Ron Paul Survives Lies, Manipulation Of Mass Media

By Mark Anderson

A recent article entitled “A Requiem for Ron Paul,” written by Stacy Cowley for Fortune Small Business magazine online, begins:

“Ron Paul’s Friday announcement that his presidential campaign ‘will soonwind down’ removes from the race a quixotic figure whose doomed pursuit of the White House inspired libertarians and free-market purists, including many business owners who loved his message about a nation free from regulatory fetters.

”Asked by AFP why she wrote that Paul had dropped out when he has not, Miss Cowley replied, “I think we stand by what was written,” while claiming that the article was “not a bias against a particular candidate; it’s just a function of how the media operates.

”When reminded that Paul has not actually pulled out like Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney did when they officially quit, she seemed to dodge the matter, while portraying her article as a whole as “a tribute to what he (Paul) was trying to accomplish.” She also told AFP that she put the article together (with two other reporters, just for an average length piece) near deadline, though Miss Cowley said she watched all of Paul’s latest video.

The mainstream media sees Paul as numerically out of the running in terms of delegates. But Paul confirmed he’s still in the race to keep his ideas in the arena (and to be there if McCain falls from grace or if delegates are not bound to McCain in September at the Republican National Convention).

Reporters and editors in the mainstream media want to spin their stories, instead of reporting actual statements and events as they unfold without prejudice. The result is that not enough Americans know about “the other guy” still standing in the GOP field. This deceives the electorate when the nation is in dire straits—and when many who don’t want to vote Democratic also don’t like McCain but generally are not aware there is another choice.

AFP viewed the same video that Miss Cowley and many other mainstream hacks saw, which is Rep. Paul’s latest video statement to supporters posted on ronpaul2008.com. It shows that he has not dropped out of the presidential race. But nearly all media outlets have persistently claimed that he has quit. While Paul does say “victory in the conventional political sense is not available in the presidential race,” he nevertheless clearly remains in the presidential race.

“The campaign for freedom will continue in this new phase—in this we will need financial resources to continue,” he states in a comment that the major media will not touch in its relentless effort to nudge Paul out of the race, much in the way that former Democratic candidate Rep. Dennis Kucinich (Ohio) was forced out of the running when he was not asked by network wonks to take part in a major televised debate. He charged then that the media was making his decisions for him, rather than allowing him to decide for himself whether to remain in the running.

A valuable spinoff of the Paul campaign is exposure of the major media for what it is—an untrustworthy propaganda belt that cannot be believed. This manipulative information ministry lately has hung its hat on Paul’s statement in the video that “the presidential campaign will soon wind down.”

However, the next words out of Paul’s mouth were: “But we do still encourage all effort to gain the maximum number of votes and delegates in all the remaining primaries and to continue the caucus process that’s ongoing in other states by loyal volunteers.”

The big media also has latched onto Paul’s words: “We must remember, elections are short-term efforts. Revolutions are long-term projects.”

Many reports have characterized that video comment as signaling a dignified surrender. However, Paul said on CNN’s American Morning show: “If you’re in a campaign for only gaining power, that’s one thing. If you’re in a campaign to influence ideas and the future of the country, the campaign is never over.”

Some supporters say the Paul campaign is slow in setting the record straight when the media lie about his status. Evening news reports on NBC and other national networks report as if Paul doesn’t exist. It’s just the lackluster McCain on one hand, and Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on the other.

Paul has remained true to his word that as long as his supporters want him to remain in the presidential running, he will do so—even as McCain remains the media hyped “leader” for the GOP but is vulnerable to mounting scandals and revelations about his counterfeit conservatism and his checkered past.

Besides being listed as a member of the infamous Council on Foreign Relations in the CFR’s 2007 report— putting him in close quarters with the ruling-class establishment that pushes for a U.S. empire and a North American Union—McCain has not earned much heartfelt support from Republican-leaning media pundits (Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc) and various longtime GOP fixtures such as evangelical leader James Dobson.

But this GOP clique will not even mention Paul as the Reagan-like figure they claim to be longing for. But, as noted in Newsweek, Paul knew Reagan well, admires and practices some of his philosophy (get rid of the Education Department) and won “The Gipper’s” personal support when seeking election to Congress.

Paul did not want to lose the Republican nomination for his Texas congressional seat, since he wants to continue his revolution. He won that hands down versus a determined opponent. And, as AFP has noted, with that victory in his back pocket, his load is lighter and he is able to stay in the presidential running to at least give old-guard Republican voters a constitutional choice.

Republicans, Paul said on CNN, “have a right to vote for someone that stands for traditional Republican principles.”

In his latest video, Paul also reiterated the idea of having a summer march in Washington to amplify his revolution’s ideas and emphasize its enduring presence on the political scene.

“It looks to me like June 21 would be a good day,” he said, adding, however, that other individuals or groups, instead of the Paul campaign, would have to be the march’s main organizers. He attributed this to legal, logistical and practical reasons. If his march happens, AFP will be there.

As for the other media, who knows?

