Archive for 05/02/2010

Not hot! Your sex life ‘hit by global warming’

Posted: 05/02/2010 by Lynn Dartez in WND

You won’t believe government’s new claims about climate change

Posted: May 01, 2010
11:30 pm Eastern


By Chelsea Schilling
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Global warming may make the world’s inhabitants cranky and stressed, drive them crazy, give them cancer and even worsen their suffering from sexual dysfunction, according to a new government report on climate change – but the scientists say more money is needed before they can be certain.

What are the consequences of doing nothing?

In a nutshell: Humanity will suffer every imaginable illness, and the world will essentially end.

Government scientists from several taxpayer-funded agencies, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute of Environmental Health Science, the State Department and the Environmental Protection Agency, compiled an 80-page report titled, “A Human Health Perspective on Climate Change: A Report Outlining the Research Needs on the Human Health Effects of Climate Change.”

It’s time to shine some sunlight on the global warming scam! In ‘Climategate,’ a veteran meteorologist exposes the Marxists’ junk science

The “ancient-forest friendly” report, printed with 100 percent recycled ink, is organized around the following 11 human health categories the scientists believed were likely to be affected by climate change:

  • asthma, allergies and airway diseases
  • cancer
  • cardiovascular disease and stroke
  • alterations in normal development
  • heat-related morbidity and mortality
  • mental health and stress disorders
  • neurological diseases and disorders
  • vector-borne and zoonotic disease
  • waterborne disease
  • weather-related morbidity and mortality

Asthma and allergies

The scientists concluded that respiratory allergies and diseases will become more prevalent because, they claim, growing seasons will be altered, increasing human exposure to pollen.

“Climate change will likely amplify existing environmental stimulation of asthma, respiratory allergies, and airway disease, resulting in more severe and frequent disease exacerbations and an increase in the overall burden of these conditions,” the report states. “Thus, continued research on climate change’s effect on alterations in the composition of aeroallergens and air pollutant mixtures and their consequent effects on health is essential.”

Cancer in animals and humans

According to the report, climate change will also cause a worldwide increase in cancer in humans and animals, especially following heavy rainfall and “by increased volatilization of chemicals under conditions of increased temperature.”

“In the case of heavy rainfall or flooding, there may be an increase in leaching of toxic chemicals and heavy metals from storage sites and increased contamination of water with runoff containing persistent chemicals that are already in the environment,” it warns. “Marine animals, including mammals, also may suffer direct effects of cancer linked to sustained or chronic exposure to chemical contaminants in the marine environment, and thereby serve as indicators of similar risks to humans.”

The report also warns that climate change will result in increased duration and intensity of ultraviolet radiation, raising the risk of skin cancers and cataracts.

Here’s inside story on what ‘climate change’ is an issue now, is “Global Warming or Global Governance?”

Cardiovascular disease and stroke

The scientists also claim climate change will exacerbate existing cardiovascular disease “increasing heat stress, increasing the body burden of airborne particulates, and changing the distribution of zoonotic vectors that cause infectious diseases linked with cardiovascular disease.”

According to the report, extreme cold and extreme heat can serve as “stressors in individuals with pre-existing cardiovascular disease.” It also states that heat amplifies adverse impacts of ozone and particulates on cardiovascular disease.

“These pollutants are likely to be affected by climate-change mitigation activities, and thus, likely reduce rates of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality,” it states.

The scientists also say increased use of wind, wave, solar and nuclear power is “likely to reduce cardiovascular risks by reducing particulate and other air pollution emissions.”

Foodborne illness and nutrition

Climate change may cause food shortages, malnutrition and food contamination, the group warns. According to the report, extreme weather events and changes in temperature and precipitation patterns may annihilate crops, destroy food supplies and interrupt distribution of food. People may contract foodborne illnesses from food that is spoiled or contaminated with microbes, pesticides or other toxins.

The scientists also claim agricultural crops and fisheries may be threatened with contamination by metals, chemicals and other toxins released into the environment after extreme weather events, such as flooding, droughts and wildfires due to climate change.

Heat-related morbidity and mortality

“As a result of anthropogenic climate change, global mean temperatures are rising, and are expected to continue to increase, regardless of progress in reducing greenhouse emissions,” the report warns. “Global average temperatures are projected to increase between 1.8 and 4.0 degrees Celsius by the end of this century.”

