http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734 31,000 scientists reject global warming

HEAT OF THE MOMENT
31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda
'Mr. Gore's movie has claims no informed expert endorses'

---

Posted: May 19, 2008
8:51 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate.

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate," the petition states. "Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

The Petition Project actually was launched nearly 10 years ago, when the first few thousand signatures were assembled. Then, between 1999 and 2007, the list of signatures grew gradually without any special effort or campaign.

But now, a new effort has been conducted because of an "escalation of the claims of 'consensus,' release of the movie 'An Inconvenient Truth' by Mr. Al Gore, and related events," according to officials with the project.

(Story continues below)

"Mr. Gore's movie, asserting a 'consensus' and 'settled science' in agreement about human-caused global warming, conveyed the claims about human-caused global warming to ordinary movie goers and to public school children, to whom the film was widely distributed. Unfortunately, Mr. Gore's movie contains many very serious incorrect claims which no informed, honest scientist could endorse," said project spokesman and founder Art Robinson. Robinson, a research professor of chemistry, co-founded the Linus Pauling Institute of Science and Medicine with Linus Pauling in 1973, and later co-founded the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. He also publishes the Access to Energy newsletter.

WND submitted a request to Gore's office for comment but did not get a response.

Robinson said the dire warnings about "global warming" have gone far beyond semantics or scientific discussion now to the point they are actually endangering people.

"The campaign to severely ration hydrocarbon energy technology has now been markedly expanded," he said. "In the course of this campaign, many scientifically invalid claims about impending climate emergencies are being made. Simultaneously, proposed political actions to severely reduce hydrocarbon use now threaten the prosperity of Americans and the very existence of hundreds of millions of people in poorer countries," he said.

In just the past few weeks, there have been various allegations that both shark attacks and typhoons have been sparked by "global warming."

The late Professor Frederick Seitz, the past president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and winner of the National Medal of Science, wrote in a letter promoting the petition, "The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds."

"This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful," he wrote.

Accompanying the letter sent to scientists was a 12-page summary and review of research on "global warming," officials said.

"The proposed agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries," Seitz wrote.

Robinson said the project targets scientists because, "It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice."

He said the "global warming agreement," written in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, and other plans "would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind."

"Yet," he said, "the United Nations and other vocal political interests say the U.S. must enact new laws that will sharply reduce domestic energy production and raise energy prices even higher.

"The inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness include the right of access to life-giving and life-enhancing technology. This is especially true of access to the most basic of all technologies: energy. These human rights have been extensively and wrongly abridged," he continued. "During the past two generations in the U.S., a system of high taxation, extensive regulation, and ubiquitous litigation has arisen that prevents the accumulation of sufficient capital and the exercise of sufficient freedom to build and preserve needed modern technology.

"These unfavorable political trends have severely damaged our energy production, where lack of industrial progress has left our country dependent upon foreign sources for 30 percent of the energy required to maintain our current level of prosperity," he said. "Moreover, the transfer of other U.S. industries abroad as a result of these same trends has left U.S. citizens with too few goods and services to trade for the energy that they do not produce. A huge and unsustainable trade deficit and rapidly rising energy prices have been the result.

"The necessary hydrocarbon and nuclear energy production technologies have been available to U.S. engineers for many decades. We can develop these resources without harm to people or the environment. There is absolutely no technical, resource, or environmental reason for the U.S. to be a net importer of energy. The U.S. should, in fact, be a net exporter of energy," he said.

He told WND he believes the issue has nothing to do with energy itself, but everything to do with power, control and money, which the United Nations is seeking. He accused the U.N. of violating human rights in its campaign to ban much energy research, exploration and development.

"In order to alleviate the current energy emergency and prevent future emergencies, we need to remove the governmental restrictions that have caused this problem. Fundamental human rights require that U.S. citizens and their industries be free to produce and use the low cost, abundant energy that they need. As the 31,000 signatories of this petition emphasize, environmental science supports this freedom," he said.

