Previous month:
February 2011
Next month:
April 2011

It must be the new union currency ...

It must be the new union currency ... Every budget maneuver or proposed cut is now defined in terms of the number of policemen, firemen, nurses or teachers lost to the draconian measures. Never any mention that a slight increase in self-paid healthcare and pension costs would resolve the issue if they were coupled with the elimination of waste, fraud and abuse of the unionized pay schemes which promote outrageous overtime and shift-differentials.


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



Global Warming: How the Alinsky-conscious radical progressives kill the message before it is even delivered ...

There is no doubt in my mind that the temperature data used for global warming climate models has been manipulated to an extent that is almost impossible to determine.

Whether it is made-up data to fill-in obvious gaps in the coverage, adjustments to data that seems inconsistent with the data being reported by nearby stations, data from inappropriately-sited instruments or a host of other manipulations – the fact remains, the data was manipulated by scientists.

Therefore, before embarking on radical public policy changes which would see larger government bureaucracies, higher taxes, higher energy costs and a reduction in both our and individual freedoms of choice, we need to know to what extent the data has been manipulated, are these manipulations statistically sound and do these limited number of observations really allow conclusions to be drawn about a globally-wide phenomenon?

So, what do those who have a vested interest in their research fear from a new look at the raw data?

We have learned from the “climategate” e-mails that some of the most prominent, well-credentialed and previous well-respected climate scientists were caught in an attempt to manage the peer-review process and employ statistical “tricks” in essentially “cooking” the global climate books.

So let us see what this latest form of manipulation of the news might take …

The Los Angeles Times is reporting …

Berkeley scientists' climate data review puts them at center of national debate”

“The head of the study, a longtime critic of the global warming consensus, will testify before a House panel. Leading climate scientists worry that the project, funded in part by an oil billionaire's foundation, has an agenda.”

Nice …

First of all, every time I see the word Berkeley, I am reminded that the University of California at Berkeley is the West Coast home of modern progressive thought. Immediately suspect.

Second, longtime critic is almost an implied pejorative. Third, “global warming consensus” assumes facts not in evidence and science does not rely on a “consensus.” Funded in part by an oil billionaires foundation assumes that somehow energy research by the energy industry should be equated with corrupted science. To which I would simply point out the massive funding by the government and other progressive foundations which has a bigger bias, more corruption and a more dangerous agenda. And they are worried that this researcher, project and findings are agenda driven. Who are these scientists who could easily refute the findings if they can be proven to be incorrect? And why are they so worried? Because the findings might differ or disagree with their findings – or, in the worst case, highlight them as fraudulent?

Continuing …

“An effort by a handful of UC Berkeley scientists to reexamine temperature data underlying global warming research has landed in the center of a national political debate over government regulation.”

What? Science is a skeptical process. Where each researcher seeks to validate, extend or disprove the work of his fellow researchers. This is how science should be done by honest and ethical researchers. Why it is important to mention the national political debate over government regulation is curious because the scientists should be more concerned with the science and less concerned with an agenda-driven debate over public policy.

“The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study is led by physicist Richard Muller, a longtime critic of the scientific consensus on climate change, who plans to testify on the effort Thursday before the House Science Committee in the latest of several congressional inquiries on climate science since the GOP majority was seated.”

Like the democrat majority was a trustworthy group who could be trusted to make rational public policy. Might I just mention that it was the democrats who gave us Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, both of which were highly manipulated to support democrat politics and public policy. So much for trusting either group of politicians.

Guilt by association …

“The Berkeley project's biggest private backer, with $150,000, is the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. Oil billionaires Charles and David Koch are the nation's most prominent funders of efforts to prevent curbs on fossil-fuel burning, the biggest contributor to planet-warming greenhouse gases.”

One, it can be assumed from the nature of projects funded at Berkeley that institutional funding for such a project would be almost impossible to obtain and that $150,000 is a pittance when considered against the millions the government is spending to push their public policy agenda on the backs of ill-conceived science.

