Important Quotes

School Busing

We have an oil shortage? We need to save fuel? This doesn't make sense. We spend billions of dollars to bus our kids to school (many being picked up door to door) and then build million dollar gymnasiums to give them exercise. What is wrong with this picture?

George Dorunda

STILL DON'T WANT TO ARM PILOTS?

So...even after four airplanes were hijacked and used to kill more than 5,000 people on September 11, you're still a little squeamish about letting commercial airline pilots carry guns?  Then it's time for a story.

It happened on July 6, 1954.  During this time, pilots routinely carried pistols.   They carried pistols because they hand-carried the mail from the plane to the terminal, and postal regulations required pilots to be armed.  American Airlines had their pilots buy .380 semiautomatic pistols.  The late Captain William "Bill" Bonnell of Fort Worth, Texas, had bought one too.  He kept it in his flight bag.  He was no stranger to guns, having flown in the Army Air Corps during World War II.

That morning, Bonnell had flown the American Airlines DC-6 from Fort Worth to Cleveland.   There were 58 passengers on board.  They were all seated.  Bonnell spoke to a young mother with two small children seated at the front of the aircraft.  Then he entered the cockpit and locked himself, his co-pilot, and the engineer inside.

Then the cockpit door opened.  It was a teenager--a big kid armed with a pistol.   He told Bonnell and his crew, "I want to go to Mexico--no stops."

Bonnell and the co-pilot tried to explain that the plane didn't have enough fuel to fly to Mexico.  But the teen wasn't convinced.  Flight engineer Bob Young told the kid that they would take off as he ordered--but it was necessary to throw a switch behind him before the plane could taxi.

The hijacker turned to look for the switch.  That's when Bonnell reached into his flight bag, pulled out his gun, and shot the hijacker.  The hijacker tried to shoot back--but his gun misfired.  Bonnell shot him again.

After the hijacker was taken to a hospital, Bonnell flew the DC-6 back to Fort Worth.   In mid-flight he received word from Cleveland that the hijacker had died.  His name was Raymond Kuchenmeister, and he had run away from home, stole a pistol, and planned to hijack an airplane earlier in the day.

Here's a man who saved the lives of his 58 passengers and his crew.  He proved that armed pilots can stop hijackers from taking control of an airliner.  Yet our federal government still refuses to arm commercial pilots--and in the same breath resolves to send Air Force fighter jets to destroy a hijacked plane before it can be used as a weapon.

TIME TO EXPAND OUR GUN RIGHTS

Every one of us in this country might as well be wearing a bull's-eye on our chests.  We need to gear up for a war--because once the bombs start dropping on Afghanistan, retaliation by terrorists is a certainty.  One senator who attended a closed-door briefing of the Select Intelligence Committee said it's not a matter of "if" the terrorists will strike again, but "when."

With that in mind, it's time for President Bush and John Ashcroft to work on expanding, not hampering, the ability of Americans to keep and bear arms for self-defense.

A few modest proposals to get the debate going:

1.  Let's start with arming commercial airline pilots and allowing armed sky marshals.  We've gone over this one.  Right now the airlines and the federal government trust pilots to move hundreds of tons of aircraft and hundreds of people from one place to another--yet they don't trust pilots with firearms.  This just doesn't make sense.  Think of the deterrent effect an armed crew would have against a would-be hijacker.  Remember--El Al, Israel's national airline, has had sky marshals for decades--and no El Al aircraft has been hijacked in more than 30 years.

2.  Allow law-abiding Americans with concealed-weapons licenses to board aircraft with their guns.  Special training for an “aircraft endorsement?”  Sure, no problem.   Then give them frangible ammunition so a stray shot won't punch a hole in the fuselage.  Will a hijacker be so bold if he thinks the guy sitting beside him could be armed?

3.  Allow national concealed carry.  Make every state a "shall-issue" state with uniform procedures for obtaining a concealed-weapons license.  Create uniform laws concerning the interstate transport of firearms.  Allow concealed carry reciprocity in all 50 states.  Right now the laws are a jumbled mess, and only about 30 states allow their residents to carry concealed weapons.  The rest either don't allow concealed carry or make them nearly impossible for the average citizen to obtain.   Studies have shown that mass shootings tend to drop by 84 percent after states enact "shall-issue" concealed carry legislation.

4.  Repeal the Clinton Crime Bill's absurd ban on high-capacity magazines.  Most Americans can still own magazines that were made before the 1994 ban, but they're expensive and harder to find.  Handguns and rifles nowadays come with magazines that are limited to just 10 rounds.  Terrorists aren't known for their adherence to the law--so why should we assume that they'll only have wimpy 10-round magazines for their AK-47s?  If they're going to start something in America, then American civilians should be able to meet them with the maximum firepower available.

5.  Allow Americans with concealed-weapons permits to carry on school grounds.   In the vast majority of states, this is still a no-no.  Schools in Israel were a favorite target of terrorists in the early 1970s until Israel started arming and training their teachers.  School shootings in Israel are virtually nonexistent--the terrorists have moved on in search of softer targets.

Yes, the gun grabbers are going to raise all kinds of hell over these proposals.   They'll say that arming Americans will only result in a bloodbath on the streets.   Road rage and air rage will boil over into mass shootings.

Yet the evidence points to an overwhelmingly positive deterrent effect.  Predators of all kinds avoid areas where they know people have guns.  They'll avoid these areas because they don't want to get shot while they're committing a crime.  This applies equally to burglars, muggers, rapists...and terrorists.

DON’T LET YOUR GUARD DOWN

When is the proper time to say this?  After the mourning?  Before we get a chance to fire our first shots?  Talk about this too early and you lack respect for those who died and those who still cry.  Say it too late and it’s …..well, too late.

Americans – if you love freedom; I mean if you truly love freedom and not just pay the word lip service – don’t let your guard down.  These are very dangerous times for liberty, and the threat doesn't only come from terrorists.

We are in the mood to grant our leaders and elected representatives extraordinary temporary powers right now.  Surely some extraordinary powers will be needed to fight this difficult war.  This is where the danger lies.

Let’s turn back the clock about 60 years to the beginning of World War II.  Then, as now, our politicians asked citizens to indulge them some temporary extra powers.  With Pearl Harbor still coated with a layer of oil and blood Americans were in no mood to say “no.”   Here’s one example.

Up until W.W.II Americans would pay their taxes once a year.  They would figure out how much they owed from the previous year’s salary, write a check, and send it in.  Under this system there was not one taxpaying American who did not have a clear idea of just how much money he made and how much of that money he sent to the federal government in taxes. 

Well – the politicians needed to step up the cash flow a bit.  There were uniforms and equipment to buy and the government truly couldn't wait until the next tax payments were due.  The politicians went to the people of The United States with a plan.  That plan was called “withholding.”  It was really very simple.  While America was fighting the war the government would go to our employers and ask them to take out the income taxes before the paychecks were written to the employees.  This would be entirely temporary.  When the war was over everything would return to normal.   Enter the era of “take-home pay.”

If there is one word that best explains the ability of politicians to constantly expand the size and scope of government, and thus their own power, without raising an alarm among and incurring the wrath of the electorate, that word is “withholding.”

To put it mildly, working, salaried Americans really don’t know what they’re paying in federal income taxes.  Walk up to a co-worker on April 15^th and ask them how much they had to pay in taxes this year.   You’re going to get one of two answers.   Either they will say “I didn't have to pay anything, I’m getting some back!” Or they will quote a figure equal to the check they actually had to include in their tax return.  All of those taxes collected out of every paycheck and bonus for the entire year?  Gone and forgotten … never an issue.  Now, ask your friend how much he makes?  My bet is that the answer – if he does answer – will begin with the words “I take home …. “  Ahhhh, the magic “take-home pay.”

If Americans don’t know how much they make, and how much they pay in taxes, how are they going to get upset at our over burdensome tax rate and the obscene growth in government?

Another example of temporary restrictions  in time of national emergency?  How about the wage freezes during W.W.II?  These wage freezes caused employers to seek other ways to compete for valued employees.  From this came the idea of “benefits.”  Benefits like health insurance.  Now the conventional wisdom in America is that the employer, not the employee, is responsible for the employee’s health care.  The concept that someone other than the individual is responsible for that individual’s health care is the primary causative factor in the spiraling cost of health care in the United States.

