by
Larry Klayman
12th January, 2013
Since the fraudulent re-election of Barack Hussein Obama as president
– the “mullah in chief” not eligible to be president as he is not a
natural born citizen – he has thrown his weight around as if he were our
king.
First, virtually unopposed by a functionally dead Republican
opposition, Obama rammed down the people’s throats considerable income
tax increases to modest and top income earners and small businesses,
increased the capital gains and estate taxes and eliminated so called
loopholes in the tax code – all to socialize the American economy by
having these individuals and businesses “pay their fair share” as
punishment for their success in a heretofore capitalist system. Now,
like drunken sailors, Obama and his socialist flunkies on Capitol Hill,
notably House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader
Harry Reid, promise that more tax hikes are on the way to further their
march toward dismantling our free-market freedoms and the body politic
of the nation.
Then, our first Muslim president
cleverly nominated former Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel to be the next
secretary of defense, a man who while senator had a “proven” track
record as not only an anti-Semite and hater of Jews and Israel, but also
advocated rolling over to the neo-Nazi mullahs in Iran. Hagel
repeatedly not only mocked and disparaged the so-called “Jewish lobby”
that defends Israel in Washington, D.C., but also advocated not imposing
sanctions, however worthless in any event, on Tehran for its onward and
unchecked march to acquiring atomic weapons, which the Islamic regime’s
leaders have said they will use to wage a holocaust against the Jewish
state and its people. Hagel is a truly repugnant man who fits in well
with Obama’s own not too latent anti-Semitism and antipathy toward Jews
and true Christians in general. Incredibly, even the so-called Jewish
lobby – headed by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC),
whose current president, Lee Rosenberg, is a sleazy “Chicago pol” and,
not surprisingly, a friend of Obama – has rolled over to Hagel, and
AIPAC has been rendered impotent in the upcoming confirmation hearing.
Finally, in the words of former Obama chief of staff and current
Chicago mayor, Rahm Emanuel, not letting any good tragedy go to waste,
our fraudulent president – by his own threats and through Vice President
Joe Biden – has promised to his leftist supporters to act unilaterally
and issue executive orders to extinguish or curb the right to bear arms
guaranteed to all Americans by our Founding Fathers under the Second
Amendment to the Constitution. The pretextual “trigger” for this: the
recent tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., where
young children were murdered by a mentally sick adolescent who somehow
obtained control of his similarly murdered mother’s firearms.
To lay the foundation for this unilateral act of defiance, abuse and
usurpation of our rights, immediately after the Sandy Hook tragedy Obama
announced and designated a so-called Gun Control Task Force, to be
headed by “his pliant imbecile,” Joe Biden. Since then, this task force,
which constitutes an advisory committee under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (“FACA”) (Pub. L. 92-463, 6 Oct. 1972), has met with
special interests on both sides of the gun-control issue. The problem
is, however, that these meetings are illegal, since they have not been
announced with the 15 days notice required by the FACA law, and have
excluded ordinary citizens. Instead the meetings are limited to
special-interest lobbyists who are adept at lining the pockets of the
Washington, D.C., political and legal establishment.
On Jan. 7, 2013, I filed a FACA request with the Office of the
President demanding access to these meetings on behalf of not just
myself as chairman and general counsel of Freedom Watch,
but also all Americans who desire to participate. Predictably, I have
not heard back from either Obama or his surrogates, so in the next few
days we will be forced to file a lawsuit over this blatant violation of
the rule of law. (Years ago, during the George W. Bush administration,
when Vice President Cheney refused to open up his meeting with lobbyists
on energy policy, I filed a lawsuit that made it all the way to the
Supreme Court.) The people simply have a right under FACA and our
Constitution to be privy to closed-door meetings with special interests
who, without oversight, will pervert our legal rights to serve their own
interests.
But quite apart from FACA and open government – to use the term
government loosely these days, since in practice we no longer have a
republic but a despotic monarchy – Obama’s threats to use executive
orders to remove or curtail our right to bear arms constitutes the final
straw. It is in effect a declaration of war against the American people
and our way of life.
For our Founding Fathers bequeathed to us the right to bear arms
primarily to protect us, should the need ever arise, against a
tyrannical government. Their primary motive was not to allow us to
defend ourselves against random criminals and madmen like Adam Lanza,
however useful guns would have been and are in this regard.
So when Obama and Biden effectively threatened to seize our guns, or
even just curtail our rights to gun ownership, they are making the same
mistake King George III made when he sent his armies to seize and
destroy the weapons caches of the colonies, which they had amassed to
defend themselves against a British crown that had also raised their
taxes without representation in parliament and committed other acts of
tyranny. This gun grab by the king was the final straw before
revolution, triggering the Declaration of Independence and subsequent
war.
The irony today, as it was in 1776, is that that these
miscalculations by our rulers will in the end serve to be their own
undoing and result in our liberation from their evil clutches. Let us
pray that Obama and Biden and the likes of Pelosi and Reid are so stupid
as to carry through with their threats, so that the masses will finally
be provoked to rise up as they did in colonial times. It is time that
their political ilk be legally removed from our nation’s capital – along
with their Republican accomplices like Chuck Hagel – before the nation
is totally transformed and destroyed.
These arrogant, malevolent, political tyrants should thus take heed
and beware of the words of our Founding Fathers in the Declaration of
Independence, that “In every stage of these Oppressions We have
Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated Petitions
have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is
thus marked by every act that may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be ruler
of a free people.”
12 January 2013
Gun Confiscation By Presidential Decree?
