http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/feb/10/nra-official-obama-wants-outlaw-guns-2nd-term/
By Sean Lengell
February 10th, 2012
A top official with the National Rifle Association said Friday that President Obama will move to "destroy" gun rights and "erase" the Second Amendment if he is re-elected in November.
While delivering one of the liveliest and best-received speeches at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said the president's low-key approach to gun rights during his first term was "a "conspiracy to ensure re-election by lulling gun owners to sleep."
"All that first term, lip service to gun owners is just part of a massive Obama conspiracy to deceive voters and hide his true intentions to destroy the Second Amendment during his second term," he said.
"We see the president's strategy crystal clear: Get re-elected and, with no more elections to worry about, get busy dismantling and destroying our firearms' freedom, erase the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights and excise it from the U.S. Constitution."
Mr. LaPierre said the president's two Supreme Court appointees — Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan— are "two of the most rabid anti-gun justices in history." He also accused Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of being a foe of gun rights.
And with the possibility of two or more Supreme Court justice positions opening during the next four years, the NRA official warned that gun ownership would be in jeopardy if Mr. Obama stays in office.
"If we get one more like those three, the Second Amendment is finished," he said. "It'll be the end of our freedom forever."
Mr. LaPierre, who said "there is no greater freedom than to own a firearm," predicted that gun owners will rally en masse to defeat Mr. Obama in November.
"All of what we know is good and right about America, all of it could be lost if Barrack Obama is re-elected," he said. "It's all or nothing."
10 February 2012
9 February 2012
LA County OKs $1,000 Fine For Throwing Football, Frisbee On Beaches
http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/02/08/la-county-oks-1000-fine-for-throwing-football-frisbee-on-beaches/#comment-265001
February 8, 2012
LOS ANGELES (CBS) — When you head down to the beach for a little fun this summer, county officials want you to leave the pigskin at home.
The Board of Supervisors this week agreed to raise fines to up to $1,000 for anyone who throws a football or a Frisbee on any beach in Los Angeles County.
In passing the 37-page ordinance on Tuesday, officials sought to outline responsibilities for law enforcement and other public agencies while also providing clarification on beach-goer activities that could potentially disrupt or even injure the public.
The updated rules now prohibit “any person to cast, toss, throw, kick or roll” any object other than a beach ball or volleyball “upon or over any beach” between Memorial Day and Labor Day.
Exceptions allow for ball-throwing in predesignated areas, when a person obtains a permit, or playing water polo “in or over the Pacific Ocean”.
However, during the winter off-season, the new rules will be relaxed.
Officials warned that any activities that could potentially harm “any person or property on or near the beach” should not be allowed during the peak summer season.
Your kids could also end up costing you big bucks: the ordinance also prohibits digging any hole deeper than 18 inches into the sand except where permission is granted for film and TV production services only.
[ed. The PC, Nanny-state insanity continues...]
February 8, 2012
LOS ANGELES (CBS) — When you head down to the beach for a little fun this summer, county officials want you to leave the pigskin at home.
The Board of Supervisors this week agreed to raise fines to up to $1,000 for anyone who throws a football or a Frisbee on any beach in Los Angeles County.
In passing the 37-page ordinance on Tuesday, officials sought to outline responsibilities for law enforcement and other public agencies while also providing clarification on beach-goer activities that could potentially disrupt or even injure the public.
The updated rules now prohibit “any person to cast, toss, throw, kick or roll” any object other than a beach ball or volleyball “upon or over any beach” between Memorial Day and Labor Day.
Exceptions allow for ball-throwing in predesignated areas, when a person obtains a permit, or playing water polo “in or over the Pacific Ocean”.
However, during the winter off-season, the new rules will be relaxed.
Officials warned that any activities that could potentially harm “any person or property on or near the beach” should not be allowed during the peak summer season.
Your kids could also end up costing you big bucks: the ordinance also prohibits digging any hole deeper than 18 inches into the sand except where permission is granted for film and TV production services only.
[ed. The PC, Nanny-state insanity continues...]
7 February 2012
Very modern custody battle: Gay father in court battle with lesbians over access to boy of two
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2097279/Very-modern-custody-battle-Gay-father-court-battle-lesbians-access-boy-two.html
By Rebecca Evans
6th February 2012
The lesbian couple who have raised the child feel 'bitter and betrayed' after the father took court action against them (picture posed by models)
The lesbian couple who have raised the child feel 'bitter and betrayed' after the father took court action against them (picture posed by models)
It is a very modern custody battle.
A gay man who donated sperm to his lesbian ex-wife is demanding overnight and holiday contact with her two-year-old son.
She and her female partner are fighting his demands, saying he has ‘betrayed’ a ‘pact’ made before the child was conceived under which the father would have only ‘limited’ parental rights.
The three parents – who are highly-paid professionals living in central London – cannot be named to protect the boy’s identity.
The father, who attended his son’s birth and has five hours of contact a fortnight, insists he was always more than a sperm donor and wants to play a full paternal role in the life of his only child.
His lawyer Alex Verdan QC told the Appeal Court that he had been ‘utterly consistent’ in this desire and feels immense ‘pleasure and joy’ when he interacts with his son.
But the boy’s mother insists she made a ‘clearly agreed’ pact with the father in a restaurant before he was conceived, which stated that she and her lover would fill the role of ‘primary parents’ within a ‘two-parent, nuclear family’.
The father was formerly in a ‘marriage of convenience’ with the mother, although they are now divorced, and three Appeal Court judges are being asked to rule on whether the boy would be better off with ‘three parents and two homes’.
Charles Howard QC, for the mother and her partner, said they had been left with a sense of ‘bitterness and betrayal’.
Had they known the position the father would take, they would have opted for an anonymous sperm donor.
The father's lawyer said there had been 'no clear agreement' before the child's conception about how much access he would have
The father's lawyer said there had been 'no clear agreement' before the child's conception about how much access he would have
He added: ‘Notwithstanding their sexuality and that they acknowledge to that extent that they are an alternative family, the mother and her partner hold very traditional views of family life and would not have chosen to bring a child into anything other than an intact, two-parent, family.