Mark Anderson can be reached via email at truthhound2@yahoo.com.
(Issue # 12, March 24, 2008)

Video message: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk_vVaZxTno

Ron Paul Roars In Lone Star State

By Pat Shannan

Famed journalistic curmudgeon H.L. Mencken wrote in The Baltimore Sun nearly a century ago, “Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.” The current presidential (crooked) election primaries demonstrate that the adage still fits snugly with the American voter.

Speaking of the Elvis-like frenzy at a recent Barack Obama rally, Charlotte Allen of The Washington Post said:

“We scream, we swoon. How dumb can we get?” Her Post colleague, Linda Hirshman, bemoaning the fact that “. . . women are split every way they can be. They’re the only bloc not voting their bloc,” further wrote, “American women still aren’t strategic enough to form a meaningful political movement directed at taking power.”

In other words, vote for the woman simply because she’s a woman. Obama can count on deriving most of the black votes for no other reason than he is at least half black.

That’s certainly enough, to them, for him to be the president. This seems to be the most important determining factor for both groups: ”He/she is one of us.”

That’s enough. Would it make any difference even if the two Democratic candidates were Rosie O’Donnell and O.J. Simpson? Probably not.

Clinton and Obama say they want “change.” Really? What have you two frauds done to bring about change since you became senators? You’ve been sitting up there for 10 years between you.

On the Republican side, John McCain is willing to keep troops in Iraq “for a hundred years,” legalize illegal aliens and generally continue to do whatever the existing agenda directs, in order to sell out American sovereignty to the New World Order.

These three traitors are chronicled, day in and day out, on the evening news and the morning newspapers. Yet, while any of them, prior to their recent elevation to “star status” by the media, would have been jubilant to draw 750 people at any speaking engagement, Ron Paul drew a crowd to the capitol steps in Austin, Texas last week estimated by police to be at 7,500. However, unless you were there, that fact would have been difficult to find out.

Certainly, no other newsman told you. So there’s one more reason why Ron Paul must stay in the race and as a Republican, at least until convention time right after Labor Day. He must stay not only to enlighten the American people about his sensible platform, but also so he may be able to continue to expose the fraudulent news media for what they really are: deceivers.

Without the deceptive news media—or with fair and honest reporting—Ron Paul would have already sent John McCain back to the Senate and would already be the all but elected new president. But the media have created the appearance that the American people don’t want Paul to be president, when it is the Republican planners who don’t want him. As the campaign trail lengthens and the revolution expands, it is becoming more and more obvious that Ron Paul is the people’s choice.

A radio commentator said that when George W. Bush took office, the euro could be bought with 82 American cents—the overnight change on your dresser. Now with the trading price at $1.53, that 2001 figure may be doubled before you read this. The American economy is crashing, and the Federal Reserve Note “dollar” is doomed. For the past quarter century or more, monetary realists have pointed out that no nation in the history of this planet has ever survived a paper money scheme, and this one won’t either.

Now we have reached the end of the line. It is now a crisis. Unless the nation’s constitutional monetary system of circulating gold and/or silver coin is restored—and Ron Paul is the only candidate who will do that—then this generation of Americans will witness a crash and depression that will make 1929 look like a Sunday School picnic.

Now, with that in mind, just how many black Americans or female white Americans would really want to see “one of their own” in the White House, if they knew what they were trading for it? Instead of the first woman or first black president, how about we get the first honest president?

The climate of the times demands it. Even if any of the other candidates, upon being inaugurated, decided that a move to an honest monetary system was indeed the right thing to do, he or she would have to appoint Ron Paul secretary of Treasury to carry out the plans because none of the others has a clue how to do it.

One’s knowledge is only as good as one’s information. If people are not aware of the above facts, then they certainly are justified in making their frivolous complaints all summer long about not having any viable candidates. On the other hand, if the multitudes can be made aware that there is one viable candidate out there—a statesman rather than just another lying politician—then not only would the meaningless debates cease but the voter’s decision would be simplified, and the total vote for Ron Paul would be so overwhelming that a computer vote fraud would need to be massive indeed to prevent his election.

This is what begins to happen when an “unknown” and one who many erroneously think (because of news media deception) has already dropped out of the race, draws 7,500 people at a gathering, while the opposition quietly drools in jealousy.

One fraud, Mike Huckabee (who dropped out), the CFR’s anointed one to thwart the Paul campaign with his phony conservatism, recently announced that, as president, he would “do away with the IRS.” Is that plagiarizing a script from Dr. Paul? But “Fakeabee” hasn’t the slightest intention of doing any sort of thing because he has no idea why it should be done. He still thinks the income tax funds something. His is no more than cheap, hollow rhetoric from a deceptive politician.

How can we know this? Because he didn’t mention dismantling the FED. Ron Paul is the only candidate who knows that an income tax—and this is straight out of the Communist Manifesto—is necessary only to control a fiat currency. When governments (or in this case, private bankers) can turn on the printing presses at will, then something else is necessary to vacuum up the excess paper and credit each year to prevent hyper-inflation.

However, the system still loses a little more ground each year and eventually even the “vacuum cleaner” is not enough to handle the problem.

