(This is a short story that I submitted to a competition; limited to 715 words. Hope you like this)
As I sat down this morning to surf thru the shortwave, I remembered of a time when ‘surfing’ had a similar meaning. Back then, we took our freedoms for granted as we eagerly surfed the Internet or the TV. My grandchildren (eight and ten in age when they died) would look at me with awe as I would tell them stories of listening to XM radio while driving from South Carolina to South Georgia every weekend. I could keep the boys spellbound about classic rock and roll songs from the 1960’s, changing stations to listen to news from various networks, then sliding a CD to help me stay awake on those long trips. We took our God-given rights for granted, but that was another story that I was saving for another time.
They always asked about the music. But I knew they wanted the stories about the musicians that I grew up listening to and the crazy things I did during my younger days. Then I would pick up my Fender six-string acoustic and strum out a few songs, reflecting on my mood at that moment. Not being much of a singer, I discovered that the boys were quick at learning the words to songs like Stairway to Heaven, Clapton’s Change the World, and Pink Floyd’s Comfortably Numb. Man, their mother would be so upset at me. She was afraid that the boys would be overheard singing, as she put it, “those radical songs that you’ve taught them”. I knew she was remembering those times in her youth with fondness; yet there was caution to be taken. But all that was before the SuperFlu epidemic just five months ago.
The flu hit the youngest like a hungry eagle chasing down a small rabbit. We lost both boys in just 48 hours. A couple of months later, my Sweetheart left early one morning while I was still asleep. Her note said that she knew I was the strongest and could continue on without her. She was going to see Mama and I knew what that meant. I ran thru the house, and sure enough, her mother’s .38 caliber S&W revolver along with one of my hidden AK 47s were gone. I knew the automatic was for any trouble on her way down to her Mama’s grave near Eridu, Fl. The .38 would serve a final purpose at the end of her trip. With tears running down my cheeks, I read the words:
I’ve always loved you, Daddy. You were the rock for everyone to lean on when Mama died, then later when both Louis and Rick died during the Nashville rebellion. Please don’t try to follow me, as I’ve got the only car left and you wouldn’t be able to find another working car within 50 miles. You know what I’m going to do and I hope that God forgives me. Remember the truths that you warned me about not so long ago and I wouldn’t listen to?! Know that I came to understand what you were saying when martial law was declared, but I was a little too late. You were my hero when you drove up from home to rescue me and the boys. Louis would have been proud of you and James would have been grateful. You have always been my hero; now our country needs heroes. I love you forever, your Sweetheart.
Now, as I surf thru the shortwave, I reflect on the loss of my loved ones in such a short time. My beautiful wife, with that gleam of wisdom and beauty in her eyes, as she fussed about her hair; stroke. My son as he grew up and went to fight for the republic that I taught him about; died for freedom. My daughter whose final words about heroes still ring in my ears. Near tears, I find what I’ve been waiting for: “Blackwell Liberty nine”; A call to arms in Blackwell, S.C. in five days at nine o’clock pm.
With the horse saddled, the weapons and gear packed, and my dog Scruffy following along, we made our way out of town. A new revolution was beginning and our forsaken republic needed heroes.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
IS THIS THE LAST STRAW?
Just a quick "running off of the mouth" by your's truly due to frustration at the long list of criminal actions that have been perpretrated in Washington, D.C. I'll be back soon with a new post with constructive structure that will close by pointing the finger of "GUILTY" at the responsible individuals. Enjoy for now:
From buying off Mary Landrieu's support for HC reform (let's see how LA's voters react in her next election), strongarming Joe Liebermann's support for HC reform by sending his leftist goons out to attack Joe's wife (who is supporting research for a cure to breast cancer), bringing the 5 terrorists guilty of planning and organizing the 9/11 attacks to a criminal trial in New York City (as opposed to a military tribunal where this belongs), delaying for 3 months a decision on Gen. McChrystle's request for 40,000+ troops, BHO's lack luster initial response to the Fort Hood massacre (remember how important it was to BHO to give a "shout out" after 2 minutes of "blah-blah-blah" before finally commenting on the massacre), BHO's lack of support for the CIA's operations as intended by their structure in their fight against terrorists, BHO's non-support of the three Navy Seals up for court martial for one punch to a dangerous terrorist leader whom they had captured, BHO's lackluster "diplomacy" as regarding Iran's defiance (along with North Korea) [I can go on and on but you get the message that BHO and his Socialist Circle of Friends in the White House and on Capitol Hill have no intention in working for the sake of our republic's economic future or our national security], now we have confirmed reports from three sources from Capitol Hill that Sen. Ben Nelson has been blackmailed to gain his support for the latest Senate version of "health care reform" or have Offutt Air Force Base placed on the next BRAC list; the very AFB that is the Strategic Command HQ for the Air Force's Strategic Air Command. If this action is confirmed, this is an act of treason in my book and must be handled by military justice accordingly. In other words, BHO, if your administration is guilty of this, well, "Remember Richard Nixon?"
From buying off Mary Landrieu's support for HC reform (let's see how LA's voters react in her next election), strongarming Joe Liebermann's support for HC reform by sending his leftist goons out to attack Joe's wife (who is supporting research for a cure to breast cancer), bringing the 5 terrorists guilty of planning and organizing the 9/11 attacks to a criminal trial in New York City (as opposed to a military tribunal where this belongs), delaying for 3 months a decision on Gen. McChrystle's request for 40,000+ troops, BHO's lack luster initial response to the Fort Hood massacre (remember how important it was to BHO to give a "shout out" after 2 minutes of "blah-blah-blah" before finally commenting on the massacre), BHO's lack of support for the CIA's operations as intended by their structure in their fight against terrorists, BHO's non-support of the three Navy Seals up for court martial for one punch to a dangerous terrorist leader whom they had captured, BHO's lackluster "diplomacy" as regarding Iran's defiance (along with North Korea) [I can go on and on but you get the message that BHO and his Socialist Circle of Friends in the White House and on Capitol Hill have no intention in working for the sake of our republic's economic future or our national security], now we have confirmed reports from three sources from Capitol Hill that Sen. Ben Nelson has been blackmailed to gain his support for the latest Senate version of "health care reform" or have Offutt Air Force Base placed on the next BRAC list; the very AFB that is the Strategic Command HQ for the Air Force's Strategic Air Command. If this action is confirmed, this is an act of treason in my book and must be handled by military justice accordingly. In other words, BHO, if your administration is guilty of this, well, "Remember Richard Nixon?"