The Petition Project website today said there are 31,072 scientists who have signed up, and Robinson said more names continue to come in.

In terms of Ph.D. scientists alone, it already has 15 times more scientists than are seriously involved in the U.N.'s campaign to "vilify hydrocarbons," officials told WND.

"The very large number of petition signers demonstrates that, if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition to the human-caused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it," the organization noted.

The project was set up by a team of physicists and physical chemists who do research at several American institutions and collects signatures when donations provide the resources to mail out more letters.

"In a group of more than 30,000 people, there are many individuals with names similar or identical to other signatories, or to non-signatories – real or fictional. Opponents of the petition project sometimes use this statistical fact in efforts to discredit the project. For examples, Perry Mason and Michael Fox are scientists who have signed the petition – who happen also to have names identical to fictional or real non-scientists," the website said.

The petition is needed, supporters said, simply because Gore and others "have claimed that the 'science is settled' – that an overwhelming 'consensus' of scientists agrees with the hypothesis of human-caused global warming, with only a handful of skeptical scientists in disagreement."

The list of scientists includes 9,021 Ph.D.s, 6,961 at the master's level, 2,240 medical doctors and 12,850 carrying a bachelor of science or equivalent academic degree.

The Petition Project's website includes both a list of scientists by name as well as  href="http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/Signers_BY_State.html"

When does a human being become human

John P. Holdren is director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.

These are his words. Is this idea consistent with your own ideas of when a child becomes a human being?

 

"To most biologists, an embryo (unborn child during the first two or three months of development) or a fetus is no more a complete human being than a blueprint is a building," they wrote. "The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being. Where any of these essential elements is lacking, the resultant individual will be deficient in some respect

 

So BO's whitehouse doesn't believe you are born human but must continue development to become one. I wonder then, just what their exact definition of human being is. Would it include evangelical christians, jihadists, morons? Is skin color taken into account? How about hair count? Extra fingers or toes? Must you actually exceed a certain age before being counted as human. Is that age the age of reason? the age of majority? puberty? eating solid food? talking? Hey, maybe that's it! Whenever you can loudly enough proclaim yourself, you become counted a human.

Though I have tried, I have yet to find any reference pointing to any woman anywhere ever giving birth to anything but another human being. I readily admit, however, some human being can also be monsters.

 

PL Booth www.blueeyeview.blogspot.com 7/30/09

 

Disaster in the Making?

Play slideshow Save all photos Want to save all these photos at once? Learn how

Online pictures are available for 30 days

 

Disaster in the Making?

by Thomas Sowell

After many a disappointment with someone, and especially after a disaster, we may be able to look back at numerous clues that should have warned us that the person we trusted did not deserve our trust.

When that person is the President of the United States, the potential for disaster is virtually unlimited.

Many people are rightly worried about what this administration's reckless spending will do to the economy in our time and to our children and grandchildren, to whom a staggering national debt will be passed on. But if the worst that Barack Obama does is ruin the economy, I will breathe a sigh of relief.

He is heading this country toward disaster on many fronts, including a nuclear Iran, which has every prospect of being an irretrievable disaster of almost unimaginable magnitude. We cannot put that genie back in the bottle-- and neither can generations yet unborn. They may yet curse us all for leaving them hostages to nuclear terror.

Conceivably, Israel can spare us that fate by taking out the Iranian nuclear facilities, instead of relying on Obama's ability to talk the Iranians out of going nuclear.

What the Israelis cannot spare us, however, are our own internal problems, of which the current flap over President Obama's injecting himself into a local police issue is just a small sign of a very big danger.

Nothing has torn more countries apart from inside like racial and ethnic polarization. Just this year, a decades-long civil war, filled with unspeakable atrocities, has finally ended in Sri Lanka. The painful irony is that, when the British colony of Ceylon became the independent nation of Sri Lanka in 1948, its people were considered to be a shining example for the world of good relations between a majority (the Sinhalese) and a minority (the Tamils). That all changed when politicians decided to "solve" the "problem" that the Tamil minority was much more economically successful than the Sinhalese majority. Group identity politics led to group preferences and quotas that escalated into polarization, mob violence and ultimately civil war.

