Imagine that you are home minding your own business. You are a simple cattle rancher who wants to spend his days in peace in the Arizona countryside next to the border with Mexico. You are not near any major cities where crime runs rampant. You think that you are safe. However, you wake up one day and your property is getting vandalized. Your house is getting broken into and trucks are stolen. Your livestock is dying from eating plastic bottles that are littered all over your land. In fact, there is so much litter on the ground that it is starting to look like a garbage dump. There is a steady stream of illegal immigrants invading your own version of the Ponderosa.
What would you do to combat the vandals? Call the cops? They don't seem to what to do anything to help watch your land or taken any type of proactive actions to prevent any future occurrences. Would you call your congressman? Senator? Governor? You could, but they don't seem to care either. If no one cares, maybe you would give up and deal with it or move. Maybe you would fight back.
So many would cross his 22,000 acre ranch into the United States that the local and federal law enforcement agencies started calling it "the avenue of choice" of illegal immigrants. In 1998, Roger Barnett, of Douglas, Arizona got tired of waiting for the government to protect his land and chose to fight back. He began patrolling his own property and detaining illegal immigrants entering the country on his property while waiting on law enforcement to come and pick them up. Over the past 10 years, he has exercised his right to protect his property, home, and family by turning over 12,000 illegal immigrants to the Border Patrol.
Now, he is getting sued for $32 million by 16 people that he detained and had arrested back in March 2004. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) claims that Mr. Barnett violated the civil rights of the 5 women and 11 men he captured and held at gunpoint while waiting for law enforcement to come and apprehend them. They go on to accuse Mr. Barnett of "yelling obscenities at them and kicking one of the women." As he was waiting for law enforcement, MALDEF claims that he threatened them in English and Spanish while pointing a pistol at them and his large dog barked at the trespassers.
According to the Washington Times, "Mr. Barnett said some of the ranch's established immigrant trails were littered with trash 10 inches deep, including human waste, used toilet paper, soiled diapers, cigarette packs, clothes, backpacks, empty 1-gallon water bottles, chewing-gum wrappers and aluminum foil - which supposedly is used to pack the drugs the immigrant smugglers give their 'clients' to keep them running."
I don't know about you, but I would not put up with all that he has put up with from the felons that have crossed his property over the years. The right to the ownership of PRIVATE property is one of the founding cornerstone beliefs in what makes this country great. He has an absolute right to protect his ranch, home, and family. According to the many comments on the "Douglas Dispatch" website regarding this issue, most people agree with me.
This lawsuit is an abomination to the Constitution of the United States and all of our rights. He has the perfectly legal right to apprehend and detain individual that are illegally trespassing on his property. It is nothing but a Trojan horse lawsuit to make this an open border country and amnesty for illegal immigrants in this country.
Many on the left will try to demonize Mr. Barnett. "The Barnett brothers have time and time and time again held people at gunpoint," Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center said. "There were cases that may well have amounted to false imprisonment, which is a felony."
Well, this statement is misrepresenting the facts of the case. It is true that if he would hold a random law-abiding person at gunpoint it would be considered kidnapping or false imprisonment. However, they were in fact in the process of committing the federal felony of entering the country illegally and a misdemeanor crime of criminal trespassing. According to Arizona law, people are allowed to do a citizen's arrest when the suspect commits a felony that the arresting citizen witnesses or when a citizen knows that a felony has been committed and has reasonable grounds to believe that the suspect committed it. [See A.R.S. section 13-3884.] (The statute also permits an arrest for a breach of the peace) He was well within his rights to do what he did.
Last March, Judge John Roll denied the Barnetts' motion to dismiss and stated there was sufficient evidence of a conspiracy, denying the plaintiffs their right to interstate travel and the Barnetts' actions were motivated by race, to allow the matter to be presented to a jury.
The trial should have ended right there before it even started. Judge Roll been heavily criticized for his judicial activism. How could he totally ignore Barnett's property rights or the Arizona statue that allows private citizen's to make arrests of people committing felonies in their presence?
