The so called news reporting organizations actively broadcasting programming covering the political conventions have lost, completely and justifiably, any semblence of integrity and professionalism they may have once posessed. The common, everyday American citizen is astute and intelligent enough to differentiate between factual, unbiased news reports and highly interpreted, biased and dishonest soap opera episodes presented as a news report but which are, in fact, shallow, non relevant fantasy dramas intended to inspire a pre-determined, socialistic view of the event being "covered" by you. Shame on you all for violating both the letter and intent of the article of the constitution granting the press special privelages of freedom and responsibility.

You and your on-screen scum have damaged the US and the government beyond all of the most extreme fears and predictions ever made by any critic or concerned individual.

You have rightly earned a reputation of being liars, elitists, and socialistic fascist patsies of the like minded Democratic Party leadership and politicians. As a result, you have lost all but the most radical, hate mongering, anti-American retards from your audience.

By following the teachings and beliefs of those such as Saul Alinsky, Karl Marx, and Vladimir Lennon, you have made it obvious what your agenda is for this nation and its people.

But you will never realize the success you seek. The people of America will sweep Congress clean of all incumbent, lifelong, corrupted members and then turn their wrath to those who worked against them and the American way of life they truly believe in, and that definitely includes the main stream mass media whose practice it was to lie and brainwash them believing they were morons. Groups often project upon the masses the flawed beliefs they themselves hold dear. The thief always accuses others of being a thief, a murderer believes all are so inclined. You have made the mistake of believing the people to be as gullible and lacking of character as you liars are yourselves. A grave miscalculation that will insure your being held responsible for the terror and suffering you have wrought. So it is proclaimed, so mote it be.

Glenn Flowers - citizen

I’ve written before on the inherent differences in the mental and psychological workings between the two sexes. I believe the brains of men and women are physically wired different from birth in order to complement each other and make the best possible life together. Well, I have concluded that there is a similar difference in the cerebral wiring of conservatives and liberals that, rather than complementing one another, work in opposition causing grief and animosity between the two in some very important aspects of society. I have attempted to iterate these differences below in the most honest and independent manner possible. The physiological causes for the differences are above my pay scale. Hehehe….

This built in mental control manifests itself with an idealistic philosophy of, "That’s all OK and fine, but…" or, "If I really believe in myself anything is possible." This is almost always considered a positive outlook and a procees for accomplishment, and, it is believed, there is nothing wrong with that. We’ll more carefully examine that premise later.

This predetermined skepticism results in a philosophy of, "Yeah, that’s the way it is, live with it," or "A man has got to know his limitations". This, also, is usually considered a favorable attitude, being astutely aware of the surroundings and taking stock of the pros and cons of that environment. And, again, we believe that there is nothing wrong with that.

But, let’s now examine the effect, both good and not so good, of these mindsets on the lives of their victims both as individuals and in a relationship.

The optimist is just that. Always believing in the potential for improvement as reality, or that reality is not as dismal as others believe, he is incapable of abandoning his pursuit of perfection and surrendering to what actually is. His engrained idealism prevents him from compromising his principals.

The skeptic is just what it says he is. Always careful to accurately assess a situation, he unemotionally considers every perceivable aspect of the moment and doesn’t attempt to gloss it over or make a silk purse out of a sows ear. He is reluctant to believe in possibilities as a given and only admits to the facts as is. This is what is available to him and he will start there and have no expectations that anything is any more or less than what he sees.

We can see, then, why liberals consider conservatives as stodgy, old fashioned, and wrong in their vision of what needs to be done. And equally apparent is why conservatives see liberals as unrealistic and dishonest in the way they analyze the particulars of the world.

Understanding these inherited mental presets would, one might hope, ease the animosities between the rival philosophies. But the sad truth is, due to the inability of the optimist to accept anything at face value and believing that a voluntary change of the conservative’s insistance on basis of fact is possible, the optimistic liberals exploit their idealistic emotion and attack the personality of the realist with character insults and name calling. They refuse to consider the inability of conservatives to accept potential as reality while they themselves are equally unable to accept things for what they are. The conservative, if left to his own inclinations, sees no need or desire to try to change the way liberals believe, choosing instead to accept reality and write them off as what they are, a lost cause incapable of ascertaining the truth.

