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!

*******
*******
Recently there have been policemen killed by ignorant, misguided individuals thinking that violence is the way when it is totally the wrong thing to do. "Thou shalt not kill" is still the law that all people everywhere will be judged by in the next world. Fight tyranny through the courts. We are the masses of people, working together, that can bring about changes peacefully as Mahatma Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. have demonstrated.
*******
Hillary and Obama’s war on cops, civil society
Obama, Hillary and their ilk have also spawned a 21st century Frankenstein monster: the radical "black lives matter" movement which cares nothing for non-black lives
These Democratic leaders have the blood of many innocents on their hands.  Mr. Obama lit the racial powder keg back in 2009 with his mischaracterization that Boston cops “acted stupidly” in arresting a black Harvard professor, Henry Louis Gates Jr., for being belligerent with law enforcement at the man’s home. At the time, Mr. Obama said, “I don’t know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played.”  Indeed, Democrats never wait for the “facts” before making their rabble-rousing pronouncements.  In true Democratic fashion of politically “never letting a crisis go to waste,” Mr. Obama, at every opportunity, indulges his knee-jerk anti-cop and anti-American rhetoric.  In this, it is Orwellian that a U.S. president, charged with the principle duty to enforce the Constitution and the law, instead subverts that selfsame law in favor of promoting the politics of racial victimization and its direct consequence of faceless, mob violence.  Hence the fiction that Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown are innocent targets of “white racism” and the tragic reality of burning cities like Ferguson, MO and Baltimore, MD.
Abetted by the hard-left MSM, the anarchist elements in our society have been whipped into a frenzied, lawless horde.  Over the weekend, the “black lives matter” protesters spewed their hate-speech ” Pigs [cops] In A Blanket, Fry ‘Em Like Bacon ”  just hours after Harris County, Texas sheriff’s deputy Darren H. Goforth was ambushed and executed by a black assailant, suspect Shannon J. Miles, at a Houston-area gas station.  Similarly, last December in New York, two uniformed police officers, Wenjian Liu and Rafael Ramos, sitting in their marked squad car, were assassinated gangland style by lone gunman Ismaaiyl Brinsley.  Once again, “black lives matter” advocates had also demonstrated, chanting “What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!”  Mr. Brinsley’s rationalization for his unprovoked, barbarous acts: revenge killings for Eric Garner (who died in police custody) and the before-mentioned Michael Brown. Of this, Brinsley wrote: “I’m Putting Wings on Pigs Today,” and “They Take 1 Of Ours .... Let’s Take 2 of Theirs.”  In reaction, Police Commissioner William Bratton said, “No warning, no provocation—they were quite simply assassinated, targeted for their uniform.”
Therefore, the “white hat elements” of our society—lawmen, the law-abiding, legal gun owners, conservatives and tea party proponents—have been outrageously and nonsensically demonized by Mr. Obama as domestic terrorists.  Drawing from the same “divide [society] and conquer” Democratic political playbook, Hillary Clinton implies pro-law enforcement Republicans are “boxcar Nazis” for wanting to impose legitimate immigration laws and expel illegal aliens from our sovereign nation.  Ironically, the “black lives matter” folks even heckle black, Democratic leaders who promote common sense, anti-crime measures, as DC Mayor Muriel Bowser recently did in response to 105 slayings in the District of Columbia so far this year (a 43 percent increase over this point last year matching all of 2014).  This statistic is no surprise: why should cops actively do their jobs in dangerous parts of town when they are constant targets of ill-founded racial blame, bureaucratic second-guessing and random, unprovoked threats to life and limb because they wear a badge?  As any civilian accused of a crime is “presumed innocent,” don’t rank-and-file police officers deserve that same consideration?
It seems that everyone else, except for Obama and Hillary, pays the price for the divisive, political whirlwind they have wrought. Notice the philosophical hypocrisy: Mr. Obama doesn’t order the Secret Service to disarm yet he actively strives to restrict legal gun-ownership and undermine the Second Amendment.  After all, if firearms are so terrible, why does he allow himself and his family to be surrounded by them 24/7/365? 