Sunday, December 13, 2009
THE GAMES IN WASHINGTON, D.C. MUST END
It is not that I believe, but that I know in my heart that our government has been perverted by the most vile of corruption: greed. We watch the games that are played on Capitol Hill, including negotiating/writing a bill of unconstitutional boundaries behind the symbolic "closed doors" where one party is the only one represented while the minority party stands outside and cries to We, the People of the injustice of it all. Yet, when you truly investigate the "leadership" of the minority party, you discover that they have played the same game before. You also discover that many within the minority party have voted on legislation based on what they can "barter" for, as opposed to the principles and values they should uphold. You also discover, upon a broader review, that the vast majority of members in both houses of Congress have voted based on influences by lobbyists and "outside" concerns, as opposed to voting based on what We, the People are calling for. You notice, as well, that while the minority party votes against major pieces of legislation that We, the People have voiced our concerns about, they have also voted in favor of other bills that have increased our federal spending levels, increased our national debt and continue to devalue our national currency. The gravest thought to all of this is that the members of the minority party have been doing this with full knowledge of the repercussions of their actions on our country. We see an occasional "light" when legislation is introduced that bears teeth in reigning in our federal government (ex: Ron Paul's HR 1207, Federal Reserve Transparency Act) yet the legislation, after being initially assigned to a committee, gathers dust because the leadership within the committee and the specific house of Congress are not in favor of considering such legislation. And this is regardless as to whether the proposed legislation carries over 1/2 of the membership within the particular house of Congress as cosponsors.
Where is the true concern/outrage and appropriate action from our elected representatives (from both houses) as regarding the actions taken by BHO and his "administration"? We hear of speeches on both floors and interviews on radio and TV regarding constitutional questions about the executive branch but we only see very limited action on the floor of both houses. It is truly just a political game engineered to allow certain members on Capitol Hill to "remind the sheeples of their grave concerns" so that they can appear as supportive of the outrage from We, the People. In the meantime, we see executive policies being made by BHO's Circle of Friends (ex: the "pay czar's" declared decision as to how to limit the pay of certain executives). These "czars/advisors" are making policies, with other outside influences as their supporting guidance, and then passing these policies onto their puppet/mouthpiece whom We, the People know as POTUS. BHO is the sophisticated, eloquent spokesperson for the advanced movements by the Socialists to degrade our nation and eventually turn our country into a pauper state. All of this so that our country can be at the whim of intenational interests (research the Bildenberg Group and George Soros, for starters). Yet, while We, the People declare our outrage towards the policies and the unconstitutional group of "policy-makers", our representation on Capitol Hill play their game of sending out their "talking heads" in an effort to convince us that they hear and support our grievances, while doing nothing of substantial quality to stop the madness within our executive branch. And all the while, our Senate Judiciary Committee continues to approve of nominees for federal judge positions (as offered by BHO) who have no intention of judging based on constitutional law but instead will continue to judge based on outside interests and "personal feelings".
Our Republic has become a shambles from what it was intended to be. The Socialist movement has taken a stranglehold on our country within the past 50 years and are aggressively pushing their agenda which they have slowly been preaching into our society and our government for appx. 100 years. The past four generations of American citizens have allowed this to happen due to our complacency to exercise our God-given right to vote and by voting (when we did) based on which "mouthpiece" was saying the right thing, as opposed to looking at where they had stood on important issues of the times prior to running for the particular seat of government.
So where does this leave us? We can find honest, principled, moral citizens (they are out there) and encourage them to be our representation in Wasington (and in our state capitols and local governments). This as the goal to restore our Republic and put government back within the constitutional boundaries that they should have always been abiding by. Otherwise, we have another choice, which I would regret seeing our country turn to. The choice is up to We, the People as individual citizens of our country. The choice is up to You, the concerned citizen to make. I've made mine and have been exercising it for what seems like an eternity. When are You going to make yours and declare it loudly for all to hear?
Where is the true concern/outrage and appropriate action from our elected representatives (from both houses) as regarding the actions taken by BHO and his "administration"? We hear of speeches on both floors and interviews on radio and TV regarding constitutional questions about the executive branch but we only see very limited action on the floor of both houses. It is truly just a political game engineered to allow certain members on Capitol Hill to "remind the sheeples of their grave concerns" so that they can appear as supportive of the outrage from We, the People. In the meantime, we see executive policies being made by BHO's Circle of Friends (ex: the "pay czar's" declared decision as to how to limit the pay of certain executives). These "czars/advisors" are making policies, with other outside influences as their supporting guidance, and then passing these policies onto their puppet/mouthpiece whom We, the People know as POTUS. BHO is the sophisticated, eloquent spokesperson for the advanced movements by the Socialists to degrade our nation and eventually turn our country into a pauper state. All of this so that our country can be at the whim of intenational interests (research the Bildenberg Group and George Soros, for starters). Yet, while We, the People declare our outrage towards the policies and the unconstitutional group of "policy-makers", our representation on Capitol Hill play their game of sending out their "talking heads" in an effort to convince us that they hear and support our grievances, while doing nothing of substantial quality to stop the madness within our executive branch. And all the while, our Senate Judiciary Committee continues to approve of nominees for federal judge positions (as offered by BHO) who have no intention of judging based on constitutional law but instead will continue to judge based on outside interests and "personal feelings".
