It is time that we stop bashing Obama for his perceived lack of accomplishments

https://vermontloonwatch.wordpress.com/2019/02/25/political-speak-24/

 

It is time that we stop bashing Obama for his perceived lack of accomplishments. That he has none is a fallacy.

Here is a list of his impressive accomplishments:

All have been fact checked

1. First President to be photographed smoking a joint.

2. First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner.

3. First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.

4. First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States.

5. First President to violate the War Powers Act.

6. First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.

7. First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.

8. First President to spend a trillion dollars on “shovel-ready” jobs when there was no such thing as “shovel-ready” jobs.

9. First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.

10. First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.

11. First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S., including those with criminal convictions.

12. First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.

13. First President to tell a CEO of a major corporation (Rick Wagoner of GM) to resign.

14. First President to terminate America’s ability to put a man in space.

15. First President to cancel the National Day of Prayer and to say that America is no longer a Christian nation.

16. First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.

17. First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.

18. First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke out on the reasons for their rate increases.

19. First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is allowed to locate a factory.

20. First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN).

21. First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.

22. First President to actively try to bankrupt an American industry (coal).

23. First President to fire an inspector general of AmeriCorps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.

24. First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office.

25. First President to surround himself with radical left wing anarchists.

26. First President to go golfing more than 150 times in his eight years in office.

27. First President to hide his birth, medical, educational and travel records.

28. First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.

29. First President to go on multiple “global apology tours” and concurrent “insult our friends” tours.

30. First President to go on over 17 lavish vacations, in addition to date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends paid for by the taxpayers.

31. First President to have personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.

32. First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.

33. First President to fly in a personal trainer from Chicago at least once a week at taxpayer expense.

34. First President to repeat the Quran and tell us the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.

35. First President to side with a foreign nation over one of the American 50 states (Mexico vs Arizona).

36. First President to tell the military men and women that they should pay for their own private insurance because they “volunteered to go to war and knew the consequences.”

37. Then he was the First President to tell the members of the military that THEY were UNPATRIOTIC for balking at the last suggestion.

Quite impressive a list, is it not?

 

Advertisements

The Difference in How Socialism and Free Markets Work in the Real World

How is it possible that, according to one recent poll, a stunning 52 percent of millennials would like to live in a socialist or communist America?

Source: The Difference in How Socialism and Free Markets Work in the Real World

The Rutherford Institute :: Uncle Sam Wants Your DNA: The FBI’s Diabolical Plan to Create a Nation of Suspects |

Uncle Sam Wants Your DNA: The FBI’s Diabolical Plan to Create a Nation of Suspects

John Whitehead

“As more and more data flows from your body and brain to the smart machines via the biometric sensors, it will become easy for corporations and government agencies to know you, manipulate you, and make decisions on your behalf. Even more importantly, they could decipher the deep mechanisms of all bodies and brains, and thereby gain the power to engineer life. If we want to prevent a small elite from monopolising such godlike powers, and if we want to prevent humankind from splitting into biological castes, the key question is: who owns the data? Does the data about my DNA, my brain and my life belong to me, to the government, to a corporation, or to the human collective?”―Professor Yuval Noah Harari

Uncle Sam wants you.

Correction: Uncle Sam wants your DNA.

Actually, if the government gets its hands on your DNA, they as good as have you in their clutches.

Get ready, folks, because the government— helped along by Congress (which adopted legislation allowing police to collect and test DNA immediately following arrests), President Trump (who signed the Rapid DNA Act into law), the courts (which have ruled that police can routinely take DNA samples from people who are arrested but not yet convicted of a crime), and local police agencies (which are chomping at the bit to acquire this new crime-fighting gadget)—is embarking on a diabolical campaign to create a nation of suspects predicated on a massive national DNA database.

As the New York Times reports:

“The science-fiction future, in which police can swiftly identify robbers and murderers from discarded soda cans and cigarette butts, has arrived. In 2017, President Trump signed into law the Rapid DNA Act, which, starting this year, will enable approved police booking stations in several states to connect their Rapid DNA machines to Codis, the national DNA database. Genetic fingerprinting is set to become as routine as the old-fashioned kind.

Referred to as “magic boxes,” these Rapid DNA machines—portable, about the size of a desktop printer, highly unregulated, far from fool-proof, and so fast that they can produce DNA profiles in less than two hours—allow police to go on fishing expeditions for any hint of possible misconduct using DNA samples.

Journalist Heather Murphy explains: “As police agencies build out their local DNA databases, they are collecting DNA not only from people who have been charged with major crimes but also, increasingly, from people who are merely deemed suspicious, permanently linking their genetic identities to criminal databases.”

Suspect Society, meet the American police state.

Every dystopian sci-fi film we’ve ever seen is suddenly converging into this present moment in a dangerous trifecta between science, technology and a government that wants to be all-seeing, all-knowing and all-powerful.

By tapping into your phone lines and cell phone communications, the government knows what you say.

By uploading all of your emails, opening your mail, and reading your Facebook posts and text messages, the government knows what you write.

By monitoring your movements with the use of license plate readers, surveillance cameras and other tracking devices, the government knows where you go.

By churning through all of the detritus of your life—what you read, where you go, what you say—the government can predict what you will do.

By mapping the synapses in your brain, scientists—and in turn, the government—will soon know what you remember.

And by accessing your DNA, the government will soon know everything else about you that they don’t already know: your family chart, your ancestry, what you look like, your health history, your inclination to follow orders or chart your own course, etc.

Of course, none of these technologies are foolproof.

Nor are they immune from tampering, hacking or user bias.

Nevertheless, they have become a convenient tool in the hands of government agents to render null and void the Constitution’s requirements of privacy and its prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Consequently, no longer are we “innocent until proven guilty” in the face of DNA evidence that places us at the scene of a crime, behavior sensing technology that interprets our body temperature and facial tics as suspicious, and government surveillance devices that cross-check our biometrics, license plates and DNA against a growing database of unsolved crimes and potential criminals.

The government’s questionable acquisition and use of DNA to identify individuals and “solve” crimes has come under particular scrutiny in recent years.

Until recently, the government was required to at least observe some basic restrictions on when, where and how it could access someone’s DNA. That has all been turned on its head by various U.S. Supreme Court rulings that pave the way for suspicionless searches and herald the loss of privacy on a cellular level.

Certainly, it was difficult enough trying to protect our privacy in the wake of a 2013 Supreme Court ruling in Maryland v. King that likened DNA collection to photographing and fingerprinting suspects when they are booked, thereby allowing the government to take DNA samples from people merely “arrested” in connection with “serious” crimes.

Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent in Maryland v. King is worth reading not only for the history lesson on the Fourth Amendment but for its clear-sighted rebuke of the police state’s tendency to justify every encroachment on our freedoms as necessary for security.

As Scalia noted:

“Solving unsolved crimes is a noble objective, but it occupies a lower place in the American pantheon of noble objectives than the protection of our people from suspicionless law-enforcement searches… Make no mistake about it: As an entirely predictable consequence of today’s decision, your DNA can be taken and entered into a national DNA database if you are ever arrested, rightly or wrongly, and for whatever reason. Today’s judgment will, to be sure, have the beneficial effect of solving more crimes; then again, so would the taking of DNA samples from anyone who flies on an airplane (surely the Transportation Security Administration needs to know the “identity” of the flying public), applies for a driver’s license, or attends a public school. Perhaps the construction of such a genetic panopticon is wise. But I doubt that the proud men who wrote the charter of our liberties would have been so eager to open their mouths for royal inspection.”

The Court’s decision to let stand the Maryland Court of Appeals’ ruling in Raynor v. Maryland, which essentially determined that individuals do not have a right to privacy when it comes to their DNA, made Americans even more vulnerable to the government accessing, analyzing and storing their DNA without their knowledge or permission.

