UN Climate Change Treaty

As many of you are aware, this December Denmark will be the site of the United Nations Climate Conference. Several weeks ago there was a video posted on this site, I don’t remember who posted it, by Lord Christopher Monckton. He was giving a speech at Bethel University and was discussing the upcoming conference, the treaty that was being discussed, and the ramifications of such treaty for the United States. I remember watching the video and wondering, “how much of what he says is real and how much of it is ‘Glenn Beckish’ in its conclusions?” So I began to read more, study more, and figure out what I could about the upcoming conference and the treaty being discussed. I was stunned to find that Lord Monckton was pretty accurate with what he was saying. And I decided that I was going to write about the subject. I have been attempting to gather information in the weeks since then. I am now ready to present to all of you what I found. Because there are only 12 days to this insane conference…

Before I begin, I wanted to offer what I could find as a link to view the video for anyone who missed it the last time it was posted. The site that I am linking to is the Dakota Voice. I am sure there are those who will attack the information in the video because of the site. I say to you, stuff it. The site has nothing to do with the content of the video. Clicking the link will open a new window:

Lord Monckton Delivers a Warning on the Climate Treaty

For those who are unable to view the video, the transcript of this part of the speech is here:

At Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed — Your president will sign it. Most of the third-world countries will sign it because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regimes around the world, like the European Union, will rubber-stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.

I have read that treaty and what it says is this: That a world government is going to be created. The word, government, actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity.

The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third-world countries in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, a ‘climate debt,’ because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t and we’ve been screwing up the climate. We haven’t been screwing up the climate, but that’s the line.

And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.

How many of you think that the word election or democracy or vote or ballot occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right. It doesn’t appear once.

So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement and took over Greenpeace so that my friends who founded it left within a year because they’d captured it. Now the apotheosis is at hand.

They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Laureate. Of course, he’ll sign it.

And the trouble is this: If that treaty is signed, your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution. And you can’t resile from that treaty unless you get the agreement from all the other states, parties. And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out.”

So thank you America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a privilege merely to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free. But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy and your prosperity away forever and neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect will have any power whatsoever to take it back again.

That is how serious it is. I have read the treaty. I have seen the stuff about government and climate debt and enforcement. They are going to do this to you whether you like it or no.

But I think it is here, here in your great nation which I so love and I so admire. It is here that, perhaps — at this 11th hour, at the 59th minute and 59th second — you will rise up and you will stop your president from signing that dreadful treaty. That purposeless treaty for there is no trouble with the climate — and even if there were, economically speaking, there’s nothing we can do about it.”

So I end by saying to you the words that Winston Churchill addressed to your president in the darkest hour before the dawn of freedom in the Second World War. He quoted from your great poet, Longfellow: “Sail on, oh Ship of State. Sail on, oh Union, strong and great. Humanity, with all it’s fears, with all the hopes of future years, is hanging, breathless, on thy fate.” Thank you.

I think after watching that video you can see how disturbed I might be. I am more disturbed now to find that much of what he said is true. So away we go…..

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was created in March of 1994 and can be summed up by their own description (from their own website):

The Convention on Climate Change sets an overall framework for intergovernmental efforts to tackle the challenge posed by climate change. It recognizes that the climate system is a shared resource whose stability can be affected by industrial and other emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. The Convention enjoys near universal membership, with 192 countries having ratified. Under the Convention, governments:

  • gather and share information on greenhouse gas emissions, national policies and best practices
  • launch national strategies for addressing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to expected impacts, including the provision of financial and technological support to developing countries
  • cooperate in preparing for adaptation to the impacts of climate change

There you have its purpose. According to their own description, they share information, launch national strategies, and prepare for adaptation to the impacts of climate change. Oddly I don’t see anything about forming a world government in that charter, or global redistribution of wealth through something called a “carbon debt.” Yet that is exactly the type of work that this body has continued to put forth.

We have given a fair amount of discussion to the conventions last major contribution to the world, the Kyoto Protocol. For those unfamiliar with the Kyoto Protocol, it was a cap and trade type program done on a global scale. The United States did not participate in the Kyoto Protocol and did not sign it. Lefties have spent the last 4 years lambasting the US government for failing to do our part and sign the accord and take part. The Kyoto Protocol was a global effort to reduce greenhouse gases and save our climate in crisis, after all, and as leaders in the world we should be leading the way. And I say we did lead the way, by rejecting this garbage outright. Because the Kyoto Protocol has been a monumental and VERY expensive failure. Just about every country that implemented it has seen it fail. Emissions actually rose in many of them. Kyoto is about to expire, thank goodness. So the last attempt at a major move like this…. was a bust. I wrote about this subject previously here:

Coming Soon… The Breathing Tax « Stand Up For America

and here

Man Made BullCrap… « Stand Up For America

and here

Strike While the Crisis is “Hot” « Stand Up For America

In fact, I have written many more times than these three about global warming. I have done so because I believe that man made global warming is bullshit. Now that they have realized that the earth is cooling, they have switched to man made climate change. I believe that man-made climate change is bullshit. I think all this global climate stuff is a hoax pulled by the elite who stand to either gain great power or gain great wealth by spreading the lie. And I believe that, at this point, global warming/climate change is the greatest threat to American freedom. This is not because of any change to the climate, but because of all the bullshit legislation being passed in the name of this lie. Can I make it any more clear than that?

So fast forward to the upcoming conference in Copenhagen. The treaty that Lord Monckton was speaking of has not officially been finalized. However, the working copy is available on the UNFCCC website:


While I don’t expect you all to read that entire nonsense, I figured it was important that you have access to the working document from the source. Otherwise, I would be accused of offering my opinion and little else. After all, I did say above that “I believe” global warming is a fraud. To point you in some of the right directions, the entire document is under revision, and parts of the topics I am going to discuss below are covered everywhere in the document. But some of the highlights are found in the following sections. Please keep in mind that these are early on and are amendments to the original document, which is 181 pages long:

The paragraph discussing developed nations accepting responsibility for their part in causing the problem and determining what percentage of the problem they are responsible for… Page 15, paragraph #29

The paragraph discussing the payment of carbon debts and the financing of technology and education in developing countries by those evil developed countries that caused the problem…. Page 16, paragraphs #32 and #33

The paragraphs discussing the creation of a government entity that will control the process, the financial aspects, the implementation, and enforcement…. Page 18, beginning with paragraph #38

You see, here is my issue with the entire thing (and this is besides the fact that I think man made climate change is bull and therefore makes all of this stuff illegal and irrelevant): The treaty being proposed takes away US sovereignty in a big way. It gives this new UN entity many controls over the United States that we should not be turning over to anyone. EVER. It redistributes American money to developing countries as a payment for the carbon debt. Think that part is made up? I am sure some will argue that it is, especially based on the section I gave above, which is confusing. So how about this section from page 122:

17. [[Developed [and developing] countries] [Developed and developing country Parties] [All Parties] [shall] [should]:]
(a) Compensate for damage to the LDCs’ economy and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity, as many will become environmental refugees;

(b) Africa, in the context of environmental justice, should be equitably compensated for environmental, social and economic losses arising from the implementation of response measures.

In other words, we pay developing countries for the damage we have done to them, including loss of dignity! It says it right there in the damn treaty! This is “reparations” on a global scale. The unelected international government is to have authority to legislate how much and what kind of carbon-based activity Americans may engage in before they will be taxed on such activity (now we are getting taxed by the world, as if it isn’t bad enough here already). None of these taxes or penalties will be subject to presidential veto, congressional oversight, or review by the federal Judiciary.

Another link from the official Copenhagen Conference site is important here as it is an interview with Yvo de Boer, executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. He explains that there are 4 key things that this conference must accomplish in December (he is backing off having the treaty done because it is delayed to possibly 2010, which I will discuss below). These are his four areas of focus and the link to the article:  The essentials in Copenhagen – COP15 United Nations Climate Change Conference Copenhagen 2009

  1. How much are the industrialized countries willing to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases? The US has come up with a number they will offer in Copenhagen
  2. How much are major developing countries such as China and India willing to do to limit the growth of their emissions? They gave their answer, I will cover it below.
  3. How is the help needed by developing countries to engage in reducing their emissions and adapting to the impacts of climate change going to be financed? The treaty intends to make the US pay for it.
  4. How is that money going to be managed? I will guarantee the honest answer to that is poorly and corruptly.

Another part of that interview that I found relevant is that they are making sure that they can come up with a treaty that can pass muster in the US Senate. They knew Kyoto would never make it through the Senate and that was a big mistake in their eyes. Unfortunately, we have John Kerry on board with the madness coming out of Copenhagen, and he will be running point on the issue in the Senate.

Adding to this issue is the fact that China and India have recently determined their path forward, and it looks as though their answer is to tell the UNFCCC to stick it. President Obama’s new BFF, China, is not such a BFF. From the long link below: We “agreed to work toward a successful outcome in Copenhagen,” Obama said after his meeting last week with Chinese President Hu Jintao.” This is really weird, because there is also this in the news (from the American Thinker article below):

On October 22, an accord was signed by Xie Zhenhua, China’s vice minister at the National Development and Reform Commission, and Jairam Ramesh, India’s environment minister, in New Delhi. The memorandum provides an alternative framework to counter pressure from America and Europe to adopt mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions in a new UN treaty. The two Asian powers will collaborate on the development of renewable power projects and improved energy efficiency programs, while rejecting any outside mandates that would slow economic growth.