Group identity politics has poisoned many other countries, including at various times Kenya, Czechoslovakia, Fiji, Guyana, Canada, Nigeria, India, and Rwanda. In some countries the polarization has gone as far as mass expulsions or civil war.

The desire of many Americans for a "post-racial" society is well-founded, though the belief that Barack Obama would move in that direction was extremely ill-advised, given the history of his actions and associations.

This is a president on a mission to remake American society in every aspect, by whatever means are necessary and available. That requires taking all kinds of decisions out of the hands of ordinary Americans and transferring them to Washington elites-- and ultimately the number one elite, Barack Obama himself.

Like so many before him who have ruined countries around the world, Obama has a greatly inflated idea of his own capabilities and the prospects of what can be accomplished by rhetoric or even by political power. Often this has been accompanied by an ignorance of history, including the history of how many people before him have tried similar things with disastrous results.

During a recent TV interview, when President Obama was asked about the prospects of victory in Afghanistan, he replied that it would not be victory like in World War II, with "Hirohito coming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur." In reality, it was more than a year after Japanese officials surrendered on the battleship Missouri before Hirohito met General Douglas MacArthur for the first time.

This is not the first betrayal of his ignorance by Obama, nor the first overlooked by the media. Moreover, ignorance by itself is not nearly as bad as charging full steam ahead, pretending to know. Barack Obama is doing that on a lot of issues, not just history or a local police incident in Massachusetts.

While the mainstream media in America will never call him on this, these repeated demonstrations of his amateurism and immaturity will not go unnoticed by this country's enemies around the world. And it is the American people who will pay the price.

Gun Control by Daniel New

Yes, I know, some of these posters are a bit over-stated. 

What amazes me is the number of Americans, particularly Christians, who believe that it is wrong to defend and protect their own lives, and more importantly (if they hold their own lives so cheaply), the lives and well-being of their children and of other innocents. 

I certainly understand the self-discipline to allow someone to strike you on the face, and to turn the other cheek.  (And I have done it.  It ain't easy.)  But unto those to whom Responsibility is given, to protect and nurture and care for others, does not the paradigm shift radically?  Is not a parent, for example, in much the same position as the civil magistrate, within the walls of his/her own house?  Will not Yahweh hold us accountable for our duty of protecting them?

Don't ask, "What would Jesus do?"  We already know.  He came to die, for a Divine Reason.  He then commanded his Disciples to "Go ye, into all the world, and preach the Gospel... ."  In the midst of that Great Commission, He said, "Do you have a sword?"  They did (and He knew it).  He approved and endorsed, saying one would be enough.  I don't know what effete Westerners think the sword was for, but I submit that it was not for snakes and wild animals.  Wild animals flee the approach of men walking in a group.  Highway robbers do not.

Ask, "WWJD" -- "What would Joshua do?"  "What would Gideon do?  "What would Abraham do?"

Look, we're all pacifists here.  We all want peace.  The first value of having a weapon is to convert a potential assailant into the same mindset, that there is nothing to be gained by violence.  But the extreme pacifists of today would prefer, if forced to choose, that their own daughters be raped and tortured than that the assaulting pervert be sent to an early appointment with his Maker and Judge.   This is contrary to Scripture.

When Abraham's family were kidnapped into certain slavery, he didn't sit around and pray that Yahweh would intervene.  He gathered his men, who were armed, and he went after them.  And he killed those who dared to touch his family. 

The extreme pacifist believes there is no such thing as "justifiable war."  That a "defensive war" is not justifiable.  None of us advocate aggression against the people we don't like.  (Well, okay, MOST of us, anyway.  There IS a case to be made for hunting down marauding Indians and killing them, and that case is easily extrapolated to drug dealers and pimps. In the name of self-defense.  But that's another editorial.  Or chapter.) 

