N’orleans Sign says it all, well, not all but it’s definitely on target!

Anti-Obama sign in Uptown neighborhood draws controversy

wwltv.com

Maya Rodriguez / Eyewitness News

NEW ORLEANS -- There are several political signs attracting all kinds of attention in one Uptown neighborhood.

On Wednesday, crowds gathered at the corner of Calhoun and Coralie streets, looking at several signs depicting President Barack Obama as either a dunce, a puppet or a crying baby in a diaper.

"It disrespects the nation -- and President Barack Obama represents our nation," said Skip Alexander, as he looked at one of the signs. "He represents everybody, not some people."

Dozens of protesters came by the house in the 1500 block of Calhoun throughout the day, demanding the sign come down.

"He wouldn't do that to [President] Bush, I'm sure. It's just insulting. It's insulting," said C.C. Campbell-Rock. "He's going to have to take them down."

"This is nothing put pure racism," said Raymond Rock. "This is a disgrace."

The home is owned by Timothy Reily, who declined to be interviewed about the signs. Former Mayor Ray Nagin showed up at the house and went inside to speak with Reily. He emerged later and would not comment on what they discussed.

Some neighbors tell Eyewitness News that Reily has been putting the signs up for months. Some of the protesters learned about the signs through a local radio station on Wednesday morning.

"He can put up a sign if he wants to. It doesn't bother me," said Harold Gagnet, a neighbor.

"I think it's fine. It's on his property," said Katherine deMontluzin. "He can say whatever he wants."

The signs have created such a firestorm of controversy, though, that police came to the scene-- called in by City Council Member Susan Guidry. She represents the district where the home is located. Guidry said she was concerned about public safety and was trying to figure out if the sign was even legal. She also said she spoke to Reily, but didn't get far.

"We have to determine that there is a zoning law that prohibits perhaps the size of the sign, perhaps the way that it's erected, that it is leaning over onto public property," Guidry said. "Whatever we can use, we will, but of course, we do have to balance that with First Amendment rights."

Yet, the signs remain in place, fanning the flames of a free speech debate on both sides of the fence.

You can’t make this stuff up, communist Janeane Garofalo says Republicans supporting Cain are racists! And yes, she knows Cain is black…

Touché, Democrats are communists because they are supporting the communist Obama! Now that makes sense because Obama is a communist, but to say Republicans are racists because they support a black man, Cain…well, it just doesn’t make sense.

It might make sense if say Republicans were overwhelmingly black and 95% of them supported the black man Cain like 95% of blacks supported Obama in the last election. Now that would seem to be racist unless it’s blacks supporting a black man, for some reason that’s not racist. But Republicans are overwhelmingly white so if they support the black man Cain that’s the reverse of racism isn’t it?

Janeane Garofalo: Racist Republicans Support Herman Cain

Janeane Garofalo: "Herman Cain is probably well liked by some of the Republicans because it hides the racist elements of the Republican party. Conservative movement and tea party movement, one in the same.

"People like Karl Rove liked to keep the racism very covert. And so Herman Cain provides this great opportunity say you can say 'Look, this is not a racist, anti-immigrant, anti-female, anti-gay movement. Look we have a black man.'"

Amazing ‘Picture of Hope’ that you’ve probably never even seen

Life....
A picture began circulating in November. It should be "The Picture of the Year," or perhaps, "Picture of the Decade." It won't be. In fact, unless you obtained a copy of the U.S. paper which published it, you probably would never have seen it.

The picture is that of a 21-week-old unborn baby named Samuel Alexander Armas, who is being operated on by surgeon named Joseph Bruner. The baby was diagnosed with spina bifida and would not survive if removed from his mother's womb. Little Samuel's mother, Julie Armas, is an obstetrics nurse in Atlanta. She knew of Dr. Bruner's remarkable surgical procedure. Practicing at Vanderbilt University Medical Center in Nashville, he performs these special operations while the baby is still in the womb.

During the procedure, the doctor removes the uterus via C-section and makes a small incision to operate on the baby. As Dr. Bruner completed the surgery on Samuel, the little guy reached his tiny, but fully developed hand through the incision and firmly grasped the surgeon's finger. Dr. Bruner was reported as saying that when his finger was grasped, it was the most emotional moment of his life, and that for an instant during the procedure he was just frozen, totally immobile.

The photograph captures this amazing event with perfect clarity. The editors titled the picture, "Hand of Hope." The text explaining the picture begins, "The tiny hand of 21-week-old fetus Samuel Alexander Armas emerges from the mother's uterus to grasp the finger of Dr. Joseph Bruner as if thanking the doctor for the gift of life."

Little Samuel's mother said they "wept for days" when they saw the picture. She said, "The photo reminds us pregnancy isn't about disability or an illness, it's about a little person" Samuel was born in perfect health, the operation 100 percent successful. Now see the actual picture, and it is awesome...incredible....and hey, pass it on! The world needs to see this one!

Denver terrorism drill, Denver DEFCON 1 drill, report of underground bases tunnels being sealed…

Tunnels to at least 13 underground bases being sealed off.

Posted by PCWorld newsThursday, September 22nd, 2011

At least 13 very powerful underground explosions rocked the United States Midwest in the last 48 hours. They registered as small shallow earthquakes with the USGS. Many of the underground high explosive detonations registered as 2.6 magnitude earthquakes. The U.S. military is said to be sealing off the tunnels so that the Globalists and the U.S. ghost government (Federal Reserve Bankers, FEMA, DHS, CIA) can’t run and hide from what is predicted to occur within 48 hours of September 27, 2011.

Officers in the U.S. military didn’t seem to be aware of Obama and the Globalists’ planned converging on Denver for a DEFCON 1 (nuclear war imminent) “cocked pistol” drill. An email was sent to the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations on September 21, 2011 to alert them to planned false flag nuclear detonations on U.S. soil in the American Midwest. The U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations were the ones who raided Citadel Gun and Safe Store in Las Vegas on August 21, 2011 to recover stolen nuclear warhead detonators. They were the ones who intercepted the transfer of improvised nuclear warheads by the CIA in the tunnels that connected the Deep Underground Military Bases on August 23, 2011. The improvised nuclear bombs (W54 style warheads) were being transfered via those tunnels to Washington DC and New York City when they detonated during a firefight between U.S. military personnel and CIA/DHS/FEMA operatives.

It would appear that the U.S. military had a deadline to meet and has already damaged, destroyed or sealed at least 13 underground tunnels or bases. Perhaps their incentive was the fact that Obama, his shadow government and the Globalists made plans to save their own hides and leave the rest of use to fend for ourselves. Perhaps they investigated and confirmed that another false flag nuclear detonation was imminent and acted accordingly to prevent it.

Short URL: http://presscore.ca/2011/?p=4492

Obama throws another billion dollars down the ‘green’ rat hole!

Updated links:

• Links to Nancy Pelosi's brother-in-law?

• REPORT: Dem-Donor Companies Got $500M From Feds...

Obama admin approves 2 solar loans worth $1B

By MATTHEW DALY

Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Energy Department on Wednesday approved two loan guarantees worth more than $1 billion for solar energy projects in Nevada and Arizona, two days before the expiration date of a program that has become a rallying cry for Republican critics of the Obama administration's green energy program.

Energy Secretary Steven Chu said the department has completed a $737 million loan guarantee to Tonopah Solar Energy for a 110 megawatt solar tower on federal land near Tonopah, Nev., and a $337 million guarantee for Mesquite Solar 1 to develop a 150 megawatt solar plant near Phoenix.

The loans were approved under the same program that paid for a $528 million loan to Solyndra Inc., a California solar panel maker that went bankrupt after receiving the money and laid off 1,100 workers. Solyndra is under investigation by the FBI and is the focal point of House hearings on the program.

