Human Driven Climate Change; Greed and the Manipulation of Science

I do have a bit of a science background. Granted, it's not much, but it is enough to understand certain concepts that others might have trouble wrapping their minds around. It was at least partially due to this background, due to being trained in the scientific method, observation, and critical thinking, that I began to question this notion of man made global warming, or human driven climate change. There was just so much that didn't make sense to me. But that wasn't all I learned by attending a university. It wasn't all about science, math and liberal arts. I learned quite quickly how a bureaucracy works. I learned that a bureaucracy doesn't care about truth, about what is right or what is wrong, about principle, or about anything ethical that might be of concern to an ordinary human, a bureaucracy only cares about money and paperwork.

I was excited by the news I heard this weekend that hackers, or someone, had managed to get their hands on emails between scientists that claim climate change is mostly caused by humans, and yet in another way I was strangely saddened. I was excited because these emails show that, as I suspected all along, the impact that mankind has had on climate change has been seriously exaggerated all along. These scientists who have been promoting a vision of mankind's power to change climate and the ability to control the awesome wonders of nature by taxing human innovation and manufacturing have been manipulating data and public perception. They have been chilling dissenting views with threats and intimidation. They have been seeking, along with powerful political allies, to create a system of trade in the form of carbon credits for their own personal benefit no matter how devastating such a device would be to whole economies. This debate has never been about climate change or helping the planet to cope with mankind's industry, it has always been about power, about control, and about money. It has always been about a greedy few who want all the wealth. It has always been about creating kings and subjugating men.

I was, however, saddened by how I learned of this news and how it is yet being reported. It should be everywhere and in front of everyone, yet it is not. One has to look for it, at least a little. News stories about this affair have reported that hackers broke into a server at the University of East Anglia and stole data including emails. The corporate media may try to concentrate on this fact and not explore the information that was in the emails. They may try to spin the news to make the information revealed a non issue. They may also try to avoid the discussion as to whether it was really hackers that exposed these climate change “experts” for the hoaxers they are, or was it an insider who decided to blow the whistle on the fraud that was being perpetrated against the whole of the human race. The latter seems to me to be the more likely explanation. I will go out on a limb here and make a guess that at some point in time, maybe in a couple of weeks after they've had time to backtrack and get their stories straight, those involved will be given a chance by their media friends to explain away the condemning emails as simple misunderstanding.

There are other aspects to this story I am worried about. Some news organizations have decided to ignore this story and are not reporting on it. These would of course be the organizations most likely to be watched by the human driven climate change faithful. It was reported that the BBC had their hands on this information five weeks before it got out into the public. The BBC could have broken a major story with worldwide political and economic implications and they decided to sit on it? Sort of makes one wonder where their real interests are. It's certainly not with the people. It's certainly not in reporting the news. This gives one pause to think, what other information are these people not releasing to the public because of the impact it might have on the corporate or government friends who support them?

I worry that there are still supporters and proponents of human driven climate change that still won't get it. I worry that they will argue that these emails mean nothing, that the cause is more important than the science. I worry that they will continue to let their faith blind them regardless of the evidence set at their feet. There are those who are so wrapped up in their beliefs, they have so much of their time, thought, emotion and perhaps even finances invested, that they simply will not be able to bring themselves to accept the reality of what has occurred. As long these people exist and continue to accept the word of these scientists without question, they can be used to help enable those who wish to use the fear of global warming to tax and gain power over the common folk.

I feel there should be a complete and full investigation into this matter and arrests should be made for fraud. After all, these people stood to gain financially through future government research grants and likely in ways as yet uncovered. I doubt this will happen. Those who would be in charge of such investigations also stood to gain from this scam and it is possible many of them are involved. Though there is likely plausible deniability in place, there are likely several aspects of this affair that certain powerful people don't want exposed. If major media outlets were to raise a stink about what is going on and launch their own investigations, do some real investigative reporting for a change, then it would be possible those in power would be forced to do something if just for appearances. This doesn't seem likely either, judging from early media reaction to this news. The Fox network may be an exception, we will have to wait and see. Yet even if all the media reported fairly on this discovery I feel there would still be a few who would continue to believe and idolize Al Gore and his ilk. There are always some who will take their denial to the grave.

As I've said in two recent articles and earlier in this article, the man made climate change scare has not been about climate change or the environment at all, but about money, power and control. I've been saying this for years. I would like to be able to say I told you so to those out there who have berated me and my opinion, but I cannot. First off, it's not a nice thing to do and I hate it when it happens to me, and it has happened. But secondly, there is still an elite out there that want to carry through this agenda of theirs. They want a world socialist government, a world bureaucracy if you will, and they'll use every tactic they can think of to get it. These are intelligent, rich, greedy, powerful individuals that may still have a couple of tricks up their sleeves, or may just not care at this late date what we think and what evidence has been exposed. They may simply force this agenda through. Yet they still want something from us. They want obedience. They want us to think of ourselves as powerless. Keep this in mind as events unfold over the next couple of weeks on the road to Copenhagen. Watch what happens and how they react. Remember that sometimes the best course of action is to peacefully refuse to obey. Remember that you have the power to say “No.”

The Corporate Media's Dancing Monkeys

I remember at one point during the Bush years, when things looked particularly dark and the police state was closing in, I saw Youtube clips of a man by the name of Keith Olbermann speak poignantly to power about the evisceration of our constitution. He pointed out to President Bush that most of the first ten amendments, the portion of the Constitution known as the Bill of Rights, had been violated by the laws that at the time had recently been passed. Week after week, for a time, he admonished the administration and berated Bush for dishonoring the ideals that this nation supposedly stands for and violating the Constitution, a document they swore an oath to defend. For a moment in time, I found hope in the fact that someone in the mainstream media seemed to get it, that someone seemed to understand the concepts of freedom and liberty and was pointing out the abuser and ringing the alarm bells against the coming fascism. Then something happened.