Our Republic has become a shambles from what it was intended to be. The Socialist movement has taken a stranglehold on our country within the past 50 years and are aggressively pushing their agenda which they have slowly been preaching into our society and our government for appx. 100 years. The past four generations of American citizens have allowed this to happen due to our complacency to exercise our God-given right to vote and by voting (when we did) based on which "mouthpiece" was saying the right thing, as opposed to looking at where they had stood on important issues of the times prior to running for the particular seat of government.
So where does this leave us? We can find honest, principled, moral citizens (they are out there) and encourage them to be our representation in Wasington (and in our state capitols and local governments). This as the goal to restore our Republic and put government back within the constitutional boundaries that they should have always been abiding by. Otherwise, we have another choice, which I would regret seeing our country turn to. The choice is up to We, the People as individual citizens of our country. The choice is up to You, the concerned citizen to make. I've made mine and have been exercising it for what seems like an eternity. When are You going to make yours and declare it loudly for all to hear?
Saturday, November 14, 2009
LEAVE THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AS IS (AND HERE'S WHY)
“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, One nation under GOD, indivisible with liberty and justice for all”
ARGUMENTS AGAINST USING “UNDER GOD” IN THE PLEDGE:
Some opponents argue that church and state should be kept separate as the Founding Fathers intended AND I concur. Others say the phrase "under God" in the Pledge places "undue coercion" on young children, thus violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Many advocates of removing "under God" point out that the phrase was not written into the original pledge and that the opposition to returning to the original pledge is proof that "under God" is a religious symbol and not merely a secular practice. Allow me to poke some holes into these "arguments":
1.ARGUMENT: I’m pledging allegiance to a “flag”, a symbol or image that is not of God; God said that You shall have no other gods before Me and that You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
REBUTTAL: Definition of allegiance: adherence to something to which one is bound by a pledge or duty; devotion or loyalty to a person, group, or cause.
You are pledging allegiance to a cause (the republic of the USA) which is represented by a flag, NOT to the flag itself. The flag is a symbol of a country that was developed under the Laws of Nature (God’s Law) (The 5000 Year Leap, W. Cleon Skousen) and is therefore not a “carved image” of any other likeness than God (in other words, not in violation of the Second Commandment) nor expressing any allegiance to any other gods before God (Me, as expressed in the First Commandment).
The words “for which it stands” indicates that the flag is standing for (representative) of the republic (the United States of America) of which one is pledging allegiance to and the following phrase (One nation under God) recognizes that the USA is a nation under God’s law (rule).
Realizing that the country was developed under the Laws of Nature thru our Constitution and the First Amendment forbids Congress from making a law which establishes any religion:
If reciting the Pledge is truly a “religious act” in violation of the Establishment Clause, then so is recitation of the Constitution itself, the Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg Address, the National Motto or the singing of the National Anthem (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Newdon II).
2. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE:
In the Federalist No. 69: Hamilton, there is a comparison of the duties of the President of the USA and the King of Britain. Part of this comparison included the following phrase: “The one [the President] has no spiritual jurisdiction; The other (King of Britain) is the supreme head and Governor of the national church.” The reflection intended here was that the leader of the USA has no legitimate powers to hold any control over spiritual matters, as opposed to the powers which the King of Britain held over spiritual concerns. Here is the intention regarding “separation of church and state” as intended by the Founding Fathers. The initial immigration to the American soil was for religious freedom. People in European countries and in other areas were tired of excessive taxation (which was driving them out of their homes and property) and oppressive religious servitude as controlled by the leader of their countries. Understanding this, the founding fathers called for “separation of church and state” solely for the purpose of not allowing the “state” (our different levels of government; local, state and federal) to direct what religious belief their patronage/citizens must abide by. Hence, the statement in the First Amendment called for freedom of religion via prohibition of any laws by Congress establishing a religion or of any laws prohibiting any exercise of religion.
3. LAWS OF NATURE (GOD’S LAW) ARE ENDOWED WITHIN THE CONSTITUTION
As recognized by constitutional scholars, such as W. Cleon Skousen (author of the 5000 YEAR LEAP), the principles and values of our nation's Founding Fathers were strongly influenced by the morals and ethics of many contemporaries who believed that man's actions would be judged by God. As argued previously, our Founding Fathers recognized that any government on earth could not be a direct reflection of the highest "government". Thus, man could not create a government that directly imposed religious beliefs (of any interpretation) upon it's constituents because we would then be declaring our government on the same level of judgement as God; hence the separation of church and state. Some of the contemporaries who reflected these ideals upon our Founding Fathers included:
A. John Locke: Natural Law is an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that legislators make must be comfortable to the will of God (the laws of Nature) "Second Essay Concerning Civil Government"
B. Sir William Blackstone: The will of man’s Creator is the laws of Nature. Hence, this law is superior to any other manmade law of this world. The Laws of Nature is binding over all laws of any country and that any laws of man contrary to God’s Law bears no validity. "Commentaries on the Laws of England"
C. Algernon Sidney: Insisted that there was no divine right for kings to rule over the people. Insisted that the right to rule was within the people and no one could rule over the people without their consent. "Discourses Concerning Government"
Another argument pursued has regarded the so-called "COMPELLED SPEECH ISSUE". Following is how the Supreme Court has dealt with this approach and maintained Constitutional rights.
WEST VIRGINIA BOARD OF EDUCATION VS. BARNETTE (1943): Dealt with the required salute (extended upturned palm while reciting), which members of Jehovah’s Witness said was sacrilegious as applied to the First and Second Commandments; hence this requirement was against the inherited meaning of the First Amendment of the Constitution. Barnette underscored student rights and held that students could not be forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Future cases, such as Holloman vs. the Walker Board of Education of 2004 and Lane vs. Owens (Colorado, 2003) further reinforced that no student would be forced into reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.
My evaluation as to how these cases, and the precedent set by the Barnette ruling, affect our country's principles is two-fold. I, using my rational side of my brain, must agree with the Constitutional argument used by SCOTUS in these and other previous cases, because I am a Constitutionalist. However, my emotional side recognizes that this "issue" would not even be an item for discussion if not for the Socialist/Progressive movement that has slowly plagued our country for over 100 years. On reflection, our Founding Fathers recognized that this "issue" would surface and our approach would be one example of how our country would forever interpret and use Constitutional principles. And so far, our republic has not stood up to the tests of time.