I have been saying for years that Americans are, by and large, increasingly willing to trade freedom for security.  Now – with the arrival of terrorism on our shores – that willingness may increase.  I've lost count of the national leaders, Gephardt, Daschle, Lott, Brokaw, Jennings and others who have talked of our need to give up some of our freedoms for a little increased security.  Ronald Reagan had an answer for that.  He said that there was no “s” on “freedom.”  It is indivisible.  You’re either free, or you’re not.

Over the next days, weeks and months we are going to see a multitude of proposals and ideas coming from legislators and pontificators.  Many of these ideas will involve encroachments on the privacy of individual Americans and on our basic freedom.

Try, for instance, the idea of a National Identity Card.  I have seen this idea proposed at least a dozen times since the attacks.  Presumably we would show these ID cards when we board airplanes or enter secure or sensitive areas.  Most Americans are just about ready to accept this idea, right?  After all, ID cards might have helped prevent this terrorist tragedy.

Well --- let’s spin the clock hands forward a few hundred days.  Let me tell you where the National ID card idea will undoubtedly lead.  This all stems from the basic concept that the more information a government has on its citizens the easier it is to rule those citizens.

• Travel.  Every movement by mass transportation will be monitored.  The federal government will have a database of your travel by air.  Eventually the IRS will have access to this database to match travel records to expense accounts … etc.

• Your National ID card will someday be required for all financial transactions.  The government will tell us this is essential to combat money laundering from the drug trade (an essential reason for keeping the war on drugs alive).  Again, this will be a great to the IRS as it keeps tabs on your entire financial life.

• Your National ID card will be required for employment.  Present it to the boss, or no paycheck. 

• Your National ID card will be required for any medical care or to obtain any prescription drugs.   All to help the government build its database on you.

Times of national peril present a wonderful opportunity to politicians to increase their power.  Yes, they feel the same patriotism we all do … but their desire for power doesn't diminish. 

Just keep your guard up.

Gun-Free Zone Terrorists

These terrorists knew that an airplane would be a gun-free zone; an area where their victims would have no means of self-defense.  Throughout the country the statistics reflect the same stark fact:  People who pass background checks and obtain concealed carry permits present NO threat of criminal activity.  What if there had been such a person on either of the three aircraft that reached their target.

I'll draw a parallel for you.  Luby’s Cafeteria, Killeen Texas.  Shoney’s Restaurant, Anniston Alabama.

In October of 1991 a deranged gunman shot 23 people to death in a Luby’s Restaurant in Killeen, Texas.  None of the victims were armed.  There was one woman there with a permit to carry a gun – but Luby’s had a rule, no guns!  That woman left her gun in her car while she went inside to have lunch with her parents.  The gunman didn't care about Luby’s rule.  When he opened fire the woman who had left her gun in her car watcher both of her parents die.

Anniston Alabama – several months later.  Two predators with guns enter a Shoney’s restaurant.  They tell everyone to get up and head to the back of the restaurant.  One of the diners had a gun.  He pulled it out and fired.  Result?   One dead predator, the other captured.

Oh – by the way.  The media gave extensive coverage to Luby’s.  None to Shoneys.   No surprise there.

Is there a chance some nut-case would get a permit?  Sure there is!  Is there a chance that these terrorists might have decided that airliners aren't a good target if there is a possibility that there were armed people on board?  You decide.

Fact: "It's For The Children"

Whenever you hear a politician say, "It's for the children" it usually means its going to cost you more of your freedom and/or more of your money.

THE ANT AND THE GRASSHOPPER

  CLASSIC VERSION

  The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he's a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.  Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed. The grasshopper has no food or shelter so he dies out in the cold.

MODERN VERSION

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he's a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.  Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving.

CBS, NBC and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food.  "America" is stunned by the sharp contrast. How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper, and everybody cries, then they sing "It's Not Easy Being Green."   Bill and Hillary Clinton make a special guest appearance on the CBS Evening News to tell a concerned Dan Rather that they will do everything they can for the grasshopper who has been denied the prosperity he deserves by those who benefited unfairly during the Reagan summers, or as Bill refers to it as "Temperatures of the 80's."

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton stage a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing "We shall overcome". Jesse then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake.

  Al Gore exclaims in an interview with Peter Jennings that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and calls for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his "fair share". Finally, the EEOC drafts the "Economic Equity and Anti-Ant Act", retroactive to the beginning of the summer. The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government.

Hillary gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel of federal judges that Bill appointed from a list of single-parent welfare recipients who can only hear cases on Thursday's between 1:30 and 3:00 PM when there are no talk shows scheduled. The ant loses the case. The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him since he doesn't maintain it. The ant has disappeared in the snow. And on the TV, which the grasshopper
  bought by selling most of the ant's food, they are showing Bill Clinton standing before a wildly applauding group of Democrats announcing that a new era of "fairness" has dawned in America.

The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood.

Gun owners aren't held liable for safekeeping

Appeals court ruling follows case involving man who stole his parents' gun and shot an Allen County police officer.
July 25, 2001  

The Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled that gun owners do not have a duty to the public to reasonably care for their firearms.

The 2-1 decision upholds a trial court decision dismissing a lawsuit against the owners of a gun used to kill an Allen County police officer.

Deputy Eryk Heck was killed when he exchanged fire with burglary suspect Timothy Stoffer on Aug. 15, 1997. Stoffer, who also died, stole the gun used in the shootout from his parents.

The Heck family sued Ray and Patricia Stoffer, in 1999, claiming Timothy Stoffer had criminal and violent tendencies and his parents had a duty to ensure that he did not gain access to the handgun used to kill Heck.

The appeals court said that some Indiana cases require reasonable care in other contexts, such as by dog owners or people waxing a public floor.

Those cases are different, though, because they don't involve a constitutionally protected right, the decision said.

"I'm happy. It was a good decision," said David Hawk, the Stoffers' attorney. "You can't owe a duty to the whole world. If so, then no one can do anything without fear of liability."

Hawk said he hoped the decision would bring some closure to the tragedy, but he said he believed the case likely would be appealed to the Indiana Supreme Court.

John Theisen, the attorney representing the Heck family, said he will recommend to his clients that they appeal.

"It is a cutting-edge question that courts are going to have to address," Theisen said.

Judge Patrick Sullivan dissented, saying the Stoffers knew of the likelihood that their son might break the law.

"The duty of reasonable care is owed to the persons who foreseeably might be injured by unauthorized possession and use of the gun," Sullivan said. "Deputy Heck was just such a person."

Suspension of student for poem of violence upheld

Saturday, July 21, 2001

A Washington state school district acted appropriately when it expelled a student for writing a poem about a fictitious campus mass murder, a federal appeals court in San Francisco said yesterday.

The case weighed a student's First Amendment right of free expression against school officials' needs to provide a safe campus environment in the wake of shootings at several high schools.

The decision hands school officials, who are struggling to cope with campus violence, the authority to expel a student if the school holds a reasonable belief that the student may pose a danger.

"Parents and the public expect schools to protect their children and that is getting more and more difficult in modern times," said Tyna Ek, the lawyer for the Blaine School District, which expelled the student. "This says that schools can act when there are danger signals without knowing for sure that violence is going to happen."

The decision from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court's ruling that Blaine High School "was not acting reasonably" when it expelled student James LaVine, whose poetry detailed the methodical mass killing of 28 people at a school.

The student's lawyer, Breean Beggs, said the decision could chill student speech and perhaps give educators leverage to punish students for their ideas.

LaVine, a 16-year-old junior at the time, was expelled for 17 school days in 1998 after submitting his poem.

Government Waste!

Alderman Irene Smith was filibustering a redistricting debate at the St. Louis Board of Alderman when she asked to use the rest room. James Shrewsbury, the board's acting president, refused the request, apparently in hope of ending the filibuster. Instead, reports the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, "about 40 minutes later, friends of Smith held a tablecloth, sheet and quilt around her" while she "appeared" to relieve herself in a wastebasket. "What I did behind that tablecloth is my business," Smith told reporters.

