Friday, July 31, 2009


Provided by: Marc Morano

Climate Revolt: World’s Largest Science Group 'Startled' By Outpouring of Scientists Rejecting Man-Made Climate Fears! Clamor for Editor to Be Removed!
Scientists seek to remove climate fear promoting editor and 'trade him to New York Times or Washington Post'
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 - By Marc Morano – Climate Depot
Climate Depot Exclusive
An outpouring of skeptical scientists who are members of the American Chemical Society (ACS) are revolting against the group's editor-in-chief -- with some demanding he be removed -- after an editorial appeared claiming “the science of anthropogenic climate change is becoming increasingly well established.”
The editorial claimed the "consensus" view was growing "increasingly difficult to challenge, despite the efforts of diehard climate-change deniers.” The editor now admits he is "startled" by the negative reaction from the group's scientific members. The American Chemical Society bills itself as the "world's largest scientific society."
The June 22, 2009 editorial in Chemical and Engineering News by editor in chief Rudy Baum, is facing widespread blowback and condemnation from American Chemical Society member scientists. Baum concluded his editorial by stating that “deniers” are attempting to “derail meaningful efforts to respond to global climate change.”
Dozens of letters were published on July 27, 2009 castigating Baum, with some scientists calling for his replacement as editor-in-chief.
The editorial was met with a swift, passionate and scientific rebuke from Baum's colleagues. Virtually all of the letters published on July 27 in castigated Baum's climate science views. Scientists rebuked Baum's use of the word “deniers” because of the terms “association with Holocaust deniers.” In addition, the scientists called Baum's editorial: “disgusting”; “a disgrace”; “filled with misinformation”; “unworthy of a scientific periodical” and “pap.”
One outraged ACS member wrote to Baum: "When all is said and done, and you and your kind are proven wrong (again), you will have moved on to be an unthinking urn for another rat pleading catastrophe. You will be removed. I promise."
Baum 'startled' by scientists reaction
Baum wrote on July 27, that he was "startled" and "surprised" by the "contempt" and "vehemence" of the ACS scientists to his view of the global warming "consensus."
"Some of the letters I received are not fit to print. Many of the letters we have printed are, I think it is fair to say, outraged by my position on global warming," Baum wrote.
Selected Excerpts of Skeptical Scientists:
“I think it's time to find a new editor,” ACS member Thomas E. D'Ambra wrote.
Geochemist R. Everett Langford wrote: “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.”
ACS scientist Dennis Malpass wrote: “Your editorial was a disgrace. It was filled with misinformation, half-truths, and ad hominem attacks on those who dare disagree with you. Shameful!”
ACS member scientist Dr. Howard Hayden, a Physics Professor Emeritus from the University of Connecticut: “Baum's remarks are particularly disquieting because of his hostility toward skepticism, which is part of every scientist's soul. Let's cut to the chase with some questions for Baum: Which of the 20-odd major climate models has settled the science, such that all of the rest are now discarded? [...] Do you refer to 'climate change' instead of 'global warming' because the claim of anthropogenic global warming has become increasingly contrary to fact?"
Edward H. Gleason wrote: “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.”
Atmospheric Chemist Roger L. Tanner: "I have very little in common with the philosophy of the Heartland Institute and other 'free-market fanatics,' and I consider myself a progressive Democrat. Nevertheless, we scientists should know better than to propound scientific truth by consensus and to excoriate skeptics with purple prose."
William Tolley: "I take great offense that Baum would use Chemical and Engineering News, for which I pay dearly each year in membership dues, to purvey his personal views and so glibly ignore contrary information and scold those of us who honestly find these views to be a hoax."
William E. Keller wrote: “However bitter you (Baum) personally may feel about CCDs (climate change deniers), it is not your place as editor to accuse them—falsely—of nonscientific behavior by using insultingly inappropriate language. [...] The growing body of scientists, whom you abuse as sowing doubt, making up statistics, and claiming to be ignored by the media, are, in the main, highly competent professionals, experts in their fields, completely honorable, and highly versed in the scientific method—characteristics that apparently do not apply to you.”
ACS member Wallace Embry: “I would like to see the American Chemical Society Board 'cap' Baum's political pen and 'trade' him to either the New York Times or Washington Post." [To read the more reactions from scientists to Baum's editorial go here and see below.]
Physicists Dr. Lubos Motl, who publishes the Reference Frame website, weighed in on the controversy as well, calling Baum's editorial an "alarmist screed."
“Now, the chemists are thinking about replacing this editor who has hijacked the ACS bulletin to promote his idiosyncratic political views," Motl wrote on July 27, 2009.
Baum cites discredited Obama Administration Climate Report
To “prove” his assertion that the science was “becoming increasingly well established,” Baum cited the Obama Administration's U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) study as evidence that the science was settled. [Climate Depot Editor's Note: Baum's grasp of the latest “science” is embarrassing. For Baum to cite the June 2009 Obama Administration report as “evidence” that science is growing stronger exposes him as having very poor research skills. See this comprehensive report on scientists rebuking that report. See: 'Scaremongering': Scientists Pan Obama Climate Report: 'This is not a work of science but an embarrassing episode for the authors and NOAA'...'Misrepresents the science' - July 8, 2009 )
Baum also touted the Congressional climate bill as “legislation with real teeth to control the emission of greenhouse gases.” [Climate Depot Editor's Note: This is truly laughable that an editor-in-chief at the American Chemical Society could say the climate bill has “real teeth.” This statement should be retracted in full for lack of evidence. The Congressional climate bill has outraged environmental groups for failing to impact global temperatures and failing to even reduce emissions! See: Climate Depot Editorial: Climate bill offers (costly) non-solutions to problems that don't even exist - No detectable climate impact: 'If we actually faced a man-made 'climate crisis', we would all be doomed' June 20, 2009 ]
The American Chemical Society's scientific revolt is the latest in a series of recent eruptions against the so-called “consensus” on man-made global warming.
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 54 prominent physicists petitioned the APS revise its global warming position. The 54 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.”
The petition signed by the prominent physicists, led by Princeton University's Dr. Will Happer, who has conducted 200 peer-reviewed scientific studies. The peer-reviewed journal Nature published a July 22, 2009 letter by the physicists persuading the APS to review its statement. In 2008, an American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists.
In addition, in April 2009, the Polish National Academy of Science reportedly “published a document that expresses skepticism over the concept of man-made global warming.” An abundance of new peer-reviewed scientific studies continue to be published challenging the UN IPCC climate views. (See: Climate Fears RIP...for 30 years!? - Global Warming could stop 'for up to 30 years! Warming 'On Hold?...'Could go into hiding for decades,' peer-reviewed study finds – – March 2, 2009 & Peer-Reviewed Study Rocks Climate Debate! 'Nature not man responsible for recent global warming...little or none of late 20th century warming and cooling can be attributed to humans' – July 23, 2009 )
A March 2009 a 255-page U. S. Senate Report detailed "More Than 700 International Scientists Dissenting Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims." 2009's continued lack of warming, further frustrated the promoters of man-made climate fears. See: Earth's 'Fever' Breaks! Global temperatures 'have plunged .74°F since Gore released An Inconvenient Truth' – July 5, 2009
In addition, the following developments further in 2008 challenged the “consensus” of global warming. India Issued a report challenging global warming fears; a canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled”; A Japan Geoscience Union symposium survey in 2008 reportedly “showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report.” Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' & see full reports here & here - Also see: UN IPCC's William Schlesinger admits in 2009 that only 20% of IPCC scientists deal with climate ]
Selected Excerpted Highlights of American Chemical Society Scientist's Reaction to Baum's Editorial: (For full letters see here.)
Instead of debate, members are constantly subjected to your arrogant self-righteousness and the left-wing practice of stifling debate by personal attacks on anyone who disagrees. I think ACS should make an effort to educate its membership about the science of climate change and let them draw their own conclusions. Although under your editorial leadership, I suspect we would be treated to a biased and skewed version of scientific debate. I think its time to find a new editor. [...] How about using your position as editor to promote a balanced scientific discussion of the theory behind the link of human activity to global warming? I am not happy that you continue to use the pulpit of your editorials to promote your left-wing opinions.
Thomas E. D'Ambra
Rexford, N.Y.

