IRAN: Arrogance, stupidity or both?

It one of the most stunning displays of arrogance and/or stupidity, Iran has announced to the world that it has set up a court to try Israelis, in absentia, over crimes Iran says are tantamount to genocide against humanity.

From Reuters …

Iran sets up court to try Israelis over Gaza

“Iran has set up a court to try Israelis for its air attacks on Gaza and is ready to try in absentia any people who Tehran says have committed crimes, a judiciary official said on Tuesday.

“Iran, which does not recognise Israel, has criticized some Arab states and Western countries for not doing enough to stop military action by the Jewish state.”

If one does not recognize the State of Israel, Iran would be hard-pressed to exert any type of judicial jurisdiction over its inhabitants in a court of law. And considering that Israel is a sovereign state recognized by the United Nations, a further claim of interference with a duly constituted authority also could be lodged in the United Nations.

“Iran's top authority, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has urged Muslims to defend Palestinians whatever way they can.”

What you have when a state is controlled by religious zealots is a mish-mash of modern technology based on 7th century moral precepts which are intolerant of any other religion unless it is subservient to your own. This is blatantly unacceptable in modern times and the religion needs to be changed or, more likely, the religious leaders need to be changed.

" ‘The court is in a special branch in Tehran and entrusted with the task of dealing with the executors, planners and officials of this (Israeli) regime who have committed crimes,’ judiciary spokesman Alireza Jamshidi said.

“He said the court was set up based on a 1948 U.N. convention on the prevention of genocide to which Iran is a signatory.”

Islam was founded on the precepts of ethnic cleansing and mass genocide – and its violent practitioners are more likely to be sanctioned by an international court than Israel. In addition, the word of a Muslim cannot be believed by any person whom they believe is an infidel or unbeliever. The religion explicitly sanctions lying and deception as methods for vanquishing your enemies.

“Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki on Tuesday accused Israel of committing ‘genocide against humanity’ in Gaza. He was speaking in a meeting with foreign envoys in Tehran that was broadcast and translated by Iran's English-language Press TV.”

Conveniently, he did not mention the terrorists who sparked this conflict, nor did he mention his nation’s President who has openly threatened to commit genocide against humanity by eradicating Israel from the face of the earth. Perhaps this court should take Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - The President of the Islamic Republic of Iran – into custody for conspiracy to commit genocide against humanity and all of the nuclear technicians who are conspiring with him?

“Jamshidi called on all Palestinians who have been affected by the Israeli operation in Gaza to file complaints. The Israeli officials could be tried in absentia, he added.”

Considering complicit acts of aggression against Israel by his nation which seemed to be providing support to those who attacked Israel with mortar and rocket fire and the United States troops in Iraq with sophisticated penetrator IEDs (Improvised Explosive Devices), a case could be made for taking taking legal, as well as military, action against Iran.

“Israel, which accuses Iran of supplying Hamas Islamists with weapons, said the strikes which began on Saturday were in response to almost daily rocket and mortar fire from the Hamas- ruled Gaza Strip.”

“Jamshidi said Iran's judiciary chief, Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi-Shahroudi, was sending letters to his counterparts in all Islamic states seeking their cooperation with this court.”

Might these letters be sent to all of the nations which openly fear Iran and who will secretly celebrate any American and/or Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The last thing Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and the rest of the Middle East needs or wants is an Iran with nuclear weapons.

What can YOU do?

Recognize political posturing and empty rhetoric for what it is: a media show for the locals who still view their corrupt and morally bankrupt leadership as all powerful and righteous.

From the day the British set ink to paper, there has been conflict and strife in the Middle East. Israel was been under constant siege by modern-day locusts armed with conventional weaponry.

I do not believe that there is anything that would be considered a moderate Muslim, except those in the United States who openly demonstrate tolerance for other cultures and religions. Should any of these people preach the violent overthrow of the United States, perhaps they should be deported with their extended families back to the Middle Eastern country that most matches their beliefs. They came here, ostensibly to become Americans. Americans who are freely allowed to practice their religion so far as it does not impact the rights of other citizens to practice their religions. They are free, as we all are, to celebrate our own cultures as long as it does not involve the abridgement of the rights of others.

As I write this, protestors are marching outside of the Israeli Consulate in Los Angeles. Perhaps they should express equal outrage for any terrorist group which lobs mortars and rockets into populated civilian areas with the sole purpose of inspiring terror – enough terror to force them from their homes. As well as openly condemn those who have driven these people from other Arab countries, notably Jordan which would be the Palestinian state if some British Twit (along with T.E. Lawrence aka Lawrence of Arabia) hadn’t divided up the Kingdom in that particular fashion.

Religious zealots and other crazy people should not be allowed to possess nuclear arms under any circumstances. Especially those with messianic desires and an open worship of an afterlife which rewards the murder of innocent men, women and children on the basis of an outdated religion.

-- steve

Quote of the day: "The very purpose of existence is to reconcile the glowing opinion we have of ourselves with the appalling things that other people think about us.” -- Quentin Crisp

A reminder from OneCitizenSpeaking.com: a large improvement can result from a small change…

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

Reference Links:

Iran sets up court to try Israelis over Gaza  - Yahoo! News UK

“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“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

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS

| Comments (0)

| |

MY PERSPECTIVE: UNDERSTANDING THE MIDDLE EAST (Updated)

UPDATE: 12-28-08  IRAN'S LEADER ISSUES A FATWAH - AND MAY RECEIVE MORE THAN HE BARGAINED FOR!

From Reuters ...

"Iran's Supreme Leader issued a religious decree to Muslims around the world on Sunday, ordering them to defend Palestinians in Gaza against Israeli attacks 'in any way possible,' state television reported."

"Ayatollah Ali Khamenei also declared Monday a day of public mourning in Iran after Israel killed more than 280 Palestinians in two days of air strikes on Gaza. 'All Palestinian combatants and all the Islamic world's pious people are obliged to defend the defenceless women, children and people in Gaza in any way possible,' Khamenei said. 'Whoever is killed in this legitimate defence, is considered a martyr,' he said in a statement."

Perhaps Khamenei should issue a warning to those who fire rockets amid defenseless women, children and people in Gaza. Or perhaps set the Islamic world's pious people on the road to peace.

UPDATE: 12-28-08  BOTTOM LINE: PALESTINIANS, YOU ASKED FOR THIS!

What did the Palestinian people think would happen if they continued to allow Hamas to continually fire unguided missiles into Israel at civilians? What did they believe that other Arab leaders were saying when they asked Hamas to stop the continual provocation of Israel? And what did they think was going to happen when the terrorists hide among the civilian population and fire their weapons?

To those who are wailing and slapping their head -- perhaps instead of vowing revenge and demanding more violence -- perhaps they should ask Allah why this happened and why are they not seeking peace by removing the terrorists among them?

And, considering that there is an election in Israel, are they so stupid as to not realize that this will produce a hard-line political stance which is likely to result in greater restrictions.

Again, can you think of any people who refuse all international help and continue to live in circumstances of their own making?

Original blog entry ...

From my perspective, the nations in the Middle East operate under a simple set of rules.

One, the Muslim culture, as currently practiced in the Middle East and  in spite of the Western myth of the moderate Muslim, demands that one “be of the faith” or submit to those who “are of the faith.” There is no tolerance for other religions – to the point of severe and often fatal punishment for anything the religion considers blasphemy. Muslims have appealed to the United Nations to denounce, or better yet criminalize, anti-Muslim sentiment.

Two, Muslims ONLY respect force and the will to use it. They regard everyone that is not of their religion as weak and without the protection of Allah.

Three, Muslims are allowed to say or do anything to promote their religion. And I do mean anything, including killing, raping, lying, cheating and stealing. Anything as long as it does not involve a righteous fellow Muslim.

Four, the culture is borne of battle and death in the defense of the religion is not only honored, but a desirable outcome of battle. The more enemy you kill, the happier Allah will be.

Fifth, under Islam, cease fires and truces are ONLY acceptable as interludes to re-arm and re-group.

Sixth, the Western concept that the Muslim religion has been hijacked by a group of evil clerics for their own purposes is totally bogus. The religion remains mostly unchanged since the 12th Century and that modern behavior parallels behavior in past times – only the weapons and methodologies have changed.

Seventh, Israel is a clear and present danger to all Muslim states – not because of their religious differences, but because they are an obvious example of how the different cultures can co-exist and thrive – without the monarchy and in a democratic fashion. Remember, Arabs are openly welcome in Israel and treated with the respect accorded all Israeli citizens.

Eighth, those born into the monarchy or their friends will do or say anything to preserve their status and wealth – as well as to avoid an outright revolt based on the people’s shabby treatment while the so-called royals live the good life. Even places like Dubai, allegedly the gold coast of the Middle East, have repressive customs and do not tolerate something as simple as a public kiss between a couple on a beach.

Ninth, the American Constitution allows militant Muslims to use the “freedom of religion” against us as they fundraise and talk of jihad in mosques mostly funded by those in Saudi Arabia.

And tenth, and most controversial, is that much of the conflict may be inspired mullahs and carried out by sexually-repressed teenagers and young men who have little or no outlet to occupy their time. 

The Religion of Peace …

This is a publicity campaign waged in an Orwellian world where up is down, left is right, black is white and right is wrong.  How can the “Religion of Peace” continue to hurl rockets into neighboring sovereign states? How can the “Religion of Peace” not put down their weapons and simply accept the help of their neighbors to rebuild their land?

To my way of thinking, the Religion of Peace is a crock: they don’t want peace – their leaders want to live in their opulent and respected lifestyle, protected by 12th century laws which simply allows them to control all human rights and kill any dissenters at will.

So I have no sympathy for those who embrace their “culture of death” and attack their neighbors maliciously . And its not about ancient rights – as most of the modern Arab nations were created with a stroke of the pen by the British who divided territory by tribes and had little or no foreknowledge of the consequences.

Where is the United Nations?

One would believe that the United Nations would intervene in the situation and condemn the aggression. But considering the number of states that support the Islamic goal of an Islamic world – little is to be expected from this quarter. 

The news media …

According to the AP …

“Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak says Israel's air offensive against militant sites in Gaza ‘will widen as necessary.’"

“Barak says Israel does not intend to allow Islamic Hamas militants who rule Gaza to continue firing rockets and mortars on Israel's southern communities.”

“Hamas says at least 192 Gazans were killed in the first day of the offensive and 270 were wounded.”

“Barak says there is a time for calm and a time for fighting. Speaking at a news conference Saturday, he said ‘now is the time for fighting" and that "the operation will expand as necessary.’"

“Israeli warplanes retaliating for rocket fire from the Gaza Strip pounded dozens of security compounds across the Hamas-ruled territory in unprecedented waves of airstrikes Saturday, killing at least 155 and wounding more than 310 in the single bloodiest day of fighting in recent memory.”

The concept of innocent civilians …

War brings with it collateral damage. Innocent civilians killed during military operations. Property adjoining the battlefield destroyed. But what of a military which wears no uniforms, which hides in Mosques, hospitals and schools full well knowing that we do not attack such locations, or simply positions their weapons among the population – knowing that the return fire will kill so-called “innocents” and thus provide a media event to allow people to see dead women and children?

Perhaps, under these circumstances, there are no innocents as their own people have condemned these non-combatants to death. The are a casualty of their own religion and their accepted leadership.

“The vast majority of those killed were security men, but civilians were also among the dead. Hamas said all of its security installations were hit and responded with several medium-range Grad rockets at Israel, reaching deeper than in the past. One Israeli was killed and at least four people were wounded in the rocket attacks. With so many wounded, the Palestinian death toll was likely to rise.”

"The operation will last as long as necessary," declared Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, though it was not clear if it would be coupled with a ground offensive. Asked if Hamas political leaders might be targeted next, military spokeswoman Maj. Avital Leibovich said, "Any Hamas target is a target."

What did they expect?

What do the Gazans expect: that you can simply lob rockets and mortars into another country without a response?