Watchdog: EPA cut corners on global-warming/carbon decision

End the freedom robbing EPA, along with the TSA, DEA, FDA, DOE,  FED, DHS, and get out of the anti-American UN!

Report supports lawsuits seeking to block Obama global-warming rules

By Stephen Dinan The Washington Times

The EPA’s internal watchdog said this week that the Obama administration cut corners in evaluating the science it used to back up its 2009 finding that carbon is a dangerous pollutant and can be regulated under existing federal law.

The report by the Environmental Protection Agency’s inspector general, dated Sept. 26 but released Wednesday, is certain to be used in court by those seeking to overturn EPA’s claim that it can write global warming rules under existing law, and doesn’t need new authority from Congress.

Investigators did not question EPA’s scientific conclusions that human-caused global warming is occurring, and said the agency did follow basic rules. But investigators said EPA didn’t treat the finding as seriously as the situation required, and failed to meet administration guidelines for peer review of such a major issue.

“EPA had the [science] reviewed by a panel of 12 federal climate-change scientists. However, the panel’s findings and EPA’s disposition of the findings were not made available to the public as would be required for reviews of highly influential scientific assessments,” the investigators said. “Also, this panel did not fully meet the independence requirements for reviews of highly influential scientific assessments because one of the panelists was an EPA employee.”

The inspector general said EPA failed from the outset to identify the Technical Support Document, or TSD, as “influential,” which would subject it to heightened standards of scientific review.

EPA rejected the report, saying the science it did use was peer reviewed, and that its findings were based on the work of other major bodies, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

“No weighing of information, data and studies occurred in the [technical document],” the agency said in its official comment submitted to the report. “That had already occurred in the underlying assessments, where the scientific synthesis occurred and where the state of the science was assessed.”

EPA said it used the best science available, as compiled and reviewed by the IPCC, the U.S. Global Climate Research Program and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.

The agency said those other bodies all did the peer reviews required for research of this magnitude, and then EPA summarized their conclusions, and that summary was then submitted to a panel of climate scientists for final review.

At issue is EPA’s claim that it can regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. Under its 2009 “endangerment finding” that emitting greenhouse gases poses a threat to human health.

If it stands, that finding means that EPA can use existing laws to control emissions.

But the finding has been challenged in court, with opponents questioning the science EPA used for its finding — and they said the inspector general’s report will give them ammunition to use.

Sen. James M. Inhofe, the ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, called for hearings into EPA’s decision-making.

“EPA needs to explain to the American people why it blatantly circumvented its own procedures to make what appears to be a predetermined endangerment finding,” said Mr. Inhofe of Oklahoma.

David Doniger, the climate policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said Mr. Inhofe’s accusations were “laughable,” and that EPA’s conclusions are backed by climate science.

Failed Solyndra bought into Obama’s green jobs nonsense, built product no one wants

We all have to pay for their misplaced faith, just like we’re paying for the foolish voters ballots with higher prices, higher unemployment and lower home values, and…

They actually believed in Obama’s promises of ‘hope and change’ and ‘green energy’ and ‘green energy jobs’ and the oceans falling, and the air purifying itself, and the world loving us, the nation coming together, and…

SOLYNDRA's $733M plant had robots, spa-showers...

By Alison Vekshin and Mark Chediak - Sep 28, 2011 12:27 PM

Solar panels sit at Solyndra Inc. at their manufacturing plant in Fremont, California. Photographer: Tony Avelar/Bloomberg

Solyndra’s ‘Taj Mahal’ Factory Raised Eyebrows As Sales Wane

“That’s a lot of money that went into that factory and I just don’t get how that factory is going to make this company successful,” said Barry Cinnamon, chief executive officer at Westinghouse Solar, a Solyndra LLC competitor. “It’s one of those neck-snapping things every time you drove down the highway." Photo: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg

“That’s a lot of money that went into that factory and I just don’t get how that factory is going to make this company successful,” said Barry Cinnamon, chief executive officer at Westinghouse Solar, a Solyndra LLC competitor. “It’s one of those neck-snapping things every time you drove down the highway." Photo: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg

The glass-and-metal building that Solyndra LLC began erecting alongside Interstate 880 in Fremont,California, in September 2009 was something the Silicon Valley area hadn’t seen in years: a new factory.

It wasn’t just any factory. When it was completed at an estimated cost of $733 million, including proceeds from a $535 million U.S. loan guarantee, it covered 300,000 square feet, the equivalent of five football fields. It had robots that whistled Disney tunes, spa-like showers with liquid-crystal displays of the water temperature, and glass-walled conference rooms.

“The new building is like the Taj Mahal,” John Pierce, 54, a San Jose resident who worked as a facilities manager at Solyndra, said in an interview.

The building, designed to make far more solar panels than Solyndra got orders for, is now shuttered, and U.S. taxpayers may be stuck with it. Solyndra filed for bankruptcy protectionon Sept. 6, leaving in its wake investigations by Congress and the Federal Bureau of Investigation and a Republican-fueled political embarrassment for the Obama administration, which issued the loan guarantee. About 1,100 workers lost their jobs.

Amid the still-unfolding postmortems, the factory stands as emblematic of money misspent and the Field of Dreams ethos that seemed to drive the venture, said Ramesh Misra, a solar-industry analyst in Los Angeles for Brigantine Advisors.

REPORT: Violated Terms of Fed Loan...

Ron Paul: Time for Congress to Vote on America National Sovereignty vs. UN "International Law"

OK, if you can look beyond the media image the elites have crafted for you of Ron Paul you’ll find you agree with him a lot more than you think.

The snippets you see and hear in the media are not Ron Paul, check it out yourselves. Go to sites about Ron Paul, look for the context of the snippets to determine his mindset, do some research!

Check this out, this is one of the things I like about Ron Paul:

American National Sovereignty vs. UN "International Law...

HON. RON PAUL OF TEXAS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES April 29, 2003

Mr. Speaker, I rise to urge the leadership of this body to bring a very important vote to the House floor. I recently reintroduced HR 1146, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act, which would end our participation in the United Nations. Millions of Americans have begun to question why we continue to spend $300 million each year funding and housing an organization that is actively hostile to American interests. Surely Congress, which routinely spends 15 minutes renaming post offices, can spare 15 minutes to vote on this fundamental issue of American sovereignty.

Obviously many Americans now want to get out of the UN because they resent its refusal to sanction our war in Iraq. The administration deserves some credit for ultimately upholding the principle that American national security is not a matter of international consensus, and that we don’t need UN authorization to act. But the administration sent mixed signals by doing everything possible to obtain such authorization, and by citing UN resolutions as justification for our actions. The message seems to be that the UN is credible when we control it and it does what we want, but lacks all credibility when it refuses to do our bidding.

Perhaps it’s time to stop trying to manipulate the UN, and start asserting our national sovereignty.

If we do not, rest assured that the UN will continue to interfere not only in our nation’s foreign policy matters, but in our domestic policies as well. UN globalists are not satisfied by meddling only in international disputes. They increasingly want to influence our domestic environmental, trade, labor, tax, and gun laws. UN global planners fully intend to expand the organization into a true world government, complete with taxes, courts, and possibly a standing army. This is not an alarmist statement; these goals are readily promoted on the UN’s own website. UN planners do not care about national sovereignty; in fact they are openly opposed to it. They correctly view it as an obstacle to their plans. They simply aren’t interested in our Constitution and republican form of government.

The choice is very clear: we either follow the Constitution or submit to UN global governance. American national sovereignty cannot survive if we allow our domestic laws to be crafted or even influenced by an international body. This needs to be stated publicly more often. If we continue down the UN path, America as we know it will cease to exist.

