Welcome!
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

Recipe for disaster: Ayers, Alinsky, Cloward & Piven - Daily Inter Lake: Columns

Login to DailyInterLake.com

Subscribers Click Here

Non Subscribers Click Here

Recipe for disaster: Ayers, Alinsky, Cloward & Piven

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Saturday, September 24, 2011 8:16 pm | Updated: 8:36 am, Tue Apr 22, 2014.

When last we left the revolutionary Bill Ayers, he was furiously scribbling the "Weatherman" manifesto in 1969 and learning how to build nail bombs while actively encouraging not just one, but "two, three, many Vietnams," in an effort to bring down the United States government.

It was obvious, after examining the words of "You Don't Need a Weatherman to Know Which Way the Wind Blows," that Ayers and his allies in the Orwellian-named Students for a Democratic Society (You know the routine: "war is peace," "freedom is slavery," "communism is democracy"!) were waging a two-front war of violence against America which they hoped would topple the government by over-extending its resources.

Subscription Required

An online service is needed to view this article in its entirety. You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

Have an online subscription?

Login Now

Need an online subscription?

Subscribe

Login

Choose an online service.

    Current print subscribers

      You must login to view the full content on this page.

      Thank you for reading 5 free articles on our site. You can come back at the end of your 30-day period for another 5 free articles, or you can purchase a subscription and continue to enjoy valuable local news and information. If you need help, please contact our office at 406-755-7000 . You need an online service to view this article in its entirety.

      Have an online subscription?

      Login Now

      Need an online subscription?

      Subscribe

      Login

      Choose an online service.

        Current print subscribers

          Welcome to the discussion.

          111 comments:

          • OH WILBER posted at 9:05 pm on Sat, Oct 1, 2011.

            OH WILBER Posts: 275

            @HTC- OH WILBER: I have a nifty discone antenna attached to a powerful military surplus 500 watt microwave transciever built in the 70's....
            HTC: Better make sure that discone is rated for 500W....

            I am sure that may be too much wattage for the former SF policeman known as the 'heat'. I also have an aperture-limited corrugated horn, used as a feed horn for a or microwave dish antenna, which would actually be a better fit and could allow full power for our experiment.

            For your listening pleasure: San Francisco Nights, 1967 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmIy7Ch4M84

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 8:28 pm on Sat, Oct 1, 2011.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9879

            OH WILBER: I have a nifty discone antenna attached to a powerful military surplus 500 watt microwave transciever built in the 70's....

            HTC: Better make sure that discone is rated for 500W....

             
          • OH WILBER posted at 7:26 pm on Sat, Oct 1, 2011.

            OH WILBER Posts: 275

            @ HTC- you posted: OH WILBER: Electromagnetics and the Mind
            HTC: I trust you have your tin foil hat firmly planted on your head.

            OH WILBER- I don't normally wear a hat, but I have a nifty discone antenna attached to a powerful military surplus 500 watt microwave transciever built in the 70's that would fit nicely on your head if you took your hat off. Come on over and get fitted. You would look just like the Tin man from the Wizard of Oz.

            @JBStone - you posted: Oh Blabber, read some info on REAL mind control, why don't you...???
            http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=76291

            OH WILBER- Thanks for your contribution. You did an excellent job of cut and paste from the same sites I visited. It was truly real. Again, sorry for your loss.

            @Chamomile- you posted: OH WILBER: This might be a dumb question, but who was "the enemy" in 1997?

            OH WILBER- You are correct.

             
          • bill39 posted at 5:28 pm on Sat, Oct 1, 2011.

            bill39 Posts: 1036

            chamomile posted at 12:15 pm on Sat, Oct 1, 2011.
            But those oil company should be being taxed dearly.

            bill: Why, wont they just pass it on to the consumer?

             
          • bill39 posted at 5:19 pm on Sat, Oct 1, 2011.

            bill39 Posts: 1036

            chamomile posted at 12:15 pm on Sat, Oct 1, 2011.
            It's not simply used oil...well, I don't know what your vehicles run on.

            bill: Exxons finest.

             
          • bill39 posted at 3:44 pm on Sat, Oct 1, 2011.

            bill39 Posts: 1036

            chamomile posted at 12:15 pm on Sat, Oct 1, 2011.
            Have a listen to Elizabeth Warren.

            bill: Ya, I heard her on Glenn Beck the other day.

             
          • chamomile posted at 12:15 pm on Sat, Oct 1, 2011.

            chamomile Posts: 11

            Bill139: LMBO!
            That's probably it. That's the way they do it... With a tanker, dumps it right in a stream right down the center the road.
            Sludge is freakin sludge. It's not simply used oil...well, I don't know what your vehicles run on. And it reaks.
            I'll be and sure and get some links up for you too. There's another on of a nice bubbling pool, I'll find it.

            I'm not going to argue with you. May main thought is this: fine. But those oil company should be being taxed dearly. The infrastructure is falling apart. Crazy Socialism, I know. Have a listen to Elizabeth Warren.

             
          • JBSTONE posted at 12:06 pm on Sat, Oct 1, 2011.

            JBSTONE Posts: 4558

            Bill: "Maybe we taxpayers should fund a study to see who creates more dust."


            Yeah....they can start it in Polebridge.

             
          • bill39 posted at 9:27 am on Sat, Oct 1, 2011.

            bill39 Posts: 1036

            I dare say autos traveling on unpaved roads across the united states cause more dust than farmers do. Maybe we taxpayers should fund a study to see who creates more dust.

             
          • JBSTONE posted at 8:55 am on Sat, Oct 1, 2011.

            JBSTONE Posts: 4558

            Oh Blabber, read some info on REAL mind control, why don't you...???

            http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=76291

             
          • JBSTONE posted at 8:52 am on Sat, Oct 1, 2011.

            JBSTONE Posts: 4558

            Ribald Rinser, the sidecar dream was two years in the making. I just don't have the strength to hold up a solo bike at a stop any more, so now I have something to do besides fret and fritter.

            Mister Mellow is my two-year old Welsh Terrier.

            The Sidecar is his wild ride.

             
          • bill39 posted at 8:24 am on Sat, Oct 1, 2011.

            bill39 Posts: 1036

            chamomile posted at 5:58 am on Sat, Oct 1, 2011.
            They used to dump all their sludge right out behind the place.

            bill: What is sludge? Used oil?

            Just the other day I say a video of a truck dumping stinking liquid (according to the woman recording) for miles down the road.

            bill: Maybe they were resurfacing a road with that stinky black stuff and then putting a layer of gravel on top of it. Or maybe they were trying to control dust as the new govt. mandate states. Or maybe we are suposed to take it upon ourselves and just drive really slow so we dont raise a dust on the miles and miles of unpaved roads.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 7:12 am on Sat, Oct 1, 2011.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9879

            chamomile: how do you feel about Dick Cheney?

            HTC: I wouldn't go hunting with him.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 7:07 am on Sat, Oct 1, 2011.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9879

            OH WILBER: Electromagnetics and the Mind

            HTC: I trust you have your tin foil hat firmly planted on your head.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 7:05 am on Sat, Oct 1, 2011.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9879

            OH WILBER: HAARP causes HOLES in the ionosphere

            HTC: The fact that the EU Parliament was nutty enough to publicly wring their hands over something this absurd is not surprising nor does it make it true; in fact, I'm glad you brought it up because it is a marvelous example of political fear-mongering and environmental posturing over something that any atmospheric physicist knows is a bunch of malarkey.

            Is it any wonder these buffoons also believe in man-caused global warming in spite of the tremendous body of scientific evidence to the contrary?

            "Holes" in the ionosphere occur as a result of the absence of high energy particles from the sun which are needed to ionize the upper atmosphere. Apparently, you and these silly EU pols would be surprised to learn that "holes" in the ionosphere large enough to blanket half of the earth's surface develop all the time during that 'scary' interval we call "night."

            Amateur radio operators are well acquainted with this naturally occurring phenomenon as they change operating frequencies to maintain long distance communication depending upon the time of day and the level of ionization in the upper atmosphere.

            The amount of ionization is dependent upon the number of high energy particles reaching the earth from the sun and that, in turn, is dependent upon the number and size of sun spots. This is why amateur radio operators track sunspot activity in order to predict HF propagation.

             
          • chamomile posted at 5:59 am on Sat, Oct 1, 2011.

            chamomile Posts: 11

            OH WILBER: This might be a dumb question, but who was "the enemy" in 1997?

             
          • chamomile posted at 5:58 am on Sat, Oct 1, 2011.

            chamomile Posts: 11

            HTC: Please don't feel like you have to correct all of fallacies of my thinking, although I do appreciate it. Honestly, I don't know a whole lot, I follow the headlines and read what interests me. And we are people with different interests and points of view. You seem to have given up, even though you've already taken a lot of time, have you resigned yourself to tedious endeavor and mental...nevermind. ?
            I haven't asked a ton of questions...if I could give a decent wink, you would know which ones were rhetorical, but I don't think they were many, honest answers would be nice.

            I'm not down with your war. And if that's what it is, thanks for letting us know Frank ole buddy. In your nod nod wink wink way. There are no communists. Not like Frank imagines. I mean, I'm sure there are people who are communists. Occasionally, you might spot one, like yeti. They aren't evil plotting to take over the world. Just another distraction to keep people under control. Keep united under a common enemy, except there is no unity...go after the poor.

            You are right about my prejudices. In fact, I had to give my staunch Republican father a call this morning. We had coffee.
            So I apologize for the callous remarks. Who was it who said "Rush? Callous? The only callouses he's ever had are on his..".nevermind.

            Had a really good laugh at my own expense. Frank really had me going with the whole "constitutional republican" bit.
            Frank: "it would be nice to see you start out by saying you support not democracy, but a constitutional republic; that you renounce violence; that you despise people who want to overthrow the government and the Constitution; that you are not a communist and could never support anyone who was;...".

            I was looking over my shoulder for McCarthy all day before I "got it." hahaha. Well, there was that copy of Marxism for Dummies I gave my dad. lol. I didn't realize Frank had such a grand sense of humor. What I'd really like to do is change my name and go back to avoiding Interlake editorials altogether. (Especially because of those horribly embarrassing punctuation smileys turned bright yellow emoticons. My comments look like they were typed by a seventeen year old in Yahoo chat, circa 1997.) Anyway, I am the one who reads all the comments and follows the links and never say a word. Usually there are several others who are thinking critically and asking some questions.
            It's been fun though. And Oh Wilbur on HAARP. I lmbo when he suggested cutting spending there.

            When you said "Affordable and Reliable" alternative energy, did you really mean to say "Profitable"? We just haven't found a way make a profit on self sustaining energy, not one that compares to oil. Those windmills in people's backyard look like an awful lot of work. We have the sun and the wind. But they don't create as many jobs.

            That's really interesting about Soros. Seems almost impossible to handle so much money without getting your hands dirty somehow. It's a bit off topic; but I am really curious: how do you feel about Dick Cheney?

            I have a daughter who is on the Autism Spectrum. I am so thankful she had such a sweet teacher in Head Start. It could've been so bad for her, but her teacher took a lot of time with her; we even had a meeting with psychologists (who decided she was doing okay) and she has. She is in the first grade now and reading at about a third grade level. She's brilliant. It takes her about twenty minutes to get on a pair of socks...but she is amazing. She's smarter than me, that's for sure. I'm so grateful for Head Start. I remember people being critical of Head Start, way back when I was delusional and thought I was Republican and listened to christian radio all the time. I also listened to Rush and thought Bill Clinton was going to bring our country to ruin. haha.

            Did you see the study that confirmed conservatives have different brains? (Your version might have read something like: "Liberal Brains Are Mentally Defective. 90% of scientists agree.") :")
            ZOMBIES! We're all being turned to Zombies. Seriously though...if they were turning your neighbor into one...It's not like they hone ELF in on one particular head.

            I don't know anything about extremely low frequencies but they sure have a tight handle on the ones our ears can pick up. But who needs NPR?


            HTC: I can believe that they are using high frequency. Horrible tinnitus. Maybe they are using both? I don't believe it is sinister. It's research. They also have remote control squirrels. Probably different departments. Not that there aren't mad scientists. Have you seen the dog-people?

            One last thing. Fracking. I haven't even got to see Gasland, but I'll tell you what I know. The water smells like sulphur. Everyone says it's just iron in the water. And there is a ton of that. The worst water I've ever smelled is at my dad's shop. Which was owned by a trucking company during the boom in the 80's. They used to dump all their sludge right out behind the place.
            In a town of about 2000, at any given time, you know of at least 10 people with cancer. At least. The Relay for Life cancer walk fills the track.
            Right now, jobs and money are great but there are a lot of unhappy people. My dad says it breaks his heart to see what's become of the place, and he's by no stretch of the imagination an environmentalist extremist. Just the other day I say a video of a truck dumping stinking liquid (according to the woman recording) for miles down the road.
            And as for the particular smell. I used to work at the shop, my job was to take a wire brush to valves in solvent and pry out the o-rings. Whenever an o-ring would come out, there was that smell...along with oily goo. Same smell. I might be mentally inadequate by your standards, but my nose works just fine. I get it, we want the oil. We need the oil. But what do you do to clean up the water tables. It's not as if you can just bath the land in corexit and chlorine...maybe add a little flouride for flavoring. To advocate alternative energy is by no means radical.


             
          • OH WILBER posted at 11:45 pm on Fri, Sep 30, 2011.

            OH WILBER Posts: 275

            @HTC- You may have learned about ELF working as a policeman in SF in the early 70's when LEAA (Law Enforcement Alliance of America) offered grants and ELF transmitters to police departments during the Nixon years for Mind Control purposes. Most of the police using ELF at the time did not even possess a radio license or know they were endangering themselves as well as others.

            Electromagnetics and the Mind
            Greg Harrison
            October 26, 1997

            The ultimate goal of all psychological operations, has always been to capture the 'hearts and minds' of those of the enemy. Forms of PSYOP have existed for nearly as long as war itself, but with the advent of information warfare, PSYOP is seen as a manipulation of the processor of information — the mind itself. Though these operations have traditionally been relegated to presenting information that produces a desired impact on the mind, only with recent advances in neuroscience have we begun to understand altering how that information processed. This alteration has come initially in hypnosis and psychoactive drugs, but more importantly, in certain forms of radiation and their interactions with the electrochemical brain. Where drugs and hypnosis can be considered 'invasive' techniques, requiring physical proximity, radiated energy can be applied over great distances, with less probability of detection.

            What must first be understood from a military perspective, is the utility of this technology. Next, a foundation in the hard science and documented military research is necessary to understand the potentials and limitations. Finally, due to the potential national security, public health, and ethical ramifications associated with this research, much has been classified. This classification has lead to certain amount of conspiratorial speculation, which is worth some mention.

            Non-lethal weapons are currently en vogue with the DoD, especially to those who have come to face the specter of MOOTW and anti-terrorist action. These situations, as well as those in law enforcement, are not suitable to the application of traditional combat arms. The chief intent of these non-lethal weapons being to compel its target to retreat or surrender, or to prohibit the target from offensive action. The goals of extra-low frequency (ELF) electromagnetic (EM) radiation is to mentally achieve these ends from a distance and without any physical contact.

            These goals can be divided into three specific applications: deterrence, influence, and control. Each goal becomes progressively more scientifically challenging. Deterrence is to simply cause such neurological discomfort or mental psychosis to make the aggressor simply fall back rather than suffer. This area dovetails with electromagnetic pulse (EMP) weapons, but here the effect is not from a pulse as much as sustained radiation. Deterrence usually intends the recipient to be aware of the source of the ill effects and seek to avoid it. Influence and suggestion are achieved when the target is not aware that the EMR is present or what it is doing. Simple effects such as the inability to concentrate, inexplicable paranoia, and headaches, all negatively influence the behavior without being able, or aware, of the need to escape a weapon. Finally the illusive goal of 'mind control,' in both allies and in the enemy, by co-opts them to work unconsciously based on direction of a controlling agent.

            With these goals identified, the question now becomes: how much of this can be achieved, and how much has already been accomplished? In answering this question, it is important to discern between pseudo-science and hard science, between conspiracy theories and documented facts. Unfortunately, the line between these areas is often blurred, and with most information protected for national security and ethical means, separating the wheat from the chaff is quite challenging. Presented here are footnoted sources of legitimate research in both science and history.

            Research in this field is not new. Hypnosis and mind-altering drugs have been known to man for years, and the use of subliminal suggestion has been well documented and even publicly accepted in such roles as shoplifting deterrence [CONGRESS84]. Since the latter half of this century, the use of EM radiation to impact the brain has been researched. Though not the chief focus of this paper, research into these psychoactive drugs is of note since the attempts met with some results (some tragic), and the intent of such research is identical to that in ELF radiation. In the 1950s, at the beginning of the Cold War, the newly created CIA recognized the need for drugs and techniques that would both elicit information from captured spies, and prevent our operatives from divulging information under medication, if captured. This research came under the title Project ARTICHOKE and soon became Project MK-ULTRA. Dr. Sidney Gottlieb, a program administrator, stated the objective of the program was to, "investigate whether and how it was possible to modify and individual's behavior by covert means" [CONGRESS77]. MK-ULTRA would almost certainly have remained classified, had it not been for the death and permanent psychosis of participants in the studies. The death of Dr. Frank Olson 1953, of the Army Chemical Corps, is but one example where LSD was given to a participant in MK-ULTRA, leading to his death. This case brought to a head to the public outcry which declassified MK-ULTRA, and resulting in the government's payment of damages to the Olson family and many others.

            Two congressional subcommittees resulted from MK-ULTRA and from the parallel research being performed in the interest of law enforcement. Senator Ted Kennedy's congressional subcommittee that investigated MK-ULTRA in 1977, found it guilty of both ethical violations and of violating its charter to only involve non-domestic activities. No one in the CIA was ever criminally charged; the CIA simply vowed that the research would stop. A second committee of Senator Sam Ervin in 1974 entitled, "Individual Rights and the Federal Role in Behavior Modification" also found law enforcement agencies and the VA guilty of violating patients' rights thorough various means including lobotomies. Again, a stated promise to stop the research was the only punitive result. In 1977, one of the CIA whistleblowers, Michael Copeland, stated that despite claims to the contrary, the research continued and that, "the congressional subcommittee which went into this sort of thing only got the barest glimpse" [ERINGER85]. Though MK-ULTRA is officially stated to have met with little success, its intent, clandestine manner, and ethical lapses are of note. MK-ULTRA's greatest contribution may have come in pushing research toward EM and away from narcotics.

            Other researchers met with certain successes in the 1950s and '60s. Dr. Jose Delgado, professor of psychology at Yale, who was able to elicit a range of emotions from his subjects by using small implants located in parts of the brain which then received their energy from 'remote control' radio waves. Through this research, Dr. Delgado was able to stop a charging bull. [TIMES65] A contemporary of Delgado, Dr. Ivor Browning was able, through stimulation of the hypothalamus, induce a mule to ascend a 5000' mountain path [MARTIN]. Delgado's human subjects could be consistently brought to states varying from euphoria, rage, and fatigue. Delgado states: "Stimulation of different points in the amygdala and hippocampus in the four patients produced a variety of effects, including pleasant sensations, elation, deep concentration, odd feelings, super relaxation, colored visions, and other responses" [DELGADO73]. This research was limited in its applications because of its dependence on its physical implants into the brain. However, a 1970 RAND Corporation study found that using ELF microwave radiation alone, "could promote insomnia, fatigue, irritability, memory loss and hallucinations" [MACGREGOR70]. Additionally, a DIA report found that ELF microwaves can, "induce metabolic change, alter brain function, and behavior patterns" [ADAMS76].

            Dr. Delgado saw no limits for the technology he had researched and as a part of the 1974 congressional hearings, testified, perhaps prophetically, that, "Man does not have the right to develop his own mind. This kind of liberal orientation has great appeal. We must electronically control the brain. Some day armies and generals will be controlled by electric stimulation of the brain" [CONGRESS74]. It may be worth noting that the Office of Naval Intelligence funded much of Dr. Delgado's research, but in his radical statements, Dr. Delgado is not alone. Three other Harvard doctors concluded in their 1967 report, "The Role of Brain Disease in Riots and Urban Violence" to JAMA, that screening tests of the limbic brain function was necessary as an "early warning test" for a predisposition toward violence [MARK67].

            Dr. Ross Adey, now of Loma Linda University Research Hospital, has investigated the effects of ELF radiation on the brain, and his work continues. Dr. Adey has researched the impact of ELF radiation on the inherent 'waves' of the brain. After studying the different rhythms of EEGs during various mental states, Dr. Adey was able to bombard the brain with specific frequencies to which the brain's EEG would involuntarily synchronize. Synchronizing the brain in various states would induce stress, anger, malaise, and fatigue. Dr. Adey was able to identify specific frequencies and their specific response. Some of Dr. Adey's current research, available in abstract from the NIH database is in calcium ion efflux [ADEY75].

            Though someone viewing the research description might not be alarmed at the study of how ELF radiation can affect calcium ion efflux in brain cells, an understanding of this research's impact on the entire brain may cause alarm. Calcium ions are involved in transmitting neural and nerve impulses. Dr. Adey has shown that certain ELF frequencies can hinder or increase calcium ion efflux. Such ion efflux reduction delays or prevents neural impulses. The opposite case of efflux, "with repeated or continued exposure, the increased excitability leads to a state of exhaustion of the cells of the cerebral cortex." [ZARAT78] Dr. Adey was able to document a marked delay in rat's reaction times and memory. The more ominous prospect is that ion efflux in the hippocampus is also tied to the storage of human memory and recall [ADEY67]. When Senator Richard Schweicker questioned Dr. Gottlieb of MK-ULTRA about this study and its potential to destroy memory in animals, Dr. Gottlieb replied, "I can believe that, Senator." [CONGRESS77] Further study has been done by other researchers using ELF radiation, with responses varying from and desire to 'bite' the researcher [LAWRENCE73], to the ability to hear spoken words delivered via pulsed ELF microwave analog of the speaker's sound vibrations [BECKER85].

            Given the small sampling of past and current research, it is worth noting that these seemingly disparate advances, along with the known areas of hypnosis and classical conditioning training — lest B.F. Skinner and Pavlov be left from the discussion — could lead to rather impressive and dangerous potentialities. The Internet is replete with those who have tied these technologies with history and personal psychosis to assert such many interesting conspiracies. Prospects such as the CIA assassination programming of Lee Harvey Oswald (a documented CIA employee) and Sirhan Sirhan, have been offered, as well as the notion of widespread mental implantation and control of the American populous. The former of these statements is the belief that through hypnosis, drugs, and possibly ELF radiation, these assassins were programmed to carry out their duties without remorse, without memory, and without memory of their training. The latter of these assertions, the notion of mental implants and control, has led to a large group of individuals, most likely with other more severe mental problems, to be convinced they are victims of a governmental mind control conspiracy. It may be of note that before the discovery of MK-ULTRA such claims by individuals in that program, though seemingly ludicrous, were indeed accurate.

