Conservative Quote of the Day





“The Second Day of July 1776 will be the most memorable Epocha in the History of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding Generations as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires, and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more.”

-JOHN ADAMS

 

Photo credit: cliff1066™ (Creative Commons)

Photo credit: cliff1066™ (Creative Commons)

The Report The Algoreans Don’t Want You To Read…

Al Gore Climate Crisis Truth SC The Report The Algoreans Don’t Want You To Read…

This morning, I had the pleasure of participating in a conference call/presentation with the free market Heartland Institute. It was intended to be an announcement of and preview of a newly-released report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) titled “Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science.”

For background purposes, the Heartland Institute was founded 29 years ago in Chicago and is committed to advocating a domestic free market. The NIPCC was founded in 2003 and consists of a wholly independent group of scientist committed to finding the truth about climate science.

This report is the result of collaboration among Heartland and two other organizations: the Science & Environmental Policy Project and the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change. It was coauthored and coedited by:

-Dr. Craig D. Idso (a geologist and chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change);

-Dr. Willie Soon (an astrophysicist and geoscientist published in many academic journals); and

-Dr. S. Fred Singer (an atmospheric and space physicist and Director of the nonprofit Science and Environmental Policy Project.)

The moderator of the discussion was Jim Lakely, Communications Director of the Heartland Institute.

The 1500-page report provides the scientific balance that is missing from the overly alarmists reports of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which are highly selective in their review of climate science and controversial with regard to their projections of future climate change. It was described as an “encyclopedic volume” of the global warming phenonemon, filled with the findings of (and direct quotes from) thousands of scientists. (Turns out many of these scientists make claims contradictory to our friends in the United Nations.) A team of 47 scientists worked on the report over several months.

Unlike most of the “scientists” touted by liberal politicians and the mainstream media, these ones I heard from today spoke very professionally and sounded genuinely committed to their profession rather than to some personal agenda. They pointed out that “skepticism” used to be a good thing; but now with global warming, it is bad all of a sudden. Likewise, “consensus” used to be a bad thing; but with global warming, it is celebrated.

I think it is pretty clear at this point in the discussion over global warming that science has nothing to do with it.

This is not the first report the NIPCC has released. Its first report, an independent examination  of the evidence available on the causes and consequences of climate change, was published in 2009, and an interim report was published two years later challenging the IPCC doom-and-gloom narrative.

Needless to say, the NIPCC found the IPCC to be heavily biased, with their claims full of distorted facts and exaggerated claims. They reviewed thousands of peer-reviewed studies that disputed the UN and concluded that the international global warming body was either biased or negligent, as well as misleading the scientific community.

In short, these nonpartisan scientists provided a “scientific balance.” They found weaknesses in the much-touted scientific models and noted that not a single one of them validated concrete climate observations. They have not explained why the earth has not been warming over the past 15 years. Or how the Antarctic ice has been growing steadily.

The report consists of seven detailed chapters that include full citations and direct quotes. All consisting of independent, agenda-free findings.

Dr. Soon admitted they were “not afraid of (UN) authority” and called the claims of the IPCC “patently false” and lacking proof. He also added that his fellow scientists need to “avoid either/or propositions” and keep an open mind (which they should be doing anyway.)

While the scientists stated that they believe the climate is changing and that man is playing at least a small role in said change, they admit they simply do not know for a fact that it is because of CO2 admissions.

In response to the question of a reporter from an institute supporting the ideas of Ayn Rand, Ron Bass, also of Heartland, endorsed the idea of a separation of science and state, calling it a “wonderful idea” in line with the thinking of our Founding Fathers.

Dr. Soon added that “we will say when we’re wrong,” as Dr. Singer noted the irony that the IPCC says that they are “unbiased” in their research. “We are just trying to get to the truth.”

Mr. Bass concluded the call by saying that “careers have to come to an end” so that the debate over the causes of climate change can start anew, maybe ten years from now. He added that he has faith in the younger generation, who he believes are much more likely to question things with their frequenting of the internet and alternative media.

Read the report here.

 

This commentary originally appeared at EPAAbuse.com and is reprinted here with permission. 