By
January 10, 2013
President Obama may soon act unilaterally to curtail Americans’ right to keep and bear arms and impose a new national firearms policy without congressional approval.
Spurred on by the Newtown, Connecticut schoolhouse massacre last month that took 26 lives, Obama could restrict, perhaps even abolish, private gun ownership with the stroke of his auto-pen.
Second Amendment backers are justifiably angry after Vice President Joe Biden spoke yesterday about ways to curb violent gun-related crime. He suggested that the president may take swift, decisive action without congressional approval.
“The president is going to act,” said Biden who is heading up a task force that is supposed to make policy recommendations to Obama later this month. The vice president reportedly “guaranteed” Boston Mayor Thomas Menino that President Obama would push through sweeping firearms restrictions before February.
“There are executive orders, there’s executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet. But we’re compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required.”
Biden added, “As the president said, if your actions result in only saving one life, they’re worth taking. But I’m convinced we can affect the well-being of millions of Americans and take thousands of people out of harm’s way if we act responsibly.”
“I want to make it clear that we are not going to get caught up in the notion that unless we can do everything, we’re going to do nothing,” Biden said. “It’s critically important we act.”
In normal times the prospect of gun confiscation might be next to nil, the stuff of conspiracy theories, but in the age of Obama so many bad things seem possible. With the country in a sour mood, the economy stuck in a ditch, and a transformational Marxist in the White House, terrible outcomes that previously appeared farfetched now could become possible.
Consider that Obama is a devout ideologue who deep down doesn’t believe Americans should be allowed to own guns. He’s a longtime supporter of gun confiscation but when he began running for president he began claiming to be a supporter of the Second Amendment in order not to scare away moderate voters.
He has Freudian-slipped from time to time. In his first presidential campaign he mocked small-town Americans as “bitter” people who “cling to guns or religion,” paraphrasing Saul Alinsky’s attacks on ordinary Americans.
Consider also that Obama is a narcissistic president with a messiah
complex who began his political career in the living room of unrepentant
bomb-detonating terrorists.
Since winning the 2008 election Obama has: refused to enforce laws he dislikes including laws cracking down on the voter fraud Democrats often need to win elections; routinely assaulted the Bill of Rights; decreed a partial immigration amnesty after it was rejected by Congress; ignored court orders; recess-appointed high government officials when Congress wasn’t actually in recess; attempted to intimidate Supreme Court justices; kept a Nixon-style enemies’ list and labeled his detractors in the Tea Party movement as terrorists; waged class warfare and encouraged racial animosity; presided over the “Fast and Furious” gun-walking scandal that provided weapons to Mexican drug cartels; nationalized large swaths of private industry; ignored politically-inspired violence carried out by his allies; unilaterally moved to impose economy-killing carbon emission controls; openly disdained entrepreneurs; waged war without congressional approval; accepted illegal foreign campaign contributions; tried to get a governor to appoint his crony (Valerie Jarrett) to fill the Senate seat he vacated; said police “acted stupidly” when they dared to arrest his personal friend; turned a blind eye to rampant corruption in his administration; and forced health care providers to violate their religious beliefs.
Now Obama is apparently considering minting a $1 trillion platinum coin in order to evade the congressionally imposed national debt limit.
This is the behavior of a Third World banana republic caudillo, not the supposed leader of the free world.
Congressman Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) said the president’s proposal to go it alone sounded like “dictatorship” to him. “The Founding Fathers never envisioned Executive Orders being used to restrict our Constitutional rights,” he said in a press release. “We live in a republic, not a dictatorship.”
Two unusually insightful posts on the micro-blogging website Twitter summed up the public’s anxiety at Obama’s overreach and imperial approach to policymaking.
“Executive Orders on 2nd Amendment Rights could cascade into revolt,” tweeted @daxtonbrown. “I don’t think Obama realizes how seriously people take gun rights.”
A user with the handle @siftyboones tweeted, “My family will not be reduced to docile livestock at the whim of the government. The End.”
Any executive order taking Americans’ guns away would be a brutal assault on the rule of law. It could also lead to violent civil unrest in a nation founded upon a healthy distrust of governmental power.
Yesterday NRA president David Keene reaffirmed that the purpose of the Second Amendment to the Constitution was to prevent tyranny and deter foreign invaders.
“The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunters. Hunters use firearms. Hunters have every right to use firearms, as do target shooters, as do gun collectors, as do others,” said Keene.
“The fact of the matter is that the Second Amendment has to do with personal and national defense. It was put into the Constitution by the Founders who considered it as important indeed as the First Amendment.”
As Charles Krauthammer waxed eloquent on Fox News Channel last night:
The Supreme Court has blown away gun grabbers in recent years. In the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the high court struck down the draconian ban on gun ownership that had long been in effect in the nation’s capital. The court found for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, affirming what serious constitutional scholars had known for years.
The court followed up in the case of McDonald v. Chicago, making it clear that the individual right to keep and bear arms acknowledged in the Heller ruling applies to the states as well. That 2010 decision quashed a Chicago city ordinance banning the possession of handguns.
Complicating matters further for Obama, it turns out then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was correct when she said to lawmakers in 2010, “we have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what’s in it.”
A new report from Breitbart.com indicates that a provision is buried in the Obamacare legislation that protects Second Amendment rights. The clause states that the government is not allowed to collect “any information relating to the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition.”
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) confirmed that he added the legislative language in order to keep the National Rifle Association out of the legislative battle over Obamacare. It probably seemed like a good idea at the time.
Will any of these legal concerns matter to President Obama who regards the Constitution at best as a living document and at worst as an inconvenience?