The income tax has no function in a system of circulating gold and/or silver coin. If you have wondered how and why both of these destructive planks surreptitiously became a part of the American system in the same year, 1913, that is your answer. One is no good without the other. Why did the people allow our government to permit an independent organization to run our economy in the first place? It was corruption from the start.

President Ron Paul would likely destroy the IRS the benign way: by pardoning every person in federal prison who is there because of a phony tax conviction and stopping all future prosecutions by doing the same thing the morning following any other convictions.

Meanwhile, Americans detest tax increases, and 10-term Congressman Ron Paul has never voted for a tax increase.

As a physician, he has delivered over 4,000 babies and is yet to meet the first mother whose pregnancy was so endangered that she required an abortion. Is it any wonder that he is “pro life?”

A few American communities are finally passing laws to deport illegal aliens, but Ron Paul would send them all home posthaste and then build a fence across the southern border to keep them out. It would cost far less than the financing of “foreign entanglements”.

Guarding the borders of Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California would not present any manpower problem, because President Ron Paul would bring home the thousands of troops now tormenting the peoples of Iraq and Afghanistan.

“A nation without secure borders is no nation at all,” says he, who, incidentally, will never support these wars or any other war “declared” by a president instead of the constitutionally mandated Congress.

And if these Bush/Cheney wars are going so well, how come Ron Paul gets more votes and donations from military personnel than all of the other candidates combined? President Paul would do away with government “snoopervision” edicts such as the misnamed “Patriot Act,” which was a giant step toward a police state and had nothing to do with stopping international terrorists.

Who can think of any reason to vote for anyone else? The answer to is: no one, if they know the facts. Ron Paul would be the choice for president in November, if the people were allowed to learn the facts.

Pat Shannan is the assistant editor of American Free Press.
(Issue # 11, March 17, 2008)

German Scientist Exposes Chemtrails As Military Operations

by Rami Nagel

A TV news report from Germany available at: (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVc9GX5K_As) confirmed that the German Military is manipulating the climate in Germany. As a result scientists have filed a lawsuit against the government for climate manipulation.

The video concludes, "We can state with a 97% certainty that we have on our hands chemical trails (chemtrails) comprised by fine dust containing polymers and metals, used to disrupt radar signals

."The purpose of chemtrails, which are well documented over the United State and other parts of the world, according to researchers, is to manipulate the weather. Karsten Brandt, German meteorologist states, "The Federal Army is Manipulating the Meteorological maps.

"The disruption of radar signals is the main purpose theorizes Mr. Brandt in the interview. "I was surprised that this artificial cloud was so wide-spread. The radar images are stunning considering the needed tons of dispersed elements - although, the federal army claims that only small amounts of material were propagated. The military heads claim that the substances used are not harmful."

.Johannes Remmel, German Green party representative states, "The government must provide explanations to the unsuspecting population." While radar is tracking suspicious aircraft, the Germany Military then uses counterfeit satellite imagery to hide their operations.

In Germany, weather manipulation is prohibited, and I would likewise believe that it is prohibited in the U.S. as well.

Since Chemtrails are so widespread, I would rule out the idea that this is just military performing operations to disrupt radar signals as part of some sort of drill.

The forefront of these operations in the United States appears to be the US Navy, as detailed in "Death in the Air: Globalism, Terrorism & Toxic Warfare," by Dr. Len Horowitz. Many government watchdogs claim global depopulation, the targeted reduction of the world's population by two-thirds, is secretly the reason behind chemtrail spraying.

An alternative theory to explain Chemtrails, would be that a new weapon related to controlling the weather is being deployed. By creating droughts and thus famines, large populations could be easily controlled or eliminated. Other countries could be easily controlled and brought to their knees by a global power if the weather could be controlled or altered.

For a while I was confused between chemtrails, and contrails. Contrails are the exhaust of an air craft, it leaves a trail in the sky and the trail rapidly dissipates. With chemtrails, they initially look identical to contrails, but rather than the trail dissipating, the trail expands and then starts to look like a cloud. Over the Silicon Valley where I live, I daily witness these chemtrails starting and stopping from airplanes. In other words, the plane has control over the chemicals it is releasing. Also, I have noticed on some days the area is filled with a gray hazy muck, and the mountains almost disappear. This is highly unusual especially when just one day before, the mountains were totally clear.

Part of the undercurrents, at least in the United States, is the concept being marketing through radio, television and schools, that the earth is overpopulated. The idea of overpopulation, as the cause of our problems, was something that I had believed in for a time.

I believed in that idea until I realized the abundance of nature. Just seeing the amount of food produced by one healthy tree, and the millions of acres of unused land in central California, helped me understand Nature's abundance.

The creator did not put humans on earth to suffer, to starve and to die. The creator of life gave us vast resources from which to be healthy. Humans are grossly misusing earth's delicate resources, and thus we have created an experience of lack and deprivation. The lack we experience is not natural, but a reflection of our disconnection from the source of life.

