Saturday, August 29, 2015

It's Everywhere: Be Wary of Myths, Fabricated Lies, and Distorted Data!

*******
*******
Willis Eschenbach and the Myth of the “Sixth Wave of Extinction”
Predation by another species is the number one cause of extinction
By Dr. Ileana Johnson Paugh -- Bio and Archives  
August 25, 2015
http://canadafreepress.com/article/74761?utm_source=CFP+Mailout&utm_campaign=a978a16e67-5_20_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d8f503f036-a978a16e67-297723645

Willis Eschenbach, who takes pride in saying that he is not a trained scientist but has logged thousands of hours of research on the subject, was the first person to file a FOIA request for the infamous data from the University of East Anglia CRU. Hackers downloaded emails from said university that had shown that scientists had manipulated the data to agree with the global warming theory.
Eschenbach lectured an audience in California about the “Myth of Species Extinction,” more specifically, the legend that humans have caused the disappearance of countless birds and mammals with their existence and industrial activity.
A popular myth states that “we are in the sixth wave of extinction,” said Eschenbach.  It appears that life on Earth experienced five mass extinctions due to natural disasters but some biologists are talking about a sixth wave of extinction caused by humans. The top five extinctions are:

  • Ordovician-silurian extinction (small marine organisms disappeared)
  • Devonian extinction (tropical marine species died out)
  • Permian-triassic extinction (“largest mass extinction which included many vertebrates”)
  • Triassic-jurassic extinction (“vertebrate species on land allowed dinosaurs to flourish”)
  • Cretaceous-tertiary extinction
E.O. Wilson, a biologist from Harvard, said that there were 27,000 species going extinct each year for over twenty years at least, that’s over half a million species. If that is so, “what are the species, where are the corpses,” asked Eschenbach?
“We’re in the end game all around the world,” said the Pulitzer-Prize winning biologist. E. O. Wilson, described as “one of the world’s most influential and eloquent thinkers on endangered species issues,” said “’hot spots’ for biological diversity tend to be in the same parts of the developing world where poverty has created ‘oppressed, land-hungry people with no other place to go.’”
“In The Skeptical Environmentalist, statistician Bjorn Lomborg has disputed Wilson’s claim that 27,000 to 100,000 species are becoming extinct every year.”
Eschenbach said that he decided to check the causes of extinction looking at species-area relationships. An article in Nature stated that “species-area relationships always overestimate extinction rates from habitat loss” and admits that estimating extinction rates is still “highly uncertain because no proven direct methods or reliable data exist for verifying extinctions.” But somehow, “extinction from habitat loss is the signature conservation problem of the twenty-first century.”
“The most widely used indirect method is to estimate extinction rates by reversing the species-area accumulation curve, extrapolating backwards to smaller areas to calculate expected species loss. Estimates of extinction rates based on this method are almost always much higher than those actually observed.”
Eschenbach looked first at the Red List which “hypes the extinction” of birds. He then looked at the list from the American Museum of Natural History (New York) which covers mammals. The problem was to actually determine what constitutes an extinction, its taxonomy, specimens, DNA, to show that they are a species, how we look for it, and the criteria for extinction.
E. O. Wilson talked about extinctions due to habitat loss each year, more specifically, loss of forests. Eschenbach found that there were several waves of extinctions. There was a wave in the 1500s, one wave in the 1700s, and a third wave into the 1800s and 1900s. Eschenbach discovered that the number of birds and animals that had gone extinct in the last 500 years was actually 190, sixty-one mammals and 129 birds. So much for the infamous Silent Spring, Rachel Carson’s book, that started the green revolution against DDT and its eventual banning. Springs are never silent in our forests; there are plenty of birds chirping year round.
He also found that, from these 190 species, many island species had gone extinct from “introduced species.” When he excluded those species, to his surprise, in the last 500 years there had been only 9 species that had disappeared, 3 mammals and 6 birds.
Eschenbach enumerated the nine species that had vanished and perhaps why they no longer exist:

  1. An antelope hunted by European settlers around the 1800s
  2. Labrador duck (shooting and trapping, overharvest of eggs)
  3. Algerian gazelle (“extinction was assumed from a single skin purchased in a market place in North Africa in 1894 and from an adult male skull; we know nothing else about it”)
  4. North Carolina parakeet (hunted to death for food, for their prized feathers worn on hats; beekeepers also hunted the parakeets because they ate bees)
  5. Slender-billed grackle (lived in marshes of Mexico that were drained; total destruction of habitat, any species would go extinct from that)
  6. Passenger pigeon (the most prolific birds in the U.S.; extinct from extensive hunting and disease; we hunted them on a large scale, “thousands were brought by trainloads to shoot them where they roosted”)
  7. Colombian grebe (predation by introduced rainbow trout)
  8. Atitlan Grebe (predation by the large-mouth bass)
  9. Cotton tail rabbit (“three specimens collected in 1991 in a small area in Mexico, when they looked back, there were none; nobody knows why they were extinct”)
Based on this record, the conclusion that can be drawn is that when “European species met native species, native species usually died.” Predation by another species is the number one cause of extinction. For example, 95 percent of bird species on islands were killed by alien species. When European species met with Australian species, there was a massive die-off but it was a one-time event, said Eschenbach. Only one bird went extinct from habitat destruction that can be pinpointed to draining a marsh. “Wilson said that 39 extinctions a year occur from habitat loss,” added Eschenbach. Taking his formula into account, we should have seen during “the last century over 1,000 extinctions.”
Eschenbach continued that Wilson explained why his formula was not accurate at all – “50 years must pass before we know that a species is extinct.” His second explanation was that “species don’t go extinct immediately,” they may take up to 100 years to happen due to “exponential decay.” The problem with that theory is that “we still should have seen 600 extinctions by now and we’ve seen none,” Eschenbach concluded.