“Temperature data from tens of thousands of weather stations across the globe, many of which have incomplete records, are "’very contentious,’ Muller said in an interview. ‘The skeptics are raising legitimate concerns.’”

True enough.

Leading climate scientists, however, say the three most in-depth temperature studies agree on the overall severity and pace of global warming.”

All three studies are associated with climate scientists who apparently have assumed the roles of activists and some of whom are personally suspected of compromising the science, the methodology, the data and the findings.

The truth emerges …

“They worry that the Berkeley effort, and the hearing Thursday, will add to public confusion on a topic that is as politically polarized as it is scientifically complex.”

How do these scientists know, in advance, what the findings might show? Unless they have manipulated the data in detectable ways that will not stand up to scrutiny? As to public confusion, if the pro-global warming scientists cannot make a clear, compelling and supportable case, shouldn’t that be a “red flag” that corrupt and self-serving politicians are also up to no good?

“Muller said Koch and other contributors will have no influence over the results. ‘We have no prejudice, no preconception of what we are going to get,’ he said, adding that the Koch donation was less than the $188,587 contributed by the federal Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, where Muller is a senior scientist.”

What: a preconceived notion?

"’Global warming is a serious problem,’ Muller said in a lecture at UC Berkeley last week. ‘But people simply don't believe the story anymore because the story was exaggerated.... Not a single polar bear has died because of receding ice.’"

Does this mean this Berkeley researcher really has an open mind and is able to also consider the notion that the climate is cyclical and we may be regressing to a cooler mean global temperature?

“The Berkeley study comes as efforts to curb planet-heating emissions from industrial plants and motor vehicles are under attack in Congress. The Supreme Court in 2007 said the Environmental Protection Agency could regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, but Republicans and coal-state Democrats, citing uncertainty over the science, are sponsoring legislation to thwart that effort.”

Conflating the research with public policy.

Temperature data were the focus of the so-called 2009 Climategate controversy, in which opponents of greenhouse gas regulation alleged that leaked emails from a British climate laboratory showed manipulation of weather station records. Five U.S. and British government and university investigations have refuted the charges.”

The investigators investigated themselves are were concentrating on methodology and other process-driven events. They did not look at the science, the data, the problems with the peer-review studies – and not surprising, most of these investigations mentioned that the statute of limitations for official investigations and prosecutions had passed.

“The Berkeley effort is hardly new. Over the last two decades, three independent scientific groups have analyzed international data from thousands of weather stations. Using different combinations of stations and varying statistical methods, all have come to nearly identical conclusions: The planet's surface, on average, has warmed about 0.75 degrees centigrade (1.4 degrees Fahrenheit) since the beginning of the 20th century.”

Assuming the data is correct – are we going to destroy our economy for a one-degree rise in temperature over decades. Especially when rising temperatures and rising carbon dioxide levels may be beneficial to man?

Killing the messenger before the message is sent …

“Scientists involved in those studies said they would welcome new peer-reviewed research, but they contend that Muller is violating scientific protocol by publicizing his project, underway for months, before it produces any vetted scientific papers.”

Two big lies in a row. One, from the climategate e-mails we can see the degree to which the leadership of the global warming movement subverted the peer-review process to kill or weaken unfavorable research papers. And two, there is no scientific protocol for publicizing a project. It is done at the beginning of all projects, so this assertion is pure Saul Alinsky – a trick to cloud the credibility of the research before the findings are even known.

"’I am highly skeptical of the hype and claims,’ said Kevin Trenberth, who heads the Climate Analysis Section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a university consortium. ‘The team has some good people but not the expertise required in certain areas, and purely statistical approaches are naive. I suspect they have an agenda.’"

You mean like your teams without credible statisticians approving manipulations before they were made. Oh, and by the way, didn’t some of the original datasets go missing after the manipulated data was misrepresented as the raw data? Kevin Trenberth was in the middle of the climategate kerfuffle, most notably for questioning the methodology.