It seems that the two largest population countries in the world are not exactly on board with this whole climate treaty business. In fact, they have the testicular fortitude to do what our lame President (and the lame Presidents before him, although the hated GW ignored Kyoto as he should have done) doesn’t seem to have the guts to do. They are telling the rest of the world that they are taking care of number one first. If your climate change hoo ha gets in the way of our economic prosperity, we reserve the right to use it as toilet paper. So while China and India protect their sovereignty and ensure what is best economically for their people, the United States seems intent on giving US wealth away and making the country economically vulnerable during one of the more powerful recessions in our country’s history.

Does something not make sense here?

This is yet another massive issue that the people of the United States must rally against. The President, the Senate, and the rest of the bullshit artists in Washington DC need to be made aware that we see through the AGW bull and we are not going to sit idly by while our sovereignty and our economic well being are sacrificed by the Great Apologizer. How many Trillions of dollars do we have to throw at a problem that doesn’t exist and that even if it did, we couldn’t affect if we wanted to?

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/power_derives_from_lawful_auth.html (this is an excellent article assessing the Constitutionality of the President signing this treaty)


American Thinker: China-India Accord to Scuttle UN Climate Treaty


  1. The Obama administration has already made it clear that the U.S. would sign this treaty?

    • Say, TC, haven’t you heard any of his campaign speeches? And his speeches during his “apologizing” tours?

      He said that a long time ago!

  2. USW . . .

    I have known about this for at least six months . . . Just where have you been?

    I bet good old Black Flag has known about this for a much longer time than I have.

    NOW do you guys understand why I have been screaming about getting off the “philosophy” kick and start getting things done?

    Progressives have learned their Communist lessons well, while they have been shouting about health care reform, and saving the economy by spending wildly, they have quietly been working this thing under the table and we will lose our national sovereignty in less than a month from now.

    Do you yet believe that the time for talking is long past, and the time to stand up and be counted is now upon us?

    I wonder just how many of your other readers are going to lambast my attitude on this one?

    • PapaDawg, No lambasting from me. At some point in time, if this issue effects us in a negative way, we should push for treason charges against those who agree with the decisions. Climate change is nothing but a scheme at the grandest scale.


      • I concur g-man, but they are untouchable! we cant even get charges and long term defunding even against ACORN.

        The next move is to join withj Vince Flynn and Glenn Beck in D.C. so the number far exceeds the SEIU membership rolls of 2.2 milion.

        We all need to load up a van with friends and be there at any cost, day off from work included.

    • PapaDawg:

      I’ve attended Tea Parties, wrote my Senators, and attended a town hall meeting. Should this treaty reach the senate for approval, my Senators will approve it. MY Senators also support Cap and Trade.

      What exactly should we do? Writing letters doesn’t do anything or Tea Parties. The Progressives don’t care. They know what is good for us and want to ram through what ever they can.

      If 10 million people marched on Washington to oppose this treaty, cap and trade, and health care our Congress would still defy the will of the people and pass it. They can do whatever they want until removed from office and they will not be removed for another year.

      Some state needs to threaten secession. That may bring this to a head.

      • Mike M. Houston Texas says:

        Texas governor Rick Perry did that..although somewhat lightly as I dont think he really meant it. What happened to him next was the Obama media portraying him in the poorest possible light. Now I have issues with Rick Perry that are different but he did at least break the ice somewhat on the secession topic.

        Short of a civil war I do not think this will be stopped. Alot of what I read here scares the crap out of me. However, I do believe there is a tipping point. Once pushed too far the people will push back. How far that is remains unknown.

        With a slightly different slant though. If Obama thinks that he can give massive amounts of money to this and not pay China their debt he should think again. China will always do things their own way.

    • I have been here PD. And I have written extensively on the global warming hysteria. There had been rumors that some sort of crazy treaty might be in the works. But this treaty, as it stands, was only written in September. It took some time to hit the net, and I wasn’t aware of the madness it contained until a couple weeks ago. I had a feeling it was coming, but I was not willing to write about what I think might be in the works, rather I felt it prudent to wait until there was some confirmation.


  3. I wonder if the US signs the treaty, if we will really be held to it at all costs. If we decide we don’t want to anymore… what are they going to do?

    • Excellent question. I’m glad you asked.

      Diddly. Squat.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        They will not have to do diddly squat for quite a long time. Our “government” will gladly give away our money in order to appear to be “doing the right thing”, and if the citizens complain about it, no one in Washington will give them any attention, other than to call them “teabaggers”, so why worry?

    • Great question JB. It seems that some people believe they will do nothing while others simply are not sure. If we reject it outright, they can do nothing but be angry at us. But once accepted, it is binding. The enforcement mechanisms are so far unclear. I need to go back to the treaty document and search for enforcement mechanisms, as I know they must be there. I wasn’t looking for them the first time though.

  4. I do not know if man made climate change (global warming) exists. I do not know if it is real science, or pseudoscience. But I’m pretty confident that it is not a hoax. I base this on my assertion (from the other day) that no group of people that large can keep a secret. It’s how I know there are no aliens locked up in Area 51. Even WALNUT can’t keep a secret (I keep spilling the beans here). So fact or fiction, the popular narrative is almost certainly the result of real beliefs by scientists and by politicians using that belief to their advantage.

    That said, there is a very real danger out there. With the amount of manure being thrown around by BOTH sides, it is important to remember that manure gives off methane: a powerful greenhouse gas. If this debate goes on much longer, I fear that the piles of bullshit will stack up so high they will blot out the sun, and the gasses will cook us like an easy-bake oven.

    • Matthius,

      The Hoax was exposed a long time ago,years even. THAT is no ‘secret’. The conspirators have now been caught red handed with the emails showing how they conspired. You’ve heard of this, right? Just because the perps have ignored that fact that others have called them on their lies, doesn’t make it a secret.

      • I’ve heard about the emails, I’ve only been able to find snippets. I would feel a lot better calling it a hoax if I’d seen many full emails. I’m sure we could take some of your emails and show them out of context to make it appear you were engaged in a conspiracy, too. I’m not saying they aren’t involved in a massive left wing conspiracy conspiring against America, but I am saying I need to see and evaluate the evidence for myself before pronouncing judgment.

    • Matt,

      It doesn’t need to be a conspiracy for them to be wrong.

      There are financial interests and these guys make their living on the subject.

      Government Science Formula:
      No Urgency=No Funding.

      If you have to pay the bills, which strategy would you use?

      PS: Not well today either – will be watching mostly.

      • BF;

        Hope you heal up soon, your voice is needed. In my post #13 I have proposed that we are hurting our cause by debating over what I call deversions i.e UNFCCC, Cap and Trade, Stimulus, Health care, etc, and that we should be uniting around a common objective, which is to shut the machine down on the basis that you cannot fix a machine while it is running.

        Furthermore, by arguing or debating over the many subjects posted here we are only serving the regimes objective of dividing and conquering.

        What say you?


        P.S. Maybe you just need your daily allotment of rum to get back on your feet?

        • Common Man,

          You said: by arguing or debating over the many subjects posted here we are only serving the regimes objective of dividing and conquering.

          RIGHT ON! I’ve been saying this for YEARS. Most people tell me I’m stupid, crazy, etc., but I keep saying it, and being ignored. Hopefully, our message will be heard. If things get bad enough for Americans, maybe then they will listen. I hope it isn’t too late.

      • You stay in bed. Let me enjoy a few days where I don’t have to duke it out with 1000+ word essays in the middle of my workday.

        But to rebut. I have no reason to believe that the scientist espousing a belief in global warming are right. All I have is that “many” scientists think that. But “many” scientists once thought the moon was made of cheese, so that, in and of itself, is insufficient. But neither do I have cause to believe the claims are false. Thus my fence-sitting.

        They may be deluding themselves. Some may be skewing their results to ensure funding. Some may even be doing this in groups. But I do not believe that global warming is a giant hoax. Most of the people advocating it are true believers. Right or wrong, it’s what they think. And I see no evidence to support the claim that it’s a vast conspiracy to seize global power. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Show me extraordinary evidence or I’ll have to determine that, at worst, this is an example of Mathius’s Fourth Law.

        • Matthius,
          Do you think that the many predications of catastophies that never materilize is proof that AGW is a hoax?

          I have a house in Florida. After the 2004 and 2005 hurricanes, AL Gore and his crew delcared that due to AGW, we would see bigger, more frequent, and more destructive hurricanes. Allstate, my insurer, dropped me like a rock, even though I didn’t have any hurricane related claims since I bought the house in 1998. Then, when I did find a company to insure me, my rates QUADRUPLED, and all for the pleasure of 30% less coverage and a higher deductable. Where are the promised hurricanes? Where’s the destruction? My house in Rockledge Florida hasn’t experienced a single hurricane since 2005. We’ve had less hurricane activity in those intervening years than normal. The only devistation that has been visited on me comes from the insurance industry using AGW to jack my rates. There are many other examples of predictions that haven’t come true, from the 70s to today. Back then it was global cooling, then warming, now its ‘change’. WTF…..

