Previous month:
April 2011
Next month:
June 2011

GUN CONTROL VS CRIME CONTROL: Self-Defense in an unalienable right for everyone ...

There is little doubt in my mind that most progressives continue to confuse gun control with crime control. Many of these fools believe that self-defense using a weapon is not an unalienable right and that individuals should rely on the authorities to protect them from adverse actions of criminals and the deranged.

Of course, any rational person with any degree of common sense knows that the authorities cannot always appear where they are needed, when they are needed. And when seconds count, even a response in minutes is not acceptable.

Of course, the government has a not-so-hidden agenda …

First, they do not agree with the actual purpose of the Second Amendment, which is to prevent governmental tyranny. 

Two, the government, dominated by public employee unions, realizes that a certain amount of crime is necessary to provide the Raison d'être for their existence and ever increasing influence and expanding budgets.

And three, today’s law enforcement people are becoming increasingly and physically afraid of confrontations with armed suspects.

The truth is simple …

You have the right to defend yourself and your family  against the illegal actions of the government, criminals and crazies. Using deadly force as a necessary and appropriate tool to keep you and yours safe.

If you believe that it is unlikely that you will encounter governmental tyranny, think again.

One need look no farther than the unconstitutional activities of the New Orleans Police Department (NOPD) during Hurricane Katrina. Not only did they illegally go door-to-door disarming law-abiding citizens in their homes – removing any protection against looters and others who would victimize these vulnerable people – members of the force have been found guilty of actually killing innocent citizens for no apparent reason.

In a natural disaster or area-wide disturbance, the authorities may be unable to protect you, your loved ones and your assets (including emergency supplies) from armed individuals or bands of marauding looters.

And while you can never fully protect against criminals and crazies, the opportunity for an armed person or even a passerby to stop an attack and mitigate damage should not be denied. Not that we are encouraging vigilantism or assuming the role of police officers, but only using arms to the exigent extent of protecting your life, the lives of your family – and, in appropriate circumstances, the lives of your friends and neighbors. 

Enter the Congress of Racial Equality …

Even CORE, the Congress of Racial Equality, is intervening in a lawsuit supported by the National Rifle Association and the CRPA (California Rifle and Pistol Association) against the restrictive concealed carry policies of San Diego County?  The lawsuit is seeking to overturn a previous U.S. district court ruling that upheld San Diego Sheriff William Gore’s restrictive and unfair policies in issuing permits to carry concealed firearms. The lawsuit (Edward Peruta, et at., Plaintiffs-Appellants versus County of San Diego, et at., Defendants-Appellees) will be heard in the uber-progressive Ninth Circuit (Circus?) Court of Appeals.

CORE: Who they are …

“The Congress of Racial Equality, Inc. ("CORE") is a New York not-for-profit membership corporation founded in 1942 with local chapters throughout the United States, Africa, and other parts of the world. CORE is the third oldest and one of the 'Big Four' civil rights groups in the United States.”

Why CORE is concerned  …

“CORE's interest in this case stems from the fact that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self defense is an important civil right that was denied to African Americans under the antebellum Slave Codes, the Black Codes passed just after the Civil War, and under the Jim Crow regimes that persisted into the twentieth century. In states, such as here, with discretionary licensing and permitting statutes regarding who may exercise Second Amendment rights, the poor and minorities may suffer discrimination.”

CORE’s position …

“The following demonstrates that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to carry arms. The text prohibits infringement of the right to ‘bear arms,’ and does not limit that right to one's house. In Heller, the Supreme Court recognized the general right to carry arms. This is demonstrated by further evidence from the founding period. Having no right to bear arms was an incident of slavery.”

“The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from banning the carrying of arms, including discretionary licensing laws that deny the right to the general public. The Supreme Court in McDonald reaffirmed the fundamental character of the right to bear arms for self defense. The Fourteenth Amendment was understood to guarantee the right to carry
arms free from state infringement, such as through laws that delegate power to officials discretion to grant or deny licenses. Finally, infringement on the right to bear arms is actionable under the civil rights act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983.”

According to Second Amendment advocate Chuck Michel at …

The CORE brief emphasizes how the right to ‘bear arms’ does not stop at one’s doorstep, and gives a historical analysis of the Fourteenth Amendment, discussing how discretionary firearms licensing laws were an incident of slavery.”

Bottom line …

Protecting your Constitutional rights, especially the Second Amendment which reinforces all of them, has never been more important.

Politicians such as Chris Christie and others speak like conservatives but who do not fully support your Second Amendment rights or want to impose onerous gun ownership restrictions should not be given a “second thought.”

What keeps European socialism and communism at bay and prevents the world-wide conquest by totalitarian individuals can be found in America: a strong, workable, freedom-guaranteeing Constitution and an armed populace. It has been often been said by members of the United Nations, that the armed citizens of the United States are preventing the spread of beneficial socialism. Hence, their activities to impose international gun rights in the guise of preventing children from being accidently or deliberately shot. An old “it’s for the children” ploy which is failing to fully resonate in the United States.

But in the final analysis, it is “We the People” that will defend and protect our Constitution, our lives and our way of life.

Be strong. Be safe. Protect yourself and your loved ones. And if the police arrive when they are needed -- hooray.

-- steve

“It is far better to be judged by twelve than carried in a box to your grave by six.” – anonymous

Full disclosure: I am a life member (benefactor level) of the National Rifle Association.

Reference Links …

Unalienable rights …

“The concept of ‘certain unalienable rights’ is evidence that the Founding Fathers of the United States believed in God and for the most part we're strongly religious men with strong beliefs in entitlements bestowed by God upon men, and that these entitlements were so important that no earthly power can rightfully deny them. Therefore, no Government can deny these rights.” <Source>

The Lawsuit|Courtesy of Chuck Michel

The CORE friend-of-the-court brief|Courtesy of Chuck Michel

ProPublica|Law and Order| After Katrina, New Orleans Police Shot Frequently and Asked Few Questions

Feds Find ‘Systemic Violations of Civil Rights’ by New Orleans Police Department

Former Cop Sentenced in Post-Katrina Shooting of Unarmed Civilians at Danziger Bridge

New Orleans Disarmament

"No one will be able to be armed. We are going to take all the weapons." – NOPD Deputy Police Chief Warren Riley

“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

Memorial Day -- 2011

Happy Memorial Day

Michael Ramirez says it all …

Capture2-23-2011-3.27.17 PM4-26-2011-3.17.36 PM5-27-2011-5.05.06 PM


amerikid glitterribbon7

Be safe … knowing that the might of the United States Military is ever vigilant and protecting against those who do not wish us well.

-- steve

Reference Links …

Michael Ramirez Political Cartoons -

“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

Organizing for Obama ...

Once again, the Obama organization is attempting to use the power of community organizing and the Internet to convince those who supported Barack Obama in the last presidential election.