Whoopi Goldberg on Communism!

It happened on ABC’s Politically Incorrect Tuesday, July 3, 2001.  Two of the guests were Whoopi Goldberg and talk show host Dennis Prager.  The conversation turned to fighting Communism.   Here is the exchange between Prager and Goldberg:

Dennis Prager: Why is fighting Communism not a damn good reason? Fighting Nazism was a damn good reason to sacrifice your brothers. Why was fighting Communism morally different?

Whoopi Goldberg  : I'll tell you. Because to me, I'm not sure that Communism is necessarily a bad thing.

You read it right. Aren't these entertainers just wonderful?

Fourth Right Dreaming

Lowell Ponte - July 4, 2001

"GOD FORBID WE SHOULD EVER BE 20 YEARS without such a rebellion," wrote Thomas Jefferson, author of America’s Declaration of Independence, to a friend in 1787 regarding Shay’s Rebellion. "….what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."

Reading Jefferson’s words on a hot, sticky night on the week of the Fourth of July, I felt sleep overtaking me. In what might have been a dream, I found myself watching the Founding Fathers as they prepared and began a revolution against the British rulers. But something had changed. History had frame-shifted by three centuries, and now their revolution was happening not in the year 1776 but in 2076 in a brave, new world full of modern technologies and laws that have emerged.

I watched a small group of the Founders, wearing Tee shirts and track shoes, gathered in an air-conditioned Philadelphia basement. I recognized Washington, despite his healthy teeth, and Jefferson and the others without their powdered wigs. But where was John Adams, whose urging had made Jefferson the Declaration’s drafter, celebrated today in David McCullough’s best-selling biography?

"The British detected Adams’ rebellious traits in kindergarten, using psychological tests for anti-social tendencies," a ghostly spirit at my side explained. "He was given tranquilizers and sensitivity training at age five that cured his politically-incorrect anti-monarchist tendencies, and the same happened with his firebrand cousin Sam Adams. They both now love and support King George III."

"And John’s wife Abigail was arrested at Boston’s Logan Airport. She tried to avoid surveillance by dressing like a man – but since the 1990s, security scanners have allowed government agents to look completely through unsuspecting men’s, women’s, and children’s clothing down to their genitalia, and Abigail did not have male genitalia. She also bought a ticket with cash, something that brings instant government surveillance. She, too, now loves the King."

And where, I asked, is John Hancock, who boasted of penning his name so large on the Declaration of Independence that the king could easily read it? "Surveillance cameras using artificial intelligence programming identified him despite his Indian disguise at the Boston Tea Party – the same kind of surveillance cameras used in parts of London as early as 2001," the spirit said. "Hancock and his Sons of Liberty were convicted of violating the environmental laws by polluting Boston Harbor with tea. Their properties and fortunes were confiscated under asset forfeiture laws, and they too all received appropriate sensitivity training and brain-adjusting medication."

Was Paul Revere among those arrested? "Of course," replied my mysterious companion. "And the British were able to use agents provocateurs and a phony telephone call to trick the farmers of Lexington and Concord into bringing their guns out of hiding to confront the Redcoats sent to seize their gunpowder. But, of course, the colonists had the new legally-required ‘safer’ guns that could be ‘fired only by their owners’ – you know, the type with computer circuitry inside. So when the colonists aimed them at British commandos, the Redcoats merely switched on a jamming device that turned off all the American guns from a distance and made them useless. The farmers were chained and sent to psychiatric hospitals for pain-compliance training and neural re-channeling, but most remain in prison for violating the Universal Peoples Firearms and All Other Weapons Confiscation Act of 2013 signed by President Hillary Clinton."

Where, I asked, is Alexander Hamilton? "The King’s ‘Echelon’ system monitoring of all telephone calls that uses computer pattern-recognition to detect key words identified Hamilton as a dangerous terrorist against the Crown," answered the strangely-ethereal voice. "He tried to flee, but the Global Positioning Satellite transponders in his car with names like LoJack and OnStar, and implanted in infancy under his skin, made Hamilton easy for the government to track."

"And you know the computer circuits built into cars since 1987," my guide continued, "supposedly to improve gas mileage? When Hamilton drove across a control web beneath the roadway – the kind the U.S. has at border crossings like that between San Diego and Tijuana since the 1990s – the Royal police simply activated an electromagnetic pulse from the web that turned off his car’s motor. When Hamilton tried to run, he was stopped with a cloud of soma vapor and a tranquilizer dart. He now serves the King too."

Did the same, I nervously asked, happen to George Mason of Virginia? "He and many others in the subversive ‘Committees of Correspondence’ were identified and monitored by the King’s ‘Carnivore’ system that uses computers to scan all emails," said the spirit.

"And they were easy to track using ‘Fincen,’ the government’s secret system that since the 1990s has recorded all citizen financial transactions and credit purchases, whenever they used any credit card. Those who tried to evade such monitoring by using cash were reported to the drug authorities, as all laws now require. And the cash itself now has those secret electronic tracking strips that let the King know whatever hands it passes through by requiring merchants and banks to scan all bills bigger than $5 into a Fincen-linked device. The royal government is also thus able to block any credit card or declare any currency counterfeit as a way of leaving rebels unable to buy anything such as food or fuel or airline tickets.

Where, I trembled to ask, is Benjamin Franklin. "He published politically incorrect things in his Poor Richard’s Almanack, advising men to take an old or unattractive mistress if they wished to be happy and such," said the ghostly shade. "He was accordingly sued for hate speech under the Sensitivity Laws. A jury of older citizens found him Not Guilty, accepting his argument that the laws protected free speech rights. But when he resumed publication, the government filed billions of dollars in nuisance lawsuits that bankrupted him."

"When Franklin continued to make insensitive remarks in public," the ghostly guide continued, "a mob urged on by Al Sharpton chased him into a building and set it on fire. Ben Franklin died in the blaze, and the government refuses to arrest any who were in the mob. You’ll remember that beginning in the 1990s the government simply killed those it found too distasteful. Tom Paine met the same fate. Like the mythical James Bond, 007, government agents such as Lon Horiuchi have been licensed to kill any approved target without fear of being tried or convicted. Pamphleteer Tom Paine was imprisoned, put into solitary confinement, and died of a mysterious heart attack – exactly like the witness against Bill Clinton named James McDougal."

So the only ones left to fight for America’s freedom, I asked, are the handful in this room? "They will soon be arrested too," said the shade. "Their cell phone calls are routinely recorded by the government, the same imperial government that prohibited the manufacture of encrypted cell phones – and that in 2000 required that future cell phones include a chip so that the secret police can zero in on its exact location using satellite surveillance and other means. Some will be killed by using targeted government radio commands to detonate the transponders implanted in their bodies. Even this room right now has secret royal bugging devices in it. The only question is whether the rebels will be punished under the royal laws or world government laws – not that these two are really different."

So does this mean, I asked, that the American Revolution will be killed in its cradle, that we will never be free? "From the moment Bill Clinton became Governor of all the colonies," my guide replied, "international meetings at the highest levels with his cooperation began making and implementing 33-year plans to systematically remove all weapons, all privacy, and all power, mobility, property, wealth, and rights from individual citizens."

"Leftists support this transfer of power because they love big government and believe they will be the ones controlling it," the shade continued. "And many conservatives have also been tricked into supporting the loss of individual freedom in the name of the War on Drugs or other moral crusades. Let’s face facts, Lowell – as you once explained in a column, some European-style conservatives don’t like individual freedom or free market capitalism any more than socialists do."

So is freedom doomed? "On Planet Earth it is," said the shade grimly, "because too many people have become addicted to government handouts, the same kind they tell tourists not to feed to the bears in Yellowstone lest the creatures become unable to feed themselves. We no longer have many like America’s Founders, many of whom were the richest people in the colonies and could have led lives of ease, willing literally to risk their lives, fortunes, and sacred honors for freedom."

"But the smartest and most noble ones among us, the ones able to run the technology, are Libertarians and individualists," said the apparition. "Many of them are working for freedom so secretly that even the King’s spies are unaware."