As the jury is currently deliberating the fate of Mr. Barnett, I sincerely hope that he is not found libel for violating their "civil rights". If he is, it will set a bad precedent and will basically make every American citizen's private property rights invalid.
A thug who is caught breaking into a man's house and assaulting his wife could claim that his rights were violated if the man protects his wife and apprehends the criminal while waiting for the cops. It would also make it a lot harder for us to prosecute illegal aliens.
How can a foreign criminal sue a U.S. citizen for preventing the criminal from committing another felony on said citizen's property? Something doesn't sound right with that picture.
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
Could the Democrats Be Starting to Overreach?
The biggest danger the Democrats could face would be overreaching to their leftist base. This is still a center-right nation. It won't take much to start turning their constituents away. Bill Clinton found that out when he tried to get Hillacare passed and instituted the "don't ask, don't tell policy" in the military. The Democrats got thumped in the '94 mid-term elections. After only the first two weeks in power, it looks as if they haven't learned that lesson yet.
Obama's first two executive orders were to overturn the "Mexico City policy", which funds abortions internationally with federal tax money, and to close Guantanamo Bay within the year. He is, also, championing the "stimulus" package that is going through Congress. However, all of these are very unpopular with the American people.
Fifty-eight percent of Americans said they disagreed with the president's decision to give overseas funding to family planning organizations that provide abortions, according to a recent Gallup survey. Only, 35% of Americans supported decision.
The closing of Guantanamo was closer but still more Americans were against it than for it by a 50-44% margin.
The most toxic issue today for Obama and his fellow band of merry liberals is the "stimulus" bill by far. The "porkulus" bill, as it as been called by conservatives, is full of goodies for left-leaning organizations like ACORN and programs like an increase in the amount of food stamps given out that will have little to no effect on stimulating the economy.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 37% favor the legislation, 43% are opposed, and 20% are not sure. The support for the bill has skydived overall the past two weeks. Opposition was 34% two weeks ago to 39% last week and 43% today. Even Democrats are starting to sour on the bill. Sixty-four percent of Democrats still support the plan. That is down from 74% a week ago, though. The more people hear about the bill, the more people don't like it. A recent Gallup survey found that 54% of those surveyed wanted the bill to be changed dramatically or killed altogether. Breaking down the 54% mentioned above: 37% wanted major changes made to the legislation, and 17% said that it should be rejected entirely.
The bill needs to be scrapped down all the way and rebuilt from the floor up. In fact, 45% favor a tax-cut only plan while 34% are opposed to the idea. On the other side of the coin, 72% of voters oppose a stimulus plan that includes only new government spending without any tax cuts.
More Americans seem to favor tax cuts as a way to stimulate the economy versus government spending. Obama would be wise to listen those who voted him in.
Obama still enjoys an approval rating of 61.8% (RCP average), but it has been steadily declining since his inauguration. Now, there is a natural decline that happens to every president after the "high" of inauguration. However, it'll keep falling if they follow the same policies that kicked the Democrats out of power in the White House under Carter and the Congress under Clinton. The GOP is gaining ground on the Democrats in Congress already. The Rasmussen survey said that 42% of voters said they would vote for their district's Democratic candidate while 38% said they would choose the Republican. A week ago, the Democrats enjoyed a seven-point lead, 42-35%.
It's still way too early to predict a mid-term backlash against the Democrats, but it is not off to a good start. If the bill goes through as is, and it the economy doesn't recover, there probably will be. Obama campaigned against the deficit spending of Bush. He criticized W. for ballooning the deficit over his years in office and claimed that McCain would be an extension of the Bush administration. However, he will be seen as a major hypocrite, if he doubles-down on the Bush style deficit spending. If he's not careful, it will be Obama that will be seen as Bush squared.
Obama's first two executive orders were to overturn the "Mexico City policy", which funds abortions internationally with federal tax money, and to close Guantanamo Bay within the year. He is, also, championing the "stimulus" package that is going through Congress. However, all of these are very unpopular with the American people.