Barack Obama was elected president. Mr. Olbermann continued to question the validity and constitutionality of Mr. Bush and his administration even after the election, and with good reason, but his tone was a little giddier. Mr. Obama had been elected and the future looked brighter. I remained more sober, however. It seemed that Mr. Olbermann couldn't see what I could, and thousands of others who had supported honest candidates, that Mr. Obama was a slick huckster like so many politicians and did not mean one word of his eloquent orations. As time went by I began to believe that perhaps Mr. Olbermann did not care one iota about the Constitution. Perhaps he simply used it as a partisan tool to help his guy get into office. Or perhaps Mr. Olbermann was just acting. He is likely a very good actor. He was just doing his job. He was just a dancing monkey on the end of a leash doing what his masters wanted him to do.

I believe this because I haven't seen any videos lately with Mr. Olbermann complaining about how much Mr. Obama disrespects the constitution. I haven't seen him complain that the unconstitutional laws passed by the Bush administration are still being used by the Obama administration. I haven't seen him complain about the unconstitutionality of the health care bill, or the continuance of the bank bailouts, or the government takeover of the auto industry, or the continuing subversion of American values through these never ending wars. It seems that to him it is unacceptable when a Republican administration violates the Constitution, but it's no big deal when a Democrat administration does the same, or maybe it's just unacceptable to his bosses.

But it's not just Keith Olbermann who behaves in such an unprincipled manner. In fact, almost all of the mainstream media political pundits will sell out American principle and condone unconstitutional actions as long as their big government party is doing it. We've come to expect people like Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity to sing the praises of Republicans while insulting and degrading Democrats. Likewise we've become used to left leaning pundits encouraging support for the Democrats and their agenda while blaming Republicans and their agenda for the woes of the world. None of these people give a whit about the Constitution. None of them care about liberty, individual freedom, or any principle America was supposedly founded on. These men don't seem to want to report on the manipulation behind the political scene. They only seem interested in keeping their followers divided, likely because that is what their controllers tell them to do. They are quite willing to point out the unconstitutional nature of one agenda while ignoring the unconstitutional nature of the other. They are quite willing to use the founding document of our nation to divide its citizenry.

There is little or no investigative reporting going on anymore, at least nothing substantive. We are bombarded with political opinion and satire instead of fact that would expose the vast majority of politicians for the anti constitution shysters they really are, regardless of their party affiliation. Any real investigation, any genuine evaluation, has been left to the modern day amateur and semi professional alternative media bloggers and reporters to disseminate, with some notable exceptions. The establishment corporate media focuses mostly on non issues and distractions as important matters get glossed over and even more important actions go unreported or under reported. In this way, newsworthy events which should anger or activate the public pass under most people's radar and remain outside the public consciousness. This is one way to keep the public out of the debate.

Another way to keep the public at bay when it comes to controlling perceptions and opinions is through the use of spin. Such tactics serve only to keep the faithful in line, keep them from thinking for themselves, and give them talking points to use when arguing with the faithful of the other major party. Of course, like so many things, the use of spin is not always obvious. It can, in fact, sometimes be very subtle. This can be particularly true when it comes to freedom messages. Glenn Beck, who has been delivering quite a nice freedom message lately, is a good example of this. Though I like his tone of late, he seems to comprehend liberty and explains aspects of it to his audience in a simple and entertaining fashion, he does have a checkered history of intolerance which makes me somewhat skeptical of his agenda.

Could he be trying to gain the trust of liberty oriented folks in order to use his influence to try to convince them to ignore an important issue? It was not too long ago he was accusing certain groups of being dangerous and calling for the censorship of their message. Labeling dissidents who protest the establishment storyline or explanation as truthers, birthers, deniers, or any other er does not make them crazy, violent or wrong. It makes them people who are not satisfied with the establishment answers or the corporate media's reporting. They have valid concerns which should be addressed in a respectful manner. As long secrecy remains, veiled threats are made and honest debate is shut down out of hand, there will be questions as to the validity of official, establishment answers and as to exactly who the corporate media serves.

Freedom of speech, indeed the freedom of expression, applies to all no matter how vile, radical, offensive or otherwise disagreeable to either the majority, a specific minority, anyone in power, or indeed any particular group or individual. Anyone using their influence, especially one as influential as a television commentator, in such a manner, for the purpose of curtailing the free flow of ideas by force, should not be encouraged. Instead, an open discussion of the facts, contradictions, and relevant issues should ensue with available research, sourced, proven and disproven referenced rather than resorting to name calling and fear mongering to advance an agenda. Given Rupert Murdoch's history of supporting whatever political ideology was in power or seemed poised to take power instead of standing on principle, it seems, in my opinion, prudent to continue to question his motivations and therefore the motivations of those working for him.

I am happy to see the principles of liberty and freedom becoming an issue. It gives my heart joy to think that these issues are gaining more consideration, even and especially in the mainstream media. I'd like to think that this is because the owners of such media have become principled, but I believe it is has more to do with market pressures as more people scorn newspapers and television and turn to the Internet for their information. That's not a bad thing. That at least shows that many people, likely more than reported, are aware they've been played and are looking to other sources for truth. It shows that perhaps the message of socialism, control and world government is falling on deaf ears.

It has been said that the attention span of humans is shrinking. Perhaps that's true, or perhaps the average human just hasn't had anything that interesting to focus on for some time now. Certainly it has been shown that when an individual finds something that holds his interest his attention span greatly increases. I believe that the common man is slowly once again discovering the principles of freedom and his ears are perking up. He is showing an interest in learning that which the establishment has neglected for so long to teach and has, in fact, attempted to conceal. Perhaps cable news viewership is declining because people have seen the dancing monkeys for too long and are becoming bored with what they see. The common folk are thirsty for truth and hunger for information that makes sense, and they have come to realize they will not find it from those who have historically manipulated reality for their own corporate agenda.