To wrap up the issue regarding the Pledge of Allegiance, it should simply stand as is. As explained, the flag represents a cause reflecting and following the will of God. Hence, one is still honoring God, placing no other Gods before him and creating no graven images of God. Thru Constitutional principles, no one (including children) can be coerced into reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, or any particular part of it, as granted by the freedom of speech, which in turns does not violate the Establishment Clause. By defining what the flag represents, the argument re: the separation of church and state and the First Amendment is still valid as applied to the Pledge of Allegiance.
I welcome any dissenting arguments.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST USING “UNDER GOD” IN THE PLEDGE:
Some opponents argue that church and state should be kept separate as the Founding Fathers intended AND I concur. Others say the phrase "under God" in the Pledge places "undue coercion" on young children, thus violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Many advocates of removing "under God" point out that the phrase was not written into the original pledge and that the opposition to returning to the original pledge is proof that "under God" is a religious symbol and not merely a secular practice. Allow me to poke some holes into these "arguments":
1.ARGUMENT: I’m pledging allegiance to a “flag”, a symbol or image that is not of God; God said that You shall have no other gods before Me and that You shall not make for yourself a carved image--any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
REBUTTAL: Definition of allegiance: adherence to something to which one is bound by a pledge or duty; devotion or loyalty to a person, group, or cause.
You are pledging allegiance to a cause (the republic of the USA) which is represented by a flag, NOT to the flag itself. The flag is a symbol of a country that was developed under the Laws of Nature (God’s Law) (The 5000 Year Leap, W. Cleon Skousen) and is therefore not a “carved image” of any other likeness than God (in other words, not in violation of the Second Commandment) nor expressing any allegiance to any other gods before God (Me, as expressed in the First Commandment).
The words “for which it stands” indicates that the flag is standing for (representative) of the republic (the United States of America) of which one is pledging allegiance to and the following phrase (One nation under God) recognizes that the USA is a nation under God’s law (rule).
Realizing that the country was developed under the Laws of Nature thru our Constitution and the First Amendment forbids Congress from making a law which establishes any religion:
If reciting the Pledge is truly a “religious act” in violation of the Establishment Clause, then so is recitation of the Constitution itself, the Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg Address, the National Motto or the singing of the National Anthem (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Newdon II).
2. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE:
In the Federalist No. 69: Hamilton, there is a comparison of the duties of the President of the USA and the King of Britain. Part of this comparison included the following phrase: “The one [the President] has no spiritual jurisdiction; The other (King of Britain) is the supreme head and Governor of the national church.” The reflection intended here was that the leader of the USA has no legitimate powers to hold any control over spiritual matters, as opposed to the powers which the King of Britain held over spiritual concerns. Here is the intention regarding “separation of church and state” as intended by the Founding Fathers. The initial immigration to the American soil was for religious freedom. People in European countries and in other areas were tired of excessive taxation (which was driving them out of their homes and property) and oppressive religious servitude as controlled by the leader of their countries. Understanding this, the founding fathers called for “separation of church and state” solely for the purpose of not allowing the “state” (our different levels of government; local, state and federal) to direct what religious belief their patronage/citizens must abide by. Hence, the statement in the First Amendment called for freedom of religion via prohibition of any laws by Congress establishing a religion or of any laws prohibiting any exercise of religion.
3. LAWS OF NATURE (GOD’S LAW) ARE ENDOWED WITHIN THE CONSTITUTION
As recognized by constitutional scholars, such as W. Cleon Skousen (author of the 5000 YEAR LEAP), the principles and values of our nation's Founding Fathers were strongly influenced by the morals and ethics of many contemporaries who believed that man's actions would be judged by God. As argued previously, our Founding Fathers recognized that any government on earth could not be a direct reflection of the highest "government". Thus, man could not create a government that directly imposed religious beliefs (of any interpretation) upon it's constituents because we would then be declaring our government on the same level of judgement as God; hence the separation of church and state. Some of the contemporaries who reflected these ideals upon our Founding Fathers included:
A. John Locke: Natural Law is an eternal rule to all men, legislators as well as others. The rules that legislators make must be comfortable to the will of God (the laws of Nature) "Second Essay Concerning Civil Government"
B. Sir William Blackstone: The will of man’s Creator is the laws of Nature. Hence, this law is superior to any other manmade law of this world. The Laws of Nature is binding over all laws of any country and that any laws of man contrary to God’s Law bears no validity. "Commentaries on the Laws of England"
C. Algernon Sidney: Insisted that there was no divine right for kings to rule over the people. Insisted that the right to rule was within the people and no one could rule over the people without their consent. "Discourses Concerning Government"
Another argument pursued has regarded the so-called "COMPELLED SPEECH ISSUE". Following is how the Supreme Court has dealt with this approach and maintained Constitutional rights.
WEST VIRGINIA BOARD OF EDUCATION VS. BARNETTE (1943): Dealt with the required salute (extended upturned palm while reciting), which members of Jehovah’s Witness said was sacrilegious as applied to the First and Second Commandments; hence this requirement was against the inherited meaning of the First Amendment of the Constitution. Barnette underscored student rights and held that students could not be forced to recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Future cases, such as Holloman vs. the Walker Board of Education of 2004 and Lane vs. Owens (Colorado, 2003) further reinforced that no student would be forced into reciting the Pledge of Allegiance.
My evaluation as to how these cases, and the precedent set by the Barnette ruling, affect our country's principles is two-fold. I, using my rational side of my brain, must agree with the Constitutional argument used by SCOTUS in these and other previous cases, because I am a Constitutionalist. However, my emotional side recognizes that this "issue" would not even be an item for discussion if not for the Socialist/Progressive movement that has slowly plagued our country for over 100 years. On reflection, our Founding Fathers recognized that this "issue" would surface and our approach would be one example of how our country would forever interpret and use Constitutional principles. And so far, our republic has not stood up to the tests of time.