            Further conspiracies revolve around the DoD which operates the joint Navy-Air Force High Altitude Auroral Research Project (HAARP). The program's stated objective is to study the affects of radiation in the upper atmosphere, but it's critics charge either for large-scale mind control (using the ionosphere as a reflector) or weather control. Another buzzword that is not strictly limited to conspiracy theorists is 'psycho-acoustic correction.' This word involves using an acoustic signal to mask an underlying ELF wave designed to produce 'voices in the head' and to produce overall states of anxiety and discomfort. Research in this area has already been mentioned. Such technology is alleged to have been used in both the eventual surrender of Manuel Noriega from the Vatican Embassy in Panama, and the siege of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco. In both cases, helicopters playing 'loud music' were certainly documented to fly over. Each of such conspiracy theories certainly contains a measure of truth and a bit of speculation. The military's intense secrecy in this area of research does little to abet their beliefs. When David Boyd of the National Institute of Justice was asked if such technology was used in Waco his reply was, "I have to answer that very carefully. The fairest answer is none were suitable." [VALENTINE]

            The extent to which the conspiracies, which revolve around this area of research, are accurate may be best determined through history. If the military and intelligence communities since the start of the Cold War have known about such powerful technology, why so would the military actions in Korea and Vietnam resulted in such unsuccessful results? Though such technology may be able to create the perfect assassin, why involve such complicated technology, when Navy SEALS or Hamas terrorists would willingly achieve the same ends without any fancy mind control. Also in a military role the potential use of such technology still requires the presence (most likely from the air) of an emitter, which, if capable of overflying a battlefield, must fly in an environment in which air supremacy has already been established.

            The military certainly needs technology that allows it to deter or influence aggressors from action against our forces and those of our allies. In an age when there is less threat of a single large-scale engagement, but a greater threat of small rebellions and terrorist action, such technology can be of even greater value. Such weapons and technology can obviate the need for inflicting mass casualties, incurring collateral damage, and launching street to street 'room clearing' offensives. Public source research in this arena is sufficient to glean that there is a body of research with definite PSYOP uses.

            Such technology is not without its legal and ethical ramifications, especially in a peacetime environment. If its application can pacify a people before war starts, is it acceptable? If it can extract near-perfect information without any physical torture or permanent effects from captured soldiers, is it a violation of the Geneva Accords? What could this mean for criminal justice in the U.S., where lie detectors are suspect enough? If such ELF waves are used in aversion therapy to 'rehabilitate' criminals from their violent impulses, is that okay? Can we be sure it worked? These ethical questions and the seemly permanent veil of national security compartmentalization in this area will likely prevent any but the least powerful implementations of this technology in the near future.

            Works Cited
            Adams, Ronald I. and R.A. Williams, "Biological Effects Of Electromagnetic Radiation (Radiowaves And Microwaves) Eurasian Communist Countries," Defense Intelligence Agency, March 1976.

            Adey, W. Ross. "Neurophysiologic Effects of Radiofrequency and Microwave Radiation," Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, V.55, #11, December, 1979.

            ... "The Influences of Impressed Electrical Fields at EEG Frequencies on Brain and Behavior, in Behavior and Brain Electrical Activity," Burch, N. and Altshuler, H.I., eds., Plenum Press, 1975.

            ... "Effects of Modulated Very High Frequency Fields on Specific Brain Rhythms in Cats", Brain Research, V.58., 1973.

            .... "Spectral Analysis of Low Frequency Components in the Electrical Activity of the Hippocampus During Learning", Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology, V.23, 1967.

            Becker, Robert O. The Body Electric New York: William Morrow, 1985.

            Congress of the United States. Individual Rights And The Federal Role In Behavior Modification. Staff of the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Committee of the Judiciary, United States Senate, Government Printing Office, 1974.

            _ Project Mkultra: The Cia's Program Of Research In Behavior Modification, Joint hearing before the Select Committee on Health and Scientific Research of the Committee on Human Resources, Unites States Senate, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1977.

            _ Subliminal Communication Technology, Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Transportation, Aviation and Materials, House of Representatives, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1984.

            Delgado, J.M.R. "Intracerebral Radio Stimulation and Recording in Completely Free Patients," Psychotechnology Robert L. Schwitzgebel and Ralph K. Schwitzgebel, editors; New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973.

            Eringer, Robert. "Secret Agent Man," Rolling Stone, 1985.

            Frey, Allan, "Human Auditory System Response in Modulated Electromagnetic Energy," Journal of Applied Physiology, V.17, #4, 1962.

            Lawrence, L. George. "Electronics and Brain Control," Popular Electronics, July 1973.

            MacGregor, R.J. "A Brief Survey of Literature Relating to Influence of Low Intensity Microwaves on Nervous Function," Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, 1970.

            Mark,Vernon H., Frank R. Ervin, and William H. Sweet. "Role of Brain Disease in Riots and urban Violence," Journal of the American Medical Association, September 11, 1967.

            Martin, Harry and David Caul. "Mind Control," http://www.strieber.com/mind-mk.html

            "Matador with a radio stops wild bull," New York Times, May 17, 1965

            Valentine, Carol A. "What's To Negotiate?" http://www.dabney.com/WacoMuseum/war/page/w_p.html

            Zarat, Milton, "Human Injury Relatable to Nonionizing Radiation," IREE-ERDA Symposium - The Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Radiation, 1978.

            Selected Bibliography
            Bowart, Walter. Operation Mind Control, Dell 1978.

            Brodeur, Paul. The Zapping of America, McLeod, Canada 1976.

            Cannon, Martin. "The Controllers," http://a-albionic.com/a-albionic/gopher/conspiracy/mindcontrol/mind.control

            Propaganda - New World Order - Non-Lethal Weapons. http://www.disinfo.com/prop/newordr/prop_newordr_nonlethal.html

            Leading Edge Research Group. http://www.trufax.org/main7.html

            Return of the Dragon: Hazards of Man-Made Magnetism. http://www.ratical.com/ratville/RofD1.html

            EMF Effects. http://www.yelmtel.com/~mrwizard/wizardEMF.HTM

            List of EMF Resources. http://www.etc-inc.com/html/emf_resources.html

            KeelyNet:Biology. http://www.newphys.se/elektromagnum/physics/KeelyNet/biology/index.html

            PXDS: What's the Frequency, Tim? http://www.rdrop.com/users/pdxs/v05n14/frequency.html

            Mind Control Forum Home Page. http://www.mk.net/~mcf/

            MK-ULTRA: The CIA and LSD. http://www.parascope.com/ds/mkultra0.htm

            Some Aspects of Anti-Personnel Electromagnetic Weapons. http://www.parascope.com/articles/0797/em.htm

             
          • OH WILBER posted at 9:42 pm on Fri, Sep 30, 2011.

            OH WILBER Posts: 275

            HAARP causes HOLES in the ionosphere
            HAARP - a weapons system which disrupts the climate
            Source: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/

            On 5 February 1998 Parliament's Subcommittee on Security and Disarmament held a hearing the subject of which included HAARP. NATO and the US had been invited to send representatives, but chose not to do so. The Committee regrets the failure of the USA to send a representative to answer questions, or to use the opportunity to comment on the material submitted.(21)

            HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Project) is run jointly by the US Air Force and Navy, in conjunction with the Geophysical Institute of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks. Similar experiments are also being conducted in Norway, probably in the Antarctic, as well as in the former Soviet Union.(22) HAARP is a research project using a ground based apparatus, an array of antennae each powered by its own transmitter, to heat up portions of ionosphere with powerful radio beams.(23) The energy generated heats up parts of the ionosphere; this results in holes in the ionosphere and produces artificial 'lenses'

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 9:14 pm on Fri, Sep 30, 2011.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9879

            @ OH WILBER,

            RF is one of my engineering specialties and I know more than a little bit about the HAARP program which did not exist until 1990 and uses HF, not ELF. ELF signals are produced indirectly in the ionosphere at an altitude of approximately 60 miles.

            HAARP's emissions do not and cannot affect the weather because the frequencies used are not absorbed in the troposphere or the stratosphere, the two layers that produce earth's weather.

            In addition, HAARP is not a classified project and scientists from many universities and other research institutions have done research at the facility. In fact, the specifications for the facility were drawn up by a consortium of university scientists.

            And when you say that your father had an "advanced degree in amateur radio", I assume you mean that he held an Extra Class license, as do I.

             
          • OH WILBER posted at 8:39 pm on Fri, Sep 30, 2011.

            OH WILBER Posts: 275

            @HTC- you posted:HTC: HAARP has absolutely nothing to do with attempts to control or affect weather. It is a program jointly funded and operated by the Air Force, the Navy and the University of Alaska "to analyze the ionosphere and investigate the potential for developing ionospheric enhancement technology for radio communications and surveillance purposes."

            Yes, HAARP has many purposes. Some other purposes such as mining exploration I am familiar with. My father, who had an advanced degree in amateur radio used an ELF transmitter and receiver which is used with HAARP for finding underground oil deposits, faults, mining deposits, treasures, arms stockpiles etc. While my father was in high school in Spokane in the late 30's he was also was able to make broadband long distance phone calls over regular power lines to his buddies in other cities and states without using the phone company's equipment. He was in the Army Air Force Signal Corp during WWII in New Mexico and had a colonel personally fly him to
            practically every airforce base in the country at the drop of a hat to remove, repair and replace radio equipment. Most amateur radio operators also do not even have an inkling of how dangerous HAARP can be or all of it's uses. Weather control is not just a conspiracy either. I do still have top secret manuals for the ELF transmitter and receiver equipment which he purchased through sealed bid auction from the government when he worked for Bonneville Power as well as classified manuals on HAARP. My grandfather was in the Air Calvary in WWI and was Major in the Spokane Cavalry for several years, before Fairchild AFB was a reality.My forefathers were military going back to the revolutionary war and had descendents living in New York area in 1620, over 150 years before the US began.
            You would not even come close intellectually to my father. Like you and Rush Limbaugh, only half your brain is
            tied behind your back. My father was ambidextrous, so both sides of his brain were secured tightly and was also a christian. Perhaps that would be too much for your mentality to even comprehend. By the way, when you left San Francisco Police Dept in the early 70's to go to South America, there was a police buddy of yours named Jim Jones who also left to Jamestown, Guyana to rid the streets of San Francisco of the homeless, through mass genocide. By the way, your spiel indicates you may share the same dark sociology as Jones. Were you fortunate enough to get a presidential pardon from Nixon?

             
          • Rebel Rouser posted at 6:37 pm on Fri, Sep 30, 2011.

            Rebel Rouser Posts: 1561

            JB, Very impressive! I am happy you are getting "out and about". Am happy that you get to feel the freedom of riding your motorcycle, here, in North West Montana. Am happy that your NEW job is being 100% service connected disabled (for us), and that I work hard enough, (and am ALLOWED to pay enough taxes), to help pay for your current lifestyle. I am VERY happy, that I read far enough into your blog, to realize that YOU are NOT Mr. Mellow! Hahahahaha! Peace.

            Note: capitalization of specific words, just for you!

             
          • Rebel Rouser posted at 5:53 pm on Fri, Sep 30, 2011.

            Rebel Rouser Posts: 1561

            Natch says: ""The sky is falling.....The sky is falling""

            I have a simple solution to the whole climate change issue, which should be a no-brainer and accepted by most of us. Be CONSERVATIVE! That is basically all earthlings need to do to offset the possibility that our use of fossil fuels is causing a warming trend or any change in our climate. What exactly is so wrong with being smart about energy use and how we impact this tiny speck of sand (floating in the universe) called earth. I DON'T (unbeknownst to HTC) agree that we are the only cause, and I don't agree with the governments idea of the solution. I do believe there is very little negative impact by conserving our resources. I have read that we could offset the entire warming trend simply by driving fewer miles each year, or changing over to led lights vs incandescent. I am sure HTC will step up and tell me how wrong and ignorant I am for saying that, but he is a hard core individual with a touch of insanity and a pinch hatred thrown in. I always think there are easier solutions to the problems we face, however, once politics is introduced the solutions become road blocks and dams.

             
          • naturalresources posted at 3:48 pm on Fri, Sep 30, 2011.

            naturalresources Posts: 511

            @ rebel rouser

            "The sky is falling.....The sky is falling"

             
          • JBSTONE posted at 1:49 pm on Fri, Sep 30, 2011.

            JBSTONE Posts: 4558

            HighTechCowboy posted at 9:58 am on Fri, Sep 30, 2011.

            ....well put.

             
          • JBSTONE posted at 1:37 pm on Fri, Sep 30, 2011.

            JBSTONE Posts: 4558

            Here's what I've been up to the last week....

            http://www.advrider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=729894

            Hee hee hee.....!!!

             
          • Pete posted at 1:20 pm on Fri, Sep 30, 2011.

            Pete Posts: 3152

            HTC..."We simply won't achieve long term fiscal stability and real economic freedom at the state or federal level until we do away with the great poison to our system which is the progressive tax system. Only when EVERYONE feels the tax sting of the true cost of our reckless governance will the people rally together in common cause to shackle the beast."

            I couldn't agree more.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 11:09 am on Fri, Sep 30, 2011.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9879

            Quote for the day:

            "The way I think about it is, you know, this is a great, great country that had gotten a little soft and, you know, we didn't have that same competitive edge that we needed over the last couple of decades. We need to get back on track." -- President Obama arguing for his third stimulus package in an interview with NBC affiliate WESH of Orlando, Fla.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 9:58 am on Fri, Sep 30, 2011.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9879

            chamomile: ...thank you for not assuming the worst of prejudices...(see above) ..and for being civil, in spite of all the 'vitriol.'

            HTC: Thank you for the kind words; however, I must respectfully submit the suggestion that you take a look at a few of your own "worst of prejudices."

            For example, your insistence that the 'right' is "callous" and doesn't care about the deaths of others. Or, your accusation that the 'right' doesn't really care about our environment or the suffering of others who may have been harmed by the negligence of others. Or your cruel accusation that the 'right' finds the suffering of those in Japan to be "funny."

            Those are harsh words which truly belong in the category of "the worst of prejudices."

            chamomile: And as far as 'no deaths' there was that fisherman who committed suicide, being so devastated by what he saw. Here is where I have a huge problem with the 'right' ..callous, that's the nicest I can come up with.

            HTC: The good captain didn't leave a note, so all we're left with is pure speculation as to what drove him to take his own life. Of course the MSM hyped it for all it was worth, arguing, despite a lack of evidence, that his sadness over the BP spill was what drove him to that last desperate act.

            Pretty darn crass, in my book.

            Still, it is sad, particularly for the loved ones he left behind. Suicide is one of the ultimate acts of selfishness, for those who do it demonstrate a total disregard for the burden they will leave to those they leave behind.

            chamomile: Concerning regulatory law, I hear what you are saying. But to argue for none, to rely on the great benevolent 'job creators' to self-regulate is to be ignorant their actions past and present.

            HTC: Who is arguing for the end of all regulation?

            Certainly not me, for I recognize, as do most entrepreneurs and capitalists, that a successful economy and healthy business climate are dependent upon a certain level of law enforcement and recourse in the courts.

            But you forget that regulation didn't prevent the BP spill, the financial system meltdown, or numerous salmonella or e. coli epidemics or much of anything else. Government is simply incompetent and has already heaped so much needless regulation upon us that even it can't stay on top of it all.

            There is simply way to much regulation and much of it is conflicting and even counterproductive. We have to change that.

            chamomile: Maybe should say we need some meaningful regulation, like one that actually does protect the water supply. Can't turn on MSNBC without seeing an advertisement for sensible fracking. I grew up around the oil field. Have you ever smelled that stuff? Let's put it in your family's drinking water. It doesn't take a whole lot of education or experience to know that isn't good. This isn't wise. It's horrible stewardship.. But you who claim to love America so much could care less, and even defend these companies and their practices, they need the tax breaks! and deny until your blue in the face. Screw Global Warming, and all your back and forth arguments.

            HTC: Yes, I have "smelled that stuff" because I once designed and manufactured data logging equipment for the oil industry. But smell is irrelevant by itself and doesn't necessarily translate into environmental risk anymore than skunks are an environmental hazard.

            Technology affords us the means to go after these valuable resources without endangering the environment. Sure, some companies will be tempted to cut corners for profit's sake, but they should be punished harshly enough to ensure that the temptation is removed for the others.

            Deep horizontal drilling and "fracking" are safe methods of extraction, IF they are done properly. However, there is a lot of intentional misinformation being circulated about them with the clear goal of preventing our going after these deeper oil deposits which are far larger than all of the oil in the Middle Eastern fields.

            The left has long used the "peak oil" fiction as a tool to focus our attention on so-called "alternative energy" as an immediate need and, now that that fiction has been exposed, they need to try to ban the harvesting of these vast new supplies by creating fear of massive ecological disasters that such drilling would supposedly cause.

            Those imagined disasters are mostly deceptive fear-mongering and their adherents overlook one undeniable technical reality and that is that alternative energy is still decades away from being an affordable and reliable solution to our energy needs. They also overlook the fact that 70% of our oil consumption is used for the production of plastics, artificial fibers, fertilizer, pesticides and herbicides and even pharmaceuticals. I'd like to see them produce those badly needed items from the sun or the wind.

            chamomile: We have something like a third of our nuclear reactors that don't even meet the outdated safety recommendations. The one at Fukushima was supposedly built to withstand, unlike ours. And I don't suppose you've seen any of the independent journalism coming out of Japan right now? Schools full of sickly children, nosebleeds, something like 100 children came down with encephalitis at once. (I'm sure it was just something they ate.) So very sad.
            But that is funny to you on the right.

            HTC: Both the power company and the Japanese government responded VERY badly to that situation. So much of the damage to the plant and the surrounding terrain was the result of a very late and very inadequate response by both the powe company and the government.

            There were also a number of technical deficiencies in the plant's safety systems which were long ago addressed here in the U.S. We have a level of nuclear preparedness and improvements in plant automation which simply don't exist in Japan.

            While a thorough review of our situation since the Japanese disaster has identified some plants where additional seismic retrofitting is in order, our nuclear generation industry is far safer than that in Japan.

            But current nuclear plant design and operation is safer still (thanks to ongoing development in France and other EU countries which are heavily dependent upon nuclear power) and nuclear is our best "alternative energy" option at this time. So it would behoove us to build more modern facilities as quickly as we can so that we can retire our older plants.

            chamomile: The lies you were told about Soros apply to Murdoch. His corruption is obvious. You don't need a chalkboard to make the connections.

            HTC: What would those "lies" be about Soros? His contributing $400M+ to Obama and other Democratic candidates' elections and to fund TV and other media advertising supporting them? Obama's delaying the resumption of deep sea drilling long enough to force the exodus of many of the world's $250-350M deep sea drilling rigs from our Gulf to Brazil, much to the pleasure of the Brazilian government and Petrobras, in which Soros is a major shareholder. Then Obama says that he hopes that we become their best customer? Kinda' looks like a quid pro quo, doesn't it?

            Or how about the investments that Soros has made in "alternative energy" companies that the DOE later invested in? Isn't that at least a little fishy?

            I'm no fan of Murdoch but Soros certainly has some very dirty hands.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 8:55 am on Fri, Sep 30, 2011.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9879

            JBSTONE: Top Al Qaeda Figure Killed

            HTC: May he rest in pieces....

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 8:54 am on Fri, Sep 30, 2011.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9879

            Researchers Hack Voting Machine for $26
            Published September 30, 2011 | TechMediaNetwork

            Campaigning for the 2012 presidential race has already begun, but what the candidates don't know is that come election day, hackers could be the ones whose votes have the biggest impact.

            Researchers from the Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois have developed a hack that, for about $26 and an 8th-grade science education, can remotely manipulate the electronic voting machines used by millions of voters all across the U.S.

            The researchers, Salon reported, performed their proof-of-concept hack on a Diebold Accuvote TS electronic voting machine, a type of touchscreen Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) voting system that is widely used for government elections. (Diebold's voting-machine business is now owned by the Denver-based Dominion Voting Systems, whose e-voting machines are used in about 22 states.)

            In a video, Roger Johnston and Jon Warner from Argonne National Laboratory's Vulnerability Assessment Team demonstrate three different ways an attacker could tamper with, and remotely take full control, of the e-voting machine simply by attaching what they call a piece of "alien electronics" into the machine's circuit board.

            The electronic hacking tool consists of a $1.29 microprocessor and a circuit board that costs about $8. Together with the $15 remote control, which enabled the researchers to modify votes from up to a half-mile away, the whole hack runs about $26.

            Two of the takeovers show the researchers controlling the buttons on the keypad despite what the "real" voter enters. But in what Warner called "probably the most relevant attack for vote tampering," the researchers were able to blank the e-voting machine's screen for a split-second after the "vote now" button was pressed. While the screen went dark, they remotely entered their own numbers into the DRE's keypad.

            Johnston explained in the video: "When the voter hits the 'vote now' button to register his votes, we can blank the screen and then go back and vote differently and the voter will be unaware that this has happened."

            Johnston and Warner say that the ease with which this type of remote hack could be deployed highlights the need for e-voting machines to be designed better, with not just cybersecurity, but physical security in mind.

            "Spend an extra four bucks and get a better lock," Johnston said. "You don't have to have state-of-the-art security, but you can do some things were it takes at least a little bit of skill to get in."

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 8:49 am on Fri, Sep 30, 2011.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9879

            OH WILBER: Perhaps we should shut down HAARP for a few years to determine for any damage to the various layers of the global atmosphere caused by HAARP. The HAARP ionospheric research program project uses powerful electromagnetic waves beamed at the ionosphere to CONTROL WEATHER. We may no longer have a need for a weatherman anymore.

            HTC: HAARP has absolutely nothing to do with attempts to control or affect weather. It is a program jointly funded and operated by the Air Force, the Navy and the University of Alaska "to analyze the ionosphere and investigate the potential for developing ionospheric enhancement technology for radio communications and surveillance purposes."

            The ionosphere is the part of the upper atmosphere that absorbs much of the ionizing radiation from the sun. In an ionized state, it acts like a mirror to certain radio frequencies headed from the earth towards space, bending those signals and reflecting them earthward again.

            This is very useful for long distance point-to-point radio communications. HAARP is investigating whether it's possible to control that effect as well as to produce it as needed.

            There are myriad conspiracy theories surrounding the project, as is to be expected, given the great scientific illiteracy of the general public. Yours is but one of those myths.

             
          • JBSTONE posted at 8:03 am on Fri, Sep 30, 2011.

            JBSTONE Posts: 4558

            Top Al Qaeda Figure Killed

            By HAKIM ALMASMARI in San'a and MARGARET COKER in Abu Dhabi

            SAN'A, Yemen—Al Qaeda figure Anwar al-Awlaki, one of the most wanted terrorists on a U.S. target list, has been killed in Yemen, according to Yemeni and U.S. officials, marking another significant blow to the global terrorist group after the assassination of Osama bin Laden earlier this year.

            Image
            In this image from video released by SITE Intelligence Group on Nov. 8, 2010, Anwar al-Awlaki speaks in a video message posted on radical websites.

            Mr. Awlaki, who has been on the run and hiding in Yemen's remote tribal highlands for years, was killed at approximately 9:55 a.m. local time outside a village in the northeastern province of Jawf, according to an official familiar with the situation. The area is near a historic smuggling route along a mountain range stretching the length of the country and located some 140 kilometers (87 miles) from the capital San'a.