Those who believed that Obama was a post-partisan politician, different from the rest, and a someone who would restore our hopes and bring about a restorative change. No more Washington insiders, no more corruption, waste and fraud. No special interests and lobbyists. No more divisive politics that divided, rather than united, the American people.

Unfortunately, we have all see what Obama has actually accomplished since he was elected.

Implemented socialist policies that promote the “collective” over the “individual.”

Promoted the interests of the socialistic public employee unions to insure that the public does not even have a seat at the bargaining table. These are the very same unions which threaten to bankrupt our municipalities, our states and the federal government -- all by promoting a privileged political class whose jobs are guaranteed for life and with ever-increasing pay, healthcare, perks plus a cushy retirement unavailable to those in the private sector who are urged to sacrifice their own well-being and that of their families to support this cadre of Obama supporters. Obama even attempted to circumvent the use of secret ballots in union organizing activities.

Obama attempted to take control over your personal lives by implementing a draconian healthcare program which would result in denials, delays and death.

Obama attempted to take over control over our economy by regulating the generation, transmission and usage of energy in America through his global warming cap-and-trade scheme.

To this very day, Obama is catering to the illegal aliens who are draining the public and social resources meant for legal, law-abiding citizens. Supporting sanctuary cities who refuse to deport illegal aliens who commit egregious crimes.

Obama has welcomed communists and socialists into the White House and placed them in positions of great power – bypassing the Senate confirmation process and allowing them to form a “shadow government” which rivals authorized cabinet-level positions.

Obama continues to play the race card and appears to support race-baiters like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

He is pandering to the entitlement culture using lies about cuts to entitlements.

He is lying and scaring senior citizens about a loss of Medicare as he defunded the Medicare Advantage program by $500 BILLION dollars.

So why should we re-elect Obama to finish what he started: placing the progressive democrats in positions of perpetual political power where they can reign, not govern, over us all? 

Obama is trying to sucker you into your own self-destruction. In his own words …


Friend --

You've been hearing from Messina about our overall strategy and what's at stake in this election. My job as the Battleground States Director is to report back to you on the nuts and bolts of what we're building in communities across the country.

I want to take you through it in detail, so you can understand how to get involved and shape our organization where you live.

We're going to build it from the ground up. And we're going to use this summer to roll out our team model and organizing structure through grassroots planning sessions in homes and by videoconference.

Here's the full briefing – <link deleted> --  and if you're willing to get involved now and be part of the organization in your community, let me know:

Some of these planning sessions are already under way, and we're starting to get some feedback. I got one email from a supporter named Steven, who hadn't been involved at all since 2008, and only went to his grassroots planning session on a whim.

As a result, he's all-in -- he wants want to get involved fast, and also has all sorts of new ideas for how he can apply his skills better this time and which friends and colleagues he can reach out to about joining the campaign.

The subject line of his email about the meeting was "Inspiring night."
This kind of organization-building isn't just an electoral strategy -- it's a reflection of what we believe in as voters and citizens. It's a commitment to the kind of politics that begins in backyards and living rooms and empowers every single American to get involved and organize for the changes they want to see.

At a moment when it feels like the only thing that separates our opponents is how quickly they want to end Medicare as we know it, winning this way -- driven locally, powered by the grassroots -- will be a rebuke to those in Washington who still think that people across the country don't have a seat at the table where decisions are made.
I'm asking you to pull up a chair. If you're willing to get involved now, at this crucial point in the campaign, let me know here:< link deleted>


Mitch Stewart
Battleground States Director
Obama for America

P.S. -- If you don't have time to watch the video, here's a quick rundown on where we stand:

-- Messina mentioned the one-on-one initiative last month. We're going to talk with every person who volunteered or made a donation last time. So the staff and I started making calls and meeting with people one-on-one. And then those people started having their own one-on-ones with others. So far more than 75,000 individual conversations have happened across the country. The results are a massive army of newly energized volunteers, plus thousands of pages of ideas and feedback that will inform how we shape our organization nationally.

-- Grassroots planning sessions are under way across the country -- we've had dozens so far with more than a hundred still to come. Everyone has been or will be invited to one.

-- You heard about our Summer Organizer Program when we asked you to help recruit them. Well, there are now hundreds across the country, and they start next week. We were pleasantly surprised that the number of applicants far exceeded what we saw when we launched this program in 2008, and you'll be hearing more about them -- and in many cases from them directly -- in the coming months.

Bottom line …

Obama is an empty-suit politician who has been caught in a number of lies … and is trying to bring about redistributive change to bankrupt America and bring them under the control over the international socialist regime.

Remember when you vote – Obama has done little or nothing of note; not that he does not take credit for everything and anything positive. Throwing his political baggage under the bus as he attempts to win our vote and a chance to complete his nefarious work.

Don’t let him succeed. Elect and honest broker for “We the People.” A constitutional conservative who will view America as an exceptional place – unlike Obama.

Vote as if your life depended on it, because this time it surely does.

-- 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

ClimateGate scientists upset at "freedom of information" laws ...

In science everything should be open and subject to skepticism, scrutiny, verification and re-verification. Except when you get to the so-called “science of global warming,” where it has been revealed that individual scientists did everything in their power to manipulate the peer-review publishing process and de-rail freedom of information requests which would have mandated the production of their computer programs and datasets so that other researchers could verify and extend their work.

Confirming the earlier scandal about cherry-picked data, the [ClimateGate] e-mails show CRU [Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia] scientists conspiring to evade legal requests, under the Freedom of Information Act, for their underlying data. It's a basic rule of science that you don't just get to report your results and ask other people to take you on faith. You also have to report your data and your specific method of analysis, so that others can check it and, yes, even criticize it. Yet that is precisely what the CRU scientists have refused. <Source>

So why are we not surprised that the progressives at the U.K. Guardian are reporting …

Freedom of information laws are used to harass scientists, says Nobel laureate -- Sir Paul Nurse says climate scientists are being targeted by campaigns of requests designed to slow down their research”

“Sir Paul Nurse, who won the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 2001, says information laws are being abused to intimidate scientists.”

“Freedom of information laws are being misused to harass scientists and should be re-examined by the government, according to the president of the Royal Society.”

Excuse me!

The work of the climate scientists is mostly funded by governments seeking to implement public policies that would benefit themselves and their special interest supporters and you want them to curtail the flow of information. Information which, in the recent past, has proved that the scientific process was subverted, finding manipulated, data destroyed and the results rendered questionable?

“Nobel laureate Sir Paul Nurse told the Guardian that some climate scientists were being targeted by organised campaigns of requests for data and other research materials, aimed at intimidating them and slowing down research. He said the behaviour was turning freedom of information laws into a way to intimidate some scientists.”