Noted constitutional scholar Herb Titus has thoroughly researched the United Nations and its purported “authority.” Titus explains that the UN Charter is not a treaty at all, but rather a blueprint for supranational government that directly violates the Constitution. As such, the Charter is neither politically nor legally binding upon the American people or government. The UN has no authority to make “laws” that bind American citizens, because it does not derive its powers from the consent of the American people. We need to stop speaking of UN resolutions and edicts as if they represented legitimate laws or treaties. They do not.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I’m merely asking House leadership to schedule vote on HR 1146. Americans deserve to know how their representatives stand on the critical issue of American sovereignty.

DESPITE CLAIMS: AUDIO SHOWS NC GOV BEV PERDUE'S “SUSPEND ELECTION”–NO JOKE!...

Think she was joking, it’s been on their minds:

• Former budget director: 'We need less democracy' to 'counter gridlock'...

• FLASHBACK: OBAMA: 'Idea of doing things on my own very tempting'...

Fellow Carolinians, we must get rid of this idiot Obama puppet. If you don’t see she’s a puppet by her blind obedience to Obama, look at her mouth, the slits at the edges gives it away!

New audio: NC governor struck serious tone on suspending congressional elections

By Matthew Boyle - The Daily Caller

If it was a joke, North Carolina Democratic Governor Bev Perdue needs to polish her delivery.

Newly released audio contradicts the claims of Perdue’s press team that her call Tuesday for suspending Congressional election was a joke or hyperbole. In the recording, her tone is matter-of-fact and her comments are part of a serious speech.

“Listen to the Governor’s words: She wasn’t joking at all,” North Carolina GOP spokesman Rob Lockwood told The Daily Caller. “The congressional Democrats are wildly unpopular in North Carolina, so she may have been trying to invent a solution to save their jobs from public accountability.”

“If it was a joke, what was the set-up?,” Lockwood adds. “What was the punch-line? Where was the pause for laughter? It took them three hours to say it was a ‘joke,’ but when that flopped it became ‘hyperbole.’ We’ll just call it an unconstitutionally bad idea.

TAXPAYERS PAID FOR 'FAST AND FURIOUS'

The same lame brains that want to disarm Americans not only put guns into the hands of Mexican criminal drug gangs but now we learn that they bought those guns with money taken from you and me!

U.S. Government Used Taxpayer Funds to Buy, Sell Weapons During 'Fast and Furious,' Documents Show

By William Lajeunesse

Published September 26, 2011

| FoxNews.com

AP This Jan. 25 picture shows part of a cache of seized weapons displayed at a news conference in Phoenix.

Not only did U.S. officials approve, allow and assist in the sale of more than 2,000 guns to the Sinaloa cartel -- the federal government used taxpayer money to buy semi-automatic weapons, sold them to criminals and then watched as the guns disappeared.

This disclosure, revealed in documents obtained by Fox News, could undermine the Department of Justice's previous defense that Operation Fast and Furious was a "botched" operation where agents simply "lost track" of weapons as they were transferred from one illegal buyer to another. Instead, it heightens the culpability of the federal government as Mexico, according to sources, has opened two criminal investigations into the operation that flooded their country with illegal weapons.

Related Interactive

Documents Detail ATF Involvement in 'Fast and Furious'

The following documents detail the role the ATF played in buying and selling weapons as part of its controversial "Fast and Furious" operation.

Operation Fast and Furious began in October 2009. In it, federal agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives encouraged gun stores to sell weapons to an arms smuggling gang, then watched as the guns crossed the border and were used in crimes. Each month, the agency allowed hundreds of guns to go South, despite opposition from some agents.

All told, the gang spent more than $1.25 million for the illegal guns.

In June 2010, however, the ATF dramatically upped the ante, making the U.S. government the actual "seller" of guns.

According to documents obtained by Fox News, Agent John Dodson was ordered to buy six semi-automatic Draco pistols -- two of those were purchased at the Lone Wolf gun store in Peoria, Ariz. An unusual sale, Dodson was sent to the store with a letter of approval from David Voth, an ATF group supervisor.

Dodson then sold the weapons to known illegal buyers, while fellow agents watched from their cars nearby.

This was not a "buy-bust" or a sting operation, where police sell to a buyer and then arrest them immediately afterward. In this case, agents were "ordered" to let the sale go through and follow the weapons to a stash house.

According to sources directly involved in the case, Dodson felt strongly that the weapons should not be abandoned and the stash house should remain under 24-hour surveillance. However, Voth disagreed and ordered the surveillance team to return to the office. Dodson refused, and for six days in the desert heat kept the house under watch, defying direct orders from Voth.

A week later, a second vehicle showed up to transfer the weapons. Dodson called for an interdiction team to move in, make the arrest and seize the weapons. Voth refused and the guns disappeared with no surveillance.

According to a story posted Sunday on a website dedicated to covering Fast and Furious, Voth gave Dodson the assignment to "dirty him up," since Dodson had become the most vocal critic of the operation.

"I think Dodson demanded the letter from Voth to cover both himself and the FFL (Federal Firearm Licensee). He didn't want to be hung out to dry by Voth," a source told the website "Sipsey Street Irregulars."

Subsequent to this undercover operation, sources told Sipsey, "Dodson just about came apart all over them (his supervisors). In a 'screaming match' that was heard throughout the Phoenix office by many employees, Dodson yelled at Voth and Assistant Special Agent in Charge George Gillett, 'Why not just go direct and empty out the (ATF) arms room?" (to the cartels), or words to that effect.'

After the confrontation, ATF managers transferred Dodson to a more menial job. Months later, after the death of Border Patrol agent Brian Terry, Dodson blew the whistle and went public about the federal government's gunrunning operation.

Hey Morgan, just stop talking about it!

Morgan is an actor, he plays different parts for different occasions. He no longer knows what's reality I guess…

Morgan Freeman: Obama Made Racism Worse, Tea Party Will Do 'Whatever [It] Can To Get This Black Man Outta Here'

 

Morgan Freeman on Racism: Just stop talking about it!

Ron wins the debate but all the talk is about Romney and Perry! Critical thinking time: Why so much Ron Paul negativity?

The right bashes the media and justly so but then forms their opinions of presidential candidates on…the media!

I have conservative friends on social networks who spend all their time trashing Ron Paul and threatening to ‘unfriend’ anyone who says something positive about Ron. What’s up with that?

You don’t like Ron’s foreign policy views. Ron is against ‘nation building’ which use to be the mantra of conservatives.

Ron is against foreign aid which use to be a view held by a lot, if not most, conservatives.

Ron has spent his whole career being a thorn in the side of the FED and the US monetary policy.

Ron is not accepted by the media and the ruling elites and the Republican permanent political class. Isn’t that a good thing? Yet many of my ‘conservative’ friends soak up the media’s and the elite’s slander.

Even if I had reservations about Ron’s foreign policy views, and of that I’m not sure, he is not running for SEC DEF.

Ron Paul is the most constitutionally sound candidate out there so far.

Maybe some of those folks who spend all their time posting about how they are going to ‘unfriend’ anyone who doesn’t disavow Ron Paul are moles/ trolls from the elite who certainly don’t want Ron Paul in the White House!

Fox News Poll: Ron Paul Wins Orlando Debate

Friday, September 23, 2011

The screenshot below shows results from a Fox News poll on who won the debate last night. Once again Ron Paul emerges as the winner, with close to 40% of over 70,000 votes.

CAN GOOD MUSLIMS BE GOOD AMERICANS?

This is very interesting and we all need to read it from start to finish. And send it on to everyone. Maybe this is why our American Muslims are so quiet and not speaking out about any atrocities.

Can a good Muslim be a good American?

This question was forwarded to a friend who worked in Saudi Arabia for 20 years. The following is his reply:

*Theologically - no...Because his allegiance is to Allah, The moon god of Arabia

*Religiously - no...Because no other religion is accepted by His Allah except Islam. (Quran, 2:256)(Koran)

*Scripturally - no...Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam and the Quran.