*******
False facts and the conservative distortion machine: It’s much more than just Fox News 
Social scientists use "knowledge distortion" index to test partisanship and reality. Guess who is wrong most often?                           
Monday, Aug 18, 2014
http://www.salon.com/2014/08/18/false_facts_and_the_conservative_distortion_machine_its_much_more_than_just_fox_news/ 
Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly (Credit: Fox News)
Citizens are misinformed — often badly so. It’s not just that they lack good information — which would merely make them uninformed — they have plenty of bad information that leads them to believe untrue things. Or more likely the other way around: They believe untrue things, and that leads them to collect — even invent — bad information to flesh out what they already believe.
This was vividly illustrated by a 1991 study that found that the more people watched TV during the first Gulf War, the less they knew about fundamental issues and facts, even as they were more likely to support the war. Wanting to believe that the U.S. was involved in a noble cause, for example, only 13 percent knew that when Iraq first threatened to invade Kuwait, the U.S. said it would take no action, while 65 percent falsely “knew” that the U.S. said it would support Kuwait militarily.
But the problem is hardly limited to this one example, or to issues of war and peace more generally. Misinformation in public life isn’t the exception, it’s the rule, and researchers have been grappling with that fact, and its implications, for some time now. A new study published in Social Science Quarterly employs a “knowledge distortion index” and looks at two competing explanations for why this is so — one more top-down, the other more bottom-up — using three Washington state initiatives from the 2006 general election cycle to examine the dynamics of what is going on in this particular sort of political environment.
The study, “How Voters Become Misinformed: An Investigation of the Emergence and Consequences of False Factual Beliefs,” found that “voters’ values and partisanship had the strongest associations with distorted beliefs, which then influenced voting choices. Self-reported levels of exposure to media and campaign messages played a surprisingly limited role,” despite the presence of significantly mistaken “facts,” which were used to help construct the knowledge distortion index.
“Two of the competing theories on how people analyze political issues and develop factual beliefs are heuristics and cultural cognition,” the study’s lead author, Justin Reedy, told Salon. “Both of these theories recognize that citizens can develop distorted factual beliefs because of their political views, but they disagree about how those distortions might happen. Heuristics researchers generally think that citizens have limited attention for politics and try to process information quickly and efficiently.”
This is the more top-down approach, as we’ll soon see.
“People who are fairly politically knowledgeable can figure out whether political information and factual claims match up with their own ideology or not — and therefore whether they should accept or reject those,” Reedy explained. “Cultural cognition researchers, however, see political opinions as driven by deep-seated values about how the world works, and not contingent on someone’s political knowledge.”
Dan Kahan of Yale Law School is the figure most associated with cultural cognition approach (website here). He found the study useful. “I think it worked,” he told Salon. “It adds information.” He also found the broader project of studying the initiative process promising. “The opportunities to observe how people form their views will probably really be enhanced in many cases where there’s some kind of a high-profile referendum,” he said, “and where you can be confident that members of the electorate are engaged by it.”
“The two theories differ on the importance of media and campaign messages, too,” Reedy continued. “Heuristics theory argues that citizens need to get at least some information from the media or from a campaign itself, like endorsements from political parties or key politicians, to help them align their views with their ideology.” This is the sort of thing that campaign workers everywhere fervently believe. But they, too, could be misinformed. “Cultural cognitive theory, though, argues that citizens will get enough cues about nearly any issue in the public sphere to help them align their views on that issue with their underlying values.”
Finally, Reedy said, “The last distinction between the two models is on policy preferences: Heuristics researchers would argue that once a citizen has developed a factual belief, whether distorted or not, that belief will become an important factor in their decision on a public policy issue. Cultural cognition, however, sees a citizen’s core values as the key in them deciding on a policy issue — the distorted factual beliefs are just another phenomenon that happens along the way.”
Before discussing how the two models measured up, we need a better understanding of what went into the study, which involved a combination of new and tried-and-true approaches. On the “new” side, the knowledge distortion index — developed by the same team in an earlier study — is a particularly promising tool. “My colleagues and I thought it would be useful to be able to quantify the way that someone’s factual beliefs about politics could be distorted. Other researchers had done similar research on distorted factual beliefs, but we wanted to create some kind of index that helped show how a person’s factual beliefs were systematically distorted in a partisan or ideological direction,” Reedy explained. “That was the idea behind the knowledge distortion index – to not just show that some people had the facts around a political topic wrong, but to quantify how those factual beliefs might be incorrect in a systematic, ideologically driven way.”
Just imagine if pollsters routinely adopted the knowledge distortion index in covering any public issue. Imagine not just seeing cross-tabs showing the difference between liberals vs. conservatives or Democrats vs. Republicans, but also seeing how people’s opinions varied according to the balance of mistaken factual beliefs. Simply having the relevant false beliefs for any issue identified in the polling process would be an eye-opening experience. There have been a handful of polls showing how birthers differ from non-birthers in their views, and those have been rather illuminating in themselves. But that’s just a single piece of misinformation on a single — though broadly significant — subject. Imagine if it simply became routine for pollsters to measure how distorted people’s “knowledge” was in the course of eliciting their opinions.
“Political debate and policymaking are hard enough, but if people from opposing ideological camps come in with their own sets of facts, that makes it really tough to have a vibrant debate that leads to good public policy,” Reedy said. “That’s a big part of why we created the knowledge distortion index and have been studying these issues, is to try to help figure out how to combat the problem of ideological distortion of political knowledge.”
In this study, eight different items — gleaned from “surveying campaign websites, news reports, and commentary” — were used to create an index specific to each of the three initiatives. The first, “Landowner Compensation Policy, would have rolled back land-use regulations by forcing the state to reimburse landowners for expenses incurred from those regulations,” the paper explained. The second, “Renewable Energy Mandate, required a proportion of the state’s energy to come from renewable sources.” The third, “Estate Tax Repeal,” was self-explanatory. Only the second was approved by the voters. A distortion index item for the Landowner Compensation Policy, for example, was “Washington landowners can be forced to leave their land unused if it provides habitat for species that are not even endangered” — a false statement that 45.2 percent of respondents nonetheless identified as “true.” While all three scales were balanced so that “liberal” and “conservative” distortion scores were equally possible, conservative distortions predominated in all three cases, though only modestly in two of them.
These are not your typical hot-button culture-war issues, nor are they dry, purely technical questions, or issues so specific as to defy comparison. They represented the broad middle range of issues that make up a significant portion of the public debates that Americans have carried on in the public square since the earliest days of the republic.While it wouldn’t be warranted to assume they’re representative of all public questions, they do make a good place to start. In the study itself, the authors noted future research possibilities:
Reflecting on the technical nature of the ballot measures in the present study, we believe it would advance this line of research to assess the importance of values, belief distortion, and knowledge in shaping voters’ beliefs on issues that are more heavily values-based or culturally contested (Lakoff, 2002), such as gay rights or abortion. Voters may be less likely to hold incorrect factual beliefs on those higher-profile issues simply because there is much more information about those issues present in the public sphere. On the other hand, the more obvious connection between values and policy for such issues may result in an even greater distortion of empirical beliefs to fit with the disparate values held by opposing sides.
 
