RFFM.ORG

Springfield Nativity Scene Committee Chairman Says Theft of Atheist Signage from State Capitol Unfortunate

SPRINGFIELD, IL -- According to a spokesman for Jesse White, the Illinois Secretary of State, a sign posted by the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF), was stolen from the state Capitol building Rotunda sometime between 9:45 P.M. Monday and 7 A.M. Tuesday.  The sign--which disparaged those who believe in religion or have personal faith--was placed in the Illinois Capitol building in reaction to a Nativity scene that was sponsored by the Springfield Nativity Scene Committee (SNSC) and donations from the public.

 

"It is truly unfortunate that someone decided to express their displeasure with the disturbing sign by stealing it," said Daniel Zanoza, Chairman of the SNSC.  "Of course, our entire committee would encourage the return of the sign to its rightful owners.  Judeo-Christian teachings tell us 'Thou shalt not steal' through the Ten Commandments.  I know SNSC members are in unison in their condemnation of this act."

 

Recently, some pro-family groups have been critical of the Secretary of State's office for placing the FFRF sign in close proximity to the Nativity scene and the so-called "holiday" tree which stand at the center of the Rotunda.

 

Dave Smith, Executive Director of the Illinois Family Institute, says he knows of at least 400 e-mails or calls that have come into the Secretary of State's office with complaints about the atheist sign's location in reaction to a story Smith wrote on the subject last Monday.  [IFI E-Alert: Atheists Attack Religious Displays in Springfield http://www.illinoisfamily.org/news/contentview.asp?c=34177]

 

"Yes, I do think the atheist sign and its message should have been separated from the positive religious images," said Zanoza.  "I also take umbrage at the suggestion made by this atheist group that Christians in our group or individually had something to do with the stealing of the sign.  It's a slanderous comment and I believe an apology should be forthcoming.  I also find it amazing that this group is now going to use words from Scripture to discourage further theft in the future.  Where I come from it's called hypocrisy, but they may call it something else in Madison, Wisconsin from where this group hails."

 

A spokesman for the FFRF reportedly said the words "Thou shalt not steal" will be included on a replacement sign.

 

The Nativity scene went on display December 2nd and will stand in the Capitol Building Rotunda through December 28th.

 

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact: [email protected]

Choir Performing at Site of Springfield Nativity Scene Wows Overflow Crowd at Capitol, Despite Presence of Offensive Atheist Signage

RFFM.org News by Dan Gura

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS -- Nearly 20 members of a choir--which calls itself the Joyful Senior Singers & Ringers--performed in the Illinois state Capitol Building on December 9th.  Hailing from the Tabernacle Baptist Church in Decatur, the unique group of musicians and vocalists, consisting solely of senior citizens, performed near an historic privately-sponsored Nativity scene which has been on display in Illinois' Statehouse since December 2nd.

There was no official estimate, but those present said the Capitol Rotunda crowd was huge.  "What a wonderful experience," said Marian Blankenship, a spokesman and member of the choir.  "We didn't even use a PA system, yet 16 people sounded like a 100 member choir."

A rendition of "O Holy Night" nearly brought down the house.  And the audience, which surrounded the Rotunda space on all five levels was highly responsive, as the choir performed between 12 noon and 1 P.M. near the recently commemorated Springfield Nativity scene.

"What a joy," said Springfield Nativity Scene Committee (SNSC) Chairman, Daniel Zanoza.  "My heart nearly burst with joy when I heard about the day's events.  Unfortunately, I wasn't able to attend, but truly this is why so many dedicated people worked so hard to see a representation of Christ's birth standing in the state Capitol.  It truly reflected the spirit of the season."

Choir members were also taken on a tour of the Capitol Building complex before their concert.  This was the third in a series of musical revues meant to celebrate the Christmas season and the Nativity scene.

For some, the only fly in the ointment was the presence of a denigrating sign put up by an organization which calls itself the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF).  Headquartered in Madison, Wisconsin, the FFRF is the same group which caused controversy in the state of Washington after erecting a sign with identical wording which, according to many, is meant to insult the faith of Christians, Jews, Muslims and any individual who believes in a power higher than themselves.

"The juxtaposition of the two displays is telling," said Zanoza.  "The Nativity scene and accompanying plaque, proclaims love for one's neighbor and a prayer for hope and peace in accordance with Christ's message.  On the other hand, the message on the FFRF sign is designed to antagonize and belittle the faith of others.  A group that claims to seek equality and tolerance clearly demonstrates intolerance.  I am disappointed the sign is located where it is, but I guess it has a right to be there."

Some Constitutional scholars say there may be an issue of propriety regarding the placing of the atheist sign.  A Menorah which also now stands in the Capitol Building shares the message of hope and good will cited Zanoza, while the FFRF message is hardly appropriate in its placement among the Nativity scene, Menorah and the state's "holiday" tree.

A touching demonstration took place shortly after the Joyful Senior Singers & Ringers concluded their performance.  "After the program, we gathered around the negative sign and prayed," said Blankenship.  "It was certainly the conclusion of a day we will all remember for the rest of our lives."

Any group interested in performing in the Illinois Capitol Rotunda can contact the SNSC by either calling the Chicago-based Thomas More Society at (312) 782-1680 or e-mail Dan Zanoza, SNSC Chairman, at: [email protected].