Glenn Flowers

Tonight at the Democratic National Convention, Michelle "my belle" Obama proved to the world she is capable and, actually, very talented at reading script and doing so with such convincing effect. A convincing and talented performer at least and a potential Oscar nominee, if not an outright winner.

In all reality, is there anyone who believes that she was sincere in all of what she said? Oh, she was sincere about her children and husband. But it was three fourths of the way into her speech before she finally mentioned America. She said she loved America, but lost no time making it clear that America was not living up to its potential, and that Barack was determined to change America and make it what it should be. If it is, as she claims to believe, the greatest nation on Earth, and offers, as she has said, the greatest opportunities for achieveing your dreams, why oh why does she believe that it is in such dire need for change? She feels that America needs to be what it has never succeeded in being. Never has America been what it could have been? America has never lived up to its promise? Is there anyone who believes America is as big a failure as Michelle does?

There is no guessing needed, no doubt about how the Obamas believe America should be changed. Universal healthcare whether you want it or not, equal prosperity for all whether they earn it or not, freedom from want and need, and a world class education for all. Is there anyone who believes those benefits are the responsibility of the government or the taxpayers?

Increasing the capital gains tax, not for revenue, but for fairness. Increasing taxation of the evil, rich capitalists who oppress the working class and cheat them out of a fair wage to line their own pockets. Is there anyone who does not know who signs their paycheck?

Obama considered it a lack of experience, a sign of not being fit to be president when McCain said he had no plan for solving the current mortgage scandal. Barack laughed and thought it a severe gaffe on McCain’s part. Is there anyone who feels McCain, or any president, should plan on fixing the mortgage fiasco?

The view of America is exactly opposite when seen from Obama’s view as it is when seen through the simplicity and perfection of the Constitution and the eyes of We, the People, the majority of Americans. Is there anyone who believes we need to change America into what Obama wants?

I thought not.

Glenn Flowers

The people of the USA are all angry and totally fed up with the actions of Congress. The approval rating for Congress has dropped to 11% while Geoge W. Bush’s rating has climbed to 30%. Still, the majority members in both houses keep blaming our current woes on the failed policies of the Bush administration.

We all know that the overwhelming cause for the high cost of fuel and everything that depends on fuel is the scarce supply. We also know that if the oil companies in America were allowed to explore for and produce those resources we know to exist within our borders, the increased supply on the world market would push prices down and that would cause a reduction in price in the markets as a whole. We know who it is that has been the biggest factor in the severe reduction in America’s oil production in recent years. We know that Congress routinely votes themselves pay raises, seldom acts in the best interest of the people, and spends a lot of time on subjects they should not be involved in. The democrat majority has accomplished nothing since the last election except to deepen the financial crunch the people find themselves in, and the republicans have just sat back and done nothing substantial to help the people. Both sides in both houses of Congress are equally to blame for the state of America today and the majority of Americans from all parties are looking for a way for the people to assert their constitutional authority over their out of control government. Well, there is only one way by which the people of America can control Congress, and that is voting on election day.

But just voting isn’t going to do anything. The people of America have to realize that the politicians have created and promoted the division between the two parties in order to keep Americans from agreeing with voters from the opposite party and voting for common policies that would cause real change in the way congress operates. We have been made to believe that Democrat and Republican voters have nothing in common and are opposite in their views of what America should be. This is a false notion used to keep voters from uniting and demanding Congress respond to the will of the people. All statistics from every source show that just over 60% of registered voters in America hold a view of America that is center to just right of center. Very few are far right or far left. This means that most Americans agree with each other on what needs to be done for America to remain strong politically, militarily, and economically.

Knowing that most Americans are disgusted with a greedy, non-responsive Congress, and knowing that the majority of Americans agree on what America should be, and knowing that the only means we have of changing our government for the better is to vote, the following conclusion is logical, obvious, and a sound method to affect the change needed.