“The strikes caused widespread panic and confusion in Gaza, as black clouds of smoke rose above the territory, ruled by Hamas for the past 18 months. Some of the Israeli missiles struck in densely populated areas as children were leaving school, and women rushed into the streets frantically looking for their children. Most of those killed were security men, but civilians were among the dead.”

“Said Masri sat in the middle of a Gaza City street, close to a security compound, alternately slapping his face and covering his head with dust from the bombed-out building.”

"’My son is gone, my son is gone,’ wailed Masri, 57. The shopkeeper said he sent his 9-year-old son out to purchase cigarettes minutes before the airstrikes began and now could not find him. ‘May I burn like the cigarettes, may Israel burn,’ Masri moaned.”

What, he is not celebrating the death of his innocent son as a martyr to the cause of Islam? Perhaps some of that hatred should be re-directed to his leaders who set the stage for his son to be killed.  Where is his cry for peace? Where is his plea for a cessation of hostilities? And, just maybe, the son survived – slightly wounded, dazed and taken to a local hospital.

“Defiant Hamas leaders threatened revenge, including suicide attacks. Hamas ‘will continue the resistance until the last drop of blood,’ vowed spokesman Fawzi Barhoum.”

Revenge? The never-ending cycle of attack and counter-attack? This is a response to their aggression. And, resistance to what? Peace? Co-existence with a democratic Israel? Why is it that media sources do not point out that Palestinians are not welcome in other Arab nations as they are considered to be troublemakers. Better yet, why does the media remain silent on the fact that the real home of the Palestinians is now occupied by the modern state of Jordan?

“Israel told its civilians near Gaza to take cover as militants began retaliating with rockets, and in the West Bank, moderate Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas called for restraint. Egypt summoned the Israeli ambassador to express condemnation and opened its border with Gaza to allow ambulances to drive out some of the wounded.”

Retaliating … or simply continuing the original attack which provoked the Israeli response? Condemnation is one thing … but we have seen ambulances used as ammunition carriers before as they shuttle back-and-forth knowing that they are relatively safe from attack.

More protests …

From people who will openly riot, kill and destroy property on encountering an anti-religious cartoon, one should consider exactly what they are protesting. No being able to molest Israel with impunity? No being responsible for the consequences of their actions? What did they think would happen? Israel has shown remarkable restraint. What do you think would happen in the United States if Mexican separatists decided to lob mortars and missiles into San Diego every few days? This is self-defense: pure and simple. And this is Israeli restrain. By all rights they should have reduced the entire area to rubble.

“Protests erupted in the Abbas-ruled West Bank and across the Arab world.”

“Several hundred angry Jordanians protested outside a U.N. complex in the capital Amman. ‘Hamas, go ahead. You are the cannon, we are the bullets,’ they cried, some waving the signature green Hamas banners.”

If I remember my history correctly, it was the Jordanians who drove the Palestinians (PLO) from their lands into Lebanon – which they soon turned one of the most sophisticated and beautiful countries in the world into rubble and chaos.

“King Hussein of Jordan ejected Arafat's Palestinians in September 1970, called Black September because they were trying to take over his kingdom. King Hussein drove them into Lebanon after killing more than 10,000. The Lebanese welcomed the fleeing Palestinians into their bosom, but suddenly found themselves under attack by Arafat's Palestinians who set up a mini Terror State within Lebanon. For the next 12 years terror raged and over 100,000 Lebanese were murdered by their Palestinian brothers.” <Source>

“In Beirut, dozens of youths hit the streets and set fire to tires.”

Perhaps these kids should have studied their history along with their Koran?

“In Syria's al-Yarmouk camp, outside Damascus, dozens of Palestinians protested the attack as well, vowing to continue fighting Israel.”

Perhaps, over time, Syria will come to regret their position on Palestinians as they continue to multiply and become integrated into the Syrian government.

What will it take to halt Gaza aggression?

“Israeli leaders approved military action against Gaza earlier in the week. Past limited ground incursions and air strikes have not halted rocket barrages from Gaza.”

“But with 200 mortars and rockets raining down on Israel since the truce expired a week ago, and 3,000 since the beginning of the year, according to the military's count, pressure had been mounting in Israel for the military to crush the gunmen.”

“Earlier this month, Israeli security officials told the government that militants possess rockets with ranges capable of reaching farther from Gaza than ever before, including the cities of Beersheba and Ashdod.”

“Gaza militants fired several rockets Saturday, including one that struck a new target, the town of Kiryat Gat. A missile hit on the town of Netivot killed an Israeli man and wounded four people, rescue services said. In Ashkelon, TV cameras showed people huddle against a wall as a rocket alert sounded.”

There will come a time when words of peace and protest will not suffice …

If there is no apparent resolution to this continual barrage against Israel, there may come a time when there will be but a single warning: leave now! And the areas that are hostile to Israel will be completely destroyed.

Barak, the Israeli defense minister, said that the coming period "won't be easy and won't be short for the communities in the south (of Israel).

“Israel declared a state of emergency in Israeli communities within a 12-mile (20-kilometer) range of Gaza, putting the area on a war footing.”

What the media is reporting …

“Hospitals crowded with people, civilians rushing in wounded people in cars, vans and ambulances. "We are treating people on the floor, in the corridors. We have no more space. We don't know who is here and what the priority is to treat," said a doctor at Shifa Hospital, Gaza's main treatment center. He hung up the phone before identifying himself.”

“In the West Bank, Hamas' rival, Abbas, said in a statement that he ‘condemns this aggression’ and called for restraint, according to an aide, Nabil Abu Rdeneh. Abbas, who has ruled only the West Bank since the Islamic Hamas seized power in Gaza in June 2007, was in contact with Arab leaders, and his West Bank Cabinet convened an emergency session.”

Just which aggression is he condemning? The rocket firing which is an overt act of aggression against a sovereign state? And which party is he calling upon for restraint? The Israelis who are responding to being attack or the attackers who decided to target Israel? Considering Abbas is in contact with Arab leaders, one wonders what he is saying. Surely it can’t be anything against Islam which seems to be the root cause of the attacks?

The sad truth …

“Israel left Gaza in 2005 after a 38-year occupation, but the withdrawal did not lead to better relations with Palestinians in the territory as Israeli officials had hoped.”

“Instead, the evacuation was followed by a sharp rise in militant attacks on Israeli border communities that on several occasions provoked harsh Israeli military reprisals.”

Was this abandonment of territory simply a reaction to International pressures? And did Israel’s actions lead to the reinforcement of the idea that terrorism will eventually yield the attacker’s desired results?

“The last, in late February and early March, spurred both sides to agree to a truce that was to have lasted six months but began unraveling in early November. In recent days, Israeli leaders had been voicing strong threats to launch a major offensive.”

On to Iran …

Although the Iranians are not Arabs, they are Muslim and have the same outcome for Israel: death and destruction. As their once vibrant culture has almost been destroyed by the Mullahs, they are once again flirting with danger. It is well-known and accepted that Iranian forces are involved in the Iraq conflict and as Syria’s influence in Lebanon receded, Iran’s influence grew. Can you trust this country with a nuclear weapon? The answer is an emphatic NO! A “No” which is also silently echoed by their Arab neighbors who fear a nuclear-armed Iran and silently look to the Israelis to solve their problems.

We are now past Christmas, approaching New Year and the Obama inauguration on January 20th is looming large. Could the event that Vice President-elect Biden spoke of be the attack on Iran? And the response which will have people openly questioning Barack Obama’s actions be the sanctioning of Israel? We do not have much longer to wait for the answer.

And the attack will be justified. Just as the Muslims continue to wail about the injustice of Israel’s existence and continue to lob deadly missiles into their country – there will come a time when Israel says “NO MORE!” And I believe that time is fast approaching.

What can YOU do?

Recognize that freedom is a two-way street. There are those who want freedom, but must in turn grant freedom to others. Unless this is possible, conflict is inevitable. Both sides will lose men, women and children. Homes will be destroyed. A darkness will fall upon a barren land. Hope will dissipate until one side surrenders. And if they re-arm, the cycle will repeat. Until the leadership recognizes the benefits of human rights and stops stealing from the people – there will be no peace as the leaders must continually point to some scapegoat to account for their people’s misery.

Israel is a thorn in the side of the surrounding nations, not because of religious differences – but because it shows the people what can be done in a tolerant, cooperative atmosphere where certain men are not omnipotent kings of the realm. And that’s why the leaders of these nations continue to fight on.

Aided and abetted by the United States who will often overlook localized conflict to obtain reasonably-priced oil. So, if the United States does want peace in the Middle East, is it not reasonable to demand our leadership develop a comprehensive energy policy which will remove American dollars from the region and thus lower the level of conflict. The fastest way to do this would be to build out our national energy grid, use CNG (compressed natural gas) for our truck fleets, develop nuclear power sources and use our own oil while we develop alternative fuel vehicles.

Until the Muslim religion experiences a reformation, perhaps one should consider leaving them in relative peace to enjoy a 12th century lifestyle and preventing their leaders from visiting other countries. A zero immigration policy for nations which remain bellicose and hostile to Israel.

And if we need bomb them … perhaps we should use Playboy magazines, Britney Spears and Paris Hilton videos – and videos of the California lifestyle. Perhaps they would dream of the Mohave Desert instead of Israel?

Could this be the cover attack which is the diversion for a much larger attack on Iran? Especially since both Iran and Syria are the chief backers of Hamas. Or possibly a staged precursor to an Obama peace initiative -- complete with more humanitarian aid (e.g. money for the corrupt leadership)?

If anyone should have other opinions, send them along.

-- steve

Quote of the Day: “There comes a time when injustice must be addressed, the politicians and media be damned.” -- steve

A reminder from OneCitizenSpeaking.com: a large improvement can result from a small change…

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

Reference Links:

My Way News - Barak: Gaza operation will expand as needed

NABIL ABU RDAINAH, AIDE TO PALESTINIAN PRESIDENT MAHMOUD ABBAS: "President Abbas demands that the Israeli government stop this aggression immediately to spare our people its painful effects, and calls on the international community to intervene to stop the aggression."

WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN GORDON JOHNDROE: "Hamas' continued rocket attacks into Israel must cease if the violence is to stop. Hamas must end its terrorist activities if it wishes to play a role in the future of the Palestinian people."

RUSSIAN FOREIGN MINISTRY STATEMENT: "Moscow deems it necessary to stop large scale military action against Gaza, which had already led to big casualties and suffering among civilian Palestinian population. At the same time we call on Hamas leadership to stop shelling Israeli territory."

<More statements from world leaders courtesy of Reuters> 

Coincidental Note:

"Political scientist Samuel Huntington, whose controversial book 'The Clash of Civilizations' predicted conflict between the West and the Islamic world, has died at age 81, Harvard University said on Saturday. <More on this interesting scholar>

“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“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

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS

| Comments (0)

| |

Scamming the terminally stupid ...

I could not stop laughing when I read this item in the San Francisco Chronicle, made that much more funny because it involves San Francisco liberals and the “perfect people for a perfect planet.”

According to the Chronicle …

S.F. fliers may pay their way in carbon usage

“Environmentally conscious travelers flying out of San Francisco International Airport will soon be able to assuage their guilt and minimize the impact of their air travel by buying certified carbon offsets at airport kiosks.”

“The experimental program, scheduled to start this spring, would make SFO the first airport in the nation - possibly the world - to offer fliers the opportunity to purchase carbon offsets.”

" ‘We'd like people to stop and consider the impacts of flying,’ said Steve McDougal, executive vice president for 3Degrees, a San Francisco firm that sells renewable-energy and carbon-reduction investments and is teaming up with the airport and the city on the project. ‘Obviously, people need to fly sometimes. No one expects them to stop, but they should consider taking steps to reduce their impacts.’"

Consider the impact of dumping one drop of water in the San Francisco bay … now calculate the impact of this meaningless act on raising the sea level of the Pacific Ocean.