    • Mathius,

      How would you define a hoax? I see a hoax as an intentional misrepresentation of facts in order to change the opinion of those being presented to. Under that definition, I see this as a hoax.


    • The problem is that it is sheer hubris to believe that humans can have more effect on the climate (not weather, the two are very different) than that big yellow glowing ball in the sky. When these so called “climate scientists” go out of their way to ignore climate shifts in the past because the changes were before the industrial revolution and to try to convince me that the climate was static until 1850, then I will call them on the sheer stupidity of that argument.

    • If you hadnt found this..

      Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?

  5. Ray Hawkins says:

    I would raise similar concern as JB – some quick rudimentary searches of the document do not reveal any discernible enforcement mechanism. I am not a fan of surrendering our sovereignty – ever.

    My view has always been (sim to Mat), I cannot prove/disprove the science/pseudo-science on either side. The debate has spun up so hard I’d need to burn some serious vacation time to educate myself and determine what is credible, what is not and where in the end I stand. It would seem putting bad stuff in the air is not a good idea – but little do I know whether she can really absorb it or not. I am not usually a fan for taking a big swing for the fences every time I come up to the plate.

    • I think a lot of folks are in your position Ray. Simply unsure of what is real and what is not. At this point, they are going to spend trillions of our tax money fighting something that may or may not be real. I have issue with that. If the President came out tomorrow and said we are going to spend trillions to eradicate the plague of fire breathing pixies that are terrorizing middle America, we would have a fit. The question is whether this falls into that same category. I don’t want to waste trillions only to find out it wasn’t real.

      Just imagine how much better that money could be spent…. and imagine how much more of your money the government is going to appropriate in order to pay our “carbon debt”

      • Ray Hawkins says:

        USW – I suppose I should eat one of my own/favorite phrases – we need to get things like this right. Right for me does not = perfect – but it sure as hell doesn’t mean jumping into a tank of sharks simply because someone said that “this breed won’t bite you”. There seems to be ample science that casts an enormous cloud over GM – which means we probably do not have it right yet.

        Similar to Healthcare – if you get a chance read the piece by David Brooks in todays NYT. While I am philosophically on the other side of the fence as most here when it comes to healthcare reform – the direction we are headed now does not feel right – and I call bs on any notion that “any” reform is good / a starting point and we’ll work from there.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          I am all for healthcare reform.

          I would like to see more people with health insurance coverage, and I would like to see average costs for the consumer actually go down.

          I wish that some of the proposals that might actually accomplish this were getting a more serious look.

        • Common Man says:


          Since you are undecided on either Health Care and/or Climate maybe your strong voice can assist in uniting those that agree overall that the government is headed down the wrong path, or pursuing the wrong approach, and therefore we should stop, re-examin, and then develop a sound plan.


      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        I, for one, am absolutely sure that man-caused global warming or “climate change” is complete, utter, and total BS.

        Luckily, more and more people are finally starting to reach the same conclusion.

  6. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Man-caused global warming always was a hoax, and for any who doubted it, the emails and data that were leaked from Hadley-CRU should have been enough to prove it. If you still believe it after that you are simply delusional.

    Either that or you still with for this garbage treaty to succeed, even though you KNOW that global warming is a hoax, in which case you are just evil.

    The “progressives” have gotten more and more crafty as they have evolved. They have decided to cloak their true intentions by “championing causes” like… well… anything that can be described under “saving the planet”. Trust me, they have absolutely no interest whatsoever in “saving” the planet. They will destroy the planet if need be in order to obtain the power that they desire.

    They are merely hoping that they can get enough people to go along with “saving the planet” that they can “peacefully” accomplish their goal of obtaining power on essentially a world-wide scale. After all, if you oppose them, you are against “saving the planet”, right?

    • I reject your conspiracy theory as patently ridiculous. “Progressives,” or if we can call them what they prefer: “liberals,” are not seeking world domination. We, for I am one of them, in general, do not have a nefarious plan for hiding behind causes to cloak our “true intentions.”

      Let us assume, for the sake of this conversation, that there is no such thing as global warming. Let us go further, and assume that many scientific advocates of the theory know this and perpetuate the myth for personal gain. Let us also assume that the leaders of the liberal movement know this fact and perpetuate the myth for person gain.

      If all of that is true, it still does not mean that we are a sneaky, crafty group of malintentioned sociopaths willing to lie, cheat, and steal in order to advance our true agenda of “obtaining power on essentially a world-wide scale.” At worst, we are dupes being led by a few of the people who do fit the above description.

      Most of us think that global warming is a very real concern, that the science backs it by a large margin, that it is man made, that we have a moral obligation to do something to save the planet, and that signing a global treaty is a possible solution. I am, as usual, completely on the fence, but it is too easy to think of them as an enemy.

      Perhaps some people are your enemy. Perhaps some know better. But most don’t, and it’s unfair to malign them as such. It clouds the debate. It’s too easy to ignore their thoughts and objections when you simply see them as out to get you and seize global power.

      My two cents.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Denial is merely the first stage.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        There have always been, and probably always will be, those that desire power on a global scale. Those of us who are sane realize that it is difficult to manage even our own small corner of the world, much less the entire place.

        However, that doesn’t stop certain people from wanting to run the whole shebang. It used to be that people who desired world-wide control were easily seen as evil dictators who murdered anywhere from thousands to millions of people in the attempt to get power. These “leaders” were too easily recognized as “evil” by the general populace and were summarily rejected.

        The new ploy is to cloak the quest for world power in a lab-coat. Most people respect the lab-coat and see it as a symbol of “unbiased science”. As I point out in a post below, this is sadly not always the case.

        If you can cloak the quest for world power in a lab-coat, and disguise it as the means to “save the planet”, you are more likely to convince a lot of people that your cause is noble and just, and as such, you are less likely to have to murder people by the millions in order to achieve your goals.

        • Fine, but if we accept all the premises I listed as true, we still can’t paint the entire progressive movement as evil. At worst, you can conclude their leaders are. The rest would fall under Mathius’s Fourth Law: People. Are. Lemmings.

          But lemmings are not out to control anything.

          • Displaced Okie says:

            Careful Mathius, it sounds like you might be falling into #4 of your own laws.

            • Not really, Okie, I’ve stated that I don’t know. I just think we shouldn’t paint everyone who thinks this as if they all had an ulterior motive. Most, I suspect, just want to do what’s best.

              Can you clarify?

              • Displaced Okie says:

                Earlier you stated that at worst the progressive leadership is/could be evil and has “duped” the well intentioned folks into supporting their plans. If one assumes that to be the case, then one could reasonable infer that the ones duped are “lemmings”. Furthermore, since you claim to be a progressive/liberal and I have never seen you claim to be part of that movement’s leadership, it could also be inferred that you are a lemming. Of course, I think you would have to buy into believing that all of the progressive leadership is evil, but that is a whole ‘nother discussion. Mostly I was just being antagonistic since BF is not around. 😉 (my apolgies for any spelling mishaps-I’m doing this from my phone. It’s not perfect but I can start particpating a little more now)

                Stay safe,
                Displaced Okie

                • Filling in for Flag, are you? OK the, you brought this on yourself. 🙂

                  Earlier you stated that at worst the progressive leadership is/could be evil and has “duped” the well intentioned folks into supporting their plans.


                  If one assumes that to be the case, then one could reasonable infer that the ones duped are “lemmings”.

                  True, but usually, we put the period inside of the quotation mark. The in the British standard, this is contextual (that is, if the period is part of the quotation, it goes inside, but if it is not, then it goes outside). In the American system, the period always goes on the inside. Why, you ask? Because we are lazy. When type-setting in the days of yore, a period at the end of a line was occasionally cut off if following a quote mark. As such, the solution was to always place the period on the inside.

                  Furthermore, since you claim to be a progressive/liberal and I have never seen you claim to be part of that movement’s leadership, it could also be inferred that you are a lemming.

                  False. I have many times disclosed that I am a charter member of WALNUT, CASHEW, and the Elders of Zion. (Though in nature, lemmings would only be led by other lemmings, in parlance, the term usually refers on to the followers).

                  Further, being a member of the liberal progressive party does not, in and of itself, make a lemming. To be a lemming would require that I follow blindly the dictates and adopt the beliefs of the lead lemmings. Given that I am undecided on the matter, I do not see how this case could be made. That would require that being a lemming be redefined to mean being a member of a group rather than a blindly following member of a group.

                  Of course, I think you would have to buy into believing that all of the progressive leadership is evil, but that is a whole ‘nother discussion.

                  Perhaps it is another discussion, but you are filling in for Flag, so I feel no need for brevity. This scenario does not require the entire leadership to be evil. Really all it would take is a handful of powerful positions to be held by evil individuals (Pelosi comes to mind..). They, in turn, can use their position to cause others in leadership roles to act like lemmings, thus amplifying their power. A small cadre can exert a large influence.

                  I’m doing this from my phone.

                  What type of phone? I find this site to be extremely inconvenient on my iPhone.

                  Stay safe,

                  You chose to go mano a mano with me. Perhaps it is you who needs to be advised to stay safe? Caveat proeliator.

                  The One,
                  The Only,

                  • Displaced Okie says:

                    And that’s why I like you, I’m not sure how that futhered our little discussion, I was sure entertained.