The temperature increase is likely to result in heat waves, the scientists say. Prolonged heat exposure may result in heat exhaustion, heat cramps, heat stroke and death and “exacerbate preexisting chronic conditions such as various respiratory, cerebral, and cardiovascular disease, as well as increasing risk for patients taking psychotropic drug treatment for mental disorders …”

While the group notes that air conditioning may reduce heat-related risk, it warns, “increased use of air conditioning may result in higher greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, to the extent that power grids become overburdened during excessive heat events, resulting in blackouts and brownouts could leave populations at increased risk of death.”

Genetic mutations, birth defects

According to the report, climate change may impact the health of future generations.

“Some changes to the environment resulting from climate change could alter normal human development both in the womb and later in life,” the report states. Pregnant women may suffer from malnutrition, resulting in low birth weight and developmental deficits. The scientists claim contaminants such as mercury and lead in fish and seafood may cause developmental effects.

“For example, certain commercial chemicals present in storage sites or hazardous waste sites can alter human development,” it explains. “Flooding from extreme weather events and sea-level rise are likely to result in the release of some of these chemicals and heavy metals, most likely affecting drinking and recreational waters. Some of these, including mercury and lead, have known developmental effects.”

The scientists also warn that access to prenatal care may be disrupted following extreme weather events, “increasing the risk of long-term consequences for mothers, children and society.”

Mental health and stress

“Psychological impacts of climate change, ranging from mild stress to chronic stress or other mental disorders, are generally indirect and have only recently been considered among the collection of health impacts of climate change,” the report warns. “Mental health concerns are among some of the most potentially devastating effects in terms of human suffering, and among the most difficult to quantify and address.”

The scientists claim extreme weather events such as hurricanes, wildfires and flooding may cause anxiety and emotional stress and an increase in post-traumatic stress disorder, complicated grief, depression, poor concentration, sleep difficulties, sexual dysfunction, social avoidance, irritability and drug and alcohol abuse.

Other diseases and disorders

The report links climate change to a possible increase in neurological disease and disorders stemming from algae blooms, infectious disease such as malaria and avian flu and waterborne disease due to increases in microorganisms, biotoxins and contaminants in drinking water. It also warns of extreme weather-related events such as hurricanes, floods, blizzards and drought resulting in widespread death.

“Sea-level rise associated with climate change will amplify the threat from storm surge associated with extreme weather events in coastal areas,” the report states. “Other areas, such as the Southwest, are at risk for decreased agricultural productivity due to drought and possible compromise of potable water supplies due to flooding from heavy precipitation events.

The scientists call for more public funding to further study the potential impact of climate change, one of the “most visible environmental concerns of the 21st century.”

‘Global risks’ of climate change

“Some degree of climate change is unavoidable, and we must adapt to its associated health effects; however, aggressive mitigation actions can significantly blunt the worst of the expected exposures,” the scientists conclude “Still, there will be effects on the health of the people in the United States, some of which are probably already underway. As great as the domestic risks to U.S. public health are, the global risks are even greater.”



Posted: 05/02/2010 by Lynn Dartez in Land of The Free

NewsWithViews Logo

By Attorney Jonathan Emord
April 26, 2010

Having fought and won the American Revolution, the first citizens of this country with few exceptions considered individual liberty an inalienable birthright and committed this nation to preserve that liberty at all cost. Now, over two hundred years later, the struggle for freedom has faded into the distant memories of nearly every politican and the desire to be free at all cost has been replaced by the desire to be provided for at all cost.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi are remarkable not for their understanding of our nation’s original principles and their commitment to preserve and protect them but for their zeal to expend the nation’s treasure on all manner of entitlements for special interests, transforming a limited government dedicated to liberty into an unlimited one dedicated to control and the divvying up of spoils, rendering all commerce that was once private into commerce so heavily regulated that it is inescapably public. To them, while their own liberty may be precious, they have little respect for everyone else’s; their every public act and their every vote is for measures that to one degree or another sacrifice individual liberty for political control.