Debunking Edward Snowden’s Critics

snowden Debunking Edward Snowdens Critics

I just want to say unequivocally that 29-year-old NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden is a hero. I wish we had many more people like him (and Bradley Manning and Julian Assange, but that’s for another time), not fewer. He is a genuine patriot. He has done far more to bring accountability to government than ANY current Republican Congressman or Senator who sticks his chest out and says he believes in “limited government” and “the Constitution.”

Of course, there are many who hold the exact opposite view, that he is a traitor and not a hero. Such people include conservative commentators (!), retired military officials, and a number of Republicans and Democrats in Congress.

Try as I might to understand their objections to the invaluable service Mr. Snowden provided our country, they just don’t make any sense.

Here, in no particular order, I will debunk the most pointed arguments his critics have leveled at him:

 

1. “He’s a high school dropout.”

This is just ridiculous, and a blatant personal attack. And this is only said to distract the listener or reader from learning about what it is Snowden really did. If it is wrong to drop out of high school, why didn’t these guys criticize Princess Diana? What about Thomas Edison? Benjamin Franklin? Albert Einstein? All these people dropped out of high school too, and that had no long-term effect on their character now, did it?

 

2. “He has endangered national security.”

Keep in mind that “national security” is an ambiguous phrase that is nowhere to be found in the Declaration of Independence or our Constitution. It pretty much means whatever a fearmongering, warmongering politician (like Lindsey Graham or John McCain) wants it to mean. In other words, it is a term that can easily be used to manipulate people into giving up their freedom. For over a decade, the American people (probably one of the most gullible in the world) have happily traded their liberty for security. And to quote Benjamin Franklin (one of my favorite Founding Fathers): “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Personally, I would much rather die a free person from terrorists than live under a tyrannical, fascist government that knows my every move.

 

3. “He has broken the law. He violated his agreement/oath to keep this information secret.”

I have a question for the people who make this claim: What if a law is unjust? Were abolitionists wrong to hide slaves just because slavery was the law of the land in America in the 1800s? Was Oskar Schindler wrong to hide Jews just because Adolf Hitler said that to do so was wrong? Was Sophie Scholl wrong in exposing the horrors of the Nazi government with her fellow patriots in the White Rose non-violent resistance group? I do fear that many of the authoritarians calling for Snowden’s head (who essentially believe anything the government says no matter what it does) would support the Nazis and the pro-slavery politicians if they lived in a different time. Obey the powers that be, right guys?

Another question: What about Mr. Snowden’s oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America (specifically the Fourth Amendment, which states that “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”)? Turns out Edward was just following this oath and did not forget it, unlike 99.99 % of the other people (it seems) who “take” the oath.

Oh, and the government violated ITS agreement (the Constitution) with the American people first! Why don’t Snowden’s critics stand up for the rule of law? Why? Why is it his defenders who are doing so instead?

 

4. “He has fled to Communist China.”

Mr. Snowden has actually fled to Hong Kong. Surprisingly, the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank says that Hong Kong is the freest country in the world, even freer than the “land of the free,” the good old USA. Heritage adds that Hong Kong, despite technically being a ” Special Administrative Region” of China, “is self-governing on a day-to-day basis and enjoys a wide range of freedoms under a mini-constitution known as the Basic Law.” Nice try guys!

 

5. “He has aided our enemies.”

This is a statement with absolutely no substance to back it up. He did not sell secrets to what his critics would refer to as “our enemies.” They have presented no evidence with this charge. Furthermore, they essentially believe that the US government is NOT the greatest threat to our liberties, an absurd statement judging by how fascistic and totalitarian America has become since the beginning of the “war on terror.” In a way, Edward aided the greatest enemy to tyranny: an informed and alert public.

 

6. “These NSA programs are entirely legitimate. Besides I don’t have anything to hide. I’ve done nothing illegal.”

Many who supported the Patriot Act while it was being “debated” in 2001 said the same thing. Keep in mind, however, that it is not illegal to have imtimate relations with your spouse. It is not illegal to have an enlarged prostate or an overactive bladder or irritable bowel syndrome. It is not illegal to have cancer or other health issues. It is not illegal to keep money in a bank in a specific account. It is not even illegal to have an affair! But, just because you “did nothing illegal”, does that mean you really don’t care if the world knows such personal information? I challenge the people who still make such an argument to voluntarily disclose their sexual habits, health concerns, and bank account information. I mean, they have nothing to hide, right?