Although Glenn Raynor, a suspected rapist, willingly agreed to be questioned by police, he refused to provide them with a DNA sample.

No problem. Police simply swabbed the chair in which Raynor had been sitting and took what he refused to voluntarily provide.

Raynor’s DNA was a match, and the suspect became a convict.

As the dissenting opinion in Raynor for the Maryland Court of Appeals rightly warned, “a person desiring to keep her DNA profile private, must conduct her public affairs in a hermetically sealed hazmat suit…. The Majority’s holding means that a person can no longer vote, participate in a jury, or obtain a driver’s license, without opening up his genetic material for state collection and codification.”

Yet in refusing to hear the case, the U.S. Supreme Court gave its tacit approval for government agents to collect shed DNA, likening it to a person’s fingerprints or the color of their hair, eyes or skin.

Whereas fingerprint technology created a watershed moment for police in their ability to “crack” a case, DNA technology is now being hailed by law enforcement agencies as the magic bullet in crime solving.

It’s what police like to refer to a “modern fingerprint.”

However, unlike a fingerprint, a DNA print reveals everything about “who we are, where we come from, and who we will be.”

With such a powerful tool at their disposal, it was inevitable that the government’s collection of DNA would become a slippery slope toward government intrusion.

All 50 states now maintain their own DNA databases, although the protocols for collection differ from state to state. Increasingly, many of the data from local databanks are being uploaded to CODIS (Combined DNA Index System), the FBI’s massive DNA database, which has become a de facto way to identify and track the American people from birth to death.

Even hospitals have gotten in on the game by taking and storing newborn babies’ DNA, often without their parents’ knowledge or consent. It’s part of the government’s mandatory genetic screening of newborns. However, in many states, the DNA is stored indefinitely.

What this means for those being born today is inclusion in a government database that contains intimate information about who they are, their ancestry, and what awaits them in the future, including their inclinations to be followers, leaders or troublemakers.

For the rest of us, it’s just a matter of time before the government gets hold of our DNA, either through mandatory programs carried out in connection with law enforcement and corporate America, by warrantlessly accessing our familial DNA shared with geneological services such as Ancestry and 23andMe, or through the collection of our “shed” or “touch” DNA.

All of those fascinating, geneological ancestral searches that allow you to trace your family tree can also be used against you and those you love. As law professor Elizabeth Joh explains, “When you upload your DNA, you’re potentially becoming a genetic informant on the rest of your family.”

While much of the public debate, legislative efforts and legal challenges in recent years have focused on the protocols surrounding when police can legally collect a suspect’s DNA (with or without a search warrant and whether upon arrest or conviction), the question of how to handle “shed” or “touch” DNA has largely slipped through without much debate or opposition.

Yet as scientist Leslie A. Pray notes:

We all shed DNA, leaving traces of our identity practically everywhere we go. Forensic scientists use DNA left behind on cigarette butts, phones, handles, keyboards, cups, and numerous other objects, not to mention the genetic content found in drops of bodily fluid, like blood and semen. In fact, the garbage you leave for curbside pickup is a potential gold mine of this sort of material. All of this shed or so-called abandoned DNA is free for the taking by local police investigators hoping to crack unsolvable cases. Or, if the future scenario depicted at the beginning of this article is any indication, shed DNA is also free for inclusion in a secret universal DNA databank.

What this means is that if you have the misfortune to leave your DNA traces anywhere a crime has been committed, you’ve already got a file somewhere in some state or federal database—albeit it may be a file without a name.

As Forensic magazine reports, “As officers have become more aware of touch DNA’s potential, they are using it more and more. Unfortunately, some [police] have not been selective enough when they process crime scenes. Instead, they have processed anything and everything at the scene, submitting 150 or more samples for analysis.”

Even old samples taken from crime scenes and “cold” cases are being unearthed and mined for their DNA profiles.

Today, helped along by robotics and automation, DNA processing, analysis and reporting takes far less time and can bring forth all manner of information, right down to a person’s eye color and relatives. Incredibly, one company specializes in creating “mug shots” for police based on DNA samples from unknown “suspects” which are then compared to individuals with similar genetic profiles.

If you haven’t yet connected the dots, let me point the way.

Having already used surveillance technology to render the entire American populace potential suspects, DNA technology in the hands of government will complete our transition to a suspect society in which we are all merely waiting to be matched up with a crime.

No longer can we consider ourselves innocent until proven guilty.

Now we are all suspects in a DNA lineup until circumstances and science say otherwise.

Of course, there will be those who point to DNA’s positive uses in criminal justice, such as in those instances where it is used to absolve someone on death row of a crime he didn’t commit, and there is no denying its beneficial purposes at times.

However, as is the case with body camera footage and every other so-called technology that is hailed as a “check” on government abuses, in order for the average person—especially one convicted of a crime—to request and get access to DNA testing, they first have to embark on a costly, uphill legal battle through red tape and, even then, they are opposed at every turn by a government bureaucracy run by prosecutors, legislatures and law enforcement.

What this amounts to is a scenario in which we have little to no defense of against charges of wrongdoing, especially when “convicted” by technology, and even less protection against the government sweeping up our DNA in much the same way it sweeps up our phone calls, emails and text messages.

Yet if there are no limits to government officials being able to access your DNA and all that it says about you, then where do you draw the line?

As technology makes it ever easier for the government to tap into our thoughts, our memories, our dreams, suddenly the landscape becomes that much more dystopian.

With the entire governmental system shifting into a pre-crime mode aimed at detecting and pursuing those who “might” commit a crime before they have an inkling, let alone an opportunity, to do so, it’s not so far-fetched to imagine a scenario in which government agents (FBI, local police, etc.) target potential criminals based on their genetic disposition to be a “troublemaker” or their relationship to past dissenters.

Equally disconcerting: if scientists can, using DNA, track salmon across hundreds of square miles of streams and rivers, how easy will it be for government agents to not only know everywhere we’ve been and how long we were at each place but collect our easily shed DNA and add it to the government’s already burgeoning database?

As always there will be those voices—well-meaning, certainly—insisting that if you want to save the next girl from being raped, abducted or killed, then we need to give the government all the tools necessary to catch these criminals before they can commit their heinous crimes.

If you care for someone, you’re particularly vulnerable to this line of reasoning. Of course we don’t want our wives butchered, our girlfriends raped, our daughters abducted and subjected to all manner of atrocities.

But what about those cases in which the technology proved to be wrong, either through human error or tampering? It happens more often than we are told.

For example, David Butler spent eight months in prison for a murder he didn’t commit after his DNA was allegedly found on the murder victim and surveillance camera footage placed him in the general area the murder took place. Conveniently, Butler’s DNA was on file after he had voluntarily submitted it during an investigation years earlier into a robbery at his mother’s home. The case seemed cut and dried to everyone but Butler who proclaimed his innocence. Except that the DNA evidence and surveillance footage was wrong: Butler was innocent.

Moreover, despite the insistence by government agents that DNA is infallible, New York Times reporter Andrew Pollack makes a clear and convincing case that DNA evidence can, in fact, be fabricated. Israeli scientists “fabricated blood and saliva samples containing DNA from a person other than the donor of the blood and saliva,” stated Pollack. “They also showed that if they had access to a DNA profile in a database, they could construct a sample of DNA to match that profile without obtaining any tissue from that person.”

The danger, warns scientist Dan Frumkin, is that crime scenes can be engineered with fabricated DNA.

Now if you happen to be the kind of person who trusts the government implicitly and refuses to believe it would ever do anything illegal or immoral, then the prospect of government officials—police, especially—using fake DNA samples to influence the outcome of a case might seem outlandish.

Yet as history shows—and as I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People—the probability of our government acting in a way that is not only illegal but immoral becomes less a question of “if” and more a question of “when.”