In short, this current study has established a useful baseline for future studies.
In addition to measuring knowledge distortion for each item, the study also measured value orientations to compare with knowledge distortion — another promising new idea. The authors used a combination of responses (agree/disagree) to two statements for each value orientation. Two initiatives involved a single value orientation. For the Landowner Compensation Policy, the statements concerned government’s role in regulating land use. For the Renewable Energy Mandate, the statements concerned how society should approach the production of clean energy. For the Estate Tax Repeal, one set of statements concerned the primacy of property rights, while a second set concerned commitment to public education, which is the primary beneficiary of Washington’s estate tax.
This approach “offered more concrete measures of respondents’ issue-relevant value orientations than could be obtained by left-right ideology,” the paper noted, “or abstract cultural orientation measures” — referring to the two-factor framework (hierarchy/egalitarianism and individualism/communitarianism) used by Kahan and others in the cultural cognition tradition.
Reedy acknowledged that this represented a potential weakness in testing the cultural cognition hypothesis generally. “This is a good point,” he told Salon. The study relied on survey questions they were able to get included in a poll that was run by the University of Washington Department of Political Science, he explained. “So we were a bit limited on the space we had available in the survey,” and thus “didn’t have enough room to include more general measures of cultural orientation like Dan Kahan typically uses.”
But Kahan told Salon that he didn’t regard this as a significant problem. “To me, cultural cognition is a research program” concerned with how “people are forming their understandings about facts in relation to evidence in a particular way in political life and related domains,” he said. “Now, operationalizing it, there are different ways to do that,” which can include whatever tools happen to be available. Identifying it too narrowly with the two-factor model as an alternative to single-factor left/right model is “kind of missing the point,” Kahan said.
“Cultural cognition says there are these kind of affinities — you can’t directly observe them, there are different ways we can measure them — and makes a claim about how it is that they influence people’s information processing,” Kahan explained. He’s even used partisan affiliation himself, but that didn’t mean he wasn’t doing cultural cognition work. “I just see myself as using an alternative way to measure what the motivating affinities are.” Sometimes the affinities may be more simple; other times, more complex. So he had no problem with the value scales Reedy and his co-authors used.
In contrast to these recent innovations, the study also measured political knowledge, a very old practice that’s been used for half a century or more, using a standard approach of asking people to identify a mix of public officials and parties in control of various bodies at the state and federal levels.
With those three measures explained — knowledge distortion, value orientation and political knowledge — we’re set to appreciate the study’s results.
“We set out to test these two competing views in a couple of different ways,” Reedy said. “First, we looked at whether someone’s political knowledge had a moderating effect on how much their values shaped their distorted factual beliefs — that is, whether people at higher levels of political knowledge were more likely to have values-based knowledge distortion than, say, people at lower levels of political knowledge. Our results here were a bit mixed. On one of the issues, more knowledgeable voters were indeed more likely to develop distorted factual beliefs.” This was the Landowner Compensation Policy. In this case, “those with greater political knowledge had more distorted empirical beliefs than did their low-knowledge counterparts,” the study reported.
“However, the other two issues fit more with cultural cognition theory, in that overall political knowledge was not important in the development of distorted factual beliefs,” Reedy said.
The second test produced more unified results. “We also tested whether people needed to be exposed to news media messages and campaign messages in order to pick up these distorted factual beliefs about political topics,” Reedy explained. “We found no connections between self-reported exposure to media and campaign messages and knowledge distortion, which gives more support to the cultural cognition view, that people are able to connect their values with a political issue regardless of media messages about that issue.”
This doesn’t necessarily mean that there were no such effects, however. As the study itself explains, “the most straightforward explanations for these findings are either that message effects are too small for samples such as ours to detect or that we lacked sufficiently sensitive message exposure measures. We relied on self reported measures of media and campaign exposure, which are subject to errors of varying magnitude.”
But these sorts of caveats are always involved in scientific research, as even Kahan pointed out. Studies add weight to one view or another, nothing more. “It’s not like a study is kind of a definitive contest, or a duel, some position is going to shoot the other from a pace of however many yards,” he said.
“Third,” Reedy said, “we looked at the connection between people’s distorted factual beliefs and their views on the public policy issues related to those. We ran statistical tests to see the effects of the typical factors on someone’s opinion on a policy issue — things like their demographics and political values — and also the impact of knowledge distortion. We found that knowledge distortion did indeed have an independent effect on one’s policy preferences, which is more in keeping with the heuristic view of opinion formation.”
This inference is arguably subject to dispute, however. Kahan himself was untroubled by the results, and the study itself said that “those with more knowledge more consistently expressed their value orientations through their votes,” which is one of the most important findings that Kahan has consisting stressed as validating his approach: those more engaged and more knowledgeable politically tend to be more polarized on issues like global warming, for example.
What is certain is that a growing community of researchers, and those who follow them, are developing an increasingly textured feel for the phenomenon of knowledge distortion — a phenomenon that not too long ago wasn’t even acknowledged to exist. Reedy himself expressed a similar sentiment. “Our strongest results, I think, are just confirming that this values-based political knowledge distortion is happening and it’s having an independent effect on one’s vote choice,” he concluded.
As the study itself said:
Whatever future refinements may be made to the values-based distortion model, the unsettling evidence remains that many voters are systematically misinformed on political issues, and those erroneous factual beliefs appear to influence how they mark their ballot on election day.
This is a disturbingly serious problem for a political system that purports to not only reflect the “will of the people,” but that also respects reality as a basic matter of course. “Facts are stubborn things,” John Adams observed — a true man of the Enlightenment. “Facts are stupid things,” Ronald Reagan famously misquoted him. It’s painfully obvious whose world we’re living in now. It’s a good deal less obvious how to escape. But thanks to folks like Reedy and Kahan, we’ve at least got a chance to start working on that.
Paul Rosenberg is a California-based writer/activist, senior editor for Random Lengths News, and a columnist for Al Jazeera English. Follow him on Twitter at @PaulHRosenberg.
*******
Irena Sendler Was Up For The Nobel Peace Prize … She Was Not Selected. Al Gore “Inventor Of The Internet” Won, For A Pick And Choose Data Slide Show On The Global Warming Hoax.
Irena Sendler
There recently was a death of a 98 year-old lady named Irena. During WWII, Irena, got permission to work in the WarsawGhetto, as a Plumbing/Sewer specialist. She had an ‘ulterior motive’ …. She KNEW what the Nazi’s plans were for the Jews, (being German.) Irena smuggled infants out in the bottom of the tool box she carried and she carried in the back of her truck a burlap sack, (for larger kids..) She also had a dog in the back that she trained to bark when the Nazi soldiers let her in and out of the ghetto. The soldiers of course wanted nothing to do with the dog and the barking covered the kids/infants noises.. During her time of doing this, she managed to smuggle out and save 2500 kids/infants. She was caught, and the Nazi’s broke both her legs, arms and beat her severely. Irena kept a record of the names of all the kids she smuggled out and kept them in a glass jar, buried under a tree in her back yard. After the war, she tried to locate any parents that may have survived it and reunited the family. Most had been gassed. Those kids she helped got placed into foster family homes or adopted.
*******
MFM: "Minnesota Gay Marriage Advocates Mislead, Distort Facts"
This entry was written by NOM Staff
October 30, 2012
Minnesota for Marriage pushes back on misleading claims by their opponents:
The claim of marriage amendment opponents, most recently including some doctors, that 25 years of research supports the conclusion that there are “no differences” in outcomes between children raised in gay and lesbian households and kids raised in intact homes by their mother and father is false. As chronicled in the journal Social Science Research there is no scholarly rigorous body of scientific research that supports the idea that children raised in gay or lesbian households do as well as or better than children living in an intact home with their married mother and father.  In fact, the most recent, peer-reviewed research casts serious doubt on the “no differences” claim and suggests that there may in fact be significant differences
"The statements made by some doctors and gay marriage advocates that dedication and love is the primary factor in child well-being relies on the underlying premise that family structure does not matter—a claim which is both unsupported by significant data and an assault on common sense,” said Jason Adkins, Minnesota for Marriage vice chairman. “Men and women are not interchangeable parts or parents. We continue to ask gay marriage advocates which parent is insignificant or less important for a child, a mother or father, and they and their allies continue to ignore the question and move into the realm of agenda-driven politics."
*******
*******
If you are looking for some additional reading, here are two books you might find interesting!
 
*******

Friday, August 21, 2015

What to do about the Police State!

