Tuesday, July 29, 2014

GMO’s: Scare Mongering at Its Worst! Part III

By Rich Kozlovich

Mike Adams, who publishes Natural News and styles himself as the Health Ranger recently posted an article entitled, The Agricultural Holocaust explained: the 10 worst ways GMOs threaten humanity and our natural worldon July 27, 2014.

He claims "genetically modified organisms (GMOs) a serious threat to humanity and the environment? The reasons span the realms of science, social justice, economics and the environment, and once you understand this, you'll readily understand why so many environmentalists, humanitarians, responsible scientists and social justice advocates are strongly opposed to GMOs", and lists ten reasons why? This is a ten part series. Here is Part I and Part II.

He next claims that, “GMOs transform farming freedom into farming servitude” and then goes on to say:

Because GMOs are sold with an intellectual property restriction that prevents farmers from saving their own seeds, they invoke "economic servitude" where farmers are forced to buy expensive new seeds each year from the GMO seed supplier.

As a result, farming practices (like seed saving) that have sustained humanity since the dawn of civilization are now being criminalized. And when GM crops fail, as they frequently do, the economic burden placed upon farmers is often too much to bear. That's why farmer suicides have skyrocketed in India among farmers who bought GMO seeds.

Reportedly, over 270,000 suicides have already happened in India due to crop failures, and more happen every day.

First of all, no one is required to buy these products, in spite of any international agreements. Secondly, Monsanto doesn’t have a monopoly on GMO’s in India since Indians are actually creating their own GMO’s, so Indian farmers have large choices.

This is another failure of logic and another lie of omission. The Health Ranger keeps claiming “organic” agriculture is exploding all over the world, including India, when in reality it’s only increasing amonga rising health-consciousness among Indian consumers, rising disposable income due to globalization of markets, and an expanding middle class in the nation of more than 1 billion people”.

In short, they’re just as gullible to the green propaganda as foolish Americans who waste their money in places like Whole Foods. Organic produce doesn’t taste any better, it isn’t any healthier or better for our bodies than foods produced with modern agricultural processes including GMO’s, and in point of fact, they’re using pesticides such as the copper pesticides, which is accumulative in the soil because unlike synthetics, copper doesn't break down.   Copper is one of those heavy metals they scream about. Does anyone besides me see a problem with consistency of thought here? Oh yes, they use a number of pesticides inorganic farming -“The only difference is that they're "natural" instead of "synthetic." At face value, the labels make it sound like the products they describe are worlds apart, but they aren't. A pesticide, whether it's natural or not, is a chemical…….Sadly, however, "natural" pesticides aren't as effective, so organic farmers actually end up using more of them!

Now, for the most outrageous claim of all thatfarmer suicides have skyrocketed in India among farmers who bought GMO seeds”, giving the impression GMO's were somehow responsible for all these deaths.  This link is an emotional picture story, but read the article carefully and it becomes clear these suicides were caused by worldwide agriculture economics and failed crops due to bad weather conditions.

The reality is this - linking GMO’s to these farmer’s suicides is a logical fallacy known as “correlation is causation”. As one writer noted:

“The correlation between farmers committing suicide in India and the introduction of GMO cotton in the country has become widely accepted. Two documentaries, Seeds of Suicide and Bitter Seeds center around the phenomenon. In less direct ways, GMOs are mentioned in nearly every article about these suicides in major media outlets. But a new study from The Cathie Marsh Centre for Census and Survey Research (PDF) challenges these assumptions and lends more weight to the argument that the correlation is unfounded. But will it make a difference?"

The analysis reveals considerable variation in trends in suicide rates across the nine cotton-growing states. The data, although not ideal, and the modeling do not, however, support the claim that GM cotton has led to an increase in farmer suicide rates: if anything the reverse is true. The Indian farmer suicide story has become received wisdom for some anti-GM campaigners.

In fact, we find that the suicide rate for male Indian farmers is slightly lower than the non-farmer rate. And Indian suicide rates as a whole, although contested, do not appear to be notably high in a world context. The pattern of changes in suicide rates over the last 15 years is consistent with a beneficial effect of Bt cotton for India as a whole albeit perhaps not in every cotton-growing state.

This isn’t a unique or shot in the dark study with no supporting science behind it. In 2008 the International Food Policy Research Institute found similar results saying:

Suicides in general, including farmers’ suicides, are a sad and complex phenomenon. Hence, their underlying causes need to be addressed within an equally complex societal framework. Here, we provide a specific case study on the potential link between technological choices and farmer suicides in India. Although officially recognized for having increased production and farmers’ income, Bt cotton, genetically modified, insect-resistant cotton, remains highly controversial in India. Among other allegations, it is accused of being the main reason for a resurgence of farmer suicides in India.

We first show that there is no evidence in available data of a “resurgence” of farmer suicides in India in the last five years. Second, we find that Bt cotton technology has been very effective overall in India. However, the context in which Bt cotton was introduced has generated disappointing results in some particular districts and seasons. Third, our analysis clearly shows that Bt cotton is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for the occurrence of farmer suicides. In contrast, many other factors have likely played a prominent role. Nevertheless, in specific regions and years, where Bt cotton may have indirectly contributed to farmer indebtedness, leading to suicides, its failure was mainly the result of the context or environment in which it was planted.

"It’s a complicated issue and it’s perhaps natural to desire a clearcut villain: GMOs. Keith Kloor at Discover Magazine’s website wrote in an article last year title: The Real Seeds of Deception:"

In Keith Kloor’s article, The GMO-Suicide Myth, he notes:
the suicide rate among male farmers in the nine main cotton-growing states was just under 30 per 100,000 in 2011. That is about the same as suicide rates among farmers in France and Scotland, so Indian farmers do not seem unusual……Nor is there any sign that suicides rates changed significantly after 2002, when GM cotton began to be introduced.

This has been an insidiously mendacious effort by the environmental movement to blacken the reputation of agricultural products that are working wonders for humanity and an attempt to brand Monsanto as a criminal organization, neither of which be held responsible for anyone’s suicide, let alone farmers in India.

Tragic as this is, these farmers made a business decision that turned out badly compounded by “very complex equation that includes institutional, social, and governmental factors in India.”

How many really successful years did they have as a result of GMO cotton? I don’t know and he doesn’t say, but there must have been many years of success after success since the acceptance curve in India for transgenic plants is so high Indian farmers must not believe GMO's are destructive, or they wouldn’t use them. Every year more and more farmers are moving to transgenics because they work and all these anti-GMO claims are false! 

Now the Health Ranger can’t have it both ways. If organic is so great why did they buy these expensive products in the first place? Would their crops have failed due to bad weather conditions and all the other problems Indian farmers face if they were organic?

Did anyone ever see what happens to a non-transgenic cotton crop when weevils attack? They will destroy every plant within sight.  In one Indian state the only cotton plants left standing were GMO’s.  What alternatives do eco-activists like Vandana Shiva and Health Ranger Mike Adams offer?  Remember – all those farmers using “organic” methods were wiped out.  What exactly are the goals of these anti-GMO activists?  One thing seems to be glaringly clear.  Doing good things for the Indian farmer isn’t among them.

As for the patent argument on GMO’s these activists despise so badly - that’s a back door to getting rid of GMO’s. If these companies can’t patent these genetic modifications there will be no GMO’s because there will be no money, and that’s what they really want.   They don’t care about these poor people who have committed suicide, but they push this myth because it fortifies the narrative they’re promoting. And no matter how much information comes forth to expose the speculations, the lies of commission, the lies of omission and all the logical fallacies, this false narrative is one that’s difficult to break.

Please view this video, which takes an hour, but it's a fast hour and well worth the time, in spite of the fact his leftist prejudices show at the end. 




 
 

Who’s really waging the ‘war on science’?

When it comes to attacking climate scientists, the alarmist Left has the market cornered

Paul Driessen

Left-leaning environmentalists, media and academics have long railed against the alleged conservative “war on science.” They augment this vitriol with substantial money, books, documentaries and conference sessions devoted to “protecting” global warming alarmists from supposed “harassment” by climate chaos skeptics, whom they accuse of wanting to conduct “fishing expeditions” of alarmist emails and “rifle” their file cabinets in search of juicy material (which might expose collusion or manipulated science).

A primary target of this “unjustified harassment” has been Penn State University professor Dr. Michael Mann, creator of the infamous “hockey stick” temperature graph that purported to show a sudden spike in average planetary temperatures in recent decades, following centuries of supposedly stable climate. But at a recent AGU meeting a number of other “persecuted” scientists were trotted out to tell their story of how they have been “attacked” or had their research, policy demands or integrity questioned.

To fight back against this “harassment,” the American Geophysical Union actually created a “Climate Science Legal Defense Fund,” to pay mounting legal bills that these scientists have incurred. The AGU does not want any “prying eyes” to gain access to their emails or other information. These scientists and the AGU see themselves as “Freedom Fighters” in this “war on science.” It’s a bizarre war.

While proclaiming victimhood, they detest and vilify any experts who express doubts that we face an imminent climate Armageddon. They refuse to debate any such skeptics, or permit “nonbelievers” to participate in conferences where endless panels insist that every imaginable and imagined ecological problem is due to fossil fuels. They use hysteria and hyperbole to advance claims that slashing fossil fuel use and carbon dioxide emissions will enable us to control Earth’s climate – and that references to computer model predictions and “extreme weather events” justify skyrocketing energy costs, millions of lost jobs, and severe damage to people’s livelihoods, living standards, health and welfare.

Reality is vastly different from what these alarmist, environmentalist, academic, media and political elites attempt to convey.

In 2009, before Mann’s problems began, Greenpeace started attacking scientists it calls “climate deniers,” focusing its venom on seven scientists at four institutions, including the University of Virginia and University of Delaware. This anti-humanity group claimed its effort would “bring greater transparency to the climate science discussion” through “educational and other charitable public interest activities.” (If you believe that, send your bank account number to those Nigerians with millions in unclaimed cash.)

UVA administrators quickly agreed to turn over all archived records belonging to Dr. Patrick Michaels, a prominent climate chaos skeptic who had recently retired from the university. They did not seem to mind that no press coverage ensued, and certainly none that was critical of these Spanish Inquisition tactics.

However, when the American Tradition Institute later filed a similar FOIA request for Dr. Mann’s records, UVA marshaled the troops and launched a media circus, saying conservatives were harassing a leading climate scientist. The AGU, American Meteorological Society and American Association of University Professors (the nation’s college faculty union) rushed forward to lend their support. All the while, in a remarkable display of hypocrisy and double standards, UVA and these organizations continued to insist it was proper and ethical to turn all of Dr. Michaels’ material over to Greenpeace.

Meanwhile, although it had started out similarly, the scenario played out quite differently at the University of Delaware. Greenpeace targeted Dr. David Legates, demanding access to records related to his role as the Delaware State Climatologist. The University not only agreed to this. It went further, and demanded that Legates produce all his records – regardless of whether they pertained to his role as State Climatologist, his position on the university faculty, or his outside speaking and writing activities, even though he had received no state money for any of this work. Everything was fair game.

But when the Competitive Enterprise Institute filed a FOIA request for documents belonging to several U of Delaware faculty members who had contributed to the IPCC, the university told CEI the state’s FOIA Law did not apply. (The hypocrisy and double standards disease is contagious.) Although one faculty contributor clearly had received state money for his climate change work, University Vice-President and General Counsel Lawrence White claimed none of the individuals had received state funds.

When Legates approached White to inquire about the disparate treatment, White said Legates did not understand the law. State law did not require that White produce anything, White insisted, but also did not preclude him from doing so. Under threat of termination for failure to respond to the demands of a senior university official, Legates was required to allow White to inspect his emails and hardcopy files.

Legates subsequently sought outside legal advice. At this, his academic dean told him he had now gone too far. “This puts you at odds with the University,” she told him, “and the College will no longer support anything you do.” This remarkable threat was promptly implemented. Legates was terminated as the State Climatologist, removed from a state weather network he had been instrumental in organizing and operating, and banished from serving on any faculty committees.

Legates appealed to the AAUP – the same union that had staunchly supported Mann at UVA. Although the local AAUP president had written extensively on the need to protect academic freedom, she told Legates that FOIA issues and actions taken by the University of Delaware’s vice-president and dean “would not fall within the scope of the AAUP.”

What about the precedent of the AAUP and other professional organizations supporting Dr. Mann so quickly and vigorously? Where was the legal defense fund to pay Legates’ legal bills? Fuggedaboutit.

In the end, it was shown that nothing White examined in Legates’ files originated from state funds. The State Climate Office had received no money while Legates was there, and the university funded none of Legates’ climate change research though state funds. This is important because, unlike in Virginia, Delaware’s FOIA law says that regarding university faculty, only state-funded work is subject to FOIA.

That means White used his position to bully and attack Legates for his scientific views – pure and simple. Moreover, a 1991 federal arbitration case had ruled that the University of Delaware had violated another faculty member’s academic freedom when it examined the content of her research. But now, more than twenty years later, U Del was at it again.

Obviously, academic freedom means nothing when one’s views differ from the liberal faculty majority – or when they contrast with views and “science” that garners the university millions of dollars a year from government, foundation, corporate and other sources, to advance the alarmist climate change agenda. All these institutions are intolerant of research by scientists like Legates, because they fear losing grant money if they permit contrarian views, discussions, debates or anything that questions the climate chaos “consensus.” At this point, academic freedom and free speech obviously apply only to advance selected political agendas, and campus “diversity” exists in everything but opinions.

Climate alarmists have been implicated in the ClimateGate scandal, for conspiring to prevent their adversaries from receiving grants, publishing scientific papers, and advancing their careers. Yet they are staunchly supported by their universities, professional organizations, union – and groups like Greenpeace.

Meanwhile, climate disaster skeptics are vilified and harassed by these same groups, who pretend they are fighting to “let scientists conduct research without the threat of politically motivated attacks.” Far worse, we taxpayers are paying the tab for the junk science – and then getting stuck with regulations, soaring energy bills, lost jobs and reduced living standards … based on that bogus science.

Right now, the climate alarmists appear to be winning their war on honest science. But storm clouds are gathering, and a powerful counteroffensive is heading their way.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death.

Monday, July 28, 2014

GMO’s: Scare Mongering at Its Worst! Part II

By Rich Kozlovich

Mike Adams, who publishes Natural News and styles himself as the Health Ranger recently posted an article entitled, The Agricultural Holocaust explained: the 10 worst ways GMOs threaten humanity and our natural world on July 27, 2014.
He claims "genetically modified organisms (GMOs) a serious threat to humanity and the environment? The reasons span the realms of science, social justice, economics and the environment, and once you understand this, you'll readily understand why so many environmentalists, humanitarians, responsible scientists and social justice advocates are strongly opposed to GMOs", and lists ten reasons why?
This will be a ten part series. Here is Part I.
His second claim is - GMOs have never been safety tested for human consumption, and goes on to say;
Although GMO advocates ridiculously claim GMOs have been "proven safe in thousands of studies," what they don't tell you is that those were all short-term studies on animals, not humans.

In fact, GMOs have never been shown to be safe for long-term human consumption. What happens when a child eats GMOs for two decades? Does it substantially increase their risk of cancer, diabetes, kidney failure or future Alzheimer's? Nobody knows, exactly, because the tests haven't been done.

As often happens with other chemicals,
GMOs are simply let loose into the world with an attitude of "let's see what happens!"
Although I’ve largely addressed this in my previous post, I will add this. Nothing can be proven safe; it’s called proving a negative. Scientifically impossible! You can only prove what things do, not what they don’t do. It’s like demanding someone “prove” they’re “not” cheating on their spouse. Can’t be done! And these people know this, making it another lie of omission. Since these products have been used for decades, and there’s no indication that GMO’s cause anything, including “cancer, diabetes, kidney failure or future Alzheimer's” why does he say it? Because speculation is easy! He might just as well make the claim – “we don’t know if GMO’s causes AIDS!”
You can make any accusation and frame it in the form of a question and not have to prove anything one way or another. But the thought is planted in people’s minds there’s something nefarious about GMO’s, and the companies producing them. This has been the scare tactic activists have been using going back to Silent Spring and the mother of junk science, Rachel Carson.
Dr. Madeleine Pelner Cosman, Ph.D. notes that there are seven steps to this process and usually follow this pattern:
1.      Create a "scientific" study that predicts a public health disaster
2.      Release the study to the media, before scientists can review it
3.      Generate an intense emotional public reaction
4.      Develop a government-enforced solution
5.      Intimidate Congress into passing it into law
6.      Coerce manufacturers to stop making the product
7.      Bully users to replace it, or obliterate it

One more thing that needs to be addressed and that’s exactly what pesticide is he talking about? Since GMO Bt cotton is his theme later in his article, we need to see what the EPA thinks:

Bt products are found to be safe for use in the environment and with mammals. The EPA (environmental protection agency) has not found any human health hazards related to using Bt. In fact the EPA has found Bt safe enough that it has exempted Bt from food residue tolerances, groundwater restrictions, endangered species labeling and special review requirements. Bt is often used near lakes, rivers and dwellings, and has no known effect on wildlife such as mammals, birds, and fish.

Humans exposed orally to 1000 mg/day for 3-5 days of Bthave showed no ill effects. Many tests have been conducted on test animals using different types of exposures. The results of the tests showed that the use of Bt causes few if any negative effects. Bt does not persist in the digestive systems of mammals.

Bt is found to be an eye irritant on test rabbits. There is very slight irritation from inhalation in test animals which may be caused by the physical rather than the biological properties of the Bt formulation tested.

Bt has not been shown to have any chronic toxicity or any carcinogenic effects. There are also no indication that Bt causes reproductive effects or birth defects in mammals.

Bt breaks down readily in the environment. Because of this Bt poses no threat to groundwater. Bt also breaks down under the ultraviolet (UV) light of the sun.

We have to get past this outrageous scare mongering and realize they're big argument is that GMO's are "unnatural" because of how the genes are implanted. That's completely the wrong take. Our only concern should be what the genes are supposed to do, not how they got there. Part III will follow.

Renewable energies fail cost analysis... Duh!

Paul Taylor July 27, 2014

This column has for years warned of the insidious and needless costs to prosperity from governments’ quixotic “green” energy mandates. These myopic moves to replace conventional fossil and nuclear fuels with “renewable” energies, all in the partisan cause of cooling the planet, fail practical economic cost/benefit analyses.

For the first time since the climate crusaders began their apocalyptic claims about “global warming” (a.k.a. “climate change,” “extreme weather,” and lately “climate risk”) the widely- respected, The Economist, presents a rational and comprehensive economic cost/benefit analysis in comparing renewable energies vs. conventional fossil fuel and nuclear power production.

Massive government subsidies for renewable electric power energies are controversial costs because it should not be governments’ job to make wind and solar power profitable. Billions are spent globally to boost wind and solar industry in the hope that they will someday become cost- competitive with fossil fuels and nuclear power and reduce climate carbon emissions……To Read More….
 

Common Core: The Progressive View of History

Written on Tuesday, July 22, 2014 by Patrick O'Brien

Common Core. Say that today and you are very likely to get a negative response, which is completely justified. When Barack Obama was first elected President he promised to fundamentally transform the United States, and he could have only dreamed of this. But let’s get that clear distinction out of the way in the beginning, Common Core was not created by Barack Obama and it is not a Republican vs. Democrat issue, it’s an American values issue created by Progressives looking to change our nation and make money doing it. 
Common Core made its secret way in states across the country in 2010 when the federal government offered the stimulus package. If states wanted the money, they would need to accept these new federal education mandates. There were several states who refused to adopt Common Core, and several others who have not made full implementations, but have adopted something similar. However, we are now seeing several states reject the Common Core mandates and curriculum due to massive public outcry. Most parents, teachers and kids despise Common Core. The teachers despise having to change their lessons to fit a test or new curriculum, along with the new ways of testing teachers, students hate being taught differently than before, as courses such as math have only become more difficult, and parents hate not being able to help their kids when the kids can’t understand their homework. No one seems to be happy about this, except those responsible for it and the government……To Read More…..

Sunday, July 27, 2014

Border agents say violent MS-13 recruiting at Arizona facility for new Central American arrivals

Published July 27, 2014 FoxNews.com

MS-13 members are infiltrating a federal facility for Central American youths illegally entering the United States -- trying to cross the border with criminal pasts and recruiting others to join the notoriously violent, California-based gang, sources tell Fox News.  Shawn Moran, of the National Border Patrol Council, said the gang leaders are recruiting pre-teens, as they typically do, and following the lead of drug cartels also trying to fill their ranks from among the estimated 57,000 unaccompanied youths and others who have come to the U.S. from Central America in roughly the past nine months.

He said agents have witnessed the recruiting at the Border Patrol’s facility in Nogales, Ariz., and that gang members are using a Red Cross phone bank there to “recruit, enlist and pressure” others illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border.....To Read More.....

Federal judge rules DC ban on gun carry rights unconstitutional

By Emily Miller Published July 27, 2014FoxNews.com

A federal judge in the District of Columbia on Saturday overturned the city’s total ban on residents being allowing to carry firearms outside their home in a landmark decision for gun-rights activists.  Judge Frederick Scullin Jr. wrote in his ruling in Palmer v. District of Columbia that the right to bear arms extends outside the home, therefore gun-control laws in the nation’s capital are “unconstitutional.” Click here to read the decision.

“We won,” Alan Gura, the lead attorney for the Second Amendment Foundation, told Fox News in a phone interview. “I’m very pleased with the decision that the city can’t forbid the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right." Gura said he expects the District to appeal this decision but added, “We’ll be happy to keep the fight going.” The decision leaves no gray area in gun-carrying rights……To Read More….

GMO's: Scare Mongering at Its Worst! Part I

By Rich Kozlovich

Mike Adams, who publishes Natural News and styles himself as the Health Ranger recently posted an article entitled, The Agricultural Holocaust explained: the 10 worst ways GMOs threaten humanity and our natural world on July 27, 2014.

He claims "genetically modified organisms (GMOs) a serious threat to humanity and the environment? The reasons span the realms of science, social justice, economics and the environment, and once you understand this, you'll readily understand why so many environmentalists, humanitarians, responsible scientists and social justice advocates are strongly opposed to GMOs", and lists ten reasons why?

 He starts out with - Every grain of GM corn contains poison, and goes on to say;

GM corn is genetically engineered to develop a deadly pesticide in every grain of corn. When this corn is harvested and turned into Corn Flakes, corn tortillas, corn syrup or other corn-based foods, that same poison remains in the corn.

What is the effect of human children eating all the poisons grown in GM corn? Nobody knows for sure because the tests haven't been conducted on human consumption. That's why GMOs remain an untested experiment that exploits humans as guinea pigs.

First of all, this “deadly” pesticide isn’t deadly to anything except the targeted insect pests because it's the dose that makes the poison – basic chemical science! When they use this kind of language it’s a lie of omission, because presence doesn’t mean toxicity, and they know it. Furthermore it’s more likely that cooking will destroy what minute amounts exist in it anyway but even if it didn't just because some chemical is detectable it doesn’t mean it’s harmful.  We can test down for parts per quadrillion and even lower in some cases.  As a health issue those numbers are meaningless because the molecular load will be so small cells won’t react to it. 

As for "no tests being conducted on human beings", there’s a reason for that. We’re not allowed to test human beings, and these eco-activists know it, yet they continue to use this same lie of omission over and over again. In the real world everything - and I mean everything - gets its final testing when its released to the public, and GMO’s have been used for decades in this country without one iota of evidence of harm.

What they fail to tell you – making another lie of omission – are the benefits of GMO’s, including less total land needed to plant the needed food to feed a growing world population, less pesticide use (including herbicides) because they’re now more resistant to insect pests and weeds, and can even allow for planting in soil that has high levels of salt, expanding usable acreage numbers substantially. Since the plants are healthier because they're disease resistant, all of this allows for higher better quality yields.

Without modern agricultural tools, including GMO’s, according to Norman Borlaug 25 years ago, we would need all the land east of the Mississippi with the exclusion of three states to generate the same level of crop production they had then.  With the world's growing population how much more land would be needed.   Picture that as a worldwide dilemma. 

This will be a ten part series.

Ohio Sheriff Bills Mexico for Illegals in His Jail – FBI Warns Him Mexican Drugs Cartels Will Kill Him

Suzanne Hamner

Ohio Sheriff Richard Jones had a unique idea to help with the cost of illegal aliens, who had committed crimes, currently taking up space in his jail. He sent a letter to Mexican President Enrique Pena Nieto charging him for the cost of each illegal alien housed in his jail. In response to Jones' letter, the federal government sent him a letter stating he had violated "a treaty of like, 1790."  In an appearance on BlazeTV's "Dana," the Butler County Sheriff told Dana Loesch the details.

"I sent him a bill for the prisoners that are in my jail. They came here illegally. I've not gotten any money from them, but I billed them so much. And, I'll tell you what I got in return, my life was threatened."

Jones said he got a call from the FBI saying there were three sheriffs in the country that were going to be killed by the drug cartels, and he was one of the three.

"We've had horrendous crimes here in this community. We had a senior citizen, an elderly lady, molested by a teenager that came over from Mexico. We had another one molested – an eight year old girl…...For his efforts, Jones has been rewarded with a letter informing him of a 1790 treaty violation [which], is in regard to the Creek Indian Nation…the FBI provided Jones with what could be termed a courtesy call to let him know the drug cartels were going to kill him……Something just doesn't quite add up here……..To Read More……

The Federal Government is not Working For Us, But Against Us

Richard Anthony

For the last six years, our governmental policies have turned against the people they are supposed to serve. Since Obama became president, "we the people" are getting hosed big time. Countless new regulations that were sold as a quick fix to all our woes, are instead a costly labyrinth of bureaucratic red tape. Instead of being less expensive, they are so overpriced that they really aren't worth what we are being forced to pay; not forgetting that thousands and thousands of new government personnel that have been hired, but the money that some of these agencies is wasting is really criminal. Our government is actually growing at a faster rate than our beleaguered economy can sustain. And really, what benefits are American citizens really getting, besides a more costly infrastructure that continuously feeds on the American taxpayer?……To Read More……

Michele Bachmann On Right Side Of History As She Introduces Anti-Muslim Brotherhood Bill

Walid Shoebat

U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann and seven other congressmen have formally introduced a bill that would designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) and impose sanctions on its supporters in the U.S. Though the chances of the bill passing with a Democrat majority in the Senate and Barack Obama as President are next to zero, it will force members in each House of Congress to pick a side on a matter of tremendous historical significance.  The willingness of House Leadership (hello Speaker John Boehner) to bring the “Muslim Brotherhood Terrorist Designation Act of 2014″ to the floor will also reveal leadership’s position on the matter.
 
Bachmann knows what it’s like to be on the right side of history by putting her Republican colleagues and other prominent figures on the wrong side of it. She did just that in 2012 after she and four other Congressmen sent five letters to five separate Inspectors General about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration. Not only did more of her Republican colleagues rebuke her than side with her (8 to 1) but the silence from those who did neither, was deafening.

As
Shoebat.com reported, not only was the 90-day response deadline in each letter ignored but on the 90th day, the Benghazi attacks occurred.....To Read More.....

Orchestra Walks Out as Muslim Launches into Islamic Proselytizing from Stage

Tim Brown

Queen Beatrix of Holland attended an Orchestral Concert at the Concertgebouw in Amsterdam. A Muslim, who was not on the program to speak, proceeds to give the Queen and the audience a lecture on the "beauty" of Islam. As he continues, trying to mix Jesus Christ with other religions, the members of his orchestra apparently had enough and grabbed their instruments and walked out…….. Following the Queen's being seated, along with her party, the Muslim launches into da'wah (Muslim proselytizing)…….Following the Muslim's speech, some in the building applauded. Consider the reaction difference to the of a brave German woman when an Imam went into a Christian Church and opened with an Islamic prayer. She shouted him down, "Don't be fooled! This is a Lie!" while waving a flag with "Jesus Christ is Lord" on it…….Mohamed was a man of death and destruction, and idolator, a pedophile and a thief. He was a terrorist. Of that, there can be no doubt…….This is what Islam is doing today in America. They operate under the guise that Islam is equal to Christianity or all other religion…..The Dutch have basically lost to the invasion of Islamists. The rest of Europe isn't far behind. France, at least took a stand this week in banning Palestinian terrorist protests, but the result was that the lawless Islamists just protested anyway, destroying property in their wake……..To Read More…..


German Woman Publicly Rebukes Islam – "Don't be fooled! This is a Lie!"

Welsh composer Karl Jenkins' "The Armed Man: A Mass for Peace" was to be an interfaith event to bring Christianity and Islam together (something that just makes me shake my head). However, in the midst of the Muslim imam beginning his call to prayer during the concert, a small brave German woman named Heidi Mund interrupted him and declared, "Jesus Christ alone is Lord of Germany," and shouted, "I break this curse."....To Read More.....
 
My Take - I always find these "inter-faith" programs strange.   If you join some organization it's because you believe in what that organization promotes and stands for. Right? Did I miss something? Do I understand that correctly? At least that's the way I view reality.

However, when one joins a religious organization it’s because one believes in what it promotes and stands for – or perhaps it was the religion of one’s birth and family – however, religious affiliations go way beyond logic and encompasses something called - faith! Right? Did I miss something? Do I understand that correctly? At least that’s how I view reality.

I find it strange when two supposedly Christian organizations try to embrace ecumenicalism because they all wish to maintain the beliefs that separated them in the first place.  I find that strange!  But when Christians claim they wish to find a common ground with a religion that’s alien in every respect, I find that to be way beyond strange.  I find that borders on insanity!

The goal of ecumenicalism is for the world’s religions to adopt universal  principles and practices, and  promote cooperation and unity among religious groups, and although this started as a Christian effort, it has expanded to promoting unity among other religions, including Islam.

The writer says; “This concert “was to be an interfaith event to bring Christianity and Islam together (something that just makes me shake my head).”  At least the writer gets it!  Islam and Christianity are totally and completely incompatible - and that should be obvious to the most casual student of history. 

So that leads to the most obvious question.  What do these people really believe?  It’s clear they don’t really believe in their own church or they wouldn’t be so gullible.  What do the religious leaders of these churches believe?  You would think they must know what the Koran has to say about “infidels”, but since they’re stunningly ignorant of what the Bible says, why would we believe they know what the Koran says?   And what does the Koran tell  Muslims do to “infidels”.  They kill them!  Just exactly how do they think this fits in with a movement to “adopt universal principles and practices, and promote cooperation and unity among religious groups”?  It’s clear the Muslims won’t change, and in point of fact, cannot change and still be Muslims.

As for the political leaders like the Queen of Holland, who along with the audience, quietly remained seated at a concert while a Muslim imposed his views on them  because there appeared to be no physical threat - what about getting up and leaving to take a stand for what one believes?  Maybe that’s the key.  They believe in nothing, as a result they'll believe in anything and can be washed back and forth like waves crashing against the rocks. 

When a society despises itself more than the enemies who are seeking to destroy it that society is doomed.   


 

Saturday, July 26, 2014

Lawsuit Seeks Damages From EPA, ‘A Toxic Waste Dump of Lawlessness’

By Susan Jones July 25, 2014

A conservative legal group is asking a federal judge to punish the Environmental Protection Agency for destroying or failing to preserve emails and text messages requested in August 2012 under the Freedom of Information Act.  The Landmark Legal Foundation believes the requested -- but never delivered -- messages to outside groups would have revealed EPA attempts to influence the 2012 presidential election.

"The EPA is a toxic waste dump for lawlessness and disdain for the Constitution,” said Landmark Legal President Mark Levin.  His legal group wants the federal court to fine the EPA “in an amount sufficient to deter future wrongdoing.” .........In 2003, the Agency was held in contempt by a federal judge for destroying email backup tapes in a similar suit over “midnight” regulations hurried into law in the final days of the Clinton Administration. In that case, the EPA was fined nearly $300,000.

"The EPA has to learn that you can’t save the planet by destroying the rule of law,” Levin said. “It also must understand that some of our most precious resources are the principles of limited government and official accountability enumerated in the Constitution. If we don’t protect those, saving the snail darter or the spotted owl won’t mean a thing.”.....To Read More....
My Take - Fining the EPA tons of money will not deter their lawlessness, no matter how high it goes. A huge fine may generate a day's worth on commentary on Fox, but the rest of the media will do as little as they can to publicize it, including ignoring it. If you want EPA officials to change their behavior we have to subscribe to the same mentality they poses. There’s nothing like a good civil penalty to assure compliance.  While those penalties are being assessed against the EPA, it’s the American public that’s paying those fines. 
 
If we really want compliance we must realize these laws are being broken by people – not some ethereal agency, but out of control bureaucrats – and since they’re clearly acting outside their legislative authority.  They’re acting on their own – illegally!  If their actions are illegal – and they clearly are – they must be fined personally, and that should be done as a part of a criminal action.  After all, they've broken the law and cost unknown millions to companies and the American people.  After that, those who suffered at their hands should go after them in civil actions.    That would be a good first step, followed by abolishing this agency outright by following my friend Dr. Jay Lehr’s suggestions, as outlined in Alan Caruba’s article A Great Plan to Replace the EPA.