Obama Was Hand-Picked, NOT a Natural Born Citizen, Congress Knew & Tried to Protect Him – Freedom Outpost

Dean Garrison

Let’s kick a dead horse.  The debate is settled and the damage is done. But who thinks Obama was eligible to be president?

Even President Donald Trump questioned Obama’s citizenship in 2014 by offering $50 Million to see his college records, but Obama never responded to his offer. Nothing has been done to this point.

And sadly, nothing ever will.

Let me show you today how Congress protected him from both sides of the aisle and guaranteed the debate would never go too far.

In 1975 a representative named Joe Bingham introduced an amendment to remove the “natural born citizen” constitutional requirement to become President.

Why is that important?

Because it was not until almost 30 years later that the issue would be addressed again. And it was not addressed only once, but multiple times. This is all part of congressional record.

Remarkably, it just so happened to coincide with the meteoric rise of a man named Barack Obama who would benefit greatly from the happenings by gaining his spot in the Oval Office.

I am about to share with you a brilliant piece of research from the Article II Political Action Committee. After reading it the foremost question on my mind is, “If the natural born citizen definition only requires one citizen parent then why did they seemingly try so hard to change the law for Barack Obama?”

There are multiple links to official congressional documents throughout, contained in the research below, so I would urge you to draw your own conclusions.

But from my point of view this research either strongly, or at least partly, validates the following conclusions:

  1. Barack Obama was hand-picked to be President.
  2. Some members of Congress, on both sides, understood that Obama was not “natural born” and tried to pass laws to pave the way for his arrival.
  3. In the end, they used a deflection tactic to shine light on John McCain’s eligibility status, hoping that Obama’s own status would not be brought into question.

It appears to have worked.

Below is a lengthy excerpt from “Article II Facts” hosted on the site of the Article II Political Action Committee. If you like what you read, I would encourage you to consider a donation to their cause.

Let’s take a trip back through recent history:

Attempts to redefine or amend Article II “natural born Citizen” Clause of the U.S. Constitution:

The effort to remove the natural-born citizen requirement from the U.S. Constitution actually began in 1975 – when Democrat House Rep. Jonathon B. Bingham, [NY-22] introduced a constitutional amendment underH.J.R. 33: which called for the outright removal of the natural-born requirement for president found in Article II of the U.S. Constitution – “Provides that a citizen of the United States otherwise eligible to hold the Office of President shall not be ineligible because such citizen is not a natural born citizen.”

Bingham’s first attempt failed and he resurrected H.J.R. 33: in 1977 under H.J.R. 38:, again failing to gain support from members of congress. Bingham was a Yale Law grad and member of the secret society Skull and Bones, later a lecturer at Columbia Law and thick as thieves with the United Nations via his membership in the Council on Foreign Relations.

Bingham’s work lay dormant for twenty-six years when it was resurrected again in 2003 as Democrat members of Congress made no less than eight (8) attempts in twenty-two (22) months, to either eliminate the natural-born requirement, or redefine natural-born to accommodate Barack Hussein Obama II in advance of his rise to power. The evidence is right in the congressional record…

1. On June 11, 2003 Democrat House member Vic Snyder [AR-2] introduced H.J.R 59: in the 108th Congress – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.” – Co-Sponsors: Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14]; Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10]; Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4]; Rep Issa, Darrell E. [CA-49]; Rep LaHood, Ray [IL-18]; Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4].

2. On September 3, 2003, Rep. John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 67: – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the office of President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]

3. On February 25, 2004, Republican Senator Don Nickles [OK] attempted to counter the growing Democrat onslaught aimed at removing the natural-born citizen requirement for president in S.2128: – “Natural Born Citizen Act – Defines the constitutional term “natural born citizen,” to establish eligibility for the Office of President” – also getting the definition of natural born citizen wrong. – Co-sponsors Sen Inhofe, James M. [OK]; Sen Landrieu, Mary L. [LA]

4. On September 15, 2004 – as Barack Obama was about to be introduced as the new messiah of the Democrat Party at the DNC convention, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] introduced H.J.R. 104: – “Constitutional Amendment – “Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.”  – No co-sponsors.

5. Again on January 4, 2005, Rep John Conyers [MI] introduced H.J.R. 2: to the 109th Congress – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years eligible to hold the Office of President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27]

6. Rep Dana Rohrabacher [CA-46] tries again on February 1, 2005 in H.J.R. 15: – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes eligible for the Office of the President non-native born persons who have held U.S. citizenship for at least 20 years and who are otherwise eligible to hold such Office.” – No Co-Sponsor

7. On April 14, 2005, Rep Vic Snyder [AR-2] tries yet again with H.J.R. 42: – “Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4]

8. All of these efforts failing in committee and the 2008 presidential election looming with an unconstitutional candidate leading the DNC ticket, Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, [MO] tries to attach the alteration to a military bill in S.2678: on February 28, 2008 – “Children of Military Families Natural Born Citizen Act – Declares that the term “natural born Citizen” in article II, section 1, clause 5 of the Constitution, dealing with the criteria for election to President of the United States, includes any person born to any U.S. citizen while serving in the active or reserve components of the U.S. armed forces.” – Co-Sponsors DNC Presidential candidate Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]; DNC Presidential candidate Sen Obama, Barack [IL]; Sen Menendez, Robert [NJ]; Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] – (This was the first effort to also assure that GOP Presidential candidate Sen. John McCain [AZ] would be cleared to run against the DNC primary victor.)

From June 11, 2003 to February 28, 2008, there had been eight (8) different congressional attempts to alter Article II – Section I – Clause V – natural born citizen requirements for president in the U.S. Constitution, all of them failing in committee — All of it taking placing during Barack Obama’s rise to political power and preceding the November 2008 presidential election.

In politics, there are no coincidences… not of this magnitude.

Finally on April 10, 2008, unable to alter or remove the natural born citizen requirement to clear the way for Barack Obama, the U.S. Senate acts to shift focus before the election, introducing and passing S.R.511: – declaring Sen. John McCain a “natural born citizen” eligible to run for and hold the office of president. There was never any honest doubt about McCain, the son of a U.S. Navy Commander. The Sponsor of the resolution is Democrat Senator Claire McCaskill, [MO]

S.R.511 States that John Sidney McCain, III, is a “natural born Citizen” under Article II, Section 1, of the Constitution of the United States. S.R511passed by a 99-0 unanimous consent of the Senate, with only John McCain not voting. The basis was – “Whereas John Sidney McCain, III, was born to American citizens;” – a condition not met by Barack Hussein Obama II. – Co-Sponsors DNC Presidential candidate Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham [NY]; DNC Presidential candidate Sen Obama, Barack [IL]; Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT]; Sen Webb, Jim [VA]; Sen Coburn, Tom [OK] (They had made certain that John McCain would run against Barack Obama)

However, in the McCain resolution is also this language – “Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires that, to be eligible for the Office of the President, a person must be a `natural born Citizen’ of the United States; – Whereas the term `natural born Citizen’, as that term appears in Article II, Section 1, is not defined in the Constitution of the United States;

The U.S. Constitution is not a dictionary. The definition of “is” is not in the constitution either. Yet this is the text that would later be issued in Congressional Research Service talking points memos distributed to members of congress, to protect an individual that all members of congress know and understand to be an “unconstitutional” resident of the people’s White House – Barack Hussein Obama II.

Once again, as the political left was unable to alter the U.S. Constitution by way of legitimate constitutional process, they resorted to altering the constitution via precedent setting, in short, knowingly electing and getting away with seating an unconstitutional president in order to alter Article II requirements for the office via breaking those constitutional requirements.

The press would not ask any questions and the American people were already too ill-informed of their constitution to know or too distracted by daily life to care. The press would provide the cover, swearing to the lies of an unconstitutional administration put in power by criminal actors focused only on their lofty political agenda of forever altering the American form of government.