Fifty-eight percent of Americans said they disagreed with the president's decision to give overseas funding to family planning organizations that provide abortions, according to a recent Gallup survey. Only, 35% of Americans supported decision.
The closing of Guantanamo was closer but still more Americans were against it than for it by a 50-44% margin.
The most toxic issue today for Obama and his fellow band of merry liberals is the "stimulus" bill by far. The "porkulus" bill, as it as been called by conservatives, is full of goodies for left-leaning organizations like ACORN and programs like an increase in the amount of food stamps given out that will have little to no effect on stimulating the economy.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 37% favor the legislation, 43% are opposed, and 20% are not sure. The support for the bill has skydived overall the past two weeks. Opposition was 34% two weeks ago to 39% last week and 43% today. Even Democrats are starting to sour on the bill. Sixty-four percent of Democrats still support the plan. That is down from 74% a week ago, though. The more people hear about the bill, the more people don't like it. A recent Gallup survey found that 54% of those surveyed wanted the bill to be changed dramatically or killed altogether. Breaking down the 54% mentioned above: 37% wanted major changes made to the legislation, and 17% said that it should be rejected entirely.
The bill needs to be scrapped down all the way and rebuilt from the floor up. In fact, 45% favor a tax-cut only plan while 34% are opposed to the idea. On the other side of the coin, 72% of voters oppose a stimulus plan that includes only new government spending without any tax cuts.
More Americans seem to favor tax cuts as a way to stimulate the economy versus government spending. Obama would be wise to listen those who voted him in.
Obama still enjoys an approval rating of 61.8% (RCP average), but it has been steadily declining since his inauguration. Now, there is a natural decline that happens to every president after the "high" of inauguration. However, it'll keep falling if they follow the same policies that kicked the Democrats out of power in the White House under Carter and the Congress under Clinton. The GOP is gaining ground on the Democrats in Congress already. The Rasmussen survey said that 42% of voters said they would vote for their district's Democratic candidate while 38% said they would choose the Republican. A week ago, the Democrats enjoyed a seven-point lead, 42-35%.
It's still way too early to predict a mid-term backlash against the Democrats, but it is not off to a good start. If the bill goes through as is, and it the economy doesn't recover, there probably will be. Obama campaigned against the deficit spending of Bush. He criticized W. for ballooning the deficit over his years in office and claimed that McCain would be an extension of the Bush administration. However, he will be seen as a major hypocrite, if he doubles-down on the Bush style deficit spending. If he's not careful, it will be Obama that will be seen as Bush squared.
Friday, January 16, 2009
The Audacity of Prayer
Yesterday afternoon, U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton rejected an injunction that would have prevented religious references during the upcoming presidential inauguration in a lawsuit brought about from an atheist group led by Michael Newdow and Dan Barker. This is the third time that Newdow has failed to stop the prayers. Thank God that the third time wasn't the charm. He tried to file injunctions during Bush's past two inaugurations, also.
The atheist group was attempting to take away Obama's freedom of religious expression by filing a lawsuit to prohibit any references to religion in the festivities. They didn't want any prayers in the ceremony, "So help me, God," to be included at the end of his oath, or Obama to take his oath by placing his hand on the Bible. No one is forcing the president-elect to keep the religious aspect to the ceremony. If Obama didn't want them, he could have taken it out, but he wanted to keep it. In fact, he made a personal request to use the same Bible that Lincoln used at his first inauguration.
"The inauguration is not a religious event. It is a secular event of a secular country that includes all Americans, including those of us who are not Christians, including those of us who are not believers," Dan Barker, the Freedom From Religion leader said.
He's obviously forgetting that this country is founded on Judeo/Christian principles. From John Smith to the Pilgrims, the first Americans came to the New World seeking refuge from the English monarchy which forced their people to belong to the Church of England and practice their rituals. They kept them from practicing and proclaiming their own beliefs in public. Now, they want to do the same thing, today, in this country.
