Annise Parker is openly gay?
The voice mail read as follows:
This is President Barack Obama. I'm just calling to congratulate you on an extraordinary victory – a victory for the people of Houston as well as for yourself. I think you're going to be just a great mayor, so hopefully we'll get a chance to see each other soon, or talk. But I want to let you know that we're watching and very proud. Bye-bye.
That’s a nice message, and appropriate for the newly elected mayor to Houston. No big deal. This is part of what the President should do; especially if the Mayor is a member of his own party.
The whole thing should be one big Yawn, and not worth a blip in anybody's news room, nor even a blip on Obama's radar screen. Why then did the Obama administration became irritated and after the voicemail of President Obama congratulating her on her election victory was leaked on YouTube. The new mayor said she received a curt call from someone in the White House wanting to know how the president's voicemail got up on YouTube, and that the president’s communications should remain private.
I think the new Houston Mayor, Annise Parker, should be proud of her victory, and sharing the congratulation she received from the POTUS with her constituents is wholly acceptable conduct. If she didn’t post it, and some staffer did, it is still wholly acceptable conduct. The POTUS called to congratulate her, how cool, is that. I know if I was called and congratulated by the POTUS, I’d be telling everybody and I don’t even like the man. If the president had not wanted the well worded congratulations to be heard or kept private, he shouldn’t have put them in the voice mail to a publicly elected official.
The only thing remotely newsworthy is the fact that the Obama administration was upset about it being posted to YouTube. The message Obama gave was a nice, apolitical, benign, pleasant, congratulatory, short and to the point, message. Why would he or anybody in his administration care if it was made public?
You don’t think it’s because Annise Parker is openly gay?
Sunday, January 10, 2010
What Happens With Liberals Take Over
My parents moved our family from Detroit in 1972. My dad was an automotive engineer and mom stayed at home. Our family was better off with dad working as a mechanic in Florida than an engineer in Detroit.
In 1961 left wing democrats took over Detroit, and have been in control ever sense.
This Viral Video, shows the results of socialism in what was once the pillar of American success.
In Detroit unemployment is at 50% (video was out of date).
In Detroit there are zero grocery stores.
In Detroit there are zero new car dealers (the motor city no less).
In Detroit a high school student is more likely to go to prison than graduate.
Now we've elected a leftist for president, and allowed liberals control of the House and Senate. If we don't remove them from office and do everything we can to stop their fascist policies the images of Detroit are what we can expect for the rest of the country.
In 1961 left wing democrats took over Detroit, and have been in control ever sense.
This Viral Video, shows the results of socialism in what was once the pillar of American success.
In Detroit unemployment is at 50% (video was out of date).
In Detroit there are zero grocery stores.
In Detroit there are zero new car dealers (the motor city no less).
In Detroit a high school student is more likely to go to prison than graduate.
Now we've elected a leftist for president, and allowed liberals control of the House and Senate. If we don't remove them from office and do everything we can to stop their fascist policies the images of Detroit are what we can expect for the rest of the country.
Friday, January 8, 2010
Are All Politicians Rude Assholes
I saw my boy off at the deployment ceremony at the Armory in Pinellas Park yesterday. The brigade was formed up and ready exactly 10 min before the official start time. The official ceremony start time comes and goes, and there are 250 men and women standing at parade rest, waiting for the start of what is supposed to be a 15 minute ceremony to thank their friends and family for their support, and see them off to Ft. Hood in preparation for Deployment in Kuwait. They and the people at the ceremony expect the introduction and acknowledgement of current and past leaders, and few quick words, a prayer, the to be released to enjoy the evening before deploying for a Year.
But nothing happens, and they are standing there waiting… standing and waiting…
Then a round 15 min past the hour, we guests are asked to stand for the entrance of the dignitaries. Crap we have been waiting for two political hacks who changed their schedules to be here, Gov. Christ and Rep. Young. They each get speech time added to the program. Not long by political speech standards but they did add around 25 min to the ceremony schedule. Then when it was all over Christ did “the inspect the troops thing,” for a photo op, just like in a B movie. Although when Donald Southerland did it in the classic movie, The Dirty Dozen, he came off as smarter and more genuine that Charlie Christ did.
