Monday, December 31, 2012

Obama Seizing Sole Authority for US Defense

31 Dec 2012


 In an attempt to seize total control over national security and bypass congress, a frightening new step by the Obama Administration is coming into play. As noted in Friday’s Wall Street Journal in an op-ed by John Bolton and John Woo, a State Department advisory group that is run by former Secretary of Defense William Perry is advising that the U.S. and Russia both reduce nuclear weapons without a treaty, as a treaty would require ratification by Congress. This would allow Obama and his executive branch to unilaterally cut our nuclear weaponry and ignore the treaty clause of the Constitution. As Bolton and Woo point out, the US has a greater global responsibility than Russia; Iran and North Korea, neither of which is far from Russian interests, can only be countered by U.S. military strength. In addition, they note that Russia is not a trustworthy partner in weapons reduction; it has violated many arms-control agreements, such as the 1991 Presidential Nuclear Initiatives.

Some of the inherent problems in the seizure by this executive branch of decision-making power is Barack Obama’s desire to deeply cut our nuclear forces. A joint decision with Russia would place long-term limits on our cache of arms, thus placing constraints on us catching up if Russia decides to go ahead and build and the blurring of the lines deliberately drawn by the Constitution’s Framers separating the executive and legislative branches power.

Obama has made no secret of his desire to dismantle our nuclear capacity; the New Start Treaty he championed in 2011 forced the U.S. to observe a ceiling of 700 strategic delivery vehicles and 1,550 strategic warheads, and this past March he stated his desire to cut our arsenal further:
“ … a step we have never taken before – reducing not only our strategic nuclear warheads but also tactical weapons and warheads in reserve.”
It is na├»ve to assume that Obama is simply blind to the results of his actions and trusts the world around him to act with generosity. There has been too much evidence of Russia’s support of Iran’s nuclear weapons program, and Russia has cunningly avoided supporting sanctions on North Korea for its rocket launches; in December, Georgy Toloraya, Director of Korean Research at the Institute of Economics, simply said:
"In Russia we believe that resolutions must be observed and UN decisions must be implemented. We think that North Korea has the right for space explorations but only after all the issues linked with the UN sanctions banning rocket launches with the use of ballistic technologies are settled. It is necessary to divide two aspects - we support the discussion of the rocket launch issue by the UN Security Council but we don’t think that this must automatically mean tougher sanctions against Pyongyang.”
Obama knows all this. His step-by-step evisceration of the United States is not confined to its economic system but its national defense as well.

Big Government

Time for Gun-Free Politician Zones?

31 Dec 2012
 



  Gun-Free School Zones have cost untold innocent lives since their implementation. And now, with so many Americans rallying behind the idea of armed guards and/or teachers in schools in the wake of the Newtown shooting, Political Media's Larry Ward wonders why we can't turn the tables and see how the politicians like it.  His plan -- to create Gun-Free Politician Zones, so that lawmakers have to endure the same kind of unprotected status American children have to endure in public schools every day.

Here's how Ward puts it:

Gun control advocates' loudest voices are most heavily protected by guns. Andrew Cuomo, Michael Bloomberg, Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel, and other gun-grabbing politicians are protected with secret service and/or security details that carry guns. If their argument is right, that guns kill people, it is more than appropriate that they disarm their security and themselves to demonstrate that they can live the way they are...proposing that the rest of [us] live.

Ward's goal is to show how absurd it is for us to be forced to leave our children as sitting ducks in myriad classrooms across the country.

Big Government

Yes Mr. Obama, There Will Be Resistance

31 Dec 2012

 
 While appearing on Meet the Press on Dec. 30th, President Obama pledged to make gun control one of the central aims of 2013. He said he knows it won't be easy -- that "there will be resistance" -- but that it has to be done to be sure another Sandy Hook doesn't take place.   Clearly, the "there will be resistance" comment was intended to put gun owners on their heels, and put them in an apologetic frame. But it was misplaced.

For while there certainly will be resistance, it will not be from the gun owners he's calling out but from the Bill of Rights attached to the U.S. Constitution.

It is crucial to understand that the Bill of Rights sets apart numerous freedoms -- the right to keep and bear arms among them -- in which the federal government is prohibited from interfering. The Bill of Rights is literally there to handcuff the government and keep the people free (not to handcuff the people and free the government to do whatever it wants).

From our nation's founding till now, the Bill of Rights has been a  bulwark for freedom, allowing the rights enumerated therein to be enjoyed by generation upon generation.

Now Obama pretends the power to step and change our access to the freedoms protected by the 2nd Amendment, and he tries to justify this by saying the goal is to prevent another situation "where someone with severe psychological problems is able to get the kinds of high capacity weapons [the] individual in Newtown obtained."

This is a classic straw man argument, wherein Obama is trying to shame gun-owners into silence by making it look like opposition to gun control is the same thing as wantonly allowing people with severe psychological problems to obtain weapons. He conveniently leaves out the core issue -- Adam Lanza didn't obtain his weapons legally, thus no amount of psychologically-based gun control measures would have stopped him.

He was a criminal determined to commit a heinous criminal act.

Obama is using this shame tactic in hopes of making us forget that our inalienable, God-given rights are just that -- inalienable and God-given. This is the message of the Bill of Rights: it's the message our Founding Fathers communicated to their posterity via the enumeration of certain rights via explicit protections from government infringement.

Criminals can always be counted on to act like criminals. However, such actions should never be used to justify treating law abiding citizens like criminals. Yet that is exactly what Obama, and Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and Joe Manching (D-WV) are trying to do.
Here's the problem they face -- there will be resistance, just as there has been resistance for over 220 years.

That resistance is called the Constitution of the United States.

Big Government

Marine to Gun-grabber Di Feinstein: 'No Ma'am'

31 Dec 2012
 



 Joshua Boston, a retired Corporal in the U.S. Marine Corps, has a message for Senator Dianne Feinstein (D, CA) concerning her newest gun banning bill. Corporal Boston says, "No Ma'Am." Boston posted an open letter to Senator Feinstein at CNN's ireport site on December 27 to let DiFi know that he, at least, would not submit to the government denuding him of his Second Amendment rights.

Boston informed Sen. Feinstein that he will not register his weapons nor does he believe the Senator or anyone else in government has the right to require him to do so. Boston also scoffed at someone proclaiming "the evil of an inanimate object" even as she bestows upon herself the ability to carry a gun in contravention to her own proclamations.

"I am not your subject," Boston insists. "I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America."
I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.
Mr. Boston's message intrigues and he has even more to say than his open letter reveals. I took the occasion of his open letter to reach out to this brave member of our military. Here is our conversation:

Warner Todd Huston: What drove you to post this reply to Senator Feinstein?

Joshua Boston: I've been seeing this nonsense about gun control in the news since forever. Senator Feinstein regularly touts the effectiveness of the first Assault Weapons Ban while pointing out the "loopholes." So she proposes this new ban legislation. Given the tragedy that happened recently it has considerably more traction with folks, most who rely in some major way on emotions and what they're being told by the media about these "Weapons of Mass Destruction." My Windham Weaponry SRC sits in my home loaded and ready to be used should the need ever arise. It does not make me a criminal.