#Baum's remarks are particularly disquieting because of his hostility toward skepticism, which is part of every scientist's soul. Let's cut to the chase with some questions for Baum: Which of the 20-odd major climate models has settled the science, such that all of the rest are now discarded?
Do you refer to "climate change" instead of "global warming" because the claim of anthropogenic global warming has become increasingly contrary to fact?

Howard Hayden
Pueblo West, Colo.

I was a geochemist doing research on paleoclimates early in my career. I have tried to follow the papers in the scientific literature. [...] 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.
The peer-reviewed literature is not unequivocal about causes and effects of global warming. We are still learning about properties of water, for goodness' sake. There needs to be more true scientific research without politics on both sides and with all scientists being heard. To insult and denigrate those with whom you disagree is not becoming.

R. Everett Langford
The Woodlands, Texas

Your editorial in the June 22 issue of C&EN was a disgrace. It was filled with misinformation, half-truths, and ad hominem attacks on those who dare disagree with you. Shameful!

Are you planning to write an editorial about the Environmental Protection Agency's recent suppression of a global warming report that goes against the gospel according to NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies Director James Hansen? Or do you only editorialize on matters in keeping with your biased views on global warming?

Trying to arrest climate change is a feeble, futile endeavor and a manifestation of human arrogance. Humankind's contribution to climate change is minuscule, and trying to eliminate even that minute effect will be enormously expensive, damaging to the poorest people on the planet, and ultimately ineffective.

Dennis Malpass
Magnolia, Texas

#I can't accept as facts the reports of federal agencies, because they have become political and are more likely to support the regime in power than not. 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.

Edward H. Gleason
Ooltewah, Tenn.