2009 Continental Congress: Historical Observations and Outlook

History has a strange way of repeating itself. In the late 1700s, in America, people were experiencing the culmination of the Enlightenment. They were on the fringes of the greatest empire at the time, an empire run by the parliamentary monarchy of King George III in a land far from the colonies. As is often true with empires, England was involved in several wars. War costs money. Money can be hard to come by. Monarchs at the time used the fear of war to fleece the wealth of the populace, likely making the case that they had to take the fight to the enemy so the enemy would not come to their shores. As it so happened the English colonies located in the Americas were creating quite a bit of wealth. King George III felt it was time for the colonies to chip in and pay their fair share for the protection the empire provided.

The colonies were peopled by an adventurous lot. They had left behind their lives in hopes of finding something better in a new, supposedly free world. They found themselves in a strange, wild, sometimes harsh land which needed to be tamed. So they kept their ties with the old world. They had left behind family and friends and familiarities. They certainly did not wish to severe all ties with the familiar institutions they had left behind, yet circumstances dictated they develop many of their own. It was on the foundation of liberty and self determination that they decided to build the new institutions, for they were forced by distance, surroundings, and old world technology to be self sufficient and to often depend on their own small communities, or even individual efforts. The spirit of independence had taken root on these shores long before the Declaration of Independence was written.

During the first Continental Congress, where much passionate debate took place, many representatives wished to maintain their ties to England and its king. Many feared losing the security the empire provided. In fact, Georgia did not attend because of the threat the indigenous population presented to the people of that colony. In the end, the Continental Congress decided to send a list of grievances to the king in hopes of resolving such grievances in a fair and timely fashion. The king, unfortunately, decided to ignore this request and did not redress these grievances. Two years later the Declaration of Independence was penned and the colonies absolved their allegiance with the British crown.

There are parallels to the first Continental Congress and the 2009 Continental Congress that is taking place in St. Charles, Illinois. Perhaps the most obvious is that government, such as it exists at in this nation at the federal level, refuses to acknowledge and redress the grievances so many have put before it. Time and again the people have exercised proper decorum and used the mechanisms set up by the state to address such concerns and time and again those mechanisms have failed in their design. When institutions that were set up to ensure the security of individual rights fail to do so it is time to re-examine those institutions and make the changes necessary to reflect and support the purposes for which those institutions were established.

The system of governance that was established for this nation long ago has been usurped by other interests. It has been replaced by a system foreign to a freedom loving people that seeks to make the people dependent upon it rather than the other way around. If we are to remain independent then it may be necessary for a contingent of individuals, who are more representative of the people as a whole than professional politicians, to reassert their power and direct the attention of those serving in said institutions to the failures of the system to protect and act in accordance with the principles this nation was founded upon. Otherwise, we risk the possibility, indeed the probability, of allowing the depravities of an uncaring behemoth of a government answerable only to itself to run roughshod over the populace.

I don't know that anyone realizes just how many people have been harmed by the current system of governance the populace of this nation currently tolerates. From the federal down to the local level, self important individuals have abused the power granted to them by the people in numerous ways. They have violated individual rights by physically, mentally and financially harming individuals exercising those rights. There are those serving in the 2009 Continental Congress who have experienced such abuses first hand. They understand better than most that there are many who serve in bureaucracies across the nation that have come to feel that while the average person living in these borders must mercilessly answer to laws as written, they themselves are not held accountable for their incursions against natural law and individual rights. In many cases, the bureaucrats refuse to follow even their own laws.

Jeff Williams, one of the delegates from the state of Washington, provides an example. He is an entrepreneur who wished to establish a business. Being new to such endeavors, he was unsure as to the laws, and specifically as to tax law, and so he turned to the IRS for help in filing his taxes. The IRS proceeded to give him directions which he followed diligently. He continued on with his life thinking he had no worries and had paid his required tribute to the tax collector. Months later he was informed he had made a mistake and was summoned to their offices where he was to meet with an IRS agent.

Mr. William's wife, having a vested interest in the outcome of the meeting, escorted her husband to the IRS offices. When she pointed out to the IRS agent that the IRS's own rules state that when a mistake is made due to faulty instructions given by an IRS employee the taxpayer is not liable for accrued fines, the Williams were escorted from the building by armed guards. This is the typical government answer to grievances. This is their redress. We are answered with more harm. They refuse to follow their own laws, and no one is held accountable. This was done to a law abiding businessman, a productive member of society. One must wonder how many others are treated in such a fashion? Is it any wonder the anger is growing to such proportions? How long will we tolerate such transgressions and abuses?

Another example is that of Catherine Bleish, a delegate from Missouri. She was arrested because she was standing in line outside a courthouse and when ordered (along with everyone in the crowd) to stand against a wall made the comment “Get in line, show us your papers, give us your money, welcome to the new America” to another person waiting in the same line. The law enforcement officer overheard and didn't take kindly to the comment. He then inappropriately asked if anyone had a leash for her. He then threatened to arrest her if she didn't leave in two minutes. When she asked what she would be arrested for the officer told her, “I will make something up” in front of at least ten witnesses. He then proceeded to leave and two minutes or so later came back and arrested her for failure to comply with a lawful order.

An order is not lawful if it is unconstitutional. Ms. Bleish had done nothing wrong. She was expressing her opinion in a peaceful manner. The police officer didn't agree with her sentiment and rather than do the civil thing and engage her in a polite debate as to the merits of her statement to try to persuade her that her opinion of the new American society was incorrect, he abused the power he had been entrusted with and validated her observations. Those who are supposed to be our public servants have become the masters. Law enforcement officers used to be known as peace officers. We are taught that they are important, respected members of our community, but I have seen or heard about example after example of law enforcement officers not respecting the rights of the individual and blatantly disregarding them. Respect that is given and not reciprocated is respect undeserved. It is, in fact, quite often nothing less than fear and perhaps even terror. When such official abuse occurs it serves no one. This abuse may have been a small one, but far greater abuses have occurred, some of which have led to death. This small abuse is indicative of an attitude endemic in those who have been entrusted with even a small amount of power.