            It is not yet clear what U.S. military assets were involved in Friday's attack, or the details of the attack that killed Mr. Awlaki. Both U.S. military and intelligence officials work with Yemeni counterparts to track and find al Qaeda elements in the country.

            A senior Yemeni official said that U.S. officials were "directly" involved with tracking the American-born cleric as he moved around Yemen. They learned that he had moved to Jawf earlier this month, the official said.

            The U.S. narrowly missed Mr. Awlaki in a failed assassination attempt back in May. U.S. drones fired on a vehicle in the southern Yemen province of Shebwa that the cleric had been driving in earlier the same day. Shebwa is hundreds of kilometers from the site where Mr. Awlaki was located and killed on Friday.

            "We have been trying to get him for months, but every time he somehow finds a way to escape death," the Yemeni official said.

            Mr. Awlaki has long been among the top of the U.S. target list in Yemen, which al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula uses as its base. The American-born cleric has emerged as a leading charismatic recruiter for AQAP, a group the U.S. considers the world's most dangerous terror organization and the place that represents the gravest threat to the American homeland.

            U.S. officials have linked Mr. Awlaki to at least three major terrorist incidents: the Fort Hood shootings in which 13 people were killed, the Christmas 2009 plot to blow up a U.S.-bound passenger plane and a separate plan to blow up a U.S.-bound cargo plane. Mr. Awlaki's U.S. roots and fluent English made him a special concern of U.S. counterterrorism officials.

            Western officials have worried that the political upheaval in Yemen would derail their counterterrorism efforts in the remote, impoverished country. The country has descended into chaotic factional fighting as several key groups have turned on President Ali Abdullah Saleh and demanded the end of his 33-year rule.

            Throughout the spring and summer, fighting has raged in southern provinces and the capital, and key areas next to Yemen's largest port and the country's oil-producing areas have increasingly come under the sway of militant Islamist groups, including fighters connected to AQAP.

            At the same time, counterterrorism teams have stepped up their hunt for key figures and have killed several in the past few months.

            U.S. and Saudi officials traditionally have worked closely with forces commanded by President Saleh's son and nephews in their counterterrorism work. Those elite Yemeni forces, however, have in many cases been redeployed from counterterrorism duties to help protect the president and his family from pro-democracy demonstrators in and around San'a.

            Some antiregime activists in Yemen believe that a lack of international effort to remove the leader from power is connected to the U.S. drive to rid the country of its al Qaeda threat.

            Mr. Awlaki came to prominence in 2009 due to his role as an Internet-based spiritual guide aiding the radicalization of a new generation of Islamist extremists.

            Although he isn't the head of AQAP, U.S. officials say Mr. Awlaki has assumed an operational leadership role in the terror group. Army Maj. Nidal Hasan, who is accused of killing 13 people in a November 2009 shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Texas, corresponded with Mr. Awlaki before his attack.

            The U.S. added Mr. Awlaki to the CIA's target list after AQAP's failed attempt a month later to blow up a U.S.-bound passenger airliner.

            Part of Mr. Awlaki's appeal, say U.S. officials and terrorism experts, is his ability to act as a bridge between the mainly Arab leaders of al Qaeda and willing potential jihadists in the West.

            Born in New Mexico, he preached at a mosque in Northern Virginia until 2002, when he left the U.S. to spend time building a following in the U.K., before returning to Yemen in 2004.

            Yemen authorities arrested him at the behest of the U.S., but then released him in December 2007 saying they didn't have enough evidence to hold him.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 7:41 am on Fri, Sep 30, 2011.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9879

            Pete: I agree with you on the national sales tax, but....I don't think there is any system that won't feel the effects of Washington scum trying to reward their given constituency, (Republican/Democrat or otherwise) national sales tax included.

            HTC: Yes, politicians will always try to find ways around the inherent obstacles to their goals which are a part of any tax system. But I think a national sales tax system would be more difficult to pervert and it would be more difficult to increase, due to the fact that ALL Americans would have skin in the game, NOT just 35-40% of them.

            People talk about the lack of accountability in government; well, the progressive tax system is a major enabler of irresponsibility in government because too many Americans (almost 60%) are paying little or no income tax. Why should they care about government's fiscal recklessness?

            Worse yet, nearly 50% of Americans actually benefit from the nanny state, so they can always be counted upon to vote for the fiscally irresponsible candidates who promise to keep their handouts flowing.

            Pete: Since the country obviously doesn't understand or care about enumerated powers, the greatest deterrent to special interest meddling in the tax code is spending restrictions. It won't solve the problem...but it will certainly give the hogs less to fight over and limit their power by limiting the resources they can allot.

            HTC: Do you mean something like a balanced budget amendment or limits to how much government spending can grow over time (e.g., no greater than the CPI)?

            The former has been a part of California's constitution for a VERY long time and it certainly didn't prevent the fiscal disaster occurring there right now. And why would it? When politicians have already grown used to blatantly violating so many other parts of the constitution, why would they care about any provision requiring balanced budgets?

            Limits on the growth in state spending and/or upon tax increases are in place in thirty states and almost all of those states are running substantial deficits right now.

            We simply won't achieve long term fiscal stability and real economic freedom at the state or federal level until we do away with the great poison to our system which is the progressive tax system. Only when EVERYONE feels the tax sting of the true cost of our reckless governance will the people rally together in common cause to shackle the beast.

             
          • bill39 posted at 6:53 am on Fri, Sep 30, 2011.

            bill39 Posts: 1036

            Pequot:Ah, but bill39, it's so much fun to track just how deep is the dementia.

            Ive been tempted to read his posts for months now but they are so sickeningly predictable. But you are right. One can gain insight into their strategy to deceive.

             
          • Pete posted at 6:45 am on Fri, Sep 30, 2011.

            Pete Posts: 3152

            HTC...I agree with you on the national sales tax, but....I don't think there is any system that won't feel the effects of Washington scum trying to reward their given constituency, (Republican/Democrat or otherwise) national sales tax included.

            Since the country obviously doesn't understand or care about enumerated powers, the greatest deterrent to special interest meddling in the tax code is spending restrictions. It won't solve the problem...but it will certainly give the hogs less to fight over and limit their power by limiting the resources they can allot.

            "Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms (of government) those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny” - Thomas Jefferson

             
          • Pete posted at 6:11 am on Fri, Sep 30, 2011.

            Pete Posts: 3152

            Bronco..."Pete, there are no revenue solutions on the table that will work."

            I agree.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 11:14 pm on Thu, Sep 29, 2011.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9879

            Bronco: Flat tax. It's the only way.

            HTC: I beg to differ.

            What started our march to financial ruin was the Sixteenth Amendment which allowed Congress to tax all income. Our Founders were opposed to income taxes on earned income because they knew it would be abused for political ends and they didn't believe that government had a right to know so much about its citizens. That's why the Constitution originally did not permit it.

            A flat tax would not remain flat for long (it would quickly become progressive once again) and would still give the government an intimate view into our personal finances which it has no right to if we, as individuals, are truly sovereign and the government exists to protect our sovereignty, as the Founders intended.

            The progressive income tax has enabled the construction of the massive nanny state which has now brought us to the brink of economic ruin. When 20% of taxpayers are paying 88% of the income taxes, Congress can readily buy the vote of the other 80% with their money and there's nothing the other 20% who are picking up the tab can do about it.

            The only fair tax which protects our right to privacy (from government) and which cannot readily be used to fund a nanny state is a national sales tax. It is also a tax which encourages saving - something this country badly needs to start practicing.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 10:56 pm on Thu, Sep 29, 2011.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9879

            Rebel Rouser posted at 12:51 pm on Thu, Sep 29, 2011

            HTC: There is so much misrepresentation and outright lies in your last few posts, that it will take me a while to fully respond.

            In the interim, I suggest you google for S. Fred Singer and Richard Lindzen and read their overviews of the fraud that is AGW. Singer was part of the IPCC and has publicly commented on the tremendous fraud that was committed AFTER he and the other scientists produced their report - fraud which included U.N. personnel changing text in their reports AFTER they'd signed off on them.

            Several are now suing the U.N. to force the U.N. to remove their names from the report. Their absence leaves a report whose remaining signatories are mostly politicians, NOT scientists.

            Then there's the fraud committed on temperature data and sea level data as well as official scientific professional bodies issuing position statements WITHOUT consulting their membership and pretending to speak for them.

            The list goes on and on but perhaps you live in a world where fraud is not a big deal and you just accept it as a fact of life.

            It's also obvious that you believe that scientific truth is determined by "consensus" and that a long list of scientists who subscribe to a belief must make it true.

            If that's the case, then the world is still flat and the sun still revolves around the earth and Galileo and Copernicus were blathering fools.

            But I guess if you don't have a critical mind and much intellect, it's easier to go with a perceived majority. There's safety in numbers - right?

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 10:42 pm on Thu, Sep 29, 2011.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9879

            Bronco: HTC, all your AGW theories, your BP-huge-profit-soon-after-an-$18-billion-spill-cleanup excuses, etc, merely reinforce that you are a corporate shill. A mouthpiece for what is really destroying America. Would that be treason?

            HTC: No, it merely reinforces that you don't know s*it.

             
          • Bronco posted at 7:32 pm on Thu, Sep 29, 2011.

            Bronco Posts: 4328

            Pete, there are no revenue solutions on the table that will work.
            Flat tax. It's the only way.

             
          • Pete posted at 3:16 pm on Thu, Sep 29, 2011.

            Pete Posts: 3152

            Bronco posted at 10:04 am on Thu, Sep 29, 2011.

            Now take that logic and apply it to government and taxes and you will understand why "taxing the rich" as a revenue solution is a fallacy.

             
          • OH WILBER posted at 2:30 pm on Thu, Sep 29, 2011.

            OH WILBER Posts: 275

            Perhaps we should shut down HAARP for a few years to determine for any damage to the various layers of the global atmosphere caused by HAARP. The HAARP ionospheric research program project uses powerful electromagnetic waves beamed at the ionosphere to CONTROL WEATHER. We may no longer have a need for a weatherman anymore.

             
          • chamomile posted at 2:09 pm on Thu, Sep 29, 2011.

            chamomile Posts: 11

            Sam Adams:

            'The problem we face is that a postmodernist like chamomile doesn't believe the stuff that she writes in the first place. Her post is nothing more than a hodgepodge of talking points and fallacies intended to discredit Frank's column. She writes to destroy, not engage in meaningful conversation. In all likelihood, she will not acknowledge the errors in her thinking... if pressed, she will simply progress to vitriol and finally to ad-hominem attacks'

            :) Not quite there. I assure you, I read HTC's post and have been really looking forward to getting back to him.

            HTC: First of all, thank you! I appreciate so much your response...thank you for not assuming the worst of prejudices...(see above) ..and for being civil, in spite of all the 'vitriol.'

            It's really a bummer about the Jefferson quote. That is the second time I've seen that happen (thankfully someone else was doing the 'quoting' last time.) Too funny! It could've been written by Marx or Hugo Chavez for all I'd know, I'll take your word on it. Probably shouldn't need to be a scholar to catch that, and probably ought to brush up on some US History. Not that I will, unless reading Mark Twain to my daughter counts...?

            Concerning BP, I would beg to disagree based on general mistrust for them and whatever their dr.s have to say. (thanks Bronco) Thinking the whole "who pays?" bit I had to say was sort of off, was trying to speak 'your' language. Irrelevant, when the truth being, what we really can't afford is more ecological disaster. And there is stll goo washing up, so it is hardly over. BP could never "pay" for what happened. Look at how Exxon spent 20 years (!) weaseling out of their settlements. Years from now, who will be able to prove their cancer was caused by benzene or other corexit byproduct. It won't happen. Having seen the videos of the skin lesions people got, strange resistant staph- not workers, visitors to the beach; people from the area have a pretty good perspective on the issue, and that's how I get my 'news'. And as far as 'no deaths' there was that fisherman who committed suicide, being so devastated by what he saw. Here is where I have a huge problem with the 'right' ..callous, that's the nicest I can come up with.

            Sam Adams: I very much know what I believe and that truth is plain. The only belief I'm questioning is the one that says it matters. Maybe the only purpose I'm serving is to keep this "editorial" at the top of the "Most Read."

            HTC: What is it, "So Much at Stake"? Because I agree wholeheartedly, but don't know what you consider stakes.

            Concerning regulatory law, I hear what you are saying. But to argue for none, to rely on the great benevolent 'job creators' to self-regulate is to be ignorant their actions past and present. Ever seen the Nigerian Gulf? But why should we care. "We've got a recession." We've also got drones over Kenya. And a whole lot of starving people and I really like to hope that those drones are working to alleviate the problem. There's a war worth backing...if such a thing exists. As usual, I digress.
            Maybe should say we need some meaningful regulation, like one that actually does protect the water supply. Can't turn on MSNBC without seeing an advertisement for sensible fracking. I grew up around the oil field. Have you ever smelled that stuff? Let's put it in your family's drinking water. It doesn't take a whole lot of education or experience to know that isn't good. This isn't wise. It's horrible stewardship. But you who claim to love America so much could care less, and even defend these companies and their practices, they need the tax breaks! and deny until your blue in the face. Screw Global Warming, and all your back and forth arguments. We have something like a third of our nuclear reactors that don't even meet the outdated safety recommendations. The one at Fukushima was supposedly built to withstand, unlike ours. And I don't suppose you've seen any of the independent journalism coming out of Japan right now? Schools full of sickly children, nosebleeds, something like 100 children came down with encephalitis at once. (I'm sure it was just something they ate.) So very sad.
            But that is funny to you on the right. Stupid bleeding heart liberals are all the same, don't understand that's where the money is. Follow the money. Keep throwing out scary red-herring bones. Terrorists aren't so scary anymore, Bin Laden's dead. Look a homosexual! Woops, everyone knows they aren't so frightening anymore, except maybe wanna watch what you say to one of those lesbians in the military. Bird Flu! Swine Flu! Be very afraid!
            Now, we're supposed to watch out for those "low-income militants" and "poor and working class" ...where should kennel them, in Fema death camps or privatized prisons?
            Do at all appreciate the irony that the very ones screaming and crying about Soros and Fema camps were practically working for the 'brown shirts' ? While ya all were freaking out on Truth Out (relatively sane publication from what I've seen) and Move-On (yawn...as if I want to hear what ridiculous thing Rush or Beck had to say yesterday) you were being played by the biggest propaganda machine ever. But it has no implications, and it's all perfectly harmless. No. The lies you were told about Soros apply to Murdoch. His corruption is obvious. You don't need a chalkboard to make the connections.

            The average age of student at the University I attended was in the upper-thirties at that time; I was 30...not so young and inexperienced. But it was like anywhere, there were all sorts. Maybe I was fortunate to be around more thoughtful types.

             
          • Rebel Rouser posted at 12:51 pm on Thu, Sep 29, 2011.

            Rebel Rouser Posts: 1561

            American Quaternary Association

            The American Quaternary Association (AMQUA) has stated

            Few credible Scientists now doubt that humans have influenced the documented rise of global temperatures since the Industrial Revolution,” citing “the growing body of evidence that warming of the atmosphere, especially over the past 50 years, is directly impacted by human activity.[58]

            International Union for Quaternary Research

            The statement on climate change issued by the International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA) reiterates the conclusions of the IPCC, and urges all nations to take prompt action in line with the UNFCCC principles.

            Human activities are now causing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gasses - including carbon dioxide, methane, tropospheric ozone, and nitrous oxide - to rise well above pre-industrial levels….Increases in greenhouse gasses are causing temperatures to rise…The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action….Minimizing the amount of this carbon dioxide reaching the atmosphere presents a huge challenge but must be a global priority.[59]

            Biology and life sciences
            American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians

            The American Association of Wildlife Veterinarians[60] (AAWV) has issued a position statement regarding "climate change, wildlife diseases, and wildlife health":

            There is widespread scientific agreement that the world’s climate is changing and that the weight of evidence demonstrates that anthropogenic factors have and will continue to contribute significantly to global warming and climate change. It is anticipated that continuing changes to the climate will have serious negative impacts on public, animal and ecosystem health due to extreme weather events, changing disease transmission dynamics, emerging and re-emerging diseases, and alterations to habitat and ecological systems that are essential to wildlife conservation. Furthermore, there is increasing recognition of the inter-relationships of human, domestic animal, wildlife, and ecosystem health as illustrated by the fact the majority of recent emerging diseases have a wildlife origin.[61]

            American Institute of Biological Sciences

            In October 2009, the leaders of 18 US scientific societies and organizations sent an open letter to the United States Senate reaffirming the scientific consensus that climate change is occurring and is primarily caused by human activities. The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) adopted this letter as their official position statement:[62]

            Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.[63]

            The letter goes on to warn of predicted impacts on the United States such as sea level rise and increases in extreme weather events, water scarcity, heat waves, wildfires, and the disturbance of biological systems. It then advocates for a dramatic reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases.[64]
            American Society for Microbiology

            In 2003, the American Society for Microbiology issued a public policy report in which they recommend “reducing net anthropogenic CO2 emissions to the atmosphere” and “minimizing anthropogenic disturbances of” atmospheric gases:[65]

            Carbon dioxide concentrations were relatively stable for the past 10,000 years but then began to increase rapidly about 150 years ago…as a result of fossil fuel consumption and land use change.[66]

            Of course, changes in atmospheric composition are but one component of global change, which also includes disturbances in the physical and chemical conditions of the oceans and land surface. Although global change has been a natural process throughout Earth’s history, humans are responsible for substantially accelerating present-day changes. These changes may adversely affect human health and the biosphere on which we depend.[67]

            Outbreaks of a number of diseases, including Lyme disease, hantavirus infections, dengue fever, bubonic plague, and cholera, have been linked to climate change.[68]

            Australian Coral Reef Society

            In 2006, the Australian Coral Reef Society issued an official communique regarding the Great Barrier Reef and the "world-wide decline in coral reefs through processes such as overfishing, runoff of nutrients from the land, coral bleaching, global climate change, ocean acidification, pollution", etc.:

            There is almost total consensus among experts that the earth’s climate is changing as a result of the build-up of greenhouse gases. The IPCC (involving over 3,000 of the world’s experts) has come out with clear conclusions as to the reality of this phenomenon. One does not have to look further than the collective academy of scientists worldwide to see the string (of) statements on this worrying change to the earth’s atmosphere.

            There is broad scientific consensus that coral reefs are heavily affected by the activities of man and there are significant global influences that can make reefs more vulnerable such as global warming....It is highly likely that coral bleaching has been exacerbated by global warming.[69]

            Institute of Biology (UK)

            The UK's Institute of Biology states “there is scientific agreement that the rapid global warming that has occurred in recent years is mostly anthropogenic, ie due to human activity.” As a consequence of global warming, they warn that a “rise in sea levels due to melting of ice caps is expected to occur. Rises in temperature will have complex and frequently localised effects on weather, but an overall increase in extreme weather conditions and changes in precipitation patterns are probable, resulting in flooding and drought. The spread of tropical diseases is also expected.” Subsequently, the Institute of Biology advocates policies to reduce “greenhouse gas emissions, as we feel that the consequences of climate change are likely to be severe.”[70]
            Society of American Foresters

            In 2008, the Society of American Foresters (SAF) issued two position statements pertaining to climate change in which they cite the IPCC and the UNFCCC:

            Forests are shaped by climate....Changes in temperature and precipitation regimes therefore have the potential to dramatically affect forests nationwide. There is growing evidence that our climate is changing. The changes in temperature have been associated with increasing concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) and other GHGs in the atmosphere.[71]

            Forests play a significant role in offsetting CO2 emissions, the primary anthropogenic GHG.[72]

            The Wildlife Society (international)

            The Wildlife Society has issued a position statement titled Global Climate Change and Wildlife:[73]

            Scientists throughout the world have concluded that climate research conducted in the past two decades definitively shows that rapid worldwide climate change occurred in the 20th century, and will likely continue to occur for decades to come. Although climates have varied dramatically since the earth was formed, few scientists question the role of humans in exacerbating recent climate change through the emission of greenhouse gases. The critical issue is no longer “if” climate change is occurring, but rather how to address its effects on wildlife and wildlife habitats.

            The statement goes on to assert that “evidence is accumulating that wildlife and wildlife habitats have been and will continue to be significantly affected by ongoing large-scale rapid climate change.”

            The statement concludes with a call for “reduction in anthropogenic (human-caused) sources of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions contributing to global climate change and the conservation of CO2- consuming photosynthesizers (i.e., plants).”
            Human health
            American Academy of Pediatrics

            In 2007, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued the policy statement Global Climate Change and Children's Health:

            There is broad scientific consensus that Earth's climate is warming rapidly and at an accelerating rate. Human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, are very likely (>90% probability) to be the main cause of this warming. Climate-sensitive changes in ecosystems are already being observed, and fundamental, potentially irreversible, ecological changes may occur in the coming decades. Conservative environmental estimates of the impact of climate changes that are already in process indicate that they will result in numerous health effects to children.

            Anticipated direct health consequences of climate change include injury and death from extreme weather events and natural disasters, increases in climate-sensitive infectious diseases, increases in air pollution–related illness, and more heat-related, potentially fatal, illness. Within all of these categories, children have increased vulnerability compared with other groups.[74]

            American College of Preventive Medicine

            In 2006, the American College of Preventive Medicine issued a policy statement on “Abrupt Climate Change and Public Health Implications”:

            The American College of Preventive Medicine (ACPM) accept the position that global warming and climate change is occurring, that there is potential for abrupt climate change, and that human practices that increase greenhouse gases exacerbate the problem, and that the public health consequences may be severe.[75]

            American Medical Association

            In 2008, the American Medical Association issued a policy statement on global climate change declaring that they:

            Support the findings of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, which states that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that these changes will negatively affect public health.

            Support educating the medical community on the potential adverse public health effects of global climate change, including topics such as population displacement, flooding, infectious and vector-borne diseases, and healthy water supplies.[76]

            American Public Health Association

            In 2007, the American Public Health Association issued a policy statement titled ‘’Addressing the Urgent Threat of Global Climate Change to Public Health and the Environment’’:

            The long-term threat of global climate change to global health is extremely serious and the fourth IPCC report and other scientific literature demonstrate convincingly that anthropogenic GHG emissions are primarily responsible for this threat….US policy makers should immediately take necessary steps to reduce US emissions of GHGs, including carbon dioxide, to avert dangerous climate change.[77]

            Australian Medical Association

            In 2004, the Australian Medical Association issued the position statement Climate Change and Human Health in which they recommend policies "to mitigate the possible consequential health effects of climate change through improved energy efficiency, clean energy production and other emission reduction steps."[78]

            This statement was revised again in 2008:

            The world’s climate – our life-support system – is being altered in ways that are likely to pose significant direct and indirect challenges to health. While ‘climate change’ can be due to natural forces or human activity, there is now substantial evidence to indicate that human activity – and specifically increased greenhouse gas (GHGs) emissions – is a key factor in the pace and extent of global temperature increases.