I'm sick of being told by people in Washington D.C. what is okay for me to own for my own personal defense while they enjoy the safety of many armed guards with better firearms than I have access to. It's hypocritical.

WTH: In your opinion, what do you think the Second Amendment is for?

JB: Looking at the founder's times and what they had just gone through, it was something they put in there for us should we ever find ourselves in their shoes and have to reassert, because of whatever manifestation of tyranny, our inherent right to freedom and liberty.

WTH: Do you support concealed carry laws?

JB: I hold a CHL with the state of Texas. I would prefer there not be a bureaucratic apparatus whose hoops I have to jump through so that I may defend myself should the need ever arise outside of my home. Who are these legislators to tell me that I may not defend myself outside of my home because they don't have my fingerprints on file?

WTH: Do you believe in any sort of gun restrictions?

JB: The only gun restriction I would favor is one in which only VIOLENT felons are prevented from purchasing or possessing a firearm. Other than that, why does the government or the police need them if I am not allowed to have one?

WTH: Some liberals say regular Americans shouldn't be allowed to have guns because they aren't trained. As a trained member of the military yourself, do you think average citizens have the ability to use guns correctly?

JB: Despite the training I received while in the Marines, I am a regular American. I am not exceptional. I am not superior. I am an American just like any other citizen. I've seen "average citizens" use guns extraordinarily efficiently when I go to the range. This is because they are responsible people who seek knowledge when they don't know something. So yes they have the ability, and they should be able to purchase whatever weapons they deem sufficient for their needs.

WTH: Some people fear that government will use the military to forcibly disarm the public if gun banning laws get passed. What is your sense of your fellows in the armed forces. Do you think they'd follow orders to forcibly disarm the public?

JB: In my 8 years of service I could probably count on one hand the number of people that I met who would forcibly disarm the American public. The vast majority of American service members that I know and that I served with recognize that the Constitution is what we pledge to obey.

WTH: Do you feel that there will be any retaliation by the Marines for having posted your reply?

JB: I was honorably discharged on July 31st of this year. I'd certainly hope they wouldn't "retaliate" in any way because I am doing my civic duty and keeping myself informed. I think that would go against our motto: "Honor Courage and Commitment"
  
WTH: Any other thoughts?

 JB: I just hope that our elected representatives do not vote for this heinous attempt to make me and my fellow Americans defenseless against predators and criminals.

We at Breitbart salute Joshua Boston and hope that he is not uncommon among the members of our illustrious armed forces.

Below is the full text of Corporal Boston's original open letter:
Senator Dianne Feinstein,
I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government's right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma'am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.
I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.
I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.
I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.
We, the people, deserve better than you.
Respectfully Submitted,
Joshua Boston
Cpl, United States Marine Corps
2004-2012

Big Government

Friday, December 28, 2012

Hobby Lobby Defies Obama Administration with Civil Disobedience for Religious Liberty

28 Dec 2012
 



 “We must obey God rather than men!”—Acts 5:29. 

Now that Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor has denied Hobby Lobby’s application for an emergency injunction protecting them from Obamacare’s HHS Mandate on abortion and birth control, Hobby Lobby has decided to defy the federal government to remain true to their religious beliefs, at enormous risk and financial cost.

Hobby Lobby is wholly owned and controlled by the Green family, who are evangelical Christians. The Greens are committed to running their business in accordance with their Christian faith, believing that God wants them to conduct their professional business in accordance with the family’s understanding of the Bible. Hobby Lobby’s mission statement includes, “Honoring the Lord in all we do by operating the company … consistent with Biblical principles.”

The HHS Mandate goes into effect for Hobby Lobby on Jan. 1, 2013. The Greens correctly understand that some of the drugs the HHS Mandate requires them to cover at no cost in their healthcare plans cause abortions.

Today Hobby Lobby announced that they will not comply with this mandate to become complicit in abortion, which the Greens believe ends an innocent human life. Given Hobby Lobby’s size (it has 572 stores employing more than 13,000 people), by violating the HHS Mandate, it will be subject to over $1.3 million in fines per day. That means over $40 million in fines in January alone. If their case takes another ten months to get before the Supreme Court—which would be the earliest it could get there under the normal order of business—the company would incur almost a half-billion dollars in fines. And then of course the Supreme Court would have to write an opinion in what would likely be a split decision with dissenters, which could easily take four or six months and include hundreds of millions of dollars in additional penalties.

This is civil disobedience, consistent with America’s highest traditions when moral issues are at stake. The Greens are a law-abiding family. They have no desire to defy their own government. But as the Founders launched the American Revolution because they believed the British government was violating their rights, the Greens believe that President Barack Obama and Secretary Kathleen Sebelius are commanding the Greens to sin against God, and that no government has the lawful authority to do so.

The Christian tradition of defying government commands to do something wrong goes back to the very birth of Christianity. When the apostles were ordered not to share the gospel of Jesus Christ with anyone, the Book of Acts records: “Peter and the other apostles replied: ‘We must obey God rather than men! The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead—whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree.’”

Eleven of the twelve apostles—including Peter—would lose their lives for the sake of spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ; only the apostle John died of old age. They were determined to obey God’s will at all costs.

This issue of civil disobedience is never to be undertaken lightly. The Bible teaches Christians to submit to all legitimate governmental authority (e.g., Romans 13:1), and so a person can only disobey the government when there is no other way to obey God.

But here in America, the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, and in its First Amendment it protects against a government establishment of an official religion and separately protects the free exercise of religion.

On top of that, Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) to specifically add an additional layer of protection against government actions that violate a person’s religious beliefs.

The HHS Mandate is a gross violation of the religious beliefs of the Green family. The issue before the courts here is whether the Greens religious-liberty rights include running their secular, for-profit business consistent with their religious beliefs. In other words, is religious liberty just what you do in church on a Sunday morning, or does it include what you do during the week at your job?

The Greens are now putting their fortunes on the line to do what they believe is right. The courts should side with them, affirming a broad scope of religious liberty under the Constitution and RFRA. And the Supreme Court should resolve this matter with dispatch in their favor.

Millions of Christians across the country feel exactly the same way as the Greens. The Obama administration has issued a statist command that is a declaration of war on people of faith who object to abortion, and civil disobedience could break out all over the country unless the courts set this matter right—and quickly.

Breitbart News legal columnist Ken Klukowski is on faculty at Liberty University School of Law. 

Big Government

Thursday, December 27, 2012

Sen. Feinstein's 'Assault Weapon' Ban Really Handgun Ban

27 Dec 2012
 



  After all the Democrats' emphasis the dangers of so-called "assault weapons," the details of Senator Dianne Feinstein's pending assault weapons ban show that her real goal is to ban handguns. That's right, after all the criticism of the AR-15 and the holier-than-thou speeches about how no one needs a military-style rifle with a 30-round magazine the details of the ban betray a gun grab that includes semi-automatic pistols that use "a detachable magazine" and have "one military characteristic."

