Archive for 01/19/2010

By: Kitty Werthmann

What I am about to tell you is something you’ve probably never heard or will ever read in history books.

I believe that I am an eyewitness to history.  I cannot tell you that Hitler took Austria by tanks and guns; it would distort history.  We elected him by a landslide – 98% of the vote.  I’ve never read that in any American publications.  Everyone thinks that Hitler just rolled in with his tanks and took Austria by force.

In 1938, Austria was in deep Depression.  Nearly one-third of our workforce was unemployed.  We had 25% inflation and 25% bank loan interest rates.

Farmers and business people were declaring bankruptcy daily.  Young people were going from house to house begging for food.  Not that they didn’t want to work; there simply weren’t any jobs.  My mother was a Christian woman and believed in helping people in need.  Every day we cooked a big kettle of soup and baked bread to feed those poor, hungry people – about 30 daily.

The Communist Party and the National Socialist Party were fighting each other.  Blocks and blocks of cities like Vienna, Linz, and Graz were destroyed.  The people became desperate and petitioned the government to let them decide what kind of government they wanted.

We looked to our neighbor on the north, Germany , where Hitler had been in power since 1933.  We had been told that they didn’t have unemployment or crime, and they had a high standard of living.  Nothing was ever said about persecution of any group — Jewish or otherwise.  We were led to believe that everyone was happy.  We wanted the same way of life in Austria . We were promised that a vote for Hitler would mean the end of unemployment and help for the family.  Hitler also said that businesses would be assisted, and farmers would get their farms back.  Ninety-eight percent of the population voted to annex Austria to Germany and have Hitler for our ruler.

We were overjoyed, and for three days we danced in the streets and had candlelight parades.  The new government opened up big field kitchens and everyone was fed.

After the election, German officials were appointed, and like a miracle, we suddenly had law and order.  Three or four weeks later, everyone was employed.  The government made sure that a lot of work was created through the Public Work Service.

Hitler decided we should have equal rights for women.  Before this, it was a custom that married Austrian women did not work outside the home.  An able-bodied husband would be looked down on if he couldn’t support his family.  Many women in the teaching profession were elated that they could retain the jobs they previously had been required to give up for marriage.

Hitler Targets Education – Eliminates Religious Instruction for Children:

Our education was nationalized.  I attended a very good public school.  The population was predominantly Catholic, so we had religion in our schools. The day we elected Hitler (March 13, 1938), I walked into my schoolroom to find the crucifix replaced by Hitler’s picture hanging next to a Nazi flag. Our teacher, a very devout woman, stood up and told the class we wouldn’t pray or have religion anymore.  Instead, we sang “Deutschland, Deutschland, Uber Alles,” and had physical education.

Sunday became National Youth Day with compulsory attendance.  Parents were not pleased about the sudden change in curriculum.  They were told that if they did not send us, they would receive a stiff letter of warning the first time.  The second time they would be fined the equivalent of $300, and the third time they would be subject to jail.  The first two hours consisted of political indoctrination.  The rest of the day we had sports.  As time went along, we loved it.  Oh, we had so much fun and got our sports equipment free.  We would go home and gleefully tell our parents about the wonderful time we had.

My mother was very unhappy.  When the next term started, she took me out of public school and put me in a convent.  I told her she couldn’t do that and she told me that someday when I grew up, I would be grateful.  There was a very good curriculum, but hardly any fun – no sports, and no political indoctrination.  I hated it at first but felt I could tolerate it.  Every once in a while, on holidays, I went home.  I would go back to my old friends and ask what was going on and what they were doing.  Their loose lifestyle was very alarming to me.  They lived without religion.  By that time unwed mothers were glorified for having a baby for Hitler.  It seemed strange to me that our society changed so suddenly.  As time went along, I realized what a great deed my mother did so that I wasn’t exposed to that kind of humanistic philosophy.

Equal Rights Hits Home:

In 1939, the war started and a food bank was established.  All food was rationed and could only be purchased using food stamps.  At the same time, a full-employment law was passed which meant if you didn’t work, you didn’t get a ration card, and if you didn’t have a card, you starved to death. Women who stayed home to raise their families didn’t have any marketable skills and often had to take jobs more suited for men.

Soon after this, the draft was implemented.  It was compulsory for young people, male and female, to give one year to the labor corps.  During the day, the girls worked on the farms, and at night they returned to their barracks for military training just like the boys.  They were trained to be anti-aircraft gunners and participated in the signal corps.  After the labor corps, they were not discharged but were used in the front lines.  When I go back to Austria to visit my family and friends, most of these women are emotional cripples because they just were not equipped to handle the horrors of combat.  Three months before I turned 18, I was severely injured in an air raid attack.  I nearly had a leg amputated, so I was spared having to go into the labor corps and into military service.

