Wednesday, September 02, 2015

Header-image-whoweworkwith-lawenforcement

By Nancy Thorner and Ed Ingold –

With the tragic deaths of two newscasters at the hands of a disgruntled ex-employee on Wednesday, August 26 come the predictable calls for tighter gun control and keeping guns out the hands of “crazy” people. In no case, however, do the proposed solutions bear any relationship the crime itself. According to the media and progressive politicians, we have a “crime problem” and a “gun problem.”

 

CNN”s Don Lemon, in interviewing Republican presidential candidates Ben Carson and Jim Gilmore the day after the horrific Roanoke, Virginia shooting, prompted both candidates to rethink their positions.  Talking to Ben Carson, Don Lemon demanded:  “After you watch a crime like this, does it make you question at all the role of guns in our society?”  Carson responded that guns are not at fault, rather criminals who have no regard for others, and that owning firearms is a Constitutional right.

 

Both ABC’s “Good Morning America” and CBS “This Morning” on Thursday, August 27 used the shooting death of the two journalists in Roanoke, Virginia to highlight gun control.  GMA co-host Robin Roberts talked to the boyfriend of slain reporter Alison Parker and lectured, “…When something like this happens, the conversation turns to gun control.”  

 

Also on Thursday, August 27 the CBS Evening News seized on the deadly shooting of two local news reporters in Roanoke, Virginia to promote the idea that gun control should be treated like “a public health issue” akin to seat belts, airbags, and anti-smoking campaigns. In a tease early on in the program, fill-in anchor Maurice DuBois explained that“[s]ome public health officials say gun violence, just like car accidents and smoking-related illnesses can be prevented or at least reduced.”

 

Accuracy of NICS data base?

 

Among the proposals to stem gun violence are the elimination of background check loopholes (e.g., gun shows and private sales).  However, the shooter in Virginia bought his firearms at a local dealer, and passed the NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Check System)  He had not been convicted of any serious crime, was not a fugitive or under indictment, nor had he been committed to involuntary confinement or treatment for mental disorder. He was good to go, as far as the law was concerned.

The NICS data base is usually up to date on felony convictions and indictments. It is less accurate on orders of protection, and highly inaccurate on adjudication for mental disorders. The last is due to negligence on the part of states and courts to report these issues for a variety of reasons. Incompetence, among public officials, is not uncommon, nor is it a crime.

 

How far do we go in attempting to predict future behavior? What signs are sufficient to deny Constitutional rights to individuals before a crime has been committed? Are the 4the and 5th amendments any more important than the 1st and 2nd in imparting restraints on government control?

 

Psychological Screening Shows Dodgy Results

 

Progressives want to expand the types of mental disorders which would prevent a person from buying a firearm beyond the usual criteria of presenting a danger to themselves or others, subject to court proceeding. Unilateral opinions of mental health professionals would suffice. President Obama has ordered the Veterans Administration and Medicare to report patients to NICS who have difficulty managing their personal affairs, including financial issues and even mobility problems.  As reported in the Los Angeles Times in July of this year, the Obama administration even wants to keep people from collecting Social Security benefits from owning guns if it is determined they are unable to manage their own affairs.  

 

Better psychological screening to keep guns from the hands of “dangerous” people would require that HIPPA restraints be loosened. This ignores the fact that even adjudicated commitments are not consistently reported to the NICS background check system. The shooters at Aurora, CO, Virginia Tech, Northern Illinois and others legally purchased firearms due to this lapse. Now we see that 60% of the studies for evaluating patients are falsified. 

 

As reported by NBC News, “Psychology Studies Show Dodgy Results.”  According to Brian Nosek, a psychology professor at the University of Virginia who led the project: “Any one study is not going to be the last word. Each individual study has some evidence. It contributes some information toward a conclusion. But the real conclusion, when you can say confidently that something is true or false, is based on an accumulation of evidence over many studies.”

 

Crazy people are out there.  The sad fact is that most criminal acts are easier to predict in hindsight than foresight. There is no reliable predictor of criminal acts of this nature even with better psychological screening. 

 

Forensic Testing not Infallible

 

Psychology is not the only offender in this regard. Recent articles show how forensic evidence such as hair, bite marks, arson and even DNA comparisons have resulted in many faulty convictions. The field of Forensic Science has opened a lot of doors for the world of criminal investigation. While some of the methods used in forensic testing may seem infallible, a recent study on the feeding habits of vultures revealed the shocking truth about what everyone thought was a universal scale of identification. Now, a woman’s skeleton picked clean by vultures demonstrates how horribly inaccurate forensic science can be.  

 

The Innocence Project is a nationwide legal network that works to exonerate innocent prisoners through DNA testing. Experts agree that the Innocence Project has changed the justice system for the better, both by freeing the innocent and by encouraging scrutiny of all types of evidence presented in the courtroom. The article relates how Steven Barnes served more than 19 years in prison before DNA technology could be brought to bear on his case. In 2008, a test of short tandem repeats on the Y chromosomes of sperm found on the victim showed that Barnes wasn’t a match. 

 

But do we have a “gun problem?” In the last month several “mass homicides” were committed using knives and blunt instruments. Most recently, in Louisiana, a police officer was murdered with his own weapon while investigating a domestic incident where three family members were murdered with a knife. In California, five family members met the same fate. In China and Japan, where no private citizens are allowed to have guns, knives are the weapon of choice, and mass murders are no less common than in the United States (just less publicized). In the Middle East, explosives and fire kill hundreds of innocent people each month. The Prime Minister of Sweden was killed with an “unavailable” handgun. Criminals have no problem obtaining guns, illegally, and kill nearly 30 people a day with them in the U.S. On the other hand, about once a day an ordinary citizen uses a firearm to successfully defend themselves against a criminal assault, and hundreds more go unreported if no shots are fired.

 

Preventive Intervention Curtails Liberty

 

The real danger of “preventive intervention” is to our liberty, as seen in the actions of the VA and Medicare. Dictators routinely use “preventive” measures to abuse or murder their subjects, and mental disorders are frequently used as the excuse. It is also used to stifle dissent. The producer of “Obama’s America”, Harvard graduate Dinesh D’Souza, was convicted of a minor election contribution offense and sentenced to two years of confinement. On release, the Judge compelled him to undergo 5 more years of mental evaluation. And according to Hillary Clinton, those opposed to abortion are “terrorists” and those in opposition to the Iran Treaty are pegged as “warmongers.”

 

Laws only inhibit honest people. The best defense against a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.  Obama’s gun control agenda has failed in Congress, not because of NRA influence, but because similar measures haven’t worked in the past, and bear no relationship to the problems they seek to address. The defining word is “control.”  “Gun” is just an adjective in this context.