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact: [email protected]    

NOTE: Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Ramos and Compean: Illegal Immigration Issue Leaves No Justice For Border Agents

Guest Commentary by Laurie Roth

This week I thought I would lose my mind when I heard of the horrifying decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals against Agents Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean. So many of us who had followed this case for the last few years were hoping that once all the evidence had finally been heard, unlike with the first trial, that justice would be done. Wrong!! Justice was not done!!!

You may recall in the first trial that the illegal alien, drug thug Osbaldo Aldrete-Davila, who brought 743 pounds of marijuana over our border was given immunity by Prosecutor Sutton to testify against the two agents. I remember hearing Sutton and his cronies implying that the two agents were rogue racists against Mexicans and had shot a poor, desperate illegal alien in the back of the butt while he was running away from them. On and on the distortion, misinformation….ok….lies went on. I had thought from the very beginning that the racist accusations regarding the two agents against Mexicans was fascinating since Ramos and Compean are Mexican-Americans. It was also fascinating that ‘suddenly’ these two long standing, almost awarding winning agents, Dads and husbands would suddenly decide to break the rules and try and kill an unarmed, desperate illegal alien running away from them.

The only problem with Sutton’s idiot revelations was that folks like Dr. Jerry Corsi, lawyers and those concerned with the real truth started uncovering the facts and it was crystal clear that the poor little illegal alien wasn’t just a one time, accidental tourist of sorts, but a career drug thug who had come across the border with several drug shipments. It also became clear that there was no bullet hole in the back of poor little Davila’s butt, but rather it was through the side of his hip and had traveled into his groin area. This reflected the exact testimony of the two agents that they shot in self-defense and thought he had a gun pointed at them. He would have been turned back toward them to get shot through the side of the hip, NOT the back of the butt as Sutton testified.

Who would you believe in court? The illegal alien drug dealer who lied to everyone and was arrested many times carrying drugs, but was magically given immunity to testify against Ramos and Compean, or the two long standing and well liked border patrol agents who said they fired in self-defense and didn’t even know they had hit Davila?

Given the insanity that they were even arrested in the first place, let alone convicted and thrown in prison, I was naturally so relieved and thrilled that finally an appeal was in process. Those of us looking on for the last few years of suffering and horror with these two families, hoped that justice would finally be done. Apparently not yet!

I couldn’t help but notice, as the families did, how LONG the decision by the 5^th Circuit Court took. It took way longer than usual. Why? In addition, many of us also remember the numerous public statements by at least two of the three Judges who said several times on the record they were suspicious of the federal case against the agents and the inappropriate out of context use of 924c. How is it now, with all that was revealed this time, the immunity given to a guy who had continuously been arrested for bringing drugs across our border, the misuse of 924c to justify the obscene 11 and 12 year sentence and the endless other inconsistencies revealed in this case that this kind of decision could occur?

What now? We can’t just say this was another bad decision, but that is how it goes. Congressman Duncan Hunter said this week, “Those of us who have been following this case from the very beginning were confident that the Fifth Circuit, based on the evidence at hand, would rightfully correct this miscarriage of justice…Unfortunately, the Fifth Circuit decided to uphold this severe injustice.”

Congressman Hunter also said in a released statement on his Government web site that, “Agents Ramos and Compean were convicted based on the testimony of a known drug dealer that has since been convicted for running drugs into the U.S. while serving as the government’s star witness. The fact that the drug dealer’s criminal activity persisted even as he took the stand against these agents is reason enough to vacate these two convictions.”

Rep. Hunter stated he plans to appeal to the President again to review the facts of this case and immediately pardon Agents Ramos and Compean.

Congressman Ted Poe (R-Texas) has also weighed in and stated how bad the decision was and stated when congress put through U.S.C. section 924c that it was never meant to be applied against law enforcement officers. Poe promised he would get this horrible misuse and confusion regarding 924c clarified in Congress immediately.

That is all nice, if they finally clarify this, but will it be retroactive to help the agents rotting in prison? Let’s all weigh in on this and keep the pressure on our Congress and President, especially since our courts are failing in this case! Call, e-mail and fax your Representative and President Bush and say you want a pardon for Agent Ramos and Agent Compean now. E-mail Rep. Ted Poe and Rep. Duncan Hunter and share your support for their efforts to make this right. You can find contact info at www.house.gov

*  Laurie Roth is an author and host of the nationally syndicated “Laurie Roth Show” www.therothshow.com which is broadcast out of Washington state on the IRN-USA Radio Network. The Roth Show can be streamed at this link: http://www.usaradio.com/listen_live_usa2.php or go to the web site to see if the program is available in your local area: http://www.therothshow.com/listen07.htm 

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact [email protected]

Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected. No hyperlinks allowed.

Court Did Not Have Power To Strike Down California Prohibition On Same-Sex "Marriage" -- Like Romney, Schwarzenegger Shirked Obligation To Uphold The Law by Gregg Jackson

Same-Sex "Marriage": Illegal In All 50 States / Conservative Groups + Pundits Miss The Point Regarding Legality Of Court's Action

 

RFFM.org Guest Column by Gregg Jackson *

About a month ago, the California Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, issued a declaratory opinion that Proposition 22, which states that, "Only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California," enshrined into statutory law by 61.4% of California voters in 2000 (over four million voters), was "unconstitutional" on the basis that "gender discrimination" violates the equal protection clause of the state constitution.