The Declaration of Independence specifically says that "Nature's God" entitled us the ability to govern ourselves. In addition, it specifically says that we were also "endowed by (our) Creator with certain unalienable Rights". The founders put a reference to a higher power at the beginning of the document twice. This is proof that we are a country founded on religious principles not totally secular ones.
America was founded on the concept of a "universal" God. There wasn't just one denomination or sect that was dominant over the others. According to recent poll, 92% of Americans that believe in God in one form or another or a universal spirit. Why would we totally take God out of our public and political lives? As long as the prayers are more on the generic side and focus on God and not Jesus, there is no reason why it shouldn't be included.
They want the state religion to be agnostic and force everyone to comply with their lack of beliefs in public, so they won't feel "uncomfortable". In order to make a few people "comfortable", the rest of America must feel awkward wanting to express their beliefs but forced not to by the concern for their comfort levels.
"Yet, we are subjected to someone else's religious views with the endorsement of the government, which makes us feel like second class outsiders," Barker continued. Apparently, they want to make the overwhelming majority in this country that are religious in anyway feel like outsiders instead. That seems very intolerant for those who say they want tolerance for their beliefs or rather the lack thereof.
Michael Newdow is an ordained minister of the Universal Life Church and the founder of the First Amendment Church of True Science (FACTS).
"The First Amendment reminds us that people see things differently, and guarantees that every individual will be afforded an opportunity to express (themselves) and follow (their) own conscience," said Michael Newdow in his first "sermon" given as FACTS founder. If this is how he believes, why is he wanting to take away Obama and everyone else's ability to express themselves religiously or follow their own conscience regarding their beliefs and actions?
"I hope people understand this is not an anti-God issue -- this is a pro-equality issue," Newdow told The Associated Press. "And it's not treating people equal when the government takes one side in a religious debate." That's a bit of a oxymoron when considering that the judge is going to have to take sides in making a decision, and he wants the judge to "choose" their side of argument.
Religion is defined as "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe...and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."
Newdow has described how he believes as a "religion", and by definition, how atheists' believe is a religion. So, if they don't want the government to "pick sides" in matters of religion, the government cannot choose their "religion" either. They shouldn't try to prevent people from praying in public. In doing so, they would be favoring the position of the atheist "religion" over all others.
Another example of their hypocrisy: On Tuesday lawyers representing the atheists submitted the 1952 Supreme Court brief filed by the United States in Brown v. Board of Education, the case the declared segregated schools unconstitutional. They used a quote out of the brief from Harry Truman to justify their demands.
"We shall not finally achieve the ideals for which this nation was founded so long as any American suffers discrimination as a result of his race, or religion, or color, or the land of origin of his forefathers," Truman said.
How can they site a court case that gave people freedoms who should have them in the first place in order to take away freedoms from other people that should have them, too? That just seems wrong on so many levels. Also, I might be wrong, but wouldn't forbidding anyone to express themselves religiously through prayer or otherwise be the kind of religious discrimination that Truman was talking about?
"These atheists who are suing to prevent prayer at the inauguration are showing a fundamental misunderstanding of what the First Amendment is all about. The establishment of religion that is forbidden by the First Amendment means the official declaration of an official national church. It doesn't mean that public ceremonies can not include prayers or acknowledgment of the existence of God," Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family Research Council, told FOX News Radio.
"The atheists, while they have every right to practice their atheism, they do not have an absolute right not to be exposed to viewpoints they don't agree with," Sprigg continued.
Another attack on Obama came a month ago. The far left were all in a tizzy over one of his choices of preachers. Rev. Rick Warren was tapped by Obama to give a prayer at the ceremony. Liberals called it a "slap in the face" to them, especially gay rights activists.
Warren has caught a lot of heat from the left for vocally opposing Prop. 8, the amendment to California's state constitution that defines marriage between a man and a woman. The passing of Prop. 8 made gay marriage illegal again, trumping the ruling made by the activist judges in Sacramento. One of the more vocal critics of the pick was everyone's favorite House bloviater, Rep. Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat.