Hitler Restructured the Family Through Daycare:

When the mothers had to go out into the work force, the government immediately established child care centers.  You could take your children ages 4 weeks to school age and leave them there around-the-clock, 7 days a week, under the total care of the government.  The state raised a whole generation of children.  There were no motherly women to take care of the children, just people highly trained in child psychology.  By this time, no one talked about equal rights.  We knew we had been had.

Health Care and Small Business Suffer Under Government Controls:

Before Hitler, we had very good medical care.  Many American doctors trained at the University of Vienna .  After Hitler, health care was socialized, free for everyone.  Doctors were salaried by the government.  The problem was, since it was free, the people were going to the doctors for everything. When the good doctor arrived at his office at 8 a.m., 40 people were already waiting and, at the same time, the hospitals were full.  If you needed elective surgery, you had to wait a year or two for your turn.  There was no money for research as it was poured into socialized medicine.  Research at the medical schools literally stopped, so the best doctors left Austria and emigrated to other countries.

As for healthcare, our tax rates went up to 80% of our income.  Newlyweds immediately received a $1,000 loan from the government to establish a household.  We had big programs for families.  All day care and education were free.  High schools were taken over by the government and college tuition was subsidized.  Everyone was entitled to free handouts, such as food stamps, clothing, and housing.

We had another agency designed to monitor business.  My brother-in-law owned a restaurant that had square tables.  Government officials told him he had to replace them with round tables because people might bump themselves on the corners.  Then they said he had to have additional bathroom facilities. It was just a small dairy business with a snack bar.  He couldn’t meet all the demands.  Soon, he went out of business.  If the government owned the large businesses and not many small ones existed, it could be in control.

We had consumer protection.  We were told how to shop and what to buy.  Free enterprise was essentially abolished.  We had a planning agency specially designed for farmers.  The agents would go to the farms, count the live-stock, then tell the farmers what to produce, and how to produce it.

“Mercy Killing” Redefined:

In 1944, I was a student teacher in a small village in the Alps .  The villagers were surrounded by mountain passes which, in the winter, were closed off with snow, causing people to be isolated.  So people intermarried and offspring were sometimes retarded.  When I arrived, I was told there were 15 mentally retarded adults, but they were all useful and did good manual work.  I knew one, named Vincent, very well.  He was a janitor of the school.  One day I looked out the window and saw Vincent and others getting into a van.  I asked my superior where they were going.  She said to an institution where the State Health Department would teach them a trade, and to read and write.  The families were required to sign papers with a little clause that they could not visit for 6 months.  They were told visits would interfere with the program and might cause homesickness.

As time passed, letters started to dribble back saying these people died a natural, merciful death.  The villagers were not fooled.  We suspected what was happening.  Those people left in excellent physical health and all died within 6 months.  We called this euthanasia..

The Final Steps – Gun Laws:

Next came gun registration.  People were getting injured by guns.  Hitler said that the real way to catch criminals (we still had a few) was by matching serial numbers on guns.  Most citizens were law abiding and dutifully marched to the police station to register their firearms.  Not long after-wards, the police said that it was best for everyone to turn in their guns.  The authorities already knew who had them, so it was futile not to comply voluntarily.

No more freedom of speech.  Anyone who said something against the government was taken away.  We knew many people who were arrested, not only Jews, but also priests and ministers who spoke up.

Totalitarianism didn’t come quickly, it took 5 years from 1938 until 1943, to realize full dictatorship in Austria .  Had it happened overnight, my countrymen would have fought to the last breath.  Instead, we had creeping gradualism.  Now, our only weapons were broom handles.  The whole idea sounds almost unbelievable that the state, little by little eroded our freedom.

After World War II, Russian troops occupied Austria .  Women were raped, preteen to elderly.  The press never wrote about this either.  When the Soviets left in 1955, they took everything that they could, dismantling whole factories in the process.  They sawed down whole orchards of fruit, and what they couldn’t destroy, they burned.  We called it The Burned Earth. Most of the population barricaded themselves in their houses.  Women hid in their cellars for 6 weeks as the troops mobilized.  Those who couldn’t, paid the price.  There is a monument in Vienna today, dedicated to those women who were massacred by the Russians.  This is an eye witness account.

“It’s true..those of us who sailed past the Statue of Liberty came to a country of unbelievable freedom and opportunity.
America Truly is the Greatest Country in the World. Don’t Let Freedom Slip Away
“After America , There is No Place to Go—
Please forward this message to other voters who may not have it.


BATF Notice Bans Private Gun Sales In Texas

Posted: 01/19/2010 by Lynn Dartez in 2011

Steve Watson
Monday, Jan 18, 2010

BATF Notice Bans Private Gun Sales In Texas 180110gunsales2

Editor’s note: In addition to there being no law in Texas preventing the sale of firearms between private individuals, the demand by the ATF and Austin cops is a direct violation of the Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution). “[The Congress shall have power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes,” (emphasis added) the Commerce Clause states. In short, the federal government does not have the authority to regulate intrastate commerce. In addition, under the terms of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, individuals “not engaged in the business” of dealing firearms, or who only make “occasional” sales within their state of residence, are under no requirement to conduct background checks on purchasers or maintain records of sale. The ATF and APD are in violation of the law on at least two counts.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is actively issuing directions banning private sales of guns without licenses at gun shows in Texas, despite there being no law to justify such demands.