“San Francisco's Airport Commission has authorized the program, which will involve a $163,000 investment from SFO, but is still working out the details with 3Degrees. Because of that, McDougal said, he can't yet discuss specifics, such as the cost to purchase carbon offsets and what programs would benefit from travelers' purchases.”

Are the residents of San Francisco or the State of California putting up any taxpayer money for this project? What programs will benefit – is this the latest business model for charitable giving? How much of the money earned will be used for executive salaries at 3Degrees?

“But the general idea, officials said, is that a traveler would approach a kiosk resembling the self-service check-in stations used by airlines, then punch in his or her destination. The computer would calculate the carbon footprint and the cost of an investment to offset the damage. The traveler could then swipe a credit card to help save the planet. Travelers would receive a printed receipt listing the projects benefiting from their environmental largesse.”

Whoops, this is not a charity … but a profit making enterprise. Great shades of Al Gore!

The carbon offsets are not tax deductible, said Krista Canellakis, a 3Degrees spokeswoman.

The perfect scam: nothing more than a piece of paper …

"While the carbon offsets purchased at kiosks can't be seen or touched, they are an actual product with a specific environmental claim whose ownership is transferred at the time of purchase," she said.

I wonder if a lawsuit could be used to make them prove their claim that the purchaser’s action will actually save the planet by mitigating global warming?

“Mike McCarron, airport spokesman, said the projects offered will be chosen by the mayor's office, in conjunction with 3Degrees, from a list certified by the city's Environment Department. Airport Director John Martin told the commission that projects could include renewable energy ventures in developing countries, agriculture and organic waste capture, coal mine methane capture, and sustainable forestry.”

Considering that the people who will control the investment of this money may derive considerable financial benefits from their actions, I wonder what form of oversight might prevent misuse of funds gathered using what amounts to an automated solicitation for funds on public property?

“Nathan Ballard, a spokesman for Mayor Gavin Newsom, said a portion of each offset purchase would go to the San Francisco Carbon Fund, which supports local projects such as energy-efficiency programs and solar panel installations for low-income housing, as well as efforts to convert waste oils into biodiesel fuels.”

Of course, the city of the politically correct wants their piece of the action which could be directed by the politicians for their own benefit.

Suggests? You mean they really don’t know …

“The cost of offsets for SFO travelers is still being negotiated, McDougal said, but figures on the company's Web-based ‘carbon calculator’ suggest that a two-hour trip uses about 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per person, and the cost to offset that would be about $4. Offsetting a trip to Europe would cost $36.”

And who is doing this negotiation? Who is representing the traveler? And what factors are being built into the costs?

"’It's definitely not going to double your ticket or anything,’ he said. ‘It's going to end up being a small percentage of your total airfare.’"

Where is the competitive bidding that would insure that the consumer was getting the best deal possible for their money?

“Under the agreement, the airport will provide the kiosks and 3Degrees will supply the software and the certified carbon offsets being sold and will operate the program. Kiosks will be placed throughout the airport, with locations at the customer service desk in Terminal 3 and two wings of the International Terminal. 3Degrees will get 30 percent of each purchase, with the rest going to carbon-reduction projects. The agreement calls for a one-year program, with a possible extension.”

"’The carbon kiosks will not only reduce global warming,’ Ballard said, ‘they will serve an educational function. It's something interesting to do while you're killing time at the airport.’"

“Given the innovative nature of the venture, airport officials said they don't expect 3Degrees will turn a profit - at least not at the outset. McDougal said it's impossible to predict how many passengers will want to make what is essentially a voluntary contribution to compensate for the impacts of their air travel. But he hopes the program takes off.”

Like everything political in San Francisco …

" ‘Hopefully, it will be successful,’ he said. ‘But if we just have a lot of people stop and read the information and think about it, that's something we've accomplished.’"

What can YOU do?

Beware of pilot programs conducted in liberal democrat enclaves such as San Francisco. For it might only be a matter of time that this program morphs into a carbon tax on all travelers, the kiosks are abandoned and the tax is applied directly to all tickets; and not on a voluntary basis.

Beware of entrepreneurs capitalizing on the subject of global warming. It is the perfect scam – nobody will be able to see results for hundreds of years. In the meantime, your hard earned money may be re-distributed outside of the United States where it will, in all likelihood, be squandered or stolen by corrupt politicians and their special interest friends.

Demand proof of program efficacy before parting with your hard-earned money; that is, if you are so-inclined to support the “perfect people for a perfect planet.”

-- steve

Quote of the Day: “Global Warming: Something for nothing, money for free.”  -- steve

--CJ's US History Work

A reminder from OneCitizenSpeaking.com: a large improvement can result from a small change…

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

Reference Links:

S.F. fliers may pay their way in carbon usage

“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“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

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS

| Comments (0)

| |

Message to California Gay Activists: Enough is Enough

California Proposition 8 …

PROPOSITION 8
This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution.

This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new. 

SECTION 1. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the ‘California Marriage Protection Act.’

SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read: SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” <Source>

The people have spoken …

No matter how much money was spent on California Proposition 8 campaign to define marriage, no matter how many prominent people are for or against the proposition, the people have spoken and their collective will should be respected.  If you disagree, you can turn to the courts to rule on matters of constitutionality and law or mount another campaign to attempt to persuade the majority of Californians to adopt your views.

Enough is enough …

When the egregious actions of a small band of gay activists are designed to punish and intimidate other law-abiding citizens who may believe differently, it might also be time to start considering legal procedures for denial of civil rights relating to the injured party’s right to freedom of free speech and freedom of religion. 

Per the Los Angeles Times …

“A life thrown into turmoil by $100 donation for Prop. 8”

“Margie Christoffersen didn't make it very far into our conversation before she cracked. Chest heaving, tears streaming, she reached for her husband Wayne's hand and then mine, squeezing as if she'd never let go.
’I've almost had a nervous breakdown. It's been the worst thing that's ever happened to me,’ she sobbed as curious patrons at a Farmers Market coffee shop looked on, wondering what calamity had visited this poor woman who's an honest 6 feet tall, with hair as blond as the sun.”

“Well, Christoffersen was a manager at El Coyote, the Beverly Boulevard landmark restaurant that's always had throngs of customers waiting to get inside. Many of them were gay, and Christoffersen, a devout Mormon, donated $100 in support of Proposition 8, the successful November ballot initiative that banned gay marriage. She never advertised her politics or religion in the restaurant, but last month her donation showed up on lists of ‘for’ and ‘against’ donors.”

“And El Coyote became a target. A boycott was organized on the Internet, with activists trashing El Coyote on restaurant review sites. Then came throngs of protesters, some of them shouting ‘shame on you’ at customers. The police arrived in riot gear one night to quell the angry mob.”

“The mob left, but so did the customers.
Sections of the restaurant have been closed, a manager told me Friday during a very quiet lunch hour. Some of the 89 employees, many of them gay, have had their hours cut, and layoffs are looming. And Christoffersen, who has taken a voluntary leave of absence, is wondering whether she'll ever again be able to work at the restaurant, which opened in 1931 (at 1st and La Brea) and is owned by her 92-year-old mother. ‘It's been so hard,’ she said, breaking down again.”

“Christoffersen, raised Mormon by her late father, told me she has no problem with gay people. ‘I love them like everybody else.’
But she supports her church's position that marriage is between a man and a woman.
I, on the other hand, opposed Prop. 8. And as I wrote more than once, I think organized Christian religion reached new levels of hypocrisy in using the Bible to preach discrimination and promote the initiative.”

Ending discrimination by discrimination …

There is no rational justification for any gay activist to attack a person who is expressing their Constitutionally-guaranteed right to free speech and freedom of religion. Especially when the person participated in a lawful demonstration of their constitutional right to vote on a matter of public importance. It is even more egregious to attack the innocent employer of such a person in order to force a person to behave in a manner contrary to their rights and nature.

The process of attempting to end discrimination by discriminating is both illegal and immoral and those who engage in these activities should be required to answer for their actions in a court of law.

It is one thing to boycott a company whose company position makes them liable to the public for their statements and actions … it is quite another to boycott a company with regards to seeking action against a particular individual.

In an Orwellian world where up is down, right is left, and words are continually re-defined to fit some political agenda, we are faced with a major problem that is not being confronted by the media or our politicians.

One, marriage is popularly defined as “the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law.”

Two, laws the recognize this particular definition are not “hate speech” promulgated by “haters” as the gay activists would want people to believe.

Three, the premise that all people are equal under the law, should receive equal protection under the law, and that there should be no class of people who should receive special privileges  not available to others is being overlooked.

My position …

I am all for giving gays access to all of the legal rights and privileges of a state-sanctioned union.

I will not concede them the right to re-define any word in the English language to fit their own political/sexual agenda. Unless the word marriage becomes defined through common usage, as historical precedent, then the word’s original definition applies.

And I am dead set against giving gays or any other group special rights which they may wield as a legal hammer to pound all of us into the ground.

This has not worked well in the past as there are those who abuse the law. Fire an incompetent Black person and it becomes a racial issue with legal consequences. I do not want to see the same misuse of the law by any additional groups. Unless you are covered under the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act), then you are to be treated like everyone else.

It has been the historical policy of far-left democrat liberals and others to use the courts when they fail to achieve their political agenda at the ballot box. I see no reason why any group can be permitted to maliciously and malevolently attack individuals without legal consequences.

Time to carefully watch our politicians …

Politicians and others who are courting donations and votes from special interest parties with their own agenda should not be elected or, if currently serving, should not be re-elected.

The Governor’s race …

Here in California, we are about to face an upcoming election (2010) in which the far-left democrat liberals are most likely to win. People like Diane Feinstein, Jerry Brown (who coincidently authored the wording of Proposition 8), San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom, Los Angeles Mayor Tony Villar (his real name is not Villaraigosa) and others who are openly courting the GLBT community and might continue to support their aggressive stance.

It is up to the rest of us, providing that we haven’t left the state for economic reasons, to insure that San Francisco far-left liberal democrats do not continue to rule California and assist in the further devolution of the formerly Golden State into a third-world reception area for the importation of additional poverty and illiteracy.

What can YOU do?

Support equal rights for all while respecting precedent and tradition – become a conservative Republican.

Do not create any more special classes or privileged constituencies for purposed of political manipulation.

Do not allow any politician or group to impose San Francisco politics on the rest of California. It hasn’t worked, it isn’t working and it is not likely to work in the future.

Support those whom the GLBT community has unfairly attacked. It may be your rights and your job that is compromised next … all because you exercised your rights to free speech and freedom of religion.

-- steve

Quote of the day: “I hate mankind, for I think myself one of the best of them, and I know how bad I am.”  - Joseph Baretti

A reminder from OneCitizenSpeaking.com: a large improvement can result from a small change…

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

Reference Links:

A life thrown into turmoil by $100 donation for Prop. 8 - Los Angeles Times

“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“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

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS

| Comments (0)

| |

Global Warming: Ceding control to lawyers, lobbyists and evildoers?

International corruption and impotence …

One of my biggest pet peeves involving the United Nations is that they ONLY pretend to be a democratic representation of the world’s nations. Like all other political organizations, it is a hotbed of self-interest corruption, power brokering and public relations activity which mask its true impotency and promotes a dangerous reliance on an organization that lacks the guts to stand up for what is right over what is wrong.

How else can you explain their feigned ignorance of genocide? How else can you explain the cut-and-run behavior of so-called United Nations “Blue Hat” enforcement details? How else could you explain a non-governmental body that cedes the leadership of a committee on human rights to some of the worst violators of human rights in history? And how do they reconcile the wishes of those to live in a repressive 12th-century manner that openly promotes violence against non-believers?

This is the type of international panel, comprised mainly of lawyers and failed politicians that is being proposed.

Handing our enemies a loaded gun?

Against this type of international background, why would we even consider any extra-legal commission, court or panel which usurps the sovereignty of the United States in favor of a world filled with nations and leaders who do not wish us well – and are openly using our own Constitution and freedoms against us as they promote their malevolent agenda.