One, the research was paid for by the taxpayers of their respective countries and should be freely published in peer-reviewed journals. The underlying data, collected at great public expense and difficulty, should also be made publicly available on a website – much in the same manner found in other scientific disciplines. 

Two, as for honoring freedom of information requests, one would assume that legitimate requests from scientists, researchers and the media would be honored and that frivolous time-consuming and costly inquiries would be vetted – possibly with the requester paying for the compilation of the requested data if it was not readily available in an electronic form.

“Nurse's comments follow the launch of a major Royal Society study into how scientists' work can be made more open and better used to inform policy in society. The review – expected to be published next year – will examine ways of improving access to scientific data and research papers and how ‘digital media offer a powerful means for the public to interrogate, question and re-analyze scientific priorities, evidence and conclusions.”

There we have it … “inform policy in society!” The purpose of science is to discover elemental and secondary truths about our environment and the objects within it. It is not to drive a particular public or political policy.

Going off the rails into the nether regions of public policy …

“Nurse said that, in principle, scientific information should be made available as widely as possible as a matter of course, a practice common in biological research where gene sequences are routinely published in public databases. But he said freedom of information had 'opened a Pandora's box. It's released something that we hadn't imagined ... there have been cases of it being misused in the climate change debate to intimidate scientists.’”

Facts as well as hypotheses should always be open to questions. You can’t really misuse scientific information –- you can manipulate it to support a viewpoint – but that manipulation should be subject to scrutiny, verification and debate. It is known that some original climate research datasets have been destroyed, others contain unspecified manipulations to replace missing data, out-of-range data or to make the data more amenable to computer simulations. Each of the derivative datasets should have been separately labeled and the manipulations (and reasons for the manipulations) clearly identified. As the ClimateGate e-mails revealed, data handling was sloppy, documentation sparse and scientists refused to release the data underlying their published works.

Now we are getting closer to the truth about why scientists are becoming intimidated …

“I have been told of some researchers who are getting lots of requests for, among other things, all drafts of scientific papers prior to their publication in journals, with annotations, explaining why changes were made between successive versions. If it is true, it will consume a huge amount of time. And it's intimidating."

Yes it is both true and warranted. It appears that the ClimateGate e-mails indicated a pervasive pattern of attempting to subvert the peer-review publishing process. By intimidating reviewers, editors and publishers … and by influencing the content of the articles that were being published. Many of these requests are coming from non-scientists who are seeking information on the extent to which the so-called climate science community, especially the biggest names, attempted to subvert the process. Wrongdoers are always intimidated by requests for information which will reveal their complicity in suspect activities.

It was possible some requests were designed simply to stop scientists working rather than as a legitimate attempt to get research data, said Nurse. ‘It is essential that scientists are as open and transparent as possible and, where they are not, they should be held to account. But at times this appears to be being used as a tool to stop scientists doing their work. That's going to turn us into glue. We are just not going to be able to operate efficiently.’"

Producing success drafts of articles for comparison is not time-consuming if the researcher uses a methodical archiving system … which many do not. I agree that the efforts of responding, in detail, to multiple parties is time-consuming and, in some cases, cannot be morally, scientifically or legally justified.

But Nurse is overlooking the fact that it should be the scientific academies and the members themselves conducting an unbiased investigation. And if these so-called scientific “authorities” are biased or unable to conduct such a review, perhaps it is time for an unbiased duly-constituted commission to step in. With scientists – not lawyers – managing the process.

The government has given rise to the problem with the  biased influence in the funding process and cannot be trusted to be a fair and impartial arbiter of scientific issues …

“Nurse said the government should examine the issue, and think about tweaking freedom of information legislation to recognise potential misuse. Otherwise, he predicted, FoI [Freedom of Information] aggression could be in future used by campaigners to cripple scientific research in many other controversial areas of science, such as genetically modified crops. "I don't actually know the answer but I think we have a problem here. We need better guidelines about when the use of freedom of information is useful."

What are they hiding?

“Evidence of the aggression first began to emerge when personal emails and documents were stolen from the University of East Anglia's (UEA) servers in November 2009 and leaked on to the internet. Climate sceptics seized on the contents as evidence that apparently showed scientists were colluding to keep errors in their research hidden and prevent rivals' research from being published at all.”

Taken at face value, the e-mails did present a compelling picture of scientific misconduct including, but not limited to, evidence of highly manipulated datasets, missing data, subverting the peer-review process and other scientific misdeeds including requests to destroy e-mails and to limit freedom of information requests.

The white-wash that was necessary to preserve funding and stem lawsuits …

“In an independent inquiry a year later, the scientists at the UEA's climatic research unit (CRU) were cleared of any misconduct, but Muir Russell, the former civil servant who led the investigation, found a ‘consistent pattern of failing to display the proper degree of openness,’ although he stressed he had no reason to doubt the CRU team's honesty or integrity.”

Of course not … the inquiry conveniently steered clear of those things which it believed were beyond the “statute of limitations” for prosecution – so didn’t exist at all.

Hiding behind the law …

"’The current fog of ambiguity concerning, for example, drafts of research papers produced in other countries is deeply damaging to our scientific standing,’ said Tom Ward, pro vice-chancellor at UEA. ‘Part of the discussion should be informed by what we can learn from Scottish and US law, which explicitly recognise the need to extend some protection to research in progress.’"

These are scientists who should be keeping meticulous records and accounting for the funds that are being spent. Science is a law unto itself – guided by the truth and  nothing but the truth. Introducing laws to protect research which will always be classified as a “work in progress” to prevent scrutiny is very attractive for those seeking to subvert the scientific process. Why, may I ask, are we having all of these problems in climate research and not in other disciplines? Could it simply be that this is a high-stakes game where political power and continued funding, not science, is driving the inquiry?

But there appears to be a “win” for science on the horizon …

It appears that even some governmental  authorities were thwarted in their attempt to ascertain the truth about climate research.

As reported by the Washington Times …

“Virginia Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli II says a judge's order compelling the University of Virginia to turn over thousands of pages of climate-change research will likely alter his own battle for the long-sought documents.”

“The Republican attorney general and state Delegate Robert G. Marshall have battled the university for more than a year over the release of documents related to the work of former professor Michael Mann. Mr. Mann had been involved in a leaked email exchange with colleagues that climate-change skeptics claimed showed scientific misconduct.”

Perhaps there is a technological solution to the problem …

I propose a publicly-funded, publicly accessible archiving system in which all public research data is stored. Access to the system would be strictly controlled and monitored. The raw data produced at public expense would be made available to all. Data generated by public/private contracts would be secured; to be released at publication or at a time deemed appropriate by statutory authority.