This can only mean that the most popular handguns in the world for both civilian and military use are being targeted. These would include Glocks, Sig Sauers, Smith & Wesson M&Ps, H&K, and Colt, yet would by no means be limited to these handguns alone.

Ironically, I was just talking to a friend this morning about how the "assault weapons" ban is just way for the Democrats to get their foot in the door and ban handguns. And now, before the legislation is even introduced, they've gone ahead and shown their hand.

But an even bigger problem lurks -- right now the focus is only on "assault weapons" and semi-auto handguns, however, as soon as a public crime is committed with a double-action revolver, Feinstein and Co. will try to add those to the list as well.

The bottom line: If we are foolish enough to embrace a ban on any weapon in the coming Congress then we are unwittingly embracing a ban on every weapon.

The Democrats cannot be trusted with our freedoms, and they will politicize every tragedy to accomplish their ends.

Proof of this lies in the fact that Feinstein was just waiting for a open door to push a gun ban anyway. In other words, this isn't because of Sandy Hook. Reports from early Nov. 2012 were already indicating the she planned to push a assault weapons ban if Obama were re-elected.

Now more than ever, Republican Senators and Reps. must stand up for the individual right to keep and bear arms. Liberty itself is at stake.

Big Government

The Tea Party Has Not Yet Begun to Fight

26 Dec 2012

 
  If the Tea Party has been weakened by the November election, why are the mainstream media expending so much effort attacking it?  The latest attempt is today’s front-page article by the New York Times, which alleges that the Tea Party is turning to “narrower” issues and suggests, none too subtly, that Congress should stop paying attention to it.

As proof, the Times offers the fact that Republican leaders “have embraced raising tax revenues in budget negotiations, repudiating a central tenet of the Tea Party.” It ignores the fact that Republican leaders could not muster the votes in the House to pass those proposals.

To the great frustration of the mainstream media and the GOP establishment alike, the Tea Party continues to hold the line against tax hikes and new bailouts. It also won a significant victory with the recent passage of right-to-work legislation in Michigan.

These are not “narrower” issues: they are the most fundamental issues concerning the nation’s fiscal health and economic future. It is the Times and the liberal gentry that it serves who cling to narrow, often contrived issues such as the co-called “war on women” to maintain their political clout. The ailing, indebted Times hates the Tea Party precisely because it is serious about economic realities the left would prefer to deny.

The one kernel of truth in recent mainstream reporting on the Tea Party--a truth that Tea Party leaders themselves admit--is that the movement is discouraged by Obama’s win in November.

Mitt Romney was never the Tea Party’s first choice, and some Tea Party supporters may have stayed home on Election Day in protest, but once he secured the Republican Party’s nomination most Tea Party activists worked hard to help him win.

Michael Patrick Leahy of Breitbart News has argued that if not for independent efforts by Tea Party activists, who eschewed Project Orca-like gimmicks for more traditional shoe-leather canvassing, Romney may have done even worse. Tea Party volunteers turned out the vote for Romney in places like Roanoke, VA--where they had driven from as far away as Tennessee--while Orca crashed, leaving Romney volunteers stranded.

Disappointment at Romney’s defeat was compounded by Tea Party losses in other races. The loss of Rep. Alan West was a heavy blow, and Richard Mourdock failed to capture the Senate seat in Indiana after defeating 36-year incumbent Richard Lugar in the primary.

But establishment and moderate candidates suffered as well. The election was not a Tea Party defeat but a Democratic victory, on Obama’s expansive coattails.

The present Tea Party dilemma did not begin in November 2012 but in January 2011, when the new Republican leadership in the House of Representatives excluded Tea Party members from the highest leadership positions. The Tea Party, used to opposing but not to governing, acquiesced in a faulty arrangement that allowed the Republican establishment to lead the legislative agenda, and to blame the Tea Party when it failed.

That is exactly what happened in the summer of 2011, when Speaker of the House John Boehner quashed efforts by Rep. Jim Jordan to rally support around the Tea Party’s preferred “Cut, Cap and Balance” proposal in the debt ceiling debate. Boehner then signed onto an ill-fated deal that led to the present “fiscal cliff” impasse--while the Tea Party, slandered by the mainstream media as “terrorists,” bore the burden of blame.

In the Republican primary, the Tea Party struggled to find a candidate it could support. Many of its preferred candidates stayed out of the race, while those who did enter struggled to compete with Romney’s fundraising machine or withered under the scrutiny of the mainstream media. Many Tea Party activists were encouraged by Romney’s choice of Paul Ryan as his running mate, but he played a subdued role on the trail.

In effect, the Tea Party has provided the Republican Party’s grassroots support for the past two years but none of its leadership.

That political problem is compounded by the obstacles the Tea Party faces in the media, where it has struggled to be heard. While it was never true that the Tea Party was a Fox News creation, the network moved on to other topics after the 2010 election and the Tea Party had access to few other outlets.

Meanwhile, the mainstream media continued to bully the Tea Party. It blamed the Tea Party for the Tuscon shootings in January 2011, and never looked back, continuing to describe the movement as extremist. The media continued to promote false charges of Tea Party racism--and, later, sexism, inflating Rep. Todd Akin’s inexcusable comments about rape and abortion into a national caricature of the Tea Party and the GOP itself.

Throughout the 112th Congress, Breitbart News continued to cover the Tea Party and its successes--from Gov. Scott Walker’s fight against Wisconsin’s public unions, to the Tea Party’s victories in knocking out establishment Republicans who had strayed from their principles and their constituents. But new media voices were sidelined by the super PACs, which absorbed millions of dollars in donations yet produced little to show for it.

Despite these challenges, the Tea Party has continued to succeed. The appointment of the South’s first black Senator since Reconstruction by South Carolina’s first female governor--both Tea Party candidates--is a milestone. The success of labor reforms in “progressive” Wisconsin and union-dominated Michigan marks a sea change in US politics. And thirty governors are now Republican, thanks largely to Tea Party support.

The Tea Party’s most significant political achievement is placing the issue of spending in the spotlight, in Washington and across the nation. When even Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s former White House chief of staff, feels compelled to cut spending and cut taxes, all while urging aldermen to begin paying attention to the city’s looming pension crisis, the Tea Party’s effect on the nation’s political priorities cannot be ignored.

When Barack Obama is not on the ballot, the Tea Party does very well. But Obama has provided Democrats with cohesive leadership they would otherwise have lacked--and which the decentralized Tea Party has yet to furnish.

The loose structure of competing organizations that make up the Tea Party is well-suited to the politics of opposition, but not to the task of governing. That is a challenge the Tea Party must address to survive.

In the meantime, the Tea Party has been very effective in preventing Republicans from selling out their voters and caving to Obama’s agenda, which not only includes higher taxes but new so-called “stimulus” spending. GOP incumbents who might otherwise be prepared to yield are reluctant to do so because they fear primary challenges from the Tea Party.

Boehner should be amplifying that threat, not minimizing it, because showing he has little room to maneuver would give him an edge in negotiations with Obama.