The people would be caught up in a steady diet of daily assaults on their individual freedom and liberty and overlook the most obvious constitutional crisis in American history, the seating of an unconstitutional and anti-American president. [SOURCE CREDIT]

There you have it. Make of this what you will.

It raises many questions.

Would people like Claire McCaskill and Hillary Clinton really come to John McCain’s aid if they did not have an ulterior motive?

Why were people like InhofeIssa, and Rohrabacher either sponsoring or co-sponsoring these pieces of legislation? After all, these men were later three of Obama’s biggest critics. We heard lots of threats and promises from them that yielded no results. Could it be that these men are just more shining examples of “all bark and no bite”? (See Definition of “Smoke and Mirrors“)

If it is true that the definition of “natural born citizen” only involves having one citizen parent then why all the fuss?

Obama, questionable Hawaii birth certificate and all, met the requirement of one American citizen parent. Maybe the truth is that it takes more than that and Congress knew it.

So why was nothing ever done?

Keep searching and settle for nothing less than the truth.

Article posted with permission from Dean Garrison

 

Obama’s Benghazi Body Bags No Mere Conspiracy Theory

Obama’s Benghazi Body Bags No Mere Conspiracy Theory

The arrogance of the man who lied to the parents of the Benghazi dead in front of their sons’ caskets as they were returned to the country they fought for is mind-boggling.  As he attempted to rewrite many chapters of his failed presidency in a speech at the University of Illinois, he called the accurate and documented reports of the criminal negligence of secretary of state Hillary Clinton and himself during the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack on our Benghazi compound a mere “conspiracy theory.”

Conspiracy theories don’t produce body bags, sir, but perhaps you don’t remember that night all too well because you spent the time four brave Americans were being killed under your command in Libya readying up for a Las Vegas fundraiser.

Kris Paronto, former Army Ranger and CIA contractor who fought with his colleagues on the roof of the CIA annex in Benghazi, remembers that night and tweeted his response to the then-president’s arrogant and dismissive ridicule of their sacrifice and your incompetence:

Benghazi is a conspiracy @BarackObama ?! How bout we do this,let’s put your cowardly ass on the top of a roof with 6 of your buddies&shoot rpg’s&Ak47’s at you while terrorists lob 81mm mortars killing 2 of your buddies all while waiting for US support that you never sent

Obama and Hillary had plenty of warnings that the security at Benghazi was woefully inadequate, that the compound was swimming in an ocean of terrorist training camps.  They ignored these warnings, and when the attack happened, they did nothing when a rescue mission could have been mounted.  Instead, stand-down orders were given to would-be rescuers, and following the attack, the infamous video lie was concocted and spread over the airwaves, with President Obama repeating it no fewer than six times in a speech before the United Nations.

Hicks, the last man to speak to Ambassador Chris Stevens, has exposed the video lie, documenting how he told Hillary’s State Department what was happening in real time that fateful night and how her State Department ignored warnings from Chris Stevens and others about the gathering terrorist storm and the woeful  lack of security.

Now retired, private citizen Hicks goes farther, telling Fox News Hillary Clinton broke laws while condemning four Americans to death at the hands of terrorists:

Just as the Constitution makes national security the President’s highest priority, U.S. law mandates the secretary of state to develop and implement policies and programs “to provide for the security … of all United States personnel on official duty abroad.”

This includes not only the State Department employees, but also the CIA officers in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012.  And the Benghazi record is clear: Secretary Clinton failed to provide adequate security for U.S. government personnel assigned to Benghazi and Tripoli.

The Benghazi Committee’s report graphically illustrates the magnitude of her failure.  It states that during August 2012, the State Department reduced the number of U.S. security personnel assigned to the Embassy in Tripoli from 34 (1.5 security officers per diplomat) to 6 (1 security officer per 4.5 diplomats), despite a rapidly deteriorating security situation in both Tripoli and Benghazi.  Thus, according to the Report, “there were no surplus security agents” to travel to Benghazi with Amb. Stevens “without leaving the Embassy in Tripoli at severe risk.”

Patricia Smith, mother of Sean Smith, who fought and died for his country at Benghazi, spoke of Hillary’s callousness at the 2012 GOP convention.  Smith focused in her riveting convention speech on Hillary’s disregard for the families of the Benghazi dead:

I know a few things could’ve been done to prevent it.  But nobody’s admitting to anything. Right now, my understanding is Hillary didn’t do a damn thing.  And I wonder what she did as Secretary of State, because she disavows everything.  She disavows the fact that she even got any call for security[.] … If this is her Department, she certainly doesn’t know how to run the Department.  And she lied the whole time. She lied to me and called me a liar on TV[.]

The movie 13 Hours is based on the book, in which the three CIA contractors, Kris Paronto, John Tiegen, and Mark Geist, who fought at Benghazi, tell the tale of the battle they fought with Glen Doherty, Sean Smith, and Tyrone Woods in the terrorist attack that claimed the life of Ambassador Chris Stevens, whose name Hillary could not remember.

It confirms that Benghazi was not a spontaneous demonstration gone bad due a video, despite Susan Rice repeating that lie on five Sunday talk shows, and President Obama repeated six times before the United Nations.  Hillary Clinton knew that it was a lie, telling the truth to daughter Chelsea and an Egyptian diplomat before she lied to the parents of the Benghazi dead.  It confirms that rescuers were told to stand down.

Hillary and her State Department had warnings, including from Ambassador Stevens himself, that Benghazi was an unsecure trap in the face of a growing terrorist threat.  As Investor’s Business Daily editorialized on documents unearthed by Judicial Watch:

The documents describe Libya as hardly the poster child for the Arab Spring, and echo warnings sent to State by Stevens himself.  He was aware of an attack on a convoy carrying the British ambassador to Libya and a June 2012 attack where an improvised explosive device blew a hole in the Benghazi consulate wall.  Nowhere in the 486 pages is mention of or concern for the effects of a video.

On Aug. 8, 2012, Stevens sent a two-page cable to the State Department entitled “The Guns of August: Security in Eastern Libya” and noted a dangerous “security vacuum” in and around Benghazi, as well as the presence of terrorist training camps.  He was ignored.

The documents reveal that, early on the day after the attack, the Pentagon received intelligence briefing slides detailing that the June 6, 2012, attack was tied to al-Qaida-linked terrorists seeking an Islamic state in Libya and who threatened to attack U.S. interests there.  It also said the June 6 attack “came in response to the 5 June (2012) drone strike on senior al-Qaida leader Abu Yahya al-libi.”

That Sept. 11 was a terrorist attack was known before, during and after it took place.

“I personally … think the (U.S. Africa Command) very quickly got to the point that this was not a demonstration, this was a terrorist attack,” Gen. Carter Ham, head of the Command, testified behind closed doors in June 2013 before the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.

And that, Ham said, was the “nature of the conversation” he had with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Martin Dempsey moments before a 30-minute meeting with Obama prior to the president resting up for his fundraising Las Vegas trip.

Hillary Clinton ignore the pleas for added security at Benghazi, the terrorist threat that was building, and then let pleas for a rescue fall on deaf ears.  Could a rescue attempt have been mounted?  According to Hicks, yes, it could have:

Hicks says he believes “if we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced” – around 9:30 p.m. that night – “I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split.  They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them.”

Hicks, who was in Tripoli that night, relates how the Libyan prime minister called and told him that the U.S. ambassador had been killed, after which “the Libyan military agreed to fly their C-130 to Benghazi and carry additional personnel to Benghazi as reinforcements.”

A Special Forces team was ready to go along but was forbidden from doing so by the U.S. Special Operations Command in Africa.