#Having worked as an atmospheric chemist for many years, I have extensive experience with environmental issues, and I usually agree with Rudy Baum's editorials. But his use of "climate-change deniers" to pillory scientists who do not believe climate change is a crisis is disingenuous and unscientific. [...] Given the climate's complexity and these and other uncertainties, are we justified in legislating major increases in our energy costs unilaterally guided only by a moral imperative to "do our part" for Earth's climate? I am among many environmentally responsible citizen-scientists who think this is stupid, both because our emissions reductions will be dwarfed by increases elsewhere (China and India, for example) and because the models have large uncertainties. [...] I have very little in common with the philosophy of the Heartland Institute and other "free-market fanatics," and I consider myself a progressive Democrat. Nevertheless, we scientists should know better than to propound scientific truth by consensus and to excoriate skeptics with purple prose.
Roger L. Tanner
Muscle Shoals, Ala.

#I would like to see the ACS Board cap Baum's political pen and trade him to either the New York Times or Washington Post.
Wallace Embry
Columbia, Tenn.

#In the interest of brevity, I can limit my response to the diatribe of the editor-in-chief in the June 22 edition of C&EN to one word: Disgusting.
Louis H. Rombach
Wilmington, Del.

#I am particularly offended by the false analogy with creationists. It is easy to just dismiss anyone who dares disagree as being "unscientific."
Daniel B. Rego
Las Vegas

#While Baum obviously has strong personal views on the subject, I take great offense that he would use C&EN, for which I pay dearly each year in membership dues, to purvey his personal views and so glibly ignore contrary information and scold those of us who honestly find these views to be a hoax.
William Tolley San Diego

#I appreciate it when C&EN presents information from qualified supporters of either, and preferably both, sides of an issue to help readers decide what is correct, rather than dispensing your conclusions and ridiculing people who disagree with you.
P. S. Lowell
Lakeway, Texas

#I am a retired Ph.D. chemical engineer. During my working years, I was involved in many environmental issues concerning products and processes of the companies for which I worked. I am completely disgusted with the June 22 editorial. I do not consider it to be very scientific to castigate skeptics of man-made global warming. [...] [Global warming fears are] not of particular concern because "the ocean is a very large sink for carbon dioxide." [...] The overall problem here is that there is already an abundance of scientific illiteracy in the American public that will not be improved by Baum's stance in what should be a scientific magazine. Theories are not proven by consensus—but by data from repeatable experimentation that leaves no doubt of interpretation.
Charles M. Krutchen
Daphne, Ala.

#Please do not keep writing C&EN editorials according to the liberal religion's credo—"Attack all climate-change deniers, creationists, conservatives, people who voted for George W. Bush, etc." It is a sign of weakness in your argument when you attack those who disagree. [...] Your choice of terminology referring to skeptical scientists who don't toe your line as CCD, climate-change deniers, and putting them in association with Holocaust deniers, is unworthy of an editorial in a scientific periodical. Who don't you go head-to-head with the critics? Please don't keep doing this. Find a scientific writer for the editorial page. We get plenty of this pap from the mainstream media and do not need it in C&EN.
Heinrich Brinks
Monterey, Calif.

#Your utter disdain of CCDs and the accusations of improper tactics you ascribe to them cannot be dismissed. However bitter you personally may feel about CCDs, it is not your place as editor to accuse them—falsely—of nonscientific behavior by using insultingly inappropriate language. The growing body of scientists, whom you abuse as sowing doubt, making up statistics, and claiming to be ignored by the media, are, in the main, highly competent professionals, experts in their fields, completely honorable, and highly versed in the scientific method—characteristics that apparently do not apply to you. The results presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which you call the CCD's "favorite whipping boy," do indeed fall into the category of predictions that fail to match the data, requiring a return to the drawing board. Your flogging of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change is not only infantile but beggars you to contribute facts to back up your disdain. Incidentally, why do we fund climate studies by U.S. Global Change Research Program if the problem is settled?
William E. Keller Santa Fe, N.M.

Thursday, July 23, 2009


Dear IMPC:

The 16th Amendment is illegitimate and never fully ratified. There were not enough yes votes but the lame duck Secretary Knox made sure it was approved anyway.
Here's how the vote went.
12 states did legitimately ratify
12 states did not legitimately ratify
23 states violated their own state Constitution with errors
48 states
They need 3/4 to pass or 36 states
They only had 12 but lets throw in the other 23 for 35 anyway
They never got, never had it and it is illegitimate
Plus the so called income tax is a tax on profit and gain even the high courts decided knowing the people were not as dumb as they looked.
Here is the rest of the story on the American tax system on the natural born sovereign and free state CITIZENS.
Jack Venrick
Enumclaw, Wash(edout)ington