A caller to the Alex Jones show brought attention to BATF notices handed out at the entrance of theTexas Gun And Knife Show, on North Lamaar, in Austin this past weekend.

The flyers (pictured below) state that anyone selling a firearm “will be asked to comply with” conditions including operating through a licensed FFL dealer.

The notice also states that “Selling firearms in the parking lot will not be permitted.”

“The lady at the front desk used her ‘mommy voice’ to get everyone’s attention.” Scott from Austin told The Alex Jones show, noting that the owners of the private building where the gun show was held were contacted by the APD and the BATF and directed to hand out the notices.

Scott also told listeners that a petition in protest of the directions was being handed around at the show.

BATF Notice Bans Private Gun Sales In Texas 180110gunsales

Other attendees posted the flyer on web forums. One poster noted:

“Here is a public notice from a gun show in Austin, Texas this weekend. Do any fellow Texans know of any law changes that took effect recently that make person-to-person gun sales illegal? Has anyone else seen similar notices?”

“It was not handed out in the parking lot, it was posted at the entrance of the venue.” The forum user writes.

  • A d v e r t i s e m e n t
  • efoods

“I spoke with the man who runs the gun show and he said he was told on Thursday to post this (the gun show was Saturday and Sunday). Of course, the owner of the venue has the right to prohibit almost anything he wants on his property, but that’s not what this notice says. It says ‘at the direction of the Austin Police Department and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms’ and that’s what bothers me.”

The direction “asks” visitors to comply with its demands precisely because there is no law or regulation against private gun sales.

Infowars is in the process of arranging interviews with the Texas Gun Show operators for comments on this issue.

Watch Alex Jones cover this story on Yesterday’s show (begins 7 mins in):

The Haiti Earthquake

Posted: 01/19/2010 by Lynn Dartez in 2011

The reason I will not bring any stories about Haiti here is cause of the news coverage on this. There are far greater problems than Haiti. We have a country to to win back. Will not waste my time or money on Haiti.

When Hurricane Rita and Ike hit us there was nothing done about helping us in South Louisiana. New Orleans was not the only town affected by Hurricanes that year. We had more damage and went weeks without Electricity.  We survived and over came  without help from the rest of the world.

So Haiti does not concern me at all. Before trying to help out the rest of the world we first need to worry about our own Country. If I had my own News agency I would not cover Haiti and would not care if anyone had anything to say about it. There are a lot more important things to take care of in America.

No Money and No time for Haiti this is my choose you decide for yourself what you want to do. As far as for me Haiti will have no support from me. We have enough illegal aliens in our country we need no more. It’s time for us to move one from this subject and let them take care of themselves.

Lynn Dartez

Evidences, Proofs & ‘Climategate’

Posted: 01/19/2010 by Lynn Dartez in 2011

By Barry Napier  Monday, January 18, 2010

Part of worldwide fraud is consistency of propaganda. This is what we find in the climate change deception. I have no problem calling it that because of its root, its people, and the way it stops all public discussion in the media and in government circles.

I was directed to one particular ‘truth’ website (, because, I was told, it specifically cited Canada Free Press as a spreader of skeptic lies about ‘Climategate’, and it proved that skeptics are all wrong.

So, I visited the site and found nothing of the sort. It is a fact (not a deception) that most people are unable to tell fact from fiction, opinion from proven truth. They just go with whoever best reflects their already biased thinking! The site is expressing legitimate opinions, so my response here is only banter, pointing out flaws in their argument. They are free to do the same with me. The problem is not with the site, but with those who read it and think opinion is the same as fact. I am looking at it as an illustration of how people can be duped in large numbers by not knowing how to read properly.

I urge you to go to the site in question. Then check my comments against what it says. You will find that in this particular case, the site is not giving proven facts against sceptics, but is merely expressing its opinion, which is not the same as proof. Also note that the site uses the term ‘skeptic’ when most who object to climate change deception are ‘climate realists’. The word ‘skeptic’ implies a solid argument being objected to by a fringe group. This is nonsense, because the number of realists is large, and growing daily.

So, firstly go to the article,

Bullet-Points Just Opinion

The article begins with a summary of the subject called ‘Climategate’. In the very first paragraph the writer says that claims to climate change misconduct “we find to be unfounded”. That’s a pretty big claim, when thousands of scientists around the world are still arguing their cases! However, as we read on, we see that the article is only giving an opinion, not proven fact.

The opinion expressed by factcheck is prejudiced. In the first bullet-point, commenting on the hacked emails, the article comes to a remarkable conclusion which is actually contradictory: “An investigation is underway, but there’s plenty of evidence that the earth is getting warmer and that humans are largely responsible.”