To wrap up the issue regarding the Pledge of Allegiance, it should simply stand as is. As explained, the flag represents a cause reflecting and following the will of God. Hence, one is still honoring God, placing no other Gods before him and creating no graven images of God. Thru Constitutional principles, no one (including children) can be coerced into reciting the Pledge of Allegiance, or any particular part of it, as granted by the freedom of speech, which in turns does not violate the Establishment Clause. By defining what the flag represents, the argument re: the separation of church and state and the First Amendment is still valid as applied to the Pledge of Allegiance.
I welcome any dissenting arguments.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
WORLD GOVERNMENT AND CLIMATE CONTROL (PART TWO)
In PART ONE, we discussed how the current UN treaty markup (FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/INF.2) was based on assumptions without any valid scientific data for support and how actual scientific studies since the 1970s have debunked these assumptions. However, the efforts are still underway for world leaders to meet in Copenhagen in December, 2009 to reach agreement on the current details and approve this treaty. This left us with the following question:
“If climate change is insignificant as proven scientifically thru the use of real-time data, why the world-wide (United Nations, Al Gore, etc.) concerns over the need of a treaty for controlling climate change? And if this treaty is signed by President and approved by 2/3 of the U.S. Senate, why should American citizens by concerned?” Let’s address these questions with the significant details of this treaty, including the “organization” that will be developed and how this “organization” will affect our country.
Basically, this treaty recognizes two categories of international countries: “developed and underdeveloped countries”. This treaty is founded on the principle (see page 8, pp. a) that developed countries have a debt to underdeveloped countries thru financial support and helping to provide adaptations to new systems with low greenhouse (GHG) emissions. All countries (per page 8, pp 12) are required to develop climate response strategies, in line with their individual responsibilities and capabilities (as established under this treaty) to reach a low carbon and GHG emission economy. Developed countries will comply with all provisions within this treaty and will pledge (per page 9) to meet their targets regarding lower carbon and GHG emissions fully, effectively and in a reportable, verifiable manner. All developed countries must present Carbon Neutral Strategies (per page 15) to meet their quantified targets by 2020. Short-term carbon and GHG emission standards shall be met by 2020 with Long Term carbon and GHG emission standards to be met by 2050. These standards include reducing carbon dioxide concentrations to less than 450 parts per million, limit global average temperature rises to 2 degrees Centigrade, all of which would require lowering current 2020 GHG emissions (again, based on faulty unscientific assumptions) by 50% from 1990 levels to 2050.
Developed countries will be required to develop funds to finance full costs for preparation of national communications for developing countries. This funding includes transfer of technology for (to name just a few):
A. mitigation of emissions
B. Development and deployment of low carbon and “environmentally sound” technologies
C. Research and development of such technologies
D. Preparation of national action plans and implementation
E. Taxes on carbon emissions and “carbon-intensive” products and services
F. Share of proceeds from measures to limit emission from international aviation and maritime travel
G. A levy of 2% on international financial/monetary transactions on developed countries.
In essence, all funding collected would be used by “developing [aka: underdeveloped]” countries. Page 136 lists eleven different funds to be raised by developed countries, such as Adaptation, Global support for tariffs, mitigation of “Venture Capital” (start-up funds), and climate insurance, to name some of the funds listed. A Multilateral Climate Technology Fund will be established to:
A. Provide technology-related financial resources for R&D, manufacturing and implementation.
B. Developed countries will also assess contributions from:
1. Parts of their regular fiscal budgets
2. Taxation on carbon transactions and/or auction of emission permits
3. Fiscal revenue from energy and environmental taxation.
(Does subsection B remind you of our nation’s ongoing “Cap and Trade” legislation; it should)
The question arises: Who will govern this government-styled structure to ensure that all developed countries meet their financial obligations? A Convention of the Parties, as created by member nations of the UN and under the guidance of the UN Governing Body will be established for implementation, monitoring, reporting and verifying global cooperative actions, with the support of an Executive Board which will manage and disperse the funds collected. Will We, the People, allow for the additional taxes that will be needed to raise the revenue for the various funds required within this “treaty”? Will We, the People allow for this loss of national sovereignty that will be created via the terms of this Co-op style of world government as controlled and monitored by the UN’s Convention of the Parties? Both HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and President BHO have publicly stated recently that the President will not sign onto this “treaty” if the ongoing “Cap and Trade” legislation is not law by the time that the Copenhagen meeting takes place. I ask you: do you believe, given the Marxist/Socialist “tax the wealthy, spread the wealth” philosophies of the current administration, that the status of the “Cap and Trade” legislation will affect President BHO’s decision to sign onto this treaty which emulates his administration’s philosophies and actions? It will probably come down to the We, the People working on our Senators to ensure that 2/3 of the Senate does not vote for approval of this “treaty” (world government).
William (Wild Bill) Conant
“If climate change is insignificant as proven scientifically thru the use of real-time data, why the world-wide (United Nations, Al Gore, etc.) concerns over the need of a treaty for controlling climate change? And if this treaty is signed by President and approved by 2/3 of the U.S. Senate, why should American citizens by concerned?” Let’s address these questions with the significant details of this treaty, including the “organization” that will be developed and how this “organization” will affect our country.
Basically, this treaty recognizes two categories of international countries: “developed and underdeveloped countries”. This treaty is founded on the principle (see page 8, pp. a) that developed countries have a debt to underdeveloped countries thru financial support and helping to provide adaptations to new systems with low greenhouse (GHG) emissions. All countries (per page 8, pp 12) are required to develop climate response strategies, in line with their individual responsibilities and capabilities (as established under this treaty) to reach a low carbon and GHG emission economy. Developed countries will comply with all provisions within this treaty and will pledge (per page 9) to meet their targets regarding lower carbon and GHG emissions fully, effectively and in a reportable, verifiable manner. All developed countries must present Carbon Neutral Strategies (per page 15) to meet their quantified targets by 2020. Short-term carbon and GHG emission standards shall be met by 2020 with Long Term carbon and GHG emission standards to be met by 2050. These standards include reducing carbon dioxide concentrations to less than 450 parts per million, limit global average temperature rises to 2 degrees Centigrade, all of which would require lowering current 2020 GHG emissions (again, based on faulty unscientific assumptions) by 50% from 1990 levels to 2050.