The LA Times reported:

"The California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage Thursday in a broadly worded decision that would invalidate virtually any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation."

Sadly, many of the leading "conservative" and "Christian" pro-family organizations such as AFA (American Family Association), Liberty Council, ADF (Alliance Defense Fund), FRC (Family Research Council), ACLJ (American Center for Law and Justice) and Focus on the Family have been in full surrender mode conceding this same liberal talking point that the court "legalized same-sex marriage in California" and that the only way to ensure preserving traditional male-female marriage is through a state constitutional amendment scheduled to be on the ballot in November.

The California Supreme Court issued a declaratory opinion that, in the view of the bare majority, banning same-sex couples from marrying was unconstitutional and that the language of the initiative statute limiting marriage to one man and one woman must be stricken from the statute. Unfortunately however, the court doesn't have the constitutional authority to re-write the marriage statute nor any other initiative statute for that matter. According to the California Constitution, only the people can revoke or amend an initiative statute such as Prop 22. Same-sex "marriage" remains, therefore, illegal.

The court said the plaintiffs were entitled to the issuance of a "writ of mandate" but issued no actual writ to state officials to perform the ministerial act of issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Even if they had issued a "mandate," state officials are sworn to execute the law and not effectuate a court's opinion. Moreover, any court mandate or "order" would have been both unenforceable and invalid, since, according to a recent California Court of Appeals ruling from April of 2008, Sondermann Ring Partners v. Buenaventura, the court can declare an action of the legislature unconstitutional where such action exceeds the limits of the Constitution, but the courts have no means and no power to avoid non-action. In other words, the court is not constitutionally permitted to enforce its opinion.

Governor Schwarzenegger has fulfilled his promise to "uphold the court ruling" by authorizing changes to the marriage certificates, replacing "husband" and "wife" with "partner A" and "partner B" which is ironic considering that he vetoed a previous attempt by the legislature in 2005 to eliminate gender requirements for marriage which he argued required the assent of the electorate. He has also authorized Justices of the Peace and Town Clerks to solemnize and perform same-sex marriage ceremonies which began on June 15^th.

But the main question is whether or not Governor Schwarzenegger possesses the constitutional authority to do so.

The governor, according to Article 5 Section 1 of the California Constitution is solely responsible for seeing that "the law is faithfully executed."

And since all law making powers solely reside with the sovereign people of the state of California and their elected representatives, the Governor is bound to only enforce the laws and statutes which have been enshrined into law via the people (in the case of an initiative statute or constitutional amendment) or their elected representatives, including Prop 22, which has not changed.

According to the California Constitution, only the voters possess the enumerated authority to amend or repeal the marriage statute limiting marriage to one man and one woman (Prop 22). As Judge Baxter wrote in his dissent:

Under article II, section 10, subdivision (c), that body cannot unilaterally repeal an initiative statute, such as Family Code section 308.5, unless the initiative measure itself so provides. Section 308.5 contains no such provision.

Nemo dat quod non habet, ("You cannot give what you do not have.") In other words, the California Supreme Court cannot give to the Legislature, what neither it, nor the legislature, has: the power to overturn the people's initiative legislation. No branch of government, even the branch that claims to be the final arbiter of a Constitution can gain legal authority which it does not possess. To claim then "the court legalized same-sex marriage" by "striking down" the people's initiative statute limiting marriage to one man and one woman has absolutely no constitutional basis.

Governor Schwarzenegger has violated his sworn oath to uphold the California Constitution to only enforce the current laws and statutes of the state of California by illegally authorizing changes [http://www.worldnetdaily.com:80/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=65755] to, and issuance of, marriage certificates to same-sex couples.

Like former Massachusetts Governor Romney before him, Governor Schwarzenegger has falsely asserted that the court's opinion, containing no valid or enforceable court order, "legalized same-sex marriage" and that it is his obligation to enforce the "court's decision." Romney illegally authorized [http://www.undergroundjournal.net/igroops/theunderground/adminpages/Letter-To-Romney-JAN-07] the Department of Public Health to change the marriage certificates from "husband" and "wife" to "partner A" and "partner B" and ordered Town Clerks and Justices of the Peace to perform and solemnize same-sex "marriages," or tender their resignation (which one did), without an accompanying statute approved by the legislature.

Schwarzenegger's tyrannical actions are straight out of the Romney playbook.

It is no surprise that the vast majority of the leading conservative "pro-family" organizations, lawyers and radio-pundits have been silent about Schwarzenegger's illegal actions since virtually every one of them from Focus on the Family to Ann Coulter to Rush Limbaugh totally suppressed the truth about Mitt Romney's virtually identical illegal actions.

Romney, not the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, was originally solely responsible for the illegal [http://www.robertpaine.blogspot.com/] issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2004. The claim that the "activist" Goodridge Court "legalized gay marriage" is a total lie. The court didn't even pretend its declaratory opinion on the one individual case before it, could in any way influence the current marriage statute:

"Here, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief." 

In fact, the court admitted that under the marriage statute, Chapter 207 of the Massachusetts General Laws, homosexual marriage is illegal:

"We conclude, as did the judge, that M.G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry."