To a mind that loves liberty, the prospect of subjecting entire sectors of the economy to federal bureaucratic control (the banking, automobile, and health care sectors) is unacceptable. The appetite of Reid and Pelosi to achieve those ends is, however, insatiable. If you scour all of their public statements, you will not find any that recite basic tenets of the founding generation: the view that political power is evil and corrupting and must be limited; the view that each person who labors is entitled to the fruits of his own labor; the view that just governments are instituted among men to protect the rights of the governed; the view that legislative, executive, and judicial powers may not be combined into single hands without giving rise to tyranny; or the view that legislative power invested in Congress by the Constitution may not be redelegated outside of Congress consistent with the doctrine of separation of powers. Either Reid and Pelosi have not read the great works of the Enlightenment philosophers; the writings of the Federalists and Antifederalists; the Declaration of Independence; the Constitution of the United States; and the major histories of the political, legal, and military movements to establish this country, or they have read them and disapproved of them.

Nothing in their political careers and nothing in their public speeches or writings reflects any commitment to defend America’s Constitution of liberty or advance the founding principles that give it life. To the contrary, one is hard pressed to find in their acts anything but advocacy for the establishment here of federal power over all private initiative. Their ideal involves a regulatory state that knows no bounds to its powers to intrude into commercial affairs and organize them.


If Reid and Pelosi were alone in their views, we might well consider this a sorrowful but temporary dereliction, but they are joined in this anti-constitutional sentiment by almost every Democrat and a considerable number of Republicans. Those who love individual liberty are thus confronted with a takeover of government by those who have little respect for liberty beyond their own (and no respect for liberty that conflicts with their plans for regulating America and spending America’s money).

While this situation is bleak, it includes within it the seeds for dramatic transformation. I am not one who subscribes to the view that the typical American loves regulation more than he or she does his or her own liberty. I believe most Americans appreciate that what makes America unique and that holds out the greatest promise for our future advancement is the extent to which our laws defend individual liberty—the personal quest of each of us to build an empire of greatness free of government coercion and constraint. Unleashed from prior restraints, there is no limit to the power of the individual to excel, achieve, and advance this nation to the greatest heights possible. We have much to fear from those in government who paternalistically believe they can decide for us what is in our own best interest. We have two centuries of proof that when we keep those in government at bay, servants to us and not our masters, we can raise the standard of living of the entire world through the independent actions of millions, each seeking his or her own rewards from innovation, advancement, and achievement. The lesson of world history is that governments never succeed when they endeavor to replace private initiative with state planning, and that, conversely, nations always progress when they eliminate state planning in favor of private initiative.

We are very near to the tipping point, the point at which those in government who presume to know better than we do what is in our own best interest so regulate and tax private initiative as to force the typical American into action. Whether it is this coming election or the one after it, I do not know, but I do believe genuine change in the direction of liberty is coming. There is much anger in the land, and people are anxious for the opportunity to remove arrogant officeholders from power. They are looking for people who will cut government out of their lives and restore individual liberty and the freedom of choice that enabled us to make America great. They are unwilling to accept that we must all be reduced to a common level of mediocrity if government takeovers become permanent fixtures, and they are unafraid to accept the consequences of their own inherently volatile market choices—whether that is success or failure.

The lie of the government promise—to relieve us from all earthly troubles without the need to pay for the federal leviathan that promises to change the earth—is becoming clear, even to those who once believed the promise. People are now asking routinely, how can our nation afford this monstrous government, and who will the tens of trillions actually help? National polls reveal little confidence in Congress, waning support for a President who has little love for the private sector, and the rise of a national political constituency favoring restoration of a Constitution of liberty.

The pendulum appears about to swing back in favor of liberty. The destiny of mankind is tied to that movement. At this critical moment in world history, we will either rise to the occasion and free the genius of American industry or we will fall from our position as a global superpower replaced by others who have learned from us that freedom is not only the birthright of every citizen, it is the indispensable basis for all human progress.

© 2010 Jonathan W. Emord – All Rights Reserved

Jonathan W. Emord is an attorney who practices constitutional and administrative law before the federal courts and agencies. Congressman Ron Paul calls Jonathan “a hero of the health freedom revolution.” He has defeated the FDA in federal court a remarkable six times, four times on First Amendment grounds. He is the author of The Rise of Tyranny.