For around 10 seconds of camera time Christ kept 250 soldiers standing at attention or parade rest for an additional 45 min. That’s just plan rude. I didn’t hear any complaints from the soldiers, they wouldn’t, but I did note that their commanders cut their speeches to 2 or 3 min max. After listening to the long winded politicians, and did everything they could to move things along for the troops, those soldiers do appear to have good officers. I’m confident that none of those soldiers standing and waiting gave a rat’s ass, for the words Christ had to offer.
We were told, that he had to change his plans to be here, and words to the effect that we were all honored by his presence. Maybe if he’d showed some humility and apologized for delaying and changing the plans, and recognizing the value of the soldiers and peoples time and effort, he would have been appreciated, instead Christ showed the disregard for the time and plans, of the soldiers, officers, families, and friends, and guests at the deployment ceremony that is typical of politicians who act like they’re some kind of elite who should be honored and revered. All he did was once again demonstrate that he like most politicians are just rude self aggrandizing assholes.
The people of Tampa Bay however are not. I took my son and his girlfriend to his favorite restaurant, The Cheesecake Factory, for dinner. He was in uniform, and like a whole lot of other soldiers last night his money was no good in Tampa Bay. Our entire meal was paid for by an anonymous person, and it seemed everybody knew he was deploying, and was wishing him well. The entire community demonstrated that they appreciate our men and women of the armed services. Thank you Tampa Bay!!!
But nothing happens, and they are standing there waiting… standing and waiting…
Then a round 15 min past the hour, we guests are asked to stand for the entrance of the dignitaries. Crap we have been waiting for two political hacks who changed their schedules to be here, Gov. Christ and Rep. Young. They each get speech time added to the program. Not long by political speech standards but they did add around 25 min to the ceremony schedule. Then when it was all over Christ did “the inspect the troops thing,” for a photo op, just like in a B movie. Although when Donald Southerland did it in the classic movie, The Dirty Dozen, he came off as smarter and more genuine that Charlie Christ did.
For around 10 seconds of camera time Christ kept 250 soldiers standing at attention or parade rest for an additional 45 min. That’s just plan rude. I didn’t hear any complaints from the soldiers, they wouldn’t, but I did note that their commanders cut their speeches to 2 or 3 min max. After listening to the long winded politicians, and did everything they could to move things along for the troops, those soldiers do appear to have good officers. I’m confident that none of those soldiers standing and waiting gave a rat’s ass, for the words Christ had to offer.
We were told, that he had to change his plans to be here, and words to the effect that we were all honored by his presence. Maybe if he’d showed some humility and apologized for delaying and changing the plans, and recognizing the value of the soldiers and peoples time and effort, he would have been appreciated, instead Christ showed the disregard for the time and plans, of the soldiers, officers, families, and friends, and guests at the deployment ceremony that is typical of politicians who act like they’re some kind of elite who should be honored and revered. All he did was once again demonstrate that he like most politicians are just rude self aggrandizing assholes.
The people of Tampa Bay however are not. I took my son and his girlfriend to his favorite restaurant, The Cheesecake Factory, for dinner. He was in uniform, and like a whole lot of other soldiers last night his money was no good in Tampa Bay. Our entire meal was paid for by an anonymous person, and it seemed everybody knew he was deploying, and was wishing him well. The entire community demonstrated that they appreciate our men and women of the armed services. Thank you Tampa Bay!!!
Thursday, January 7, 2010
Obama's biggest Lie
OK let's watch and listen to Obama say the same thing over and over again.
Obviously he wanted us to believe that his ideas were better and that if publicly debated the people would follow and support him.
Why isn't he now calling for minimally the conference committee meeting between the two secretly created house and senate bills be televised.
As it stands he is now supporting, locking the Republicans out of the debate.
I guess if the people don't follow and support him, then he is willing to force us to do what he wants anyway.
Why isn't the main stream press calling for public debate?
Why isn't the main stream press calling out Obama for not even trying to keep his most repeated and biggest promise to the American People?
Obama doesn't run the legislature, they can and do make their own rules, but not even asking them publicly to have their meetings made public on health care, confirms that he is just a lying power hungry elitist.
Obviously he wanted us to believe that his ideas were better and that if publicly debated the people would follow and support him.
Why isn't he now calling for minimally the conference committee meeting between the two secretly created house and senate bills be televised.
As it stands he is now supporting, locking the Republicans out of the debate.
I guess if the people don't follow and support him, then he is willing to force us to do what he wants anyway.