From: Kevin Trenberth <trenbert@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600
Cc: Stephen H Schneider <shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Myles Allen <allen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, peter stott <peter.stott@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, "Philip D. Jones" <p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Benjamin Santer <santer1@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Tom Wigley <wigley@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Thomas R Karl <Thomas.R.Karl@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Gavin Schmidt <gschmidt@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, James Hansen <jhansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, Michael Oppenheimer <omichael@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Hi all

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies
baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather).

Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth's global
energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.

That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn't decadal. The PDO is already reversing with the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since Sept 2007. <link removed>
Kevin

<Source>

Continuing …

“The Koch donation, to many, confirms those suspicions. ‘Why would a scientist accept funding from an organization with no interest in advancing the science?’ asked Benjamin Santer, an atmospheric scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.”

Talk about character assassination. Perhaps if Santer were a more honest observer, he might ask: “Why are scientists lining up at the government trough for multi-million dollar grants when they know that their grant will be pre-judged on supporting the government’s preferred political policy?”

“Muller said his team would submit to peer-reviewed journals data that ‘measure the warming with more precision than in the past.’"

This may be BS – the ultimate precision of the process is predetermined by the ultimate precision and placement of the instrumentation and the statistical methods used to manipulate the data. To think that any credible scientist can estimate the global temperature to two-places of significance under these circumstances is ludicrous, to say the least. And how does this “impartial” scientist know that it will measure warming? What years will he include in the study – although we can see that the Earth has been warmer, colder, with more CO2 and less CO2 – all before the industrial revolution? Will he cherry pick the data?

A Berkeley-style head-fake?

“He acknowledged that his study could find that issues raised by skeptics have only a "marginal effect" on temperature estimates. "Don't expect any huge surprises," he warned. "The surprises may be in the fine tuning.’"

Is it possible that this is a head fake and this is a faux-attack to lend legitimacy to any findings which seem to corroborate the consensus? Considering the time, effort and money which has been expended on spinning these stories, one can only wonder.

“Muller and many of those who question the temperature data are drawn to the ‘urban heat island’ phenomenon, maintaining that gauges may be registering latent heat from asphalt, concrete and other urban features. Over time, some weather stations that once recorded temperatures in rural areas have been surrounded by cities and suburbs.”

This is a legitimate question. There is no doubt that there is an “urban heat island” phenomenon. But part of the data manipulation was to “adjust for the effect.”

“The Berkeley project is analyzing information from 39,000 stations —five times as many as the other groups, Muller said — and will address the fact that temperature data have been recorded at varying times of day.”

You mean some politicians were prepared to accept the data from approximately 7,800 weather stations across this vast globe to determine public policy which could kill our economy and slide us deeply into socialism? How many stations are there? Where are they situated? Where is their raw data archived? How many have gone inactive or have been moved? How many have older, less accurate instrumentation? Did some of the records go missing on inclement days?

“The project also will put its calculations on the Internet in a ‘transparent’ way, Muller said. Other scientists, he said, ‘put homogenized data online. They don't put up the [software] tools that get you from the raw data to the homogenized data. How do they pick the [weather station] sites? That involves human judgment.’"

This is not as impressive as it sounds. The government dumps tons of data, much of it worthless, on the Internet each and every day; knowing that citizens do not have sophisticated data mining tools to analyze the data on their own. Given the Obama Administration’s definition of transparent, I am already skeptical.

The devil’s disciple?

“'Peter Thorne, a leading expert on temperature data at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C., said the three main data sets by the NOAA, NASA and Britain's Hadley Centre adjust for the heat island effect, as well as for measurements at different times of day. Muller's use of 39,000 weather stations, he said, ‘will make next to no difference’ in the final result.”

Perhaps Thorne used a crystal ball to be able to make that statement or perhaps Thorne knows that this might be a head fake? Who knows?

“Thorne said the data and computer code for the NASA analysis have been publicly online for five years, while NOAA's data and code have been online for three years. Most of the British center's data are online, except for information shared on a confidential basis by commercial groups, and the code is available, he said.”