E-Mail: Not Available

Nullify This

Posted: 05/02/2010 by Lynn Dartez in We The People

by Rick Fisk
by Rick Fisk
Previously by Rick Fisk: No Country for Free Men



“Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably thro’ every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate, systematical plan of reducing us to slavery.”

~ Thomas Jefferson, 1774

For at least 40 years, modern proponents minarchy and anarchy have argued that we can eliminate many, if not all government functions and replace them with self-governance. Some do this by appealing to the imagination of their audiences. Robert Heinlein was particularly good at this. Some have chronicled current and past attacks on liberty to which government inevitably turns.

A wide variety of proposals have been offered as a means to fashion freer societies including the creation of new political parties. Some have even acted upon this advice. The Libertarian, Green, Constitution, Peace and Freedom, Reform and many other parties have been formed over the last 40 years. Government responded exactly like one should expect. It crafted laws making it nearly impossible for the new parties to effectively compete.

Some have argued over the very morality of voting. Some suggest that voting a certain way will promote liberty. However, very few writers in the modern era have suggested that we may have all of the tools we require to drastically reduce the size and scope of government without ever casting a vote.

Whether or not you are philosophically inclined toward libertarianism or anarchy, it’s hard not to agree that voting for politicians has been an unmitigated disaster if you measure success by limitations placed on government as a result. I speak from a particularly American perspective, but I think this statement could apply anywhere. If it is the U.S. federal government or a particular state, the size and scope of government continues to increase. Other than the possibility of catastrophic failure, the horizon does not indicate a change in this trend. The U.S. Debt is now at 94% of its GDP.

We have witnessed in recent months the growth in anti-government sentiment that even the mainstream media can’t ignore but that our elected officials ignore with apparent impunity.

Voting is the least effective way to affect change. Legislatures react slowly to objections against tyranny that they haven’t created and even slower to that which they have. In Texas for instance, the legislature meets only once every other year. When a bad law is passed, Texans have to wait two years for a repeal, “reform” or nullification assuming that elections netted lawmakers inclined to provide relief. I’m not sure this has ever happened in Texas’ history.

In the meantime, several hundred citizens may have been prosecuted and punished while her citizens wait for another election cycle. The examples are almost too numerous to list where voters have attempted to change policy only to find that the politicians are not so inclined once in office. 1994, a year that seemed to hold so much promise, proved to be another bait and switch. It produced a republican majority in the House of Representatives arriving by way of anti-government sentiment prevalent at the time. But the results were a major disappointment. Despite promises to balance the budget and reduce spending, government continued to grow at an alarming rate.

Apologies for the negative waves, but the discussion surrounding voting is itself a red herring. The framers of our government never intended voting to be as important as its modern-day proponents and antagonists suggest.

It is fashionable to say that the Constitution created a government replete with “checks and balances” but it is probably better to characterize them as safety valves. For instance, impeachment. Ben Franklin described impeachment as a way to prevent assassinations. Pressure, release. Each body of government was to have its own distinct duties but in case tyranny were to flourish, safety valves were added to reduce the necessity of violence as remedy.

The 6th amendment to the constitution was one such safety valve. It states simply:

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

The word jury, at the time this amendment was drafted, had a far different meaning than it is accorded today. The first instructions given a jury by a Supreme Court of the United States were delivered by then Justice John Jay (yes, a jury trial in the Supreme Court):

“It is presumed, that juries are the best judges of facts; it is, on the other hand, presumed that courts are the best judges of law. But still both objects are within your power of decision…you have a right to take it upon yourselves to judge of both, and to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy.” ~ State of Georgia vs. Brailsford (3 Dall 1).

In reading dictionaries of that era, you will find that John Jay was not inventing something out of thin air. A Jury was defined as a body of men who were expected to judge both the law and the facts in criminal cases. In fact, by the time that Jay gave these instructions, the jury’s role as judge of law and fact had already seen it’s five hundredth birthday come and go.

Rather than leave the citizens naked against legislatures intent on “reducing us to slavery,” the jury provides an immediate and legal means to strike down unjust laws and repudiate prosecutors and judges who have used just laws to persecute their constituents. This was deliberate and intentional.

I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” ~ Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Thomas Paine, 1789.