The Quakers of early Pennsylvania were extreme pacifists.  Many were murdered, and they did not resist.  Their answer to marauding Indians?  They invited Presbyterians to come and live amongst them!!!  (In an indirect act of self-defense!!!)

I suspect the disconnect in the mind of the extreme pacifist is that he/she believes that the police, as enforcing agents of civil authority, are the ones who should protect us.  And well they should.  But the police cannot be everywhere, and if no citizen were armed, it would take a lot more police who would do a much worse job of protecting us.  Most police WANT the honest, law-abiding citizen to be armed.  Because they cannot be everywhere, and that means specifically that they cannot be at your house when you need them most!  Arriving fifteen minutes later means they can secure the crime scene, and file a report. 

Let's go one step further.  When the civil government codifies the Law to allow the individual to be armed, and endorses the use of deadly force to protect one's life and liberty and property, then the argument of "leaving it to the authorities" applies to the homeowner and citizen, who are now empowered with the law.

Christian pacifists have this dichotomy in their minds, that God somehow changed after Jesus came and died.  He did not!  Yes, Jesus spoke to men about enduring insults, and about living under the yoke of another nation.  "When you are compelled to carry a man's burden for him for one mile, you should do it readily.  Carry it two miles!!"  (This was a clear statement against rebellion, and for accepting the civil government that GOD has appointed over you.  It had nothing to do with the principle of protecting, or not protecting one's life and the lives of one's children.)

Our view of this issue of self-defense is colored strongly by the actions of the Martyrs of the late First and early Second Centuries.  They obviously lived closer, in time, to the Messiah and the Apostles than we do.  They suffered their deaths in the coliseum with equanimity, refusing to fight just because Caesar ordered them to.  I do happen to disagree with their decision to refuse to resist wild animals, but then, I wasn't there, and their deaths were just as sure, either way.  It certainly took a lot of the fun out of it for the crowd to watch innocents killed for sport.  Indeed, it contributed greatly to the change of attitude by magistrates, and eventually the persecution ended.

I also question the decision of later Second Century Christians who formed entire cohorts of soldiers and fought under arms for the Roman Empire.  (Yet another editorial, I see.  Hmm.  Maybe chapter 3 in my forthcoming book.)

In the meantime, let's celebrate our diversity, and our remaining liberties with a few examples of the tools whereby we are free today.  When these tools are removed, all liberty will go out like a candle in a storm.

 

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 4282 (20090727) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.

http://www.eset.com

Diversity is Nothing More than Reverse Discrimination

 

Walter Williams wrote a recent editorial about the Naval Academy and their Diversity Program. Having experienced this form of discrimination many times while a federal employee, I agree with him wholeheartedly. Here's how the Naval Academy's PowerPoint display explains diversity by saying, "Diversity is all the different characteristics and attributes of individual sailors and civilians which enhance the mission readiness of the Navy," adding that: "Diversity is more than equal opportunity, race, gender or religion. Diversity is the understanding of how each of us brings different skills, talents and experiences to the fight -- and valuing those differences. Leveraging diversity creates an environment of excellence and continuous improvement to remove artificial achievement barriers and value the contribution of all participants." Admiral Gary Roughead, chief of Naval Operations, says that "diversity is the No. 1 priority" at the academy." Unfortunately, how diversity is being and is to be achieved completely belies this statement.

 

Says Walter, "Diversity at the Naval Academy, as at most academic institutions, is not about equal opportunity but a race and sex spoils system to achieve what the Navy brass see as a pleasing race and sex mix. They accomplish that vision by the removal of "artificial achievement barriers." Mr. Williams, a professional, educated black man of real accomplishment, then describes what he sees as the Naval Academy's artificial achievement barrier candidate, a black with B and C grades, with no particular leadership qualities, and 500 on both portions of the SAT. Such is virtually guaranteed admittance while a white student, who's not an athlete, with such scores is deemed not qualified. In fact, there is a disproportionate number of unqualified blacks now in attendance at 3 service academies.