In California, while the court has claimed that the designation of marriage as a "union between one man and one woman" must be stricken from the statute, it is crucial to reiterate that only the sovereign people of California have the constitutional authority to amend or revoke an initiative statute such as Prop 22.

Since courts lack the authority to enforce their own opinions and cannot make law, they can only be considered "activist" when the executive branch enforces their opinion as if it were the "new law." While a bare majority of four members of the court no doubt issued an illegal opinion and should be impeached for doing so, Governor Schwarzenegger alone authorized the issuance of the illegally altered marriage certificates. Executive tyranny, not "judicial activism," is what occurred in California (and Massachusetts).

The bottom line is this: Same-sex "marriage" is not legal anywhere in the United States of America from Massachusetts to California. Now if only somebody would explain this basic legal concept to our superstar "conservative" leaders, lawyers, and radio-pundits who incessantly swear that it is.

* Gregg Jackson
Co-Host "Pundit Review Radio"
WRKO Boston's Talk Station www.WRKO.com

Author of "Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies: Issue By Issue Responses to the Most Common Claims of the Left from A to Z"
www.amazon.com/Conservative-Comebacks-Liberal-Lies-Responses/dp/0977227901/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-0819165-6065708?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1178135052&sr=8-1

www.greggjackson.com

Facebook
www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=502797320

Townhall.com Columnist http://www.townhall.com/columnists/GreggJackson

 

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact [email protected]   

Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

RFFM.org Exclusive Stating High-Ranking Israeli Military Official Said Attack on Iran Coming Soon, Confirmed by Jerusalem Post

by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director

In two front page stories published in the Jerusalem Post [www.jpost.com] on June 24, 2008, the newspaper confirmed an RFFM.org Exclusive which quoted a high-ranking member of the Israeli military who said an attack on Iran was imminent.

One story included an interview conducted by the Jerusalem Post with John Bolton, the former American Ambassador to the United Nations.  Bolton predicted the Israeli military would target Iranian facilities which are in the process of developing that nation's first nuclear weapon.

Another Jerusalem Post front page article said Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff and America's highest ranking naval officer were both in Israel participating in high level talks.

For added details regarding future Israeli actions against Iran, including information not revealed in either Jerusalem Post front page columns see RFFM.org's Exclusive from June 23rd titled "High-Ranking Member of Israeli Military Says Attack on Iran Imminent"  http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/06/rffmorg-excusive-high-ranking-member-of-israeli-military-says-attack-on-iran-imminent.html.

Link to Jerusalem Post article, titled "Bolton: Israel to strike Iran after US elections" http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1214132667211&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull 

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact [email protected]    

Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed. 

RFFM.org EXCLUSIVE: High-Ranking Member of Israeli Military Says Attack on Iran Imminent

Tel Aviv -- A high-ranking member of the Israeli military says an attack on Iran is imminent.  Experts predict Iran may be within six months of creating a nuclear weapon and the nation of Israel is bound and determined to prevent that from happening, according to the source.  It has been estimated the government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has produced more than enough weapons-grade plutonium to create a high yield nuclear device and, due to this fact, the attack on Iran would be more devastating in nature than the Israeli bombing of a nuclear plant in Iraq in June of 1981.

 

The source also confirmed a recent trip by President George Bush to Israel was part of high-level talks between the two countries on the guidelines for the upcoming air strike.  During the visit, Bush gave his okay for the transfer of bunker-busting bombs to the Israeli Air Force.

 

The source said the attacks could take place any time between now and after the U.S. presidential election, but before the inauguration of the next president in January of 2009.  However, Israeli leaders are leaning towards launching the sorties against Iran sooner than later because of the imminent danger of Iran possessing a working nuclear bomb.

 

RFFM.org has also learned Bush's trip to Saudi Arabia was much more than an effort to increase OPEC oil production, if at all.  Bush wanted to consult with the Saudi's regarding Israeli plans to take out Iran's nuclear bomb-making capabilities and, from all reports, the Saudi's gave the green light to the Israeli mission.

 

Contrary to conventional wisdom, many states in the Middle East dread the prospect of a nuclear-capable Iran and the Islamic blackmail that might soon follow.

 

The Israeli source adds credence to predictions by John Bolton, the former American ambassador to the United Nations, posted on the Drudge Report on June 23rd, in which Bolton speculates on the aforementioned plans.

 

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact [email protected]   

Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Sure Osama's Pulling for Obama: But At Least America Is Safe From Terrorism--Until The Election

Commentary by Daniel T. Zanoza, Executive Director

Except for the dominant media and the most serious of Democratic Kool-Aid drinkers, it is clear the Islamic world would like to see Barack Hussein Obama become the next president of the United States of America.  I'm sorry, Sen. McCain, I know you don't like things stated so bluntly, even when it's true, but facts are facts.  Yes, I also know your temporary friends in the mainstream press like you because the "Straight Talk Express" prides itself on the use of political correctness.  In fact, that is why you have gotten as far as you have this political season, but Sen. McCain, don't expect that same treatment for very long, no matter how many times you tell fellow Republicans to lay off Obama.