                    However, You made one huge mistake. You and I both know that no one and I mean no one can can fill in for Black Flag. If I can use a reference D13 might appreciate: if the flag is Dr. Pepper, I am merely some flat Mr. Pibb…which is really no substitute at all.

                    BTW using a samsung moment, works pretty well but a little phone keyboard is a lot harder to pound out long responses than a cpu keyboard….I think I need to ice my thumbs now 😉

                    Stay Safe, I’ll try to do the same…a sick pirate is still a dangerous one.

                    Displaced Okie

          • PeterB in Indianapolis says:


            As you provide such a good example of, yes, people are lemmings.

            The few people that have a desire to LEAD all of the lemmings know this, and are taking advantage of it.

            • PeterB Said:As you provide such a good example of, yes, people are lemmings.

              I’m an example of a lemming? Okie said much the same thing, but I don’t see how. Can you, also, clarify?

              Mathius Said:I am, as usual, completely on the fence

              • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                Here is the hierarchy that I personally see:

                1. People that seek domination and control.

                2. People that actively seek to help the people that seek domination and control.

                3. People that inadvertantly help or support the people who seek domination and control because they believe that the people who seek domination and control are actually good people with good intentions and aren’t really after power, domination and control.

                4. People who don’t give a crap and are easily taken for a ride.

                5. People who recognize people of types 1-4 and actively fight against types 1-3 and try to educate and enlighten type 4.

                I suppose the true lemmings are type 4 people. I guess I would put you in type 3 much of the time, so in that case, you may not be a lemming 🙂

                • Gee thanks 😉

                  By the way, did you ever play the computer game Lemmings? It was great, but I always had a hard time stopping myself from blowing them up for fun.. wonder what that says about me…

                  • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

                    I did play that game a few times, but do not remember it well.

                    I do remember trying to find the most creative ways of offing all of the lemmings though 🙂

                  • Matt, there’s an online version of it, a little harder to play, but still satisfying when you hit the nuclear option ..

          • I’ll accept that the leaders are evil and that the rest are mindless lemmings. Unfortunately, the lemmings will be dragging the rest of us off the same cliff they are so determined to fall off of.

    • PeterB:

      Well stated! I agree with everything you said.

  7. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Perhaps if some UN body attempts to assume our soverignty, we can tell them that they have also assumed all of our debt. Seems fair to me!

  8. Canine Weapon says:

    A redneck family from the hills of Arkansas was visiting the city
    and they were in a mall for the first time in their lives.
    The father and his son Scott were strolling around while the wife shopped.
    They were amazed by almost everything they saw, but especially by
    two shiny, silver walls that could move apart and then slide back
    together again.
    Scott asked, ‘Paw, what’s at?’
    The father (never having seen an elevator) responded, ‘Son, I dunno.
    I ain’t never seen anything like that in my entire life, I ain’t got no
    idea’r what it is.
    While the boy and his father were watching with amazement, a fat old
    lady in a wheel chair rolled up to the moving walls and pressed a button.
    The walls opened and the lady rolled between them into a small room.
    The walls closed and the boy and his father watched the small circular
    number above the walls light up sequentially.
    They continued to watch until it reached the last number and then the
    numbers began to light in the reverse order.
    Then the walls opened up again and a gorgeous, voluptuous 24 year-old
    blonde woman stepped out.

    The father, not taking his eyes off the young woman, said quietly to his
    son, Boy……………….go gitcha momma’

    • I could use that contraption.

      • I’m happy with Emilius, but I’ll give it a shot..

      • I wouldn’t allow Mrs. Weapon into that contraption for fear that it would reverse her and turn her into the old lady.

        But such a contraption would be valuable. I see a lot of women daily that I would send into the machine simply so that I could make the world a more aesthetically pleasing place to be. I wonder if they make one for males as well. If so, I may want to go push the button.

        • USWeapon,
          As I was reading the first 2 1/2 lines, I thought “be careful, cause we probably need one of these for men more than women!!”.

          Nice catch at the end!! 🙂

  9. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    There is something vitally important here that I think most people miss. The fact is that the vast majority of people are not scientists, and in fact have very little scientific training.

    Most of the general populace believes that scientists are highly trained, highly professional, and the results and conclusions obtained by the scientific method must have unquestionable valididty. This is a very dangerous belief.

    There are essentially 2 types of scientist:

    Type 1 will form an hypothesis from observable phenomena, design experiments to test this hypothesis, and either accept the hypothesis as valid or reject it as invalid based upon experimental results. The conclusion reached by a scientist who does this are likely to be valid, if the experiment was properly designed and carried out.

    Type 2 will form an hypothesis based upon belief, and then will design experiments to confirm this belief. If the data show that the belief is likely to be false, such a scientist will re-design the experiment to yield “better data”, or will “bend”, “warp”, “apply correction factors” or outright “fudge” the data until the data can be said to support the belief. This type of “scientist” is no better than a religious zealot. They tend to form large congregations of like-minded “scientists”, all of whom wish to find support for similar beliefs. AGW/Climate change “science” is populated with thousands upon thousands of just such religious zealots.

    Straight up, unbiased temperature data has shown no temperature increase since 1998, and shows some decline in temperature. This data has been manipulated, massaged, and had fudge-factors applied to it in order to make it appear that there has been no stabilization or decline in temperature. We are also in the beginning of a well-documented deep solar minimum. Solar minima have been shown to be a source of little (and big) ice ages.

    The AGW/Climate change “scientists” know that they are rapidly running out of time, because most forecasters are now admitting that the next 15-30 years are going to be even colder than the 1970s were. A long duration of cold weather is NOT what these “scientists” want, because even people who are dumb as a post are going to start questioning them if the weather turns cold for an extended period. Even the New York Times has run articles about the solar minimum we are entering, and the fact that this forbodes cold weather to come, perhaps for decades.

    They have to get this done NOW, because they know that very soon they are going to lose all credibility with the general populace, and that would be disasterous (to them) if it happened before they got this done. They won’t mind losing all credibility AFTER they get this accomplished, because then it won’t matter, the mechanisms which they desire will already be in place.

    To conclude, don’t believe someone simply because they are a “scientist”. Try to find out if they are using sound scientific practices and methodology, and try to evaluate for yourself whether their conclusions describe reality or fantasy.

    It is a shame that we must do this, because the goal of science is supposed to be to describe the universe as it is, and to come up with a better understanding of it. Many scientists still do this. Unfortunately there are also many “scientists” who believe that the universe is a certain way, and will do whatever is necessary to “bend” science to support their beliefs.

    For the non-scientist, it is difficult, but critically important, to learn to discern the difference.

    • Hey Peter,
      Some thoughts on some of your posts…

      The “progressives” have gotten more and more crafty as they have evolved…

      If you change the word ‘progressive’ to ‘conservative’, your statement makes even more sense – except the “peacefully” part…

      Denial is merely the first stage.

      …and it applies to either/both sides…

      There are essentially 2 types of scientist

      And you put all climate change scientists in the bad type…

      Straight up, unbiased temperature data has shown no temperature increase since 1998, and shows some decline in temperature.

      This is because 1998 was one of the hottest years on record. If you start with 1997 or 1999, the data looks different.

      You talk about science Peter, but everything you list is biased personal opinion. Any facts to back this up?

      We are also in the beginning of a well-documented deep solar minimum.

      There is some disagreement on this as well. There are lots of variables around the sun that we don’t understand. Would you like to volunteer for mission to the sun to obtain better measurements? I’ll bet Ray, Matt, and I could get funding!! 😉

      But seriously, if we are entering a deep solar minimum, that has other significant impacts. Example: The sun is getting cooler, so the earth will too. That means we need to use more energy to heat our homes, etc, and CO2 and other greenhouse gases help keep us/earth warm, so the more the better, right!!

      But what happens in 15-30 years when the sun heats back up to normal temps? We…get…cooked…

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        “But what happens in 15-30 years when the sun heats back up to normal temps? We…get…cooked…”

        Ahh, but you are ever-so-wrong my friend. You have no grasp of climate science whatsoever, and it is frankly painful to watch.

        Fact #1.

        Climate is a cycle. Approximately every 10,000 years to 12,000 years, there is a MAJOR ice age. We are actually due for one now. Does this NECESSARILY mean that one will happen in our lifetimes? No, not necessarily, but statistically it is certainly possible.

        Fact #2. There are also shorter cycles of warming and cooling that go on all of the time. The 1970s were exceptionally cold and snowy, the 1980s were a transition decade, the 1990s were very hot, the 2000s were a transition decade, and it is projected that the 2010s will be cold. There is ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE that the 1990s were any hotter than the 1930s (which is still the hottest decade on record using un-massaged data).

        Fact #3.

        There is no evidence that the overall trend in spite of cyclical warming and cooling is always higher. This cold snap which is coming will likely be COLDER than the last one, not warmer. The next warm period might be cooler than the 1990s, or it might be warmer than the 1930s, we have no way to tell yet.

        Fact #4.

        From every test that I have seen performed so far, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere at the start of the last major ice age was about 2 to 3 times HIGHER than it is now (about 800-1000 parts per billion, as opposed to 330-350 parts per billion currently). If a major ice-age could occur in spite of (or perhaps because of) atmospheric CO2 concentrations of close to 1ppm, there is certainly no reason to believe that 330-350 ppb is going to cause WARMING.