"And on the Fourth of July 2176," the ghostly figure continued, "Libertarians and fellow freedom activists on Earth will activate a few concealed programs in Big Brother’s computers to neutralize his space warships. And their brothers and sisters on the red planet at the same moment will declare the Independence of the 13 Mars colonies. They will succeed and give humankind a rebirth of freedom on another New World."

Who are you, I asked my guide, and how do you know all this? "I am the Spirit of ’76," he said, fixing me with his steady, clear-eyed gaze. "And despite how often the tyrants and dictators, the kings and Stalins and Hitlers and Hillary Clintons have tried to kill me, I live forever in the hearts of every authentic human being. Freedom is sometimes eclipsed, and sometimes its children get lulled to sleep, but woe to the tyrants when it reawakens…."

I felt my body floating upwards, as if under water, then burst into a world where I could breathe again. I opened my eyes, surprised by the dawn’s early light shining into them. It was morning again in America, the morning of the Fourth of July.

This Independence Day night, the bombs are again bursting in air, and how symbolic it is that power-hungry politicians want no private citizens – but only the government – to control even the tiniest fireworks that represent America’s revolutionaries fighting against the king who had oppressed them. These politicians, of course, pretend they are taking our freedom to protect our safety – the path, as Franklin said, that leads to neither freedom nor safety – and that they are enslaving us "for the children."

On this sacred night, on the Fourth of July with lights in our eyes and a smell of gunpowder in our nostrils, we will again all be asking – some with more attention than others – the question with which our politically-incorrect National Anthem ends. "Oh, say, does that Star-Spangled Banner yet wave, o’er the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave?"

Does it? It's a question each generation must ask and answer anew, every 20 years or so. As Jefferson understood, each new generation is its own nation.

Government is a power-mad weed, and unless its tendency to grow is pruned back with each generation it will soon take over the entire public square and reduce human beings again to slaves and serfs – as it has nearly done at the dawn of the 21^st Century, the third millennium.

The revolution each generation must fight need not be violent, Jefferson knew. His own election as America’s third President he called "the Revolution of 1800," as indeed it was. By then the nation was already running up a huge national debt, raising taxes, trading arms for hostages with the Barbary pirates, and jailing journalists and even congressmen under the Alien & Sedition Acts for the crime of criticizing the government of John Adams.

Jefferson reversed all those evils, and thanks to him we retain today at least a few vestiges and memories of liberty.

But many politicians are eager to remove every freedom you now enjoy and turn you into a slave on Big Government’s plantation. Every enlargement of government is paid for with more loss of your liberty, and every politician who seeks the expansion of government is your and your children’s mortal enemy.

"A little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical," Thomas Jefferson wrote in a personal letter to his protégé James Madison in 1787. "It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."

You were born with an inheritance of freedom purchased with the blood of those who risked and died to win it. Jefferson’s point is that such liberty must be cherished, honored, and asserted anew by each generation – or it will be taken from you, bit by bit, by those who love government more than you love liberty.

What are you prepared to do to shrink a federal government that has grown many times more taxing and oppressive than the government of King George III? As in my dream, the chains of your slavery are being forged right now in hundreds of surveillance and police state laws and activities. If this does not concern you, then sleep well. But get ready for the American Dream to become a nightmare.

Thomas Jefferson had a motto by which he lived his life: "Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God." Think, pray, and act upon what freedom means during this special week, and have a happy Fourth of July.

Retiree Makes Permanent Home on Cruise Ship

LONDON (Reuters) - A retired British woman has decided to sail round the world permanently on a luxury cruise ship because it costs no more than staying in an old people's home, a newspaper reported on Sunday.

Beatrice Muller, 82, only pays 55 per cent of the official brochure price for making her home on the QE2 due to loyalty bonuses from five previous world cruises.

Muller chose to make the liner her full-time home after the death of her husband two years ago. She pays 3,424 pounds ($4,818) a month to reside in Cabin 4068.

The very basic, minimum cost of living in an old people's home in London is about 2,000 pounds, she told the Sunday Express.

And while her fellow pensioners while away their hours in a retirement home in Britain's damp climate, she travels the high seas, stopping at sunny destinations, playing bridge and dancing with handsome stewards.

``This is where I live and I love it,'' she told the newspaper. ``I don't have to do any shopping, I don't need to do any shopping, I don't need a car and there aren't any gas or phone bills.''

She enjoys films from the ship's cinema and communicates with her family by e-mail from the computer room.

``I would have to pay around the same to stay in an old people's home and it wouldn't nearly be as much fun as here,'' she told the newspaper.

Thomas Jefferson

I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.

Thomas Jefferson, 1791

HOW DOES THIS MAKE YOU FEEL ABOUT THE FUTURE OF AMERICA?

Next Wednesday is the 4^th of July.  This is the day we’re supposed to be celebrating freedom and the signing of The Declaration of Independence.

A group called The First Amendment Center went out there and polled Americans about our freedoms and the First Amendment to our Constitution.  The results?  Almost one-half of Americans (47%) cannot name one single freedom protected by the First Amendment.  Not one.

Of those who could identify one of those freedoms:

• 59% identified freedom of speech.
• 16% freedom of religion
• 14% freedom of the press
• 1% the right to petition for a redress of grievances
• 10% the right to assembly and association

Now --- get this --- 39 % of Americans say that the First Amendment goes too far in protecting and guaranteeing freedoms.  That’s almost four out of ten Americans!  This number has doubled in the last ten years.

Another frightening finding:  Over 70% of Americans say the government should keep the media in check.  Seven out of ten “freedom loving” Americans say that the government needs to ride herd on the media.

This is exactly what you would expect from a population that is more interested in Entertainment Tonight and Extra than it is in a basic newscast.  It’s the professional wrestling generation on display.  If this survey is accurate, we’re screwed. 

Are you planning your escape route?

MANIACAL SCARE TACTICS OVER CONCEALED WEAPONS!

There’s a new law in Michigan that allows law abiding citizens to apply for and receive a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Ohmigosh!  You ought to hear the blatherings of the left on this one!

A former prosecutor tells the Chicago Tribune “I can guarantee you that I've honked my last horn at an intersection in Michigan.”

Police groups are saying that police officers will now be in jeopardy from all of these guns.  The same argument Cynthia Tucker at the Atlanta Constitution used.

Well, how would you like to step away from the leftist, anti-Second Amendment hysteria for a while and absorb some actual FACTS!

The National Center for Policy Analysis has compared the crime statistics for people with permits and those without.  Guess what?  You probably already suspect this --- but adults with concealed weapons permits are 5.7 times less likely to be arrested for a violent offense than the general public!  Yeah, a real dangerous crowd, right?

Oh .. and this bit about increased jeopardy for police officers?  Throughout the entire United States there has never been one single incident in which a person with a permit to carry a concealed weapon has used that weapon to kill a police officer acting in the line of duty.*  Not one!  See if you can pry that little statistic out of the anti-gun groups.

*   Now let me deal with that little asterisk.   We did have one shooting of a cop in Georgia.   The shooter had a permit.  He caught the police officer in corpus delicious with his wife.  Not exactly in the “line of duty.” 

We'll end this with a little quote from Sammy “The Bull” Gravano.  He’s the mobster whose testimony sent John Gotti to jail.

"Gun control? It's the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I'm a bad guy, I'm always gonna have a gun. Safety locks? You will pull the trigger with a lock on, and I'll pull the trigger. We'll see who wins." 

Benjamin Franklin on Liberty!

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Benjamin Franklin

Thomas Jefferson Was Right!

"The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground."

Thomas Jefferson

SOME MORE ZERO-TOLERANCE NONSENSE

A 6-year-old is suspended from school under an zero tolerance drug policy.  His crime?  He shared a lemon drop with another student.  The school actually called an ambulance for the kid who ate the lemon drop.

Un-freaking-believable.

Defensive Gun Use Statistics

Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)

In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.

In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.

In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.

In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)

In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occurred in places away from the defender's home.

Source: "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995

A fatal accident involving a firearm occurs in the United States only about once every 6 hours. For victims age 14 or under, it's fewer than one a day -- but still enough for the news media to have a case to tell you about in every day's edition.