            Health impacts of climate change include the direct impacts of extreme events such as storms, floods, heatwaves and fires and the indirect effects of longer-term changes, such as drought, changes to the food and water supply, resource conflicts and population shifts.

            Increases in average temperatures mean that alterations in the geographic range and seasonality of certain infections and diseases (including vector-borne diseases such as malaria, dengue fever, Ross River virus and food-borne infections such as Salmonellosis) may be among the first detectable impacts of climate change on human health.

            Human health is ultimately dependent on the health of the planet and its ecosystem. The AMA believes that measures which mitigate climate change will also benefit public health. Reducing GHGs should therefore be seen as a public health priority.[79]

            World Federation of Public Health Associations

            In 2001, the World Federation of Public Health Associations[80] issued a policy resolution on global climate change:

            Noting the conclusions of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other climatologists that anthropogenic greenhouse gases, which contribute to global climate change, have substantially increased in atmospheric concentration beyond natural processes and have increased by 28 percent since the industrial revolution….Realizing that subsequent health effects from such perturbations in the climate system would likely include an increase in: heat-related mortality and morbidity; vector-borne infectious diseases,… water-borne diseases…(and) malnutrition from threatened agriculture….the World Federation of Public Health Associations…recommends precautionary primary preventive measures to avert climate change, including reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and preservation of greenhouse gas sinks through appropriate energy and land use policies, in view of the scale of potential health impacts....[81]

            World Health Organization

            In 2008, the United Nations' World Health Organization issued their report Protecting health from climate change:

            There is now widespread agreement that the earth is warming, due to emissions of greenhouse gases caused by human activity. It is also clear that current trends in energy use, development, and population growth will lead to continuing – and more severe – climate change.

            The changing climate will inevitably affect the basic requirements for maintaining health: clean air and water, sufficient food and adequate shelter. Each year, about 800,000 people die from causes attributable to urban air pollution, 1.8 million from diarrhoea resulting from lack of access to clean water supply, sanitation, and poor hygiene, 3.5 million from malnutrition and approximately 60,000 in natural disasters. A warmer and more variable climate threatens to lead to higher levels of some air pollutants, increase transmission of diseases through unclean water and through contaminated food, to compromise agricultural production in some of the least developed countries, and increase the hazards of extreme weather.[82]

            Miscellaneous
            American Astronomical Society

            The American Astronomical Society has endorsed the AGU statement:[83]

            In endorsing the "Human Impacts on Climate" statement [issued by the American Geophysical Union], the AAS recognizes the collective expertise of the AGU in scientific subfields central to assessing and understanding global change, and acknowledges the strength of agreement among our AGU colleagues that the global climate is changing and human activities are contributing to that change.

            American Statistical Association

            On November 30, 2007, the American Statistical Association Board of Directors adopted a statement on climate change:

            The ASA endorses the IPCC conclusions.... Over the course of four assessment reports, a small number of statisticians have served as authors or reviewers. Although this involvement is encouraging, it does not represent the full range of statistical expertise available. ASA recommends that more statisticians should become part of the IPCC process. Such participation would be mutually beneficial to the assessment of climate change and its impacts and also to the statistical community.[84]

            Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)

            "Engineers Australia believes that Australia must act swiftly and proactively in line with global expectations to address climate change as an economic, social and environmental risk... We believe that addressing the costs of atmospheric emissions will lead to increasing our competitive advantage by minimising risks and creating new economic opportunities. Engineers Australia believes the Australian Government should ratify the Kyoto Protocol."[85]

            International Association for Great Lakes Research

            In February 2009, the International Association for Great Lakes Research[86] (IAGLR) issued a Fact Sheet on climate change:

            While the Earth’s climate has changed many times during the planet’s history because of natural factors, including volcanic eruptions and changes in the Earth’s orbit, never before have we observed the present rapid rise in temperature and carbon dioxide (CO2).

            Human activities resulting from the industrial revolution have changed the chemical composition of the atmosphere....Deforestation is now the second largest contributor to global warming, after the burning of fossil fuels. These human activities have significantly increased the concentration of “greenhouse gases” in the atmosphere.

            As the Earth’s climate warms, we are seeing many changes: stronger, more destructive hurricanes; heavier rainfall; more disastrous flooding; more areas of the world experiencing severe drought; and more heat waves.[87]

            Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand

            In October 2001, the Institute of Professional Engineers New Zealand[88] (IPENZ) published an Informatory Note entitled "Climate Change and the greenhouse effect":

            Human activities have increased the concentration of these atmospheric greenhouse gases, and although the changes are relatively small, the equilibrium maintained by the atmosphere is delicate, and so the effect of these changes is significant. The world’s most important greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide, a by-product of the burning of fossil fuels. Since the time of the Industrial Revolution about 200 years ago, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased from about 280 parts per million to 370 parts per million, an increase of around 30%.

            On the basis of available data, climate scientists are now projecting an average global temperature rise over this century of 2.0 to 4.5°C. This compared with 0.6°C over the previous century – about a 500% increase... This could lead to changing, and for all emissions scenarios more unpredictable, weather patterns around the world, less frost days, more extreme events (droughts and storm or flood disasters), and warmer sea temperatures and melting glaciers causing sea levels to rise.

            ... Professional engineers commonly deal with risk, and frequently have to make judgments based on incomplete data. The available evidence suggests very strongly that human activities have already begun to make significant changes to the earth’s climate, and that the long-term risk of delaying action is greater than the cost of avoiding/minimising the risk.[89]

            Non-committal statements
            American Association of Petroleum Geologists

            As of June 2007, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (AAPG) Position Statement on climate change stated:

            the AAPG membership is divided on the degree of influence that anthropogenic CO2 has on recent and potential global temperature increases ... Certain climate simulation models predict that the warming trend will continue, as reported through NAS, AGU, AAAS and AMS. AAPG respects these scientific opinions but wants to add that the current climate warming projections could fall within well-documented natural variations in past climate and observed temperature data. These data do not necessarily support the maximum case scenarios forecast in some models.[90]

            Prior to the adoption of this statement, the AAPG was the only major scientific organization that rejected the finding of significant human influence on recent climate, according to a statement by the Council of the American Quaternary Association.[2] Explaining the plan for a revision, AAPG president Lee Billingsly wrote in March 2007:

            Members have threatened to not renew their memberships... if AAPG does not alter its position on global climate change.... And I have been told of members who already have resigned in previous years because of our current global climate change position.... The current policy statement is not supported by a significant number of our members and prospective members.[91]

            AAPG President John Lorenz announced the sunsetting of AAPG’s Global Climate Change Committee in January 2010. The AAPG Executive Committee determined:

            Climate change is peripheral at best to our science…. AAPG does not have credibility in that field…….and as a group we have no particular knowledge of global atmospheric geophysics.[92]

            American Association of State Climatologists

            The Association has no current statement. The previous statement, discussed below, became inoperative in 2008.[93]

            The 2001 statement from the American Association of State Climatologists noted the difficulties with predicting impacts due to climate change, while acknowledging that human activities are having an effect on climate:

            Climate prediction is difficult because it involves complex, nonlinear interactions among all components of the earth’s environmental system.... The AASC recognizes that human activities have an influence on the climate system. Such activities, however, are not limited to greenhouse gas forcing and include changing land use and sulfate emissions, which further complicates the issue of climate prediction. Furthermore, climate predictions have not demonstrated skill in projecting future variability and changes in such important climate conditions as growing season, drought, flood-producing rainfall, heat waves, tropical cyclones and winter storms. These are the type of events that have a more significant impact on society than annual average global temperature trends. Policy responses to climate variability and change should be flexible and sensible – The difficulty of prediction and the impossibility of verification of predictions decades into the future are important factors that allow for competing views of the long-term climate future. Therefore, the AASC recommends that policies related to long-term climate not be based on particular predictions, but instead should focus on policy alternatives that make sense for a wide range of plausible climatic conditions regardless of future climate... Finally, ongoing political debate about global energy policy should not stand in the way of common sense action to reduce societal and environmental vulnerabilities to climate variability and change. Considerable potential exists to improve policies related to climate.[94]

            American Geological Institute

            In 1999, the American Geological Institute (AGI) issued the position statement ‘’Global Climate Change’’:

            The American Geological Institute (AGI) strongly supports education concerning the scientific evidence of past climate change, the potential for future climate change due to the current building of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, and the policy options available.

            Understanding the interactions between the solid Earth, the oceans, the biosphere, and the atmosphere both in the present and over time is critical for accurately analyzing and predicting global climate change due to natural processes and possible human influences.[95]

            American Institute of Professional Geologists

            In 2009, the American Institute of Professional Geologists[96] (AIPG) sent a statement to President Barack Obama and other US government officials:

            The geological professionals in AIPG recognize that climate change is occurring and has the potential to yield catastrophic impacts if humanity is not prepared to address those impacts. It is also recognized that climate change will occur regardless of the cause. The sooner a defensible scientific understanding can be developed, the better equipped humanity will be to develop economically viable and technically effective methods to support the needs of society.[97]

            Concerned that the original statement issued in March 2009 was too ambiguous, AIPG’s National Executive Committee approved a revised position statement issued in January 2010:

            The geological professionals in AIPG recognize that climate change is occurring regardless of cause. AIPG supports continued research into all forces driving climate change.[98]

            In August 2009, the Ohio Section of AIPG submitted a position statement to Senators Brown and Voinovich opposing H.R. 2454, the Markey-Waxman climate bill. The statement professed that “there is no scientific evidence supporting…. the premise that human production of CO2 gas is responsible for ‘global warming’….” The statement went on to challenge the findings of the IPCC and made numerous references to articles published by the Heartland Institute.[99]

            In March 2010, AIPG’s Executive Director issued a statement regarding polarization of opinions on climate change within the membership and announced that the AIPG Executive had made a decision to cease publication of articles and opinion pieces concerning climate change in AIPG’s news journal, The Professional Geologist.[100] The Executive Director noted that “the question of anthropogenicity of climate change is contentious.”[101]
            Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences

            The science of global climate change is still evolving and our understanding of this vital Earth system is not as developed as is the case for other Earth systems such as plate tectonics. What is known with certainty is that regardless of the causes, our global climate will continue to change for the foreseeable future... The level of CO2 in our atmosphere is now greater than at any time in the past 500,000 years; there will be consequences for our global climate and natural systems as a result.[102]

            Geological Society of Australia

            In July 2009, the Geological Society of Australia issued the position statement Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change:

            Human activities have increasing impact on Earth’s environments. Of particular concern are the well-documented loading of carbon dioxide (CO2) to the atmosphere, which has been linked unequivocally to burning of fossil fuels, and the corresponding increase in average global temperature. Risks associated with these large-scale perturbations of the Earth’s fundamental life-support systems include rising sea level, harmful shifts in the acid balance of the oceans and long-term changes in local and regional climate and extreme weather events.

            GSA therefore recommends…strong action be taken at all levels, including government, industry, and individuals to substantially reduce the current levels of greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the likely social and environmental effects of increasing atmospheric CO2.[103]

            In 2011 the position statement was withdrawn because members contended that they were not consulted by the society's executive in its content and had no approval for its release.The society in 2011 was canvassing members to decide its future stance on this issue.[

            This page was last modified on 27 September 2011 at 06:20.

            Hmmmmm, I guess Ed's work in the clouds (and in climatology), is only secretly considered by the intelligentsia.

            HTC, you, and your opinion regarding AGW, are up against a fairly substantial (world wide) consortium of scientists from a very large faction of the scientific community, good luck with that, and keep beating that "were all gonna die" drum.

            Reb

             
          • Rebel Rouser posted at 12:48 pm on Thu, Sep 29, 2011.

            Rebel Rouser Posts: 1561

            Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.[35]

            Australian Institute of Physics

            In 2005, the Australian Institute of Physics (AIP)[36] issued a science policy document in which they stated:

            Policy: The AIP supports a reduction of the green house gas emissions that are leading to increased global temperatures, and encourages research that works towards this goal.

            Reason: Research in Australia and overseas shows that an increase in global temperature will adversely affect the Earth’s climate patterns. The melting of the polar ice caps, combined with thermal expansion, will lead to rises in sea levels that may impact adversely on our coastal cities. The impact of these changes on biodiversity will fundamentally change the ecology of Earth.[37]

            European Physical Society

            In 2007, the European Physical Society issued a position paper regarding energy:

            The emission of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, among which carbon dioxide is the main contributor, has amplified the natural greenhouse effect and led to global warming. The main contribution stems from burning fossil fuels. A further increase will have decisive effects on life on earth. An energy cycle with the lowest possible CO2 emission is called for wherever possible to combat climate change.[38]

            European Science Foundation

            In 2007, the European Science Foundation issued a Position Paper on climate change:

            There is now convincing evidence that since the industrial revolution, human activities, resulting in increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases have become a major agent of climate change. These greenhouse gases affect the global climate by retaining heat in the troposphere, thus raising the average temperature of the planet and altering global atmospheric circulation and precipitation patterns.

            While on-going national and international actions to curtail and reduce greenhouse gas emissions are essential, the levels of greenhouse gases currently in the atmosphere, and their impact, are likely to persist for several decades. On-going and increased efforts to mitigate climate change through reduction in greenhouse gases are therefore crucial.[39]

            Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies

            In 2008, the Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies issued a policy statement on climate change:

            Global climate change is real and measurable. Since the start of the 20th century, the global mean surface temperature of the Earth has increased by more than 0.7°C and the rate of warming has been largest in the last 30 years.

            Key vulnerabilities arising from climate change include water resources, food supply, health, coastal settlements, biodiversity and some key ecosystems such as coral reefs and alpine regions. As the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases increases, impacts become more severe and widespread. To reduce the global net economic, environmental and social losses in the face of these impacts, the policy objective must remain squarely focused on returning greenhouse gas concentrations to near pre-industrial levels through the reduction of emissions.

            The spatial and temporal fingerprint of warming can be traced to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, which are a direct result of burning fossil fuels, broad-scale deforestation and other human activity.[40]

            Earth sciences
            American Geophysical Union

            The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement,[41] adopted by the society in 2003 and revised in 2007, affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases have caused and will continue to cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:

            The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century. Global average surface temperatures increased on average by about 0.6°C over the period 1956–2006. As of 2006, eleven of the previous twelve years were warmer than any others since 1850. The observed rapid retreat of Arctic sea ice is expected to continue and lead to the disappearance of summertime ice within this century. Evidence from most oceans and all continents except Antarctica shows warming attributable to human activities. Recent changes in many physical and biological systems are linked with this regional climate change. A sustained research effort, involving many AGU members and summarized in the 2007 assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, continues to improve our scientific understanding of the climate.

            American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America

            In May, 2011, the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America issued a joint position statement on climate change as it relates to agriculture:

            A comprehensive body of scientific evidence indicates beyond reasonable doubt that global climate change is now occurring and that its manifestations threaten the stability of societies as well as natural and managed ecosystems. Increases in ambient temperatures and changes in related processes are directly linked to rising anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere.

            Unless the emissions of GHGs are curbed significantly, their concentrations will continue to rise, leading to changes in temperature, precipitation, and other climate variables that will undoubtedly affect agriculture around the world.

            Climate change has the potential to increase weather variability as well as gradually increase global temperatures. Both of these impacts have the potential to negatively impact the adaptability and resilience of the world’s food production capacity; current research indicates climate change is already reducing the productivity of vulnerable cropping systems.[42]

            European Federation of Geologists

            In 2008, the European Federation of Geologists[43](EFG) issued the position paper Carbon Capture and geological Storage :

            The EFG recognizes the work of the IPCC and other organizations, and subscribes to the major findings that climate change is happening, is predominantly caused by anthropogenic emissions of CO2, and poses a significant threat to human civilization.

            It is clear that major efforts are necessary to quickly and strongly reduce CO2 emissions. The EFG strongly advocates renewable and sustainable energy production, including geothermal energy, as well as the need for increasing energy efficiency.

            CCS [Carbon Capture and geological Storage] should also be regarded as a bridging technology, facilitating the move towards a carbon free economy.[44]

            European Geosciences Union

            In 2005, the Divisions of Atmospheric and Climate Sciences of the European Geo-sciences Union (EGU) issued a position statement in support of the joint science academies’ statement on global response to climate change. The statement refers to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), as "the main representative of the global scientific community", and asserts that the IPCC

            represents the state-of-the-art of climate science supported by the major science academies around the world and by the vast majority of science researchers and investigators as documented by the peer-reviewed scientific literature.[45]

            Additionally, in 2008, the EGU issued a position statement on ocean acidification which states, "Ocean acidification is already occurring today and will continue to intensify, closely tracking atmospheric CO2 increase. Given the potential threat to marine ecosystems and its ensuing impact on human society and economy, especially as it acts in conjunction with anthropogenic global warming, there is an urgent need for immediate action." The statement then advocates for strategies "to limit future release of CO2 to the atmosphere and/or enhance removal of excess CO2 from the atmosphere."[46]
            Geological Society of America

            In 2006, the Geological Society of America adopted a position statement on global climate change. It amended this position on April 20, 2010 with more explicit comments on need for CO2 reduction.

            Decades of scientific research have shown that climate can change from both natural and anthropogenic causes. The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s. If current trends continue, the projected increase in global temperature by the end of the twenty first century will result in large impacts on humans and other species. Addressing the challenges posed by climate change will require a combination of adaptation to the changes that are likely to occur and global reductions of CO2 emissions from anthropogenic sources.[47]

            Geological Society of London

            In November 2010, the Geological Society of London issued the position statement Climate change: evidence from the geological record:

            The last century has seen a rapidly growing global population and much more intensive use of resources, leading to greatly increased emissions of gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, from the burning of fossil fuels (oil, gas and coal), and from agriculture, cement production and deforestation. Evidence from the geological record is consistent with the physics that shows that adding large amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere warms the world and may lead to: higher sea levels and flooding of low-lying coasts; greatly changed patterns of rainfall; increased acidity of the oceans; and decreased oxygen levels in seawater.

            There is now widespread concern that the Earth’s climate will warm further, not only because of the lingering effects of the added carbon already in the system, but also because of further additions as human population continues to grow. Life on Earth has survived large climate changes in the past, but extinctions and major redistribution of species have been associated with many of them. When the human population was small and nomadic, a rise in sea level of a few metres would have had very little effect on mankind. With the current and growing global population, much of which is concentrated in coastal cities, such a rise in sea level would have a drastic effect on our complex society, especially if the climate were to change as suddenly as it has at times in the past. Equally, it seems likely that as warming continues some areas may experience less precipitation leading to drought. With both rising seas and increasing drought, pressure for human migration could result on a large scale.[48]

            International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics

            In July 2007, the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics (IUGG) adopted a resolution titled “The Urgency of Addressing Climate Change”. In it, the IUGG concurs with the “comprehensive and widely accepted and endorsed scientific assessments carried out by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and regional and national bodies, which have firmly established, on the basis of scientific evidence, that human activities are the primary cause of recent climate change.” They state further that the “continuing reliance on combustion of fossil fuels as the world’s primary source of energy will lead to much higher atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gasses, which will, in turn, cause significant increases in surface temperature, sea level, ocean acidification, and their related consequences to the environment and society.”[49]
            National Association of Geoscience Teachers

            In July 2009, the National Association of Geoscience Teachers[50] (NAGT) adopted a position statement on climate change in which they assert that "Earth's climate is changing [and] "that present warming trends are largely the result of human activities":

            NAGT strongly supports and will work to promote education in the science of climate change, the causes and effects of current global warming, and the immediate need for policies and actions that reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.[51]

            Meteorology and oceanography
            American Meteorological Society

            The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their council in 2003 said:

            There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved projections of long-term climate change... Human activities have become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant impacts on our natural and societal systems.[52]

            Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

            The Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society has issued a Statement on Climate Change, wherein they conclude:

            Global climate change and global warming are real and observable ... It is highly likely that those human activities that have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have been largely responsible for the observed warming since 1950. The warming associated with increases in greenhouse gases originating from human activity is called the enhanced greenhouse effect. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased by more than 30% since the start of the industrial age and is higher now than at any time in at least the past 650,000 years. This increase is a direct result of burning fossil fuels, broad-scale deforestation and other human activity.”[53]

            Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences

            In November 2005, the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences (CFCAS) issued a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada stating that

            We concur with the climate science assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001 ... We endorse the conclusions of the IPCC assessment that 'There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities'. ... There is increasingly unambiguous evidence of changing climate in Canada and around the world. There will be increasing impacts of climate change on Canada’s natural ecosystems and on our socio-economic activities. Advances in climate science since the 2001 IPCC Assessment have provided more evidence supporting the need for action and development of a strategy for adaptation to projected changes.[54]

            Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

            In November 2009, a letter to the Canadian Parliament by The Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society states:

            Rigorous international research, including work carried out and supported by the Government of Canada, reveals that greenhouse gases resulting from human activities contribute to the warming of the atmosphere and the oceans and constitute a serious risk to the health and safety of our society, as well as having an impact on all life.[55]

            Royal Meteorological Society (UK)

            In February 2007, after the release of the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, the Royal Meteorological Society issued an endorsement of the report. In addition to referring to the IPCC as “world’s best climate scientists”, they stated that climate change is happening as “the result of emissions since industrialization and we have already set in motion the next 50 years of global warming – what we do from now on will determine how worse it will get.”[56]
            World Meteorological Organization

            In its Statement at the Twelfth Session of the Conference of the Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change presented on November 15, 2006, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) confirms the need to “prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” The WMO concurs that “scientific assessments have increasingly reaffirmed that human activities are indeed changing the composition of the atmosphere, in particular through the burning of fossil fuels for energy production and transportation.” The WMO concurs that “the present atmospheric concentration of CO2 was never exceeded over the past 420,000 years;” and that the IPCC “assessments provide the most authoritative, up-to-date scientific advice.” [57]

            Continued:

             
          • Rebel Rouser posted at 12:37 pm on Thu, Sep 29, 2011.

            Rebel Rouser Posts: 1561

            I found it rather interesting that Ed X's name is not even mentioned here:

            Scientific opinion on climate change is given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarized in these high level reports and surveys. Self-selected lists of individuals' opinions, such as petitions, are not normally considered to be part of the scientific process.

            National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:

            An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[1]

            No scientific body of national or international standing has maintained a dissenting opinion; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[2][3] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions.

            Synthesis reports

            Synthesis reports are assessments of scientific literature that compile the results of a range of stand-alone studies in order to achieve a broad level of understanding, or to describe the state of knowledge of a given subject.[4]
            Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007
            Main article: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

            In February 2007, the IPCC released a summary of the forthcoming Fourth Assessment Report. According to this summary, the Fourth Assessment Report finds that human actions are "very likely" the cause of global warming, meaning a 90% or greater probability. Global warming in this case is indicated by an increase of 0.75 degrees in average global temperatures over the last 100 years.[5]

            The New York Times reported that “the leading international network of climate scientists has concluded for the first time that global warming is 'unequivocal' and that human activity is the main driver, very likely' causing most of the rise in temperatures since 1950”.[6]

            A retired journalist for The New York Times, William K. Stevens wrote: “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said the likelihood was 90 percent to 99 percent that emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide, spewed from tailpipes and smokestacks, were the dominant cause of the observed warming of the last 50 years. In the panel’s parlance, this level of certainty is labeled 'very likely'. Only rarely does scientific odds-making provide a more definite answer than that, at least in this branch of science, and it describes the endpoint, so far, of a progression.”.[7]

            The Associated Press summarized the position on sea level rise:

            On sea levels, the report projects rises of 7 to 23 inches by the end of the century. An additional 3.9 to 7.8 inches are possible if recent, surprising melting of polar ice sheets continues.[8]

            U.S. Global Change Research Program

            formerly the Climate Change Science Program

            The U.S. Global Change Research Program reported in June, 2009[9] that:

            Observations show that warming of the climate is unequivocal. The global warming observed over the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and gas), with important contributions from the clearing of forests, agricultural practices, and other activities.