 

Now that the junior Senator from Illinois has officially become the Democratic Party's presumptive presidential nominee, you will be depicted by the Obama-loving media as being a bit more qualified to be president than Saddam Hussein...and he's dead.  So, that should give you a clue as to the coverage you will be receiving between now and election day.

 

But back to Obama.  During the primary season, we learned Libyan strong man Muammar Qaddafi would like to see Obama ensconced in the White House come Inauguration Day.  Hamas and Hezbollah support Obama as well.  In addition, Obama, reportedly, has received praise from some high-ranking members of Al-Qaeda itself, along with encouragement from Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and Cuba's Fidel Castro.  But let's get back to the wonderful world of radical Islam.  Obama said he would meet with Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad without the United States receiving any concessions from these tyrants, if he was elected U.S. president.  Some international observers thought such comments by Obama were extremely provocative, considering the fact America is trying to apply pressure on Iran through the United Nations in the attempt to convince that nation not to build a nuclear weapon.  Since Ahmadinejad said he would turn Israel into a waste land, many longtime international negotiators believe Obama's strategy could be called counterproductive at best.

 

There are some bad people who had to love what Obama has said during the last year and we all know who they are.  I'm sure Osama Bin Laden himself is sitting back somewhere in the mountainous region of northwest Pakistan and watching MSNBC's primary coverage.  Could you see MSNBC's Chris Matthews and Bin Laden at an Obama rally, both shedding a tear during one of those uplifting, teleprompter-aided speeches while chanting, "Yes, we can!  Yes, we can!"

 

Seriously, there is no doubt there was considerable celebration when Hillary Clinton decided to throw in the proverbial towel and agree to concede the Democratic presidential nomination to the upstart from Illinois.  But you wouldn't have seen the dancing in the streets in Tehran and Damascus on any of the major television networks.  Quite frankly, they would rather show George Bush rescuing a small puppy from a raging river than depict Obama in a negative light, even though they hate Mr. Bush with every fiber of their being.

 

Quite honestly, there are some benefits from radical Islam's love affair with Obama who they might possibly see as one of their own.  The time between now and the November election may be the safest for the United States since radical Islam reared its ugly head back in 1979.  There is no way an attack will take place on American soil directed by Al-Qaeda or any other Islamic faction.  A successful terrorist plot against the United States would doom the candidacy of Barack Obama simply because of Obama's heritage--fair or not.  Even when Obama tried to act as though he would be tough on Islamic terrorists, his stated policy would favor individuals like Bin Laden.

 

Earlier this year, Obama said he would bomb regions of northwest Pakistan in the effort to kill Osama Bin Laden.  The only problem with this strategy is such an action would be sure to topple the pro-American government of Pakistani leader, Pervez Musharraf.  Experts agree such military action would throw that nation into turmoil and probably lead to a radical Islamic regime taking over.  This would put hundreds of nuclear weapons in the hands of those who hate America the most; and one day a port in New York, San Francisco or Los Angeles might fall under the shadow of a mushroom cloud all because of some ill-conceived actions from an inexperienced president.

 

So, enjoy these times, America.  Those of you who plan on taking a trip to New York or Washington, D.C. should have no fears from terrorist attacks.  Why would radical Islam want to ruin a good thing?  Now, if Obama loses, the day after the election will be another story entirely.  The sad thing about it all is there are millions of Americans who would be happy to appease terrorists than fight them.  They make up the rank and file of the MoveOn.org crowd and, like Great Britain's Neville Chamberlain, they may see the period between today and the November election as "peace in our time."

 

I'm sorry, Sen. McCain, but I just had to say it.

 

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact [email protected]  

Comments to RFFM.org's blog which include ad hominems or personal attack will automatically be rejected.  No hyperlinks allowed.

Global Swarming: A Critical Look at Global Warming: Part 5 – Who Are Those Guys? by Bill Zettler

Editor's Note: Contributing Editor, Bill Zettler, has written one of the most in-depth and provocative looks at the social and scientific phenomenon surrounding the issue of global warming.  Zettler ends the five-part series on what has become perhaps the most controversial issue of our time.  It will always be a must read for those who want to have the facts about climate change and the motivations behind those who promote speculation over GLOBAL WARMING.  -- Dan Zanoza

From the Desk of Bill Zettler 

"Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change. ... The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."

The above quote sounds like any number of recent AP reports on the Global Warming disaster looming before us.  Actually, it is a quote from Newsweek magazine in their April 1975 issue.  The “grim reality” they were writing about?  Why GLOBAL COOLING, of course.

So, who are these people who currently predict that Global Warming spells the demise of the human race, even though many scientists suggest otherwise?

Some think it started with Al Gore who, in 1992, published a book titled, “The Earth In the Balance”.  But crazy environmental predictions preceded Gore by at least 20 years.  In 1968 Berkeley professor Paul Erlich wrote a book called, “The Population Bomb” wherein he predicted 100’s of millions of people would starve within decades because population growth would exceed natural resources and food production.  Here are some of Erlich's more famous quotes are:

"Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun." (1976)

“We've already had too much economic growth in the United States.  Economic growth in rich countries like ours is the disease, not the cure." (1990)

"The battle to feed humanity is over.  In the 1970's, the world will undergo famines.  Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death, in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.  Population control is the only answer." (1968)

Erlich could be considered the intellectual godfather of the radical environmental disaster clique currently dominating media, politics and entertainment.