So, though the investigation has not ended, factcheck has already decided on the outcome! This is consistent with others who blatantly said that any altered figures and facts don’t matter, because the conclusions will remain the same! This is so outrageously unscientific, it is not worth talking about! The idea that the emails make no difference to the worldwide scientific view is scandalous, because the emails belong to scientists who are key to climate change science! And, there is no worldwide view anyway – it is all in flux.

Evidence But No Proof

Unfortunately, Factcheck uses the word ‘evidence’ to imply proof. Evidence is only a piece of information that might count towards the validity (or not) of an hypothesis. It is not proof, which is a strong and conclusive statement. There is NOT “plenty of evidence” the earth is getting warmer. And there is certainly NO proof that humans are responsible. One thing NO climateer can prove, is a link between humans and climate. Yes, they tell us humans are responsible because CO2 has increased. But, this is NOT a scientific explanation – it is just guesswork. It is not proof because there is no known MECHANISM by which CO2 can change climate! There is no good in simply claiming it – where is the evidence, let alone the proof?

There is also the other forgotten fact – that there is no way CO2 can be attributed to human beings in the way climate changers say it is. How do they know a certain percentage is attributed to humans, especially in a particular country? Does CO2 have a label on it, giving date and origin of itself? It’s not such a stupid statement to make – it is a genuine obstacle to climateers, because they make unsubstantiated claims about CO2. Also, they ignore periods in history when CO2 was much greater but temperatures were down! And they also ignore the fact that CO2 deteriorates at a fast rate; It does not just collect in a cloud above the earth!

There is another problem: even if the earth was getting warmer, many scientists say the increase is so insignificant as to be laughable. We see far greater increases on a summer’s day any year! And the dire results shown for increasing by 2 degrees are computerised, not actual! Just to show how ridiculous it is, it is like thinking an episode of The Simpsons has a bearing on what actually happens in our own lives.

Many Sources – Same Bias

The second bullet-point is that the 2007 IPCC Report relied on many sources, not just the CRU. That is true. But, the IPCC also claims it had 2,500 contributors to its Report. It failed to say that of that number only about 50 were scientists – the rest were green activists, etc.

The IPCC also claimed its Report was ‘peer reviewed’, but the results are far from fixed, because the IPCC changed figures at will to ‘hot up’ its arguments! Close to the time the Report was published, scientists were angry because the IPCC deliberately changed the positioning of the decimal point concerning sea-rises. This was important because the IPCC dramatically claimed they would be in the region of about 27 feet! When the decimal point was returned to where it was supposed to be, the sea-level rises were only normal! But, significantly, the IPCC did not tell the media or governments, and so the same old lie continues to be used.

Nonsense is Lucrative

Many more fraudulent changes were made. I have been in contact with several IPCC science contributors who say the same things, because their contributions were altered. Then, just a few days ago, the famed melting glaciers of the Himalayas were shown to be another deception, based on a telephone interview, not on research. Glaciologists say that the melting figures predicted in the IPCC Report were ‘ludicrous’. But, nobody takes any notice, because the ‘facts are fixed’!

The professor who allowed the lie to proliferate, Syed Hasnain, was rewarded with a half-million grant!! And the name of his associate is not a scientist, but IPCC head-honcho, Dr Pachauri, who is already under suspicion for his alleged part in secretive profiteering from carbon-trading! Yet, Hasnain has admitted he did not research his views, but gave them off the top of his head on the telephone. The professor in charge of that section of the 2007 Report, though he had no actual research paper to rely on, nevertheless made it a major part of the report… so much for ‘peer-reviewed’… how do you ‘peer-review’ what does not exist?

When Fraud Is Only ‘Misrepresentation’

The third bullet-point is again a mere personal opinion, for it just repeats the claims of the ones being accused of fraud! The emails are, of course, being ‘misrepresented’.  The only way factcheck can know that is if they were the ones sending the emails. The ones who did send them are, naturally, trying their best to get on with damage-limitation. No doubt they have many excuses for things they said in the emails. For readers, the implication is that factcheck is right, every realist is wrong. Nice to have such confidence, eh?

In the first few words, then, factcheck have not given any proof that realists are wrong. It only gives an opinion. It also ignores the fact that almost every claim made in the 2007 Report has been challenged, and rightly so; and that a number of grave deceptions were used in it. Readers of factcheck should legitimately question its conclusions, but should bear in mind it is an opinion piece. They should do so because the opinions are so blatantly anti-realist. That is, it is prejudiced towards climateers, even though the ‘jury is out’ and scientists are still debating the actual science.

Gasp! Horror! Conservatism!

And what is the horrendous proof that Canada Free Press is wrong? The article gives just one line, based on Tim Ball’s article: “An article from the conservative-leaning Canada Free Press claims that the stolen files are proof of a ‘deliberate fraud’ and the ‘greatest deception in history’.”