‘The ideal upbringing for a child is a stable home in which the parents love each other and had together chosen to bring a child into the world. This is the upbringing which the mother and her partner always wanted to create for this little boy.
They were always of the view that their son’s best interests militated against him spending very much time away from them or from his home.
‘The intention was always that the father, who was at one time their close friend, would generally see the boy in their company by sharing in activities and family events.
The breakdown of the friendship has had the result that the boy is spending far more time away from his primary parents than they had anticipated.
'To this couple, the concept of "three parents, two homes" repeated so often by the father, is very alien and has never been something they could consider'
‘This is something which they have had to accept but it represents a significant departure from their initial plans for their son’s upbringing.
‘To this particular couple, the concept of “three parents, two homes”, repeated so often by the father, is very alien and it has never been something they would consider.
‘They cannot conceive of their child being shuttled, physically but more significantly emotionally, between two homes and it is something that they believe will harm their son and cause significant emotional damage.’
Urging the court to focus on the boy’s best interests, the father’s lawyer Mr Verdan said the current level of contact between them had ‘frozen’ their relationship, which will ‘wither on the vine’.
He said the father has no desire to undermine the role of the mother and her partner as the boy’s primary carers, but wants sufficient contact with the boy to enable a ‘developing relationship’ with his only son.
Last week the Daily Mail revealed how the rights of fathers to see their children are to be strengthened by a radical change to the 1989 Children Act.
It will aim to remove any ‘legal bias’ in favour of mothers and ensure children have a ‘full and continuing relationship’ with both parents where there are no welfare issues in the case of family breakdown.
The three judges reserved their decision to an unspecified date.
By Rebecca Evans
6th February 2012
The lesbian couple who have raised the child feel 'bitter and betrayed' after the father took court action against them (picture posed by models)
The lesbian couple who have raised the child feel 'bitter and betrayed' after the father took court action against them (picture posed by models)
It is a very modern custody battle.
A gay man who donated sperm to his lesbian ex-wife is demanding overnight and holiday contact with her two-year-old son.
She and her female partner are fighting his demands, saying he has ‘betrayed’ a ‘pact’ made before the child was conceived under which the father would have only ‘limited’ parental rights.
The three parents – who are highly-paid professionals living in central London – cannot be named to protect the boy’s identity.
The father, who attended his son’s birth and has five hours of contact a fortnight, insists he was always more than a sperm donor and wants to play a full paternal role in the life of his only child.
His lawyer Alex Verdan QC told the Appeal Court that he had been ‘utterly consistent’ in this desire and feels immense ‘pleasure and joy’ when he interacts with his son.
But the boy’s mother insists she made a ‘clearly agreed’ pact with the father in a restaurant before he was conceived, which stated that she and her lover would fill the role of ‘primary parents’ within a ‘two-parent, nuclear family’.
The father was formerly in a ‘marriage of convenience’ with the mother, although they are now divorced, and three Appeal Court judges are being asked to rule on whether the boy would be better off with ‘three parents and two homes’.
Charles Howard QC, for the mother and her partner, said they had been left with a sense of ‘bitterness and betrayal’.
Had they known the position the father would take, they would have opted for an anonymous sperm donor.
The father's lawyer said there had been 'no clear agreement' before the child's conception about how much access he would have
The father's lawyer said there had been 'no clear agreement' before the child's conception about how much access he would have
He added: ‘Notwithstanding their sexuality and that they acknowledge to that extent that they are an alternative family, the mother and her partner hold very traditional views of family life and would not have chosen to bring a child into anything other than an intact, two-parent, family.
‘The ideal upbringing for a child is a stable home in which the parents love each other and had together chosen to bring a child into the world. This is the upbringing which the mother and her partner always wanted to create for this little boy.
They were always of the view that their son’s best interests militated against him spending very much time away from them or from his home.
‘The intention was always that the father, who was at one time their close friend, would generally see the boy in their company by sharing in activities and family events.
The breakdown of the friendship has had the result that the boy is spending far more time away from his primary parents than they had anticipated.
'To this couple, the concept of "three parents, two homes" repeated so often by the father, is very alien and has never been something they could consider'
‘This is something which they have had to accept but it represents a significant departure from their initial plans for their son’s upbringing.
‘To this particular couple, the concept of “three parents, two homes”, repeated so often by the father, is very alien and it has never been something they would consider.
‘They cannot conceive of their child being shuttled, physically but more significantly emotionally, between two homes and it is something that they believe will harm their son and cause significant emotional damage.’
Urging the court to focus on the boy’s best interests, the father’s lawyer Mr Verdan said the current level of contact between them had ‘frozen’ their relationship, which will ‘wither on the vine’.
He said the father has no desire to undermine the role of the mother and her partner as the boy’s primary carers, but wants sufficient contact with the boy to enable a ‘developing relationship’ with his only son.
Last week the Daily Mail revealed how the rights of fathers to see their children are to be strengthened by a radical change to the 1989 Children Act.
It will aim to remove any ‘legal bias’ in favour of mothers and ensure children have a ‘full and continuing relationship’ with both parents where there are no welfare issues in the case of family breakdown.
The three judges reserved their decision to an unspecified date.
Sheriff Joe Sets D-Day on Obama's Eligibility
Sheriff Joe Sets D-Day on Obama's Eligibility
http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/d-day-set-for-sheriff-joe-on-obama-eligibility/
Jerome R. Corsi
7th February, 2012
Following a Georgia judge’s ruling that Barack Obama is eligible to be on the state’s 2012 Democratic Party presidential ballot, the front lines in the continuing eligibility battle are being fought in Arizona.
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio told WND today his office has scheduled a news conference in Phoenix for March 1 to release findings of the Cold Case Posse that has been investigating Barack Obama’s birth certificate and eligibility to be president.
Arpaio declined to release to WND any of the posse’s conclusions in advance of the press conference, although he is on record saying the findings may be “shocking” to many.
Discover what the Constitution’s reference to “natural born citizen” means and whether Barack Obama qualifies, in the ebook version of “Where’s the REAL Birth Certificate?”
In a separate matter, Arpaio told WND that a group of Department of Justice officials from Washington, D.C., began meeting with officials of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office regarding the DOJ’s allegation of systematic violations of the federal civil rights of Hispanics.