            The report, which is about the effects that climate change is having in the United States, also says:

            Climate-related changes have already been observed globally and in the United States. These include increases in air and water temperatures, reduced frost days, increased frequency and intensity of heavy downpours, a rise in sea level, and reduced snow cover, glaciers, permafrost, and sea ice. A longer ice-free period on lakes and rivers, lengthening of the growing season, and increased water vapor in the atmosphere have also been observed. Over the past 30 years, temperatures have risen faster in winter than in any other season, with average winter temperatures in the Midwest and northern Great Plains increasing more than 7°F. Some of the changes have been faster than previous assessments had suggested.

            Arctic Climate Impact Assessment

            In 2004, the intergovernmental Arctic Council and the non-governmental International Arctic Science Committee released the synthesis report of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment:[10]

            Climate conditions in the past provide evidence that rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are associated with rising global temperatures. Human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas), and secondarily the clearing of land, have increased the concentration of carbon dioxide, methane, and other heat-trapping ("greenhouse") gases in the atmosphere...There is international scientific consensus that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[11]

            Statements by organizations

            This list of scientific bodies of national or international standing, that have issued formal statements of opinion, classifies those organizations according to whether they concur with the IPCC view, are non-committal, or dissent from it.
            Statements by concurring organizations
            Academies of Science
            Joint science academies' statements

            Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The signatories of these statements have been the national science academies:

            of Australia,
            of Belgium,
            of Brazil,
            of Cameroon,
            Royal Society of Canada,
            of the Caribbean,
            of China,
            Institut de France,
            of Ghana,
            Leopoldina of Germany,
            of Indonesia,
            of Ireland,
            Accademia nazionale delle scienze of Italy,
            of India,
            of Japan,
            of Kenya,
            of Madagascar,
            of Malaysia,
            of Mexico,
            of Nigeria,
            Royal Society of New Zealand,
            Russian Academy of Sciences,
            of Senegal,
            of South Africa,
            of Sudan,
            Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences,
            of Tanzania,
            of Turkey,
            of Uganda,
            The Royal Society of the United Kingdom,
            of the United States,
            of Zambia,
            and of Zimbabwe.

            2001-Following the publication of the IPCC Third Assessment Report, seventeen national science academies issued a joint statement, entitled "The Science of Climate Change", explicitly acknowledging the IPCC position as representing the scientific consensus on climate change science. The statement, printed in an editorial in the journal Science on May 18, 2001,[12] was signed by the science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, Turkey, and the United Kingdom.[13]

            2005-The national science academies of the G8 nations, plus Brazil, China and India, three of the largest emitters of greenhouse gases in the developing world, signed a statement on the global response to climate change. The statement stresses that the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action,[14] and explicitly endorsed the IPCC consensus. The eleven signatories were the science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

            2007-In preparation for the 33rd G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration referencing the position of the 2005 joint science academies' statement, and acknowledging the confirmation of their previous conclusion by recent research. Following the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, the declaration states, "It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken."[15] The thirteen signatories were the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Italy, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

            2008-In preparation for the 34th G8 summit, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a declaration reiterating the position of the 2005 joint science academies’ statement, and reaffirming “that climate change is happening and that anthropogenic warming is influencing many physical and biological systems.” Among other actions, the declaration urges all nations to “(t)ake appropriate economic and policy measures to accelerate transition to a low carbon society and to encourage and effect changes in individual and national behaviour.”[16] The thirteen signatories were the same national science academies that issued the 2007 joint statement.

            2009-In advance of the UNFCCC negotiations to be held in Copenhagen in December 2009, the national science academies of the G8+5 nations issued a joint statement declaring, "Climate change and sustainable energy supply are crucial challenges for the future of humanity. It is essential that world leaders agree on the emission reductions needed to combat negative consequences of anthropogenic climate change". The statement references the IPCC's Fourth Assessment of 2007, and asserts that "climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated; global CO2 emissions since 2000 have been higher than even the highest predictions, Arctic sea ice has been melting at rates much faster than predicted, and the rise in the sea level has become more rapid."[17] The thirteen signatories were the same national science academies that issued the 2007 and 2008 joint statements.

            InterAcademy Council

            As the representative of the world’s scientific and engineering academies,[18][19] the InterAcademy Council (IAC) issued a report in 2007 titled Lighting the Way: Toward a Sustainable Energy Future.

            Current patterns of energy resources and energy usage are proving detrimental to the long-term welfare of humanity. The integrity of essential natural systems is already at risk from climate change caused by the atmospheric emissions of greenhouse gases.[20]

            Concerted efforts should be mounted for improving energy efficiency and reducing the carbon intensity of the world economy.[21]

            European Academy of Sciences and Arts

            In 2007, the European Academy of Sciences and Arts issued a formal declaration on climate change titled Let's Be Honest:

            Human activity is most likely responsible for climate warming. Most of the climatic warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been caused by increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Documented long-term climate changes include changes in Arctic temperatures and ice, widespread changes in precipitation amounts, ocean salinity, wind patterns and extreme weather including droughts, heavy precipitation, heat waves and the intensity of tropical cyclones. The above development potentially has dramatic consequences for mankind’s future.[22]

            International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences

            In 2007, the International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences (CAETS) issued a Statement on Environment and Sustainable Growth:[23]

            As reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), most of the observed global warming since the mid-20th century is very likely due to human-produced emission of greenhouse gases and this warming will continue unabated if present anthropogenic emissions continue or, worse, expand without control.

            CAETS, therefore, endorses the many recent calls to decrease and control greenhouse gas emissions to an acceptable level as quickly as possible.

            Network of African Science Academies

            In 2007, the Network of African Science Academies submitted a joint “statement on sustainability, energy efficiency, and climate change” to the leaders meeting at the G8 Summit in Heiligendamm, Germany:

            A consensus, based on current evidence, now exists within the global scientific community that human activities are the main source of climate change and that the burning of fossil fuels is largely responsible for driving this change.

            The IPCC should be congratulated for the contribution it has made to public understanding of the nexus that exists between energy, climate and sustainability.[24]

            The thirteen signatories were the science academies of Cameroon, Ghana, Kenya, Madagascar, Nigeria, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, Zambia, Zimbabwe, as well as the African Academy of Sciences.
            Royal Society of New Zealand

            Having signed onto the first joint science academies' statement in 2001, the Royal Society of New Zealand released a separate statement in 2008 in order to clear up "the controversy over climate change and its causes, and possible confusion among the public":

            The globe is warming because of increasing greenhouse gas emissions. Measurements show that greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are well above levels seen for many thousands of years. Further global climate changes are predicted, with impacts expected to become more costly as time progresses. Reducing future impacts of climate change will require substantial reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.[25]

            Royal Society of the United Kingdom

            The Royal Society of the United Kingdom has not changed its concurring stance. According to the Telegraph, "The most prestigious group of scientists in the country was forced to act after forty-three fellows complained that 'uncertainty in the debate' over man made global warming were not being communicated to the public."[26] In May 2010, it announced that it "is presently drafting a new public facing document on climate change, to provide an updated status report on the science in an easily accessible form, also addressing the levels of certainty of key components."[27] The society says that it is three years since the last such document was published and that, after an extensive process of debate and review,[28][29] the new document was printed in September 2010. It summarises the current scientific evidence and highlights the areas where the science is well established, where there is still some debate, and where substantial uncertainties remain. The society has stated that "this is not the same as saying that the climate science itself is in error – no Fellows have expressed such a view to the RS".[27] The introduction includes this statement:

            There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes in land use, including agriculture and deforestation.

            Polish Academy of Sciences

            In December 2007, the General Assembly of the Polish Academy of Sciences (PAN) issued a statement endorsing the IPCC conclusions, and states:

            it is the duty of Polish science and the national government to, in a thoughtful, organized and active manner, become involved in realisation of these ideas.

            Problems of global warming, climate change, and their various negative impacts on human life and on the functioning of entire societies are one of the most dramatic challenges of modern times.

            PAS General Assembly calls on the national scientific communities and the national government to actively support Polish participation in this important endeavor.[30]

            National Research Council (US)

            In 2001, the Committee on the Science of Climate Change of the National Research Council published Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions.[31] This report explicitly endorses the IPCC view of attribution of recent climate change as representing the view of the scientific community:

            The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century... The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue.[31]

            General science
            American Association for the Advancement of Science

            As the world's largest general scientific society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science adopted an official statement on climate change in 2006:

            The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society....The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.[32]

            American Chemical Society

            The American Chemical Society stated:

            Careful and comprehensive scientific assessments have clearly demonstrated that the Earth’s climate system is changing rapidly in response to growing atmospheric burdens of greenhouse gases and absorbing aerosol particles (IPCC, 2007). There is very little room for doubt that observed climate trends are due to human activities. The threats are serious and action is urgently needed to mitigate the risks of climate change.

            The reality of global warming, its current serious and potentially disastrous impacts on Earth system properties, and the key role emissions from human activities play in driving these phenomena have been recognized by earlier versions of this ACS policy statement (ACS, 2004), by other major scientific societies, including the American Geophysical Union (AGU, 2003), the American Meteorological Society (AMS, 2007) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS, 2007), and by the U. S. National Academies and ten other leading national academies of science (NA, 2005).[33]

            American Institute of Physics

            The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics endorsed the AGU statement on human-induced climate change:[34]

            The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics has endorsed a position statement on climate change adopted by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Council in December 2003.

            American Physical Society

            In November 2007, the American Physical Society (APS) adopted an official statement on climate change:

            Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

            The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

            Continued:

             
          • Bronco posted at 11:46 am on Thu, Sep 29, 2011.

            Bronco Posts: 4328

            HTC, all your AGW theories, your BP-huge-profit-soon-after-an-$18-billion-spill-cleanup excuses, etc, merely reinforce that you are a corporate shill. A mouthpiece for what is really destroying America. Would that be treason?

             
          • chamomile posted at 10:20 am on Thu, Sep 29, 2011.

            chamomile Posts: 11

            Wow. Leave the board and look what happens. Give a stay-at-home mom some time! Naptime isn't too far away for a toddler cutting molars!
            Sorry if you feel like your comments were lost one me... I do appreciate them and your perspective and will get back. :) peace.
            Happy to see that I'm not the only one around here who believes and knows what they know.
            'don't need no weatherman...' there's a quote i can be pretty sure of. :)

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 10:17 am on Thu, Sep 29, 2011.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9879

            Bronco: (Here's where you tell us another excuse for this coincidence. Oh, and don't forget to insult my intelligence.)

            HTC: I'll let your buddy Rob123 explain it to you; however, consider yourself forewarned that the market dynamics that he'll get into will likely be a bit difficult for you to follow, with so many variables at play including speculators, currency issues and even global political and weather events.

            And since he's "in the oil business", you should probably ask him. I'm sure he'd seek you out if he had any publishing questions.

             
          • Bronco posted at 10:04 am on Thu, Sep 29, 2011.

            Bronco Posts: 4328

            HTC: If you'll refresh your memory, you'll recall that BP has paid for eveything thus far.
            ---------------------------------
            Besides personally insulting everyone you disagree with, you are such a corporate shill.

            Gas prices before the Gulf oil spill: (Nat'l avg.) $2.80

            BP reported a $1.7 billion profit four months after the spill. At that time gas was up to $3.20/gal. It rose to $4.20 on the 1-year anniversary of the spill. Now it's around $3.60 avg.

            Here in Hawaii it is $4.15/gal.

            (Here's where you tell us another excuse for this coincidence. Oh, and don't forget to insult my intelligence.)

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 10:04 am on Thu, Sep 29, 2011.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9879

            Rob123: I am curious how the firm Constitutionalists in this 2 cent discussion see such things as the Planning Board, from the article on the front page of the DIL......:

            HTC: From a Constitutional standpoint, these kinds of planning activities make me nervous for a number of reasons:

            (1) The term "blight" is almost always used to justify these TIF Districts and blight, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. I've seen lots of abuse of this word by government agencies, including seeing tens of acres of bare land without any structures or trash of any kind deemed "blighted." SCOTUS has previously ruled that "blight", to meet Constitutional requirements, must represent a real threat to public safety or health. Rarely, however, is that the case in practice.

            (2) TIF Districts are formed by ordinance rather than being submitted for approval only by the stakeholders to be taxed. That's just plain wrong. If you don't have skin in the game, you shouldn't get to play.

            (3) Unspent TIF funds left over after the sunset of the district (this happens a lot) are normally added to the general fund, thus providing benefit to those who never paid the tax associated with the district. That's just plain wrong.

            (4) TIFs were supposed to encourage business development but are now frequently used for many things which aren't the domain of government such as providing "affordable housing."

            (5) Frequently the monies are spent quite differently than what was discussed during the public hearing process, leaving those within the district's boundaries no recourse after the fact.

            TIFs have become a great way for little progressive Hitlers in government to remold their towns and cities as they see fit and often fail to produce the increases in property values that they promise. TIFs have frequently put people out of business and then failed to draw in the new businesses that they promised.

            Since bureaucrats rarely do a good job at anything, why would we want them "improving" our neighborhoods?

             
          • Bronco posted at 9:47 am on Thu, Sep 29, 2011.

            Bronco Posts: 4328

            Rick Perry speaks out:

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhDhDRvHaGs&feature=youtu.be&a

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 9:05 am on Thu, Sep 29, 2011.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9879

            kohana: Gov. Chris Christie for President?

            HTC: I hope he really means it when he keeps insisting that he won't run for the GOP presidential nomination.

            While I generally like his fiscal positions, Christie does believe in AGW and believes that current efforts to curb emissions aren't effective and that we need to step up efforts to curb CO2 emissions. This is a top-tier issue in international as well as national politics and we can't afford to stack the deck with leaders who can't grasp basic science and the fact that AGW is a hoax perpetrated by a minority of scientists in cahoots with politicians that want one-world government.

            I do find it amusing, however, that the Huffington Post and other progressive websites insist that Christie is an AGW denier even though they can't quote him to that effect.

            Such is life in the confused world of the progressive....

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 8:58 am on Thu, Sep 29, 2011.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9879

            Listen up, medical marijuana users: The BATF says that you can't legally buy guns unless you lie to the dealer (a felony). FFL holders are now supposed to check to see if you're registered with the state as a card holder.

            Ain't all this federal government stuff grand?

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 7:42 am on Thu, Sep 29, 2011.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9879

            Thought kibble for the day for you AGW alarmists:

            Few scientists or historians dispute that the human condition suffered dramatically from the cooling climate of the Little Ice Age, which lasted from approximately 1300 to 1900 A.D. After human civilization flourished during the beneficial climate of the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age brought rampant crop failures, famine, plagues, extreme weather, and human suffering.

            Even the Medieval Warm Period, during which the Vikings established settlements in portions of Greenland that are currently buried under longstanding snow and ice, was relatively cool compared to the Holocene Climate Optimum, which prevailed from approximately 9,000 to 5,000 B.C. It is called the Holocene Climate Optimum for a reason, as the warm temperatures greatly benefited human beings and facilitated the rise of human civilization.

            Indeed, temperature data reconstructed from Greenland ice cores show that 9,000 of the past 10,500 years were warmer than the current “hottest decade on record.” Human civilization fared remarkably well during those 9,000 years, with the intermittent cold spells being the periods of climatic trouble.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 7:28 am on Thu, Sep 29, 2011.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9879

            Sam Adams posted at 3:16 pm on Wed, Sep 28, 2011

            HTC: Thanks for the kind words.

            I don't do it for them - we both know they're hopeless. You can't help the mentally defective.

            I do it for the many more who silently read these threads with an open mind and a desire for the truth. We often forget they are there, but they are. I've received some offline thanks from people who've figured out who I am, so I know I'm having some effect.

            There's just too much at stake for me to remain silent.

             
          • Rob123 posted at 2:55 am on Thu, Sep 29, 2011.

            Rob123 Posts: 6569

            I am curious how the firm Constitutionalists in this 2 cent discussion see such things as the Planning Board, from the article on the front page of the DIL......:

            "Board wants bigger renewal area"

            "Planning Board members also voted to recommend adding a number of goals to combat blight in the proposed expansion area.
            Those goals, which were put forward by city planning staff, include:
            Implementing a program to remove the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks and help relocate the two businesses that use them.
            Working to reopen closed street crossings along the tracks, plan additional street extensions to landlocked properties and construct a bike path connection from Seventh Avenue East North to Woodland Drive.
            Improving pedestrian and bike access throughout the area and targeting programs to install, repair and upgrade sidewalks and trails.
            Encouraging and helping the fairgrounds improve its outward appearance and internal facilities and transform the property into a year-round event center that acknowledges residential areas to the east.
            Implementing a program to replace water and sewer lines more than 50 years old.
            Working with property owners to remove deteriorated and unsafe structures and prepare properties for redevelopment through the creation of a loan or grant program.
            Maintaining a viable city program to help property owners assess, clean up and redevelop Brownfield sites."

             
          • kohana posted at 6:06 pm on Wed, Sep 28, 2011.

            kohana Posts: 2109

            ·

            ·
            Gov. Christ Christie for President?

            comment from joaneofoak, re-article about Gov. Christie.
            ·
            Christie would be sooooo much fun. With him on that stage the debates would probably out rate Monday Night Football. But on a serious note, I would fear for his health. Just look at the strain it takes on anyone that is elected Pres.

            This must be making Perry scratch his head and wondering how everything has gone wrong. Call Hillary, Mr Perry, she can explain it to you. He was the belle of the ball even before Obama announced his candidacy.

            I think maybe we have hit upon a way to help spur the economy, though. If we have a new front runner every couple of months, the big money will have to keep throwing money at the latest and greatest in an effort to keep him/her THEIR candidate. With so much spending by those guys we may finally see some of that trickle down effect.

            But catpoe, don't you feel sorry for Mr Cain, that it didn't work out for him. After winning the straw poll, he must have had his hands out just waiting for them to ring his door bell. But, sir, did you really think they were going to be knocking on your door? Did you not see those signs they were carrrying?

            http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/ad-lib/2011/sep/28/gov-christie-breaks-gops-heart/

             
          • Sam Adams posted at 3:16 pm on Wed, Sep 28, 2011.

            Sam Adams Posts: 81

            HTC, you display way too much patience when dealing with these postmodernist liberals: At 10:03 this morning, you wrote almost 100 lines in brilliant exegesis detailing the errors of chamomile's left wing talking points and fallacious arguments. The problem we face is that a postmodernist like chamomile doesn't believe the stuff that she writes in the first place. Her post is nothing more than a hodgepodge of talking points and fallacies intended to discredit Frank's column. She writes to destroy, not engage in meaningful conversation. In all likelihood, she will not acknowledge the errors in her thinking... if pressed, she will simply progress to vitriol and finally to ad-hominem attacks. I have found that there is no way to engage the postmodernist in meaningful debate: It is like trying to play dodgeball with a person who refuses to stay in the circle while at the same time, insisting that you do.

             
          • who new posted at 3:02 pm on Wed, Sep 28, 2011.

            who new Posts: 367

            Ed Berry may be brilliant, but he may also be somewhat tetched, as was evidenced when he asked the candidates at a forum in the last election for Flathead county sheriff about what they thought the impact would be on local law enforcement authority by China’s influence on the world economy.

            The candidates were all pretty good talkers, but they sure had a loss of words after that question.

            Also, there seems to be a side of Ed that enjoys getting people riled up inappropriately. He said this when he ran for the FVCC trustee position -

            “The present board of trustees appears to be incestuous, which is to be expected when the general public does not openly compete with incumbents.”

            Perhaps the use of the word “incestuous” conforms to its strict meaning in this context, but it can be offensive to certain people, including those involved in involuntary incestuous relationships.

            Ed is a smart guy with a troubling side to him.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 1:17 pm on Wed, Sep 28, 2011.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9879

            Rebel Rouser: It is truly sad that a man with so much potential ended up being a conservative, right wing, fear mongering, Pygmy, Kook. Just like you H, except you’re not as smart. I was at Steve Running’s seminar at FVCC....

            HTC: So, you apparently prefer the opinions of Steven Running, a man who is a forestry conservationist and ecologist and has no credentials whatsoever in the fields of meteorology, climatology, atmospheric physics or solar physics.

            Running, like the majority of the scientific signatories to the various IPCC reports, is not a scientist who is qualified to determine the cause of our current global warming but only to document various aspects of its effects upon life on this planet.

            The fact that he does not disqualify himself from the debate says much about his lack of professional integrity. He, like many others, has profited from his willingness to fill in for the real experts who refuse to prostitute themselves for a political cause.

            Your inability to determine the qualifications or lack of same of those who choose to endorse a particular position says volumes about your lack of discernment and critical judgment.

            If you don't like Dr. Berry, so be it, but you've got a long list of thousands of other distinguished scientists, many of whom are Nobel Laureates, and who actually are atmospheric physicists, climatologists and solar physicists that you'll have to dismiss out of hand as well.

            I have previously shared with you and the others on this site the names of many of those esteemed scientists as well as provided links to their works, but you have obviously chosen not to honestly investigate those sources. That lack of honest investigation, in concert with your willingness to immediately dismiss them and their huge volumes of real science, definitely disqualifies you as someone possessing real intellect.

            I should think the word "buffoon" applies here.

            I would be willing to abandon you to your foolishness if it were not for the fact that you and those like you insist on forcing the rest of us to submit to the quality of life and economy-wrecking draconian measures that you stupidly think are necessary to save us all.

            That insistence makes you a deadly buffoon and my mortal enemy and that of free men everywhere.

            Rebel Rouser: All of my “Liberal” friends are continuing to spend money, creating projects, and helping our economy grow, while ALL of my conservative friends won’t spend a nickel, while openly hoping Obama fails as President.

            HTC: What a coincidence! All of my conservative friends and I are doing the same thing, albeit with some different considerations in mind.

            But they don't want Obama to fail as President, as you claim they do; in fact, they hope that he will quickly adopt the job-creating and economy-growing policies that are proven to work, in place of the failed policies which he continues to pursue.

            Many have told me that if he were to do so and to promise to continue those policies into his second term, they would vote for him.

            But we all know that won't happen because he's playing to the entitlement-sucking, non-producing segment of the electorate which is the Democrat's core constituency. Do what's right for the country rather than what those parasites want is the furthest thing from his mind.

            Rebel Rouser: The end is near. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!

            HTC: No, that's "your end is near and about to devour your head."