 

Many students ( of all minority groups) are admitted to the Naval Academy through remedial training at the Naval Academy Preparatory School (NAPS) in Newport, R.I., which is a one-year post-secondary school. Finishing the year with a 2.0 GPA, a C average, almost guarantees admission to the academy. A C average for remedial work is nothing to write home about. Occasionally, when students don't make the 2.0 GPA target, the target is renegotiated downward. Minority applicants with SAT scores down to the 300s and with Cs and Ds grades (and no particular leadership or athletics) are also admitted after a remedial year at the Naval Academy Preparatory School. " All the academies have their remedial schools.

 

But such unqualified applicants who apply for mere government positions not Military Academies are still hired and given promotion preferences over higher qualified non-minorities simply because they exist, even though the Civil Service Law governing "equal opportunity" dictates different methodology for selections than mere color or gender. The Law is ignored in the name of diversity and most promotional selections must first be approved by some "equal opportunity" office or board made up of minorities, generally blacks. This has been going on so long, there is a huge majority disparity of black women who now run virtually every agency in Washington.

 

Selection boards and officials are under constant pressure to select minorities rather than better qualified and educated whites. They found the way to do this legally is to lower the overall standards for selections by discounting education directly related to the agencies for which they work, equalizing outside work experience with experience gained within each agency, then allowing anyone with an overall score above the actual minimum required to be selected rather than the most qualified. Sometimes the information and selection criteria used become "unavailable" or the selectors are told to NOT write anything down because no records will then be available in case of lawsuits or reviews.

 

Diversity agendas give rise to widespread resentments at two levels. Some minorities admitted or promoted meritoriously on the same basis as whites, resent the idea of being seen as having the same minimal qualities as blacks given preferential treatment, in other words being ignorant. Another level of resentment comes from whites who see minorities being admitted, retained, and promoted at lower levels of overall performance and achievement then being treated with kid gloves. If any whites openly complain about the unequal treatment, they run the risk of being labeled as racists, one of the most unappreciated aspects of preferential treatment. It runs the risk of creating racist attitudes, and possibly feelings of racial superiority, among whites and others who were formerly racially neutral.  

 

Governments at all levels, Colleges, Universities, and Corporations with racially preferential admittance and promotional policies are doing a great disservice to blacks and other minorities in another, mostly ignored, way. By admitting and promoting poorly prepared and educated blacks and minorities, they are helping to conceal the grossly fraudulent education they receive at the K through 12 grades. Also, ignorance breeds ignorance and bad decisions because the poorly prepared don't want to compete with more highly qualified so tend to select and promote other poorly qualified minorities with whom they can better compete. And this forces already low standards even lower. PL Booth, The Blue Eye View of MO

A perspective on Walter Cronkite

July 19, 2009Walter Cronkite Has Blood on His Hands

Matt Patterson
On February 27, 1968, Walter Cronkite delivered his verdict on the (ongoing) war in Vietnam. The most trusted man in America pronounced that it was "...more certain than ever that the bloody experience of Vietnam War is to end in a stalemate."

Stalemate....

The Tet Offensive, which battle prompted Cronkite's televised towel throwing, was a decisive American victory -- of the more than 80,000 Communist troops who poured south on the Vietnamese New Year, American and allied South Vietnamese soldiers would kill or capture more than 58,000, while suffering a combined, and comparatively light, 9,000 casualties.

Tet was in fact a disaster for the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong. Not only was the invasion repulsed by American forces - who fought valiantly and fiercely in spite of being taken by surprise -- but the uprising in the south upon which the Communists had gambled never happened.

From this, Cronkite conjured his "stalemate." But he was not done with his shameful propaganda, continuing,

"...it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could."

Not as victors...thus Cronkite convinced America the war was already over and lost, while our men, our soldiers, our sons and fathers, were fighting and dying and triumphing on the field of battle.