That was presented to me as proof that CFP was deceptive. Eh? The words actually say nothing of the sort – it just quotes a Tim Ball statement! Again, those who try to attack realists use words to suit themselves and not in a proper sense. And, since when has ‘conservative-leaning’ been something to be treated with contempt? And can’t the reader who thinks it is derisory understand that if CFP is ‘conservative-leaning’ it means the others are leftist, with a socialist agenda?

Opinion, Not Science

The rest of the article gives opinion after opinion, not scientific proofs. The opinion is that claims against climateers are “wide of the mark”, but factcheck only gives the opinions given to them by climateers. They are relying on the truthfulness of climateer scientists, and automatically assume realist scientists are wrong or lying. The logic of this demands attention!

Factcheck says realists are trying to “find evidence of a conspiracy”. This is an error – realists KNOW there is a conspiracy! Factcheck should go back in recent science history and look at the evidences (many of which are already proven). They should also look back farther, to see the ‘creeping socialism’ that has produced the climate change deceptions in the first place. The other fact they ignore is the real aims of climateers – to make money and grab power. All of this is available in academic and popular publications.

How can a ‘truth-telling’ website possibly know that arguments by one group of scientists against another group are ‘wide of the mark’ unless those they wish to support tell them so? Do they claim they have studied every climateer research paper and concluded scientifically that they are right? I doubt it very much. The arguments against climate change claims have existed for three decades or more, at least. There is no way factcheck can conclude anything with proper diligence, just by looking at ‘Climategate’.

The site quotes the World Meteorological Organisation, who says that 2000-2009 “would likely be” the “warmest on record”. In itself this statement is nothing and is only a guess (‘likely be’). Accurate records don’t go back far enough to make it a drama! Also, there has been a definite aim to hide medieval temperatures, and a naughty mixing of actual and proxy measurements to produce a single figure. Factcheck has also ignored the recent claim by Russia that the figures are askew anyway, because of measuring station irregularities. Note, too, that most figures were collected at a time when a large number of Soviet stations were closed down. There is no way the figures could be accurate when huge numbers are not there.

Quoting Pro-Warmists

Factcheck quotes several organisations (NASA, etc), blindly assuming they were telling the truth. It is known and acknowledged that many scientists will not rock the boat and endanger their own funding by speaking out against climate change and CO2 claims. As these government-funded groups shout that realist-scientists are ‘funded by big oil’ (untrue in many cases), they themselves are funded by ‘big government that wants to get bigger’… and some, like the CRU, are also funded by the ‘big oil’ so despised by climateers!

The fact that the IPCC relies on a wide number of sources does not prove that the sources are telling the truth, nor that once the details have been provided, the IPCC does not manipulate the results… something it does regularly. The claim by the IPCC that it employs extensive peer-review is to be taken with a pinch of salt, given its record. The most recent Himalayan glacier debacle is just one example of this ‘process’ being non-existent at times. And, most peer-reviews are undertaken by pro-warmists anyway. My, that gives confidence in warming ideas, eh?

Mann is treated with sympathy over some of his leaked emails, but the major problem is that Mann’s ‘hockey stick’ has been debunked not once, but twice! His emails pale into insignificance when compared. Mann, like other warmists, make claims they will not validate. They refuse the raw data to other scientists and, lo and behold, evidences have ‘disappeared’. Well, slap my thighs and sing ‘Coming Round the Mountain’!

The Quicksand Approach

The article goes on to give ‘proof’ from a CRU researcher that the emails are being misrepresented’. How can this be accepted as ‘proof’ when it is only his word against that of realists? And when an investigation has yet to give its conclusions? Hm. That’s as solid as quicksand.

To say that the ‘explanations’ are ‘actually’ this or that, factcheck would have to be working in CRU and have intimate knowledge of the emails and the details surrounding them. Compared to years of known abuse of science by such people, this assumption by factcheck is meaningless and, in places, very naive. And the disappearance of vital CRU information is rather suspect, despite its explanations. To repeat (from its own article): “Investigators are still sifting through 13 years’ worth of CRU emails looking for evidence of impropriety.” Therefore, factcheck cannot, by definition, come up with true conclusions, only opinions.

Many years ago my local newspaper published reports about alleged criminal fraud by the council leader. In interviews, his colleagues foolishly said they stood alongside him, supporting him all the way. It was foolish because the man had not yet gone to trial. When he did, his criminality was proven, he was imprisoned, and the colleagues were silenced. In the same way, no group can double-guess what the CRU investigation will come up with. And, anyway, there are far too many evidences (and proofs) of manipulation and deception, even without a conclusion about emails. The only reason the CRU has been highlighted is that their work has been hacked and made public.