If the negotiations fail, the DOJ has threatened to take Arpaio and the MCSO to federal court, setting up an epic political battle just as Arpaio prepares to issue the results of the Cold Case Posse’s investigation.
Arpaio investigating Obama since September
Arpaio’s decision to investigate Obama follows a meeting held in his office Aug. 17 with tea party representatives from Surprise, Ariz., who presented a petition signed by more than 250 Maricopa County residents. The petitioners expressed concern that their voting rights could be irreparably compromised if Obama uses a forged birth certificate to be placed on the 2012 presidential ballot in Arizona or otherwise is found to be ineligible.
WND previously reported that the tea party letter formally stated the following charge: “The Surprise Tea Party is concerned that no law enforcement agency or other duly constituted government agency has conducted an investigation into the Obama birth certificate to determine if it is in fact an authentic copy of 1961 birth records on file for Barack Obama at the Hawaii Department of Health in Honolulu, or whether it, or they are forgeries.”
The posse, constituted under the authority of Arpaio’s office, consists of three former law enforcement officers and two retired attorneys with law enforcement experience. It has been examining evidence since September concerning Obama’s eligibility to be president under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution.
The Cold Case Posse conducting the investigation has been described as a “posse within the posse,” consisting of volunteers with professional experience in conducting investigations. It includes individuals chosen because of their professional backgrounds in law enforcement, lawyers who have participated in criminal or civil cases and individuals with specialized skills in fields ranging from accounting to conducting criminal forensic examination.
The posse was constituted as a 501(c)3 organization, designed to cost the people of Maricopa County nothing, while enabling people from around the country to contribute to its mission.
In total, more than 3,000 volunteers participate in Arpaio’s posse program. The power to constitute posses is authorized to Arizona sheriffs under the state constitution.
Showdown in Arizona
Arpaio and the Department of Justice are at loggerheads over whether the DOJ needs to provide proof of allegations that the MCSO is guilty of systematic violations of the federal civil rights of Hispanics.
“Prove it!” Arpaio challenged the DOJ in an exclusive interview with WND. “If Eric Holder has evidence that the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office has engaged in systematic violations of the civil rights of Hispanic, then show me the evidence.”
Arpaio has contended that the 22-page complaint the DOJ released Dec. 15 is nothing more than anecdotal and did not prove systematic sheriff’s department policies aimed at depriving Hispanics of their civil rights.
Nor was Arpaio concerned that the DOJ might take him and his sheriff’s office to federal court immediately, as it has threatened.
“If the Justice Department wants to take me to court, I’m ready,” Arpaio said.
The sheriff said that if the DOJ “wants to debate the facts instead of fixing the problems stated in our findings, we will do so by way of litigation.”
Those wishing to send a tax-deductible contribution directly to the Cold Case Posse may do so by mailing a check or money order to: MCSO Cold Case Posse, P.O. Box 74374, Phoenix, AZ 85087.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/d-day-set-for-sheriff-joe-on-obama-eligibility/
Jerome R. Corsi
7th February, 2012
Following a Georgia judge’s ruling that Barack Obama is eligible to be on the state’s 2012 Democratic Party presidential ballot, the front lines in the continuing eligibility battle are being fought in Arizona.
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio told WND today his office has scheduled a news conference in Phoenix for March 1 to release findings of the Cold Case Posse that has been investigating Barack Obama’s birth certificate and eligibility to be president.
Arpaio declined to release to WND any of the posse’s conclusions in advance of the press conference, although he is on record saying the findings may be “shocking” to many.
Discover what the Constitution’s reference to “natural born citizen” means and whether Barack Obama qualifies, in the ebook version of “Where’s the REAL Birth Certificate?”
In a separate matter, Arpaio told WND that a group of Department of Justice officials from Washington, D.C., began meeting with officials of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office regarding the DOJ’s allegation of systematic violations of the federal civil rights of Hispanics.
If the negotiations fail, the DOJ has threatened to take Arpaio and the MCSO to federal court, setting up an epic political battle just as Arpaio prepares to issue the results of the Cold Case Posse’s investigation.
Arpaio investigating Obama since September
Arpaio’s decision to investigate Obama follows a meeting held in his office Aug. 17 with tea party representatives from Surprise, Ariz., who presented a petition signed by more than 250 Maricopa County residents. The petitioners expressed concern that their voting rights could be irreparably compromised if Obama uses a forged birth certificate to be placed on the 2012 presidential ballot in Arizona or otherwise is found to be ineligible.
WND previously reported that the tea party letter formally stated the following charge: “The Surprise Tea Party is concerned that no law enforcement agency or other duly constituted government agency has conducted an investigation into the Obama birth certificate to determine if it is in fact an authentic copy of 1961 birth records on file for Barack Obama at the Hawaii Department of Health in Honolulu, or whether it, or they are forgeries.”
The posse, constituted under the authority of Arpaio’s office, consists of three former law enforcement officers and two retired attorneys with law enforcement experience. It has been examining evidence since September concerning Obama’s eligibility to be president under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution.
The Cold Case Posse conducting the investigation has been described as a “posse within the posse,” consisting of volunteers with professional experience in conducting investigations. It includes individuals chosen because of their professional backgrounds in law enforcement, lawyers who have participated in criminal or civil cases and individuals with specialized skills in fields ranging from accounting to conducting criminal forensic examination.
The posse was constituted as a 501(c)3 organization, designed to cost the people of Maricopa County nothing, while enabling people from around the country to contribute to its mission.
In total, more than 3,000 volunteers participate in Arpaio’s posse program. The power to constitute posses is authorized to Arizona sheriffs under the state constitution.
Showdown in Arizona
Arpaio and the Department of Justice are at loggerheads over whether the DOJ needs to provide proof of allegations that the MCSO is guilty of systematic violations of the federal civil rights of Hispanics.
“Prove it!” Arpaio challenged the DOJ in an exclusive interview with WND. “If Eric Holder has evidence that the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office has engaged in systematic violations of the civil rights of Hispanic, then show me the evidence.”
Arpaio has contended that the 22-page complaint the DOJ released Dec. 15 is nothing more than anecdotal and did not prove systematic sheriff’s department policies aimed at depriving Hispanics of their civil rights.
