RiteOn Blog

WHY SWITZERLAND HAS A LOW CRIME RATE

If you want to find out why Switzerland has a low crime rate click, on this link:

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nf1OgV449g

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS RUNNING AMOK

 By Chuck MacNab

Suddenly the reality of terrorism once again spits in the face of government policy makers. Political correctness, commonly referred to as PC, has overlaid the threat of bureaucratic entanglement into the working lives of all who make small daily decisions that have the potential to grow into monster events.

Let me elaborate: Picture yourself as an agent at an airline desk in Nigeria when a young man comes to the counter who wants to buy a ticket to the USA. Even though he pays with cash and has no luggage, in all likelihood you know he is the Muslim son of an important person in your country. Are you going to refuse to sell him that ticket? Picture yourself as a clerk at the American Embassy in Nigeria receiving a report from a man who says his son holds "strange political views." You think to yourself that you don't want to get involved in what might be a minor squabble between a man and his son, especially since the "word" is out that "new policy" indicates that terrorism is over rated, and the Administration you now work for has emphasized that there is to be not even a hint of "profiling" going on.

Picture yourself as an airline ticket agent in Amsterdam who receives a request for a seat in the most critical area of the passenger cabin. You see nothing wrong with this request because he came in on another flight and is simply transiting through and he is not on either the "no fly" or even the "extra check" list. Besides, he is African, a Muslim and you also don't want to be accused of "profiling" and prejudice against Muslims. You reflect on the more relaxed U.S. Government views of security since a new Administration came into office and maybe you agree that being more understanding of those who hate America will cause them to be less of a security risk. Maybe the terrorists will appreciate America's new, less belligerent and more "understanding" attitude so there may not be as much need for vigilance.

Then, being aware that terrorism is really NOT terrorism but is instead a crime for law enforcement to handle, the media almost immediately assumes that someone attempting to set off a bomb on board an aircraft with 300 people's lives at stake is acting alone and is not really a terrorist but a deranged individual who needs to be "understood." There is no proof of an Al Qaeda connection despite the fact that the terrorist had a very sophisticated device strapped to his body, spent time in Yemen learning how to use it, wanted to blow the plane up on Christmas day and even stated that he was an agent of Al Qaeda! Just like the Fort Hood massacre, the initial statements from the media wanted to call the incident everything except what it was...another terrorist attack in a war against terrorism. Despite their zeal to redefine terrorism as an activity for law enforcement, the White House learned from the Fort Hood attack not to be too hasty in denying the obvious.

If this Administration policy continues there will be more and more attacks and they will get worse in both scope and frequency. How many incidents will it take to convince the left that we need to deal with terrorist's who are not run-of-the-mill criminals? It looks like a never-ending number at this point. Now, by all means, let's read the terrorists their Miranda rights, and not waterboard them to get information about where and when the next attack might be. Just say "pretty please," give them the best medical care (while sticking it to a senior veteran who needs it) and set them up at a nice hotel with room service. Maybe then they'll tell us what we need to know!

MERRY CHRISTMAS

NEWT GINGRICH AT HIS BEST

NEWT GINGRICH

Forwarded to RiteOn by Guest Editor JH

I didn't like what he did in NY23, but here he has drawn a line in the sand for ALL of us!
Please click on this link. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtjfMjjce2Y  

Climategate at the 2nd International Climate Conference.

Lord Monckton interviewing a typical "social activist" of Greenpeace while she puts her ignorance on display. Global warming is undoubtedly a religion... not a science!

Lord Monckton confronting a member of Greenpeace.
http://www.tomllewis.com/?p=2875

Whether it's health care legislation, control of energy or bankrupt spending, this is a perfect example of what rational thinkers are facing in today's world.

The leftists and their cults of ignorance say, "Don't confuse me with the facts because my mind is made up!" They are absolutely intent on dragging all of us over a cliff with them!