It is easy to imagine Al Gore saying the same things Erlich said--only in a more politically correct manner.  But the gist of the environmentalists’ argument could be summarized from the above quotes:

* Cheap energy is a curse not a blessing.
* Economic growth is bad.
* Humans need to die or at least not be born.

In other words humans are bad, capitalist humans are worse and American capitalist humans are the worst of the worst.  Lenin could not have said it better.

What we have in the environmentalist Left is a new age of collectivists whose major goal is to stop or at least limit capitalism and to make certain the elitist intelligentsia (meaning themselves of course) take control of human progress.  Indeed their solution would not be progress, but retrogression and such a philosophy would not move human life forward, but backward.

Why are the collectivists of old now determined environmentalists?  Because the 1980’s marked the end of socialism and there was nowhere else for them to go.  The 20th Century had proved, via the largest human experiment in history, that socialism does not work.

The Berlin Wall fell and Soviet Communism fell shortly thereafter.  From seven decades of Gulags and blood emerged raw, but successful, capitalist states--although some still struggle against tyrannical ex-communist politicians.

India went from a Democratic socialist nightmare to a thriving capitalist success story in less than two decades.  China, also know as Mao Tse Dung’s Stalinist death-camp, emerged as a hybrid communist-capitalist success story.  And England under Margaret Thatcher successfully privatized all the collapsing government-owned industries including oil, telephone, power, coal, steel, railways and airlines.

Therefore, what is a dedicated socialist to do, faced with the historical evidence that capitalism works and socialism doesn’t?  What to do when the ignorant peasant proletariat, when given the chance, eagerly chooses capitalism over socialism?

All socialists were out of jobs, but not out of ideology.  Where to go to continue the fight against the evil of capitalism?  The universities and the environmental lobby were more than happy to hire them.  That is because environmentalists and university collectivists know if you can restrict energy exploration and subsequent energy use, you can stop capitalism in its tracks or, at the very least, slow it down.

One of the most effective ways to do this is to use the legal system in the effort to stop fossil fuel exploration.  For example, sue to protect Caribou migration and stop oil exploration in ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge); sue to put Polar Bears on the Endangered Species List and prevent exploring for oil in the Arctic oceans; and sue coal-fired power plants for emitting mercury, even though U.S. power plants produce less than 1% of worldwide mercury emissions.  After you have done that, sue to prevent the building of any nuclear power plants.

That leaves only renewable fuels to fill an impossible energy gap left by restricting the expansion of the use of fossil fuels and nuclear power.  This will retard capitalism, not only in the U.S., but worldwide.  This is due to the fact energy use per capita is directly correlated to wealth.  Less energy means less wealth means less development means less capitalism.

However, that also means more poverty, more misery and more death because of this unassailable fact:  We cannot feed, medicate and educate the nine billion people demographers say will be on earth in 2050 without extensive expansion of coal and nuclear energy sources.  To legislate restrictions on energy use will bring certain death to millions of innocent people worldwide.  This would be an unprecedented human disaster, solely of the environmental collectivists making.

Paul Driessen, Author of "Green Power, Black Death" wrote:  “My big concern with Global Warming, is that the policies being pushed to supposedly prevent Global Warming, are having a disastrous effect on the world's poorest people.”

James Shikwati, a Kenyan Economist and Author said in a 2006 interview:  “No refrigeration or modern packaging means that food cannot be kept. The fire in the hut is too smoky and consumes too much wood to be used as heating. There is no hot water. Those in the West cannot begin to imagine how hard life is without electricity. The life expectancy of people who live like this is terrifyingly short, their existence impoverished in every way.

“A few miles away (UN Global Warming Conference, Nairobi, Kenya 2006), the UN is hosting its conference on Global Warming in its plush gated headquarters.  The gift shop is selling souvenirs of peasant tribal life, while delegates discuss how to promote what are described as sustainable forms of electrical generation.  Africa has coal, and Africa has oil. But environmental groups are campaigning against the use of these cheap sources of energy. Instead they say Africa and the rest of the Developing World should use Solar and Wind Power.

“I don't see how a solar panel is going to power a steel industry.  How a solar panel, you know, is going to power some railway train network.  It might work maybe to power a small transistor radio.”

So the battle is joined.  Will the elitist environmentalists win with their “the end justifies the means” ideology and drive the world backward into another Dark Age?  Or will common sense and historical precedent prevail.  Lets hope and pray it is the latter.

********************************************************

Part 1 Series Overview by Bill Zettler: http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/03/global-swarming.html

Part 2 If It's Not Carbon Dioxide, What Is It? by Bill Zettler: http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/03/global-swarmi-2.html

Part 3 The Facts, Ma'am, Just The Facts by Bill Zettler:  http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/03/global-swarmi-3.html

Part 4 Global Warming's Conscientious Objectors by Bill Zettler:  http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/03/global-swarmi-4.html 

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  [email protected]

Global Swarming: A Critical Look at Global Warming: Part 4 Global Warming's Conscientious Objectors by Bill Zettler

Editor's Note: Contributing Editor, Bill Zettler, has written one of the most in-depth and provocative looks at the social and scientific phenomenon surrounding the issue of global warming.  Zettler continues the five-part series on what has become perhaps the most controversial issue of our time.  It is a must read for those who want to have the facts about climate change and the motivations behind those who promote speculation over GLOBAL WARMING.  -- Dan Zanoza

From the Desk of Bill Zettler 

To Al Gore and the leftist media (especially the Associated Press) the argument is over – Global Warming is a fact and anyone who disagrees is a “denier”. They present, in coordinated fashion, a constant laundry list of global warming scare stories: glaciers melting, polar bears dieing, oceans rising and the notorious “scientific consensus”. Name-calling and ad hominem attacks are their substitute for scientific debate.