Nor was Arpaio concerned that the DOJ might take him and his sheriff’s office to federal court immediately, as it has threatened.
“If the Justice Department wants to take me to court, I’m ready,” Arpaio said.
The sheriff said that if the DOJ “wants to debate the facts instead of fixing the problems stated in our findings, we will do so by way of litigation.”
Those wishing to send a tax-deductible contribution directly to the Cold Case Posse may do so by mailing a check or money order to: MCSO Cold Case Posse, P.O. Box 74374, Phoenix, AZ 85087.
5 February 2012
Trainer sentenced in sexual abuse case
The Spectrum.com
1st February, 2012
ST. GEORGE - A personal fitness trainer convicted of sexually abusing a 14-year-old boy she worked with during 2008 and 2009 was sentenced to a minimum of one and maximum of 15 years in prison Tuesday during a hearing in 5th District Court.
Suni Faith Andersen, 36, of St. George pleaded guilty in November to two counts of forcible sexual abuse as part of a plea agreement in which prosecutors agreed to dismiss three additional counts of forcible sexual abuse and five counts of forcible sodomy.
"This is a picture of my son when he was 14 years old," the victim's mother said while holding up a photo during Tuesday's hearing. "Look. Suni, look! Does this look like someone a 34-year-old adult woman would want to have a relationship with?"
The victim, now 16, and his family are not being identified in agreement with The Spectrum's policy regarding victims of sexual abuse, but the court took note of the family's claims that their identity is widely known in the community.
"I have to walk through the halls of my high school knowing that people know what happened, wondering what they're thinking," the boy told Judge Eric Ludlow.
The boy said some girls have wanted to date him because he is "experienced" and when other boys have questions about sexuality they say "just ask (him)," he said.
[ed. I had to laugh at the 'victimhood' of the boy. Probably led by the nose by his mother who could smell compensation...]
1st February, 2012
ST. GEORGE - A personal fitness trainer convicted of sexually abusing a 14-year-old boy she worked with during 2008 and 2009 was sentenced to a minimum of one and maximum of 15 years in prison Tuesday during a hearing in 5th District Court.
Suni Faith Andersen, 36, of St. George pleaded guilty in November to two counts of forcible sexual abuse as part of a plea agreement in which prosecutors agreed to dismiss three additional counts of forcible sexual abuse and five counts of forcible sodomy.
"This is a picture of my son when he was 14 years old," the victim's mother said while holding up a photo during Tuesday's hearing. "Look. Suni, look! Does this look like someone a 34-year-old adult woman would want to have a relationship with?"
The victim, now 16, and his family are not being identified in agreement with The Spectrum's policy regarding victims of sexual abuse, but the court took note of the family's claims that their identity is widely known in the community.
"I have to walk through the halls of my high school knowing that people know what happened, wondering what they're thinking," the boy told Judge Eric Ludlow.
The boy said some girls have wanted to date him because he is "experienced" and when other boys have questions about sexuality they say "just ask (him)," he said.
[ed. I had to laugh at the 'victimhood' of the boy. Probably led by the nose by his mother who could smell compensation...]
How green zealots are destroying the planet
by James Delingpole
4th February, 2012
Just imagine a world where you never had to worry about global warming, where the ice caps, the ‘drowning’ Maldives and the polar bears were all doing just fine.
Imagine a world where CO2 was our friend, fossil fuels were a miracle we should cherish, and economic growth made the planet cleaner, healthier, happier and with more open spaces.
Actually, there’s no need to imagine: it already exists. So why do so many people still believe otherwise?
How come, against so much evidence, everyone from the BBC to your kids’ teachers to the Coalition government (though that may change somewhat now Energy Secretary Chris Huhne has resigned), to the President of the Royal Society to the Prince of Wales continues to pump out the message that man-made ‘climate change’ is a major threat?
Why, when the records show that there has been no global warming since 1997, are we still squandering billions of pounds trying to avert it?
These are some of the questions I set out to answer in my new book — which I can guarantee will not make me popular with environmentalists.
Almost every day, on Twitter or by email, I get violent messages of hate directed not just at me, but even my children. Separately, I’ve been criticised by websites such as the Campaign Against Climate Change (Honorary President: the environmental activist and writer George Monbiot). I’ve had a green activist set up a false website in my name to misdirect my internet traffic. I’ve been vilified everywhere from the Guardian to a BBC Horizon documentary as a wicked ‘denier’ who knows nothing about science.
Not that I’m complaining. Margaret Thatcher once famously said: ‘I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.’
That’s just how I feel about my critics’ ad hominem assaults. They’re born not of strength but out of sheer desperation.
The turning point towards some semblance of sanity in the great climate war came in November 2009 with the leak of the notorious Climategate emails from the University of East Anglia.
What these showed is that the so-called ‘consensus’ science behind Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) — ie the theory that man-made CO2 is causing our planet to heat up in a dangerous, unprecedented fashion — simply cannot be trusted.
The experts had, for years, been twisting the evidence, abusing the scientific process, breaching Freedom of Information requests (by illegally hiding or deleting emails and taxpayer-funded research) and silencing dissent in a way which removes all credibility from the scaremongering reports they write for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
(The IPCC is the heavily politicised but supposedly neutral UN advisory body which has been described by President Obama as the ‘gold standard’ of international climate science.)
Since Climategate, the scientific case against AGW theory has hardened still further. Experiments at the CERN laboratory in Geneva have supported the theory of Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark that the sun — not man-made CO2 — is the biggest driver of climate change.
The latest data released by the Met Office, based on readings from 30,000 measuring stations, confirms there has been no global warming for 15 years.
Now, with sunspot activity (solar flares caused by magnetic activity) at its lowest since the days of the 17th-century frost fairs on the Thames, it seems increasingly likely we are about to enter a new mini Ice Age. Should we be bothered by this? Of course we should. Not only does it mean that for the rest of our lives we’re likely to be doomed to experience colder winters and duller summers, but it also makes us victims of perhaps the most expensive fraud in history.
Over the past 20 years, across the Western world, billions of pounds, dollars and euros have been squandered by governments on hare-brained schemes to ‘combat climate change’.