Developed countries will be required to develop funds to finance full costs for preparation of national communications for developing countries. This funding includes transfer of technology for (to name just a few):
A. mitigation of emissions
B. Development and deployment of low carbon and “environmentally sound” technologies
C. Research and development of such technologies
D. Preparation of national action plans and implementation
E. Taxes on carbon emissions and “carbon-intensive” products and services
F. Share of proceeds from measures to limit emission from international aviation and maritime travel
G. A levy of 2% on international financial/monetary transactions on developed countries.
In essence, all funding collected would be used by “developing [aka: underdeveloped]” countries. Page 136 lists eleven different funds to be raised by developed countries, such as Adaptation, Global support for tariffs, mitigation of “Venture Capital” (start-up funds), and climate insurance, to name some of the funds listed. A Multilateral Climate Technology Fund will be established to:
A. Provide technology-related financial resources for R&D, manufacturing and implementation.
B. Developed countries will also assess contributions from:
1. Parts of their regular fiscal budgets
2. Taxation on carbon transactions and/or auction of emission permits
3. Fiscal revenue from energy and environmental taxation.
(Does subsection B remind you of our nation’s ongoing “Cap and Trade” legislation; it should)
The question arises: Who will govern this government-styled structure to ensure that all developed countries meet their financial obligations? A Convention of the Parties, as created by member nations of the UN and under the guidance of the UN Governing Body will be established for implementation, monitoring, reporting and verifying global cooperative actions, with the support of an Executive Board which will manage and disperse the funds collected. Will We, the People, allow for the additional taxes that will be needed to raise the revenue for the various funds required within this “treaty”? Will We, the People allow for this loss of national sovereignty that will be created via the terms of this Co-op style of world government as controlled and monitored by the UN’s Convention of the Parties? Both HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and President BHO have publicly stated recently that the President will not sign onto this “treaty” if the ongoing “Cap and Trade” legislation is not law by the time that the Copenhagen meeting takes place. I ask you: do you believe, given the Marxist/Socialist “tax the wealthy, spread the wealth” philosophies of the current administration, that the status of the “Cap and Trade” legislation will affect President BHO’s decision to sign onto this treaty which emulates his administration’s philosophies and actions? It will probably come down to the We, the People working on our Senators to ensure that 2/3 of the Senate does not vote for approval of this “treaty” (world government).
William (Wild Bill) Conant
Friday, October 30, 2009
WORLD GOVERNMENT AND CLIMATE CONTROL? PART ONE
In December, 2009, at Copenhagen, Denmark, the latest markup of the United Nations Climate Control Treaty will be deliberated by world leaders, with a potential for resolution of any conflicting ideals and approval by the leaders of the various nations of the world (developed and underdeveloped), including President Obama. China and India will probably not be present and/or not sign into the Treaty; their positions in this matter will be discussed in PART TWO. Recall that any treaty signed by the President MUST be approved by 2/3 of the Senate present (Article II, Section2 of the Constitution of the United States). There has been great concern that this UN “treaty” has the aspirations of forming a one-world government. In order to understand this concern, one must first understand why this “Climate Control Treaty” is of such importance to the UN, along with other influential people, and why the UN has felt that this “Treaty” is justifiable.
This current markup (FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/INF.2) is a result of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change on May 09. 1992. This Convention was followed up by “scientific” studies by the UN’s AWG-LCA (Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action) earlier in Bonn, Germany, Copenhagen, Denmark and has its roots in the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, which occurred on Sept. 16, 1987.
Many claims by this current markup are centered around the assertion by the IPCC’s (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) 4th Assessment Report of 2007 that warming of the environment is a consequence of human activities (with no consideration of nature’s processes which release carbon dioxide and other gases naturally). These “human activities” resulted in an increase of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions. These “increases” are therefore inhibiting the natural release of natural radiation from the earth’s surface thru our atmosphere and into space. Hence, per these claims, a significant amount of natural radiation released is diverted back to the earth’s surface resulting in increases of temperature of the earth’s surface which raises the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere. From a physicist’s point of view, if the amount of natural radioactivity from the earth’s surface was 100% reflected back (as opposed to releasing into space), the amount required to increase the temperature of the earth’ entire atmosphere one degree Farenheit in one year(by this additional heat energy emitted by the earth’s surface due to the 100% reflection) would equate to the amount of heat energy created by the equivalent of over 100 “Hiroshima” atomic bombs, strategically placed around the world, ignited at one time, and repetitively ignited once a week for four weeks.
Throughout all of these previously mentioned studies, all conclusions have been derived based on postulated evidence as opposed to actual scientific data. Some of the “conclusions” include:
1. Claims that our environment has warmed up “significantly” because of human activities since 1750, without any reference to actual scientific (data-based) studies. Besides, does anybody believe that accurate environmental studies were performed on temperature change trends in the 18th and 19th centuries?
2. Claims that the temperature of the world environment has increased by a rate of almost 0.5*F per year since 1990; however, no scientific studies with legitimate measuring models are provided as proof.
3. Claims that this “increase” in temperature to our environment is due to naturally emitting radiation from the earth’s surface which is reflected back by a buildup of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere, thus warming up the earth’s surface, which results in a trending increase of temperature in our atmosphere. Again, no legitimate studies using real-time scientific data to substantiate this claim are directly referenced.
However, scientific studies based on years of actual data collection and use of modern measuring tools (e.g., weather satellite data for atmospheric testing of temperature changes at different elevations) have debunked all of these assumptions. These scientific studies have been performed since the 1970’s by the Hanley Center of Forecasting (in England) and the National Climate Data Center’s studies in the U.S. (as examples). Scientific models, such as the Clausius-Calpeyron relation (which is basically the relation of change of heat and it’s effects to the change of volume (rise in temperature results in rise in water vapor volume, which would cause an increase in atmospheric pressure, resulting in increases of atmospheric temperature; based on the laws of entropy).