You mean like the scientists who claimed proprietary interest in the data, code and method and refused for years to turn over their information to legitimate researchers seeking to corroborate their work? Thorne would like to gloss over the fact that many significant emails between scientists have been deleted from systems, datasets have gone missing and that there is no central registry of climate data which can be trusted to this date.

I personally examined much of the code base and the compilation and porting instruction were problematical to say the least.

Discredit the project by innuendo …

“Thorne said he was unsurprised by the Berkeley project's focus on temperature data.’"For those who wish to discredit the science, this record is the holy grail,’ he said. ‘They figure if they can discredit this, then society would have significant doubts about all of climate science.’"

Discuss the hypothesis as if it were incontrovertible fact …

“’But temperature is only one indicator of global warming,’ Thorne said. ‘Even if the thermometer had never been invented, the evidence is there from deep ocean changes, from receding glaciers, from rising sea levels and receding sea ice and spring snow cover. All the physical indicators are consistent with a warming world.’”

And offer your learned assurances that everything is as you say it is …

"’There is no doubt the trend of temperature is upwards since the early 20th century. And that trend is accelerating.’"

If Thorne was this sure and could prove his position with any degree of certainty, he, not the IPCC and Al Gore, would have gotten the Nobel Prize. And if the issue was this simple and easy to prove, we would not be having this debate at this point in time. All of which makes me skeptical of Thorne’s self-serving agenda.

Bottom line …

You certainly cannot trust the corrupt politicians. You can only trust scientists who make their data, programs and methodology public for other scientists to corroborate. And there is no way you can rely on the mainstream media to tell the absolute truth given their dismal performance with the Obama campaign.

Perhaps you need to trust in God and the essential “rightness” of a self-sustaining, self-renewing, self-regenerative nature – and concentrate on improving man’s life in spite of the global climate. Electing “honest brokers” to serve “We the People” and to kill all of the political agenda nonsense which is threatening to turn America into a socialist third-world nation to be plundered at leisure by America’s enemies.

-- steve

Reference Links …

Global warming: Berkeley scientists' climate data review puts them at center of national debate - latimes.com


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



Solving the riddle of "progressive" enlightenment and behavior ...

It came to me while I was doing absolutely nothing in my backyard. The reason for all of the world’s ills at the hands of the progressives. A rather startling conclusion that seemed to fit all of the observations that I have made over the past few years. And a simple, at least by the criteria of Occam’s Razor, explanation for how the progressives get it all wrong.

It appears that the progressives are observing the world using the wrong end of the binoculars.

That’s it in a nutshell.

Of course, you are going to require some form of sophisticated analysis before conceding the point, so I will demonstrate the sheer brilliance of this observation.

Consider the basics of progressive thought from the people trying to convince you that they are part of the perfect people for a perfect planet.

That the planet’s resources are finite and at our present rates of consumption there will be nothing left for succeeding generations.

Hence the preoccupation with population control and the necessity to concede political power over a rather unexceptional population which needs the enlightened “ruling elite” to tell us all what to do.

And that they are demonstrably smarter, given their birth, wealth, education or position than you are and thus it is they that should be running the world.

From this you can clearly see that they are looking through the wrong end of the binoculars.

Ignoring the fact that:

one, most of them appear to be somewhat ignorant of nature’s cyclical and self-regulating (wait for it) nature;

two, they are only looking at a very small subset of the industrialized world, the subset with wealth that can be re-distributed and traded for personal fame, fortune, power and profit; (yes, I know fortune and profit are the same things – but it was so important to the point I mentioned it twice)

three, they have no real clue to the diversity and strength of the biosphere as it currently exists or is likely to exist in the future; and

four, seem to have little regard for the science and technology which seems to be advancing our civilization in all areas except human nature and political thought.

Clearly, their viewpoint through the wrong end of the binoculars is clouded by the mass of unexceptional people contained within their presumed collective politicial structure; making few if any allowances for those truly exceptional individuals who are being (wait for it) individuals.