Taxes have been raised, regulations increased, flights made more expensive, incandescent light bulbs banned, landscapes despoiled by ugly, bird-chomping wind farms, economic growth curtailed — all to deal with what now turns out to have been a non-existent problem: man-made CO2.
But if anthropogenic warming is not the threat environmentalists would have us believe, why do so many people believe it is? And how come so many disparate groups — from the hair-shirt anti-capitalist activists of Greenpeace and Friends Of The Earth to the executives of big corporations, to politicians of every hue from Gordon Brown to David Cameron to scientists at NASA and the UEA — are working together to promote this pernicious myth?
The short answer is ‘follow the money’.
Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the UEA which was at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ scandal, for example, was given £13.7 million in grants for his department’s research work; the environmental non-governmental organisations such as Greenpeace came on board because scaremongering helps them raise revenue.
You’re not going to give money to the charity’s Project Thin Ice if you think the polar bear is good for another 10,000 years, but you might if you’re told it’s seriously endangered.
Politicians were attracted because it was a good way of being seen to be addressing an issue of popular concern, and a handy excuse to put up taxes.
Big corporations joined in the scam as a) it enabled them to ‘greenwash’ their image through campaigns like BP’s ‘Beyond Petroleum’ and b) it meant all that extra environmental regulation would be a handy way of pricing their smaller competitors out of the market place.
But money isn’t the only reason. If you read the private emails of the Climategate scientists, what you discover is that most of them genuinely believe in the climate change peril.
That’s why they lied about the evidence and why they tried to destroy the careers of those scientists who disagreed with them: because they wanted to scare politicians into action before time ran out. This was not science, in other words, but political activism.
A similar ‘end justifies the means’ mentality seems to prevail among all those environmental lobby groups. They don’t exaggerate or misrepresent because they’re bad people. They do it, as a former head of Greenpeace once charmingly put it when accused of having overstated the decline in Arctic sea ice, to ‘emotionalise the issue’; because they want to make the rest of the world care about these issues as much as they do.
Powerful feelings, though, are hardly the most sensible basis for global policy. Especially not when, as it turns out, they are based on a misreading of the facts.
One of the grimmest ironies of the modern environmental movement is just how much damage it has done to the planet in the name of ‘saving’ it. Green biofuels (crops such as palm oil grown for fuel) have not only led to the destruction of millions of acres of rainforest in Asia, Africa and South America, but are now known to produce four times more CO2 pollution than fossil fuels.
Wind farms, besides blighting views, destroying topsoil and causing massive noise pollution, kill around 400,000 birds a year in the U.S. alone. Environmentalists, in fact, have a disastrous track record when it comes to predictions and policy recommendations. Rachel Carson’s 1962 bestseller Silent Spring — which promised a cancer epidemic from pesticides — led to a near worldwide ban on the malarial pesticide DDT, thus condemning millions in the Third World to die from malaria.
Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 bestseller The Population Bomb, meanwhile, rehearsed another of the green movement’s favourite themes: overpopulation. By the Seventies and Eighties, he warned, hundreds of millions of us would be dying like flies because there wouldn’t be enough food.
Why did Ehrlich’s prediction never come to pass? Because, like most of the greenies’ doomsday scenarios, it overlooked one vital factor: progress.
Because the green movement has for years been ideologically wedded to the notion that mankind is an ecological curse (‘The Earth has a cancer. The cancer is man’, as a global think tank called The Club of Rome, which includes several current and former heads of state, puts it), it fails to understand the role which technology, human ingenuity and adaption play in our species’ survival.
Ehrlich’s population disaster was averted thanks to a brilliant American scientist called Norman Borlaug who devised new mutant strains of wheat which managed to treble cereal production on the starving Indian subcontinent.
Of course, there is still widespread concern over the use of genetically modified crops, but scientists argue that with proper safeguards in place they can actually be more environmentally friendly than conventional crops, using less water and fewer pesticides.
Similar technological advances in the field of energy make a nonsense of environmentalists’ claims that we are running out of fuel: long before coal ran out came the petroleum revolution; and, though we still have plenty of oil left, we now have the miracle of shale gas which lies in abundance everywhere from Blackpool to the North Sea, and is released using blasts of high-pressure liquid to open pockets of gas in rock.
When, many decades hence, that runs out we will start to harvest clathrates (solid methane deposits) buried on the ocean floor.
Economic progress is not our enemy but our friend. It is an historical fact that the richer nations are, the more money they have to spare on ensuring a cleaner environment: compare the relatively clean air in London to the choking smog that envelops Beijing and Delhi; look at where the worst ecological disasters happened in the last century — under impoverished Communist regimes, from the Aral Sea to Chernobyl.
But the greens refuse to accept this because, according to their quasi-religious doctrine, industrial civilisation is a curse and economic growth a disease which can only be cured by rationing and self-sacrifice, higher taxes and greater state control.
That’s why I call my new book Watermelons — because it’s about zealots who are green on the outside, but in political terms, red on the inside. If only their views weren’t so influential, in schools, universities, in the media, in the corridors of power, the global economy wouldn’t be nearly in the mess it’s in today.
As someone who loves long walks in unspoilt countryside and who wants a brighter future for his children, I’m sickened by the way environmental activists tar anyone who disagrees with them as a selfish, polluting, anti-science ‘denier’.
The real deniers are those ideological greens who refuse to look at hard evidence (not just pie-in-the-sky computer models which are no more accurate than the suspect data fed into them) and won’t accept that their well-intentioned schemes to make our world a better place are in fact making it uglier, poorer and less free.
4th February, 2012
Just imagine a world where you never had to worry about global warming, where the ice caps, the ‘drowning’ Maldives and the polar bears were all doing just fine.
Imagine a world where CO2 was our friend, fossil fuels were a miracle we should cherish, and economic growth made the planet cleaner, healthier, happier and with more open spaces.
Actually, there’s no need to imagine: it already exists. So why do so many people still believe otherwise?
How come, against so much evidence, everyone from the BBC to your kids’ teachers to the Coalition government (though that may change somewhat now Energy Secretary Chris Huhne has resigned), to the President of the Royal Society to the Prince of Wales continues to pump out the message that man-made ‘climate change’ is a major threat?