So the question becomes :
If climate change is insignificant as proven scientifically thru the use of real-time data, why the world-wide (United Nations, Al Gore, etc.) concerns over the need of a treaty for controlling climate change? And if this treaty is signed by President and approved by 2/3 of the U.S. Senate, why should American citizens by concerned?
THE ANSWER: WORLD GOVERNMENT AND CLIMATE CONTROL? PART TWO.
(The real politics behind the UN Treaty and why WE, the PEOPLE MUST be Concerned)
This current markup (FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/INF.2) is a result of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change on May 09. 1992. This Convention was followed up by “scientific” studies by the UN’s AWG-LCA (Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action) earlier in Bonn, Germany, Copenhagen, Denmark and has its roots in the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, which occurred on Sept. 16, 1987.
Many claims by this current markup are centered around the assertion by the IPCC’s (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) 4th Assessment Report of 2007 that warming of the environment is a consequence of human activities (with no consideration of nature’s processes which release carbon dioxide and other gases naturally). These “human activities” resulted in an increase of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions. These “increases” are therefore inhibiting the natural release of natural radiation from the earth’s surface thru our atmosphere and into space. Hence, per these claims, a significant amount of natural radiation released is diverted back to the earth’s surface resulting in increases of temperature of the earth’s surface which raises the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere. From a physicist’s point of view, if the amount of natural radioactivity from the earth’s surface was 100% reflected back (as opposed to releasing into space), the amount required to increase the temperature of the earth’ entire atmosphere one degree Farenheit in one year(by this additional heat energy emitted by the earth’s surface due to the 100% reflection) would equate to the amount of heat energy created by the equivalent of over 100 “Hiroshima” atomic bombs, strategically placed around the world, ignited at one time, and repetitively ignited once a week for four weeks.
Throughout all of these previously mentioned studies, all conclusions have been derived based on postulated evidence as opposed to actual scientific data. Some of the “conclusions” include:
1. Claims that our environment has warmed up “significantly” because of human activities since 1750, without any reference to actual scientific (data-based) studies. Besides, does anybody believe that accurate environmental studies were performed on temperature change trends in the 18th and 19th centuries?
2. Claims that the temperature of the world environment has increased by a rate of almost 0.5*F per year since 1990; however, no scientific studies with legitimate measuring models are provided as proof.
3. Claims that this “increase” in temperature to our environment is due to naturally emitting radiation from the earth’s surface which is reflected back by a buildup of carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere, thus warming up the earth’s surface, which results in a trending increase of temperature in our atmosphere. Again, no legitimate studies using real-time scientific data to substantiate this claim are directly referenced.
However, scientific studies based on years of actual data collection and use of modern measuring tools (e.g., weather satellite data for atmospheric testing of temperature changes at different elevations) have debunked all of these assumptions. These scientific studies have been performed since the 1970’s by the Hanley Center of Forecasting (in England) and the National Climate Data Center’s studies in the U.S. (as examples). Scientific models, such as the Clausius-Calpeyron relation (which is basically the relation of change of heat and it’s effects to the change of volume (rise in temperature results in rise in water vapor volume, which would cause an increase in atmospheric pressure, resulting in increases of atmospheric temperature; based on the laws of entropy).
So the question becomes :
If climate change is insignificant as proven scientifically thru the use of real-time data, why the world-wide (United Nations, Al Gore, etc.) concerns over the need of a treaty for controlling climate change? And if this treaty is signed by President and approved by 2/3 of the U.S. Senate, why should American citizens by concerned?
THE ANSWER: WORLD GOVERNMENT AND CLIMATE CONTROL? PART TWO.
(The real politics behind the UN Treaty and why WE, the PEOPLE MUST be Concerned)
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
MEDIA OPINION OF OUR MILITARY'S PAY?
(The following article was provided by a fellow veteran and has been thoroughly vetted by myself and is factual)
OBJECTIONS FOR MILITARY PAY INCREASE
This is an Airman's response to Cindy Williams' editorial piece in the Washington Times about MILITARY PAY. It should be printed in all newspapers across America.
Ms. Cindy William wrote a piece for the Washington Times denouncing the pay raise(s) coming service members' way this year citing that she stated a 13% wage increase was more than they deserve.
A young airman from Hill AFB responds to her article. He ought to get a bonus for this:
"Ms Williams:
I just had the pleasure of reading your column, "Our GI's earn enough" and I am a bit confused. Frankly, I'm wondering where this vaunted overpayment is going, because as far as I can tell, it disappears every month between DFAS (The Defense Finance and Accounting Service) and my bank account. Checking my latest earnings statement I see that I make $1,117.80 before taxes per month. After taxes, I take home $874.20. When I run that through the calculator, I come up with an annual salary of $13,413.60 before taxes, and $10,490.40 after.
I work in the Air Force Network Control Center where I am part of the team responsible for a 5,000 host computer network. I am involved with infrastructure segments, specifically with Cisco Systems equipment. A quick check under jobs for "Network Technicians" in the Washington, D.C. area reveals a position in my career field, requiring three years experience in my job. Amazingly, this job does NOT pay $13,413.60 a year. No, this job is being offered at $70,000 to $80,000 per annum............ I'm sure you can draw the obvious conclusions.
Given the tenor of your column, I would assume that you NEVER had the pleasure of serving your country in her armed forces.
Before you take it upon yourself to once more castigate congressional and DOD leadership for attempting to get the families in the military's lowest pay brackets off of WIC and food stamps, I suggest that you join a group of deploying soldiers headed for AFGHANISTAN; I leave the choice of service branch up to you. Whatever choice you make though, opt for the SIX month rotation: it will guarantee you the longest possible time away from your family and friends, thus giving you full "deployment experience."