It is a sad thing to see so many harmed. It is a terrible thing to discover that what you were taught when you were younger is not true, that your country is not the haven it was meant to be and is not a bastion of freedom, liberty and justice for the world to flock to. We may not have the problems of some third world countries with their horrific abuses and genocidal tendencies, but we are heading that way. The bigger that government grows, the harder it becomes to stop the waste, corruption and abuse taking place. This is a problem that the politicians in Washington, DC refuse to acknowledge, let alone deal with.

The delegates attending the 2009 Continental Congress are dealing with problems that elected officials should be concerned with. They have made personal sacrifices to do a job our elected representatives should be doing. With extremely few exceptions, those at the federal level who claim to represent us have failed in their duties to faithfully execute their offices and protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America. Perhaps the people of this nation are partially to blame for not being as vigilant as we should have been. Perhaps it is not clear to those serving at the federal level that we wish to remain a free, self determined people. The delegates at this year's Continental Congress have done a good job at hashing out the instructions they wish to give to our elected representatives for redressing the grievances of the people and restoring proper respect and dedication to individual rights those serving in government need to have. There was much passionate debate and quite a bit of controversy, but from what I have observed the final product looks to be awesome. They will include quite a few ways that ordinary, average, every day Americans can become involved, and unlike government no force will be involved and this will be an entirely voluntary opt in system. If our elected officials had worked so diligently and remained so principled our problems would be light and our prosperity great.

2009 Continental Congress: First Thoughts and Impressions

There's an anger roiling throughout American society. Perhaps it reaches overseas into all of Western society, I can't say, but it's particularly palpable here, especially among the middle classes. People know that something is wrong. They may not be able to put their finger on exactly what is wrong, but they know something's not right. And there are many, many people who aren't sure what they should do about it. Most people feel their country is slipping away. They feel that the principles upon which this nation was built no longer have meaning. When the foundation of your society crumbles, then there will obviously be nothing left for your society to stand upon. There are many scenarios that could play out should this happen, some of them very frightening. As a freedom loving people seeking liberty for all, it should become incumbent upon each of us as individuals to do what we can to promote the restoration of the respect for individual rights that has been lost to those serving in the federal government. When such tyranny rears its ugly head, it becomes necessary for concerned men and women to speak out or their silence may be construed as condoning the actions.

A group of 104 men and women from 48 states have decided to convene a Continental Congress in St. Charles, Illinois this week and next in an attempt to make their voices heard. The “We the People Foundation” has sponsored this event which began on November 11th with much pomp and ceremony. I attended the event on the 12th to try to get a feel for what was being accomplished and I plan on attending more in the coming days.

There is, I have heard, some cynicism in the movement as to exactly what will be accomplished with this event. In my estimation, such cynicism is good. There is a lot to be cynical about. Those in charge of the federal government have more than proved they have no respect for what the American people think, how they feel, or what they want. Recent events have shown they have no consideration for the wants of the majority, let alone a minority with little or no funding. Those in charge or working within the system seem to operate under two rules; “He who has the gold makes the rules” and “Might makes right.” It seems futile to go up against the leviathan the federal government has become.

In the late eighteenth century the nation's founding fathers were in much the same boat. They were ruled over by the largest, strongest bureaucracy of the time. They felt they weren't being represented in their government structure. They felt their grievances weren't being heard by their government, that they were unfairly preyed upon by those in charge of a government out of touch and far away. They gathered together a group of men and met for the purpose of trying to find a way to resolve their differences in a peaceful manner with the empire that had birthed them. War and violence was the last thing they wished for, yet providence brought these things upon them and from this conflict ideals and conventions were developed so that future generations could live without fear of government and the power that corrupts it.

So evolved the great nation which we inherit. Unfortunately, it seems that certain aspects of our governance have devolved. Once again, we are ruled over by the largest and strongest bureaucracy of our time. Once again, we are preyed upon by a government that seems out of touch and far away. Once again our grievances aren't being heard. Once again there is no representation, and the amount we are taxed has far surpassed what our forefathers wouldn't put up with. So the time has come to gather and attempt to resolve the differences between the people and those who wish to govern them.

The delegates from the states that were appointed to this new Continental Congress are doers. These are people who wish to hold accountable those who would infringe upon the rights of the people. They are those who wish to empower the common folk rather than the politicians. They are interested in taking action rather than merely spouting rhetoric. So they may get together and argue, they may disagree with each other as to an appropriate course of action, they may have to hammer out the details and come up with solutions that will anger some and concern others, but they are trying. They are not merely sitting upon their hands, hoping for change and praying for the best. They certainly are not like the robotic followers of certain established political machines spouting childish slogans such as “Yes we can” and then they don't. It is time to challenge the establishment, not placate it. It is time to demonstrate to the political establishment in Washington, DC that there are still people in this country who care about their rights and liberties and who wish them to obey the law that is the Constitution.

It is difficult to say what will come out of this Continental Congress. It is difficult to predict the significance it will have on the future. I'm sure the founding fathers were uncertain as to their future also. Indeed, had they lost their struggle, their names may very well have been erased from the annuls of history rather than revered as they are today. Those who sit in their ivory towers need to be reminded that they are not the leaders, they are the servants. There are certain laws they agreed to abide by when they took office. Indeed, they swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. It may indeed be futile to expect those who broke the system to fix it, but it is necessary to ask or they will certainly never try.

This is an event that should be news. It should be heard far and wide that such an event is taking place so that more can get involved. It's such a shame that mainstream media has been so corrupted by the same multinational corporate interests that have corrupted the federal government. As such, this event remains hidden from national consciousness. We common folk are all tired of being ignored, brow beaten and completely disrespected by those we entrust with the power to govern. We expect them to honor their oaths and they continuously refuse to do so. We need to back these people making an heroic effort to communicate with our supposed representatives that we simply wish them to adhere to the law that was laid down in the blood, sweat and tears of our forebears. We need to support these men and women who are shouting at power that it must be constrained rather than whispering in fear of it in some hole-in-the-wall neighborhood tavern but doing nothing to stop it. We must make it clear that there is nothing more important than the principles of liberty upon which our nation was built and that without these life itself becomes meaningless. Please help spread the word that this event is taking place and that there are those who still care about the principles that are what America is supposed to stand for.