Wednesday, July 22, 2009


By Ron Ewart
For almost 100 years, people in national and international high places have been trying to merge the wealth and resources of a free and prosperous America, into the Hell hole that is most of the rest of the world. There are some countries who are the exception of course, but very few. In other words, the powerful and wealthy, who think they know what is best for every human on earth, have been trying to "spread the wealth" of a great nation ..... a wealth and prosperity created by its very freedom ..... and parcel it out to those who have not done a very good job of managing their own national affairs, or wisely using their own natural resources, while immersed in the grips of the resident dictator, or under the unrelenting and abusive hand of a socialist or communist government.
Oh, their motives sound noble enough, in that most of these world-government overtures have occurred right after a world war. But their stated motives of trying to prevent further planetary blood shed, are but a part of a much greater hidden agenda ..... that hidden agenda being total power and total control over all the peoples, wealth and resources of the Earth. But the dirty little secret is, a free America and our pesky little constitution, stand in their way. The efforts to take down a free America, have been and are still going on with a vengeance and growing by the day. The not-so-hidden agenda of the current president and U. S. Congress are furthering that effort, by buying off the American people so they won't mind a little constitutional destruction behind the scenes.
President Woodrow Wilson, in order to end the bloodshed of any further World Wars after World War I, promoted the idea of a "League of Nations". He wrongly thought that our Constitution was a major impediment to establishing the "League" and stated clearly that it should be changed to adapt to the new world order. The "League of Nations" failed miserably and ended up in the scrap heap of grandiose ideas that never had a chance in the first place, because they were built on a "bed of sand".
After World War II, the same thing occurred, for the same supposed reasons, and the United Nations (UN) was born in 1945. As the UN grew in stature, the number of nations, (now about 192 countries) and money, what happened was totally predictable ..... abject corruption. What do you expect from an organization that is embedded with dictators, despots, socialists and communists. What could you expect from a bunch of corrupt leaders gathering together for the sole purpose of stripping America, the big "daddy" on the block, of all of its wealth and resources and its sovereignty, for their own ends?
The sad part is, the United States has paid the lion's share of the money that has kept this corrupt organization in "business". Otherwise it would have folded like the League of Nations, as it should have. In other words, Americans have been and are having to bear the cost of the instrument of their own destruction. Not too bright on our part, is it?
For 100 years, Americans have been faced with an organized effort by powerful nationalists and internationalists, to rip America apart and dilute its sovereignty, with the purported goal of establishing a One-World-Order. Democrat and Republican presidents alike, have openly promoted this idea. In our minds, that should be treason.
The now deceased and much heralded journalist, Walter Cronkite, stated openly after his career ended, that world law and world courts should be established to prosecute those on the world stage, who would dare to flaunt or violate the world law. (see his video at: That would mean that Americans could be extradited from the U. S., to who knows where, and tried in a world court for so-called violations of the world law, by who knows what judges, with who knows what biases. As bad and corrupt as U. S. judges and our courts are, most Americans would much rather take their chances in an American court, where there is at least a half-hearted attempt to follow the Supreme Law of our Land.
But let's get down to some very serious questions:
1. Who would run this world government? The United Nations? You have got to be kidding. Would you put your life in the hands the most corrupt organization that ever existed since the dawn of time?
2. Who would draft the "world law"? Bureaucrats in the UN? Socialists from Europe? Communists from Russia? Despots and Dictators from the middle East, Central and South America, or worse, Africa? Come on!
3. Under what foundation would such a world law be drafted? This question is really scary.
Have any of you seen what policies the United Nations have drafted already and are trying to implement world-wide right now? Each UN policy reeks of socialism .... a socialism that is to be funded by and forced on, the backs of once-free Americans .... because we are rich.
One of the last issues to be addressed with world government, is what happens to the people of Planet Earth, if the power, strength, wealth, freedom and sovereignty of America, are diluted to the point of being virtually impotent under the new world order? It is readily acknowledged that had it not been for the power, wealth, military might and the millions of American men and women who sacrificed their lives, limbs and minds in two world wars, over a billion people might still be in chains today and Americans might be speaking Japanese or German. If it wasn't for the military might of America, rogue nations would take us on by military force or terror, on a daily basis. It is best, at this time in history at least, that these rogue nations fear us. Negotiating with them is pure insanity, as some in our government want to do.
If it weren't for the wealth, strength, freedom and sovereignty of America, who would be the greatest consumers of international goods? What countries would starve because we no longer would live in the land of plenty and "buy" what the world markets have to offer under world government? What would happen to all countries on all the continents, if the last bastion of freedom were to be reduced to the level of a third-world nation? The answers to these questions are all too obvious.
America is the last great hope of a world gone mad. If it and its freedom and sovereignty dissolves, the world dissolves with it.
U. S. Senator Daniel Webster wrote: "Miracles do not cluster. Hold on to the Constitution of the United States of America and the Republic for which it stands -- what has happened once in six thousand years may never happen again. Hold on to your Constitution, for if the American Constitution shall fail there will be anarchy throughout the world."
The hard truth is, Senator Webster is absolutely right and millions of Americans had better get it through their thick heads that they are the last great hope for the preservation of America and its freedom and liberty and the last great hope for sanity in the world. The alternative is world government, as we have just described and serfdom on a planet-wide scale, that would come with it.
If Americans succumb to the siren call of the one-world-order, our children and grand children and all future generations who long to be free, will cry the screams of men in chains.
World government may be a possibility in the future, but only after all other nations have adopted the individual freedom and liberty promised by our Constitution, as etched into the annals of history for all free men to see. Until then, world government had better remain a pipe dream, of rich and powerful men.