*******
*******
We Are the Government Tactics for Taking Down the Police State
If you're to have any hope of remaining free--and I use that word loosely--your best bet remains in your fellow citizens.
By John W. Whitehead -- Bio and Archives  
August 18, 2015
http://canadafreepress.com/article/74610?utm_source=CFP+Mailout&utm_campaign=639e9c152e-5_20_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d8f503f036-639e9c152e-297723645

We are the government.”—John Lennon
Saddled with a corporate media that marches in lockstep with the government, elected officials who dance to the tune of their corporate benefactors, and a court system that serves to maintain order rather than mete out justice, Americans often feel as if they have no voice, no authority and no recourse when it comes to holding government officials accountable and combatting rampant corruption and injustice.
We’re impotent in the face of SWAT teams that break down doors and leave toddlers scarred for life. We’re helpless to prevent police shootings that leave unarmed citizens dead for no other reason than the police officer involved felt “threatened.” We shrug dismissively over the plight of fellow citizens who have their heads cracked, their bodies broken and their rights violated for failing to jump to attention when a police officer issues an order. And we fail to care about the thousands of individuals who have been punished with extreme sentences for nonviolent offenses and are forced to spend their lives as modern-day slaves in bondage to private prisons and the profit-driven corporations they serve.
Make no mistake about it: virtually anything and everything is a crime nowadays (feeding the birds, growing vegetables in your front yard, etc.) to such an extent that if a prosecutor, police officer and judge were so inclined, you could be locked up for any inane reason.
This is tyranny dressed up in the official garb of the police state. It is the self-righteous, heavy-handed arm of the law being used as a decoy to divert your attention to the so-called criminals in your midst (the fisherman who threw back small fish into the ocean, the mother who let her child walk to the playground alone, the pastor holding Bible studies in his backyard) so that you don’t focus on the criminal behavior being perpetrated by the government (bribery, cronyism, electoral fraud, slush funds, graft, pork, theft, and on and on).
In the face of such abject injustice, outright corruption and overt inequality, it’s hard to feel empowered to believe the average citizen can make a difference. It’s hard to persuade anyone to stand against tyranny when all you can promise them as a reward is persecution, prosecution and a one-way trip to the morgue. And when the outcome seems to be a foregone conclusion—the government always wins—it can seem pointless, even foolhardy, to dare to challenge the system. As such, it’s far easier to buy into the political process, even though elections amount to nothing of consequence.
There are also those who subscribe to the notion that an armed revolution is the only thing that will save America. These armed resistors are making themselves easy targets and will be the first to be taken down by militarized police who are trained to kill and armed to the teeth with every kind of weapon imaginable, from grenade launchers and sniper rifles to armored vehicles and Black Hawk helicopters.
So how do you not only push back against the police state’s bureaucracy, corruption and cruelty but also launch a counterrevolution aimed at reclaiming control over the government using nonviolent means?
You start by changing the rules and engaging in some (nonviolent) guerrilla tactics.
Employ militant nonviolent resistance and civil disobedience, which Martin Luther King Jr. used to great effect through the use of sit-ins, boycotts and marches.
Take part in grassroots activism, which takes a trickle-up approach to governmental reform by implementing change at the local level (in other words, think nationally, but act locally).
And then, while you’re at it, nullify everything the government does that is illegitimate, egregious or blatantly unconstitutional.
Various cities and states have been using this historic doctrine with mixed results on issues as wide ranging as gun control and healthcare to “claim freedom from federal laws they find onerous or wrongheaded.”
Where nullification can be particularly powerful, however, is in the hands of the juror.
As law professor Ilya Somin explains, jury nullification is the practice by which a jury refuses to convict someone accused of a crime if they believe the “law in question is unjust or the punishment is excessive.”
According to former federal prosecutor Paul Butler, the doctrine of jury nullification is “premised on the idea that ordinary citizens, not government officials, should have the final say as to whether a person should be punished.”
Imagine that: a world where the citizenry—not the government or its corporate controllers—actually calls the shots and determines what is just.
In a world of “rampant overcriminalization,” where the average citizen unknowingly breaks three laws a day, jury nullification acts as “a check on runaway authoritarian criminalization and the increasing network of confusing laws that are passed with neither the approval nor oftentimes even the knowledge of the citizenry.”
Indeed, Butler believes so strongly in the power of nullification to balance the scales between the power of the prosecutor and the power of the people that he advises:
If you are ever on a jury in a marijuana case, I recommend that you vote “not guilty”—even if you think the defendant actually smoked pot, or sold it to another consenting adult. As a juror, you have this power under the Bill of Rights; if you exercise it, you become part of a proud tradition of American jurors who helped make our laws fairer.
In other words, it’s “we the people” who can and should be determining what laws are just, what activities are criminal and who can be jailed for what crimes.
Not only should the punishment fit the crime, but the laws of the land should also reflect the concerns of the citizenry as opposed to the profit-driven priorities of Corporate America.
Unfortunately, for thousands of Americans who are serving life sentences for nonviolent crimes as a result of harsh mandatory sentencing laws passed by “tough on crime” politicians, the punishment rarely fits the crime.
As I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, with every ill inflicted upon us by the American police state, from overcriminalization and surveillance to militarized police and private prisons, it’s money that drives the police state. And there is a lot of money to be made from criminalizing nonviolent activities and jailing Americans for nonviolent offenses.
This is where the power of jury nullification is so critical: to reject inane laws and extreme sentences and counteract the edicts of a profit-driven governmental elite that sees nothing wrong with jailing someone for a lifetime for a relatively insignificant crime.
Of course, the powers-that-be don’t want the citizenry to know that it has any power at all.
They would prefer that we remain clueless about the government’s many illicit activities, ignorant about our constitutional rights, and powerless to bring about any real change. Indeed, so determined are they to keep us in the dark about the powers vested in “we the people” that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1895 that jurors had no right during trials to be told about nullification.
Moreover, anyone daring to educate a jury about nullification runs the risk of prosecution. Just recently, for example, 56-year-old Mark Iannicelli was charged with seven counts of jury tampering for handing out jury nullification fliers outside a Denver courtroom. Now Iannicelli is not being accused of advocating for or against any case in progress, nor is he charged with targeting any particular members of the jury. Nevertheless, Iannicelli could be sentenced to one to three years in prison because he dared to educate the jurors about an option that no judge or prosecutor ever mentions in court: the right to acquit someone who may be guilty if they also believe that the law is unjust.
Such intimidation tactics proved less successful when used against Julian Heicklen, who was accused of jury tampering for handing out nullifications pamphlets in Manhattan. A federal district court judge found Heicklen not only innocent of the charge of jury tampering, but went so far as to warn that the law—18 U.S.C. § 1504—raises significant First Amendment concerns (“the First Amendment squarely protects speech concerning judicial proceedings and public debate regarding the functioning of the judicial system, so long as that speech does not interfere with the fair and impartial administration of justice”).
Jury nullification has played a significant role in our nation’s history. It was championed early on by John Hancock and John Adams and relied on at various points since then to push back against laws deemed egregious, unjust or simply out of step with the times. Most recently, jury nullification has become a popular tactic to thwart laws that mandate harsh punishments for those convicted of possessing even minimal amounts of marijuana.
For instance, in one case I worked on years ago, a jury refused to convict a 54-year-old man who had been charged with possession of marijuana. Prosecutors claimed that a SWAT team, doing an area-wide land and air sweep, had spotted two marijuana plants growing in the hollow of a dead tree on the man’s 39-acre property. Had the man been found guilty, he would have been sentenced to jail and his 90-year-old mother, blind, deaf and dependent on him for care, would have had to be institutionalized.
In delivering his closing arguments, the prosecutor warned the jury that disagreement with the laws against pot possession and disapproval of police tactics are not valid reasons to nullify a case. Of course, those are exactly the reasons why more Americans should opt for nullification.
In an age in which government officials accused of wrongdoing—police officers, elected officials, etc.—are treated with general leniency, while the average citizen is prosecuted to the full extent of the law, jury nullification is a powerful reminder that, as the Constitution tells us, “we the people” are the government.
For too long we’ve allowed our so-called “representatives” to call the shots. Now it’s time to restore the citizenry to their rightful place in the republic: as the masters, not the servants.
Jury nullification is one way of doing so.
The reality with which we must contend is that justice in America is reserved for those who can afford to buy their way out of jail.
For the rest of us who are dependent on the “fairness” of the system, there exists a multitude of ways in which justice can and does go wrong every day. Police misconduct. Prosecutorial misconduct. Judicial bias. Inadequate defense. Prosecutors who care more about winning a case than seeking justice. Judges who care more about what is legal than what is just. Jurors who know nothing of the law and are left to deliberate in the dark about life-and-death decisions. And an overwhelming body of laws, statutes and ordinances that render the average American a criminal, no matter how law-abiding they might think themselves.
As I’ve said before, when you go into a courtroom, you’re going up against three adversaries who more often than not are operating off the same playbook: the police, the prosecutor and the judge.
If you’re to have any hope of remaining free—and I use that word loosely—your best bet remains in your fellow citizens.
They may not know what the Constitution says (studies have shown Americans to be abysmally ignorant about their rights), they may not know what the laws are (there are so many on the books that the average American breaks three laws a day without knowing it), and they may not even believe in your innocence, but if you’re lucky, they will have a conscience that speaks louder than the legalistic tones of the prosecutors and the judges and reminds them that justice and fairness go hand in hand.
That’s ultimately what jury nullification is all about: restoring a sense of fairness to our system of justice. It’s the best protection for “we the people” against the oppression and tyranny of the government, and God knows, we can use all the protection we can get.
Most of all, jury nullification is a powerful way to remind the government—all of those bureaucrats who have appointed themselves judge, jury and jailer over all that we are, have and do—that we’re the ones who set the rules.
If they don’t like it, they can get another job.
*******
Also See:
Comrade, Welcome to the Police State!