As gun and ammunition sales skyrocket nationwide, it is clear the public isn’t taking the chance that Obama will feel restrained by the laws of the land.
January 10, 2013
President Obama may soon act unilaterally to curtail Americans’ right to keep and bear arms and impose a new national firearms policy without congressional approval.
Spurred on by the Newtown, Connecticut schoolhouse massacre last month that took 26 lives, Obama could restrict, perhaps even abolish, private gun ownership with the stroke of his auto-pen.
Second Amendment backers are justifiably angry after Vice President Joe Biden spoke yesterday about ways to curb violent gun-related crime. He suggested that the president may take swift, decisive action without congressional approval.
“The president is going to act,” said Biden who is heading up a task force that is supposed to make policy recommendations to Obama later this month. The vice president reportedly “guaranteed” Boston Mayor Thomas Menino that President Obama would push through sweeping firearms restrictions before February.
“There are executive orders, there’s executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet. But we’re compiling it all with the help of the attorney general and the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action that we believe is required.”
Biden added, “As the president said, if your actions result in only saving one life, they’re worth taking. But I’m convinced we can affect the well-being of millions of Americans and take thousands of people out of harm’s way if we act responsibly.”
“I want to make it clear that we are not going to get caught up in the notion that unless we can do everything, we’re going to do nothing,” Biden said. “It’s critically important we act.”
In normal times the prospect of gun confiscation might be next to nil, the stuff of conspiracy theories, but in the age of Obama so many bad things seem possible. With the country in a sour mood, the economy stuck in a ditch, and a transformational Marxist in the White House, terrible outcomes that previously appeared farfetched now could become possible.
Consider that Obama is a devout ideologue who deep down doesn’t believe Americans should be allowed to own guns. He’s a longtime supporter of gun confiscation but when he began running for president he began claiming to be a supporter of the Second Amendment in order not to scare away moderate voters.
He has Freudian-slipped from time to time. In his first presidential campaign he mocked small-town Americans as “bitter” people who “cling to guns or religion,” paraphrasing Saul Alinsky’s attacks on ordinary Americans.
Since winning the 2008 election Obama has: refused to enforce laws he dislikes including laws cracking down on the voter fraud Democrats often need to win elections; routinely assaulted the Bill of Rights; decreed a partial immigration amnesty after it was rejected by Congress; ignored court orders; recess-appointed high government officials when Congress wasn’t actually in recess; attempted to intimidate Supreme Court justices; kept a Nixon-style enemies’ list and labeled his detractors in the Tea Party movement as terrorists; waged class warfare and encouraged racial animosity; presided over the “Fast and Furious” gun-walking scandal that provided weapons to Mexican drug cartels; nationalized large swaths of private industry; ignored politically-inspired violence carried out by his allies; unilaterally moved to impose economy-killing carbon emission controls; openly disdained entrepreneurs; waged war without congressional approval; accepted illegal foreign campaign contributions; tried to get a governor to appoint his crony (Valerie Jarrett) to fill the Senate seat he vacated; said police “acted stupidly” when they dared to arrest his personal friend; turned a blind eye to rampant corruption in his administration; and forced health care providers to violate their religious beliefs.
Now Obama is apparently considering minting a $1 trillion platinum coin in order to evade the congressionally imposed national debt limit.
This is the behavior of a Third World banana republic caudillo, not the supposed leader of the free world.
Congressman Jeff Duncan (R-S.C.) said the president’s proposal to go it alone sounded like “dictatorship” to him. “The Founding Fathers never envisioned Executive Orders being used to restrict our Constitutional rights,” he said in a press release. “We live in a republic, not a dictatorship.”
Two unusually insightful posts on the micro-blogging website Twitter summed up the public’s anxiety at Obama’s overreach and imperial approach to policymaking.
“Executive Orders on 2nd Amendment Rights could cascade into revolt,” tweeted @daxtonbrown. “I don’t think Obama realizes how seriously people take gun rights.”
A user with the handle @siftyboones tweeted, “My family will not be reduced to docile livestock at the whim of the government. The End.”
Any executive order taking Americans’ guns away would be a brutal assault on the rule of law. It could also lead to violent civil unrest in a nation founded upon a healthy distrust of governmental power.
Yesterday NRA president David Keene reaffirmed that the purpose of the Second Amendment to the Constitution was to prevent tyranny and deter foreign invaders.
“The Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunters. Hunters use firearms. Hunters have every right to use firearms, as do target shooters, as do gun collectors, as do others,” said Keene.
“The fact of the matter is that the Second Amendment has to do with personal and national defense. It was put into the Constitution by the Founders who considered it as important indeed as the First Amendment.”
As Charles Krauthammer waxed eloquent on Fox News Channel last night:
We have a 200-year history and culture of gun ownership. And we have a Second Amendment and we have a system that believes that the rights, the Second Amendment, in other words, predate the republic and the point of having a government, as in the Declaration [of Independence], is to secure the rights. In Britain you have no such right, the government will control gun ownership so unless you’re willing to confiscate, which would be unconstitutional and that would cause an insurrection in the country –Australia did– these things are not going to have an effect, except at the margins and that’s the tragedy here.Although many law enforcement personnel would probably refuse to enforce something as profoundly un-American as a gun-confiscation diktat, it is not at all clear where Obama would get the legal authority to unilaterally impose new gun control measures. Even liberal constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe concedes that –at a minimum– the Second Amendment safeguards the individual right of Americans to “possess and use firearms in the defense of themselves and their homes.”