"Giving that kind of mark of approval and honor to someone who has frankly spoken in ways I and many others have found personally very offensive, I thought that was a mistake for the president-elect to do,” said Frank.
Well, if saying something that offends many or not is the yardstick that determines who gets to speak or not, than Frank shouldn't speak either. He has been quoted as saying that conservatives “believe that life begins at conception and ends at birth”. I know that about half of America might be offended at that.
This kind of hypocrisy is par for the course for many on the left that preach tolerance and diversity while refusing to be tolerant of anyone's decision to be more diverse in who they associate with professionally especially if they have a "R" after their name.
Why is it so hard to believe that Obama might respect Warren enough to bestow him this honor? After all, their views on gay marriage is almost identical. Rev. Warren is against redefining marriage, but he is for civil unions and other gay rights.
Obama said at the presidential candidate forum at the Saddleback Church, "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian it is also a sacred union." That is exactly almost the same as Warren's position. The only difference is that Obama didn't want the definition to be added to the constitution.
They have a selective memory, when it comes to the "chosen one". They will forgive him of anything, but if you are a conservative, you are demonized.
The atheist group was attempting to take away Obama's freedom of religious expression by filing a lawsuit to prohibit any references to religion in the festivities. They didn't want any prayers in the ceremony, "So help me, God," to be included at the end of his oath, or Obama to take his oath by placing his hand on the Bible. No one is forcing the president-elect to keep the religious aspect to the ceremony. If Obama didn't want them, he could have taken it out, but he wanted to keep it. In fact, he made a personal request to use the same Bible that Lincoln used at his first inauguration.
"The inauguration is not a religious event. It is a secular event of a secular country that includes all Americans, including those of us who are not Christians, including those of us who are not believers," Dan Barker, the Freedom From Religion leader said.
He's obviously forgetting that this country is founded on Judeo/Christian principles. From John Smith to the Pilgrims, the first Americans came to the New World seeking refuge from the English monarchy which forced their people to belong to the Church of England and practice their rituals. They kept them from practicing and proclaiming their own beliefs in public. Now, they want to do the same thing, today, in this country.
The Declaration of Independence specifically says that "Nature's God" entitled us the ability to govern ourselves. In addition, it specifically says that we were also "endowed by (our) Creator with certain unalienable Rights". The founders put a reference to a higher power at the beginning of the document twice. This is proof that we are a country founded on religious principles not totally secular ones.
America was founded on the concept of a "universal" God. There wasn't just one denomination or sect that was dominant over the others. According to recent poll, 92% of Americans that believe in God in one form or another or a universal spirit. Why would we totally take God out of our public and political lives? As long as the prayers are more on the generic side and focus on God and not Jesus, there is no reason why it shouldn't be included.
They want the state religion to be agnostic and force everyone to comply with their lack of beliefs in public, so they won't feel "uncomfortable". In order to make a few people "comfortable", the rest of America must feel awkward wanting to express their beliefs but forced not to by the concern for their comfort levels.
"Yet, we are subjected to someone else's religious views with the endorsement of the government, which makes us feel like second class outsiders," Barker continued. Apparently, they want to make the overwhelming majority in this country that are religious in anyway feel like outsiders instead. That seems very intolerant for those who say they want tolerance for their beliefs or rather the lack thereof.
Michael Newdow is an ordained minister of the Universal Life Church and the founder of the First Amendment Church of True Science (FACTS).
"The First Amendment reminds us that people see things differently, and guarantees that every individual will be afforded an opportunity to express (themselves) and follow (their) own conscience," said Michael Newdow in his first "sermon" given as FACTS founder. If this is how he believes, why is he wanting to take away Obama and everyone else's ability to express themselves religiously or follow their own conscience regarding their beliefs and actions?