Each successive manipulation of the base data set would be accompanied by a new dataset and a description of the purpose and details regarding the manipulation. The new dataset along with explanatory materials will be archived under the raw dataset’s identification. Where two or more datasets are merged or manipulated, a cross-reference to those datasets would also be archived. All of the data in the archived may be labeled: public-open access; private-work-in-progress; and the release levels set by the governing committee. When a paper is published, the cross-references to the data used could be included in the paper which would satisfy the scientific community, the publishers and the public. In the case of proprietary manipulations, the data would remain confidential until published or marked for discard. For data not contained in the database, but referenced in a scientific journal, the data would be uploaded to the site.

Bottom line …

I have read the e-mails in question and they raise serious and troubling issues. Even though Al Gore and others claim that there is a scientific consensus on the subject of global warming, this is far from the truth.

Time for science to clean house and restore integrity to the scientific process … especially when the purpose of certain research projects is to drive public policy discussions which are of significant political importance as they affect all taxpayers and citizens.

-- steve 

Reference Links …

Freedom of information laws are used to harass scientists, says Nobel laureate | Politics | The Guardian

Ruling alters climate-papers fight - Washington Times

Climategate: Mann Ordered Wahl To Delete Emails

Excerpt: Climategate: Mann Ordered Wahl To Delete Emails

At the same time in 2008, across the ocean, David Holland had been reading McIntyre’s work and he had issued an FOIA request to the Climatic Research Unit–CRU. That FOIA request covered all correspondence coming in and out of CRU relative to chapter 6 of AR4. The hunt for the source that was feeding Briffa was on, with Holland leading the charge. At CRU, FOIA officer Palmer instructs the team that they must do everything “by the book” because Holland will most certainly appeal a rejection letter.

In that context, Jones writes the famous email to Mann. Jones requests that Mann delete his emails and he requests that Mann contact Wahl and have Wahl delete his emails. Is Jones covering his bases in case of an appeal? Is he covering his bases against an FOIA request that might be served on Mann and Wahl in the US? In any case, he appears to be conspiring with others to deny Holland his FOIA rights.

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.We will be getting Caspar to do likewise. I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper

[Reading this work will also illustrate how the inquiry was handled and why it cannot be trusted – 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

Gun Owner's Legislative Emergency: Preserve Your Rights -- Act Now!

If you believe in protecting and preserving the Second Amendment, you need to stand tall and take action NOW!

Here is an emergency communication from the Firearms Coalition …

Immediate Action Needed – Window Closes Tuesday!!

Copy the text of the email below or rewrite it in your own words and email it to:

The comment period for the ATF’s proposed “temporary,” emergency regulation requiring firearms dealers to file reports every time someone purchases more than one semi-auto long gun was reopened, but that comment period closes this Tuesday, May 31.

During the last comment period on this gun owners were outnumbered by the prohibitionists. That should NEVER happen! We outnumber them 10 to one and our response to outrageous proposals like this should reflect that numbers advantage.

The ATF claims the reporting is necessary to combat the flow of firearms across the border into Mexico, but in light of the “Gunwalker” scandal currently being investigated in Congress and by the Justice Department Inspector General’s office, it looks like ATF is the problem, not the solution.

Some implications of the Project Gunwalker scandal are that ATF has already been receiving significant, voluntary cooperation from gun dealers in the border states, but that the agency has used that cooperation more to build inflate the numbers of illegally “trafficked” weapons as a way of justifying their existence.

Beyond the complications of Project Gunwalker, the idea of requiring reporting of multiple long gun sales is clearly in conflict with established congressional mandates and restrictions on ATF’s authority. By attempting to push through this major regulatory change without congressional approval (which they could not get), ATF is seriously overstepping their legal authority.

Please copy and paste the following note into an email or write your own and get it submitted as soon as possible. Also, please do the following: Cc so we have some record of responses; Send copies to your Senators and Representative and ask that they send their own notes of opposition to ATF; Be sure to repost this Alert to all of your friends and every pro-gun forum you can find. We must have an overwhelming response to this.

Sample comment:


Subject: Oppose Regulation Expanding Multiple Sale Reporting

I am writing to oppose the Information collection action to register multiple sales of certain rifles with BATFE from the 04/29/2011 Federal Register:

This information collection is both illegal and unnecessary.

* The action proposed is outside the statutory grant of authority to record information about multiple sales of firearms. Title 18 U.S.C. § 923(g)(3)(A) specifically grants the authority to collect multiple sale information on handguns and revolvers. Other firearms are excluded and there is no implied authority to extend this reporting requirement to rifles or any other type of firearm.

* Analysis of the number of firearms seized shows that Mexico is being primarily supplied with firearms by South American countries, NOT the United States. In fact, a STRATFOR report indicates that fully 90% of of the firearms traced in Mexico are NOT coming from the United States, contrary to assertions in the mainstream media:

Additionally, Wikileaks cables have shown the US Government is at least partially responsible for supplying Mexico from the United States: These firearms are NOT from the US commercial market.

* Source documents of the BATFE uncovered by US Senator Grassley and US Representative Issa show that BATFE has been complicit in supplying Mexican Narco-terrorist forces with firearms:

* ”FFL” holders are already required by law to respond to BATFE requests for information on firearms distribution pursuant to criminal investigations: Title 18 U.S.C. § 923(g)(7).

* The regulation contains no provision for the destruction of information collected, which establishes a nationwide registry of “certain types of firearms” as proposed. Because of this the regulation, as proposed, is illegal under Title 18 U.S.C. § 926(a). ”No such rule or regulation … may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established.”

There is a grave potential for this regulation to unduly burden citizens who are collectors or must obtain purchase permits at the local or state level to possess firearms. The proposed regulation does not say what the agency intends to do with the information but ostensibly it would be for criminal investigations. Subjecting law abiding gun owners to this type of investigation under the guise of “information collection” is an overt attempt to prevent them from exercising their 2nd Amendment rights to purchase and own firearms.

This regulatory action should not be approved.

“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

O'Reilly sells out ...

It is now apparent that Bill O'Reilly has moved left -- primarily to counteract Beck (who left under difficult circumstances) and Sean Hannity (who O'Reilly reportedly hates). Anything to preserve Fox's ratings as 2012 approaches. Especially since so many presidential candidates were hired as commentators and consultants.

O'Reilly is a smarter version of Ted Baxter. Probably befriending Beck since his ratings at 5:00 pm would have challenged O'Reilly's dominance should he have been given a prime-time slot.

It now appears that Fox is to GOP politics as GE/NBC was to progressive politics.

Only Limbaugh remains the bastion of conservatism in the radio world.

“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

A healthcare conspiracy theory that bears investigation ...

Here is a story about waste, fraud and corruption that bears repeating …

The Obama Administration rejected the offer of IBM to supply the Healthcare Administration with specialized software which would reduce Medicare and Medicaid fraud by approximately $900 BILLION … enough to pay for the preliminary portion of ObamaCare. Free of charge -- to prove the systems capabilities. The Obama Administration not only rejected the offer once – but twice.