Had they turned the binoculars around, perhaps they would have seen people as individuals, not a squished- together collective representative of all humanity.

Had they turned the binoculars around, perhaps they would have seen larger vistas and the magnificent engineering accomplishments which has added to the richness and robustness of our daily lives.

And perhaps if they had turned the binoculars around, perhaps they would have seen a very large crowd waiting to throw their collective asses in the street as their political, social and financial failures have wreaked havoc on this world.

Bottom line …

While the progressives look through the wrong end of the binoculars and concentrate on the rationing of artificially constrained and government-controlled resources, they fail to see that nature has decreed that life is endlessly and continuously generative, supportive and self-sustaining. And thus, miss the basic tenets of a free-society as they attempt to achieve the so-called “betterment of man” with their totalitarian schemes. Often producing treatments that cause more pain and suffering than the original disease.

If you are a progressive, turn the binoculars around – it will be an amazing and rewarding experience.

And now that I have solved that problem, I am going to take a nap before I start on whether or not string theory has anything to do with cheese and spaghetti.

That is, until the thought police come round and explain that I should be thinking of healthier, greener things.

-- steve

Reference Links …

Occam’s Razor – (lex parsimoniae) is an observation that among the solutions to complex problems with competing hypotheses, the solution that requires the fewest assumptions and manipulations is generally the best answer to the problem.


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



Michigan: Scaring the democrats into honesty?

Well maybe not that far, but …

This is the bill that has the progressive democrats in such democrat-run cities such as Detroit running to their union buddies to finance campaigns against anyone associated with Michigan House Bill 4214 in order to kill one of the most important and far-reaching pieces of legislation passed in years.

This legislation would allow state-appointed managers to take over the management of cities and school districts which have been declared to be in a state of fiscal emergency. And in some extreme cases, tossing out elected officials, requiring new elections, setting aside union contracts and selling, if necessary municipally-owned properties.

Here is the description …

Michigan House Bill 4214, known as the “Local Government and School District Fiscal Accountability Act, became effective March 16, 2011 …

AN ACT to safeguard and assure the fiscal accountability of units of local government, including school districts; to preserve the capacity of units of local government to provide or cause to be provided necessary services essential to the public health, safety, and welfare; to provide for review, management, planning, and control of the financial operation of units of local government and the provision of services by units of local government, including school districts; to provide criteria to be used in determining the financial condition of units of local government, including school districts; to permit a declaration of the existence of a local government financial emergency and to prescribe the powers and duties of the governor, other state departments, boards, agencies, officials, and employees, and officials and employees of units of local government, including school districts; to provide for placing units of local government, including school districts, into receivership; to provide for a review and appeal process; to provide for the appointment and to prescribe the powers and duties of an emergency manager; to require the development of financial and operational plans to regulate expenditures, investments, and the provision of services by units of local government, including school districts, in a state of financial stress or financial emergency; to provide for the modification or termination of contracts under certain circumstances; to set forth the conditions for termination of a local government financial emergency; and to repeal acts and parts of acts. <Source>

Michigan Governor Rick Snyder knows what he is doing …

Here is a governor who has experience with accounting, the law and entrepreneurial companies. Almost a prescription for a turnaround expert who can bring sanity to the decaying rustbelt that is Michigan.

“After graduating from Battle Creek Lakeview High School a semester early, Rick earned three degrees from the University of Michigan, all by the age of 23. He obtained his Bachelor's degree with high distinction in 1977, his MBA with distinction in 1979 and a JD in 1982.”

“Following a successful career with Coopers & Lybrand (now PricewaterhouseCoopers), where he became a partner in six years, Rick left his home state of Michigan to help manage Gateway computers. As the 763rd employee to join the company, he guided the growth of Gateway until it became a Fortune 500 company with over 10,000 employees. During these years of rapid growth, Rick was promoted to President and Chief Operating Officer of the company. He ran the day-to-day operations of Gateway and worked directly with Ted Waitt - the founder of the company.” <Source>

Bottom line …

Here is a man who scare the bejesus out of corrupt and complacent democrats who have plundered the state’s municipalities for years. Only time will tell whether or not Governor Snyder can make a real difference.

