Saturday, August 22, 2009


By Ron Ewart
President, National Association of Rural Landowners
and nationally recognized author on freedom and property rights issues
© Copyright August 21, 2009 - All Rights Reserved

Only on very rare occasions do the American people rise up, as they are doing now. Today, they are grow increasingly outraged over the unconscionable spending of our money, the nationalization of health care, banks and businesses, unwarranted billion-dollar bailouts, irrational cap and trade legislation that threatens to derail our economy, the fraud that is man-caused global warming, amnesty, education, medical and safety-net benefits for illegal aliens, picking winners and losers, edging towards the one-world-order and the unprecedented take over by the federal government of the public "indoctrination" system and the food, land, water and energy production in the United States. It may be one of the largest power grabs by our government in the entire history of America and it is triggering a massive uprising, as well it should.

It has long been believed that there truly is a "silent majority" in America. These are the good folks who want to live their lives independently, responsibly, in the pursuit of their perception of happiness, but with little to no interference from government. As government interference in their lives has multiplied, they find that they can no longer ignore it.
The current national health care debate, that threatens to take over almost every aspect of every citizen's life if the legislation is passed, has been the catalyst for every-day Americans to express their objections to EVERYTHING that government is doing and they are expressing those objections with force and vehemence. So far, the town hall meeting has been the current venue for this outrage, but it is sure to expand to other, even more public venues in the near future. In fact, a massive rally of tens of thousands of concerned Americans is already scheduled in Washington DC for September 12th, 2009. Boston-style tea parties are springing up throughout the land with regularity. No, these are not unruly mobs being directed by high-up operatives in the Republican party, as has been alleged by the left. These are real people with no political stripes, that are concerned about the loss of their freedom and liberty.
Many politicians have been caught off guard and can't understand why the anger is being manifested so aggressively, and worse, so publicly. To say that they are getting an "earful" by otherwise mostly calm, cool and normally inattentive Americans, barely describes the situation.
But opposition to unpopular actions by government can be infectious and millions of Americans are being infected by a new call to patriotism and a return to the principles of freedom, liberty and our constitution, that is uniquely American. Those that speak out and are heard, mirror what millions of other quiet ones strongly believe. If Obama and the rest of the liberal crowd in Washington DC and elsewhere in America, don't back off and soon, the "movement" has all the earmarks of a national, full-fledged peaceful rebellion. It is our firm desire that it stays peaceful.
However, the egos and inflexible, socialist agendas of our current rulers will not be deterred and they will continue on this path to destruction, until it explodes in their faces. And explode it will. No! We don't mean "explode" literally. The window into the minds of the liberal left have been fully exposed for all Americans to see and they are showing little tolerance for it. This was hardly the "change" they had expected from the "Omnipotent One" and his little Chicago elves.
We can only hope that this is not a short-lived flash in the pan event and that all Americans will wake up to their responsibility as the "Consent of the Governed". For if they do not keep up a constant pressure on the inmates that run this asylum, the inmates will keep coming back time after time, as Americans drift back into apathy and inattention.
If the American people do not rise up in a peaceful rebellion now, eventually, the national and international money changers and power brokers will realize their goal of world domination, where national boundaries are blurred, sovereignty is just a word, multiculturalism is the new paradigm, political correctness is mandatory, socialism and a police state is the accepted form of government, mediocrity will be rampant and freedom and liberty will be a long-lost memory in those who once knew freedom, but no longer have a voice, because they will have long-since, died off.
Many of these issues raised here are described in a new book by this author. If you have enjoyed his articles, essays and reports over the last five years, you will definitely enjoy "The Sun is Rising Again Over a Free America". This isn't manufactured "hope", it is real and we can take heart in it. Check it out at

Saturday, August 15, 2009


Swine flu vaccinations are a matter of personal pro-choice, not government mandate!
Brought to you by Good Neighbor Law Contributing Educators:
John Maulsby DVM, and Taylor H. Haynes M.D.
A personal testimony - from Dr. Taylor H. Haynes, M.D.

The experience that I had with the swine flu vaccine was in the late seventies early eighties.
I will not take the swine flu shot as I've seen it cause Guillain-Barre'. This form of peripheral polyneuritis - characterized by pain and weakness and sometimes paralysis of the limbs, and can severely debilitate and bring fatal neurologic disorder. Patients suffer loss of use of muscles and muscle wasting. When this condition effects the muscles that breathe for us, death occurs.
My advice is to maintain the best health with a balanced diet coupled with exercise and rest.If one gets the flu, bed rest and as much clear liquid fluids as is possible - - is still the best plan...and one I personally follow.
I will be happy to visit with anyone regards this matter.
Thank you,
Taylor H. Haynes M.D.
A study recommended by Dr. John Maulsby, DVM

Swine Flu is NOT the Problem -- It is the Vaccine that May Harm or Kill You Urgent information to protect yourself and your loved ones … get informed before the swine flu vaccine craze comes to your town.