Lawyers do what lawyers do: first insure their survival and continuing income stream …

“Lawyers call for international court for the environment” 

“A former chairman of the Bar Council is calling for an international court for the environment to punish states that fail to protect wildlife and prevent climate change.”

First mistake …

The first assumption that man is responsible for global weather change is highly speculative and quite presumptive of the part of lawyers. Especially since the world’s scientists are not in agreement about the measurements, the causes or the remedies.

Second mistake …

There are some species which will die as a matter of the workings of nature. Shall we be forced to suspend human progress, cede control over our lives to politicians and spend inordinate amounts of money to save every last species? We have seen the great cost of allowing the snail darters of this world to halt development. Do we want to extend this power over our society to a bunch of pointy head theoreticians or, even worse, those malevolent interests that have infiltrated the environmental movement for the sole purpose of promoting their own radical political agenda on the world. An agenda which can often be described as enviro-Marxism.

“Stephen Hockman QC is proposing a body similar to the International Court of Justice in The Hague to be the supreme legal authority on issues regarding the environment.”

“The first role of the new body would be to enforce international agreements on cutting greenhouse gas emissions set to be agreed next year.”

“But the court would also fine countries or companies that fail to protect endangered species or degrade the natural environment and enforce the ‘right to a healthy environment.’”

Where does the money go, if not to the self-serving interest of the court? And by what enforcement mechanism will they fine nations like Russia, Syria, North Korea and others who traditionally do not respond well to fines and penalties imposed by extra-jurisdictional groups.

Neither new, nor innovative … just dangerous!

“The innovative idea is being presented to an audience of politicians, scientists and public figures for the first time at a symposium at the British Library.”

Usurpation of legislative rights …

Unfortunately, we have seen activist judges hand down rulings which create law which clearly usurps the rights of the legislature as the sole body that is constitutionally empowered to create such regulations. In many cases, we have seen the activists turn to the judiciary to secure what they cannot obtain at the ballot box … and even worse, thwart the will of the people who have already expressed their opinion by voting.

“Mr Hockman, a deputy High Court judge, said that the threat of climate change means it is more important than ever for the law to protect the environment.”

Enter the United Nations …

Why should we believe anything that emanates from this hotbed of corruption and hidden agendas. Especially since they have admitted fudging the Aids numbers in Africa in order to generate media attention, public support and contributions to their cause. The UN’s population projects which are at the basis of many of their assumptions has been dead wrong as population growth has been proven to be non-linear. In addition, many of their energy projections are based on the typical power profile of those in the United States, which upon even a cursory examination proves to not be the power mode of the majority of the world’s populated nations.

Likewise, the United Nations has locked into the matter of global warming to allow them to increase their influence and funding by promoting nothing more concrete than computer models which project a rise in global temperature. So lopsided is this projection, that the UN fails to consider the beneficial effects of such projected climate change – preferring the global gloom and doom scenario to raise awareness and funding.

Creating an economic crisis where one already exists …

“The UN Climate Change Conference in Poznan, Poland this month is set to begin negotiations that will lead to a new agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol in Copenhagen next year. Developed countries are expected to commit to cutting emissions drastically, while developing countries agree to halt deforestation.”

Did anyone notice that the last UN proposals had the developed nations paying tribute to the developing nations as compensation for not clear-cutting forests or taking other actions? Massive wealth distributions to corrupt governments who sequester their wealth for use by the ruling class and their friends.

Can’t promote good works without actors …

“Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, has agreed the concept of an international court will be taken into account when considering how to make these international agreements on climate change binding. The court is also backed by a number of MPs, climate change experts and public figures including the actress Judi Dench.” '

Dame Judy Dench may be a fine actress, but the farthest thing from a climate scientist. So why even cite her name?

“Mr Hockman said an international court will be needed to enforce and regulate any agreement.”

"The time is now ripe to set this up and get it going," he said. "Its remit will be overall climate change and the need for better regulation of carbon emissions but at the same time the implementation and enforcement of international environmental agreements and instruments."

Imagine the consequences …

Can you imagine some foreign power demanding that the coal-fired energy producers that feed power to Los Angeles cut back their energy production so that some global carbon credit bookkeeper can balance the atmospheric carbon content over Upper Wazooistan? Ludicrous!

“As well as providing resolution between states, the court will also be useful for multinational businesses in ensuring environmental laws are kept to in every country.”

Enter the Marxists, socialists, communists and other nutso-activists …

“The court would include a convention on the right to a healthy environment and provide a higher body for individuals or non-governmental organizations to protest against an environmental injustice.”

Climate justice?

Isn’t that what the Marxist-style activists in Chicago called their initiative when discussing racial, ethnic and class-warfare politics? All based on the theory that global weather mitigation will unduly impact the poor and disadvantaged who should receive some form of compensation for their suffering and misery. Can you say climate reparations?

“Mr Hockman said the court may be able to fine businesses or states but its main role will be in making ‘declaratory rulings’ that influence and embarrass countries into upholding the law.”

I declare that the Earth is warming. I declare that you need to reduce your lifestyle based on your energy consuming. I declare you need to pay higher taxes and a tribute to the court. I declare that this is all speculative bullshit and should be ignored in favor of cleaning up local pollution which is affecting our current health status.

What, it won’t provide a solution?

He said: "Of course regulations and sanctions alone cannot deliver a global solution to problems of climate change, but without such components the incentive for individual countries to address those problems – and to achieve solutions that are politically acceptable within their own jurisdictions – will be much reduced."

Just like the proponents of global warming initiatives cannot possible guarantee that any climate progress will be measurable for at least one hundred, and more likely, one thousand years, this is just another scheme without any provable results.

“The court would be led by retired judges, climate change experts and public figures. It would include a scientific body to consider evidence and provide access to any data on the environment.”

Public figures – you mean like Al Gore, Angelina Jolie, George Clooney? Retired judges – you mean the old codgers who have lapsed into senility? And of course, you mean those climate scientists who have already signed on to the UN-centric view of climate change?

“Most importantly, Mr Hockman said an international court on the environment would influence public opinion which in turn would force Governments to take the environment seriously. He said: ‘If there are bodies around that can give definitive legal rulings that are accepted as fair and reasonable that has its own impact on public opinion.’"

There is no such thing as a definitive legal ruling where matters of science are concerned. And isn’t that what we are basing this entire speculative scheme upon? Can a definitive ruling stop the Earth’s precessive motion, reverse the tides, change cloud patterns? No! And neither can today’s scientists. And neither will a fraud like carbon cap and trade policy!

“Friends of the Earth welcomed the idea.”

You mean the “perfect people for a perfect planet” based on Marxist philosophies which only create a ruling class and the rest of humanity? 

“A spokesman said: ‘We think any institution that is going to promote and help people enforce their right to a clean and healthy environment is a good thing.’"

If you believe this, then the best thing is a local court with jurisdiction over local polluters along with state agencies who can actually measure pollutants and assess fines. The answer to controlling pollution is, and always has been, local, not global. The only ones pushing for a global solution are those seeking extra-judicial control over sovereign nation-states for their own political power agendas.

What can YOU do?

The Brits are a curious sort. Regimented and all that. But in matters of consequence, they are followers, not leaders. Much of the Churchillian resolve has been bred away over the years as they have allowed malevolent foreigners to invade their country to the point of even considering Sharia law to be co-existent with British jurisprudence. Hardly the type of people to listen to in matters of forming extra-legal control structures. Consider that the Brits screwed up when they created the modern Middle East, why allow them to screw up the world?

Consider that, no matter what the United Nations claims: it’s all about power, money and self-interest. Theirs, not ours!

Consider that there is the real possibility that those who create global climate models are actually modeling the effects of localized urbanization, not global climate.

Consider that the matter that should be debated is not global weather control, but control over the world’s population based on dodgy science and the pipedreams of lawyers, politicians and those who add nothing to society as they buy-and-sell pollution credits.

Do not cede United States sovereignty to any foreign entity, especially one that contains a preponderance of people who do not wish the citizens of the United States well. After all, we are the country.

-- steve

Quote of the Day: “Behavior is a mirror in which every one displays his own image.” -- Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe

A reminder from OneCitizenSpeaking.com: a large improvement can result from a small change…

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

Reference Links:

Lawyers call for international court for the environment|London  Telegraph

“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“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

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS

| Comments (0)

| |

Bush, Congress, Obama: Shifting fundamental American protections against government tyranny? (updated)

UPDATE: 07-10-09 DEBATE OVER USE OF ARMY FOR DOMESTIC MATTERS CONTINUES ...

According to TheHill.com ...

"A bipartisan pair of governors is opposing a new Defense Department proposal to handle natural and terrorism-related disasters, contending that a murky chain of command could lead to more problems than solutions. Current law gives governors control over National Guard forces in their own states as well as any Guard units and Defense Department personnel imported from other states. The letter comes as the Pentagon proposes a legislative fix that would give the secretary of Defense the authority to assist in response to domestic disasters and, consequently, control over units stationed in an affected state."

What makes this issue so critical is that you have the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi denouncing those who disagree with the Administration's and Congress' healthcare proposal as un-American. Others have referred to those who protest as thugs, houligans, terrorists, etc. Turning over this much domestic power to a White House and Administration that appears to be openly radical, socialist and willing to use Chicago-style force to make their point is patently dangerous. The rules were made for a purpose and that purpose is still as valid today as it was when they were first written.

Remember: the Founding Fathers gave us the Second Amendment to protect against government tyranny ... something we are approaching at a rapid pace. It is time to limit the power of the Presidency and the Administration to those powers enumerated by the Constitution that the leftists are so busy trying to redefine.

Original Blog Entry ...

We always thought it might be Barack Obama, who recently spoke of a national civilian defense force that had the resources and strength of the military, that would breach the Posse Comitatus Act – and thus pose a major threat to the freedom and liberty enjoyed by Americans under our Constitution. We were wrong … it just might be George Bush.

Posse Comitatus …

“The Posse Comitatus Act and the Insurrection Act substantially limit the powers of the federal government to use the military for law enforcement.”

“The Posse Comitatus Act is a United States federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1385) passed on June 16, 1878 after the end of Reconstruction. The Act prohibits most members of the federal uniformed services (the Army, Air Force, and State National Guard forces when such are called into federal service) from exercising nominally state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain ‘law and order’ on non-federal property (states and their counties and municipal divisions) in the former Confederate states.”

“The statute generally prohibits federal military personnel and units of the National Guard under federal authority from acting in a law enforcement capacity within the United States, except where expressly authorized by the Constitution or Congress. The Coast Guard is exempt from the Act.” <Source>

The Insurrection Act …

“The Insurrection Act of 1807 is the set of laws that govern the President of the United States of America's ability to deploy troops within the United States to put down lawlessness, insurrection and rebellion. The laws are chiefly contained in 10 U.S.C. § 331 - 10 U.S.C. § 335. The general aim is to limit Presidential power as much as possible, relying on state and local governments for initial response in the event of insurrection. Coupled with the Posse Comitatus Act, Presidential powers for law enforcement are limited and delayed.” <Source>

Previous Bush attempts …

“On September 26, 2006, President Bush urged Congress to consider revising federal laws so that the U.S. military could seize control immediately in the aftermath of a natural disaster, in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.”

“Section 1076 is titled ‘Use of the Armed Forces in major public emergencies’. It provided that:

“The President may employ the armed forces... to... restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition... the President determines that... domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order... or [to] suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such... a condition... so hinders the execution of the laws... that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law... or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.”

“The actual text is on pages 322–323 of the legislation.” H.R. 5122 can be found here.

“These changes were included in the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (H.R. 5122), which was signed into law on Oct 17, 2006, subsequently repealed in their entirety.”

“As of 2008, these changes have been repealed in their entirety, reverting to the original 1878 wording of the Posse Comitatus Act.” <Source>

It appears that this legislation breaches the trust and faith that the people of the United States have in our Constitution and supports the wisdom of our Founding Fathers when then introduced the Second Amendment right to own and bear arms as a potential weapon against a governmental tyranny. Of course, the Founding Fathers did not have to deal with weapons of mass destruction or the possibility of easily-coordinated attacks over widespread geography.