Any reasonable person who objects to this insanity is marginalized by Democrat’s word-burning political correctness and wrongly smeared by them as a racist, misogynist or Uncle Tom.  Indeed, this societal nerve has been rubbed so raw for the last 6 years as an expedient political distraction to Obama’s multitude of domestic and international failures, we now have the emergence of a true bogeyman in the form of former reporter Vester L. Flanagan II, who vented his paranoid, mentally unhinged, homicidal rage on two innocent colleagues.  Even the heavily partisan Washington Post begrudgingly acknowledged that Mr. Flanagan’s older colleagues tried to mentor him and even his harshest critics wanted him to succeed.  Further, his unfounded complaints of discrimination were taken seriously by management and his two lawsuits claiming racism, sexual harassment and wrongful termination ended quietly with undisclosed terms.  As this scenario does not fit the false straw-man narrative of the white, racist, rich (read: Republican) caricature, notice the deafening silence of Democrats and the “black lives matter” crowd whenever the situation is black-on-white or nine times out of ten, black-on-black murder.
America cannot be defeated by forces outside of herself.  Our greatest difficulty isn’t the Democrat’s “weather” or the Republican’s legitimate fear of Iranian nukes.  Her fundamental problem is an insidious cancer much closer to home: the lawless, lying, big government, anti-American Democratic Party.  Aided by their fawning humpback, blind-eye creature, the liberal MSM intentionally blows up unfortunate and otherwise isolated human tragedies into full-scale black-white societal crises.  Obama, Hillary and their ilk have also spawned a 21st century Frankenstein monster: the radical “black lives matter” movement which cares nothing for non-black lives (or lives not taken by white hands regardless of mitigating circumstances).  While Obama and Hillary “lead,” as American cartoonist Walt Kelly famously wrote, “we have met the enemy and he is us.”
*******
Losing Our Civil Society: Says Cop Deserved To Be Executed
By Frosty Wooldridge
September  3, 2015
NewsWithViews.com
If you watch the evening news, you witness the loss of our “civil society” at an ever-accelerating rate of speed. Make no mistake, more than a few criminals stalk and kill women. Snipers shoot at people driving down the highway from California to Michigan. Over 6,000 African-Americans kill 6,000 African-Americans annually. That’s 16 black deaths daily at the hands of other blacks. In the past month, eight police officers lost their lives to execution-style killings.
In Washington DC, former Secretary of State battles to maintain her honor while she’s lived a life of lives and deceit. Planned Parenthood sells baby body parts for profit. President Obama hides his history by sealing all records of his previous life in America and in Indonesia. He hides the fact that he carries a bogus Social Security number. Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) fights to hide his criminal real-estate dealings from the public.
At the state level, my own Mayor of Denver hides the fact that he visited brothels before becoming a public servant. Colorado’s governor hired illegal aliens in his restaurants before becoming mayor of Denver and governor of our state: John Hickenlooper.
If we could expose the enormous amount of corruption in our U.S. Congress, a huge number of congressmen and senators would see jail time.
"There was no shortage of candidates for CREW's list this year, and 11 of the 20 members are joining it for the first time," the report stated. "In addition, one member, Rep. David Rivera (R-Fla.), has been under investigation by no fewer than six separate authorities -- quite the rap sheet for a freshman."
The CREW list details crimes from the top 20 members who face indictments for crimes.
In Ferguson, Missouri, a 6’7”, 290 pound, 17 year old, robbed a store, walked down the street, and attacked a police officer. After Michael Brown died because of his attack on the cop, Al Sharpton—a known race-baiter, income tax swindler and national disgrace—created “Hands up don’t shoot” to burn down the city.
Another African-American created “Black Lives Matter” and condones execution of police officers.
If you look at the Somalian immigrants in New York City, Chicago and Minneapolis, Minnesota—you see them returning to Africa and the middle east to participate in jihad or just plain terror.
Right now in America, somewhere between 12 million and 31 million illegal aliens live stealth lives in America. According to Ann Coulter in her book, Adios America: The Left’s Plan to Turn America into a Third World Hellhole, she researched and supported the fact that 31 million people jumped our borders in violation of our laws. They broke our civil society into a fractured and lawless “world’s second largest underground economy” that sends over $80 billion annually back to home countries. Thus, besides the corruption in Congress, the USA features an $18 trillion national debt.
All the while, a questionable President Obama supports and encourages more lawlessness by not enforcing our existing laws. He avoids impeachment because Congress’ fear that if they did impeach him, African-Americans would turn America into another Watts, Detroit or Ferguson firebomb.