        I can come up with more if you would like….

        • There is also alot of good evidence that temperature increases PRECEED increases in CO2 concentrations, by about 600 years.

        • Peter,
          This was in response to your post about solar cycles:

          “But what happens in 15-30 years when the sun heats back up to normal temps? We…get…cooked…”

          It seems you’re getting earth climate and solar cycles confused here…the two are linked, but not the samething.

      • Todd, I have responded at #31.

  10. If you tell a lie often enough it becomes the “truth”. If I ran around and convinced several million others to run around yelling “the sky is falling”, then, for all intents and purposes, the sky is falling. No matter that no one can see it, everyone “knows” it.

    Re: man made global warming, just keep asking yourself’

    1. Why is Greenland called Greenland?

    2. Why are the Martian ice caps shrinking?

    3. Why is the old Roman port city of Ostia so far from the sea?

    Usually, when I throw these three out to the true believers, they start sputtering, become apoplectic and finally wander off muttering “whatever”.

    • SK Trynosky Sr,
      So what are the answers to these questions, and how do they relate to climate change?

      • Bee in my Bonnet says:

        Here’s what I know,

        1. Ancient Greenland was green. New Danish research has shown that it was covered in conifer forest and, like southern Sweden today, had a relatively mild climate.


        2. Martian ice caps are shrinking because of solar activity.
        “Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet’s recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause..”


        In fact, global warming is happening on one of Neptune’s moons


        3. Ostia used to be on the Sea, which means that sea levels were higher at some point, and we all survived!!

        Another question, if CO2 is causing global warming, how can you account for the fact that carbon dioxide is 95.3% of the atmosphere of Mars but the average temperature on Mars is -80°F and carbon dioxide is 0.038% of the atmosphere of Earth and the average temperature on Earth is 57°F?

        These all relate to climate change because humans are not the evil force behind global warming. It is a cyclical event that has happened in history.

        Sorry SK, didn’t mean to steal your thunder.

    • Bee in my Bonnet says:

      More questions that I usually bring up:
      1. How did the explorers sail through the Northwest Passage in their wooden boats, if it was completely covered by ice?

      2. Why would sea levels rise if the mass of ice is equal to that of the water it displaces (watch the water level in a cup of floating ice cubes as they melt)?

      Here is an excellent website with 1000’s of articles regarding global warming:

    • 1. Why is Greenland called Greenland?

      Because early Viking explorers wanted to keep others way from Iceland (which was inhabitable) and trick them into going to Greenland (which was less inhabitable).

      2. Why are the Martian ice caps shrinking?

      I don’t know, but what does it have to do with earth?

      3. Why is the old Roman port city of Ostia so far from the sea?

      The great harbor, silted over, lays beneath Leonardo da Vinci Airport at Fiumicino.

      The shoreline moved seawards, due to silting, from the Middle Ages until the 19th century. Therefore Ostia is today still lying next to the Tiber, but at a distance of some three kilometers from the beach. Ostia is Latin for “mouth”, the mouth of the Tiber. The river was used as harbour, but in the Imperial period two harbour basins were added to the north, near Leonardo da Vinci airport. The harbour district was called Portus, Latin for “harbour”.

      1. How did the explorers sail through the Northwest Passage in their wooden boats, if it was completely covered by ice?

      Ok, this is news to me. What explorers sailed thru the northwest passage?

      2. Why would sea levels rise if the mass of ice is equal to that of the water it displaces (watch the water level in a cup of floating ice cubes as they melt)?

      Arctic Ice is floating. Greenland Glaciers and Antarctic Glaciers are on top of the land. When they melt, the oceans rise.

      Change your experiment: Take a glass half full of water, but a funnel in the top of the glass, fill the funnel with ice. Check the water level after the ice melts…

      • Todd said:

        “Because early Viking explorers wanted to keep others way from Iceland (which was inhabitable) and trick them into going to Greenland (which was less inhabitable).”

        Actually during the time the Vikings landed on the southwest coast of Greenland it was green. The earth was in a natural warming cycle at that time and the Gulf Stream brought up warm water from the Gulf of Mexico (as it still does today). So in the 3 places they set up settlements it was very green until they farmed out the soil, cut all the trees and a new mini ice age came along.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Actually, Greenland is called Greenland because it used to be, well, you know, GREEN!

        In the midieval warm period, Greenland was very temperate in climate, and was a great place to live. At that same time, there were extensive vinyards in England (which now flourish farther south, in the North of France… England is simply too cold now for wine production).

      • What? You guys don’t know your Nordic Folklore very well. Time to study!! 🙂

        • I am not talking about folklore but actual history. Instead of listening to stories, I did study.

  11. I was taught that not to prejudge the data but to let the data provide the answers. If you approach a scientific problem with preconceived notion of the result, you will skew the results. Climatology is an extremely complex science, possibly one of the most complex on the level with human body chemistry. The data is extremely variable, is of limited accuracy, and is often inferential rather than direct (tree ring inference of temperature vs thermometers). There are many accidental correlations in the data that mask true causations. The variables are direct solar radiation, solar particles, cloud cover variation, surface reflectivity and emissivity, atmospheric absorption and reradiation, black body radiation from the surface, carbon absorbtion by living matter, carbon absorption and release by oceans, human caused emission by combustion of fuels, vocanic eruptions, and much more. Global temperature is an equilibrium condition which means that it is a balance of all the factors. To model this accurately requires that all the major contributors and many of the minor ones to the balance not only be known but accurately represented mathematically in the model. This is next to impossible. One small error can tip the prediction in unpredictable directions. Hence, to risk our countiry’s economy on a theory is highly risky and imprudent. These models failed to predict the cooling for the last ten years. Until they can accurately predict the weather, we should not put any credence in them.
    Off to work.

  12. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Mathius seems to believe that any evidence of a massive conspiracy at Hadley-CRU must not be credible, because it would not be possible to hide such a vast conspiracy for any reasonable lenghth of time.

    Based on that, what, precisely, is the lenghth of time that you think such a conspiracy COULD be hidden? You are using the argument that they got discovered after several years as evidence that the discovery was false, because they should have been discovered much earlier had it been an actual conspiracy.

    I was personally unaware that there was a set time-table for discovery of conspiracies, and after that time-table expired, it simply couldn’t be a conspiracy anymore, because it would have been discovered much earlier had it been an actual conspiracy.

    If there is any actual sense in that argument, I cannot find it.

    Conspiracies are generally discovered by leaks. Look at Watergate as an example. This conspiracy went on for quite some time before it was discovered, and had it not been for Deep Throat, it might not have been discovered at all. If Deep Throat had not come out until 5 years after he did, would that have meant that Watergate could not have possibly been a conspiracy because it wasn’t discovered soon enough to suit your mythical time-table?

    Most people have at least some reluctance in believing that any vast and ill-intentioned conspiracies exist. We are incredulous that such things could happen without detection. As a result of our own incredulity, this makes it easier for such things to happen. Often, parts of such things can be easily carried out in plain sight, right in front of our faces, and yet most of us will still deny the meaning of the clear evidence.

    I think that I shall add another “law” to the laws of Mathius:

    People.Believe.All.Others.Have.Good.Intentions (even in spite of evidence to the contrary)

    • 1. You are not allowed to add laws to the list of Mathius’s Laws. Stop it. You can start your own list if you like.

      2. The function for expected life of a conspiracy is t / ((i * .222211 – .222111) * p)
      – where t is the desired length of secrecy (up to the remaining life expectancy of the conspiracy founder), so call it 40 years.
      – i is the importance of the secret from 1 to 10 (when multiplied by .222211 less .222111, this range becomes .0001 to 2). Consider that it is far easier to keeps secret something that nobody cares about. I think we can safely call this a 10.
      – p is the number of people aware of the secret. Conservatively, let’s call it 100.
      – note that the two numbers .222211 and .222111 are not the same number, they just look it.

      3. Given the equation in 2, the expected life expectancy of this conspiracy is 73 days.

      Hope this helps.

  13. We can argue the accuracy of climate change all day and all night, for weeks on end. Either side can bring some sort of scientific evidence to support their position and in the end neither party will sway the other.

    What do we gain by having this argument; nothing! What do the powers that have initiated this controversy win; everything! Because they have initiated another shell game to re-direct our attention on the effort to further remove liberty and freedom.

    It does not matter whether you believe in global warming or global cooling, any more than it matters whether you believe Barry is a natural born US citizen, or Universial Health Care is needed or not. It doesn’t matter if ACORN is legit or not, anymore than Rush/Beck are truth sayers or blowhards. It doesn’t matter if the stimulus bill will or won’t help the economy, any more than the 911 nutbags should be tried in NY or in Gitmo.

    None of these subjects matter, they are only diversions designed to draw your attention away from the power grab being conducted by those in power doing so.

    These people, regardless of their global residence, are out to gain control and power over the populas, and it is that simple.

    They will drum up, conspire, lie, cheat, steal, and divert attention however and whenever they deem it relivant to their objective. The acts, treaties, bills and laws created are stepping stones toward a goal of universial power, which provides them whatever it is they envision as the ultimate desire.