A Good Neighbor Law note: Swine flu vaccination should never become a government mandate. This is a pro-choice matter; for whether you decide to get a swine flu vaccination for yourself or your child should remain as personal as any other medical decision.
To educate and empower people regarding their rights and responsibilities toward their land and neighbors, through accurate information sharing

Thank you Very interesting. I was in Taos camping with a man who years ago got the flu shot and lost feeling in his right side and almost died. My father is an MD and when the flu shot first hit the scene, he wouldn't let us get it!!!!! It is loaded with a host of unknowns and at best, a host of really bad stuff. Does it work? For some yes. Having said that, this swine flu vaccine looks spooky to me. Here we have more government run, moneymaking snake oil. Make no mistake that the pharmaceutical companies and our government are ne'er do well bed-fellows. I would suggest staying healthy, wise and aware. ThanksHugh
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
Rec'd note from my friend Jan in WI... this is what she said regarding the Swine Flu vaccinations...
mom's uncle got Guillain Barre from Swine flu shot - I won't be getting one...... and nobody can make me. :) Jan

Tuesday, August 11, 2009


Dear Professor Williams: The Providence Journal kindly forwarded the letter you sent me, regarding my recent article in the ProJo. You obviously feel strongly about global warming and energy issues. I hope you will also feel there is a need for discussion and debate, in your classrooms and public forums – as a basic constitutional right … and the foundation of a free and informed citizenry. Frankly, I’m a bit surprised that you (a college chemistry professor with a deep interest in climate issues) aren’t aware of the many climate, meteorology and other experts who disagree with manmade climate crisis claims. Those I know on a first-name basis include Tim Ball, Bob Carter, John Christy, Richard Courtney, Piers Corbyn, Joe D’Aleo, Bill Gray, Craig Idso, Richard Keen, David Legates, Dick Lindzen, Pat Michaels, Harrison Schmitt, Fred Singer, Willie Soon, Roy Spencer, George Taylor and Anthony Watts. All are honorable, honest, dedicated professionals, who have devoted many years to studying climate issues and trying to raise public awareness about them. The US Senate has published a report listing over 700 climatologists who challenge manmade global warming fears. Lawrence Solomon’s book, The Deniers, provides in-depth bios and discussions of their views. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine has a list of 31,000 people with bachelor, master’s and PhD degrees in natural sciences, who likewise disagree with claims that humans and carbon dioxide are causing a climate disaster. A group of 60 German scientists recently issued an Open Letter to German Chancellor Angela Merkel challenging manmade global warming fears. The Leipzig Declaration, a 2008 letter from Canadian scientists and other documents provide further examples. On the other side of the ledger, three of the most prominent advocates of human-caused climate disaster don’t even have science backgrounds. Rajenda Pachauri is an economist and railroad engineer; Yvo de Boer is a social worker; and Al Gore took just two college science courses, getting a C in one and a D in the other, according to the Washington Post. As to peer-reviewed publications contesting climate alarmism, you can find a few on Arctic ice conditions here – and get numerous others by going online to sites like WattsUpWithThat; contacting some of the scientists I just mentioned; reading Solomon’s book and the new NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change) report; or just use google to find dozens, or even hundreds of studies. You can find the “sham report” at – and sharp critiques of it posted on and Roger Pielke’s website. As to my professional status, I studied geology, ecology and environmental law, and have been doing energy and climate policy work for 15 years – as an analyst, writer and educator. I am not and never have been a lobbyist. ExxonMobil did give money to organizations where I’ve worked but doesn’t now, and gave a significant portion of that money for anti-malaria work. Ironically, the $23-million total that Exxon gave to think tanks for energy, environment, climate and disease work between 1989 and 2009 is a mere 1/3,400 of the $79 billion that the US government alone has given to scientists, bureaucrats and activists for global warming work since 1989, the vast majority of it to support research and reports that support manmade crisis claims. If $23 million is enough to “buy” the expertise of skeptics, one shudders to think what $79 billion would do. As you are a college professor, I am truly disappointed that you would engage almost solely in ad hominem attacks on me, and that you seem to be poorly versed in the wide range of studies that have been and continue to be conducted on climate change. As carbon dioxide levels have continued to rise, global average temperatures have been declining, hurricanes are not increasing, evidence for a manmade crisis has been increasingly challenged, and the role of natural forces in recent warming and cooling has become increasingly clear and accepted. I’m sure you know that Al Gore collects a six-figure honorarium every time he speaks, while refusing to debate anyone or even take questions that have not been vetted ahead of time. By contrast, when I speak on college campuses, I accept tiny honorariums and am happy to respond to any questions from any attendee, including Greenpeace activists. This is the essence of free speech and open, robust debate, as our Founding Fathers intended. Al Gore clearly does not support these principles. I hope you do, despite the tone of your letter. I am personally in full accord with a letter recently published in the BYU student paper. Institutions of higher learning, wrote PhD geologist and retired astronaut Harrison Schmitt and five other climate scientists, “should promote the seeking of truth. Similarly, science is an objective assessment of hypotheses, by testing concepts against actual data and observations; it is not a matter of votes, popularity or virtual unanimity. We are all harmed, if we allow our universities or our science to be politicized.” I hope you also agree. In closing, I assume you are aware of the debate currently raging within the American Chemical Society over a recent global warming “catastrophe” editorial by Chemical and Engineering News editor Rudy Baum. The reaction of many ACS members mirrors the frustration many of us feel about the way scientific principles, methods and debate have been politicized over global warming. For instance: ACS scientist Dennis Malpass: “Your editorial was a disgrace. It was filled with misinformation, half-truths, and ad hominem attacks on those who dare to disagree with you. Shameful!”Edward H. Gleason: “Baum's attempt to close out debate goes against all my scientific training, and to hear this from my ACS is certainly alarming to me ... His use of 'climate-change deniers,' to pillory scientists who do not believe climate change is a crisis, is disingenuous and unscientific.”Geochemist R. Everett Langford: “I am appalled at the condescending attitude of Rudy Baum, Al Gore, President Barack Obama, et al., who essentially tell us that there is no need for further research – that the matter is solved.”I hope you will reconsider the views you expressed in your letter to the Journal, broaden your selection of readings about climate change, and encourage your students and college colleagues to engage in studious research and robust debate on this and other important scientific and public policy issues. Best regards,Paul Driessen