             
          • chamomile posted at 12:41 pm on Wed, Sep 28, 2011.

            chamomile Posts: 11

            Frank: Thank for your welcome. I apologize for not prefacing my comment with a bit of introduction; although isn't it kind of sad that when engaging in discourse, one need make disclaimers and renunciations? However, I do understand where that would be beneficial in this particular context.
            As to which particular style of government I support, I am hesitant to use the term "Constitutional Republic." I will try to explain by saying that while in it's actual definition, it's sensible enough: that is, in an environment where the Constitution is being sensibly read and interpreted within correct historical context. I'm afraid there isn't a whole lot of that happening these days.
            Forgive me if I decline to answer there, but it's only logical in an environment where Socialists are mislabeled as "Fascists" and Communist actually means "Anarchist."
            I am very much against violence/violent overthrow of the government. I do believe in the right to peaceable assembly; and think it would be nice if it took place without police provocation or violent infiltration. The Tea Party rallies are a good example of this. Maybe it was because many of them were exercising their second amendment rights that police didn't corral their women in mesh and casually douse them in pepper spray. Here it is can be seen in slow motion:
            http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/27/occupy-wall-street-reconstruct-pepper-spray

            (ABC featured an edited version where the pepper spraying was not shown; that the resulting information was 'misleading' is an understatement. )

            I am not Communist or Socialist or National Socialist or Fascist, nor do I know any personally, let alone support them. I did study history at a reputable university, with merit; therefore I think I can honestly say I have more than a vague understanding of these concepts; but I would never consider myself to be a "Constitutional expert" ... then again, my seventeen year old daughter has a better handle on the subject than certain self-proclaimed 'experts'; all thanks to her public education, mandatory high school Government class; that and her own desire to learn.

            I think "V for Vendetta" is a dumb movie, but I can understand the sentiment and relevancy.

            I'm just very confused by your sense of reality. Can ask who these devilish leaders of the poor and working class might be? Because from where I'm at, social programs and safety networks are on the chopping block; while certain banks (right here on the page) are hedging bets, raking it in, and working extra hard on their PR. (They certainly aren't selling me anything.)
            Then again, you might be right: if the tea-party gets it in their heads that they are actually the "poor and working class." If any of them ever have to stand in the welfare line or visit the food bank, then I believe you, they will be talking about a (violent) revolution. I'd like to be as far away from them and that day as possible. Maybe should be grateful for the great delusion they are under. At present, I'd have to argue that the "devilish arrangement" is between the plutocratic banks, the energy corporations and the bought and paid for media and politicians: they have you convinced it is the poor and working class you should fear, while they hold all the power and one might add, the money and resources.
            In this light, maybe we'd be wise to support and give heed to these peaceful "occupiers", diverse and unorganized as they are: "lacking organized leadership" (and therefore, according to MSM: without merit or worthy of our attention)? I bet more than half of them are vegetarians/vegans who wouldn't touch a gun if you handed them one; let alone know what to do with it.
            (disclaimer: I don't own a gun either, personal preference...don't really like them. But I come from a family of hunters and we get almost all of our meat that way. Not me, I couldn't shoot an animal. But where I am from guns are used for hunting, and that's it.) Peace.

             
          • Rebel Rouser posted at 12:22 pm on Wed, Sep 28, 2011.

            Rebel Rouser Posts: 1561

            HTC arrogantly posted:

            "You readily dismiss those who disagree with you as "knuckle-draggers" but it is you, my friend, who is the king of the knuckle-draggers and a profound waste of protoplasm."

            Oh please kind sir, please show me exactly where and when I referred to anyone as a knuckle-dragger.

            Me thinks you are confused today.

             
          • kohana posted at 11:51 am on Wed, Sep 28, 2011.

            kohana Posts: 2109

            Oh Wil, your logic simply defies me. If a person is in a tub of hot, or actually warm because hot would nullify the experiment, and they get out and notice the level of the chocolate has decreased, they would notice their body would be covered with chocolate. So explain the logic of calling HTC. Maybe to come scrape the chocolate off? Recycle it maybe?

             
          • Rebel Rouser posted at 11:39 am on Wed, Sep 28, 2011.

            Rebel Rouser Posts: 1561

            “So we have a new age religion promoted by environmentalists, incorporated into our laws and brainwashed into our people that is now destroying America from the inside.
            Like a vast ship, America is taking a long time to sink but each day it sinks a little further. The fearsome day awaits, when America, if not quickly recovered by its real citizens, will tilt its nose into the water to begin a rapid and final descent into oblivion ... her many resources saved for whom?” Edwin X Berry, PhD

            “America needs abundant, low-cost, reliable energy. America’s enemies – The Sierra Club, their likes, our politicians, and our duped university ecologists – have ganged up on America to propagate myths that turn us against the very resources we need to survive.” Edwin X Berry, PhD

            It is truly sad that a man with so much potential ended up being a conservative, right wing, fear mongering, Pygmy, Kook. Just like you H, except you’re not as smart. I was at Steve Running’s seminar at FVCC and he made Ed X (the rude interrupter) look like a moronic clown. Apparently his entire goal in life has become to fight the "greenies" till the end. You go ahead and continue to beat your “America is dieing” drum all you want. I will keep saying you are wrong, that you (along with people like you no matter how smart you think you are) are the biggest part of the problem facing this nation. All of my “Liberal” friends are continuing to spend money, creating projects, and helping our economy grow, while ALL of my conservative friends won’t spend a nickel, while openly hoping Obama fails as President.

            The end is near.

            Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!

             
          • OH WILBER posted at 11:33 am on Wed, Sep 28, 2011.

            OH WILBER Posts: 275

            @rob123- Global warming as well as pollution destroy marine ecosystems and kills plants and animals while lowering oceans water levels. This lowering of water levels is noticeable with the dead inland seas.When animals such as whale die off, their bodies no longer displace water. Just imagine yourself in a bathtub of hot chocolate and when you get out and suddenly notice the tub's hot chocolate level went down.You then call HTC on your iPhone and notice his chocolate mustache and wonder.

             
          • kohana posted at 11:19 am on Wed, Sep 28, 2011.

            kohana Posts: 2109

            HTC - Thank you for the introduction to Dr. Barry. I just spent a little time on his website, and reading more about him and his work. The Dr. is doing his best to educate and teach the people in Flathead County to think, but doesn't seem to get a lot of support. He now has at least one new advocate, me. Another physicist, Dr. Recep Avci, Director of the ICAL Physics Lab at MT State in Bozeman would agree with Dr. Barry.

            Dr. Avci worked and experimented with Dr. Raymond Davis, Jr. a Nobel prize winner in neutrino measurements. The following is a quote from a letter I recently received from Dr. Avci, in response to, "why Richard Feynman got recognized and Raymond Davis didn't":

            "Something about science and workers of science. People like Richard Feynman play the role of those people that inspire others. Science and the scientific world could not be conquered by one person. And let me give you an example of it. John Bardeen, a teacher of mine when I was in the graduate school in Illinois, is the only scientist in the history of world of science that received two (2) Noble prizes in the same field. The first one was given to him for his contribution to the discovery of transistor and the second one for his explanation of superconductivity. He is no longer living but supposing he lived today and you gave him an i-Pod, do you think he would know what to do with it? Would he or could he ever have discovered a cell phone? Answers to all of these questions are NO. He loved one thing and he made the best of it and that is all he could do. You need the rest of the scientists to move ahead in the world of high tech. Richard Feynman did not do much in the world of neutrino, that world belongs to Ray Davis and others like him and new young scientists that are pushing the field in CERN and other places. I would even consider myself and my friend Munther as contributors to this field. In the grand scheme of things it is a short time to solve the mystery of the universe. Let us do more experiments and hopefully during our life time we may see this mystery is solved. Isn't it exciting?"

            Indeed, it is very exciting! However, many in this room disagree.


             
          • Bronco posted at 11:05 am on Wed, Sep 28, 2011.

            Bronco Posts: 4328

            Nailed it! First ten minutes are spot on. Ron Paul interview follows...

            http://www.thedailyshow.com/full-episodes/mon-september-26-2011-ron-paul

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 10:03 am on Wed, Sep 28, 2011.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9879

            chamomile: Cut back on all regulation at a time when we really need it most (remember that nasty little slick in the gulf?) Are you aware that people are sick and dying from that poison? Who ultimately ends up "paying" for their messes?

            HTC: If you'll refresh your memory, you'll recall that BP has paid for eveything thus far.

            And as far as people being "sick and dying from that poison" is concerned, no deaths have been conclusively linked to chemical toxicity from the spill and the illnesses reported are all only anecdotally linked and, according to the CDC and OSHA, constitute only a few tenths of one percent of those who worked in the spill's cleanup.

            But the BP spill is an excellent example of the failure of government regulations and bureaucracy as the feds themselves failed to do the inspections required of them as well as to enforce regulations already in effect.

            The SEC and tons of regulations failed to prevent the subprime mortgage and derivatives disasters as well. Even the nearly three thousand page long Franks-Dodd Financial Reform Act doesn't contain anything to prevent those disasters from occurring yet again but imposes an estimated 250,000+ pages of new regulations upon businesses and industry segments that had absolutely nothing to do with our financial system implosion.

            The regulatory burden acts as hidden tax on everyone and amounts to an additional 20% overhead cost to business, according to economists. Comparisions to our European neighbors show that our businesses have a far higher regulatory burden than most developed countries. Imagine the jobs those businesses could create if they were freed from much of that absurd and ineffectual burden.

            chamomile: And I bid you, look at the numbers. Who is on the receiving end of the vast majority of "entitlements"? The corporate "person"...

            HTC: Wrong again. Entitlement spending FAR outstrips "corporate welfare"; in fact, if all so-called "loopholes" and direct corporate subsidies were eliminated, government would save only a little less than $100B a year.

            However, in 2010, entitlement spending totalled almost 2.2 TRILLION DOLLARS! That's 22 times as great and, according to the CBO, by the end of this decade, entitlement spending will acount for 92% of all federal spending.

            Clearly, unless your a blind partisan, it's entitlement spending that's killing us.

            chamomile: Should we quick then, cut off all public assistance and see what happens?

            HTC: Of course we can't just end entitlement spending overnight but we've waited far too long to address the problem, so we'll have to cut deep and cut much faster than would have been the case if we'd been smarter.

            It's going to be painful but that's always the case when one waits until the 11th hour to address a problem of this magnitude.

            chamomile: TheTea-party owning Koch brothers aren't worried;

            HTC: If the Koch brothers own the Tea Party, then Soros owns your side, and then some. He's contributed over $400M to groups like MoveOn.org, TruthOut.org and many others while the Koch brothers have only contributed 1/40th of that amount to conservative causes.

            The Tea Party stands for limited government, balanced budgets and individual and states' rights. If our Founders were alive today, most of them would be proud to call themselves Tea Party patriots.

            Since you seem to like Jefferson, as do I, here's a quote you'd be well advised to remember:

            "To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

            chamomile: I would very much resent your framing these Patriots as militant communist radicals. Most of them college students with no time for MSM punditry or Rush Limbaugh bigotry. They are busy reading and learning and paying attention to what matters...and when you do that, you get just enough to know how it all adds up.

            HTC: What college did you or are you attending? Most students I've known have almost no interest in, let alone knowledge of current events, the workings of our government nor our country's history. Many have strong opinions on subjects they know little of, but I guess that's to be expected from those who have yet to live or learn much.

            chamomile: I am also convinced that Rupert Murdoch and the Koch Brothers are complicit in the "Recipe for Disaster" scheme and should be tried for treason...or in the case of Murdoch...is he even American?

            HTC: I'm game, as long as we also hang Soros (not an American) and several other deep-pocketed progressives who fuel the left. As long as we're going to throw out the Constitution, let's at least be equal opportunity.

            chamomile: I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. - Thomas Jefferson, (Attributed)

            HTC: Most scholars are reluctant to attribute the entirety of this quote to Jefferson for a number of reasons, including the fact that neither it, nor anything substantially similar, can be found in any of his writings and the words "inflation" and "deflation" did not appear until much later in our political and economic dialog.

            It is believed that the portion that reads "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies" is a paraphrase of a statement made by Jefferson in a letter to John Taylor in 1816: "And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."

            The "banking institutions" that Jefferson was referring to were the private banks that issued their own script and Hamilton's National Bank, which he much abhorred.

            Of course, private banks don't issue currency today, so Jefferson's sentiments only apply to the Federal Reserve today.

            Even the last part of the quotation is a misquotation of a comment that Jefferson made to John Wayles Eppes: "Bank-paper must be suppressed, and the circulating medium must be restored to the nation to whom it belongs."

             
          • Rob123 posted at 9:22 am on Wed, Sep 28, 2011.

            Rob123 Posts: 6569

            Aug. 22 (Bloomberg) -- The Federal Reserve's unprecedented effort to keep the economy from plunging into depression included lending banks and other companies as much as $1.2 trillion of public money. The largest borrower, Morgan Stanley, got as much as $107.3 billion, while Citigroup Inc. took $99.5 billion and Bank of America Corp. $91.4 billion, according to a Bloomberg News compilation of data obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests, months of litigation and an act of Congress. Erik Schatzker and Sara Eisen report on Bloomberg Television's "InsideTrack." (Source: Bloomberg)

            http://www.bloomberg.com/video/74246294/
            _____________________________________________________________________________

            Rebel Rouser.....That was a pretty mild insult from HTC.....You obviously have him rocked back on his heels! Of course, I'm basking in his "Rob123 look positively brilliant!". Was so excited I stuck my Ice Cream Cone onto my forehead.....It's been awhile since that happened.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 7:53 am on Wed, Sep 28, 2011.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9879

            Rebel Rouser: Edwin Berry - Poly Montana LLC - Bigfork, MT, hahahahahaha!

            Nothing like having looney tunes for your "sources" Why don't you just post your own climate data so we can get to the real "scientific" non-man caused global warming truth, eh?

            HTC: You are unquestionably the biggest fool I have yet encountered in my life. You make Bronco and Rob123 look positively brilliant!

            Dr. Berry's credentials are most impressive and yours would be exactly what? Old Ignorant Drug-Addled Hippy?

            You have yet to make a significant, fact-based argument on any subject, whether it be economics or climate science, yet you just dismiss out of hand a highly qualified scientist? You are just like every other progressive mental midget I've ever known - you attack the messenger because you haven't the brains or the facts to attack the message.

            You readily dismiss those who disagree with you as "knuckle-draggers" but it is you, my friend, who is the king of the knuckle-draggers and a profound waste of protoplasm.

            I close with Dr. Berry's resume:

            Dr. Edwin X Berry received his BS degree in Engineering from the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) in 1957, where he studied under teachers like Dr. Linus Pauling. After graduating from Caltech, he taught physics and studied math at Sacramento State University in 1958-59.

            In 1959, Berry was awarded a teaching fellowship in physics at Dartmouth College where he studied math and philosophy under Dr. John Kemeny, a student of Albert Einstein and the inventor of Basic computer language. Berry received his MA degree in Physics from Dartmouth in 1960 under Professor Millet Morgan. His thesis concerned the effect of the sun’s radiation on radio wave propagation.

            In 1961, Berry became the first research assistant for the new Desert Research Institute at the University of Nevada, Reno, where he studied meteorology under Professor Wendell Mordy and physics under Dr. Winterberg, top student of Heisenberg, Nobel Prize winner in Physics, in Germany, and Dr. William Scott. Berry received his PhD in Physics in 1965, with a focus on atmospheric physics.

            Dr. Berry’s theoretical PhD thesis is recognized as a breakthrough in the science of rain formation and in the use of computer-based numerical models. His model of the microphysics of rain formation is summarized in cloud physics textbooks and taught in university courses.

            Berry is a Certified Consulting Meteorologist (#180) for the American Meteorological Society. He has been an expert witness in many legal trials and has always been on the winning side of every trial. He has published over 42 professional scientific papers.

            Following his graduation, Dr. Berry became chief scientist and manager of Nevada’s Desert Research Institute airborne research facility. His team built the first low cost, airborne, earth-referenced radar display, which was later adapted by NOAA for hurricane research. He led pioneering research flights inside Alberta hailstorms and Sierra Nevada mountain effect storms. He participated in meteorological research experiments in South Africa, Puerto Rico, and St. Croix.

            In 1969, Berry, invited by Dr. Pierre St. Amand of the Naval Weapons Center, was the only civilian consultant in DOD’s Top-Secret Operation Popeye that taught US Air Force pilots how to produce rain from tropical clouds near the Philippines, which the USAF pilots then used to wash out the Ho Chi Min trail and other targets in Laos and North Vietnam.

            In 1973, Dr. Berry became an invited Program Manager for the National Science Foundation, Research Applied to National Needs (RANN), in Washington, DC, where he managed NSF’s leading edge national weather research projects, including the Metropolitan Meteorological Experiment (METROMEX) and the National Hail Research Experiment (NHRE).

            In 1976, Dr. Berry founded Edwin X Berry & Associates in Sacramento. He developed numerical models to calculate and reduce aircraft accidents due to wind shear and proposed a method for reducing such accidents that is in use today at major airports. He performed the southern California desert wind-energy study for the California Energy Commission and performed wind‑energy evaluations for wind-energy companies. He identified Altamont Pass and Tehachapi Pass as excellent wind energy resources in 1980. He designed and manufactured the first low-cost, electronic remote data instruments for wind energy using then state-of-the-art electronics.

            From 1989 through 1992, Dr. Berry managed his meteorological team to provide 24-hour weather forecasting for the US Customs Aerostat project along the southern U.S. border.

            In 1992, Dr. Berry made courtroom history by developing and defending the first computer model to generate new evidence in a criminal trial. His custom software application, written in Microsoft Visual Basic, modeled human body physiological responses to changing weather and environmental conditions. This model and Berry’s testimony was a key element in the successful defense in a high-profile murder trial. Computerworld and Microsoft selected his model as one of 24 finalists out of 1300 entries for the 1993 Windows World Open where it won the overall “People’s Choice Award.” Microsoft nominated Dr. Berry for a Smithsonian Award.

            In 1993, he developed his “CalWater” software which uses long-term, historical, annual streamflow data to estimate future annual steamflow for the Sacramento River Index. CalWater accurately predicted the recovery from the drought in California in 1993.

            From 1994 through 2000, Dr. Berry applied mathematical artificial intelligence methods developed for weather forecasting to the valuation of single-family homes. In side-by-side testing against other home valuation methods, Berry’s method proved significantly superior.

            Since 2001, Dr. Berry has focused on the global warming problem. He found it to be intimately tied to his areas of expertise in cloud physics, numerical modeling and government research management. After much study, he realized that the hypothesis that human-produced carbon dioxide will produce global warming is false.

            During his professional career, Dr. Berry has been very active in athletic competitions.

            As a competitive small-boat sailor, Dr. Berry and his wife, Valerie, as crew, won Gold Medals in the Canadian Olympic-Training Regatta in Kingston, Ontario, beating Olympic competitors and making Valerie the first woman ever to win in such high-caliber sailing competition. They won a North American championship and a US National Championship in sailing.

            Dr. Berry is a pilot, with glider, power, and instrument ratings. While a graduate student at the University of Nevada, he qualified for the elite Sigma Delta Psi national athletic honorary by performing a wide variety of difficult athletic events. He placed in the top 10 in the USA in several age-group running and biking events.

            In 1996, the University of Nevada Alumni Association presented Dr. Berry with its Professional Achievement Award, after he was nominated by his physics mentor, Dr. Winterberg.

             
          • posted at 7:41 am on Wed, Sep 28, 2011.

            Posts:

            Chamomile: Thanks for the lengthy response. However, I have to assume you are not "following me (or rather my argument) at all" based on the rest of your comment. While you are eloquent and a welcome addition to this board, it would be nice to see you start out by saying you support not democracy, but a constitutional republic; that you renounce violence; that you despise people who want to overthrow the government and the Constitution; that you are not a communist and could never support anyone who was; and that you understand that the changes that have taken place for the past 100 years to transfer wealth have only done so by diminishing our liberty.

            There is one bit of common ground, however. I too agree with Jefferson's quote. There is no doubt that the unconstitutional overreach of the past 100 years has enriched certain interests illicitly. I believe if you consider it, there is every reason to believe that "the powers that be" are in a devilish alliance with the leaders of the poor and the working class. By increasing welfare and benefits for those on the lower end of the scale, those who are in charge of the nation's money have been able to "deprive the people" of something much more valuable than money -- their freedom.

            Frank Miele, Managing Editor

             
          • Rob123 posted at 3:10 am on Wed, Sep 28, 2011.

            Rob123 Posts: 6569

            Oh Wilbur: The South Pole is a continent, surrounded by seasonal pack ice.

            Experiment: Put an ice cube in a cup, and pour Hot Chocolate on it. The ice will melt, without overflowing the cup......North Pole.

            Fill a cup with Hot Chocolate and suspend an ice cube over the top. The ice will melt, causing the cup to overflow....South Pole.....and Greenland.

            Fill a cup with Hot Chocolate and leave the room, come back and it's empty. Ask your Lab Assistant HTC if he knows anything about the missing volume, and despite the chocolate mustache over his upper lip, he goes off on a rant concerning the Usual Suspects. When pressured for 'the Truth', he mentions the melting of the Glaciers in Central Canada and the rebounding of the Earth's Crust causing the Great Lakes to tilt ever so much, each year, until either Chicago is flooded or a New Ice Age starts, pushing Canada back down. Then he mentions that Obama was from Chicago, so he's rooting for ..........Shaking your head, you fill a new cup with Hot Chocolate and watch it like a hawk.