What is virtually impossible to find in the media is reporting on the huge amount of scientific research that cogently argues against the elitist medias contention of Global Warming disaster.

Here is a small list of famous scientists who disagree with Al Gore and his acolytes:

John Christy United Nations (UN) scientist and winner of the Nobel Prize along with Al Gore:
… “ I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my UN colleagues cringe when I
say this, but I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking
gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we
see.”

Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, MIT.
… "There is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who
dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their
work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific
hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence
even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their
basis."

William Gray, Professor of Meteorology Colorado State and UN Scientist.
… "We're brainwashing our children. They're going to the Gore movie (‘An Inconvenient Truth’) and being fed all this. It's ridiculous. They've been brainwashing us for 20 years. Starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15-20 years, we'll look back and see what a hoax this was."

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, Russian Academy of Science
… "It is no secret that increased solar irradiance warms Earth's oceans, which then triggers the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations. A global freeze will come about regardless of whether or not industrialized countries put a cap on their greenhouse- gas emissions."

Dr. Tim Patterson, PhD Professor of Geology Carleton University (Canada)
… “Since 1940 the Greenland coastal stations data have undergone predominantly a cooling trend. At the summit of the Greenland ice sheet, the summer average temperature has decreased at the rate of 2.2 degrees C per decade since the beginning of the measurements in 1987. This suggests that the Greenland ice sheet and coastal regions are not following the current global warming trend.”

Dr. Tim Ball, Climatology Professor, University of Winnipeg
… “Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification.”

Daniel Botkin, professor emeritus of Ecology, Univ. of California
… “Global warming doesn't matter except to the extent that it will affect
life -- ours and that of all living things on Earth. And contrary to the
latest news, the evidence that global warming will have serious effects
on life is thin. Most evidence suggests the contrary.”

Dr Vincent Gary, Member IPCC UN Experts Reviewer Panel
… “The two main ‘scientific’ claims of the IPCC are the claim that ‘the globe is warming’ and ‘Increases in carbon dioxide emissions are responsible’. Evidence for both of these claims is fatally flawed.”

Reid Bryson, Professor Emeritus, Univ. of Wisconsin, Dept. of Meteorology, identified as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world.
… “And how much heat is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one
percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go
outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.”

Thomas Segalstad, Professor of Geology, Oslo Univ., UN Expert Reviewer
… "The UN needs a lesson in geology to avoid making fundamental
mistakes. Most leading geologists, throughout the world, know
that the UN's view of Earth processes is implausible if not impossible. It is all a fiction.”

The above is a very small sample of scientists who vehemently disagree with the United Nations and Al Gore.  They are some of the most renowned scientists in the world, but without a voice in the U.S. mainstream media.  If you would like to see 19,000 more scientists who disagree check out Frederick Seitz’s website [http://www.oism.org/pproject/].  Seitz is former President of the National Academy of Science and founding member of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine.

The problem is there are too many ideologues and too few journalists in what is called “the media”.  Politics and entertainment dominate the field we call “media” and yet they present themselves to the public as “journalists.”  But journalists do research, are (or should be) cynical--especially when dealing with politicians (such as Gore)--and should present both sides of an issue.  Politicians and entertainers, on the other hand, present personal points of view and agendas i.e., without journalistic discipline.  In the current state of affairs, politics, entertainment and media are all mixed up together--without borders or definitions with separate purposes. It has become increasingly difficult to tell one from the other.  And that is the problem.

************

Part 1 Series Overview by Bill Zettler: http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/03/global-swarming.html

Part 2 If It's Not Carbon Dioxide, What Is It? by Bill Zettler: http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/03/global-swarmi-2.html

Part 3 The Facts, Ma'am, Just The Facts by Bill Zettler:  http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/03/global-swarmi-3.html

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact:  [email protected]

Global Swarming: A Critical Look at Global Warming: Part 3 – The Facts Ma'am, Just the Facts by Bill Zettler

Editor's Note:  Contributing Editor, Bill Zettler, has written one of the most in-depth and provocative looks at the social and scientific phenomenon surrounding the issue of global warming.  Zettler continues the five-part series on what has become perhaps the most controversial issue of our time.  It is a must read for those who want to have the facts about climate change and the motivations behind those who promote speculation over GLOBAL WARMING.  -- Dan Zanoza

From the Desk of Bill Zettler

In this column, I discuss the accuracy and honesty of the measurements used to hype the global warming scare.

The most obvious measurement--and the one discussed most often in the media--is temperature, when it comes to global warming.  The deceptive way the environmental lobby frames this argument is by comparing the temperature from the 1970’s with the current decade.  The reason this is done is because the 1970’s were the coldest decade of the 20th century.  This would look especially dire, since any comparisons would be going from a very low point to a very high point.  This is disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst.