Why, when the records show that there has been no global warming since 1997, are we still squandering billions of pounds trying to avert it?
These are some of the questions I set out to answer in my new book — which I can guarantee will not make me popular with environmentalists.
Almost every day, on Twitter or by email, I get violent messages of hate directed not just at me, but even my children. Separately, I’ve been criticised by websites such as the Campaign Against Climate Change (Honorary President: the environmental activist and writer George Monbiot). I’ve had a green activist set up a false website in my name to misdirect my internet traffic. I’ve been vilified everywhere from the Guardian to a BBC Horizon documentary as a wicked ‘denier’ who knows nothing about science.
Not that I’m complaining. Margaret Thatcher once famously said: ‘I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding because I think, well, if they attack one personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.’
That’s just how I feel about my critics’ ad hominem assaults. They’re born not of strength but out of sheer desperation.
The turning point towards some semblance of sanity in the great climate war came in November 2009 with the leak of the notorious Climategate emails from the University of East Anglia.
What these showed is that the so-called ‘consensus’ science behind Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) — ie the theory that man-made CO2 is causing our planet to heat up in a dangerous, unprecedented fashion — simply cannot be trusted.
The experts had, for years, been twisting the evidence, abusing the scientific process, breaching Freedom of Information requests (by illegally hiding or deleting emails and taxpayer-funded research) and silencing dissent in a way which removes all credibility from the scaremongering reports they write for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
(The IPCC is the heavily politicised but supposedly neutral UN advisory body which has been described by President Obama as the ‘gold standard’ of international climate science.)
Since Climategate, the scientific case against AGW theory has hardened still further. Experiments at the CERN laboratory in Geneva have supported the theory of Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark that the sun — not man-made CO2 — is the biggest driver of climate change.
The latest data released by the Met Office, based on readings from 30,000 measuring stations, confirms there has been no global warming for 15 years.
Now, with sunspot activity (solar flares caused by magnetic activity) at its lowest since the days of the 17th-century frost fairs on the Thames, it seems increasingly likely we are about to enter a new mini Ice Age. Should we be bothered by this? Of course we should. Not only does it mean that for the rest of our lives we’re likely to be doomed to experience colder winters and duller summers, but it also makes us victims of perhaps the most expensive fraud in history.
Over the past 20 years, across the Western world, billions of pounds, dollars and euros have been squandered by governments on hare-brained schemes to ‘combat climate change’.
Taxes have been raised, regulations increased, flights made more expensive, incandescent light bulbs banned, landscapes despoiled by ugly, bird-chomping wind farms, economic growth curtailed — all to deal with what now turns out to have been a non-existent problem: man-made CO2.
But if anthropogenic warming is not the threat environmentalists would have us believe, why do so many people believe it is? And how come so many disparate groups — from the hair-shirt anti-capitalist activists of Greenpeace and Friends Of The Earth to the executives of big corporations, to politicians of every hue from Gordon Brown to David Cameron to scientists at NASA and the UEA — are working together to promote this pernicious myth?
The short answer is ‘follow the money’.
Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the UEA which was at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ scandal, for example, was given £13.7 million in grants for his department’s research work; the environmental non-governmental organisations such as Greenpeace came on board because scaremongering helps them raise revenue.
You’re not going to give money to the charity’s Project Thin Ice if you think the polar bear is good for another 10,000 years, but you might if you’re told it’s seriously endangered.
Politicians were attracted because it was a good way of being seen to be addressing an issue of popular concern, and a handy excuse to put up taxes.
Big corporations joined in the scam as a) it enabled them to ‘greenwash’ their image through campaigns like BP’s ‘Beyond Petroleum’ and b) it meant all that extra environmental regulation would be a handy way of pricing their smaller competitors out of the market place.
But money isn’t the only reason. If you read the private emails of the Climategate scientists, what you discover is that most of them genuinely believe in the climate change peril.
That’s why they lied about the evidence and why they tried to destroy the careers of those scientists who disagreed with them: because they wanted to scare politicians into action before time ran out. This was not science, in other words, but political activism.
A similar ‘end justifies the means’ mentality seems to prevail among all those environmental lobby groups. They don’t exaggerate or misrepresent because they’re bad people. They do it, as a former head of Greenpeace once charmingly put it when accused of having overstated the decline in Arctic sea ice, to ‘emotionalise the issue’; because they want to make the rest of the world care about these issues as much as they do.
Powerful feelings, though, are hardly the most sensible basis for global policy. Especially not when, as it turns out, they are based on a misreading of the facts.
One of the grimmest ironies of the modern environmental movement is just how much damage it has done to the planet in the name of ‘saving’ it. Green biofuels (crops such as palm oil grown for fuel) have not only led to the destruction of millions of acres of rainforest in Asia, Africa and South America, but are now known to produce four times more CO2 pollution than fossil fuels.
Wind farms, besides blighting views, destroying topsoil and causing massive noise pollution, kill around 400,000 birds a year in the U.S. alone. Environmentalists, in fact, have a disastrous track record when it comes to predictions and policy recommendations. Rachel Carson’s 1962 bestseller Silent Spring — which promised a cancer epidemic from pesticides — led to a near worldwide ban on the malarial pesticide DDT, thus condemning millions in the Third World to die from malaria.
Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 bestseller The Population Bomb, meanwhile, rehearsed another of the green movement’s favourite themes: overpopulation. By the Seventies and Eighties, he warned, hundreds of millions of us would be dying like flies because there wouldn’t be enough food.
Why did Ehrlich’s prediction never come to pass? Because, like most of the greenies’ doomsday scenarios, it overlooked one vital factor: progress.
Because the green movement has for years been ideologically wedded to the notion that mankind is an ecological curse (‘The Earth has a cancer. The cancer is man’, as a global think tank called The Club of Rome, which includes several current and former heads of state, puts it), it fails to understand the role which technology, human ingenuity and adaption play in our species’ survival.
Ehrlich’s population disaster was averted thanks to a brilliant American scientist called Norman Borlaug who devised new mutant strains of wheat which managed to treble cereal production on the starving Indian subcontinent.
