Bad news. Today, Canada passed a law called “M103” which the government calls an “anti-Islamophobia” law but it’s a blasphemy law against freedom of speech. 201 MPs voted in favor of the motion, and 91 MPs voted against it. Formally enforced by Canadian law, we now have cowering dhimmis on our northern border.  I wonder when they will begin paying tax to Muslims?

March 28, 2012

The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001

Dear Charlie,

We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.

Thank you for considering this request.

Sincerely,

(Attached signatures)

CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science

CC: Ass Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight Center

Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.

/s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years

/s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years

/s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years

/s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years

/s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years

/s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years

/s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years

/s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years

/s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years

/s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years

/s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years

/s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years

/s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years

/s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years

/s/ Anita Gale

/s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years

/s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years

/s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years

/s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space Center, 22 years

/s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years

/s/ Thomas J. Harmon

/s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years

/s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years

/s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years

/s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years

/s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years

/s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years

/s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space Center, 24 years

/s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, Ass.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years

/s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen

/s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, Ass’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years

/s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years

/s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years

/s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years

/s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years

/s/ Tom Ohesorge

/s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years

/s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years

/s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years

/s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years

/s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years

/s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years

/s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, Ass’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years

/s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years

/s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years

/s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years

/s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years

/s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years

/s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years

After all, personal responsibility is what this is about.

The tragedy of the commons teaches that community-owned resources are not economically or practically sustainable.  That resource will eventually require subsidy, another investment from the community because the original resource will have been abused by members of the community.  Ultimately, the commons, or community property, is welfare that benefits government, its employees, contractors, special interests and abusers and they always leave their dog poop behind for others to clean.

Look at the environmental mess left at the site by the protesters against the Dakota Access Pipeline.  Supposedly, they were protesting to protect the environment.  The Obama government, courts, mainstream media, and a significant number of citizens supported these special interests and they claimed to be there to protect a common resource.

A resource that would be sustainable if owned as private property by an individual becomes economically unsustainable when owned as a community resource.  That happens in the due course of business for the government which by law must treat all citizens equally.  Government ends up supporting the lowest common denominator, which is predictably the most expensive way to proceed.  But the owner of private property is free to discriminate and negotiate the best deal for his private property and is incented to maintain his private property to protect its value.  For these reasons, a defense industry and national defense, a common resource, will always be expensive.

For these reasons, government must be a limited resource with limited authority.

We have paid billions of dollars based on a global warming agenda which was mostly based on government-funded mathematical models that do not work.  And those in government and their colluding special interests fully expect that we will pay trillions of dollars more and/or reduce our quality of life to protect a common resource, the environment, even though they have not and cannot prove the environment is in danger due to global warming.  But we already know all that, or should know that, from the lesson of the tragedy of the commons.

Citizens charge their government with oversight and responsibility for minimizing the cost of the defense of the citizens and their property.  Citizens would gladly pay for that.  But governments rarely deliver.  Governments tend to invest in offensive defense systems rather than aggressive diplomacy designed to reduce the need for and expense of defense.  In 1017, state departments are more weapons procurement programs than a system for proselytization for realistic peace;  but they shouldn’t be.  Citizens will gladly pay for outreach diplomacy to tell the American story to the rest of the world.  No pressure.  Non-political.  Truth.  Call it Radio Free World.

Citizens must require as a minimum standard that their government protect individual rights and private property of citizens even more than the government protects itself.  The government must leave itself vulnerable to its citizens and address citizens complaints.  The Fourth Amendment does not go far enough.  Citizens must demand that their government pay for the legal defense of citizens who have been charged with a crime by their government. This is a check and balance between citizens and the legal system and government.  In cases where the government is plaintiff and/or prosecutor against a citizen or group of citizens, then the government must pay all the expenses for the defense of the citizen or group of citizens.

However, nothing is paid by the government when one citizen or group charges or sues another citizen or group with either a crime or a civil damage; the entire cost of these proceedings should be borne by the loser in court.  Otherwise, plaintiffs and their issue, legal counsel and collaborators chase and will continue to chase frivolous and predatory cases.

Surveilling citizens by any means by the government is illegal according to the Fourth Amendment, law of the land, without a properly issued warrant followed by due process.  The Constitution was designed to protect citizens from their government, a government formed by a contract issued by citizens through their elected representatives which authorizes and limits government to do only certain things.  But instead, today in 2017, the government is the hungry wolf watching the hen house … along with corporate enterprises…and citizens are in the hen house.  This is unconstitutional.  The government should be watching itself, not the citizens, and reporting this back to citizens and their representatives.  The government should be the hungry wolf watching the government in the hen house, anxious to report efficiency gains and the outbreak of peace to the citizens.

NSA, CIA, FBI, etc are responsible to protect the privacy, including the cyber privacy, of citizens.  The U.S. government and its elected leaders, contractors, foreign enemies and collaborators should be the proper and dutybound targets of the NSA, CIA, FBI et al.  Instead these agencies of government are invading the privacy of citizens.  How, why and who authorized the IRS to target the Tea Party and conservatives?  The government should be building cyber tools and ethics to protect citizens rather than building cyber tools and rationale to steal from citizens.  Relative to its citizens, governments today believe they are on top, in control and making the rules.  That system is upside down and inside out, and illegal.

Government duty is to be straight up truthful and outside-in transparent to citizens and their elected representatives.  Secrecy in government is not a good or viable policy intended to benefit citizens.  Secrecy in government is mostly protecting secrecy, power and control in government.