Why isn't the main stream press calling for public debate?
Why isn't the main stream press calling out Obama for not even trying to keep his most repeated and biggest promise to the American People?
Obama doesn't run the legislature, they can and do make their own rules, but not even asking them publicly to have their meetings made public on health care, confirms that he is just a lying power hungry elitist.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Liberal Style Reporting
I’ll use these two recently reported facts to make statement of fact the way the liberal press does.
The liberal press often quotes and takes as fact what the Brady Campaign against Gun Violence says “We make it too easy for dangerous people to get their hands on guns. The consequence is that too many people are killed and injured with guns in the United States.”
Both of these arguments, mine saying that FBI statistics prove that guns in citizens hands results in less violent crime, and the Brady Campaign’s saying because guns are easy to get too many people are killed/injured with guns, are the same logical fallacy (Affirming the Consequent). Neither of these statistical based arguments (hypotheses) are valid.
Part of the Brady Bunch’s hypothesis is the acceptance that “that too many people are killed and injured with guns”, whom should decide what that means. This is another logical fallacy (the Fallacy of Presumption). It forces acceptance of a standard/definition/fact that may or may not be true.
What should be done is an unbiased cost/benefit analysis of private ownership of guns. In fact that data is available, noted anti-gun criminologists Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, had a change in heart after doing this research. Dr. Kleck, is a member of the ACLU, Amnesty International USA, and Common Cause. He is not and has never been a member of or contributor to any advocacy group on either side of the gun control debate. His book, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, has become a widely cited source in the gun control debate. In fact, this book earned Dr. Kleck the prestigious American Society of Criminology Michael J. Hindelang award for 1993.
Kleck and Gertz wrote in "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," published in The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, in the Fall 1995, "Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year—or about 6,850 times a day.” This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.
But before you start shouting that the research is bad, or disproven, consider that even those who don't like the conclusions Dr. Kleck reached. In "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," from The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Marvin E. Wolfgang writes that, "What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. . . . I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence." There are more than a dozen national polls—one of which was conducted by The Los Angeles Times—that have found figures comparable to the Kleck-Gertz study. The Clinton Justice Department (through the National Institute of Justice) found there were as many as 1.5 million defensive users of firearms every year. See National Institute of Justice, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," Research in Brief (May 1997).
The Brady bunch, include in their analysis all the uses of guns that stop crime by both police and private citizens, and never consider any of the benefits of guns in the hands of private citizens. They make the presumption that every killing or injury caused by a gun is bad, and that there are no benefits to firearms, specifically hand guns. What would we have to conclude if we use their logic concerning guns and apply it to other technologies? We should dramatically reduce or end the private ownership of vehicles, as vastly more people are killed or injured with vehicles than guns. Since more people are killed in small light “cheap” vehicles than large expensive vehicles, ownership of small vehicles should be restricted to government agencies. People who own a cars are more likely to die in an auto accident; therefore cars cause auto accidents; therefore we should restrict private car ownership. People who have electricity in their homes are more likely to die of electrocution; therefore we should restrict the electrification of private homes (how many people die of electrocution in third world countries that don’t have electricity). People who own knives are more likely to be cut or injured; therefore we should restrict private knife ownership. People who live in homes with pools are more likely to drown; therefore we should restrict private pool ownership. People who fly in airplanes are more likely to be killed or injured in a plane crash; therefore aircraft use should be restricted to government agencies.
Consider what might be mans oldest technology, fire. Using anti-gun zealot logic, this technology should also be eliminated, it is the basis for all our non nuclear energy, be it internal combustion engines, electrical generation burning coal, oil, biomass, or natural gas, or even home oil/gas heating. If we exclude all the benefits of the use of fire and only look at the people killed or injured by fire, then we would have to severely restrict it. No private vehicles, no private home heating, no private home cooking, no private home lighting, etc. Imagine if anything that was based on the use of fire was limited to only government agents (sounds exactly like what environmentalist extremists want). All of those above arguments are silly and based on the same kind of faulty logic. You could go on forever but the arguments against private gun ownership are based on fear of the technology, excluding any benefits. After all firearms are just a more technologically advanced method of throwing stones, as an electric stove is a more technologically advanced method of using fire.