Of course, there is still widespread concern over the use of genetically modified crops, but scientists argue that with proper safeguards in place they can actually be more environmentally friendly than conventional crops, using less water and fewer pesticides.
Similar technological advances in the field of energy make a nonsense of environmentalists’ claims that we are running out of fuel: long before coal ran out came the petroleum revolution; and, though we still have plenty of oil left, we now have the miracle of shale gas which lies in abundance everywhere from Blackpool to the North Sea, and is released using blasts of high-pressure liquid to open pockets of gas in rock.
When, many decades hence, that runs out we will start to harvest clathrates (solid methane deposits) buried on the ocean floor.
Economic progress is not our enemy but our friend. It is an historical fact that the richer nations are, the more money they have to spare on ensuring a cleaner environment: compare the relatively clean air in London to the choking smog that envelops Beijing and Delhi; look at where the worst ecological disasters happened in the last century — under impoverished Communist regimes, from the Aral Sea to Chernobyl.
But the greens refuse to accept this because, according to their quasi-religious doctrine, industrial civilisation is a curse and economic growth a disease which can only be cured by rationing and self-sacrifice, higher taxes and greater state control.
That’s why I call my new book Watermelons — because it’s about zealots who are green on the outside, but in political terms, red on the inside. If only their views weren’t so influential, in schools, universities, in the media, in the corridors of power, the global economy wouldn’t be nearly in the mess it’s in today.
As someone who loves long walks in unspoilt countryside and who wants a brighter future for his children, I’m sickened by the way environmental activists tar anyone who disagrees with them as a selfish, polluting, anti-science ‘denier’.
The real deniers are those ideological greens who refuse to look at hard evidence (not just pie-in-the-sky computer models which are no more accurate than the suspect data fed into them) and won’t accept that their well-intentioned schemes to make our world a better place are in fact making it uglier, poorer and less free.
Net data collection: Be very afraid!
Net data collection: Be very afraid!
http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/net-data-collection-be-very-afraid/
Patrice Lewis
4th February, 2012
It was the tweet heard round the world. A young British couple on their way to America to sightsee tweeted to some friends that they were going to “destroy” America. Destroy in current British slang means party.
And for that unpardonable breech of etiquette, the couple was arrested, jailed, deported and banned from visiting our diverse and tolerant nation.
It doesn’t matter that our borders are porous and our elected officials ignore millions of undocumented aliens. It doesn’t matter that we have untold numbers of enemies in this country who have sworn (and sometimes carried out) death and destruction, and whose threats we disregard in the name of tolerance and diversity. But let a couple of kids tell their friends their intent to party in America and they’re sent packing. I’ll bet we taught them a lesson, by jingo.
When my husband first told me about this British couple, my question was, “How did the tweet come to the attention of the feds? Did one of their friends turn them in?”
“No,” my husband replied. “The government reads tweets. There are certain key words that bring particular tweets to the attention of the authorities. The word ‘destroy’ in conjunction with ‘America’ doubtless raised a red flag.”
And there you have it. The government is looking over your shoulder even as we tweet … er, speak.
On the heels of this news story, I received an email from Google informing me of the following: “We’re getting rid of over 60 different privacy policies across Google and replacing them with one that’s a lot shorter and easier to read. Our new policy covers multiple products and features, reflecting our desire to create one beautifully simple and intuitive experience across Google.”
Google is quick to assure us that these new policies are all to our benefit (now we can share information more easily! now our Internet browsing can be “tailored” to our interests!). But if you look past the simplified schematics and cute cartoons, the changes are creepy. Bottom line, Google is expanding its ability to mine our information and track what websites we visit and the content of what we write to each other to allow advertisers to more effectively target us. Oh, and for added fun you don’t have the choice to opt out unless you stop using Google’s services such as Blogger, YouTube, Gmail, etc.
This week my husband made the decision to divorce himself from Facebook for reasons listed here. Part of his motivation includes Facebook’s tracking: “He learned that Facebook no longer simply archives what you said, and what you Liked and Disliked while you were on Facebook. It is now keeping track of where you travel throughout the Internet, even if you’re logged off Facebook. Naturally Facebook claims it keeps that information confidential, but because of Facebook’s close association with advertisers and the federal government, that information was available to anyone with the right credentials – or even the wrong ones.”
And therein lays the crux of the problem. Just how much of our information is in the hands of the government? How much of it is in the hands of companies? How much is in the hands of scam artists and hucksters? Answer: a lot. Otherwise that British couple’s tweet would have remained private and unread outside their circle of friends.
Call me paranoid, but all this connectivity and data collection makes me nervous. I have no doubt the government is delighted with the easy availability of all these personal and business data. After all, up to this point it had to resort to clumsy and offensive techniques such as the American Community Survey to peek into the intimate details of our lives. Now all they have to do is sit back and watch the data roll in, courtesy of naïve and oblivious Internet users and the active (and sometimes compelled) cooperation of some very big companies.
While our family is taking certain steps to safeguard our privacy – divorcing Facebook, using the search engine StartPage, controlling the “cookies” placed on our computers, no smart phones – we remain nearly as open to data collection as anyone else. The tentacles of privacy intrusion are becoming more convolute and invasive. It has metastasized into big business and is working hand-in-glove with federal spying on citizens.
The only way to avoid the constant data-mining is to live off-grid and offline in an isolated cabin in the woods, something like Ted Kaczynski … in which case the feds will keep a sharp eye on you because you live off-grid and offline in an isolated cabin in the woods, something like Ted Kaczynski.
Remember the list the FBI handed out that flagged potential domestic terrorists? Concerns about privacy are on top of that list. Objection to snooping is a big red flag.
As I noted in an earlier column, we’re all walking around with great big bull’s-eyes on our butts. Amerika has become a nation of pre-emptive suspicion – we are assumed to be guilty unless proven otherwise. Let an innocuous housewife in north Idaho write for a news source like WND and boom! She’s a domestic terrorist. Goodness, my government dossier must be getting longer by the day.
The kind of paranoia I feel used to be the province of the Tinfoil Hat Society, which, according to Wikipedia.org, “has become a popular stereotype and term of derision; the phrase serves as a byword for paranoia and persecutory delusions, and is associated with conspiracy theorists.”