             
          • chamomile posted at 2:49 am on Wed, Sep 28, 2011.

            chamomile Posts: 11

            Okay, with respect, Mr. Miele. Let's suppose you are right...(if I am following you at all) in saying, these radicals planned this all out from the beginning, that we would end up in unending wars that led to federal bankruptcy that led to ... let me guess: cutting all social programs and regulatory job killing measures (that one might add, took a couple centuries to put in place, on the backs of men, women and children, many who lived in dire poverty, suffered and died horrible deaths at the hands of their greedy taskmasters) that led to an uprising of "militant low income organizations" (not to mention, egad! Communists!)... ?But now, maybe take a minute to step away from your appointed chess-piece, and think; because under this scenario, the direction of the "conservative right" would be playing right into the hands of these "radicals"... Cut back on all regulation at a time when we really need it most (remember that nasty little slick in the gulf?) Are you aware that people are sick and dying from that poison? Who ultimately ends up "paying" for their messes? The people. The "taxpayers."And I bid you, look at the numbers. Who is on the receiving end of the vast majority of "entitlements"? The corporate "person"... take a look at what GE alone took home as a tax refund. Come back and tell us how we need fear the welfare state. Yes, the corporate welfare state.I understand you all know it all too well, that the media is owned and happily caters to both sides of the fence. It is currently playing us all against each other and the atmosphere is so hostile that if a dissenting opinion comes up on a message boards it is immediately branded as "troll" (I'm speaking of MSM, not the Interlake." )So, is it out of this fear (of ax-wielding low-incomers) that Fox pundits can with a straight face suggest we need a $3.00 an hour minimum wage? At a time when a family at the current minimum wage is considered "working poor" and most likely qualifies for public assistance? What is it they are suggesting? Wouldn't that be increasing the "welfare state"... (Ayers and Co.s evil plan) Should we quick then, cut off all public assistance and see what happens? Because honestly, they're all a lot of ne'er-do-wells anyway, aren't they? They don't create jobs. Only corporations do that. (Except I seem to recall paying out 80% of my summer paycheck to childcare...but that doesn't count, because we aren't going to talk about that. We are too busy playing upon one another's fears and prejudices to consider anything other than our choice of right/left approved rhetoric, aren't we?) TheTea-party owning Koch brothers aren't worried; in this scenario there will be no "low-income militants"...at least none to take seriously. Too sick and too tired; too poor...too brainwashed. Come on you tea-partiers...come a little further out of the cave and realize that those kids on Wall Street, those grannies...they are fighting for you! That is the underlying motivation for this particular editorial focus, is it not, Mr. Miele? Or am I wrong, and you, like most of the MSM masses are just barely becoming aware of the movement? I hope so, I'd like to be wrong. I would very much resent your framing these Patriots as militant communist radicals. Most of them college students with no time for MSM punditry or Rush Limbaugh bigotry. They are busy reading and learning and paying attention to what matters...and when you do that, you get just enough to know how it all adds up. Maybe they are foolish to believe it can make a difference. But after reading your editorial I am with them; I am convinced the time is now, while we still have something left of Democracy; before America is in complete ruins; and years down the road, poverty and despair drive the People to violence. I am also convinced that Rupert Murdoch and the Koch Brothers are complicit in the "Recipe for Disaster" scheme and should be tried for treason...or in the case of Murdoch...is he even American? Honestly, I don't think it could be any more obvious. May God peel the scales from your eyes.A quote for your consideration:I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. Thomas Jefferson, (Attributed)

             
          • OH WILBER posted at 9:07 pm on Tue, Sep 27, 2011.

            OH WILBER Posts: 275

            If all of the ice on the poles melted, the oceans water levels would drop. Being that ice is expanded water, if the polar caps melted, the oceans water levels would predictably have less volume.

             
          • Rebel Rouser posted at 4:07 pm on Tue, Sep 27, 2011.

            Rebel Rouser Posts: 1561

            HTC: "You will also find a lot of good analysis at climatephysics.com and climatedepot.com."


            Edwin Berry - Poly Montana LLC - Bigfork, MT, hahahahahaha!

            Nothing like having looney tunes for your "sources" Why don't you just post your own climate data so we can get to the real "scientific" non-man caused global warming truth, eh?

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 1:02 pm on Tue, Sep 27, 2011.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9879

            Obama at the bank

            Barack Obama walks into the bank to cash a check. "Good morning, Ma'am," he greets the cashier, "could you please cash this check for me?"

            "It would be my pleasure, sir. Could you please show me your ID?"

            "Truthfully, I did not bring my ID with me as I didn't think there was any need to. I am President Barack Obama, the president of the United States of America!"

            "Yes, sir, I know who you are, but with all the regulations, monitoring of the banks because of impostors and forgers, etc, I must insist on seeing ID."

            "Just ask anyone here at the bank who I am and they will tell you. Everybody knows who I am."

            "I am sorry Mr. President but these are the bank rules and I must follow them."

            "I am urging you please to cash this check."

            "Ok, this is what we can do, Mr. President: One day Tiger Woods came into the bank without ID. To prove he was Tiger Woods he pulled out his putting iron and made a beautiful shot across the bank into a cup. With that shot we knew him to be Tiger Woods and cashed his check. Another time, Andre Agassi came in without ID. He pulled out his tennis racquet and made a fabulous shot, making the tennis ball land in my cup. With that spectacular shot we cashed his check. So, Mr. President, what can you do to prove that it is you, and only you, as the president of the United States?"

            Obama stands there thinking and finally says, "Honestly, there is nothing that comes to my mind. I can't think of a single thing I'm good at."

            "Will that be large or small bills, Mr. President?"

             
          • Pequot posted at 11:43 am on Tue, Sep 27, 2011.

            Pequot Posts: 525

            Ah, but bill39, it's so much fun to track just how deep is the dementia.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 10:47 am on Tue, Sep 27, 2011.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9879

            Yet another reason why real patriots demand the dismantling of this bloated, abusive, regulatory monster we call the federal government (and notice that Scalia stood up for the average Joe):

            As Federal Crime List Grows, Threshold of Guilt Declines
            By GARY FIELDS And JOHN R. EMSHWILLER
            The Wall Street Journal | September 27, 2011

            For centuries, a bedrock principle of criminal law has held that people must know they are doing something wrong before they can be found guilty. The concept is known as mens rea, Latin for a "guilty mind."

            This legal protection is now being eroded as the U.S. federal criminal code dramatically swells. In recent decades, Congress has repeatedly crafted laws that weaken or disregard the notion of criminal intent. Today not only are there thousands more criminal laws than before, but it is easier to fall afoul of them.

            As a result, what once might have been considered simply a mistake is now sometimes punishable by jail time. When the police came to Wade Martin's home in Sitka, Alaska, in 2003, he says he had no idea why. Under an exemption to the Marine Mammal Protection Act, coastal Native Alaskans such as Mr. Martin are allowed to trap and hunt species that others can't. That included the 10 sea otters he had recently sold for $50 apiece.

            Mr. Martin, 50 years old, readily admitted making the sale. "Then, they told me the buyer wasn't a native," he recalls.

            The law requires that animals sold to non-Native Alaskans be converted into handicrafts. He knew the law, Mr. Martin said, and he had thought the buyer was Native Alaskan.

            He pleaded guilty in 2008. The government didn't have to prove he knew his conduct was illegal, his lawyer told him. They merely had to show he had made the sale.

            "I was thinking, damn, my life's over," Mr. Martin says.

            Federal magistrate Judge John Roberts gave him two years' probation and a $1,000 fine. He told the trapper: "You're responsible for the actions that you take."

            Mr. Martin now asks customers to prove their heritage and residency. "You get real smart after they come to your house and arrest you and make you feel like Charles Manson," he says.

            The U.S. Attorney's office in Alaska didn't respond to requests for comment.

            Back in 1790, the first federal criminal law passed by Congress listed fewer than 20 federal crimes. Today there are an estimated 4,500 crimes in federal statutes, plus thousands more embedded in federal regulations, many of which have been added to the penal code since the 1970s.

            One controversial new law can hold animal-rights activists criminally responsible for protests that cause the target of their attention to be fearful, regardless of the protesters' intentions. Congress passed the law in 2006 with only about a half-dozen of the 535 members voting on it.

            Under English common law principles, most U.S. criminal statutes traditionally required prosecutors not only to prove that defendants committed a bad act, but also that they also had bad intentions. In a theft, don't merely show that the accused took someone's property, but also show that he or she knew it belonged to someone else.

            Over time, lawmakers have devised a sliding scale for different crimes. For instance, a "willful" violation is among the toughest to prove.

            Requiring the government to prove a willful violation is "a big protection for all of us," says Andrew Weissmann, a New York attorney who for a time ran the Justice Department's criminal investigation of Enron Corp. Generally speaking in criminal law, he says, willful means "you have the specific intent to violate the law."

            A lower threshold, attorneys say, involves proving that someone "knowingly" violated the law. It can be easier to fall afoul of the law under these terms.

            In one case, Gary Hancock of Flagstaff, Ariz., was found guilty in 1999 of violating a federal law prohibiting people with a misdemeanor domestic violence record from gun ownership. At the time of his domestic-violence convictions in the early 1990s, the statute didn't exist—but later it was applied to him. He hadn't been told of the new law, and he still owned guns. Mr. Hancock was convicted and sentenced to five years' probation.

            His lawyer, Jane McClellan, says prosecutors "did not have to prove he knew about the law. They only had to prove that he knew he had guns."

            Upholding the conviction, a federal appellate court said that "the requirement of 'knowing' conduct refers to knowledge of possession, rather than knowledge of the legal consequences of possession."

            In 1998, Dane A. Yirkovsky, a Cedar Rapids, Iowa, man with an extensive criminal record, was back in school pursuing a high-school diploma and working as a drywall installer. While doing some remodeling work, Mr. Yirkovsky found a .22 caliber bullet underneath a carpet, according to court documents. He put it in a box in his room, the records show.

            A few months later, local police found the bullet during a search of his apartment. State officials didn't charge him with wrongdoing, but federal officials contended that possessing even one bullet violated a federal law prohibiting felons from having firearms.

            Mr. Yirkovsky pleaded guilty to having the bullet. He received a congressionally mandated 15-year prison sentence, which a federal appeals court upheld but called "an extreme penalty under the facts as presented to this court." Mr. Yirkovsky is due to be released in May 2013.

            Changing laws mean it's easier for a mistake to be treated as a federal crime. Mr. Martin says he learned that firsthand.

            Overall, more than 40% of nonviolent offenses created or amended during two recent Congresses—the 109th and the 111th, the latter of which ran through last year—had "weak" mens rea requirements at best, according to a study conducted by the conservative Heritage Foundation and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. The study, one of the few to examine mens rea, was extended to include the most recent Congress at the request of The Wall Street Journal.

            Earlier this year, Justice Antonin Scalia, in a dissent from a Supreme Court decision upholding a firearms-related conviction, wrote that Congress "puts forth an ever-increasing volume" of imprecise criminal laws and criticized lawmakers for passing too much "fuzzy, leave-the-details-to-be-sorted-out-by-the-courts" legislation.

            Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle worry about the weakening of mens rea. "Over my six years in Congress there have been many times when in discussions with members of Congress I say, 'Look, I know you want to show people how serious you are about crime, but don't put anything on the books that doesn't require criminal intent,'" says Rep. Louie Gohmert, (R., Tex.) a former state judge who wants the federal system reworked.

            In a 2009 Judiciary subcommittee hearing on the growth of federal criminal law, Rep. Bobby Scott (D., Va.)., said that mens rea had long served "an important role in protecting those who do not intend to commit wrongful or criminal acts from prosecution and conviction."

            The growing number of federal laws with weakened mens rea safeguards is making the venerable legal principle that ignorance of the law is no defense a much riskier proposition for people. That principle made sense, says University of Virginia law professor Anne Coughlin, when there were fewer criminal laws, like murder, and most people could be expected to know them.

            But when legislators "criminalize everything under the sun," Ms. Coughlin says, it's unrealistic to expect citizens to be fully informed about the penal code." With reduced intent requirements "suddenly it opens a whole lot of people to being potential violators."

            F. James Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican and chairman of the House crime subcommittee, said he wants to clean up the definition of criminal intent as part of a broader revamp of the criminal-justice system. There are crimes scattered among 42 of the 51 titles of the federal code, with varying standards of criminal intent. Still others are set by court decisions.

            "How the definition of mens rea is applied is going to be one of the more difficult areas to figure out a way to fix," he said.

            When a humpback whale got tangled in his fishing-boat net in 2008, Robert Eldridge Jr., a commercial fisherman, says he had one overriding thought: free it. He freed the whale, although it swam away with 30 feet of his net still attached.

            A few weeks later, he was charged with harassing an endangered species and a marine mammal. Under federal law, Mr. Eldridge was supposed to contact authorities who would send someone trained to rescue the animal. The law is designed to prevent unskilled people from accidentally injuring or killing a whale while trying to release it.

            Mr. Eldridge says he was fully aware of the federal Marine Animal Disentanglement Hotline for summoning a rescuer. But "it didn't cross my mind to do anything but keep it alive. I thought I was doing the right thing," the Massachusetts fisherman said.

            There were two federal observers aboard his boat that day, performing routine checks, who reported the incident, according to court documents. Mr. Eldridge's potential sentence was one year in jail and a $100,000 fine.

            Mr. Eldridge, 42, pleaded guilty and has a misdemeanor on his record. He was fined $500 and ordered to write a warning letter to other fishermen to look out for whales.

            "I'm just glad it's done," he said of the case.

            Asked for comment, a Justice spokeswoman referred to Mr. Eldridge's guilty plea, in which he admitted knowing the procedure and having the hotline number posted on his boat at the time of the incident.

            The erosion of mens rea is partly due to the "hit or miss" way American legislation gets written today, says Jay Apperson, a former Chief Counsel to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security. Some lawmakers simply omit criminal-intent provisions when they draft legislation. "Lots of members don't think about it, not out of a malevolent motive," he says. "They just don't think about it."

            Other times they do. In 1994, Congress rewrote part of the anti-money-laundering law that requires any cash transaction above $10,000 to be reported. The Supreme Court had just vacated a conviction, saying the "willful" provision required the government to show that someone knew he was violating the law when not reporting a transaction. In response, Congress took the "willful" provision out of the law.

            An incident from 2002 illustrates the sometimes messy process of drafting legislation. That year, Congress passed the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, which set new punishments for white-collar crime following the scandals at Enron, WorldCom and other companies. Several legal experts were about to testify on key provisions of Sarbanes-Oxley before a Senate subcommittee when the chairman called a break in the meeting. The reason: The senators needed to vote on the very provisions the panelists were there to discuss.

            The hearing resumed two hours later, after the provisions were approved 97-0. The witnesses went on to testify about the dangers of weakening criminal-intent standards, as Sarbanes-Oxley did.

            "That slapdash approach to drafting was pretty rife throughout the period," said Frank Bowman, a University of Missouri law-school professor who advised the Senate Judiciary Committee during the bill's creation.

            Among other things, the new law made it easier for prosecutors to bring obstruction-of-justice cases related to destruction of evidence. Under earlier law, prosecutors had to show the defendant's destruction of evidence was impeding an active investigation. Sarbanes-Oxley broadened that, prohibiting the destruction of material that might be part of any future investigation.

            One of the witnesses that day, former deputy attorney Gen. George Terwilliger, says that, "In retrospect, the hearing must have been about: Is what we just voted on a good idea?"

            Write to Gary Fields at gary.fields@wsj.com and John R. Emshwiller at john.emshwiller@wsj.com

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 10:12 am on Tue, Sep 27, 2011.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9879

            Tea Party Group Casts National Debt as a Household Budget
            By Perry Chiaramonte
            Published September 27, 2011 | FoxNews.com

            America's ever-growing debt crisis is in the trillions -- more than $14 trillion, give or take a few billion.

            That's a lot of zeros, numbers so large they're sure to make Americans numb when trying to get their arms around what it means to them.

            But what would the federal debt crisis look like if you set it up as a household budget?

            A heck of a lot simpler, according to new figures from one Tea Party group, which estimates the government "household" spends nearly twice as much as it takes in every year, has a credit card bill nearly seven times annual income and cuts back less than 2 percent of that spending in an effort to control the debt.

            "We had discussed about how any citizen needs to understand what the proposed cuts mean," said Laurie Newsom, president of the Gainesville, Fla., Tea Party. "One of our members had figured it out and put it in terms of a household budget. If you ran a household with these numbers, you would see that it's simply not enough."

            The group looked at some key figures, mainly tax revenue, the current federal budget, debt and budget cuts, and divided each figure by $100 million, in an effort to break it down into simple terms that most Americans can comprehend. The group posted its findings online and came up with a household with an average family income of $21,700. But that "family" spent nearly twice that -- $38,200 -- and has an existing credit card balance of a whopping $142,710.

            "Everyone tries to keep things extremely simple for these things meant for general public consumption and of course there's a give-and-take with that," said Seth Rabinowitz, a partner with Silicon Associates, an economics-focused management consulting firm based in California. "I would make it clearer for the layman.They used the line 'Money the family spent'...but really that means, 'Money the family spent (last year and intends to spend this year again).' "

            "However, when you remove those eight zeros, the $385 spending cuts obviously aren't even visible. They don't even make a dent," he said.

            The bottom line, according to Newsom: "Cuts won't take care of it. You need business growth, which we wouldn't have in a regulatory environment."

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 9:37 am on Tue, Sep 27, 2011.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9879

            Pete: The AGW folks even have their own maps.

            HTC: I never cease to be amazed at the hundreds and hundreds of lies surrounding AGW that continue to be exposed; yet, these hucksters only press on even harder in their attempts to keep the lie going. It is a marvelous example of the principle we learned as children that once you lie, you'll inevitably have to continue lying to try to prop up the original lie.

            Sooner or later this AGW bubble will pop and there are going to be hundreds, possibly thousands, of very embarrassed and thoroughly discredited 'scientists' who should be punished by the people of the world for the tremendous fear they've generated in our children and the considerable economic harm they've caused so many.

            In my book, they should all be sentenced to life without parole.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 9:22 am on Tue, Sep 27, 2011.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9879

            who new: The rest of the story-

            HTC: While my post was intended primarily as political humor because of Obama's arrogant statement in 2008, the 'rest of the story" goes well beyond the piece you posted.

            First of all, the chart your article shows is based upon sea level data collected and collated by AGW 'scientists' at the University of Colorado who we recently learned were artificially inflating the annual increases for quite some time in order to make it appear that the oceans were rising much faster than was truly the case.

            Secondly, Josh Willis is to be dismissed when he says that "sea level drops such as this one cannot last", for that is as unscientific a statement as is the one claiming that AGW is "settled science." His statement is entirely based upon predictions from climate models that have already proven to be unreliable in many, many of their other predictions including failing to predict the sudden shift in the Pacific oscillation which occurred last year.

            An honest scientist would have admitted that this might be the beginning of a long term downward trend in sea levels because of significant new ice growth in thousands of glaciers around the world and particularly in the Antarctic. The water in that ice, unlike the rain in South America, will not be making its way back to the ocean for a long, long time.

            That honest scientist also would have said that it's way too early to tell if this is the beginning of a new trend or just a "pothole" and that we'll just have to keep monitoring to see.

            These charlatans are dependent upon a scientifically illiterate population in order to continue their politically and financially motivated myth and I encourage you to read the works of some other notable climatologists and atmospheric physicists such as S. Fred Singer and Richard Lindzen (MIT) to see for yourself what a phenomenal hoax is AGW.

            You will also find a lot of good analysis at climatephysics.com and climatedepot.com.

            These AGW hucksters are SO desperate to perpetuate this junk science that they've now been caught falsifying and suppressing global temperature data in a fraudulent attempt to "prove" Al Gore's "hockey stick" chart and more recently they were caught falsifying sea level data.

            Would anything at all approaching "settled science" necessitate such fraud?

            Don't let them fool you.

            "Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman

             
          • Rob123 posted at 9:05 am on Tue, Sep 27, 2011.

            Rob123 Posts: 6569

            Pequot posted at 7:28 am on Tue, Sep 27, 2011.

            Ah, Pequot, did you sleep through Western Civ 101 too? But at least you understand the Fed's Operation Twist, and the joy of flattening the yield curve, eh? You probably rushed down to get one of those 3.75% 30 year mortgages on your home, only to find out at your age they won't go '30 years'. Bummer.

             
          • bill39 posted at 7:39 am on Tue, Sep 27, 2011.

            bill39 Posts: 1036

            Pequot posted at 7:28 am on Tue, Sep 27, 2011.

            Exactly why I dont read his posts.

             
          • Pequot posted at 7:28 am on Tue, Sep 27, 2011.

            Pequot Posts: 525

            bill39: It's all sociopsychobabble. "Rob and company" really have very little to contribute in the realm of reality so they resort to unrelated nonsense. Keep in mind that not only do they not want to believe they are, more than likely, fellow travelers of the crowd Miele writes about. They are committed to disparagement or distraction from facts and truth related to the destruction of our society. Clever fellows capable of much mischief.

             
          • Pete posted at 6:24 am on Tue, Sep 27, 2011.

            Pete Posts: 3152

            Spin? The AGW folks even have their own maps.

            http://www.theblaze.com/stories/overestimating-global-warming-scientists-say-new-map-of-greenland-now-needs-more-ice/

             
          • bill39 posted at 6:17 am on Tue, Sep 27, 2011.

            bill39 Posts: 1036

            Rob and company you simply cant begin to comprehend the depth of deception of this complicated mess these people are creating that Frank is refering to. You simply dont want to beleive it. You really should seek the truth, but I guess you really dont give a rats ... for honesty. I see John Stormer, author of None Dare Call It Treason(1964), wrote another book in 1998 called None Dare Call It Education. I just googled Stormer and found he wrote another one I will have to get, None Dare Call It Treason...25 Years Later(1990).

             
          • Rob123 posted at 1:53 am on Tue, Sep 27, 2011.

            Rob123 Posts: 6569

            What are you saying, who new? I thought it was all black and white? Either the ocean is rising or falling, and Presidents get elected by said movement? "It's getting deeper!"....Dems win. "It's getting shallow!" ..Repubs win.
            As you know, HTC's spin is a continuation of the Pharaonic Tradition and the Politics of the Rise and Fall of the Nile, and the Crops that are dependent upon a 'good' flood. Of course, with the Revolution in Communication, we now can witness in real time, as the Oceans drop, the folks in the Amazon and Australia saying things like "Help! We're Drowning!", which limits the power of political hustlers and pretty much rules out the old peni$ blood letting of the Pharaohs and their Priest Class. Of course, some professional political junkies will try to score points by these 'ups and downs', and even go so far as to imply "Without me, the Sun wouldn't Rise in the Morning!". But most of us are beyond that, I think? Ketsup, HTC? (-:

             
          • who new posted at 12:23 am on Tue, Sep 27, 2011.

            who new Posts: 367

            HTC posted :

            “In August of this year, NASA announced that global sea level was dropping and was “a quarter of an inch lower than last summer.””

            The rest of the story-

            http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2011-262

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 10:58 pm on Mon, Sep 26, 2011.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9879

            President Barack Obama should take credit for his ability to “alter sea level,” according to a tongue-in-cheek article on the Climate Depot website.

            In a June 2008 speech, candidate Obama said his presidency would be “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.”

            The website declared, “Climate Depot can now announce it is official,” noting that the European Space Agency had determined that a two-year-long decline in global sea level “was continuing at a rate of 5 millimeters per year.”

            In August of this year, NASA announced that global sea level was dropping and was “a quarter of an inch lower than last summer.”

            Global warming alarmists frequently warn that rising global temperatures will lead to a steady rise in sea level that will threaten coastal communities around the world, and cite that threat in calls for action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

            Noting the recent findings regarding dropping sea levels, Climate Depot facetiously stated: “Most surprising, despite the fact that Obama only said he would ‘slow’ the rise of the oceans, his presidency has presided over what some scientists are terming an ‘historic decline’ in global sea levels. Obama appears to have underestimated his own powers to alter sea level.

            “President Obama’s success in lowering sea level has not gone unnoticed. The skeptical website Real Science made sarcastic note of Obama’s ‘healing of the climate’ in June.”

            Real Science declared: “Obama should declare ‘mission accomplished’ and take credit!”

             
          • OH WILBER posted at 9:05 pm on Mon, Sep 26, 2011.