*Geographically - no...Because his allegiance is to Mecca, to which he turns in prayer five times a day.

*Socially - no...Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews.

*Politically - no...Because he must submit to the mullahs (spiritual leaders), who teach annihilation of Israel and destruction of America, the great Satan.

*Domestically - no...Because he is instructed to marry four Women and beat and scourge his wife when she disobeys him. (Quran 4:34 )

*Intellectually - no...Because he cannot accept the American Constitution since it is based on Biblical principles and he believes the Bible to be corrupt.

*Philosophically - no...Because Islam, Muhammad, and the Quran does not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic.

*Spiritually - no...Because when we declare 'one nation under God,' the Christian's God is loving and kind, while Allah is NEVER referred to as Heavenly father, nor is he ever called love in the Quran's 99 excellent names.

Therefore, after much study and deliberation, perhaps we should be very suspicious of ALL MUSLIMS in this country. They obviously cannot be both 'good' Muslims and 'good' Americans. Call it what you wish it's still the truth. You had better believe it.

The more who understand this, the better it will be for our country and our future. The religious war is bigger than we know or understand!

Footnote: The Muslims have said they will destroy us from within. SO FREEDOM IS NOT FREE.

Exclusive: Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Who Endorsed Obama Dissents!

Resigns from American Physical Society Over Group's Promotion of Man-Made Global Warming Visit Site

Nobel Laureate Dr. Ivar Giaever: 'The temperature (of the Earth) has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period.'

Wednesday, September 14, 2011By Marc Morano – Climate Depot

Climate Depot Exclusive

Nobel prize winner for physics in 1973 Dr. Ivar Giaever resigned as a Fellow from the American Physical Society (APS) on September 13, 2011 in disgust over the group's promotion of man-made global warming fears. Climate Depot has obtained the exclusive email Giaever sent titled "I resign from APS" to APS Executive Officer Kate Kirby to announce his formal resignation.

Dr. Giaever wrote to Kirby of APS: “Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I cannot live with the (APS) statement below (on global warming): APS: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.'

Giaever announced his resignation from APS was due to the group's belief in man-made global warming fears. Giaever explained in his email to APS: "In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period."

Giaever was one of President Obama's key scientific supporters in 2008. Giaever joined over 70 Nobel Science Laureates in endorse Obama in an October 29, 2008 open letter. In addition to Giaever, other prominent scientists have resigned from APS over its stance on man-made global warming. See: Prominent Physicist Hal Lewis Resigns from APS: 'Climategate was a fraud on a scale I have never seen...Effect on APS position: None. None at all. This is not science'

Giaever, a former professor at the School of Engineering and School of Science Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, has become a vocal dissenter from the alleged “consensus” regarding man-made climate fears. He was featured prominently in the 2009 U.S. Senate Report of (then) Over 700 Dissenting International Scientists from Man-made global warming. Giaever, who is a member of the National Academy of Sciences and won the 1973 Nobel Prize for Physics.

Giaever was also one of more than 100 co-signers in a March 30, 2009 letter to President Obama that was critical of his stance on global warming. See: More than 100 scientists rebuke Obama as 'simply incorrect' on global warming: 'We, the undersigned scientists, maintain that the case for alarm regarding climate change is grossly overstated'

Giaever is featured on page 89 of the 321 page of Climate Depot's more than 1000 dissenting scientist report (updated from U.S. Senate Report). Dr. Giaever was quoted declaring himself a man-made global warming dissenter. “I am a skeptic...Global warming has become a new religion,” Giaever declared. “I am Norwegian, should I really worry about a little bit of warming? I am unfortunately becoming an old man. We have heard many similar warnings about the acid rain 30 years ago and the ozone hole 10 years ago or deforestation but the humanity is still around,” Giaever explained. “Global warming has become a new religion. We frequently hear about the number of scientists who support it. But the number is not important: only whether they are correct is important. We don't really know what the actual effect on the global temperature is. There are better ways to spend the money,” he concluded.

Giaever also told the New York Times in 2010 that global warming “can't be discussed -- just like religion...there is NO unusual rise in the ocean level, so what where and what is the big problem?”

This is not the first climate induced headache for the American Physical Society. It's strict adherence to man-made global warming beliefs has created a stir in the scientific community and let to an open revolt of its scientific members.

On May 1, 2009, the American Physical Society (APS) Council decided to review its current climate statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists. The decision was prompted after a group of over 80 prominent physicists petitioned the APS revise its global warming position and more than 250 scientists urged a change in the group's climate statement in 2010. The physicists wrote to APS governing board: “Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th - 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today.” An American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists.

In October 2010, the APS suffered more scientific woes when another one of its prominent physicists resigned. The late Physicist Hal Lewis, who died in May of 2011, excoriated the APS leadership for its strict dogmatic like adherence to man-made global warming beliefs. See: Prominent Physicist Resigns: 'Climategate was a fraud on a scale I have never seen...Effect on APS position: None. None at all. This is not science' & See: Prominent Physicist Resigns From American Physical Society: 'Global warming is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life' -- APS President Curtis Callan 'seems to have abandoned most ethical principles...APS has become a corrupt organization' & see: APS responds to resignation of Dr. Hal Lewis -- AND Dr. Lewis Responds Back To APS!

APS President has been under fire as well. See: 'APS President Callan didn't even bother to discuss the ClimateGate and the petition inspired by it with Will Happer and Robert Austin'

Below is the full text of Dr. Ivar Giaever's full letter of resignation to the APS:

From: Ivar Giaever [ mailto:giaever@XXXX.com]

Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2011 3:42 PM
To: kirby@aps.org
Cc: Robert H. Austin; 'William Happer'; 'Larry Gould'; 'S. Fred Singer'; Roger Cohen
Subject: I resign from APS

Dear Ms. Kirby

Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I can not live with the statement below:

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.
The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.
If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period.

Best regards,

Ivar Giaever

Nobel Laureate 1973

PS. I included a copy to a few people in case they feel like using the information.
********************************************************************************************************
Ivar Giaever
XXX XXX
XXX
USA
Phone XXX XXX XXX
Fax XXX XXX XXX

#

End Reprint of Giaever's email.

#

Climate Depot Note: Other Nobel winners have declared their global warming skepticism as well.

One of the other signers of the APS skeptical petition was Nobel Prize winner in Physics E.O. Lawrence.

E. O. Lawrence, Award in Physics 1985 Oliver E. Buckley Prize (APS) 1986 Nobel Prize in Physics 1998 Member National Academy of Sciences; Fellow AAAS

Lawrence signed on the statement that read in part: "As current and past members of the American Physical Society, we the undersigned petition the APS Council to commission an independent, objective study and assessment of the science relating to the question of anthropogenic global warming."

Other Nobel Prize-Winning scientists featured in Climate Depot's more than 1000 international scientists who have declared their skepticism include:

Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, rejected global warming orthodoxy in 2010. ―Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself -- Climate is beyond our power to control...Earth doesn't care about governments or their legislation,‖ Laughlin wrote in July 2010 in The American Scholar. Earth has suffered ―all manner of other abuses greater than anything people could inflict. Yet, the Earth is still here. It's a survivor...Earth doesn't care whether you turn off your AC, refrigerator and TV. It doesn't notice when you turn down your thermostat and drive a hybrid car,‖ Laughlin wrote. ―You can't find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations,‖ he added. ―Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone's permission or explaining itself,‖ Laughlin explained. He continued: ―Global warming forecasts have the further difficulty that you can't find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. In principle, changes in climate should show up in rainfall statistics, hurricane frequency, temperature records, and so forth. As a practical matter they don't, because weather patterns are dominated by large multi-year events in the oceans, such as the El Niño Southern Oscillation and the North Pacific Gyre Oscillation, which have nothing to do with climate change. In order to test the predictions, you'd have to separate these big effects from subtle, inexorable changes on scales of centuries, and nobody knows how to do that yet.