Source: National Safety Council

A criminal homicide involving a firearm occurs in the United States about once every half hour -- but two-thirds of the fatalities are not completely innocent victims but themselves have criminal records.

Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports and Murder Analysis by the Chicago Police Department

Here's what a 1995 federal study investigating juvenile crime found after looking at 20,000 randomly selected households:

Relationship between type of gun owned and percent committing street, drug and gun crimes.

Legal Gun:
Street crimes = 14%
Drug use = 13%
Gun crimes = 0%

"The socialization into gun ownership is also vastly different for legal and illegal gunowners. Those who own legal guns have fathers who own guns for sport and hunting. On the other hand, those who own illegal guns have friends who own illegal guns and are far more likely to be gang members. For legal gunowners, socialization appears to take place in the family; for illegal gunowners, it appears to take place 'on the street.'"

"Boys who own legal firearms have much lower rates of delinquency and drug use and are even slightly less delinquent than nonowners of guns."

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, NCJ-143454, "Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse," August 1995.

Making it legally possible for civilians to carry concealed weapons does not make society more violent or result in shootouts at traffic accidents.

The rate of criminal misuse of firearms by the hundreds of thousands of persons licensed to carry concealed firearms in Florida is so low as to be statistically zero. In fact, homicide, assault, rape, and robbery are dramatically lower in areas of the United States where the public is allowed easy access to carrying concealed firearms in public.

Sources: Florida Department of State, Concealed Weapons/ Firearms License Statistical Report and "Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns," by John R. Lott, Olin Fellow in Law and Economics at the University of Chicago Law School and David B. Mustard, graduate student, Department of Economics, Journal of Legal Studies, January 1997.

Making guns less available does not reduce suicide but merely causes the person seeking death to use another means.

While gun-related suicides were reduced by Canada's gun control legislation of 1978, the overall suicide rate did not go down at all: the gun-related suicides were replaced 100% by an increase in other types of suicide -- mostly jumping off bridges.
"The authors describe suicide rates in Toronto and Ontario and methods used for suicide in Toronto for 5 years before and after enactment of Canadian gun control legislation in 1978. They also present data from San Diego, Calif., where state laws attempt to limit access to guns by certain psychiatric patients. Both sets of data indicate that gun control legislation may have led to decreased use of guns by suicidal men, but the difference was apparently offset by an increase in suicide by leaping. In the case of men using guns for suicide, these data support a hypothesis of substitution of suicide method."

Source: "Guns and suicide: possible effects of some specific legislation," Rich, Young, Fowler, Wagner, and Black, The American Journal of Psychiatry March, 1990

Here is the actual text, written in 1988, by Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center, outlining how they intended to manipulate the media and deceive the American public into confusing semi-auto handguns and rifles with machine guns, making it possible to ban them:

"Assault weapons—just like armor-piercing bullets, machine guns, and plastic firearms—are a new topic. The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun— can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons."

"Assault Weapons and Accessories in America"--Conclusion, Violence Policy Center Study

Surprised by the facts?

Maybe it's because the TV networks are deliberately not telling you about them.

According to a January 5, 2000 special report by Geoffrey Dickens, Senior Media Analyst of the Media Research Center, "In 1997, criminologist Gary Kleck estimated that over 2.5 million people a year defend themselves from an assailant or burglar by exercising their constitutional right to bear arms. Yet how many times did television networks report such acts? In the past two years, out of 653 gun policy stories, exactly 12 times. By making a blockbuster story out of several school shootings—while leaving out the millions of times citizens use guns to stop crime each year—they presented a very misleading picture to the average viewer that firearm use brings more harm than good, and thus should be limited or even banned."

The study further went on to document that instead of reporting on firearms in anything approaching an objective manner, "In 653 gun policy stories, those advocating more gun control outnumbered stories opposing gun control by 357 to 36, or a ratio of almost 10 to 1, while 260 were categorized as neutral. Anti-gun soundbites were twice as frequent as pro-gun ones—412 to 209—while 471 soundbites were neutral. Gun control advocates appeared on the morning shows as guests on 82 occasions, compared to just 37 for gun-rights activists and 58 neutral spokesmen."

Read "Outgunned: How the Network News Media Are Spinning the Gun Control Debate, a January 5, 2000 Special Report by the Media Research Center.

NASA aims to move Earth

Scientists' answer to global warming: nudge the planet farther from Sun

Special report: global warming

Sunday June 10, 2001

Scientists have found an unusual way to prevent our planet overheating: move it to a cooler spot. All you have to do is hurtle a few comets at Earth, and its orbit will be altered. Our world will then be sent spinning into a safer, colder part of the solar system.

This startling idea of improving our interplanetary neighborhood is the brainchild of a group of NASA engineers and American astronomers who say their plan could add another six billion years to the useful lifetime of our planet - effectively doubling its working life.

'The technology is not at all far-fetched,' said Dr Greg Laughlin, of the NASA Ames Research Center in California. 'It involves the same techniques that people now suggest could be used to deflect asteroids or comets heading towards Earth. We don't need raw power to move Earth, we just require delicacy of planning and maneuvering.'

The plan put forward by Dr Laughlin, and his colleagues Don Korycansky and Fred Adams, involves carefully directing a comet or asteroid so that it sweeps close past our planet and transfers some of its gravitational energy to Earth.

'Earth's orbital speed would increase as a result and we would move to a higher orbit away from the Sun,' Laughlin said.

Engineers would then direct their comet so that it passed close to Jupiter or Saturn, where the reverse process would occur. It would pick up energy from one of these giant planets. Later its orbit would bring it back to Earth, and the process would be repeated.

In the short term, the plan provides an ideal solution to global warming, although the team was actually concerned with a more drastic danger. The sun is destined to heat up in about a billion years and so 'seriously compromise' our biosphere - by frying us.

Hence the group's decision to try to save Earth. 'All you have to do is strap a chemical rocket to an asteroid or comet and fire it at just the right time,' added Laughlin. 'It is basic rocket science.'

The plan has one or two worrying aspects, however. For a start, space engineers would have to be very careful about how they directed their asteroid or comet towards Earth. The slightest miscalculation in orbit could fire it straight at Earth - with devastating consequences.

It is a point acknowledged by the group. 'The collision of a 100-kilometer diameter object with the Earth at cosmic velocity would sterilize the biosphere most effectively, at least to the level of bacteria,' they state in a paper in Astrophysics and Space Science. 'The danger cannot be overemphasized.'

There is also the vexed question of the Moon. As the current issue of Scientific American points out, if Earth was pushed out of its current position it is 'most likely the Moon would be stripped away from Earth,' it states, radically upsetting out planet's climate.

These criticisms are accepted by the scientists. 'Our investigation has shown just how delicately Earth is poised within the solar system,' Laughlin admitted. 'Nevertheless, our work has practical implications. Our calculations show that to get Earth to a safer, distant orbit, it would have to pass through unstable zones and would need careful nurturing and nudging. Any alien astronomers observing our solar system would know that something odd had occurred, and would realize an intelligent lifeform was responsible.

'And the same goes for us. When we look at other solar systems, and detect planets around other suns - which we are now beginning to do - we may see that planet-moving has occurred. It will give us our first evidence of the handiwork of extraterrestrial beings.'

Didn't the Three Stooges try this?

HOME SCHOOLING GAINS ANOTHER STUDENT

Meet Ryan Oleichi, a 13-year-old student at Labay (Government) Middle School outside Houston, Texas.  He's one kid the government won't be "educating" anymore.

Back in February, Ryan got in trouble with the school administration.  He dared to wear a shirt with a Confederate flag patch on it.  The patch measured one inch by one and a half inches.  He'd worn the shirt to school several times before without incident--but this time he was to serve three days in detention.  He was then forced to apologize to all of the school's black students for being a racist.

Melinda Hill, Ryan's mother, knew that the school dress code calls for a one-day detention for such an infraction.  But the assistant principal, Cheryl Morrison, told her, "We must make an example of Ryan.  He is a racist."  Hill insists that Ryan is a good student who loves his southern Confederate heritage.

Things went downhill for Ryan after that.  Students started to harass him. On April 20, a student walked up and slapped him, then threatened to sic her "posse" on him.