Uncle Walter got his wish. America came home -- Saigon fell. The result?

The Viet Cong consolidated its power over the whole of Vietnam. Like all good Communists, they proceeded to enslave the population, herding hundreds of thousands into concentration camps to be tortured, starved, and killed. The people of South Vietnam, who had trusted America and fought alongside us as allies, put to the sea en masse in whatever rickety craft they could find. Hundreds of thousands drowned in this desperate attempt to escape; by 1980, these "Vietnamese Boat People" were recognized as one of the greatest humanitarian disasters of the modern age, as over 800,000 people fled their country in terror.

But that was a picnic compared to what happened next door in Cambodia, where the North Vietnamese-created Khmer Rouge seized power and implemented a policy of systematic extermination. Out of a population of perhaps 7 million, the Communists slaughtered between 1.5 to 2 million Cambodians. Millions more were forced into slave labor.

Walter Cronkite was called the most trusted man in America. He abused that trust, peddling his own opinion (hope?) - steeped in anti-American ideology - as fact. The Killing Fields were fertilized with this man's lies.

So speak to me not of this newsman's great legacy - it lays buried under a mountain of skulls in South East Asia.

 

(Editor's note: I lived thru Nam and Cambodia, saw both before and after the Commies took over having flown mercy missions during '74. My father was a career AF Officer who visited Nam often in support of his particular wing. He despised what was happening in the USA and found it very hard to accept that the Commies had taken over the Media or that blowhard liberals were suddenly in control. He thought they should have supported us at least as well as they had during WWII but also recalled the PR disaster of Korea. The continued deterioration of politics and the decent of the media into socialist hypocrisy were two of the reasons he retired when he did. He no longer believed we could ever win a war and was utterly amazed at our success in the first Gulf War. Weren't we all? I haven't heard anything positive from the mainstream media since tho, occasionally, local media manage to celebrate a fallen warrior but, even then, usually negative comments are attempted to be elicited from the families concerning our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.)

Matt Patterson is a National Review Institute Washington Fellow and the author of "Union of Hearts: The Abraham Lincoln & Ann Rutledge Story."  His email is mpatterson.column@gmail.com.

 

Posted by the Blue Eye View 7/20/09 from The American Thinker

My Bond is My Word by Dr. Mike Adams

My Bond is My Word
by Mike Adams

 

The notion that public service is a public trust seems somewhat naïve in today's political climate. Today, Lord Acton's assertion that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely is axiomatic. As of this writing, Dick Morris' Catastrophe - a book that catalogues mind-numbing abuse of power - resides atop the New York Times bestseller list. Most of that abuse flows from entrenched interests, which have normalized an atmosphere of cronyism and outright corruption among our elected officials.

 

Americans know that success is predicated upon fresh ideas. A baseball team will hire a new manager after a prolonged period of stagnation. So, too, people want new public servants when the economy is stagnant or when the country seems to be otherwise drifting in the wrong direction. A frequently cited antidote is that of term limitations. But such legislation is unlikely to be supported by the very entrenched interests it would seek to restrict. So such legislation simply languishes and dies. And the public continues to suffer.

 

 

 

 

 

A new organization called the Alliance for Bonded Term Limits (ABTL) has formed to explore a process that could put term limits into effect without having to pass term limit legislation – and, in the process, bring integrity back to the legislative branch. Their plan is to support candidates who will voluntarily bond their promises of limited tenure in office by use of their personal assets. These assets will be forfeited to charity if their promise is broken.

 

ABTL has now applied for recognition as a Part 501(c) (3) organization. It will exert a non-partisan effort because its founders recognize that corruption is not limited to one political party. It is a problem in all political parties. In fact, former Senate majority leaders Bob Dole (R-Kansas) and Tom Daschle (D-South Dakota) are members of the same lobbying firm. Their firm, by the way, drew eight million dollars in lobbying fees in 2008.