Renowned agricultural scientist Dr. Norman Borlaug, known as the father of the "Green Revolution" for saving over a billion people from starvation by utilizing pioneering high yield farming techniques, is one of only five people in history who has been awarded a Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom ,and the Congressional Gold Medal. Borlaug also declared himself skeptical of man-made climate fears in 2007. "I do believe we are in a period where, no question, the temperatures are going up. But is this a part of another one of those (natural) cycles that have brought on glaciers and caused melting of glaciers?" Borlaug asked, according to a September 21, 2007 article in Saint Paul Pioneer Press. The article reported that Borlaug is "not sure, and he doesn't think the science is, either." Borlaug added, "How much would we have to cut back to take the increasing carbon dioxide and methane production to a level so that it's not a driving force?" We don't even know how much." [Note: Borlaug died in 2009]

‘Incontrovertible’, the word is rarely used in science yet American Physical Society (APS) used it to embrace ‘man-made’ global warming

Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming

Published September 14, 2011

| FoxNews.com

NASA

The global warming theory left him out in the cold.

Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, abruptly announced his resignation Tuesday, Sept. 13, from the premier physics society in disgust over its officially stated policy that "global warming is occurring."

The official position of the American Physical Society (APS) supports the theory that man's actions have inexorably led to the warming of the planet, through increased emissions of carbon dioxide.

Giaever does not agree -- and put it bluntly and succinctly in the subject line of his email, reprinted at Climate Depot, a website devoted to debunking the theory of man-made climate change.

"I resign from APS," Giaever wrote.

Giaever was cooled to the statement on warming theory by a line claiming that "the evidence is incontrovertible."

"In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?" he wrote in an email to Kate Kirby, executive officer of the physics society.

"The claim … is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this 'warming' period," his email message said.

A spokesman for the APS confirmed to FoxNews.com that the Nobel Laureate had declined to pay his annual dues in the society and had resigned. He also noted that the society had no plans to revise its statement.

The use of the word "incontrovertible" had already caused debate within the group, so much so that an addendum was added to the statement discussing its use in April, 2010.

"The word 'incontrovertible' ... is rarely used in science because by its very nature, science questions prevailing ideas. The observational data indicate a global surface warming of 0.74 °C (+/- 0.18 °C) since the late 19th century."

Giaever earned his Nobel for his experimental discoveries regarding tunneling phenomena in superconductors. He has since become a vocal dissenter from the alleged “consensus” regarding man-made climate fears, Climate Depot reported, noting that he was one of more than 100 co-signers of a 2009 letter to President Obama critical of his position on climate change.

Public perception of climate change has steadily fallen since late 2009. A Rasmussen Reports public opinion poll from August noted that 57 percent of adults believe there is significant disagreement within the scientific community on global warming, up five points from late 2009.

The same study showed that 69 percent of those polled believe it’s at least somewhat likely that some scientists have falsified research data in order to support their own theories and beliefs. Just 6 percent felt confident enough to report that such falsification was "not at all likely."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/09/14/nobel-prize-winning-physicist-resigns-from-top-physics-group-over-global/#ixzz1Y98wpwNN

Ford Tough: F150 owner bought Ford because he didn’t want to buy from bailed out company

TOUGH: FORD ad slams Obama auto bailouts...

5 firms receiving stimulus funds go under, 3 of them green energy firms

SOLYNDRA among 5 stimulus firms to go under...

“All this for a damn flag”: Michele Obama

Obama’s enemies list collection website: my.barackobama.com/

Beware of Obama’s army of gunions (pronounced: goonions)!

Don’t be surprised if some union thugs show up at your door if you’ve publically disagreed with the Obama regime!

SEE SOMETHING, SAY SOMETHNG: OBAMA COLLECTS 'GOSSIP, SMEARS, ATTACKS'

TSA Creator Says Dismantle: bravo, bravo, hear, hear!

Same for FDA, EPA, DEA, NEA, FED, IRS, DHS, FEMA, HUD, and all the rest of those liberty robbing bureaucratic nightmares!

TSA Creator Says Dismantle, Privatize the Agency

by Audrey Hudson

09/12/2011

They’ve been accused of rampant thievery, spending billions of dollars like drunken sailors, groping children and little old ladies, and making everyone take off their shoes.
But the real job of the tens of thousands of screeners at the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) is to protect Americans from a terrorist attack.
Yet a decade after the TSA was created following the September 11 attacks, the author of the legislation that established the massive agency grades its performance at “D-.”
“The whole program has been hijacked by bureaucrats,” said Rep. John Mica (R. -Fla.), chairman of the House Transportation Committee.
“It mushroomed into an army,” Mica said. “It’s gone from a couple-billion-dollar enterprise to close to $9 billion.”
As for keeping the American public safe, Mica says, “They’ve failed to actually detect any threat in 10 years.”
“Everything they have done has been reactive. They take shoes off because of [shoe-bomber] Richard Reid, passengers are patted down because of the diaper bomber, and you can’t pack liquids because the British uncovered a plot using liquids,” Mica said.
“It’s an agency that is always one step out of step,” Mica said.
It cost $1 billion just to train workers, which now number more than 62,000, and “they actually trained more workers than they have on the job,” Mica said.
“The whole thing is a complete fiasco,” Mica said.
In a wide-ranging interview with HUMAN EVENTS just days before the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, Mica said screeners should be privatized and the agency dismantled.
Instead, the agency should number no more than 5,000, and carry out his original intent, which was to monitor terrorist threats and collect intelligence.
The fledgling agency was quickly engulfed in its first scandal in 2002 as it rushed to hire 30,000 screeners, and the $104 million awarded to the company to contract workers quickly escalated to more than $740 million.
Federal investigators tracked those cost overruns to recruiting sessions held at swank hotels and resorts in St. Croix, the Virgin Islands, Florida and the Wyndham Peaks Resort and Golden Door Spa in Telluride, Colo.
Charges in the hundreds of thousands of dollars were made for cash withdrawals, valet parking and beverages, plus a $5.4 million salary for one executive for nine months of work.
Other over-the-top expenditures included nearly $2,000 for 20 gallons of Starbucks Coffee, $8,000 for elevator operators at a Manhattan hotel, and $1,500 to rent more than a dozen extension cords for the Colorado recruiting fair.
The agency inadvertently caused security gaps by failing for years to keep track of lost uniforms and passes that lead to restricted areas of airports.
Screeners have also been accused of committing crimes, from smuggling drugs to stealing valuables from passengers' luggage. In 2004, several screeners were arrested and charged with stealing jewelry, computers and cameras, cash, credit cards and other valuables. One of their more notable victims was actress Shirley McClain, who was robbed of jewelry and crystals.
One of the screeners confessed that he was trying to steal enough to sell the items and buy a big-screen television.
In 2006, screeners at Los Angeles and Chicago O'Hare airports failed to find more than 60% of fake explosives during checkpoint security tests.
The sometimes rudder-less agency has gone through five administrators in the past decade, and it took longer than a year for President Obama to put his one man in place. Mica’s bill also blocked collective bargaining rights for screeners, but the Obama administration managed to reverse that provision.
Asked whether the agency should be privatized, Mica answered with a qualified yes.
“They need to get out of the screening business and back into security. Most of the screening they do should be abandoned,” Mica said. "I just don’t have a lot of faith at this point,” Mica said.
Allowing airports to privatize screening was a key element of Mica’s legislation and a report released by the committee in June determined that privatizing those efforts would result in a 40% savings for taxpayers.
“We have thousands of workers trying to do their job. My concern is the bureaucracy we built,” Mica said.
“We are one of the only countries still using this model of security," Mica said, "other than Bulgaria, Romania, Poland, and I think, Libya."