Then came April 26, which is Confederate Memorial Day in Texas.  Ryan was working on his book report on General Robert E. Lee during his first period class.  A black student noticed that the book Ryan had checked out from the school library had a Confederate flag on it.  A Hispanic student called Ryan a racist and threatened him.   The black student tripped Ryan, slammed him against the lockers, and threatened him too.

The two students beat him up after school.  The Hispanic student had steel-toed boots.  Ryan refused to fight back even though he had a black belt in Taekwondo.   He only put his hands up to protect his face.  Ryan was beaten and kicked into unconsciousness.  He spent three days in the hospital.  The school did nothing.   They said that since Ryan had tried to protect his face, it was "mutual combat."  The district attorney refuses to file charges.  To administrators and the indoctrinated students, Ryan Oleichi got what he deserved ... because the school wanted to make an example out of him.


See, Ryan and his Confederate heritage don't belong in the ideal society of the future.   He's capable of independent thoughts on personal freedom and liberty.  He has to be dealt with.

A week after Ryan returned to school, his mother withdrew him.  He'll be schooled at home from now on.

WHEN WILL WE STOP THIS ZERO TOLERANCE IDIOCY?

The young lady on the left is Lindsay Brown.  You can see that she's not too happy.   So, why isn't Lindsay happy?  She's getting ready to graduate from Estero High School in a few weeks. What's more, she'll be wearing a gold tassel on her graduation gown, a tassel which honor's her position as a National Merit Scholar.  After summer vacation Lindsay will start at Florida Gulf Coast University where she was awarded an academic scholarship. Well, not really.  Yes, she's a National Merit Scholar.   Yes, she has an academic scholarship.  But she won't be wearing that gold tassel.  She won't even be wearing the graduation gown.  Lindsay, you see, is our latest victim of the hysterical and intellectually vapid zero tolerance crap that permeates our insipid government schools across the nation.

Last weekend Lindsay Brown moved some of her belongings to her new apartment.  During the move a kitchen knife - not a steak knife, not a butcher knife - just a simple little kitchen knife fell out of a box and became wedged under the front passenger seat.


When Lindsay drove that car to school on Monday the knife was spotted by a security officer.  Lindsay was arrested and taken to jail.  Taken to jail because there was a kitchen knife in her car.  The local Sheriff's office considered the presence of this kitchen knife to constitute probable cause to believe that Lindsay intended to use this knife as a weapon to hurt someone.

Lindsay Brown spent nine hours in jail.  NINE HOURS!  Nine hours in the custody of the state because of a kitchen knife in the car!  Now she won't get to graduate with her friends.  She won't go to the Senior class breakfast.  She won't get to go to the yearbook party.  Yeah, she'll get her diploma - and a record -- a record for bringing a "dangerous weapon" onto school property.

This is nothing less than mindless hysteria.  The leftist mania over guns has brought us to the point where common sense is virtually lacking in the operation of our government schools.

A kitchen knife is a weapon?  Consider this.  If you had to retrieve a weapon from your car, which would you chose?  A kitchen knife or the jack handle?  How about the tire iron?  Every single car in that parking lot at Estero High School has a tire iron.  They have transmission dip sticks that could be used as swords.   They have spark plug wires that could be used as garrotes.  The car itself could be used to mow down a fellow student.

Mindless, abject stupidity!

Aren't we supposed to be trying to teach our kids how to think rationally? Is there anything rational about this zero-tolerance nonsense?

Lindsay is just one in a long list of victims of these idiotic zero-tolerance policies.

There was that Eagle Scout in Florida.  Remember him?  He had a Scout meeting one night at which he taught young Boy Scouts the proper handling of a hatchet.  The hatchet was in the trunk of his car, along with the rest of his Scouting gear, when he went to school the next day.  Suspended.  Kicked out.

How about that girl in Atlanta who was kicked out of a government school because she had a Tweetie Bird key chain?  The school principal said the chain could be a weapon.

Then there was that boy who took a knife away from a young girl who said she was going to use it to kill herself.  He locked the knife in his locker.  He got kicked out of school for four months.  Two days later that girl did try to kill herself, but failed.  Maybe if she had tried with that knife the kid took from her she would have succeeded.   Maybe he saved a life!  Doesn't matter, kick him out of school.

This left-wing generated mindless politically correct hysteria over weapons in our schools MUST STOP!

Oh Say Can't You Sing!

A group of high school students visiting DC got more then they bargained for when they stopped at a national monument last month. The students were the winners of a nationwide patriotic essay contest.

It all happened at the Jefferson Memorial, a monument to one of our founding fathers. The award-winning group of high school students became so filled with patriotic pride, they spontaneously burst into singing the National Anthem.

"It was an awesome feeling. You just thought, I am so blessed to be a part of this great country," said Kirsten Winston, student. However, that feeling did not last long.

"We got to almost the very end and we were at the last stanza when the National Park Service asked us to stop," said Kirsten.

A Park Ranger asked them to stop because according to a federal regulation, any time a group of 26 people or more gathers at a national monument and attracts an audience, it is considered a demonstration, which requires a permit.

The students were the winners of the VFW sponsored essay contest, ironically entitled: What Price Freedom?

"I wish I could have been there. I'd have sung with them," said Cmdr. John Gwizdak, Veteran of Foreign Wars. The Commander in Chief of the 2.7 million member VFW was so outraged he demanded an apology.

"It sends the chills up and down your spine and all of a sudden, here we go, putting them down, making them feel ashamed of being a part of this country," said Gwizdak.

Late Wednesday, the apology came and the National Park Service blamed a new employee.

"I believe this was an employee who cared deeply about the memorial and this is how they thought they needed to behave. But this is a mistake we won't make again," said Robert Fudge, National Park Service.

The National Park Service would not get into the specifics of the disciplinary action taken, but did say that employee has been reprimanded and won't be stopping anyone from singing the National Anthem again.

Global Warming?

Check out this story on a physicist from the Great White North, "A Canadian scientist is pouring cold, unfrozen water on the notion that global warming is melting arctic sea ice like a Popsicle at the beach," writes The Canada National Post. "Greg Holloway galvanized an international meeting of arctic scientists Tuesday by saying there is little evidence of a rapid decline of the volume of ice in the northern oceans."

Now, how many of you are living under the impression that the global temperatures are skyrocketing so much that the polar ice caps are melting, icebergs are melting - and it's a crisis? Seriously. That "news" is all over the place out there, and it works because of the proclivity we all have to believe doom and gloom. We believe apocalyptic things. When somebody says that this is the last day, we believe that this is it.

If somebody tells you that tomorrow is going to be the greatest day of your life, you get all cynical and say, "Don't try to bump me up with this false optimism. It's not going to be that great a day." But boy, you fill people with negative stuff, and they'll just lap it up. This is one of the tricks of the environmentalist wackos - to convince as many people as possible that we are at the point of no return on the environment.

Despite breathless media reports and speculation of an ice-free Northwest passage, Holloway, a scientist with the Institute of Ocean Science in Victoria, suggests that it's far more likely that the ice has just been moved around in the cycles of arctic winds. "It's more complicated than we thought," The Canada National Post quotes Holloway as saying. The original theory was based on declassified records from the trips of U.S. submarines under the ice.

Satellite photos have clearly shown that the surface area of the ice has decreased about 3% a year for the last 20 years. The question always was: How thick was it? Here's the truth, from a physicist - sound science, not junk science rooted in fear - sea ice is not melting as we've been told. Do you have the courage to believe it?

Cooling earth temperatures between A.D. 1000 and 1900 have been linked to deforestation during that period, according to environmental researchers. Using computer simulations to test their theories, researchers at the Lawrence Livermore laboratory concluded that the regions on Earth which cooled more over those 800 years were also the hardest hit by deforestation. The researchers' discovery casts doubt on the debated notion that a great abundance of trees on earth can slow global warming. It's just the opposite.

In fact, the answer here is, if there ever is global warming, if it ever does really happen, the answer to it is clear-cut! The answer is more baseball bats, more virgin paper, more pianos, more homes, more of the beautiful things you can do with trees once you chop them down.