This was not a secret deal, it was widely reported …

So why did Obama turn down IBM’s offer which would have benefited all healthcare recipients?

One, reason, which is relatively understandable in the course of normal business relations, is related to the political lobbying of vendors who were opposed to giving IBM a major advantage in supplying a critical system to the government without a lengthy and costly competitive bidding procedure. Both profits and political jealousy seem to have been key motivations.

Two, the second reason involves a conspiracy theory that needs to be investigated. Basically, the insurance gatekeepers of the healthcare system profit mightily from the waste, fraud and abuse of the system because they are reimbursed for such fraudulent or wasteful activities by taxpayer dollars. Therefore, a reduction in waste, fraud and abuse would also result in a reduction in their profits – and cushy executive bonuses.

Holding Obama and the democrats accountable in 2012 …

There is little or no doubt in my mind that Obama and his fellow travelers are attempting to hijack the United States economy for the purposes of implementing their own progressive political ideology as well as perpetuate control over major government activities by installing a permanent progressive cadre of unelected officials with the power to extend the power of the progressive democrats long after Obama leaves office – no matter who inhabits the White House or controls the Administration in the coming years.

One only needs to see that Obama’s global warming and environmental initiatives would give politicians control over energy generation, transmission, usage and pricing – the guts which drive the economic engine of the United States.

Similarly, control over the administration of healthcare would grant the government similar control over individual citizens – literally giving the government the power to decide which people would live and which people would die. Especially dangerous since the progressive agenda is based on the power derived from managing scarce resources, be they energy- or heath-related. Not to mention their mantra of “population control” to preserve these resources for the “collective” future generation.

Bottom line …

As a data processor who is intimately familiar with computing, many anti-fraud checks and balances can be built into government systems at a relatively small cost as measured against the benefits they provide to the American people.

Whether we are speaking of a tightly-controlled identification card that uses the existing technology of the credit card issuers to check immigration status and eligibility for government programs or checking the validity of medical payments … it is all doable and doable NOW.

Every politician and every administration claims that they are against waste, fraud and abuse of the system. All decry corruption, yet it continues year-after-year –- not only unabated, but continually increasing. The only rational explanation for this phenomenon is corruption. Corruption of politicians who are trading their influence and votes in return for after-office profits, campaign funds, media attention and voter drive supports. How else can you explain the serious conflict of interest involving public employee unions and the politicians – where only the union-supported politicians are seated at the bargaining table across the the very unions who are demanding their fealty and support. Where the American citizen/taxpayer is nowhere to be found.

Perhaps this is why the GOP is putting forth such a weak field of candidates. Because it really does not matter which party is in power as long as the “political class” and the public service unions continue to drain the taxpayer’s wallets with impunity.

We are now at a crossroads, facing a clear and present danger which is more threatening than a nuclear weapon. Governmental/special interest corruption is so prevalent and so malignant as to be threatening the existential future of the America we all know and love.

We must take back our country by electing “honest brokers” to serve “We the People.” No celebrities or hotshots. No squirrely politicians like Ron Paul who simply talk and vote conservative, but lack the capacity to provide both vision and leadership. No divisive players like Sarah Palin who shift the debate to the candidate instead of the problems facing America and the solutions that are immediately required.

2012 is rapidly approaching and we need to remove the democrats, progressives, socialists and communists from our government and public employee ranks. History will prove that Joseph McCarthy, a loud, foul-mouthed drunken legislator was right – they have infiltrated our government and now seem to be driving the national debate and agenda.

Unfortunately, we can no longer trust the mainstream media to speak truth-to-power or honestly report the events of the day. And, unfortunately, we cannot trust those in the alternative media who have turned patriotism into a lucrative profession.

We need to be able to judge for ourselves what is rational and what is crazy – not only voting for the rational, but convincing our family, friends and relatives that conservative values will be their salvation in an age of entitlements which threatens to corrupt and bankrupt the American economic and social system.

Or as they say: “let them speak now or forever hold their peace.”


Reference Links …

IBM exec offers to save $900 billion in health care costs, but Obama turned him down | Barbara Hollingsworth | Beltway Confidential | Washington Examiner

“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

Al Gore -- lying to college graduates?

Former Vice-President Al Gores’ assertion that “climate crisis is the most serious challenge that our civilization has ever faced” is wrong.

First, mankind can do little or nothing to alter the chaotic processes of the climate change that they barely understand. Let alone use deeply flawed and inadequate computer models, based on hypothetical assumptions and highly-manipulated data to put forth scary scenarios of a planetary emergency in progress.

Second, it appears that the sole rationale for putting for apocalyptic climate theories is to both attract media attention and to scare the populace into accepting political policies which would be unprovable and untenable in normal times.

The most serious challenge that our civilization has ever faced is not climate change, it is a corrupt government that has traded its honor in return for campaign contributions, media attention and voter support. Buying the support of well-respected scientific institutions by selectively funding projects which support a self-serving public policy position. Scientists bending their research into studies which will attract institutional support and government funding.

So let’s see what Gore is telling new graduates …

The Utica Daily News is reporting …

“Al Gore addresses Hamilton grads”

“Al Gore, 45th vice president of the U.S., Nobel Laureate and author of An Inconvenient Truth, told Hamilton’s Class of 2011 that the climate crisis is ‘the most serious challenge that our civilization has ever faced,’ and that while the grassroots movement in support of solving the climate crisis is the most powerful in the history of the world, ‘it will be the generation of you in this graduating class that will really bring about change.’ Gore also addressed the political state of our democracy and how decisions made on false assumptions have led to major national challenges.”

“When our nation was debating the wisdom of invading Iraq, public opinion polls showed, at the time the Senate took its vote, more than three-quarters of the American people genuinely believed that the person primarily responsible for the attacks of September 11th, 2001, was Sadam Hussein, the then ruler of Iraq. Whether you agreed with that invasion or not, I believe that all should agree that it is dangerous for a great nation to base important decisions on facts that are manifestly false because decisions by great nations can have long lasting consequences. Because of that decision, based on a false understanding of reality, we are still in Iraq today.”

The irony of what Gore said …

“I believe that all should agree that it is dangerous for a great nation to base important decisions on facts that are manifestly false because decisions by great nations can have long lasting consequences.”

And yet, that is precisely what Al Gore is asking our nation to do. To base important decisions, not on facts, but on computer models developed by those who significantly benefit from their activist promotion of public policies. Or as we saw in “ClimateGate,” the facts were not as important as promoting a toxic ideology.

“In his address Gore said, “We have a debate in our nation as to whether the climate crisis is real. Every national academy of science of every major nation on the planet says it is. Every professional scientific association in every field related to the study of climate says it is. Ninety-eight percent of all climate scientists say it is.