OBAMACARE

For those who may agree with the liberals and want the U.S. to go to a Canadian style health care system. Watch this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2jijuj1ysw

GET SET FOR MAMMOTH INCREASES IN INDIVIDUAL HEALTH CARE COSTS

The following excerpt was taken from Bob McCarty's latest blog. You owe it to yourself to click on the link at the bottom of the page and read it.
----------------------
(Excerpt)

Health Care Bills Contain HUGE Marriage Penalty.

By Allen Quist, Guest Blogger

There is a huge middle-class marriage penalty hidden in the House and Senate health care bills. The penalty becomes evident by evaluating questions like the following:

* How much would two single people, each making $30,000 per year, pay for private health insurance if the Pelosi bill was in effect now? The answer is $1,320 per year for both individuals combined (based on the premium limits and subsidies outlined on the charts on p. 3).

* But how much would they pay for the same level of insurance under the Pelosi bill if they were to marry? Their combined cost would then be about $12,000 a year (the estimated cost for private insurance).

Continued at:

http://bobmccarty.com/2009/12/09/health-care-bills-contain-huge-marriage-penalty/

THE MAMMOTH HOAX PROMOTION IN COPENHAGEN

Photo by RiteOn LLC of K & N Patriots Rally in O'Fallon, Missouri
--------------------------------------

Below is a reply to an article by correspondent Mort Rosenblum that appeared in The Global Post on December 4, 2009. (We judge the article to be a publisher’s attempt to share in some of the revenue of the mammoth hoax promotion now going on in Copenhagen.) (http://www.globalpost.com/)

-----------------------
By Chuck MacNab

The problem with Mort Rosenblum’s views about Global Warming is that he believes in “random observation.” It’s like we used to complain about certain flights we would fly that were full and that observation made us wonder why the company refused to add more capacity to that route. After many suggestions from a few pilots the Director of marketing agreed to visit with us one day and showed us that the few days we flew the flight were the only ones where there was a payload. We almost started a “work action” based on just the experience we had in observing a small portion of the scheduled flight pattern. After seeing the truth in the figures we felt like fools and went back to doing what the company was paying us for.... Flying airplanes instead of trying to become marketing managers! The problem today with “climate change” is that the marketing manager who is supposedly investigating the truth of the matter has become a liar!

As far as global warming is concerned, I have given the Chicago natural history museum some rare 5000-year-old objects I picked up in the Rub Al Khali desert in Saudi Arabia. These objects, according to scientists who have studied them, indicate that 5000 years ago the area supported a thriving agricultural population in the tens of thousands. It is now a parched and dry desert incapable of supporting life in almost any form. Since this process has slowly taken place over thousands of years in this area it should be obvious to anyone with common sense that an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, allegedly caused by so-called CO2 pollution created since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, was NOT the cause of “climate change” in this vast dry areas of the globe. The dry climate was caused by natural changes that have taken place for hundreds of thousands of years and not by “traffic congestion” or some sort of industrial process! The Rub Al Khali has never seen any industry since the beginning of known history and scientists who have studied the area know that “global warming” has not been the cause of climate change there any more than it was in the Sahara or Gobi Deserts, the Mojave or any other large dry area of the planet. By the way, nobody lives in these areas so they don’t have a group of panic stricken “elites,” who like to throw cocktail parties on Park Avenue in order to fund scientists, lobbyists and politicians to promote “their cause!”

We could ignore this sort of activity when those who represented us in Congress had some common sense but since that situation has now changed and the Marxists have see that climate change can be used as a powerful tool to interfere in other people's lives, we need to blow the cover off the lies that now endanger our freedom and our way of life. One must ask the question, "Why the sudden panic by lawmakers to impose Draconian costs on the population, especially here in the U.S.?" The obvious answer is that something OTHER than “climate change” motivates the global warming advocates. When one looks at what that might be and sees what governments are demanding, the likely reason for the panic being generated is not a real concern about climate change but instead a quest for MONEY and POWER. This, as we say at the racetrack, is as phony as a three-dollar bill and it needs to be stopped before western culture is decapitated by this huge hoax. The revealing of the emails from the U.K. Climate research facility is proof that this mammoth lie is based on phony science generated for reasons of self-interest.