---

Audrey Hudson, an award-winning investigative journalist, is a Congressional Correspondent for HUMAN EVENTS. A native of Kentucky, Mrs. Hudson has worked inside the Beltway for nearly two decades -- on Capitol Hill as a Senate and House spokeswoman, and most recently at The Washington Times covering Congress, Homeland Security, and the Supreme Court. Follow Audrey on Twitter and Facebook.

Remember what? Hussein Obama wants a National Day of ‘Service’ instead of a National Day of ‘Remembrance’

Obama’s Defilement of 9/11

Posted by Matthew Vadum Bio ↓ on Sep 5th, 2011

As the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks approaches, President Obama is again pushing his “National Day of Service” in an effort to pervert the meaning of that terrible day for partisan political purposes.

In his weekly address on Aug. 27, Obama urged Americans to do volunteer work this Sept. 11, a day that the administration ought to officially call the “National Day of Ignoring Islamofascism.” The president said Americans should do something to serve their communities on that day “to honor the victims of 9/11 and to reaffirm the strength of our nation with acts of service and charity.”

In Minneapolis, volunteers will help restore a community center. In Winston-Salem, North Carolina, they’ll hammer shingles and lay floors to give families a new home. In Tallahassee, Florida, they’ll assemble care packages for our troops overseas and their families here at home. In Orange County, California, they’ll renovate homes for our veterans.

All this charitable behavior may be fine and good but at no time has anyone really explained why this National Day of Service has to be held – of all the 365 days in a year – on Sept. 11. There is already a Martin Luther King Jr​. Day of Service every year run by the Corporation for National & Community Service, the same government agency responsible for coordinating the Sept. 11 day of service.

The way the new “National Day of Service and Remembrance” envisioned in the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act that the president signed into law on April 21, 2009 is being administered is all service and virtually no remembrance. This is deliberate.

At the signing ceremony, President Obama said nothing about 9/11, except in passing. He expressed hope that the generation of young people “that came of age amidst the horrors of 9/11 and [Hurricane] Katrina, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, an economic crisis without precedent,” would come forward and volunteer to work for “change.”

Your Ad Here

Obama urged volunteers to participate “in the work of remaking this nation.” He conflated his Saul Alinsky-inspired neo-communist agitation as a community organizer in Chicago more than 20 years earlier with actual community service that helps people.

All that’s required on your part is a willingness to make a difference. And that is, after all, the beauty of service. Anybody can do it. You don’t need to be a community organizer, or a senator, or a Kennedy or even a president to bring change to people’s lives.

So it’s official: 9/11 isn’t about the murder of 3,000 innocent Americans by Islamic fanatics. It’s about, in Obama’s words, “solving today’s most pressing challenges: clean energy, energy efficiency, health care, education, economic opportunity, veterans and military families.”

Obama’s desecration of 9/11 is part of an effort to dumb down the nation and turn the solemn annual commemoration of the Sept. 11, 2001 atrocities into a meaningless feel-good event that glosses over both the horrors of that day and the evil intentions of the Islamofascist barbarians who made them happen.

At the behest of his radical constituencies, the administration’s plans were outlined in an Aug. 11, 2009 White House-sponsored teleconference call run by Obama ally Rev. Lennox Yearwood, president of the Hip Hop Caucus.

As I reported two years ago in a three-part series at American Spectator, on the call Yearwood and others said they wanted 9/11 to be used for something “positive,” “forward-leaning,” and “productive.” Their plan was to turn what they called a “day of fear” that they say helps Republicans into a day of activism that would help the Left.

So, AlGore thinks CERN is "racists," and "pseudo-scientists," as they challenge ‘man-made’ climate change

Alarmists Got it Wrong, Humans Not Responsible for Climate Change: CERN

By IBTimes Staff Reporter | September 1, 2011 1:31 AM EDT

Global warming and climate change are phenomena that broke the bonds of scientific circles to emerge as a matter of debate between "believers" and "skeptics." Countless studies validating and denying global warming have seen the light of the day, providing fodder for more, often somewhat bitter debates. Within the past month, Nobel Prize winner and leading climate change "alarmist" Al Gore has called those who deny global warming akin to "racists," and "pseudo-scientists," and accused media of manipulating evidence about global warming.

(Photo: CERN)
CERN, which created and operates the colossal Large Hadron Collider, has now built a stainless steel chamber that precisely recreated the Earth’s atmosphere.

Research findings published by none other than CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, in the journal Nature which holds cosmic rays and the Sun, not human activities, responsible for global warming, isn't exactly what Gore would welcome right now.

CERN, which created and operates the Large Hadron Collider, has now built a stainless steel chamber that precisely recreates the Earth's atmosphere. In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes demonstrated that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules which grow in Earth's atmosphere and seed clouds, making it cloudier and cooler.

"Because the sun's magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth's atmosphere (the stronger the sun's magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth," Lawrence Solomon, director of Energy Probe, wrote about the experiment.

Theories which said that sun and cosmic rays are primarily responsible for climate changes were proposed, as early as 1996, by two scientists from the Danish Space Research Institute, at a scientific conference in the UK.

Within a day, chairman of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), Bert Bolin, denounced the theory, saying, "I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naive and irresponsible."

Henrik Svensmark, physicist, whose research has suggested a possible link between the interaction of the solar wind and cosmic rays, and downplays the significance of CO2 emissions, in global warming, welcomed the new results, saying that they confirm research carried out by his own group.

"CERN's CLOUD (Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets) experiment is designed to study the formation of clouds and the idea that Cosmic Rays may have an influence. The take-home message from this research is that we just don't understand clouds in anything other than hand-waving terms. We also understand the effects of aerosols even less. The other things to come out of it are that trace constituencies in the atmosphere seem to have a big effect on cloud formation, and that Cosmic rays also have an effect, a "significant" one according to CERN," David Whitehouse, of The Observatory said.

CERN's CLOUD is headed by Jasper Kirkby, who said in 1998 that global warming may be part of a natural cycle in the Earth's temperature, which made global warming alarmists restless. "The global warming establishment sprang into action, pressured the Western governments that control CERN, and almost immediately succeeded in suspending CLOUD. It took Kirkby almost a decade of negotiation with his superiors, and who knows how many compromises and unspoken commitments, to convince the CERN bureaucracy to allow the project to proceed. And years more to create the cloud chamber and convincingly validate the Danes' groundbreaking theory," Lawrence Solomon says.

"Although they never said so, the High Priests of the Inconvenient Truth - in such temples as NASA-GISS, Penn State and the University of East Anglia - always knew that Svensmark's cosmic ray hypothesis was the principal threat to their sketchy and poorly modelled notions of self-amplifying action of greenhouse gases," Nigel Calder, well-known science writer wrote about the CERN findings. "In telling how the obviously large influences of the Sun in previous centuries and millennia could be explained, and in applying the same mechanism to the 20th warming, Svensmark put the alarmist predictions at risk - and with them the billions of dollars flowing from anxious governments into the global warming enterprise."

Hey ‘Big Sis’, Drudge is right about TSA sexual assaults!

Female Blogger Threatened With Defamation Suit For Writing About TSA 'Rape'

 Kashmir Hill, Forbes Staff

Welcome to The Not-So Private Parts where technology & privacy collide

+ Follow

 

TSA agents are on the front lines for public fire over aggressive screening procedures

Attacking the TSA for its privacy-invasive screening procedures has become a favorite activity for many journalists, especially Matt Drudge. TSA horror stories are often featured prominently on The Drudge Report and he has taken to calling Janet Napolitano, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (of which the TSA is a part) “Big Sis.”