"I hope people understand this is not an anti-God issue -- this is a pro-equality issue," Newdow told The Associated Press. "And it's not treating people equal when the government takes one side in a religious debate." That's a bit of a oxymoron when considering that the judge is going to have to take sides in making a decision, and he wants the judge to "choose" their side of argument.
Religion is defined as "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe...and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."
Newdow has described how he believes as a "religion", and by definition, how atheists' believe is a religion. So, if they don't want the government to "pick sides" in matters of religion, the government cannot choose their "religion" either. They shouldn't try to prevent people from praying in public. In doing so, they would be favoring the position of the atheist "religion" over all others.
Another example of their hypocrisy: On Tuesday lawyers representing the atheists submitted the 1952 Supreme Court brief filed by the United States in Brown v. Board of Education, the case the declared segregated schools unconstitutional. They used a quote out of the brief from Harry Truman to justify their demands.
"We shall not finally achieve the ideals for which this nation was founded so long as any American suffers discrimination as a result of his race, or religion, or color, or the land of origin of his forefathers," Truman said.
How can they site a court case that gave people freedoms who should have them in the first place in order to take away freedoms from other people that should have them, too? That just seems wrong on so many levels. Also, I might be wrong, but wouldn't forbidding anyone to express themselves religiously through prayer or otherwise be the kind of religious discrimination that Truman was talking about?
"These atheists who are suing to prevent prayer at the inauguration are showing a fundamental misunderstanding of what the First Amendment is all about. The establishment of religion that is forbidden by the First Amendment means the official declaration of an official national church. It doesn't mean that public ceremonies can not include prayers or acknowledgment of the existence of God," Peter Sprigg, vice president for policy at the Family Research Council, told FOX News Radio.
"The atheists, while they have every right to practice their atheism, they do not have an absolute right not to be exposed to viewpoints they don't agree with," Sprigg continued.
Another attack on Obama came a month ago. The far left were all in a tizzy over one of his choices of preachers. Rev. Rick Warren was tapped by Obama to give a prayer at the ceremony. Liberals called it a "slap in the face" to them, especially gay rights activists.
Warren has caught a lot of heat from the left for vocally opposing Prop. 8, the amendment to California's state constitution that defines marriage between a man and a woman. The passing of Prop. 8 made gay marriage illegal again, trumping the ruling made by the activist judges in Sacramento. One of the more vocal critics of the pick was everyone's favorite House bloviater, Rep. Barney Frank, a Massachusetts Democrat.
"Giving that kind of mark of approval and honor to someone who has frankly spoken in ways I and many others have found personally very offensive, I thought that was a mistake for the president-elect to do,” said Frank.
Well, if saying something that offends many or not is the yardstick that determines who gets to speak or not, than Frank shouldn't speak either. He has been quoted as saying that conservatives “believe that life begins at conception and ends at birth”. I know that about half of America might be offended at that.
This kind of hypocrisy is par for the course for many on the left that preach tolerance and diversity while refusing to be tolerant of anyone's decision to be more diverse in who they associate with professionally especially if they have a "R" after their name.
Why is it so hard to believe that Obama might respect Warren enough to bestow him this honor? After all, their views on gay marriage is almost identical. Rev. Warren is against redefining marriage, but he is for civil unions and other gay rights.
Obama said at the presidential candidate forum at the Saddleback Church, "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian it is also a sacred union." That is exactly almost the same as Warren's position. The only difference is that Obama didn't want the definition to be added to the constitution.
They have a selective memory, when it comes to the "chosen one". They will forgive him of anything, but if you are a conservative, you are demonized.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
More Ice, Ice Baby!
Since before I was born in 1979, all of the global warming doomsayers were predicting that we would be well on our way to no polar caps by now. New York City and Los Angelos would be flooded. After all the environmental Chicken Littles' dire warnings of melting polar ice has been shoved down our throats for decades, a recent report by Daily Tech Online has found out that the difference in the ice levels between 1979 and today is zero. The ice levels are the same today as they were on the day I was born almost 30 years ago.