    We, the moral and ethical beings of this earth, are being herded and harvested like cattle for the gain and influence of the evil. The more we let slip by the closer we come to becoming only a commodity.

    We must revolt against the tyranny about to engulf us. The gates are being drawn closed. Our liberties and freedoms are being removed and the slaughter house is powering up.

    It does not matter if you agree we need climate controls, or health care reform, or stimulus or anything else proposed by this, or any other government, because all of it is being proposed by maniacal entities dedicated to controling every aspect of your life.

    Everything initiated by evil begats additinal evil. We must stop the evil, or it will prevail


    Find a seated representative in your area that is conservative, supports Constitutional Law, at least says he/she is there to represent the people and recruit him/her to be a voice on the floor. Join your neighborhood and/or regional Tea Party, write to the local newspaper editors, unite your friends, family and neighbors, stage peaceful protests, be at least a voice of 1.

    Don’t argue individual issues, its what THEY want. Unite around the fact that we are not being represented as we wish. Our one and only message should be “STOP!!!!”.

    It took countless hours, days, weeks, months to radify the Constitution, and those involved were far more right minded and moral than any in the current regime. The fact that these non-representing representatives are supporting and radifying acts/bills that are massive in proportion, violate Constitutional Law, individual liberties and possibly further devistate our sovereignty, is the one ‘ABSOLUTE’ to warrant they cease and desist.

    This should be our one and only point of contention, and our efforts should be focused on ensuring our demands are met. If we continue to play the game we will loose; CHANGE THE GAME!

    If a liar tells you everything he says is a lie, how do you respond to whatever comes out of his mouth?

    We can no longer believe anything originating from Washington, or any other world power, is valid, especially if they tell us so.

    A tiger is a tiger, and a preditor, don’t believe you can condition it to stop being so.

    STOP, STOP NOW!!!!


    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      BF would argue that it is futile to fix a broken machine that started out with a faulty design. Papa Dawg would argue that the design was indeed flawed, but the design included mechanisms to fix the flaws of the original design, so it IS actually possible to fix the machine.

      I personally think that we have allowed the machine to stray so far from the original design that it MAY be impossible to “fix” it at this point.

      The original American Revolution was about taxation without representation. If a UN body declares that the US must pay another country for “lost dignity”, I think an extremely clear case can instantly be made that this is taxation without representation, and would be clear cause for another revolution.

      We are quickly becoming “The land of the people deluded into believing that they are free, and the home of the apathetic.”
      Freedom ain’t free, and WAY too many people want everything for free these days. If you want stuff “for free”, you can never BE FREE.

      • Peter;

        Not sure of your point relative to the machine, although based upon your previous posts I assume you agree, at least in part, that government(s) are not acting in our (citizens) best interest.

        Relative to BF and PapaDawg solutions, I am sure they would agree that before anyone decides whether to fix or scrap the machine, both would agree to first turn it off.

        My whole point/argument is that almost everyone nation wide will agree that the system (machine) is broken to some degree or another. As such, we can agree that it makes no sense to continue letting the machine produce faulty product, even if the defects are minor. Once the machine is turned off we can decide how to move forward. All we are doing by letting the machine run is wasiting raw materials, which will drive up our cost and lower our profit.

        Turn the machine off and then let’s discuss next steps.


        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Well, I can see turning the machine off, but how do we accomplish that?

          Also, what are the repercussions of turning it off? How do we ensure that turning it off doesn’t yeild an immediately highly undesireable result?

          I am all for turning the machine off, we just have to be careful that the off switch is not also a self-destruct switch!

          • Peter;

            I am operating from a logical perspective. If your laptop freezes up and “ctl, alt, delete” doesn’t work you eventually get around to either turning it off or pulling the battery.

            You can then run some diagnostics or give it to your Admin, but waiting for it to right itself is fruitless.

            I beleve we may have to risk the machine imploading, but then BF would probably say that is OK; maybe it is what is needed.

            I don’t have all the answers as to how we stop the train, but the longer we wait the more the train picks up speed, and the harder it will be to stop it.

            I suggested some things, as has D13 and others, some of which may work and others may not.

            I do believe we need to rally around a common theme, and I feel that theme should be to turn the machine off. I don’t beleive we should spend time arguing over diversions, regardless of the severity of those diversions. Those diversions only serve to further the cause/plan/objectives of the current regimes.

            Once again I plead with everyone: If you don’t feel that the machine is functioning EXACTLY as you want it too, then you must agree to turn it off and then decide how to proceed; whether that be fix it, scrap it or replace it.

            How would you suggest we turn it off?


            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              An interesting question, because the machine in question is in the process of attempting to become even more powerful (as if it were being tinkered with by Tim the Toolman Tailor as it were…)

              The machine is also likely to be highly resistant to any attempts to turn it off.

        • It’s called a coup or revolution. That could get ugly.

          There is no way to stop it before serious damage is done such as this treaty, cap and trade, healthcare, amnesty, etc. The system is self-destructing. Prepare yourself and hide as best you can.

      • Actually we do have representation, such as it it, Susan Rice. But is it true representation is she is just another mouth for Obama, and seems supports the UN more than she supports the country she is supposedly representing?

  14. Judy Sabatini says:

    Good Morning Everyone!

    Try to read along for now.

    Hope all will have a good day today.

    Just 2 more days to go.


  15. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    I know quite a few people think that vast conspiracy theories are “out there” and are not worthy of critical evaluation. In short, most “conspiracy theorists” are considered quite whacko.

    That is fine. However, I ask you all to attempt to objectively perform the following critical evaluation for yourself, and then answer the question which follows:

    Our government, in many cases with the cooperation of other governments, is currently pursuing many different policies, such as universal health care, CO2 cap and trade, the Copenhagen treaty, bailouts of financial institutions, “economic stimulus”, government “rescue” of private industries and corporations, etc.

    Attempt to critically evaluate the following possibilities:

    1. All of these policies just happen to be occurring at the same time by random happenstance, simply because they are all the right thing to do, and the need for these things to be done occurred simultaneously.

    2. All of these policies are being implemented simultaneously because each of these policies serves the goal of greater centralization of power and control.

    Do you believe that 1 has a higher probability of being the true statement, or that 2 has the higher probability of being the true statement?

    • I thought Texas’ comment the other day was pretty good. I wonder if any of that applies here? Do we know of anyone making millions/billions on AGW?

      TexasChem said
      November 21, 2009 at 12:49 am

      Who benefits from healthccare reform gentlemen? Hint: It is most definitely not the American public.

      When you figure that one out do some research into where the stimulus funds went. Hint: Check front companies.

      Research the Democratic parties main contributors. Hint: Check front organizations.

      Our nation is headed for a drastic socio-economic change that will bring about a tremendous loss of freedom and liberty.This bill is not about reforming healthcare it is about controlling healtcares’ wealth.

      Without a doubt we now have the most radical administration in office that has ever been.Communists, Maoists, crooks, social deviants you name it and they are there in top appointed positions.If you have any doubt as to what they have planned as being beneficial to your liberty and freedoms then you are lieing to yourself and the people that depend upon you.

  16. Mike M. Houston Texas says:

    I have found that things of this nature can never be proven by either side.

    Case in point. There are those that were dead set the world was flat. Even in the face of some scientific data they still believed what they believed.

    Last night I watched a nat-geo special on the orginal voyager fly bys of the gas giants. The best scientific minds in the world were blown away and some hypothesis were completely wrong. Given the lack of interaction with the sun Uranus should have ZERO wind. Whoops 1000 MPH registered winds. Which are the fastest ever registered in our solar system and they still dont know why. So maybe they are not so bright when “supposing” new theories.

    So when scientists start telling me how it is I take it with a grain of salt. Unfortunately we have some power grabbers spending money based on an unproven belief.

  17. Judy Sabatini says:

    Women bear brunt of ‘climate change’?
    Pete Chagnon – OneNewsNow – 11/24/2009 7:00:00

    United Nations UN logoA United Nations group that promotes abortion has released some controversial recommendations concerning “global warming.”

    According to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), birth control and access to family-planning facilities can be a valuable weapon in the fight against supposed “climate change.” The UNFPA sites overpopulation as one of the factors in the earth’s “capacity to adjust” to climate change.

    In an article published on GMANews.tv, a representative from the Philippines notes that climate change could affect women the worst, as women in that country might be driven into the sex trade as climate change reduces income from farming and fishing. The Fund uses this scenario to justify its call for the distribution of birth control and its call to slow population growth.

    James Taylor, a senior fellow and environment policy expert with The Heartland Institute, labels the UNFPA’s recommendations “preposterous.”

    James Taylor (Heartland Inst.)”Even if we were facing a global-warming [crisis], the problem wouldn’t be so much that we have too many people — the problem would be…that we need to utilize our energy in a more efficient manner,” he explains.

    Improved energy efficiency, he continues, “can certainly be done without encouraging people to get abortions or to have infanticide like they do in China or to seek to limit human population. Human beings are a tremendous resource — and [they] are not the problem on the planet.”

    Taylor contends the U.N. Population Fund is trying to link its radical agenda to alleged climate change only to gain support from environmentalists and to use the elite liberal media to get their message across. The Fund, however, admits that it is hard to link the two issues.