When Patricia Smith testified before Congress, most Democrats walked out of the room, turning their backs on the mother of one of those patriots abandoned by Obama and Hillary at Benghazi, refusing to hear her grief as she condemned what Obama now calls a mere “conspiracy theory”:

With the exception of ranking member Elijah Cummings, D-Md., and Jackie Speier, D-Calif., 12 other Democrats on the Committee shamefully left the room and refused to listen to the testimony of Smith[.] …

Mrs. Smith testified how President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary Clinton, among other top administration officials, approached her at the casket ceremony when her son’s body was returned to the U.S.

“Every one of them came up to me, gave me a big hug, and I asked them, ‘What happened, please tell me?’  And every one of them said it was the video.  And we all know that it wasn’t the video. Even at that time they knew it wasn’t the video. So they all lied to me.”

Judging from Obama’s speech, they’re still lying.

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine, and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.

 

Ending Birthright Citizenship

Ending Birthright Citizenship

History, as the saying goes, is a lie agreed upon, and there has perhaps been no bigger lie detrimental to the future  national security and economic well-being of the United States that the 14th Amendment, clearly written to protect the rights of African-American slaves liberated by the first Republican President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, somehow confers citizenship on the offspring of anybody whose pregnant and can sneak past the U.S. Border Patrol.

U.S. citizenship is rendered meaningless if it is defined as an accident of geography and it is the clear that this was not the intention authors of those who wrote the 14th Amendment and shepherded it into the Constitution. President Trump has rightly targeted birthright citizenship as an historical error that needs to be corrected:

President Trump said in a newly released interview he plans to sign an executive order ending so-called “birthright citizenship” for babies of non-citizens born on U.S. soil — a move that would mark a major overhaul of immigration policy and trigger an almost-certain legal battle…

Michael Anton, a former national security adviser for Trump, pointed out in July that “there’s a clause in the middle of the amendment that people ignore or they misinterpret – subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

“What they are saying is, if you are born on U.S. soil subject to the jurisdiction of the United States – meaning you’re the child of citizens or the child of legal immigrants, then you are entitled to citizenship,” Anton told Fox News’ Tucker Carlson in July. “If you are here illegally, if you owe allegiance to a foreign nation, if you’re the citizen of a foreign country, that clause does not apply to you.”

Anton is stunningly correct and clearly echoes the sentiments and legislative intent of the authors of the 14th Amendment. The only question is whether this historical error is better corrected though a clarifying amendment, legislation, or through a Trump executive order. GOP Rep. Steve King, R-IA, has proposed legislation:

In January of this year, Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) proposed the Birthright Citizenship Act of 2015 (HR 140) that seeks to amend current law by making requirements for citizenship more narrow, and, in King’s opinion, more constitutional…

“A Century ago it didn’t matter very much that a practice began that has now grown into a birthright citizenship, an anchor baby agenda,” King said. “When they started granting automatic citizenship on all babies born in the United States they missed the clause in the 14th Amendment that says, ‘And subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’ So once the practice began, it grew out of proportion and today between 340,000 and 750,000 babies are born in America each year that get automatic citizenship even though both parents are illegal immigrants. That has got to stop.”…

King’s bill seeks to amend section 301 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to clarify those classes of individuals born in the United States who are nationals and citizens of the United States at birth. The bill states that a person born in the United States is a citizen if one parent is “(1) a citizen or national of the United States, (2) an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence in the United States whose residence is in the United States; or (3) an alien performing active service in the armed forces.”

But some would argue that no clarifying legislation is necessary and that as a result of President Trump’s appointment of originalist interpreters of the Constitution to the Supreme Court, the original intent of the 14th Amendment can be restored.

The Supreme Court has never said birthright citizenship is constitutional and legal scholars have noted that supporters of birthright citizenship, a gross misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, ignore the intentions of those who wrote it.

Peter H. Schuck, Yale University’s Simeon E. Baldwin Professor of Law Emeritus and self-described “militant moderate,” reiterated his opinion Monday that birthright citizenship is not required by the U.S. Constitution. Though opposed to many of the president’s positions, he was surprised the administration has not made opposition to citizenship for the children of illegal aliens more central to its immigration policy…

On at least one key immigration stance, however, Schuck appears to be in agreement with President Trump. In the 1990s, along with Yale Political Scientist Rogers Smith, he determined, in a book called Citizenship Without Consent, that the policy of granting citizenship to everyone born on American soil, including so-called “anchor-babies” — those born to illegal aliens — was not mandated by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as is popularly trumpeted by open-borders supporters. Trump came to the same conclusion on the campaign trail, once stating, “We’re the only ones dumb enough, stupid enough to have it.”

This misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, written to guarantee the citizenship rights of freed slaves after the Civil War, has morphed the amendment into a guarantee of birthright citizenship. Merely being born on American soil is said to make you a U.S. citizen. Sneak past the U.S. Border Patrol, have your baby, and you not only have a U.S. citizen but what is called an “anchor baby” allowing you to stay and bring others in under the banner of family reunification.

Trump during the campaign correctly called the flawed concept of birthright citizenship the “biggest magnet” for illegal immigration.  He would end it and as for family reunification, Trump is all for it, just saying it should happen on the other side of the U.S.-Mexico border. As The New York Post reported:

Trump described his expanded vision of how to secure American borders during a wide-ranging interview Sunday on NBC’s “Meet The Press,” and in a position paper he later released, saying that he would push to end the constitutionally protected citizenship rights of children of any family living illegally inside the US.

“They have to go,” Trump said. “What they’re doing, they’re having a baby. And then all of a sudden, nobody knows… the baby’s here.”

Birthright citizenship is the exception and not the rule worldwide. Even our European brethren, as fond as they are of refugees and open borders, do not embrace it.  As Liz Peek writes on FoxNews.com, birthright citizenship is indeed a big magnet for illegal immigration:

The United States is one of only two developed countries in the world that still bestows citizenship on every person born on our nation’s soil. Having a child become a U.S. citizen is the greatest reward possible for someone who enters the country illegally. Such status is worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in free education and benefits, not to mention the incalculable value of our country’s security and freedoms. Historically, there was bipartisan enthusiasm for dumping this program; even Democrat Harry Reid had proposed its termination.

The costs of birthright citizenship are staggering, especially when you consider the costs of what is called “chain migration”. Once of age the baby born here can sponsor others. It has even given rise to what is called “birth tourism” where pregnant women are brought to the United States, ostensibly as tourists, to give birth here and have their child dubbed an American citizen by birth. 

Critics have said that the task, even if justified, is well nigh impossible, requiring amending the U.S. Constitution. In reality, it may not require altering the 14th Amendment — only correctly interpreting it — perhaps through clarifying legislation.

The 14th Amendment, passed, on July 3, 1866, reads, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” This was done, again, to guarantee the citizenship rights of freed slaves, not illegal aliens. The 1857 Dred Scott decision had held that no black, not even a freed black, could be considered a citizen.

In testimony before the House Judiciary Committee in October, 2008, John C. Eastman, a law professor at Chapman University and a fellow at the Claremont Institute, argued that illegal aliens are still foreign nationals and are not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, except for purposes of deportation, and therefore their children born on American soil should not be automatically considered U.S. citizens:

John Eastman of the Claremont Institute testified before the subcommittee, saying, the Supreme Court has never actually held that anyone who happens to make it to U.S. soil can unilaterally bestow citizenship on their children merely by giving birth here.

Although such an understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment has become widespread in recent years, it is not the understanding of those who drafted the Fourteenth Amendment, or of those who ratified it, or of the leading constitutional commentators of the time. Neither was it the understanding of the Supreme Court when the Court first considered the matter in 1872, or when it considered the matter a second time a decade later in 1884, or even when it considered the matter a third time fifteen years after that in the decision many erroneously view as interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment to mandate automatic citizenship for anyone and everyone born on U.S. soil, whether their parents were here permanently or only temporarily, legally or illegally, or might even be here as enemy combatants seeking to commit acts of terrorism against the United States and its citizens.