The proper comparison would be the 1930’s, since that was the warmest decade of the 20th century.  But when 1930’s temperatures are used as a comparison to the current “heat wave” things don’t look much different.  For example, Greenland shows a decrease in temperature since 1930.  For the continental U.S., 29 of the 48 continental states had their highest recorded temperatures in the 1930’s and the warmest July on record was in 1936.  Therefore, using the 1930's temperature template as a base for comparison would make it difficult to convince people the world is coming to an end, considering things haven’t changed in 70 years.

Another well known and agreed upon temperature issue is called the “Urban Heat Island” (UHI) effect.  This is the well-researched and documented increase in temperature over urban areas caused by the enormous increase in heat-absorbing material used in modern life.  Some examples of this heat absorption phenomenon are more asphalt parking lots, more eight lane highways, bigger roofs because of bigger houses, ubiquitous air conditioners cooling interiors by moving heat outside and tens of millions of hot truck, bus and auto engines idling in traffic jams.  And consider the heat absorption rates of our enormous modern airports, virtually 100% cement and rooftops, where many of our city temperatures are officially recorded.  Certainly there must be some large temperature distortions in those environments.  An attempt is made to adjust temperatures down to account for UHI, but the question remains, is it adjusted enough?

In other words, our modern society generates and traps enormous amounts of heat in the heat-absorbent materials of modern life and releases that heat back into the local area, usually at night.  This is why 80% of the increased temperatures in urban areas occur at night i.e., the increase in the lowest temperature of the day (early in the morning) represents 80% of what climate alarmists call global warming.  If it is really “global warming” as opposed to “local warming” shouldn’t most of the increase be during the day rather than at night?

This Urban Heat Island effect can be easily seen by comparing the temperatures of Albany, N.Y. and New York City for the years 1930 to 2005.  Albany’s temperature trend is down by about ½ degree, while NYC temperature trends are up by one degree.  If it is “global” warming, how can two cities 140 miles a part as the crow flies have such different trends?  Doesn’t it make sense that the Urban Heat Island effect of a city with 80 times the population of another accounts for most or all of the difference?

To illustrate the serious problem with current temperature measurements there is a picture of an official temperature-gathering site in Tucson, Arizona at this link:  http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/07/how_not_to_measure_temperature_22.html  Imagine how hot that parking lot blacktop must get in July in Arizona.  If this is an example of the temperature-gathering quality in the U.S., imagine what the sites in Kazakhstan, Paraguay and Zimbabwe must be like.  Making trillion dollar spending decisions, based upon information from sources like this, is beyond ridiculous, it’s frightening.

Measurements of CO2 itself are also controversial.  Since 1958, the official site for CO2 collection and measurement has been 13,000 feet up an active volcano in Mauna Loa, Hawaii.  Since volcanoes are known to give off huge amounts of CO2 when active, the question arises why that site was chosen.  Even stranger is the official source for CO2 measurement before 1950.  That would be a 400 foot ice core from Antarctica reflecting CO2 levels.

Which brings up two measurement questions:  Why collect CO2 samples from 13,000 feet up an active volcano in a tropical climate (tropical climates create CO2) for post-1950 records and collect samples from 10,000 feet lower in an arctic climate (arctic climates absorb CO2) for the years before 1950?

And why use an ice-core and it’s less reliable records instead of the 90,000 scientific CO2 readings taken directly from the atmosphere prior to 1950?  One reason might be that the direct measurements taken prior to 1950 often show CO2 rates higher than the current levels.  This would limit the environmental lobby’s argument that CO2 levels are at an all-time high and the world was coming to an end because of it.

As for Antarctica melting and raising the sea level, as Al Gore would have us believe, research shows otherwise.  Mainland Antarctica cannot melt because its average temperature is –55 degrees Fahrenheit in the winter and 0 degrees in summer.  In fact, recent research shows Antarctica getting colder and getting larger by 26 Giga tons per year.  And if neither Antarctica nor Greenland is melting, then the sea levels are not rising because 98% of all frozen water in the world is in these two locations.  That is why melting glaciers have virtually no effect on sea levels since in total they represent less than 2% of all frozen water.

Another Al Gore fairy tale is how global warming is melting Mt. Kilimanjaro.  That would be impossible since the temperature at the top never gets above freezing.  The reason there is less ice and snow on Mt. Kilimanjaro is because the monsoons from the Indian Ocean shifted away from the region about 150 years ago causing less precipitation to fall, therefore, causing less snow and ice to accumulate.  Ice and snow wear away over time, if they do not have regular precipitation renewing their ice source.  It has nothing to do with temperature or global warming.

So, measurement sources of temperature are questionable, measurement sources of CO2 are questionable and the melting of ice caps is questionable.  Doesn’t that make the whole theory of "Global Warming" questionable?

In our next article, I discuss the thoughts of the deniers, those scientists who disagree with the rush to judgment of the United Nations and Al Gore.

Part 1 Series Overview by Bill Zettler: http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/03/global-swarming.html

Part 2 If It's Not Carbon Dioxide, What Is It? by Bill Zettler: http://rffm.typepad.com/republicans_for_fair_medi/2008/03/global-swarmi-2.html

Anyone wishing to receive RFFM.org e-mails should contact [email protected].