The Supreme Court has blown away gun grabbers in recent years. In the landmark case of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the high court struck down the draconian ban on gun ownership that had long been in effect in the nation’s capital. The court found for the first time that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, affirming what serious constitutional scholars had known for years.
The court followed up in the case of McDonald v. Chicago, making it clear that the individual right to keep and bear arms acknowledged in the Heller ruling applies to the states as well. That 2010 decision quashed a Chicago city ordinance banning the possession of handguns.
Complicating matters further for Obama, it turns out then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was correct when she said to lawmakers in 2010, “we have to pass the [health care] bill so that you can find out what’s in it.”
A new report from Breitbart.com indicates that a provision is buried in the Obamacare legislation that protects Second Amendment rights. The clause states that the government is not allowed to collect “any information relating to the lawful ownership or possession of a firearm or ammunition.”
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) confirmed that he added the legislative language in order to keep the National Rifle Association out of the legislative battle over Obamacare. It probably seemed like a good idea at the time.
Will any of these legal concerns matter to President Obama who regards the Constitution at best as a living document and at worst as an inconvenience?
As gun and ammunition sales skyrocket nationwide, it is clear the public isn’t taking the chance that Obama will feel restrained by the laws of the land.
11 January 2013
Louisiana Governor Jindal proposes ending state income tax
The governor did not release details of his proposal, but his office released a statement confirming that the taxes are targets of a broader tax reform plan.
"Our goal is to eliminate all personal income tax and all corporate income tax in a revenue neutral manner," Jindal said in the statement.
He did not confirm reports that he will seek an increase in sales taxes in order to offset lost income tax revenue, but said: "We want to keep the sales tax as low and flat as possible."
Political analyst John Maginnis, who on Thursday reported in his email newsletter LaPolitics Weekly that Jindal will propose balancing the tax loss by raising the sales tax, now at 4 percent, said the strategy fits with the governor's interest in keeping a high national profile.
"Just proposing a plan on the scale being discussed would win Jindal acclaim among fiscal conservatives here and nationwide," Maginnis told Reuters.
Jindal is often mentioned for national office including the U.S. Senate and as a possible presidential candidate.
Louisiana's neighbor Texas has had no income tax for years, relying on a windfall from its rich energy resources and other forms of taxation. Other states in the region governed by Republicans are trying to copy Texas, including Oklahoma and Kansas, which have both considered lowering taxes.
But political analyst Maginnis questioned whether the Republican-majority Louisiana legislature would endorse Jindal's ambitious plan.
"Any tax increase (such as sales tax) or elimination of exemptions would require a two-thirds vote, a form of legislative approval that would require (Republican) solidarity and significant Democratic support," Maginnis said.
Jindal said his team will meet with lawmakers soon to discuss details of his tax reform plan.
"Eliminating personal income taxes will put more money back into the pockets of Louisiana families and will change a complex tax code into a more simple system that will make Louisiana more attractive to companies who want to invest here and create jobs," he said.
[ed. Brilliant. Not often you see a politician with the stones to enact the revolutionary idea of repealing taxes to promote growth. Let the people "redistribute" their own money and watch these states take off, unlike california...]
9 January 2013
Biden: Executive orders, action can be taken on guns
[ed. Elections have consequences...]
Vice President Joseph R. Biden vowed action on gun control from President Obama on Wednesday and floated the idea that Mr. Obama could use executive action to do so.
“The president is going to act,” Mr. Biden said, speaking briefly before a meeting with gun safety and gun victims’ groups Wednesday. “There are executive orders, executive action that can be taken. We haven’t decided what that is yet. But we’re compiling it all with the help [of] the attorney general and all the rest of the cabinet members as well as legislative action we believe is required.”
Mr. Biden has been tapped by Mr. Obama tapped to head a task force on gun violence, which is scheduled to deliver recommendations to the president by the end of the month.
“We are vitally interested in what you have to say,” Mr. Biden told the group. “And as the president said, if our actions result in only saving one life, they’re worth taking. But I’m convinced we can affect the well-being of millions of Americans and take thousands of people out of harm’s way if we act responsibly.”
“I want to make it clear that we are not going to get caught up in the notion, ‘unless we can do everything, we’re going to do nothing,’” Mr. Biden continued. “It’s critically important we act.”
Mr. Obama has described Dec. 14 — when 26 people, including 20 young children, were shot to death at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. — as “the worst day of my presidency.” Mr. Biden expressed a similar sentiment Wednesday.
“I’ve been doing this a long time,” Mr. Biden said. “Of all the tragic events we’ve endured, I don’t think anything has touched the heart of the American people so profoundly as seeing those — learning of those young children not only being shot but riddled with bullets. Every once in a while there’s something that awakens the conscience of the country, and that tragic event did in a way like nothing I’ve seen in my career.”
Mr. Biden said he wanted to make it clear to the American public that the administration is reaching out to all groups, no matter where they fall on the issue. He is scheduled to meet with sportsmen’s and gun owners’ groups, including the National Rifle Association, on Thursday.
Per a White House official, representatives from the groups listed below were at the meeting, according to a pool report. Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. also attended.
8 January 2013
Fake mission to Mars leaves astronauts spaced out
Ian Sample
7 January 2013
As the Cheerless skies and grim economy sap all will to return to work, take heart that even on a trip to Mars, it is hard to get out of bed in the morning.
The drudge of interplanetary travel has emerged from research on six men who joined the longest simulated space mission ever: a 17-month round trip to the red planet in a pretend spaceship housed at a Moscow industrial estate.