As your group prepares to board the plane, make sure to note the spouses and children who are saying good-bye to their loved ones. Also take care to note that several families are still unsure of how they'll be able to make ends meet while the primary breadwinner is gone. Obviously they've been squandering the "vast" piles of cash the government has been giving them.
Try to deploy over a major holiday; Christmas and Thanksgiving are perennial favorites. And when you're actually over there, sitting in a foxhole, shivering against the cold desert night, and the flight sergeant tells you that there aren't enough people on shift to relieve you for chow, remember this: trade whatever MRE's
(meal-ready-to-eat) you manage to get for the tuna noodle casserole or cheese tortellini, and add Tabasco to everything. This gives some flavor.
Talk to your loved ones as often as you are permitted; it won't be nearly long enough or often enough, but take what you can get and be thankful for it. You may have picked up on the fact that I disagree with most of the points you present in your open piece.
But, tomorrow from KABUL,I will defend to the death your right to say it.
You see, I am an American fighting man, a guarantor of your First Amendment right and every other right you cherish...On a daily basis, my brother and sister soldiers worldwide ensure that you and people like you can thumb your collective noses at us, all on a salary that is nothing short of pitiful and under conditions that would make most people cringe. We hemorrhage our best and brightest into the private sector because we can't offer the stability and pay of civilian companies.
And you, Ms. Williams, have the gall to say that we make more than we deserve?
A1C Michael Bragg, Hill AFB AFNCC
AS A VETERAN (AND ALSO SERVED IN THE USAF), I AM EXTREMELY PROUD OF AIRMAN FIRST CLASS MICHAEL BRAGG. WHEN SOMEONE HAS THE GALL TO PUBLISH AN ARTICLE IN THE MEDIA THAT ATTEMPTS TO BERATE AND DOWNGRADE OUR ARMED FORCES, THEY DESERVE TO BE CORRECTED.
(It has been reported that Cindy Williams is the same person who acted on "Laverne and Shirley" and has been appointed by President BHO as Assistant Director for NATIONAL SECURITY in the Congressional Budget Office. I've yet to confirm this).
OBJECTIONS FOR MILITARY PAY INCREASE
This is an Airman's response to Cindy Williams' editorial piece in the Washington Times about MILITARY PAY. It should be printed in all newspapers across America.
Ms. Cindy William wrote a piece for the Washington Times denouncing the pay raise(s) coming service members' way this year citing that she stated a 13% wage increase was more than they deserve.
A young airman from Hill AFB responds to her article. He ought to get a bonus for this:
"Ms Williams:
I just had the pleasure of reading your column, "Our GI's earn enough" and I am a bit confused. Frankly, I'm wondering where this vaunted overpayment is going, because as far as I can tell, it disappears every month between DFAS (The Defense Finance and Accounting Service) and my bank account. Checking my latest earnings statement I see that I make $1,117.80 before taxes per month. After taxes, I take home $874.20. When I run that through the calculator, I come up with an annual salary of $13,413.60 before taxes, and $10,490.40 after.
I work in the Air Force Network Control Center where I am part of the team responsible for a 5,000 host computer network. I am involved with infrastructure segments, specifically with Cisco Systems equipment. A quick check under jobs for "Network Technicians" in the Washington, D.C. area reveals a position in my career field, requiring three years experience in my job. Amazingly, this job does NOT pay $13,413.60 a year. No, this job is being offered at $70,000 to $80,000 per annum............ I'm sure you can draw the obvious conclusions.
Given the tenor of your column, I would assume that you NEVER had the pleasure of serving your country in her armed forces.
Before you take it upon yourself to once more castigate congressional and DOD leadership for attempting to get the families in the military's lowest pay brackets off of WIC and food stamps, I suggest that you join a group of deploying soldiers headed for AFGHANISTAN; I leave the choice of service branch up to you. Whatever choice you make though, opt for the SIX month rotation: it will guarantee you the longest possible time away from your family and friends, thus giving you full "deployment experience."
As your group prepares to board the plane, make sure to note the spouses and children who are saying good-bye to their loved ones. Also take care to note that several families are still unsure of how they'll be able to make ends meet while the primary breadwinner is gone. Obviously they've been squandering the "vast" piles of cash the government has been giving them.
Try to deploy over a major holiday; Christmas and Thanksgiving are perennial favorites. And when you're actually over there, sitting in a foxhole, shivering against the cold desert night, and the flight sergeant tells you that there aren't enough people on shift to relieve you for chow, remember this: trade whatever MRE's
(meal-ready-to-eat) you manage to get for the tuna noodle casserole or cheese tortellini, and add Tabasco to everything. This gives some flavor.
Talk to your loved ones as often as you are permitted; it won't be nearly long enough or often enough, but take what you can get and be thankful for it. You may have picked up on the fact that I disagree with most of the points you present in your open piece.
But, tomorrow from KABUL,I will defend to the death your right to say it.
You see, I am an American fighting man, a guarantor of your First Amendment right and every other right you cherish...On a daily basis, my brother and sister soldiers worldwide ensure that you and people like you can thumb your collective noses at us, all on a salary that is nothing short of pitiful and under conditions that would make most people cringe. We hemorrhage our best and brightest into the private sector because we can't offer the stability and pay of civilian companies.
And you, Ms. Williams, have the gall to say that we make more than we deserve?
A1C Michael Bragg, Hill AFB AFNCC
AS A VETERAN (AND ALSO SERVED IN THE USAF), I AM EXTREMELY PROUD OF AIRMAN FIRST CLASS MICHAEL BRAGG. WHEN SOMEONE HAS THE GALL TO PUBLISH AN ARTICLE IN THE MEDIA THAT ATTEMPTS TO BERATE AND DOWNGRADE OUR ARMED FORCES, THEY DESERVE TO BE CORRECTED.
(It has been reported that Cindy Williams is the same person who acted on "Laverne and Shirley" and has been appointed by President BHO as Assistant Director for NATIONAL SECURITY in the Congressional Budget Office. I've yet to confirm this).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