Ha ha, quite amusing, no? But as the saying goes, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean you’re wrong. At what point do conspiracy suspicions become facts when the evidence is there?
So what’s the solution to the data mining of this brave new world? There isn’t one. Short of getting offline altogether and shunning the information superhighway (which some rugged souls have done), the rest of us will just have to accept it. The tradeoff for having the world at our fingertips is the final removal of privacy.
So allow me to give a hearty “hi and how are ya?” to the charming folks down at Homeland Security who are presumably so interested in my every move. Our neighborhood potlucks are on Sunday evenings if you’d care to join us. Bring a dessert.
"The tradeoff for having the world at our fingertips is the final removal of privacy."
[ed. It doesn't have to be that way. Take care on the 'net, research security and download essential tools. Also, don't give too much personal info away, voluntarily, on mindless crap like facebook. You can't be 100% secure but you don't have to make it easy for 'The Man'...]
http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/net-data-collection-be-very-afraid/
Patrice Lewis
4th February, 2012
It was the tweet heard round the world. A young British couple on their way to America to sightsee tweeted to some friends that they were going to “destroy” America. Destroy in current British slang means party.
And for that unpardonable breech of etiquette, the couple was arrested, jailed, deported and banned from visiting our diverse and tolerant nation.
It doesn’t matter that our borders are porous and our elected officials ignore millions of undocumented aliens. It doesn’t matter that we have untold numbers of enemies in this country who have sworn (and sometimes carried out) death and destruction, and whose threats we disregard in the name of tolerance and diversity. But let a couple of kids tell their friends their intent to party in America and they’re sent packing. I’ll bet we taught them a lesson, by jingo.
When my husband first told me about this British couple, my question was, “How did the tweet come to the attention of the feds? Did one of their friends turn them in?”
“No,” my husband replied. “The government reads tweets. There are certain key words that bring particular tweets to the attention of the authorities. The word ‘destroy’ in conjunction with ‘America’ doubtless raised a red flag.”
And there you have it. The government is looking over your shoulder even as we tweet … er, speak.
On the heels of this news story, I received an email from Google informing me of the following: “We’re getting rid of over 60 different privacy policies across Google and replacing them with one that’s a lot shorter and easier to read. Our new policy covers multiple products and features, reflecting our desire to create one beautifully simple and intuitive experience across Google.”
Google is quick to assure us that these new policies are all to our benefit (now we can share information more easily! now our Internet browsing can be “tailored” to our interests!). But if you look past the simplified schematics and cute cartoons, the changes are creepy. Bottom line, Google is expanding its ability to mine our information and track what websites we visit and the content of what we write to each other to allow advertisers to more effectively target us. Oh, and for added fun you don’t have the choice to opt out unless you stop using Google’s services such as Blogger, YouTube, Gmail, etc.
This week my husband made the decision to divorce himself from Facebook for reasons listed here. Part of his motivation includes Facebook’s tracking: “He learned that Facebook no longer simply archives what you said, and what you Liked and Disliked while you were on Facebook. It is now keeping track of where you travel throughout the Internet, even if you’re logged off Facebook. Naturally Facebook claims it keeps that information confidential, but because of Facebook’s close association with advertisers and the federal government, that information was available to anyone with the right credentials – or even the wrong ones.”
And therein lays the crux of the problem. Just how much of our information is in the hands of the government? How much of it is in the hands of companies? How much is in the hands of scam artists and hucksters? Answer: a lot. Otherwise that British couple’s tweet would have remained private and unread outside their circle of friends.
Call me paranoid, but all this connectivity and data collection makes me nervous. I have no doubt the government is delighted with the easy availability of all these personal and business data. After all, up to this point it had to resort to clumsy and offensive techniques such as the American Community Survey to peek into the intimate details of our lives. Now all they have to do is sit back and watch the data roll in, courtesy of naïve and oblivious Internet users and the active (and sometimes compelled) cooperation of some very big companies.
While our family is taking certain steps to safeguard our privacy – divorcing Facebook, using the search engine StartPage, controlling the “cookies” placed on our computers, no smart phones – we remain nearly as open to data collection as anyone else. The tentacles of privacy intrusion are becoming more convolute and invasive. It has metastasized into big business and is working hand-in-glove with federal spying on citizens.
The only way to avoid the constant data-mining is to live off-grid and offline in an isolated cabin in the woods, something like Ted Kaczynski … in which case the feds will keep a sharp eye on you because you live off-grid and offline in an isolated cabin in the woods, something like Ted Kaczynski.
Remember the list the FBI handed out that flagged potential domestic terrorists? Concerns about privacy are on top of that list. Objection to snooping is a big red flag.
As I noted in an earlier column, we’re all walking around with great big bull’s-eyes on our butts. Amerika has become a nation of pre-emptive suspicion – we are assumed to be guilty unless proven otherwise. Let an innocuous housewife in north Idaho write for a news source like WND and boom! She’s a domestic terrorist. Goodness, my government dossier must be getting longer by the day.
The kind of paranoia I feel used to be the province of the Tinfoil Hat Society, which, according to Wikipedia.org, “has become a popular stereotype and term of derision; the phrase serves as a byword for paranoia and persecutory delusions, and is associated with conspiracy theorists.”
Ha ha, quite amusing, no? But as the saying goes, just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean you’re wrong. At what point do conspiracy suspicions become facts when the evidence is there?
So what’s the solution to the data mining of this brave new world? There isn’t one. Short of getting offline altogether and shunning the information superhighway (which some rugged souls have done), the rest of us will just have to accept it. The tradeoff for having the world at our fingertips is the final removal of privacy.
So allow me to give a hearty “hi and how are ya?” to the charming folks down at Homeland Security who are presumably so interested in my every move. Our neighborhood potlucks are on Sunday evenings if you’d care to join us. Bring a dessert.
"The tradeoff for having the world at our fingertips is the final removal of privacy."
[ed. It doesn't have to be that way. Take care on the 'net, research security and download essential tools. Also, don't give too much personal info away, voluntarily, on mindless crap like facebook. You can't be 100% secure but you don't have to make it easy for 'The Man'...]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