Under this legislation, the United States could be turned into a dictatorship with little more than the stroke of a pen – even using a natural disaster or concocted event to trigger the act. And, as we have seen from historical reference, power once granted to the federal government is almost impossible to restrict or remove.

We have also seen over the last eight years, President Bush and Vice President Cheney assert greater and greater powers for the Executive Branch of the Government and the expanded use of so-called Signing Statements which appeared to allow the Administration to circumvent Congressional mandates whenever they felt it necessary.

But, it was apparently the belief of many Americans that the Bush Administration and Congressional Republicans would fight to uphold the Constitutional Rights of all Americans and that it would be the democrats who would push for greater federalization efforts  in their attempt to increase socialistic behavior in the United States.

Why I am concerned …

Over the years there have been a number of attempts, mostly instigated by far-left liberal democrats to disarm the citizens of the United States and to impose legislation which would cripple or eliminate our God-given right to self-defense from both domestic and foreign threats.

While some forms of patriotism have been vilified by those who believe that America is a corrupt nation and the proximate cause of many of the world’s ills, it remains true to this day – that a well-armed citizenry is the best protection against government tyranny and the invasion of those who wish us harm.

It is well-documented that both Barack Obama and his Attorney General designate, Eric Holder, do not believe that the Second Amendment is an absolute right and that laws must be crafted to enforce gun control. Holder co-signed an amicus brief in support of the District of Columbia’s ban on all handguns and on the use of any firearm for self-defense in the home.

What have we done?

“Pentagon to detail plan to bolster security: Plan would dedicate 20,000 uniformed troops inside U.S. by 2011”

According to the Washington Post …

“The U.S. military expects to have 20,000 uniformed troops inside the United States by 2011 trained to help state and local officials respond to a nuclear terrorist attack or other domestic catastrophe, according to Pentagon officials.”

“The long-planned shift in the Defense Department's role in homeland security was recently backed with funding and troop commitments after years of prodding by Congress and outside experts, defense analysts said.”

“There are critics of the change, in the military and among civil liberties groups and libertarians who express concern that the new homeland emphasis threatens to strain the military and possibly undermine the Posse Comitatus Act, a 130-year-old federal law restricting the military's role in domestic law enforcement.”

Good planning or a double-edged sword that can be misused by the Administration?

“But the Bush administration and some in Congress have pushed for a heightened homeland military role since the middle of this decade, saying the greatest domestic threat is terrorists exploiting the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.”

Before the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, dedicating 20,000 troops to domestic response -- a nearly sevenfold increase in five years -- ‘would have been extraordinary to the point of unbelievable,’ Paul McHale, assistant defense secretary for homeland defense, said in remarks last month at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. But the realization that civilian authorities may be overwhelmed in a catastrophe prompted ‘a fundamental change in military culture,’ he said.

What is the purpose of the States’ National Guard?

“The Pentagon's plan calls for three rapid-reaction forces to be ready for emergency response by September 2011. The first 4,700-person unit, built around an active-duty combat brigade based at Fort Stewart, Ga., was available as of Oct. 1, said Gen. Victor E. Renuart Jr., commander of the U.S. Northern Command.”

“If funding continues, two additional teams will join nearly 80 smaller National Guard and reserve units made up of about 6,000 troops in supporting local and state officials nationwide. All would be trained to respond to a domestic chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or high-yield explosive attack, or CBRNE event, as the military calls it.”

Perhaps the answer is to raise a larger standing military and return the National Guard to their more traditional role in solving state problems. Yes, the Guard could train with active military units in combat theatres, but the centralized command and control of domestic Guard units would remain with State governors unless ceded by proper authority to the military for specifically designated time periods, after which Congressional re-authorization would be required.

“Military preparations for a domestic weapon-of-mass-destruction attack have been underway since at least 1996, when the Marine Corps activated a 350-member chemical and biological incident response force and later based it in Indian Head, Md., a Washington suburb. Such efforts accelerated after the Sept. 11 attacks, and at the time Iraq was invaded in 2003, a Pentagon joint task force drew on 3,000 civil support personnel across the United States.”

In 2005, a new Pentagon homeland defense strategy emphasized "preparing for multiple, simultaneous mass casualty incidents." National security threats were not limited to adversaries who seek to grind down U.S. combat forces abroad, McHale said, but also include those who "want to inflict such brutality on our society that we give up the fight," such as by detonating a nuclear bomb in a U.S. city.

“In late 2007, Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England signed a directive approving more than $556 million over five years to set up the three response teams, known as CBRNE Consequence Management Response Forces. Planners assume an incident could lead to thousands of casualties, more than 1 million evacuees and contamination of as many as 3,000 square miles, about the scope of damage Hurricane Katrina caused in 2005.”

Speaking of Hurricane Katrina …

One of the first actions of the New Orleans Police Department, under the auspices of Mayor Ray Nagin was to violate the Constitution of the United States and illegally confiscate any and all weapons from law-abiding citizens who were then rendered impotent to defend themselves against looters and criminals of all stripes. Many in the New Orleans police force turned tail and deserted their posts, thus leaving citizens to defend themselves. And yet, Nagin and his ilk are still in power; perhaps due to the complacency, and some would argue, stupidity, of the citizens of New Orleans.

“Last month, McHale said, authorities agreed to begin a $1.8 million pilot project funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency through which civilian authorities in five states could tap military planners to develop disaster response plans. Hawaii, Massachusetts, South Carolina, Washington and West Virginia will each focus on a particular threat -- pandemic flu, a terrorist attack, hurricane, earthquake and catastrophic chemical release, respectively -- speeding up federal and state emergency planning begun in 2003.”

Defense Secretary Gates …

“Last Monday, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates ordered defense officials to review whether the military, Guard and reserves can respond adequately to domestic disasters.”

“Gates gave commanders 25 days to propose changes and cost estimates. He cited the work of a congressionally chartered commission, which concluded in January that the Guard and reserve forces are not ready and that they lack equipment and training.”

Perhaps it would be appropriate for Defense Secretary Gates, who is said to be President-elect Obama’s choice for an interim Secretary of Defense, to be questioned about these issues during his upcoming Senate Confirmation Hearings. That is, assuming that the majority of the Senate will not vote along party lines to offer an automatic confirmation of the Secretary.

Breaks the mold?

“Bert B. Tussing, director of homeland defense and security issues at the U.S. Army War College's Center for Strategic Leadership, said the new Pentagon approach ‘breaks the mold’ by assigning an active-duty combat brigade to the Northern Command for the first time. Until now, the military required the command to rely on troops requested from other sources.”

" ‘This is a genuine recognition that this [job] isn't something that you want to have a pickup team responsible for,’ said Tussing, who has assessed the military's homeland security strategies.”

Both sides of the political spectrum are troubled …

“The American Civil Liberties Union and the libertarian Cato Institute are troubled by what they consider an expansion of executive authority.”

Domestic emergency deployment may be ‘just the first example of a series of expansions in presidential and military authority,’ or even an increase in domestic surveillance, said Anna Christensen of the ACLU's National Security Project. And Cato Vice President Gene Healy warned of ‘a creeping militarization" of homeland security.’”

"’There's a notion that whenever there's an important problem, that the thing to do is to call in the boys in green," Healy said, ‘and that's at odds with our long-standing tradition of being wary of the use of standing armies to keep the peace.’"

Remembering Waco and Ruby Ridge …

We should not forget the past. Especially when the highly-politicalized Clinton Department of Justice under the direction of Janet Reno attacked civilians in the guise of a law enforcement activity which many have characterized as a pre-scheduled media event – possibly with the members of the military acting in an “advisory” capacity.

Over the past years, we have seen the wall between the FBI (domestic) and the CIA (foreign) fall by the wayside. We have also seen the consolidation of power in the Department of Homeland Defense – headed by a lawyer without management or practical skills in leading a major Agency. A leader who campaigned alongside of the President for political purposes while neglecting a department that was encountering great difficulty in organizational dynamics. To this day, I believe the Department is too large to govern effectively and is riddled with waste, fraud, corruption and malfeasance as is most large bureaucracies that are feeling their way through the political process. This is not to say that there are not quite a few dedicated and skilled people employed b DHS, but that the leadership seems sorely lacking and cries out for someone of proven worth: a Colin Powell, for example. In fact, that would be a perfect job for Powell, a man whose patriotic credentials are beyond reproach. A man with the skill and temperament for the task at hand. And someone who knows, first hand, what the military – given the correct command leadership structure– could accomplish.

What can YOU do?

Consider the non-nuclear events which might trigger this act. A natural disaster -- hurrican, earthqake, forest fire; a widespread flu or other medical emergency; a compromise of important infrastructure -- power lines or aquaducts. All events which could be exploited as a demonstration of the need for greater control over the civilian population and a suspension of civil law in favor of martial law. If this happens, I would much rather be assisted by my neighbors and friends in the national guard than impersonal troops from some national command authority. How about you?

Now, more than ever before, we need to rebuild our political infrastructure. It is time to choose leaders based on their proven ability to accomplish their sworn duties and not by their telegenic, oratorical and fund-raising skills. It is time that we do not allow party politics to provide us with lame candidates like Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, George Bush and others who might “go along to get along.” The mere fact that a relatively few people in relatively unpopulated states should define our political candidates is ludicrous. We not only need to reform the political parties, we need to reform the primary election process.

We also need to reform the voting process. It seems that we have not learned the lessons of Florida as candidates are still wrangling over fly-specks on paper ballots. The process is becoming more open to corruption due to a lack of security for mailed absentee ballots. Finding ballots in the back of someone’s personal vehicle is unacceptable in this electronic age.

And we need to assume more personal responsibility for what our government does in our name. The issues should be discussed with the widest number of people. Our elected officials should not be allowed to tamper with the First Amendment in restricting broadcast or Internet rights.

We need to overcome apathy and the laziness that is allowing us to drift toward a more centralized government control over our lives. In some cases, unions which have greatly hampered education in the United States should be disbanded. We need to reassert educational imperatives at the local level.

And while our politicians are deciding how the military might play a role in civilian defense, has anyone considered that we are being invaded by hoards of foreigners, illegal aliens, who are looking to our government to empower them with a vote to simply vote us out of our own institutions and homeland? All facilitated by power-hungry political parties trying to game the system to their political advantage.

While there is much that is right with our nations, our politicians are slowly corrupting the America we know and love. Whether for political power, prestige of office, or personal profit, our politicians are becoming worse and worse. No leadership, no accountability and no specific performance in repairing or replacing our crumbling infrastructure – as they engage in social experiments designed to produce nothing but beholden voters.

We can no longer rely on the media to discover the truth nor speak truth to power. It is all up to individuals, the average citizen speaks out, if to no one other than his friends and neighbors, and then back talk with action to support worthy candidates for office.  

Be well, be safe and protect American freedom at all cost.

-- steve

A reminder from OneCitizenSpeaking.com: a large improvement can result from a small change…

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

Reference Links:

Pentagon to detail plan to bolster security|Washington Post

“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“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

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS

| Comments (0)

| |

Is global warming just another "feel good" social cause?

Filling the socialization hole …

Now that the elections are over and “The One” has been anointed the messiah – the hard realities of governing will set in. Of course, there will be continuing efforts to milk money out of the citizenry and to rebuild the Republican Party, but most of the hoopla will come to an end after January 20th. No more rallies or “come together” social events. Which will leave a very large hole in the lives of those who require external events to provide the necessary social contacts in order to validate their efforts as “people who care.” Society will begin drifting back towards its old stratifications and the acceptance that was shown certain quirky voters and volunteers will be withdrawn as people drift back into their old lives of family, friends, school, work, church, etc.. Looking to fill this “come together,” mass acceptance hole, it is possible that the disaffected among us, those hyper-partisans who have rallied for the political cause of their choice will be seeking to reestablish their social connections to “something larger.” Possibly by joining what is becoming the “church of climate alarm.” Where everyone, no matter what their normal social status, appearance , education can continue to rub elbows with those who have, likewise, “come out for the cause.”