Every action, thought, and feeling has a cause and an effect. Evil never will win, it cannot. But we all need to work together to bring more awareness to the dreaded reality - that our government seems bent on making this planet a military war zone.

I have faith that evil won't win this time.

About the author

Rami Nagel is the author of "Cure Tooth Decay: Heal And Prevent Cavities With Nutrition," which teaches readers how to reclaim their dental health.

Global Warming anyone?

March 13, 2008

The average temperature across both the contiguous U.S. and the globe during climatological winter (December 2007-February 2008) was the coolest since 2001, according to scientists at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. In terms of winter precipitation, Pacific storms, bringing heavy precipitation to large parts of the West, produced high snowpack that will provide welcome runoff this spring.

A complete analysis is available online.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080313_coolest.html


Climate panel on the hot seat

By H. Sterling Burnett -

More than 20 years ago, climate scientists began to raise alarms over the possibility global temperatures were rising due to human activities, such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels. To better understand this potential threat, the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988 to provide a "comprehensive, objective, scientific, technical and socioeconomic assessment of human-caused climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation." IPCC reports have predicted average world temperatures will increase dramatically, leading to the spread of tropical diseases, severe drought, the rapid melting of the world's glaciers and ice caps, and rising sea levels. However, several assessments of the IPCC's work have shown the techniques and methods used to derive its climate predictions are fundamentally flawed. In a 2001 report, the IPCC published an image commonly referred to as the "hockey stick." This graph showed relatively stable temperatures from A.D. 1000 to 1900, with temperatures rising steeply from 1900 to 2000. The IPCC and public figures, such as former Vice President Al Gore, have used the hockey stick to support the conclusion that human energy use over the last 100 years has caused unprecedented rise global warming. However, several studies cast doubt on the accuracy of the hockey stick, and in 2006 Congress requested an independent analysis of it. A panel of statisticians chaired by Edward J. Wegman, of George Mason University, found significant problems with the methods of statistical analysis used by the researchers and with the IPCC's peer review process. For example, the researchers who created the hockey stick used the wrong time scale to establish the mean temperature to compare with recorded temperatures of the last century. Because the mean temperature was low, the recent temperature rise seemed unusual and dramatic. This error was not discovered in part because statisticians were never consulted. Furthermore, the community of specialists in ancient climates from which the peer reviewers were drawn was small and many of them had ties to the original authors — 43 paleoclimatologists had previously coauthored papers with the lead researcher who constructed the hockey stick. These problems led Mr. Wegman's team to conclude that the idea that the planet is experiencing unprecedented global warming "cannot be supported." The IPCC published its Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 predicting global warming will lead to widespread catastrophe if not mitigated, yet failed to provide the most basic requirement for effective climate policy: accurate temperature statistics. A number of weaknesses in the measurements include the fact temperatures aren't recorded from large areas of the Earth's surface and many weather stations once in undeveloped areas are now surrounded by buildings, parking lots and other heat-trapping structures resulting in an urban-heat-island effect. Even using accurate temperature data, sound forecasting methods are required to predict climate change. Over time, forecasting researchers have compiled 140 principles that can be applied to a broad range of disciplines, including science, sociology, economics and politics. In a recent NCPA study, Kesten Green and J. Scott Armstrong used these principles to audit the climate forecasts in the Fourth Assessment Report. Messrs. Green and Armstrong found the IPCC clearly violated 60 of the 127 principles relevant in assessing the IPCC predictions. Indeed, it could only be clearly established that the IPCC followed 17 of the more than 127 forecasting principles critical to making sound predictions. A good example of a principle clearly violated is "Make sure forecasts are independent of politics." Politics shapes the IPCC from beginning to end. Legislators, policymakers and/or diplomatic appointees select (or approve) the scientists — at least the lead scientists — who make up the IPCC. In addition, the summary and the final draft of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report was written in collaboration with political appointees and subject to their approval. Sadly, Mr. Green and Mr. Armstrong found no evidence the IPCC was even aware of the vast literature on scientific forecasting methods, much less applied the principles. The IPCC and its defenders often argue that critics who are not climate scientists are unqualified to judge the validity of their work. However, climate predictions rely on methods, data and evidence from other fields of expertise, including statistical analysis and forecasting. Thus, the work of the IPCC is open to analysis and criticism from other disciplines. The IPCC's policy recommendations are based on flawed statistical analyses and procedures that violate general forecasting principles. Policymakers should take this into account before enacting laws to counter global warming — which economists point out would have severe economic consequences.

H. Sterling Burnett is a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research institute in Dallas.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080314/COMMENTARY/702895001/home.html

Its About Freedom Not Climatology

by Floy Lilley

When Vaclav Klaus, who has just won reelection as President of the Czech Republic, states that he has comparative advantage over other speakers on the issue of Climate Change, he is trenchantly correct. Klaus lived under the last large central planning scheme – communism. He rejects the offer to live under the even more draconian central plan of our time – climate alarmism and environmentalism.