The Old Chestnut – ‘Consensus’
Under the title ‘Confusing the Public’, factcheck says something that is factually wrong: that “scientific consensus has only become stronger”. No it hasn’t. If anything more scientists are joining the realist side – some because they are annoyed at being held to ransom by funding, and all of them because of conscience and scientific facts. These scientists number in the many thousands. So any talk of a ‘consensus’ is rather futile. And, again, the only way factcheck can possibly say there is a ‘consensus’ is because warmists tell them so.

And quoting John Holdren is more of a hindrance than help. His words are discounted by many because of his known bias.


The factcheck article is expressing opinion, not proven fact. The opinion is based on pro-warming scientists’ own explanations and not on any science backed by ‘peer-review’ by those against warmist ideas. Therefore, the opinions are prejudiced. I see nothing wrong in what factcheck said in the article, because I can tell the difference between opinion and proven fact. But, it seems some of its readers cannot tell the difference, and that is where the problem is.

What we need is a court-room-style situation where pro and anti are ranged against each other. The actual data can be provided, and both sides can evaluate the figures given, to let the facts speak for themselves. Guess what – this is known as the scientific process! But, warmists reject this process and keep things silent or hidden. They harass editors into rejecting realists’ arguments and refuse public debate. And governments insist on using prejudiced reports in order to tax people, restrict freedoms, and bring in socialist world rule. They have a long way to go before that happens, but if climateers are not challenged, this is what we will end up with.

The advice, then, is for readers to learn the difference between opinion and proven fact, and between evidences and proofs. Without knowing what they are, no-one can think logically or with some degree of accuracy. The realist camp has plenty of evidences, and some proofs, that climateers are spreading propaganda. One only has to watch the UK government’s ‘Act on CO2’ continual ads to recognise they contain no evidence let alone proofs.

(PS. No, I am not interested in furthering this argument… the science is closed).

3 dozen lawmakers want proof of Obama eligibility

Posted: 01/19/2010 by Lynn Dartez in WND

Proposal would demand state officials independently verify information

Posted: January 18, 2010
10:01 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Lawmakers in Arizona have proposed a law that would require state officials to begin independently verifying the accuracy of newly required documents affirming the constitutional eligibility of any candidate for the U.S. presidency.

“Certainly, there has been controversy over President Obama and his birth certificate, where he was born, etc.,” state Sen. Sylvia Allen, R-Snowflake, told the Arizona Capitol Times. “It just makes sense and will stop any controversy in the future to just show you are a natural born citizen.”

She is one of about three dozen lawmakers to sign on as co-sponsors.

The plan would accomplish essentially the same thing as that proposed by Rep. Bill Posey, R-Fla., on the federal level.

The provisions of Posey’s H.R. 1503 are straightforward:

“To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to require the principal campaign committee of a candidate for election to the office of President to include with the committee’s statement of organization a copy of the candidate’s birth certificate, together with such other documentation as may be necessary to establish that the candidate meets the qualifications for eligibility to the Office of President under the Constitution.”

The bill also provides:

“Congress finds that under … the Constitution of the United States, in order to be eligible to serve as President, an individual must be a natural born citizen of the United States who has attained the age of 35 years and has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years.”

The sponsors’ goal is to have the bill become effective for the 2012 presidential election. The legislation now is pending in a House committee and has more than a dozen co-sponsors.

But whatever support it does have, it faces massive obstacles in a House and Senate dominated by Democrat party faithful, as well as a president whose own political fortunes could be impacted by its requirements.

Rep. Judy Burges, R-Skull Valley, earlier told the East Valley Tribune her plan is not targeted directly at Obama, although she does have concerns about his loyalties.

“When someone bows to the king of Saudi Arabia and they apologize for our country around the world, I have a problem with that,” she told the newspaper.

“We want to make sure that we have candidates that are going to stand up for the United States of America. This is my home. I want to leave my children a better country than I inherited,” she said.

“Obama has a book and it said, when it came down to it, he would be on the Muslim side,” Burges said. “Doesn’t that bother you just a little bit?”

Any state adopting – and enforcing – requirements similar to the federal plan would have an impact as great, since the information to meet those requirements presumably then would be public.

Demand the truth by joining the petition campaign to make President Obama reveal his long-form, hospital-generated birth certificate!

Democrats in the state already are arguing that the plan to demand all presidential candidates to submit proof they were born in the U.S. and sign an affidavit stating they are a U.S. citizen is not needed.

“He [Obama] clearly met the standards to run for president and hold office as president because the federal government installed him as president in January of last year,” Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, a Phoenix Democrat, said. “The question has been asked and answered.”

As WND has reported, however, no controlling legal authority ever directly addressed the question of whether Obama met the U.S. Constitution’s requirements to be president, that is being 35 years of age, a resident for at least 14 years and a “natural born citizen.”

The proposal, H2442, also would require that the secretary of state in Arizona independently verify that the documents submitted are correct. Any failure could cause the candidate’s name to be withheld from the ballot, officials said.

WND has reported on dozens of legal challenges to Obama’s status as a “natural born citizen.” The Constitution, Article 2, Section 1, states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President.”