Saturday, August 29, 2015

Thursday, August 27, 2015

Thorner: Illinois Forum prods Illinois Government in New Direction – Part 1

DSCN1025

Robert Redfern, longtime leader of Illinois Forum

By Nancy Thorner – 

The 26th Anniversary Luncheon of the Illinois Forum was held at Round Barn Banquet Center,1900 Round Barn Road, Champaign, Illinois, on August 22, 2015 at 12:00 p.m.  Organized in 1989 by Chairman Robert S. Redfern, Illinois Forum promotes a smaller state government to restrain spending and to encourage tax cuts and further believes in returning the general assembly to a part-time legislature.  As a volunteer movement, Forum members get the job done on their own and do not have to play by the same rules as politicians use to stay in power.  Notable state conservatives from all sections of the State of Illinois attended the luncheon.

Chairman Robert Redfern in presenting opening remarks, spoke of the division that exists in this nation with one side believing in constitutional principles, the free market, strong national security and borders, self-reliance, individual freedom and traditional values.  Opposing are those who believe in a constitution that means whatever they want it to mean.  In discussing Illinois precincts, there are 11,000 in the state and many are not filled with committeemen. With one or two votes more in each precinct, Bill Brady would have been governor of Illinois instead of Quinn in the 2014 election.

Following the luncheon, four speakers were presented, each with great insight that seemed to demands a full account of their remarks.  Realizing that such a thorough coverage would be too lengthy for just one article, a Part 2 will follow.

DSCN1037  DSCN1039

Left: Jim Tobin Right: Dr. Daniel Crane

Speaker 1: Jim Tobin, President, Taxpayers United of America 

In 1976 Jim Tobin  founded Taxpayers United of America (TUA), which has become one of the largest taxpayer organizations in the country.  Mr. Tobin has appeared on hundreds of radio and TV programs and his tax-cutting activities have been the subject of articles by major media publications. Jim Tobin received an M.A. in International Economics from Northern Illinois University, working for nine years as a Federal Reserve Bank Examiner, where he specialized in international finance. Tobin was one of the first economic experts to predict the collapse of Continental Bank and to warn of the dangerous extension of credit by U.S. banks to bankrupt foreign governments.

Attention was directed to a handout by Tobin of the 16th biennial, non-partisan Illinois Tax Survey compiled by the Taxpayers United of America (TUA) of the 98th Illinois General Assembly (2013-2014).  Noted on page 5 was a roll call of every Illinois legislator and how he/she voted on each significant tax or spending bill surveyed for the 98th session in terms of “Taxpayer Friends” and “Taxpayer Enemies.”   It was not surprising to note that all those cited as Taxpayer Enemies were Democrats, 56 in the House and 39 in the Senate.  As to Taxpayer Friends, in all, only 3 Republican senators were cited (Kyle McCarter, Jason A. Barickman, and Chapin Rose). The House did better with 17 qualifying members, but among the 17 Taxpayer House friends were three Democrats.  Listed in order percentage wise are the 14 Republican House friends with ratings from 91% to 73%:  Dwight Kay, Thomas Morrison, David Reis, Michael  Unes, Adam Brown, John M. Cabello, John D Cavaletto, Brad E. Halbrook, Jeanne M. Ives, David McSweeney, C.D. Davidsmeyer, Charles E. Meier, Wayne Rosenthal, and Joe Sosnowski.

Also discussed were the pensions of Illinois Government retirees.  A separate hand-out by Tobin listed the top 200 Pensions of Illinois Government Retirees as of 2/1/2015, assuming Life Expectancy of 85 and a 3% COLA compounded annually. There are 12,154 state pensioners collecting more than $100,000 per year and 85,893 state pensioners collecting more than $50,000 per year.

As stated by Tobin, huge pensions are outright taxpayer theft. It is stealing money from taxpayers to give to the political elite. There is no way taxes can be raised high enough to maintain the high pensions demanded by unions for their members. In regard to political leadership, the Cullerton family has been involved in politics for 80 years, with John J. Cullerton as president of the Senate.   As for Michael Madigan, he has 32 years under his belt and has managed to have his step-daughter elected as Attorney General, who seems to be in line for a future governorship of Illinois.

This must change if Illinois has any chance of getting out of its economic slump and low ratings in many areas when compared to other states. Statesmen must be elected instead of politicians.

Speaker 2:  Dr. David Crane, youngest brother of late Congressman Phil Crane

Dr. David Crane, a psychiatrist whose home is in Ohio, spoke of being 5th of 5 children, the baby of the family.  He and his siblings were raised in Hillsboro, Indiana.  One of David’s siblings, Dan Crane, is on the Board of Governors at Illinois Forum, which consists of individuals from various portions of Illinois.   Evident in David’s remarks was his love of country, which had been instilled in all five Crane children by their father, a doctor, who believed education was often mistaken for knowledge.  He instead believed there was more to education than just going to school and spewing forth what passes for learning by teachers and professors.  The Crane children were told to get involved and commit to changing the course of this country.

A fond recent memory was Crane’s participation in the celebration of the 70th anniversary of the now famous picture taken of a Navy guy kissing an army nurse at the end of WW II.  David found it difficult to speak at times, becoming choked up with emotion when remembering this encounter and others.

Mr. Crane spoke about a change that began in 1911 when those on the Left started to advocate that our country was a democracy.  Sadly after 100 years, a majority Americans now believe they live in a democracy. But this is what Benjamin Franklin had to say:

A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”

Copies of a letter were distributed by David Crane that was written in 2011 by his former congressman brother and now deceased Phil Crane who died last fall.  Phil Crane had submitted his letter, “My View”, to the Indianapolis Star for publication, but it was never published.  It is a letter that should be read by every high school student.  It details the importance of teaching our children to view our government as a Republic, perhaps the finest government ever established by mankind.

David Crane called it a smart move that one psychiatrist was assigned to every Infantry Division in the Vietnam War.  When relating a session he conducted with a group of students, Mr. Crane asked every 18 and 19-year-old to stand up.  He then spoke of what their immediate future would hold if the year were 1966:  Within 30 days they would be in drafted into the military.  After training they would find themselves on the way to fight in Vietnam.  58,000 Americans died in Vietnam.  There were 33,000 who were 18 years of age and 9,000 19-year-olds.  Even so, when called, the young men never hesitated to get into the mix to serve their country.

The most touching of the accounts related by David Crane involved gangster Al Capone, who despite his dealings with illegal alcohol, never went to jail.  Al Capone was represented and protected for years by his lawyer, “Easy Eddie.”  But Easy Eddie had a son he loved and didn’t wish his son to follow his chosen path in life.  In a turn of conscience, Easy Eddie reported everything he knew to the authorities about Al Capone.

As a result of his disclosure, Easy Eddie was found shot dead a year later in Chicago because of his squeal.  Then came the zinger to David Crane’s story.  Easy Eddie’s son, Eddie O’Hare — for whom O’Hare Airport is named — became a famous pilot who risked his life when he confronted Japanese planes on their way to attack American targets. Eddie “Butch” O’Hare was awarded a Congressional Medal of Honor for his bravery.