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

By Colleen

Why should this story have anything to do with you? This young man is going to die because under NHS rules he is not going to have the liver transplant that he needs. Who cares you say? He did it to himself? Yes, but he was never warned about the dangers of alcohol as the schools only teach about the dangers of drugs.
And there is a shortage of donated livers. OK I can understand that.
However, what is the real reason he cannot get a transplant? Because in the past the NHS would sell the donated organs to patients who need them overseas who can afford to pay the higher prices that the livers can command. And life style choices enter the picture. If the choices that you make regarding your health are not the good choices that government says you should be making then you do not deserve the right to a transplant.
Yes, that is right! In the past The National Health Service would sell the organs to the highest bidder overseas! I will underscore and print in red ink the statement in the story that confirms what I have just said. There was such an outcry about this the NHS says that it no longer sells the organs, but can we be sure of that?
Now the question you need to ask yourself is this. Can I trust my government if they adopt the socialized medicine concept that the U.K has not to do the same thing? Sell donated organs to the highest bidder in order to pay for the "free medical care for everyone"? Right now it is against the law to sell bodies or body parts, but how long will it stay that way?
We can not trust our government to manage our banks and financial institutions, so how can we trust them with dealing with the health problems?
Already in India it is common to see woman with one scar on their backs from where there they sold one of their kidneys. The husbands are the bosses, and if he thinks he can solve his financial problems, his wife is the one to give up one of her kidneys. Of course the husband keeps the money and she is left with one kidney.
Organs have become big business.
I discovered this through my research in trying to find the right place to donate my body for medical research. While cleaning out my desk I came across an ad from the newspaper that I had saved. The headline screamed FREE CREMATION.
Underneath that attention-grabbing headline they said that with my whole body donation to medical science and education this company will GIVE ME A FREE CREMATION. Great I thought! I had always wanted to donate my body to science as I have had a long and well-documented history of my back problems with copies of my x-rays taken from 1958.
If you go to this web site: you can see how professional this web site it is attracting its future customers, because in the end, that is what you will become, just another one of their customers. You donate your body and they distribute the parts of the body to others. They are the intermediary, or the middleman in the equation. They slice and dice you and send your most valuable parts unto different medical schools who need your body parts for teaching or for research.
This is how it works. You sign the papers before you die and then inform your next of kin to call a special number that they give to you. Alternately your next of kin can donate your body to them. The most important part is to have your next of kin to call them before they do anything else. They will contact the nearest funeral home to come and pick up the body. Then your body will be taken by the funeral home and then flown back to their place of business, which is in Portland, Oregon. They will pay for your body to be transported. Then in 3 weeks time any parts of you not used will be cremated and sent back in a lovely heart-shaped cardboard box with a package of wild flower seeds. Then your next of kin can scatter your ashes according to your wishes.
Of course there are some caveats. They will not take your body if you are overweight or damaged in an accident - or have a disease like Aids or Hepatitis.
If you die in a hospital then health officer makes a determination if your body can be donated for science or research. If you qualify then you are off to the races; or rather others are off to the races to see who gets you first. When you donate your body for scientific research then you have to give them the whole body. You can not ask that special parts be donated to another agency.
I just called the company to ask them what their policy is if I am transported at their cost to their place of business and for some reason they can not use my body. Will my family then be sent a bill to pay for the expenses of the cost of transporting my body? I was informed that they do all kinds of tests first to make sure your body is not suffering form some kind of infectious disease. Sometimes they discover that a body has an infectious disease at the time of death but for some reason it was not detected. They will go ahead and cremate the body and return the ashes to the family or scatter them at sea, what ever your wishes were when the papers where signed. They assume the cost of this and they have never sent a bill to the family if they receive a body and can not make any use of it. Well, that is good to know, as I would hate to think my sons would have to pay for my body to be transported to Portland, Oregon.
Now this got me to wondering, what is going on here? How can they pay for the cost of transporting my body all the way across the country to be sliced, diced, and then sent off to other parts of the country to the different institutions that need those very valuable body parts? A call to their office informed me that they receive funding from different sources that receive money from grants given to them.
In the end I decided to donate my body to the University of Texas, the Health Science Center at Houston - because they will keep the bodies for up to 2 years. This way if I am hanging on ice or in some freezer I know that eventually I will be picked up and used by the University of Texas for teaching and research purposes. They will come and pick up my body if I die within 100 miles of Houston. I live about 50 miles from Houston. If I die somewhere else than my body will go to in Portland. I always like to have a backup plan in reserve incase things go topsy-turvey.
Please read this story and ask yourself, what will my country do to save money to pay for the treatment of giving us free medical care?

Did you write this? Excellent information.
Thank you,
Yes Roni, I wrote this as I want as many people that I can to really know exactly what is at stake here if we allow our President and the democratic party to shove this "free medical plan" down our throats. You can post it onto your web site if you wish. I still have not figure out how to post stuff. I am on working on a story that clearly shows on the NHS is failing its customers, the taxpayers in Britain that have paid for this free medical care all their working lives. And 23% of their wages go to just pay for the NHS system. Then you ad the rest of the taxes and it comes up to 50%. No wonder so many of the Britains try to come to our country.
Keep up the good fight. Thank you for telling me that it was excellent information. I had only recieved one comment from a lady, my age, who refuses to believe that this play for "free medical care" is not the greatest thing since sliced bread. She believes I am making a mountain out of a molehile. I wrote and told her that after living and seeing how socialized medicine works, I know what I am talking about. And I will back up what I say with actual articles from their own countries newspaper, The London Times. That is why I include the web address so they can read the article from their own newspages.
Take Care !