The inconvenient truth for the left and Al Gore is that they seem to may have been duped, or they have duped all of us. Gore got rich by scaring people about global warming while flying in his private jet and spraying "greenhouse gases" all over the world to deposit all of the money from the book sales and speaking engagements in the bank laughing all the way. The global warming racket is highly profitable one. People get billions of dollars from the government and private donations to combat this possibly fictitious threat.
This has been a bad year for global warming alarmists. Last winter, there was more snowfall recorded in the US and Canada since 1966. This winter looks like it might be even worse with already brutal winter weather in the Northeast and Northwest. Even places that hardly ever sees snow got it in record amounts. Las Vegas, Houston, and New Orleans all received an unusual snowstorm last month. An annual dog sled race in Minnesota has been canceled this year for too much snow for the first time ever.
In fact, the coldest decade last century wasn't the 90's like most alarmists would like you to believe. It was the 30's. Records of the weather have only been kept since the late 1800's, but other evidence exists that deals another big blow to their beliefs. Medieval times is suggested to have been even hotter than the 90's based on evidence from all around the world. That's one question that scientists can't answer. How can it be hotter in a time without any man-made "greenhouse
" gases than now with all of that man-made gases in the atmosphere?
“If we go back really, in recorded human history, in the 13th Century, we were probably 7 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than we are now and it was a very prosperous time for mankind,” Dr. Jay Lehr, an expert on environmental policy, said. “If we go back to the Revolutionary War 300 years ago, it was very, very cold. We’ve been warming out of that cold spell from the Revolutionary War period and now we’re back into a cooling cycle.”
Weather is all about cycles. The day is warmer than nights. The summer is cooler than the winter. Those cycles are irrefutable. What if there is a bigger weather pattern that has not been realized yet because accurate weather records don't go back far enough? Could it be that every 200-300 years or so it alternates between hotter than cooler temperatures? Why is it impossible to the global warming faithful to admit that it is at least possible?
"Greenhouse gases" definitely has an affect on a local environment, but there isn't enough to believe that there is as any global warming effect caused by man.
The scientists have been trying to explain something that they didn't have enough imperical evidence to prove in the first place. Many scientists have forgotten that the role of a scientist is to constantly question everything. Unfortunately, they are too stuck in their own self-importance to admit that they might possibly be wrong.
Global-warming has become a religion. Al Gore has become their pope, and the scientists are their cardinals. The rest of the left-wing media and Hollywood are the preachers and missionaries that go around the world spreading warnings of the dangers of CO2 gases lest we create a hell on earth. Like the Holy Roman Empire, they excommunicate those who disagree with them and call them heretics. Only today, they do it first by publicly humiliating them with bad press, and if the heresy didn't stop, it might be a loss of a job.
However, more scientists than ever before have started to publicly criticize the theory of global warming. CNN Meteorologist Chad Myers recently said that it was arrogant for us to think that we can change the weather globally.
“You know, to think that we could affect weather all that much is pretty arrogant,” Myers said. “Mother Nature is so big, the world is so big, the oceans are so big – I think we’re going to die from a lack of fresh water or we’re going to die from ocean acidification before we die from global warming, for sure.”
“The last 10 years have been quite cool,” Lehr continued. “And right now, I think we’re going into cooling rather than warming and that should be a much greater concern for humankind. But, all we can do is adapt. It is the sun that does it, not man.”
It is almost a common occurrence for me to see a conference on global warming being accompanied by record low temperatures at wherever the conference is being held, and they still act like the world is going to burn up, if we don't act now.
It is becoming almost comical, now.
I'm not saying that global warming doesn't exist without any doubt. It is just that global warming hasn't been proven beyond all doubt either. We should treat this theory as such, a theory not fact. As I have said before, we should be environmentally conscience, but not to the point were we are blind to the facts and the possibility that we are wrong. It doesn't matter that most scientists claim that it is fact. In medieval times, scientists swore that the earth was flat and the sun went around the earth. We all know how well those "facts" worked out.