Any technology can be used for good or evil, but technology, including firearms, has made life vastly better for man. From fire to microchips, the benefits of technology has always outweighed the costs. Ignoring the benefits of any given technology only limits its availability to some people, and leaves it open for others to use the technology they posses to oppress those without that technology. This could be said for oil, as restricting the availability to acquire domestic sources of oil (Anwar, Gulf of Mexico, etc.), has put others, like OPEC, in a position to be able to oppress those who can’t or won’t produce their own oil. It could also be said for electricity, restrictions on third world countries making cheap hydro/coal/oil based electricity to “protect the environment” oppress them and keeps them from advancing, by making electricity generation too expensive for them acquire.
The FBI statistics which over the same time period show a nationwide decrease in violent crime roughly equivalent to the nationwide increase in gun sales does not prove that more guns = less crime, but it does clearly falsify the Brady Bunch’s hypothesis that The consequence of it being too easy to get guns is that too many people are killed and injured with guns in the United States. Their hypothesis is proven false, and based upon multiple logical fallacies, so why do so many people (mostly liberals) still believe it, and continues to try to use such an easily falsifiable idea to promote gun control? I believe it is because of their irrational fear of technology, not any rational reasoning. The only other alternative would be a conspiracy to disarm the American public and eliminate the second amendment, to make it easier to pacify and control the masses by removing their ability to defend themselves from a tyrannical government, but that couldn’t be true, as liberals are trustworthy and loyal Americans and none would ever want to curtail fundamental rights.
The new FBI crime statistics are out, and after several years of crime rates holding relatively steady, the FBI is reporting that violent crimes, including gun crimes, dropped dramatically in the first six months of 2009, with murder down 10 percent across the US as a whole.
At the same time, the FBI reports that gun sales, especially of assault-style rifles and handguns, two main targets of gun-control groups, are up at least 12 percent since the election of Obama. This dramatic run on guns prompted in part by fears that Democrats in Congress and the White House will do has they have consistently said they would do and curtail gun rights and carve apart the Second Amendment.
The FBI has reported clear proof that the more we arm private citizens the more violent crime decreases.
The liberal press often quotes and takes as fact what the Brady Campaign against Gun Violence says “We make it too easy for dangerous people to get their hands on guns. The consequence is that too many people are killed and injured with guns in the United States.”
Both of these arguments, mine saying that FBI statistics prove that guns in citizens hands results in less violent crime, and the Brady Campaign’s saying because guns are easy to get too many people are killed/injured with guns, are the same logical fallacy (Affirming the Consequent). Neither of these statistical based arguments (hypotheses) are valid.
Part of the Brady Bunch’s hypothesis is the acceptance that “that too many people are killed and injured with guns”, whom should decide what that means. This is another logical fallacy (the Fallacy of Presumption). It forces acceptance of a standard/definition/fact that may or may not be true.
What should be done is an unbiased cost/benefit analysis of private ownership of guns. In fact that data is available, noted anti-gun criminologists Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, had a change in heart after doing this research. Dr. Kleck, is a member of the ACLU, Amnesty International USA, and Common Cause. He is not and has never been a member of or contributor to any advocacy group on either side of the gun control debate. His book, Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America, has become a widely cited source in the gun control debate. In fact, this book earned Dr. Kleck the prestigious American Society of Criminology Michael J. Hindelang award for 1993.
Kleck and Gertz wrote in "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," published in The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, in the Fall 1995, "Guns are used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year—or about 6,850 times a day.” This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.
But before you start shouting that the research is bad, or disproven, consider that even those who don't like the conclusions Dr. Kleck reached. In "A Tribute to a View I Have Opposed," from The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Marvin E. Wolfgang writes that, "What troubles me is the article by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz. The reason I am troubled is that they have provided an almost clear-cut case of methodologically sound research in support of something I have theoretically opposed for years, namely, the use of a gun in defense against a criminal perpetrator. . . . I have to admit my admiration for the care and caution expressed in this article and this research. Can it be true that about two million instances occur each year in which a gun was used as a defensive measure against crime? It is hard to believe. Yet, it is hard to challenge the data collected. We do not have contrary evidence." There are more than a dozen national polls—one of which was conducted by The Los Angeles Times—that have found figures comparable to the Kleck-Gertz study. The Clinton Justice Department (through the National Institute of Justice) found there were as many as 1.5 million defensive users of firearms every year. See National Institute of Justice, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," Research in Brief (May 1997).