 

More than anything, ABTL is an educational organization. Its leaders are dedicated to a mission that is focused on researching facts and identifying useful courses of action. That research will demonstrate clearly that the perks of office are such that re-election has become the only priority of many of our elected officials. Furthermore, abuses of power that are fueled by a sense of entitlement among our elected officials simply get worse the longer they stay in office. Term limits are not the panacea for all of our problems. But they are an effective solution to many of these abuses.

 

This country does not need a new Constitutional Amendment or a new federal law to breathe new life into a corrupt Washington establishment. It needs ordinary citizens who will travel to Washington with new ideas derived from real-world experience. And it needs them to return home after a finite time in office. In other words, our nation needs the citizen legislatures our Founders expected. It needs to make extinct the corrupt ruling class of elite career politicians who have created the current economic collapse and compromised the well-being of future generations.

 

I've decided to support ABTL by making a tax-advantaged gift. I'm hoping others will do the same. And I refuse to support any politician who does not, from the onset, commit to limited tenure in office. There's no other way to ensure such a commitment than by signing an agreement forfeiting a massive percentage of personal assets for a breach of that promise. And that forfeiture should include assets accrued before and after taking office.

 

It's time to replace the glib assertion "My word is my bond" with a new one: "My bond is my word." We all know that money talks. And career politicians need to take a walk.

posted by the Blue Eye View on 7/20/09

The 545 People most responsible for America's Problems

 

The 545 People most responsible for America's Problems

Let's start off with some eternal truths. 1. Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them. Then they either make them worse or find a way to make sure the cure is worse than the original problem so that the cure also becomes a problem. That way, they can lie about what they've been doing to stave off the original problem.

2. Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits? If the government were run like most businesses, we would have declared bankruptcy long ago and restructured to prevent further deficits. Governments should always break even every year, regardless of its level. To do anything else suggest incompetence on the part of the politicians in charge.

3. Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes? Because inflation means you have to spend more money for anything thereby requiring politicians to spend more monies on everything to keep the same level of services. This way, they can legitimately ask for more and more of your money.

4. You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does. And congress authorizes the expenditures and the taxes to pay for them. Remember this always. Governments have no monies nor wealth that they don't first take from their subjects.

5. You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. Then the Senate is supposed to discuss and adjust those appropriations, not rubber stamp them. Of course, Senators are no longer beholden to the State Governments because they're popularly elected just like their Representative neighbors so they've become just another spending body. That's how elections are won. Buy the votes with their own monies collected through taxes they have no voice in controlling.

6. You and I don't write the tax code, Congress  does. Them with the money makes the rules.

7. You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does. (occasionally, if the Federal Bank isn't looking.)

8. You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve  Bank does. (Well, until Obama was elected, anyway.)

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one  president, and nine Supreme Court justices equates to 545 human  beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally,  and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague  this country. I exclude the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank. It's a good job if you can get it.

I also exclude all special interests and lobbyists for the very simple reason they have no legal authority, no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing (except with money, of course.). I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. Politicians have the power to accept or reject. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine his votes.

Those 545 human beings spend a lot of their energy (we call it campaigning after they've been elected.) convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party. And some of the media cooperates as well, particularly if they like the politician in question, like Barry Barrack Soetoro Hussein Obama. He is the first near black president, you know…

That separating politicians from normal human beings is an excessive amount of gall. No (intelligent) normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker of the House to stand up and criticize a President for creating deficits.   The president only proposes a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it and he doesn't appropriate monies.

The Constitution, the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi, the leader of the majority party.  She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want.  If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they can manage to agree to.

It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million has not yet replaced a mere 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility.   I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not directly traceable to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist. It would seem self evident.

If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair. If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red. If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ and Afghanistan, it's because they want them there. If they do not  receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan and HEALTH CARE INSURANCE PLAN not available  to the people, it's because they want it that way.

There are no insoluble government problems except those Congress wishes to ignore and perpetuate.