Just another feel good social cause?

From the Sydney Morning Herald …

“Beware the church of climate alarm”

The old leftist trick: smearing the opposition with character assassination …

“As the Czech President, Vaclav Klaus, an economist, anti-totalitarian and climate change skeptic, prepares to take up the rotating presidency of the European Union next year, climate alarmists are doing their best to traduce him.”

“The New York Times opened a profile of Klaus, 67, this week with a quote from a 1980s communist secret agent's report, claiming he behaves like a ‘rejected genius,’ and asserts there is ‘palpable fear’ he will ‘embarrass’ the EU.”

“But the real fear driving climate alarmists wild is that a more rational approach to the fundamentalist religion of global warming may be in the ascendancy - whether in the parliamentary offices of the world's largest trading bloc or in the living rooms of Blacktown.”

Precautionary principle?

“As the global financial crisis takes hold, perhaps people are starting to wonder whether the so-called precautionary principle, which would have us accept enormous new taxes in the guise of an emissions trading scheme and curtail economic growth, is justified, based on what we actually know about climate.”

Stated here is the fundamental fear: that the emotion-driven panic over global climate change will be greatly diminished by the emotion-driven panic over the economic crisis which is real, present and tangible. Although, proponents of global warming will try and connect their wacky prescriptions with the economic crisis or need for energy independence, it is greatly feared that people who are forced to make difficult choices in their lives may, once again, look at the scientific rationale for creating public policy to solve a problem which may not be measurable or exhibit any results in the coming hundreds of years.

The weather is the weather … 

One of Australia's leading enviro-skeptics, the geologist and University of Adelaide professor Ian Plimer, 62, says he has noticed audiences becoming more receptive to his message that climate change has always occurred and there is nothing we can do to stop it.

“In a speech at the American Club in Sydney on Monday night for Quadrant magazine, titled Human-Induced Climate Change - A Lot Of Hot Air, Plimer debunked climate-change myths.”

What will be, will be …

"Climates always change," he said. Our climate has changed in cycles over millions of years, as the orbit of the planet wobbles and our distance from the sun changes, for instance, or as the sun itself produces variable amounts of radiation. "All of this affects climate. It is impossible to stop climate change. Climates have always changed and they always will."

“His two-hour presentation included more than 50 charts and graphs, as well as almost 40 pages of references. It is the basis of his new book, Heaven And Earth: The Missing Science Of Global Warming, to be published early next year.”

Debunking the central rationale for rationing …

“Plimer said one of the charts, which plots atmospheric carbon dioxide and temperature over 500 million years, with seemingly little correlation, demonstrates one of the ‘lessons from history’ to which geologists are privy: There is no relationship between CO2 and temperature.”

“Another slide charts the alternating periods of cooling and warming on Earth, with the Pleistocene Ice Age starting 110,000 years ago and giving way, 14,700 years ago, to the Bolling warm period for 800 years. This in turn gave way to the Older Dryas cooling for 300 years, then the Allerod warming for 700 years, and so on, until the cooling of the Little Ice Age from 1300 to 1850. Since 1850, we have lived through the ‘Modern Warming’, one of the most stable climate periods in history.”

The delicate balance of interpretation …

Unfortunately, the science of computer modeling often has great difficulty in resolving issues of causality, correlation and coincidence. It is possible to chart the results of a scientific phenomenon over a period of time, to use a computer program to build an equation which approximates the squiggles on the graph and then simply extend the line to see what might happen in the future. Of course, the computer program has no fundamental insight into whether the components of the phenomenon are causal, coincidental or if they even if they correlate. A simple illustration of this thesis is evident if you pick a few temperature readings and draw a line representing the mean temperature. Extend this line and see if next month’s weather fits within the data range described by the mean. If it does, you need to ask yourself whether or not the line that you have drawn is really representative of the underlying phenomena or it is a coincidence that the weather pattern matches your graph.

Of course, scientific weather modeling is much more complex as each supposed component of the global weather phenomenon is analyzed. But the fundamental question remains: is our model’s output really validated by the historical data over a relatively short time period or is it simply coincidental because we have adjusted our models to appear to match the historical readings? Are the independent components of our model causal and correlate with the underlying data  or are they simply coincidental. Much of the problem lies with using conveniently-short time periods to measure global weather phenomenon – when the periodicity of the actual phenomenon should be considered in the framework of hundreds, thousands or even greater periods of time.

Not to mention the very human trait of trying to justify policies policy involving money and power based on scientific theories which make these self-serving political actions more acceptable to the people and reduce the amount of resistance to their introduction.

Going the other way …

“Plimer said some astronomers predict we are headed for a new cooling period.”

“Plimer said there is a division between those scientists who sit in front of super computers and push piles of data into the mathematical models that drive the theory of climate change, and those who take measurements in the field.”

“We are not skeptical enough about the data. For instance, Plimer cited differences between results from temperature measuring stations in urban and rural areas. Those in urbanized Chicago, Berkeley, New York, and so on, show temperature rises over the past 150 years, whereas those in the rural US, in Houlton, Albany and Harrisburg (though not Death Valley, California) show equally consistent cooling. ‘What we're measuring is urbanization,’ Plimer said.”

An obvious, fundamental flaw?

Can it be that there is a fundamental flaw in our thinking? That instead of measuring global climate change, we are really measuring the combined localized effects of urbanization. The answer requires more study and, being politically incorrect in the church of climate change, is unlikely to attract the funding and media attention which it deserves.

“To understand the chaotic nature of climate change, we need to consider all the inputs - cosmic radiation, sun, clouds and so on, he said.”

Emotion vs. science: they believe what they are being told by the high priests of global weather change – and unfortunately most advocates have become highly politicized… 

“There was much more but essentially Plimer's message is that the idea humans cause climate change has become a fundamentalist religion which is corrupting science. It is embedded with a fear of nature and embraced principally by city people who have lost touch with nature.”

“He likens the debate to the famous 1990s battle he had in the Federal Court, where he accused an elder of The Hills Bible Church in Baulkham Hills of breaching Australia's Trade Practices Act by claiming to have found scientific evidence of Noah's Ark in Turkey.”

A fundamental truth based on an observation of people?

“Plimer says creationists and climate alarmists are quite similar in that ‘we're dealing with dogma and people who, when challenged, become quite vicious and irrational.’”

“Human-caused climate change is being 'promoted with religious zeal’ … there are fundamentalist organizations which will do anything to silence critics. They have their holy books, their prophet [is] Al Gore. And they are promoting a story which is frightening us witless [using] guilt [and urging] penance."

Credentialed crazies …

Credentials alone do not convey the authority or moral imperative to speak the “truth” to the masses. There have been any number of charlatans who have hidden behind well-credentialed pasts from great schools who have engaged in fraudulent schemes to promote their point of view or sell their products. The number of doctors who offer specious cures which delay actual treatment should be an example of the danger of listening to credentialed kooks.

“It is difficult for non-scientists to engage in the debate over what causes climate change and whether or not it can be stopped by new taxes and slower growth, because dissenting voices are shouted down by true believers in the scientific community who claim they alone have the authority to speak.”

Can global warming be stopped by taxes?

Why legislators believe that all problems can be cured or ameliorated by legislation is the often the same reason that a man with a hammer sees everything being cured by nails. In fact, legislators are often the most duplicitous and corrupt among us – promoting legislation for their self-interest rather than for the public good. Certain legislators will craft legislation in order to secure media attention, others to pursue personal prestige, power and profits. And the trouble is, that these people do not often read the bills the propose and cannot intelligently discuss the subject matter being legislated. They rely on staff or the special interests to write and interpret a bill’s meaning. Taxes will not stop global warming and their effectiveness in behavior modification is limited. Witness the criminalization of drugs – which serves to promote a very large and lucrative underground economy. And witness the hypocrisy of legal alcohol and cigarettes – both of which produce extremely harmful effects, and are legal only when taxes by legislative hypocrites.

Fearing the fight …

“Quadrant is under fire for publishing articles by skeptics but, as its editor, Keith Windschuttle, said on Monday night, ‘People who are really confident [of their facts] relish debate.’"

Notice that Al Gore refuses to engage in debate and will only appear in carefully selected and managed forums. Even his media availability is managed so as to screen out embarrassing questions or argumentative responses to his self-interested drivel.

“In any case, ordinary people already have suspicions. The zealotry and one-sidedness of the debate alarmed an 81-year-old Seven Hills pensioner, Denys Clarke, so much that last month, at his own expense, he hired the ballroom at the Blacktown Workers Club for two public forums, titled The Truth About Climate Change. He invited a climate skeptic, the James Cook University professor Bob Carter, a geologist, to speak. More than 300 people attended, some from as far away as Nowra.”

At some point in time, ordinary people are bound to wonder about the prescriptions for curing global warming which seem so out of touch with scientific reality, that they simply shut down and go on to the next cause.

Consider the current polling on the subject …

“Efforts to support global climate-change falls”

“There is both growing public reluctance to make personal sacrifices and a distinct lack of enthusiasm for the major international efforts now underway to battle climate change, according to findings of a poll of 12,000 citizens in 11 countries, including Canada.”

“Less than half of those surveyed, or 47 per cent, said they were prepared to make personal lifestyle changes to reduce carbon emissions, down from 58 per cent last year.”

“Only 37 per cent said they were willing to spend ‘extra time’ on the effort, an eight-point drop.”

“And only one in five respondents - or 20 per cent - said they'd spend extra money to reduce climate change. That's down from 28 per cent a year ago.”

“The 11 countries surveyed were Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Malaysia, Mexico, the United Kingdom and the United States. There were 2,000 respondents surveyed in China, including 1,000 in Hong Kong.”

“The survey was conducted as part of a joint collaboration between the financial institution HSBC and environmental groups, such as the Earthwatch Institute.”

Note that the poll automatically assumes that CO2 is a greenhouse gas that must be controlled through carbon cap and emissions trading. If CO2 really is a problem, why institute a financially-rewarding component that rewards those who do absolutely nothing to effect change global climate except rake in extremely lucrative commissions for trading paper based on a failed ENRON-style derivatives trading scheme.

Truth be told, this emissions trading scheme allows local polluters to continue polluting the ground, water and air – and avoiding legal responsibility for their damaging actions while passing the costs of the pollution credits along to their customers … and by extension to the broader public. We have all scene what Enron-style accounting and the Wall Street Wizards have wrought with the current financial crisis. And unfortunately, the blind do not see that the crisis caused by the legislative attempts to regulate greenhouse gasses will make the current financial crisis merely a blip on a curve. All to satisfy some international carbon credit bookkeeper who will declare that the “global community” benefits from these local actions. Hogwash to the extreme.

What can YOU do?

Demand the truth about the motives behind global warming legislation and their impact on our military and economy before signing off on man’s grandest scheme to bilk the public.

Demand that scientists who submit data to the global warming community clearly state the limitations of their findings and the applicability to the larger climate phenomenon. Most findings will be found to be localized and not extensible to more generalized situations. Finding a relatively few comparison points where computed data and historical data agree does not make a theory valid – and is far from establishing a scientific fact.

Demand that your elected officials base their legislation on credible and reproducible results which can be verified by other third-party researchers.

And, above all, remember that there is a major problem with subject matter experts who narrow their research focus and fail to perceive the big picture. Somewhat like not seeing the forest because of the trees. A helpful definition of an expert is someone who studies more and more about less and less; until they know everything about nothing.

Keep your own self-interest in focus at all times. Especially before signing over a portion of your hard-earned funds to those who may ask you to wait hundreds of years to observe measurable results.