The Brady bunch, include in their analysis all the uses of guns that stop crime by both police and private citizens, and never consider any of the benefits of guns in the hands of private citizens. They make the presumption that every killing or injury caused by a gun is bad, and that there are no benefits to firearms, specifically hand guns. What would we have to conclude if we use their logic concerning guns and apply it to other technologies? We should dramatically reduce or end the private ownership of vehicles, as vastly more people are killed or injured with vehicles than guns. Since more people are killed in small light “cheap” vehicles than large expensive vehicles, ownership of small vehicles should be restricted to government agencies. People who own a cars are more likely to die in an auto accident; therefore cars cause auto accidents; therefore we should restrict private car ownership. People who have electricity in their homes are more likely to die of electrocution; therefore we should restrict the electrification of private homes (how many people die of electrocution in third world countries that don’t have electricity). People who own knives are more likely to be cut or injured; therefore we should restrict private knife ownership. People who live in homes with pools are more likely to drown; therefore we should restrict private pool ownership. People who fly in airplanes are more likely to be killed or injured in a plane crash; therefore aircraft use should be restricted to government agencies.
Consider what might be mans oldest technology, fire. Using anti-gun zealot logic, this technology should also be eliminated, it is the basis for all our non nuclear energy, be it internal combustion engines, electrical generation burning coal, oil, biomass, or natural gas, or even home oil/gas heating. If we exclude all the benefits of the use of fire and only look at the people killed or injured by fire, then we would have to severely restrict it. No private vehicles, no private home heating, no private home cooking, no private home lighting, etc. Imagine if anything that was based on the use of fire was limited to only government agents (sounds exactly like what environmentalist extremists want). All of those above arguments are silly and based on the same kind of faulty logic. You could go on forever but the arguments against private gun ownership are based on fear of the technology, excluding any benefits. After all firearms are just a more technologically advanced method of throwing stones, as an electric stove is a more technologically advanced method of using fire.
Any technology can be used for good or evil, but technology, including firearms, has made life vastly better for man. From fire to microchips, the benefits of technology has always outweighed the costs. Ignoring the benefits of any given technology only limits its availability to some people, and leaves it open for others to use the technology they posses to oppress those without that technology. This could be said for oil, as restricting the availability to acquire domestic sources of oil (Anwar, Gulf of Mexico, etc.), has put others, like OPEC, in a position to be able to oppress those who can’t or won’t produce their own oil. It could also be said for electricity, restrictions on third world countries making cheap hydro/coal/oil based electricity to “protect the environment” oppress them and keeps them from advancing, by making electricity generation too expensive for them acquire.
The FBI statistics which over the same time period show a nationwide decrease in violent crime roughly equivalent to the nationwide increase in gun sales does not prove that more guns = less crime, but it does clearly falsify the Brady Bunch’s hypothesis that The consequence of it being too easy to get guns is that too many people are killed and injured with guns in the United States. Their hypothesis is proven false, and based upon multiple logical fallacies, so why do so many people (mostly liberals) still believe it, and continues to try to use such an easily falsifiable idea to promote gun control? I believe it is because of their irrational fear of technology, not any rational reasoning. The only other alternative would be a conspiracy to disarm the American public and eliminate the second amendment, to make it easier to pacify and control the masses by removing their ability to defend themselves from a tyrannical government, but that couldn’t be true, as liberals are trustworthy and loyal Americans and none would ever want to curtail fundamental rights.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Resolved: Remove the Marxist majority
I hate to say it but I believe Harry Lamb is right.
As much as I love the Libertarian Party, and am a libertarian at heart, and as much as I despise the big business Republican Party, ending the evil and socialist destruction of the country caused by the Democrats is more important than promoting a truly constitutionally minded libertarian that cannot win. Because Florida is a closed primary state, and because the Libertarian Party candidate cannot win, as distasteful as it is, I'm going to swallow my pride and until after the primaries next year I'm temporarily registering as a republican, to support Rubio in the primary, although not a Libertarian, his views are closest to libertarian views, and he is the most libertarian candidate running who has any reasonable chance of winning. The socialist in republcian clothing Christ must not be sent to Washington. There are enough wishy washy republicans with no principle except the dollar there already.