The Importance of the Constitution in Reclaiming the Republic Peacefully

Nancy Pelosi was recently asked where in the Constitution she (and congress) got the power to pass laws involving health care. Her reply was “Are you serious?” That was the best answer this woman could come up with? Are you serious? Is she serious? The woman supposedly took an oath to uphold the Constitution. This woman is third in line to take the office of the presidency should some unforeseen catastrophe or political upheaval cause the president and vice president to be unable to fulfill their duties. This is supposed to be the document that enshrines American values and encodes into law the powers that those elected to federal office are able to exercise. Yes, the reporter was and should be serious when he asked that question. Nancy Pelosi should be serious about paying attention to the Constitution and following its mandates. We should all be serious about making certain the politicians obey the Constitution and prevent them from usurping the powers the founding fathers delegated to us, we the people.

So why aren't they serious? They aren't serious because so far the American people have not been serious about enforcing it. The American people seem to have forgotten that the Constitution was written to constrain the power of the government, particularly the federal government, not as a mere “guideline” for how those in power “should” act. It is the supreme law of the land and it is meant to be obeyed by the politicians in Washington, DC. It was not written as a document meant to rule over individuals or outline how they should behave on their own private property. The United States of America is a nation meant to be inhabited by people who believe they are sovereign individuals capable of creating their own destinies, as all humans across the planet should.

It's difficult for some to understand how Ms. Pelosi could get away with being so arrogant, pompous, and presumptive. It's difficult to understand why we have allowed so many politicians to stay in power when they are as full of hubris as Nancy Pelosi and so indignant when faced with constituents voicing their concerns. I don't know exactly when or how the American people became so apathetic, I don't know how or when they gave up on being involved with their neighbors, communities and safeguarding their freedoms, but then I don't believe it was something that happened at a marked point in time nor something that happened in a distinct way. Despite their violent history, I believe in an esoteric way the American people in general have always been a peaceful group. At the very least they have always been seeking peace.

The people who first settled this nation did so in an attempt to escape tyranny. They came here seeking the opportunities that freedom provided. What they may not have realized is the tyranny they carried in their hearts. What they may not have learned are lessons in freedom such as to be free you must allow others to live free also. Perhaps, since all these people were raised under the heavy boots of tyranny and control, they became the very tyrants they were trying to escape when they arrived on these shores and found themselves no longer burdened with an oppressive state. The reasons shouldn't matter so much as we have hopefully evolved since then, yet the better we understand them the easier it may be to break the cycle. The lessons of the past need to be learned so the mistakes made back then are not repeated, yet that simple sounding proposition seems difficult to execute.

Our founding fathers seemed to have understood this concept. That's why they included the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. That's why they tried their best to divide the powers and put them at odds with each other. Yet almost immediately these concepts built into the Constitution came under assault. Fortunately, for quite some time the federal government respected individual liberty for the most part and this nation of immigrants grew and prospered. Fortunately the principles of the Constitution were, for the most part, adhered to by those in power and the common man found himself attaining unprecedented prosperity through freedom. It was the promise of freedom and the opportunities it provided that attracted so many who were willing to work hard to build new lives for themselves and their families, not a government that promised to take care of them from cradle to grave.

It could be argued that the principles of freedom were first seriously compromised during and after the civil war. It was during this period when power was solidified in a centralized bureaucracy in Washington, DC instead of remaining spread out and maintained at the state capitals across the country, where the common folk could keep a closer eye on it. It was during this period where we first see the concept of sovereign individuals capable of determining their own destinies subverted into the concept of “citizens” who are bound and subordinate to the power of the state, a poorly defined entity that could at any time mutate into something terrifying. Still, even after such a power grab, this nation managed to hold dear to its founding notions and respected the principles it was built upon. As such, the newly defined citizens, war weary and eager to rebuild, set about the business of conquering a continent and creating even more wealth.

It was in 1913, in my humble opinion, when the seeds to the downfall of the American republic were truly sown. This was the year the Federal Reserve was created. This was the year that states lost their power over the senate which fell to mob rule. This was the year the internationalists got their feet in the door and began buying up the politicians. Had the people of this nation taken action back then, history may have been very different. One can only speculate on just how prosperous humanity would be had true freedom won the day, but instead this nation took a turn toward socialist, collectivist thinking and stifled the innovation, creativity and potential of humankind leading to the mess we have today.

One can hardly blame our predecessors. Its easy to fall prey to the devious nature and promises of the international scam artists. It was easy to stop thinking, to just relax and enjoy the artificial indulgences of the twenties. It was easy to accept the socialist solutions and handouts of the thirties and become dependent on government. It was easy to accept the propaganda of empire and turn a blind eye to its hypocrisy after World War II. Perhaps the prosperity of the fifties, the boom in wealth and the obsession to obtain what became known as the “American dream” helped create a blind spot in mass consciousness as to the cost of that dream. Perhaps modern marvels in technology helped numb the pain of the never ending wars and occupations that come with maintaining an empire. But mostly, perhaps the American people have ignored the transgressions of our political servants and allowed the erosion of their respect for our rights because we have enjoyed such abundance for so long. That has now changed and will continue to get worse until our freedoms are once again revered and honored by the politicians who claim to represent the people.

Those who point out that the Constitution has not protected us have a valid point, but it is one that is not completely accurate. The Constitution cannot protect us. It is just a piece of paper with words written on it. There is power to the words, but the power does not come from the document itself. The power comes from the ideas and principles such words instill in the hearts and minds of men. It is up to us to determine when and how to apply that power. Those people in congress who refuse to recognize the inherent rights of the individual need to be reminded that they are put there to serve the individual, not the special interests or the rich corporations who pay for their campaigns, and to protect the rights of the individual, not to violate those rights for some misguided philanthropic cause. Forced charity is not charitable.