When the debt ceiling comes up for debate again in early 2013, the Tea Party will have more clout than it did last time, despite the loss of some of its members, because of the failure of Boehner’s attempts at compromise with Obama. The Tea Party did not, in fact, call for default in 2011, but could threaten, credibly, to do so now. After all, the Tea Party has little more to fear from the mainstream media, which has already done its worst.

Above all, what is necessary is courage. The Tea Party should not despair of electoral politics because of November’s losses. It has not yet had the opportunity to lead. It has not yet begun to fight.

The principles of fiscal discipline and constitutional restraint for which it stands are still the only basis for Republican opposition, and economic survival.

Big Journalism

Climate Science vs Politics: The Road Ahead

December 27, 2012
By S. Fred Singer

There is good news and bad news about climate. The good news is that science evidence has made it quite clear that the human contribution to a possible global warming is minor; in fact it cannot even be identified in the data record.  The bad news is that the media and politicians pay no attention whatsoever to the science and are marching ahead full-speed with efforts to control CO2 emissions -- thereby hurting the economy, destroying jobs,  and stunting economic growth.  They are under the illusion that there is a nearly complete scientific consensus in support of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW).

First, the good news

As one of the many official "expert reviewers" of the UN-IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), I have had a chance to examine the so-called evidence to back up the IPCC conclusion (with claimed >95% certainty!!) that a reported global warming of the 1980s and 1990s is anthropogenic and that models can be used to predict a future temperature increase of around 2-3 degrees by 2100.  I found that IPCC uses the same flimsy evidence in its fifth assessment report (AR5), due in 2013,  as they did in AR4 (Assessment Report #4, published in 2007); except that there they only claimed 90% certainty. 

If there is to be an IPCC-AR6, it will surely claim 99%, based on the same flimsy "evidence" - a comparison of uncertain model results with even less certain global surface temperature data.  In AR5, this comparison involves just one graph in a chapter on "Attribution."  Yet the IPCC studiously avoids discussing the several striking examples where observations disagree with climate models:  no global warming during at least the past decade -- in spite of rapidly rising CO2 levels; Antarctic is cooling -- not warming;  absence of the model-predicted "hot spot" in the tropical atmosphere, and others. 

All of this is detailed in peer-reviewed publications and summarized in the reports of NIPCC (Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change), which directly contradict the results of the IPCC.  Since NIPCC's founding in 2007, its voluminous reports have been published by the Heartland Institute www.NIPCCreport.org .  During 2013, NIPCC will publish a final summary report at about the same time as the IPCC-AR5.  Important news: The Chinese Academy of Sciences has translated these NIPCC reports for publication in 2013 -- the first national academy to do so. 

The other good news is that the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which has been slowly dying since the UN conference in Copenhagen in Dec. 2009, is finally going to be officially buried this month, in December 2012.  Judging from the latest UN gabfest in Doha, Qatar, it is unlikely that another international control regime will be constituted by 2015 as planned, because of opposition to such international agreements from China, India, and other rapidly developing countries.  Among the poorer countries, there is growing talk about the need for "climate reparations" to reimburse them for some claimed damage caused by CO2 emissions in the past, mainly from the United States.  We should keep in mind, of course, that the major effect of the increase in CO2 has been to improve agricultural performance.  Perhaps these countries should be thankful to China and India for rapidly increasing CO2 emissions, thereby greening the planet.

The bad news

While the international control effort may be dead, we aren't getting rid of the national efforts to control emissions.  The situation in the EU is sort of ludicrous with unrealistic future targets of 20%, 50%, and even up to 80% reduction being bandied about.  But the future is coming closer - and so is some degree of realism.  In some nations, particularly Britain, there has been serious rethinking on the matter of CO2 emissions targets, with U-turns being announced frequently.

It is particularly disturbing that the World Bank has commissioned a thoroughly alarmist report on Global Warming - and that this report could lead to a substantial misallocation of multi-billions of development funds.  Poor countries badly need reliable low-cost electric power; they may instead be forced into dubious windmill and solar projects that claim "sustainability" and zero-CO2 emissions -- but are uneconomic, intermittent, and not suitable for industrial development

In the United States, there has been a determined effort by the EPA to abolish the use of abundant domestic coal in power plants.  This is in line with the president's promise to make electricity prices "skyrocket" and his plan to make climate-change policy a centerpiece in his second term.

His efforts to push through cap and trade legislation failed in 2009, after barely passing the House.  But the EPA has been issuing regulation after regulation that impinge on the use of coal, such as requiring Best Available Control Technology (BACT) to control mercury emissions.  This is a hopeless task as most mercury is now emitted by China into the global atmosphere where it'll spread worldwide.

What has saved the situation in the US is the bonanza of cheap natural gas, which is rapidly replacing coal as the fuel for power plants.  But we don't know if the price of natural gas will remain at the current low level once EPA issues more regulations concerning fracking technology.

EPA Endangerment Finding (EF)

The basic driver of EPA efforts to control CO2 emissions is their proposed Endangerment Finding (EF).  It was issued on Dec 7, 2009 (another "day that shall live in infamy") in response to the 2007 decision of the US Supreme Court, declaring CO2 a pollutant subject to regulation under the 1970 Clean Air Act (CAA) -- provided EPA can demonstrate by independent analysis that it has a harmful impact on human health and welfare.

The EF was challenged immediately since it used flawed IPCC science to claim a deleterious impact on climate.  Unfortunately, we lost our lawsuit in the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia.  In June 2012, the Court's 3-judge panel ruled in favor of the EPA; it said in essence "we're not scientists, we cannot decide between EPA's scientific claims and those of the plaintiff, and therefore we give deference to the administrative agency."  In Dec. 2012, the same Court rejected our request for an en banc hearing - but with two important dissents.

Fortunately, we have resourceful lawyers.  They have pointed out that EPA did not do the "independent analysis" required by the Supreme Court; they should be required to go back to the drawing board and then submit their findings to their Scientific Advisory Board.  I think this will simply delay another challengeable EF, but such a delay might be useful in educating the media and the public, particularly once EPA regulations start to raise energy prices.

Another promising approach to fighting the EPA on this issue is to go back to the 1970 Clean Air Act, the basic law.  After all, the purpose of emission controls is to achieve an ambient air quality that will not harm human health and welfare.  The CAA (Section 108) therefore requires the EPA to set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for "criteria pollutants."  We need to challenge the EPA to set such a standard for CO2, to justify it by "independent analysis," and to demonstrate how their proposed CO2-control regulations will achieve such a NAAQS standard.  I would imagine that this would be an impossible task for the EPA; bearing in mind that they have no control over China or other rapidly developing countries.

As Marlo Lewis (Competitive Enterprise Institute) has reminded us, the activist Center for Biological Diversity and 350.Org petitioned the EPA more than two years ago to establish a NAAQS for CO2 at 350 parts per million (roughly 50 parts per million below current concentrations) -- and for other GH gases at pre-industrial levels.  Yet the EPA has not responded; Perhaps they realize that any level selected may be considered "arbitrary and capricious" - or unobtainable.