Those who believe that climate change is man made and continue making the likes of Al Gore rich beyond all reason are simply naïve, foolish or both. Many of us refuse to follow these fools over the cliff. We are trying to convince our fellow citizens to join us in preventing this hoax from eliminating our freedom; ruining our lives and making us bond slaves to corrupt politicians.

COPENHAGEN NONSENSE

Here is a commentary by Steve Saville, an Australian who lives in China and writes a newsletter called The Speculative Investor. (Google it if you are interested in subscribing.) His views are usually "big picture" oriented and are not often seen in the western media, though his investment letter is circulated world wide. His comments are, of course, aimed at informing his subscribers concerning matters that may add to their insight concerning investment decisions.

We have known Steve and subscribed to his newsletter for many years. He always has some very well-informed and common sense views of political activities and what motivates politicians. His main purpose is to inform his readers for investment purposes but his comments range over a wide group of subjects. This one deals with "Climate Change" (global warming).

With his permission, we share this with you because it is so "right on the money" in our opinion. It is from his December 6 newsletter. - Chuck
------------------------
POLITICS AND CLIMATE CHANGE NONSENSE
By Steve Saville

Paul Krugman, a journalist, TV personality and prize-winning economist, is obviously a smart guy, and yet much of his commentary on the economy and the financial markets can best be described as moronic. In our opinion, this apparent contradiction arises because Krugman's economics - at least, the economics he espouses in the popular press - are dominated by his political leanings. Krugman is a strong believer in big government, so his views on economics are crafted to support an expanded role for government.

Unfortunately, Krugman appears to be a proxy for the economics profession. There are some good economists who are able and willing to objectively analyse (and publicise) the long-term effects of government policy on all segments of the economy, but they are the exception rather than the rule. Most are shortsighted advocates for an interventionist government, despite the mountain of evidence that attempts -- even the well-intentioned ones -- to interfere with the free market invariably do more harm than good. One of the main reasons for this sorry state of affairs is, we suspect, that money and prestige are directed towards economists who 'toe the correct political line'.

It is disappointing, if not surprising, that climate science appears to have gone the same way as the science of economics, meaning that politics has come to dominate the study of climate the way it dominates the study of economics. For example, government funding is directed almost exclusively to those climate scientists who attempt to prove that Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is a major problem to be reckoned with, while efforts are made to ensure that the research produced by AGW sceptics never sees the light of day. Consequently, the average climate scientist is in danger of becoming as counter-productive as the average economist.

AGW and "Climate Change" are even more topical than usual right now. This is due to the international Climate Change conference that will be held in Copenhagen over the next two weeks, and to what has become known as "Climategate". "Climategate" refers to the recent theft of email records and other information from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) of a university that provides climate data and analysis to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The stolen records show that climate data have been altered, falsified and concealed in an effort to make the 'facts' fit the computer models constructed by AGW proponents.

The stolen information doesn't conclusively prove that the AGW Theory is wrong. Instead, it is just another brick in a large and growing wall of evidence that separates climate-change reality from the climate-change situation as presented to the public.

One of the most brazen attempts to make the evidence fit the AGW Theory was the construction of the long-term temperature graph known as "Mann's Hockey Stick". This graph shows a relatively stable global temperature for hundreds of years and then an upward trend beginning in the early-1800s. Because the beginning of the graph's upward trend coincides with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, it is a very neat fit with the AGW Theory.

The creation of "Mann's Hockey Stick" effectively involved the re-writing of centuries of recorded history. The analysis upon which it is based has since been thoroughly discredited, and yet governments around the world are still acting as if it is fact rather than fiction. There is clearly a determination not to let an inconvenient truth get in the way of a good story, or, more relevantly, to let the truth get in the way of an 'excuse' for more government control over the economy.