Eastman argues that the modern view of the Fourteenth Amendment ignores a key phrase in the Citizenship Clause. Mere birth on U.S. soil just isn’t enough. “A person must be both ‘born or naturalized in the United States’ and ‘subject to its jurisdiction.’”

During debate on the 14th Amendment, Sen. Jacob Merritt Howard of Michigan added jurisdiction language specifically to avoid accident of birth being the sole criteria for citizenship. And if citizenship was determined just by place of birth, why did it take an act of Congress in 1922 to give American Indians birthright citizenship, if they already had citizenship by birthright under the 14th Amendment?        

Rep. John Bingham of Ohio, who is regarded as the father of the 14th Amendment, said it meant that “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your constitution itself, a natural born citizen…”

Rep. Nathan Deal of Georgia sought to clarify the situation through HR. 698 the Citizenship Reform Act of 2005, which would have amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to deny automatic citizenship to children born of the United States of parents who are not U.S. citizens or are not permanent resident aliens.

HR. 698 declared: “It is the purpose of this Act to deny automatic citizenship at birth to children born in the United States to parents who are not citizens or permanent resident aliens.” The bill undertook to clarify “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” to the meaning originally intended by Congress in the14th Amendment.

The current interpretation of birthright citizenship may in fact have been a huge mistake and given the burden illegal aliens have imposed on our welfare, educational, and health care systems as well as through increased crime on our legal system, a very costly one. 

There may be hope of correctly interpreting the 14th Amendment through a court case as President Trump reshapes the courts, particularly the Supreme Court, with justices of a more “originalist” bent. As noted, the misinterpretation could be corrected through clarifying legislation. We can correct it judicially or legislatively and we should. Donald Trump was right — becoming a U.S. citizen should require more than your mother successfully sneaking past the Border Patrol.

Daniel John Sobieski is a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Investor’s Business Daily, Human Events, Reason Magazine and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.  

 

Climate Fraud Exposed: CO2 doesn’t rise up, trap and retain heat | PSI Intl

Written by John O’Sullivan

We have been lied to: Carbon dioxide (CO2) is an alleged ‘well-mixed gas’ also alleged to reside in sufficient quantities high in the atmosphere to cause global warming (via the so-called greenhouse gas effect). But as President Trump looks to help dismantle the hoax there is much inconvenient science at hand to help his administration discredit this ‘theory’ beloved by climate alarmists.

The first damaging fact to the theory: CO2 is actually a heavy gas. It is not ‘well mixed’ in the air as per the glib claim.  Just check out the NASA image (above) showing widely varying carbon dioxide concentrations. Indeed, schoolchildren are shown just how heavy CO2 is by way of a simple school lab experiment. This heavy gas thus struggles to rise and soon falls back to earth due to its Specific Gravity (SG). Real scientists rely on the SG measure which gives standard air a value of 1.0 where the measured SG of CO2 is 1.5 (considerably heavier). Thus,  in the real world the warming theory barely gets off the ground.

As shown  in Carbon Dioxide Not a Well Mixed Gas and Can’t Cause Global Warming the same principle applies to heat transfer: the Specific Heat (SH) of air is 1.0 and the SH of CO2 is 0.8 (thus CO2 heats and cools faster).  Combining these properties allows for thermal mixing. Heavy CO2 warms faster and rises, as in a hot air balloon.  It then rapidly cools and falls. Once it falls it loses any claimed climate impact.

You see, so much of what we have been told about the greenhouse gas mechanism is false. James Moodey wrote an excellent debunk of CO2 pseudo-science. He tells us:

“Proponents [of the greenhouse gas theory] point to scientist John Tyndall for postulating what we now call global warming in his 1861 paper published in “Philosophical Transactions.” Tyndall’s experiments methodically measured with an electronic galvanometer, the relative heat absorption of various gases, gas vapors and even a few solids. He proved that they absorb heat in the order listed.

Generally, the larger the gas molecule (compound gases), the more heat they absorb with the most heat absorbed by olefiant gas (ethylene). Although he does not mention carbon dioxide, it might absorb about a third of that amount. He discovered that that these gases absorb less heat as their pressure rises, so he measured at extreme low pressures.

At one point, he generalizes that gas vapors, such as aqueous vapor, absorb roughly 13 times more than dry gases. Solids absorb even more heat. He notes that gases cool in proportion to the absorption with large molecule gases taking longer to cool. Tyndall leaps a bit with this concept when he hypothesizes the affect on our atmosphere by stating, “to account for different amounts of heat being preserved to the earth at different times” – which we attribute to global warming.”

There is no doubt what he measured exists, but nowhere in John Tyndall’s paper does he add the element of time. Yes, some gases absorb heat, but for how long? If you ask any climate ‘scientist’ how long CO2 traps heat they are unable to tell you. They certainly can’t claim Tyndall “settled” it. Instead you will find airy-fairy, hand-waving pronouncements like this peach:

“As humans emit greenhouse gases like CO2, the air warms and holds more water vapor, which then traps more heat and accelerates warming.”

You see, they want to convince you that CO2 is trapping heat (like a greenhouse) but then don’t tell you how much and for how long. In fact, the only scientist to test CO2 absorption/emission in the open atmosphere is Professor Nasif Nahle (Monterrey, Mexico) in his peer-reviewed paper, ‘Determining the Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Gases Containing Overlapping Absorption Bands.’ [1]

By performing his experiments in the open atmosphere Professor Nahle found:

“Applying the physics laws of atmospheric heat transfer, the Carbon Dioxide behaves as a coolant of the Earth’s surface and the Earth’s atmosphere by its effect of diminishing the total absorptivity and total emissivity of the mixture of atmospheric gases.” [emphasis added]

So much for that ‘greenhouse effect’! Unlike academics playing with computers, applied scientists like Nahle and measurement engineers, who must be correct or buildings would catch fire, use four aspects of physics to measure gases: Pressure (Boyles Law), Temperature (Charles Law), Super-compressibility and Specific Gravity. Charles Law and Specific Gravity should be at the center of any analysis of Global Warming.

But take a look at any climate ‘science’ publication explaining how they quantify and explain their  mechanism of carbon dioxide’s ‘heat trapping’ in the climate and you will only read about radiation effects, nothing at all on those essential laws that chemical science experts rely on. Anyway, a greenhouse works by blocking out cooling convection, not by trapping radiation.

And the greenhouse gas theory is all about radiation. But radiation is not the principle method of heat transport in a gaseous environment like earth’s atmosphere. Here. it is convection and conduction that carry heat around the system. No wonder climate computer models fail.

So, does carbon dioxide trap and retain heat? No, although it cools more slowly than some other gases, it absorbs some amount of heat and quickly cools the same amount when the heat source is removed. Does it rise up in the atmosphere? No, it does the opposite. It sinks.

It is well known that CO2 pools in the lower atmosphere – it is heavy and sinks to the ground where it forms large concentrations (e.g as carboniferous limestone). Geologists know this all too well. They can point us to innumerable examples e.g. those prehistoric limestone deposits on ocean beds which gave the south coast of Britain it’s marvelous white cliffs of Dover (see image).

As Moodey goes on to tell us:

Charles Law precisely quantifies the volume expansion of gas when heated at each degree of temperature. Likewise, as gas cools its volume shrinks precisely the same. Our modern instruments measure instantaneous changes in volume and temperature. This does the same as John Tyndall’s instrument, except we can measure a slight change in volume with each degree of temperature. By my experience with this, I estimate that gases lose the absorbed temperature very rapidly when the heat source is removed.

Specific gravity is the weight of a gas compared with air. Carbon Dioxide has a specific gravity of 1.52. It is about one and a half times heavier than air. It is the same weight as propane and anyone who uses propane knows it to be very heavy. Carbon dioxide sinks into our storm drains and into the ground like a puddle of water.