Finally, there is the remedy of last resort.  Congress can simply amend the Clean Air Act and forbid the EPA from regulating CO2.  The next election is in November 2014, and there is a possibility that both House and Senate would vote for such an amendment in 2015. 

But then again, with Obama still in the White House, such an amendment can be vetoed.  However, there is always the possibility that a veto can be overridden, so that some sort of political accommodation between the Congress and the President may result.

Whatever the outcome of this legal maneuvering, the science says fairly clearly that CO2 is not a significant climate driver but a boon to global agriculture.  It is hoped that this message can be spread in the media and to the public -- and produce a desirable political impact.

S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and director of the Science & Environmental Policy Project.  His specialty is atmospheric and space physics.   An expert in remote sensing and satellites, he served as the founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service and, more recently, as vice chair of the US National Advisory Committee on Oceans & Atmosphere.  He is a Senior Fellow of the Heartland Institute and the Independent Institute.  He co-authored NY Times best-seller "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 years."  In 2007, he founded and has chaired the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change), which has released several scientific reports [See www.NIPCCreport.org].  For recent writings see http://www.americanthinker.com/s_fred_singer/ and also Google Scholar.

American Thinker

Wednesday, December 26, 2012

Four Words for Gun-Grabbers: 'Shall not Be Infringed'

26 Dec 2012
 



 When Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Joe Manchin (D-WV), and certain Democrats in the House of Representatives, promise to push for more gun control in January 2013, they overlook four important words: "shall not be infringed." These words form an integral phrase in the 2nd Amendment, and speak to our Founders' intent that the U.S. government not "infringe" on the peoples' God-given right to keep and bear arms.

Consider the text of the 2nd Amendment:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

As I've written in earlier posts, the 2nd Amendment does not create a right nor does it confer one. Rather, it hedges in a right with which we were "endowed by [our] Creator." When we understand this, it's easy to see that our Founders put this amendment in place to tell the government that the right to keep and bear arms is sacrosanct.

When Democrats push their gun control schemes in January -- if they actually follow through with the gun control schemes they've floated during the past week -- they must understand that they will be doing exactly what our Founders said they have no power to do. They will be infringing on a right that the Bill of Rights explicitly lists as off limits to inference by the federal government.

This is something the leftists running our academies don't want us to know, so it's something that many of us weren't taught and certainly something that our children don't hear -- even in U.S. history. Therefore, now more than ever, it is a truth that we must recover and one to which we must cling when answering the Democrats' pending gun-grabbing schemes.

Our Founders recognized the right to keep and bear arms as essential and God-given. Because of this, they hedged in this right by telling the government it "shall not be infringed."

Big Government

Paroled Felon Caught With AK-47 In Car

25 Dec 2012


 Perhaps the Left is correct; we should all turn in our guns or sell them back to the government; that way no one would have guns. Suuuuurrrrrrrreeee.

West Covina, California, police arrested a paroled felon after he crashed into a police car when he drove his Toyota Camry 100 miles per hour onto a freeway on ramp and lost control.

You’ll never guess what they found in the trunk of his car.

Christmas gifts? A copy of Good Housekeeping?

Not quite. They found a loaded AK-47 rifle.

No, Virginia, criminals won’t be giving up their guns any time soon.

The felon, Robert Anthony Facciponti, 36, of West Covina, was trying to evade police after they tried to flag him down for a traffic violation. As they chased him, he was driving over 90 mph on city streets, then tried to enter the freeway at 100 mph. He ricocheted off of the retaining wall onto the freeway, where he hit the police car. After the crash, he ran away on foot but was caught soon after that.

Big Government

No Virtue in Media's Quest for External Scapegoat in Sandy Hook

25 Dec 2012
 



 In the Sufjan Stevens song "John Wayne Gacy, Jr," the singer punctuates a retelling of the infamous killer's deeds with the line: "On my best behavior, I am really just like him." As a Christian, Stevens' lyric is a poignant illustration of Romans 3:23, but even in a secular sense, the sentiment is not without merit. It is an unsettling reminder that evil is universal.

In the wake of the tragic shooting at Sandy Hook elementary, we in the press have spent many words trying to Other the perpetrator, Adam Lanza, and the collateral damage has been plentiful. He did this because he played video games. He did this because his mother owned guns or was a survivalist. Because he was mentally ill. Because he was a loner. Because of violence in films. Because of the NRA. There is always an external locus of control. There is always an obvious scapegoat—never an uncomfortable look at our own capacity to commit evil.

Certainly there is no moral equivalence between mass killers, their victims, or the rest of us left brokenhearted by their acts. But, more often than not, there is nothing special about them—no life-altering external force that separates them ontologically from the rest of humanity. They have simply made a choice to embrace the capacity for evil that all of us possess, and they have taken it to its ultimate conclusion—that life has no value, and they may take it from others as long as they are able.

And it is that choice which unnerves us, which shakes us to our core. No human being could have desired such a slaughter, we reason, so this boy must have been something other than human. Medical historian Lindsey Fitzharris describes that reaction as the "medicalization of evil." She asks, "Why do we assume a person such as Lanza is 'sick'?" This gut reaction, she asserts, gives us a tidy, reassuring, but incomplete understanding of why these atrocities happen. Fitzharris concludes, "evil is about choice. Sickness is about the absence of choice."

And that is why many of us search for an external agent in these situations. Unless we isolate an if-then binary cause, then that leaves open the possibility that any person can choose to carry out evil, and any person includes me. And if Rousseau taught me anything, there is nothing in my person that is inherently bad; some institution of man has instilled it in me. Thus, I must find this institution and remove its perverse influence, and all will be well.

While it's a comforting and fashionable defense mechanism, that line of thinking gets crushed to bits when we face unspeakable evil. Tragedy on the scale of Sandy Hook reminds us that our morality is far more complex than we can control. We can't fashion a single pill or law to produce a desired outcome in human behavior, and those who think we can—unfortunately, we've seen this from most of the press in the last few weeks—exhibit an unrivaled folly.

Big Journalism

Sunday, December 23, 2012

This Post Shows The Liberals Incomprehensible Thinking

By Bryan Preston

The NRA came out with a proposal to post armed police officers at schools to prevent or at least minimize the next school shooting. The left promptly called the idea nuts.

Turns out, it wasn’t a new idea. President Bill Clinton proposed the same idea in April 2000. He implemented it, too, only to see Barack Obama cut the funding for it.

So, if you’re keeping score, the NRA agrees with a 12-year old Bill Clinton position on school security. The left just called a former Democrat president “crazy.”

Let’s get even more confusing. Clinton proposed more security for schools in the wake of the 1999 Columbine shooting. It turns out that Columbine High School did have an armed sheriff’s deputy on the scene the day of its tragic shooting spree. That deputy exchanged fire with one of the killers twice, drawing their attention away from killing unarmed teenagers. The deputy and his backup also helped organize the evacuation of students from the school. Though the deputy’s presence obviously did not stop the attack from happening, it likely did save many lives.