Funny, when you come down to reading those reports – they are cobbled together, not by objective scientists alone, but by a curious mix of politicians, public policy advocates, institutional leaders and very few working scientists. Science is not done by consensus and thee is nowhere the degree of agreement that Al Gore and his cronies suggest.

Mother nature does not take sides and is oblivious to political policy …

Mother Nature has weighed in. If you will think about the events of the last 12 months, 20 million people were displaced in a nuclear armed country when Pakistan suffered the largest flood in its history.” Gore cited examples of the effects of climate change on Australia, the Mississippi Valley, Texas and Russia, where they faced floods, fires and droughts.

First, mother nature, as represented by a chaotic system with integrated and self-regulating feedback loops is mostly incapable of being accurately modeled and the results are mostly independent of  man’s puny attempt to influence the gross natural processed. To believe man can alter the Sun’s output, the Earth’s planetary orbit, the Earth’s rotational dynamics, the underlying vulcanology of the Earth or the largest of the greenhouse gases, water vapor, is ludicrous.

Second, Gore confuses climate (long term trends) with weather (short term events) – especially extreme weather events which are mostly driven by the heat exchange between the oceans and the atmosphere – all driven by the wind circulation which creates storms.

Shading the truth in some cases by not mentioning that some major fires attributed to global warming were a consequence of the environmentalists refusing to allow preemptive brush burning. Thus when lightning strikes a fuel dense region, you are liable to have forest fires of larger size and longer duration. Likewise droughts and floods as well as other extreme weather behavior can be linked more to known weather oscillations than global warming.

An example …

“El Niño/La Niña-Southern Oscillation, or ENSO, is a quasiperiodic climate pattern that occurs across the tropical Pacific Ocean roughly every five years. It is characterized by variations in the temperature of the surface of the tropical eastern Pacific Ocean—warming or cooling known as El Niño and La Niña respectively—and air surface pressure in the tropical western Pacific—the Southern Oscillation. The two variations are coupled: the warm oceanic phase, El Niño, accompanies high air surface pressure in the western Pacific, while the cold phase, La Niña, accompanies low air surface pressure in the western Pacific.”

“Winters, during the El Niño effect, are warmer and drier than average in the Northwest, Northmidwest, and Northmideast United States, and therefore those regions experience reduced snowfalls. Meanwhile, significantly wetter winters are present in northwest Mexico and the southwest United States including central and southern California, while both cooler and wetter than average winters in northeast Mexico and the southeast United States (including the Tidewater region of Virginia) occur during the El Niño phase of the oscillation.”

“In Africa, East Africa, including Kenya, Tanzania and the White Nile basin experiences, in the long rains from March to May, wetter than normal conditions. There are also drier than normal conditions from December to February in south-central Africa, mainly in Zambia, Zimbabwe, Mozambique and Botswana. Direct effects of El Niño resulting in drier conditions occur in parts of Southeast Asia and Northern Australia, increasing bush fires and worsening haze and decreasing air quality dramatically. Drier than normal conditions are also generally observed in Queensland, inland Victoria, inland New South Wales and eastern Tasmania from June to August.” <Source>

Pure speculation without a  shred of proof …

“Gore noted that ‘the scientists are now in a shift, theoretically saying that if asked, could these events could have occurred in the absence of a man-made global warning?; the answer is almost certainly no.’”

First, this statement assumes that global warming is man-made -- which is lunacy; primarily because the Earth has been hotter, colder, with more severe weather events, with less severe weather events, with higher concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide and lesser concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide – all prior to the industrial revolution. And it appears that the climate trends and weather patterns are cyclical and mostly independent of man.

And second, scientists would be speculating on their answers as there is little or no proof of man’s influence on global climate when measured against the noise of climate’s natural variability and large timescales. All of their so-called “proof” is not based on observation, but on inadequate computer models using estimates and assumptions along with compromised and highly manipulated data.

Is this the real question?

But how are we in our democracy supposed to establish the reality of the climate crisis with sufficient resolution to justify the bold and difficulty steps that must be taken in order to solve the climate crisis? Though some damage will be difficult to unwind, there is no doubt that we can if we choose to, solve the climate crisis.

There is no scientific proof that man can solve the climate crisis, if in fact it exists – and is a crisis. Perhaps a better question, a more truthful question, would be to ask how the politicians can implement public policies that benefit themselves and their special interest friends; knowing that such public policies would enlarge the size of government, enlarge the size of a non-productive bureaucracy, raise taxes, raise the cost of all energy, permit wealth redistribution and curtail individual choices and freedoms?

It is more likely that any warming that we are seeing is a consequence of a planet leaving the little ice age … and if patterns hold, we will see the planet similarly cool and re-enter another ice age. Not in our lifetime, but in thousands of years. Which, considered against the beneficial nature of a warmer planet, is hardly the planetary crisis being portray by Gore and his associates.

There is no “true solution” …

“He said ‘the true solution depends upon exactly the kind of learning you have acquired here, and more precisely, the traditions you have acquired here to use the Rule of Reason, search out the best available evidence, and then engage citizens in a fair and reasoned discourse that searches for the best solutions.’”

There are no true solutions to global climate change. But Gore’s assertion about being influenced by the kind of learning you receive is spot on. The progressives, over the years, have dumbed down the curriculum, promoted social advocacy rather than critical thinking. And, as a result, produced decades of functional illiterates who confuse both the argument and the solution with the need to take some form of political action.

“Gore recalled that 50 years ago he listened to President John F. Kennedy challenge the U.S. to put a man on the moon. ‘And I remember hearing so many who said ‘That’s impossible. That was an unwise challenge.’ Gore pointed out that when that Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin did set foot on the surface of the moon eight years later, the systems engineers who were cheering that moment ‘were an average age of 26, which means their average age when they first heard that challenge was 18.’”

This was a technological challenge, capable of being solved by engineering, applied mathematics and physics – and did not involve a speculative hypothesis that resided only as a computer model. The principles of rocketry and the precepts regarding the  maintenance of life in a hostile environment were already known.

But Al Gore lies …

“Encouraging the graduates, he said, ‘We have the capacity; you have the knowledge. We as Americans have the tradition and the resolve to do whatever we choose to do. There is an old African proverb that says ‘If you wish to go quickly go alone. If you wish to go far, go together.’ We have to go far quickly.”

We do not have the capacity or even the requisite knowledge to affect climate on a global scale. We may have the tradition and resolve to take certain actions – but they need to be in the realm of possibility. Not theoreticals based on hypotheticals. 