Friday, July 17, 2009


By Marc Morano - Climate Depot

[Climate Depot Editor's Note: Obama's Commerce Sec. Gary Locke would have us believe that Mother Nature is running a mob-like operation. Americans need to pay up or else! Pay hard-earned dollars to the government or face "floods, droughts and rising sea levels." It appears Sec. Locke is attempting to serve as a climate henchman, offering Americans a deal they can't refuse -- pay up or you face bodily harm and loss of property. Sec. Locke has also joined others in the "Climate Astrology" movement. (see G8 Leaders embrace 'climate astrology' - Trying to control Earth's thermostat is 'madness of our age' - July 10, 2009 and Congressional Weather-Makers: 'Climate Astrologer' Boxer warns of 'droughts, floods, fires, loss of species' -- if Senate fails to pass climate bill - July 11, 2009 and see Related Links below) Sadly, this is simply more misguided policies based on embarrassing scientific claims from this Administration.]
Commerce Sec.: Americans 'should be required to pay for carbon content' of imports to help avoid climate 'catastrophe' - Reuters - July 17, 2009
Reuters Excerpt: To address the serious threat of global warming, Americans should be required to "pay" for the carbon content of goods they consume from countries around the world, a top U.S. official said on Friday. "It's important that those who consume the products being made all around the world to the benefit of America -- and it's our own consumption activity that's causing the emission of greenhouse gases, then quite frankly Americans need to pay for that," Commerce Secretary Gary Locke told the American Chamber of Commerce in Shanghai. Locke spoke to the business group after meetings this week with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and other officials on how the two countries could work together to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions blamed for global warming. Unless China, the United States and other countries begin to reduce output of the heat-trapping gases, the world faces a "catastrophe" in the form of more frequent floods, droughts and rising sea levels, Locke said. For complete article go here. [End Article Excerpt.]
Related Links:
Congressional Weather-Makers: 'Climate Astrologer' Boxer warns of 'droughts, floods, fires, loss of species' -- if Senate fails to pass climate bill - July 11, 2009
Climate Depot's Morano: G8 Leaders embrace 'climate astrology' - Trying to control Earth's thermostat is 'madness of our age' - July 10, 2009 - Morano Excerpt : 'Who needs to be educated here? Ugandans who blame bad weather on angry gods -- or is it Western leaders who actually think they can control the climate?'
Which is more plausible? Ugandans blame drought and disease on the 'angry gods' -- While More 'Educated' Western Leaders blame 'cell phone chargers?!' - July 8, 2009
'Channeling King Canute': G-8 to 'Prevent temps from rising...what if the Earth has other plans?' - July 9, 2009 - Investor's Business Daily
Obama's 'Climate Astrologer': Energy Sec. Chu claims he knows 'what the future will be 100 years from now' - June 28, 2009 - Morano Excerpt: 'Shouldn't Chu be touting these scary predictions of the year 2100 on a boardwalk with a full deck of Tarot Cards?'
Princeton Physicist: 'The idea that Congress can stop climate change is just hilarious' - Warns of 'climate change cult' - July 8, 2009
Controlling Nature? Obama backs 'historic breakthrough' in G8 climate talks - 'Agree to goal of keeping the world's temps from rising more than 2C' - July 9, 2009
President Obama has also claimed he can 'block the Sun's rays to end global warming'
Obama claims U.S. climate bill will leave Earth 4 to 5 degrees cooler! - June 15, 2009
2008: Obama prognosticates his presidency will be 'the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal'
Democrat Congressman G.K. Butterfield reported claim that the bill 'will literally save the planet' - June 26, 2009
Analysis: Climate Bill is 'Scientifically Meaningless' - Temp Reduction By 2050 of Only 9/100 of one Degree F - May 6, 2009
Climatologist: Modern belief that mankind controls climate 'not that different from ancient civilizations making sacrifices to the gods of nature'
Salem Witch Trials during 'Little Ice Age': 'Women suspected of being witches-- were often accused of changing the weather'
Have we advanced? 'Aztec priests encouraged people to sacrifice blood to the gods' to end severe drought in 1450 - 'Sacrificed thousands of people in a few weeks'
Climate Astrology: 'Mass starvation' - Global warming 'WILL make growing seasons shorter, generating lower crop production'
Climate Astrologists: 'Heatwaves, droughts, floods and storms WILL sweep across continents, killing millions and evicting millions more'
Aussie Geologist: Climate fear is 'new religion for urban populations which have lost their faith in Christianity' - 'IPCC report is their Bible. Al Gore and Lord Stern are their prophets' - July 8, 2009
Report: Truly man-made global warming is the new religion at the BBC' - July 9, 2009
MIT Climate Scientist: 'Ordinary people see through man-made climate fears -- but educated people are very vulnerable' - July 6, 2009
Warming fear promoters compared to 'medieval preachers, proclaiming to baying crowds that the end of the world is nigh' - July 9, 2009 - Excerpt: 'It is little over 200 years since Europe stopped execution of witches, and less than that since Spain finally abolished the Inquisition'
Teen so passionate about global warming she opts for 'eco-baptism' - July 11, 2009
Paper: 'Every car trip is an incremental crime against nature' - July 11, 2009
Methodist Church calls upon Christians 'to repent their sins that have contributed to climate change'- July 9, 2009
The Astrology of Climate Change
Where's Mother Nature keep her cash box?
Great question. I think it is in Treasuries bailout funds. Marc
Yup! You're right. Here it is. Mother Nature's cash box.