Napolitano, who doesn’t think Drudge “means [the nickname] kindly” said at a recent Politico event that Drudge is wrong in describing DHS programs as Orwellian and that “the privacy impact of new airport screening technology and similar programs are thoroughly vetted before they are implemented,” in Josh Gerstein’s words.

“We want to be conscious of civil liberties and civil rights protections—and we are,” Napolitano said, as reported by Politico.

On the same day as this piece came out, TechDirt reports on a passenger who would likely disagree with the Secretary. After a particularly aggressive patdown in March that might be better termed a feel-up, advice blogger Amy Alkon graphically described how she sobbed loudly while a TSA agent put her hands “into” her — four times. She screamed “You raped me” after the LAX pat down and took the agent’s name with plans to file charges of sexual assault. Those plans fell through after consulting an attorney, but she did blog about it and included the agent’s name, thereby inflicting her own assault — on the agent’s Google search results.

The TSA agent then hired a lawyer who contacted Alkon asking her to remove the post, threatening her with a defamation lawsuit, and asking for a settlement of $500,000. “Rape is a very serious charge,” writes lawyer Vicki Roberts on Thedala Magee’s behalf. She also says that Alkon, on a return trip to the airport in May called her client “a bad person” who had “sexually molested” her.

Free speech lawyer Marc Randazza has stepped in to assert Alkon’s right to post about her patdown experience, and to defend both her definition of the patdown as rape and, regardless of that, her right to rhetorical hyperbole. Techdirt has a copy of the letter Randazza drafted in response to the defamation threat.

“After [the agent Thedala] Magee’s assault on Ms. Alkon’s vagina and dignity, Ms. Alkon exercised her First Amendment right to recount this incident to others in person and through her blog,” writes Randazza. “This was not only her right — it was her responsibility.”

Forced to perform patdowns now required by law, TSA agents are the ones who have to face the public’s anger. Texas abandoned its effort this year to pass a law making overly aggressive patdowns a misdemeanor subjecting agents to arrest and a fine, but bloggers can certainly keep on trying the agents in the court of public opinion. I have some sympathy for the agent whose name will now be linked with rape in Google results for eternity — though it should surely serve the purpose of making her a bit less touchy-feely during patdowns — but I hope Randazza and Alkon persevere. TSA screening procedures have already taken a toll on the Fourth Amendment; let’s not add the First Amendment to the list of victims.

Related:

10 Facts That Prove 'Big Sis' Is Wrong... *

BIG SIS: DRUDGE WRONG ON PRIVACY *

9/11: 10 years later, what you don’t know can hurt you!

You Only Believe the Official 9/11 Story Because You Don't Know the Official 9/11 Story

I don't believe the official story of 9/11 because I know the official story of 9/11!

During the past 10 years I have not met a single individual who, after doing research on the subject, switched from questioning the official narrative of the events of 9/11/2001 to believing the official narrative of those events.. It is always the other way around. Why do you think that is? There are good reasons for this, and I will try to explain this phenomenon right now.
The term "conspiracy theorist", perhaps the most misapplied description in our vernacular, is often used to describe 9/11 truthers. Perhaps that term does apply to a segment of the 9/11 truth movement. But in most cases a more accurate description of 9/11 truthers is probably "expert", or "scholar", or "researcher." You see, much of the doubt cast on the official narrative of the events of 9/11 has not come in the form of speculated accusations, or "theories." In fact, it has come in the form of questions that have been raised after a careful study of the official and undisputed events and details.

Ten years have passed since the infamous events of September 11th, 2001 took place, and the majority of people still don't know a damn thing about the actual details of that event. They don't know what was going on in the country with regard to our military that day. They don't know the history or the activities of key members of our government, defense establishment or intelligence community, on, or during the weeks, and in some cases the years leading up to that day. They don't know what took place during or immediately following the events of that day. And they don't know what actions were taken by those key people following that event.

As is the case with so many issues, people tend to stand strong and argue a position or voice an opinion about an event like 9/11. But, when questioned about the many details surrounding that event they have no answers. They are clueless. And they are, in the end, dumbfounded.

I can not tell you how many times I have discussed the events of 9/11 with an outraged citizen who can not believe that I would "accuse our own government" of such a terrible thing as conducting a false flag operation, only to hear the phrase "no, I did not know that, is that true?" repeated over and over as I "educate" them about those little things called DETAILS. I can not count the pale-faced stunned looks on people's faces as I exposed them to some of the "official facts" they never suspected, and never knew. I have walked away from many a confrontation with newly educated "patriotic Americans", only to worry about whether or not they would again resume breathing correctly.

They would never do such a thing

A common start and end to any intelligent discussion about the events of 9/11 is prefaced by the assumption that no American would betray his or her country by allowing or conducting an attack on the American people. Well, the people who take this position know nothing about history, let alone human nature. They also don't know about the public positions, declarations, speeches and published documents written by the people who ran our nation on that day.

False flag operations have taken place for generations, in this nation and nations around the world. Many of these operations have been exposed, but proof of many of these activities is probably hidden away in secret documents that may one day come to light. You can however, start your exploration on the topic by researching one plan for American self-inflicted terrorism that became public, Operation Northwoods. Do I detect my first "I did not know this, is it true?" May I suggest you also peek into the neoconservative teachings of the principles involved in running our nation at the time of the "new Pearl Harbor" that took place in 2001.

But the 9/11 Commission did not find anything wrong

I can not believe how many people do not know the genesis or mission of the 9/11 Kean Commission. From the initial appointment of one of America's most nefarious political figures as its original leader, Henry Kissinger, - to its executive director whose area of expertise and education were in the creation and maintaining of public myths, Philip D. Zelikow,- people have no idea as to who comprised or what the mandate was for this commission.

To give you some kind of idea as to why the "findings" of this commission can NOT be used to back up any talking points on the topic of 9/11, let me remind you what the official task of this commission was. The Kean Commissions was told to document the official story and make national security recommendations based on that story. The only information that was to be included in the official report had to match the official story. If any one member of the committee objected to any testimony or finding, that piece of information was to be left out of the report For some examples of this you can talk to the thousands of people who became 9/11 truthers as a result of their testimony being omitted from and contradicted by the final report.

Start with the WTC worker credited with being the last man out of the WTC William Rodriguez. See if he can tell you why, after being invited to the White House and meeting with George W. Bush, his testimony about witnessing explosions in the sub basement of the WTC moments prior to the first plane hitting the building was omitted from the Kean report. And for more details you can read David Ray Griffin's book called The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions. It pretty much translated the Kean report into a stack of rather harsh and useless toilet paper. Are the "I did not know this, is it true?" responses piling up yet?

Are you even qualified to discuss the issue?

What people don't understand when discussing issues like 9/11 is that not everyone is qualified to join the discussion, let alone impose an "opinion" on the topic. 9/11 is not really a topic that is open to opinion. The conclusion you draw from the facts are open to opinion, but what many people don't realize about the 9/11 truth movement is that its opinions are based on facts, and grounded in the reality that its members know more of the facts than the average person. If you have a discussion with a doctor about medicine your opinions and views on the subject don't exactly merit the same consideration as do those of a group of physicians..

Similarly, someone like me (and many 9/11 truthers), has the equivalent of 3 PhD's on topics such as 9/11. I am a full time journalist. I research this kind of stuff every single day and I have been doing so since 2003. Not everyone is qualified to debate me on an issue like 9/11. We can discuss it. You can ask a great number of questions and perhaps inform me about aspects of the issue of which I am not aware. But you can't impose your "opinions" on me, nor can you do that to a majority of 9/11 truthers. And by the way, when it comes to opinions vs. facts, facts win. FOX News watchers don't seem to be able to grasp this concept.