Let’s pile on even more confusion. The NRA today proposed protecting our children to a level similar to the way we protect our banks and many public buildings: With armed security. As we’ve established, this idea has been around for more than 12 years and was once proposed by a Democratic president. Many on the anti-gun left responded to today’s proposal not with a thoughtful rejoinder, but with calls to shoot Wayne LaPierre.

I’m not done yet. There is one more bit of confusing data to work with. The Columbine shooting occurred on April 20, 1999. The Assault Weapons Ban that the Democrats wish to revive in response to the Newtown killings ran from 1993 to 2004.

PJ Tatler

Friday, December 21, 2012

What Piers Morgan doesn’t want you to know about Britain and violent crime


 When it comes to the question of violent crime, the British are fairly smug. Why? Because, well, there’s less of it in Britain than in America. Bunch of cowboys over there, right?

Wrong. Per the Daily Mail:
Britain’s violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.
Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa – widely considered one of the world’s most dangerous countries.
The Tories said Labour had presided over a decade of spiralling violence.
In the decade following the party’s election in 1997, the number of recorded violent attacks soared by 77 per cent to 1.158million – or more than two every minute.
According to the Mail, Britons suffer 1,158,957 violent crimes per year, which works out at 2,034 per 100,000 residents. By contrast the number in notoriously violent South Africa is 1,609 per 100,000.

The U.S., meanwhile, has a rate of 466 crimes per 100,000 residents, which is lower than France’s, at 504; Finland’s, at 738; Sweden’s, at 1123; and Canada’s at 935.

As a result of both the different ways in which these statistics are collected and of varying definitions of “violent crime,” there will naturally be some discrepancies between countries. Enough to account for a 5:1 difference between Britain and the United States, though? I rather think not. As I observed last year when covering the London riots:
When I moved from England to New York, I was frequently advised to “be careful.” “Dodge the bullets,” said one particularly paranoid friend. I did not have the heart to say that I would likely be much safer in Gotham than the place I was leaving behind.
National Review

Obama, Feinstein Push Laws That End Gun Shows, Not Public Shootings

20 Dec 2012
 



 Nearly a week after the Connecticut school shooting, mainstream media talking heads and Democrat politicians continue to chant in unison, "Gun control, gun control, gun control..." In the midst of this mantra -- before any legislation has even been introduced -- the promises have gone from reintroducing the "Assault Weapons Ban," to banning AR-15 rifles, to banning 900 semi-automatic weapons, and now to banning gun shows as well.

Did the Connecticut shooter buy his guns at a gun show? No. Adam Lanza didn't buy them anywhere. He took them illegally and used them illegally.

So how safe will banning the gun shows that didn't supply the guns used in Connecticut make us?

No safer in the least. However, such a ban will go a long way in removing one of the central avenues law-abiding citizens use to obtain their handguns, rifles, shotguns, and ammo (which seems to be the ulterior plan anyway).

If Obama and Feinstein were serious about safety, they'd look at ways to enable more law-abiding citizens to defend themselves: especially law-abiding citizens who happen to be school teachers.

When I spoke to a law enforcement official in Phoenix, AZ about this matter on Wednesday, he put it this way: "If the school administrators had been armed, Lanza might still have killed the first one. But the second one could have unloaded on him, killing him on the spot. Of course, then it wouldn't have even made the news."

Big Government

Thursday, December 20, 2012

See Terry Jones’ Inflammatory, 71-Minute Anti-Muhammad Movie Portraying the Prophet as a ‘Child Molester’ & ‘Assassin’

Posted on December 20, 2012



Blaze

Fewer Guns, More Crime

It is time to put liberal posturing aside.


 To President Obama, the word “politics” means anyone who disagrees with him, as in the phrase “It is time to put politics aside.” Whenever he says that, he is really saying “It is time to put aside anyone who disagrees with me on this issue.”

Our hearts are all still hurting over the mass shooting and murder of 20 innocent small children at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. But it was in the same breath as the announcement of the tragedy that President Obama’s all politics all the time ideological warriors inserted their politics, seeking to exploit the deaths of these small children for their ideological and political gain. For them, such gain means liquidating even more of the liberties and even constitutional rights of all Americans who had nothing to do with the mass shooting.

Twenty children are murdered in cold blood by a deranged gunman, and the answer is to seize the guns and flush the effective right to self-defense of 300 million Americans? The answer is actually just the opposite, as

I explain below. Just ask yourself what political philosophy has had disarming the citizenry near the top of its agenda for more than a century.

But the question we all have to ask now is are we going to tolerate left-wing infiltrators exploiting the gruesome murder of small children to advance the further diminution of our liberties and constitutional rights?

More Guns, Less Crime

The sharpest person in America on the issue of guns and crime is John Lott, the author of the classic book, More Guns, Less Crime. Early in his career, Lott was an economist for the U.S. Sentencing Commission, which established federal sentencing guidelines, leading to his subsequent career as a pathbreaking thinker on guns and crime. His book More Guns, Less Crime is the bible for understanding how to respond effectively to the Sandy Hook school tragedy.

Lott’s book is not an opinion piece or a lawyer’s argument. What it does is carefully present, review, and analyze copious data county by county, city by city, state by state, all across America, for several recent decades. Moreover, he doesn’t just cite stats that he thinks will make his case. He presents the data through highly sophisticated regression analysis that befits a first rate economist formerly of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, and thoroughly explains and demonstrates what the numbers show. These regressions
account for not only all the law enforcement variables (arrest, execution, and imprisonment rates), income and poverty measures (poverty and unemployment rates, per capita real income, as well as income maintenance, retirement and unemployment payments), the thirty-six measures of demographic changes, and the national average changes in crime rates from year to year and average differences across states….In addition, the [regressions] account for the differences in various concealed-handgun laws and other types of gun control laws.
In other words, this is the most sophisticated presentation of the data in the world.

What the results show is that in localities where there are more guns, there is less crime. That is because criminals avoid victims who are or might be armed, and prefer to prey on the defenseless and unarmed. It is this unparalleled scholarship that has swept the states with newly enacted “concealed carry” laws. Those laws require local authorities to issue permits to carry concealed handguns to those who meet the specified qualifications (known as “shall issue” laws). Lott describes the sweeping change in his latest Third Edition of More Guns, Less Crime:
In 2007, there were about 5 million Americans permitted to carry concealed handguns. Thirty-nine states have right to carry laws and nine have may-issue laws. Only two states, Illinois and Wisconsin, still completely ban people from carrying concealed handguns. That is a big change from just the eight states that had right-to-carry laws in the early 1980s.
Also in the Third Edition, published in 2010, are the results of sophisticated regressions run on the effects of those conceal and carry laws:
There are large drops in overall violent crime, murder, rape, and aggravated assault that begin right after the right to carry laws have gone into effect. In all those crime categories, the crime rates consistently stay much lower than they were before the law. The murder rate for these right to carry states fell consistently every year relative to non-right-to-carry states.
Lott adds:
All the results indicate that violent crime falls after right-to-carry laws are passed…. There is a large, statistically significant drop in murder rates across all specifications. The before-and-after average comparison implies that right-to-carry laws reduce murder by roughly 20 percent. In all cases, right-to-carry laws cause the trends in murder, rape, and robbery rates to fall.
Lott quotes the Detroit Free Press on the results of conceal and carry in one state:

“Six years after new rules made it much easier to get a license to carry concealed weapons, the number of Michiganders legally packing heat has increased six fold….The incidence of violent crime in Michigan in the six years since the law went into effect has been, on average, below the rate of the previous six years. The overall incidence of death from firearms, including suicide and accidents, also has declined. More than 155,000 Michiganders — about one in every 65 — are now authorized to carry loaded guns as they go about their everyday affairs…. About 25,000 people had CCW permits in Michigan before the law changed in 2001.”
Conceal and carry permit holders have been incredibly law abiding, with revocations running at about 0.2 percent or less in most states, sometimes much less. Many if not most of these are for infractions unrelated to guns, such as failure to maintain vehicle insurance. People are safer around permit holders than among the general public.
In fact, armed permit holders often serve as the first line of defense, as explained by David Kopel in Monday’s Wall Street Journal:
The media rarely mention the mass murders that were thwarted by armed citizens at the Shoney’s Restaurant in Anniston, Ala. (1991), the high school in Pearl, Miss. (1997), the middle-school dance in Edinboro, Penn. (1998), and the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colo. (2007), among others. At the Clackamas Mall in Oregon last week, an active shooter murdered two people and then saw that a shopper, who had a handgun carry permit, had drawn a gun and was aiming at him. The murderer’s next shot was to kill himself.
Of course Lott and his work have been attacked by liberal and leftist ideologues. But in his book he thoroughly and brilliantly decimates them, too. It is easy for hardened gun control campaigners to assert that
 “Lott has been discredited.” But there is no basis for such assertions.

Can Liberals Reason?

Lott applies the lessons learned from this work to mass murders such as the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary. In a recent talk radio interview, he noted that the mass murderers usually choose so-called gun free zones such as schools, or movie theaters or shopping malls where guns are prohibited. That is because they know they can carry out their plan for mass murder there without being stopped.

Lott insightfully explains that these mass murderers are consciously choosing to commit suicide in carrying out their crimes. But they don’t want to go out quietly. They want to make a big splash to draw national and even world attention to their pain and their plight. This is all a reflection of the mental illness that generally plagues them.

The lessons of More Guns, Less Crime actually apply quite directly to this problem. When Israel suffered terrorists targeting its schools, it ultimately decided to arm its teachers. In fact, Israel generally follows the conceal and carry policy Lott favors throughout society. This way, the Israeli people themselves are the first line of defense against terrorism.

Such a policy would have prevented the extent of the killing at Sandy Hook. School policy should seek to train as many willing teachers as possible in each school, empowered with conceal and carry permits to defend themselves and their children. Such permits more generally would help to prevent such mass murders elsewhere.

Is this just a wild west scenario? We are already living in the wild west, but often with only the bad guys having guns. And that is where the policies of the liberals and President Obama would take us further. As Lott says, “The evidence should make gun control advocates pause, as all the gun bans that I have studied show that murder rates increase after the ban is enacted.” But our experience with President Obama shows that he doesn’t learn from experience. That is why he wants to expand the experience of murder capital Chicago to the entire nation.

The bottom line is that the government does not have the power to take away guns from dangerous criminals and mass murderers. The government cannot stop drugs from crossing our borders, and even showing up in prisons. The government can only stop law-abiding, innocent victims from being armed. But there is no sense or logic to that.

The gun control policy is even worse than that, because it sacrifices the liberties, self-defense, and constitutional rights of every innocent American, to an ineffective policy that will not work, unless your policy is precisely to disarm the public because you have nefarious plans for the American people. Just bring back the ban on assault rifles? We already tried that, and it didn’t work, with no significant change in the data when the ban went into effect, and no significant change when the ban lapsed. More effective would be to ban braindead liberals from public service. Would that violate the Constitution? Aren’t we already discussing policies that would violate the Constitution?

There really is no such thing as an assault rifle. They are defined by references to their cosmetic appearance rather than to their functionality. Banning assault rifles is really just a PR stunt deluding the gullible that something important has been accomplished.

Other liberal policies have only contributed to the problem as well. Liberal deinstitutionalization policies have liberated the mentally ill to roam the streets, giving rise to the homeless problem as well as to more mass murderers. As Kopel also notes in Monday’s Journal:
A 2011 paper by Steven P. Segal at the University of California, Berkeley, “Civil Commitment Law, Mental Health Services, and U.S. Homicide Rates,” found that a third of the state-to-state variation in homicide rates was attributable to the strength or weakness of involuntary civil-commitment laws.
Violence-drenched movies and video games contribute to disrespect for life in our culture. The breakdown of the family and widespread out of wedlock births give rise to more violence and crime as well. The airhead liberal policy of piously declaring certain public areas “gun free zones” very directly contributes to mass murder.

Maybe we need to look at that idea of banning brain-dead liberals.

American Spectator

Paging, Piers Morgan: Gun Violence Explodes In England

20 Dec 2012


 Paging, Piers Morgan... Piers Morgan to the white courtesy phone....
Gun crime has almost doubled since Labour came to power as a culture of extreme gang violence has taken hold.
The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent.
In some parts of the country, the number of offences has increased more than five-fold.
In eighteen police areas, gun crime at least doubled.
The statistic will fuel fears that the police are struggling to contain gang-related violence, in which the carrying of a firearm has become increasingly common place.
Last week, police in London revealed they had begun carrying out armed patrols on some streets.
The move means officers armed with sub-machine guns are engaged in routine policing for the first time.
Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Grayling, said last night: 'In areas dominated by gang culture, we're now seeing guns used to settle scores between rivals as well as turf wars between rival drug dealers.
Piers Morgan can't stop talking about how England's extreme gun control laws make his case for what we should in America, except, uhm... you know, the facts.

What's happening in our media now is not about stopping mass-shootings or protecting children. It's about gun control and winning a political debate against the Right.

To the media ad Democrats, it simply doesn't mater that gun control isn't working in England or Chicago or anywhere else. And it sure doesn't matter if gun control might be emboldening criminals to commit gun crime because they know the public isn't armed.

All that matters is defeating the NRA and handing Obama another win.

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC 

Big Journalism

Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Obama Slowly But Surely Transforming America Into Another Unarmed Nation of Islam

Jerry McConnell

With the constant and steady persistence of the Muslim Brotherhood and conspiratorial influence of the corrupt and world leadership schemes of the United Nations Bilderberg Group and Council of Foreign Relations’ unscrupulous and charlatan billionaires, our fraudulent leader Barack Hussein Obama, is slowly poisoning and eating away at our Constitution and national framework.

Each and every one of the anti-American Treaties proposed by the United Nations and then imposed on our U.N. Ambassador and Secretary of State for presentation to our federal government for ratification and approval of ultimate takeover causes loss of sovereignty of our country.

The Obama Administration has made a mission out of objects for destruction of our frame of government and the authority of same, the U. S. Constitution.  These objects are so many and varied that to try to capture their essence and objectivity would be monstrously difficult. 