Klaus explained his déjà vu vantage point to over five hundred participants at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change assembled at Times Square New York City on March 2–4. Stressing his personally acquired wisdom, Klaus said, "Future dangers will not come from the same source [communism]. The ideology will be different. Its essence [environmentalism and climate alarmism] will, nevertheless, be identical – the attractive, pathetic, at first sight noble idea that transcends the individual in the name of common good, and the enormous self-confidence on the side of its proponents about their right to sacrifice the man and his freedom in order to make this idea a reality."

"What I see in Europe and the U.S.," Klaus cautioned, "is a powerful combination of irresponsibility, of wishful thinking, of implicit believing in some form of Malthusianism, of a cynical approach of those who are themselves sufficiently well-off, together with the strong belief in the possibility of changing the economic nature of things through a radical political project."
Klaus focused on facts that showed that decreases in CO2 emissions in the EU have come about because manufacturing radically disappeared when the communist economy collapsed. Future decreases appear to rely on miracles or the deliberate pushing of the EU countries back into the Dark Ages. Carbon dioxide decreases are not normal for growing and prospering civilizations, given current technology. Most of those assembled would not consider such decreases to be either needed or desirable.

Klaus brought to our attention that the thinking of the climate alarmist is the same as Hayek’s portrayal of central planners in The Fatal Conceit. He boldly challenged the large assembly, "We have to restart the discussion about the very nature of government and about the relationship between the individual and society. [Freedom] should be the main message of our conference."
The aim and objective of this stimulating gathering was to collapse the fake "consensus" on human-induced catastrophic global warming. Achieving this is a necessary step toward turning climate alarmism into climate realism. The step was taken. "Consensus" collapsed. Over one hundred scientists were provided proof of the absence of "consensus" that has been touted by alarmists.

These scientists presented, exchanged and debated research showing global warming to be mostly natural, definitely moderate and realistically unstoppable. They held no consensus in their approaches or their results. Enter the dawn of climate realism.

The New York Times on Tuesday, March 4, ran an article by Andrew C. Revkin titled "Cool View of Science at Meeting on Warming." Written as a criticism, Revkin wrote that "the group…displayed a dizzying range of ideas on what was, or was not, influencing climate." That was the very point of the conference.

No "consensus" can be touted when, in fact, so many scientists do indeed dispute what data are meaningful and causative of the highly complex dynamics of climate change. Several, like Dr. Willie Soon, astrophysicist and geoscientist, displayed data showing the sun to be the more likely driver of temperature variations, as compared to carbon dioxide radiative forcings.

Howard Hayden, physics professor, concluded that astronomical phenomena cause about seventy-five percent of the fluctuations in Earth’s temperature. The combined effects of all greenhouse gases, changes in surface reflectivity of the sun’s radiation, and other Earthly changes account for no more than about three degrees Celsius of the changes during transitions between ice ages and interglacials. Hayden provided a repeatable sound bite when asked about computer models that are the basis for alarmist views. He simply said, "Garbage in; gospel out."

Dr. William M. Gray, meteorological researcher for more than forty years, contributed that the deep oceans, not carbon dioxide, are driving climate. Rather than global warming, Gray believes a recent up-tick in strong hurricanes is part of a multi-decade trend of alternating busy and slow periods related to ocean circulation patterns. Contrary to mainstream thinking, Gray believes ocean temperatures are going to drop in the next five to 10 years.

Dr. Vincent Gray, knows water vapor to be the principal greenhouse gas as others do. However, Gray emphasizes that climate models fail to reflect the fact that water vapor is extremely variable. Gray’s work finds that the global warming claim fails on two fundamental facts: 1.) No average temperature of any part of the earth's surface, over any period, has ever been made. 2.) The sample is grossly unrepresentative of the earth's surface, mostly near to towns. No statistician could accept an "average" based on such a poor sample. It cannot possibly be "corrected." Dr. Vincent Gray, a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception, has written to Professor David Henderson, to support the latter’s call for a review of the IPCC and its procedures. Gray’s call for such a review ends with these harsh words, "The disappearance of the IPCC in disgrace is not only desirable but inevitable. The reason is that the world will slowly realize that the "predictions" emanating from the IPCC will not happen. The absence of any "global warming" for the past eight years is just the beginning. Sooner or later all of us will come to realize that this organization and the thinking behind it is phony. Unfortunately severe economic damage is likely to be done by its influence before that happens."

Dr Roy Spencer, NASA senior scientist, produced recent evidence for reduced climate sensitivity. Background "noise" in climate systems creates temperature variations that are not random. This "noise" exceeds all of the warming that has been thought to have been made by humans. Climate models don’t handle clouds and convection in the tropics well. Precipitation systems interactively regulate the climate system. Computer models predicting climate change are necessarily flawed. Spencer releases his new book March 27, 2008: Climate Confusion – How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians, and Misguided Policies That Hurt the Poor.

Dr. Robert Balling, professor of climatology, questioned what the increase in global temperature does and does not tell us. Water vapor and non-solar control seem dominant. The theory, measurements, and understanding of the greenhouse effect are advancing rapidly, and drastically changing the original predictions from only a few decades ago. Measured warming has been nowhere near the earlier predictions, and the mathematical models are being constantly revised. Both Balling and Dr. Ross McKitrick highlighted failings in data collection. Many temperature stations have been discontinued. Technology for recording temperatures has changed. Urban heat-island effects continue. Data adjustments made by alarmists appear biased.