(Part 1)
30 October 2009
and
(Part 2)
29 September 2010
and
(Part 3)
17 May 2012
and
(Part 4)
30 March 2013
and
(Part 5)
28 July 2013
and
(Part 6)
14 August 2014
Is Orwell Dead? Big Brother Isn't!
(Part 1)
14 April 2007
and
(Part 2)
21 May 2009
and
(Part 3)
21 February 2012
and
U.S. Civil Unrest, Crowd Control, and Detention Camps
21 October 2008
and
Martial Law? Revolution? What is in the Future?
24 July 2009
and
ID Cards - Soon Everyone will have One!
03 September 2009
and
Big Brother is Watching
(Part 1)
06 September 2009
and
(Part 2)
02 February 2014
and
(Part 3)
23 June 2014
and
Big Brother in the United Kingdom!
02 April 2010
and
America's Police State
03 January 2011
and
Do We Live in a Police State?
04 November 2011
and
Police State Canada!
01 December 2011
and
What's with Google?
11 March 2012
and
Why is the Department of Homeland Security Stockpiling Ammo?
29 April 2013
and
Is Canada a Police State?
01 July 2013
and
Kent State Massacre in 1970
08 May 2007
and
Lets Not Forget Ruby Ridge
11 December 2008
and
Aldous Huxley and George Orwell
03 March 2009
and
The Trap!
30 June 2013
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2013/06/the-trap.html
and
Gary Allen's book - “None Dare Call It Conspiracy”
04 December 2013
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2013/12/gary-allens-book-none-dare-call-it.html
and
What They Don't Tell You!
05 December 2013
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2013/12/what-they-dont-tell-you.html
and
Is the World Becoming a Police State?
23 April 2015
*******

Wednesday, August 19, 2015

In Case of an Emergency, Check This Out ... If You Have Time!