We, the People, the common voting citizens who believe it necessary to change the way Congress operates, need to agree that we all want what is best for America and her people and then decide to replace every member of Congress in both houses and of both parties by not voting for the re-election of any present member, but to vote for a non-incumbent, preferably non-politician for every seat in the senate and house of representitives in every election until no member exists with more than one term in office. This will effectively destroy the long time good ole’ boy cliques and elite power holders who have lost touch with the people they were elected to represent. It will put into power a group of more motivated people who will be more representitive of the people than of their own interests. Seeing the manner in which they were elected over the more famous and powerful career politicians will be a message to them that we, the People still hold the power over the government and that knowledge will tend to make them more willing to do what is in the best interests of Americans.

This is the only effective power we still hold as citizens, and it can only be effective if we all unite in a majority block for a single purpose and vote for a single result. The old patriotic truth of "United we stand, divided we fall," applies directly to the common voting people of America. Only by each voter deciding to vote for a new congress will this change take place. There is no need to vote for a candidate from a party other than yours, or to compromise your political ideals. There is only the need to vote for a candidate who is NOT already a member. No re-elections is our goal. We all know this is needed, we all know we have the means to make it happen. Let’s all, Democrats and Republicans, Independants and Libertarians, resolve to make the change that will return our government to our control.

Make the decision to elect a new congress. Tell your friends we can make a difference if we all vote to replace the corrupt congress in power. It requires only that we all agree as to what the problem is, and agree that this action will, at least, rid us of the entrenched fat cat politicians who have created the problems we all face. If the new congress is ineffective, we can replace them just as easily. At least we won’t have the thieves and liars in power that we have now, and that is a major improvement anyone would welcome.

I hope the simplicity and urgency of this action is understood by all Americans. We can do this if we all use our voting power.

I have just completed reading ObamaNation by Jerome R. Corsi. The book very effectively ties together statements made by Barack Obama both in person via interviews and speeches, and in his autobiography Dreams From My Father, and statements by former political associates, reporters, relatives, supporters, campaign workers, and opponents. Mr. Corsi takes great care to inform readers that all possible methods were used to validate the accuracy of all statements but that some, such as made by relatives or other non-journalist sources, can not be validated by any means but that the statements included in the book were quoted exactly word for word and the proper context given. I can say that throughout the book the difference between statements verifiable for accuracy and statements made "off the record" was always made clear and opinions and suppositions were presented as just that. I saw no instance of exageration, misrepresentation, or wanting attack on Obama’s character but, to the contrary, every effort was made to take Obama at his word, to give him the benefit of reasonable doubt, and to assume his actions and statements had the most honorable of motives.

After reading this book I no longer see Barack Obama as an empty suit who is so inexperienced in politics he lacks any real position on critical issues or the ability to express them. What I do see in Obama is a coldly calculating, far left Karl Marx socialist devoted to changing the USA into a socialist nation where individuals have no importance other than their inclusion in the all powerful state, which he plans to be a part of. The reasons to conclude such about Obama are many and the disturbing facts that have come out about his associations and his own statements are just the tip of the iceberg where his socialist ideology is concerned. Many have reasoned that Barack has associated with the likes of William Ayres, Tony Rezko, Jerry Kessler, Jeremiah Wright, and Saul Alinsky, not, as he says, by accident or coincedence, but because Obama believed in their politics. Many have also deduced that Obama is a socialist by what Barack himself has said in his campaign speeches and has espoused as his platform. This book, ObamaNation, affirms this assessment of Obama’s political agenda in a very well thought out gathering and presenting of known facts and statements by his associates and interviewers.

The single most important aspect of Obama’s political beliefs is the influence of Saul Alinsky, a self-proclaimed Marxist and 60s anti-establishment radical. His claim to fame is as the father of community organizing, a method of attaining considerable power in the form of supportive voter groups. The support of these voters was not to be gained by, as Alinsky put it, "with assistance to the poor or even by organizing the poor to demand assistance," but by "obtaining power at all costs including sacrificing your own morals to lie, cheat, and steal, knowing that with power comes the ability to change what is real, but a deficiency of power can achieve nothing". Alinsky urged his followers to attend public meetings and rallies and listen to what was being proposed, not for the intent of ever working for the changes the people believed necessary, but for the collection of issues solely for the purpose of using these issues as talking points in organizing campaigns to unite the people behind a common cause, a cause which could be forgotten as soon as the targeted candidate had been elected. Eventually, Alinsky’s radical, dishonest approach to political organizing found a welcoming, well organized group willing to accept his teachings in the Democratic Party. For near 40 years the Republican and conservative agenda have been hammered by the left through the successful use of Alinsky’s tactics. Barack Obama is only the most recent Democrat to put them to use, but he is, by far, the most un-American, socialist individual to be a candidate for the presidency.

Obama’s use of the word "change" is right out of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals, and was defined by Alinsky as redistribution of wealth and the demotion of individuals to a component of the state. Alinsky believed, "The single most formiddable obstruction to individual rights is the individual." Barack Obama took Alinsky’s teachings to heart in his organizing work, and put them to effective use in his campaigns for state and federal offices. He is still utilizing these immoral, un-American tactics in his present campaign for president. His method of addressing negative aspects of his background which are made public have become infamous. First he denies any knowledge of the situation, then, when it is shown he did have knowledge, he claims that it came as a surprise and he disavows any belief in the offending matter. When his support of and adherance to the principals in question is shown, he rebukes the offending parties as being extreme and un-American, and tosses their support and long term association aside as if surprised by the nature of their offense. He has, during his campaign, denounced and disaccoiated himself from almost every person who has supported his political career to this point, all for political expediency.

It has become very clear, after reading the logic of Jerome Corsi, that Barack Obama is someone whom the people have always feared would rise up in American politics, the one who would bring disaster and ruin upon America, her people, and the way of life enjoyed by a free, law abiding nation. Read the book ObamaNation and decide for yourself if Obama loves America or if he wants to tear it down and build a nation of zombies instead. There can be no question when all the evidence is intelligently considered.

Glenn Flowers

The globally accepted myth of man made climate change has as its major source of supposed evidence the UN reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or the IPCC. They state in their reports that they created a computer model of Earth’s atmosphere allowing variation of several key components and then ran those models with ever increasing amounts of greenhouse gasses, particularly carbon dioxide. They say that they then collected actual climate data from sources around the globe showing actual surface temperatures, temperatures aloft, and ocean temperatures and that these actual data correlated with the output of the models. The results? Increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is causing a swift and significant rise in Earth’s average temperatures and that this trend will continue to the point of being disastrous if we don’t work to drastically limit carbon dioxide emissions immediately.

Well, besides the fact that CO2 is not the major greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, despite the fact that CO2 is only 33 parts per million in our atmosphere, despite the fact that there has been a slight temperature decrease every year since 1997, the IPCC insists that recent records validate their model’s predictions. They don’t and the reason is their model is seriously flawed and was grossly misused and manipulated to give a set of desired output data.

Since climate modeling was a major component in their research the computer model needs a bit of scrutiny to determine the validity of its creation, usage, and resulting accuracy, or lack thereof. A computer model is a program that simulates all aspects, or at very least all major aspects, of an environment or situation and allows for the manipulation of important aspects to determine the change caused by these variations for the purpose of predicting the future characteristics or to train people in the changes caused by these variables. One example of a computer model is a flight simulator program. Would be pilots are able to learn the basics of piloting by studying the effect of their actions on a reliable, consistant set of data that reacts like an airplane would according to changing input. To be able to expect reliable output from computer models, the program needs to be as close to identical to the real life environment being modeled as is possible. All known aspects of the environment must be closely replicated in the modeling software or the model is just that much more inaccurate and incapable of giving reliable results. If a flight simulating program left out the ability to adjust engine power, a major subject in flight training, your piloting skills learned from the program would be severely lacking to the point of being dangerous, even deadly. Likewise, if a model of Earth’s atmosphere were to ignore the fact that precipitation exists, and thereby ignore all of precipitation’s effects, you could not reasonably expect an accurate depiction of Earth’s actual atmosphere. Also, if a model includes assumptions or beliefs that are not substantiated in reality or accepted theory, the output is corrupted and is not usable. A model should, by definition, be just that, an accurate, all inclusive, reliable duplicate of that which is to be modeled. The less a model exactly portrays reality, the less it can be expected to give valid output. If properly designed, the output of a model should reflect real observable data when real data is input. This verifies the ability of the program to accurately model the climate and changes caused by varying the input data.

The climate model created by the IPCC disregarded many aspects of Earth’s climate, such as the existance and effect of precipitation, the existance of CO2 sinks such as the oceans, and the energy output fluctuation of the sun and its effects. The IPCC model also made assumptions that could not be documented in historical records or by scientific practices, and used other cause/effect mechanisms that they knew to be false such as programming their model to create a larger temperature rise with increase in altitude than at the surface which has been known to be the opposite for decades. They also assumed that certain aerosols acted as greenhouse gasses in trapping certain frequencies of sunlight in the atmosphere when they have been proven to actually reflect those wavelengths back into space. They also completely ignored the fluctuation of solar energy that occurs with the cycles of sunspot activity. They disregarded H2O doubling where two water molecules combine to effect the atmosphere in a radically different manner, they disregarded the fact that CO2 tends to absorb pollutants such as carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide, and they puposely reversed the cause/effect action of warming air temperatures and the quantity of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Needless to say, the climate model used to bolster the claims of man made climate change was not, in any sense of the definition, a valid model of Earth’s climatology, and is, therefore, useless in predicting not just present climate conditions, but especially future predictions of Earth’s climate status and the cause thereof. To achieve some type of correlation between modeled and observed data, charts of recorded temperatures and rates of rise were edited, some data was removed, data from different locations were cherry picked for their compliance, and a lot of techno-babble was used to confuse others while attempting to retain the semblence of scientifically deduced results.

Many of the scientists and technicians who collected actual observed data for use in the IPCC study, and those who made contributions to the model’s creation, have expressed great dismay and outright indignation at the results and interpretative reports issued by the IPCC and have publicly come out in direct opposition to the IPCC, the theory of man made climate change, and have called into question the motives, methods, and capabilities of those doing the analysis and writing the reports for the IPCC.

All other factors aside, the old computer addage of, "garbage in garbage out" certainly seems to apply to the IPCC climate model itself and thus to the results and their interpretation, and certainly lends creedence to those experts who disagree with the theory of man made climate change who happen outnumber the climate change proponents by a factor of over 15 to 1.

The UN, in response to the outcry from scientists worldwide, implemented a "control" or validation factor into their research by creating a second panel of scientists to analyze the same data used by the first panel and come to an independent conclusion. This panel, the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change, or the NIPCC, was not told of the results of the first panel and were not given any specific mission except to study the data and form a conclusion. Their result was that there is not enough understanding of the workings of the climate, not enough empirical data, too many assumptions, and a model that is incomplete and seriously flawed to be able to reach any kind of reliable decision on whether man is the cause of any change in the climate, or, even if he is, if it is a detrimental effect to Earth and its inhabitants. In short, they just can’t make any valid conclusions because the science is lacking. When told of the IPCC’s results and conclusions, the NIPCC issued an opinion that 1. The IPCC, being a government subsidized organization, were pre-disposed to prove that climate change is both man made and disastrous in nature, 2. That in order to come to the conclusions they did, the IPCC had to have engaged in non-scientific, unethical practices of manipulation and fabrication of data, and 3. The IPCC can not and should not be considered an authority on climatology or its causes. You will not, though, see this second panel’s results being promoted or widely publicized because they don’t support the agenda of the UN for global dominance and power.

The UN, the IPCC group of publishing scientists, and those who have promoted so many extreme social changes and financial expenditures in the name of an unprovable, apocolyptic theory should all be publicly exposed and prosecuted for their incompetance and reckless imposition of harm and needless life and social changes on the world population, and stripped of whatever authority they exercise.

Glenn Flowers

As early as 1954 the state of California realized that automobile emissions were the source of air quality deterioration. By the early 60s automotive engineers and the Department of Motor Vehicles had enough research results to implement emission controls on all vehicles, new and used. Their goal was to achieve substantial reductions in targeted pollutants with the ideal result being auto exhaust that consisted of only carbon dioxide and water vapor, both proven to be naturally occurring and non-toxic. Of course, this ideal result could not be attained, but it was the goal California would strive for. The targeted pollutants which were the culprits in formation of smog and suspects in the depletion of the ozone layer were carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), total photochemical oxidants (TPO), total suspended particles (TSP), hydrocarbons (HC), and lead (Pb). Eventually the hydrocarbons were dropped from the list, oxidants (TPO) was replaced by ground level ozone, and suspended particles (TSP) was replaced with a particulate matter (PM) standard.

What you don’t see in any of the standards for auto pollution control is a requirement to reduce carbon dioxide. In fact, at that time, carbon dioxide emission was listed as one of the favorable results being sought by the state as a method of cleaning the atmosphere of existing ozone and carbon monoxide. The climate experts throughout the state were of the opinion, and had demonstrated in repeated laboratory trials, that carbon dioxide was not only non-toxic and non-polluting, but was beneficial to the atmosphere, plant life, and climate. Since that time the CO2 levels in the atmosphere have risen from .0025 to .0033 percent, or 25 parts per million to 33 parts per million.

Today, the majority of climatologists agree that some small part of that rise is probably due to manmade causes, but the majority of that rise has been caused by the cyclic warming of the interglacial period we have been in for near 10,000 years. Yes, I said they agree that the rise in CO2 is caused by climate warming, not the other way around.

So why is the climate warming? Well, if you consider that around 10,000 years ago there were ice sheets three miles thick reaching all the way to the equator from both the arctic and antarctic poles, the only choice the climate had to go, temperature wise, was warmer. We are still in the interglacial warming period, but most scientists believe we are reaching the peak of global warming. In fact, for the past 12 years there has been a levelling off and even a slight decrease in average worldwide temperatures.

Over 33,000 scientists agree that a slight increase in temperature and CO2 is far and away a more desirable scenario than would be a plunge in temperature and the slide into the next glacial period. Even if an ice age were not imminent, it is a fact that all life on Earth benefits when the temperature is slightly warmer and CO2 levels slightly higher than the calculated averages of the past several million years. In 1816, the year following the eruption of Mt. Tambora, global temperatures fell dramatically causing crop killing freezes in May and June, lake and river ice as far south as Pennsylvania in July and August, and was known as the "Year Without a Summer". Agricultural failures led to starvation and a lowered state of immunity which resulted in death from disease.

Those folks who suffered through that year could have done with a bit more heat and CO2. Humans as a species have always prospered in warmer regions and periods as opposed to colder temperatures.

The climate change scare mongers claim a rise in CO2 is causing warming of the atmosphere in the range of about 0.4 to 1.5*C per century. What a puny heat wave that is. That won’t even cause you to break a sweat. They claim that rise is causing the ice sheets at the poles to melt. Satellite measurements show, though, that the ice sheets this year are already 12% larger than at this time last year. Polar bear populations have grown approximately 18% in the past decade, pollock has increased approximately 7% despite their status as the most commercially fished, and sea level continues to rise at a rate of 1-4 centimeters per year at specific locations. In other locations around the world sea level has actually dropped as much as 8-10 centimeters. NOAA scientists say that plate tectonics and wind have more effect on world wide sea level fluctuations than the melting of ice sheets would, if they were actually melting.

The bottom line to all this is we, as a nation and internationally as well, are being duped and forced into making drastic, VERY expensive, long term changes in almost every aspect of our lives in an attempt to prevent a slate of supposed disastrous, man made changes in Earth’s climate that are exagerated and fabricated and over which man has no control. Legislation of all kinds demand investment and research into unproven, high cost energy replacements, financial and even criminal penalties for causing CO2 emissions, industrial limitations on emissions of future production items, the forced banning of the production and usage of inexpensive, readily available, proven energy resources, and the enrichment of the fat cat proponents of such false climate change scare tactics to the detriment of every individual wage earner or business owner.

The Eath’s climate is a highly complex, ever changing machanism driven entirely by the heat from the sun. It has many, many subtle and evident subsystems which act to cool excessive heat and warm extreme cooling. No scientist who believes in the scientific method admits to understanding the vast workings of Earth’s climate, and they all agree that consensus of even 200 trillion scientists is not a method for validating or disproving anything. Only experimentation of a hypothesis with reproducable results, and validation of those results by observation of actual climate conditions can be used as valid reason for action. In other words, we don’t know enough about how the climate works to justify the extreme financial and social upheaval being demanded by a group of scientists, environmental extremists, and politicians who have a great deal to gain from such drastic changes. It is just not ethical to cause such harm and suffering over what amounts to fables and myths. We must vote in a totally new Congress and convince the new members to reverse the policies and legislation enacted in an attempt to control the climate.