Dennis T. Avery, and co-author S. Fred Singer, wrote Unstoppable Global Warming – Every 1,500 Years They presented their findings and stressed, "Most of our modern warming occurred before 1940, before much human-emitted CO2. The net warming since 1940 is a minuscule 0.2 degree C – with no warming at all in the last nine years. The Greenhouse Theory can’t explain these realities, but the 1,500-year cycle does." The cycle is solar induced. Ice cores show sun, not humans, controlling Earth’s climate.

So, no consensuses surfaced. None need exist when the subjects are scientific. Hypotheses and theories should continue to be tested. By different skeptical approaches each scientist at this gathering proved he was courageous. Why courageous? Because, to be a climate change skeptic is political-funding suicide. Few feel they can step forward before they retire. Many, even when gathered together and taking courage from the presence of so many others, felt they had to step away from being in group pictures. Those are choices. They are respected.

Debunking the false "consensus" position of climate alarmists didn’t end with the mere conclusion of the conference. Several synchronous efforts include: A Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change. It was endorsed by scientists and researchers. The document stated clearly that "Global warming" is not a global crisis. This tangible product with many signatories declared among other points: That attempts by governments to inflict taxes and costly regulations on industry and individual citizens with the aim of reducing emissions of CO2 will pointlessly curtail the prosperity of the West and progress of developing nations without affecting climate; the furtherance of the nascent International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) publication of a current and future Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change report (NIPCC) a new journal on climate science; making video presentations from the conference online; making audio CDs of either a session or the complete conference available; enlistment of interested parties into a speakers bureau; and a 2009 London conference being planned.

This agenda is aggressive, necessary, and appreciated. Hopefully there will be many others who step up, especially in response to Vaclav Klaus’ plea that we recognize that the issue has never been global climate cooling or global climate warming. It has always and ever been about political power and control of earth’s population.

For over seventeen years I have witnessed at United Nations international gatherings so much ego, money and meeting time being poured into this global central plan to ration energy – to control carbon dioxide by controlling people. To control people by controlling carbon dioxide. To brand the stuff of life – carbon – a deadly pollutant. Political, activist and business careers, especially legal careers, now depend upon creating this new bureaucratic global layer of rules and regulations. The new-age rulers want the wealth and power that will accrue to them as they impose their centralized, consummate plans upon us.

The Czech Republic’s President stands firm, honoring the lives and liberties of his citizenry against this particular brand of fresh oppression. Would that these United States had such a courageous leader.

March 11, 2008

Floy Lilley [send her mail] is an adjunct faculty member at the Mises Institute. She was formerly with the University of Texas at Austin's Chair of Free Enterprise, and an attorney-at-law in Texas and Florida.

Copyright © 2008 LewRockwell.com

NSA Shifts to E-mail, Web, Data-Mining Dragnet

The National Security Agency was once known for its skill in eavesdropping on the world’s telephone calls through radio dishes in out-of-the-way places like England’s Menwith Hill, Australia’s Pine Gap, and Washington state’s Yakima Training Center.

Today those massive installations, which listened in on phone conversations beamed over microwave links, are becoming something akin to relics of the Cold War. As more communications traffic travels through fiber links, and as e-mail and text messaging supplant phone calls, the spy agency that once intercepted telegrams is adapting yet again.

Recent evidence suggests that the NSA has been focusing on widespread monitoring of e-mail messages and text messages, recording of Web browsing, and other forms of electronic data-mining, all done without court supervision. Taken together, those activities raise unique privacy and oversight concerns greater than those posed by large-scale monitoring of voice communications.
Documents released last week by a security consultant (PDF) indicate that an unnamed major wireless provider has opened its network to the U.S. government, allowing customers’ e-mail, text messaging, and Web use to be monitored. And Assistant Attorney General for National Security Kenneth Wainstein said last week that surveillance of e-mail was the real concern raised by the debate over amending the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.

That led some high-ranking House Democrats, including Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell, to circulate a letter (PDF) advising their colleagues to look skeptically at a Republican proposal that would grant retroactive immunity to companies that illegally let the Feds plug into their networks. The Republicans’ blanket of retroactive immunity would likely cover e-mail providers, search engines, Internet service providers, and instant-messaging services too.

On Monday, the Wall Street Journal published an article saying that the NSA can, “without a judicial warrant,” obtain the Subject line and other header information from e-mail messages, plus information about Web sites visited and queries to search engines. Phone records, credit card usage information, and airline passenger data are also reportedly vacuumed up by the NSA.
“According to current and former intelligence officials, the spy agency now monitors huge volumes of records of domestic emails and Internet searches as well as bank transfers, credit-card transactions, travel and telephone records. The NSA receives this so-called ‘transactional’ data from other agencies or private companies, and its sophisticated software programs analyze the various transactions for suspicious patterns,” the article said.