*******

A Suggested Survival List
By Chuck Baldwin
August 20, 2015
NewsWithViews.com

http://newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin870.htm
I fully realize that most of us Americans cannot fathom a world in which food cannot be obtained from the supermarket or fuel cannot be obtained from the corner gas station or that the power grid could be offline for more than a few hours. Hardly anyone in the national media will even entertain the idea that anything catastrophic could ever happen in this country that would disrupt our lives for more than a few days.
Additionally, the vast majority of pastors and churches refuse to deal with any of these issues and do their best to keep people comfortably sedated. I also know that when you try to discuss these issues with church leaders, you hear such things as, “This is America--it can’t happen here,” or “God won’t let that happen,” or “The Rapture will take place first,” and other such expressions of denial. Each time I write my Suggested Survival column, I receive a plethora of correspondence from Christian people chastising me for my “lack of faith.”
Yet, I remind readers that the Old Testament story of Joseph was written “for our learning.” (Rom. 15:4) I also remind readers that the tribulations, which American Christians keep saying can’t happen to them, have been happening to Christians throughout the world for decades. I guess God must not love those poor folks as much as He loves us fat, lazy Christians in America, huh?
Most sensible people know that America’s economic outlook is bleak, the current phony surge in the stock market notwithstanding. For all intents and purposes, the U.S. is bankrupt. We are living on borrowed money and on borrowed time. Every honest economist knows this is true and is making personal preparations for the inevitable. And, by the way, so are many federal law enforcement officers. Many of you would be shocked to discover just how much “prepping” is being done by in-the-know federal agents and military personnel.
Regardless of the ostriches among us, the fact is, there are millions of people across the country that are already preparing for the “seven years of famine.” I would even dare say that God is NOW relocating much of His remnant in a way that hasn’t been seen since the Pilgrims fled Europe for the new world in America. I know, because I see it every day here in Montana; and this State is not the only place experiencing a surge of pilgrims.
I believe that the next “big event” is going to make 9/11 look like a walk in the park by comparison. A future nuclear war with Russia or China--or both--is a definite possibility. If it happens, about a dozen large American cities, which contain strategic military targets, will be flattened--as well as our key military installations and nuclear missile silos. Woe to those of us who live within a couple hundred miles of those cities and those who live directly eastward of any of these targets.
Even if my concern regarding nuclear war never materializes (I would love to be wrong about this), how long before another terrorist attack similar to 9/11 takes place? How long before there is another Hurricane Katrina or Los Angeles riot? How long before an EMP takes out the power grid? How long before major water dams dry up? How long before a major drought disrupts the food supply? How long before America’s tattered and fragile economy spawns hyper-inflation? The possible eventualities that might spark a serious national catastrophe are so numerous, it is virtually impossible to count them all.
Am I fear-mongering? Absolutely not! Anyone who knows me or who has listened to my speeches and messages knows I am constantly proclaiming, “Fear not.” It is the federal government and its puppets in the national media who are constantly trying to instill fear in the hearts of people, in order to scare us into accepting their Nanny State and Police State. They know people will surrender liberties they would not ordinarily surrender if they are frightened enough.
No, I am not living in fear, nor am I trying to instill fear in others. But I am advocating readiness. Only foolish people would sit back and do nothing to try and protect their families and loved ones in the face of danger. Twice the Scriptures say, “A prudent man foreseeth the evil, and hideth himself: but the simple pass on, and are punished.” (Proverbs 22:3; 27:12 KJV) I remind my Christian brethren: when it rains, it rains on the just and the unjust alike. (Matthew 5:45)
Accordingly, people from virtually every walk of life have asked my thoughts on how they should prepare. Therefore, I will, again, attempt to share with my readers some of the counsel I have given these folks.
First, a disclaimer: I am not an economist; I am not a survival expert; I am not a firearms expert; I am not an attorney; and I am not a physician. For several years, however, I have tried to learn from others. I am an avid reader. My work has allowed me to travel extensively. In fact, I have logged nearly 300,000 miles crisscrossing this great country over the last few years. I have had the privilege of sitting at the feet of--and learning from--many of America’s most learned, most trained, and most qualified experts in a variety of fields. What I write today, I have learned from others. I’ve formed my own opinions and priorities, of course, but everything I’m sharing has been said or written about before. But if I can share something in today’s column that will help someone be better prepared for the days to come, then my goal will have been achieved.
Location:
Analyze your living conditions. Where do you live? Do you live in an urban or rural environment? Is it a big city or small town? Do you live in an apartment or condominium? How close are your neighbors? Do you even know your neighbors? Would you trust them if the electricity was off and they were hungry? How easily could you secure your home? If you live in a cold weather environment, how long could you stay warm without electricity? These are the kinds of questions you need to ask yourself now.
Over the past several decades, masses of people have migrated into large metropolitan areas. More people currently live in urban areas than at any time in American history. While this may be well and good for times of prosperity, it is an absolute nightmare during any kind of disaster. Needless to say, any inner-city environment could become a powder keg almost instantaneously given the right (or wrong) circumstances. And the bigger the city, the bigger the potential problems.
Plus, as I have already noted, if you live downwind of a major military installation during a nuclear attack, you are in an extremely jeopardous situation. And, no, don’t fool yourself: not every area of the country is as vulnerable to fallout during a nuclear attack as others. I strongly encourage readers to purchase Joel Skousen’s excellent book on strategic relocation to see an in-depth, analytical review of nuclear target and fallout areas--along with other helpful information. Go here: Strategic Relocation
If you live in the inner city, I suggest you consider moving to a more rural location. If you can afford it, now is a great time to buy a “safe house” outside the city. If you are fortunate enough to have family or some trusted friends nearby, you may want to put your heads--and some resources--together in preparation for serious upheaval. Obviously, a team of prepared people is much better than being alone.
If you must stay in your urban location, have some common sense plans in hand in the event of a major disaster. Get to know your neighbors: find out whom you can trust and whom you can’t. Keep some extra gasoline on hand, in case you need to get in your car quickly and leave. Have several exit routes planned ahead of time in case roads are blocked. Have a “bug-out” bag containing essential ingredients to live on for at least three or four days. If leaving is not an option, have a plan to secure your home as best you can. You’ll need to think about things such as food, water, medicine, warmth, self-defense, etc. But at this point, to do nothing is absolute lunacy.
Most readers probably know that my entire family and I made the decision back in 2010 to move 2,600 miles from our home of 35 years in the Florida panhandle to the Flathead Valley of Montana, which is located about 75 miles south of the Canadian border in the Rocky Mountains. And I can tell readers without equivocation or hesitation that we are so glad we made this move. For me personally, I absolutely love it here.
If readers want to learn more about what prompted our move to Montana, please peruse the information on this web page: Baldwins’ Move To Montana
Just a word of caution at this point: making a move to a rural State such as Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Alaska, etc., is not for the faint-hearted. I would be dishonest if I told you that such a move is easy. It is not. It is extremely difficult and challenging. If you are not absolutely serious about such a move--and prepared to deal with the hardships that will certainly follow--don’t even think about it. And if you are squeamish about cold weather, don’t even think about it. Such a move is not only a change of location; it is a change of lifestyle. If you’re not prepared for that, don’t even think about it.
Provisions:
During a major disaster, food will quickly disappear. Living for over three decades on the Gulf Coast, I can tell you with absolute certainty that whenever disaster strikes (usually an approaching hurricane, for those folks), food and provisions at the store completely sell out in a matter of a few hours. People panic, and within hours you cannot find food, bottled water, ice, generators, batteries, candles, etc. In a matter of hours, every gas station in the area will be completely out of gas. Not days. Hours!
Furthermore, almost all disasters include a complete loss of electricity. The water supply is also compromised. At that point, clean water will become absolutely priceless. Dehydration becomes a very real and present danger. I remember witnessing a man give an ice vendor $100 for an extra bag of ice after Hurricane Ivan. My wife and I went 14 days without electricity in the aftermath of that hurricane. Believe me, I got a taste of just how precious bottled water, ice, batteries, generators, fuel, etc., can become.
I suggest you have a supply of food and water to last at least three months. Many survival experts insist that a six-month supply is the minimum. Personally, I can live a long time on tuna fish or peanut butter. You can purchase MREs from a variety of sources, as well as camp-style packaged food from many sporting goods stores. Of course, bottled water is available everywhere during normal times. Stock up! Distilled water will store longer than spring water. Plus, I suggest you have some water purification tablets or a Katadyn water filter on hand. And, if you are able, prepare to grow your own food. In cold weather climates such as we have here in Montana, people quickly learn how to construct and utilize greenhouses in which to grow food. Canning food is another very helpful hedge against deprivation. If your parents and grandparents lived through the Great Depression as mine did, this was standard operating procedure.