In closing, Dr. Crane believes if we are to save this nation, it must happen internally and not externally.  We must convey the message of freedom and the Bill of Rights.  As it took 100 years for the Left to take control of this nation, it will take 100 years to reclaim America as it was known by our forefathers.  But major sacrifices will be demanded of the American people.  Essential is that young people must be redirected to the task of saving this nation.  They must be tough and stand firm.  Hillsdale College, dating back before the Civil Was as a higher institution of learning, is attempting to change the direction of this nation by training students not only be Christians, but “tough” Christians who are willing to stand up to those elements who are determined to destroy our Republic.

Not to be missed is Part 2 of the 26th Anniversary Luncheon of the Illinois Forum. To be covered are revealing thoughts by Bill Bradley, former senator and 3 time candidate for governor, and Adam Andrzejewski, founder of Openthebooks.org.who ran for governor in 2010.

Phillip Crane's unpublished letter, My View, Page 1  Phillip Crane's unpublished letter, My View, Page 2

Monday, August 24, 2015

Thorner/O’Neil: Government-approved killings provided via Planned Parenthood

Margaret-Sanger-560x280

Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger

By Nancy Thorner and Bonnie O’Neil – 

The undercover videos depicting conversations of Planned Parenthood discussions of selling and having sold “baby parts” has ignited a firestorm of debate.  In the 7th video in 10 short minutes we hear a former Planned Parenthood “procurement specialist” tell the terrible story of “harvesting” an intact brain from a late term baby boy whose heart was still beating after the abortion. Neither the procurement specialist or her supervisor knew for sure if this meant that the baby was still living – but that didn’t stop them from cutting his face open to get at his brain.

The videos are not only shocking, but they expose the questionable practices of Planned Parenthood in performing abortions using procedures which may violate the “Partial Birth Abortion Act”, the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act”, and provisions of the federal fetal tissue research and experimentation laws, all of which require informed consent and prohibit altering abortion procedures for the purpose of harvesting infant body parts.  The abortion debate is appreciated, as this controversial subject deserves to be more thoroughly explored.  It is an important human rights issue seen from exceedingly different points of view, depending upon one’s background, experiences, religion, amount of accurate information, and historical knowledge.

Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood

Before the amazing invention of ultrasound, abortions were easier to justify.  The discussion centered on the mother, her rights, and the benefits of abortion to society as a whole.  As stated by Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood:

“It is better for everyone involved if a child’s life is snuffed out before he or she has a change to pose difficulties to its family.”

It should also be noted that Sanger targeted specific groups she deemed “tainted” and “objectionable”, as can be seen in her statement:  “We should apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring.”  Margaret Sanger was referring to the poor black race.  The truth is, the author and promoter of the abortion industry was more of a bigot than a humanitarian.

That may not be true of Planned Parenthood today, nor those who support it, but it should be noted that in 2008 Planned Parenthood was embarrassed when tapes of phone conversations revealed the organization gladly accepted and guaranteed that specific donations would be spent for aborting only black babies.  According to the Guttmacher Institute: The abortion rate for black women is almost five times that for white women.

Recently a letter was sent to the Smithsonian Institution by a coalition of black pastors know as “Ministers Taking A Stand”, calling for the Smithsonian to remove a bust of Planned Parenthood Founder Margaret Sanger, noting that in the wake of the current Planned Parenthood scandal, it should be remembered that Sanger was an eugenicist and a racist.  The bust of Sanger appears in the National Portrait Gallery at the museum as part of an exhibition titled “Struggle for Justice”, along with truly deserving historical figures, such as Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and Rosa Parks.

Former Johns Hopkins neurosurgeon and top-tier Republican presidential contender Dr. Ben Carson, when appearing on Fox News Channel’s “Your World” on Wednesday, August 13, verified the destructive role Planned Parenthood has inflicted on the lives of blacks, by locating “most of their clinics in black neighborhoods”, so they can “control that population.”

Dr. Carson also stated:

“I think people should go back and read about Margaret Sanger, who founded this place—a woman who Hillary Clinton, by the way, says she admires. Look and see what many people in Nazi Germany thought about her”. . . “I’m not objective when it comes to Planned Parenthood. But you know, I know who Margaret Sanger is, and I know that she believed in eugenics, and that she was not particularly enamored with black people.”

Government spends billions on free health care clinics

Sanger’s push for abortions was easier to defend when she used the poor black community as her excuse, stating it was a humanitarian issue.  However, since that time in history, there has been an explosion of welfare and assistance programs to help all in need, including free health care clinics in most every state.  The federal government spends  a reported $745.84 billion on 83 welfare programs.  An additional $283 billion in state contributions go to those same federal programs, for a total annual expenditure of $1.03 trillion.   The report also stated “total means-tested welfare spending is currently the single-largest category of spending in the federal budget.  That means welfare costs in this country account for more than the sums the nation spends on Social Security, Medicare, or national defense.

Assistance for those in need is not limited to the government.  Other sources, such as the Church and private-based organizations generously help those in need.

Catholic Charities USA reported expenditures of between $4.2 billion and $4.4 billion, according to the Chronicle of Philanthropy, which publishes the 400 biggest charities in the United States, ranked by the amount of donations they receive.  This enabled Catholic charities to rank near the top of the 400 list, behind two major social-services charities — the United Way and the Salvation Army.

Public Opinion vs. Abortion

Public opinion continues to evolve on the issue of abortion, as the public learns more alarming facts.

1.  Since Roe vs Wade over 58,000,000 abortions have been performed. This proves abortion is not rare.

2.  Over 100 different potential complications are associated with abortion. proving that abortions are not always safe.

3.  Three to five percent of abortions result in sterility.  That is rarely reported.

Confidential studies of women who have received abortions reveal that a shocking 40 to 60 percent reported negative reactions:   55% expressed guilt, 44% complained of nervous disorders, 36% had experienced sleep disturbances, 31% had regrets about their decision, and 11% had been prescribed  psychotropic medicine by their family doctor.  Ashton,”The Psychosocial Outcome of Induced Abortion”, British Journal of Ob&Gyn.(1980),vol.87,p1115-1122.5.

Another survey of over 100 women, who had suffered from post-abortion trauma, indicated 80 percent expressed feelings of “self-hatred.” In the same study, 49 percent reported drug abuse and 39 percent began to use or increased their use of alcohol.  Approximately 14 percent described themselves as having become “addicted” or “alcoholic” after their abortions.  In addition, 60 percent reported suicidal ideation, with 28 percent actually attempting suicide, of which half attempted suicide two or more times.  The statistics were released by Reardon, “Criteria for the Identification of High Risk Abortion Patients: Analysis of An In-Depth Survey of 100 Aborted Women”, which was resented at the 1987 Paper Session of the Association for Interdisciplinary Research, Denver.