Though chosen for the job as the best of the best, the would-be spacefarers spent more and more time under their duvets and sitting around idle as the mission wore on. The crew's activity levels plummeted in the first three months, and continued to fall for the next year.
On the return leg, the men spent nearly 700 hours longer in bed than on the outward journey, and only perked up in the last 20 days before they clambered from their capsule in November 2011. Four crew members suffered from sleep or psychological issues.
"We saw some problems," said Mathias Basner, of the University of Pennsylvania, who studies the effects of sleep-loss on behaviour. "There were no major adverse events, but there could have been if the stars were aligned in a certain way."
The $10m (£6.2m) Mars500 project, run by the European Space Agency (ESA) and the Russian Institute for Biomedical Problems, launched, metaphorically, when the hatch to the mock-up spaceship closed behind three Russians, two Europeans and a Chinese man in June 2010. The men spent the next 520 days in windowless isolation. Their only contact with the outside world was over the internet and by phone lines that carried a delay of up to 20 minutes, to mimic the time it takes radio waves to reach Mars from Earth.
Throughout the mission, the men endured daily medical, physical and psychological examinations, to help space agencies learn how humans cope with the stress, confinement and limited company that astronauts will face on future voyages. The crew fought boredom by watching DVDs, reading books and playing Guitar Hero on a games console. Mission controllers faked a fire and a power outage to keep them alert.
The ESA selected the crew from thousands of highly qualified applicants, and put them through a year of intensive training. But despite embodying "the right stuff" that underpins the astronaut corps, the men struggled with the tedium of the mission.
"The monotony of going to Mars and coming back again is something that will need to be addressed in the future. You don't want your crew hanging around doing nothing," Basner said.
On a real mission, sedentary astronauts would be at greater risk of bone and muscle wastage.
According to the study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, some crew members fared worse than others. One began living a 25-hour day, and quickly fell out of routine with the others. "If you live on a 25-hour day, after twelve days it's the middle of the night for you when it's daytime for everyone else," Basner said.
Another crew member slept at night but took ever longer naps during the day. Taken together, the two men spent a fifth of their time, or 2,500 hours, asleep when the rest of the crew were awake, or vice-versa. "That cannot be good for mission success, because mission-critical tasks will be scheduled for the day," Basner said.
A third crew member slept so badly he suffered chronic sleep deprivation and single-handedly accounted for the majority of mistakes made on a computer test used to measure concentration and alertness. "He was falling apart in terms of his attention system," Basner said. In a second study, not yet published, the team describes a fourth crew member who was developing mild depression.
"Only two of the men adapted well to the mission. Of the other four, there was at least one major reason for concern, where we would ask, should we really send someone like this on a long mission," Basner said.
For the 17 months of the mission to nowhere the crew had control over the amount of exercise they took, their meals, and the levels of ambient lighting. The right lighting is crucial to keep people on a regular sleep and wake cycle.
Improved lighting to mimic day and night could help some astronauts cope with long missions, but the results point to a need for tests that can spot astronauts who are vulnerable to sleep disorders, Basner said.
Steven Lockley, a neuroscientist who specialises in sleep medicine at Brigham and Women's hospital in Boston, said the study raised concerns about long-term space missions.
"Having some of the six crew members with different schedules, and different amounts of sleep, would likely make for poor team performance and increased risk of accidents and injuries in a real-life situation," he told the Guardian.
Astronauts on a trip to Mars would probably face even worse problems if they spent time on the surface of the planet, because the length of the Martian day is slightly longer than an Earth day. "The deleterious effects on sleep, performance, psychological health and physical health would likely have been much worse had the subjects been required to live on a 24.65-hour day," Lockley said.
7 January 2013
As the Cheerless skies and grim economy sap all will to return to work, take heart that even on a trip to Mars, it is hard to get out of bed in the morning.
The drudge of interplanetary travel has emerged from research on six men who joined the longest simulated space mission ever: a 17-month round trip to the red planet in a pretend spaceship housed at a Moscow industrial estate.
Though chosen for the job as the best of the best, the would-be spacefarers spent more and more time under their duvets and sitting around idle as the mission wore on. The crew's activity levels plummeted in the first three months, and continued to fall for the next year.
On the return leg, the men spent nearly 700 hours longer in bed than on the outward journey, and only perked up in the last 20 days before they clambered from their capsule in November 2011. Four crew members suffered from sleep or psychological issues.
"We saw some problems," said Mathias Basner, of the University of Pennsylvania, who studies the effects of sleep-loss on behaviour. "There were no major adverse events, but there could have been if the stars were aligned in a certain way."
The $10m (£6.2m) Mars500 project, run by the European Space Agency (ESA) and the Russian Institute for Biomedical Problems, launched, metaphorically, when the hatch to the mock-up spaceship closed behind three Russians, two Europeans and a Chinese man in June 2010. The men spent the next 520 days in windowless isolation. Their only contact with the outside world was over the internet and by phone lines that carried a delay of up to 20 minutes, to mimic the time it takes radio waves to reach Mars from Earth.
Throughout the mission, the men endured daily medical, physical and psychological examinations, to help space agencies learn how humans cope with the stress, confinement and limited company that astronauts will face on future voyages. The crew fought boredom by watching DVDs, reading books and playing Guitar Hero on a games console. Mission controllers faked a fire and a power outage to keep them alert.
The ESA selected the crew from thousands of highly qualified applicants, and put them through a year of intensive training. But despite embodying "the right stuff" that underpins the astronaut corps, the men struggled with the tedium of the mission.