But one thing is certain. If he didn’t try, the downward spiral of decay, crime and corruption under democrat-run regime would continue.

-- steve


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



What?

Scary thought: today is the day people in the future will dream about - so many choices for the GOP ... And now we are stuck with a 'tardo .. (no offense)!


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



Ask Microsoft?

Why are people spending their money on buying things which waste time rather than spending their hard-earned money on things that save time?


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



Subverting the Constitution one administrative Rule/Regulation at a time ...

Unfortunately, the progressive party, the democrats, has become the party of participle-parsing lawyers who write their own loopholes into laws and obtain from the courts that which they cannot obtain at the ballot box. Primarily because it is usually anti-America and runs counter to common sense.

Now we are faced with another round of gun-grabbing rulemaking designed to subvert the Constitution’s Second Amendment by making gun ownership unnecessarily difficult and costly for the average American. Never you mind the fact that the government wants you to be dependent on the government and thus is willing to sacrifice your God-given right to self-defense while enabling the thugs and criminals who have no respect for the law and don’t obtain their weapons in a lawful manner.

It appears that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, unlike the other agencies (FAA, FCC) who promote the industries they regulate , wants to keep you from purchasing weapons in order to bring about a progressive utopia like that found in Mexico, Cuba and other socialist/communist nations.

So you need to step up to the plate and take action now …

From the Firearms Coalition

Take Action to Stop Pending Gun Ban

(Washington, DC, March 22, 2011) The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) is seeking public comment on their recent “study” on the importability of certain shotguns. It is critical that rights supporters express their objections to this “study” and its pending implementation in no uncertain terms. A strong showing of opposition can help to stiffen the spines of members of Congress and a poor showing will absolutely be pointed to as proof that people support expanded importation bans.

Comments need to be clearly opposed to expanding import bans and, most importantly, they must be submitted in a timely fashion. Intending to send a comment, but never actually getting around to it, does no one any good. The comment period is open now through the end of April. Comments can be submitted via email to shotgunstudy@atf.gov or by fax to (202) 648-9601.

Below is a sample comment you can paraphrase or simply cut and paste into your own email:

Subject: I Oppose Further Restrictions on Shotgun Imports.

I strongly oppose further restrictions on the importation of shotguns and disagree with the findings in the ATF shotgun study.

The constitutional authority for import restrictions based on a vague “Sporting Purpose Test” is highly suspect in light of the recent Heller and McDonald Supreme Court decisions and the Court’s previous decision in Miller.

Under the definitions contained in this study, virtually all pump-action and semi-auto shotguns would be banned because all of them are capable of accepting a magazine – box or tube – capable of holding more than 5 rounds. This and other characteristics determined to be “military” in the study are utilitarian and often significantly enhance a gun’s usefulness, particularly for people with disabilities. Denying access to certain designs or features can effectively serve to disarm (for personal defense and sporting purposes) vast numbers of disabled veterans and others with disabilities resulting in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

There are a variety of popular and growing sports which utilize shotguns with “military” features. These guns are dominant in USPSA, IDPA, IPSC and other popular shooting sports. Refusing to recognize these sports as they relate to shotguns based on the implications such recognition might have on rifle and pistol importability is disingenuous at best.

Applying import restrictions does little more than increase costs and complicate compliance for US shooters and gun owners. Foreign manufacturers remove features and adapt their firearms to comply with US import restrictions and then US shooters modify the firearms back to the desired, original configurations. This can be expensive and legally dangerous since failing to comply with obscure provisions of the laws related to altering imported firearms can result in unintended commission of multiple felonies which carry serious penalties.

ATF should shelve all plans to implement any of the findings of this study.

Respectfully submitted,

# # #

Everyone who cares about overreaching government bureaucracy should immediately send an email to shotgunstudy@atf.gov including the above points. Cutting and pasting from this article is encouraged. Participation is much more important than originality or eloquence.