  18. You fools, the enforcement mechanism is Cap&Trade! Understand this: he who controls carbon controls everything. Carbon is an economic control knob just like interest rates. When the cost of carbon is high, the economy slows, when it is set low the ecomony will grow. Every governmetn should have access to this control knob anyway, but since most don’t it’s going to be given to the UN before anyone can do anything about it. Every year new national carbon emissions levels will be set at the UN carbon negotiations table. If a nation does not meet the levels, it will cost billions in carbon credits and taxes until the country hits their numbers. The enforcemnt mechanism is cap&trade. If a nation opts out of the treaty, the products from that country will be declared ‘dirty’ and carbon tariffs will be applied (enaother enforcemt mechanism). This is about global protectionism.

    Remember, we use carbon to do everything. If we give away control of carbon, we give control of everything and Cap&Trade is the primary method of enforcemnt.

    • Clem said:

      “Every government should have access to this control knob anyway”

      Are you saying that you support Federal Government cap and trade?

    • Klem;

      See my #13 comment.

      I agree Cap and Trade is a potential enforcement tool. It could have devistating effects upon an already downed economy, but it is just another diversion from the overall objective. If we continue to divide our voices screaming about “A” particular act/bill/treaty we will only reinforce government(s)overall objective to divide and conquer.

      We must realize that our only chance is to stop debating individual beliefs and ideals and unite around a common voice.

      The government is no longer functioning as a government for the people, by the people, and is therefore corrupt. To correct the problem we must first stop it.

      As BF would most likely agree, if we continue to argue, disagree, enable and debate we are only further legitimizing it’s actions. And that is exactly what it needs to continue.


  19. Judy Sabatini says:
  20. Pardon me for a moonbat moment, but if AGW is primarily caused by mankind’s excessive use of fossil fuels, switching to bio-fuels is a good thing? Right?
    Except they have been burning the rain forests to clear land to grow bio-fuels, that is mainly exported to Europe. I wonder if they should talk about NOT burning the rain forests? Nah, lets just blame the Americans, damn Bush!


    “If bio-fuels are grown in place of forests, we’re actually going to end up emitting a huge amount of carbon. When trees are cut down to make room for new farmland, they are usually burned, sending their stored carbon to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. That creates what’s called a carbon debt,” Gibbs said. “This is because the carbon lost from deforestation is much greater than the carbon saved from using the current-generation biofuels.”

    Indeed, tropical forests are the world’s most efficient storehouses for carbon, harboring more than 340 billion tons, according to Gibbs’ research. This is equivalent to more than 40 years worth of global carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels.

  21. Bee in my Bonnet says:

    Canada signed the Kyoto Agreement in 1998, under another administration, and then promptly ignored it. When our Conservative govt was elected in 2006, they said that the Kyoto Protocol targets were unrealistic and unachievable (finally, some common sense!)
    Earlier this year, our govt set up an elaborate war room to manage Canada’s battle plan for Copenhagen. It was devoted exclusively to planning one of the biggest and most complicated negotiations the Conservative government has faced. No expense was spared. Now, the scuttlebutt is that nothing much of any consequence is going to happen at Copenhagen.

    ” Copenhagen is shaping up to be such a monumental bust ”

    I’ll include the link:

    Having said that, I am planning on contacting my Member of Parliament to question if Canada was planning on signing away our sovereignty under a world government. I’m thinking not but I need to be sure.

  22. Judy Sabatini says:

    Glenn Beck on Climategate.

  23. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Many of you might have seen the recent story about 100s of icebergs rapidly coming towards New Zealand. Alarmists see this as more evidence of global warming. Here are the facts:

    1. Icebergs form when NEW SNOW falls on an ice field. This causes formation of new ice at the edges of the field, some of which is unstable and breaks away. In order for this many new icebergs to form, A LOT OF NEW SNOW NEEDS TO BE FALLING ON THE ANTARCTIC ICE FIELDS! New snow certainly doesn’t mean it it WARM!

    2. Icebergs normally MELT before they get near New Zealand, because the water is warm; however, unusually cold conditions and favorable currents have allowed the icebergs to travel much closer to New Zealand than ordinarily possible. This means that the ocean is currently COLDER THAN NORMAL!

    Someone please explain to me how lots of new Antarctic Snowfall (keep in mind it is late Spring, soon to be Summer in the Antarctic) and colder than normal ocean temperatures are indicative of WARMING?

    (Hint: not possible)

  24. PeterB in Indianapolis says:
  25. PeterB in Indianapolis says:
  26. Judy Sabatini says:
  27. PeterB in Indianapolis says:
  28. PeterB in Indianapolis says:
  29. PeterB in Indianapolis says:
  30. On #9, Todd said,”You talk about science Peter, but everything you list is biased personal opinion. Any facts to back this up?”

    Click to access GlobalWarmingPrimer.pdf

    98%98%98%98%98%98%98%98%98%98% Greenhouse gases make up two percent of
    98%98%98%98%98%98%98%98%98%98% the atmosphere.
    98%98%98%98%98%98%98%98%98%98% Nitrogen,
    98%98%98%98%98%98%98%98%98%98% Oxygen,
    98%98%98%98%98%98%98%98%98%98% Argon & other gases account for 98%.
    98%98%98%98%98%98%98%98%98%0.2% Greenhouse gases.

    Of the two percent of the atmosphere that are greenhouse,

    95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95% Ninety-Five percent is water vapor!
    95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95% Ninety-five percent of two percent!
    95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%95%3.62% 3.62% of that two percent is CO2

    Of the two percent of the gases in the atmosphere that are greenhouse,
    3.62% is CO2, 1.38% is other(methane, etc. makes up a smaller percentage,
    but has a greater effect) Of this 3.62%, that is a fraction of that two percent, ninety-six point six percent is caused by nature.

    96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6% is natural
    96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%96.6%3.4% is caused by humans

    Humans contribute 0.28% of the greenhouse gases.

    Also of interest, CO2 levels were nine times higher during the Jurassic Period, which was also 10C warmer than today.
    pg.14 has a chart showing the modern, Roman and Medieval times.
    pg.18 chart comparing US vs European emission reductions
    pg.26 polar bear population trends

    H2O: Dangerous Chemical!
    A student at Eagle Rock Junior High won first prize at the Greater Idaho Falls Science Fair, April 26. He was attempting to show how conditioned we have become to alarmists practicing junk science and spreading fear of everything in our environment. In his project he urged people to sign a petition demanding strict control or total elimination of the chemical “dihydrogen monoxide.”

    And for plenty of good reasons, since:

    1. it can cause excessive sweating and vomiting
    2. it is a major component in acid rain
    3. it can cause severe burns in its gaseous state
    4. accidental inhalation can kill you
    5. it contributes to erosion
    6. it decreases effectiveness of automobile brakes
    7. it has been found in tumors of terminal cancer patients

    He asked 50 people if they supported a ban of the chemical.

    * Forty-three (43) said yes,
    * six (6) were undecided,
    * and only one (1) knew that the chemical was water.

    The title of his prize winning project was, “How Gullible Are We?”

    He feels the conclusion is obvious.

    • John Lott has a good article on the deleted emails,


      A discussion of the professionally damaging emails is here. The Herald Sun newspaper in Australia has done an excellent job going through the emails of one Professor Phil Jones, the head of the CRU unit whose emails were leaked.

      At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:

      Mike, I presume congratulations are in order – so congrats etc !

      Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time ! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it !

  31. Great Post.

    As for what we can actually do about it. . . obviously we should keep writing our senators and congressmen, as well as our state officials (suggest that our individual states should specifically write law that exempts the state). However I agree with other posted opinions that this will not make any difference. The next step is to fire every single congressman and senator as they come up for election and replace them with new ones who will support term limits and repeals of social programs and laws. It’s a long hauls process and can’t be resoplved in an issue by issue way, but must encompas the whole system. We can’t continually be running from fire to fire trying to put them all out. What we need to do is to build again in stone. If we can’t do it peacefully then I’m afraid we will have to do it forcefully, not a pleasant prospect.

    • Judy Sabatini says:

      Hi Michelle

      Well, I can tell you one thing, ole Reid is deep trouble here in Nevada, we are not happy one bit with the way he has been doing things in D.C., and his election in 2010 is in deep jeopardy because of his stance on the health care bill. That, and he isn’t doing anything for the people here like he says he is, like creating jobs, and that the stimulus is helping Nevada paving the way for a new and better tomorrow. That’s the biggest joke and lie we’ve been hearing for months now, and we are darn tired of it.

      Hope you’re doing well.


  32. Despite last Friday morning’s bombshell that hacked e-mail messages from a British university suggested a conspiracy by some of the world’s leading global warming alarmists — many with direct ties to the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change — to manipulate temperature data, ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, and NBC through Monday evening have completely ignored the subject.

    LexisNexis searches indicate that NPR appears to also be part of this news boycott.


    • Yes, lets look to science for answers!


      Al Gore: Earth’s Interior ‘Extremely Hot, Several Million Degrees’

      By Noel Sheppard
      November 18, 2009 – 10:27 ET

      For several years as uneducated sycophants in the media gushed and fawned over every utterance from former Vice President Al Gore, NewsBusters has informed readers of just how absurd the junk science he’s peddling really is.