Earlier this month I wrote in a Canada Free Press column about the nearness of our Senate voting positively on a United Nations Treaty innocuously named in language that made the effort look and sound like a grand and gracious effort to provide assistance to disabled people when such was not the case; and loss of U. S. sovereignty would have been the principle result.

Other U. N. Treaties being planned on being foisted on our Senate for ratification are some more well-known and detailed mostly in logs on the Internet but with extremely scarce publication in any of our traitorous Main Stream Media - also know as:  ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC and major newsprint media such as the NY Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post, LA Times and most every major newspaper in every major city in America.

The subjects of a few of these other proposed Treaties cover Small Arms; Global Warming; Governance of the Internet; and Law of the Sea.  These are not all, by far.  But each one of them could be disastrous to the United States if any are ratified by the U. S. Senate.

The U. N. Treaty on Arms Trade was explained in the Billings Gazette on July 29, 2012 following a State Department plan [Hillary Clinton’s pet project of infamy to America] as follows: ‘A 1961 State Department memorandum explains how the United Nations will oversee the complete disarmament of the American people under the ruse of preventing war.’

“The problem with this thinking is that the U.S. citizens who own firearms are not the ones who continually start wars around the globe.

“This U.N. Arms Treaty has caused so much controversy because it outlines a plan to target all types of conventional weapons, notably including small arms and light weapons, the act given is that this is really just a treaty about international arms trade between nation states, but there is no doubt that the real agenda here is domestic firearms control” said the Billings Gazette.

Though these highly questionable documents are labeled as treaties and are more likely documents of various forms of destruction to our country and orchestrated by the nefarious and treasonable Obama, they are but part and parcel of a far more dangerous plan called the ‘Transformation of America.’

“In the December 17, 2012 online publication of the Western Center for Journalism, writer Gabor Zolna presented his article, “Obama’s Disarmed, Islamic ‘Transformation’ Of America” in which he stated, I believe that an organization was formed many years ago, one that was designed to, as Obama himself has said many times, transform America. It was unfortunate that no one ever asked him what he intended to transform America into. If they did, it would matter not, since he would never have answered that question.

However, it is becoming more than evident to anyone that has their eyes open as to his and his Administration’s true intentions.”

And those ‘true intentions’ as Zolna dubbed Obama’s plans are not so secretly named in the title of his article above in the Western Center for Journalism article in two words, “Disarmed” and “Islamic.”  How can anyone with a straight face NOT agree that this dishonest and disloyal man is Islamist to the core?  He avoids that characterization in order to prolong the appearance of being a natural born citizen and a Jeremiah Wright faux Christian.

Jerry McConnell is a longtime resident of planet earth with one half century on the seacoast of NH.  He is a community activist but promises not to run for President and he feeds ACORN’s to the squirrels.  He can be emailed at lethrneck@comcast.net with complaints or the editor at letters@canadafreepress.com with favorables.

Canada Free Press

CNN's Piers Morgan Calls Pro-Gun Rights Guest 'Unbelievably Stupid Man'

19 Dec 2012

 
 Reason 11,487 CNN is tanking.... Watch Piers Morgan lose his composure, phony pose of impartiality, and thinner-than-thin veneer of civility when confronted with the facts and logic that blow a hole in his absurd and dangerous position on gun control:



-
Piers Morgan isn't Sean Hannity or Rachel Maddow -- he doesn't declare his biases in advance.

Instead, night after night after night, he insults his miniscule audience with his phony pose as an objective journalist and interviewer.

No one likes to be lied to and hustled by the likes of a CNN or Morgan, including liberals, which is why they flock to MSNBC.

Also, Morgan's just a preening, sanctimonious jerk who obviously can't deal with being challenged. He's a thinnner Keith Olbermann with a British accent.

Blowhards never make for appealing television.

Does the new management at CNN understand this?


Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC  

Big Journalism

The Many Sandy Hook Mistakes of The New York Times

19 Dec 2012
 



 As we mentioned early on December 15, the Old Media have done a poor job relating the facts about the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in Newton, Connecticut. Finally, some four days after the crime occurred, The New York Times is issuing corrections on a multitude of garbled reports. Some of the corrections are updating the sort of "facts" that most of Old Media establishment got wrong; such as who the shooter actually was and whether or not the killer's mother worked at the school. But many of the "facts" that The Times had to correct don't even stand the test of logic.

For instance, The Times originally reported that the guns being used were .10 and a .9 millimeter guns. This would be about the size of a pencil lead! Of course what the paper of record really meant to say is that 10 and 9 millimeter sized bullets were used, not a .10 and .9.

In another case The Times misquoted New York Governor Michael Bloomberg. And so, the correction reads,
An article on Monday about President Obama’s remarks at a memorial service in Newtown, Conn., for shooting victims quoted incorrectly from comments by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg of New York, who criticized Mr. Obama for inaction on gun control. Mr. Bloomberg, appearing on the NBC program Meet the Press, said that if Mr. Obama "does nothing during his second term something like 48,000 Americans will be killed with illegal guns." He did not say that is the number that would be killed in the next year.
What Bloomberg actually said was that 48,000 Americans would be killed over the next four years, or "during [Obama's] second term," not in the next year.

But, even here Bloomberg is simply incorrect in all particulars. John Hinderacker corrects the record.
But Bloomberg’s statement, quoted correctly, is wrong. FBI statistics indicate that in 2010, there were 8,775 homicides using firearms, not 12,000, and the number is steadily dropping. Moreover, that is the total number of homicides that involve all guns, not “illegal guns.” There are very few illegal guns–i.e., guns which it is illegal to sell–in the United States.
-----
So when Bloomberg said on Meet the Press that “48,000 Americans will be killed with illegal guns,” he both got the number wrong and gratuitously inserted the reference to “illegal” guns. I have seen no data on the number of homicides involving guns that are possessed illegally.
Hinderacker also points out that murder is down and so is misuse of rifles generally.
The rifle is commonly, if meaninglessly, referred to as an “assault weapon.” But homicides using rifles of any sort are rare, as well as declining. In 2010 there were only 358 homicides involving rifles, compared with 1,704 in which knives were used, 540 that involved blunt objects, and 745 in which the victims were simply beaten to death. So the idea that there is some kind of epidemic of violence involving semiautomatic rifles, or any other sort of rifle, is nonsense.
The Old Media continue to misuse many words and concepts about firearms as it reports on the crime at Sandy Hook Elementary. The term "assault weapon" is a meaningless phrase, but the over use of the descriptive language is used solely to support an anti-gun agenda. The word "clips" is also continually misused. Rifle clips do not hold dozens of rounds. Magazines do, but "clips" do not.

The Old Media is not done making apologies for misleading consumers of the news, certainly. But in much of its reporting, there is a purposeful effort to mislead. It is doubtful any apologies will be in the offing for that.

Finally, it is useful to mention that the American law enforcement community recently reported that murders of policemen is down 20 percent since last year. Also, U.S. violent crime is down for the fifth straight year.

Big Government