An example: man could re-engineer the Mississippi levy system to prevent flooding. A massive use of time, energy and money to prevent a rather predictable repeat of a naturally reoccurring  catastrophe. So why haven’t they done it? Because people would demand actual performance and judge politicians on the results of their actions. Something that cannot be said about global climate change. We simply do not know how the chaotic climate system actually works and we cannot predict much more than gross trends – and we certainly cannot affect it if we do not understand it.

Bottom line …

Al Gore goes around the world on private jets making self-serving speeches about global climate change. He rarely mentions that he is profiting from his advocacy and he remains unwilling to debate the issue with qualified opponents such as Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley.

The real crisis that presents a clear and present danger to the United States is governmental and special interest corruption. Not to mention the toxic resurgence in communism which is attempting to use environmental issues to fund and promote their political philosophy.

Perhaps we should be learning to better manage coexistence with extreme weather events and natural disasters rather than chasing a ghost which exists only in the minds of those who can profit from the public policies imposed on a relatively uneducated public during a faux crisis.

And perhaps we would be better served by electing honest brokers to serve “We the People” and investigate those who are attempting to perpetrate a political hoax involving climate on the American people.

-- steve

Reference Links …

Utica Daily News - Local and national news for Utica, The Mohawk Valley and Central New York. - Al Gore addresses

Gore tells grads: Climate crisis 'most serious challenge that our civilization has ever faced'...

Hamilton grads

“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: Warning for the Future?

It has always been our opinion and position that nature will do what nature wants – and that man is incapable of altering the gross dynamics of solar output, the Earth’s orbit, the Earth’s rotational dynamics, plate tectonics and volcanic activity, the movement of the ocean currents and the greatest greenhouse gas of all, water vapor.

Now we find a new study that suggests that a mass extinction of marine life in the oceans during prehistoric times is a warning that the Earth will see such an extinction again because of high levels of greenhouse gases.

Unfortunately, the only gas that seems to be passed is that from scientists pursuing a public policy agenda and the continuance of  the substantial funding they have received over the past few years.

Let’s review:

One, we are speaking about a mass extinction during prehistoric times when man’s influence on the environment was minimal at best.

Two, we are speaking about a period in history where other factors, such as meteor strikes, emerging diseases and evolutionary events may have taken place without recordation. Even the palest of proxies (tree rings, ice cores, mineral deposits) does not adequately describe past events without a large probability of error and is often presented without unknown subsidiary conditions which may have influenced what is being measured.

Three, characterizing limited scientific findings as contributing to a current or future planetary emergency is false, misleading and is often done for political reasons. These findings are often based on a suggestive hypothesis which remains unconfirmed, unproven and, in many cases, unlikely in normal decadal timeframes.

And four, hypothetical events are presented with a degree of certitude in the media which leads the public to believe they are true … rather than presenting them in a more circumspect manner which suggests there might be a probability of occurance sometime in the distant future.

An example … is reporting …

Greenhouse Ocean Study Offers Warning for Future”

“The mass extinction of marine life in our oceans during prehistoric times is a warning that the Earth will see such an extinction again because of high levels of greenhouse gases, according to new research by geologists.”

Notice that the conclusion is presented as fact – and the causal event is linked to a modern condition that has existed over a relatively short, geologically speaking, time span. A condition which can easily be explained by our emergence from the little ice age … as a normal function of nature with no input from man.

“Professor Martin Kennedy from the University of Adelaide (School of Earth & Environmental Sciences) and Professor Thomas Wagner from Newcastle University (Civil Engineering and Geosciences) have been studying 'greenhouse oceans' – oceans that have been depleted of oxygen and suffered from increases in carbon dioxide and temperature.”

Using core samples drilled from the ocean bed off the coast of western Africa, the researchers studied layers of sediment from the Late Cretaceous Period (85 million years ago) across a 400,000-year timespan. They found a significant amount of organic material – marine life – buried within deoxygenated layers of the sediment.”

Again, let us consider a few issues …

One, this is a very small sample from a very specific point on Earth – and one that may not be representative of the general global condition. In essence, the sample size is too small and too local to draw specific conclusions with any degree of probabilistic certitude.

Two, there could be a number of reasons for a layer of sediment to have become deoxygenated. Unfortunately, we might never know what these might have been or if those conditions might reoccur in the future. Predicting the future by looking backwards presumes that there is some steady state cyclical process … and if that is essentially true, we would be most likely heading for another ice age.

"Our research points to a mass mortality in the oceans at a time when the Earth was going through a greenhouse effect, with high levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, and rising temperatures, leading to a severe lack of oxygen (hypoxia) in the water that marine animals are dependent on," Professor Kennedy says.”

Research suggests that there have been times when the Earth has been hotter, colder, with more atmospheric CO2 and with less atmospheric Co2. All without the influence of man and industrialization – sort of making a mockery of anthropogenic global warming. In fact, research indicates that the rise in carbon dioxide lags the rise in temperature, thus leading to the belief it is the warming of the oceans which cause the oceans to release (outgas) carbon dioxide into the atmosphere – so carbon dioxide itself is hardly causal of the temperature phenomenon.

"What's alarming to us as scientists is that there were only very slight natural changes that resulted in the onset of hypoxia in the deep ocean. This occurred relatively rapidly – in periods of hundreds of years, or possibly even less – not gradually over longer, geological time scales, which suggests that the Earth's oceans are in a much more delicate balance during greenhouse conditions than originally thought, and may respond in a more abrupt fashion to even subtle changes in temperature and CO2 levels than previously thought."

The research is alarming only to those scientists who seem to be pursuing a public policy agenda. Of much less concern to those who would rather wait, study and re-confirm the findings before making an apocalyptic prediction. To suggest nature, with its chaotic systems and natural feedback loops, is so sensitive to atmospheric changes in CO2 is to ignore centuries of evidence. And of course, are you willing to cede any government more power, more bureaucrats, more taxes – with higher energy costs and reduced personal freedoms – based on “suggests” and “may respond” – all derived from an inadequate sample with no confirmation that the sample is even indicative of wider conditions?

Another example …

Consider the millions of fish that were just washed up in Redondo Beach (California) on March 8, 2011 – apparently driven there by a toxic algae bloom and the currents. The fish rapidly depleted the oxygen in the area and died. Now people studying the remains of these fish thousands of years from now will note that our oceans were warming, there was rising CO2 in the atmosphere and there was a mass die off in this particular locality. Big effin deal with respect to the planetary dynamics which drive global weather patterns.

Redondo Beach fish die-off: Tests show oxygen levels at 'almost zero' 

Scientists are working to determine what caused oxygen levels to drop so steeply that fish estimated to be in the millions suffocated and deposited a silver sheen of carcasses, many of them sardines, among the rows of docked boats. It may be days before the precise cause is known.

Marine biologists at USC installed oxygen sensors in King Harbor after an algal bloom caused a mass fish die-off in 2005. They are now probing the harbor for clues about the cause of the latest kill, said biological sciences professor David Caron.