"The monotony of going to Mars and coming back again is something that will need to be addressed in the future. You don't want your crew hanging around doing nothing," Basner said.
On a real mission, sedentary astronauts would be at greater risk of bone and muscle wastage.
According to the study, published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, some crew members fared worse than others. One began living a 25-hour day, and quickly fell out of routine with the others. "If you live on a 25-hour day, after twelve days it's the middle of the night for you when it's daytime for everyone else," Basner said.
Another crew member slept at night but took ever longer naps during the day. Taken together, the two men spent a fifth of their time, or 2,500 hours, asleep when the rest of the crew were awake, or vice-versa. "That cannot be good for mission success, because mission-critical tasks will be scheduled for the day," Basner said.
A third crew member slept so badly he suffered chronic sleep deprivation and single-handedly accounted for the majority of mistakes made on a computer test used to measure concentration and alertness. "He was falling apart in terms of his attention system," Basner said. In a second study, not yet published, the team describes a fourth crew member who was developing mild depression.
"Only two of the men adapted well to the mission. Of the other four, there was at least one major reason for concern, where we would ask, should we really send someone like this on a long mission," Basner said.
For the 17 months of the mission to nowhere the crew had control over the amount of exercise they took, their meals, and the levels of ambient lighting. The right lighting is crucial to keep people on a regular sleep and wake cycle.
Improved lighting to mimic day and night could help some astronauts cope with long missions, but the results point to a need for tests that can spot astronauts who are vulnerable to sleep disorders, Basner said.
Steven Lockley, a neuroscientist who specialises in sleep medicine at Brigham and Women's hospital in Boston, said the study raised concerns about long-term space missions.
"Having some of the six crew members with different schedules, and different amounts of sleep, would likely make for poor team performance and increased risk of accidents and injuries in a real-life situation," he told the Guardian.
Astronauts on a trip to Mars would probably face even worse problems if they spent time on the surface of the planet, because the length of the Martian day is slightly longer than an Earth day. "The deleterious effects on sleep, performance, psychological health and physical health would likely have been much worse had the subjects been required to live on a 24.65-hour day," Lockley said.
6 January 2013
Nancy Pelosi Defends Doctored 'Diversity' Photo of House Democrats
by Warner Todd Huston
5 Jan 2013
The photo featuring "all" the Democrat women of the House standing on the steps outside the Capital building was released by the California Democrat on her Flikr account on January 3.
Oddly, the four Democrats shown on the top steps in the back of the group are not really in the photo. The images of the four were Photoshopped into the picture and weren't present when the group photo was taken. The missing four were added later by Pelosi's computer-wielding staffers. You can see both the original photo and the photoshopped results here.
When the former Speaker was confronted about the faked photograph, Pelosi defended the release of the doctored image, saying it was an "accurate" portrayal of "who the members of Congress are."
Apparently, the photo is another example of the left wing's "fake but accurate" style of reporting.
[ed. I haven't seen anything this hokey since Obama released his "birth certificate" and evidently the "mainstream" media are ok with left wing politicians lying their pantsuits off if the ends justify the means...]
Left Pushes Illegal Immigration “Reform” as Step to Permanent Democrat Control, Socialism (+video)
By
January 5, 2013
Unions, before they were taken over by DSA in 1995, were traditionally anti-illegal immigration. Why the change?
The reason is simple. Marxist led unions do not care about getting a better deal for their members. They care about achieving socialism. They understand that Latinos, which illegals mostly are, tend to vote overwhelmingly Democrat. The Marxists also have huge influence in the Democrat Party and huge leverage over Democrat policy formation, through their lock-tight control of organized labor.
Therefore, giving illegals citizenship and voting rights could move America way to the left – forever.
Listen here to AFL-CIO boss Richard Trumka, a longtime DSA supporter, put on his best fake sincerity “Judas goat” tone, to seduce union members into support their own destruction. This is almost barf bucket material, as this hard bitten union thug invokes patriotism and American values to sell his socialist “snake oil.”
Now watch an identified DSA member, SEIU VP Eliseo Medina, speaking at a 2009 progressive conference in Washington DC. Medina, the leading immigration activist in the country, reveals the real reason for his efforts… 8,000,000 more Democratic voters and a “progressive majority for the forseeable future.”
Our once great RSPCA is being destroyed by a militant tendency
04 Jan 2013
One must always treat lawyers with respect, so let me state at once that I have absolutely nothing against Jeremy Carter-Manning QC. From his entry in Who’s Who, I see that he was educated at St Paul’s School, called to the Bar nearly 40 years ago, and that his recreations include “food and wine”, which he pursues in the Reform Club. I have no doubt he is esteemed in his profession.
Most of us might have passed our entire lives without ever hearing of Mr
Carter-Manning QC, were it not for a bill submitted for his costs at
Bicester magistrates’ court last month. He charged £73,310.80 plus VAT. (His
two fellow counsel added another £90,000.) Mr Carter-Manning’s services cost
£300 an hour, so I calculate that he worked for roughly 244 hours on this
case.
What was he doing? According to Gavin Grant, the chief executive of the RSPCA,
which hired him, he was watching “hundreds of hours of footage” of the
Heythrop Hunt to see if offences had been committed under the Hunting Act.
Eventually, the RSPCA brought 52 charges against four hunt members. Two were
acquitted, but two pleaded guilty to four charges of hunting a wild mammal
with dogs, a charge so minor that it is classified as “non-recordable”. They
– and the hunt corporately – were fined a total of less than £7,000.