States vs. Supreme Court Decisions and the fate of Dr. Kermit Goswell

There have been many attempts to change abortion laws in various states, many  of those cases ended up at the Supreme Court. Laws in some states prohibit abortions at 20 weeks, but that conflicts with Supreme Court rulings on precisely when abortions may be banned (beginning at the point of fetal viability, according to the Supreme Court’s rulings in Roe and Casey). For this reason, circuit courts seem likely to strike down such laws. On the other hand, the case of Carhart signaled the high court’s willingness to rethink important premises in this legal debate, so it would not be surprising if the Supreme Court eventually takes up the issues raised by this new restriction on the availability of abortions in the second trimester of pregnancy?

There is a growing impatience by the public regarding the lack of oversight at all levels of government, regarding inspections of abortion providers, their adherence to laws and some questionable practices.  The case of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, an abortionist in Philadelphia, demonstrates the lack of government oversight of the abortion industry.  Gosnell was convicted of first-degree murder in the deaths of three babies born alive, then stabbed with scissors. He was also guilty of irresponsible practices that caused overdoses of medication resulting in the death of patients.  Gosnell’s alleged prescription drug trafficking led to the gruesome findings about his abortion clinic. During an FBI raid, authorities found 47 aborted fetuses stored in clinic freezers, jars of tiny severed feet, bloodstained furniture and dirty medical instruments, along with cats roaming the premises.  That it took an FBI drug raid to discover Dr. Gosnell’s clinic of horrors, begs the questions why state officials did not investigate and discover the despicable conditions years before, and why the horrendous discovery did not receive more national coverage.  Could it be due to the fact most of his patients were poor black people?  How many other abortion clinics like Gosnell’s are still functioning in America?  Gosnell was given two life sentences in May of 2013 without parole in a deal with prosecutors that spared him a potential death sentence.

Is Planned Parenthood Without Shame?

Why is the public shielded from the negative information that surrounds abortion. Without the videos which proved Parenthood sold and profited from selling body parts of aborted fetuses, that too would be another secret of the industry.  The public deserves full disclosure as to how much of our tax money goes to Planned Parenthood, and the actual percent of government funding that goes to abortions vs. other types of health care.

While many support abortion for altruistic reasons, it should be noted that those who abhor abortion have concerns for the mother as well, and even deeper compassion for the life being terminated in what once was considered the safest place in the World:  a mothers’ womb.  A growing number of American citizens are alarmed that Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers are not being totally forthcoming about the potential risks of abortion, and the government is not seriously pursuing steps to force that the information be revealed and reported.

The most current issue, selling body parts should be an embarrassment to Planned Parenthood but even more so to the officials tasked with overseeing the industry.  It is time for the government to increase their surveillance and requirements for all abortion providers, as many citizens are disgusted with the lack thereof.  Confidence needs to be restored!  The public and patients must be assured that abortions are as safe as advertised, during the procedure, as well as months later when psychological problems are not uncommon.  Women need the whole truth, in order to make an intelligent decision on this important, personal issue.

Abortion providers should be audited to prove they adhered to every law, including the one that requires pre-counseling which explains other options, such as adoption and care centers that provide assistance for both the mother and child, should she choose “life”. There must be more oversight and stiff fines for non-compliance. Repeated offenses must result in defunding offending clinics.   Laws should restrict the number of clinics allowed in any given area, and each clinic should be monitored in a specific timely manner, with detailed compliance reports required by the state and federal government. Until the public is assured such conditions, restrictions, and mandates are in place, public support of abortion will continue to decline accordingly.

Friday, August 21, 2015

Thorner/O’Neil: Sustainability Movement Fosters Hotbeds of Liberal Indoctrination (Part 3)

Bill-ayres-1-dsc_00311
Bill Ayers, a well-known liberal indoctrinator

By Nancy Thorner and Bonnie O’Neil – 

Common Core at the K -12 level in education is shifting and distorting education in many liberal ways, but what about the education being taught to our college age students?   We should be even more concerned about that group, as they will soon be part of society and influencing it very soon. The obvious concern is whether they too are part of the Liberal’s attempt to insert their socialist agenda into the curriculum and thus minds of America’s youth.

Brace yourself for the sad truth.  Our college and university campuses are actual hotbeds of liberal indoctrination, to a degree that should shock every reasonable American. Whether a parent or not, we all should demand an in-depth investigation and potential change in the college system which will guarantee more balance and objectivity.

It is essential that students be informed of all facts, encouraged to consider every option, and taught to listen to opposing arguments on any given subject (especially those which society identifies as controversial), in order to develop critical thinking skills that teach how to seek all facts and arrive at educated opinions to determine the truth.

Instead, college students are being indoctrinated with a strong liberal agenda, which excludes conservative arguments. Much of the teaching encompasses the edicts of United Nation’s Agenda 21, with “a specific and heavy emphasis on sustainability.”

Study by Peter Wood and Rachelle Peterson on sustainability and college campuses 

Through the study of college curriculum, Peter Wood, president of the National Association of Scholars, and Rachelle Peterson concluded that it was on college campuses where the sustainability movement gets its voice of authority and where it molds the views and commands the attention of young people. Their combined study resulted in Sustainability: Higher Education’s New Fundamentalism, published March 25, 2015.  In a June 12, 2015 article, “Sustainability’s War on Doubt”, Wood describes “sustainability” in a much broader sense, of which global warming is just one part of the whole.

“Sustainability” is not so much a call for the wise use of resources as it is a declaration against all forms of ‘exploitation’, such as exploiting the animal, mineral, and vegetable resources of the planet.  The sustainability movement embraces a fuzzy version of the Marxist idea that capitalism is essentially about human exploitation, and totally ignores the concepts of wealth creation, comparative advantage, and material progress.”

As expressed in the executive summary of Wood’s study, the following will be taught in sustainability programs offered at colleges and universities, and students will be exposed to the following liberal dogma of ideas and unproven claims:

1) Catastrophic manmade global warming is an indisputable fact, and switching to renewable energy from inexpensive and abundant fossil fuel energy is the only plausible answer; 2) that today’s society and economy are built on greed and waste, and thus we must rebuild society along progressive political lines; 3) that mass environmental activism is the way to achieve goals 1 and 2; and 4) that we must either persuade the skeptics or silence them.”  So far, we believe they have largely resorted to silencing the opposition by refusing to reveal the mounting evidence that refutes their arguments.

The Executive summary describes the sustainability movement from its origin to today’s application, which, in turn, will have important consequences for the future of this nation.  We must not allow the minds of our young people to be manipulated into conforming to this socialist political agenda that is at odds with our Constitution and the values and ideals upon which this nation was founded.