            OH WILBER Posts: 275

            @Rick Spencer and HTC- "As you press on for justice, be sure to move with dignity and discipline, using only the weapon of love. Let no man pull you so low as to hate him. Always avoid violence. If you succumb to the temptation of using violence in your struggle, unborn generations will be the recipients of a long and desolate night of bitterness, and your chief legacy to the future will be an endless reign of meaningless chaos."- Martin Luther King Jr. (1956)

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 9:34 am on Mon, Sep 26, 2011.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9879

            MT_foundation: Obviously it would be much better to avoid this catastrophe and I hope there are leaders out there who can have adult, nuanced conversations with us about how to back away from this precipice.

            HTC: The time for "nuance" has long passed. We need leaders who will boldly and flatly tell the American people the truth, which is that the nanny state is killing us and we have to dismantle it.

            MT_foundation: This is obviously connected to corporations’ political rights as they can now contribute unlimited funds to political campaigns. A couple of things that concern me about this is that these are transnational corporations that we’re talking about so foreigners’ money is mixed into our domestic political discourse...

            HTC: All of that is simply NOT true. While SCOTUS did open the door for corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money on issue ads, just as NGOs and many nonprofits have been able to since McCain-Feingold, the law still sharply limits campaign contributions and still bans foreign contributions.

            Do you remember when Obama repeated this same lie during last year's State of the Union speech and Justice Alito scowled and mouthed "Not true!"?

            It is a lie that is quite popular with the left and one which well suits their decades long assault on business; but, it is still just a lie and nothing more.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 9:05 am on Mon, Sep 26, 2011.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9879

            Rick Spencer: Once a group accosted me while in uniform on campus during a walk that my wife and three children were taking that brought me to the end of my indulgence with these 'children' enraged with their parents. About 10 of them jumped me shouting their vile distaste for those in uniform. Three went to the hospital and two to the campus medical center. Funny, I was never bothered again by them, wore my uniform whenever required, and the University looked the other way.

            HTC: Your story reminded me of an attack on a recently returned Vietnam veteran which I witnessed when I was in college.

            The SDS in concert with the campus chapter of the Black Panthers decided to declare a moratorium on classes for the day and staged a bunch of their goons at the entrances to most of the campus buildings.

            Many of us were working hard to fund our educations and thus took our education quite seriously; as a result, we were insistent that we were going to attend classes. As a group of my friends and I were coming up on the Chemistry building, we observed this veteran, minus his left leg which had been lost in Vietnam, climb the steps to the building on crutches only to have three goons block his path at the door.

            When he politely asked to be allowed to pass, they ridiculed and mocked him and when he tried to dart past them (very difficult on crutches), one of them pushed him down the concrete stairs.

            As a few of us rushed to help him, I saw a young Vietnamese man run past me and dart up the stairs. In a brief flurry of arms and legs, I quickly saw three goons going azz-over-teakettle down the same concrete stairs, get up and run off.

            Fortunately, the veteran didn't suffer more than a few scrapes and the Vietnamese student was fine as well. He approached the veteran and thanked him for his service and his sacrifice. Turned out that his father was a high-ranking officer in the South Vietnamese Army and he was studying civil engineering in hopes of returning to his country and contributing to its growth as a civil engineer.

            He was VERY appreciative of the sacrifice this soldier had made for him and his people.

            My friends and business associates have also experienced the "tolerance" of these folks when I was living and working in San Jose, CA. Our openly expressing our constitutionalist views in letters to the editor or at public hearings would sometimes precipitate vandalism to our vehicles and offices and occasionally death threats left under the windshield wiper or dropped through the mail slot.

            The children of these leftist scum are just as vile as their parents.

            Rick Spencer: All of this is to say that many readers were not there and do not understand the danger wrought by this group of 'revolutionaries', then and now, and do not take seriously the history or their continuing war against the country. Many were able to secure jobs in colleges where they remain to this day still spewing the same hatred for the country from their lecterns. Until you personally face the personal hatred of their acts, it seems simply impossible to digest as happening. The major reason being that history begins at birth, unfortunately.

            HTC: I've noticed that the same people who dismiss these 'revolutionaries' also dismiss radical Islam and "evil" in general. Their blind spots are amazingly large. They seem incapable of understanding that there really are evil people with evil aims who won't stop until they've achieved their ends or we've killed them.

            Rick Spencer: These groups were serious than and they are serious now with their intent to destroy our present political system and replace it with a socialist welfare state.

            HTC: Unfortunately, they've already achieved 98% of their goal. If we're not already a democratic socialist welfare state, then I guess I don't know that the term means.

            Rick Spencer: Why else would they act as they do?

            HTC: Why else indeed.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 8:10 am on Mon, Sep 26, 2011.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9879

            Rob123: Actually, ye olde knuckle dragger, it's a Democratically elected Republic.....Big difference.

            HTC: I guess someone forgot to tell poor Benjamin Franklin about that "big difference", for when Mrs. Powell asked him what sort of government we had, as he emerged from Independence Hall at the conclusion of the 1787 Constitutional Convention, he famously replied: "A republic, if you can keep it."

            You might want to reacquaint yourself with the Federalist Papers wherein Madison examines democracy versus republican forms of government. He distrusted democracy, as did most of the founders, for they soon resulted in the "tyranny of the majority" and the looting of the public treasury.

            Franklin, being the wise man that he was, knew that many in our newly established country would clamor for more direct control of government and to expand its powers well beyond the strictly limited powers extended to it by the Constitution, and that it would take eternal vigilance on the part of the electorate to preserve this republic; hence, his warning to Mrs. Powell.

            The Constitution is all about the individual's rights and states' rights, with very little power vested in the federal government other than those few powers needed to protect the country and the rights of the individual and the states as well as to enable thriving commerce between them.

            The "collectivism" and "social justice" that our government is ramming down our throats today is in complete violation of those individual and states' rights and its institutions must be torn down. Anyone who supports those things is NOT our neighbor but our enemy.

             
          • Rick Spencer posted at 10:11 pm on Sun, Sep 25, 2011.

            Rick Spencer Posts: 405

            Another thought provoking article that takes me back to those days and years. I entered military service in '61, entered grad school in 65, and entered into international and national higher education administration for a few years in '69. I had many encounters through those years with both student war protestors and the SDS type individuals. It always appeared to me that the two groups were co-partners in almost all instances that I encountered both here and abroad. Never one without the other.

            I was subject to various encounters that ranged from on campus fisticuffs to a bomb thrown into my office in Germany. It was especially personal while in grad school as I maintained a National Guard position in an Air Commando outfit and I was still relatively young and in good shape. Once a group accosted me while in uniform on campus during a walk that my wife and three children were taking that brought me to the end of my indulgence with these 'children' enraged with their parents. About 10 of them jumped me shouting their vile distaste for those in uniform. Three went to the hospital and two to the campus medical center. Funny, I was never bothered again by them, wore my uniform whenever required, and the University looked the other way. But, I must say that my wife was a bit peeved by my actions as the three kids were witness to the ensuing riot that had taken place. Actually, she still is over 45 years later!

            All of this is to say that many readers were not there and do not understand the danger wrought by this group of 'revolutionaries', then and now, and do not take seriously the history or their continuing war against the country. Many were able to secure jobs in colleges where they remain to this day still spewing the same hatred for the country from their lecterns. Until you personally face the personal hatred of their acts, it seems simply impossible to digest as happening. The major reason being that history begins at birth, unfortunately.

            Frank is one of the few journalists who actually lived through and writes about those times and the impact upon our present political system. He is brave to do so, and it would be to the readers advantage to take his warnings seriously. He is telling the truth as many of us can attest. These groups were serious than and they are serious now with their intent to destroy our present political system and replace it with a socialist welfare state. Why else would they act as they do? RLS

             
          • MT_foundation posted at 1:46 pm on Sun, Sep 25, 2011.

            MT_foundation Posts: 64

            Hi Frank and HTC and everyone else… I re-read what I wrote and apologize for this grammatical errors, I should have proofed it.

            Frank, I believe that you are correct in noting that Ayers et al predicted this current state we find ourselves in – they knew that the powers-that-be would continue to perpetuate wars and consequently the military industrial complex. The fact that they predicted all of this should not be confused with them wanting it to be so. Part of their point, I believe, is that we started down this track and the sheer weight of certain economic and political interests are going to keep pushing us until there is a derailment. Well, it looks like we’re very, very close to that happening. The hopeful part of this narrative, and I don’t know if Ayers gets into this, is that after that happens (the derailment) perhaps we’ll have the opportunity to push the reset button and get things where they need to be. Obviously it would be much better to avoid this catastrophe and I hope there are leaders out there who can have adult, nuanced conversations with us about how to back away from this precipice.

            HTC, good afternoon to you – I hope this finds you well and you’re enjoying this amazingly wonderful weather. To me, the deeper truths are those that have to do with the intersection of political and economic interests. I know this is a contentious point with some folks here, but if can no longer differentiate between the rights of a mega corporation and actual people then I believe we’re headed do a sad dystopian future. This is obviously connected to corporations’ political rights as they can now contribute unlimited funds to political campaigns. A couple of things that concern me about this is that these are transnational corporations that we’re talking about so foreigners’ money is mixed into our domestic political discourse and as a stock holder I won’t necessarily agree with the politician or the PAC that the corporation chooses to give money to. This means that I’ve actually lost control of my speech and abdicated it to a nameless, faceless non human entity whose volume will drown out my little voice…

             
          • kohana posted at 12:51 pm on Sun, Sep 25, 2011.

            kohana Posts: 2109

            Another aside:

            A Crazy Knesset

            submitted by: David Minkoff
            Israel's economy is in a bad way, inflation is getting higher and immigrants are flooding in from all over the world. Problems, problems, problems, but what should they do? So the Knesset holds a special session to come up with a solution.

            After several hours of talk without progress one member, Yitzhak, stands up and says "Quiet everyone, I've got it, I've got the solution to all our problems. We'll declare war on the United States."

            Everyone starts shouting at once. "You're nuts! That's crazy!"

            "Hear me out!" says Yitzhak. "We declare war. We lose. The United States does what she always does when she defeats a country. She rebuilds everything; our highways, airports, shipping ports, schools, hospitals, factories, and loans us money, and sends us food aid. Our problems would be over.

            "Sure," says Benny, another minister, "And what if we win?"

            http://www.aish.com/j/j/83527442.html

             
          • Bronco posted at 12:25 pm on Sun, Sep 25, 2011.

            Bronco Posts: 4328

            An aside:
            http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/219456/20110925/snl-rick-perry-video-gop-debate.htm

             
          • kohana posted at 10:34 am on Sun, Sep 25, 2011.

            kohana Posts: 2109

            Putting the wackos behind us, who went out of style about 30 years ago and left us in a dither, we have new worries. I don't think Ayers and his ilk has anything at all to do with it.

            From the Marietta Daily Journal, Cobb Co. GA
            A decade after 9/11 terrorist attacks, we’re nowhere near the finish line by Laura Armstrong Columnist
            September 18, 2011 12:53 AM

            If you saw two kids running wildly through the Kiwanis Club’s field of flags memorial at Kennesaw Mountain last Wednesday evening, laughing and twirling and falling down among the poles, well, those were my monkeys, oblivious to the reason we were there and the quiet meditations around us.

            I apologize. They simply aren’t ready to hear the truth yet. Someday, their daddy and I will sit down with them and explain.

            Meanwhile, it’s clear we were shortchanged on coverage of this anniversary, given a somewhat sanitized or whitewashed version of it by the standard media. Even here I wrote a tame little ditty about a note in my daughter’s backpack, not very hard-hitting and certainly timid by my own standards. The emotion of the day took over for my brain, I guess.

            This week, that’s all settled in and I can’t move on without a little more.

            While bold local outlets like the MDJ actually put the burning towers on the front page and memorialized victims, talk of our enemy was nil. Pretty images of the cleansing waterfall, huge American flag and military dress uniforms seemed standard for photographers at Ground Zero. There was also a steady stream of politicians and old balladeers like Paul Simon singing sixties music that, while appropriately emotive and sweet, missed the point of the gathering. Paul Simon was a great icon in the past, but his bridge over troubled water is just a soft target in a 9/12 world.

            Locally, our mountain was dressed in red, white and blue. Beautiful, serene, almost like a playground. Many thanks once again to the Kiwanis and all the families who brought their kids to run the gauntlet of 3,000 flags, their innocence as refreshing as that cleansing waterfall.

            But what was missing, or intentionally overlooked?

            How about the freedom rallies, organized by American patriots unafraid of the truth of the past decade and unconstrained by political correctness? You can find footage and speeches on the Internet, in particular the American Freedom Defense Initiative’s 2nd annual Freedom Rally. It was the unofficial New York ceremony, actually attended by firefighters and police after the wussy mayor banned them from official ground zero.

            At this rally a most compelling hero spoke, one of my favorite former Marines, Ilario Pantano. A young veteran of Operation Desert Storm, he’d just opened a business in NYC when we were attacked. He witnessed the destruction that day and saw many friends die, so fighting lots of red tape he got a commission and returned to the Corps as an infantry officer, fighting in Fallujah and more. After a very busy decade, he’s now a candidate for Congress in North Carolina but still sounds more warrior than politician.

            “It’s up to us to remember the truth,” he reminded. “There are those working every day to hide the truth of what happened” on 9/11.

            “It’s not enough to wave the flag, you need to know the facts. You need to be willing to step outside your comfort zone” and learn about our enemies.

            “Do you understand how all these pieces are connected?” he asked, listing various “dots” that have occurred since 9/11, the context of which is ignored by so many in our leadership and media. “Not enough of us know the truth and the realities are being whitewashed. Freedom is a lot like sausage: we like it but don’t really want to know how it’s made.”

            Radio host and native New Yorker Joyce Kaufman had this to say:

            “You can’t win a war without knowing who your enemy is and your enemy is not a man caused disaster, it is radical Islam.”

            “I’m not phobic, I’m a trend analyst. And I’ve been noting for 20 years that almost every act of political murder has been perpetrated by someone claiming to do it in the name of Allah.”

            Kaufman also reminded us that on this anniversary, in just one day, 77 American soldiers were injured fighting the Taliban in a hellhole overseas. “We must be vigilant, diligent and not lose faith. The enemy is not a vague idea, but an ideology that oppresses….I’m no longer apologizing for America. We did nothing to provoke the attacks. Evil is real and so is courage.”

            The defiance at these rallies is worth noting. The attendees aren’t afraid to face the truth, and understand that each act of jihad that reaches us is a small victory for the people who put their backwards, evil ideology into action.

            Just last week, the Christmas Day underwear bomber, a Muslim from Nigeria, screamed repeatedly during jury selection, “Osama is alive,” showing the soles of his shoes to court officers which is an insult in his culture, implying the proceedings and our justice system are beneath him.

            When I hear things like that, it makes me so angry I try to think of a cool, clean waterfall. But all I come up with are more reasons to take Pantano’s advice. Understand the fight. Connect the dots.

            We’re ten years beyond 9/11, but nowhere near the finish line.

            Lbarmstrong3378@comcast.net

            http://www.mdjonline.com/view/full_story/15566441/article-Laura-Armstrong--A-decade-after-9-11-terrorist-attacks--we%E2%80%99re-nowhere-near-the-fin

            Read more: The Marietta Daily Journal - Laura Armstrong A decade after 9 11 terrorist attacks we’re nowhere near the finish line

             
          • OH WILBER posted at 10:07 am on Sun, Sep 25, 2011.

            OH WILBER Posts: 275

            So how did we get here from there? Frank may have known all along but may have lacked the free will to alter or stop the manifesto's destiny from becoming reality. On the other hand, publishing conspiratorial recipe's for disaster columns could bring in more reactionary readers and increase circulation. Brilliant work Frank...

             
          • Rob123 posted at 9:23 am on Sun, Sep 25, 2011.

            Rob123 Posts: 6569

            HTC: Actually, ye olde knuckle dragger, it's a Democratically elected Republic.....Big difference.

            http://www.truth-out.org/wall-street-occupation-live-stream/1316548371

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 9:09 am on Sun, Sep 25, 2011.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9879

            Rob123: http://www.truth-out.org/conservatives-say-it-out-loud-they-hate-democracy/1316786695

            HTC: Still trying to be this room's self-appointed jester, I see; sadly, your postings make you doltish rather than entertaining.

            But I do have to agree with you on one thing: Many Conservatives DO hate democracy! Most definitely!

            Most real Americans do hate it as well, as do I.

            For the very simple reason that our country is NOT a democracy - it is a REPUBLIC!

            Only those who love the country defined in our Constitution are real Americans (patriots.)

            Dave Johnson is not a real American and apparently neither are you.


             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 9:00 am on Sun, Sep 25, 2011.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9879

            who new posted at 12:20 am on Sun, Sep 25, 2011

            HTC: Good post, who new.

            Our transformation into a massively bankrupt welfare state did NOT happen overnight. Progressivism has been an active force within this country for more than 130 years. Ayers and others were merely, for their time, the latest members of a would-be revolutionary force engaged in a long-running war against the Republic our Founders established.

            Frank has identified some of the more recent and more significant members of that treasonous bunch who were instrumental in helping the movement make strategic changes to their methods which would and did make them far more likely to succeed.

            The "community organizer" crowd were a key part of that new strategy and it is no coincidence that our current president comes from that background and will do whatever it takes to prevent the dismantling of the welfare state which we must do, if we are to save this Republic.

            But I do have to take exception with your listing the home interest deduction in your list of stepping stones to today's welfare state. Allowing people to keep more of their hard-earned money is not welfare, regardless of the fact that most progressives choose to color it as such.

             
          • HighTechCowboy posted at 8:47 am on Sun, Sep 25, 2011.

            HighTechCowboy Posts: 9879

            MT_foundation: I hear this democrat vrs. Republican, conservative vrs. Liberal, with us or against us new speak replicated in these silly ‘debates’ and am quite sure it’ll be a long time, if ever, that we the guts to dig deep into the subterranean layers and accept the truths we find there.

            HTC: The political rhetoric is indeed rarely more than superficial, so I'd be very interested in knowing what you believe to be the deeper, more relevant "subterranean" truths that we should be embracing.

             
          • bill39 posted at 8:01 am on Sun, Sep 25, 2011.

            bill39 Posts: 1036

            Since Cain won the straw poll in FL yesterday, I wonder if the dnc and media will change their strategy. Probably not. Since democrats can vote for a republican candidate in the primary in most states they will try to nominate Romney. If Romney loses they will put their money on congressional races.

             
          • naturalresources posted at 5:47 am on Sun, Sep 25, 2011.

            naturalresources Posts: 511

            Frank, it's truly amazing how the left will go to extremes to protect and defend the likes of Bill Ayers or the SDS. They simply cannot accept any rational representation of history if it involves supporting our country and our government.
            Thanks for the thought provoking and fact-filled columns each week. And rest assured that there are plenty of readers out here that understand the crux of this issues.

             
          • Rob123 posted at 2:48 am on Sun, Sep 25, 2011.

            Rob123 Posts: 6569

            "Cloward and Piven wrote their "Strategy to End Poverty" in 1966, and Cloward co-founded the National Welfare Rights Organization that same year to begin the work of turning welfare into a government obligation or a social "entitlement." Meanwhile, the "Weatherman" manifesto was published in June 1969 declaring that over-extending social services and military commitments was the key to overturning the U.S. government. That same year in August, Time magazine wrote that "Activists ... have focused on community organization projects, propagandizing and planning" how to "revolutionize society and plan future assaults on the established order."

            Hum....in 1969 we had 500,000+ troops in Vietnam, while 'secretly' Carpet Bombing Laos and Cambodia.....So what, eh?

            http://www.truth-out.org/conservatives-say-it-out-loud-they-hate-democracy/1316786695

             
          • who new posted at 12:20 am on Sun, Sep 25, 2011.

            who new Posts: 367

            Frank,
            I think the ball was rolling quite well by the time Ayers and his ilk happened along-

            Disaster relief started in 1803.
            Home mortgage interest tax deduction started in 1913.
            Veterans pensions started in 1917.
            Unemployment insurance started in 1932.
            Social Security started in 1935.
            Government subsidized housing started in 1937.
            Food stamps started in 1939.
            Foreign aid started in 1945.
            Social Security Disability started in 1956.
            Federal student loans started in 1958.
            Head Start started in 1965.
            Medicare and Medicaid started in 1965.

             
          • posted at 11:48 pm on Sat, Sep 24, 2011.

            Posts:

            MTF: You can say all you want that Ayers is inconsequential. That doesn't take away from the fact that he predicted what would happen in the next 40 years. I have tried to say several times I can't explain any mechanism whereby Ayers and SDS could have accomplished their goals; nonetheless their goals have been accomplished. To me this is well worth noting. There is nothing revisionist about it, except that early histories did not take note of it, presumably for the same reason as you -- because it is inconvenient. It is certainly not inaccurate. The fact that Cloward and Piven actively and publicly tried to use the welfare system to create socialism is also not without relevance. If American leadership just went along with Ayers, Alinsky, Cloward and Piven by accidednt, then we have been badly served by American leadership. If there is something more to the story, we need to know it. --Frank

             
          • MT_foundation posted at 9:15 pm on Sat, Sep 24, 2011.

            MT_foundation Posts: 64

            Once again we’re back to this week’s edition of crazy historical revisionism, namely Ayers and his colleagues had the power to draw the United States into the constant series of wars that we’ve been engaged in since Vietnam, well, actually, since The Spanish American War. Frank makes the grand mistake of thinking that Ayers et al had the influence to intentionally guide us into this age of constant warfare. Obviously they did not and if anything they were just reading the writing on the wall as to where the political class – Republicans AND Democrats – were leading us.

            They knew that the military-industrial-economic-hitman advocates and implementers are so deeply ingrained in our political and economic landscape that the only way to extract them is by exposure due to crisis, namely economic. Well, we’re obviously there. The existing political class, and most definitely not Ayers or his equivalent on the other end of the spectrum, have steered us to this point of economic decline and debt. Ayers’ point was that this is an inevitable point in our national and social evolution, a cross-roads that he was unfortunately correct in predicting.

            Frank, with all due respect, your pieces are amazingly out-of-date. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, Ayers is inconsequential. He has not power, influence, and definitely isn’t the wizard behind the curtain pulling the levers. For you to constantly write about him, and 1960s radicals, might speak to your personal experiences and the times or your generation, but they have no bearing on today’s reality. Part of the reason why we’re at this miserable point is because some people recklessly took us into a series of morally reprehensible wars. Those people most definitely we not Ayers.

            I think you know this, but it seems that you’re clinging to a two-dimensional world view to explain an exceptionally complicated multi-layered web or intersecting political and economic interests. I hear this democrat vrs. Republican, conservative vrs. Liberal, with us or against us new speak replicated in these silly ‘debates’ and am quite sure it’ll be a long time, if ever, that we the guts to dig deep into the subterranean layers and accept the truths we find there. Your pieces, Frank, lazily exist at the surface of this great, national heap of corruption. I encourage you to abandon the partisan narrative that no longer serves any purpose. And actually, it probably never did…

             
          rss

          Warren Illi: Flathead Outdoors

          Premium Hunting-tag change zooming through Legislature

           Two weeks ago I wrote about the apparently unjust Fish, Wildlife and Parks citation issued to a Minnesota hunter for not affixing his tag to his bull elk until 26 minutes after arriving at the kill site. 

          More From Warren Illi: Flathead Outdoors