The costs that the RSPCA submitted to the court were £326,000. The district
judge, who rejected the RSPCA’s attempt to conceal this amount from public
gaze, described them as “quite staggering”. Despite the RSPCA “winning”, the
charity therefore had to pay most of them itself.
As I say, no blame attaches to Mr Carter-Manning QC. He must live. If he can
get £300 an hour for staring at grainy amateur film to see if hounds are
chasing after foxes, good luck to him. But the more one reflects on this
enterprise, the more extraordinary it is.
Charities must, by law, act prudently with their funds. The RSPCA often brings
cases of animal cruelty to court, and since it regards hunting as cruel,
this comes within its remit. But Mr Grant himself says that his organisation
brought 2,000 prosecutions last year, at a total cost of £5 million, an
average of £2,500 a go. If each of these 2,000 cases had cost the same as
the Heythrop case, the RSPCA would have spent approximately £660 million on
them – way beyond the means of any charity in the entire history of the
planet.
So why, in terms of animal cruelty, was the Heythrop Hunt case considered more than 100 times more important than the torture of a pony, or the starvation of a cat, or alsatians, overcrowded and filthy, locked in a tower block all day, or all the other horrible things that human beings do to animals?
It wasn’t, of course. Even a fierce opponent of hunting could not make that claim. The difference is political. Under Mr Grant, who took over last year, the RSPCA is militant. The Heythrop Hunt was chosen because its country is in David Cameron’s constituency. Mr Grant has denied that he is fighting a class war: “This isn’t about accents,” he declared. But he also said to the Daily Mirror that those hunting with the Heythrop were “no different from badger baiters – apart from their accents”, so accents would seem to be on his mind. He says he wants the men to go to prison for between two and five years.
As you would expect, the RSPCA has its own legal department, well-versed, presumably, in looking at film of alleged animal cruelty. But that wasn’t good enough for Mr Grant. He had to get the QC in and pay him to watch the movies. He wanted this to be big.
A similar tendency to go for the dramatic gesture was visible when Mr Grant called for a boycott of all milk produced by farmers who had agreed to take part in the badger cull (later postponed) to help eradicate bovine – and badger – TB. People would not want to buy milk from farms “soaked in badgers’ blood”, he said. In Ramsgate, in September, RSPCA inspectors, worried about defective live animal transport, insisted on unloading sheep at the port and shooting more than 40 that they deemed unfit to travel. Two sheep also drowned in a water tank. Mr Grant has defended what the inspectors did, without qualification.
He is entitled to his views. But when you look at the main work for which the RSPCA is valued, you see that it is overwhelmingly the practical rescue and care of animals. On its website, the emphasis is on this good work, and on practical advice about disease, strays, worming etc. The RSPCA’s key “five pledges” do not mention prosecutions.
Because of its care of animals, the RSPCA is treated in a special way. Its inspectors wear uniforms, though they have no legal powers. Chief constables encourage its prosecution work. And – a little known fact – if the RSPCA brings a case and loses it, the costs of the defendants are usually borne by the taxpayer. So the RSPCA can prosecute almost without thinking. It can go to law as a marketing tool or to make a political point.
This is an abuse of the privileges our culture has traditionally granted it. These, including its many legacies, its charitable status and the patronage of the Queen, came because the RSPCA was an animal welfare organisation – and people strongly support that. Recently, it has become an animal rights organisation instead.
The doctrine of animal rights, developed by Dr Richard Ryder, who is on the RSPCA Council, regards human beings as morally identical to “other animals”, so they should never kill animals for food or clothing, let alone sport. Dr Ryder thinks that people who disagree are guilty of “speciesism”, which, like racism, is profoundly wicked. Mr Grant is highly sympathetic to these views. A former Liberal Democrat activist, he sees his work as a political campaign. This alienates large numbers of people – farmers, horse-racing bodies, dog organisations – who work professionally with animals, not to mention officials and ministers at Defra. Owen Paterson, the Secretary of State, recently told the RSPCA to be “wary” of muddling charity and politics. Relationships which once were co-operative have become confrontational.
People are naturally starting to ask by what right the RSPCA acts. Despite its policy of never killing a “rehousable” animal, it admits to putting down 3,400 animals for non-medical reasons in 2011. Its membership has fallen to only 25,000. This is a tenth of the numbers who turn out to support hunts on Boxing Day and a fortieth of the membership of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Whom, then, does it actually represent? The RSPCA website does little to attract members, as opposed to donations. It looks as if it likes to trade on its huge, historic reputation, without answering to anyone.
Over 30 years ago, a comparable takeover occurred in the Labour Party. A mass movement originally designed to advance the interests of workers was infiltrated by the Militant Tendency. Today, a movement originally designed to advance the interests of animals hangs in the balance.
By the way, I notice a postscript on the bill submitted to Bicester magistrates’ court. “Counsel,” it says, “have carried out and will carry out other work in relation to this type of prosecution in general.” If you are thinking of giving money to the RSPCA, you might as well cut out the middle man and send it straight to Mr Jeremy Carter-Manning QC instead.
So why, in terms of animal cruelty, was the Heythrop Hunt case considered more than 100 times more important than the torture of a pony, or the starvation of a cat, or alsatians, overcrowded and filthy, locked in a tower block all day, or all the other horrible things that human beings do to animals?
It wasn’t, of course. Even a fierce opponent of hunting could not make that claim. The difference is political. Under Mr Grant, who took over last year, the RSPCA is militant. The Heythrop Hunt was chosen because its country is in David Cameron’s constituency. Mr Grant has denied that he is fighting a class war: “This isn’t about accents,” he declared. But he also said to the Daily Mirror that those hunting with the Heythrop were “no different from badger baiters – apart from their accents”, so accents would seem to be on his mind. He says he wants the men to go to prison for between two and five years.