Consider the following:

  • The 1987 United Nations report, “Our Common Future”, better known as the Brundtland Report, ignited the sustainability movement by uniting environmentalism with hostility to free markets and demands for “social” justice.” Driving the initiative to make sustainability part of every course is the American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment (ACUPCC), an effort launched by “Second Nature”  a group founded by John Kerry and Teresa Heinz. As of 2015, 697 college and universities have signed this commitment, which includes a pledge to “make climate neutrality and sustainability a part of the curriculum and other educational experience for all students.”
  • Beginning in 2007, the President’s Climate Commitment tapped the power of college presidents to set the agendas for their institutions.  Sustainability is now among the highest priorities at colleges and universities.  Colleges are currently ranked by their success in meeting sustainability goals. There seems no limit to the extent those behind this movement will go.  An example of this extremism is evident at the University of Virginia, where students are asked to pledge themselves to sustainability.  We could not find any example of the school requesting students to make a pledge to our flag or country.
  • Universities seek to use the campus as a “living laboratory” where students will not only learn about sustainability in the classroom, but will encounter it everywhere on campus.  The goal is to modify students’ values.  The question is whether parents, who have saved all their lives to send their children to college, know their children are being intentionally manipulated rather than taught.  There is no balance offered, only intense indoctrination to a specific “progressive” viewpoint embraced by the professors and others of their ilk.
  •  Nudging is a way of prodding students to do what activists want.  This technique was promoted in a 2008 bestseller, “Nudge”, by Richard Thaler and Cass Sustein.  There adherents contend people should be manipulated into making the choices that social planners think are the best options.  About 80 institutions hire student “eco-reps to shame their peers into riding a bike to classes or buying carbon offsets to make up for their flights home at Christmas.

Sustainability advances indoctrination to nurture Pavlovian responses 

The sustainability movement represents a significant shift in higher education:  from educating students with rational and moral knowledge that prepares them to make future prudent, conscious choices to that of an indoctrination program with the feverish goal of training operations designed to elicit Pavlovian responses.  The liberals call that progress.  We call it indoctrination that deprives students of opposing opinions and facts; thus limiting their ability to discern the truth.

Sustainability projects cost U.S. higher education schools nearly $3.4 billion per year.  Society is interested in reducing costs of education, so that more students can attend college and not be forced into borrowing money and accumulating debts before they even begin their careers.

As a remedy to soaring college tuition, George Will suggests the following: “Hundreds of millions could be saved, with no cost to any institution’s core educational mission, by eliminating every position whose title contains the word ‘sustainability’– and, while we are at it, ‘diversity,’ ‘multicultural’ or ‘inclusivity.’  The result would be higher education; higher than the propaganda-saturated version we have, and more sustainable.”

Mr. Will’s conclusions are correct. On campuses across the United States, where sustainability has become dogma, an honest investigation of global warming is nearly impossible.  Scientific debate requires openness, not conformity to a fixed theory exempt from external review. Instead, debate is discouraged, by the continual comment that Climate Change is “settled science”.  But what does that mean?  Of course Climate Change exists and has since the Earth began.  The question and demand for proof, is whether it is even possible for man to influence changes in Earth’s climate, before assuming it has done so.

A young person attending Cornell will find that 13% of all Cornell’s undergraduate courses deal in one way or another with sustainability; at Colorado State University the percentage is 22%; and at Middlebury College in Vermont it is a full 25% of all courses offered.  Of all the “degree programs” in sustainability, offered worldwide, 95% of them are offered by colleges and universities in the U.S.   Unfortunately, out of 772 colleges and universities globally who are members of the Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE), 90% of that membership – a whopping 694 of the colleges and universities are in the United States.

Wood’s “Sustainability’s War on Doubt?” states:

“As closed as the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and the New York Times are to expressions of alternative views, the typical college campus is even worse.  To agree to debate the pro-sustainability position would imply the existence of contrary arguments and evidence worthy of consideration.”  That is their excuse and no mention is made of the many scientists and scholars who disagree with the “elites” position, and who have serious facts to offer, which would be excellent contributions to an intensive debate.

Young people and parents and being hoodwinked and short-changed

Do young people really need to devote their education to the noble goal of saving the Earth, and, if so, saving it from what?  During the entire lives of most college students there has been no global warming.  Not withstanding, sustainability advocates prefer a campus on which they can expand their control over every detail of student life.  Many campuses have created “trayless cafeterias” in which students have to juggle their plates. Bottled water is similarly frowned on. Presented as energy saving, the intent is to prod students into thinking at every turn about the need to be sustainable.  Those students who disagree with the sustainability doctrine are made to feel shamed if they don’t conform to the latest “green” gimmick.  They are even considered a threat to society.

Parents are now tasked with deciding whether the excessive cost of a college education and their children’s obvious indoctrination to a liberal agenda is the best course for their lives.  Would the time and money be better spent on starting or investing in a business of interest?   How concerned are parents that schools are intruding into areas other than what is needed for a future career?    Is it the right of university professors to indoctrinate vulnerable students to their liberal social ideals, and are parents even aware that many college courses seek to instill the ideals of a movement that aims for drastic change in the way humanity relates to the natural world?  Do parents know or care what is happening in college classrooms?  Is the average taxpayer even aware of the intensive indoctrination?

Should our tax-funded universities be allowed to indoctrinate students with a controversial and disputed agenda that is presented from one viewpoint only?  Is it time for parents and all citizens to demand equality, thus allowing critical thinking to develop among students and hopefully even professors. There is nothing fair about current hiring practices in most colleges and universities that favor liberal professors at as high as a 9 to 1 ratio. With such liberal domination, Conservatives tend to seek other careers knowing they will be largely ignored, even shunned by those who dominate the world of academic today.  Conservatives claim they are not provided a fair chance to advance.  Thus the few in the system, who have opposing liberal viewpoints, rarely present them.  If we want fairness in our universities, taxpayers will have to demand changes in a variety of areas, beginning with an unbiased study and evaluation of the issue, and concluding with sweeping changes that emphasize equality and fairness in every area.

Bill Ayers and other professors of his ilk must be shown the back door. It is time to demand something more of America’s professors and colleges, rather than continue with the current expensive brain washing indoctrination by socialist/progressive instructors, who oppose our historical values and Constitution in favor of an agenda filled with disputable and unproven facts, most often created behind closed doors and within the United Nations.

Will American patriots call their elected officials and demand equitable changes?  Who among us will demand positive, historical values be reinstated, that credible arguments be presented in every classroom, and that liberal professors not be allowed to dominate our colleges and universities?

The future of our country hangs in the balance, and only those who have studied and remember history will know the impotence of taking action while we still have the opportunity to do so.

Please consider calling your representatives, at the state and federal level, asking, if not demanding equality. Our institutions of higher learning need to be more conscious of fairness and diversity, within their hiring practices and certainly classroom curriculum and professors’ teachings, especially if they receive any government funding.  The one-sided liberal approach must cease and be replaced with opportunities to learn both sides of arguments on controversial issues.  Our children deserve an education, not an indoctrination!