For its part, the NSA says that it abides by U.S. law. Last week, Donald Kerr, the principal deputy director of national intelligence, blamed critical reports on the NSA’s culture of “stand-offishness” and said “we’ve lost something we never knew we needed until we didn’t have it–the support of a grateful nation. The question we have to ask now, and this is something everyone here should help think about, is how do we get it back?”

If the reports are correct, what this transactional-data-dragnet amounts to is a rebuilding of the Defense Department’s Total Information Awareness program, which promised to do extensive warrantless data-mining to identify “information signatures” that could identify criminals. After a public outcry, the department renamed it Terrorism Information Awareness; Congress zeroed funding for it in September 2003.

But that law referred only to “the program known either as Terrorism Information Awareness or Total Information Awareness, or any successor program”–leaving the door open, given sufficiently clever lawyering, to a similar program that wasn’t quite close enough to be called a “successor” to TIA.

Elements of this data dragnet have been disclosed before. USA Today reported two years ago on how the NSA has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon, and BellSouth; the latter two have narrowly denied it. Qwest reportedly was approached but rejected the request.

A survey CNET News.com published in February 2006 asked the major telecommunications and Internet companies this question: “Have you turned over information or opened up your networks to the NSA without being compelled by law?” AT&T, Adelphia, Google, Level 3, Verizon, and Yahoo would not answer the question; the rest said they had not.

A subsequent article by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker said the NSA had returned to “intercepting large numbers of electronic communications made by Americans”–the same kind of legally dubious tactic that led to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act being enacted in 1978.
FISA reinforced the notion that the NSA could conduct widespread surveillance of foreigners, but specified that a court order (or authorization from the attorney general) was needed to spy on American citizens. That means the world’s largest intelligence agency is, legally speaking, on very shaky ground when operating its e-mail/text-messaging/Web-site-visiting/search-term dragnet.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Kurt Opsahl posted a stinging critique of the data-dragnet’s legality. Here are some excerpts from what Opsahl wrote, referring to the Journal article:
The infobox incorrectly asserts that the subject lines of email are not “content,” and can be obtained without a warrant… But this is contradicted by the Department of Justice’s own 2002 Searching and Seizing Computers and Obtaining Electronic Evidence in Criminal Investigations manual, which states that “the subject headers of e-mails are also contents.”

The infobox incorrectly asserts that the NSA can review “[s]ites visited and searches conducted” without a warrant. “According to current and former intelligence officials, the spy agency now monitors huge volumes of records of … Internet searches.” “The [NSA’s] haul can include … records of Internet browsing.” To the contrary, courts have held that search terms are “content” within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act.

The infobox asserts that the NSA can get cellphone location data without a warrant. “The information [obtained by the NSA] can give such transactional information as a cellphone’s location…” The issue of obtaining cell phone location information has been contentious for some time, but the vast weight of judicial interpretation is that a probable cause warrant is required.
If you get the feeling that a lot of this depends on a set of legal definitions that the NSA would like to keep as fuzzy and ambiguous as possible, you’re probably right.

One thing the recent disclosures are likely to do is put the Bush administration on the defensive, which will happen just as Congress is preparing to vote on extending retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies. It has looked likely to pass if the House Democratic leadership had held an up-or-down vote; the Senate already approved its version by a 68-29 margin.

Add in FBI Director Robert Mueller’s acknowledgment last week of additional surveillance abuses, and his admission that retroactive immunity may not be all that necessary, and retroactive immunity looks a lot less compelling a prospect than it did a week ago. Then again, the NSA didn’t need it to create an electronic dragnet in the first place.

© 2008 CNet.com

The People Speak

One of our readers has opined on the upcoming tax rebate coming forth from Uncle Sugar.

As you may have heard the Bush Administration
said each and every one of us would now get a nice
rebate.

If we spend that money at Wal-Mart, all the
money will go to China.

If we spend it on gasoline it will all go to
the Arabs.

If we purchase a computer it will all go to
India.

If we purchase fruit and vegetables it will all
go to Mexico, Honduras, and Guatemala.

If we purchase a good car it will all go to
Japan.

If we purchase useless crap it will all go to
Taiwan and none of it will help the American
economy.

We need to keep that money here in America, so
the only way to keep that money here at home is to
buy prostitutes http://www.bunnyranch.com/index1.html
and beer,http://nimbusbeer.qwestoffice.net/
since those are the only
businesses still in the US.

What if the 1st Amendment were treated like the 2nd?

Since the Federal government has a huge regulatory agency charged with the regulation and taxing of a right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment why not expand it or create a new agency charged with regulation and taxing of the 1st Amendment? It seems entirely in line with those that admit we have an individual right to own firearms but claim that right can be restricted. Those same type of regulations should be considered "reasonable" when applied to the 1st Amendment, right?

Doesn't having to get a license involving fingerprints and a background check before you can attend church sound like a good idea? Opening a new church would, of course, require a license, an environment impact statement, and noise abatement plans. And no churches could be located within five miles of a school or public park.