As you would expect, the RSPCA has its own legal department, well-versed, presumably, in looking at film of alleged animal cruelty. But that wasn’t good enough for Mr Grant. He had to get the QC in and pay him to watch the movies. He wanted this to be big.
A similar tendency to go for the dramatic gesture was visible when Mr Grant called for a boycott of all milk produced by farmers who had agreed to take part in the badger cull (later postponed) to help eradicate bovine – and badger – TB. People would not want to buy milk from farms “soaked in badgers’ blood”, he said. In Ramsgate, in September, RSPCA inspectors, worried about defective live animal transport, insisted on unloading sheep at the port and shooting more than 40 that they deemed unfit to travel. Two sheep also drowned in a water tank. Mr Grant has defended what the inspectors did, without qualification.
He is entitled to his views. But when you look at the main work for which the RSPCA is valued, you see that it is overwhelmingly the practical rescue and care of animals. On its website, the emphasis is on this good work, and on practical advice about disease, strays, worming etc. The RSPCA’s key “five pledges” do not mention prosecutions.
Because of its care of animals, the RSPCA is treated in a special way. Its inspectors wear uniforms, though they have no legal powers. Chief constables encourage its prosecution work. And – a little known fact – if the RSPCA brings a case and loses it, the costs of the defendants are usually borne by the taxpayer. So the RSPCA can prosecute almost without thinking. It can go to law as a marketing tool or to make a political point.
This is an abuse of the privileges our culture has traditionally granted it. These, including its many legacies, its charitable status and the patronage of the Queen, came because the RSPCA was an animal welfare organisation – and people strongly support that. Recently, it has become an animal rights organisation instead.
The doctrine of animal rights, developed by Dr Richard Ryder, who is on the RSPCA Council, regards human beings as morally identical to “other animals”, so they should never kill animals for food or clothing, let alone sport. Dr Ryder thinks that people who disagree are guilty of “speciesism”, which, like racism, is profoundly wicked. Mr Grant is highly sympathetic to these views. A former Liberal Democrat activist, he sees his work as a political campaign. This alienates large numbers of people – farmers, horse-racing bodies, dog organisations – who work professionally with animals, not to mention officials and ministers at Defra. Owen Paterson, the Secretary of State, recently told the RSPCA to be “wary” of muddling charity and politics. Relationships which once were co-operative have become confrontational.
People are naturally starting to ask by what right the RSPCA acts. Despite its policy of never killing a “rehousable” animal, it admits to putting down 3,400 animals for non-medical reasons in 2011. Its membership has fallen to only 25,000. This is a tenth of the numbers who turn out to support hunts on Boxing Day and a fortieth of the membership of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. Whom, then, does it actually represent? The RSPCA website does little to attract members, as opposed to donations. It looks as if it likes to trade on its huge, historic reputation, without answering to anyone.
Over 30 years ago, a comparable takeover occurred in the Labour Party. A mass movement originally designed to advance the interests of workers was infiltrated by the Militant Tendency. Today, a movement originally designed to advance the interests of animals hangs in the balance.
By the way, I notice a postscript on the bill submitted to Bicester magistrates’ court. “Counsel,” it says, “have carried out and will carry out other work in relation to this type of prosecution in general.” If you are thinking of giving money to the RSPCA, you might as well cut out the middle man and send it straight to Mr Jeremy Carter-Manning QC instead.
Joe Biden: Latinos Are 'The Center Of The Nation's Future'
by Elise Foley
3rd January, 2013
WASHINGTON -- Vice President Joe Biden rallied Latino members of Congress on Thursday to push for immigration reform, calling Latinos "the center of the nation's future" and reminding them that their political power will only grow after the last presidential election.
"The way to make the mark ... is for the Hispanic community to step up and step out and let the world know, let the Republicans know, let others know that if you ignore the needs and concerns of the Hispanic community, you will not win," Biden said at a swearing-in event hosted by the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, a nonpartisan group that runs programs encouraging Latino leadership.
A record 26 members were welcomed into the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, which is separate from the institute, on Thursday. Not all Latino members of Congress joined the caucus, but their total, too, is a record: There are three senators and 33 House members of Latino descent in the 113th Congress.
Many of them are strong supporters of immigration reform, which also ranked high -- though not first -- on the list of priorities of Latino voters. President Barack Obama has promised swift action and will begin major work on the issue this month now that the "fiscal cliff" battle is out of the way. Members of Congress are already beginning to craft a deal and hope it can receive a vote by the end of the summer.
The president made something of a down payment on his promise of reform last summer when he announced that his administration would grant deferred action on deportation for some undocumented young people, often referred to as Dreamers.
Before the deferred action announcement, Biden told Thursday's crowd, he and Cecilia Muñoz, director of the White House Domestic Policy Council, had met with now-retired Rep. Charlie Gonzalez (D-Texas), who chaired the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, to discuss what could be done for Dreamers.
Although deferred action was considered by many a risky political choice, Biden said he and Muñoz "absolutely believed that what we were about to do was not only the right thing to do, but that it would be embraced by the vast majority of the American people."
They found they were right, the vice president said. Obama won more than 70 percent of the Latino vote in his reelection bid.
Biden said the American people also recognize what Latinos, including those who are undocumented, can and will contribute to the country.
"It's no longer about what can be done for the Hispanic community," he said. "The question is what the Hispanic community is going to do to take this country to a totally new place."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