Some of the lawsuits question whether he was actually born in Hawaii, as he insists. If he was born out of the country, Obama’s American mother, the suits contend, was too young at the time of his birth to confer American citizenship to her son under the law at the time.

Other challenges have focused on Obama’s citizenship through his father, a Kenyan subject to the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom at the time of his birth, thus making him a dual citizen. The cases contend the framers of the Constitution excluded dual citizens from qualifying as natural born.

Complicating the situation is Obama’s decision to spend sums estimated in excess of $1.7 million to avoid releasing a state birth certificate that would put to rest all of the questions.

WND has reported that among the documentation not yet available for Obama includes kindergarten records, Punahou school records, Occidental College records, Columbia University records, Columbia thesis, Harvard Law School records, Harvard Law Review articles, scholarly articles from the University of Chicago, passport, medical records, his files from his years as an Illinois state senator, his Illinois State Bar Association records, any baptism records, and his adoption records.

“Where’s The Birth Certificate?” billboard helps light up the night at the Mandalay Bay resort on the Las Vegas Strip.

Because of the dearth of information about Obama’s eligibility, WND founder Joseph Farah has launched a campaign to raise contributions to post billboards asking a simple question: “Where’s the birth certificate?”

The campaign followed a petition that has collected more than 480,000 signatures demanding proof of his eligibility, the availability of yard signs raising the question and the production of permanent, detachable magnetic bumper stickers asking the question.

The “certification of live birth” posted online and widely touted as “Obama’s birth certificate” does not in any way prove he was born in Hawaii, since the same “short-form” document is easily obtainable for children not born in Hawaii. The true “long-form” birth certificate – which includes information such as the name of the birth hospital and attending physician – is the only document that can prove Obama was born in Hawaii, but to date he has not permitted its release for public or press scrutiny.

Oddly, though congressional hearings were held to determine whether Sen. John McCain was constitutionally eligible to be president as a “natural born citizen,” no controlling legal authority ever sought to verify Obama’s claim to a Hawaiian birth.

Your donation – from as little as $5 to as much as $1,000 – can be made online at the WND SuperStore. (Donations are not tax-deductible. Donations of amounts greater than $1,000 can be arranged by calling either 541-474-1776 or 1-800-4WND.COM. If you would prefer to mail in your contributions, they should be directed to WND, P.O. Box 1627, Medford, Oregon, 97501. Be sure to specify the purpose of the donation by writing “billboard” on the check. In addition, donations of billboard space will be accepted, as will significant contributions specifically targeted for geographic locations.)

If you are a member of the media and would like to interview Joseph Farah about this campaign, e-mail WND.

Posted: January 18, 2010
10:16 pm Eastern

By Drew Zahn
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Ed Schultz

MSNBC television and syndicated radio

host Ed Schultz declared that he would stuff the ballot box in Massachusetts if he could to prevent Republican Scott Brown from upsetting Democrat Martha Coakley in the race to fill the state’s Senate seat formerly held by Edward M. Kennedy.

Whatever it takes to keep “the bastards” out of power.

“I tell you what, if I lived in Massachusetts I’d try to vote 10 times,” said Schultz on his Friday radio show. “I don’t know if they’d let me or not, but I’d try to. Yeah, that’s right. I’d cheat to keep these bastards out. I would. ‘Cause that’s exactly what they are.”

Learn why the Mainstream Media are dying. Get Joseph Farah’s “Stop the Presses: The Inside Story of the New Media Revolution.”

Audio of Schultz’s statement can be heard below:

Schultz’s statement was broadcast on “The Ed Schultz Show,” which is aired weekdays, 12-3 p.m, as well as on satellite radio. His show’s website boasts Schultz is “the most listened-to progressive radio talk show host in America” and “the first progressive talker to hit 100 affiliates, both satellite networks and the Armed Forces Radio Network.”

His comments about cheating to turn the tide of an election, however, have already sparked heavy criticism.

Talk radio commentator Brian Maloney of The Radio Equalizer scoffed at Schultz’s statement by rephrasing it: “Who needs democracy when it leads to outcomes one might not like?”

Noel Sheppard of quipped, “Who says there’s liberal bias in the media?”

Sheppard also points out that Schultz’s comments came on the same day fellow MSNBC host Chris Matthews lamented that Democrat operatives couldn’t “buy” enough votes in Massachusetts to ensure Coakley’s victory:

“You know, in the old days – maybe I shouldn’t be harkening back to the old days – if the Democrats faced this kind of a disaster in the works, you’d go back to your ones, the people you were sure are going to vote Democrat, and you’d make sure they got to the polling place, you’d get them lunch, you’d get them a car,” Matthews said. “You’d make sure they got there, and in some cases you’d be buying people to get them, not officially buying them, but getting them there as block secretaries, as block captains, you’d be getting them there with street money – legitimate, but it’s a little bit old school.”