-- steve

Quote of the day:  “The effort to understand the universe is one of the very few things that lifts human life a little above the level of farce, and gives it some of the grace of tragedy.” -- Steven Weinberg

A reminder from OneCitizenSpeaking.com: a large improvement can result from a small change…

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

Reference Links:

Efforts to support global climate-change falls: Poll

Beware the church of climate alarm|Sydney Morning Herald

“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“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

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS

| Comments (0)

| |

Judge rules on Obama's citizenship -- makes a major mistake?

While we do not have any opinion on Barack Obama’s citizenship in connection with his meeting the requirements to run for the Presidency of the United States, we certainly disagree with Judge Surrick’s assertion that “Berg lacked standing to bring the case, saying any harm from an allegedly ineligible candidate was ‘too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters.’"

Making the case …

On the contrary, a case could be made that the harm from an allegedly ineligible candidate who assumed the presidency is not vague, but a clear and present danger to any and all voters.

An ineligible candidate who was not a natural-born citizen of the United States as mandated by the United States’ Constitution brings forth the question of possible divided loyalties and/or allegiance to another sovereign nation.

Someone who may have divided loyalties or allegiance to another sovereign nation may be in a position to provide “state secrets” and other classified military intelligence and plans to that other sovereign nation which would immeasurably cause irreparable harm to the United States and its reputation and standing in domestic and international affairs.

Someone who may have divided loyalties or allegiance to another sovereign nation may be in a position make military and domestic decisions which would immeasurably cause irreparable harm to the United States and its reputation and standing in domestic and international affairs.

Assuming that Barack Obama is a qualified candidate for the Office of the President of the United States …

Without even considering the possibility that Barack Obama is ineligible to become the President of the United States, one can see any number of purely political problems with his candidacy that does not  assume his citizenship status.

Barack Obama is a Junior Senator who lacks the background and experience that would qualify a person for the position as the President of the United States.

Barack Obama has many troubling gaps in his background and the chronology of events leading up to his candidacy as put forth by the democrat party. Obama’s lack of candor, specificity and forthright assistance in providing background information makes it unlikely that he would be eligible for a “top secret” clearance that would be required for all high-level government officials. Although there is no formal requirement that the President of the United States possess a formal security clearance, the position does allow access to the highest levels of national classified information.

Barack Obama, likewise, has many troubling long-term associations with people who exhibit behavior antithetical to the interests of the United States and its citizens.

Barack Obama appears to have adopted a far-left liberal democrat agenda that will result in deleterious effects on the United States and its citizens. To wit:

  • The stated desire to curtail present military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and other foreign locations – even though we are on the brink of seeing some form of resolution to these matters through the political and military self-sufficiency of the Iraqi and Afghani governments. To undertake an unreasoned approach to withdrawal from these areas, not only endangers the physical well-being of deployed United States forces; but also introduces a measure of uncertainty in our foreign affairs which may lead to serious consequential events in the future. Because those who oppose the United States’ actions, both foreign and domestic, any sign of weakness on the part of the United States is likely to invite further provocation and attacks on the United States, its allies and its assets.
  • Barack Obama’s public announcements with respect to Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Russia and other foreign nations marks him as relatively unsophisticated in foreign affairs, naive in diplomacy and in a dangerous position of having to rely on his advisors without any “core” guidance which would enable him to determine the correct choice of action to pursue.

It appears that Barack Obama shares a common “tax and spend” philosophy among fellow democrats which would most likely result in an undue economic burden on this nation’s small businesses and individual citizens.

Obama’s plan to tax the wealthy and redistribute the wealth to those less fortunate smacks of the Marxist ideal of “To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities.” This philosophy is also shared with some of Obama’s long-term associations with the openly anti-American racists, Reverend Wright, Reverend Phleger, Minister Farrakahn and the unrepentant domestics terrorists William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn who openly admit that they have a radical socialist/Marxist/Communist philosophy.

And, considering his long-term (20+) years association with openly anti-Semitic clergy (Wright, Phleger, Farrakahn), I have to consider that Obama’s support for Israel may be less than 100% and that his actions may give aid and comfort to Muslim extremists in the region. I believe that Israel will do everything in its power to prevent Iran from obtaining and deploying nuclear weapons in the region. And that any interference by a United States President who is less than 100% committed to preserving the State of Israel would be disastrous.

Most troubling is Obama’s lack of leadership on any major issue and his willingness to “go along to get along” history. The President of the United States cannot simply vote “Present” when serious matters erupt; serious matters which require a decision – rather than a smile and some words about hope.

This disconnect between Obama’s rhetoric and his actions is also troubling. One can speak of change and hope – leaving its definitions and implementation to others. Obama simply has no previous history of acting in a bi-partisan manner on any significant issue requiring a reform of the existing system.

I will not be voting for Barack Obama …

Therefore, it should come as no surprise that I feel that, regardless of Barack Obama’s citizenship status, he is unqualified to assume the Office of the President of the United States.

I believe that he rose to his present position due to a confluence of events that could only have been made possible by a deeply polarized America where the majority of citizens have lost faith and trust in their elected officials. And that Obama’s support among the populace is more a function of those who hated Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate and those who who hated President George Bush and his current Administration.

I also believe that the media has abrogated their journalistic responsibilities to “speak truth to power” and that their obvious left-liberal bias and support for candidate Obama has further polarized the United States, deepened our military and economic travails by a constant and continuing drumbeat of negative lopsided reporting on the issues of the day, and most importantly, the fact that candidate Obama has all of the physical and oratorical abilities of a “star” in a nation which has come to worship celebrity and ignores hard, unpleasant realities.

I would also urge that you consider the existing situation in terms of your own enlightened self-interest and the welfare of your family. It is hard to come to any conclusion other than Obama is not worthy of achieving the Office of the President of the United States.

And for those of you who remain undecided, I would point out that Barack Obama’s own Vice Presidential choice, Joseph Biden has said that Obama was not qualified to be the president, that the Presidency does not lend itself to on-the-job training, and most importantly, that it is likely that Obama will be tested by a “manufactured” international crisis ginned-up only to test his mettle. And even more chilling is Biden’s remarks that the citizens of the United States may believe that Obama’s response was inappropriate – and asking us, in advance, to continue supporting him.

Several scenarios present themselves for consideration:

  • Middle East action by Israel against Iran;
  • Unconditional withdrawal from Iraq, Afghanistan;
  • The need to invade Pakistan’s sovereign space in order to crush al QAEDA terrorists;
  • Russian action against one of its former satellite nations; and/or
  • Continued genocide and strife in Africa.

I cannot think of anything more chilling than knowing who are being targeted for attack for simply electing an inexperienced and, apparently, unqualified candidate.

Therefore, even though John McCain would not be my first choice for the Presidency of the United States, he is the best man for the position at this point in time. With McCain, I do not worry about his patriotism and willingness to defend the United States against all enemies, both foreign and domestic.

And while I do not believe John McCain has a great background in finance or economics, it appears that there are few solutions to the present situation that do not require a steady hand and a sufficient amount of time for these most troubling matters to resolve. If there was a simple, easy answer, it would have been taken by the present Administration. But I am confident that McCain will access the required people to resolve the problem – regardless of what side of the aisle they may be sitting.

About the ruling …

According to the Associated Press…

“ federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit challenging Barack Obama's qualifications to be president.”

“U.S. District Judge R. Barclay Surrick on Friday night rejected the suit by attorney Philip J. Berg, who alleged that Obama was not a U.S. citizen and therefore ineligible for the presidency. Berg claimed that Obama is either a citizen of his father's native Kenya or became a citizen of Indonesia after he moved there as a boy.”

“Obama was born in Hawaii to an American mother and a Kenyan father. His parents divorced and his mother married an Indonesian man.”

“Internet-fueled conspiracy theories question whether Obama is a "natural-born citizen" as required by the Constitution for a presidential candidate and whether he lost his citizenship while living abroad.”

“Surrick ruled that Berg lacked standing to bring the case, saying any harm from an allegedly ineligible candidate was ‘too vague and its effects too attenuated to confer standing on any and all voters.’"

About the Judge …

Nominated by Bill Clinton on April 11, 2000, Judge Surrick seems to have a rather undistinguished background. His required court procedures seem well-thought out and he does not appear to be an ideologue. He appears to be just another hard-working judge performing a difficult task.

“R. Barclay Surrick, of Media, Pennsylvania, has been a judge on the Court of Common Pleas of Delaware County, Pennsylvania, since 1978. Prior to joining the state judiciary, Surrick was a shareholder at Cramp D’Iorio McConchie & Surrick from 1969 to 1977, and worked as an associate at Lutz Fronfield Labrum & Knapp from 1967 to 1969. He also served as a part-time attorney for the Delaware County Public Defenders' Office from 1965 to 1974, and ran a solo practice in Delaware County from 1966 to 1967. Surrick began his legal career as an associate for Basil C. Clare, Esq., from 1965 to 1966. He received his B.A. degree from Dickinson College in 1960, his J.D. degree from Dickinson School of Law in 1965, and his L.L. M. degree in judicial process from the University of Virginia School of Law in 1982.” <Source>

About the case …

BERG v. OBAMA et al

“Plaintiff Philip J. Berg alleged that Defendant Barack Obama is not eligible for the Office of the President because Obama lost his U.S. citizenship when his mother married an Indonesian citizen and naturalized in Indonesia. Plaintiff further alleged that Obama followed her naturalization and failed to take an oath of allegiance when he turned 18 years old to regain his U.S. citizenship status.”

Plaintiff: PHILIP J. BERG

Defendant: BARACK OBAMA, THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE, THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION and DOES 1-50 INCLUSIVE

Case Number: 2:2008cv04083

Filed: August 21, 2008

Court: Pennsylvania Eastern District Court

Office: Other Statutory Actions Office [ Court Info ]

County: Montgomery

Presiding Judge: HONORABLE R. BARCLAY SURRICK

Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Other Statutory Actions

Cause: U.S. Government Defendant

Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Jury Demanded By: 28:2201 Injunction

For those wishing to review some of the documents filed with the court, they may be accessed here. 

What can YOU do?

Do not vote for any candidate or current politician who is willing to subvert the safety, security, sovereignty and economic strength of the United States or limit an individual's right of self-defense for their personal philosophy, power, prestige or profits.

-- steve

Quote of the day: “The effort to understand the universe is one of the very few things that lifts human life a little above the level of farce, and gives it some of the grace of tragedy”. - Steven Weinberg

A reminder from OneCitizenSpeaking.com: a large improvement can result from a small change…

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

“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“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

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS

| Comments (2)

| |

RECONSIDERING THE DEATH PENALTY (Updated)

UPDATE: (10-29-10)  AN UNSPEAKABLE TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE

Texas Monthly is reporting ...

"For eighteen years Anthony Graves insisted that he had nothing to do with the gruesome murder of a family in Somerville. That’s exactly how long it took for justice to finally be served."

"At the recommendation of the Burleson County district attorney’s office, state district judge Reva Towslee-Corbett signed a motion that stated, simply, 'We have found no credible evidence which inculpates this defendant.' In other words, all capital murder charges were dropped."

"Former Harris County assistant district attorney Kelly Siegler, who has sent nineteen men to death row in her career, went even further in her statements. Siegler laid the blame for Graves’s wrongful conviction squarely at the feet of former Burleson County D.A. Charles Sebesta. 'Charles Sebesta handled this case in a way that would best be described as a criminal justice system’s nightmare,' Siegler said. Over the past month, she explained, she and her investigator, retired Texas Ranger Otto Hanak, reviewed what had happened at Graves’s trial. After talking to witnesses and studying documents, they were appalled by what they found. 'It’s a prosecutor’s responsibility to never fabricate evidence or manipulate witnesses or take advantage of victims,' she said. 'And unfortunately, what happened in this case is all of these things.' Graves’s trial, she said, was 'a travesty.'”

UPDATE: (03-19-09)  SCARING MYSELF: I AM AGREEING WITH A LIBERAL DEMOCRAT

According to Law.com ...

"Gov. Bill Richardson, who has supported capital punishment, signed legislation to repeal New Mexico's death penalty, calling it the 'most difficult decision in my political life.'