This past year, we've connected Al Gore (Science czar Dr. John Holdren was one of his Inconvenient Truth consultants.), Goldman Sachs (Al Gore lied about his connection.), and eco-groups including TNC.
As you're well aware, Hank Paulson was connected to TNC as is its present CEO Marck Tereck...and also Bruce Babbitt (who worked hard to get resource providers off public land) and his WWF.
There are many eco-activists connections with US Treasury, United Nations & Center for Biological Diversity's Timothy Wirth, and GS.
In researching TNC and their request for a $45,000,000 tax exempt bond money loan from Colorado Educational and Cultural Authority (To acquisition land in New York.), I found it chilling to see TNC's presence in every big and little town in the USA!
I have strong reasons to believe some of these people are interconnected for the purpose of "taking control of our land and water," I.e. the "end game" for groups like TNC.
It's a given Al wants to be king of the globe.
When talking of Obama's fast moving policy and czardom making, I remind folks not to loose sight of this - "control of land and water" - end game.
If one took each policy coming down the Obama pike, I'd be willing to bet trace back would reveal at least 85% of those policies (Like cap `n trade, carbon credits, conservation easements, clean water and restoration act, ominibus wilderness etc.) are born out of this end game.
A non-partisan newspaper with backbone, could save America, if one of their sharp investigative reporters exposed and blew these shikepokes out of their game!
Most eco-activist groups have exceptionally well paid CEO's (Few make under $150,000 annual, with WWF & TNC CEO's receiving over $400,000.) and - receive millions and millions - perhaps billions of welfare monies from - guess who? Yes. The federal government. In other words, they take your money and use it to seize control of your land and water.
If you believe Al Gore's claims man makes global warming, then you are one of many who give answer to: Why the spam?
Thanks. Great stuff!
Response from Bob Fanning:

As a Chicago boy I see a parallel here .
Al Capone was in the protection rackets.
He used the same tactics on bars, restaurants and other businesses that he could shake down .
"Pay up or your business burns to the ground."
The bankster oligarchy in charge of our government are demanding the same "tribute".
Climate change is no different than Mafia racketeering and is destined to end the same fate as other racketeers at 2122 North Clark on Valentines Day 1929
Living in the Mafia state, I can also tell you that health care will be no diffrent than cap & trade and the nationalization of credit and autos ; a shake down for money and power.

Friday, July 10, 2009


A note to Judy, from Colleen

( To all my other friends and relatives. I am sending you a copy of this letter because I want you to completely understand just how bad the socialized medicine is. I lived for 14 years with it so I know what I am talking about. I was talking to my friend Judy and was trying to tell her what the man in Washington said about the new plan that Obama is proposing. You know the one with the big gray hair in a pompador. Well, we both laughted because most of the men in Washington have grey hair. So I found this email where this explains what we are afraid of. Please read it. It is long but I want you to know exactly what it is like and the kind of care you get.)