Don't let those 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take that power.   Above all, don't let them con you into the belief that there exists such disembodied ephemeral, mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing  the things they take an oath to do. Those 545 people, and they  alone, are responsible. They, and they alone, have the power. They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses. Provided the voters have the  gumption to manage their own employees. We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess! Never vote for an incumbent. Throw'em all out. The very few honest ones will have no trouble finding honest work. The rest can go on welfare. PL Booth,
http://www.blueeyeview.blogspot.com

Obama Info - Occidental College Transcripts Finally Available

 

 

THE TRUTH CAN PREVAIL, IT IS HAPPENING AT LAST...   Subject: WHOA !! OBAMA'S COLLEGE TRANSCRIPTS FROM OCCIDENTAL COLLEGE..AN EYE OPENER In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama's qualifications for the presidency, the group "Americans for Freedom of Information" has Released copies of President Obama's college transcripts from Occidental College. Released today, the transcript indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate at the school. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California. The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship. This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama's detractors have been seeking. Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya and there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship, this is looking pretty grim. The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama's legitimacy and qualification to serve as president. When reached for comment in London, where he has been in meetings with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, Obama smiled but refused comment on the issue. Britain's Daily Mail has also carried the story in a front-page article titled, "Obama Eligibility Questioned," leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama's first official visit to the U.K. In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama's legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey. This lawsuit claims Obama's dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. Donofrio's case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama's citizenship or qualification to serve as president. Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama's campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U.S. attorney general, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter. LET OTHER FOLKS KNOW THIS NEWS THE MEDIA WON'T EMBRACE! NEITHER ONE OF THE OBAMA PAIR HAD TIME TO GET A REAL JOB AND WORK FOR A PAY CHECK. THEY WERE TOO BUSY LOOKING FOR FREE MONEY AND GRANTS. WE PAID THE BALANCE ON THEIR EDUCATION AND TRAVEL   More than 18 lawsuits still to be settled!

---

__________I have been told this is a hoax but have not seen nor read any such proofs, merely one person's comment. A number of people believe this info is factual. For certain, lawsuits continue over questios of BO's citizenship and the morons othe the MSM apparently have neither interest nor ability to confirm or deny the allegations. BO won't answer at all. Fact: if he was not born in USA or possession to a legally of age American Citizen then he is not eligible for the Presidency constitutionally. All he need do is release an actual birth certificate to put all those questions to rest. Until then, he is a usurper and all his actions are illegal.

Fw: "Castrate White Males"- Supreme Justice ?

Distributed by the Blue Eye view of Blue eye, MO

 

 

Subject: "Castrate White Males"- Supreme Justice ?

 

-----------------------------------------

 

: "Castrate White Males"- Supreme Justice ?

 

Ouch! Now they say she really didn't mean what she said but I agree that there are a number

of white male inhabitants in D.C. that shouldn't be allowed to breed.

 

Obama Says Sotomayor's "Castrate White Males" Comment Taken Out of Context

 

WASHINGTON - President Obama said that comments by Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor in a 2004 speech in which she called for the "castration of all white males until they are no longer dominant," have been "taken out of context" by right wing ideologues.

In the speech delivered to the San Juan chapter of NOW, Sotomayor said, "I want to be perfectly clear about this next comment so that there is no mistaking my words to mean something other than what they plainly say: the time has come to end white male oppression by castrating every white male until they are no longer dominant in Western culture. That means forcible removal of their testicles. I realize the brutality of my comment, and I don't know how to say it more clearly."

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs agreed with President Obama that the statement "has been taken out of context," and added that Sotomayor "certainly did not mean" that white males should be castrated." Judge Sotomayor was simply saying that there should be room at the American table for diverse cultures, that's all. It is astounding that people are reading 'castration' into it."

President Obama told MSNBC: "Look, when Judge Sotomayor appears before the Senate committee, all this nonsense being spewed out by ideologues will be revealed for what it is. NOT LIKELY!