Friday, August 7, 2009


Rising voter concern about nationalized healthcare has made recent town hall meetings challenging affairs for many members of Congress.
Dr. Willie Soon, Dr. David Legates, Paul Driessen
This article could help spark serious discussion on an equally vital topic that will come up at many town hall meetings this month: energy and global warming
It suggests a number of important, substantive questions that members of Congress need to address, before proceeding further on energy and climate legislation. It could help inspire and energize people to participate in those sessions -- and exercise their First Amendment rights to be fully involved in an informed democratic process.
Thank you for posting it.
All the best,
Paul Driessen

Questions to ask at town hall meetings
Demand answers from your senators and congressman during their August recess
Americans are justifiably wary about Congress rushing to overhaul our healthcare system – 17% of our economy – with little debate, analysis or bipartisan input. They worry that the legislation could affect their costs, free choice, doctor-patient relationships and access to quality care.
They should be even more concerned about complex, thousand-page legislation that would overhaul 100% of our economy – the energy system that powers and enables everything we eat, heat, cool, grow, make, transport, drive and do – to prevent hypothetical manmade catastrophic climate change.
Energy is the Master Resource that makes life possible. Without abundant, reliable, affordable energy, opportunity, progress, job creation, health and civil rights are hobbled and rolled back.
And yet, global warming bills are being rushed into law at warp speed, not just without debate, but with debate vilified as climate holocaust denial, criminal acts and treason against the planet.
Proponents insist a planetary crisis demands instant action. The truth is that President Obama wants to present a US commitment to draconian reductions in plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide at the December Copenhagen climate conference. He wants to pressure China, India and other nations to sacrifice their economic growth to the specter of alleged climate disasters. Copenhagen is the last chance for eco-activists to implement a UN-centered system of global governance, global taxes, and global control of energy, economies and living standards.
Open, robust, unfettered debate is absolutely essential. It is our inalienable right, the foundation of democracy and a free and prosperous America. A good place to start that debate is the town hall meetings that our elected representatives will be holding during their August recess. Here are a few questions that concerned citizens might want to ask.
1) Congressman John Conyers said he didn’t bother reading the bill, before he voted on it, because he would need two lawyers to explain the passages to him. Did you read and understand it? All of it? Then how can we be expected to do so? Why should we be expected to obey it? Why should we let congressmen who can’t understand their own bills control 100% of our economy?
2) Global temperatures are not increasing. Thousands of scientists say humans and carbon dioxide are not causing a climate disaster. Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts and heat waves are not increasing. Emissions from China and India will quickly replace any CO2 reductions the United States might achieve by taxing and restricting fossil fuel use, crippling our economy, and hurting seniors and poor families most. Why does Congress refuse to allow real debate? Why does it simply assume and decree that we have a global warming crisis and must enact legislation immediately?
3) House Speaker Pelosi recently said “every aspect of our lives must be subjected to an inventory,” so that America can slash energy use and emissions, and prevent dangerous climate change. This can only lead to a massive, intrusive Green Nanny State; the end of affordable, reliable energy; a coerced switch to expensive, unreliable wind and solar power; and skyrocketing energy costs that will hammer families and businesses and cost millions of jobs. Why would you support such legislation?
4) Cap-and-trade is a huge tax on the energy we use for everything we make and do. It’s a massive wealth transfer, from consumers to the government, to pay for unprecedented spending increases and more pork for favored businesses and voting blocs. It violates President Obama’s pledge not to tax anyone with incomes below $250,000. It will cost families $1000 to $4,600 per year in extra energy and living expenses. How can you justify voting for such punitive legislation?