People have to realize that what separates the unsuspecting mainstream masses from the 9/11 truth movement are factual information and details. Forget the claims and accusations. You don't need to go that far to understand that there is something fishy going on here. Just look at the official body of evidence. It's all there and it will make your head spin. Don't listen to the accusations, just examine the evidence.You'll understand so much if you really take a good look. In time, if you do your research thoroughly you may just compile a list of suspects, as have many of the 9/11 truthers. I have. But we are not there yet. We really have enough official evidence to lead to quite a few criminal indictments, and I am not kidding about this. But for now let's just talk about the facts and hope that some day we will have the real answers declared by juries in courtrooms. Chances are that many truthers would be proven correct in their accusations - but again, for now, just look at the facts and understand that there are a lot of questions that need to be answered. And, find out that it's okay to say, "I did not know this, is it true?"

So, are you qualified to take part in a discussion with a 9/11 truther?

If you don't know about the "coincidental" military drills taking place on September 11, 2001, or about the interesting little political cabal known as PNAC or the Project for a New American Century, or if you don't know what WTC7 is, or the 1,500 plus architects and engineers who have serious questions about how and why it dropped like a pancake on 9/11, or if you don't know about the fact that up until his supposed murder, the FBI did not list Osama bin Laden as wanted for the events of 9/11 because, in their own words, they had no proof of his involvement, then you are not qualified to enter a discussion about the event. You have a lot of homework to do before you can chime in. So on you go...study...but finish this article first. I'll bet the ranch that you'll be saying, over and over, "I did not know this, is it true?"

Why don't we accept the official story?

Here is a question that you should really think about. Don't just chime in with your own uninformed opinion because I am going to give you the answer to this question; the real honest answer. Why do you think I, Jesse Richard, founder of TvNewsLIES.org, have drawn the conclusion that the official narrative of the events of 9/11 is a crock? The answer to that is this...I did not always feel that way. As a matter of fact ,within hours of the event I emailed to all my friends a blistering attack on Islamic fundamentalism. And while some things that happened that day, or did not happen that day, (and week I should say,) seemed odd, I was not immediately suspicious of the "story" being told on TV about the event.

It took me almost two years before I saw enough "official" information to make me realize that there was something, actually many things, that were very wrong. I came across so many disturbing, yet official and undisputed facts that I started asking others about it. Most people did not know what I was talking about. Nobody knew the details. So your answer is this...I don't believe the official story because I know the official story! I don't believe the conclusion, and the little tale of 19 buffoons overtaking our national defense all by themselves. The official position on that by the way, is that they, the FBI, have no proof of the identity of the so-called hijackers or that there were any hijackers at all. They are not listed on the passenger lists, but you would not know that.

BUT...the official story and facts are what made me realize something was very wrong with the public perception of what took place that day, and who was responsible for what took place that day. The official story, when accepted and believed, morphs by any logic into a total and absolute fabrication!

So if you believe the conclusion to the official story, you had better know that story from start to finish. Don't approach this they way the Kean Commission approached it, by starting out accepting the explanation as truth. Study the events, study the officially acknowledged body of evidence and study the people who told you the story in the first place...and I bet it won't be long before you have as many questions as do I about that infamous day and about the people who control our government. And, of course, you'll be saying, "I did not know this, is it true?"

Okay, then, who really was behind the attacks on 9/11?

9/11 truthers make the mistake of starting their discussions with conclusions...I am not doing that. All I am saying is that there are a lot of questions about what happened that day that are not answered by the official conclusion or explanation. I would like some answers that add up. I did the math myself and I have my own "theories", but I am a journalist, and I deal in the facts, not the fables.

The official story, as fed to the American public is filled with unsupported and implausible explanations designed to convince a gullible public that they should ask no questions and trust their leaders to take revenge on those who hated us for our freedom. Volumes can be, and have been written about so many of them. For the most part, you have not read any of them.

In this article, I've posed many questions and have provided links to their answers - so that you will more clearly understand that there is SO much we have not been told about the attacks that took place a decade ago. But, those facts are the tip of a very well hidden iceberg, because there are so many questions that still remain unanswered.

So, I will end this article with a sampling of the questions that must be answered, or in the very least, investigated by impartial truth seekers.. They must NOT be ignored, or accepted simply because they were offered to a frightened nation by an administration defined by its lies. They are legitimate questions, based on legitimate suspicions. They are not, for a single moment, conspiracy theories"

1. Why did the news agencies report that WTC 7 collapsed almost 1/2 hour before it did, even though it was not hit by a plane, only had a few floors on fire, and gave no indication that it was in any serious danger?
2. Why do we still believe the tale of the 19 hijackers when so many of the accused hijackers showed up ALIVE within days? And why do we still believe the fable of the 19 hijackers when the FBI admitted that they are not sure about either the identity of the hijackers or if there were any hijackers at all?
3. Why was WTC 7 rebuilt, reopened and reoccupied with no press attention? Wouldn't this be an important victory in American resolve and perseverance?
4. Why were the NORAD rules changed for the first time several weeks prior to 9/11, taking responsibility/authority for shooting down hijacked planes away from NORAD military command for the first time in its history, and given to a civilian, Donald Rumsfeld, and then returned to NORAD the day after 9/11?
5. Why would hijackers planning on attacking NY and Washington DC drive from Florida, pass both DC and NY, and drive all the way to Maine and hinge this huge operation on a connecting flight from Maine to Boston, where we are told they hijacked their plane? Why wouldn't they fly out of any of the airports that are visible from their targets, like Newark, La Guardia or JFK...or even some of the smaller local airports that would have given them a clear easy path to their target and reduce the amount of time that our air defense systems would have to stop them?
6. Who placed all of those put options on the airlines just prior to the event, as if they knew that the stock prices on those specific airlines would lose a huge amount of value?
7. Why did George W. Bush's Secret Service detail not rush the president to safety when it was evident that the nation was under attack? If the nation was under attack, and they did not know the scope of the attack, and the president's location was known, how did they not worry about being attacked in Florida?. Why did they act as if they knew that there was no threat? And why, when our nation was under attack, did the president not rush into action? If you say he was concerned about upsetting the children, you are the ultimate apologist. He could have told them that his mommy was on the phone and he had to see what she wanted. Our county was supposedly being attacked and he/they waited 20 minutes before they moved. This is the smoking gun of smoking guns.
8. Why did the FBI never list Osama bin Laden as being wanted for 9/11? Actually, we know this one...because they admitted that they had no evidence linking him to the event.
9. Why was their molten metal flowing under the wreckage of the WTC for months? No jet fuel can melt metal, and nothing explainable could melt that much metal and keep it hot enough to remain molten for a month.
10. How did a passport of one of the so called hijackers make it through the huge fireball and end up on the street?
11. Why have photos from the 80+ cameras confiscated at the Pentagon never been released?
12. Why did the airplane that supposedly crashed at Shanksville vaporize so that nothing remained, not bodies, not luggage, not metal, - nothing - for the first time in aviation history? However, we are told that even though the plane vaporized at Shanksville, a hand-written note from a hijacker was found.

Of course, there are so many more. We deserve the answers. We deserve the right to ask these questions in public forums like the corporate media....who will not touch them with the proverbial ten foot pole. We have gate keepers on the Internet who actively ridicule and dismiss anyone who dares to raise these questions. Will you be one of them? Or, after really thinking about them, will you hope that one day, when we know what went on before, during and after the attacks on 9/11, - we can all say: "I did not know this, but I'm now absolutely convinced that it is true."

Think about it...it's really time to think about it.
Jesse Richard - Founder, TvNewsLIES.org

More:

9/11 Facts
The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11
Thomas Kean Runs Away From 911 Cover Up

Patriots Question 9/11

---

Reprint permission granted providing a live link back to this original article is included. We prefer that you include portions of the original and link back, but you may re-post the article in it's entirety as long as you link back. Thank you.