 

Thorner/O’Neil:  Sustainability: The Overly Used Word intended to Silence Conservatives

Thorner/O’Neil:  Little Green Steps Reflect Sustainability in Education 

Monday, August 17, 2015

Green-Money---Plant-growi-001

 

By Nancy Thorner and Bonnie O’Neil

The once rarely used word, “sustainability”, has become rather common today, arguably overused by those who want to make changes in our World. Dictionary.com provides two meanings for the word:  “1. The ability to be sustained, supported, upheld, or confirmed. 2. Environmental Science: the quality of not being harmful to the environment or depleting natural resources, and thereby supporting long-term ecological balance.”

However, the word has morphed into something quite different. The contemporary explanation has been defined by Webster Dictionary as: “One that tends to fair rules, social justice, and reconnects the economy with what is right and just.”

Do you see the problem with the contemporary definition of “sustainability?”

It is ambiguous, leaving open the obvious question of who among us decides what is fair, right, and just.  Possibly that is why the term has gained such popularity. It means different things to different people, and thus a solid definition is difficult for the average person to discern, leaving the interpretation open for a political advantage. We are left with more questions than we have answers to the word’s meaning and intent.

We do know there seems to be a compulsion for overuse, even abuse of the word, as if the word itself is a solution,  rather than a descriptive word identifying what we hope to accomplish.  A perfect example is the debate over climate change. Even though there is a growing controversy as to whether man can either cause or prevent a change in our climate, our President boldly claimed man-made climate change is “established science, and the greatest threat to future generations”, emphasizing the need for sustainable solutions. Nevertheless, many scientists have rightly claimed that such a catastrophic threat is simply not true, as evidence clearly shows Earth’s climate is in a perpetual state of change, and has been for thousands of years.

Skepticism began to surface in some circles, when it was discovered that leading Climate scientists were told to cover up the inconvenient fact that according to satellite records, temperatures have not risen in the last 15 years to 18 years and three months. It comes as no surprise that the cover up was under-reported and/or completely ignored by the mainstream media.

Global warming promoters continually connect their claim of global warming with the word “sustainability”, and suddenly everyone is expected to put intelligence and any opposing facts aside to blindly believe the improbable proposition that man has the power to significantly change or control our climate. While we fully understand the need to protect our water ways and Earth from pollution and correct any known pollution problems, we also must fight against any agenda designed to mislead the public in order to serve a specific political purpose. We must not be misled into believing that there is absolute, irreversible proof that man has the power to seriously impact the world’s climate, and use that as an excuse to initiate draconian laws.

What many may not know is there is a growing number of scientists and investigative reporters who have dared to stray from the White House and U.N.’s  politically correct opinion on issues, especially those which claim global warming and/or climate change is man induced. The reason the public is unaware of this, is because the opposing  scientists find it difficult to get their documented research or opinions  published.  Instead, the public is inundated with regurgitated information that aligns with the politically correct viewpoint, and little attention is given to any other opposing scientific evidence or conclusions.

The Heartland Institute, according to “The Economist”, is “the world’s most prominent think tank promoting skepticism about man-made climate change”. It stands in direct contrast to the United Nation’s scientific body, the IPCC  (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), whose questionable scientific research forms the basis of the scare tactics being employed by Al Gore, the Obama administration, and members of the United Nations.  See here to view the full Archive of the 10th International Climate Change Conference event organized by the Heartland Institute,  which has hosted ten International Conferences on Climate Change since 2008, the latest in June 2015.

The 10th International Conference on Climate Change attracted some 450 scientists, economists, policy experts, and guests worldwide who were not hesitant to question and conclude that man has little, if any influence upon the climate.

 

The Public Wants Honesty From Its Leaders

Granted, facts are often boring, but it would be helpful if those of us who yearn for the truth on any and all controversial issues could receive uncensored facts, rather than information meant only to advance a particular goal or political agenda. Maybe that is why Donald Trump, in his quest for the presidency, has become so popular and quickly jumped ahead of all the other 16 Republican candidates. He actually verbalizes what so many of us are thinking, and refuses to blindly follow the politically correct course.

Trumps’ bluster and bluntness is actually refreshing to those who have grown tired of the politically correct “white washing” of any issue that is at all divisive.  That leads to these obvious questions: 1) Why are we so hesitant to state our own opinions on controversial issues?  2) Why do we stay quiet while words like “sustainability” are used to excess, and often used to stop opposing conversations?  These tactics should be identified as a form of bullying opponents into silence.   Unfortunately,  that method has proven to be effective.

Could the “Donald” have inadvertently started a new trend in politics?  Does his immediate jump in approval ratings testify to a public yearning for open dialogue and blunt speech? Whether the man wins the Republican primary or not, he has opened the door to expose a different style candidate with a radically unusual style of communication that seems to be appealing to many citizens, while resented by the political Washington D.C. “establishment”.

It seems highly probable that the public’s immediate approval of Trump is sending a message that the public yearns for something that has been foreign in elections for quite some time:  the unfiltered truth!   Voters want more honesty and less politically correct speech.  We are more forgiving of a politician misspeaking on occasion, than those sounding as if every word out of their mouth was first tried and tested by a team of P.C. experts.  We do not want politicians that need or rely upon a teleprompter, but instead those who speak from the heart and believe every word they are saying, and who will honor their promises once elected.  We long for true patriots who will defy the status quo when necessary; who will fight for the people rather than serve self-interests.  It is therefore essential that we not be fooled by fancy words or rhetoric that we find problematic, or buy into words with obscure meanings and a political agenda, such as “sustainability” and the U.N. agendas.

As the pre-election activities progress, Trump may lose his lead to another Republican candidate who emerges with the gravitas, experience, confidence, and character that people believe will best lead America into the future.  If so, let us hope none forget that people crave honest, open dialogue, and for that we must thank the Donald.

Our new president must be equipped for a World that holds more surprises and challenges than ever before. When we find that candidate who best represents our values, let us give him or her all of our support.  That is our responsibility as patriots who love our amazing country and want it to remain “the land of the free and the home of the brave.”

Not unlike the unprecedented number of candidates in the 2016 race for the presidency, each of us must also work hard to protect America, by doing our best to elect the right person to lead us for the next four or eight years.

Our children and grandchildren are depending upon us to preserve for them what generations before have given us: freedom, security from our enemies, a sound economy, and laws based on the values and principles of our forefathers.  Above all, please do not just vote and feel you have “done your civic duty”.  It has never been more important or essential that we all vote wisely, if we are to bring our nation back to a comfortable, solid place that would rate approval from George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and many other brave, bright, honest presidents who contributed to America’s prosperity.

Part 2 will deal with “sustainability in education” and what will be the outcome is allowed to continue for the future of our nation.

 

[Originally published at Illinois Review]

Monday, August 17, 2015


Thursday, August 13, 2015

SmartMeter-TitlePanel

By Nancy Thorner – 

As ComEd rolls out 4,000,000 Smart Meters in an effort to “modernize the electricity grid,” many Illinois residents are pushing for a no-cost or at least low-cost option to keep their existing analog meters. Instead of benefits to the consumer, these residents see risks and increased electricity bills associated with digital Smart Meters. They are not alone.