I have heard some people recently make the claim that once our rights are lost they can never be regained. I don't agree with that statement because I don't believe that rights, which are part of our natural makeup, can be truly lost. They can be violated or respected by those who deign to rule over us and force us to bend to their dictates. Words on paper declaring they shall not do such things will have no power over them unless the people exercise their rights. I know its been a long time since such muscles on the body politic have been used, but it is time for the people to flex their rights and exercise their power. The congress now needs to be hounded and reminded that the people are serious about the Constitution and intend to make certain that their oaths to defend it are honored.

Over the weekend, on a Saturday night when very few were paying attention, when the news had turned to other matters, the House of Representatives approved a health care reform bill that is sure to put many out of business, put even more burden on the already overburdened taxpayers, and ensure a monopolistic privilege for the large insurance companies that the taxpayers have already bailed out. They had to do it like that because they were aware of the popular discontent that had been expressed for the bill. I saw a picture of Ms. Pelosi after the vote and she looked like the cat that ate the canary. She had a huge grin on her face as if she had won a great victory. What was a victory to her is a great blow to American ideals and the principles of liberty, individual responsibility and self determination. She and her colleagues who voted for this nineteen hundred page monstrosity of a bill are seriously not serious about honoring their oath to defend the Constitution or the principles its words ensconce in our collective psyche.

Clearly these people couldn't care less about what the people want. Clearly they couldn't care less about the individual rights they have usurped. Clearly they couldn't care less about real change. Clearly they don't even fear the specter of not getting reelected, likely because the voting system in this country with its electronic balloting has been rigged for quite some time. No, as I've said many times before, they only care about their power, their money and their privileges. It's time to do something about that. If the bill makes it through the Senate and is signed into law, which I suspect is likely to happen since no one in government seems to be listening to the people, then businesses need to say enough and to refuse to abide by these new laws. They need to refuse to pay the fines. This will require a few brave souls as the government bullies will likely extract quite a toll, perhaps even imprisonment, but then isn't this supposed to be the home of the brave? In any case, it needs to be shown that although those inhabiting the halls of congress don't care for the constitutionality of the laws they pass, we the people do.

The people of this nation have quite boisterously displayed their disgust lately for the congress critters who continue to ignore the shouting. The Constitution is a legal document that they are bound to by virtue of their oaths and the offices they hold. Perhaps the time has come to hold them personally accountable for their actions. Since we can't seem to get them to take the Constitution seriously by protest or vote, perhaps there is a way to hold them accountable for violating it in a peaceful courtroom setting. The Constitution is, after all, the law they are supposed to obey and it should be used as such.

Shame on the Big, Centralized, World Government Deniers

I had nothing better to do the other day and was browsing through some blogs and some news stories. I was surprised to see so many people still vehemently arguing about the reality of climate change and insisting that something needs to be done about it. Many pointed to this graph and that graph, this scientist and that scientist, this study and that study, this piece of propaganda and that piece of propaganda, and then cried about how arguing about climate change was going to lead us down the path to mankind's destruction. Both sides of the debate claim the other side is lying. Both sides present arguments that may be considered convincing to some. But there was something I noticed about those who argue that climate change is man made. Many of them have taken to calling those who argue against them “climate change deniers.”

Let's make this clear. I am not a “climate change denier.” I agree that climate change exists. I just disagree that mankind has a major impact on it. In fact, I will point out that climate change has existed for millennia. Looking back on the geologic record there is much evidence that climate change existed long before humans walked the earth. More recent records show climate change occurring before mankind was industrialized. I find it hard to believe that mankind has had that much of an impact on climate change and the evidence I've seen that we have has been weak at best, in my humble opinion, especially considering the multitude of climates this planet has seen for millions and even billions of years.

I would assert that a much, much greater contributor to climate change is the sun. I don't really need a scientist to tell me this. I can observe on my own that when one hemisphere is exposed to more of the sun's energy the climate is warmer and when less of the sun's energy reaches it the climate is cooler. I don't think it's that farfetched an idea that if the sun puts out more energy than the earth's climate will become more tropical and if the sun's energy output declines the earth's climate will become more arctic like. It would not cross my mind, however, to label anyone who disagrees with that assessment a solar wind denier. At least it wouldn't have if I hadn't seen the term “climate change denier” used so often.

But, to take it even further, I do agree that mankind does have an impact on the climate. It's just an infinitesimal impact. It is so small that I certainly don't believe it can create a change that can be measured. In fact, I would suggest that the impact that man has on climate is countered quite effectively by natural cycles. I remember way back in grade school reading about the impact that termites have on the climate. It seems they put out tons of methane into the atmosphere from digesting the wood they eat when they burrow into it. It occurred to me even back then that any life has an extremely small impact on climate just by engaging in the process of living, sort of like a butterfly effect. I don't think that taxing termites would be an effective way of preventing climate change, nor would exterminating them.

To further clarify my position, I would point out that I don't deny that man has an even greater impact on the environment. Indeed, man's activities produce quite a number of dangerous and deadly pollutants that can and do cause death and destruction in the natural world. This, however, is quite a bit different from climate. Lead, mercury and other heavy metals along with radioactive materials and many other byproducts of war and industry can have a devastating effect on the environment. It seems to me that carbon dioxide is one of the least of these byproducts to worry about, and we probably shouldn't worry about it at all. Without carbon dioxide, life on this planet likely wouldn't even exist, at least not as we know it. Plants need carbon dioxide to live just as we need oxygen, and we need plants to survive. It seems to me that there are far greater hazards than carbon dioxide to worry about, but if we weren't worried about it then those who wish to impose taxes on us would not be able to totally control our very basic activities down to our every breath.