As Michael Rozeff explains:

We do not want privacy only to conceal our wrong-doings. That’s why this argument fails. We want privacy for a host of other reasons that have nothing to do with hiding wrongs. We do not put up curtains or draw the shades to conceal wrongs. We do not keep our financial affairs to ourselves to hide crimes. We don’t conceal our social security numbers from people because we’re doing something wrong. We don’t invite anyone and everyone to listen in to our conversations, and it’s not because we’re plotting crimes. Does a child want his parents to broadcast his or her grades in school to everyone? Do children want their parents to tell everyone their habits and their imperfections? Children want privacy as much as adults. It comes natural. The demand for privacy has very, very little to do with concealing wrongs.

 

7. “He should have used the proper channels to communicate his concerns.”

As Sheldon Richman of the Future of Freedom Foundation explains:

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper says Snowden should have used established channels to raise his concerns, but there are no effective channels. Members of the congressional intelligence committees are prohibited from telling the public what they learn from their briefings. Two members of the Senate committee, Ron Wyden and Mark Udall, for years have warned — without disclosing secrets — that the Obama administration is interpreting the Patriot Act and related laws far more broadly than was ever intended by those who voted for those pieces of legislation. Their warnings have made no difference.

A court challenge wasn’t open to Snowden either. Glenn Greenwald, who published Snowden’s leaks in the Guardian, notes that for years the ACLU has tried to challenge the surveillance programs in court on Fourth Amendment grounds, but the Obama administration has blocked the effort by arguing that the ACLU has no standing to bring the suit. It’s a classic Catch-22. Since the surveillance is secret, no one can know if he has been spied on. But if no one knows, no one can go into court claiming to be a victim, and the government will argue that therefore the plaintiff has no standing to challenge the surveillance. Well played, Obama administration.

 

8. “He should turn himself in.”

Like Obama is really going to give this guy a fair trial, after how he literally caught the government with its pants down?! However, jurors can still acquit Snowden if they believe that the laws he was being prosecuted under were thought to be unjust! Ever heard of jury nullification? If not, read more about this perfectly legal (yet underrated) concept here.

 

9. “These NSA programs don’t break any laws. There is no evidence the NSA did any wrongdoing.”

Um, have they not heard of the Fourth Amendment? The spying done by the NSA is WARRANTLESS. That means it is illegal! End of story. Furthermore, it’s sad how some will justify these programs by taking every single word the official government’s website says about them as gospel.

 

Frankly, it’s a downright shame many will think that Edward Snowden is the enemy and not the federal government.

I believe that every single man and woman who works in government at any level has a moral obligation to expose clearly corrupt and unethical behavior by government officials, irregardless of what the law says. In fact, in the hundreds of thousands of pages of laws on the books, I wouldn’t be surprised that there just might be a long-forgotten about legal obligation as well.

A truly free society needs a government in which whistleblowers should have no qualms coming forward with immoral behavior being committed by “our” leaders. How else will government really be held accountable? Elections? Congress? The Courts? Been there, done that.

We are no different than communist Russia if we allow the government to spy on us (regardless of the reason they give, such as “keeping us safe.”) Remember what Ben Franklin said.

 

Daniel Noe is editor of WesternJournalism.com and editor-in-chief of EPAAbuse.com. Feel free to send him a message at: daniel@westernjournalism.com.

Video: Colorado Considers Secession

Residents of the northeastern section of the state of Colorado believe that it should constitute a new, 51st state, according to ABC News.

An Eagle Scout’s Take On The Current Boy Scout Controversy

Scouts SC An Eagle Scouts Take on the Current Boy Scout Controversy

Yesterday, Western Journalism linked to an article about the controversy over allowing openly gay boys into the Boy Scouts of America.

It looks like after relentless pressure, the Boy Scouts are caving into the homosexual agenda (which as I will explain later has nothing to do with homosexuality per se.)

This just might be the last straw for me…

First, some background. From 1998 until 2004, I was a proud member of BSA Troop 199 in Oldwick, New Jersey. I made a lot of friends and even acquired a few mentors during my time in the scouts. One of my proudest accomplishments in my 26 years was attaining the rank of Eagle Scout in October 2004. I remember the ceremony as if it was just yesterday. It was a lot of hard work, but it was more than worth it.