The inconvenient truth for the left and Al Gore is that they seem to may have been duped, or they have duped all of us. Gore got rich by scaring people about global warming while flying in his private jet and spraying "greenhouse gases" all over the world to deposit all of the money from the book sales and speaking engagements in the bank laughing all the way. The global warming racket is highly profitable one. People get billions of dollars from the government and private donations to combat this possibly fictitious threat.
This has been a bad year for global warming alarmists. Last winter, there was more snowfall recorded in the US and Canada since 1966. This winter looks like it might be even worse with already brutal winter weather in the Northeast and Northwest. Even places that hardly ever sees snow got it in record amounts. Las Vegas, Houston, and New Orleans all received an unusual snowstorm last month. An annual dog sled race in Minnesota has been canceled this year for too much snow for the first time ever.
In fact, the coldest decade last century wasn't the 90's like most alarmists would like you to believe. It was the 30's. Records of the weather have only been kept since the late 1800's, but other evidence exists that deals another big blow to their beliefs. Medieval times is suggested to have been even hotter than the 90's based on evidence from all around the world. That's one question that scientists can't answer. How can it be hotter in a time without any man-made "greenhouse
" gases than now with all of that man-made gases in the atmosphere?
“If we go back really, in recorded human history, in the 13th Century, we were probably 7 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than we are now and it was a very prosperous time for mankind,” Dr. Jay Lehr, an expert on environmental policy, said. “If we go back to the Revolutionary War 300 years ago, it was very, very cold. We’ve been warming out of that cold spell from the Revolutionary War period and now we’re back into a cooling cycle.”
Weather is all about cycles. The day is warmer than nights. The summer is cooler than the winter. Those cycles are irrefutable. What if there is a bigger weather pattern that has not been realized yet because accurate weather records don't go back far enough? Could it be that every 200-300 years or so it alternates between hotter than cooler temperatures? Why is it impossible to the global warming faithful to admit that it is at least possible?
"Greenhouse gases" definitely has an affect on a local environment, but there isn't enough to believe that there is as any global warming effect caused by man.
The scientists have been trying to explain something that they didn't have enough imperical evidence to prove in the first place. Many scientists have forgotten that the role of a scientist is to constantly question everything. Unfortunately, they are too stuck in their own self-importance to admit that they might possibly be wrong.
Global-warming has become a religion. Al Gore has become their pope, and the scientists are their cardinals. The rest of the left-wing media and Hollywood are the preachers and missionaries that go around the world spreading warnings of the dangers of CO2 gases lest we create a hell on earth. Like the Holy Roman Empire, they excommunicate those who disagree with them and call them heretics. Only today, they do it first by publicly humiliating them with bad press, and if the heresy didn't stop, it might be a loss of a job.
However, more scientists than ever before have started to publicly criticize the theory of global warming. CNN Meteorologist Chad Myers recently said that it was arrogant for us to think that we can change the weather globally.
“You know, to think that we could affect weather all that much is pretty arrogant,” Myers said. “Mother Nature is so big, the world is so big, the oceans are so big – I think we’re going to die from a lack of fresh water or we’re going to die from ocean acidification before we die from global warming, for sure.”
“The last 10 years have been quite cool,” Lehr continued. “And right now, I think we’re going into cooling rather than warming and that should be a much greater concern for humankind. But, all we can do is adapt. It is the sun that does it, not man.”
It is almost a common occurrence for me to see a conference on global warming being accompanied by record low temperatures at wherever the conference is being held, and they still act like the world is going to burn up, if we don't act now.
It is becoming almost comical, now.
I'm not saying that global warming doesn't exist without any doubt. It is just that global warming hasn't been proven beyond all doubt either. We should treat this theory as such, a theory not fact. As I have said before, we should be environmentally conscience, but not to the point were we are blind to the facts and the possibility that we are wrong. It doesn't matter that most scientists claim that it is fact. In medieval times, scientists swore that the earth was flat and the sun went around the earth. We all know how well those "facts" worked out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