Now back to some Geology:

And we know carbon dioxide forms into insoluble carbonates that will eventually be washed into the ocean and settle on the ocean floor. Just as well it does. A high carbonate content in the ocean has been a godsend to life. Dissolved carbonates in seawater provide an efficient chemical buffer to various processes that change the properties of seawater. For instance, the addition of a strong acid such as hydrochloric acid (naturally added to the ocean by volcanism), is strongly buffered by the seawater carbonate system. Marine biologists and oceanographers, unlike most climate ‘scientists’, know that Phytoplankton have always sucked CO2 out of the sky, then dumps to ocean floor. [2]

This is the carbon cycle in operation – heavier organic carbon settling down to intermediate and deep waters. Earth’s oceans and rains serve as a go-between to transport the carbon back … and free the CO2 gas which makes its way back up to the surface through volcanoes. [3]

It is sensible to see dispersion of CO2 via volcanic eruptions (and the very tiny human emissions of CO2) as fertilization of the land fauna and flora. The inconvenient truth for global warming alarmists is that NASA finds that the rise in atmospheric CO2 over the last 35 years “represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.” [4]

If NASA is correct, then we need more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not less. Check the graph below and follow the blue line to see that life on earth has thrived on CO2 concentrations at 3,000 ppm, far higher than today’s levels of about 400 ppm (circled):

And if you think like a geologist and not like a climate ‘scientists’ and look back in the history of time you see the atmosphere had very large amounts of carbon dioxide in it. Today we have got less than 0.4%. So where did that carbon dioxide go to? It went into limestone, chalk, shells and life. All land-based lifeforms have been sequestering carbon for ONLY two and a half billion years. And all that CO2 that is supposed to turn the oceans more acidic? Pure nonsense because even NOAA scientists admit in private that they can’t name any place affected by ocean acidification. And more than 99% of earth’s FREE CO2 is already in the ocean waters.

If only those self-absorbed climate ‘scientists’ would speak to chemical scientists. All that Calcium Carbonate comes from the precipitation reaction of Calcium Hydroxide in the ocean with CO2 using the reaction Ca(OH)2 + CO2 -> CaCO3 + H20. For example, shellfish need CO2 from the ocean to make their shells and control the conditions for PH, Temperature and Ion Concentration and they bind the crystals that form in a protein matrix for strength. Shellfish are utterly unaffected by the piddling change in the ocean from being a base of 8.3 to being a base of PH 8.29 that might happen due to manmade CO2

Our planet has been degassing carbon dioxide since it first formed four and a half billion years ago and now we are at a dangerously low level.  The dumbest thing nations can do is permit scrubbing CO2 from the air (carbon sequestration).

As Professor Nahle found with his open air experiments:

“The general conclusion is that by adding any gas with total emissivity/absorptivity lower than the total emissivity/absorptivity of the main absorber/emitter in the mixture of gases makes that the total emissivity/absorptivity of the mixture of gases decreases. In consequence, the carbon dioxide and the oxygen at the overlapping absorption spectral bands act as mitigating factors of the warming of the atmosphere, not as intensifier factors of the total absorptivity/emissivity of the atmosphere.”

Indeed, even with some slight cooling observed, the affect of carbon dioxide on the temperature of our atmosphere is not even measurable as the content is so tiny.  Note that during our most dramatic industrial growth from 1950 to 1980, our atmosphere cooled. In fact putting co2 into the air is  saving the planet. If the industrial age did not occur for another 100 million years, what would the co2 ppm in air be then? The danger is without humans taking steps to put more carbon dioxide into the air then life as we know it could end.

*****

[1]  Nahle, N., ‘Determining the Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Gases Containing Overlapping Absorption Bands,’ http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf

[2] Lionel Guidi, et al x 64 names  (2015)  Plankton networks driving carbon export in the oligotrophic ocean. Nature, 2016; DOI: 10.1038/nature16942

[3]  ‘Marine barite: Recorder of variations in ocean export productivity‘ page 698, Fig 6).

[4] Samson Reiny, ‘Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds,’ https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth (accessed online: January 30, 2017)

 

global_warming_hoax

 

The Second Amendment Has Always Been An Individual Right

John Paul Stevens is still wrong about District of Columbia v. Heller.
David Harsanyi

By

In a recent interview with The New York Times regarding his upcoming memoir, former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens shares what he contends are the three worst court decisions to come down during his long tenure. His first choice, unsurprisingly, is District of Columbia v. Heller, the 2008 ruling that finally codified the Second Amendment as an individual right.

Stevens told the Times that he even took “an extraordinary step in trying to head off the decision,” preemptively sending the other justices a probable dissent to convince them to change their positions. “The combination of its actual practical impact by increasing the use of guns in the country and also the legal reasoning, which I thought was totally unpersuasive,” he says, “persuaded me that the case is just about as bad as any in my tenure.”

Stevens doesn’t even attempt to hide the political motivation behind his argument. Earlier this year, in fact, Stevens implored Americans to do what he couldn’t while on the court, and repeal the Second Amendment. Stevens quotes former Chief Justice Burger, who in 1991 claimed that activists had perpetrated “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”

Both these justices rely on an expedient revisionist history to make their claims. This effort was spearheaded by left-wing historians who attempted to retroactively dismiss the ubiquitous presence of guns in American life and the role firearms played in the rise of a nation. It was taken up by anti-firearm activists and journalists who have used that revisionist history to dismiss the overwhelming evidence that the founding generation believed individual Americans had an inherent right to bear those arms.

All of these forces fostered a “collective right” theory regarding the Second Amendment that was normalized in legal and political circles for decades. Countless judges, like Stevens, latched onto this mythology in an attempt to disarm law-abiding individuals in the name of safety.

The singular purpose of the Second Amendment, they argued, was to arm militias, not individuals. For some reason, they contend, the Second Amendment, unlike most of the Bill of Rights, actually empowered the government rather than the individual. Any other interpretation was an antiquated and destructive reading of the past.

But history has never backed up this contention — not then, and not now. The notion of individual ownership of firearms was so unmistakable and so omnipresent in colonial days—and beyond—that Americans saw no more need to debate its existence than they did the right to drink water or breathe the air. Not a single Minuteman was asked to hand his musket over to the Continental Congress after chasing the British back to Boston. If they had been, the Revolution would have been short-lived, indeed.

 

The debate over the Second Amendment centered on who controlled the militias: the federal or state governments. Everyone understood that a militia consisted of free individuals who would almost always grab their own firearms—the ones they used in their everyday existence—to engage in a concerted effort to protect themselves, their community, or their country — sometimes from their own government. Many colonies enshrined an individual’s right to bear arms in their constitutions before the Bill of Rights was even written, most of them in more explicit individualistic terms. Not a single Framer objected.

“The right of self defense is the first law of nature,” wrote George Tucker in the 1803 Blackstone’s Commentaries regarding the American Second Amendment. “In most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits . . . and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”

During the 19th century, there was still no need to debate whether the Second Amendment was an individual right. The right of an individual to bear arms had been so self-evident that on the rare occasions it was mentioned in any kind of political or legal context, it was brought up to compare American liberty with tyranny elsewhere.

In an 1823 letter to John Adams, William H. Sumner, a politician and general in the Massachusetts militia, noted that if the population of the United States, “like that of Europe, chiefly consisted of an unarmed peasantry,” it would be conquerable. “Here,” he went on, “every house is a castle, and every man a soldier. Arms are in every hand, confidence in every mind, and courage in every heart. It depends upon its own will, and not upon the force of the enemy, whether such a country shall ever be conquered.”

Adams concurred with this thinking. An armed citizenry would not be susceptible to tyranny.