Commented Sheppard, “The good folks at General Electric and NBC must be thrilled to know that two of their on-air personalities are so biased in their political views that they publicly advocate cheating for their party to be victorious.”

WND contacted “The Ed Schultz Show” for clarification or comment on the host’s statement, but has yet to receive a reply.

Victory for Free Speech in Texas

Posted: 01/19/2010 by thecajunfreak in 2011

Posted by Robert Spencer on Jan 18th, 2010 and filed under FrontPage. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response or trackback to this entry

Robert Spencer is a scholar of Islamic history, theology, and law and the director of Jihad Watch. He is the author of ten books, eleven monographs, and hundreds of articles about jihad and Islamic terrorism, including the New York Times Bestsellers The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) and The Truth About Muhammad. His latest book, The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran, is available now from Regnery Publishing, and he is coauthor (with Pamela Geller) of the forthcoming book The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America (Simon and Schuster).


In a major victory for the increasingly embattled freedom of speech, the Texas Supreme Court has just denied a petition by the Islamic Society of Arlington, Texas and six other Texas-based Islamic organizations to review their case against human rights activist (and FrontPage Magazine writer) Joe Kaufman. The case has already gone against the Islamic groups in the initial decision as well as on appeal, but they seem determined to silence Kaufman, and could conceivably try now to take the case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. The suit itself is a manifestation of the global assault on free speech that is picking up steam more quickly than ever now, with conservative voices shouted down and physically threatened on college campuses, and warriors for free speech such as the Dutch politician Geert Wilders facing trial for exercising this fundamental right.

The Islamic groups’ suit against Kaufman is a cynical attempt to silence him and prevent his dissemination of truths about them that they would prefer unwary Infidels didn’t know – specifically, the terror ties of Islamic groups in the U.S. Ironically, however, none of the groups that sued Kaufman were actually mentioned in the article they claimed libeled them. Kaufman explains: “In October 2007, I had a lawsuit and a restraining order brought against me by seven Dallas-area Islamic organizations, who objected to an article that I had written for FrontPage. Not one of the groups was mentioned in the article. It was concerning information I had personally discovered linking the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) to the financing of terrorism abroad. My allegations regarding this were and are backed up by irrefutable proof.”

As frivolous as their charges against Kaufman manifestly were, their implications were ominous. Leftists and their Islamic supremacist allies, unable to refute the evidence and arguments their opponents present, are resorting to intimidation both legal and physical. While Kaufman has been harassed in the courtroom for over two years now, conservative speakers at campuses all over the country routinely face the specter of being physically attacked simply for expressing views out of sync with politically correct dogma. Speaking at the University of Southern California on November 4, 2009, David Horowitz noted that this was a relatively recent development: “It used to be a pleasure for me to speak on a college campus like USC.  I can remember the days when I could stroll onto the USC campus and walk over to the statue of Tommy Trojan where College Republicans had erected a platform for a rally to support our troops in Afghanistan after 9/11 at which I was to speak.  Now, however, I can’t set foot on this campus – or any campus – without being accompanied by a personal bodyguard and a battalion of armed campus security police to protect me and my student hosts.” He said this while protected by a bodyguard and twelve armed campus security officers.

Both of these forms of intimidation are being directed now at Geert Wilders, the Dutch Parliamentarian who produced the film Fitna, which shows how Islamic jihadists use violent passages of the Qur’an to justify violence and supremacism. For this and other alleged acts of “hate speech,” Wilders goes on trial in the Netherlands on January 20, for charges including having “intentionally offended a group of people, i.e. Muslims, based on their religion.”

It is a sad day for the freedom of speech when a man can be put on trial for causing another man offense. If offending someone were really a crime warranting prosecution by the civil authorities, the legal system would be brought to a standstill. But of course what Dutch authorities and Muslim groups in the Netherlands really want to bring to a standstill by trying Wilders is his truth-telling about the nature of Islamic jihad and Islamic supremacism – an honesty that has made his party one of the most popular in the Netherlands. The trial is an attempt by the nation’s political elites to silence one of their most formidable critics.

Wilders delineates the implications of his trial: “On the 20th of January 2010, a political trial will start. I am being prosecuted for my political convictions. The freedom of speech is on the verge of collapsing. If a politician is not allowed to criticise an ideology anymore, this means that we are lost, and it will lead to the end of our freedom. However I remain combative: I am convinced that I will be acquitted.”

Even if he does prevail, however, Wilders is still not free. “I would not qualify myself as a free man,” he has explained. “Four and a half years ago I lost my freedom. I am under guard permanently, courtesy to those who prefer violence to debate.”

Will American defenders of the freedom of speech also soon have to be under permanent guard, and spending thousands of hours defending themselves in court from frivolous charges that are intended only to silence them? We have already started down that road. Joe Kaufman has won another victory this week, but the Islamic supremacist machine in the United States has by no means given up its larger jihad against free speech and free thought. Those who are determined not to be silenced must settle in for a long, hard fight.