The new law replaces lethal injection with a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. The repeal takes effect on July 1, and applies only to crimes committed after that date.

" 'Regardless of my personal opinion about the death penalty, I do not have confidence in the criminal justice system as it currently operates to be the final arbiter when it comes to who lives and who dies for their crime,' Richardson said."

I never though I would find common ground with a liberal democrat on matters of social interest, but there you have it. We both agree that the system is so flawed, that the death penalty cannot be applied with any certainty. Especially in an era of politically-motivated prosecutors and corrupt police operating from a position of self-interest. DNA, prosecutorial and investigational misconduct has rendered the system unreliable. -- steve

UPDATE: (10-17-08) LAPD ACKNOWLEDGES FINGERPRINT ERRORS

From the Los Angeles Times ... 

"According to a confidential LAPD report obtained by The Times, two people had criminal charges against them dropped because the LAPD's fingerprint print experts erroneously identified them as suspects. The 10-page report said shoddy work and poor oversight have plagued the fingerprint unit and recommended that independent auditors be brought in to determine the scope of the problems."
"LAPD officials said they did not know how many other people might have been wrongly accused over the years as a result of poor fingerprint analysis and did not have the funds to pay for a comprehensive audit to find out."

UPDATE: (08/08/08) EVEN DNA EVIDENCE IS SUBJECT TO PROCEDURAL ERRORS

From Reuters

"Australian police will re-examine 7,000 crimes solved through DNA evidence after a mistake forced detectives to free a suspect wrongly accused of murder."

"Police last month said a DNA sample taken from the murder scene, where Margaret Tapp was strangled and her daughter Seana raped and later killed, matched Gesah after comparison with 400,000 other DNA profiles on a national database."

"Gesah was arrested and faced court, but a later check found the DNA evidence used against him was taken elsewhere and mistakenly tested with samples from the Tapp murder scene."

UPDATE: (04/19/08) PROVING MY POINT

From the Los Angeles Times...

"After 876 days in jail for a murder that prosecutors now say did not happen, Cynthia Sommer knew what she wanted: a fancy coffee drink at Starbucks, followed by a coconut-shrimp dinner at Bully's restaurant."
"Later, she said, she will decide how to pay her legal bills and whether to sue the district attorney for prosecuting her and overlooking evidence that ultimately cleared her of poisoning her Marine husband."
"On Thursday, San Diego County Dist. Atty. Bonnie Dumanis moved to dismiss murder charges against Sommer, telling reporters that overlooked evidence and new scientific scrutiny had poked holes in the prosecution's assertion that she used arsenic to kill Sgt. Todd Sommer."
"It was a startling conclusion to a murder prosecution built on a tabloid-style scenario of a scheming wife poisoning her younger husband, watching as he died and then -- soon after -- getting a $5,400 breast augmentation, partying and having sex with several partners."

"In November a jury convicted Sommer of first-degree murder, but the trial judge overturned the verdict, ruling that prosecutors' description of her 'lifestyle' was so inflammatory that it deprived Sommer of a fair trial."
"She had been convicted of murder with special circumstances -- murder for hire and murder by poison -- that carried a mandatory life sentence without possibility of parole. Todd Sommer, 23, was stationed at Miramar Marine Corps Air Station and appeared to be in excellent health when he fell ill and died within days in 2002. Married in 1999, the couple had a son. Cynthia Sommer had three children by a previous marriage."

In response to a discovery motion by Bloom, Sommer's new defense attorney, prosecutors gathered all the tissue samples that had been taken from her husband's body, including some that were not tested before the first trial.
When they had the new samples tested, experts could not find arsenic -- creating what Dumanis called reasonable doubt that Todd Sommer had died of arsenic poisoning. An expert newly hired by the prosecution also suggested that earlier samples in which arsenic was found had been contaminated.
Bloom said it should not have taken a defense motion to make prosecutors gather samples that had remained at the San Diego Naval Medical Center since Todd Sommer's death.
"It's scary how [prosecutors] are dealing with this now," Bloom said. "They're taking credit for doing the right thing. They didn't do the right thing! Justice was done, but not because of the prosecution in this case but despite the prosecution."

She could have easily received the death penalty due to mishandled scientific evidence and an overzealous prosecution team... which proves my point about the need to re-think the capital punishment process.

Original blog entry...

The Supreme Court: the death penalty procedure is constitutional...

According to the Washington Post...

"The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the most common method of lethal injection used to execute condemned prisoners is constitutional, a decision sure to restart the nation's dormant death chambers. But the court's splintered reasoning seems likely to result in more challenges to the way capital punishment is administered in the United States."

"The decision's most likely immediate effect is to dissolve the de facto moratorium on executions that has taken root since the court announced in September that it would decide the case, Baze v. Rees. Just hours after yesterday's decision was announced, Virginia Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) lifted the hold he had placed on capital punishment."

But before we start executing prisoners...

Perhaps we need to do another end-to-end review, do confirmatory or exculpatory DNA if such evidence exists to be tested. Review the competency of the prosecutors and defense counsel. And look at the jury composition as a preliminary fairness check of peerage. If any questions are raised, the death sentence can be commuted to life without the possibility of parole. If everything seems legal and there are no further legal appeals, execute the sentence as mandated by law.

Why hesitation is the best policy...

There was a time when I was an advocate of the death penalty for egregious crimes resulting in the death of law enforcement officials, multiple victims and those who were killed during the commission of a crime.

However, the events of the past few years have caused me to rethink my position. It is not so much that I am against the death penalty for those whose actions have resulted in the death of others  as it is that I have come to realize that the process has become tragically flawed.

Far from being a liberal, I have come to believe that the faith and confidence which I unequivocally yielded to our government officials was misplaced.

Primarily, I have found that we are unable to completely trust either our judicial system or our law enforcement officials. Not to say that there are not ethical and honest individuals in both professions, it is just that we must hold these officials to a higher standard when dealing with the death penalty.

Why?

I believe that we have witness an unprecedented amount of unprofessional behavior on the part of law enforcement officials and the judiciary.

The most egregious examples of what I perceive as misconduct are:

  • making prosecutorial decisions based on community sentiment or political considerations;
  • withholding exculpatory evidence even when such behavior is illegal;
  • creating synthetic evidence by using the testimony of "jailhouse" snitches or other witnesses who benefit from making a deal to testify against a person who they briefly met within a controlled setting;
  • allowing a co-conspirator to escape the death penalty by providing testimony that results in the death penalty for one or more co-conspirators;
  • using questionable or manufactured scientific evidence without a thorough vetting or challenge;
  • denying access to modern DNA testing regardless of the cost or legal posture of the court or the prosecution;
  • allowing unqualified attorneys to participate in the defense of a capital case;
  • using jury consultants to artificially prejudice one-side or another in a capital case;
  • allowing the media to taint the jury pool, especially since the media is never excoriated for inaccurate or biased reporting toward their intended audience;
  • the lack of death-qualified judges and the general ineptitude of today's juries; and
  • allowing law enforcement testimony which shades the truth or is indicative of a lack of good police work because law enforcement "believed" that they had the correct person in custody.

The alternate is not release, it is life without possibility of parole...

Therefore, I believe that the death penalty should be reserved for those who can be proven to have positively committed a crime in which the evidence was not circumstantial, coerced or law enforcement and/or the prosecution did not maintain a hidden personal or professional agenda. Everybody else gets a life sentence without the possibility of parole.

Here are a few cases from Wikipedia which prove the point...

  • 1979; Gary Dotson, was the first person whose conviction (in 1979) was overturned because of DNA evidence, in 1989.
  • 1981; Clarence Brandley, Montgomery County, Texas, was convicted of capital murder in 1981. In 1989, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals overturned Brandley's conviction, finding that police and prosecutors, including James Keeshan, failed to investigate leads pertaining to other suspects, suppressed evidence placing other suspects at crime scene at time of crime, failed to call a witness who didn't support the state's case, allowed the perjured testimony of a witness to go uncorrected, and failed to notify Brandley that another man later confessed to the crime.
  • 1982; Ron Williamson and Dennis Fritz, Pontotoc County, Oklahoma,were intimidated by police into confessions for the 1982 rape and murder of Debra Sue Carter and convicted. In 1999, DNA evidence exonerated them.
  • 1983; John Gordon Purvis, Broward County, Florida, a severely mentally ill person, despite no physical evidence that he was even at the scene of the murder, was intimidated by police into confessing to the murder of Susan Hamwi and her daughter in 1983.Later, investigators found that Paul Hamwi, Susan Hamwi's ex-husband, had hired Robert Wayne Beckett Sr. and Paul Serio to murder Susan Hamwi and Purvis was exonerated in 1993.
  • 1984; Darryl Hunt, convicted in 1984 of the rape and murder of Deborah Sykes, spent 19 years in prison, 9 of which were served after DNA evidence indicated that he did not commit the rape. Since Hunt was an African-American, the case was heavily charged with the topic of race relations.
  • 1984; Juan Melendez was wrongly convicted of the Florida murder of Delbert Baker. He spent over 17 years on Death Row and was released from prison on January 3, 2002.
  • 1992; Joshua Rivera, 36, was sentenced 37 years for a 1992 murder. On September 19, 1992, Leonard Aquino was in front of a building and was approached by a couple of men who spoke briefly, then opened fire. Mr. Aquino was killed; another man, Paul Peralta, was shot, but survived. Rivera was known to people in the building and had a conviction for gun possession. He was charged and convicted of the crime. In 2006 Jaime Acevedo confessed he drove the real killer to the murder scene, and that Rivera was not involved.
  • 1999; The Tulia incident, in which 46 people, forty who were African-American, were arrested on a drug sting under undercover officer Tom Coleman. Despite the lack of credible evidence, many pled guilty to receive lesser sentences seeing as they would not receive a fair trial (those convicted received harsher sentences). Further investigations and other evidence led to the release of most of the "Tulia 46" by 2004, who were further compensated a total of $6,000,000 collectively to avoid further litigation.
  • 2007; Martin Tankleff released from prison and his 1990 conviction quashed after new evidence cast doubt on the police tactics and methods used to gather evidence. He was originally convicted of killing his parents, but new, unspecified, evidence cast serious enough doubt on that to cause an Appeal Court to quash the conviction.
  • 2008; a Colorado judge ordered at 22 January 2008 the immediate release of Tim Masters. DNA research by Richard Eikelenboom from Independent Forensic Services in Nunspeet disproved his connection with the death of Peggy Hettrick in 1987 in Fort Collins.

And on the flip side...

I am also dismayed by the incompetence of those who pressed cases against those who I believe should have been found guilty. The notorious O.J. Simpson case comes to mind. Especially where the case was managed as a political show trial. Where evidence was suppressed. Where a law enforcement official was painted as a racist thus nullifying his testimony. For allowing race to enter into the equation. For assigning a celebrity-conscious judge that lacked the ability to control a high profile case. Resulting in a psychopath running free in America.

What can YOU do?

Regardless of how you feel about good versus evil, there are certain people who have committed horrendous acts that require that they forfeit their life. These people should never be allowed to become a threat to any other individual or spread their sick philosophy to others.

Witness the "cult" status accorded to Charles Manson who should have been executed, except for the intervention of the California Supreme Court which halted all death penalties. When the death penalty was reinstated, Manson's sentence had already been commuted and he was spared. Because of the nature of the legal proceedings, Manson will be eligible for parole in 2012, where it is hoped that he will be denied parole for the 12th consecutive time.

For the religious among us who believe that the death penalty is always inappropriate, just consider how many people Manson has influenced over the years.

-- steve

Quote of the day: "A judge is a law student who marks his own examination papers." -- H. L. Mencken

A reminder from OneCitizenSpeaking.com: a large improvement can result from a small change…

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

Reference Links:

Justices Uphold Lethal Injection Procedure

Baze v. Rees|United States Supreme Court

“Nullius in verba”-- take nobody's word for it!
"Acta non verba" -- actions not words

“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

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS

| Comments (0)

| |

Previous