      Last Thursday, NBC “Tonight Show” viewers got a perfect example of how the Nobel Laureate basically makes things up, and that his poor grades in college were quite an indicator of just how little he understands about science.

      So egregious was his departure from reality that the following clip should be mandatory viewing for all his fans in the media who seem to be just as scientifically-challenged

  33. Judy Sabatini says:

    Although this poll gos back to May of this year, it really hasn’t changed much for Reid.


  34. We AGW deniers should admit we are wrong. This argument is so convincing, the debate is over, the science is settled. Our beds are burning(wait a minute, I have a water bed)

    Diesel And Dust
    Beds Are Burning
    Out where the river broke
    the bloodwood and the desert oak
    Holden wrecks and boiling diesels
    steam in forty five degrees

    The time has come
    to say fair’s fair
    to pay the rent
    to pay our share

    The time has come
    a fact’s a fact
    it belongs to them
    let’s give it back

    How can we dance when our earth is turning
    how do we sleep while our beds are burning

    Four wheels scare the cockatoos
    from Kintore East to Yuendemu
    the western desert lives and breathes
    in forty five degrees

    Midnight Oil

    • More proof,

      Its The End Of The World As We Know It(And I Feel Fine)

      That’s great, it starts with an earthquake,
      birds and snakes, an aeroplane – Lenny Bruce is not afraid.
      Eye of a hurricane, listen to yourself churn –
      world serves its own needs,
      Don’t misserve your own needs.
      Feed it off an aux speak, grunt no, strength no.
      Latter starts to clatter with fear fight, down height.
      Wire in a fire, representing seven games in a government for hire and a combat site.
      Left of west, was a coming in a hurry with the furies breathing down your neck.
      Team by team reporters baffled, trumped, tethered, cropped.
      Look at that low playing! Fine then.
      Uh oh, overflow, population, common food, but it’ll do.
      Save yourself, serve yourself.
      World serves its own needs, listen to your heart bleed.
      Tell me with the rapture and the reverent in the right – right.
      You vitriolic, patriotic, slam, fight, bright light, feeling pretty psyched.

      It’s the end of the world as we know it.
      It’s the end of the world as we know it.
      It’s the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.

      Six o’clock – TV hour. Don’t get caught in Foreign towers.
      Slash and burn, return, listen to yourself churn.
      Lock him in uniform and book burning, blood running.
      Every motive escalate. Automotive incinerate.
      Light a candle, light a votive. Step down, step down.
      Watch a heel crush, crush.
      Uh oh, this means no fear – cavalier. Renegade and steer clear!
      A tournament, a tournament, a tournament of lies.
      Offer me solutions, offer me alternatives and I decline.

      It’s the end of the world as we know it.
      It’s the end of the world as we know it.
      It’s the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.
      (It’s Time I had some time alone)

      It’s the end of the world as we know it.
      It’s the end of the world as we know it.
      It’s the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.
      (It’s Time I had some time alone)

      The other night I tripped the lights continental drift divide.
      Mount St. Edelite. Leonard Bernstein.
      Leonid Breshnev, Lenny Bruce and Lester Banks.
      Birthday party, cheesecake, jelly bean, boom!
      You symbiotic, patriotic, slam, book,neck, right? Right.

      It’s the end of the world as we know it.
      It’s the end of the world as we know it.
      It’s the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine…fine…


  35. Judy Sabatini says:


    Hey, anybody here know what happened to Charlie? Haven’t seen him here for a while and was just wondering.

  36. R. Kono, “The SMON Virus Theory,” Lancet, ii (1975): 370-371; I. Shigematsu, H. Yanagawa, S.I. Yamamoto, and K. Nake, “Epidemiological Approach to SMON (Subacute Myelo-Optico-Neuropathy),” Japanese Journal of Medicine, Science, and Biology, 28 Supplement (1975): 23-33

    Many posts say “AGW can’t be wrong, cause so many scientists believe it, and its too big to be a conspiracy”

    But it can be (and is) wrong – and the Japanese story demonstrates how.

    Back in 1955, a Japanese research found a peculiar instances of men dying from an unknown stomach aliment. He had gone over a few years of records, and it seemed pretty strange that every years, so many men in middle age died from this unknown cause.

    So he published his findings, newspapers got a hold of it….

    Suddenly, the incidents spiked higher. Concern was raised in the Government’s science dept. and a panel was convened (and announced). Another spike, but this time of great concern it was spreading to women and children too. “Thank God we got the panel in place before the epidemic!”

    The search was on – a virus was hypothesized to be the cause – and away they went looking for it.

    Years passed, no virus was found, and the deaths were unabated. Finally a retrovirus was fingered as the culprit, it was found in large numbers in the afflicted, but small numbers in the unaffected. A vaccine was created and….

    …the numbers spiked even higher.

    One scientist suggested an alternative hypothesis, but the virus hypothesis had moved from hypothesis to fact – given the enormous amount of money spent trying to find it, it had to exist. Any attempt to lead the research somewhere else was ruthlessly crushed.

    Finally, a change of leadership at the Government Science Dept., and the alternative hypothesis was heard and acted on.

    The epidemic ended.

    The rest of the story:
    There was no virus. It was the diarrhea medicine called Clioquinol. Japanese culture has all emotion held in the stomach, the consequence being Japanese are stomach hypochondriacs. They are the world’s leading consumer of stomach medicine. This brand happened to be the #1 seller in Japan.

    After much resistance, Japan finally banned the drug, and the epidemic ended, literally, over night.

    The early spikes occurred after a press release – even the mildest upset, the Japanese began drinking the stuff like crazy – which caused stomach problems. When they went to their doctors, the doctors – knowing it was the virus, right? – urged them to up their doses.

    Clioquinol overuse induced more of the retrovirus – the virus was an indicator not a cause – but the blinders were tight on, and no one considered this. The vaccine side effect was….stomach upset…

    The press was vital in creating the hype around the epidemic.

    But, still today,
    Inoue et al. published several papers on SMON virus, and a standard textbook adopted Inoue’s virus theory as confirmed. However, research in the laboratories of the SMON Research Commission in Japan failed to confirm Inoue’s results. Unfortunately, this negative information has not been widely published.

    So why?

    Let’s go back to first principles.

    Economics says economic decisions based on economics will provide the optimum economic consequence.

    Economic decisions based on politics is not an economic decision, and will provide less than optimum economic consequences.

    Equally, science by politics is unscientific.

    Government -for its legitimacy- can never be seen to be in error, no matter what. Innocent men spend years in jail because of this attitude. No different in science.

    If government-science says the sky is made up of uranium, then it is – every definition of elements and process will be altered to make government ‘right’.

    Soviet Russia suffered this badly.

    And the West suffers this badly with Climate Change.

    The expenditures of the US government in Climate Change exceed all the expenditures in medicine. They cannot afford to be wrong, even when they know they are.

    With the press hyping the AGW – “good news is no news” theory of the press – alarmism picks up the pace – and more government science is demanded. Soon, what was merely a crackpot hypothesis of an environmentalist 30 years ago becomes “fact”.

    So much ‘fact’ that the rest of science is perverted to fit around it.

    Last year, sonaboys were sent into the oceans to take temperature. AGW theory says the oceans have to be warming. The sonaboys said “Opps, they are cooling”

    So consider this:
    The scientists, who have committed their lives to oceanography, built upon generations of other scientists work – would rather throw all that away then dispute AGW theory.

    They said, essentially, that either the theory of ocean-thermodynamics was wholly wrong, or that the sonaboys were all faulty. But each and everyone of them said AGW was correct. No doubt crossed their mind or they were too afraid to speak it.

    And even after proven false – the search for that virus continues today in Japan – funded generously ever year. Same with AGW – it does not matter how much contrary evidence proving AGW wholly false, it is alive and well for the foreseeable future.

    • Good story – welcome back!

    • Bf!

      Hope your feeling better, I van’t been sick since ’88, which is also the last year I took any vaccination of any kind.

      Great read, always liked your historical posts and how it applies to todays world.

      There’s been the question posted many times on how to stop the machine. I have been researching different ideas in hope of finding a potential idea that may work, or may not. An example is: State Constitutional Bill of Rights for Ohio is very specific, as were most of the writings during that time. If, current Federal Legislation being proposed, would somehow violate anything in those Bill of Rights, would the State be required to exercise the 10th Amendments rights and refuse to accept or abide by that particular Fed Law? I need to get more detailed, but not just yet. I can do that as I get more info.

      Get Well Soon!


    • And just today — errr — yesterday – They said dont let a good crisis go to waste – now the make up the crisis !!

      [MaineLD] Swine Flu cases turn out to be only 2 -3% of those counted – CDC stops counting
      … ….
      The point is, of the vast majority of the presumed swine flu cases recognized by trained physicians, the vast majority were not flu at all. They weren’t swine flu or regular flu; they were some other sort of upper respiratory infection.”

      And here is the clincher that it seems the CDC just doesn’t want the American public to know …

      “The CDC explained that one of the reasons they quit counting was because of all the flu that’s out there, most are swine flu. Well, that’s true. Most of the flu that was out there was indeed swine flu, but they failed to say that most of the suspected flu was nothing at all. And I think that’s the caveat the public just didn’t know,” Attkisson explains.


%d bloggers like this: