He notes that international treaties take precedence over domestic application of the Constitution. The climate agreement aims to create broad politically malleable mandates to be imposed on industry and individuals, managed from the top by an unelected world government. It would result in unlimited undemocratic government power, much of which will be in the hands of foreigners, with no mechanism to impose restraint against intrusion of any kind – thus, eliminating entirely the nation defined by the Constitution and the American way of life.

I’m not the first to ask. What happens when the employees put in charge of government operations rebel and refuse to play by the rules? It is more than our reasonable expectation that the Constitution remains in force, that the federal government operates within limits, and that our sovereignty remains intact. Every office holder has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution as a condition for holding office. We have a contract and natural rights should they choose to violate it.

We have not yet effectively demanded those rights. It seems at times that we have become convinced that in practice the United States operates as a “pure democracy” in which the will of the majority in Congress cannot be held in check. In our system, merely being elected or having a party majority does not in any sense offer a mandate for unconstitutional dealings. We have been given that impression because, regardless of which party is in control, the other party desires a return to power over all else. The only solution they offer is to vote for them in the next election. Once elected, they follow the same general course of increasing their own power. Clearly, the element of democracy that is in our system – represented in fact by a “two-party system”– has failed.

Even if elections provided such a powerful mandate – and they do not – the choices voters made were the result of blatant fraud.

Over the past three decades, party bosses have operated in secret to engineer a dramatic restructuring of government and a complete transformation of its relationship with the people. It was not done formally as prescribed by the Constitution. Party politicians controlling the national purse used public funding to, in effect, purchase “states’ rights” from state party politicians. State party politicians take the money in part, as a surreptitious increase in state taxes (collected in the form of federal taxes). Party judges, who have also received money in connection with these transactions, have transformed the laws so that they fit rules of federal jurisdiction.

Federal government does not operate by the same rules and relationships as state governments. The tasks assigned to the federal government by the Constitution require broad political discretion, while those left “to the states and to the people” are subject to more stringent checks and balances designed to protect liberty. The greatest cost of unconstitutional federalism is civil rights. The best known example is the federalization of marriage and family law, which resulted in the legal destruction of marriage and family as fundamentally private institutions in the eyes of corrupted law. Marriage and family are now defined as components of government programs, completely under arbitrary political control.

Did you learn that from msnbc? No. CBS? No. Time, Newsweek, New York Times, … It is obvious that the political class has used the established communications networks for deception. And we continue to see it now. Were we told openly about the decades long effort to establish a One World Government? No – politicians continuously denied it. We also know that there is no climate catastrophe requiring political action. Yet when voting, many people were convinced that there was. The so-called “mainstream media” maintained the hoax in support of party politics. The people were deceived. The politicians in power simply ignore criticism and continue to lie.

I respect Lord Monckton’s understanding of the Constitution when he says; “If that treaty is signed, your constitution says that it takes precedence over your constitution, and you can’t resile from that treaty unless you get the agreement from all the other states’ parties.” However, I must assert that the people of the United States are in a position to declare any such agreement null and void. Its purpose is deception, to achieve goals that are not within the Constitutionally authorized powers of government. The People do not agreed to cede national sovereignty. The effect of such an agreement would amount to a coup – an act of war.

Beyond that, it is the American struggle to terminate the public employees who have so despicably violated their contract to that end; and to restore a proper relationship between government and the people.

What’s so controversial about posting proposed legislation on the Internet for 72 hours to allow people to review it before a vote? Democrats oppose it. In my opinion, the major fault of the proposal is that 72 hours if far too short.

Certainly, refusing to let the public know what is being considered in Congress is not acceptable. It doesn’t seem to be one of those things you can just chalk up to a difference of opinion. The country belongs to its citizens. Congress belongs to its citizens. The money being spent belongs to its citizens. The results are our results. Representatives have been hired to represent us, not to form an exclusive power elite that churns away at some unknown plan in secret. Those bills are our bills. Resulting legislation is our legislation.

At the very least, those who disobey need to be recalled – taken out of service – fired. The idea that the public would wait patiently until the next election, allowing as much damage as possible to be done in the mean time, is the very peak of irresponsibility. If we want a serious chance at reducing corruption, further action is needed. Someone must look more closely, put allegations before grand juries, and see that corrupt politicians are prosecuted.

Let’s consider how other countries handle proposed legislation. Sweden operates a participatory democracy where “special interest group” is not a dirty word. It has for example, sign up sheets for special interests. When legislation is proposed, the government informs those on the list that there is pending legislation. Meetings are held to allow experts behind the bill to present information to those who are interested. Those who are interested in commenting on the bill are provided with copies. Sufficient time is allowed so that members of the public can review and comment.

It’s all part of “open government” – one of the buzz phrases thrown around by Barack Obama during his election campaign. Sweden provides and example of what it’s like when you actually have one. Moreover, it’s an inseparable part of real democracy. As former Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev recently asked, “What is democracy when people don’t take part in it?” The act of refusing to allow the public to consider bills before passage hits at a fundamental level. It’s in the range of crimes against humanity – even if the timid might characterize it something closer to misdemeanor. Recall – impeachment – whatever – it’s the type of behavior that citizens of the civilized world should never tolerate.

Sweden has another advantage that allows it to hold government in line without too much fuss. Their multi-party parliamentary system allows voters to to more finely tune the balance of power. When large parties shift their agenda to something outside of the mainstream, they cease to be large parties. There are internal struggles for the heart of every political party, of course. Nonetheless, voters are not faced with the eternal struggle of “saving” the big two for the sake of the country. When a party ceases to serve the people, there will be another party ready to replace it.

Grayson ruffled feathers and spread glee among the partisan flock a couple of weeks ago when he made this claim:

“If you get sick, America, the Republican health care plan is this: die quickly. That’s right. The Republicans want you to die quickly if you get sick.”

How Grayson could know enough to debate the matter is a bit of a mystery. How many times do we need to mention it? Congressional Democrats are in such a hurry to “do something” about everything, that there’s no time to write, read, or discuss the substance of legislation before agreeing to it. It was a bizarre claim to be sure, but since their “hope and change” has been provoking national rebellion, any distraction is apparently welcome.

Presumptively, the Republicans should have a “health care” plan. Maybe one that would compete with the mystical conjurings of Democrats – costs nothing, does everything. Don’t talk about substantive details though. That would counter-act the magical spells cast upon it by the Wizard-in-Chief Barack Obama. Just imagine, as Alan and Barack want you to, clicking your heals together three times as you do, that the result might be something that you want.

Or how about this? We could all go live in the United States of America again where Congress isn’t actually supposed to be in the insurance business and providing sales commissions to its members. We could imagine instead, on firmer intellectual ground, that they’re trying to pull another fast one on us, overstepping their Constitutional authority again, trying to do something as corrupt as a petrified turd in a drain pipe.

More recently, Grayson stepped to the podium to once again say that he won’t apologize for his earlier remarks – fueling speculation that he might be subtly poking fun at Republican Congressman Joe Wilson for apologizing after yelling “You lie!” during Obama’s stump speech to Congress. (What else should I call it, really?) He had some additional remarks.

“[The American People] understand the if Barack Obama were somehow able to cure hunger in the world, the Republicans would blame him for over-population. They understand the if Barack Obama could somehow bring about world peace, they’d blame him for destroying the defense industry. If fact, they understand that if Barack Obama has a BLT sandwich tomorrow for lunch, they will try to ban bacon.”

Well, Barack Obama did win a Nobel Peace Prize for talking about peace and harmony. If imagining things based on flowery speeches is good enough for the Norwegian Nobel Committee – oh wait, the American people actually have to live with the real-world results and pay for them – even die for them when it becomes too expensive (especially without jobs) to heat homes and buy food and pay taxes and when foreign military actions are not properly managed. That can be especially frustrating when many in the rest of the world are content to leave the expenses and heavy lifting to Americans, and then stand around complaining as they do it.

But those nasty Republicans better stay away from banning BLTs. Bacon might not be good for our health, but I like it. While we’re at it, let’s allow smoking in public places again. A lot of people – American people – like that but somebody came along and banned it. The Democrats should also consider lifting the ban on proper history and civics lessons in public schools, citing the Pledge of Allegiance, singing the National Anthem, and praying. These things are all being replaced by activities that are truly bad for our health.

Barack Obama dismisses his critics with the enthusiasm of a child leaving school for summer vacation. Perhaps we are not completely right about everything we say. Reading someone on the inside, especially someone who plays us with carefully practiced external behavior is a tricky business. A week ago, George Stephanopolous (ABC) questioned Mr. Obama about his contention that a federal law making health insurance mandatory for everyone is not a tax increase. Watching this clip of the interview again, resulted in a transformative moment. Have I misjudged Barack Obama?

A comparison given by Barack Obama during the interview set me to thinking.

The responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase … any more than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs.

Hold on, I thought. The issues of health and auto insurance are fundamentally different. This insight was helped along by the fact that I’m an old guy. I recall the debate on mandatory auto insurance well enough to know its tipping point. Owning and driving a car is not a fundamental right. You may operate a vehicle on private land without insurance, and without a drivers’ license for that matter. It is however, within the scope of state and local government authority to regulate driving on public streets and roads for the sake of public safety. That established authority was extended to assure liability coverage in case a driver causes damage to other people and their property.

Like Obama’s supporters, I too was impressed with his campaign performance, trouncing Hillary Clinton – beating her at her own game; manipulating the press as he manipulated the rest of his audience. Dishonest yes – but intelligent, I thought then. Cold, calculating, and manipulative. Perhaps I was wrong. After the election, handling questions impromptu rather than reading his teleprompter or reciting well practiced speeches, he appeared on occasion to be a bumbling idiot. Perhaps European commentators are right, I thought. Barack Obama isn’t evil. He’s just young and inexperienced, and too full of himself to seek wiser council on complicated matters when needed. Or, as many have observed; just hangs with a bad crowd and has been too heavily influenced by bizarre ideas from the fringe.

Then I thought again.

Before running for office, Barack Obama graduated from Columbia University (political science) and Harvard Law School, was president of the Harvard Law Review, a University of Chicago constitutional law professor, and an experienced civil rights attorney. It is within reason to believe that he has a basic understanding of his proposals for legal reform and the arguments he makes to promote them. We can, I assert, grant Barack Obama full responsibility for his own beliefs and behavior. We can, honestly and without reservation, fault him for the implications of his proposals.

Glaringly obvious at once is the fact that the one identifiable trigger for mandatory health insurance, our existence, is a fundamental right. (“… life, …”) Any competent constitutional lawyer or law professor, especially one practiced in civil rights law, understands that any successful shift in legal jurisdication to the federal government results in the elimination of civil rights. The shift requires reclassification of laws to social or economic policy, allowing completely arbitrary political control (with the exception of draconian equal treatment). (“… liberty, …”) A political science graduate, and holder of the office of president, surrounded by as many economic and budget analysts as he pleases as well as other political scientists and historians, Barack Obama also understands the implications of pulling heath care, along with other major parts of the U.S. economy, into the mandatory portion of the federal budget. We all get the bill, one so large that it will cause generations of suffering. (“… and the pursuit of happiness.”)

Whether or not forcing the cost of mandatory health insurance on the public is properly labeled a “tax” or not is a trivial matter. A rose, or its fertilizer, smells the same regardless of the name you choose. Much more important is that Barack Obama plans – yes, knowingly and intentionally – to make our very existence a sufficient basis for exercising arbitrary political control. He plans to overthrow Constitutional rule once and for all. This is by any reasonable definition, a “High Crime” against the United States of America. It is a coup.

I was right the first time. Barack Obama is an evil man.

The music comes from a well known religious song with the name Jesus replaced with Barack Obama and lyrics treat Obama as a national savior. The children then chant a request to support him; to help with his “accomplishments” for making the country strong again. The author of the song is unknown, but a woman – possibly a teacher – can be heard correcting and helping a student who has forgotten the words. Another woman, the person holding the camera, cheers the students on: “All right,” she says. “I like that.”

The action corresponds to lessons suggested by the Obama administration, which were released in conjunction with his national address to school children. In typical Obama loyalist style, school principle Dr. Denise King remained defiant in response to complaints from parents; reportedly saying that she would do it again.

Sean Hannity of Fox News interviewed parents of one of the children in the video, along with former Governor of Arkansas and Republican primary presidential candidate Mike Huckabee.

Hannity: Governor, are you tearing up?

Huckabee: I could easily. With just a little prompting I think I could. You know what I think ought to happen. A lot of these parents [should] run for school board. You know the ultimate power in this country still comes back to people rule. But they can’t rule if they don’t take on the opportunity to say I’m going to run for school board. We’re going to change some policies. It starts there.

So let me get this straight Mike. I have concerns that involve the federal government, the state government, city, county and local government. In order to live comfortably, I need to take control of all branches of government at all those levels, as well as perform the more bureaucratic jobs? Isn’t that what limits to government power and individual rights were all about? So that the masses could get on with their ordinary lives without being fully committed to politics? What happens once we’re all politicians and bureaucrats? How will the rest of civilization work, if there is to be any? Is every job going to be a government job?

Hannity: Am I being too harsh? Because I’m sorry, these are young kids. If they’re going to present political views in a school – you can’t mention God – if they’re going to mention political views, I want balance. I don’t want indoctrination. Am I too harsh in saying she should go?

Huckabee: I think you hit it perfectly a moment ago. It’s not that there was the incident, it’s the defense of the incident with a tone deafness about why parents would be upset.

It’s not that there was that incident? The evidence is unequivocal. These are very dangerous people. They are political extremists who are forcibly indoctrinating school children and there is no reason to think it is an isolated incident. Is PC politeness and perhaps cowardliness to make fools of us all? An emotionally healthy person can reasonably demand arrest and trial for child abuse. Parents throughout the country should be monitoring their schools to assure that it doesn’t happen there. Is this really going to be treated as merely a difference of opinion – subject to a slow and uncertain political process – rather than a crime? Are the teachers and principle involved actually still being allowed to return to work each day as usual? With access to the children to continue the abuse?

Huckabee, unfortunately, is part of a generation of politicians that I have been watching for about 30 years. Republicans and leftist commentators have distorted the meaning of the term “conservative” to allow both parties on-board with a far-left political agenda. He, like his brethren, preach helplessness and passivity in the face of the political machine. He mirrors the shocking position taken by members of both large parties. The only right that American citizens have is the right to vote (to continue control by the two parties). In other words; once in power, power is absolute. There are no moral absolutes that apply to government, no limits to government behavior, no individual rights, only political power. The individual is dead in America. There is only the power of “the state” now. (And “the state” is now gathered into a dictatorial super-state; the reformulated federal government.)

There are fatal flaws their arguments, often quite obvious when people take the time to think them through. In line with Huckabee’s position, freedom from arbitrary government intrusion can only be met by taking power yourself (so long as you are loyal to those more powerful – that’s raw primitive politics). If you are in control, you can rule according to your preferences – at least within the scope of your authority – which presumably will not seem so arbitrary to you. Besides – in your own life you would only be intruding on yourself – in whatever way you personally prefer. Just as good as individual rights? What else can you do, he argues. That’s the way things work. There is no personal life, only the power of “the state.”

This is the vision – promoted by both parties – that led to the fall of Constitutional rule. Constitutional rule holds not with Mike Huckabee’s principles of government, that “power in this country still comes back to people rule” – at least not his version. The United States is formally defined as a nation of laws (not of men) with “inalienable” protection against arbitrary government intrusion. Certainly, continuously preaching a contradictory philosophy leads to a reduction in the effort needed to keep government in check. Add to this the lack of honest civics education in America, and its replacement with alternative political messages, and you see the designs of an organized coup. This is not the first time, nor is the United States the first country, in which this has happened. It is an integral part of every dictatorship in the world.

It’s a frog in hot water scenario with each election cycle triggering another increasingly large step and defenders telling us that precedents have already been set. It took a very short time to move from a televised speech to school children by a president to brain-washing sessions praising a corrupt politician as our “national savior.” The “slippery slope” was indeed competent theory.

My 30 year watch began with Ronald Reagan, a genius in wrapping a far-left national “social policy” agenda in “conservative” rhetoric. Not unlike Obama supporters, Reagan loyalists still to this day seem to worship him as a great icon of their movement rather than objectively evaluating the major changes in their relationship with government that resulted from his presidency. A Reagan acolyte, Newt Gingrich has joined with Al Sharpton in promoting the federal intrusion in schools. Political indoctrination for adults. (Fox News reports)

In his most recent PR thrust, this past Friday, he brushed the national fury aside by characterizing it as typical right-left drivel, and likened himself to Franklin D. Roosevelt. FDR, of course, instituted a number of socialist programs, primarily from Sweden, in the face of opposition. Most of the programs were temporary and none were aimed at destroying free-market capitalism by taking control of all economic activity. But Obama’s message was clear. Implementing his agenda is a foregone conclusion. What the American people want and what they have to say just doesn’t matter. If FDR got away with it, so will he.

That was followed by action. Back to business-as-usual on Tuesday, he addressed a group at the United Nations in a process intended to lead to a new international Cap-n-Trade agreement.

That so many of us are here today, is recognition that the threat of climate change is serious, it is urgent, and it is growing. Our generation’s response to this challenge will be judged by history. For if we fail to meet it boldly, swiftly, and together, we risk consigning future generations to an irreversible catastrophe. No nation, however large or small, wealthy or poor, can escape the impact of climate change. Rising sea levels threaten every coast line. More powerful storms and floods threaten every continent. More frequent droughts and crop failure breed hunger and conflict in places where hunger and conflict already thrive. On shrinking islands, families are already being forced to flee their homes as climate refugees. The security and stability of each nation and all peoples, our prosperity, our health, and our safety are in jeopardy, and the time we have to reverse this tide is running out. And yet, we can reverse it. John F. Kennedy once observed that our problems are man-made, therefore they may be solved by man.

Even while protagonists continue the propaganda campaign, an already large and still growing number of people realize that the global warming scare is a hoax. Climate change is not man-made and there is nothing we can do that would have a significant impact on global climate. Carbon dioxide, made the villain in the fake battle, is not a pollutant nor is it threatening catostrophic global warming. The threat of rising sea levels, more powerful storms and floods, droughts and crop failures, shrinking islands and climate refugees are ideas popularized by Al Gore’s work of fiction, “An Inconvenient Truth.”

Meanwhile, the climate seems to be in a bit of a cooling trend. Even this doesn’t seem to matter. We can only imagine that the election campaign in 2012 may sport a claim that rapid political action is already yielding positive results. Perhaps then, the army of unemployed, growing in response to Barack Obama’s leadership, will remind us of what we already know. BO is not FDR.

A group of real-life made for low-budget TV mini-series type crooks and commies were brought in to run things and plans were unveiled to start a Hitler Youth type organization to force children into the hive. Opposition immediately got their labels: “far-right,” “extremists,” “racists,” and “Republicans” among others, and before long the intimidation campaign began.

The most shocking came via misuse of the FBI for political purposes. In April, with no analysis or data available, the agency under Obama’s command issued an “assessment” entitled “Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment.” It wasn’t particularly subtle. If you support Constitutional rule – the rule of law – over Obama’s authoritarian reign, you will be on the government’s domestic terrorist list. Any organization promoting Constitutional rule is considered a terrorist organization. It was a threat to put-down political opposition with violence, supported by announced plans to build a separate national army under Obama’s command to be used domestically.

In recent weeks, intimidation tactics have become slightly more subtle – aimed at gently turning tender psyches more effectively than with blatant threats. For example, the left has been quite concerned lately over a White House decision to archive comments from their interactive Facebook page. Regardless of who mentioned it first, yes, I said the left – the Barack Obama and the Democrats can do no wrong subservient left – very concerned. They’re afraid that anyone leaving a critical comment at the Facebook site might face political repercussions. Well, anyone who writes a critical comment in a public forum likely wants their criticism read. It would take a real tin-head (if they think about it) to believe their comments will seem more interesting to a computer archive than the human who was supposed to read it in the first place. The message isn’t one given out of concern for Facebook users. The message is – hey, if you’re considering criticizing the president on Facebook (or anywhere else for that matter) – worry about repercussions from the crazy crooks and commies in the White House. Given that you could be classified as a domestic terrorist, it could get pretty rough.

But this whole sabre rattling, machete swinging, shoe-banging, brain-washing, and forcing “change” that Americans oppose thing seems to be making the Democrats’ first madam of the House, Nancy Pelosi, a bit nervous. She hasn’t actually seen violence from their opposition yet, but she knows it can happen. She’s seen her clan of “moderate humanist caring liberals” from the San Francisco area turn violent at the drop of a hat.

Choking back tears, she generously shared her wisdom to council the news media to spread fear about the hordes of middle- and retirement-aged folks who’s lives they plan to destroy. She and other Democrats have seen rude signs here and there, and rudeness isn’t polite. She supports freedom of speech because it makes our country great, but thinks the opposition should “curb their enthusiasm.” She fears that “the ears it is falling on are not as balanced as the person making the statement might assume.” Is she really expecting to get re-elected in San Francisco after calling them loonies?

Her statement ends by assigning “responsibility” for any violence that occurs to the political opposition; falling not particularly distant from the fake FBI assessment’s ideas about domestic terrorist organizations. Except, apparently there’s no need for protesters to intend any violence themselves or engage in any type of organized recruiting for that or any other purpose. You’re still a potential domestic terrorist just for saying what you think.

Link to video on YouTube

Early speakers aimed directly at the collapse of Constitutional rule. An ultimatum was issued, with the most probable premise yielding a demand for politicians in office to pack their bags and leave. It was a direct response to the dictatorial character of post-Constitutional two-party rule. Back to basics. Liberty is not something the American people need ask for from those in power, it is something endowed by their Creator. The country belongs to The People, not their public servants.

But even as the crowd was encouraged to never give up on these ideals, the message from the podium began a carefully arranged shift as Republican Party insiders took to the stage.

Dick Armey and his wife warmed things up with nice and friendly, just plain old folks. State Representative Joel Winters from New Hampshire bragged about the lack of some taxes in their miracle “free state” (which as he didn’t mention, makes New Hampshire unconstitutionally dependent on the federal government). Richard Mourdock, Republican State Treasurer from Indiana then began instructing the audience on their identity, how to feel, and what to think.

From the Republican Party point of view, it was clear that The People need to be lame, tame, and ready to follow instructions – given by the Party. It was all about the battle for control between the two parties. It was all about returning control to Republicans. Within those few yards around the microphone, it was nothing more than a Republican Party campaign rally.

Still, more than a little enthusiastic in support of The People who marched on Washington, I held hope to the very end. But the end merely brought me to the bottom of a slippery slope in a crash as the end-game, defined from the podium, was defined in a single sentence. In their minds, the event was not about returning the country to The People, returning to Constitutional rule, or promoting “liberty and justice for all.” The end-game: “We’re going to flip that House in 2010.”

Early speakers pointed out that The People are serious and warned politicians who don’t listen. Apparently the organizers and speakers from the Republican Party are still having trouble with that.

Let me introduce myself. I am one of the forgotten people, lost in the haze of partisan self-interest. I was not always so unimportant. The Constitution on which the nation was founded was written for me. It was a promise of limiting the power of government to maintain my freedom. That purpose was further clarified in the first 10 Amendments to the document; setting out specific prohabitions against government intrusion. The right to be left alone – the demand for government to “do nothing” but stay away and mind its own limited legitimate business is among the most important.

In pursuit of freedom, many of my kind have fought and died, to found the nation defined by the document, to preserve it and defend it against “all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

I am now quite often, primarily from the left, treated as if I should apologize for not immediately yielding to their plans. The elected president has even issued a threat of violence to silence me, calling those who believe in Constitutional rule “domestic terrorists.” But the right to speak openly in opposition to political plans is yet another of those specific fundamental rights promised to me, that my kind fought and died for while creating and maintaining the nation that the president now seeks to control. In my view, the Constitution is still the official law of the land, and the president is a criminal.

Among the partisans, the document has been forgotten, just as my identity. They have forgotten their place in my country, their oath and obligations as public servants. They want us all to forget the history of humanity and government, the human thirst for freedom, and most importantly ourselves. We are to be absorbed into their collective. They want to rule.

I am a citizen. I will not apologize for my opposition.

I am an American. I bow to no one.

As Karl Rove points out in a Wall Street Journal article (”Obama and the Perfect Political Storm ”, Sept. 3):

Nearly nine out of 10 Americans say they have coverage—and large majorities of them are happy with it. Of the 46 million uninsured, 9.7 million are not U.S. citizens; 17.6 million have annual incomes of more than $50,000; and 14 million already qualify for Medicaid or other programs. That leaves less than five million people truly uncovered out of a population of 307 million.

Truly?

There is a breed of analyst that depend too heavily on available statistics. If there’s no explanation for the 5 million in the table at hand, then one must assume that defines “the problem.” Not that I doubt there are uninsured people, and 5 million seems like a reasonable number. What about recent college graduates who slipped off their parents’ insurance before accepting their first jobs? That’s only an example. But 5 million is so small compared to 307 (1.6%) that it is within a statistical margin of error.

It’s best to admit when information is limited and you don’t have all the answers, particularly in political debate. The Democrats want to federalize health insurance. That’s a really, really big deal. It is totally irresponsible to assume any unexplained statistic supports political change.

For decades, we have been experiencing a shift in the relationship between government and the people. In the past – based on the Constitution – government needed strong justification to intrude. We have passed the stage where it could merely be said that strong justification is no longer required. We have entered a stage in which people are considering the need for alternative power structures to hold it back.

So, picking on the little slips that assume justification for government intrusion, particularly federal intrusion in areas not allowed by the Constitution, do not seem too picky. The assumptions should favor Constitutional rule. If there’s any need for federal reform, it should aim to reduce the federal role; leaving states and the people free to fix any problems that might actually exist.

The animated ad portrays a call to a local pizza parlor that has just been “wired into the system.” The caller wants a double-meat pizza, but the operator tells him he’ll have to pay a large surcharge due to his high cholesterol and high blood pressure. The operator explains that they have an agreement with his health-care provider, chats in detail about his vacation plans and credit card purchases and then notices that he has been reading a book called “Budget Beach Bum.” The man finally capitulates, accepting the cheaper Sprout Submarine Combo with tofu sticks, eliminating the requirement for a liability waiver. She notes that his credit cards are all maxed out. “Bring cash, OK.”

The ad ends with the message: “Want to stop this from happening? Take action.”

The general point of the ad seems widely accepted even though it was produced by an organization with a strong leftist political agenda. Privacy has become a serious concern among Americans, regardless of political leanings. In a conservative discussion forum, where love of the ACLU is scarce (to say the least), there was some mild amazement among the chuckles. One participant called it “Hilarious – and ironic.” “The ACLU created this, and the humor is dead-on.” Another said, “I can’t believe I actually agree with the Anti-Christian Lunatics Union [ACLU] on something… “

The conservatives have a point. It is surprising that the ACLU would suddenly voice concerns over privacy (other than supporting abortion). “The system” already exists. It was created with billions of dollars in public money during the Clinton era without complaint from the ACLU. Those who actually raised concerns are generally thought of as having a politically “conservative” orientation; like the Cato Institute, and me (Too Late to Stop National ID). “Conservative” rather than Republican. “The system” was built with strong bipartisan support.

The ACLU ad seems deceptive on more than one level, even beyond giving the false impression that the organization works to protect privacy rights. Their portrayal is tied to a “national id” as if our privacy rights can only disappear once we have that number. Why social security numbers and other identifiers don’t work just as well remains a mystery. The most deceptive aspect is that it’s presumed to be something that can be stopped – as if it hasn’t happened yet. If we split hairs, it seems quite unlikely the government is on the verge of allowing Mom & Pop pizza shops to use the information they collect. But then what is it that the ACLU intends; to take credit for stopping something that isn’t going to happen anyway?

Mom & Pop are required by federal law to provide information to “the system.” They provide detailed information on all their employees as well as their income. This isn’t the old income reporting system aimed at satisfying the IRS. “The system” collects information from a great variety of sources – just as the ad portrays. The information is shared across bureaucracies and with private contractors – just probably not the local pizza shop. It only takes government approval for anyone to have access. So many people have access to it, without sufficient safeguards, that often enough, information leaks out without formal approval. Only a hand-full of bureaucrats have so far received symbolic hand-slappings because of it, and then only as a result of public exposure and pressure. Tip of a very large iceberg.

On its “About the ACLU” page, the organization describes itself as “our nation’s guardian of liberty.” What the nation needs is an organization that actually fulfills that role rather than pretending to do so. My recommendation: Accept the emotion the ad intends to provoke, but learn more than the ACLU tells you about privacy issues. If you were considering a donation, send it to an organization or third-party candidate that is actually serious about forcing a return to Constitutional rule.

It is common for these terms to be used as synonyms for “left” and “right” and for those terms to be automatically associated with the Democratic and Republican parties. No matter how far the two parties shift along the political spectrum together, or where they go, this common semantic error leaves the impression that our current politics are still rooted in the Constitutional definition of our republic. Politicians and their “mainstream” media constantly conjure the illusion that “moderate” politics results from compromise between the two parties.

If you can control the language, you can control the people. And the people, too often, accept the use of language offered to them without considering whether it lies. If you think it doesn’t matter, consider the young voters; who go to the polls without the benefit of a decent civics education, historical perspective, or instructive life experience. Have you called Hillary and Barack “liberals” and voiced your disdain for “liberalism”? According to The Random House Dictionary, you have said that you oppose individual freedom and that Hillary and Barack support it. No wonder so many of our naïve youth call “conservatives” Nazis and fervently support the far left!

What terms do fit our modern Political Class has been the subject of some discussion, while the public is at least beginning to make its own informal search. Are they “illiberal statists” as Mike S. Adams (Townhall.com) suggests? Marxists? Communists? Socialists? Nazis? One-world Government Dictators? Or will history give them a new name, and we should be content for the moment to refer to them more generically, as the “Political Class” and simply continue discussion of their deeds and intentions?

Where is the modern American Political Class on the political spectrum? One question being raised in political discussion is whether or not we are too late to save the nation. The fact that the question is being raised corresponds to the sudden awakening to huge and rapid changes that many never before thought could happen in the USA. The current state of affairs is not the result of a single election or of one or more crises forcing, or perhaps seeming to force, extreme measures. To believe so, we would have to ignore Al Gore and the outpouring of international support and prestige given in honor of his global warming hoax. We would have to ignore the fact that the United States has had the mechanisms for universal health insurance for more than a half century.

Our current predicament involves a history of changes largely ignored. Next: How America was Destroyed– The Rise of Big Lie Politics

In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up.

- Protestant Pastor Martin Niemöller (1946)

It was in the 1980s, I think, that I first began to notice a few newspaper articles quoting victims of arbitrary government intrusion. Perhaps it was the 1970s, as the first generation in American history to face greater economic challenges than their parents (ignoring the Great Depression) began routinely punching the clock, eventually giving rise to Ronald Reagan’s campaign question: Are you better off now than you were four years ago? A few articles here and there. Although many of the facts have since escaped my memory, what has not was the striking similarity in reactions. “I cannot believe,” “I would not have believed” “that this could happen in the USA” except that “it happened to me.”

Bad things can happen. I have always been a realist. It is a big country with many people. Don’t kid yourself. Everything happens here. There were more articles, each one corresponding in some way to a recently created federal government program. I felt sorry for the victims. But there was more. There seemed to be no recourse. The victims truly believed they had experienced something that should not happen in the USA. They spent years or decades seeking correction. Their cases – when considering the specific facts of each – seemed eminently reasonable. Politicians made the case that their reforms were important, but their implementation seemed – to use what became a term that became increasingly popular with time – quite “draconian.” What happened to individual rights?

In the late 1980s, I began investigating the “science” underlying federal reform of the child support system. The reforms themselves had been promoted – primarily with conservative phrasing – as part of “welfare reform” but had obviously crossed over into a federal takeover of family law. I had been drawn to the investigation by recognizing that all the “science” created in relation to the reforms was wrong and created a research project at Intelligent Systems Research Corporation with the thought of correcting the problem. The technical problems were challenging, if one truly wanted a solid theoretical foundation for child support determinations, but eventually yielded to a few years worth of determination and sweat.

An unexpected result came from my desire to know why all the “science” had been completely wrong to begin with, why major reforms had been built on a radical and highly-suspect foundation, and why there was so much objection to correcting the problem. Not to wonder seemed extremely arrogant; to assume that the highly educated government consultants were all total nincompoops and that only I had the intellectual capacity to clean up the mess. In the process, my own days of ignorant bliss came to an end and I unexpectedly became an expert on Big Lie Politics.

If what you’re reading feels slightly familiar, it may be at least in part because of Al Gore’s tendency to overplay the system. His global warming hoax has always been based solidly on “science” – or so he claimed – again and again and again ….. So you may already be aware of the modern Political Class has politicized science in order to create lobbying material in support of their agenda. And yes – there is a pattern to the way Big Lie Politics is played – and it is played again and again and again …

There’s more, and I promise you that if you read and understand, your days of ignorant bliss will also come to an end. You will be afraid – and you should be because it is the truth. Emboldened by past success, the Political Class is just thinking bigger than ever before. Yesterday – control marriage and family. Today – the world!

If you are not too young, your recollection of the 1990s includes its repetitious use of the term “Deadbeat Dads.” The phrase appeared in every newspaper in the country as far as I could tell, a very large number of magazines (often enough on the cover), and Dan Rather seemed obsessed with it. It was one of the largest and most intense propaganda campaigns in US history. The Political Class had decided to take over marriage and family; turning it from a sacred, private institution – left Constitutionally to the States and the people and protected from arbitrary government intrusion through enforcement of individual rights – into an integral part of government “social programs” where it and its participants could be arbitrarily manipulated.

I must now be a tiny bit technical and detailed enough to provide the basis for what you are reading. Take your time. This is important:

In 1993, the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals dealt the final death blow to marriage as we knew it in P.O.P.S. verses Gardner (998 F.2d 764). They classified the child support issue as “social policy” as if no question existed that it was so. Yet, throughout the nation’s history, throughout the history of western civilization, marriage and family issues had been private matters handled under Civil Law. The Civil Law classification meant being protected from arbitrary government intrusion through enforcement of individual (“civil”) rights. “Social policy” by contrast, shares an established Constitutional status with “economic policy” (they are basically the same) like tax rates and welfare entitlement levels. P.O.P.S. was a case brought by a group of divorced fathers who had never been welfare recipients, nor had their families, and none were behind in child support payments. The Court’s classification clearly was to apply to everyone – legally taking the institutions of marriage and the family with it.

The federal government, under Clinton, now unhampered by Constitutional concerns, proceeded to expand the federal child support bureaucracy’s information collection efforts to include everyone in the country. (You were told they were looking for “Deadbeat Dads” who had abandoned their families.) Every new hire was registered, employers, banks, and other institutions were forced to provide information automatically electronically via the Internet. (Too Late to Stop National ID)

With a single action, the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals demonstrated that a single phrase, reclassifying law, has the same effect as abolishing the Bill of Rights. Used merely in response to a decision by Congress to modify a program with additional funding to states, the system of checks and balances was eliminated. Lower courts, where citizens typically plead their cases, were blocked from offering relief from arbitrary intrusion. When the decision was published, it was as though all history since the Magna Carta suddenly vanished and a new Dark Age was given roots. No longer concerned about Constitutional limitations, the Political Class was on its way to absolute power and the theft of wealth beyond the dreams of Hitler and Stalin combined.

Why? Power and wealth are not new temptations. What has changed in the USA is the extent to which use of government power has become unrestrained. The goals of the Political Class do not appear to be long-term, which would require maintenance of the nation. Instead, they are on the fast track; pushing the largest imaginable plans yielding the greatest short-term pay-off. Unimaginable sums are laid out like pizza money without aiming to serve the purpose claimed and they promise more. They do not display the least concern for what happens to the nation or “the masses” in their wake. Instead, they merely mock and scorn all those who oppose them.

If you were somewhat more interested in politics during the 1980s (and beyond), you know of so-called “public-private partnerships.” Government has always purchased goods and services from the private sector, so why does it need a new name? It needs a new name because there is a fundamental difference. Public-private partnerships exist where businesses could not sustain themselves in the private sector, where either there is no demand or there is no credible service that can be offered, or in support of government program goals that are entirely make-believe. Such is the case with the child support collection industry, created by the federal government, existing almost entirely on public funds, and not making a dent in real child support payment statistics. Such is the Cap-and-Trade industry in its effort to control the climate. It is a money machine – transferring your wealth – or hope of it – to people who are politically connected. And here comes health care reform, with a community organizer spin to a private “health cooperative.” There is no need for Congress to read the bills. They know that. The money transfer machinery is in place. There is a large budget. That’s all that matters.

Politicians have been getting away with far too much for far too long. They’ve grown used to it. They’re spoiled. It’s because of an artifact of the Constitutionally driven system of the past. Americans did not need to keep track of their politicians too closely. When they passed corrupt laws, we had a system of checks and balances. Some corruption of course – too much of it too often, one might think – but not so much as to truly threaten the American system, fundamentally. You could focus on your own life and your own business, do well with that and not care too much about the rest.

I know of a minority of Americans who recognized the seeds of the greater problem much earlier. By 1990, the federal government had taken over large areas of control not allowed to it by the Constitution. During the 1990s, federal judges began allowing this fundamental transition by arbitrarily reclassifying areas of law to “social and economic policy.” These included areas of law such as family law, which existed as part of civil law, with civil rights. Arbitrarily so far as any genuine reasoning is concerned; courts would force the transformations, eliminating basic civil rights, merely because Congress decided to spend money on something. They treated any state effort to receive more federal funding as something that must always be right, so long as it was approved by federal bureaucrats. And POOF! The system of checks and balances was gone.

Most people didn’t realize that family law reforms of the 1980s and 1990s effected them personally. Government (and industry – yes, they built an industry from it – big money stuff) propaganda held that reforms were aimed at a minority of bad guys who deserved any rough treatment the government (and the industry) decided to dole out. Those who knew better were typically only those most directly and immediately victimized – innocent parents suddenly living under a legal system unlike the American one. As is typical of most early political movements, only a few became “activists.” Who can blame the general public for largely ignoring them? In the Constitutional system they were used to, many “political movements” are special interest con-jobs. Al Gore and the evils of carbon come to mind.

And – “collapse of the Constitutional system”? Being among the first few to find out – it’s like seeing an alien vessel land on earth in a sci-fi movie. Who’s going to believe you until they see it for themselves? Years later, public attention to really obvious changes in “family policy” could no longer escape widespread public attention. Some state courts were claiming that laws regarding marriage as only existing between opposite-sex couples were unconstitutional – even though they had never been before. “Conservative” commentators complained about the change, but still didn’t seem to know why it happened. How could they? Most of them had spent years promoting federal family law reform.

Emboldened by the experience, politicians (in both parties) have come to feel invulnerable. If they can systematically eliminate consideration of the Bill of Rights in their drive for power – if that’s already been done – if the mechanisms for continuing are all in place and tested – there is nothing they cannot do – and no one who can stop them.

For many politicians and bureaucrats, Townhall meetings are just another scam. Since most people never attend such meetings, holding them sends a message that one is an interactive “representative.” Great if someone mentions your “Townhall meeting” on the evening news. Sometimes it’s legally necessary – taking public comment before passing a law that’s going to pass no matter what the public thinks off it anyway. Bored to death, not caring what constituents say, it’s just a matter of spending some time emotionally manipulating complainers until one can go to dinner.

Either that, or just put on the hard shell. Tim Bishop represents power. He isn’t carrying the ball for the people of his district. Like many politicians these days, he knows it’s his (his party’s) ball, not theirs. If people don’t play the way he likes, he’ll just take his ball and go home. There is no real purpose to Towhall meetings under these circumstances. They stink. We don’t need them. Tim doesn’t care what you have to say. He needs to be sent home – really sent home – and take the ball back! It belongs to you.

Today’s schools present political propaganda films like Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, “skeptics” are described as evil beings out to destroy the earth, and students are routinely punished for questioning global warming orthodoxy – whichever version of it is currently in the hands of their teachers. Tens of billions of dollars have been spent on fake science, scientists and bureaucrats have been punished for questioning it, and media moguls have delighted in hyping it. It’s yet another in a continuously growing list of case studies in Big Lie politics.

The good news is that surveys have shown a strong trend toward public understanding that climate change is not controlled by human activity (two-thirds); although more rapidly among voters generally than in what Rasmussen describes as the Political Class. A majority believes that the media over-hypes problems related to climate change and even more are unwilling to support higher taxes and utility costs in response to fear tactics. About half the public attributes climate change to specific natural causes. (A higher number did not attribute global warming to human activity: Some respondents weren’t sure or believed the specific cause was not among those offered in the survey (7%).)

We cannot however, simply bask in the wisdom of the elders; awaiting the release of children from the indoctrination pits for deprogramming. Forty percent of U.S. voters still think that global warming is a very serious problem. Only 42% understand that the “historic” climate change bill that recently passed the House will hurt the U.S. economy. Moreover, Rasmussen’s surveys show alignment between views expressed by the Political Class and their supporters, Democratic Party voters (who still seem to think that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant along with dihydrogen monoxide). The strongest movement toward reality is among Republicans. One might argue cause and effect in this relationship either way, but I believe the evidence more likely indicates polarized following than an upswing in independent study and critical thinking.

As recently as a year ago, statistics on public beliefs about global warming were reversed. About half the public believed human activity had been the primary cause of global warming, while only a third believed that climate change is a natural phenomenon. Even the improved statistics are not a glowing demonstration of human intelligence, but back then half the public believed that nature is controlled by government policy. This is surely a gleaming demonstration of human stupidity. We must at once understand all of the evil political movements of history, the plague of human prejudice, long-standing geopolitical conflict, the effective demise of the American Bill of Rights, among other things. A population can be led, no matter how outrageous the claims being made to lead them. In the midst of the global warming hoax, we have seen incontrovertible evidence of the ease with which at least some followers are driven to fanaticism in support of a purely manipulative cause.

If I may hazard a small number of sweeping statements about the desires of the vast majority of humans throughout the world; we want to live in peace, support our basic needs, enjoy freedom, and avoid constant manipulation and theft by those seeking power. I must mourn the fact that on the whole, we humans do not appear smart enough to just do it.

Roger F. Gay developed an expert understanding of Big Lie politics while analyzing “deadbeat dad” propaganda in the 1990s, which was part of a political movement that ultimately brought the legal destruction of marriage and effectively ended individual rights in the United States.

It’s all quite a bit of fun, and neither commentators nor readers need any understanding of science and technology to participate. So what if the fictional robot Bender on the animated sci-fi comedy Futurama provides a more realistic presentation of issues in robotics than modern journalism and bloggistry? What possible motive could I have for interfering with a good time?

I’ve seen it all before. AI was a hot topic back in the 1980s. Speculation ran rampant. Commentators reached for more exciting things to say. The future would be fantastic. By the end of the decade, it was clear that no one was actually achieving the goals established by enthusiastic non-participants. Everyone was disappointed. Investment collapsed.

Machine-learning is an area particularly close to my heart. It has been the basis for a variety of new commercial technologies within the past decade; providing more powerful Internet search and analysis tools, Internet forms, adaptive games and financial analysis, speeding up robot development while increasing the scope of their effective use, and has become part of advanced video and image processing, among other things. As useful and interesting as these present day technologies are, one isn’t surprised when mention of machine-learning is met with a question about the potential for super-intelligent machines surpassing and perhaps subjugating humans. Should mankind be investing in these technologies at all?

“Kill all humans,” Bender repeats in his sleep. “Hey baby, wanna kill all humans?” is a pick-up line. Advances in military application of semi-autonomous systems are a far cry from what you’ll see in a Terminator film. How worried should we be that reality will one day collide with the tendency of movie robots to take over the world? It’s actually an interesting question, in my opinion. But as quickly as possible, I have to add that computer scientists and engineers are much better at thinking about these things than science fiction writers and futurists (I mean, as far as the real-world is concerned). Designing machines has a lot to do with designing the control of the machine. If you’re interested in creating an out-of-control killing machine, just roll a big rock down a hill. There’s no need for sophisticated engineering.

The future provides a great play-space for the imagination. Predictive capabilities are limited. Almost anything could happen. It’s fun. I love it. I personally enjoy sci-fi so much that I’d almost call it a hobby. Thank you, science fiction writers (except for those involved in the remake of The Day the Earth Stood Still and the science fiction film in documentary style, An Inconvenient Truth – more sinister than a killer robot). But as in any other area of serious discussion, what we really need are clear distinctions between fiction and reality. There is a lot going on in the real-world right now that is pretty darn exciting and worth thinking about.

The original 1951 version is regarded as one of the best sci-fi movies ever made – a classic. That explains why the remake did better at the box office in 2008 than Assignment and Kronos combined (besides the fact that neither of the other two movies played in theaters last year). In the original movie, an alien with advanced technology arrived in a flying saucer with an ultimate message of peace. Their interest did not lie in the internal affairs of earth. They were concerned that conflict and destructive technology would eventually spread to effect them, because earthlings had powerful weapons and were on the verge of mastering space flight. A demonstration of the alien’s power came in the form of stopping all electrical and mechanical power on earth for half an hour – without effecting critical operations such as hospital intensive care wards, airplanes in flight, etc.

Reviewers of the remake had a list of complaints. The one that calls for a sequel is the destruction of the story – and not in a good way. Unless you’re a brain-washed greenie, the story line in the remake makes little sense. But I will try to summarize, being as open-minded as possible in an effort to make sense of it. The alien claims his race has prior claim on the earth. It’s some kind of nature reserve – a large park. Things were fine until uppity humans started building things and making sophisticated use of energy. The things humans do for their own survival – like constructing homes and heating them – growing and cooking food and all that – have made the place less than pristine. So, I’m sure you’ll understand (apparently), he decided to kill all humans. In the end, he decided not to – because, we’re sort of an interesting biology experiment or something. Anyway, we apologize, claiming that survival of our species was just a big mistake, and promise not to do it again. So, he just turned off all the power on his way out – sending modern people back into a prehistoric existence. Anyone who can survive like rats and spiders – ok. That’s the deal.

If this isn’t a problem for SG-1, what is? Star Gate or not, humans need to find a way to battle this new foe. The comparison isn’t superficial either. The alien did present a rather god-like aire; easily inheriting the role of the Goa’uld. The first thing we need to do is get the power back on. Since the aliens are not all-seeing gods, it will take many years for them to realize it was done. Then we need technology to begin the fight. Perhaps discovery of some alien communication device, left by another race, will bring an ally into the battle. Such arrogant jerks must have other enemies in the universe.

For me, the need for this sequel has a lot to do with preserving the memory of the original film, stolen for this sham of a remake. Some good must ultimately come of it. And in my opinion, the timing for the type of sequel I’m suggesting couldn’t be better. It would be a reflection on the same battle presently taking place in the real world. Human survival verses a bunch of arrogant jerks who want to force the masses into a stone-age existence with the hope of expanding their options for pleasant vacation spots.

Although I have not yet found the actual published findings, the results have been taken directly to the court of public opinion. CNN reports for example, a very clear relationship between specialization in climate science and strength of opinion regarding the importance of human contributions to warming.

“Two questions were key,” according to the report. Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures? About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.

It has been heavily reported that the UN’s (IPCC) predictions on catastrophic global warming haven’t held up. This decade has shown that their theoretical models are wrong. Those based on real-world historical data instead continue to give the best results. They are actually predicting cooling, independent of human activity.

The strongest “consensus” in Doran’s results however came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists “were among the biggest doubters,” with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement.

Doran was not surprised by the near-unanimous agreement by climatologists.

“They’re the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you’re likely to believe in global warming and humankind’s contribution to it. The debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.”

I’m not surprised either. Making a living at climate research depends largely on public funding, guided by a political agenda. The politics pushing climate research funding favors government intervention, which needs human cause as the justification. A climate researcher who says human involvement is inconsequential is more than likely also stating that their research is unimportant and no longer needs funding.

A similar report from Science Daily indicates Doran invited more than 10 thousand scientist to participate in the survey, with fewer than one third deciding to respond. There may be a significant self–selection bias, with a much greater tendency to respond among those most interested in driving public perceptions and political decisions.

But let’s look at the question again. Has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures? “Significant” means anything from barely measurable or merely speculative to important to perhaps the primary cause. It is my impression that many scientists believe human activity has an effect on climate or think they might - although most often that effect is thought to be very, very small. Merely being “significant” one might say is not really “significant” in the general political debate. So we’ve at least narrowed the “consensus” from human activity as a primary driving force to only “significant” as seen through the eyes of publically funded climate scientists

Another interpretation of Doran’s results would presume that everyone surveyed understands the political and economic relevance of the questions and that the intent was to use the results in the general public debate. In the political context, climate scientists push the impression that human activity is important - promoting their own research. Other scientists are not, or are at least less dependent on public impressions and political decisions. It may be that the most significant take home message is that the less involved scientists are in climate research the more objective their answers in such surveys are.

Related article clarifying the debate: Global Warming: Has Anyone Noticed that it’s Over?

Contacts:
Mike McCormick: (800) 978-3237 acfc.org
Ann Slaw: (817) 913-0455 FDNow.org

Grandmother to Climb Africa’s Tallest Peak

Charlotte, NC – 70 year old grandmother, Sheila Peltzer, will climb Africa’s tallest peak, 19,200′ Mount Kilimanjaro raising awareness for Shared Parenting and Familial Dysautonomia. Peltzer, departing January 21, 2009, will make the ten day trek up the western route where sub zero summit temperatures are expected.

Peltzer’s coach for this grueling climb is former 3-time Super Bowl Champion and motivational speaker, Tim McKyer.

“Many people ask me how a former professional football player and a retired school teacher became involved in this effort,” Peltzer said. “It’s simple. The family courts in this country are broken. Children are being denied an equal relationship with both parents. I’m unable to be a part of my grandchildren’s lives because the courts denied their father enough time for shared parenting.”

“Two of my grandchildren have FD (Familial Dysautonomia), a rare and fatal genetic disease, resulting in recurring intensive care hospitalizations. Because my son has limited access to his own children they are being denied the love of their grandparents, as well as their dad. ”

Tim McKyer adds; “I’m involved with Sheila to help shine a spotlight on the family courts. At one time my children lived with me and were doing well. Now I have limited access to them and they are falling behind in school and having other problems. The courts are handicapping my kids unnecessarily. What my kids are being subjected to at the hands of the court is beyond absurd.”

Dr. Linda Nielsen, a national expert on divorced fathers and daughters, Wake Forest University professor and president of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children (ACFC) notes; “Nationally, over 1 million children each year experience their parents’ divorce. Children who spend only a few days each month with their dads are at increased risk of social, emotional and academic problems. If the courts encouraged and allowed more shared parenting after divorce, millions of children would benefit.”

For Sheila Peltzer it’s simply a matter of wanting to spend time with her grandchildren. “There’s no known cure for my grandkids’ illness. They are not expected to live long lives. On top of this, these two kids have been denied access to half of their family. Can you imagine my son, a respected physician, cares for other peoples’ ill children, yet he is not allowed to care for his own. We moved to Charlotte to be close to our grandkids. But because of what family courts did to our family, we rarely see them.”

Familial Dysautonomia is a rare, fatal, genetic and neurologic disease present at birth. Please visit www.fdnow.org to learn more.

ACFC is a national non-profit organization dedicated to Shared Parenting and family law reform. Their website is www.acfc.org.

The Pentagon recently hired a British scientist to help build robot soldiers who “won’t commit war crimes.” (article) “A British robotics expert has been recruited by the US Navy to advise them on building robots that do not violate the Geneva Conventions.”

Excellent. My hope is that he is an engineer. What is needed is a coding of the Geneva Convention that engineers can easily use as design requirements. Better still if there’s a version that computer programs can understand. If the product of the work is not specifically geared toward technical development activities, then it’s unlikely to be any more useful than the original Convention documents. Getting robots to understand the rules of war a useful idea, though not a complete capability for an ethical robot.

Ronald Arkin, a computer scientist at Georgia Tech, who is designing software for battlefield robots under contract with the U.S. Army is among those who believe that ethical robots can be built. He has said, “as the robot gains the ability to be more and more aware of its situation,” more decisions might be delegated to robots. “We are moving up this curve.” He said that was why he saw provoking discussion about the technology as the most important part of his work. And if autonomous battlefield robots are banned, he said, “I would not be uncomfortable with that at all.”

In view of the fact that robots can serve to move humans out of harms way, the suggestion to ban them might seem a little disconcerting, particularly if he means to suggest that other AI scientists and engineers around the world haven’t been thinking about the issue. It might give the wrong impression. If the goal of intelligent robotics was to create indiscriminately destructive machines, it would have been reached long ago. Just push something round and heavy down a steep hill and it’ll go until it hits something. We don’t think of intelligent behavior as something that once put in motion is out of control. From an engineering perspective, building robots for end-use is still about building robots that perform properly, no matter how intelligent they are.

In Arkin’s robotic system, the robot pilot would have what he calls a “governor.” Just as the governor on a steam engine shuts it down when it runs too hot, the ethical governor would stop the robot from acting unethically.

An alternative developed during the 1980s, known rather generically as HLL (High Level Logic), was initially envisioned as a concept for creation of more powerful expert systems. It was more recently suggested to a large number of AI scientists and roboticists as having potential for development of a standard component for many AI systems, including autonomous robots.

HLL includes experts, manager(s), and at least one executive. They are related in a hierarchy similar to many human organizations. Executives set goals and assign them to managers. Managers formulate plans and have the authority to approve or disapprove actions. Both executives and managers have specific responsibilities in formulating and controlling acceptable behavior. Experts with specialized knowledge can play a supportive role involving details, such as whether an action would violate the Geneva Convention.

HLL was included in a proposal to the Swedish Defense Department that led to the recently announced commercial release of Brainstorm® from Institute of Robotics in Scandinavia (iRobis), “the first complete cognitive software system for robots.”

iRobis is not currently involved in development of autonomous robot soldiers, nor any armed platform. A more general question arises out of the robot ethics discussions however. Is the technology on offer today sufficient for creation of robots that can carry out complex missions successfully? Can we expect highly evolved autonomous robots to behave well?

Brainstorm provides the most advanced adaptive learning and problem-solving capability yet seen; on a level that can accurately be described as a thinking machine. Robots can be trained to perform complex tasks rather like humans are trained and can “think on their feet” while carrying out a mission. The software can be used to create any robot and will be used to create autonomous robots that adapt to new circumstances and make decisions. Nonetheless, the need for ethical regulator mechanisms in HLL layers has not been shown to be as great as one might expect from reading discussions on robot ethics.

In the short term at least, the process of developing robots with Brainstorm, although likely faster and cheaper, will follow a familiar path. Product requirements will be defined. Specifications will be developed defining in some detail how the requirements will be met. Robots will be tested before a product release. Assuring that the end-product behaves acceptably is still part of the development process. At present, a machine readable version of the Geneva Convention might be more useful as an integrated part of design systems and in the process of intelligent testing than in the robots themselves.

A machine readable copy of the Geneva Convention would be a valuable piece of technology but there is plenty of wisdom suggesting that the idea of simply loading it into intelligent weapons systems to govern their behavior is not an acceptable design concept. Should the decision to go to war be left to a robot simply because the Geneva Convention allows a military response to an act of war? There has been decades of discussion solidly against putting machines in charge of ultimate decisions. Many of the ideas made popular in literature and film are taken seriously by roboticists as well. Autonomous capability is good, but we do not in fact want machines to take over the world.

A proper decision model already exists in the use of military technology under human command. Submarine commanders do not fire their missiles into foreign countries simply because they can. Fighter pilots do not drop bombs simply because they can. Each has an assigned role and level of authority defined within the context of an organization. They respect not only rules of engagement but also decision-making hierarchy – the chain of command.

As the level of autonomous capability grows in robots in field service, there may be an increased role for the type of control proposed in HLL. Application of the concept would endow robots with a natural connection to organizational structure and thinking. An executive would be assigned a specific role and level of authority. From that information, it would know the limits of its autonomous decision-making authority and when permission is needed to carry-out actions that it is capable of performing. Designing robots to operate within a familiar command structure also greatly simplifies autonomous machine-human interaction.

Brainstorm is not only aimed at the military market, but at the consumer market as well. It would be absurd to create a general public fear that manufacturers don’t care about the quality of robot behavior. It may be that home service and autonomous industrial robots should come before autonomous robot soldiers. Once a robot understands how not to be destructive, it can be systematically endowed with specific decision-making instructions on what destruction is acceptable and under what circumstances, otherwise remaining non-destructive. At least in the short-term, the creation of highly trained specialists rather than 007 robots with a “license to kill” greatly simplifies the problem of robot ethics. But military robotics also has something general to offer. An owner of a home service robot should equally expect to have command authority over robot servants.

Related articles:
The Age of Thinking, Self-Developing Robots Has Finally Arrived
iRobis Announces Complete Cognitive Software System for Robots
RoboBusiness: Robots that Dream of Being Better