One of the most important things about this ATF “study” and proposed shotgun importation ban is that it lays the groundwork for much broader, general shotgun restrictions. Importation is not the only place where federal gun laws apply this unconstitutional “sporting purpose test,” it is also found in the National Firearms Act (NFA), the laws dealing with machineguns and destructive devices. Under the NFA, any firearm with a bore greater than .5 inch is a “destructive device” – in the same category as mortars and Howitzers. The only exception is for “shotguns which the secretary finds are generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes.” If the secretary (in this case Attorney General Eric Holder) finds that certain shotguns are not importable because they are unsuitable for sporting purposes he must then explain why virtually identical guns, with the same features, are considered suitable for sporting purposes with regard to the NFA. How can he declare them non-sporting on the one hand and not declare identical guns as non-sporting on the other? There can be no doubt that the Brady Bunch and other gun control zealots will be asking that question loudly if ATF and Holder move forward with current import restriction plans.

If these proposed rules for shotgun importation are not stopped now, virtually every pump-action and semi-auto shotgun in existence could be banned – not just from importation, but from possession or transfer. The guns would fall under the same harsh restrictions currently applicable to machineguns.

Please do not delay taking action on this. Your voice matters. Send your comments to shotgunstudy@atf.gov and cc your email to both of your US Senators and your Representative. Please also add info@FirearmsCoalition.org in your cc so we can get an idea of how much response is being generated.

Please forward this alert to your friends and post it or a link to www.FirearmsCoalition.org on blogs and forum sites.

Those familiar with The Firearms Coalition know that we do not traffic in hype or fear-mongering. We do not cry wolf unless there is really a wolf in the camp - and folks, there is a wolf in the camp! Take action NOW! This is just the beginning of this fight and it is important that we bring everything we've got into the first round.

Send your comments to shotgunstudy@atf.gov. Include copies to your elected servants in Washington and cc info@FirearmsCoalition.org.

This Alert and much more is available at www.FirearmsCoalition.org where you can opt in or out of receiving these Alerts and The Firearms Coalition’s bi-monthly newsletter, The Knox Hard Corps Report.

Copyright © 2010 Neal Knox Associates – The most trusted name in the rights movement. Permission to reprint granted with inclusion of this copyright statement and www.FirearmsCoalition.org.

Bottom line …

The progressives are out to tax or criminalize almost every human activity that cedes power to the individual and assures that the collective cannot simply declare themselves to be the rulers of our nation. The Second Amendment was written to protect Americans from governmental tyranny, self-defense was a given at that point in time … not to protect the rights of Americans to hunt or to punch paper targets.

While I do not believe that anyone should have the right to possess a personal nuclear weapon or anti-aircraft missile for self-defense, more restrictive gun rules and regulations are severely eroding both our Nation’s ability to respond to local emergencies as well governmental tyrannies.

The simple fact is that the first responders, the police, fire and medical people are unlikely to be of any assistance in a true emergency. And unlike Japan, many of our inner cities are more likely to see looting and the highjacking of your emergency supplies than not.

Many of the democrat-run cities have clearly demonstrated what happens when progressive politicians want to disarm the populace for their own personal protection and the protection of the political system which has gone awry. These crime-infested, corrupt, decaying hell-holes are not improved by gun control laws – they are diminished by such laws because honest, law-abiding citizens cannot protect themselves from those who would deprive them of their lives, liberty, freedom and the pursuit of happiness.

Where do you stand?

-- steve


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



Col. Allen West: Can you imagine ANY other politician saying this?

Once more, my admiration for Col. West reaches new heights …

Here is one of the most honorable, honest politicians in the GOP – and who certainly would bring more to the Presidency than Candidate Obama.

-- steve


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



Obama: Damaging America Beyond Repair -- Jamie Gorelick

Clinton Official Embroiled in 9/11 Controversy and Subprime Crisis Reportedly Shortlisted to Run FBI
(CNSNews.com) – The Obama administration reportedly is considering former Clinton administration official Jamie Gorelick, among others, to become the next FBI director. The Wall Street Journal’s Evan Perez first reported the news last week, citing “U.S. officials” familiar with the situation.