Hi Judy

This was the thing that I was trying to tell you about when we last talked. When I explained to you that I am very afraid that when the new health bill comes to our country, they will have the attitude like they do in England and Canada. The attitude that when you reach a certain age, namely 65, they will not invest money into maintaining your health but will instead tell you this. Well, what do you expect? Aches and Pains come with the age. You have to accept these things. We can not afford to pay for the drugs that will relieve your pain, just because you are getting older. Accept it and learn to live with it. They have already listed some of the things they will not pay for, like back pain treatments ect.
I have had many doctors tell me this in Britain especially after they told me I had to get off of hormone replacement therapy.
Now it is a fact that they do not give mamagrams for women over age 65 and they have stopped all breast exams by the doctors. That happened in 2003 or 2003. When I tried to make an appointment for both of these exams, I was told that they do not do these type of exams anymore due to my age.
Remember I lived in Britain for 14 years, so I got to know how the NHS really works. When Davids mother went into the hospital when she had a stroke, there was bloody hand prints all over the glass door that seperates the patient from the women behind the desk. Dirty balls of dust where all over the floor. Paper towels and the kind of things you would expect to see in the rest rooms of some back water gas stations. The biggest problem is the lack of cleaning which is done by the cheapest company that gets the contract. And the cleaners gets no special instructions in how to clean or disinfect the areas. Remember the cheapest company gets the contract. They have plastic flowers in the high walls for decoration, filled with dust and dirt for years! and the MHRS, or the super drug runs rampid in most of all their hospitals. People are afraid to be put into the hospital for fear of getting this super drug.
Now during those 14 years, the more the people complained the more money that the govt put into their socialized medicine, the NHS. National Health Service. However it worked in reverse, the more money they put into it the worst it got. The waiting lines grew longer, and longer. Yes people die every day while they are waiting for treatment. You read about it all the time in their newspapers.
When you get to see a doctor, you have just 5 minutes visit with him and he decides if he should write you an prescription or send you to see an consultant, which is a specialist doctor. Now you are on the waiting list. I waited 18 months after the cateract was deemed to be to the stage that it should be removed. Even though I was seeing things in triple vision, that did not matter, I had to wait my turn.
Now I shall tell you what happened to my best friends daughter Christine and this is happening now. In January of this year she got a cold and started to cough. The cough stayed with her, for weeks and then she started to lose lots of weight. She made an appointment to see her doctor and they were going to do so small surgery as she had a cyst on her bottom that needed to be taken out.
By the doctor casually mentioned to her that she might have cancer of the throat because of the cough, but decided that she needed to have the cyst removed first.
She got to the hospital and when she was there they said, oh no , we can not operate on this, as you have a cough. You will have to see another doctor about the cough first. So that meant more delays, weeks went into months all the while she was in so much pain from the cyst on the end of her butt. Then she started to have very bad diarrea. Her husband called the doctor and the hopsital - and they told him, oh no we can not see her or admitted to the hospital if she has diarrea. Go see you regular G.P general doctor and get some tablets to get rid of the diarrea. They refused to see what was causing the diarrea, lost of weight and the cyst which filled up 2 times aday and burst; then she would have some relieve for a short time, till the cyst filled up with fluid again.
She lost 30 pounds and was down to 73 pounds and she was as tall as her mother, 5'8". Now this started at New years, in January 1, 2009and this is now July. Now you wonder why did she not got see a private doctor. Well her husband worked for BT, British Telecome for 30 years and he thought that he was paying for private insurance. But he found out that he has to go into the NHS hospital and wait his turn like everyone else. Even though he paid for private insurance.
By this time she was so weak she could not walk to go to the bathroom so she was using a pan and her husband noticed that there was blood in the diarrea. So he immediately called the hospital and told them what was going on. They told him they will have to call him back. He waited hours. No phone call so they all went to bed.
Several hours later they where woken up by the sound of ambulance siren. And a loud pounding on their door. Two ambulance men where pounding on the door. Her husband opened the door and was told that they came to pick up Mrs So and so and take her to the Maidstone Hospital. So they finally got around to allowing her to go into the hospital to see what was wrong with her. They gave her a private room because she has such bad diarrea.
Now they have given her tests, and we are still awaiting to see the results of the test. They have also told her that she is to eat nothing for one month, so they gave her some prescription that she drinks 5 times a day. It is something like Ensure. I will let you know if she has cancer of the throat. She does not smoke and will not be around any one that smokes. But this is what you go through when you are sick in a country that has socialized medicine. You wait your turn. Most of the doctors and nurses are from 3rd world countries and can hardly speak any english. The first doctor I had was a Indian husband and wife. When I told her what my complaint was she looked into a catalog, like a very thin Sears catalog and looked up the different prescriptions to take for the different symtoms.
There is no way that our medical care can promise to reduce the money they charge without reducing services. Now I forgot to tell you that before I reached 65 and got on medicare, I was only on medicaid, I had great difficulty finding a doctor who would see me. Now Obama tells you that if you like your doctor, they you will get to keep your doctor. But what he is not saying is this. The doctor may not keep you. I had doctors who refused to see me because I only had medicaid. They do not want to take medicaid patients because they are paid so little.
Now when I was rushed to the hospital when I first arrived here in Tx, the emergency doctors did not want to treat me because they said that they are not there to take care of people who have pains in there back. I told them that if they do not treat me and find out why I am in so much pain, I will go home and kill myself because I will not live in this pain. I could not move my left leg, nor move from side to side. It was like I was paralyzed.
The doctor told Matt and Mark aside and asked them if I had any mental problems. They told the doctor that my mother is a very strong woman and she has lived with her back problems for all her life, but this is more than just pain coming from a bad back, there has to be something else wrong with her.
So they took a blood test to check my white cells count and found it was off the wall. They thought that I had luekemia. Now they gave me to a new doctor, who must have just came over here from China. He could hardly speak any English, but said he would accept me as a patient. Though he could barely speak English, he knew what to do and gave me every test that I needed! He took great care of me and got me to where I am today.
He accepted me without any insurance and without medicaid only because he was trying to build up his practice. He was low man on the totem pole. I was lucky to get him.
So Judy - when you read what is in the next part of this email, remember that this is coming from an Republican, but that does not negate what we are all afraid of. We have to make sure that we do not get the plan that is anything like what England and Canada has. Oh, and England has had free medical care since 1947 so they have had 60 some years to work the bugs out of the plan. But the plan is doomed to fail because there are always more people who need care than what the working people want to pay in taxes. France has the same system and it also has problems, but not as many as England, but that is because more people come to England due to the generous benefits packages they give to everyone.
So don't get mad when you read this, just think about what they are proposing.