One of the biggest obstacles faced by the AGW proponents -- and the motivation behind the creation of "Mann's Hockey Stick" -- is the historical evidence that the world was significantly warmer during Medieval times (1000-1400) than it is today. Another obstacle is the mounting evidence that the Earth has entered a COOLING cycle (global temperature has been in a slight downward trend since 2002). The recent cooling and the preceding heating are what would be expected if changes in the Sun's activity, as opposed to changes in human-generated CO2, were the dominant influence on multi-decade swings in the average global temperature. Along these lines, would it really be surprising if it turned out that man's influence on the Earth's climate were negligible compared to the influence of the Sun?

The AGW Theory faces many other logical and evidential obstacles. For example, humankind almost certainly has an effect on the amount of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere, but CO2 is NOT a pollutant and CO2 comprises less than 0.04% (four one-hundredths of one percent) of the atmosphere. Moreover, there is no evidence that changes in CO2 levels CAUSE changes in global temperature. Actually, the evidence suggests that if there is a causal relationship between CO2 and temperature then temperature is the cause and CO2 is the effect (ice core data suggest that temperature changes lead CO2 changes by a few hundred years).

We don't think anyone can be 100% sure that the AGW Theory is wrong. However, many aspects of the theory simply don't add up, and it is clear that the climate models currently being used by the IPCC are fatally flawed. Governments should therefore not be proceeding with costly programs aimed at controlling the Earth's climate by controlling CO2 emissions (putting aside, for now, the likelihood that the measures currently under consideration will not even lead to an overall reduction in greenhouse gas emissions).

We have the faint hope that the evidence of a new global cooling cycle will become so blatant over the next few years that politics and government-funded climate science will be forced into line with logic and reality, but we are not optimistic. The reason we aren't optimistic is that "climate change" -- something that has been going on since the dawn of time -- is being used to justify an expanded role for government. If the change is from warmer to cooler, rather than from cooler to warmer, it could still be promoted as man-made and could therefore serve the same purpose. This means that from an investment perspective we should, until/unless proven otherwise, operate under the assumption that resources will be forcibly directed towards businesses that are perceived to be "green".

WHY SHOULD WE CARE IF SCIENTISTS LIE?

Aside from the fact that Al Gore has allegedly made millions from a giant hoax and the liberals in the Administration and Congress are aiming to impose a gigantic tax on us and justify it through the use of scientific hogwash, why should we care if scientists falsify research? Blogger Stephen Browne has some interesting observations about the ongoing "climate change" (Global Warming) fraud. We highly recommend that you read his comments. The link is at the end of these excerpts.... Ed
-------------
Excerpt from: Editorial published in the Valley City (North Dakota) Times-Record

"If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it."
- Richard Feynman, Nobel Laureate in physics, on scientific integrity.

The greatest scandal in the history of science is breaking, and I'm standing aghast while the world spins around me merrily unconcerned.

A hacker, or internal whistle-blower at the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit in England, published on-line over 1,000 emails and about 3,500 files from the CRU. These show the world's most prominent climate scientists promoting the Global Warming hypothesis have engaged in deliberate manipulation of the evidence. They've conspired to suppress data that doesn't support their conclusions, exclude contrary opinions from scientific journals, destroy records before they could be revealed, slander and get global warming dissenters dismissed from their jobs.

And, they destroyed the raw research data. That is never done in respectable science. Not. Ever. Some involved have offered explanations - which hold water like a sieve.

So what? Why should you care if you're not a scientist?

Well, consider Joyce Gilchrist, a former forensic chemist for 21 years at the Oklahoma City police department, who provided evidence in over 3,000 criminal cases. Gilchrist falsified evidence - lots of it. Her testimony got 23 people sentenced to death. Eleven of them were executed. At least one of the dead is all-but-proven innocent. Another was released after 15 years on death row. You see, she just knew those people were guilty, and that justified "improving" uncertain evidence.

(Click on the link below to read the rest of Stephen Browne's blog posting)

http://www.stephenwbrowne.com/2009/12/climategate-a-new-record-in-scientific-fraud/