“What we're trying to tease apart is whether it's a consequence of algal buildup, a fish buildup or something toxic in the water,” Caron said. <Source>

“Professor Wagner says the results of their research, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), have relevance for our modern world: ‘We know that 'dead zones' are rapidly growing in size and number in seas and oceans across the globe. These are areas of water that are lacking in oxygen and are suffering from increases of CO2, rising temperatures, nutrient run-off from agriculture and other factors.’"

Other factors --  like natural occurrences of algae blooms. I wonder if the good professor knows how much water is in the ocean and how much nutrient run-off from agriculture  it would take to create a significant concentration of biohazards in a wide area. The totality of effects in localized areas, like the one’s studied in this research, may never be known and may never affect anything more than a very small area.

Off to la-la land and computer projections …

“Professor Kennedy says: ‘If you consider that the amount of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere could double over the next 50 years, this will be like hitting our ecosystem with a sledge-hammer compared to the very small changes in incoming solar energy (radiation) which was capable of triggering these events in the past. This could have a catastrophic, profound impact on the sustainability of life in our oceans, which in turn is likely to impact on the sustainability of life for many land-based species, including humankind.’"

Stepping outside of his expertise and research, the good professor is not hypothesizing but is simply speculating with very little basis in observable fact. Less than 50 years ago, some of the very same scientists (Hansen et al) who predict global warming were warning of a possible mini-ice age. All with the same carbon-related cause and with much the same public policy recommendations. And it didn’t happen.

Is the good professor suggesting that he knows that very small changes in incoming solar energy were capable of triggering these events in the past? If so, he has just obviated the man-made cause of global climate events – and, of course, he assumes facts not in evidence. This type of fear mongering, based on a small research sample, that uses language such as “could have a catastrophic, profound impact  …” has no place in the realm of science. Perhaps in science fiction or speculative hypothesis; but not presented to ordinary people in the mass media.

Nature: mankind’s hope?

“Professor Kennedy says the geological record offers a glimmer of hope thanks to a naturally occurring response to greenhouse conditions.”

"After a hypoxic phase, oxygen concentration in the ocean seems to improve, and marine life returns.

Back to flights of rhetorical fantasy …

Our results show that natural processes of carbon burial kick in. Importantly, this rescue comes from the land, with soil-formed minerals acting to collect and bury excess dissolved organic matter in seawater. Burial of that excess carbon ultimately contributes to CO2 removal from the atmosphere, cooling the planet and the ocean.

Again, in the timeframe studied, man was not a factor in global climate change.

More money please …

"This is nature's solution to the greenhouse effect and it could offer a possible solution for us. If we are able to learn more about this effect and its feedbacks, we may be able to manage it, and reduce the present rate of warming threatening our oceans."

This assumes that there is something called global warming and man has the present ability to alter the characteristic responses of nature’s control mechanisms. Which is pure bullpucky.

Bottom line …

It is all about political control and money – and very little of the science involving the subject of global warming is not tainted with non-scientific motivations. In fact, if there is something akin to global warming, perhaps we could find a measurement proxy based on the degree of political insanity and outright corruption of those involved in declaring that they know what’s best for the planet.

Rest assured, man will continue to adapt and thrive until God and nature decides differently.

-- steve


Reference Links …

Greenhouse Ocean Study Offers Warning for Future

“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


There is little or no doubt in my mind that the progressive democrats are continuing to balkanize America in order to promote their toxic socialist ideology. Using the oldest of the communist marketing techniques by creating groups of disaffected and disadvantaged Americans (and illegal aliens), the democrats offer up solutions (more respect, legislative influence, affirmative action and entitlements) in return for support at the ballot box.

Unfortunately, many of those targeted individuals will receive little or nothing in return for their lemming-like votes because, historically, the progressive democrat party refuses to dilute the power of its ruling elites – allowing for the rise of “token community leaders” like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and others of the so-called religious calling who are thought to have control over their respective flocks. Hence the rise of “walking around money” gratuities for certain community and religious leaders who are willing to serve as “Judas goats” in selling out their followers.

Without a coalition of the disaffected or disadvantaged, the democrats would have nothing to sell to the voters. And it is far easier to pander to that group than sell the idea of self-reliance and the sheer effort to compete in a world where the rules favor the wealthy, powerful and well-connected. 

If one desires proof of this assertion, just consider the municipalities and states that are currently governed by progressive democrats – or on occasion by the progressive RINO (Republican In Name Only) like Mitt Romney, Mike Bloomberg, Arnold Schwarzenegger and others of similar ilk.

With all of the billions of dollars pumped into aid programs, why do we still have decaying, crime-ridden inner cities with little or no employment prospects?

Could it be that the money is being siphoned off by politicians and being given to certain politically-connected special interests?

Could it be that the political powers-that-be will go out of their way to resist a large “big box” store -- like Wal-Mart which would bring hundreds of jobs into the area  -- because they do not support union labor?

Could it be that the needs of the inner city community are being sacrificed for political expediency? As demonstrated by legal Black citizens being displaced from their homes and potential employment by illegal aliens because the progressive democrat party believes Hispanics to be the wave of the future? And, of course, the chance to enlarge the membership roles of their largest contributor, the socialist unions?

Where are all of the community leaders who are willing to stand up and tell the simple truth: that their constituents are pawns in a high-stakes game of political chicken – where a win by the party is a win for the party’s ruling elite and those who provided campaign funds and voter support?

How many people have noticed that the progressive democrat party has demanded that the public continue to pay the outrageous demands of the public employee unions; threatening dire consequences and cut backs in public services if these demands are not met? Rather than ask everyone to take a ten-percent pay cut and pay a little more for their benefits (like the private sector), the progressive democrats demand tax hikes and threaten dire consequences.

Why are progressive democrat public officials being allowed by their constituents to ignore their primary responsibility by threatening to cut critical fire, police, medical and sanitation services to preserve the jobs of cubicle workers, art councils, boards and commissions which only serve a relative few? The failure to prioritize assets and services based on the needs of the socialist public employee unions is, in my mind, a criminal conspiracy.

Bottom line …

Never before has the United States faced the clear and present danger of thoroughly corrupt and socialist-dominated (dare I say it – communist-dominated) political influences.

Don’t get me wrong, there is corruption and wrongdoing on both sides of the aisle. And it is not the union members, but their racketeer or communist-influenced leadership that is at fault. Most members cowed by peer pressure or outright violent thuggery that keeps them from taking action.

But as long as we have a secret ballot, we can vote the progressives – in both parties – out of office and replace them with conservatives. And voting them out of office every few years in a voter-imposed version of term limits.

Time to wake up; take action and preserve the America we know and love. And, if you do not love America or are working to make it better – pick a country of your choice, renounce your citizenship and go away.

-- 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