This speaks directly to just whom is empowered to interpret the constitution. The jury is not only a wonderful backstop to belligerent legislatures and prosecutors, but also against judges who presume to interpret the constitutions in a way contrary to common sense and reason. Clearly, Jefferson at least, never intended that the interpretation of our constitutions be limited to judicial review. Reading the intent any other way is to employ circular reasoning; the authority to judge the legitimacy of government actions is the sole authority of government itself.

Statists assert that only the Supreme Court and its district subordinates decide what is and isn’t constitutional. If you thought voting was slow to change government’s direction, how about waiting up to 12 years as your case travels up the district and circuit court food-chain before it is heard by the SCOTUS? And maybe then only to be told that the government is allowed to deny your rights by way of some invented “compelling interest.”

No. That was never the intended outcome.

If a juror feels that the statute involved in any criminal offence is unfair, or that it infringes upon the defendant’s natural god-given unalienable or constitutional rights, then it is his duty to affirm that the offending statute is really no law at all and that the violation of it is no crime at all, for no one is bound to obey an unjust law.” ~ Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone

Consider that the right to have your case placed in front of a jury is, ipso facto, the right to sit on juries. Today we tend to dread the summons for jury duty. It takes time. Some cases have been known to take months. In fact, you will see quite a few libertarian types brag that the way to get out of jury duty is to simply declare that you know your rights. It’s true. Judges and prosecutors wither from juries aware of their rights. And they will do anything, including lying to your face, to prevent you from exercising your prerogative.

From the inception of the United States until 1895, courts as a routine informed the juries that they had a right and duty to judge the law as well as the facts. In 1895, that changed dramatically. In Sparf and Hansen v. United States, the Supreme Court addressed jury nullification directly for the first and only time. The court acknowledged that the jury had the right to judge the law, but it also ruled that judges didn’t have to inform them of this right. And the judges and prosecutors rejoiced.

You see, up until that time, a great number of tyrannical designs had been neutered by juries. Slavery, prohibition, sedition laws, death penalties…. all of these and more have been abolished in the jury box. Where the ballot box created such messes, the jury box cleaned them up. The ammo box could afford to gather dust a little longer.

There are scholars lately focused on legislative tools, nullification and interposition. However, these not only rely upon the ballot box, but have also historically been the follow-on to jury nullification rather than a pre-cursor. The legislative nullification of fugitive slave laws came after juries nullified them, rather than before. In essence, the legislatures were merely formalizing what had already been accomplished by jurors rather than leading the charge to erase tyranny.

The same can be said of prohibition, nullified even after judges stopped informing juries of their right to judge law. The final legislative repeal of the 21st amendment was a mere formality. The government found it virtually impossible to convict and thus it went about saving face while throwing in the towel. Can you imagine any similar outcome as a result of voting? If so you have a vivid imagination because such has never happened in our relatively brief history.

For more than six hundred years – that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215 – there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such law.” ~ Lysander Spooner, The Right of Juries

To really understand the principle of individual sovereignty, one only has to examine the history (pdf) of jury nullification. Every principle of self-government is embodied in the act of individuals using common sense and reason to repudiate those who would seek to control them under color of law. Both civil disobedience and its inextricable mate, jury nullification, are all the individual needs to restore the rightful role of government to protect, rather than destroy an individual’s liberty.

Those who complain that we have no tools but for voting or revolution are dead wrong and it’s time to nullify this erroneous thinking. Rather than take to the streets waving cardboard, seekers of liberty should direct themselves post-haste to their nearest court house and volunteer to sit on a jury.

And make no mistake, if the judges and prosecutors are willing to blatantly lie in order to keep you off of a jury, it is not only moral for you to lie your way onto that jury, but your duty should it be required. Because they will lie and when the court reviews the judge’s instructions that a juror may not judge the law, they will not hesitate to find in the judge’s favor.

Do not fret that you live in a community of people who enjoy servitude. It only takes one juror to hang a verdict. If we allow the one effective tool of liberation to be atrophied and marginalized by statists and naysayers, there will be only one option left, and it won’t be a voting booth.

May 1, 2010

Rick Fisk [send him mail] is a software developer and entrepreneur. He is married, has three children and resides in Austin, TX.

Copyright © 2010 by Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit is given.

Rick Fisk Archives