Here's another story for you: "The protective ozone layer over the North Pole appears to have stabilized after years of thinning but the gain may be temporary," scientists from the United Nations World Meteorological Organization said on Tuesday. This, again, illustrates the amazing power of negativity. The power of doom and gloom is awesome to me. By the way, these U.N. scientists say the ozone thickening fight may have been caused by a warmer-than-usual winter, and not by global cuts in the use of "harmful" chemicals. Of course not! The sun creates ozone, which is why we couldn't destroy it if we tried.

Phillip Duffy, leader of the Lawrence Livermore lab group that conducted the study said, "This complicates life for people like me who are trying to predict climate change. It's saying that there is one more factor we have to account for when we want to predict future climates." Predict climates? Does that not sound just absolutely egocentric? Why does anybody take that seriously? You can't predict the weather beyond three days.

These "climate predictors" have now learned that deforestation results in cooling, and as a result, they are actually complaining! A monkey wrench has been thrown into the works that upsets the whole political agenda of global warming - because cutting trees is never, ever good. Now, we find out that the number one environmentalist wacko cause, global warming, can be retarded, maybe even averted by clear-cutting - and that these warmer temperatures are actually healing the ozone and not causing the ice caps to
melt!

These are the same people that, on one hand, consider human beings to be no different than any other life form, and tell us that we're certainly not superior. But then, on the other hand, we are so superior and so capable, we can study and predict climate change, centuries of years out - and possibly bring about the end of the world.

Scientists often chase grant money. They feed off the government, many of them, so they don't have to work for a living. They go wherever they can get the grant money, and if they do some scientific research into something some senator or some political group wants established, the scientists can siphon a little bit of the grant money off. This is an incentive to produce desired results, and doesn't keep you objective.

Ben Affleck, Hollywood Hypocrite

In the final hectic weeks of Campaign 2000, no celebrity worked harder for the Democratic ticket than Ben Affleck, Hollywood's young prince. The 28-year-old Academy Award winner crisscrossed the country in support of Al Gore, repeatedly delivering a get-out-the-vote plea: "It's very important to vote. The president will appoint three or four Supreme Court justices."

During the final week of the race, Affleck stumped for Gore in California, Florida, and Pennsylvania. During a stop in Pittsburgh, the star--along with Helen Hunt, Martin Sheen, Rob Reiner and other actors--spent an hour at a phone bank calling registered Democrats. "People in my generation have a low voter turnout. One of the reasons that I'm here is to demonstrate that no matter who you are going to vote for...I think it's important to get involved and get out and vote," Affleck told reporters. "But I'm going to tell people to vote for Gore." Affleck was the celebrity caravan's youngest member and the one Gore backer guaranteed to be greeted on the trail with shrieks and swoons from younger voters.

In addition to backing Gore, Affleck had been a big supporter of former President Bill Clinton and also pushed New Yorkers to elect Hillary Clinton to the U.S. Senate. On October 28, for instance, Affleck flew with the First Lady to Ithaca, New York, where he introduced her at a Cornell University rally. Affleck told the college crowd that Clinton had been advocating for women and working families since "Rick Lazio was running around the frat house in his underwear." Lazio, then a Long Island congressman, was Clinton's Republican opponent.

On Monday, November 6, the final day of the campaign, Affleck was one of several A-list celebrities summoned to Miami Beach by Miramax Films boss Harvey Weinstein for a late-night Gore rally, just hours before polls opened nationwide. The Gore campaign's last event, a final effort to energize South Beach voters, didn't end until about 1 AM, but Affleck still had one more piece of campaigning to do. He flew back to New York that morning and made a surprise live appearance on The Rosie O'Donnell Show. It was 10:15 when the groggy actor made his final public pitch from a Rockefeller Center studio, noting that he was "a little bit tired...I've been out getting involved, doing stuff and trying to get people to vote. And that's why I came by here."

As returns came in that night, Affleck told Salon's Amy Reiter, "I'm nervous this evening, but one of the things that's exciting to me is the amount of people who voted. No matter who wins, I think it's a healthy thing for our country that so many voters have come out and participated in the process. Either way, I think the most important number will be the turnout." Reiter interviewed Affleck at an election night party thrown at Elaine's by Miramax and Talk magazine.

Given his role during the 2000 race, it probably should not have come as a surprise that Affleck dreams of a future in politics. In May's GQ magazine, the Oscar winner said, "My fantasy is that someday I'm independently wealthy enough that I'm not beholden to anybody, so I can run for Congress on the grounds that everyday people--be they singers or poets or bankers or lawyers or teachers--should be in government." Just the kind of altruistic thoughts you'd expect from a square-jawed leading man who's starring as a heroic fighter pilot in this summer's big blockbuster, the $150 million epic "Pearl Harbor."

So imagine The Smoking Gun's shock and dismay when--after a week of diligent searching--we could not find a shred of evidence that Affleck actually bothered to vote last year.

TSG checked records and spoke with election officials in Massachusetts, Los Angeles, and New York City and discovered that Affleck did not pull the lever in any of those cities--and apparently hasn't done so in eight years. TSG examined documents in those locales because after reviewing scores of newspaper and magazine articles and a variety of computerized databases, they were the only three cities in which Affleck appears to have lived over the past decade.

The Smoking Gun began its review in Cambridge, Massachusetts, the actor's hometown and where he lived until he was 18. The Cambridge Election Commission had no records of Affleck voting in 2000. And a check of documents dating back to 1990 turned up no prior registrations in Affleck's name, according to Teresa S. Neighbor, the commission's executive director. Affleck grew up in a Cottage Street home in which his mother still lives (and from which she is currently registered to vote). He moved to California in 1991 to pursue an acting career.

Registrar of Voters records show that Affleck signed up to vote in Los Angeles in September 1992. He registered as a Democrat and gave his address as an Altivo Way home owned by family friends. Affleck voted in that November's general election, the first presidential race (Bush vs. Clinton) for which the actor, then 20, was eligible to vote. Affleck would eventually move from the Altivo Way house and live in a series of L.A. apartments before settling down in the Hollywood Hills.

But the Registrar's documents also reveal that Affleck subsequently cast no other ballots--either in person at a polling place or through an absentee ballot--in state or federal races held in 1994, 1996, 1998, and 2000. Records of odd-year elections--held for local offices like mayor and city council--are maintained by a separate City of Los Angeles elections board, which does not keep registries for more than six months after an election. County records show that in January 2000 Affleck's voter registration was
changed to an "inactive" status after a routine mail check determined that his Altivo Way address was no longer current. A TSG check of voter registration records in the neighboring counties of Ventura, Orange, and San Bernardino turned up no record of an Affleck registration.

Motor vehicle records show that Affleck currently has a driver's license issued by the State of California and that the license carries a Los Angeles address. In April 1999, the actor paid $1.6 million for a 7500-square-foot home on La Presa Drive in the Hollywood Hills. In February, the Los Angeles Times reported that Affleck has listed the home for sale, in part because "he is said to be planning to spend more time in New York."

But none of that Big Apple time has passed inside a voting booth. Since Affleck owns a Tribeca loft, TSG checked city Board of Elections records, but came up with no current or past registrations for him (though brother Casey, whose given name is Caleb, signed up to vote in 1996 from a Manhattan address). We checked every person registered to vote from the star's Walker Street address and there were no Afflecks (or any variation of the spelling) registered from the eight-unit building.

In a November 12, 2000 Boston Globe article, Affleck said he bought his New York loft and Hollywood Hills mansion "'cause I just get so tired of that feeling of not ever being home, of always being on the road. So I got two places where I can just kind of hang my hat."

During his November 7 visit with Rosie O'Donnell, Affleck said, "Today is the get-out-the-vote day and...I think this is the time to get involved, especially the young folks who are here." The studio audience, packed with teenagers awaiting an appearance by 'N Sync, screeched its underage approval. "I'm about to go vote," Affleck then said, adding later, "I am personally gonna vote for Al Gore."

So where did this supposed vote occur? Affleck was 3000 miles away from the city where his voter registration was termed inactive (though he would have been allowed to vote had he showed up at his old polling place). And he wasn't registered from his Tribeca loft or, for that matter, anywhere else in New York City. Ben, it seems, doesn't limit his flights of fiction to film scripts.