It appears that the name of Jamie Gorelick is being floated in the media as a potential nominee to head the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Setting aside that Gorelick is a progressive democrat apparatchik, let us consider exactly how much damage she may be able to do to the United States given a position of trust and authority.

red-flag[3] WARNING:
A CLEAR AND PRESENT DANGER TO THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Jamie Gorelick’s career …

The “Gorelick Wall” -- As the Deputy Attorney General of the United States during the Clinton administration, Gorelick was the lawyer who decided to prohibit collaboration between the intelligence agencies and which could have potentially prevented the tragedy on 9/11. <Source>
Government Powers -- While serving as Deputy Attorney General under Bill Clinton, Gorelick was a proponent for eliminating the use of strong encryption algorithms in private hands and proposed a key-escrow system that would allow the federal government and law enforcement agencies to freely intercept and decode encrypted communications. <Source>
Conflict of Interest –- Appointed by former Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle to serve as a commissioner on the bipartisan National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, which sought to investigate the circumstances leading up to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Which in my opinion was a major conflict of interest since her actions in preventing such an attack should have been investigated fully. <Source>
Cronyism & Corruption? -- Without any qualifications in the mortgage business, Gorelick was appointed to the position of Vice Chairman of Fannie Mae where she earned approximately $26 million serving along with another ex-Clintonista, Franklin Raines, who was later sanctioned for cooking Fannie Mae’s books to boost Wall Street ratings and earn outrageous bonuses for himself and other executives. <Source>

How many “red flags” must be fluttering in the wind before this potential nominee is sidelined?

Bottom Line …

Jamie Gorelick, as the FBI director, would be a clear and present danger to the United States of America. Appointing this life-long progressive democrat to a position of trust and authority would lead to a crisis of faith within the law enforcement and political community. With the keys to the kingdom, there is no telling what documents she might destroy, national secrets she might reveal, political investigations she might undertake or other adverse actions based on advancing the democrat’s progressive ideology.

And lest you think that Clintonistas are not capable of subverting justice for the progressive cause, I would like to take this opportunity to remind you of another committed Clintonista.

Samuel Richard "Sandy" Berger (born October 28, 1945) was United States National Security Advisor, under President Bill Clinton from 1997 to 2001. In his position, he helped to formulate the foreign policy of the Clinton Administration.

Chinese nuclear espionage -- In 1999, Berger was criticized for failing to promptly inform President Clinton of his knowledge that the People's Republic of China had managed to acquire the designs of a number of U.S. nuclear warheads. Berger was originally briefed of the espionage by the United States Department of Energy (DOE) in April 1996, but did not inform the president until July 1997.

Unauthorized removal of classified material -- On July 19, 2004, it was revealed that the U.S. Justice Department was investigating Berger for unauthorized removal of classified documents in October 2003 from a National Archives reading room prior to testifying before the 9/11 Commission, by stuffing them down his pants. The documents were five classified copies of a single report commissioned from Richard Clarke, covering internal assessments of the Clinton administration's handling of the unsuccessful 2000 millennium attack plots. An associate of Berger said Berger took one copy in September 2003 and four copies in October 2003. <Source>

I fear that this is just another attempt to insert progressive democrats into positions of power and authority where they can materially alter historical records and pursue a progressive political agenda at the taxpayer’s expense.

Should Obama nominate this highly unqualified candidate, people should contact their Senators to prevent any Senate confirmation.

-- steve

Reference Links ….

Jamie Gorelick: The Short Bio

Former Clinton Official Paid $26 Million by Fannie Mae Before Taxpayer Bailout Now on Obama Shortlist to Run FBI | CNSnews.com


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell



Col. Allen West: This is the man we need to lead America to a bright future ...

Listen to what Col. West says on radical Muslims and compare this to what that mealy-mouthed anti-America Obama has to say …

-- steve


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell