Archive for the ‘News’ Category

Guns in School? : Front Sight Newsletter

August 12, 2009

Front Sight was the very first thing that I put on my sidebar. Read this from the newsletter, and you will understand why.

Packing for school: Guns on campus one year later

Ann Work Times Record News
Thursday, August 6, 2009
David ThweattWICHITA FALLS — One year ago, David Thweatt made a decision so controversial and groundbreaking the story about it sped around the world.The superintendent of the isolated Harrold Independent School District, about 30 miles northwest of here, made history last August when he and his school board decided to allow select teachers and staff members at the 110-student school to carry guns on campus — a first for Texas and the nation.

For Thweatt and his board, the decision was pure mathematics.

The school, which sits in the middle of a prairie, was too far from law enforcement for police to come in time to fend off would-be attackers. The students and staff would be safer if on-site, trained staff members were equipped to handle a crisis at a moment’s notice, they decided.

Thweatt had already installed a $100,000 state-of-the-art security system in the school. Now, arming certain unnamed school staff members by allowing them to strap a firearm under their clothing was the final flourish.

In the year since that historic decision, a gun was never brandished or fired at the school. There were no problems, Thweatt said.

However, one week after school began, police busted a methamphetamine lab set up in an abandoned house that sat 50 feet from the school property.

A deputy had peered inside and “saw something in the walls and windows and called for backup,” Thweatt said. “They made it to the abandoned house in 15 minutes. We had figured it would take 18 to 20 minutes in a typical situation.”

Had that been an armed intruder at his school, response time would have been too slow.

“We’re the first responders. We have to be,” Thweatt said. “We don’t have 5 minutes. We don’t have 10 minutes. We would have had 20 minutes of hell” if attackers had targeted the school.

Harrold students, who grew up on ranches and in the middle of the North Texas gun culture, were unperturbed by the school district’s new gun policy.

“The kids just laughed about it,” Thweatt said.

Thweatt himself is the son of a retired minister/missionary/teacher in Abilene and a 1978 graduate of Abilene High School and Hardin-Simmons University.

Too small for athletics, Thweatt spent his time at Abilene High focused on his studies, particularly interested in journalism.

He wrote music and played guitar in a Christian band on weekends and was active in his father’s nondenominational Abilene Fellowship ministry.

Thweatt drove a school bus for the Abilene ISD and occasionally worked as a substitute teacher to help fund his education, graduating in 1983.

In Harrold, media attention was fierce all year. He talked to reporters from as far away as Ireland and New Zealand; he participated on more than a dozen talk shows. The story continues to spread; recently he saw a write-up in a Jerusalem newspaper. Only Finland and Switzerland reporters ignored the story; they already have high gun ownership rates, he said.

“I had a lot of interviews from kids and college kids,” he said. “They needed to learn. I’m an educator,” said Thweatt, who is opinionated but patient in interviews.

“Would you stick a sign at a school that says, ‘No guns on this property’? Why wouldn’t you? It invites nasty people to come,” he said. “That’s what you’ve done to every public school in the nation. That’s why there were no shootings until Columbine. It’s turned into a dad-gum shoot fest.”

Thweatt took calls from “just a handful” of Texas districts considering the same policy, but he wouldn’t say if any other districts had modeled Harrold’s M.O.

According to Barbara Williams with the Texas Association of School Boards, Harrold remains the only Texas school district with a guns-on-campus policy.

“We’re not aware of any others,” she said.

However, when Harrold made its groundbreaking decision one year ago, she watched the story go as far as Malaysia. She was even called by the Dr. Phil show, who asked her to help plan a show on the topic because they were so fascinated by it. She refused.

To her, it was so obvious as to be a non-issue. Dr. Phil, who claims to be a Texan, should know that, she said.

“This is Texas. I have a magnet on my refrigerator of the state with a plastic gun glued to it that says, ‘We don’t call 9-1-1.’ We find that funny in Texas,” she said.

When a London reporter asked Thweatt to explain why so many kooks go into schools looking for a body count, Thweatt said he couldn’t explain such a devolution of society, but he did know a simple way to stop it — the same solution he chose for Harrold ISD.

“Good guys with guns — good,” he said. “Bad guys with guns — bad.”

This is a story you won’t see in the main stream media so please forward this blog to everyone you know so it spreads across the Internet like wild fire as an example of the right solution for law abiding citizens who want to protect themselves, their communities, schools and families.

To show my personal thanks and respect for Superintendent David Thweatt’s outstanding actions, I have placed a Front Sight Legacy Lifetime Membership in his name and look forward to seeing him at Front Sight in the future.

I will be posting a different article on this blog each Monday so I look forward to your visit every week.

If you have an interesting photo, story or tip about a relevant topic of interest to gun ownership, firearms training or Second Amendment issues, please feel free to send it to me at:

info@frontsight.com or

Ignatius@frontsight.com

If you want to take advantage of the Greatest Course, Gun, and CCW Permit Offer in the firearms training industry see this link:

https://www.frontsight.com/free-gun.asp

See you next week.

Dr. Ignatius Piazza
Founder and Director
Front Sight Firearms Training Institute

//

Bookmark and Share

Entry Filed under: Front Sight, Handgun Training, Monday Blog Posts, Self Defense, second amendment

Insight from the ObamaCare bill

August 12, 2009

I’m flat out stealing this from my good friend and fellow blogger Texas Fred. It’s only a comment, but rates being a stand alone post!

  1. Insight from the ObamaCare bill.

    • Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!
    • Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!
    • Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)
    • Page 42: The “Health Choices Commissioner” will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.
    • Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.
    • Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard.
    • Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
    • Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)
    • Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange.
    • Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)
    • Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens
    • Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.
    • Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter.
    • Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No “judicial review” is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed.
    • Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages thereby reducing competition and quality of providers.
    • Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives.
    • Page 126: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families.
    • Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll
    • Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll
    • Page 167: Any individual who doesnt’ have acceptable healthcare (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income.
    • Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them).
    • Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records.
    • Page 203: “The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax.” Yes, it really says that.
    • Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected.”
    • Page 241: Doctors: no matter what speciality you have, you’ll all be paid the same.
    • Page 253: Government sets value of doctors’ time, their professional judgment, etc.
    • Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private healthcare industries.
    • Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs. • Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of rationing!
    • Page 280: Hospitals will be penalized for what the government deems preventable re-admissions.
    • Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission that results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government.
    • Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited for owning and investing in healthcare companies!
    • Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand without government approval.
    • Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on “community” input.
    • Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures: i.e., rationing.
    • Page 341: Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc.
    • Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals.
    • Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee (healthcare by phone).
    • Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia?
    • Page 425: Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate taxes ahead of time.
    • Page 425: Goverment provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death.
    • Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends.
    • Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patients health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT.
    • Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life.
    • Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for ACORN.
    • Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs for ACORN.
    • Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy. Government intervenes in your marriage.
    • Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining, creating and rationing those services.

    And the bastards in the Senate can’t understand why Americans are pissed off?

HR 450: This is a MUST pass!

August 11, 2009

From Down size D.C.

Quote of the Day: “The law will never make men free; it is men who have got to make the law free.” — Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862) Source: Slavery in Massachusetts (1854)

Subject: Good news on the Enumerated Powers Act

The Enumerated Powers Act (HR 450) would require Congress to identify the Constitutional authority for each law it passes. We think this requirement is an important step on the long road to restoring Constitutional limits and the Bill of Rights.

When we last reported to you the bill had 32 co-sponsors in the House. Now it has 48.

Better yet, there’s now a companion bill in the Senate (S. 1319), and it already has 21 co-sponsors!

We think DC Downsizers have played a big role in making this happen. You have constantly asked for new co-sponsors on this legislation, and the number of co-sponsors has constantly grown. Let’s keep pushing.

First, check the lists below to see if one or more members of your Congressional delegation is already co-sponsoring this legislation. Then, use our Educate the Powerful System (sm) to write a letter to your delegation, thanking or requesting participation, as the case may be.

Here’s the list of House co-sponsors of HR 450 . . .

Bachmann, Michele [MN-6] — Barrett, J. Gresham [SC-3] — Bilbray, Brian P. [CA-50] — Bilirakis, Gus M. [FL-9] — Bishop, Rob [UT-1] — Blackburn, Marsha [TN-7] — Rep Boozman, John [AR-3] — Broun, Paul C. [GA-10] — Conaway, K. Michael [TX-11] — Culberson, John Abney [TX-7] — Davis, Geoff [KY-4] — Deal, Nathan [GA-9] — Flake, Jeff [AZ-6] — Forbes, J. Randy [VA-4] — Foxx, Virginia [NC-5] — Franks, Trent [AZ-2] — Garrett, Scott [NJ-5] — Gohmert, Louie [TX-1] — Goodlatte, Bob [VA-6] — Heller, Dean [NV-2] — Herger, Wally [CA-2] — Hoekstra, Peter [MI-2] — Hunter, Duncan D. [CA-52] — Johnson, Sam [TX-3] — Kline, John [MN-2] — Lamborn, Doug [CO-5] — Mack, Connie [FL-14] — McCaul, Michael T. [TX-10] — McCotter, Thaddeus G. [MI-11] — McHenry, Patrick T. [NC-10] — Miller, Jeff [FL-1] — Moran, Jerry [KS-1] — Myrick, Sue Wilkins [NC-9] — Neugebauer, Randy [TX-19] — Olson, Pete [TX-22] — Paul, Ron [TX-14] — Poe, Ted [TX-2] — Posey, Bil l [FL-15] — Price, Tom [GA-6] — Roe, David P. [TN-1] — Ryan, Paul [WI-1] — Sessions, Pete [TX-32] — Smith, Lamar [TX-21] — Terry, Lee [NE-2] — Thompson, Glenn [PA-5] — Wamp, Zach [TN-3] — Westmoreland, Lynn A. [GA-3] — Wittman, Robert J. [VA-1]

Here’s the list of Senate co-sponsors for S. 1319 . . .

Barrasso, John — Brownback, Sam — Bunning, Jim — Burr, Richard — Chambliss, Saxby — Crapo, Mike 15976 — DeMint, Jim — Ensign, John — Enzi, Michael B. — Graham, Lindsey — Grassley, Chuck — Hutchison, Kay Bailey — Inhofe, James M. — Isakson, Johnny — Kyl, Jon — McCain, John — McConnell, Mitch — Risch, James E. 15976 — Thune, John — Vitter, David — Wicker, Roger F.

Use DownsizeDC.org’s campagin for the Enumerated Powers Act to send your letter to Congress.

My two Senators are already co-sponsors, but my House Representative is not, so here’s what I said in my personal comments:

“I applaud my Senators, McCain and Kyl, for co-sponsoring this bill, and urge my Representative, Ms. Giffords, to join them by co-sponsoring the House version, HR 450. I view support for this bill as evidence that you want to walk-the-talk of your oath to serve, protect, and defend the Constitution.”

You can send your letter to Congress here.

To stay on pace to exceed the 50,802 messages Downsizers sent to Congress last month we must send 2,620 messages today.

Thank you for being a part of the growing Downsize DC Army. To see the latest members of the Read the Bills Act Coalition, and see exactly how fast your army is growing, please check out the Keeping Score report below my signature.

Perry Willis
Communications Director
DownsizeDC.org, Inc.

KEEPING SCORE REPORT

New Read the Bills Act Coalition members: Resident Bush, Reality’s Bitch, Strike The Root!Craig W. Wright

If you’re a blog or talk show and want to join the coalition, visit DownsizeDC.org.

We grew by 17 net new members yesterday. This brings us to 3,440 net new members for the year. The Downsize DC Army now stands at 27,789 — nearly 79% of the way between 27,000 and 28,000!

YOU can make the army grow even faster by following our quick and easy instructions for personalized recruiting.

More on healthcare…

August 11, 2009

Jon Caldara (see sidebar) gets this healthcare debate going in the correct direction, as The Independence Institute always does. Enjoy!

More on obamacare

August 11, 2009

“What has been most unsettling is not the congressmen’s surprise [at the passions of the protesters] but a hard new tone that emerged this week. The leftosphere and the liberal commentariat charged that the town hall meetings weren’t authentic, the crowds were ginned up by insurance companies, lobbyists and the Republican National Committee. But you can’t get people to leave their homes and go to a meeting with a congressman (of all people) unless they are engaged to the point of passion. And what tends to agitate people most is the idea of loss — loss of money hard earned, loss of autonomy, loss of the few things that work in a great sweeping away of those that don’t. People are not automatons. They show up only if they care. What the town-hall meetings represent is a feeling of rebellion, an uprising against change they do not believe in. And the Democratic response has been stunningly crude and aggressive. It has been to attack. Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the United States House of Representatives, accused the people at the meetings of ‘carrying swastikas and symbols like that.’ (Apparently one protester held a hand-lettered sign with a ‘no’ slash over a swastika.) But they are not Nazis, they’re Americans. Some of them looked like they’d actually spent some time fighting Nazis. Then came the Democratic Party charge that the people at the meetings were suspiciously well-dressed, in jackets and ties from Brooks Brothers. They must be Republican rent-a-mobs. Sen. Barbara Boxer said on MSNBC’s ‘Hardball’ that people are ‘storming these town hall meetings,’ that they were ‘well dressed’, that ‘this is all organized,’ ‘all planned,’ to ‘hurt our president.’ Here she was projecting. For normal people, it’s not all about Barack Obama.” –columnist Peggy Noonan

“So what has the White House told supporters to do when you run across those who spread ‘disinformation’ about the new attempt by the Obama administration to install the anti-competitive practices of a ‘public option’ into a federalized universal health care initiative? Report them. … Pardon me for asking such an obvious question, but what concern is it to the President or his administration if private citizens have disagreements, discussions, and dissections of his proposed take over of the health care industry? Last I checked I had the constitutional right to do so. But now he wishes to turn one citizen against another? … The mistake this White House continues to make, seemingly on a daily basis, is that they reveal very much what they truly think of freedoms of the American political process.” –radio talk-show host Kevin McCullough

“For years, Democratic politicians said the health-care problem was about ’47 million uninsured Americans.’ Whatever the merits, many people were willing to do something for those with no health insurance. Suddenly, these voters discovered that ObamaCare is about them. When did that happen? Every policy wonk in America may have known this was always an everybody-into-the-pool proposal, and Mr. Obama has talked himself blue saying people could stay with the insurance they’ve got or the doctor they’ve got, ‘if you’re happy with that’ and don’t like the public option. A lot of people simply don’t believe this. How come? White House adviser David Axelrod said this week, ‘Our job is to help folks understand how this will help them.’ It could be they’ve already thought about that. For many people, the first six Obama months already have been an unsettling Dantesque tour through levels of government ‘help’ they never knew existed. Normally government activity flows by like unnoticed sludge, but Obama’s celebrity got everyone watching. What people have seen is: an $800 billion stimulus package designed by Congress, a $4 trillion budget, massive outlays by an alphabet soup of Treasury and Federal Reserve programs, Barney Frank the symbol of Democratic goals, and then the federal absorption of GM, an American icon. After all this, ObamaCare looks like a bridge too far. They are proposing the biggest federal social program in a generation, which no one can understand (or explain), and which requires permanent federal tax increases starting with the wealthiest but threatening to engulf the middle class. The harder the White House and Democrats push this idea, the worse it could get for them. Americans may have arrived at the limit of how much government they want or will pay for. If Barack Obama can’t sell more of it, no one can.” –columnist Daniel Henninger

“Any serious discussion of government-run medical care would have to look at other countries where there is government-run medical care. As someone who has done some research on this for my book ‘Applied Economics,’ I can tell you that the actual consequences of government-controlled medical care is not a pretty picture, however inspiring the rhetoric that accompanies it. Thirty thousand Canadians are passing up free medical care at home to go to some other country where they have to pay for it. People don’t do that without a reason. But Canadians are better off than people in some other countries with government-controlled medical care, because they have the United States right next door, in case their medical problems get too serious to rely on their own system. But where are Americans to turn if we become like Canada? Where are we to go when we need better medical treatment than Washington bureaucrats will let us have? Mexico? The Caribbean?” –Hoover Institution economist Thomas Sowell

SOURCE

The right-wing extremist Republican base is back!

August 11, 2009

“‘The right-wing extremist Republican base is back!’ warns the Democratic National Committee. These right-wing extremists have been given their marching orders by their masters: They’ve been directed to show up at ‘thousands of events,’ told to ‘organize,’ ‘knock on doors’ … No, wait. My mistake. That’s the e-mail I got from Mitch Stewart, Director of ‘Organizing for America’ at BarackObama.com. But that’s the good kind of ‘organizing.’ Obama’s a community organizer. We’re the community. He organizes us. What part of that don’t you get? When the community starts organizing against the organizer, the whole rigmarole goes to hell. … Decrying the snarling, angry protesters, liberal talk-show host Bill Press … says that ‘Americans want serious discussion’ on health care. If only we’d stuck to the President’s August timetable and passed a gazillion-page health care reform entirely unread by the House of Representatives or the Senate (the world’s greatest deliberative body) in nothing flat, we’d now have all the time in the world to sit around having a ‘serious discussion’ and ‘real debate’ on whatever it was we just did to one-sixth of the economy. But a sick, deranged, un-American mob has put an end to all that moderate and reasonable steamrollering by showing up and yelling insane, out-of-control questions like, ‘Awfully sorry to bother you, your Most Excellent Senatorial Eminence, but I was wondering if you could tell me why you don’t read any of the laws you make before you make them into law?’ The community is restless. The firm hand of greater organization is needed.” –columnist Mark Steyn

‘White House Affirms Deal on Drug Cost’

August 11, 2009

The more things change, the more they stay the same…

“The New York Times had an amazing front page story [Thursday] which I would have thought would have jumped to the top of every cable news cycle except for the Senate’s confirmation of Justice Sonia Sotomayor. The headline of the story was: ‘White House Affirms Deal on Drug Cost’ by David Kirkpatrick. I want you to read the lead paragraph very slowly: ‘Pressed by industry lobbyists, White House officials on Wednesday assured drug makers that the administration stood by a behind-the-scenes deal to block any Congressional effort to extract cost savings from them beyond an agreed-upon $80 billion.’ Whoa! Check Please! How can the words ‘industry lobbyists’ and ‘White House’ be in the same sentence? We have been told — to the point of needing Compazine (an anti-nausea drug) — that this administration was, is, and will always be a lobbyist-free zone. Yet, here it is; in the newspaper of record. The White House had reached a secret deal with the pharmaceutical industry to put a ceiling on the amount of money the government could save by negotiating for lower drug prices. In the words of the NY Times, the White House ‘had committed to protect drug makers from bearing further costs in the [health care] overhaul’ but ‘had never spelled out the details of the agreement.’ Oh, here we are in graf seven: ‘The new attention to the agreement could prove embarrassing to the White House, which has sought to keep lobbyists at a distance, including by refusing to hire them to work in the administration.’ Embarrassing? Ya think…? It turns out that there is a quid pro quo for keeping the drug companies out of the rough and tumble world of free markets. Again, from Mr. Kirkpatrick’s piece: ‘Failing to publicly confirm [the drug lobby’s] descriptions of the deal risked alienating a powerful industry ally currently helping to bankroll millions in television commercials in favor of Mr. Obama’s reforms. [emphasis mine] So… let me walk through this. In strange world in which Obamaville is located, lobbyists are bad only if and until the White House needs them to do things like run ads in favor of nationalized health care and then lobbyists are good. So, what if the previously dreadful, greedy, self-serving oil companies sent their lobbyists in to cut a deal with Obama to support a cap-and-trade bill though heavy advertising? Might they trade for removing any caps on their profits? I think I’m beginning to get how this works. It works like … Chicago!” –political analyst Rich Galen

Wet Dreams and Hopolophobes: No cure in sight!

August 10, 2009

The hopolophobes in my home state are sad. At least it surely appears that way. They thought that they had a dead sure thing in their never ending quest to stifle liberty and freedom. Never mind that this will do nothing at all to deter the gangsters, rapist, and other assorted criminal ilk that roam among them.

It could though, make the Police unable to stay up to date on the weaponry that gives the good guys any edge at all. One major manufacturer has already refused to honor warranty’s to any California Agency because of the draconian laws the state has passed. Not to mention what is sometimes the back bone that is the first responder when there is that hated airing over the radio “Officer down.” The common citizen…

Having been a “Tactical Paramedic” the one thing I never wanted was to have to use my weapon. The only thing that could have been worse would be having to use it, and the damned thing refusing to go BANG!

I’ve been in no less than five shit or get off the pot situations in non-military situations, and I can assure anyone on earth or in heaven that I want my weapons safe and reliable as they possibly can be.

As I read the blogs and the MSM  I see, as clear as day, that distraction is in place. Health care is a decoy friends… These big government people really want to shut down your Second Amendment UNALIENABLE RIGHTS so that they can do the same to your FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS!

Read about the California model for the destruction of Liberty

HERE

States Rights: 10th Amendment Primer

August 10, 2009

Not since the rebellion in America was quashed in 1865 with the surrender of Robert E. Lee to Ulysses S. Grant has so much attention been paid to state sovereignty as is being paid today.

More than 35 states have passed or are considering state sovereignty amendments, according to the Tenth Amendment Center. Just before leaving office, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin signed a bill declaring that state’s sovereignty, joining Tennessee Gov. Phil Bresdesen in that regard.

States are finally becoming fed up with the increasingly dangerous non-Constitutional overreach of the Federal Government, and State Legislatures are working to stop it.

Unfortunately, many of today’s voting-age Americans have never even read the U.S. Constitution. Apparently, most civics classes in public schools today dwell on other things. So far too many people have no clue how far their government has overreached and taken away their liberty.

But here’s the truth: the Constitution gives the three branches of government certain enumerated powers. Those not enumerated are reserved to the states, and to the people.

The 10th Amendment describes it: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, or prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Yet despite that, since the Southern states were prohibited from removing themselves from an alliance that no longer worked in their favor—an alliance they entered into voluntarily—the U.S. government has grown increasingly more powerful. It could do so because the last remaining restraints on its power—the option that states had to leave the union—had been eliminated.

Here’s what has transpired since: During reconstruction the Republican Party centralized government, subsidized railroads, raised taxes on Southern property and businesses—then confiscated the property when taxes couldn’t be paid—and established an education system that taught a revisionist history of the run-up to and causes of the war (and the government-run education system continues this today). Congress also continued the first income tax—an unconstitutional act—that had been implemented by Pres. Abraham Lincoln.

In 1917 Congress established the Federal Reserve, a non-Constitutional entity with the power to control the U.S. money supply. In the 1930s, in response to The Great Depression, President Franklin Roosevelt pushed through New Deal provisions that further empowered the Federal Government while enriching certain constituencies. And now, in response to the global financial crisis, first President George W. Bush then President Barack Obama pushed through extra-constitutional spending bills. Obama then compounded the problems by nationalizing the financial and automobile markets; an action, again, that benefitted certain constituencies.

And now the Federal Government is proposing an even further overreach by attempting to enact legislation to cap carbon dioxide emissions and tax energy companies that exceed arbitrarily set limits of the element, and to restrict your access to adequate healthcare.

It seems from the mood of many in our country we may have reached a tipping point as a result of these latest actions. Radio talk shows are alive with voices proposing—demanding even—that America return to the Constitutional roots. Protests denouncing the growing government are increasing in frequency and support.

Unfortunately, many in America still don’t understand what all the hubbub is about. So, to help them understand, here are 10 talking points from the Tenth Amendment Center:

  1. The People created the federal government to be their agent for certain enumerated purposes only. The Constitutional ratifying structure was created so it would be clear that it was the People, and not the States, that were doing the ratifying.
  2. The Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that which has been delegated by the people to the Federal Government, and also that which is absolutely necessary to advancing those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution of the United States. The rest is to be handled by the State Governments, or locally, by the people themselves.
  3. The Constitution does not include a congressional power to override state laws. It does not give the judicial branch unlimited jurisdiction over all matters. It does not provide Congress with the power to legislate over everything. This is verified by the simple fact that attempts to make these principles part of the Constitution were soundly rejected by its signers.
  4. If the Congress had been intended to carry out anything they claim would promote the “general welfare,” what would be the point of listing its specific powers in Article I, Section 8, since these would’ve already been covered?
  5. James Madison, during the Constitutional ratification process, drafted the “Virginia Plan” to give Congress general legislative authority and to empower the national judiciary to hear any case that might cause friction among the states, to give the congress a veto over state laws, to empower the national government to use the military against the states, and to eliminate the states’ accustomed role in selecting members of Congress. Each one of these proposals was soundly defeated. In fact, Madison made many more attempts to authorize a national veto over state laws, and these were repeatedly defeated as well.
  6. The Tenth Amendment was adopted after the Constitutional ratification process to emphasize the fact that the states remained individual and unique sovereignties; that they were empowered in areas that the Constitution did not delegate to the Federal Government. With this in mind, any Federal attempt to legislate beyond the Constitutional limits of Congress’ authority is a(n) usurpation of state sovereignty—and unconstitutional.
  7. Tragically, the Tenth Amendment has become almost a nullity at this point in our history, but there are a great many reasons to bring it to the forefront. Most importantly, though, we must keep in mind that the Founders envisioned a loose confederation of states—not a one-size-fits-all solution for everything that could arise. Why? The simple answer lies in the fact that they had just escaped the tyranny of a king who thought he knew best how to govern everything—including local colonies from across an ocean.
  8. Governments and political leaders are best held accountable to the will of the people when government is local. Second, the people of a state know what is best for them; they do not need bureaucrats, potentially thousands of miles away, governing their lives. Think about it. If Hitler had ruled just Berlin and Stalin had ruled just Moscow, the whole world might be a different place today.
  9. A constitution which does not provide strict limits is just the thing any government would be thrilled to have, for, as Lord Acton once said, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
  10. We agree with historian Kevin Gutzman, who has said that those who would give us a “living” Constitution are actually giving us a dead one, since such a thing is completely unable to protect us against the encroachments of government power.

If you want to first halt then reverse the tide of government overreach, pass these points around to your friends and send them to your state and U.S. representatives.

SOURCE

Global Warming Redux number: I forget!

August 10, 2009

I received this email from a friend that works at NOAA. I hope the graphs and such come through.

Subject: FUN FACTS about CARBON DIOXIDE

  FUN 
  FACTS about 
  CARBON DIOXIDE
   Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's 
  atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human 
  activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's 
  oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying 
  land plants.
   At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of 
  earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths 
  of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's 
  current atmosphere is CO2- 
  impoverished.
   CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants 
  absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe 
  oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a 
  pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it. 
  All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When 
  plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon 
  dioxide.
   CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there 
  but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the 
  great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.

   If we are in a global 
  warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for 
  limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have a negligible effect on 
  global climate!

The case for a "greenhouse problem" 
is made by environmentalists, news anchormen , and special interests who make 
inaccurate and misleading statements about global warming and climate change. 
Even though people may be skeptical of such rhetoric initially, after awhile 
people start believing it must be true because we hear it so often.

"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, 
dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of 
us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being 
honest."

Stephen Schneider (leading advocate of the global warming 
theory)(in interview for Discover magazine, Oct 
1989)

"In the United States...we have to first convince the 
American People and the Congress that the climate problem is real."

former 
President Bill Clinton in a 1997 address to the United Nations

Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think 
there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to 
have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global 
warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the 
solutions are...

former Vice President Al Gore(now, chairman and 
co-founder of Generation Investment Management--a 
London-based business that sells carbon credits)(in interview with 
Grist Magazine 
May 9, 2006, concerning his book, An 
Inconvenient Truth)

"In the long run, the replacement of the precise and disciplined 
language of science by the misleading language of litigation and advocacy may be 
one of the more important sources of damage to society incurred in the current 
debate over global warming."

Dr. Richard S. 
Lindzen(leading climate and atmospheric science expert- 
MIT) (3)

 "Researchers pound the global-warming drum because 
they know there is politics and, therefore, money behind it. . . I've been 
critical of global warming and am persona non grata."

Dr. William Gray(Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, Fort 
Collins, Colorado and leading expert of hurricane prediction )(in 
an interview for the Denver Rocky Mountain News, November 28, 
1999)

"Scientists who want to attract attention to 
themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) 
way to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things 
bigger and more dangerous than they really are."

Petr Chylek(Professor of Physics and Atmospheric 
Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia)Commenting on 
reports by other researchers that Greenland's glaciers are melting.(Halifax Chronicle-Herald, 
August 22, 2001) (8)

"Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will 
be doing the right thing -- in terms of economic policy and environmental 
policy."

Tim Wirth , while U.S. Senator, Colorado.After a 
short stint as United Nations Under-Secretary for Global Affairs (4)he now serves as President, 
U.N. Foundation, created by Ted Turner and his $1 billion 
"gift"

 "No matter if the science is all phony, there are 
collateral environmental benefits.... Climate change [provides] the greatest 
chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."

    Christine Stewart, Minister of the Environment of Canadarecent quote from the Calgary Herald

Unraveling the Earth's Temperature Record

    photo by: Vin MorganPalaeo 
      Environment (Ice Cores) Field Work
    Because 
      accumulating layers of glacial ice display annual bands which can be 
      dated, similar to annual rings of a tree, the age of ice core samples can 
      be determined. Continuous ice cores from borings as much as two miles long 
      have been extracted from permanent glaciers in Greenland, Antarctica, and 
      Siberia. Bubbles of entrapped air in the ice cores can be analyzed to 
      determine not only carbon dioxide and methane concentrations, but also 
      atmospheric temperatures can be determined from analysis of entrapped 
      hydrogen and oxygen.
Based on historical air temperatures inferred from ice core analyses from the 
Antarctic Vostok station in 1987, relative to the average global temperature in 
1900 it has been determined that from 160,000 years ago until about 18,000 years 
ago Earth temperatures were on average about 3° C cooler than today.
Except for two relatively brief interglacial episodes, one peaking about 
125,000 years ago (Eemian Interglacial), and the other beginning about 18,000 
years ago (Present Interglacial), the Earth has been under siege of ice for the 
last 160,000 years.

    Compiled by R.S. Bradley and J.A. Eddy based on J. 
    Jouzel et al., Nature vol. 329. pp. 403-408, 1987 and published in 
    EarthQuest, vol. 5, no. 1, 1991. Courtesy of Thomas 
    Crowley, Remembrance 
    of Things Past: Greenhouse Lessons from the Geologic 
    Record

  As illustrated in this final graph, over the past 800,000 years the Earth 
  has undergone major swings in warming and cooling at approximately 100,000 
  year intervals, interrupted by minor warming cycles at shorter intervals. This 
  represents periods of glacial expansion, separated by distinct but relatively 
  short-lived periods of glacial retreat.

    Temperature data inferred from measurements of the 
    ratio of oxygen isotope ratios in fossil plankton that settled to the sea 
    floor, and assumes that changes in global temperature approximately tracks 
    changes in the global ice volume. Based on data from J. 
    Imbrie, J.D. Hays, D.G. Martinson, A. McIntyre, A.C. Mix, J.J. Morley, N.G. 
    Pisias, W.L. Prell, and N.J. Shackleton, in A. Berger, J. Imbrie, J. Hats, 
    G. Kukla, and B. Saltzman, eds., Milankovitch and Climate, Dordrecht, 
    Reidel, pp. 269-305, 1984.Courtesy of Thomas Crowley, Remembrance 
    of Things Past: Greenhouse Lessons from the Geologic 
    Record

  The Polar Ice Cap Effect
  As long as the continent of Antarctica 
  exists at the southern pole of our planet we probably will be repeatedly pulled back 
  into glacial ice ages. This occurs because ice caps, which cannot attain 
  great thickness over open ocean, can and do achieve great thickness over a 
  polar continent-- like Antarctica. Antarctica used to be located near the 
  equator, but over geologic time has moved by continental drift 
  to its present location at the south pole. Once established, continental polar 
  ice caps act like huge cold sinks, taking over the climate and growing bigger 
  during periods of reduced solar output. Part of the problem with shaking off 
  the effects of an ice age is once ice caps are established, they cause solar 
  radiation to be reflected back into space, which acts to perpetuate global 
  cooling. This increases the size of ice caps which results in reflection of 
  even more radiation, resulting in more cooling, and so on.
  Continental polar ice caps seem to play a particularly important role in 
  ice ages when the arrangement of continental land masses restrict the free 
  global circulation of equatorial ocean currents. This is the case with the 
  continents today, as it was during the Carboniferous 
  Ice Age when the supercontinent Pangea stretched from pole to pole 
  300 million years ago.

  Stopping Climate Change
  Putting things in perspective, 
  geologists tell us our present warm climate is a mere blip in the history of 
  an otherwise cold Earth. Frigid Ice Age temperatures have been the rule, not 
  the exception, for the last couple of million years. This kind of world is not 
  totally inhospitable, but not a very fun place to live, unless you are a polar 
  bear.
  Some say we are "nearing the end of 
  our minor interglacial period" , and may in fact be on the brink of 
  another Ice Age. If this is true, the last thing we should be doing is 
  limiting carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere, just in case they may 
  have a positive effect in sustaining present temperatures. The smart money, 
  however, is betting that there is some momentum left in our present warming 
  cycle. Environmental advocates agree: resulting in a shift of tactics from the 
  "global cooling" scare of the 1970s to the "global warming" 
  threat of the 1980s and 1990s.
  Now, as we begin the 21st century the terminology is morphing 
  toward"climate change," whereby no matter the direction of temperature 
  trends-- up or down-- the headlines can universally blame humans while 
  avoiding the necessity of switching buzz-words with the periodicity of solar 
  cycles. Such tactics may, however, backfire as peoples' common sensibilities 
  are at last pushed over the brink.
  Global climate cycles of warming and cooling have been a natural phenomena 
  for hundreds of thousands of years, and it is unlikely that these cycles of 
  dramatic climate change will stop anytime soon. We currently enjoy a warm 
  Earth. Can we count on a warm Earth forever? The answer is most likely... 
  no.
  Since the climate has always been changing and will likely continue of its 
  own accord to change in the future, instead of crippling the U.S. economy in 
  order to achieve small reductions in global warming effects due to manmade 
  additions to atmospheric carbon dioxide, our resources may be better spent 
  making preparations to adapt to global cooling and global warming, and the 
  inevitable consequences of fluctuating ocean levels, temperatures, and 
  precipitation that accompany climatic change.
  Supporting this view is British scientist Jane 
  Francis, who maintains:

    " What we are seeing really is just another interglacial phase within 
    our big icehouse climate." Dismissing political calls for a global 
    effort to reverse climate change, she said, " It's really farcical 
    because the climate has been changing constantly... What we should do is be 
    more aware of the fact that it is changing and that we should be ready to 
    adapt to the change."

         THIS PAGE 
        BY:

Monte Hieb

        This site last updated October 5, 2007

        Previous

      Table of Contents

  ...EMAIL COMMENTS TO: mhieb@geocraft.com

  References
  (1) A scientific Discussion of 
  Climate Change, Sallie Baliunas, Ph.D., Harvard- Smithsonian Center for 
  Astrophysics and Willie Soon, Ph.D., Harvard- Smithsonian Center for 
  Astrophysics.
  (2) The Effects of Proposals 
  for Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction; Testimony of Dr. Patrick J. 
  Michaels, Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, before 
  the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of the Committee on Science, United 
  States House of Representatives
  (3) Statement Concerning 
  Global Warming-- Presented to the Senate Committee on Environmental and 
  Public Works, June 10, 1997, by Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Massachusetts 
  Institute of Technology
  (4) Excerpts from,"Our 
  Global Future: Climate Change", Remarks by Under Secretary for Global 
  affairs, T. Wirth, 15 September 1997. Site maintained by The Globe - Climate 
  Change Campaign
  (5) Testimony of John R. 
  Christy to the Committee on Environmental and Public Works, Department of 
  Atmospheric Science and Earth System Science Laboratory, University of Alabama 
  in Huntsville, July 10, 1997.
  (6) The Carbon Dioxide Thermometer and the Cause of Global 
  Warming; Nigel Calder,-- Presented at a seminar SPRU (Science and 
  Technology Policy Research), University of Sussex, Brighton, England, October 
  6, 1998.
  (7) Variation in cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverage: a missing 
  link in solar-climate relationships; H. Svensmark and E. 
  Friis-Christiansen, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar- Terrestrial Physics, 
  vol. 59, pp. 1225 - 1232 (1997).
  (8) First International Conference on Global Warming and the Next Ice 
  Age; Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, sponsored by the Canadian 
  Meteorological and Oceanographic Society and the American Meteorological 
  Society, August 21-24, 2001.

  Additional Reading
  Understanding 
  Common Climate Claims: Dr. Richard S. Lindzen; Draft paper to appear in 
  the Proceedings of the 2005 Erice Meeting of the World Federation of 
  Scientists on Global Emergencies.
  Geological 
  Constraints on Global Climate Variability: Dr. Lee C. Gerhard-- A variety 
  of natural climate drivers constantly change our climate. A slide format 
  presentation. 8.5 MB.
  Thoughts of Global 
  Warming: "The bottom line is that climatic change is a given. It is 
  inescapable, it happens. There is no reason to be very concerned about it or 
  spend bazillions of dollars to try and even things out.
  NOAA 
  Paleoclimatology: An educational trip through earths distant and recent 
  past. Also contains useful information and illustrations relating to the 
  causes of climate change.
  Cracking the Ice Age: From the 
  PBS website-- NOVA online presents a brief tour of the causes of global 
  warming.
  Little 
  Ice Age (Solar Influence - Temperature): From the online magazine, "CO2 
  Science."
  Solar Variability and Climate 
  Change: by Willie Soon, January 10, 2000
  Earth's 
  Fidgeting Climate: NASA Science News "It may surprise many people that 
  science cannot deliver an unqualified, unanimous answer about something as 
  important as climate change"