Asked about Affleck's voting record, spokesman David Pollick initially said that, "I would be shocked if he didn't vote." He then claimed in a e-mail sent Tuesday (4/24) afternoon, "Despite Ben's attempt to vote on election day 2000, a bureaucratic snafu at the polls prevented him from doing so. Fortunately, the candidates he supported carried New York state without his vote." Pollick provided no other details of this supposed "snafu" or why no New York City elections records show that his client was even registered to vote.

During his recent GQ interview, Affleck reflected on the lure of public office: "Not to get too Susan Sarandon on you, but part of what I'd get off on would be the oration, the speechmaking and the idea of leading." Well, Ben, Sarandon found her way to the polls in November. So did Harvey Weinstein. Not to mention your ex-girlfriend Gwyneth Paltrow. This high-profile trio all voted in Manhattan--and it took TSG all of five minutes to locate their registration and voting information.

We'll wait to hear Affleck's explanation for this colossal display of hypocrisy, though it's certainly not the first time a celebrity failed to get out his own vote. But usually a wannabe politician waits until he's safely in office before unleashing such a torrent of falsehoods and distortions. This Affleck kid will go places in Washington.

Forbidden Clotheslines in California

You won't believe this - a story in The San Francisco Chronicle on clotheslines. They're cheap, easy to install, and the state's energy czars call them the ultimate money saving substitute for one of the biggest energy suckers in the house. But although hardware stores cannot stock enough of them, many Californians are forbidden from using them because they're just
not pretty enough.

Even in the death grip of an energy crisis, many California neighborhoods would rather look good than save money and power. And so the clothesline is a social pariah, banned in neighborhoods from San Francisco to San Ramon. They're shunned for looking low rent and scorned for bringing undesirable elements into a community, like the public display of undergarments.

"It's just unsightly," said Linda Appleton, president of the board of directors of the Blackhawk Homeowners Association, a gated East Bay community. She does, however, point out that the town is doing its part to conserve energy. "You can drive around here at night and see that people have their lights off." But don't even think about putting up a couple of mismatched socks on a line in the backyard.

They're not the only ones either. You can't fly your knickers outside in one neighborhood in the middle-class working city of Crockett. Do you believe this? These are the environmentalist wackos themselves - and we're not even talking about the property rights aspect of this.

They are in the midst of an electricity crisis, people are being told that there are rolling blackouts in the state of California, and the clothes dryer sucks up electricity because of its need to produce heat. They're trying to be good citizens by washing their clothes and then hanging them to dry outside. And by the way, how are they washing them? They're beating them up against rocks down by the riverbed.

Your washing machine? We've got controversy there, too, front loaders versus top loaders. We're wasting too much water and detergent. So now you've got to take your clothes down by the rocks in the riverbed and beat them to smithereens. And if you hang them on a clothesline all hell breaks loose because it's not pretty, because it's not good-looking, even in a gated community.

We've got the environmentalist wackos renting space, top-drawer buildings, throwing big-time parties, celebrating their wealth, consuming adult beverages, but they cannot even be allowed to hang clothes on a clothesline because it looks ugly - in the midst of a power crisis! This is how wacky this movement is. If this doesn't help you understand just how insincere they are about the energy conservation, I can't think of another story that would.

Here are people who genuinely want you to believe that a return to a more primitive lifestyle would benefit all. What's more primitive than hanging your clothes outside to dry and not using any electricity, any precious fossil fuels or power that's in such short supply? But you can't or else homeowners associations will take you to court. It's too ugly. It's too unsightly. This is not what we moved into our gated community for!

On a hot afternoon this summer, Californians are expected to use 1,000 megawatts of electricity to dry their clothes -- while burning 970 watts to power air conditioners, according to the California Energy Commission. An electric dryer costs $85 to run annually; 50 feet of clothesline will set you back $3.29. Trees not included.

If you still think these people are driven by the purest of motives, you better think again. They are nothing but a bunch of total frauds, folks, masquerading as people with big hearts, lots of compassion and tremendous concern. They're nothing but a bunch of self-absorbed, selfish idiots, when you get right down to it.

Global Warming?

A story in The Philadelphia Inquirer titled "Global Warming Still Causes Some Scholarly Debate," caught my eye over the weekend. Basically, some scientists still don't buy the "theory" of global warming. It is not a fact. It is an unproven theory - and these intellectual heavyweights don't think it can be proven.

Some of the holdouts on catastrophe are notable. They include the hurricane forecaster William M. Gray, an atmospheric scientist at Colorado State University; Richard S. Lindzen, a highly regarded professor of meteorology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and John Christy, a University of Alabama researcher."

The paper writes, "Lindzen notes that the future rate of temperature rise is very much in doubt. For that matter, the temperature record is not absolutely clear," and then gives us a huge piece of data you'll never hear anywhere in the mainstream press: "Warming in the Northern Hemisphere has been counterbalanced by cooling in the Southern Hemisphere."

If Guns Are Outlawed, Only the Government Will Have Guns.

Last year Georgia made it easier for a citizen to obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon. The liberals in this State were absolutely enraged! Cynthia Tucker, the Editorial Page Editor of The Atlanta Constitution, wrote that it would be "open season" on police officers, and that police officers would die in large numbers if it were easier for private citizens to obtain permits to carry concealed weapons. This is a good example of the aversion to facts that most lefties have on this issue. The fact is that there has never been one documented incident anywhere in this country where a police officer was shot in the line of duty by a private citizen carrying a concealed handgun for which he had a permit! Just where did she get this "police will die in the streets" nonsense? Straight out of her illogical mind, that's where. (Actually, Cynthia is really a nice person. She just can't think all that well.)

Oddly enough, the statistics --- the FACTS ---- show that violent crime rates go down when it becomes easier for private law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons. The reason is simple, and logical. Criminals don't like the idea that their victim may be armed!

An interesting thing happened in Florida in recent years when the law was changed to make it easier for people to get carry permits. The violent crime rate, including murders and armed robberies, went down. The predators were afraid! Finally they figured out where they could find some victims who would most likely have some cash, and who most likely would not have guns! Get them coming off the airplanes at Miami International Airport! These people are coming to Florida for a vacation, so they have cash. They have just been through airport security, so they don't have guns. Now that's the type of victim the predators want! Unarmed ones!

This is a fact that draws a blank stare from the gun control crowd. They have no idea in the world how to handle it. Out of all the privately owned handguns, legal and illegal, in the United States, guess what percentage of them are not used in a murder in any given year? Guess what percentage of them are not used in a crime of any type?

99.998% of all privately owned handguns in the U.S. are not used in a murder in any given year.

99.96% of all privately owned handguns in the U.S. are not used in any crime in a given year.

Now that really screams for gun control, doesn't it?

How about some CRIMINAL control?

Global Water Shortage?

A scientist recently said that the earth has basically the same amount of water every day of the year. It's just in different forms and different places. But the amount of water is the same. Sometimes there's less of it where you live than other times, and sometimes there's more of it in other places, but with evaporation, condensation, rain, snow, and snow melt, there's a certain amount of water that gets recycled throughout the earth-ecosystem-atmospheric process.

We do have more people who are using more water, leading to a higher per capita use, but the idea that we're running out of water is silly. I'm not for wasting things, don't misunderstand, but the word "shortage" is used to create the notion that there is less of X than there has been, and that is not the case.

No More Noise!

A condition we have on our highways and in our communities is the excessive pounding noise coming from many vehicles, a problem which appears to be increasing exponentially. We have a law in Florida, which addresses this issue.

FL 316.3045 Operation of radios or other mechanical soundmaking devices or instruments in vehicles.

(1) It is unlawful for any person operating or occupying a motor vehicle on a street or highway to operate or amplify the sound produced by a radio, tape player, or other mechanical soundmaking device or instrument from within the motor vehicle so that the sound is:

(a) Plainly audible at a distance of 100 feet or more from the motor vehicle.

The pounding emanating from these vehicles can be heard at distances far greater than the 100 foot distance specified in this law. I suggest the enforcement of this law will help rid our highways, roadways and communities from these excessive and unnecessary annoyances.