Resolved: Remove the Marxist majority
January 02, 2010
By Henry Lamb © 2010
The nation's most important New Year's resolution is to remove the Marxist majority in Washington. The most important question facing the nation is how to do it. There can be little doubt that the national sentiment opposes the Marxist policies being imposed by the current majority in Washington. Poll after poll, after parade, after tea party vividly demonstrates the nation's frustration with Obama's "fundamental transformation of America." Removal of this majority will take an extraordinary effort from people who are willing to put the nation ahead of ego, and work together to achieve the common goal.
An objective analysis of the situation leads to only one conclusion: Republicans must regain the majority in the 2010 election.
Of course, people who have been working for years to build a viable third party will disagree – violently. Those who hate George Bush, and by extension, all Republicans, will also disagree. Those who think Obama will somehow prevent another election have thrown in the towel and given up. The cold, hard truth is, however, that the Republican Party has the best, if not the only chance to unseat the current majority.
This does not mean that all of the people who are marching in the streets have to trade in their convictions and morph into Republicans. It means that the people who want to return America's government to the vision set forth in the U.S. Constitution must seize control of the Republican Party and transform it into an unbeatable political power focused on restoring the Constitution, free markets, private-property rights and individual freedom.
In many ways, the Republican Party is no better than the Democratic Party, especially judging by its performance in recent years. The fact remains, however, that it is the second-largest political party in the nation. It has an infrastructure in every state. Its candidates get on the ballot without the hassle experienced by third parties. There is an existing war chest and money stream. It is all available for the taking.
The quickest way to political power is to take control of the Republican Party, in every precinct, in every county, in every state and, finally, across the nation.
There are many great candidates working hard to gain recognition, funds and ballot access in several conservative political parties. Most are working in vain. These candidates should run as Republicans in Republican primaries, and then all join in support of the winning candidate. Any conservative candidate who has any chance to be elected would have an even better chance of getting elected as a Republican than as a third-party candidate.
The reason third parties exist is because someone became so frustrated by the major party's refusal to acknowledge a particular issue, that rather than argue, fight and persuade, they simply left to try to find like-minded people outside the party. At the national level, despite many third-party efforts, none has been successful. The nation cannot stand another century of third-party building. The nation cannot stand another year of this current Marxist majority.
All conservative third parties should put their party-building on hold for a year and descend upon the Republican Party en masse, demanding that their county and every state adopt a strong, Constitution-based platform and offer only candidates whose life demonstrates respect for the Constitution. Send the mealy-mouthed RINOs packing, and present a slate of candidates who honor the Constitution and the American values that are being trashed by the Marxist majority.
Democrats, particularly in the South and rural communities of the West and Midwest, are sick of the crowd now dominating Washington, and of the Marxist philosophy that has overwhelmed the Party. They, too, should be recruited to help – if only for this year – to remove the cancer that is eating away at America's freedom.
There are dozens of conservative political parties, each shouting for attention, each working to restore American values and each being largely ignored by most Republicans, and all Democrats. On their own, none of the conservative parties, including the Republican Party, can remove the Marxist majority in Washington. Working together toward the common goal of changing the current majority, the conservatives cannot fail.
Like it or not, the Republican Party is the best tool available to do the job that needs to be done. As it is, it is not sufficiently powered, nor even aimed in the right direction to accomplish the job that must be done. It will take disgruntled Democrats, third-party advocates, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, free-marketers, tea-party marchers and even formerly apathetic couch potatoes, all working together, to take control of the Republican Party and to run the Marxists out of town.
There is no more important New Year's resolution for the nation.
Henry Lamb is the author of "The Rise of Global Governance," chairman of Sovereignty International and founder of the Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO) and Freedom21 Inc.
As much as I love the Libertarian Party, and am a libertarian at heart, and as much as I despise the big business Republican Party, ending the evil and socialist destruction of the country caused by the Democrats is more important than promoting a truly constitutionally minded libertarian that cannot win. Because Florida is a closed primary state, and because the Libertarian Party candidate cannot win, as distasteful as it is, I'm going to swallow my pride and until after the primaries next year I'm temporarily registering as a republican, to support Rubio in the primary, although not a Libertarian, his views are closest to libertarian views, and he is the most libertarian candidate running who has any reasonable chance of winning. The socialist in republcian clothing Christ must not be sent to Washington. There are enough wishy washy republicans with no principle except the dollar there already.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