So, I don't deny that problems exist. I simply disagree with the solutions put forward, especially by government and most especially by scientists on the payroll of the United Nations. Perhaps when I was younger and more naive I would have been more inclined to believe such “experts.” In fact, there was a time when I believed that perhaps mankind was having a great effect on the world's climate. Then I started listening to the solutions the politicians were suggesting. That's when I realized these people were not worried about the climate. As I grew older and observed the operations of government I began to understand its nature. Government is not for the benefit or welfare of the average man, or the world, or nature, or the climate, it is for the benefit and welfare of the few at the top of the heap. These people are as uncaring as they come. It seems to me that perhaps many of them believe they are very clever and spend their days trying to figure out the most devious ways to try to fool the general public. Sure, some may have blinded themselves with the excuse of good intentions and given up thinking beyond the dogma so that they can continue to excuse their own behavior and do their jobs, but the ones at the top, the ones giving the orders and pulling the strings, they must be aware of what this is really all about in order to maintain the illusion.

Still, there are those who are going to stick to their guns and insist that anyone who thinks as I do is a climate change denier. They are going to insist that I and anyone else with my same mindset isn't looking at any of the science or is ignoring it in favor of “crazy” conspiracy theorists, discredited junk scientists or scientists paid off and working for oil, coal, or other energy companies. Fine. No amount of arguing would convince them anyway. They are so set in their ways, so enamored with their belief that man is the all powerful evil creating devastating climate change, that if the sun were to have a sudden burst of energy output tomorrow, and we were all quick fried, the last thoughts going through their heads would be that the SUV their neighbor started that morning was to blame for putting the last bit of carbon dioxide into the environment that put the climate over the tipping point. If they want to believe I'm a climate change denier, so be it. Likely there's not a thing I could say (or write) that would change their minds. Yet this next bit is directed at them.

If I'm a climate change denier, then perhaps they are big government deniers. Perhaps we are all deniers of one sort or another and perhaps they simply refuse to believe that big government exists. Perhaps they don't think that there exists people in this world who desire greatly to laud power over every other human being on the planet. Perhaps they don't think there exists a parasitic agency that will use every excuse, every trick it can think of, to tax those of us in this world who produce so that they can live in opulence off our hard work. Perhaps they don't believe there are people who wish to siphon off and control the wealth created by others so that they can live the life of Riley without producing anything of value. Perhaps they deny the existence of documents, treaties and other framework agreements that would legally bind the future rulers of nations and the people they are supposed to represent to some worldwide taxing body. Certainly they don't seem to want to talk about such issues and get pretty darn persnickety when such issues are brought up.

It seems to me that the same people who are solar wind deniers are also big, centralized, world government deniers. They cry that such things don't exist. They cry that such things are not being planned. They may cry that anyone who believes that such a thing as world government is in the works is paranoid. They will quickly slap a crazy label on anyone who warns that a power elite is attempting to establish a worldwide structure to rule over mankind with greater legal authority than already exists. They cry that everyone who looks at or studies the actions and effects these things have or will have on the ecological and economical systems of this world are chasing phantoms. While they will shout that others refuse to examine the “real” science of a problem, they seem unable to recognize real political aspects. They quake in their boots with fear and seem to desire to have all their money and liberties taken from them just for a few soothing words and a meaningless promise that everything is going to be okay.

But, then again, I could be wrong. Perhaps those accusing the people who are pointing to the sun and factors other than mankind of being climate change deniers understand quite a bit about how big government works. Perhaps they realize that in order to get populations to submit to their terror/extortion techniques the populations need to be fearful of some great calamity or enemy. Perhaps they realize too well that it is easier to exercise control over people when those same people are asking to be controlled. Perhaps those accusing others of being climate change deniers are not themselves deniers of big, centralized, world government, but enablers of those institutions. I suppose there is the possibility that they are earning a paycheck from an institution that is supported by the ruling elite. Yet I find it hard to believe that so many could be that nefarious. Most likely there is a mix out there in the media of both big, centralized world government deniers and enablers. Still, it's sad to think about. I don't know which is sadder, those who continue to be fooled by slick propagandist control freaks and sincerely support their point of view or those who will sell out their intellectual principles and honesty to the highest bidder and make a conscious effort to fool others.

Gaining Free Health Care, Losing Freedom

One of my brothers suffers from diabetes. He often complains about health care in this country. But you won't find him complaining about its cost. He doesn't complain because he can't get health care. He's a teacher with great insurance and access to all the doctors one could possibly hope for. There are other things to dislike about the health care situation in this country. My brother has told me that his right to life is compromised by the medical community and the governmental restrictions surrounding it.

My brother is upset because he has to ask permission from a doctor to live. He needs a prescription in order to get the medication he needs to survive. He has to get a note from the doctor in order to buy insulin and the needles to inject it. Furthermore, if he is caught with this drug and the needles by agents of the state and can't produce a prescription, he can be arrested, thrown in jail, and the medication and the instruments needed to apply it correctly can be confiscated. There is every possibility this can be tantamount to a death sentence. The onset of diabetic shock can be sudden and can kill quickly. No judge, no jury, no due process, no one held accountable, just a horrible death. While this may not happen that often, I would suggest that it likely happens more often than one may think. It's a big world, many events do not make the news and many more are misreported or misinterpreted. All this leads one to ask, who owns your body anyway?

My brother is an intelligent individual. He knows what his body needs. He can look things up for himself and decide for himself what drugs he should and shouldn't take. Indeed, perhaps the only reason he would go to a doctor would be to get a note that he can give to the pharmacist so he can acquire a drug he has already vetted for himself. He doesn't need a prescription to decide what drugs he needs, but he has to have one because the government says so. But if my brother believes he needs a drug and the doctor disagrees, my brother will not be able to get that drug. There's a problem here. The doctor does not always know what's best. The establishment is not always right and when they are wrong no one is held accountable, even when someone dies.

Case in point, my mother also suffers from diabetes, though her disease is not as bad as my brother's. She does not have to take insulin on a daily basis. She was prescribed Advandia by her doctor. She started having problems with her heart. It would flutter and beat wildly, like an arrhythmia. She went back to her doctor to ask about it and was told not to worry, that the drug was safe. Twice more this happened. Finally she read a book which outlined how diabetes could be controlled with diet. She stopped taking Avandia and started following the diet. Lo and behold, not only did her arrhythmia stop, but her blood sugars were now under control without medication.