I am still in touch with several of my fellow Eagle Scouts (some of whom just might be reading this right now!) And man do we have a strong opinion on what is happening to the program we were privileged to be a part of during our teenage years.

I do know some “scout dads” who will cease any involvement, current or former, with the Boy Scouts should they yield to the gay lobby.

I should also mention (proudly) that I am a theologically and culturally conservative Christian who after attending a more moderate church for 15 years was saved earlier this year after attending an Independent Baptist church for two weeks. I am proud to call Sun Valley Baptist Church in Anthem, Arizona my new home church.

The reason why I am specific in terms of what kind of Christian I am is because sadly, a LOT of Christianity has been watered down in America. Whole denominations are indifferent to traditional marriage, “social justice,” the increasing usurpation of our God-given liberties under multiple recent administrations, and even abortion.

When it comes to marriage, I subscribe strictly to its biblical definition. (To some people, that makes me a “bigot,” an accusation I will proudly wear with a badge of honor.) Why, you may ask? Because God did not create Adam and Steve, nor Alice and Eve. He created Adam and Eve. End of story.

I believe that Christians are to hate sin while at the same time loving the sinner. It is not gays themselves I am opposed to. It is the gay lifestyle, which is shamelessly promoted on television, Hollywood, the rest of the media, and the Democratic Party (this should not suggest that I am any fan of the Republican Party, FYI.) It is specifically promoted as a “normal” lifestyle, which just simply is not true to the many of us Christians who read the Bible for ourselves.

It is not the job of Christians to call them names (i.e. “perverts”, “queers”, or worse.) Unfortunately, some Christians will distract fellow church-goers from the fact that they are sinners by just demonizing gays (or immigrants or Muslims) all the time. These Christians should know better as we are all sinners, whether we like it or not.

The so-called “homosexual agenda” is not about homosexuality. It is not about “equality.” It is about gaining special privileges that straight people do not have (i.e. “hate crime” laws.) What they will end up doing, whether they realize it or not, is direct more animosity towards gays. (And Christians who hate sin yet love sinners at the same time are accused of hating gays?!)

I know of many gays, especially some of my fellow libertarians, who refuse to let their sexual orientation define them. This is a wonderful thing in and of itself. (And did you hear about the gay tea party activist who opposed “marriage equality”?)

If the Boy Scouts do indeed lift this gay ban, they will join the media and Hollywood in saying that “it’s okay to be gay.” Of course, that flies right in the face of the laws of God. I challenge any liberal reading this to show me Biblical truth to the contrary.

And I don’t have any time for such organizations, especially now that I know I am going to Heaven. Nor will my children, should God choose to bless me with them at some point down the road.

It’s not that I am afraid of gays per se. I have a few gay friends and even a gay relative whom I love dearly and pray for. And if one of them invited me to their “wedding ceremony” should he/she decide to get “married”, I would not turn them down (although I know they are committing a sinful act and will be praying for them ASAP after the “festivities” are over with.) It’s just that the gay lifestyle goes against God’s word. That’s the deal breaker for me.

As a libertarian (a very misunderstood term, but that’s for another time) AND a Christian, I believe that one of the best gifts God gave us was the gift of free will (which even includes the freedom to refuse to acknowledge there is a God.) Of course, there are consequences for using this gift the wrong way. But such is the Christian life.

And if gays wanted to start their own program similar to the Boy Scouts in nature, I think they should be more than free to do so, assuming parents of prospective members are comfortable with such a program. But the Boy Scouts has every right to discriminate in this way as they are a private organization.

In fact, I would argue that in a truly free society, it should be the right of ANY business or organization to discriminate based on (dare I say it) race, religion, creed, national origin, or sexual orientation, among pretty much any other basis.

Now I am no racist or bigot, and I would likely refuse myself to patronize any restaurant or business that did discriminate in such a way. But the freedom to discriminate like this should exist nonetheless. Discrimination is a two-way street, after all. Black restaurant owners could refuse to serve KKK members. And gays should be free to not serve anyone they deem is homophobic.

I don’t know about you, but I’ll be watching this story like an Eagle…

 

Photo credit: Preston Kemp (Creative Commons)