The National Institute for Science, Law & Public Policy report calls Smart Meters “a canard—a story or hoax based on specious claims about energy benefits.” It goes on to say, “Congress, state, local governments, and ratepayers, have been misled about the potential energy and cost saving benefits paid for in large part with taxpayer and ratepayer dollars.”

Lisa Madigan, Illinois Attorney General writes, “Utilities have shown no evidence of billions of dollars in benefits to consumers from these new meters. The utilities want to experiment with expensive and unproven technology, yet all the risk will lie with consumers. The pitch is that smart meters will allow consumers to monitor their electrical usage, helping them to reduce consumption and save money. Consumers do not need to be forced to pay billions for smart technology to know how to reduce their utility bills. We know how to turn down the heat and shut off the lights.”

Judge O’Connell of the Michigan Appellate Court writes in an opinion on an opt-out-rate case, “The Public Service Commission and Consumers Energy advance the notion that smart meters will save the public money on their utility bills.  Unfortunately, this argument is inherently illogical:  how can smart meters save money when Consumers seeks to add millions of dollars to the base rate to fund the AMI [Smart Meter] program?  It appears, as the Attorney General argues and as in other states, that the smart meter program actually increases rates.” ComEd promotes the same illogical reasoning.

Some state and local jurisdictions across the country are becoming aware of risks associated with Smart Meters and objecting to deployment and/or insisting on opt-outs. In California there are 57 jurisdictions opposed to installation and 15 have passed ordinances making Smart Meter installations illegal. In spite of the opposition and opt-outs being offered in California and other states, the Illinois Commerce Commission (ICC) has interpreted a state utility law to mandate compliance.  Therefore, 4,000,000 Wireless Smart Meters are to be installed on ALL homes and buildings in the ComEd service territory.

Warrenville Environmental Advisory Commission (WEAC) put in their newsletter: “WEAC would like to make a true opt-opt possible; the City does not have regulatory authority to do so.”

It now rests on the shoulders of informed citizens to educate their lawmakers, local government officials, community leaders, and neighbors.  Many citizens are diligently working to secure an opt-out option and protect their families from the health effects, fire hazards, privacy violations, and cyber security risks which continue to be reported in the U.S. and around the world.  There are 200 environmentally conscious groups opposing Smart Meter deployments in their countries and local communities.

Ironically, Wireless Smart Meters are not necessary to modernize the Smart Grid and are certainly not “Green”.  These meters add layers of RF radiation to the environment and require extra energy usage for collectors, routers, and to run various functions of the mesh networks.

Illinois lawmakers must have been misled with regard to the “benefits” and not told about the consequences to have allowed this ill-advised program to proceed.  What is essential now is for lawmakers to secure a permanent low-cost or no cost opt-out for their constituents.

The Citizens Utility Board (CUB) argues that allowing customers to refuse a Smart Meter is good public policy because forcing customers to accept a Smart Meter will not be conducive to gaining widespread customer acceptance.  CUB is  further convinced that forcing customers who, whatever their reasons, do not desire a Smart Meter [to accept one] unfairly punishes those customers.

Judge O’Connell, when discussing the issue of an opt-out fee in the case referenced above, writes, “Why penalize those citizens… who have pacemakers and implant devices [by] being exposed to smart meters that are not UL certified safe for these devises.  Electro-sensitivity may prevent some citizens from installing smart meters or visiting homes that have working smart meters.”

In the same decision when addressing health consequences, Judge O’Connell writes, [Smart meter] “issues are of great concern, not just locally, but also nationally and internationally.  I note that 50  years ago, only a few brilliant minds were concerned about the health hazards of smoking, and we have only recently become aware of the health hazards of second-hand smoke.  I suspect there is no need to mention the health hazards of lead-based paint or radium painted glow-in-the dark watches.  At the time, all of these products were not considered health hazards.”

The Judge continues, “Historically, it is less burdensome to address these issues as they arise than to attempt to reform 20 years of ill-conceived policy decisions.”     

Some of the reasons why Smart Meters are an “Ill-conceived policy decision”:

1)  In May of 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified Radio Frequency emissions from Smart Meters as Class 2B Carcinogen. According to Richard Conrad, Ph.D., “This means in order to continue to receive electrical power, people are forced to live with a device on their homes that emits possibly carcinogenic microwaves 24/7.  The results of thousands of studies strongly suggest that microwaves are not safe for humans.  If the smart meter roll-out plan had been submitted as a proposal for an experiment on human beings, which it undeniably is, any institutional Review Board…would have rejected it outright.

2) Utilities were exempt from conducting environmental or health impact studies. Electric companies were excused from any governmental or public review showing how the decision to implement Wireless Smart Meters was safe for humans, plants, animals and the planet.

3) Privacy is a great concern. Household activities and behavior within closed doors can now be monitored through the collection of detailed discrete data. Personal habits, work schedules, and family activities are being recorded. Interpreting the data can let the utility or unwelcome parties know when the family is home or on vacation. Electric companies selling the data to a third party is now in question. In the end, the data is more valuable to the power company than the rates collected.

4) Using wireless Smart Meter Networks to connect every household appliance, alarm system, computer, car-charging station, etc., in every home, business, and government building to the Internet leaves every aspect of modern living vulnerable to cyber-attack.

On the issue of privacy Judge O’Connell writes, “Appellants argued that smart meters may in fact be the instrument of monitoring, listening, and viewing activities in individual’s homes. They also argued that smart meters are networked and, without proper security measures, anyone, including the government and hackers, could monitor a customer’s activities. I would find it disconcerting, if true, that a smart meter in conjunction with a smart television might allow others to listen and record private conversations in one’s living room.”

5) Every Smart Meter is an open portal or access point into the Smart Grid. This means foreign or domestic hackers on a larger scale and thieves on a smaller scale have an open invitation to whatever data they want to take or whatever system they want to disrupt. Consider the 4,000,000 access points ComEd is installing throughout Illinois and how vulnerable that makes residential communities.

6) Tom Lawton from TESCO on Smart Meters: “the number of reported fires in the United States has increased dramatically to the point where [Smart] Meter fires have dominated the news locally, nationally and internationally at various times in the past three years. Utilities going through a full deployment are seeing incident rates one and two orders of magnitude greater than normal, leading to a media frenzy and a public focus on the safety of the [Smart] Meter on the side of their house.”

7) Norman Lambe (LA Home and Business Insurance Examiner) writes, “The real problems concerning the installation of 51 million Smart Meters in this country are being ignored, in spite of the evidence that we have a clear and present danger.  When the electrical utility determines that a Smart Meter is the issue, they have been removing the meter. [That means] tampering with evidence concerning the cause of the fire. However, the real issue as to why all the [Smart] Meters are failing is not being dealt with.

Smart Meters can well be considered an “ill-conceived policy” in light of the health threat, invasion of privacy, hacking potential, fire risk, and increased electric bills for the majority of residents. It is unjust and not the American way to force these meters on every home without warning residents of the potential risks and offering them a choice. ComEd customers who want to ensure their family’s privacy and safety should have the option of an opt-out for their own peace of mind.