In her case, things turned out ok, but it could have been different. She could have died. Had such a thing happened, would anyone have been held accountable? Could anyone at the FDA who was supposed to vet the safety of this drug been held personally responsible? Could the doctor, who was trusting the drug company's claims, could he have been held personally responsible? How about the company CEO, or even one of the board members, could they be held personally responsible? Maybe just a lowly researcher who somehow knew of the possible problems but followed orders from the top not to report them and to fudge the data? Would it have been possible to prove that any of these people were personally negligent or malicious in this case? None of these people can be held personally responsible because a bureaucracy has been built up around them for the purpose of protecting them.

Certainly the company itself might have to pay out on some class action lawsuit, but that's a far cry from holding someone personally responsible. Furthermore, any lawsuits filed are probably going to take years to get through the court system and will likely be settled without ever going to trial. The bulk of the money recovered will be a fraction of the profits the company made and will go to the lawyers. A small portion will go to the actual litigants who were damaged or suffered due to the product. Big, hairy deal. If individuals were to be held accountable for negligence, fraud, deceptive practices and other malfeasance, perhaps we would live in a more honest society and we'd be able to trust once again the people we are supposed to be able to trust.

A frightening consideration is what would happen in the legal sphere if medicine became completely socialized and government completely took over that segment. At that point, any individual at any level of the operation would have nearly complete immunity to prosecution even in cases of negligence or malicious intent. You only have to look to the low numbers of individual police officers who are convicted of wrong doing even when overwhelming evidence shows their actions to be criminal in nature. Even when police departments are sued and found guilty and the victim awarded a large cash settlement, no individual is held accountable. Instead the tax payers who had nothing to do with the incident are left holding the bag as the money paid out comes from them instead of the person or persons who committed the acts which brought the lawsuit. The same thing would happen as doctors become bureaucrats and hospitals become government institutions.

But, I have digressed. Indeed, I find it extremely disturbing as to just how litigious this society has become. As my mother's example has shown, we should all become personally responsible for our own health care decisions. We should stop handing over such responsibility to the government or even our personal physicians. In a free society, many more people would understand this concept. If all options were open and there were no restrictions as to what kind of treatments were available to us for our various maladies, we would more or less be forced to explore all possibilities ourselves in order to be better informed. We would want to know and weigh the benefits, dangers and side effects of medications before deciding whether we should take them or not.

The only thing that should be required to protect drug companies, professionals and others involved in the medical industry from prosecution, in such a society, would be full disclosure and honesty right up front. If something was being tested, for instance, and the side effects and safety issues were unknown, then just say so and let consumers decide for themselves whether they wanted to take such a risk and participate in such a trial. If there is any attempt to deceive the consumer or to hide facts or test results, then those practices should be exposed to the general public and restitution paid to anyone who was harmed due to such deception. Dishonesty and deception should lead to distrust and bankruptcy whereas honesty and openness should lead to trust and increased profits.

At the same time, government restrictions on information that should be readily available to the general public need to be lifted. Studies that have been done that highlight the health benefits of certain nutritional habits, vitamins, natural remedies and natural medications have been buried by government entities and ignored by corporate media because they threaten to cut into the profits of the medical establishment and others including big pharmacological companies, health insurance companies, large food producing companies and other corporations one wouldn't think had anything to do with the health industry. Doctors who have studied and written about alternative and natural medicines have been gagged by federal government authorities. There have been doctors arrested and their offices or clinics raided for such practices despite the fact that many of their patients were being cured and healing from their illnesses, even cancer. In fact, it is likely that they were arrested because they were helping patients as this threatens the legitimacy of the medical establishment. Of course, those carrying out such raids on these doctors will make the claim that they were practicing medicine without a license or carrying out procedures that have not been approved by the FDA or some other federal agency.

What difference does that matter if people are being helped? Who are these people to decide what is right for me or you or anyone else? When such a practitioner is arrested or shut down it does more than just harm the doctor, it harms the patients who were voluntarily coming there because they were being helped to the point where some of them may even die because other remedies do not or will not work for them. In essence, a death sentence has been handed down to some of these patients for the crime of trying to cure their illness in a way not sanctioned by the establishment medical community.

If information was readily available and restrictions against alternative medicines lifted, it would be much easier for people to educate themselves about health care and make their own decisions on the procedures, medications and remedies they wish to try. It would be much easier for people to see what has worked for others and what has not. As a bonus, the competition this would create would likely bring down the costs of health care dramatically. Of course, this would end the medical monopoly we already have in this nation and mean much less money for those who benefit from the system as it is, including politicians who receive money from medical lobbyists, so these changes are unlikely to occur unless populist pressure is applied to keep the government out of our lives.

Health care should be the responsibility of the individual. It is not free and never will be even if government convolutes the issue with claims of good intention. Someone will always have to pay and the more restrictive something becomes, the more hands the money has to pass through, the more expensive it becomes. Why anyone would want to trust government, which consistently fails miserably at everything it touches, to intervene in our health care system is beyond me. It needs to get out and leave us alone so that we can once again create the best health care the world has to offer in an unfettered marketplace. The government bureaucracies that exist have become cesspools of corruption, cronyism, greed, apathy and stagnation. Why would anyone think it would be different for a health bureaucracy? To give even more control to such agencies will surely lead to an unimaginable lose of independence.

The health care bill presented to congress to be voted on this week is nineteen hundred pages long. I doubt very much anyone who would foist this legislation on the American people has read it. I know no one could possibly understand it and all its implications. This is a monstrosity much like the Patriot Act and other Bush era bills that so many railed against. I'm sure that some in our society will benefit, but I fear that most will simply pay higher taxes and perhaps an even greater price for unused or unwanted services and so that more money and power can be put into the hands of fewer people. Who knows what's really in the bill? Likely it merely asserts to an even greater extent their ownership of your body. I do know that I'm tired of hearing excuses from our politicians as unpopular aspects of legislation come to light after the fact when it is too late and the legislation has been implemented. Some may gain free health care, but we will all lose more freedom.