We face multiple fracturing via Boston Marathon Bombers, Fort Hood killer, Fort Dix Six bombers, Times Square car bomber, 9/11, beheadings in Oklahoma, New Jersey, Phoenix and South Carolina. and more to come.
MS-13 drug gangs operate in every major city in America. Illegal alien pregnant women birth their illegal children in our country at 350,000 to 400,000 year after year.
And not one single member of Congress or this president stands up to uphold the rule of law. Thus, we face more cop killings, and more black killings by black killers. We face an Islamic madman- dominated Iran who will soon possess an atomic bomb—with no consciousness of the end result other than “Allah Akbar.”
In effect, we face the loss of our civil society. We face 42.1 million foreign born citizens who lack any understanding of the roll of citizenship or personal accountability to the U.S. Constitution. They only came to America for “a better life.”
We face more and more fracturing and fragmenting of our country as we import more and more fractured and fragmented immigrants.
As the old crowd that sustained America dies out, the new crowd taking over America doesn’t possess a clue as to how to keep this country intact.
We stand at the threshold of a barbaric, fractured and dismantled society that cannot and will not survive the projected 100 million added third world immigrants in the next 30 years.
What do we need? Answer: we need an immediate “Immigration Shutdown Now” before we won’t be able to do anything but look on in disbelief at the disappearance of our country.
References:
• Camp of the Saints by Jean Raspail
• Illegal Entries by John W. Slagle, US Border Patrol
• The New Case Against Immigration: Both Legal and Illegal by Mark Krikorian
• How Many Is Too Many? By Professor Philip Cafaro
• America on the Brink: The Next Added 100 Million Americans by Frosty Wooldridge
Definition of slogan: “Immigration Shutdown Now means the American people want all legal immigration dropped to less than 10,000 annually with compatible immigrants that fit our ethos and want to become Americans, and only those who benefit our country and/or they marry an American and speak English. That means we want all illegal immigration stopped by arresting, prosecuting and jailing employers of illegal aliens. We deport all illegal aliens by taking their jobs away and as we catch them. We want English mandated as our national language. We demand a cessation of Muslim immigration in order to protect our culture, language and way of life. We can’t save the world but we can destroy our civilization. We demand a stable population that allows everyone to live, work and thrive into the 21st century. Especially our children.” FHW
That’s why you need to take action. Send this series to everyone in your network. Educate them. Urge them to take action by joining these websites to become faxers of prewritten letters and phone callers. We must force Congress into an “Immigration Shutdown Now!
In a five minute astoundingly simple yet brilliant video, “Immigration, Poverty, and Gum Balls”, Roy Beck, director of www.numbersusa.ORG, graphically illustrates the impact of overpopulation. Take five minutes to see for yourself.
“Immigration by the numbers—off the chart” by Roy Beck
This 10 minute demonstration shows Americans the results of unending mass immigration on the quality of life and sustainability for future generations: in a few words, “Mind boggling!” www.NumbersUSA.org
America: www.CapsWeb.org ; www.NumbersUSA.org ; www.Fairus.org ; www.CarryingCapacityNetwork.org
Canada: www.immigrationwatchcanada.org
United Kingdom: www.populationmatters.org
Australia: www.population.org.au Sustainable Population Australia
© 2015 Frosty Wooldridge - All Rights Reserved
Frosty Wooldridge possesses a unique view of the world, cultures and families in that he has bicycled around the globe 100,000 miles, on six continents and six times across the United States in the past 30 years. His published books include: "HANDBOOK FOR TOURING BICYCLISTS"; “STRIKE THREE! TAKE YOUR BASE”; “IMMIGRATION’S UNARMED INVASION: DEADLY CONSEQUENCES”; “MOTORCYCLE ADVENTURE TO ALASKA: INTO THE WIND—A TEEN NOVEL”; “BICYCLING AROUND THE WORLD: TIRE TRACKS FOR YOUR IMAGINATION”; “AN EXTREME ENCOUNTER: ANTARCTICA.” His next book: “TILTING THE STATUE OF LIBERTY INTO A SWAMP.” He lives in Denver, Colorado.
His latest book. ‘IMMIGRATION’S UNARMED INVASION—DEADLY CONSEQUENCES.’
*******
*******
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
*******