“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers,” wrote Joseph Story, an associate Supreme Court justice in the early 1800s, “and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”

Contemporary liberals often view this form of anti-government rhetoric and reasoning at best distasteful and at worst an endorsement of treason. Of course, despite our many political battles, there is no need for armed insurrection today. What contemporary critics fail to comprehend, however, is that the founding generation believed those who would undermine the universal and inalienable liberties of the people laid out in the Constitution—whether they were in the government or not—are the ones committing sedition.

The individual right to bear arms wasn’t challenged during the Civil War era, when manufacturing capacity and industrialization of the Union—spurred in part by gun innovators like Sam Colt—not only helped create superior armaments and technology that helped defeat the Confederacy but also made guns more widespread than ever.

During the 1800s, firearm innovation permitted the common man to buy more powerful guns more cheaply. These were the guns Americans used to explore, tame, and ultimately populate the West. This project, with all its moral implications, both admirable and sometimes ugly, made the United States the most powerful economic power on earth. Never once did anyone contest the right of individual men (and plenty of women) to own guns.

It’s true, a number of municipalities in the West enacted the occasional local gun ordinance in their red districts. Gun controllers love to cobble together these rare, narrow and tepid prohibitions to create the impression that there was widespread gun control. Not one of these regulations ever challenged the idea of a man’s individual right to own a Remington, Colt, Winchester, or any other gun. Or as many guns as he liked.

When weapons were confiscated by authorities, it was typically in an effort to subjugate minorities — mostly blacks, Native Americans, and others who happen to get in the way of corrupt politicians. When one of the sponsors of the 14th Amendment made his argument for equal protection, it was no accident that he brought up vital “individual right” laid out in the Second Amendment. Not one person objected to say it was a collective right.

It wasn’t until the rise of criminality in the 1930s that there was any federal gun law—and even then, no one made the legal or political argument for the collective theory. It wasn’t until the late 1960s that the left adopted this imaginary understanding of a natural right.

“Putting all of these textual elements together,” wrote Justice Antonin Scalia in his historical, philosophical, and legal exposition of the Second Amendment, “we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right.”

The fact that Stevens’ messy, historically challenged dissent couldn’t persuade Scalia, or anyone else, is unsurprising.

Stevens’ feelings about guns or gun violence do not erase the fact that, both in English common law and in American life, the individual right to self-defense goes back farther than our right to a free press and to freedom of religion. Yet, the fact that the Heller, a decision that invalidated a federal law prohibiting law-abiding citizens from owning a handguns in some of the most crime-ridden neighborhoods in America, bothers Stevens more than any other tells us plenty about his legacy.

David Harsanyi is a Senior Editor at The Federalist. He is the author of the new book, First Freedom: A Ride Through America’s Enduring History with the Gun, From the Revolution to Today.

 

Scientist Admit They ‘Muffed’ The Reports: Global Warming Data Now Worthless – Life and Liberty

A major climate change report has been corrected, as two scientists found a glaring error in an ocean-warming report. The original report was alarming; oceans are warming at a rate 60 percent higher than what was first reported by a United Nations panel. The world is ending, folks. It’s The Day After Tomorrow, except that it’s not.

The oceans aren’t warming at that rate. In fact, the range is so great that experts can no longer stand by their original statistic. According to Town Hall,  “muffed” the error margins. A mathematician caught the error and cooled the temperatures of this survey.

National Review broke the bad news to liberals:

Two researchers have been forced to issue a major correction to a recent study indicating oceans have been warming at a significantly higher rate than previously thought due to climate change?

The paper, published October 31 in the scientific journal Nature, suggested ocean temperatures have risen roughly 60 percent higher than estimated by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But, after errors in the authors’ methodology were identified, they realized their findings were roughly in line with those of the IPCC, after all.

The researchers’ alarming findings were uncritically reported by numerous mainstream media outlets but Nic Lewis, a mathematician and popular critic of the consensus on man-made climate change, quickly identified errors.

“The findings of the . . . paper were peer-reviewed and published in the world’s premier scientific journal and were given wide coverage in the English-speaking media,” Lewis wrote in a critique of the paper. “Despite this, a quick review of the first page of the paper was sufficient to raise doubts as to the accuracy of its results.”

This must be driving the Al Gores of the world absolutely raving mad. After all, how else will they funnel unregulated funds if not to this nearly intractable ’cause’?

Global Warming Is Not Damaging Our World – The Global Warming Movement Is

|
Posted: Nov 02, 2018 8:29 AM
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent the views of Townhall.com.
Global Warming Is Not Damaging Our World - The Global Warming Movement Is
For many of the entities driving the global warming debate, the goal has never been about climate. Their long-term goal is to unite the world under a single socialistic government in which there is no capitalism, no democracy, and, ultimately, no freedom. United Nations’ treaties such as the Paris Agreement on climate change are the flagships of the global governance agenda. By controlling carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, they are in fact controlling the world’s energy since over 80% of our energy comes from CO2-emitting fossil fuels. And controlling the world’s energy effectively controls the world.

Individual freedom is fueled by access to affordable energy. So, for those seeking global governance, a shorter-term goal has become to limit the amount of energy that is available and place it under government control. The wide availability of inexpensive fossil fuels is a serious obstacle to this vision.

Renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power are incapable of ever meeting the world’s energy needs. Their cost, which must be heavily subsidized by the taxpayer, their intermittency (power generation is interrupted when the wind doesn’t blow or the sun goes behind a cloud), and their limited capacity rule them out as major energy sources. The public needs to wake up to this reality because energy impacts every facet of our lives and the war against fossil fuels is already taking a high toll.

Yet, in many states, energy costs are rising because public utilities are being forced by governments to replace some existing economical power with solar and wind farms. As usual, low-income families and small businesses are the biggest losers.

Under the Obama administration, nearly 75,000 new federal regulations restricting energy providers were created, costing America hundreds of billions of dollars per year. The good news is that President Trump has reversed this dangerous trend, weakening or outright cancelling many of the Obama era rules.

This may be difficult to sustain beyond the Trump presidency since the objectivity of major government agencies has been seriously compromised by the global warming movement. All agencies that handle activities relating to climate, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Department of Energy, National Science Foundation, and the Environmental Protection Agency have become so heavily politicized that any project, scientist, or activity that can be remotely connected to global warming is forced to align with the alarmist movement.

The integrity of science and scientists has also declined in recent years. Scientists understand that, if they want to receive research funding, publish papers, and even retain their jobs, they must support the global warming movement. The net result is a loss of credibility for all scientists and the propagation of numerous falsehoods regarding global warming. Even so, a broad spectrum of meteorologists and other scientists have spoken out to say that there is no compelling evidence to support the hypothesis that humans are the cause of any climate changes observed in modern times.

Personal freedoms are declining as a result of the climate scare as well. Socialists are using global warming to attack freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Several U.S. states are trying to pass unconstitutional legislation that would make it a crime to speak out against man-caused global warming. The California Climate Science Truth and Accountability Act of 2016 would have permitted prosecutors to sue think tanks, fossil fuel companies, and others that have “deceived or misled the public on the risks of climate change.” After passing two state Senate committees, it was finally taken off the Senate floor but can be reconsidered at a later date.

Socialists are also trying to place all energy sources under government control using a ‘smart grid’ that will eventually be able to monitor and dictate the energy use of all Americans.

Global warming represents the most pervasive and damaging example of scientific fraud in history. It has already seriously damaged the United States and other free market economies. While our economy is booming now, it will continue to be threatened as long as our government bases any of its policies on the global warming movement.

_________________________

Dr. Jay Lehr is the Science Director of The Heartland Institute which is based in Arlington Heights, Illinois. Tom Harris is Executive Director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition.

Portions of this article have been excerpted with permission of the publisher and author of the 2018 book THE MYTHOLOGY OF GLOBAL WARMING by Bruce Bunker, Ph.D., Publisher: Moonshine Cove.