We the people, the citizens, must put the government in the hen house and remind it of its duty, that is, surveilling all operations of government …instead of surveilling citizens. The process should run like a fine Swiss watch, but counterclockwise compared to today’s government.  If I as a citizen want to know about a meeting between a President and a Senator, or know beyond a shadow of doubt that Obama was eligible to run for President, or that surveillance of Trump and his campaign was available to then-President Obama, then I should be able to obtain that information in a reasonable time under the Freedom of Information Act.  Citizens will pay for that.  It is a realistic expectation.  It is already in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.

“Should asylum be extended to the adherents of religions that do not recognize the free exercise rights of other religions?”

“Should those religions whose adherents refuse to pledge or give evidence that they would support free exercise be ineligible for asylum?”

~ Edward J. Erler, professor emeritus of political science at California State University, San Bernardino.

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/who-we-are-as-a-people-the-syrian-refugee-question/

The money of citizens that is spent on intelligence today, instead, should be spent examining and investigating the records of public servants, both elected and unelected. Nothing malicious. But, rather than examining and investigating the records of citizens, instead, intel agencies and governments should be and are in fact duty bound to diligently investigate public servants and their activities with regard to citizens’ money.

Citizens pay for NSA, FBI, CIA et al to protect the citizens, which includes protecting the privacy of citizens, but not to protect the government, even when the government is their employer, and not to protect their fellow employees and contractors or any other entity or persons. It should be needless to say that any and all government employees must be citizens.  Citizens do not pay agencies and government to spy on citizens.  Citizens pay to know what their public servants are doing with citizens’ money and good will.

Can you blame them?  It is seldom wise to put a target on one’s forehead unless you control the game.  Do you really trust the government to control the whole game?

Drain this swamp. Then dig up the dirt beneath it to build a wall so that it can never happen again. The intel people implementing this paranoid madness must go and the leaders must be punished. This is no different than Hitler’s henchmen claiming that they were following orders. The working judicial presumption must be that a President is duty bound and responsible for all actions of his or her government. “Plausible deniability” must be outlawed. The buck does stop there.

A Watergate-style Threat to the Democratic Process

A special report from the Accuracy in Media Center for Investigative Journalism;
Cliff Kincaid, Director.

http://americasurvival.org/2017/03/a-watergate-style-threat-to-the-democratic-process.html#axzz4bpjGuqqP

Read more: » A Watergate-style Threat to the Democratic Process http://americasurvival.org/2017/03/a-watergate-style-threat-to-the-democratic-process.html#ixzz4bpjLwVKM
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike
Follow us: @americasurvival on Twitter | usasurvival on Facebook

This 3 minute video is worth watching and sharing.  It provides perspective and actual facts on the number of illegal immigrants who have been CONVICTED of crimes in the US and then released back into America without being put in prison or deported.  The numbers are staggering.

In view of the statistics reported in this video, how can the federal government justify letting these people go and how can a city or a state justify becoming or remaining a sanctuary for criminal illegal immigrants?  Doing so puts the lives and property of American citizens at significant risk and clearly violates the rule of law on which our society is based.

On what basis can federal, state and city governments who have engaged in these practices justify their actions?  Do you know?  If so, help me understand.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/2QOwAJ2ez6U?rel=0

Hillary Clinton says she is “out of the woods.”  I guess that means that she thinks no one is willing to prosecute her and the Clinton Foundation for illegally accepting certain campaign finance funds in the run up to the 2016 U.S. presidential election.  Pathologically self-righteous Dianne Feinstein and similar elitist politicians in both parties as well as mass media are very interested in Trump’s tax returns on the PROSPECT that they MIGHT find evidence they could use to try to impeach Trump, but they don’t give a damn about the campaign finance corruption ALREADY PERPETRATED in presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s connection to millions of dollars of foreign money in a private Clinton family fund, apparently legally configured as a tax free charity, but it gives less than 5% to charity.  Hillary thinks the powers that be have let her out of jail.

In similar news, a drug cartel leader escaped from Mexican prison rather than face extradition to the U.S.

“The brazen escape took place on Thursday at the Aguaruto State Prison in Culiacan, Sinaloa, when authorities received a 911 call alerting them about an escape by Juan Jose “El Azulito” Esparragoza and some other key members of the Sinaloa Cartel. The fugitive cartel members are tied to the group led by Sinaloa top boss Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada and the sons of Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman, said Cristobal Castañeda Camarillo, the Sub-secretary for Public Safety in Sinaloa. Mexican authorities would not go into details about the escape since the case remains under investigation and prison officials and guards are under investigation.” (1)

http://www.breitbart.com/texas/2017/03/18/facing-extradition-sinaloa-cartel-top-lt-four-bosses-escape-mexican-prison/

So near, yet…

“We know that matter remains mysterious just as mind remains mysterious, and we don’t know what the connections between those mysteries should be. Classifying consciousness as a material problem is tantamount to saying that consciousness, too, remains fundamentally unexplained.”

…

“Consciousness might, for example, be an example of the emergence of a new entity in the Universe not contained in the laws of particles. There is also the more radical possibility that some rudimentary form of consciousness must be added to the list of things, such as mass or electric charge, that the world is built of.”

…

“[Following work by the American philosopher Thomas Nagel, Chalmers pointed to the]…the vividness – the intrinsic presence – of the perceiving subject’s experience as a problem no explanatory account of consciousness seems capable of embracing.”

So far.

And here’s the rest of it.

https://aeon.co/essays/materialism-alone-cannot-explain-the-riddle-of-consciousness?utm_content=buffer9ed9a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

See, mess around with your neurons before you have the math right, you could end up in another star system.