5) The average annual temperature in Antarctica is minus 50. Temperatures would have to increase 85 degrees 24/7/365 for a century or more, to melt South Pole ice caps and raise sea levels 20-50 feet. Can you explain how a 0.02% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (from 285 ppm in 1850 to projected 485 ppm) can overturn basic laws of thermodynamics, replace the powerful natural forces that caused Ice Ages and other climate changes in the past, and produce ice-cap meltdowns?
6) Replacing hydrocarbons with “green” energy will require millions of acres of land for turbines, solar panels, geothermal facilities and transmission lines. Do you support relaxing environmental study, endangered species and other laws, to fast-track approval of these projects, despite their impacts on habitats? Or do you want them subjected to the same rules that have stymied thousands of other energy projects, so that renewable energy projects can’t be built, either – and we have a huge “energy gap”?
Do you support protecting the rights of land owners? Or do you favor eminent domain, so that government can seize people’s property and expedite construction of these projects?
7) Replacing hydrocarbons with “green” power will also require hundreds of millions of tons of steel, copper, concrete, fiberglass and rare earth minerals for turbines, solar panels and transmission lines. Do you support opening our lands for renewed exploration and development, so that we can produce these raw materials and create American jobs? Or do you intend to keep US lands off limits, allow eco-activists to file lawsuits to prevent development, and force us to depend on imports for renewable energy, too?
8) The United States spent $79 billion on global warming programs between 1989 and 2008. The vast majority went to scientists, bureaucrats, alarmist groups and propaganda campaigns that say we face a climate disaster. Do you support a law requiring that future spending be split 50:50 between researchers who think humans are causing a climate disaster, and those who believe climate change is mostly natural and cyclical – so that we can have honest, unbiased science … and sound public policy decisions?
9) Claims that we face a climate disaster are based on selected use of questionable temperature data, short-term temperature trends, and scary computer scenarios that even modelers don’t call predictions – but merely possible futures, if numerous assumptions about climate systems, energy generation, carbon dioxide and global economic growth 25-100 years from now turn out to be true. How can you justify transforming (and risking) America’s energy and economic future, based on computer models?
10) The White House and EPA suppressed a government report that said scientific evidence does not support claims that we face a global warming disaster – until after passage of a House bill that would send US carbon dioxide emissions back to 1868 levels. Why did you ignore this dictatorial and fraudulent action? Will you now demand a new debate and new vote? Demand that this report be reviewed and debated fully, before the Senate acts on similar legislation? Penalize EPA for suppressing free speech?
11) The economic pain, job losses and government intrusion into our lives under the House-passed global warming bill would reduce projected global average temperatures in 2050 by an imperceptible 0.1 degrees. That’s largely because 97% of the projected increase in CO2 emissions between now and 2030 will come from developing countries that are building new coal-fired power plants every week, according to the International Energy Agency. Why would you support legislation that is all pain, and no gain?
12) Over 1.5 billion people in China, India and Africa still do not have electricity, for even a light bulb or tiny refrigerator. Almost 2.5 billion people around the world live on less than $2 a day. Millions die every year from diseases that would be largely eradicated with electricity for refrigeration, sanitation, clinics, and industries that generate greater health and prosperity. How can you justify telling them global warming is the biggest threat they face, and they need to get by on wind and solar power, and give up their dreams of better lives, because you are worried about global warming? Doesn’t that violate their most basic human rights – including their right to improved living standards, and to life itself?
Exercise your constitutional rights. Attend town hall meetings. Ask questions. Demand answers. Demand debate. And safeguard your future, and your children’s future.
Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and Congress of Racial Equality, and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power • Black Death.