Get a generator. Keep a supply of fuel on hand. Stay stocked up on batteries, candles, portable lights, first aid supplies, and toiletries--especially toilet paper and toothpaste. I also suggest you never run out of lighters or matches. You never know when you’ll need to build a fire. If you live in a cold weather climate, you probably already have some sort of wood stove or fireplace.
Gas masks, Geiger counters, plastic sheets for doors and windows, and iodine tablets are an absolute necessity in any kind of radiation emergency. And don’t overlook the benefits of a good knife. Plus, you can NEVER have too much duct tape.
Obviously, you need to take stock of your clothing. Do you have clothes suitable for extended outdoor activity? What about boots? During a disaster, you would trade your best suit from Neiman Marcus for a good pair of boots. Do you have gloves? Insulated underwear? What about camouflage clothing? These could become essential outerwear in the right conditions. Plus, any “bug-out” bag will need to include spare clothing. And as most folks here in Montana know, “cotton kills.” For extended outdoor wear in cold weather, wool is the only way to go.
Communication and medical provisions are also a high priority in any kind of emergency. How will you communicate with your loved ones when the phones (including cell phones) go down? Portable ham radios are a very valuable resource. But the time to buy (and train to use) one is NOW! A preordained rally point (or safe house) might be something to think about. And what about medical supplies? Do you have enough medical supplies to take care of routine (and not-so-routine) emergencies? What about your prescription drugs? How long could you function if you were cut off from your druggist for any length of time? Also, seriously consider learning about natural, herbal medicines. Those plants growing in your “back forty” might just cure a headache, stop bleeding, or even save your life. Think about it now.
And one more suggestion while we’re on this subject: the best resources in the world are of little use if one is physically incapable of making good use of them. In other words, GET IN SHAPE. During any kind of emergency situation, physical exertion and stamina become immensely important. Plus, good health will keep the need for medical treatment and prescription drugs at bay.
Commodities:
I suggest you have at least some cash on hand. Just about any and all disasters will result in banks being closed for extended periods of time. That also means credit card purchases being suspended. You need to have enough cash to be able to purchase essential goods (if they are even available) for an undetermined amount of time.
Of course, some survival gurus insist that during any cataclysmic climate, precious metals will become the only reliable currency. A little gold and silver could go a long way in a prolonged emergency. And right now is a great time to buy gold and silver. Current spot prices are extremely deflated and won’t stay this low forever.
In fact, in a disaster, what is considered a valuable commodity can change rather quickly, as the barter system takes a life of its own. What is valuable is determined by what you need and how badly you need it. In a prolonged disaster, simple things such as toilet paper, canned goods, ammunition, and clothing could become extremely valuable; while cars, video games, televisions, etc., could be reduced to junk status. In antiquity, wars were fought over things such as salt. You might be surprised to learn that there are already active barter groups in your area. I suggest you establish a relationship with these people now.
Speaking of cars, remember that during a prolonged national emergency that might involve some sort of nuclear attack or widespread civil unrest, an Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) might be employed; in which case, most every late model vehicle would be completely inoperable. Accordingly, if one can keep an older, pre-computer-age vehicle in good working order, he or she might be driving the only non-government vehicle capable of going anywhere. Of course, you might not want to drive it to town, if that is the case.
Self-Defense:
Needless to say, during any kind of disaster, your safety and protection will be completely up to you. If you really think that the police are going to be able to protect you during an upheaval, you are living in a dream world.
In the New Orleans, Los Angeles, and Ferguson emergencies, many people found that police protection was non-existent. Lawless gangs quickly took control of the streets, and people were left to either defend themselves or swiftly become the helpless prey of violent marauders. In fact, in New Orleans, some of the policemen actually abandoned their oaths to uphold the law and joined with the criminals, turning their weapons against the public.
Face it, folks: in any kind of disaster, you must be able to defend yourself or you and your family will be meat for these animals of society that will quickly descend without mercy upon the unprepared, unsuspecting souls around them. This requires that you be armed. It also requires that you be skilled enough to be able to efficiently use your arms. Therefore, I strongly suggest that you purchase firearms sufficient to keep you and your family safe, and also that you practice sufficiently to know how to use them.
Now, when it comes to a discussion of which firearms are preferable for self-defense, the suggestions are as varied as the people who proffer them. These are my suggestions:
I believe every man (along with his wife and children of adequate age) should be proficient with the following firearms: a handgun in .38 caliber or above, a .22 rifle, a centerfire, bolt-action hunting rifle, a semi-automatic battle rifle, and a shotgun.
My personal preference for a self-defense handgun is a Glock pistol in either .40 or .45 caliber (models 22 and 23 in .40 caliber and models 21 and 30 in .45 caliber). Of course, the 1911 .45 ACP (I prefer Colt or Springfield Armory) is also proven to be very effective. I will also admit to sometimes carrying a 9mm Glock (models 19 and 22) or a Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum revolver. My two favorites in this caliber are the Model 66 with a 2 ½-inch barrel and the Model 586 with a 4-inch barrel. My wife prefers to carry a Smith & Wesson .38 caliber revolver in the snub-nose, J-frame configuration. But this is primarily due to the reduced weight of these weapons for carry purposes. If needed, she could make a good accounting of herself with the Glock 19.
If you are someone who has never owned and seldom fired a handgun, I recommend you buy a Glock. They are as simple as revolvers to operate, reliable, and almost indestructible. Plus, they provide increased magazine capacity, and are safe. They are also very easy to disassemble and clean. And, yes, I will admit that for some people a revolver might be the preferred handgun. It has no external magazine to worry about losing; it is very dependable and reliable; it is easy to clean; and it is simple to operate. In a revolver, my suggestion would be either Smith and Wesson or Ruger.
Of course, in dangerous game territory, you will need the power of a 10mm (the Glock 20 shines here), .45 Long Colt, .44 Special, .44 Magnum, or even a .454 Casull. These calibers are not for the limp-wristed, but when one is facing a brown bear, it is what one will need to survive. Plus, when your life is on the line, you’ll never feel the recoil.
For a .22 rifle, I really like the Ruger 10/22. A Marlin tube-fed .22 is also very effective. The CZ bolt-action .22 just might be the most accurate factory .22 on the market. For a hunting rifle, my suggestion is either a .270 or .30-06 caliber bolt-action rifle. I prefer the Remington Model 700 BDL or Browning X-Bolt, but there are several fine weapons in this configuration and caliber by numerous manufacturers. In dangerous game territory, a Marlin .45-70 could be a lifesaver. For a battle rifle, I suggest an AR-15-style firearm in 5.56 caliber or a .308 Springfield M1A. For a shotgun, I suggest a 12-gauge pump or semi-automatic. In a pump shotgun, I prefer a Winchester Model 1300, which is not made anymore. So, you’ll probably have to choose between Mossberg and Remington. In the semi-auto configuration, Mossberg is currently making some fine shotguns. For ladies, however, a 20-gauge shotgun is probably a better choice, and at “bad breath” range (where a shotgun shines, anyway), it is just as lethal.
Whatever you choose, practice with it to the point that you are able to use it proficiently. And be sure you stock up on ammunition (good luck finding .22). A gun without ammo is reduced to being either an expensive club or a cumbersome paperweight.
Go to your local independent sporting goods store (I don’t recommend the large national chain stores to do your firearms shopping) and get to know your hometown firearms dealer. Most of these people are kind and helpful folks who will be more than happy to assist you in finding exactly what type of firearm is suitable for you and your family.
Spiritual Power:
I firmly believe that man is created to have fellowship with his Creator-God. I really don’t know how people can face an uncertain future without the spiritual knowledge, wisdom, comfort, and power that is made available through Jesus Christ. I believe the maxim is true: “Wise men still seek Him.” I strongly suggest that you seek to possess a personal relationship with God’s only begotten Son. In truth, spiritual preparation is far and away the most important preparation of all. Accordingly, be sure to pack a copy of God’s Word in your survival gear.
And if you have not been able to find a local church where the pastor isn’t afraid to deal with the kind of issues like I am dealing with in this column, I invite you to worship online with us at Liberty Fellowship. People all over America who are tired of these 501c3, establishment churches--that have no clue as to what is going on and who wouldn’t take a stand if they did--are tuning in to hear my messages at Liberty Fellowship every Sunday afternoon at 2:30pm Mountain Time. We also archive all of my messages online. Here is the website: Liberty Fellowship
Plus, we recently launched the Liberty Church Project, through which we are helping pastors and churches break free from the 501c3 government church status and revive the independent patriot pulpit and liberty church once again. If you seriously want to help launch a non-501c3 church where you live, please go our website and fill out the online application. Go here: Liberty Church Project
That we are facing challenging days is a certainty. Exactly what that means is yet to be determined. I trust that some of my suggestions will help you be better prepared for what lies before us. Plus, here is an excellent website chock-full of great suggestions and resources for all things survival. Check it out: Survival Blog.com
I am sure that I have left out several items that others more qualified than I would include. I welcome their suggestions, as I am always desirous to learn from those who are wiser and more experienced. In the meantime, remember your Boy Scout motto: “Be Prepared.”
If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link.
Donate to Pastor Chuck Baldwin's Ministry.
© 2015 Chuck Baldwin - All Rights Reserved