You should fill out the equivalent of a 4473 and get a NICS check before you can write a letter to the editor. And of course there would be a government mandated 10 business day waiting period before it could be published.

All the complaints about the lies by the media would all be solved if we just had better government regulation. Reporters and editors of all media types would be required to keep meticulous records in bound books showing they had properly researched each story. The books could be viewed by government inspectors anytime there was a claim of a falsehood in a story. The entire news organization would have all their computers, printing presses, and printed material seized before they even heard the specifics of the "Federal Press Laws Violations" let alone had their day in court.

"Free-Speech Free Zones" would extend for 1000 feet around schools and in our National Parks. Anyone with a pamphlet, newspaper, magazine, voice or music projection device, Bible, or any other religious printed matter or symbols within ready access of an occupant of a vehicle could be charged with a crime.

That's just a very, very small sample of what would be possible if the analogs of the laws and regulations imposed on the 2nd Amendment were imposed on the 1st Amendment.

Remember what Alan Dershowitz had to say:

Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of safety hazard don't see the danger of the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like.

Alan DershowitzQuoted in Dan Gifford
The Conceptual Foundations of Anglo-American Jurisprudence in Religion and Reason
62 TENN. L. REV. 759 (1995)

-- Joe Huffman
http://blog.joehuffman.org/

Benz Speaks aka "The Idiotorial"

The Human Right of Self-Defense

David B. Kopel,1
Paul Gallant 2
& Joanne D. Eisen 3

I. INTRODUCTION

"Any law, international or municipal, which prohibits recourse to force, is necessarily limited by the right of self-defense."4

Is there a human right to defend oneself against a violent attacker? Is there an individual right to arms under international law? Conversely, are governments guilty of human rights violations if they do not enact strict gun control laws?

The United Nations and some non-governmental organizations have declared that there is no human right to self-defense or to the possession of defensive arms. The UN and allied NGOs further declare that insufficiently restrictive firearms laws are themselves a human rights violation, so all governments must sharply restrict citizen firearms possession.


1. Research Director, Independence Institute, Golden, Colorado; Associate Policy Analyst, Cato Institute, Washington, D.C., http://www.davekopel.org . Author of The Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy: Should America Adopt the Gun Controls of Other Democracies? (1992). Coauthor of Gun Control and Gun Rights (2002). French, Spanish, and Portuguese translations of national constitutions and of English decisions written in Law French are by Kopel.


2. Senior Fellow, Independence Institute, Golden Colorado. http://www.independenceinstitute.org


3. Senior Fellow, Independence Institute, Golden, Colorado. Coauthor (with Kopel and Gallant) of numerous articles on international gun policy in publications such as the Notre Dame Law Review, Journal of Law, Economics & Policy, Texas Review of Law and Politics, Engage, UMKC Law Review, and Brown Journal of World Affairs.


4. In re Hirota and Others, 15 ANN. DIG. & REP. OF PUB. INT’L L. CASES 356, 364 (Int’l Mil.. Trib. for the Far East, 1948) (no. 118, Tokyo trial) (also stating that under the Kellogg-Briand Pact, a state is the initial judge of the necessity of self-defense against an impending attack, but not the final judge); see also YORAM DINSTEIN, WAR, AGGRESSION, AND SELF-DEFENSE 181 (2d ed. 1994) ("This postulate [from Hirota] may have always been true in regard to domestic law, and it is currently accurate also in respect of international law . . . . [T]he right of self-defence will never be abolished in the relations between flesh-and-blood human beings . . . . ")


Full article is published in the BYU LAW JOURNAL at:
http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/The-Human-Right-of-Self-Defense.pdf

The American Patriot - Then and Now

Ozymandias / Hillarymandias

I met a traveller from an antique land Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command Tell that its sculptor well those passions read Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed. And on the pedestal these words appear:`My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair! 'Nothing beside remains. Round the decay Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,The lone and level sands stretch far away.
- - Percy Bysshe Shelley


I met a pollster from an antique land, Who said--"Two vast and trunkless legs of stone Stand, one in Texas...., one near Canton, Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose brow, and wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command, Tell that its sculptor well those passions read Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things, The electorate that mocked them, and the press that fed; And on the pedestal, these words appear: My name is Hillarymandias, Look on my resume and campaign fundraising, ye fellow Democrats, and despair! Nothing else remains. Round the decay Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare The lone and level sands stretch far away. Heh.
- - Tom Maguire
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2008/02/hillarymandias.html

Benz Speaks aka "The Idiotorial"

If you think that what you get from the various "news media" is the "truth", the "whole truth" and "nothing but the truth."You are sadly mistaken. The "news" that you get is modified, distorted, hidden or eliminated by the various "news" outlets as dictated by owners, major advertisers or government entities as needed. Three examples come readily to mind. One has to do with the non-coverage of Prince Harry in Afghanistan. The other two have to do with people that have recently spoken out on the controversial topic of UFOs. One of these was a resident scholar at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C. The other was a reporter at a small newspaper in Texas. I could go on and on, but why should I. I think you get the picture.