 

 

Monday, August 10, 2015

 

Donald-trump_3

Is Donald Trump’s presidential candidacy “sustainable?”

Is Donald Trump’s presidential candidacy “sustainable?”

 

By Nancy Thorner and Bonnie O’Neil –

 

The once rarely used word, “sustainability”, has become rather common today, arguably overused by those who want to make changes in our World. Dictionary.com provides two meanings for the word:  “1. The ability to be sustained, supported, upheld, or confirmed. 2. Environmental Science: the quality of not being harmful to the environment or depleting natural resources, and thereby supporting long-term ecological balance.” 

 

However, the word has morphed into something quite different. The contemporary explanation has been defined by Webster Dictionary as: “One that tends to fair rules, social justice, and reconnects the economy with what is right and just.” 

 

Do you see the problem with the contemporary definition of “sustainability?” It is ambiguous, leaving open the obvious question of who among us decides what is fair, right, and just.  Possibly that is why the term has gained such popularity. It means different things to different people, and thus a solid definition is difficult for the average person to discern, leaving the interpretation open for a political advantage. We are left with more questions than we have answers to the word’s meaning and intent. 

We do know there seems to be a compulsion for overuse, even abuse of the word, as if the word itself is a solution,  rather than a descriptive word identifying what we hope to accomplish.  A perfect example is the debate over climate change. Even though there is a growing controversy as to whether man can either cause or prevent a change in our climate, our President boldly claimed man-made climate change is “established science, and the greatest threat to future generations”, emphasizing the need for sustainable solutions. Nevertheless, many scientists have rightly claimed that such a catastrophic threat is simply not true, as evidence clearly shows Earth’s climate is in a perpetual state of change, and has been for thousands of years.

 

Skepticism began to surface in some circles, when it was discovered that leading Climate scientists were told to cover up the inconvenient fact that according to satellite records, temperatures have not risen in the last 15 years to18 years and three months. It comes as no surprise that the cover up was under-reported and/or completely ignored by the mainstream media.

 

Global warming promoters continually connect their claim of global warming with the word “sustainability”, and suddenly everyone is expected to put intelligence and any opposing facts aside to blindly believe the improbable proposition that man has the power to significantly change or control our climate. While we fully understand the need to protect our water ways and Earth from pollution and correct any known pollution problems, we also must fight against any agenda designed to mislead the public in order to serve a specific political purpose. We must not be misled into believing that there is absolute, irreversible proof that man has the power to seriously impact the world’s climate, and use that as an excuse to initiate draconian laws.

 

What many may not know is there is a growing number of scientists and investigative reporters who have dared to stray from the White House and U.N.’s  politically correct opinion on issues, especially those which claim global warming and/or climate change is man induced. The reason the public is unaware of this, is because the opposing  scientists find it difficult to get their documented research or opinions  published.  Instead, the public is inundated with regurgitated information that aligns with the politically correct viewpoint, and little attention is given to any other opposing scientific evidence or conclusions. 

 

The Heartland Institute, according to “The Economist”, is “the world’s most prominent think tank promoting skepticism about man-made climate change”. It stands in direct contrast to the United Nation’s scientific body, the IPCC  (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), whose questionable scientific research forms the basis of the scare tactics being employed by Al Gore, the Obama administration, and members of the United Nations.   See here to view the full Archive of the 10th International Climate Change Conference event organized by the Heartland Institute,  which has hosted ten International Conferences on Climate Change since 2008, the latest in June 2015.

The 10th International Conference on Climate Change attracted some 450 scientists, economists, policy experts, and guests worldwide who were not hesitant to question and conclude that man has little, if any influence upon the climate.

 

The Public Wants Honesty From Its Leaders

 

Granted, facts are often boring, but it would be helpful if those of us who yearn for the truth on any and all controversial issues could receive uncensored facts, rather than information meant only to advance a particular goal or political agenda. Maybe that is why Donald Trump, in his quest for the presidency, has become so popular and quickly jumped ahead of all the other 16 Republican candidates. He actually verbalizes what so many of us are thinking, and refuses to blindly follow the politically correct course.

 

Trumps’ bluster and bluntness is actually refreshing to those who have grown tired of the politically correct “white washing” of any issue that is at all divisive.  That leads to these obvious questions: 1) Why are we so hesitant to state our own opinions on controversial issues?  2) Why do we stay quiet while words like “sustainability” are used to excess, and often used to stop opposing conversations? These tactics should be identified as a form of bullying opponents into silence.   Unfortunately,  that method has proven to be effective.  

 

Could the “Donald” have inadvertently started a new trend in politics?  Does his immediate jump in approval ratings testify to a public yearning for open dialogue and blunt speech? Whether the man wins the Republican primary or not, he has opened the door to expose a different style candidate with a radically unusual style of communication that seems to be appealing to many citizens, while resented by the political Washington D.C. “establishment”.  

 

It seems highly probable that the public’s immediate approval of Trump is sending a message that the public yearns for something that has been foreign in elections for quite some time:  the unfiltered truth!  Voters want more honesty and less politically correct speech.  We are more forgiving of a politician misspeaking on occasion, than those sounding as if every word out of their mouth was first tried and tested by a team of P.C. experts.  We do not want politicians that need or rely upon a teleprompter, but instead those who speak from the heart and believe every word they are saying, and who will honor their promises once elected.  We long for true patriots who will defy the status quo when necessary; who will fight for the people rather than serve self-interests.  It is therefore essential that we not be fooled by fancy words or rhetoric that we find problematic, or buy into words with obscure meanings and a political agenda, such as “sustainability” and the U.N. agendas.  

 

As the pre-election activities progress, Trump may lose his lead to another Republican candidate who emerges with the gravitas, experience, confidence, and character that people believe will best lead America into the future.  If so, let us hope none forget that people crave honest, open dialogue, and for that we must thank the Donald.  

 

Our new president must be equipped for a World that holds more surprises and challenges than ever before.  When we find that candidate who best represents our values, let us give him or her all of our support.  That is our responsibility as patriots who love our amazing country and want it to remain “the land of the free and the home of the brave.” 

 

Not unlike the unprecedented number of candidates in the 2016 race for the presidency, each of us must also work hard to protect America, by doing our best to elect the right person to lead us for the next four or eight years.  

 

Our children and grandchildren are depending upon us to preserve for them what generations before have given us: freedom, security from our enemies, a sound economy, and laws based on the values and principles of our forefathers.  Above all, please do not just vote and feel you have “done your civic duty”.  It has never been more important or essential that we all vote wisely, if we are to bring our nation back to a comfortable, solid place that would rate approval from George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and many other brave, bright, honest presidents who contributed to America’s prosperity.            

Part 2 will deal with “sustainability in education” and what will be the outcome is allowed to continue for the future of our nation.