Chuck Baldwin is a syndicated columnist, radio broadcaster, author, and pastor dedicated to preserving the historic principles upon which America was founded. He was the 2008 Presidential candidate for the Constitution Party. He and his wife, Connie, have 3 children and 8 grandchildren. Chuck and his family reside in the Flathead Valley of Montana. See Chuck's complete bio here.
E-mail: 
chuck@chuckbaldwinlive.com

Website: ChuckBaldwinLive.com
*******

Preppers Checklist: 10 Things To Do Now!
March 5, 2013
Preppers Checklist : Top Things to do Now!
No matter how much I beg, some of you, no doubt haven’t done anything to prepare (you know who you are). I don’t know what else to do. All I can do is give you the information, it’s up to you to act. No one can do it for you. No doubt some of you are intimidated by my repeated suggestions of storing and using whole grains and beans. If it doesn’t come from the supermarket shelf it’s strange and unfamiliar and you want no part of it. Fair enough.
But you still need to prepare. Here are ten things that you can do now that will make you better prepared than 90% of the population. And everything is available at your local shopping center – so it’s easy.
You can do all ten steps at once or divide each into a separate week and shopping trip. But you need to get it done as soon as possible. Keep in mind that this is only a starting point and isn’t presented here as a completed list.
1. Head to the nearest Wal-Mart, Kmart, Costco or whatever and pick-up 20 lbs. of white or brown rice and 20 lbs. of pinto beans. White rice has a better storage life while brown rice has more nutritional benefits – your choice.
2. While you’re there grab 5 lbs. mixed beans, 5 lbs. of white sugar, 5 lbs. of iodized salt, one gallon of olive oil (can be frozen to extend shelf-life), 5 lbs. oats, 10 lbs. each of white or wheat flour and cornmeal.
3. Now head over to the canned foods and pick-up 20 cans of canned fruits and 20 cans of canned vegetables. Be sure to buy only those brands and contents you normally eat and nothing exotic. No need to shock the senses.
4. Now over to the canned meats. Pick-up 20 cans of various meats, salmon, stews, spam and tuna. Again buy only those brands with contents you normally eat and nothing exotic.
5. Okay. Now to the to the peanut butter shelf and toss two 40-ounce jars in the cart. The listed shelf life is just over two years and each jar has over 6,000 calories. Peanut butter is an excellent instant survival food.
6. Over to the powdered drink mix – go on I’ll wait…Okay, pick up two 72 Ounce Tang Orange drink canisters (provides 100% of the US RDA vitamin C requirement per 8 oz. glass). Also grab six 19-Ounce Containers of Kool-Aid Drink Mix.
7. Off to the vitamin and supplement aisle, pick up 400 tablets “one a day” multivitamin and mineral supplements. I buy this brand at the local Wal-Mart – comes in 200 count bottle for $8 each.
8. Now to the department we all love – sporting goods. Go to the camping aisle and pick up 4 five gallon water containers. Fill with tap water as soon as you get back home.
9. While you’re there buy 250 rounds of ammunition for your primary defensive weapon. More if you can, but this will be a good start. Also a good universal cleaning kit.
10. And lastly pick up the best LED flashlight you can afford, extra batteries and bulb. Also grab two boxes of wooden matches and several multi-purpose lighters. Don’t forget to date, use and rotate – remember first in first out. Let’s get started. What would you add to the list?
*******
American Red Cross
Get a Survival KitBe Prepared for an Emergency. Be Red Cross Ready!       
Being prepared means being equipped with the proper supplies you may need in the event of an emergency or disaster. Keep your supplies in an easy-to-carry emergency preparedness kit that you can use at home or take with you in case you must evacuate.
At a minimum, you should have the basic supplies listed below:      
                                                                                                                                                                                              

Consider the needs of all family members and add supplies to your kit. Suggested items to help meet additional needs are:

                                                                                                                                                                                       
  • Medical supplies (hearing aids with extra batteries, glasses, contact lenses, syringes, etc)
  • Baby supplies (bottles, formula, baby food, diapers)
  • Games and activities for children
  • Pet supplies (collar, leash, ID, food, carrier, bowl)
  • Two-way radios
  • Extra set of car keys and house keys
  • Manual can opener

Additional supplies to keep at home or in your survival kit based on the types of disasters common to your area:

                                                                                                                                                                                                     
  • Whistle
  • N95 or surgical masks
  • Matches
  • Rain gear
  • Towels
  • Work gloves
  • Tools/supplies for securing your home
  • Extra clothing, hat and sturdy shoes
  • Plastic sheeting
  • Duct tape
  • Scissors
  • Household liquid bleach
  • Entertainment items
  • Blankets or sleeping bags
*******
Also See:
Food Shortage, Then Anarchy!

 25 July 2012
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2012/07/food-shortage-then-anarchy.html
and
Disasters Happen! Be Prepared!
(Part 1)
31 March 2011
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2011/03/disasters-happen-be-prepared.html
and
(Part 2)
30 August 2012
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2012/08/disasters-happen-be-prepared-part-2.html
and
The Collapse of the Entire World’s Economic System has Begun!
18 March 2013
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2013/03/the-collapse-of-entire-worlds-economic.html
and
Economic Collapse! How Did We Get Here?
27 February 2013
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2013/02/economic-collapse-how-did-we-get-here.html
and
Are We Facing a Global Financial Crisis?
31 May 2011
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2011/05/are-we-facing-global-financial-crisis.html
and
Financial Crunch! Economic Collapse!
(Part 1)

31 July 2008
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2008/07/financial-crunch-economic-collapse.html
and
(Part 2)
20 November 2008
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2008/11/financial-crunch-economic-collapse-part.html
and
(Part 3)
25 January 2009
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2009/01/financial-crunch-economic-collapse-part.html
and
(Part 4)
17 April 2009
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2009/04/financial-crunch-economic-collapse-part.html
and
(Part 5)
23 June 2009
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2009/06/financial-crunch-economic-collapse-part.html
and
(Part 6)
23 August 2009
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2009/08/financial-crunch-economic-collapse-part.html
and
(Part 7)
30 November 2009
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2009/11/xxxx.html
and
(Part 8)
23 February 2010
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2010/02/debt-dynamite-dominoes-coming-financial.html
and
(Part 9)
28 August 2010
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2010/08/financial-crunch-economic-collapse-part.html
and
(Part 10)
13 January 2011
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2011/01/financial-crunch-economic-collapse-part.html
and
(Part 11)
29 April 2011
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2011/04/financial-crunch-economic-collapse-part.html
and
(Part 12)
28 July 2011
http://arcticcompass.blogspot.ca/2011/07/financial-crunch-economic-collapse-part.html
and
(Part 13)
04 April 2012
(Part 15)
02 November 2012
and
Recession? ... Depression? ... What is Going On?
(Part 1)
06 October 2008
(Part 2)
02 February 2009
and
(Part 3)
19 April 2009
and
(Part 4)
02 August 2009
and
(Part 5)
17 September 2010
and
(Part 6)
17 September 2010
and
Jobs, Jobs, Where are the Jobs?
(Part 1)
20 April 2010
*******